Are we overly worried about Radiation?

I have many friends in Japan, including one that is pregnant. This is a local tragedy, but the lessons should be headed world wide.

If you want diatribe check out the german green parties talking points. I was quite mild. If anything IMHO the people pushing for more nuclear power are the irrational ones. There are very rational reasons to close down some plants like diablo canyon, and not subsidize future ones. Those spreading the meme of irrational fear seem to have an irrational fear of carbon, and misjudgment of economics. Germany seems to be the country most aggressively removing CO2 and aging nuclear plants. This is from the mainstream der spiegel

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,753158,00.html

 

I was wondering what it takes to have a "rational" fear of radiation?

For me, it took years of physics and reactor training. To properly understand and develop a intuitive feel for types (alpha, beta, gamma), doses (Rem, rads, sieverts), and protection needed (distance, shielding, time, clothing, etc.) is advanced stuff. I certainly know I have virtually nothing to worry about (while in the US), but I can easily see how a very intelligent individual not trained in radiation details would have a hard time figuring out what the real risk is from this.

 

Just by asking the question, you are setting up a false choice. Did madam curie have a rational fear of radiation? Maybe it was worth it. What about PG&E when they built diablo canyon to the wrong plans so that it was not earthquake worthy? Did they have a rational fear when they said let's open it anyway, and extend it past the permitting? How about those NRC violations and violations of safety protocols in Japan? The odds are nothing will hapen for 455,000 years, right? Except for flooding in france, and tsunami in japan, and the next case. How about a rational discussion of closing down plants where an insurance company would say $1B/year to cover it. No company would take the risk without their government saying when something bad happens we will foot the bill, as they are now doing in japan. What were the risks of fannie mae shilling worthless paper? Maybe the odds are different, and we are do for one of these $10B-$500B disasters every ten to fourty years.

 

I've been thinking along those lines lately.
Suppose the spike in cancer attributed to cigarettes or unexplained spikes in cancer rates,was actually from the nuclear fallout from bombing Japan.Marin county near San francisco has an unexplained rise in breast cancer in the last 50 years.And for that matter,suppose the recent drop in cancer rates is due to the time passage since the world received radioactive fallout.

 

I realize there won't be an atomic bomb explosion.
I'm thinking steam explosion.So after a massive steam explosion are you still able to cool 5 other reactors and spent fuel storage when all the workers are dead and the pumps and plumbing are destroyed?Tell me that's impossible.

 

Well put. It's not something you can touch or feel, so it tends to be mysterious and evil. Many people feel the same way, to a lesser extent, about electricity and gas. They know they are dangerous, but they don't know the details. We see this frequently in the posts about RF in the Prius. What we don't understand scares us. It's a natural human trait.

Tom

 

The world hasn't been absent from nuclear radiation: there was many times more global fallout from Chernobyl as there was Hiroshima. The US recieved much more radiation from subsequent atomic experiments in the 50s then Hiroshima. There are also other forms of radiation that contribute to cancer...there are also different carcinogens then radiation. Even though cancer rates in the US have been going down since the 90s (lung cancer being one of the fastest): that's not true throughout the globe. In short, I don't see how you can generalize like that.

Even I can tell you without a doubt that that's impossible. There aren't "5 other reactors" to cool. 5 and 6 have been offline, and seem to have had some attention as far as cooling. As for what steam does in nuclear accidents...there is some collected data from previous nuclear accidents.

 

Why would you expect to be able to cool the remaining fuel if the local area is massively contaminated? That doesn't make any sense.

As has been said several times before, there is a very real chance that this will get really ugly for Japan. A steam explosion could contaminate the local area to the point where it will have to be entombed, and massive cleanup done around the area. There isn't a good outcome from this, only bad outcomes and worse outcomes. Still, they remain local outcomes.

There will be a global effect, but it won't be massive amounts of radiation. The global effect is a loss of confidence for all things nuclear. Whether this is good or bad depends on your take on nuclear.

Tom

 

My question was intended only to address an individual's perception health effects from the present contamination. What you are addressing is a national policy matter.....a very different subject. But that's what forums are for, so here is my take.

A whole lot of Navy reactors have been operating for a long time with very minimal issues. That is a pretty good indication that making and operating reactors safely is established for at least those designs. We also fly planes around, often times in rainy and snowy weather with too few accidents to make us give up air travel.

As for the Japanese disaster--Is it really sane to prohibit reactor installations in an earthquake/tsunami zone that could kill hundreds, yet build schools, cities and other buildings in the same places that has kill tens of thousands? It's not like Japan has abundant coal or oil to fall back upon.

The smart answer has always been to see what works and what does not.....and follow the discipline of the best answer. So far, I'm not a nuclear supporter since all my homework shows Improved Energy Efficiency, Big and Small solar, Wind and other sustainable technologies are just flat better. What I don't support is being anti-nuclear for emotional or political reasons alone. There are very good reasons for not going nuclear, but the "impossibility" of making a safe enough plant is really not one of them.

 

Interesting chart on 'safe' amounts of radiation.

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

 

The core of the policy debate is risk assessment. We are comparing total risk, but it's a difficult assessment given the types of risk. On the one hand, you have an extremely unlikely event with incredibly dire consequences. On the other, you have a likely event, but one with minimal impact. The minimal impact events may total to more risk, but it doesn't feel that way from a gut standpoint.

Air travel is a good example of this. We all know that commercial air travel is safer than driving in your own car, but most of us are more nervous on an airplane. The image of a planeload of helpless people hurtling from the sky is just too graphic to ignore. Being intuitive creatures, humans give more weight to the magnitude of a risk than it's likelihood. It's just human nature.

Note that I am not drawing any conclusions about the relative safety of nuclear power verses other forms. That's a debate that needs to happen, but it needs to be a scientific debate, and not one of primal fears.

Tom

 

I guess I did take it in the other direction.

There are not many safer alternatives to planes, but your point is taken.

I don't think I have the right to dictate Japanese public policy, but no I do not think it is prudent to build on fault lines. A good case about your argument are the levies in NO. I don't think the government should have given people flood insurance in encourage living in a potential disaster area. N

 

My gut tells me that the level of risk is higher in nuclear plants than the statisticians keep telling us. Only good numbers let you overcome your gut. If the odds reported say 1,000,000 to 1, but the real odds are 100,000 to 1 you may make a very different conclusion that the risks are not worth it.

There is a phobia that has nothing to do with the reported accidents. Most people don't have this. It doesn't really have much to do with the coverage. I think more people are angry about the airport grope.

+1

 

hey grump if they send us radiated parts maybe we wont need the top light anymore hahahaaaa the whole cab might just glow in the dark !!!!!!!!!!!! hahahaaaaa:hurt:

 

Now that the Japanese disaster has been raised to 7 (why not 11) it still only affects the Japanese. Still the radiation released is only 10%-15% as high as Chernobyl. But I would say the earthquakes, tsunami, and melt down are really global disasters not local. Did mother nature kill more than the nuc, sure, but I think if we honestly record the pain and destruction, nuclear will have killed, hurt, and raped the earth more per GWh than natural gas or wind or solar. I think hydro and coal are still ahead. The Japanese have not said yet whether the after shock earthquakes caused this extra radiation.

NRG has put out talking points on how South Texas expansion is different than this melt down. There are very valid points. The facility is much newer and it is much better designed. Their is 2.5 x redundancy on cooling and it was built to work through a category 5 hurricane and 100 year flood at the same time. It is also not built on a fault line. The biggest threat to the project is price which will surely rise, and investors as Tokyo Electric will likely pull out. Take away the guaranteed loan or government insurance and the plan will die. NRG is building a large solar farm in arizona and used global warming as a key reason to expand with 2 new nuclear reactors on the site.

 

the 400 pound gorrilla with a lot of western power generation is water. The amount of water required to run a modern thermal plant is staggering. Running nuke plants in the west will be problematic if water resources decline in the region. Solar PV and wind don't use nearly as much water as thermal plants. Something to think about in arid regions.

 

Its definitely one of the issues, and has already caused problems in France.

Water helps fuel debate on the STP [South Texas Nuclear Plant] | NukeFree.org

I would not count those french heat deaths as nuclear though, it was a failure of government. First people depend on the nanny state, then there was not enough peaking plants to overcome the potential of nucs being shut down.

In the Texas rolling black outs this winter there was a comedy of errors. Luckily it was short lived. Old Coal plants were not winterized and were forced to shut down when pipes froze. Then word was not given early enough to turn the natural gas generators on. Some of these did not turn on because with the increased use of natural gas for heat, pressure was diverted to homes and businesses and away from the generators. In a hot drought nuclear and hydro might go down.

 

Since coal burning releases lots more radiation than nuclear along with Mercury, Sulphur, CO2, and problem particles, I would go with Nuclear. Statistics credit coal with 30,000 US premature deaths per year an worldwide 117,000 people vs nuclear with 0 , (if you subtract Chernobyl) . You decide.

 

Austin- I know everything's big in Texas, but how come so many power plants are needed there? Is it actual need in Texas, with all the industry, or is Texas taking advantage of opportunity to be a net-exporter of power to other states? I know some states view power generation as a way to create business expansion and jobs.
Re: nukes, my opinion would be Japan had too many megawatts at one spot on the map. Not sure the South Texas scenario.

 

not anymore.