Slashdot Mirror
EPA Mulling Relaxed Radiation Protections For Nuclear Power
mdsolar sends this news from Forbes:
Both proponents and opponents of nuclear power expect the Environmental Protection Agency in coming months to relax its rules restricting radiation emissions from reactors and other nuclear facilities. EPA officials say they have no such intention, but they are willing to reconsider the method they use to limit public exposure—and the public's level of risk.
At issue is a 1977 rule that limits the total whole-body radiation dose to any member of the public from the normal operation of the uranium fuel cycle—fuel processing, reactors, storage, reprocessing or disposal—to 0.25 millisieverts per year. (This rule, known as 40 CFR part 190, is different from other EPA regulations that restrict radionuclides in drinking water and that limit public exposure during emergencies. Those are also due for revision.) "We have not made any decisions or determined any specifics on how to move forward with any of these issues. We do, however, believe the regulation uses outdated science, and we are thinking about how to bring the regulation more in line with current thinking," said Brian Littleton, a chemical engineer with EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air."
At issue is a 1977 rule that limits the total whole-body radiation dose to any member of the public from the normal operation of the uranium fuel cycle—fuel processing, reactors, storage, reprocessing or disposal—to 0.25 millisieverts per year. (This rule, known as 40 CFR part 190, is different from other EPA regulations that restrict radionuclides in drinking water and that limit public exposure during emergencies. Those are also due for revision.) "We have not made any decisions or determined any specifics on how to move forward with any of these issues. We do, however, believe the regulation uses outdated science, and we are thinking about how to bring the regulation more in line with current thinking," said Brian Littleton, a chemical engineer with EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air."
As the case of China shows, the population is willing to accept an increase in pollution
It's amazing how much the population is willing to accept, provided that they have no say in the matter.
it is the common view of medical and general science during the century-odd that we have discovered and been able to document radiation and its effects... that no amount is "generally recognized as safe" and standards need to be tightened. that radiation damage is cumulative. and that normal diagnostic x-rays and so forth approach the line of cellular damage over a lifetime.
so a comprehensive review based on science would move the decimal point to the left, at least to .025 mS/year, and perhaps .0025 mS.
certainly, radon exposure in homes has been trending that way, much to the chagrin of some homeowners who would also pass off arcwelder power panels because they haven't had a fire yet.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Yep, I think we can all agree that it's worth a few punkin' headed babies and/or a couple of deaths so the rest of us can have brighter colors and whiter whites.
I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but yes, that is right. A small or even non-existent harm for vast benefit to many people justifies the harm. Given that we know there are far more serious problems, not just environmental, but of the human condition, this is a strong indication that we should be bothering with those big problems rather than obsessing over the small or non-existent ones.
Well, jeez, in the case of China, the alternative is "stark poverty" so it's not really a choice. Forty years of Marxism reduced their people to equality - equally poor. The Communist Party hijacked the people's revolution onto the capitalist road and it's been all up since then. And the EPA really does have uptight, business-hostile practices. Just ask the people who work there what they think about the very idea that businesses should be allowed to exist, much less make a profit.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I am not impressed with the state of coal fired emissions regulation (sulfur compounds are down; but fly ash certainly isn't something that cures what ails you, and the general 'Eh, old stuff just gets grandfathered because we can't fight the incumbents' model of regulation is broken); but your snarking about the poor reactors being treated as unnatural is rather flawed.
The further your coal gets from being pure carbon, the more dire some of the potential aerosolized-and-spread-hither-and-yon materials are; but the process is just conventional chemistry, you aren't going to emit anything you didn't dig up(except the added oxygen). A nuclear reactor; shockingly enough, is not subject to this limitation, and fairly aggressively shoves assorted fissionables down the decay chain.
Aside from the one (known) incident at Oklo, the crust isn't seeing much in the way of activity above background decay rates, and it follows that anything with a short half life is going to be extremely scarce. Something that's been dug up, concentrated, and carefully stewed in its own neutrons, by contrast, will have a very different collection of isotopes, some remarkably scarce anywhere else.
This doesn't mean that coal power is good for you, or restricted in what it contributes to our air supply; because that is very unlikely; but it's just silly to pretend that reactor products are isotopically similar to what you'll find in the ground; the 'power' in 'nuclear power' is only there because they aren't.
The Fukushima exclusion zone will shrink with time as the site is cleaned up. Meanwhile, the German Greens have replaced nuclear with the world's largest strip mine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garzweiler_surface_mine), which is about to be supplemented by a pit twice its size (Tagebau Hambach). Who can't love the smell of smoldering lignite in the morning!
Sorry, but YES.
This isn't about "brighter colors" and "whiter whites".
It's about providing for the world's energy needs WITHOUT massive greenhouse gas pollution, whose effects could kill off significant chunks of life on this planet.
Unless YOU want to be one of the unlucky 99% who is volunteering to go shiver and starve in a cave someplace.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I'm sick and tired of the notion that it's OK to pollute, as long as you don't pollute "too much."
If it isn't "too much", it isn't pollution.
In a sense, breathing and pissing are polluting but as long as the ecosystem can handle it you are in a sustainable pattern.
ID: the nose did not occur naturally, how would we wear glasses otherwise? (apologies to Voltaire)
All energy sources are subsidized to some extent, as most countries place great economic value on having lower cost electricity. If all subsidies were removed, gas would completely dominate, followed by coal and nuclear. Solar and wind would not stand a chance. Solar, on a dollar per kwh generated basis, receives subsidies many times greater than any of our traditional sources, as does wind.
I'm all for equal subsidies on all forms of power, but I'd rather have diversity and not be totally reliant on shale gas.
Solar is already way cheaper than nuclear, has been for a few years now.
You'll have a hard time backing that claim up with real numbers. Solar doesn't come close when it comes to total cost of producing MWh on an annual basis. Many confuse price with cost, and on top of that forget that pricing is quite artificial due to production credits.