Fukushima Meltdown: Worst-Case Scenario Long-term Health Effects and Contamination of Food Supply

[leveymg]

It's time to understand the potential outcomes of the ongoing crisis at the Fukushima nuclear plant. We are now seeing credible news reports and other evidence that there has been a breach of the containment vessel inside #2 and possibly other reactors. Nuclear fuel rods containing many kilograms of enriched uranium (and possibly mixed plutonium) have now burned off their protective cladding and in at least one case are reported to have melted through the steel containment and are pooling at the base of what's left of the reactor building. See, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/29/japan-lost-race-save-nuclear-reactor Highly radioactive water injected at the top of the compromised pressure vessels continues to leak out, leading some experts to conclude that molten core material has holed the base of the vessel.

The worst-case scenario is that exposed molten mass, which is at least 3000 degrees C (the melting point of uranium oxide), will continue to burn through the concrete base of the containment building. If that happens, it would quickly begin to penetrate the earth, immediately below which is the water table, the plant having been sited on the edge of the Pacific Ocean.

If . . . and this only if, meltdown reaches that stage, most experts state that result of the molten rods reaching the water table below will likely be the release of a large plume of radioactive steam and particles that if uncontained would shoot upwards into the atmosphere, continuing to disperse radioactive vapor and materials over a large area until it is either cools sufficiently or is successfully capped and entombed. The initial release may appear similar to the underwater volcanic eruption pictured below, but observers certainly would not want to be so close - which is exactly the problem. The engineering and practical challenges of capping and entombing such a release are enormous and the outcome uncertain.



Before the melt pit could be capped and contained (assuming that can be done in any reasonable time while a column of high-pressure radiation is still boiling upwards), however, it will likely emit a large amount of particles of molten sand (silicate) and other materials. Seawater, itself, when vaporized, also contains minerals such as potassium which are readily absorbed into the human body. The health effects of breathing or ingesting particles put up by this plume will be extremely serious.

Now, check out this Dept of Energy publication about the long-term human health effects of a radioactive plume that disperses radioactive silicate particles (sand) containing trace potassium (K, that gets absorbed into the body) over a wide area. With Fukushima, we're talking about dispersion over one of the most densely populated areas in the world, and one which the Japanese people depend upon for food production: http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?...

Title Effect of Potassium on Uptake of 137Cs in Food Crops Grown on Coral Soils: Annual Crops at Bikini Atoll
Creator/Author Stone, E R ; Robinson, W
Publication Date 2002 Feb 01
OSTI Identifier OSTI ID: 15002342
Report Number(s) UCRL-LR-147596
DOE Contract Number W-7405-ENG-48
Other Number(s) TRN: US200410%%78
Resource Type Technical Report
Resource Relation Other Information: PBD: 1 Feb 2002
Research Org Lawrence Livermore National Lab., CA (US)
Sponsoring Org US Department of Energy (US)
Subject 54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES; 70 PLASMA PHYSICS AND FUSION TECHNOLOGY; AMERICIUM 241; ANIMALS; CESIUM 137; CLAYS; CORALS; CROPS; FALLOUT; FOOD; FOOD CHAINS; MARSHALL ISLANDS; NUTRIENTS; PLUMES; POTASSIUM; RADIOACTIVITY; SILICATES; SOILS; STRONTIUM 90; THERMONUCLEAR DEVICES
Description/Abstract In 1954 a radioactive plume from the thermonuclear device code named BRAVO contaminated the principal residential islands, Eneu and Bikini, of Bikini Atoll (11{sup o} 36 minutes N; 165{sup o} 22 minutes E), now part of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The resulting soil radioactivity diminished greatly over the three decades before the studies discussed below began. By that time the shorter-lived isotopes had all but disappeared, but strontium-90 ({sup 90}Sr), and cesium-137, ({sup 137}Cs) were reduced by only one half-life. Minute amounts of the long-lived isotopes, plutonium-239+240 ({sup 239+240}Pu) and americium-241 ({sup 241}Am), were present in soil, but were found to be inconsequential in the food chain of humans and land animals. Rather, extensive studies demonstrated that the major concern for human health was {sup 137}Cs in the terrestrial food chain (Robison et al., 1983; Robison et al., 1997). The following papers document results from several studies between 1986 and 1997 aimed at minimizing the {sup 137}Cs content of annual food crops. The existing literature on radiocesium in soils and plant uptake is largely a consequence of two events: the worldwide fallout of 1952-58, and the fallout from Chernobyl. The resulting studies have, for the most part, dealt either with soils containing some amount of silicate clays and often with appreciable K, or with the short-term development of plants in nutrient cultures.
Country of Publication United States
Language English
Format Medium: ED; Size: PDF-FILE: 69 ; SIZE: 1.7 MBYTES pages
System Entry Date 2008 Feb 12

While you're at it, you might also want to read this publication about the physical properties and the radiological effects of Potassium-40: #

Potassium-40
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View
concentration associated with sandy soil particles estimated to be 15 times higher ... What Happens to It in the Body? Potassium-40 can be taken into the body by ... Hence, what is taken in is readily absorbed into the bloodstream and ...
www.ead.anl.gov/pub/doc/potassium.pdf - Similar
►
#

And, this on respirable crystalline silica: http://www.ashkinlaw.com/silicosis.html

Finally, a large mass of melt-down material would cause a plume of water vapor mixed with silica and other ground materials, producing a "mushroom cloud" type vapor tower, and resulting fallout in some ways similar to that produced by a weapon detonation. While there would be no huge explosion and "fireball" associated with a nuclear detonation, most of the physical effects of a plume from a meltdown of a large mass of high temperature fissionable materials would be the same.

That characteristics of such a radioactive cloud, according to the Wiki,

"the cloud contains also vaporized, melted and fused soil particles. The distribution of activity through the particles depends on their formation; particles formed by vaporization-condensation have activity evenly distributed through volume as the air-burst ones, larger molten particles have the fission products diffused through the outer layers, and fused and non-melted particles that were not heated sufficiently but came in contact with the vaporized material or scavenged droplets before their solidification have a relatively thin layer of high activity material deposited on their surface. The composition of such particles depends on the character of the soil, usually a glass-like material formed from silicate minerals. The particle sizes do not depend on the yield but instead on the soil character, as they are based on individual grains of the soil or their clusters. Two types of particles are present; spherical, formed by complete vaporization-condensation or at least melting of the soil particles, with activity distributed evenly through the volume (or with a 10–30% volume of inactive core for larger particles between 0.5–2 mm), and irregular-shaped particles formed at the edges of the fireball by fusion of soil particles, with activity deposited in a thin surface layer. The amount of large irregular particles is insignificant.<8> Particles formed from detonations above or in ocean will contain short-lived radioactive sodium isotopes, and salts from the sea water. Molten silica is a very good solvent for metal oxides and scavenges small particles easily; explosions above silica-containing soils will produce particles with isotopes mixed through their volume. In contrast, coral debris, based on calcium carbonate, tends to adsorb radioactive particles on its surface.<14>

The elements undergo fractionation during particle formation, due to their different volatility. Refractory elements (Sr, Y, Zr, Nb, Ba, La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Pm) form oxides with high boiling points; these precipitate the fastest and at the time of particle solidification, at temperature of 1400 °C, are considered to be fully condensed. Volatile elements (Kr, Xe, I, Br) are not condensed at that temperature. Intermediate elements have their (or their oxides) boiling points close to the solidification temperature of the particles (Rb, Cs, Mo, Ru, Rh, Tc, Sb, Te). The elements in the fireball are present as oxides, unless the temperature is above the decomposition temperature of a given oxide. Less refractory products condense on surfaces of solidified particles. Isotopes with gaseous precursors solidify on the surface of the particles as they are produced by decay.

The largest and therefore the most radioactive particles are deposited by fallout in the first minutes to hours. Smaller particles are carried to higher altitudes and descend slower, reaching ground in less radioactive state as the shortest-time isotopes providing the most activity decay the fastest. The smallest particles can reach stratosphere and stay there for weeks, months, even years and reach the entire hemisphere by atmospheric currents. The high-danger, short-term, localized fallout is deposited primarily downwind from the blast site, in a cigar-shaped area, assuming a constant-strength, constant-direction wind; crosswinds, wind changes, and precipitation greatly alter the fallout pattern.<16>

The condensation of water droplets in the mushroom cloud depends on the amount of condensation nuclei. Too large number of condensation nuclei actually inhibits condensation, as the particles compete for too low relative amount of water vapor.

Chemical reactivity of the elements and their oxides, adsorption properties of their ions, and solubility of their compounds influence their further distribution in the environment after deposition from the atmosphere. Bioaccumulation influences the propagation of fallout radioisotopes in the biosphere.
Radioisotopes

The primary radiation hazard of the fallout is gamma radiation from short-lived radioisotopes, which present the bulk of activity. Within 24 hours from the burst, the fallout gamma radiation level drops 60 times. Longer-life radioisotopes, typically caesium-137 and strontium-90, present a long-term hazard. Intense beta radiation from the fallout particles can cause beta burns shortly after the blast to people and animals coming in contact with the fallout. Ingested or inhaled particles cause internal dose of alpha and beta radiation, which may lead to long-term effects, including cancer."

One can only hope that the Japanese authorities are willing and able to take the most heroic possible measures to prevent a full-scale meltdown of one or more of the GE Mark-1 reactors at Fukushima. It is, however, not clear what can be done at this point. In the longer term, let us hope that no matter what the outcome, people around the world will learn from this experience, following Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, to finally pursue alternatives to nuclear power.

[FBaggins]

1. If there was a molten mass of corium at 3,000+ degrees in there... you couldn't miss it.

How anyone thinks that's even possible at this point is beyond me.

[leveymg]

3. According to reputable sources, something has holed the vessels. Want to guess what that is?

It takes a very, very high temperature to burn through the primary reactor vessel. It also takes a temperature above 2200F to burn off the cladding. Everyone agrees now, that has happened. So, it's time to think about and discuss what might be next. Don't you think?

[FBaggins]

6. A reputable source has theorized that something MIGHT have done so.

Which is not the same thing... and he specifically disagrees with where you've gone with it.

There's a world of difference between a little bit of core leaking out and re-solidifying on the floor of the primary containment... and substantially ALL of the core breaking through and re-establishing a sustained fission reaction.

It also takes a temperature above 2200F to burn off the cladding. Everyone agrees now, that has happened.

"Happened" about two weeks ago. Ridiculous to pretend that is IS currently happening.

So, it's time to think about and discuss what might be next. Don't you think?

We already saw what happened next. That was over days and days ago. It is not ongoing.

Once again just to keep it simple. There would be no way to hide active fission going on inside the reactor. It would be obvious that it was occurring.

It is equally obvious that it is not.

[leveymg]

8. If you have ever worked in metals, you will know that once an area of steel has been heated

sufficiently so that there is a small hole, that the structure has been compromised, is prone to crack and fracture, and a bigger hole is sure to follow (assuming there is still something hot creating heat and pressure on the other side).

I don't know. You don't know. Let's just consider the consequences of the possibility of a major meltdown event. That is all I am saying.

[FBaggins]

10. It's the "assuming there is still something hot on the other side" that you're missing.

There isn't. At least... not "hot" from a metalurgical standpoing.

And if you've ever worked with metals, you will know that if a molten metal is seeping through a hole and then re-solidifys... you might not have a hole any more. The source wasn't even saying that the lower head of the RPV had been burned through, it could have just been seals around the control rods.


They've been reporting temperatures at the bottom of the RPV. They do not approach a danger point.

[leveymg]

11. Where are you getting your data about temperatures at the bottom of the RPV?

Apparently, there is still a hole because no one has reported the leakage or radiation problems are gone.

[FBaggins]

12. You don't need to have a hole in the RPV to leak radioactive water.

You don't need the RPV to be breached at all. You just need a busted valve to keep cooling water from exiting the core and flowing to the turbine building (which is where they found it).

Where are you getting your data about temperatures at the bottom of the RPV?

Multiple reports that come out a couple times a day. Temperature... pressure... water level in the RPV.

For instance... there was a report just a couple hours ago that the water level in the core of Unit#2 was 1.5 meters below the top of the fuel rods (or what would be the top if none had melted).

How on earth is there water that deep in the RPV if there are big holes in the bottom of the unit and a 3,000+ degree mass of corium underneath it?

Here's the first link I found

The temperature in number 1 reactor yesterday increased from 273 degrees Celsius to 309 degrees, and in reactor 2 from 130 degrees to about 150 degrees. Government spokesman Yukio Edano said that a reduction in water use was the likely cause. NISA’s Nishiyama told a press conference: “While we don’t know exactly the relationship between the need to inject water to cool and the outflow of water, we have reduced the amount of injected water to a minimum given the reactor number 2’s tendency to spew highly radioactive water.”

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/mar2011/japa-m30.shtml

[leveymg]

16. MineralMan and I had this argument about pumps and piping.

More than a week ago, I said that even if they do get electricity hooked up again, it's not going to make an immediate difference because the reactor pumps (likely) and inlet pipes (probable) and controls (definitely) are so damaged that the reactors' internal cooling system will not function and will need extensive repairs before they function again (if ever). Who wants to go in there and hook everything up, I asked.

MM argued that the pipes are all six inches thick, and the pumps are redundant, so don't worry. Well, he was wrong, as a lot irradiated Japanese workers (and the rest of us) now know.

In the process, I looked at the available diagrams, and there is a big inlet side pipe and an equally massive outlet on the other side toward the top of the containment vessel. There are also some secondary piping on the side for the backup emergency cooling sprays. Radioactive water could well be spilling out of broken piping, but don't you think if it is just the pipes that are leaking they would have done a quick cement and wrap to at least minimize the escaping radioactive water? I do seem to remember someone mentioning about 5 days ago there were cement trucks parked at the site, so maybe they did try some patches. The thing is still leaking, nonetheless.

I didn't surmise that the core had melted down, and that is not the point of this posting. The worst case scenario I have laid out is based upon statements that there is a meltdown inside the #2 outer containment by the American reactor safety engineer who was in charge of the project for GE when these reactors were installed in 1970. I take that to be a credible source, and nobody was denying that assertion of a partial meltdown and leakage at the base of the vessel, in perhaps several reactors.

[FBaggins]

18. Is there something about a meter and a half below the top of the fuel rods?

That's where they can't seem to fill the RPV past.

I didn't surmise that the core had melted down.

I think it's pretty clear that it did.

Remember that "meltdown" has to firm meaning beyond "the core has been damaged". The mix of isotopes detected outside the reactors pretty much confirms significant core damage.

[leveymg]

20. Let's put up the diagrams and photos. Please post what you are pointing to.

Give me a couple minutes.

[leveymg]

21. Here's a good, detailed diagram of the GE Mk1 cooling system. What ru referring to?

[FBaggins]

24. Looks like maybe the upper inlet for the circulation system.

What ru referring to?

Nothing in particular. I was just thinking that if they can only raise the water to a given point (after which there is additional leaking), then something around that level of the RPV is a reasonable place to look.

It would make more sense if it was the one that runs from the turbines, but appears to be at the level of the dryers and the water isn't reportedly that high (though perhaps it's steam getting out that route and condensing in the pipes?).

[leveymg]

26. If they stuck fire hoses into the upper inlet and flooded the container, it would

overflow out the outlet side since there are one-way valves at the outlets (at least one hopes so). It is possible the leakage may be from a point outside the reactor itself. But, if that were so, why wouldn't they tell us? You've gotta wonder about that that fact that they aren't saying the leak is from the condensor or overflow, unless they are just totally unconcerned about what the rest of us may conclude. In which case, a double pox on them for being Stupid after being reckless to put this thing up when and how they did.

[FBaggins]

27. It's that "at least one hopes so" that I'm getting at.

since there are one-way valves at the outlets (at least one hopes so).

And it's easier to suppose a big hole in the bottom of the RPV plus additional cracks/holes in the primary containment, PLUS some unknown mechanism for the water to flow to the basement of a different building... than it is to imagine a broken valve?

Keep in mind the additional information that the water fills to that point (a meter and a half or so below the top of the fuel rods). They've intentionally limited spraying (resulting in the core temperature rising) because water beyond that point is just leaking out. Doesn't that make it hard to believe that there's a big leak at the BOTTOM of the RPV? Wouldn't they have to continually spray to maintain a given level if the leak was at the bottom?

is possible the leakage may be from a point outside the reactor itself. But, if that were so, why wouldn't they tell us?

They HAVE told us. Not that they've identified a leaking pipe, but that it's a possible explanation for how water that was clearly in a core at some point is now on the floor of an adjacent building.

[CJvR]

34. Just a thought.

Doesn't those water tempratures sink the whole hole argument, at least for #1? You cant have water that warm without pressurizing it and that requires a reasonable seal.

[Yo_Mama]

31. No - there will be no mushroom cloud

The reason is that most of the fuel damage occurred a long time ago. TEPCO admitted early on that the fuel rods in Reactor 2 were completely uncovered with water for hours. That occurred early in the week after the Friday quake/tsunami - close to two weeks ago.

Since then there has been partial cooling from the very ineffective water exchange. And there is a lot we don't know but we do know quite a bit.

The reason the physicist quoted in the UK article is saying that significant melt has occurred is the rising Lanthanum 140 count over the weekend in the basement water. Lanthanum is a fission byproduct that would normally be contained inside the fuel rods. You can make a calculation backwards (I am not qualified to do it) that will tell you how much fuel is exposed within a reasonable range just from those numbers.

As to the containment breach. First, the reactor pressure vessel:
In this type of outmoded design, the fuel and control rods are inserted from the BOTTOM of the reactor pressure vessel. Thus there are preexisting holes in the vessel.

Those apertures are sealed. However the quake "shake" force (basically lateral movement) was beyond design parameters. Then the pressures/temps were beyond design parameters. Then you probably had contact with melted fuel/weird chemistries from overheated seawater reacting with exposed fuel. So those seals are probably not totally closing the aperture. Hot fuel rod material is probably dripping into the containment pressure vessel. The suppression vessel was already breached, so somehow water directly exposed to this material is seeping into the basement of the turbine vessel, and it is probably doing so from the connecting pipes which go to the turbine. There's a steam relief valve that goes into a part of that system.

No one thinks that a hole has been burned right through the RPV at Reactor 2. And you can see why from the measurements they are getting - go to page 2:
http://www.nisa.meti.go.jp/english/files/en20110330-1-2.pdf

Nor is some giant blob of superhot metal sitting in the containment vessel anywhere - not with those readings.

So yes, there is a containment breach. But a China syndrome meltdown is not occurring. It's not like it would be subtle. Further, when they put water in the RPV it's still steaming off. Also they are not seeing large fluctuations in pressures recently which would certainly be happening if you had some massive lump of superhot metal outside the RPV.

Actually, when I opened this thread I was hoping for a more realistic scenario discussion based on the worst that can happen now.

This is a very bad situation which means that some heavy radiation will escape containment for quite some time - it's very possible that it could be months. But it is very, very far from the mushroom cloud theory.

You probably can't tell from the diagram in the NISA link, but the drywell (part of the containment vessel surrounding the RPV) is set up so that leaks of metal would drop down in there. One would guess that the drywell probably isn't dry any more, but who knows. Anyway, once it burned through that floor (which doesn't seem to be happening), it would drop down into the wetwell which contains water. And there it would stop.

Another good thing about looking at those diagrams is you can compare pressures and temps with, say, reactor 1. Reactor 1 seems to be a tad more active. Gotta keep an eye on 'ol reactor 1.

[Marblehead]

2. What is the time frame ?

[leveymg]

4. It's taken a couple weeks to learn it burned through the steel containment vessel.

The cement floor will likely burn through more quickly, if indeed there are molten rods sitting on it.

[Nihil]

5. Unrec for pointless hype ...

... especially the bullshit unrelated photo designed to panic the posters
who can't manage the long words ...

Sorry leveymg, we all get that you believe "nuclear = bad" (and you are
more than welcome to hold that opinion) but the OP is just mindless
panic-mongering ...

:thumbsdown:

[leveymg]

7. Actually, this is far from pointless.

The photos is entirely relevant, as it shows a small eruption not a huge nuclear bomb blast.

People need to consider the range of possible outcomes. I quite clearly labeled this worst case, and introduced the most credible, accurate sources to illustrate that. If you want to hide your head in the sand (pun intended) go ahead. But, if you want to criticize, argue with facts, not just an eruption of bile.

[FBaggins]

9. You labeled it "worst case"...

...but it was the "worst case" give a set of current conditions. Those conditions are themselves already well past the worst case.

They could have theoretically been the worst case two weeks ago. But we're well past that now. The cores are far less active (are producing far less heat) and are WELL below temperatures that would result in further core damage. Re-criticality was always a very unlikely event, but now approaches impossibility... yet it's your starting point?

[DCKit]

13. How do you come by this first-hand knowledge of everything going on at Fukishima?

Your technical grasp and expertise are amazing - nearly equal to your tireless efforts to downplay all aspects of multiple nuclear meltdowns.

[FBaggins]

15. I pay attention

You should try it some time. :)

[CJvR]

35. I wouldn't say...

...downplay so much as refusing to be infected by the popular hysteria.

IIRC the current situation is about what was predicted by cooler heads when it became obvious that the core cooling failed. Others started screaming "Chernobyl or even worse", and will likely continue to do so for a long time regardless of the actual outcome.

Having said that the situation is still extremely nasy, even without coreium volcanoes blowing up.

[leveymg]

14. Right there in the header.

I think you're missing the point, anyway, which is not to argue that such a cataclysm is now imminent, but instead to discuss the seriousness of the potential longterm consequences of a worst-case event.

Let's talk about that, shall we?

This is really meant as an answer to the "What me worry? It's just a little steam" implications of those who are trying to minimize the impact of the event.

[FBaggins]

17. But you're talking about things that are no longer "worst case" possibilities.

You're talking about things that WOULD have been worst-case two weeks ago IF they had failed to contain the cores and fission restarted.

That didn't happen and it's really outside the realm of possibility at this point absent an entirely new disaster (new earthquake etc). The cores are putting off FAR less heat than two weeks ago and are MUCH easier to keep cool.

Let's talk about that, shall we?

Let's talk about that, shall we?

Certainly. The new "worst case" is the lengthy cleanup that's going to be required and all the things that can go wrong. They can't plan on leaving the cores there for years because too many things are broken... but getting damaged fuel OUT of the reactor core will be quite a task. None of the usual equipment will work.

This is really meant as an answer to the "What me worry? It's just a little steam"

And that's fine. It IS more than "just a little steam"... but it's much farther from the "melt down to the water table and explode" disaster than it is from "just steam".

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leveymg]

22. GE Reactor police. Wink, wink.

[FBaggins]

23. Wrong again.

All topics of that nature are automatically subject to a barrage of harassing posts that serve to move reasoned discussion into the gutter.

They are, rather, posts that insist on a reasoned discussion. Not imaginary worst-case scenarios that really assume that the worst-case has already happened.

Let's have a reasoned discussion about the worst case for a wind farm. We'll start by assuming that the wind farm in question has already been blown apart by hurricane-force winds and thousands of shards are flying toward 100 kidgergarden students who were invited to see the farm's grand opening.

Ok... ready to discuss?

Or are you more likely to just point out "that didn't happen and isn't happening" ?

You've been told probably a dozen times on these threads... you can't insist that others adopt your strawman positions so that you can win an argument. You can't claim that any failure to accept the premise of your argument is "harrassment". You can't say "these are the points that are now beyond debate. Nuclear power advocates are all republicans and renewables can provide 100% of our power needs. Now... given those facts, how can you justify your position???"

In short... in order to insist on a reasoned discussion... you must first be able to have one yourself.

[leveymg]

25. Wow. Straw school children fly really far in hurricanes! I loved that image!

No, seriously for a second, this place is all about reasoned discussions on a wider range of topics and opinions than the corporate media permits.

There is absolutely nothing being posited here that's not within the realm of possibility, and all the sources for the scenario seem pretty solidly based in good science. So, what are you complaining about . . . and what is that thing a meter and a half below the top of the reactor head that you referred to above? Still waiting for a photo or diagram or something . . .

[abqmufc]

28. No other energy source has the environmental impact that lasts for generations.

No source of energy is without impact and risk. Agreed. And until humanity is ready to de-evolove or until the magical source of "clean" energy is found we have to make choices.

But let us all face one fact. No other source of energy known to humankind has the longterm impact than that of nuclear power. When you factor in each step necessary to obtain power from uranium or a MOX mix (mining, milling, transport and storage of spent fuel/waste) one has to determine and steps to obtain power (and proper disposal of waste). The same must be done for all sources of energy.

When you factor all this in, only on source of energy has the potential to remain a waste with serious ecological and human health impacts for up to 100,000 years and beyond (plutonium)? Which source of energy has the greatest potential of risk (long-term and short-term)?

It baffles me that despite what we are all witnessing in Japan and the proven impacts of the nuclear era in the USA (see Hanford, 4 corners region, Oak Ridge, Savannah River) people still want to argue for nuclear powers legitimacy. If nuclear power is so legit why don't we have a long-term storage facility? Because nobody wants it in their fucking backyard! This doesn't mean coal is any better. Both need to be banned and the end result is humanity must live within its means. Those means being the available technology which posse the less amount of risk based on a precautionary principle basis (for me, solar wind, wave).

Our 21st century solution for our auto fuel is to plug your car into the wall and have it suck off the tit of the coal industry. And we will declare coal "clean" b/c we will inject all midwestern coal pollution under Iowa farm fields, and the Wests coal pollution under the ground in Colorado and Texas. Yet here is what Henry Ford said in the NYT in 1925 - "The fuel of the future is going to come from fruit like that sumach out by the road, or from apples, weeds, sawdust -- almost anything," he said. "There is fuel in every bit of vegetable matter that can be fermented. There's enough alcohol in one year's yield of an acre of potatoes to drive the machinery necessary to cultivate the fields for a hundred years." This in my opinion includes hemp oil based fuel. See, http://www.hempcar.org/.

[Turbineguy]

29. The anti-nuclear movement has been something of a failure

thus far. May I suggest a new approach? Give up this mushroom cloud stuff. Give up the atomic bomb scare tactics. How about instead of (in effect) helping the industry to force the Regulators to extend the licenses of old wrecks to kick the can down the road, we adopt a program that uses newer, more efficient designs that have greater inherent safety? Licenses will not be extended beyond their original expiration. Then, for every new plant, we shut down and dismantle an old one. MW for MW.

The new designs would utilize the large amount of fuel laying around leaving a smaller waste problem. In the mean time, move toward greater efficiency and conservation on the consumption side, continue to develop alternative sources using a variety of methods. Then, in about 2060, nuclear power would be finished. The waste would be far more manageable than now. And in the mean time we would have safer plants and a lower possibility of a repeat of TMI, Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Become part of the process and keep the industry honest instead of standing on the corner just waving a sign.

Right now the discussion here is between people who are trying to understand what actually happened and those who are using this to push their dogma. And a lot of the second sounds just like, "I saw it on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh confirmed it! So it must be true!"

[kristopher]

30. That would suit the nuclear industry fine, but it is a waste of money needed for AGW

Nuclear doesn't address AGW, so why should we spend money on it at all when we have cheaper, safer, cleaner, more sustainable alternatives that work BETTER at delivering electricity to the end user?

When you can answer that with vetted, valid information we'll have something to discuss. So far, the challenge has never been met with anything even resembling a work of science.

Not once.

See the 4th paper posted.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x284583

[bananas]

32. You seem to misunderstand the problems with nuclear energy

First, you are ignoring very real risks of nuclear reactors - this is a problem with both the old and the new designs.

Second, nobody is helping the industry force regulators extend licenses. The reason new Gen 3 reactors aren't being built is because they are just too expensive. The CEO of Entergy said "the numbers just don't work", and Exelon, Constellation, and other companies came to the same conclusion. There are a number of less expensive options for replacing old reactors: one is simply to replace old appliances with new energy-efficient ones, wind is cheaper per MW, and solar will be in a few years. There is no need to build new reactors.

You wrote, "The new designs would utilize the large amount of fuel laying around leaving a smaller waste problem."
That's incorrect - the new Gen 3 designs are LWR's just like the existing Gen 2 reactors, they convert low-enriched uranium into high-level waste. It's much easier to dispose of unused fuel than spent fuel. If you are thinking of Gen 4 designs, they are still in R&D and won't be ready for at least 20 years (if they can ever be made to work reliably at all), and they will likely be even more expensive than the Gen 3 designs. Renewables will have continued to decline in cost over those 20 years, so there won't be any good reason for using the Gen 4 designs anyway.

Unfortunately you have been misled by hype from the nuclear industry. They've been running an extensive PR and lobbying campaign for the past decade.

There is no good reason to continue propping up this dirty dangerous expensive and unnecessary industry.

[leveymg]

33. There have been zero new licenses and operating plants since TMI. You call that "a failure"?

I call that a blockade that has succeeded for three and an half decades. After this event, it'll be another 35 years until the nuclear industry has the system sufficiently gamed to declare victory again. Sorry guys, Do not Pass Go, Do Not Collect Your Get Out of Jail Free Card.

Let me give you an example: the Seabrook, NH plant. Same GE Mk 1 design. The plant got its funding and was started about the time that TEPCO-GE-TOSHIBA Fukushima #1 first went critical in 1970. Yet, Seabrook didn't go on-line until 1990 - I protested there in 1979, and the reactor containment building was already virtually completed! After mass protests and occupations, it just sat there all those years, empty and dead.

Guess we (the Clamshell Coalition, The Boston Globe, the MA Legislature, Governor Dukakis, various federal, regional and state safety and licensing commissions, etc.) did a pretty good job of holding the bastards back on that one.

If you call that "something of a failure", I'll take it right to the bank. Without $35 billion in new federal guarantees, the U.S. nuclear industry isn't going anywhere. BTW: the backers of the Texas plant you guys had hoped to get licensed this year just backed out. It was TEPCO, the same Japanese company that has been financially wiped out by the violent death of Fukushima.

[FBaggins]

36. So the anti-nuclear movement is only concerned about the U.S.?

The rest of the world can have all the nuclear power it wants?

The whole thing has just been "NIMBY on steroids"?

[leveymg]

37. You said that, not me. eom

[CJvR]

38. More power?

Although there have been no new reactors built how about power increases in the existing plants? Here in Sweden despite closing down two reactors (out of 12) we generate more nuclear power than ever by increasing the output of the existing plants. How big a success is it for the anti-nukes to have older reactors running ever harder if they are concerned with safety issues?

[GliderGuider]

39. Re: Seabrook - Are you doing/have you done similar actions against coal plants?

How do you see the relative threats of nuclear vs. coal?

My takeaway from Turbineguy's comment was that the blockade on new licenses may have caused the operating licenses of existing older reactors to be extended to the point where they became unsafe. That could have made accidents more, rather than less, likely if the reactor failures follow a typical J-curve. Of course, that increase in risk may be offset by the fact that there are so few reactors operating now compared to what there might have been if licensing had not been blockaded. However, given that the global nuclear industry is now as dead as Alexander Akimov, the point is pretty much moot.

So now, on to shut down the global coal industry, right?

[leveymg]

40. "More nukes or more coal" is an industry false paradigm.

"Clean coal", as it now likes to call itself is filthy, and continues to kill more people by choking and cancer than any other energy source. Phase it out as quickly as possible. Same message for the nuclear industry, for a similar but not the same reason - no other energy source and industry has the capability of poisoning large tracts of densely-populated real estate for long periods of time. Nuclear power plants are all potential dirty-bombs - they're area denial weapons.

Getting rid of both threats to the public health and safety, ASAP, is perhaps the greatest national security issue of our time, in my book.

[GliderGuider]

41. I agree. And it's not just coal. We need to get rid of nukes and ALL fossil fuels.

Coal is dirty, of course, but all hydrocarbons are planet-killers. I'm in favour of developing a global power system that includes nothing but renewables and maybe a little hydro. No coal, no natural gas, no oil, no nukes, no mega-hydro. Of course I'm in favour of teleportation, too...

[leveymg]

42. You'd have to get everyone to turn their house lights off during the day, first.

And, then, it would help if we put a big chunk of the Pentagon budget into developing more energy-efficient buildings, vehicles, appliances, and electronic devices.

Matter transporters are automatically matter transformers. Turn that old, empty beer can into a full, cold one. Now, there's the ticket! :toast: