All you ever wanted to know about nuclear waste (or in harrys' case, didn't)

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html
excellent book to read particualrly the chapter on how regulation has tripled the cost of nuclear power and in some cases forced it never to be operated at all even once built.
(harry, dont bother to read it, it contains facts, sums logic and big words and we know you don't get on well with any of those things, so ignorance is bliss, eh?)
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes, lots of rules & regulations and still they blow upf rom time to time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No more and I suspect a lot less than other types of industrial installation.
Three Mile Island (1979): Dead: zero, injured: zero.
Chernobyl (1986): Dead: 75, injured: possibly 4000 who need not have been (source: WHO).
Fukushima: (2011?): Dead: zero, injured: zero.
Doesn't add up to much, eh, harry? You can look up "List of industrial disasters" in WinkyPedia for other numbers.
--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Tim Streater wrote:

Entirely caused by operator error, which could have been prevented by better training.

Hey, four guys died trying to put out a fire there. Just sayin' like...
There have also been two fatal accidents in the USA since 1979, both of which involved electrocution due to unlabelled or incorrectly labelled wiring.
None of the other incidents I've looked at in the last half Century happened while in normal operation.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/2013 19:53, John Williamson wrote:

It was more than operator error, it was deliberate mal-operation for an unauthorised test. It would also not have happened if the control and safety systems had been of a safer design or if the fundamental design of the reactor been safer. Neither this sort of reactor, nor its control systems would have been permitted in the West.
SteveW
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/13 20:51, SteveW wrote:

and what they did wasnt permitted by their rules and regs either.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 21:09:37 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

You have a naive and jingoistic view of western competence with which no rational person could possibly concur ...
The fire at Windscale resulted partly from poor design and partly from change of use. Emissions were better than they might have been had not "Cockroft's Follies" been installed, but still bad.
Wrt to Three Mile Island ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Mile_Island_accident
"The mechanical failures were compounded by the initial failure of plant operators to recognize the situation as a loss-of-coolant accident due to inadequate training and human factors, such as human-computer interaction design oversights relating to ambiguous control room indicators in the power plant's user interface."
As previously linked, Dounreay's safety record included using a pit connected to the sea to store waste that was never originally intended for that purpose. Some of the waste was sunk into the pit using rifle fire. An explosion was caused by sodium and potassium wastes reacting with water. Heavy particles are still washing the northern mainland coast of Scotland, and beaches have had to be closed.
As previously linked, staff at THORP routinely ignored alarms and warning systems allowing a leak to carry on for months. It was only discovered by accountants who were wondering where uranium was going missing!
As previously linked, in recent years safety standards at various US plants have been relaxed as a result of blackmail of the authorities by the operating companies.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the west are any better or safer at running nuclear plant than anyone else. On the contrary, the above suggests that if anything the opposite is true.
The same error-prone species of human being runs and will be running current and proposed western systems as ran Windscale, Three Mile Island, Dounreay, Chernobyl, THORP, and Fukushima. That they will have the same human failings as above is inevitable.

True.
--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/13 19:53, John Williamson wrote:

no they didnt.

ws that in harrys loft?

--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

My mistake. 3rd April "TEPCO confirms the first deaths at the Fukushima facility, two workers who had been missing since 11 March and appear to have died in the basement of reactor 4 from bleeding due to multiple injuries inflicted by the tsunami"
Could've sworn all the news services carried a story about four guys that were killed in a steam explosion.

<Chuckle> Should've added "In Nuclear installations". From Wikilies:-
"July 15, 1987     Burlington, Kansas, USA     Safety inspector dies from electrocution after contacting a mislabeled wire at Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station."
"March 29, 1988     Burlington, Kansas, USA     A worker at the Wolf Creek Generating Station falls through an unmarked manhole and electrocutes himself when trying to escape"
Maybe the wolves want their creek back.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 22/10/13 00:50, John Williamson wrote:

quite likleyt there were so many lies spread that what's one more?
I think one more worker died of a heart attack a few weeks later.
As I recall there were no major fires either.

Well the point is thatthise are not nuclear related accidents per se.
they just happened to take place in a nuclear planyt.
Like the fire in the french reprocessing facility 'emergency at french nuclear plant' turns out some idiot dropped a match in a wastebasket or something miles away from any nuclear materials..
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The Natural Philosopher wrote:

And the person in charge of the plant at the time died of cancer in 2012. The cancer was *not*, according to his medical team, connected to radiation dosage:-
http://rt.com/news/fukushima-manager-yoshida-dies-cancer-829/

Have you seen this?:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
Mentions a number of smaller fires.

I agree. But in the Mail readers' "mind" they took lace in a nuclear facility, so they must be nuclear incidents, and so a cause to (a) panic, and (b) call for a ban.

When you're afraid of something, whether that fear is justified or not, the smallest problem seems major.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
harryagain wrote:

And as we all know, wind turbines never fail, do they.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqEccgR0q-o

Oops!
Incidentally, when did the last nuclear reactor spontaneously and disastrously self-destruct *while in normal use*, Harry?
A hint:- It was *long* before Fukushima, where the destruction was caused by unprecedented forces of nature.
Three Mile Island was initially caused by an external equipment failure, and made worse by operator error, so was preventable. Chernobyl was *entirely* caused by operator error while a test was being run, so I'd not count that as normal operation either.
--
Tciao for Now!

John.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You can always say that about any accident with hindsight, but each still happened.
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:47:30 +0100, John Williamson

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 21/10/13 18:29, harryagain wrote:

well the problem is they dont harry.
--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Note: This book was published in 1990 and is already out of date.
While I don't disagree with much of what is said, there are some specific errors of fact or logic given below ...
"Nitrogen oxides are best known as the principal pollutant from automobiles and are the reason why cars need expensive pollution control equipment which requires them to use lead-free gasoline;"
Wrong - lead additives were removed from fuels because lead in the environment is of itself harmful, and it was the introduction of lead-free petrol for these other reasons that then allowed catalytic convertor technology to become practical:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_Replacement_Petrol
"Lead is very toxic and lead compounds in exhaust gases escape into the atmosphere causing pollution. Impacts on human health are widely documented. This led to the introduction of lead-free petrol."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalytic_converter#History
"Widespread adoption of catalytic converters didn't occur until more stringent emission control regulations forced the removal of the anti-knock agent, tetraethyllead, from most gasoline, because lead was a 'catalyst poison' and would inactivate the converter by forming a coating on the catalyst's surface, effectively disabling it."
This same paragraph containing the above error also contains:
-    2 examples of qualifiers such as 'perhaps' when claiming causality;
-    "And next comes the ash, the solid material produced at a rate of 1,000 pounds per minute, which is left behind to cause serious environmental problems and long-term damage to our health." ... "And then there are heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and many others that are known or suspected of causing cancer, plus a myriad of other health impacts." ... "And then there are heavy metals like lead, cadmium, and many others that are known or suspected of causing cancer, plus a myriad of other health impacts. Finally there is uranium, thorium, and radium, radioactive wastes released from coal burning that serve as a source of radon gas." The latter two are the principle hazard in the first, but he's stating them as if they are three different things.
The above show that this is someone struggling to make a biased case.
"For example, if all the air pollution emitted from a coal plant in one day were inhaled by people, 1? million people could die from it,3 which is 10 times the number that could be killed by ingesting or inhaling the waste produced in one day by a nuclear plant. [para] This is obviously an unrealistic comparison ..."
Exactly, so why make it then?
"For nuclear waste, a simple, quick, and easy disposal method would be to convert the waste into a glass — a technology that is well in hand — and simply drop it into the ocean at random locations."
RANDOM locations?! Geologically stable ones I could understand at least, but RANDOM locations? For example, would this include the mid-Atlantic ridge, a constructive plate margin where undersea eruptions frequently take place?
"Another, and very different, way of comparing the dangers of nuclear and coal waste is on the basis of how much they are changing our exposures to toxic agents. The typical level of sulfur dioxide in the air of American cities is 10 times higher than natural levels, and the same is true for the principal nitrogen oxides.6 For cancer-causing chemicals the ratio is much higher."
But what percentage of these increases are actually caused by burning coal to produce electricity, rather than burning other fuels to move about?
"For radiation, on the other hand, exposures expected from hypothetical problems with nuclear waste are in the range of 1 mrem or less, tens of thousands of times below those for which there is direct evidence for harm to human health."
I've not heard anyone claiming that the problem from nuclear waste is one of general public exposure to it - that usually only arises from accidents (or, hypothetically, from potential terrorist action).
"One option is to dispose of the spent fuel directly by sealing fuel assemblies into canisters and burying them. A much more rational approach from the standpoint of long-range planning is to put the fuel through a chemical reprocessing operation to separate out the uranium and plutonium which are valuable for future use as fuels, and to convert the residual material into a form suitable for burial. If we follow the first option, our uranium resources will run out sometime during the next century, whereas the second option can provide all of the energy humans will need for as long as they inhabit planet Earth, without an increase in fuel costs (see Chapter 13)."
There are two mistakes, at least, in this paragraph:
"the second option can provide all of the energy humans will need for as long as they inhabit planet Earth" is bollocks. Uranium fuel is a finite resource, it cannot last a potentially infinite time.
"without an increase in fuel costs". I've linked many times before to evidence that reprocessing fuel does increase fuel costs. That's exactly why it isn't currently done.
"Storage facilities for waste packages have been designed, and there would be no great difficulty or expense in building them."
A bland assumption stated as fact.
"We have already pointed out that producing the materials for deployment of a solar array requires about 3% as much coal burning as producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning."
A specious argument. Why assume that solar arrays have to be made using electricity produced from coal? Why not use wind or nuclear powered electricity to make them instead? And, in the interests of fairness, why aren't the carbon and electrical inputs into mining, refining, and reprocessing nuclear fuel included and compared with those for coal and solar power?
"We showed in Chapter 8 that there are many ways that money can be used to save lives at a rate of at least one life saved per $100,000 spent. But even suppose that so many improvements are instigated that it will cost $1 million to save a life in the distant future (all our discussions discount inflation). There is a continuous record extending back 5,000 years of money always being able to draw at least 3% real (i.e., discounting inflation) interest. Each dollar invested now at 3% interest is worth $2.5 million after 500 years and will therefore be capable of saving more than one life."
Another specious argument - the same principles will apply in 500 years as now, and then 500 later, and so on; the net result of applying this argument consistently throughout time would be that no money at all would ever get spent on saving lives.
"The current status is that a tentative site has been selected, under Yucca mountain in Nevada".
Work on this site is no longer funded.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository
On Mon, 21 Oct 2013 17:53:12 +0100, The Natural Philosopher

--
=========================================================
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.