Slashdot Mirror

Become a farmer or a vet.

http://www-naweb.iaea.org/nafa...

Don't see the joy in that.

You can never take these things seriously when the never present their results at meetings like

APS DPP
Sherwood
MHD workshop
IAEA

Operation McCall on CNN
IAEA Al-Tuwaitha site report

A little bit of critical reading of the two sources in conjunction with each other will show some discrepancies. I have a nice award from the OSD hung up in my basement that says I was at Al-Tuwaitha. My time in Iraq with dosimeter badges and looking at the abandoned fortifications atop the depicted berms (in the IAEA report) convince me that there was every appearance of a WMD program in Iraq. There may have been no nuclear weapon produced, but the theater was excellent.

I'll post this again since it's relevant. A hospital worker in Israel exposed himself to a cobalt-60 radiation source for 1-2 minutes while trying to fix a sterilizer. The IAEA report of the incident is pretty detailed, including photos and x-rays documenting his injuries and eventual demise a month later.

During the Cold War, the Soviets had vastly more tanks than NATO. So one of the common hypothetical scenarios was an unstoppable Soviet invasion led by their tanks. The NATO response plan included detonating airburst nukes over the advancing army. While these would directly kill only a few near the hypocenter, soldiers in a much larger area would receive a lethal dose of radiation. These so-called walking dead would survive to fight a few more days or weeks before succumbing to their injuries. I suspect this scenario and particularly the term "walking dead" played some part in the genesis of the modern zombie movie. The movie widely credited with creating the zombie horde theme (Night of the Living Dead) was filmed in the late 1960s during the height of the Cold War.

Use of 321 austenitic steel
Used extensively at Phenix and PFR, this steel showed cracks over time corresponding to residual welding stresses, particularly in the hot areas. As a result, all the 321 parts at Phenix were gradually replaced. Many successive repairs were made to the PFR steam generators, and all the parts made of 321 on existing reactors are closely monitored.

Hey, that's not Hastelloy-N with Niobium!

These sodium leaks can have many very different origins :
Constructional defects,
Design problems, such as the Monju thermocouple thimble,
Materials problems, such as the example of 321 steel stress cracking,
Thermal crazing at the mixing tee level, leading to through cracks,
Corrosion following air intake into the circuits (one example),
Operator error (for example, during thawing of the circuit and the corresponding expansion of the sodium),

In a sodium reactor, avoiding the intake of air or impurities into the circuits is of utmost importance. Under certain conditions, these pollutions can start mechanisms of stress- corrosion cracking.

Sounds like you need to screw up in some other way, first. Like using the wrong material.

Many nuclear accidents in countries that cooperate with the IAEA get a a detailed freely available public report which is quite interesting reading.

There was a human fatality from a medical cobalt-60 source in 1990. A worker at a hospital trying to fix an irradiating sterilizer accidentally exposed himself to the source for 1-2 minutes. He died about a month later. The IAEA report on the incident is pretty thorough, including first-person details of the exposure (he felt a burning sensation in his eyes and a pounding in his head), photos, and x-rays documenting the effect of the exposure.

No studies have been able to point to a direct link between Chernobyl and increased cancer risks or other health problems outside the immediately affected republics of Ukraine, Belarus and the Russian Federation.

My main point, that using exaggerated claims to make a point weakens, rather than strengthens your argument, remains.

I don't understand why so many nations are trying to reach a consensus on military action in Syria over a chemical weapon attack that may or may not have been done by the regime there but nobody has suggested multi-national cooperation to take over the mess in Fukushima.

Good thinking. Perhaps we should form some sort of International Atomic Energy Agency with the authority to monitor this kind of situation and set safety standards.

The only thing missing is a standing army to enforce compliance. All they have now is a big box to stand on and yell.

I don't understand why so many nations are trying to reach a consensus on military action in Syria over a chemical weapon attack that may or may not have been done by the regime there but nobody has suggested multi-national cooperation to take over the mess in Fukushima.

Good thinking. Perhaps we should form some sort of International Atomic Energy Agency with the authority to monitor this kind of situation and set safety standards.

The only thing missing is a standing army to enforce compliance. All they have now is a big box to stand on and yell.

I don't understand why so many nations are trying to reach a consensus on military action in Syria over a chemical weapon attack that may or may not have been done by the regime there but nobody has suggested multi-national cooperation to take over the mess in Fukushima.

Good thinking. Perhaps we should form some sort of International Atomic Energy Agency with the authority to monitor this kind of situation and set safety standards.

The only thing missing is a standing army to enforce compliance. All they have now is a big box to stand on and yell.

Yes, the pacific Ocean is very large, but it also takes a very long time to to mix evenly.. "(hundreds or thousand+ years.)" Thus a large portion of the contamination will remain in the surface layer for generations to come. These relatively hot isotopes also tend to bio-concentrate/bio-accumulate up the food chain.

Recommendation.. "Eat low on the food chain" and avoid Meat products, especially those that were caught, or were fed fish meal products from the Pacific ocean.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/ines.pdf

You have a pretty poor perspective on things here. The reactors produced 1100 MWe for 28 years with an average capacity factor around 80%. That's ~50 GWe-years or ~1,200,000 megatons TNT (thermal). I'm pretty keeping the lights on in the building for a few decades is a bit less than a million megatons of TNT.

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
http://www.iaea.org/

Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org/
The NRC and Nuclear Power Plant Safety
2012 Report.

World Nuclear News
http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/

NPUA.org: Nuclear Professionals Union of America
http://www.npua.org/

Canada Nuclear Power Industry Safety
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/

See thyroid cancer.

See yellow line on graph depicting Chernobyl children as adults.

Start at page 16.

Plus we won't bother discussing that hundreds of square miles around the area remain off limits due to the continued threat of radiation poisoning.

Despite routinely traveling and working within 2km of a 40 year old reactor, I have no phobias regarding nuclear power. But, to suggest that there have been no deaths, let alone injuries and cancers, is a bald faced troll.

Nuclear power has numerous inherent and extreme dangers. Whether or not we can mitigate them effectively does not mean that the dangers do not exist.

Two years on, the Fukushima exclusion zone still exceeds a 20km radius. It will be 20 years before we see some of the effects form that accident and there will be detractors saying that the illnesses are unrelated despite a clear correlation and highly likely causation.

And let's totally ignore that not a single person died from the meltdown

Ok, I am a massive supporter of Nukes, HOWEVER, NOBODY can honestly claim that not a single person died from the meltdowns. In Japan, the ones that went into the reactors were much older because it was known that their lives will be massively shortened. In fact, they brought retirees in to do the work because it was known that it was going to kill.
Likewise, even IAEA says otherwise, WRT Chernobyl.
2. How many people died as an immediate result of the accident?
The initial explosion resulted in the death of two workers. Twenty-eight of the firemen and emergency clean-up workers died in the first three months after the explosion from Acute Radiation Sickness and one of cardiac arrest.

So, when ppl claim that nobody died, they are either kidding themselves, are ignorant, or lying. I have to believe that you are just ignorant of the situation.
BTW, here is Greenpeace's garbage. GP is far too extremists for me, however, in this case, they are probably closer to the truth than not.
And here is what WHO says.

Now, with all that said, the issue here were companies/groups that were irresponsible. Both Chernobyl and Japan were caused by cheating at protection. The nice thing about Thorium is that NONE of this is possible (with the right design). The reason is that it can NOT have a meltdown. And if the reactors are built small and enclosed in the ground, then it pretty much makes them secured against true nasty situation.

"Along with the USA refusing to filfil its obligations as an NPT signatory, you mean? There aren't many signatories failing it, but the USA is one."

I'm intrigued to read about this as it's the first I've heard of it. Do you have any evidence for it, as I couldn't find any IAEA reports citing US non-compliance on their site which is where they publish reports on issues of non-compliance:

http://www.iaea.org/

"And if Iran withdrew from the NPT, would it get the embargo lifted?"

Probably not, as I say, North Korea isn't an NPT signatory. See my post here to see why the NPT isn't really relevant to the actions against a state, and why it's just about politics regardless of NPT status:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3191577&cid=41680697

Note that I'm not defending this fact, and certainly not defending the US, just stating things as the way they are and providing the rationale behind the reason why things are the way they are.

I am genuinely interest to see the evidence of US non-compliance though, as it would certainly provide further evidence of US hypocrisy which I hadn't come across before. Note that I'm a firm believer that the US needs to stop acting hypocritically- a common example I use is strong arming nations into joining the WTO, and then refusing to adhere to WTO rulings against it iself. Fining companies like BAE and BP for corruption/oil spills whilst largely ignoring the actions of it's own companies such as Boeing, Halliburton, and Exxon when they do the exact same things.

When the topic of Iran came up the other day I was accused of defending the US, or being a US apologist, for daring to bring facts into the conversation about Iran. I'm not, far from it, I just don't like seeing conversations that are full of one-sided bullshit. The fact is both nations are wrong, but this particular discussion is about Iran. If I'm not criticising the US alongside Iran in my posts here it's because I'll save any criticism about the US for news stories that are actually about the US and stick to discussions about Iran in stories about Iran thanks.

With all due respect, your information is either out of date, or in place, completely and utterly wrong.

"As a signatory to the NNPT, Iran has every right to develop nuclear power, enrich uranium and have access the full nuclear fuel cycle."

It has the right to obtain peaceful nuclear technology, whilst it is also fulfilling it's obligations under the NPT. The problem is, as it's not currently fulfilling it's obligations under the NPT, it also does not have the right to obtain peaceful nuclear technology via NPT supported mechanisms.

"Israel and the USA are attempting to deny this capability to Iran because they *might* build a nuclear weapon."

It's not about might, it's about the fact that as an NPT signatory to gain the benefits of NPT mechanisms for transfer of peaceful nuclear technology you have to fulfil certain obligations. Iran is currently in breach of those obligations and it's nothing to do with what the US or Israel thinks as the IAEA is a multinational organisation staffed by as many of US/Israel's foes as it is their allies. If you do not believe me that it is the IAEA condemning Iran for not fulfilling it's obligations and simply US/Israeli say-so, then see here, read it directly from the horse's mouth:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml

Or specifically the most recent report here, asking Iran to fulfil it's obligations:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-50.pdf

"National Intelligence assessments concluded that Iran had abandoned its weapons program 10+ years ago."

This is true, but only a half-truth. You've missed the fact that the IAEA believes there is some evidence the programme may have restarted, and it is up to Iran to fulfil it's obligations to prove otherwise if it wants to be in compliance with the NPT. So sure they did abandon it, but that doesn't mean they didn't start it again.

"Iran has bent over backwards to accommodate UN (i.e. USA) demands for access to its facilities"

No it hasn't, you've got a number of things wrong here:

1) Iran hasn't bent over backwards to accomodate the UN (IAEA), on the contrary, the IAEA has bent over backwards to accomodate Iran. Specifically, Iran barred a number of IAEA inspectors from it's site from countries it has a distaste for (including the US). A country is not meant to be able to pick and choose what inspectors it allows in as that defeat the object of impartial observations of a nuclear programme. Despite this the IAEA let it do it and got on with it's job anyway. If there is any bending over backwards, it's from the IAEA not Iran.

2) The UN isn't the USA, and the USA isn't the UN. I think you'll find there are a number of UN members, including Iran themselves who'd take offence to you determining that their UN votes are controlled by the USA.

3) There are a number of facilities and sections of facilities the IAEA has requested access to, but have had their request deny. This is one of the reasons the IAEA has determined Iran non-compliant. See the most recent report here for evidence of this complaint by the IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-37.pdf

Specifically, near the top of page 3:

"Iran has not responded to the Agencyâ(TM)s initial questions on Parchin and the foreign expert; Iran has not provided the agency with access to the location within the Parchin site to which the Agency has requested access; and Iran has been conducting activities at that location that will significantly hamper the Agencyâ(TM)s ability to conduct effective verification."

"but EVERY TIME Iran has compromised, the USA and Israel create another hoop for them to jump through."

Again, it's nothing to do with the US and Israel, the US's

With all due respect, your information is either out of date, or in place, completely and utterly wrong.

"As a signatory to the NNPT, Iran has every right to develop nuclear power, enrich uranium and have access the full nuclear fuel cycle."

It has the right to obtain peaceful nuclear technology, whilst it is also fulfilling it's obligations under the NPT. The problem is, as it's not currently fulfilling it's obligations under the NPT, it also does not have the right to obtain peaceful nuclear technology via NPT supported mechanisms.

"Israel and the USA are attempting to deny this capability to Iran because they *might* build a nuclear weapon."

It's not about might, it's about the fact that as an NPT signatory to gain the benefits of NPT mechanisms for transfer of peaceful nuclear technology you have to fulfil certain obligations. Iran is currently in breach of those obligations and it's nothing to do with what the US or Israel thinks as the IAEA is a multinational organisation staffed by as many of US/Israel's foes as it is their allies. If you do not believe me that it is the IAEA condemning Iran for not fulfilling it's obligations and simply US/Israeli say-so, then see here, read it directly from the horse's mouth:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml

Or specifically the most recent report here, asking Iran to fulfil it's obligations:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-50.pdf

"National Intelligence assessments concluded that Iran had abandoned its weapons program 10+ years ago."

This is true, but only a half-truth. You've missed the fact that the IAEA believes there is some evidence the programme may have restarted, and it is up to Iran to fulfil it's obligations to prove otherwise if it wants to be in compliance with the NPT. So sure they did abandon it, but that doesn't mean they didn't start it again.

"Iran has bent over backwards to accommodate UN (i.e. USA) demands for access to its facilities"

No it hasn't, you've got a number of things wrong here:

1) Iran hasn't bent over backwards to accomodate the UN (IAEA), on the contrary, the IAEA has bent over backwards to accomodate Iran. Specifically, Iran barred a number of IAEA inspectors from it's site from countries it has a distaste for (including the US). A country is not meant to be able to pick and choose what inspectors it allows in as that defeat the object of impartial observations of a nuclear programme. Despite this the IAEA let it do it and got on with it's job anyway. If there is any bending over backwards, it's from the IAEA not Iran.

2) The UN isn't the USA, and the USA isn't the UN. I think you'll find there are a number of UN members, including Iran themselves who'd take offence to you determining that their UN votes are controlled by the USA.

3) There are a number of facilities and sections of facilities the IAEA has requested access to, but have had their request deny. This is one of the reasons the IAEA has determined Iran non-compliant. See the most recent report here for evidence of this complaint by the IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-37.pdf

Specifically, near the top of page 3:

"Iran has not responded to the Agencyâ(TM)s initial questions on Parchin and the foreign expert; Iran has not provided the agency with access to the location within the Parchin site to which the Agency has requested access; and Iran has been conducting activities at that location that will significantly hamper the Agencyâ(TM)s ability to conduct effective verification."

"but EVERY TIME Iran has compromised, the USA and Israel create another hoop for them to jump through."

Again, it's nothing to do with the US and Israel, the US's

With all due respect, your information is either out of date, or in place, completely and utterly wrong.

"As a signatory to the NNPT, Iran has every right to develop nuclear power, enrich uranium and have access the full nuclear fuel cycle."

It has the right to obtain peaceful nuclear technology, whilst it is also fulfilling it's obligations under the NPT. The problem is, as it's not currently fulfilling it's obligations under the NPT, it also does not have the right to obtain peaceful nuclear technology via NPT supported mechanisms.

"Israel and the USA are attempting to deny this capability to Iran because they *might* build a nuclear weapon."

It's not about might, it's about the fact that as an NPT signatory to gain the benefits of NPT mechanisms for transfer of peaceful nuclear technology you have to fulfil certain obligations. Iran is currently in breach of those obligations and it's nothing to do with what the US or Israel thinks as the IAEA is a multinational organisation staffed by as many of US/Israel's foes as it is their allies. If you do not believe me that it is the IAEA condemning Iran for not fulfilling it's obligations and simply US/Israeli say-so, then see here, read it directly from the horse's mouth:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/iaeairan/index.shtml

Or specifically the most recent report here, asking Iran to fulfil it's obligations:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-50.pdf

"National Intelligence assessments concluded that Iran had abandoned its weapons program 10+ years ago."

This is true, but only a half-truth. You've missed the fact that the IAEA believes there is some evidence the programme may have restarted, and it is up to Iran to fulfil it's obligations to prove otherwise if it wants to be in compliance with the NPT. So sure they did abandon it, but that doesn't mean they didn't start it again.

"Iran has bent over backwards to accommodate UN (i.e. USA) demands for access to its facilities"

No it hasn't, you've got a number of things wrong here:

1) Iran hasn't bent over backwards to accomodate the UN (IAEA), on the contrary, the IAEA has bent over backwards to accomodate Iran. Specifically, Iran barred a number of IAEA inspectors from it's site from countries it has a distaste for (including the US). A country is not meant to be able to pick and choose what inspectors it allows in as that defeat the object of impartial observations of a nuclear programme. Despite this the IAEA let it do it and got on with it's job anyway. If there is any bending over backwards, it's from the IAEA not Iran.

2) The UN isn't the USA, and the USA isn't the UN. I think you'll find there are a number of UN members, including Iran themselves who'd take offence to you determining that their UN votes are controlled by the USA.

3) There are a number of facilities and sections of facilities the IAEA has requested access to, but have had their request deny. This is one of the reasons the IAEA has determined Iran non-compliant. See the most recent report here for evidence of this complaint by the IAEA:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-37.pdf

Specifically, near the top of page 3:

"Iran has not responded to the Agencyâ(TM)s initial questions on Parchin and the foreign expert; Iran has not provided the agency with access to the location within the Parchin site to which the Agency has requested access; and Iran has been conducting activities at that location that will significantly hamper the Agencyâ(TM)s ability to conduct effective verification."

"but EVERY TIME Iran has compromised, the USA and Israel create another hoop for them to jump through."

Again, it's nothing to do with the US and Israel, the US's

America has been making weapons-grade nuclear material for somewhere near 70 years now so I am sure they know how to keep it safe and out of the hands of the bad guys.

we've given nuclear warheads and material to a country that uses state sponsored terrorism and has attacked united states warships in the past. it has not, nor will it ever sign the nuclear non proliferation treaty.
the only difference to recognize here is that at no point is the IAEA going to inspect any US facility.
every INFCIRC entered for the united states basically confirms that despite our running 'new war every four' policy, we get basically the same rubber-stamp report year after year. The same status is not enjoyed by Iran, whom if the US had their way would be tracking roentgens in the colon of every persian on earth.

If you read the TFA it links to a paper that discusses Thorium use in an accelerator driven reactor. I guess in a sense this is a breeder but the Thorium fuel cycle only requires Plutonium to achieve criticality. Don't see a need for it in this kind of sub-critical design.

Plutonium management really is a matter of political will, one can also argue that Thorium can be used to constrain Plutonium as this paper does (PDF).

A report EFDA in preparation for ITER here. It gives shot cycle times:

• Jet: 30 minutes
• DIII-D: 14 minutes
• ASDEX: Just under 30 minutes
• FTU: 20 minutes
• RFX: 10 minutes

It even discusses replacement schedule of some equipment for ITER, with only a few blanket modules replaced per year and a complete replacement only every 10 years, for example. The time between shots is referenced as 1600 seconds here due to the limitations it places on computing requirements (so repetition rate would be ~2000 seconds since the plasma shots will be up to 400 seconds).

The introduction in the full text of the paper here discusses how HiPER will be designed with a target of 10 Hz repetition rate for a 100 full power shot sequence.

The report here mentions how the Omega laser system is designed around a 30 minute repetition rate.

3 minutes for LHD

15 minutes for NSTX

2 minutes for MST

5-15 minutes for TFTR

20-30 per working day for JT-60

Even the ones I references as being kind of slow, NIF and Z-machine, are one shot per day, not weeks and months between shots.

The smaller projects I've worked on typically ran every 2-5 minutes when cycling during a normal day, limited by them typically using underpowered, but free (due to inheriting from previous experiment) cooling system. Their run campaigns were limited by staffing, as when the handful of people were busy analyzing data, no one was left to run the machine. Larger machines I've worked on had technicians and large teams to run 5+ shifts a week, and would run for at least a third of the year. Time not running was typically spent calibrating, repairing, upgrading diagnostics, and occasionally power supplies, most of which are components a production reactor would not have. Larger machines had a much more diverse diagnostic suite, so were much harder to organize and get things ready for a full run campaign, for reasons unrelated to plasma or neutron damage. The larger machines also could run into budget reasons running for a larger part of year due to staffing (technicians assigned to more than one thing) and power costs.

Neutron damage, failures due to plasma damage, and over all maintenance costs and cycling are a MAJOR issue that fusion research needs to address before becoming commercial. But that still doesn't mean your "hours, days, and even weeks" accurate for anything currently or in the near future.

Go ahead and check for yourself.

Blah, blah, blah, US, Israel, blah, blah, blah.

Look, I'm not particularly a fan of the US, but the evidence against Iran is now pretty damning that even the IAEA agrees there's a lot of evidence suggesting a military dimension to Iran's activities. See the IAEA report and get it directly from the horses mouth if you wish:

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2012/gov2012-23.pdf

Specifically:

"40. The Annex to the Director Generalâ(TM)s November 2011 report (GOV/2011/65) provided a detailed analysis of the information available to the Agency indicating that Iran has carried out activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device. This information, which comes from a wide
variety of independent sources, including from a number of Member States, from the Agencyâ(TM)s own efforts and from information provided by Iran itself, is assessed by the Agency to be, overall, credible. The information indicates that, prior to the end of 2003 the activities took place under a structured programme; that some continued after 2003; and that some may still be ongoing."

Perhaps the reason Israel has been making this claim for 20 years is because it's actually true? Making a bomb isn't exactly a quick process so the argument that accusations have been going on for 20 years doesn't in any way discredit the suggestion. Note also that the 20 years figure doesn't mean they were putting anywhere near the resources into it that they may have in recent years - a poorly funded, poorly staffed nuclear project wont get anywhere even in 10 years. Iran also has space militarisation and ballistic missile ambitions too, their scientists can only be spread so thin - even America has trouble resourcing a lot of space missions now despite having far more well and far more clever people at their disposal.

"Iranians aren't stupid or uneducated or technologically backward. Why would it take them more than a few years to replicate a relatively simple piece of technology?"

Well, ignoring the fact that it's not actually that simple, especially when you recognise that if they are trying to do so, they're trying to do so on an independent level - i.e. by enriching their own nuclear materials, there are other reasons why it may take so long:

- Nations like Israel have been killing key members of their nuclear programme

- A number of embargos make it difficult for them to get the components they need

- If you haven't noticed, their systems have been crippled a number of times by cyber attacks

It's only a simple process if you have all the equipment you need, don't suffer any supply chain issues, your scientists with key knowledge can work on the project without having their lives cut short, you can afford it, and most importantly, you've done it before. You cite the original bombs as examples, but why do you think the British headed to America to embark upon the project over there with them? It's a lot easier to do in mainland America than it is Britain which was at the time being bombarded day in and day out and was riddled with spies and sabboteurs.

"The most plausible explanation to my mind is that they are not working on building one. "

That's great, but thankfully we can ignore your mind and listen to folks who actually know what they're on about, like the IAEA.

"None of this makes much sense, unless Iran is not working on building a bomb."

On the contrary, it all makes sense if Iran has been working on a military nuclear programme. What doesn't make sense if Iran is not working on a bomb as you propose is why the Iranian's wont simply let inspectors visit the full range of sites they've requested to access, and allow them to view the full range of paperwork they've requested to view if you have nothing to hide? What, you think Iran has some magical nuclear technology that is so advanced they don't want the West to steal it with their clai

Cleverly, you linked to some all encompasing fact sheet... elsewhere on the site are the actual reports. Many, like this report details military dimensions to Iran nuclear program including evidence for Iranian development of nuclear payload for missiles.

Get your facts right. The following link points to the IAEA factsheet in Iran. No evidence of any weapons there http://ola.iaea.org/factSheets/CountryDetails.asp?country=IR

If you are implying that thorium cycle somehow solves the problem of spent fuels, think again.

The thing I invite you to ask yourself is this: "Who lied to you?" I live in Japan and speak Japanese passably (though the vocabulary related to nuclear disasters was not a forte of mine at the beginning of the incident). One of the biggest problems I've had with this whole thing is that the information presented in the west by reputable news outlets was *different* from the information being presented in Japan. What was all the more infuriating was that the lies uncovered by the western media were never told in Japan in the first place (as far as I could tell).

I kept listening to the TEPCO news conferences, and listening to the prime minister and then comparing it to what the western press was reporting. It was completely different. Then all of a sudden, the western press would say, "Oh, it's all wrong" and report what was originally reported in Japan. I'm really not sure if it was a translation problem, or what. The news conference would say, "The information we have is consistent with an intact reactor core, but there is a possibility that the core has melted down. We can not be sure at this time." The western press would say, "TEPCO reports that the core is intact". Then when the core was found to have melted down, the western press would change directions. This happened time after time after time.

The IAEA had a web page which detailed the timeline of the disaster from the beginning to the end. It matched my understanding of the information coming from TEPCO and the Japanese government exactly (and differed greatly from my understanding of the information coming from the western news agencies). Unfortunately, it no longer seems to exist on the link I had for it. I invite you to take a look for it on their web page if you want: http://www.iaea.org/

You may be thinking, "It doesn't matter who got it wrong, I can't trust those bastards." But it really does matter. If your primary information source is the western media, you may find that you are not getting the right picture and may be distrusting the wrong people.

Nuclear is great for keeping my computer running and keeping my house cool. Unfortunately, nuclear does nothing that will get me to work.

What about stuff that runs on electricity: trams, railway, subway, electric cars?
Also, given enough energy, we can make synthetic gasoline.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/2008/01/nuclear-synfuel-economy.html

How many new nuclear power plants have been licensed and built in the past 20 years?

88 new grid connections in the last 20 years, 73.3 GW total.
It is obvious that this build rate could very easily be at least 10 times higher.
http://pris.iaea.org/Public/WorldStatistics/OperationalByAge.aspx

I don't see how pp would be implicating that. And your imagination is seriously lacking. A majority of Americans at some point believed Saddam was behind 9/11, and in the military it was over 80%.

The claims about Iran aiding Al Qaedy aren't very successful.. On the other hand currently 71% of americans think Iran already has nuclear weapons (CNN nationwide poll, quality of sampling not known). While at the same time the NYTimes has stopped claiming that the west suspects Iran is working on a bomb, as a result of intelligence services speaking out loud enough. The claim has been quietly modified to "Iran might want to use their civilian program to help them to make a bomb later on".

The west doesn't suspect Iran is working on a bomb? For the tldr; version skip to section L.

50. While the Agency continues to verify the non-diversion of declared nuclear material at the nuclear facilities and LOFs declared by Iran under its Safeguards Agreement, as Iran is not providing the necessary cooperation, including by not implementing its Additional Protocol, the Agency is unable to provide credible assurance about the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran, and therefore to conclude that all nuclear material in Iran is in peaceful activities.

51. The Agency continues to have serious concerns regarding possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme, as explained in GOV/2011/65. Iran did not provide access to Parchin, as requested by the Agency during its two recent visits to Tehran, and no agreement was reached with Iran on a structured approach to resolving all outstanding issues in connection with Iran’s nuclear programme.

Eating coconuts or breadfruit from Bikini Island occasionally would be no cause for concern. Eating many over a long period of time without having taken remedial measures, however, might result in radiation doses higher than internationally agreed safety levels.

It was recommended that Bikini Island should not be permanently resettled under the present radiological conditions. This recommendation was based on the assumption that persons resettling on the island would consume a diet of entirely locally produced food. The radiological data support that if a diet of this type were permitted, it could lead to an annual effective dose of about 15 mSv. This level was judged to require intervention of some type for radiation protection purposes.

Sounds like it's fine for a little while. If you'll pay for the trip and convince my boss to let me go, I'll gladly feast in your honor.

"It's never been about nuclear weapons. Look at the wording of the official statements on both sides; the complaints against Iran are always taking issue with the fact that Iran is continuing "enrichment activities" and its "nuclear program". There has never been any mention of even "high enrichment" or a "nuclear weapons program" in official documents; the complaint is that Iran is enriching uranium at all, under a "nuclear energy program", however the wording "nuclear program" is used to allow ignorant people to unconsciously insert the word "weapons" in between by themselves, because that's what most people think of first when they hear "nuclear program" or even "nuclear". Wake up."

Why do you feel the need to outright lie?

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-65.pdf

Page 7, section G. Specifically:

43. The information indicates that Iran has carried out the following activities that are relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device:

- Efforts, some successful, to procure nuclear related and dual use equipment and materials by
military related individuals and entities (Annex, Sections C.1 and C.2);

- Efforts to develop undeclared pathways for the production of nuclear material (Annex,
Section C.3);

- The acquisition of nuclear weapons development information and documentation from a clandestine nuclear supply network (Annex, Section C.4); and

- Work on the development of an indigenous design of a nuclear weapon including the testing of
components (Annex, Sections C.5â"C.12).

It really couldn't be more clear could it? I don't think there's anything "unconscious" (I think you mean subconscious) about reading the clear as day use of the word weapons in the official IAEA reports direct from the source.

I think you need to check the facts before forming an opinion and then telling everyone else to wake up. The IAEA has on numerous occasions stated there have definitely in the past, and still possibly are military dimensions to Iran's nuclear program and that they can't confirm that there's an innocent explanation for their more recent discovery of evidence that points to a military dimension to Iran's nuclear programme because Iran wont let them confirm that it's all innocent.

Hell, there's not even any evidence to back up your rant about the situation with North Korea regarding Americans signing agreements then pulling back, so I can only assume that's all completely made up too. I can't find anything about the US building half a nuclear reactor on North Korean soil then giving up half way through. Source?

Even your theory about a nuclear power cartel is completely nonsensical, I mean really? this cartel is global in reach and has manage to magically bridge partisan divides in tying together Canada, China, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, South Korea, and the US? That's a pretty awesome cartel tying countries together that have such varied and often opposing political landscapes. Who runs the cartel? The Illuminati maybe? Why would countries with decades of nuclear export experience be scared of a country that isn't providing tried and tested reactors? who wants a dodgy untested Iranian reactor on their soil?

Still, I'm sorry that the facts don't match up with your made up conspiracy theory. Perhaps you'd like to retire from the conspiracy theory market and consider writing thriller novels? Tom Clancy is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Christ it's becoming more and more obvious Slashdot is one of the worst sites on the net for political discussion, +5 interesting for a completely made up conspiracy theory with some pretty wild and nonsensical arguments, backed up by not the slightest shred of evidence? really?

There are pious canons that Green Warriors take as unquestionable dogma, in regard to Nuclear Energy. Firstly, nuclear opponents state that nuclear energy is “... more expensive than conventional or alternative power sources...” Fortunately, in The Age, 28/04/2005, there appears an article by Lesley KEMENY containing favourable quantitative costings of nuclear power versus other sources – including waste disposal & decommissioning, see http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Going-nuclear-its-the-new-green/2005/04/27/1114462096097.html The companion opinion article on 28/04/05, by Peter GARRETT, was starkly revealed as only that - unjustified opinion. Secondly it is asserted that there are no adequate technologies “... in place to safely quarantine radioactive waste ...” This is abysmal luddite ignorance, and for better information, one should now consult the ABC news article on-line at: http://www.abc.net.au/ news/newsitems/200504/sl 346616.htm Also see: http://velocity.ansto.gov.au/velocity/ans0008/article_03.asp. These internet articles report on 25-year old Australian SYNROC technology, invented by Ted RINGWOOD, which more than matches any safety requirement for disposing nuclear waste. This technology can store the entire world’s current annual nuclear waste in a small 20metre cube, unharvestable by terrorists, buried underneath any stable Australian geology, (a mere nothing) for eons. A portable or permanent SYNROC plant set beside every reactor can immobiise its waste into a deep rock-steady mass, avoiding the necessity to transport any unstable waste overland or water. Thirdly, there is raised the spectre of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. These were mainly political disasters, not so much as technical ones. The Luddites of this world should remember that - “The cure for BAD technology is not NO technology, but BETTER technology”. No one is going back to living in caves as some kind of halcyon rebirth! Even greenies need electricity and computers and transport to distribute their views. Yes, recyclable energy is environmentally attractive, but it can’t be developed quickly enough to cure the crises which confront our energy hungry populations. Only nuclear technology can get there in time, and one better nuclear technology is the High Temperature Gas Reactor (HTGR), which can be explored at: http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/htgr/topics/article 04.html This reactor is intrinsically stable, and cannot “go critical” - any loss of moderator gas just causes the nuclear fires to snuff out like a candle. Fourthly, in terms of “the risk of terrorists attacking reactors”, such reactors can be buried deep underground, to minimise nuclear leakage from any militant attack. Though one notes that every kind of above ground power plant is equally vulnerable to attack, it is granted that radio-active isotopes need special protection against dispersal. Fifthly, other letter writers have expressed concern about “Nuclear Mining” – a separate topic to nuclear energy to be sure – but not so distant that it can’t be solved in one further paragraph. The concern is about Australia shipping Uranium ore to countries with poor supervisory & management schemes which might allow U238 to be diverted into a weapons program. Solution? Don’t ship the U238, refined or not, but ship the energy it represents. We know Northern Australia has abundant ore bodies of Uranium and Aluminium. So build the nuclear reactor(s) close to the Uranium ore deposits (reduced transit risks), bring the Aluminium bauxite to the reactor (which outputs abundant electricity), and smelt the bauxite into pure Alumium metal, now b

They hav 75% load because they're down so often.

Why?

Rivers too low and water in the river too hot to cool the reactor. Boom tomorrow.

And, please, whilst you're whining about "where's the proof!!!" where's yours?

PS Nuclear gets around 60%, the 90%+ figures are for "when running". But it's so often out for maintenance (or error, see above) that you don't get to run them more than about 2/3 the time.

Google "DAWES" report.

the stas from the IAEA seem rather different.....sorry to seem so fastidious, but sources?

For the record: I DID google DAWES report....but apart from something having to do with german reparations after the war, i did noty find anything. Link next time, will ya?

"Also keep in mind that civilian generation of nuclear power is within their rights under the IAEA?"

I assume you mean the NPT, but either way, no it's not, not if they can't adhere to their nuclear inspection obligations, which they are not doing, hence, they are not within their rights.

Last November the IAEA also issued a public statement citing concern that Iran may well have continued it's nuclear weapons programme after 2003, so using the IAEA to imply Iran is fulfilling it's obligations is a little naive to say the least. See here and note specifically the offer from the IAEA to send an inspection team to clarify that this is not the case, to which Iran responded with nothing but a load of the usual rhetoric about Western imperialism:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/statements/2011/amsp2011n030.html#iran

Of course, Iran would be within it's rights to pull out of the NPT, but then it can no longer use the shield of claiming to be an NPT member in it's defence if a country attacks it's nuclear programme without a prior UNSC resolution. That shield is important to it, because it'd be a pretty bad precedent if an NPT member's well publicised nuclear programme was attacked as it would bring the whole worth of the NPT into question if NPT procedures and rules weren't being followed. This is why the likes of the US and Europe have been doing things via the IAEA, to ensure procedures are properly followed prior to any potential attack because it is at this point, that if an attack is legally justified, that Iran would officially have been seen to have failed in it's obligations. Currently things are heading precisely this way, because Iran isn't doing anything to demonstrate it's fulfilling it's obligation, hence the recent IAEA condemnation of that fact.

If Iran is attacked it only has itself to blame, it's had plenty of opportunity to fulfil it's obligations under the NPT but has chosen not to. Other NPT signatories don't seem to have a problem fulfilling their obligations without any drama, including those who the US would also love to bomb.

If you're going to quote the IAEA as some way to absolve Iran of blame over the issue, at least get your facts straight. Right now the IAEA most certainly doesn't believe Iran is fulfilling it's obligations, and most certainly does suspect Iran has continued a nuclear weapons programme on from 2003.

Sure the GP can't out and out prove they have a nuclear weapons programme, just like you can't personally prove that Elvis is really dead, but sometimes we just have to go on the balance of evidence, and trust objective multi-national organisations like the IAEA, and on the weight of the evidence, it seems likely that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons to at least some degree - whether it's to the degree where they'll have a bomb within a year or two as some of the fear mongers suggest is more in question of course, but there's a decent degree of likelihood that they're at least heading down that path. Only time will clarify things further though.

... and that's not the only one. Here's another example of thieves merrily plasma torching their way through radiation warning signs and tungsten / lead shielding to get a source to sell to the disreputable scrap metal industry. Did I mention the GIANT RADIATION WARNING SIGNS?

There are many such noted incidents, but there are many that go unnoticed. A worker at a French nuclear plant bought a watch using steel pins mixed with a Co-60 source one of these idiots stole, and this was only found when he wore it to work where radiation monitoring is required. No one knows who was exposed or killed earlier in the supply chain.

As far as the poster blaming Brazil below, this happens here in the good ol' USA as well.

And this will keep happening, as long as laws are not enforced and thieves continue to have such a willing market in disreputable scrap metal dealers

More than the guilty parties have been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in every single one of these incidents. Scrap metal thieves literally kill people.

... and that's not the only one. Here's another example of thieves merrily plasma torching their way through radiation warning signs and tungsten / lead shielding to get a source to sell to the disreputable scrap metal industry. Did I mention the GIANT RADIATION WARNING SIGNS?

There are many such noted incidents, but there are many that go unnoticed. A worker at a French nuclear plant bought a watch using steel pins mixed with a Co-60 source one of these idiots stole, and this was only found when he wore it to work where radiation monitoring is required. No one knows who was exposed or killed earlier in the supply chain.

As far as the poster blaming Brazil below, this happens here in the good ol' USA as well.

And this will keep happening, as long as laws are not enforced and thieves continue to have such a willing market in disreputable scrap metal dealers

More than the guilty parties have been exposed to dangerous levels of radiation in every single one of these incidents. Scrap metal thieves literally kill people.

The recent IAEA reports have nothing new on Iran, except speculations based on "intelligence" that was allegedly shown to them by "a single member state". The "single member state" is, of course, the same state that thinks sending its secretaries of state to lie in the UN about WMD development is sound policy.

All issues regarding the Iran nuclear program, for which some intelligence is available and about which IAEA is bitching, predate 2003 by at least a year or two. I assume you can easily recall the flow of events prior to 2003 that lead to Iran's reduced cooperation with IAEA. The rest is just bedtime stories without a shred of evidence available for inspection.

Since everyone who is in position of influence at the IAEA has a major financial or other (education, employment, cooperation that involves funding of some activity, etc.) connection to the said "single member" (you can easily verify this for yourself here: http://iaea.org/About/leadership.html), it is very hard to be convinced that these are not doctored.

I'm just going on the IAEA's definition of passive safety:

(1) no moving working fluid
(2) no moving mechanical part
(3) no signal inputs of 'intelligence'
(4) no external power input or forces

The AP1000 design implements requirements 3 & 4, but not 1 (requires cooling water) or 2 (uses explosive "squib" valves). The system requires no external inputs of control or power to maintain cooling in the event of a main coolant system failure, but the operation of the backup cooling system is automated -- or perhaps it would be better say "automatic".

That's the first I've seen anyone characterize gravity as automation.

I am no more defining "gravity" as automation than I would define "electricity" as automation.. It is you who are defining "passive" as "using gravity in the design".

See my other post re: the IAEA's definition of "passive safety", which is the one I'm going with. Using the IAEA's terminology, the AP1000 uses "passive components", but the system as a whole does not qualify as "passively safe"; the AP1000 is a "category D" design, which according to the IAEA is in the "intermediary zone between active and passive where the execution of the safety function is made through passive methods..." [ref IAEA-TECODC-626 Appendix A, pp 15-18]

You've failed to include all of the reactors that were once in operation but have been shut down

Interestingly the IAEA website reckons there are only 138 of those in the entire world, which seems surprisingly small at first but is probably correct: http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.reasdct.htm. Widespread nuclear power is a relatively recent thing.

So of a total of something over 400 reactors we've only had about 4 melt down (Chernobyl and 3 of the six at Fukushima), so roughly 1%. The average age of the world's nuclear plants is 25 years. So per-nuclear-plant, per-century of operation, 4% melt down, and the odds are 1 in 25 of having a meltdown of major consequence at whatever nuclear plant you live closest to within your or your children's lifetimes.

Yup, when you do the math there's just nothing to be too worried about.

Except that Moheeheeko is incorrect. There WAS significant damage done by the earthquake.

The International Atomic Energy Agency seems to disagree with your personal opinion.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/missionsummary010611.pdf

"Although all off-site power was lost when the earthquake occurred, the automatic systems at TEPCO`s Fukushima Dai-ichi successfully inserted all the control rods into its three operational reactors upon detection of the earthquake, and all available emergency diesel generator power systems were in operation, as designed."

counting in the horror that was Chernobyl (which still only managed to kill ~4000 people total)

4000? Proof? There are approximately 50-100 people that have died due to Chernobyl. Most as a result of direct exposure to the reactor soon after it had its incident.

It is impossible to assess reliably, with any
precision, numbers of fatal cancers caused
by radiation exposure due to Chernobyl
accident. ... This might eventually represent
up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal
cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population.
[600,000 liquidators]

This means 4% increase in cancer rates. Instead of 100, you have 104. Actual rate is unknown as there is no evidence that cancer rate in moderately exposed population is different from unexposed population, this is only conjecture based on LNT. And LNT has been proven to be wrong over and over again, yet that hasn't stopped it being used. The following is the only exception so far,

However, among the more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases diagnosed in 1992â"2002
in persons who were children or adolescents at the time of the accident, fifteen
deaths related to the progression of the disease had been documented by 2002.

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

Not so much...It's a bit in between both of your extremes...

However deaths appear to be limited to about 1,000 or less (quite possibly under 100) except children getting thyroid cancer.

Large areas of the land are livable again with basically double normal background radiation (comparable to living in a city with a lot of stone buildings like New York).

Substantial areas are still (and will be for about 600 years) uninhabitable.

From here...

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf

Quotes:
This report, covering environmental radiation, human health and socio-economic
aspects, is the most comprehensive evaluation of the accidentâ(TM)s consequences to date.
About 100 recognized experts from many countries, including Belarus, Russia and
Ukraine, have contributed. It represents a consensus view of the eight organizations of
the UN family according to their competences and of the three affected countries.

By 2002, more than 4000 thyroid cancer cases among people who were children at the time. (most likely that a large fraction of these thyroid cancers is attributable to radioiodine intake.)

the majority of the âcontaminatedâ(TM) territories are now safe for settlement and economic activity. However, in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and in certain limited areas some restrictions on land-use will need to be retained for decades to come.

With the exception of the on-site reactor personnel and the emergency workers who were present near the destroyed reactor during the time of the accident and
shortly afterwards, most of recovery operation workers and people living in the contaminated territories received relatively low whole-body radiation doses, comparable to background radiation levels accumulated over the 20 year period since the accident.

The high dose population was about 1000 people who recieved 2Gy to 20Gy- some died. (paraphrased)

More exhaustive details within.

Your link is one of the most irresponsible, shoddy pieces of "reporting" I've seen in a long time. I followed back their web of references until I finally found their source. The numbers for coal cited by their source are 0.04-0.14 or 0.13-0.23 occupational deaths per TWh for coal, and 0.01-1.23, 0.65, or 0.62 public fatalities per TWh for nuclear and 0.02-0.09, 0.04, or 0.02 occupational fatalities per kWh.

In short, their numbers cited are total BS.

Let's look at the rest of the graph that the author *didn't* want to talk about. First, public health costs (all numbers hereon are in milli-euros per kWh):

Coal: 0.05, 0.01-0.07, 0.01-0.64, 3-5, 4-13, 5-14, 10-50
Nuclear: 4.9, 0.003-0.009, 0.001-0.005, 0.012, 2.4, 2.4

From that, we can see that coal is likely worse than nuclear for public health, but different researchers can't even come *close* to agreeing on the risk. It's likely that the nuclear disparity is dependent on whether or not you include accidents or just "business as usual" operation.

Now, occupational health costs:

Coal: 0.08, 1-2
Nuclear: 0.08-0.09, 0.15, 0.14

Possibly the same, possibly safer to work in a nuclear power plant than a coal mine. And now, environmental costs (I have no idea how they quantify these):

Coal: 0.005, 0.013-0.015, 0-0.1, 0.1, 0.2-0.8, 0.02, 0.5-2
Nuclear: 0-0.002

And lastly, global warming (the one case that nuclear wins hands-down):

Coal: 0.04, 10-18, 15, 10-50
Nuclear: 0.0012, 0.0012

But, of course, this is A Total Red Herring, because virtually nobody is proposing to replace nuclear power plants with coal power plants. The general counterproposal is to use some combination of wind, solar (with or without thermal storage), geothermal, dam uprating for peaking, pumped hydro storage, NG peaking, and long-distance transmission for load averaging.

The most recent IAEA update (http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html) seems to be from 2011-06-02.

Hahahah! That was actually funny..

Yes, Soviet Union was really open about Chernobyl! HAHAHA!

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/tsunamiupdate01.html
http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp-com/release/11090809-e.html

Yes, they are really secretive about it. HAHAHA! Seriously, your post is funny.