InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 29
Posts 21460
Boards Moderated 4
Alias Born 10/29/2000

Re: extelecom post# 354

Monday, 08/28/2006 1:14:23 PM

Monday, August 28, 2006 1:14:23 PM

Post# of 4006
What to do with the spent fuel rods is what causes most of the fuss concerning nuclear power.

<< best to read through this whole thing, but I cut out paragraphs that I wanted to point out about concerns >>

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/nuclear-faq.html

<< and nobody wants the waste in their neighborhood... I certainly wouldn't >>

The U.S. plan is to store the waste in Nevada in the same area as has been used for underground nuclear tests. This plan is still tied up in long term indecision. A big step forward was taken in 2002 when the President signed a bill to over-rule the objections of the State of Nevada.

Q. Are nuclear power plants perfectly safe?

A. No. Nothing is perfectly safe, but they are safe enough to be relied upon as a source of energy.

<< consequences can be devasting and long term >>

Can a nuclear plant blow up to a lesser extent?

A. Yes, if it is sufficiently badly designed and operated. The Chernobyl plant reached 150 times its normal power level before its water turned to high pressure steam and blew the plant apart, thus extinguishing the nuclear reaction. This only took a few seconds.

Q. How much of a disaster was that?

A. In terms of immediate deaths it was a rather small disaster. 31 people died. Cave-ins in coal mines often kill hundreds.

However, about 20 square miles of land became uninhabitable for a long time. This isn't a lot.

Fall-out from the Chernobyl explosion will contribute an increase to the incidence of cancer all over Europe. How much of an increase is disputed. Since the increase will be very small in proportion to the amount of cancer, we probably won't know from experience.

The largest estimates are in the low thousands which would make Chernobyl a disaster comparable to the Bhopal chemical plant or the Texas City explosion of a shipload of ammonium nitrate or the Halifax disaster during World War I. On the other hand these large estimates are small compared to the number who have died in each of several recent large earthquakes in countries using stone or adobe or sod houses.

It is comparable to the number killed in coal mining accidents in the Soviet Union over the years Chernobyl was operating.

The large estimates depend on the linear hypothesis which is almost certainly wrong but which is used for regulatory purposes because it is so conservative. The estimates are probably too high by a substantial factor, maybe 10, maybe 100.

However, a recent survey indicates a greatly increased rate of thyroid cancer in children (including three deaths)j in Belarus since the accident. I don't know the total number of cases which would permit comparing Chernobyl with other accidents. Here is more on the Chernobyl accident including links to British, Ukrainian and Russian accounts of the accident and its effects.


Sara

"I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell." - Harry Truman

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.