Get all cars off the road because some leak oil

This thread title is an exact analogy of a recent news article published on August 16th in Bloomberg.com. In the article "McCain's Pitch for Safe Nuclear Power May Be Undercut by Leaks" Bloomberg.com: Exclusive the author asserts that John McCain should not be promoting Nuclear Power because a recently-discovered leak on a submarine proves that nuclear power is not safe. As an expert in nuclear power and one who tests and certifies submarine nuclear powerplant components, I can assure you that this is analogous to saying automobiles are not safe to the population or environment because a very small percentage of them occasionally leak a few drops of oil.

McCain is absolutely correct in touting the safety record of Navy Nuclear Propulsion. There have been no accidents or releases of radioactivity that resulted in a member of the public receiving a dose above any federal limits. And the federal radioactive exposure limits are very conservative, well below the threshold that would manifest itself in an increase in measurable cancer rates. And the safety trend is only improving. The article's author seems very focused on "accidents" that occured back in the 1960's, when nuclear power technology was in its infancy.

Again, another case of the general public (fed by the media) not understanding the true science and statistics behind nuclear power. There doesn't appear to be much negative press about all the routine leaks and spills that are commonplace at refineries and fossil-fuel powerplants, or at gas stations, or dripping from your engine. Probably because no one is afraid of them. If a spill occurs at a oil-burning powerplant, people can see, feel, taste, touch and smell it. Not so with radiation, so people are afraid of any amount of radiation, even if it's less than the amount you receive getting your teeth x-rayed.

Are there politics involved? Maybe. Hopefully not. I hope Obama is smart enough to recognize the nonsense assertion in the Bloomberg article. If Obama's camp uses that story against McCain, and he ends up as our President, then our country will be in a world of hurt with a leader who believes bad science. Whoever becomes our president needs to scientifically embrace clean energy, of which nuclear power is a part.

 

I am an expert in both nuclear power and environmental engineering, holding a PE and masters degrees in each. I can tell you with certainty, without divulging sensitive information, that the particular leak on the USS Houston, emitted fewer curies (spread out over thousands of cubic miles) than are contained in a typical bag of garden fertilizer. Bet you didn't know fertilizer was radioactive! Actually, most things around us are radioactive. In fact, most submariners receive less exposure while underway than do average land-bound humans, even though they spend all of their time less than 200 feet from an operational nuclear reactor. This is an extremely well-documented fact, proven with the use of radiation monitors that must be worn at all times by Navy submariners. While underway, submariners are shielded (under hundreds of feet of water) from most natural radiation sources that result in each of us land-lubbers receiving an average dose of 1 mrem per day.

Some people think that I'm comparing apples to oranges (radioactive water leak versus common automotive oil leaks). Well, I am. But there are certain properties of apples and oranges that you can compare: calories, nutrient content, etc). Likewise, you can scientifically compare the environmental damage (including the effect of exposure on humans and other animals) caused by a radioactive water leak of known magnitude versus common automotive oil leaks.

So, contrary to a very ignorant and lazy statement by "Dave_PH", it is not *^#&$@ stupid to compare the two. In fact, a comparison is the only thing that gets the point across to most people. Nothing wrong with people not understanding nuclear energy, just those that refuse to accept other's educated analysis.

 

I am not an expert on nuclear weapons, so I can't help you there.

Regarding the water usage of a nuclear reactor, the systems of concern are pretty well closed systems. Water that becomes radioactive gets reprocessed through filtration and ion exchange. Very little water is wasted or "consumed". Most of the water that is "used" is simply to provide a heat sink for secondary cooling on the steam turbine condensers. It does not pick up any radioactivity. The only thing that happens to this cooling water is that it picks up a good bit of heat energy. Thus, the outlet temperature is a few degrees warmer than the inlet temperature. This warmer water (fresh river water or ocean saltwater) is dumped right back to the source it was obtained from. If cooling towers are used rather than condensers, then some of that water (still clean) is evaporated to the atmosphere. Hence, the plume of steam that you typically see rising from the cooling tower (not smoke, which is a common misconception).

The warm water emission is the reason you will always see a civilian nuclear reactor situated by a large body of water capable of mitigating the temperature effect. Permits are required to ensure the environmental impact (local temperature rise) does not exceed ecological limitations. Warmer water will hold less dissolved oxygen, which can affect sea life.

 

I've noticed from reading your responses on other threads (such as "Arkansas Gazette - Bell the Hybrid") that you pretty much disregard the intelligently-stated, well-documented posts of other forum members to further your own agenda.

When you walk into a doctor's office, do you say in a sarcastic tone "of course you are a doctor. And I bet you are also a former resident physician at Bethesda Medical Hospital who treats members of congress and the President." Do you inspect the copies of their diplomas and licenses for authenticity before you accept any advise from a doctor?

As a matter of fact, I am a veteran submarine officer, USNA graduate, with a master's degree in Environmental Engineering from the U of Washington. Intensively nuclear trained while on active duty, as well as having 10 years of experience as a nuclear test engineer and emergency planner for a naval shipyard. Do I need to have my universities mail you certified copies of my transcripts?

If you are that untrusting of other people's genuine advice and experience in a forum like this, then you have bigger issues that certainly won't be solved by browsing PriusChat.

I anxiously await to hear your credentials, since you seem to have boundless energy in discrediting the opinions on just about every thread you visit.