Slashdot Mirror

Not exactly. Reprocessing to extract Plutonium and unburnt fissile Uranium is absolutely a civilian thing, and still uses nasty nitric acid, although much of the waste at Hanford is from earlier processing that was a lot less efficient. France and Japan have done a lot of civilian reprocessing in recent times.

Most (in excess of ninety percent!) of the U-235 fuel in modern commercial light water reactors is not burnt, due to the accumulation of "neutron poison" reaction products that kill the reactions. A bit like alcohol killing/inhibiting the yeast in fermented products, requiring distillation to obtain higher alcohol concentrations.

There are approaches to getting better fuel economy, but most of these involve higher enrichment, fast spectrum reactors that have a lot of serious engineering problems, or reactor designs that are completely untested and can't address carbon emission concerns in the near term.

https://www.hanford.gov/page.c...
https://inis.iaea.org/collecti...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://www.nuclear-power.net/...

No, you are incredibly amazingly almost stupidly wrong. The tight tolerances in concrete is so that it withstands radiation embrittlement that destroys mixes and even the steel reinforcement. This is especially so the containment dome, and can't be ignored for any nuclear power plants of any design. Even a pebble bed reactor requires a containment dome. Check these two papers here on concrete and here on the steel. If you are going to advocate construction of new nuclear power plants you should at least understand the problems faced during construction of old ones. That's a baseline for comparisons, and the larger economic arguments are demonstrated by higher startup costs and higher operating costs than every other alternative.

Which is why you don't want high pressure in a reactor. With low pressure designs (like MSRs), you don't have all that concrete, just steel and lead and far less of it because you contain a much smaller area. The reason containment vessels are so big is because they have to contain a steam explosion. MSRs don't have that problem.

No, you are incredibly amazingly almost stupidly wrong. The tight tolerances in concrete is so that it withstands radiation embrittlement that destroys mixes and even the steel reinforcement. This is especially so the containment dome, and can't be ignored for any nuclear power plants of any design. Even a pebble bed reactor requires a containment dome. Check these two papers here on concrete and here on the steel. If you are going to advocate construction of new nuclear power plants you should at least understand the problems faced during construction of old ones. That's a baseline for comparisons, and the larger economic arguments are demonstrated by higher startup costs and higher operating costs than every other alternative.

I'm not even sure what your point about potassium is. Eating a banana does not increase your potassium 40 exposure. This is true whether you use the linear-no-threshold model or not.

As for Thorium cycle reactors, yes, I agree that it's wise to be somewhat skeptical of the technology until some of the details are a bit more developed. The old IAEA report gives some of the basics: https://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/... , and there are review papers here and there that give a somewhat more updated view: https://aip.scitation.org/doi/... , for example.

I think it's an interesting enough approach to solving long-term problems that I would like to see some engineering development work done on a prototype to show it's feasible, but I wouldn't want to commit to it without seeing some engineering. There is not a "then a miracle occurs" step, but as with most engineering, the devil is likely to be in the details, and we need to know the details.

In the short term, though, my approach would be to start reprocessing spent reactor fuel. The proliferation concerns can be addressed, and it's simply silly to warehouse it in swimming pools; that's not reasonable by any possible metric.

Don't get me wrong - I appreciate that nuclear power is still one of the safest options per unit power, and a dramatically better alternative than fossil fuels. And you're right about hydro power; dams don't have the best safety records (particularly in some countries) and have all their risk loaded up front with immediate deaths & damages. But I also think it's wrong to focus on immediate deaths as the only important metric, and to not overlook the significant long-term issues from a major nuclear accident (e.g. IEAE report on Chernobyl, Kyshtym & Windscale's deaths, or even Fukushima's estimated 1600 people dying as a result of "evacuation stress"). Comparatively, grid-scale solar entails very little construction risk (usually ground-level), insignificant operational risks per MWh, and the occupational hazards of mining for PV materials have to be less than the corresponding construction risks for a nuclear plant, mining & concentrating fuel etc.

Plus the cost of nuclear accidents is still very much a concern, and is the primary reason for the currently heavy regulatory oversight. Plant construction is also still very expensive. That's generally why I advocate for solar wherever it makes geographic sense, while nuclear is the best choice when cheaper options aren't suitable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.world-nuclear-news....
https://aris.iaea.org/PDF/BRES...

I just got these links from looking around. TBH the most economical reactors right now are Generation III reactors like the AP1000. Because the price of uranium is still cheap. The fast reactors will become important once we want to use the spent fuel from Generation II/III reactors to generate more power or to better burn up available uranium fuel.

Current stockpiles of pu239 is 70,000 tons, current stockpiles of u235 is 700,000 plus tons, current stockpiles of radioactive mine tailings is also in megatons. Can you point to any Nuclear Industry experts who specialize in dealing with these issues?

That isn't an issue that's fuel, and thousand is not mega it's kilo. Do you want to throw in mine tailings for less energy dense fuels ? Or do you wish to just keep on embarrassing yourself here ?

No. The peer reviewed science from over 10 universities around the world beg to differ [stormsmith.nl]

Peer reviewed does not mean correct. The IAEA disagrees https://inis.iaea.org/collecti...

Speaking of context, lets go back to the original context of what I said: This is mainly because water cooled reactors are less than one percent efficient wrt the energy potential in the fuel. Specifically I am referring to burnup rate of the nuclear fuel [wikipedia.org] in the once through cycle

No you shouldn't talk about things you don't understand, that was the thermodynamic efficiency of the power plant. I figured you wouldn't recognize it for what it is and you didn't disappoint.

You're lumping in nuclear with all the rest to mask it's actual availability factor, which is more like 98%. Far better than wind.

Unsourced numbers are unsourced.

Try the real numbers. Availability of reactors in the US has ranged from 91.8% to 92.4% for the last three years, and that's extraordinarily high. Of the 441 reactors in the world, besides the United States, only Romania managed a greater than 90% availability for all three years, and Romania has just 2 reactors. Finland and Hungary managed greater than 90% for two of the last three years, by the slimmest of margins. The vast majority of reactors in the world are less than 90% available, and dozens of reactors around the world average less than 80% per year. One country in the entire world managed an average availability of over 98% in 2017, and that was Slovenia, which has exactly 1 reactor.

Nuclear availability factor for 1 year can be 98%, but for a 3 year period, it is basically never that high. The world's fleet of reactors is designed for refueling intervals of 12, 18, or 24 months. It takes an average of 35 days to refuel a current reactor in the United States. 91.8% availability is best case for annual refueling. 96% availability is best case for biannual refueling. Basically no single reactor can operate three years without refueling, so for any individual commercial reactor, 98% availability over a 3 year period is impossible.

Several studies have been released on this subject.

The IAEA, the Russian Federation has also produced a report, with the effects on males and the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has also produced a report.

The question being What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?

One analysis revealed that in the study group, the number of follicles was lower than that in the control group. The decreased number of follicles in pups exposed to mobile phone microwaves suggest that intrauterine exposure has toxic effects on ovaries.

The general findings suggest that emissions from wi-fi routers and the X-ray scanners used before boarding have enough energy in them to damage the mitachondrial DNA within the unfertilized eggs carried in girls. Energetic emissions absorbed into the body damages reproductive cells in both sexes which causes transgenic diseases that can manifest in the next generation.

Damage to mitochondrial DNA in the eggs of girls, who are born with their entire inventory of eggs, occurs as low as 10 Gy according to some of the papers. Considering that any damage done to mitachondrial DNA will be passed down to *all* subsequent human generations as an increased prevalence of many kinds of inherited diseases, accumulating the more we are exposed to it, it shouldn't be too difficult to take a pragmatic view of this issue and decide what is really important to us.

Being pragmatic about what that means, wifi affects children more because they have a lower body mass than adults, that they need to keep their distance from wifi because they have less water, muscle and bone to shield their reproductive system, that schools should be cabled with fibre optic and ethernet instead of trying to scrimp installation costs with wi-fi. They're not difficult problems to solve by making simple construction and infrastructure decisions.

The thing we have to remember is we cook food with this wavelength all that differs is the wattage and time it takes to do the cooking. Yikes!

Aren't you the guy that wants to ban wifi routers because they damage dna? I do not have to take your crazy nonsense seriously.

No need to. Here is an IAEA report supporting my position. What's this? Hey it looks like the Russian Federation has also produced a report , with the effects on males. One moment, looks like the American Association of Physicists in Medicine has also produced a report, I must have forgot to mention that in my original post.

As opposed to nonsense there seems to be growing consensus on this matter. You should educate yourself instead of relying on ideological rhetoric because it shows how little you know about nuclear power if you don't know about wifi.

Given the realities of climate change it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.

To demonstrate how desperately wrong you are, see if you can answer this question:

What is the safe level of microwave irradiation for the ovarian follicles during the first 100 days development of the embryo?

Since you can't answer any of the points I've raised, lets agree that you are wrong and you don't know what you are talking about so that you don't humiliate yourself any further.

Your Nuclear Ideology is immoral.

You mentioned wifi routers hurting dna. I was not attacking a strawman argument because I was attacking the exact argument you made.

You're attacking AN argument I made, you're ignoring the rest of it, which is how dogmatically ignorant your nuclear advocacy is. I think you thought that if you attack this one part of my argument you dismiss the entire argument.

Case in point of how ignorant, the IAEA itself produced one of the reports supporting my point, since you will require a citation to a paper you won't read. I'll point out that 2.4 Ghz is the same microwave spectrum that wi-fi routers use.

It shows how poorly prepared you are to make any arguments for unclear power because it demonstrates how poorly informed you are.

And of course if we do nothing about climate change millions will die. I want to stop that from happening. According to the world's leading scientists. nuclear power is the only viable path forward on climate change.

You're not even equipped to make an argument about the case for nuclear power, you have to use someone else's argument. I can argue your side of the argument better than you can.

The puff piece you referred me to has so many holes in it's reasoning it's like reading a slashdot post from a nuclear advocate posted 10 years ago, propagating the nuclear ideology again. They are top scientists in climate change, show me their peer reviewed work in Nuclear power systems.

Repeatedly, their arguments have been covered well before you ever posted here, let me guess, about 18 months, maybe two years ago? The same old problems that exist for nuclear power still exist and still haven't been resolved. Here is a few to start with:

• Despite decades of assurances from the nuclear industry that spent fuel containment issues would be solved, they haven't.
• We know a decommissioned Nuclear reactor has too cool for at least a decade and costs billions to demolish offsetting trillions of dollars of expenditure to future generations.
• You can't even design a nuclear reactor that has more than 40 years of safe service life because of the way neutron bombardment makes the pressure vessel of the reactor core containing the fuel brittle and prone to failure.
• Every form of uranium extraction is becoming more energy intensive to support the current "once through" fuel cycle
• The only viable alternative nuclear technology was canned due to oil and coal industry lobbying.

and it goes on and on and on. Every time, guys like you answer with some sort of SyFy reactor technology that has *all the answers*. Any time you're ready to present some fresh argument that hasn't been heard before, please do so. As usual you are unable to answer these points, you'll call them bullshit because you are willfully ignorant.

So yes it is immoral to oppose nuclear power.

That's what you believe. You believe it because you project your idealism about nuclear power onto reality. You're an idealist and your nuclear advocacy is an ideology based in an ignorance of the facts. I know this because once you examine the facts and become educated about the Nuclear Industry you see how much effort it puts into avoiding responsibility whilst relying on the ignorance of people like you to defend it. You're one of their "useful idiots".

All you are interested in doing is push your idealism because you are arrogant enough to think you know better, you don't. Since the only thing you have left to argue with is rhetoric, you've decided to attempt to delude yourself that you are fighting a moral fight by attempting to box people into that argument. Typically, you will continue to falsify your reality to maintain your ideology when co

Not really:

https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/Worl...

The nuclear parts of the plant itself survived both the earthquake and tsunami just fine even though both events were well beyond the plant's design specifications.

The failure was loss of power to run the plant's cooling systems. Basically, the tsunami swamped the backup power generators and contaminated the diesel fuel reserves for the generators. The destruction of the surrounding roads prevented new generators and fuel from being brought in in a timely manner. And when they eventually did arrive, workers discovered the power couplings for the trucks were different from the ones the plant used, and they had to gerry-rig a connector. All of this took critical time which could've mitigated the severity of the accident. This wasn't an explosion like Chernobyl, it was a gradual event as the cooling water slowly evaporated allowing the fuel rods to melt.

A single diesel generator situated on higher ground with an independent fuel source could've prevented the entire accident. Instead, in stereotypical Japanese fashion, they placed all the generators in a neat row right next to each other in the basement, where the tsunami swamped all of them simultaneously. See, the thing about redundant backup systems (e.g. multiple generators in case some do not function) is that they have to be different to be redundant. If they're the same model, in the same location, using the same fuel source, then any single event which affects one generator will affect all the generators, defeating their redundancy. In fact the two newer reactors at Fukushima on higher ground were just fine because their generators and fuel supply worked as intended. They just didn't have a really long extension cord to reach from those generators to the problem reactors. Basically the failure at Fukushima was the same as when you store your backup drive next to your computer (although the consequences were much more severe). If your house burns down or you're burglarized, both your computer's main drive and your backup drive will be lost. Because you're storing both in the same location, the redundancy of a second copy is defeated by any event which affects that entire location.

Fukushima wasn't a failure of nuclear power. It was a failure of backup (non)redundancy which had nuclear consequences. Basically, because of unwarranted paranoia about nuclear power, everyone concentrated on going over the nuclear parts of the plant with a fine-toothed comb to make sure it was safe. As a result, the non-nuclear backup systems didn't get enough scrutiny, and that's what failed.

It's like airliner safety. Air travel is already far safer than other modes of transport. But because any airplane crash gets disproportionate news coverage, we spend billions of dollars trying to reduce the couple hundred airliner deaths per year even further. Meanwhile the tens of thousands of people dying each year in car accidents gets very little attention. Even including the estimated future cancer deaths from Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power is still the safest power source we've invented (yes, safer than wind and solar based on both on deaths and lost man-days per unit of electricity generated).

So far, you haven't provided any evidence whatsoever, only made a bunch of unfounded claims, so there's nothing to refute.

You mean like you made unfounded claims? How you provided no evidence? Is it that hard to click on the link I gave and then click on the results?

https://www.iaea.org/sites/def...
https://www.fool.com/investing...

Let me guess, because the data comes from the International Atomic Energy Agency and World Nuclear Association it cannot be trusted? I tried to find similar data from someone that might be more neutral on the topic. Why could that be? Perhaps because wind and solar aren't that safe.

Also, you didn't answer my question before. It should be easy enough to find. What is the price of solar power at midnight in Michigan? In January? I found the price for nuclear, about 16 cents per kilowatt hour.
https://www.eia.gov/state/rank...

Meanwhile, Russia is building 7 reactors right now: https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/Worl... , and is collaborating with China. Russian nuclear export agency is also building reactors in Bangladesh and Thailand.

Maybe because Russia doesn't care that nuclear power isn't cheap, isn't clean and isn't safe (see the parent). For a dictator such as Putin, however, it is important to be able to brag about building numerous nuclear reactors. But millions of solar panels (either thermal or photo voltaic) on private homes are not so sexy, even if they are cheaper, cleaner and safer.

Yep, US is way behind in nuclear technology, and it's entirely self-inflicted.

Nuclear is the past, get over it.

Meanwhile, Russia is building 7 reactors right now: https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/Worl... , and is collaborating with China. Russian nuclear export agency is also building reactors in Bangladesh and Thailand.

Oh, but it's not all. Russia has the world's only power-generating fast-neutron reactor (BN-800) and is preparing to build the second generation (BN-1200) of this reactor type. All the while pursuing the revolutionary project of lead-cooled reactor (i.e. reactor cooled with molten lead as coolant) that will allow to achieve almost 100% closed loop within the territory of a power plant, including fuel reprocessing.

Yep, US is way behind in nuclear technology, and it's entirely self-inflicted.

That's like saying the coal mine fire in Centralia is going to grow until it kills everything in the northern hemisphere.

Are you serious, a strawman argument. It's not even a very good one - at least put some effort into it.

This was a quantitative claim you made, not merely a qualitative one. A large plutonium fire would be very bad, yes. I never disputed that.

See, here, this is where you could of backed away, reconsidered your argument with humility and retained your dignity. As simple as saying, oh yeah, maybe in light of this new information storing this stuff on site is a bad idea and I understand now why geologically sound spent fuel containment is a requirement for improving nuclear safety. Thanks for not excoriating me too much MrKaos.

But it turns out there is a lot of "very bad" stuff that happens all the time (including stuff connected to nuclear power, fossil fuel power, and damn near every other major industrial thing we do) that doesn't escalate to an "extinction level event for the northern hemisphere".

However none of them are 1500 spent fuel rods, in cooling facility with failing foundations next to a facility with another 6000 spent fuel rods. Nor have they been the focus of an urgent effort to remove the risk because anyone with a brain and knowledge can recognize the risk. Fortunately the people who decided to act on it had a much better information set than you do.

It would be like you stepping out in front of a fast moving bus on an expressway and then wondering if the kinetic energy in the bus is sufficient to kill you. Chernobyl pumped out roughly 5 tons of material to irradiate 3500sqKms. Are you able to challenge your idealology and conceptualize what burning roughly 850 tons of plutonium in the open air would do over the course of weeks or months that it burned? Inevitably it would spread to the other 6000 fuel rods as they also burned at 3000+ degrees C spreading plutonium oxide and chloride in the smoke for months into the atmosphere all over the northeren hemisphere via the jetstream.

You can't compare it to anything else because there is nothing else to compare it to.

You're just making shit up, thus confirming my original and overarching point about most vocal anti-nuke people being hysterical morons (which does not then imply that the pro-nuke people or the people who designed many of the operational plants in the world today are geniuses.)

Here we go with the predictable ad-hom attacks everytime your idealism is shattered, poor shaney wanyney needs comforting. Here is more from the person who describes the international community that created the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale as a blend of supefyingly dull simpletons, hysterical dolts and Machiavellian assholes .

You admitted "I didn't know what I was talking about" then suggested I'm autistic because you didn't have enough knowledge to understand a joke about tritium.

You may think your "arguments" are new however they are the same rhetoric of the previous generations who are politically attached to this argument with the same old re-hashed dogmatic skepticism that demonstrates your inadequate knowledge. Those "arguments" are only new to you so since you are unable to come up with something original, why don't you try inquiry so that we can have an intelligent discussion?

You said: Also, there's some common sense shit like designing reactors and sites that can store all of their waste on-site that no one seems to be talking about, but

That's like saying the coal mine fire in Centralia is going to grow until it kills everything in the northern hemisphere.

Are you serious, a strawman argument. It's not even a very good one - at least put some effort into it.

This was a quantitative claim you made, not merely a qualitative one. A large plutonium fire would be very bad, yes. I never disputed that.

See, here, this is where you could of backed away, reconsidered your argument with humility and retained your dignity. As simple as saying, oh yeah, maybe in light of this new information storing this stuff on site is a bad idea and I understand now why geologically sound spent fuel containment is a requirement for improving nuclear safety. Thanks for not excoriating me too much MrKaos.

But it turns out there is a lot of "very bad" stuff that happens all the time (including stuff connected to nuclear power, fossil fuel power, and damn near every other major industrial thing we do) that doesn't escalate to an "extinction level event for the northern hemisphere".

However none of them are 1500 spent fuel rods, in cooling facility with failing foundations next to a facility with another 6000 spent fuel rods. Nor have they been the focus of an urgent effort to remove the risk because anyone with a brain and knowledge can recognize the risk. Fortunately the people who decided to act on it had a much better information set than you do.

It would be like you stepping out in front of a fast moving bus on an expressway and then wondering if the kinetic energy in the bus is sufficient to kill you. Chernobyl pumped out roughly 5 tons of material to irradiate 3500sqKms. Are you able to challenge your idealology and conceptualize what burning roughly 850 tons of plutonium in the open air would do over the course of weeks or months that it burned? Inevitably it would spread to the other 6000 fuel rods as they also burned at 3000+ degrees C spreading plutonium oxide and chloride in the smoke for months into the atmosphere all over the northeren hemisphere via the jetstream.

You can't compare it to anything else because there is nothing else to compare it to.

You're just making shit up, thus confirming my original and overarching point about most vocal anti-nuke people being hysterical morons (which does not then imply that the pro-nuke people or the people who designed many of the operational plants in the world today are geniuses.)

Here we go with the predictable ad-hom attacks everytime your idealism is shattered, poor shaney wanyney needs comforting. Here is more from the person who describes the international community that created the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale as a blend of supefyingly dull simpletons, hysterical dolts and Machiavellian assholes .

You admitted "I didn't know what I was talking about" then suggested I'm autistic because you didn't have enough knowledge to understand a joke about tritium.

You may think your "arguments" are new however they are the same rhetoric of the previous generations who are politically attached to this argument with the same old re-hashed dogmatic skepticism that demonstrates your inadequate knowledge. Those "arguments" are only new to you so since you are unable to come up with something original, why don't you try inquiry so that we can have an intelligent discussion?

You said: Also, there's some common sense shit like designing reactors and sites that can store all of their waste on-site that no one seems to be talking about, but

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

• (~2002) Status and discussion of SIP
• Issues on Safe Radioactive Waste Management at ChNPP Site in International Shelter Implementation Plan
• Bioassay program for the shelter implementation plan in Chernobyl
• Shelter implementation plan: a way forward for Chernobyl 4
• Chernobyl shelter implementation plan -- project development and planning: Setting the stage for progress
• Regulating nuclear and radiation safety in the frame of the Chernobyl shelter Implementation Plan
• Development of a Fuel Containing Material Removal and Waste Management Strategy for the Chernobyl Unit 4 Shelter

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

• (~2002) Status and discussion of SIP
• Issues on Safe Radioactive Waste Management at ChNPP Site in International Shelter Implementation Plan
• Bioassay program for the shelter implementation plan in Chernobyl
• Shelter implementation plan: a way forward for Chernobyl 4
• Chernobyl shelter implementation plan -- project development and planning: Setting the stage for progress
• Regulating nuclear and radiation safety in the frame of the Chernobyl shelter Implementation Plan
• Development of a Fuel Containing Material Removal and Waste Management Strategy for the Chernobyl Unit 4 Shelter

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

• (~2002) Status and discussion of SIP
• Issues on Safe Radioactive Waste Management at ChNPP Site in International Shelter Implementation Plan
• Bioassay program for the shelter implementation plan in Chernobyl
• Shelter implementation plan: a way forward for Chernobyl 4
• Chernobyl shelter implementation plan -- project development and planning: Setting the stage for progress
• Regulating nuclear and radiation safety in the frame of the Chernobyl shelter Implementation Plan
• Development of a Fuel Containing Material Removal and Waste Management Strategy for the Chernobyl Unit 4 Shelter

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

• (~2002) Status and discussion of SIP
• Issues on Safe Radioactive Waste Management at ChNPP Site in International Shelter Implementation Plan
• Bioassay program for the shelter implementation plan in Chernobyl
• Shelter implementation plan: a way forward for Chernobyl 4
• Chernobyl shelter implementation plan -- project development and planning: Setting the stage for progress
• Regulating nuclear and radiation safety in the frame of the Chernobyl shelter Implementation Plan
• Development of a Fuel Containing Material Removal and Waste Management Strategy for the Chernobyl Unit 4 Shelter

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

• (~2002) Status and discussion of SIP
• Issues on Safe Radioactive Waste Management at ChNPP Site in International Shelter Implementation Plan
• Bioassay program for the shelter implementation plan in Chernobyl
• Shelter implementation plan: a way forward for Chernobyl 4
• Chernobyl shelter implementation plan -- project development and planning: Setting the stage for progress
• Regulating nuclear and radiation safety in the frame of the Chernobyl shelter Implementation Plan
• Development of a Fuel Containing Material Removal and Waste Management Strategy for the Chernobyl Unit 4 Shelter

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

• (~2002) Status and discussion of SIP
• Issues on Safe Radioactive Waste Management at ChNPP Site in International Shelter Implementation Plan
• Bioassay program for the shelter implementation plan in Chernobyl
• Shelter implementation plan: a way forward for Chernobyl 4
• Chernobyl shelter implementation plan -- project development and planning: Setting the stage for progress
• Regulating nuclear and radiation safety in the frame of the Chernobyl shelter Implementation Plan
• Development of a Fuel Containing Material Removal and Waste Management Strategy for the Chernobyl Unit 4 Shelter

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

FFS. If things go really, catastrophically wrong with a solar panel installation, how many people could it conceivably kill? One or two if it fell off a roof? Whereas, if things go really, catastrophically wrong with a nuclear power plant, how many people could it conceivably kill?

More people have committed suicide for various reasons than have actually died as a result of radiation exposure at Fukishima, which is so far, zero. With modern passive safety designs, more people will die from solar installation accidents than will from catastrophic meltdown, if history is any indication.

As for pebble bed reactors, the Chinese are building a Gen IV plant and installed the first reactor early last year.

The 'actual safety concerns people have' is just FUD from NIMBY types.

The Germans would disagree with you (and they're not the only ones). Even aircrews within the protection of Earth's magnetosphere flying at high altitudes receive higher radiation doses (the FAA classifies flight crew as radiation workers, and on average they receive twice the radiation exposure of someone working in a nuclear power plant). >p>The moon doesn't have the protection the earth does. And it looks like the Apollo moon walkers have a much higher rate of radiation-induced cardiovascular disease than those who stayed within the earth's radiation shield.

Read the IAEA report on the Chernobyl disaster.

It reads like bad comedy; operators trying to follow a test program while the reactor was in a completely unstable state.

The REAL kicker: The SCRAM command to shut down the reactor made it go "Prompt Critical" and explode.

No shit.

"As can be seen from the foregoing, the event which initiated the accident was the pressing of the EPS-5 button (SCRAM Button) when the RBMK-1000 reactor was operating at low power with a greater than permissible number of manual control rods withdrawn from the reactor. " pp67

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/p...

Scariest thing I've read this decade. :)

Nuclear plants, when running normally, do not kill 28,000 birds a year

No, they kill hundreds of thousands. Which is at least a fraction of the millions killed by coal - and the hundreds of millions killed by glass windows, let alone cats.

most nuclear plants will never have an accident at all, much less one that harms the environment

True. Unfortunately, the few that do cause economic damage costing hundreds of billions.

Solar isn't perfect, but it's got a long way to go before it gets worse than our current alternatives.

"LOCA Attack"?

An attack designed to provoke a Loss Of Coolant Accident. An attack on Indian Point was one scenario put forward when assessing a plants vulnerability to a terworist attack. The NRC is not required to release terorism related portions of environmental impact studies.

I like how creative folks can be when making stuff up.

That's how some security works, devise a scenario and then defend against it. Your suggestion a nuclear plant doesn't require assessment from such an attack is naive.

And also conspiracy theories

The cry of totalitarians everywhere.

regarding TMI.

To quote the NRC documentation of the incident A significant release of radiation from the plants auxiliary building, performed to relieve pressure on the primary system and avoid curtailing the flow of coolant to the core. That's coolant is officially recognised contamination.

Its public information what happened, yes there where human errors and design issues,

Because of the weather conditions it was known that emissions from TMI travelled a long way and were measured in Albany, NY. Joeseph Hendrie (former chairman of the NRC) was quoted (at the time) "We are operating almost totally in the in the blind, [Governor Thornburgh's] information is ambiguous, mine is non-existent and - I don't know - it's like a couple of blind me staggering around making decisions." - So if they didn't know, how is it you do?

Expert measurements of radioactive iodine in farm animals nearby revealed Nuclear Industry estimates of contamination released to be 'grossly underestimated'. Radioactive iodine, plutonium, strontium, americurium, 172,000 cubic feet of high level radioactive water, large quantities of krypton 85 and later that year 8 million litres of radioactive water containing tritium that were evaporated deliberately were all part of the toxic cocktail that was released.

and yet the entire event never hurt anyone.

Of the states that were higher in the list of cancer averages the ones with similar population density surrounded Pennsylvania, where TMI occurred. New York, with roughly 3 times the population, topped the list, was also in the fall out zone.

The amount of release was so small, you could be right at the effluent point and receive less than a medical x-ray dose.

In reality large amounts of contamination were released beyond Nuclear Industry assurances. The gamma radiation monitors on the top of the auxiliary building were not designed to measure such high concentrations and they went off the scale when the accident *began*, the release of contamination went on for several *days*. Estimates were based on thermoluscent dosimeters on the fence and Alpha and Beta emissions weren't even measured.

But of course, you read somewhere on someone' blog that it was much more and a big cover up and you certainly like that better.

Dr Carl Johnson, an expert in radiation related diseases asked the NRC and DOE to do a survey to look for some of these elements in the respirable dust around TMI after the accident and they refused.

Even the nuclear industry doesn't know how much radioactive elements they are releasing normally, it's based on mathematical models. The last *actual* study was done in 1978 when the reactors were in peak operating condition almost forty years ago.

Fast reactors.

[sic] When you don't have facts, clam conspiracy and cover up. 'only TEPCO knows' is utter bullshit.

You need look no further than the Japanese governments own inquiry for that opinion:

The TEPCO Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant accident was the result of collusion between the government, the regulators and TEPCO, and the lack of governance by said parties. They effectively betrayed the nation’s right to be safe from nuclear accidents. Therefore, we conclude that the accident was clearly “manmade.”

See it's not me saying the word "collusion", it's the *official* investigation.

If you read that report you'll find sentences like "were aware of the risk of core damage from tsunami" and "nor did TEPCO take any protective steps against such an occurrence. "

And here is another one "In order to get evidence of this collusion, the Commission was forced to exercise our legislative right to demand such information from NISA, after NISA failed to respond to several requests"

So before you go waving your fatty finger at me, I suggest you get a better understanding of the facts. We already have positive proof that TEPCO do not disclose information and official evidence that they engage in cover ups.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/...

Thanks for the link, I'll make a point of reading it so I can excoriate you with it later. More than likely you've done a 30 second google search, you haven't read it and, you just want to look like you are in some possesion of facts. So care to point me to where in that 1200 odd pages of a report, by an agency who promotes nuclear power, should look to find support of your claims? It should be easy, but I doubt you can.

Exposures are tightly monitored.

So is information and I will provide you with some context. According to the IAEA's founding papers "The agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity through the world." Since you are so intent on claims of a cover up I'll draw your attention to the interdiction clause (12.40) the IAEA has over the WHO drawn up on 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly:

"Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement"

In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA , widely known in the scientific community as the instrument that gags their work. Unless of course you beleive the IAEA has an interest in malaria or Aids research it has effectively gagged the WHO from reporting on health matters Nuclear.

Consequently the facts reveal your ignorance with very little effort on my part. Since you have very little manners, it is a service that is my pleasure to provide.

When you don't have facts, clam conspiracy and cover up. 'only TEPCO knows' is utter bullshit. There are plenty of surveys of area contamination and details are published annually (link below). Exposures are tightly monitored. You can measure internal contamination quite easily, it is done in portal monitors every time a worker leaves the site.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/books/...

before the 10-year ban on Iranian enrichment R&D is lifted

You mean like the ban on nuclear weapons research from the NPT, of which Iran is a signatory?

Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer
from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of
control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or
otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or
receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices.

Given how obviously difficult it is for Iran to follow THAT, why would anyone think that a 10-year ban on enriching fissile material would mean a damn thing to the mullahs that run Iran?

The IAEA report on Fukushima is quite clear that no statistical increase in deaths is likely to be observed. Not for adults, children, or offspring. Even for workers at the site with the highest exposures, there will likely be no observable effects. As you say, with the workers the sample size is small to start with, so that becomes factor

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/P...

Based on our experience with other exposure cases, the estimates of negative radio logical health impacts are always much higher than what we observe in reality. There are two reasons. One is that the models for estimating health effects are conservative, and two is because the estimated exposures are conservative (they assume higher doses to account for uncertainty.). I have no problem with conservative estimation, just as long as they are used correctly. So, yes, statistical deaths are real deaths, statistical illnesses are real illnesses, and thankfully we'll not likely see any from the radio logical effects of Fukushima.

Interestingly, a tidbit is that the children thyroid exposure at Chernobyl was 1000 times that of a child in the Fukushima district. From what I can find, there is still no observed statistical increase in negative health effects associated with those exposures at Chernobyl. But I want to be clear I have not researched that thoroughly.

I agree that a new gadget doesn't actually change anything about nuclear monitoring in Iran. Also, you may want to see what IAEA actually said about Iran before making such a strong statement. You're flat out wrong about the IAEA and Iran. The IAEA repeatedly complained about Iran's lack of cooperation and militarization of nuclear sites. I also think you're underestimating the leverage the Iran had here. The US didn't have a choice, we HAD to make a deal because we lost this fight.

You can't argue that Iran enriched to bombmaking levels and simultaneously claim they didn't pursue a weapon. Uranium for energy is 4% enriched. Uranium for a bomb practically starts at 20% enriched. Iran took material up to between 19% and 20%. Cute, because research reactors use that grade, but Iran was producing much more 19.75% LEU per month than their research reactors could use in a year. Using this material in an electricity generating reactor is needlessly expensive and wasteful. In sufficient quantities, this material can be made into a bomb, and Iran passed this "sufficient quantity" line a while ago. The purpose of IAEA inspections (and UN resolutions, sabotage, assassinations, sanctions, etc.) was to prevent this from happening. Crossing this line didn't send a message that they're just doing research or working on power systems. The message they sent to the international community is that they effectively had a bomb, and we couldn't stop them. That they then came to the negotiating table willing to throw that material out speaks to their willingness to be a civilized member of global society. Doubters will expect to see some of that material end up in the hands of terrorists, but whether that happens or not is a real test of Iranian intentions. If Iran simply wanted to nuke Israel, they could have done that already.

It's not likely that they simply want a civilian power industry. If that's so, they're going about this very differently than other countries have. The "normal" way to do power industry uranium enrichment is to run enrichment using a multinational corporate entity "owned" by multiple governments. In this way, regional and worldwide rivals can keep eachother in check while ensuring a domestic, cost-effective supply of uranium. Brazil, Argentina, Germany, the Netherlands and Japan all have civilian power industries without weapons programs and without nationalized uranium enrichment. Each of those countries went through this transition to regional nuclear (electricity) power without the drama and dangerous actions Iran has taken (kicking out the IAEA inspectors).

Now, it's completely absurd to argue that Iran will make money off of enriching uranium, the market is not there, and will not develop in the foreseeable future. The worldwide capacity for uranium enrichment is far in excess of what the power industry needs. After Fukushima, there is a huge surplus of power-grade uranium out there. Russia, in particular, runs it's enrichment factories well below capacity. Russia would love to supply uranium all over central Asia.

It is also absurd to argue that that Iran would be unable to create a domestic source of uranium for electricity using the international standard structures. Several other regional power level countries have done this. Early in negotiations, when everyone thought Iran simply wanted a power industry, Russia offered to partner with them in the normal way. It would make sense for Iran to partner with other regional powers getting into nuclear energy (Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan) as well. That we don't see the typical partnership out of this strongly implies that Iran wants more than a power industry. They want to be treated like part of the "nuclear weapon club" without triggering immediate war with Israel by actually testing a bomb.

None of this means that the deal with Iran is bad, but everyone needs to be realistic about what's really going on. Iran has effectively had a bo

Not sure what exactly it was that got you riled up like that.

Because when the Global Governance folk roll into town you have to lock up your daughters, stop issuing parking tickets (they won't pay 'em anyway) and create an entirely new layer of quasi-government to 'interface' and 'negotiate' with them. Ultimately this leads to some time-wasting end that will benefit them more than it does you, *if* you are convinced what you're doing is sound.

The way we have operated nuclear plants in the US is sound. The safety record shows it, and the gigawatt-years of reliable power underscore that success. I believe that as a layman who has researched the topic I am more objective saying this than even the most experienced plant operator... because I am looking from a grand perspective of history, while their own safety culture imposes a certain vulnerability on them, it discourages them from making self-serving statements, even if true. A humility that keeps them from standing up to say "Enough is enough!"

Nuclear energy, as we have done it, has proven to be the most promising and most sustainable --- to use the proper definition of the word --- way to ensure the continuance of modern life.

But there will always be those who try to convince you that another layer of governance is good for you. So when Switzerland proposes that "making the principle of "avoiding off-site contamination" legally binding in the Convention would be a vital step towards improved global nuclear safety. ..." the rational human response is What the fuck.

As in... what the fuck, do these people believe off-site contamination is like a drunk running a stop sign? That keeping Earth safe from contamination is for lack of some simple rule?

As in... what the fuck does 'legally binding' mean in this context? Again, a governance organization arrogantly asserts that there is some evil malfeasance let loose in a lawless world, for lack of something that would be 'legally binding'. Here they come to save the day. What form would a legally binding punishment be, if a signatory is unfortunate to suffer a disaster that spreads a discernible count of radiation across the border? A preemptive strike? Sanctions? Regime change? I'm sure all of this will be discussed at the next meeting.

Don't get me wrong. The IAEA has done some excellent work. Not all international conventions are trite and insulting. To render assistance in a disaster, responsibly notify one's neighbors, agree on safe handling practices, and even address liability in our litigious world, are worth things to agree on.

They want to give this nebulous diplomatic instrument teeth with the stroke of the pen. It has not earned them. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teeth. It has earned them. It is also a very specific and useful framework tailored to our task at hand.

Now if the Swiss had said, "Be sure you have some form of containment at all" (Chernobyl) or "don't put all your generators in the basement" (Fukushima), you could sink your teeth into that. Such may be the way "things are done". But I would propose that for the most part in real life, things are done by rules of common sense anyway. Has anyone ever asked a plant operator if safety interferes with their bottom line?

Sorry to vent so, thanks for your comment. Also thanks to mdsolar for bringing to our attention evidence that nuclear energy is in a total shambles and the US is once again disappointing the world by acting in its own self-interest.

Not sure what exactly it was that got you riled up like that.

Because when the Global Governance folk roll into town you have to lock up your daughters, stop issuing parking tickets (they won't pay 'em anyway) and create an entirely new layer of quasi-government to 'interface' and 'negotiate' with them. Ultimately this leads to some time-wasting end that will benefit them more than it does you, *if* you are convinced what you're doing is sound.

The way we have operated nuclear plants in the US is sound. The safety record shows it, and the gigawatt-years of reliable power underscore that success. I believe that as a layman who has researched the topic I am more objective saying this than even the most experienced plant operator... because I am looking from a grand perspective of history, while their own safety culture imposes a certain vulnerability on them, it discourages them from making self-serving statements, even if true. A humility that keeps them from standing up to say "Enough is enough!"

Nuclear energy, as we have done it, has proven to be the most promising and most sustainable --- to use the proper definition of the word --- way to ensure the continuance of modern life.

But there will always be those who try to convince you that another layer of governance is good for you. So when Switzerland proposes that "making the principle of "avoiding off-site contamination" legally binding in the Convention would be a vital step towards improved global nuclear safety. ..." the rational human response is What the fuck.

As in... what the fuck, do these people believe off-site contamination is like a drunk running a stop sign? That keeping Earth safe from contamination is for lack of some simple rule?

As in... what the fuck does 'legally binding' mean in this context? Again, a governance organization arrogantly asserts that there is some evil malfeasance let loose in a lawless world, for lack of something that would be 'legally binding'. Here they come to save the day. What form would a legally binding punishment be, if a signatory is unfortunate to suffer a disaster that spreads a discernible count of radiation across the border? A preemptive strike? Sanctions? Regime change? I'm sure all of this will be discussed at the next meeting.

Don't get me wrong. The IAEA has done some excellent work. Not all international conventions are trite and insulting. To render assistance in a disaster, responsibly notify one's neighbors, agree on safe handling practices, and even address liability in our litigious world, are worth things to agree on.

They want to give this nebulous diplomatic instrument teeth with the stroke of the pen. It has not earned them. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teeth. It has earned them. It is also a very specific and useful framework tailored to our task at hand.

Now if the Swiss had said, "Be sure you have some form of containment at all" (Chernobyl) or "don't put all your generators in the basement" (Fukushima), you could sink your teeth into that. Such may be the way "things are done". But I would propose that for the most part in real life, things are done by rules of common sense anyway. Has anyone ever asked a plant operator if safety interferes with their bottom line?

Sorry to vent so, thanks for your comment. Also thanks to mdsolar for bringing to our attention evidence that nuclear energy is in a total shambles and the US is once again disappointing the world by acting in its own self-interest.

Not sure what exactly it was that got you riled up like that.

Because when the Global Governance folk roll into town you have to lock up your daughters, stop issuing parking tickets (they won't pay 'em anyway) and create an entirely new layer of quasi-government to 'interface' and 'negotiate' with them. Ultimately this leads to some time-wasting end that will benefit them more than it does you, *if* you are convinced what you're doing is sound.

The way we have operated nuclear plants in the US is sound. The safety record shows it, and the gigawatt-years of reliable power underscore that success. I believe that as a layman who has researched the topic I am more objective saying this than even the most experienced plant operator... because I am looking from a grand perspective of history, while their own safety culture imposes a certain vulnerability on them, it discourages them from making self-serving statements, even if true. A humility that keeps them from standing up to say "Enough is enough!"

Nuclear energy, as we have done it, has proven to be the most promising and most sustainable --- to use the proper definition of the word --- way to ensure the continuance of modern life.

But there will always be those who try to convince you that another layer of governance is good for you. So when Switzerland proposes that "making the principle of "avoiding off-site contamination" legally binding in the Convention would be a vital step towards improved global nuclear safety. ..." the rational human response is What the fuck.

As in... what the fuck, do these people believe off-site contamination is like a drunk running a stop sign? That keeping Earth safe from contamination is for lack of some simple rule?

As in... what the fuck does 'legally binding' mean in this context? Again, a governance organization arrogantly asserts that there is some evil malfeasance let loose in a lawless world, for lack of something that would be 'legally binding'. Here they come to save the day. What form would a legally binding punishment be, if a signatory is unfortunate to suffer a disaster that spreads a discernible count of radiation across the border? A preemptive strike? Sanctions? Regime change? I'm sure all of this will be discussed at the next meeting.

Don't get me wrong. The IAEA has done some excellent work. Not all international conventions are trite and insulting. To render assistance in a disaster, responsibly notify one's neighbors, agree on safe handling practices, and even address liability in our litigious world, are worth things to agree on.

They want to give this nebulous diplomatic instrument teeth with the stroke of the pen. It has not earned them. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teeth. It has earned them. It is also a very specific and useful framework tailored to our task at hand.

Now if the Swiss had said, "Be sure you have some form of containment at all" (Chernobyl) or "don't put all your generators in the basement" (Fukushima), you could sink your teeth into that. Such may be the way "things are done". But I would propose that for the most part in real life, things are done by rules of common sense anyway. Has anyone ever asked a plant operator if safety interferes with their bottom line?

Sorry to vent so, thanks for your comment. Also thanks to mdsolar for bringing to our attention evidence that nuclear energy is in a total shambles and the US is once again disappointing the world by acting in its own self-interest.

Not sure what exactly it was that got you riled up like that.

Because when the Global Governance folk roll into town you have to lock up your daughters, stop issuing parking tickets (they won't pay 'em anyway) and create an entirely new layer of quasi-government to 'interface' and 'negotiate' with them. Ultimately this leads to some time-wasting end that will benefit them more than it does you, *if* you are convinced what you're doing is sound.

The way we have operated nuclear plants in the US is sound. The safety record shows it, and the gigawatt-years of reliable power underscore that success. I believe that as a layman who has researched the topic I am more objective saying this than even the most experienced plant operator... because I am looking from a grand perspective of history, while their own safety culture imposes a certain vulnerability on them, it discourages them from making self-serving statements, even if true. A humility that keeps them from standing up to say "Enough is enough!"

Nuclear energy, as we have done it, has proven to be the most promising and most sustainable --- to use the proper definition of the word --- way to ensure the continuance of modern life.

But there will always be those who try to convince you that another layer of governance is good for you. So when Switzerland proposes that "making the principle of "avoiding off-site contamination" legally binding in the Convention would be a vital step towards improved global nuclear safety. ..." the rational human response is What the fuck.

As in... what the fuck, do these people believe off-site contamination is like a drunk running a stop sign? That keeping Earth safe from contamination is for lack of some simple rule?

As in... what the fuck does 'legally binding' mean in this context? Again, a governance organization arrogantly asserts that there is some evil malfeasance let loose in a lawless world, for lack of something that would be 'legally binding'. Here they come to save the day. What form would a legally binding punishment be, if a signatory is unfortunate to suffer a disaster that spreads a discernible count of radiation across the border? A preemptive strike? Sanctions? Regime change? I'm sure all of this will be discussed at the next meeting.

Don't get me wrong. The IAEA has done some excellent work. Not all international conventions are trite and insulting. To render assistance in a disaster, responsibly notify one's neighbors, agree on safe handling practices, and even address liability in our litigious world, are worth things to agree on.

They want to give this nebulous diplomatic instrument teeth with the stroke of the pen. It has not earned them. The US Nuclear Regulatory Commission has teeth. It has earned them. It is also a very specific and useful framework tailored to our task at hand.

Now if the Swiss had said, "Be sure you have some form of containment at all" (Chernobyl) or "don't put all your generators in the basement" (Fukushima), you could sink your teeth into that. Such may be the way "things are done". But I would propose that for the most part in real life, things are done by rules of common sense anyway. Has anyone ever asked a plant operator if safety interferes with their bottom line?

Sorry to vent so, thanks for your comment. Also thanks to mdsolar for bringing to our attention evidence that nuclear energy is in a total shambles and the US is once again disappointing the world by acting in its own self-interest.

The proposal was to make containment of radioactive material and avoiding off-site contamination in an accident a legally binding agreement
http://www-ns.iaea.org/downloa... (bottom of page 15)

The actual wording includes the term 'shall', which in a regulatory sense is a pretty absolute statement, it ends with the statement, "these objectives also shall be applied at existing plants"

So, any nuclear operator in the planet would be out of legal compliance if they have any existing nuclear plant that 'may' present a risk of losing containment... Yeah, that would cost a shit-ton of money for the industry to just tread water and would greatly INCREASE the dependence of coal energy in the short to mid term

Everybody seems to ignore that coal also releases Uranium into the atmosphere due to fly ash, this author estimates that annual release to be 1.069 PBq/yr
http://nuclearaustralia.blogsp...

This is far beyond estimates that "40 trillion becquerels released into Pacific ocean" had escaped from Fukushima
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti...

Where is the shouting for coal to clean up its act?
Nuclear has become the whipping boy for the Green political party and Greenpeace, who in turn seem to be operating well in favor of the coal industry over the interests of the general population

The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.

The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.

See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.

This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.

In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.

The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."

Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.

Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.

Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil

The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.

The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.

See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.

This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.

In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.

The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."

Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.

Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.

Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil

The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.

The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.

See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.

This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.

In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.

The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."

Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.

Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.

Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil

The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.

The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.

See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.

This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.

In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.

The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."

Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.

Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.

Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil

The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.

The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.

See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.

This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.

In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.

The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."

Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.

Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.

Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil

The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.

The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.

See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.

This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.

In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.

The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."

Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.

Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.

Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil

It's in the IAEA report; due to a positive void coefficient, and a poor control system, the SCRAM of the reactor is what actually blew it up.

No Shit.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/p...

Oh, as for the 95%, it's an economist's report and tries to calculate price for new sources. IAEA gets average from all the countries (Soviet Union) and all the reactors that exist at the time (1990 meant ancient Magnoxes, not-yet-refurbished RBMKs and other engineering offenses still merrily grinding away). I've seen the 95% for the new plants quoted often, even from relatively respectable sources and can imagine how it got there, but still seems excessive, 93% is actually promoted by vendors (if you operate it right etc. and after the first few years of breaking the new plant in) for AP1000 and several others, real performance evaluation will have to wait after those new types are built and operated for several years.

Some useful stats for the past and current performances.

I'd like to see a source for that 95% capacity factor of nuclear power plants. 5% downtime is not even enough to cover refueling and yearly maintenance. Here's what IAEA has to say: "In 1990, the world average annual capacity factor for nuclear power plants was 67.7%. In 2005 this figure stood at 81.4%". I didn't dig deep enough to find any more comprehensive statistics for each year, but given those years it would place some really stringent requirements on other years to bring the average to 95%, no? We seem to fall short even if we resort to being optimistic about the future: "For example, this factor in North America is projected to increase from 90% in 2005 to 92% by 2030". Energy, Electricity and Nuclear Power: Developments and Projections

Fun fact: In 2012 the wind generators I'm a part owner of (spread out in about 8 locations in Sweden) achieved a capacity factor of about 45%, narrowly beating the average for Sweden's nuclear power plants the same year. Now this does not happen very often. For wind this year was on the good end of average, and for nuclear it was a relatively bad year even for Sweden where the capacity factor for nuclear is usually in the low seventies. But the gap is not as wide as you think.

And given that you included the "until something bad happens" in your supporting arguments, I guess you will concede to including it also for your conclusions? As in "then nuclear wins, until something bad happens"?

Did you just make this shit up? Completely false.

Sorry bro, you are full of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...

References:
http://www.epa.gov/radtown/nuc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://www.radiationanswers.or...
http://www.iaea.org/Publicatio...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
http://www.radiationanswers.or...
http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/r...

It is funny how people's definitions of "safe" change depending on the subject.

Note how I didn't say it was unsafe. You made that up and then used it as a straw man. My point was actually that it is safe, but that the rule has developed based on more than just the relative safety of that one number.