[Closed] Nuclear power , not that cheap or safe it appears

On the Original Post

Chris Huhne says:

“The nuclear industry was like an expense-account dinner:
everybody ordering the most expensive items on the menu
because someone else was paying the bill.”
Britain’s Energy Secretary Chris Huhne

"Britain is still paying for nuclear-generated electricity consumed a generation ago because of the hidden costs of an industry reared on the expectation of public subsidies, the Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said yesterday. Half of the budget of the Department for Energy and Climate Change goes on cleaning up Britain’s legacy of nuclear waste, which includes the world’s largest stockpile of civil plutonium waste. That is £2bn a year, year in and year out, that we are continuing to pay for electricity that was consumed in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s on a false prospectus."

http://climatetoday.org/?cat=12

Decommissioning.

waste disposal

far higher than the cost of building the reactors - an open ended unknown cost

A cost we're going to cover anyway - to deal with the stuff our grandparents have left us.

a very small cancer risk over the population of the planet means many many deaths

but not as many as will die while fitting solar panels to roof-tops.

Awhles - but if we build more reactors these costs will rise. thats no argument for building more

rise yes- but not in proportion.

if it costs £100Billion to build a long term storage facility to cope with the stuff we've already got, it won't cost twice as much to deal with twice as much waste.

whether we like it or not, burial will be our long-term solution to waste.

finding/developing a site will be expensive, this is a price we already have to pay - thanks grandad.

while we're down there*, we can build an extra chamber or 10 (30 instead of 20, or whatever). and we can stop worrying about 'the energy crisis'.

(*a mile or so down, under some really boring** geology)

(**not moved in a few hundred million years, not going anywhere in the next 100,000)

radon gas kills 2000 people every year in the uk - modern, air-tight houses will make this worse.

energy efficiency kills.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1985USSR1.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1968USSR6.html

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/radevents/1961USSR1.html

awhiles - however the reprocessing costs will be proportionate as will the decommissioning costs

Only a few accidents over the years:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/mar/14/nuclear-power-plant-accidents-list-rank

The following is a brief history of recent incidents at French nuclear sites:

June 2011: A minor and fairly common incident that involved internal leakage at EDF's Paluel 3 nuclear reactor was reported by French investigative website Mediapart, knocking 2 percent off EDF shares briefly.

November 2009: A fuel assembly rod got stuck in the pressure vessel at EDF's Tricastin plant in southeast France, raising the risk of an accident. A similar incident took place in September 2008 in the same reactor during refueling operations. It took two months for engineers from EDF and French energy group Areva to stabilize the position of the rod and proceed with its unhooking and removal.

July 2008: Thirty cubic meters of a liquid containing natural uranium was accidentally poured on the ground and into a river at Areva's Socatri site in southeastern France. The spillage happened while the tank was being cleaned at the complex, part of the Tricastin nuclear site, which houses four nuclear reactors. The pure uranium was much less dangerous than enriched uranium, but France's ASN nuclear watchdog rebuked Areva for mishandling the accident.

December 1999: A massive storm provoked the partial flooding of some reactors at EDF's Blayais plant in southwestern France. Many nuclear opponents said the flooding nearly caused a major catastrophe because it briefly cut off power at the plant.

March 1980: An accident at EDF's Saint-Laurent nuclear reactor in central France caused two fuel rods to melt, seriously damaging the reactor and causing the most serious accident in France's nuclear history, classified as level 4 on the International Nuclear Event Scale which runs from zero to 7.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,635788,00.html

http://www.economist.com/node/9595481

pro nuke folk want a massive increase in teh number of reactors built

I am pro nuclear. I do NOT want to see a massive increase in numbers of reactors.

There, proved you wrong.

There, proved you wrong.

errmmm - dinna get it Buzz. so you are one that says nukes are needed for us but not for other countries? Or that we need new nukes but not any more than we have now?

If you believe nukes are the answer to global warming / energy security tehn a massive expansion of them is surely the only logical thing

over the population of the planet means many many deaths

No, it doesn't, it simply doesn't.

You're extrapolating downwards using the theory of "no safe dose"

For example, 30 sievert equivalent exposure can kill 1 person, therefore a total release of 30000 sievert equivalent in an accident where a million people get exposed will result in 1000 deaths - in actual fact, if thats spread over a million people, each person might only get a tiny, tiny exposure and there would be NO adverse clinical effects ever.

Its like saying that a dosing a million people with a million Paracetamol tablets would kill ten thousand of them, Statistically arguable, though we know very well that its bollocks.

Statistical extrapolation that bears no relation whatsoever to actual life.

zulu - wrong there is no safe minimum dose for radiation. All radiation is mutagenic - its nothing like a chemical poison. radiation doses are also cumulative.

So yes - any radiation released into biosphere will mean more deaths.

no safe minimum dose for radiation

utter balls 😆

You'd better move the **** out of Edinburgh then! All that Granite, somebody could drop dead!

Ever had an X-Ray TJ?
Ever flown in a plane?

If I give one million people one X ray - how many of them will die 🙄

the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its 2000 report[12]

Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that [b]an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response.[/b] However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

the United States Environmental Protection Agency also endorses the LNT model in its 2011 report on radiogenic cancer risk:[13]

"Underlying the risk models is a large body of epidemiological and radiobiological data. In general, results from both lines of research are consistent with a linear, no-threshold dose (LNT) response model in which the risk of inducing a cancer in an irradiated tissue by low doses of radiation is proportional to the dose to that tissue."

also

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/03/31/3177889.htm

Yup - no safe minimum dosage - thats the scientific concensus

Low level radiation dosage is cumulative and mutagenic with no safe minimum dosage..

The body is well able to repair DNA damage, there is only accumulation if the repair mechanisms are faulty or the level of damage exceeds the capacity of repair.
In addition, a 'mutation' does not imply damage or disfunction at the cellular or somatic level - you're terminology is loose, bordering on hysterical, and your argument accordingly weakened.......

Yup - no safe minimum dosage - thats the scientific concensus

the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) wrote in its 2000 report[12]

Until the [...] uncertainties on low-dose response are resolved, the Committee believes that an increase in the risk of tumour induction proportionate to the radiation dose is consistent with developing knowledge and that it remains, accordingly, the most scientifically defensible approximation of low-dose response. However, a strictly linear dose response should not be expected in all circumstances.

don simon - Member

Not proven then, just an opinion

Not only unproven, but factually and contextually incorrect

Would that be the same the United Nations committee (UNSCEAR) that you rubbished the Chernobyl death figures from TJ? 😆 you should be more careful with your sources 🙄

Its utter rubbish, I happily worked with low level radioactive compounds for years - like I say, its a ridiculous statistical trick of extrapolation.

You do realise that we're all exposed to radiation all day every day don't you TJ 😯

Raelly hilldodger? You know better than the experts? 🙄

ah well - this was a reasonable debate. I think I will leave it now as its clearly going to go downhill now the personal attacks are flying and the semi detached loony has arrived.

TandemJeremy - Member
You know - I think I prefer what the experts say

Well I worked [url= http://www.mrc.ac.uk/Ourresearch/Unitscentresinstitutes/UnitCentreDetails/MRC002066 ]here[/url] for 4 years, researching DNA damage and repair mechanisms and can categorically say "you are wrong"
trust me I'm an expert 😉

TandemJeremy - Member
Raelly hilldodger? You know better than the experts?

I know better than your experts, if you want to run away then do so in ignorance and denial...

You know better than the experts

Well, [b]you[/b] knew better than the same experts on the total number of deaths related to Chernobyl TJ!

Hoist with your own petard 😆

So hilldodger the UNSCEAR report is wrong? the United States Environmental Protection Agency is wrong? the US national academy of science is wrong?

this is their conclusiuon

Despite the challenges associated with understanding the health effects of low doses of low-LET radiation, current knowledge allows several conclusions. The BEIR VII committee concludes that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a [b]linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of radiation-induced solid cancers in humans. The committee further judges it unlikely that a threshold exists[/b] for the induction of cancers but notes that the occurrence of radiation-induced cancers at low doses will be small.

Not running away - just trying to learn the lessons and I will not be baited into debate with you and I know how unprofitable attempting to debate with the semi detached zulu is.

It is interesting tho that you declare yourself to know better than the people I have quoted - that three pretty authoritative sources.

I wonder if its just you are out of date as views on this have changed over the years.

TandemJeremy - Member

Raelly hilldodger? You know better than the experts? 🙄

And

ah well - this was a reasonable debate. I think I will leave it now as its clearly going to go downhill now the personal attacks are flying and the semi detached loony has arrived.

and I know how unprofitable attempting to debate with the semi detached zulu is.

Well TJ, its certainly unprofitable you trying to debate with me when your argument is complete and utter horse faeces 😆

So hilldodger the UNSCEAR report is wrong? the United States Environmental Protection Agency is wrong? the US national academy of science is wrong?

Yes, it's an out of date report with hedge your bets conclusions designed to protect the decision makers against potential litigation.

Low-dose-rate low-LET radiation has recently been shown to induce cellular adaptation to neoplastic changes, Low-LET radiation only causes single strand breaks which are readily repaired both [i]in vitro[/i] and [i]in vivo[/i], plenty of recent publications (2008 to date) on the subject.
Try googling Fast neutron therapy for starters.....

So what devices at home justify creating low-level radiation whilst powering them?

Don - just have a look at the last few posts especially from Zulu.

if you want to run away then do so in ignorance and denial...

Its (the UNSCEAR report) utter rubbish,

utter balls

You'd better move the **** out of Edinburgh then! All that Granite, somebody could drop dead!

thats really an invitation to reasonable debate.

Hilldodger

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=10

2006

The BEIR VII committee concludes that current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of radiation-induced solid cancers in humans. The committee further judges it unlikely that a threshold exists for the induction of cancers but notes that the occurrence of radiation-induced cancers at low doses will be small. The committee maintains that other health effects (such as heart disease and stroke) occur at high radiation doses, but additional data must be gathered before an assessment can be made of any possible connection between low doses of radiation and noncancer health effects. Additionally, the committee concludes that although adverse health effects in children of exposed parents (attributable to radiation-induced mutations) have not been found, there are extensive data on radiation-induced transmissible mutations in mice and other organisms. Thus, there is no reason to believe that humans would be immune to this sort of harm.

TandemJeremy - Member

I wonder if its just you are out of date as views on this have changed over the years.

Actually Jeremey, I'm pretty much cutting edge on this, whether or not you choose to accept this is your perogative of course.
But at least you acknowledge that "views can change" - that's a concept you may wish to explore further 😉

TandemJeremy - Member
Hilldodger

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11340&page=10

2006

out of date.

Indeed - do you really believe there is a threshold below which radiation has no effect?

What's the problem there? If you have the ability to demonstrate that Z11 is wrong, do it, but don't start bleating. It's hardly any worse than trying to brow people with consensus dressed up as fact, is it? Or telling people they don't know what they're talking about simply because you can't acccept what they're saying.

EDIT: I read a comment today with reference to he who casts the first stone, or something on those lines.

TandemJeremy - Member
Indeed - do you really believe there is a threshold below which radiation has no effect?

No, it has an effect, but not a permanent damaging one - and in many cases a positive one

Radiat Res. 2008 Mar;169(3):311-8.
Low doses of very low-dose-rate low-LET radiation suppress radiation-induced neoplastic transformation in vitro and induce an adaptive response.
Elmore E, Lao XY, Kapadia R, Giedzinski E, Limoli C, Redpath JL.
Source
Department of Radiation Oncology and Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California Irvine, Irvine, California 92697, USA.

Have dozens of similar articles on my work PC, but I'm sure you can use Pub Med...

TandemJeremy - Member
just trying to learn the lessons

The first step in learning is being prepared to listen with an open mind - I'm a professional scientist with access to work in progress and direct current experience of this subject, you have a Google toolbar - go figure.....

Don - have yo never seen zulu debate? Its a pointless exercise.

Hilldodger -crossed posts

I'm looking forward to seeing how far TJ can Google himself out of his depth on this one.

Chai anyone?

I have an athens password.

Woooooo!

TJ, I apologise for ridiculing you and offending you.

Even though I stand by my comment that your argument is utter bullocks. Now, back to proving me wrong 😆

Don - have yo never seen zulu debate? Its a pointless exercise.

Interesting hilldodger.

TandemJeremy - Member
Interesting hilldodger

You're welcome 😉

Interesting hilldodger.

Sorry, can I just check... is that your way of accepting that you're wrong TJ ❓

I have to say that the effects you mention there are specifically dismissed in some of the other stuff I have read.

I am aware there are two schools of thought on this but in recent years the no threshold effect has held sway and the idea there is a threshold and there can be beneficial effects at very low doses was not accepted - are you telling me its swung round again in the last couple of years? Or its this still a minority view?