10 myths about nuclear power

[lawz]

I read somewhere that the workers brought in to run the chernobyl plant originally worked in a coal fired plant, and had not been properly trained or had proper experience of the equipment they were using, the techniques used in nuclear managment, or what to do in an emergency.

It was a large article that detailed a time by time run through of what happened and why, including the reactor design etc.

I wish everyone agaisnt Nuclear because of Chernobyl could be properly informed of the facts, and that it should be impossible for something similar to happen again.

 

[physichull]

I debate your crazy 100-650K figure! I'm certain the IAEA would never endorse such a figure! But we could debate the number of people affected till the cows come home as it is very difficult to judge. But you cannot quote figures such as 650000 and believe it as the gospel truth. Show me where it is fact, if you looked hard enough, I bet you could find a document that says 1000000 people were affected, and if you looked harder still, you could probably find a study which says 100 people were affected, discounting those killed immediately (over the following couple of months after the incident).

The atomic weapons testing probably affected as many people, but again you cannot discretise the impact it had on any particular person. The links are just impossible to make.

And your second point is just silly, of course they had to leave the surrounding area.

 

[physichull]

Alarp refers to a method or principle of dose control. If I'm given a job that will result in dose that dose must be as low as possible and achieved by applying time/distance/shielding.

But with consideration given to the word "reasonably". There is simply no point in spending thousands of pounds to reduce a dose rate of 2.6 microSv/h to 1microSv/h in areas of low occupancy, so on those grounds, it is considered acceptable. Cost is a factor, but it is never bigger than safety.

 

[physichull]

I read somewhere that the workers brought in to run the chernobyl plant originally worked in a coal fired plant, and had not been properly trained or had proper experience of the equipment they were using, the techniques used in nuclear managment, or what to do in an emergency.

It was a large article that detailed a time by time run through of what happened and why, including the reactor design etc.

I wish everyone agaisnt Nuclear because of Chernobyl could be properly informed of the facts, and that it should be impossible for something similar to happen again.

This was probably true, but large quantities of nuclear power plants are just the same as a coal or gas station (i.e. the Conventional Island). It is just the source of heat that changes, fundamentally anyway.

 

[eLbot]

Contest it, one thing you can't argue with then under any circumstance is that there is an area now is now because of a nuclear disaster completely uninhabited, and thousands of people have died because of it. Its historical and scientific fact! (that point there)

Would you also be contesting that people who had to leave Pripyat (40,000+) did so for no reason?

i would actually like to point out i am part of the pro-nuclear lobby as well but do like to err on the side of caution

That is incredibly disconcerting considering your initial entry into a thread that was discussing the scientific basis behind the claims that ‘it is safer’ is a comment of inflammatory nature based on massive over simplifications of a highly complex issue. I’m not about to invoke the bandwagon fallacy as a logical argument but it’s incredibly blatant given the tone of the thread before your post and the reaction you had from many posters, that you knowingly set out to buck the discussion simply because you wanted to.

More harrowing is the fact you seem to think uttering that name has any basis for current concern, if you are indeed part of a pro-nuclear lobby I worry about the level of knowledge that lobby has and the damage it is doing to credibly informed authorities trying to achieve the same ends, mind telling us which group you’re involved with exactly?

Seeing as you felt the need to state a credential of some sort it may be of value to know that I’ve had direct exposure to Chernobyl residents and Belarusian children that are still suffering from the repercussions both sociologically and physically from contaminants through charity work. So yes, I’ve had exposure to the other side of the fence too.

Now rather than derailing moderately informed discussion, why don’t you do your lobby some practical good by informing yourself through scientific literature widely available rather than sit in it as a means of self-fulfilling authority in a subject you clearly have little to no knowledge of in its current state or simply admit you’re here to troll by being as off topic and inflammatory as possible?

If anything Chernobyl is a perfect case study of why current design and procedures are of significantly lower risk.

 

[rmuir]

But with consideration given to the word "reasonably". There is simply no point in spending thousands of pounds to reduce a dose rate of 2.6 microSv/h to 1microSv/h in areas of low occupancy, so on those grounds, it is considered acceptable. Cost is a factor, but it is never bigger than safety.

Depends on how you reduce the dose and obviously at the low rates you have stated you would probably say the 2.6microSv/h was reasonably low enough anyway. Unless, like u have stated, the means to reduce dose to those levels was very cost effective.

 

[V4NT0M]

Woot another completely unsurprising article, never heard of any of those "myths".

 

[physichull]

Depends on how you reduce the dose and obviously at the low rates you have stated you would probably say the 2.6microSv/h was reasonably low enough anyway. Unless, like u have stated, the means to reduce dose to those levels was very cost effective.

There is also the interesting arguements for "good and bad radiation" which can be very interesting for discussion.

Here's a little fact for you:

In the new nuclear powered submarines such as Astute, the dose rates that the crew recieve is actually LOWER than they would receive if they spent all their times on land, at base in Plymouth.


Now people will argue if being exposed to less radiation is detremental to your health! You can never win.

 

[Monkeynut]

Drop it out of the channel tunnel trains on the English side .

Immigrants aren't nuclear!

 

[Inquisitor]

I'd dispute that. It's a slow process admittedly, but I'm sure I'll see it before I retire.

One of my lecturers (in theoretical physics) said once that he's fairly sure we won't see fusion as a large scale energy source in our lifetimes.

 

[rmuir]

There is also the interesting arguements for "good and bad radiation" which can be very interesting for discussion.

Here's a little fact for you:

In the new nuclear powered submarines such as Astute, the dose rates that the crew recieve is actually LOWER than they would receive if they spent all their times on land, at base in Plymouth.


Now people will argue if being exposed to less radiation is detremental to your health! You can never win.

What about the iranian town where residents receive higher than average dose from background radiation. Studies have actually found these residents are healthier than other lower background towns.

I've completely forgotten the town/dose levels....

 

[RaohNS]

I debate your crazy 100-650K figure! I'm certain the IAEA would never endorse such a figure! But we could debate the number of people affected till the cows come home as it is very difficult to judge. But you cannot quote figures such as 650000 and believe it as the gospel truth. Show me where it is fact, if you looked hard enough, I bet you could find a document that says 1000000 people were affected, and if you looked harder still, you could probably find a study which says 100 people were affected, discounting those killed immediately (over the following couple of months after the incident).

The atomic weapons testing probably affected as many people, but again you cannot discretise the impact it had on any particular person. The links are just impossible to make.

And your second point is just silly, of course they had to leave the surrounding area.

So on the quote of the second point by default my argument is correct in that nuclear energy can affect a large population. Human error or natural/mechanical error.

As for the Chernobyl figure i don't know if people are missing my point... i said

Affected

Not died. According to Wiki 116,000 people affected by having to be evacuated. Don't also forget that Belarus also had wide scale evacuations too due to the fallout

 

[RaohNS]

And that shows you don't have the first idea about reactor design, should either read up or listen to the experts.

So are you an expert?

 

[physichull]

What about the iranian town where residents receive higher than average dose from background radiation. Studies have actually found these residents are healthier than other lower background towns.

I've completely forgotten the town/dose levels....

Cornwall in the UK has higher than average background radiation levels due to Radon.

So I don't disagree with your above point, I'm not trying to start an arguement with you or anything!

 

[physichull]

So on the quote of the second point by default my argument is correct in that nuclear energy can affect a large population. Human error or natural/mechanical error.

As for the Chernobyl figure i don't know if people are missing my point... i said



Not died. According to Wiki 116,000 people affected by having to be evacuated. Don't also forget that Belarus also had wide scale evacuations too due to the fallout

We're all affected by radiation, every day of our lives. Compare those that were "affected" in however minor a way to those actually killed by other energy disasters such as the Banqiao Dam in China, where around 10 million people were "affected" and around 150000 died as a direct consequence of the disaster.

 

[Glaucus]

So are you an expert?

of course not. But I have read and have some primitive grasp and accept what the scientists and engineers say.

where you make up stuff, although based on some sort of misguided logic. But ignore the fact current and future reactors are so far removed from Chernobyl they can not be looked at, as the same. for many many reasons and as I said not just extra safety measures, but fundamental differences.

 

[RaohNS]

That is incredibly disconcerting considering your initial entry into a thread that was discussing the scientific basis behind the claims that ‘it is safer’ is a comment of inflammatory nature based on massive over simplifications of a highly complex issue. I’m not about to invoke the bandwagon fallacy as a logical argument but it’s incredibly blatant given the tone of the thread before your post and the reaction you had from many posters, that you knowingly set out to buck the discussion simply because you wanted to.

Not true. Insinuation may be something that i do but something based on creating or raising something that is not fallacy seems to be a valid point. And to date Chernobyl is still on of the worst Nuclear disasters if not top of the list.

More harrowing is the fact you seem to think uttering that name has any basis for current concern, if you are indeed part of a pro-nuclear lobby I worry about the level of knowledge that lobby has and the damage it is doing to credibly informed authorities trying to achieve the same ends, mind telling us which group you’re involved with exactly?

Given that Chernobyl heralded massive global concerts relating to nuclear design, flaws and faults is maybe a good thing. My original argument is that as long as people are part of the process there will always be the risk of error, disaster and death. No particular group.

Seeing as you felt the need to state a credential of some sort it may be of value to know that I’ve had direct exposure to Chernobyl residents and Belarusian children that are still suffering from the repercussions both sociologically and physically from contaminants through charity work. So yes, I’ve had exposure to the other side of the fence too.

I am aware of that a Policy maker at my old job used to have children over (apparently they're scared by supermarket fruits and vegetables due to their being taught anything from the ground is radioactive)

Now rather than derailing moderately informed discussion, why don’t you do your lobby some practical good by informing yourself through scientific literature widely available rather than sit in it as a means of self-fulfilling authority in a subject you clearly have little to no knowledge of in its current state or simply admit you’re here to troll by being as off topic and inflammatory as possible?

If anything Chernobyl is a perfect case study of why current design and procedures are of significantly lower risk.

Again people are still part of the process. Based on your anti-pessimism i'm sure the children you see will and or should be a reason to worry in some respects relating to nuclear power. Now i'm aware of current processes relating the efficiency of the fission process however, with Nuclear the main issue is radiation should an accident occur. I am in no way (which you seemingly confuse) invoking that all Nuclear sites are going to have a meltdown.

Likewise i do not consider myself an expert and quite frankly after listening to your argument based on a single statement it appears that gives you grounds to immediately get on your high horse.

I'll re-iterate my view is that i am pro-nuclear, i would support hybrid reactor designs so that effectively we could turn to Australia and say we'll have some of that 40% world Uranium reserves you've got, we'll chip into the Chinese wanton desire for it oh and by the way any Thorium you have send it our way too.

As for spent nuclear fuel thats another issue entirely.

 

[Glaucus]

Again people are still part of the process.

Again you need to read up on nuclear reactor design and how nuclear reactions happen and how that is achieved in current and future reactors.

really you keep banging out the same silly points.

As for spent nuclear fuel thats another issue entirely.

some 4th generation reactors can use it as fuel. Which in themselves consume nearly all the fuel and release only minute amounts of low hazard waste.

 

[RaohNS]

of course not. But I have read and have some primitive grasp and accept what the scientists and engineers say.

where you make up stuff, although based on some sort of misguided logic. But ignore the fact current and future reactors are so far removed from Chernobyl they can not be looked at, as the same. for many many reasons and as I said not just extra safety measures, but fundamental differences.

Same here.

I don't use misguided logic.

I'll agree they are different the whole idea of Chernobyl sparked global panic and thankfully Tombstone Policy seemed to kickstart the nuclear safety and boost the anti-nuke lobby.

No it cannot be looked at the same of course not... but are you saying that our reactors are so so so safe that no disaster will ever happen again... ever?

 

[RaohNS]

Again you need to read up on nuclear reactor design and how nuclear reactions happen and how that is achieved in current and future reactors.

really you keep banging out the same silly points.

i know how nuclear reactions happen...

I'm banging my head on a brick wall it appears here. Lets just leave the argument at the point that we both disagree and i'm not going to give ground on the people argument and seemingly neither are you.

On with discussion...