Coal's been in use for far longer than Uranium and Plutonium
And a single plant today *still* kills or poisons more people than all the nuclear plants that have ever existed.
To compare the number of people killed at this point is risky (and irresponsible) as your sample size for the latter of the two is far, FAR too small.
That's a difficult statement to make. Currently, there are ~500 nuclear reactors in the world, plus the 50+ used by US Navy Vessels (8 on the Enterprise alone, 2 on a standard Nimitz carrier, and 1-2 on each nuclear sub). In addition, there's about 550 research reactors operating worldwide. That's about as good of a sampling as we're going to get. (More info here.)
I'm not saying that we should shut down all the coal and oil plants overnight and replace them with nuclear. Such a rush would be irresponsible at best. Instead, we should be slowly scaling up and improving our use of nuclear power instead of shutting down the reactors without replacements (which tends to result in problems like California's rolling blackouts, or Wisconsin's summer brownouts).
A release has dire consequences- ones you keep downplaying just because few have been killed.
Just about every industrial accident has dire consequences. That's a fact of life. Considering the number of operating reactors, and the relatively few accidents that have happened, I'd say nuclear power has had a pretty thorough shake-down. The few accidents that have occurred have ranged from best case (TMI), to worst case (Chernobyl) and a few in between that have produced interesting info (Fermi I Breeder Reactor).
The truth is that nuclear power is an industrial operation that deals with tons of potentially dangerous chemicals. In the event of a catastrophe, people will die. There's no changing that. However, the number of people who die will not be significantly more than any other comparable industrial accident. Thus, similar safety precautions are taken and have to date shown to be effective.
Worst case scenarios such as the China Syndrome have been shown to be wholly incorrect and based on bad science. Similarly, winds do not carry radiation as many have feared. They can carry small radioisotope particles which present a mitigable danger. Larger chunks and heavier isotopes are simply too heavy to be carried by winds (or at least very far).
I will admit some selfishness, however. While we can continue poisoning ourselves with coal and oil here on Earth, we simply can't make it to space on those technologies. There just isn't a great enough energy to mass ratio in those or other "socially acceptable" technologies. The ONLY way we're going to be able to colonize other planets, or take frequent trips to the moon, is by use of nuclear technology. In many ways, this is the safest application of all. Rockets would be launched over the seas, have their materials packed in survivable containers, and designed to burn their fuel at a rate that would normally be considered a melt-down. You can't have a melt-down if it's already melted (or gaseous)!
Once in space, the amount of radiation and nuclear material expelled simply can't compare to the amount put out by the Sun or contained in Asteroids and Meteorites.
But consider the volume of the atmosphere (vast), the amount of fissile materials in the nuclear tests (way less than 1000 kilograms per test), the conversion rate of u-235/pu-240 into sr-90, the locations of the tests (remote, or over water) and the likely dispersal pattern.
So you're saying that Sr-90 can't be a worldwide issue because the concentrations will decrease the more it disperses? So that means that Sr-90 is just like any other dangerous chemical in that it is most dangerous only to the immediate area of the accident.
Thank you for making my point for me.:-)
BTW I suggest that you stop your poorly-informed ranting about the safety of nuclear power (which I personally *prefer* nuclear to burning fossil fuels). You aren't going to have any credibility to argue your position if you make factually incorrect statements, just because they sound nice.
Where was I factually incorrect? I honestly would like to know so that I can get them correct next time.
One thing that is a proven fact that you need to consider, is that some Sr-90 does get into your body. It's not much, but it is there. That's why I get annoyed when people say it instantly condemns you to a slow death. The truth is that there's always a chance you could get cancer just from cosmic rays. The chances simply increase as your body stores radioisotopes.
Sorry, I had to run so I didn't finish answering. Here's the rest:
Sorry, the link you provided does not explain how they can replace power-plants. As far as I can tell from the responses and a quick search on Google, their task is to generate some Watts, like fuel cells, not some Gigawatts, like fusion or fission reactors.
That's because I'm not talking about generating power for the grid. I'm referring to generating power for devices such as cell phones and laptops. The nuclear "waste" is still usable for generating tens of watts of power on a constant basis. Not enough to light your home, but more than enough for many of the portable devices we use today.
BTW, it looks like I posted the wrong link. Here's the correct one:
Well, I have to take your word for it, but cannot believe it, since Uranium has a greater atomic mass than Gold, which would make it less common fission product than Gold and is more unstable than Gold, which makes the product even rarer.
Actually, Uranium is about 500 times more common than gold. It's a *very* common substance. IIRC, most of it gets deposited on earth from meteroites (including the ones that burn up). You'll be pleased to know (sarcasm) that coal generally contains high levels of Uranium and that coal burning disperses large quantities of Uranium in populated areas.
Which requires next to no technical expertise and doesn't enables one to build atomic bombs (Hint: Sarcasm)
I didn't say that it doesn't require expertise. I said that anyone with the proper resources (ususually enough money to train or hire scientists and buy or build equipment) can enrich it. I don't know the details, but they probably use a fairly standard process of melting the metal and impurities, then using a centrifuge to separate lighter from heavier.
I did not meant that terrorists will build an atomic bomb (there are cheaper ways to scare and kill people (dirty bomb)), but that nuclear reactors are highly profilic targets for terrorists (dirty bomb for free), so they are in need of special protection.
"Dirty bombs" are not effective weapons. All the building materials in cities would tend to shield against radiation. An atomic bomb is far more effective, but takes more resources to build. An H-Bomb is all but impossible for a terrorist to build.
To say that it's any safer than coal fired plants at this point or any point in the near forseeable future is really picking one evil for another.
But you still have to admit that nuclear power has killed far, far, FAR fewer people than coal. It is (IMHO) very much the lesser of two evils. As a bonus, it has the potential to allow us to expand into space, something that no other technology can offer.
If you had also read the link, you would have read: "Strontium-90 was widely dispersed in the 1950s and 1960s in fall out from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons."
In other words, there are significant deposits of Sr-90 all around us from the nuclear testing. The levels have been dropping simply because nuclear testing was banned. If Sr-90 condems us to death, why hasn't the entire 50's-60's generation already died? Why is it instead that lifespans are longer than they've ever been in recorded history? (Save for Biblical references.)
The answer is that we recognize these dangers and do our best to mitigate them. When you drink water, you don't get it directly from a stream. You get it from a plant that has processed it and deemed it safe. When you get milk, cheese, corn, or other foods, they were tested to make sure that they didn't contain harmful materials. Even salt is fortified with Iodine so that Iodine radioisotopes don't have a chance to take hold of your system.
Dangerous chemicals are a way of life for us today. We learned how dangerous they were in the Industrial age. But instead of sticking our heads in the sand and crying for our mammas, we decided to apply what we learned and make sure that it doesn't become a problem. Anti-nuclear activists would have us stick our heads in the sand and say that nuclear power is too dangerous. That's despite the fact that all the nuclear power plants in the world have yet to kill as many people as a SINGLE coal burning plant.
Now you can decide that nuclear power isn't worth it, and live in dirty cities where the very air is slowly poisoning people, but I myself would rather see a day in age where we embrace nuclear technologies while at the same time recognizing its dangers. Not only will our cities be clean and our children healthier, but we will be able to explore our Solar System or visit the moon. The only thing holding us back are people who are too afraid. Are you willing to take that step?
Then would you like to explain why we're not all dead yet. Unlike a typical slashdotter, I *have* done my research. I'm not always right, but that's why I'm willing to listen when someone has a point. In any case, I was referring to it being buried. It doesn't last millions of years like some of the other stuff. In fact, it wouldn't be much of a hazard at all within about a century. Of course, the stuff that lasts millions of years isn't really the hazardous stuff anyway. People just forget to mention that fact.
The blast would have still lifted the roof of the containment and the surrounding building- and we'd still have had the fallout, etc.
That depends on how strong the walls are. Despite all the toxic chemicals that can be released, Chernobyl was still a boiler explosion. You can't get any more force out of that explosion than the amount the reactor structure was built to contain.
What I don't get is if only 14 people died of it, why do the docs scare the hell out of you when they diagnose you with it...
Doctors are people too. They only know what they've been taught. If they haven't been taught about nuclear physics (why would they) they'll be just as far in the dark as anyone else.
The experienced ones who understand more, are worried about the possible effects of radioisotopes on your body. Certain isotopes can be more harmful than others because your body will recognize them as things it needs and store them. Still, it isn't nearly as harmful as drinking hemlock or accidentally mixing bleach and amonia.
Ummm wrong.... the water is the only thing that keeps the reactors from melting down. Its used to cool the reactor. With out the water the heat from the unrianum would melt itself and cause a meltdown.
You might want to recheck your physics. During fission, more "fast" neutrons are released than "slow" neutrons. The slow ones are useful for propogating the fission, the fast ones are not. Thus reactors use water or heavy water as a moderator to slow the fast neutrons. Without the moderator, the fission rate will slow and eventually come to a stop. The fact that water can be used for cooling is simply an side effect made use of by reactor designers.
Finally, an intelligent response. I salute you, sir.
My answer is that I'm well aware of the problems with Sr-90, Cesium-137, and the various radioisotopes of iodine. But I also realize that there are far more dangerous chemicals that get accidentally released during chemical spills. Some were even used intentionally without knowledge of their true effects. Not to mention that *most* of the radioisotopes in our environment are from nuclear bomb testing, not Chernobyl and are present worldwide.
As for normal circumstances, there are two ways of looking at the "waste". If the waste is much "hotter" it means that it will no longer be a problem in a few decades, perhaps a century. If it's cooler (i.e. lasts thousands or millions of years) then it's just plain less dangerous to begin with. If you have waste in the middle of the spectrum, it's best to reprocess it so it lands in one of these two categories.
1. That looks like someone spray painted a globe rather than scientific data. Still, it looks like someone took care to try to portray the wind paths.
2. Radiation does not "spread" on the wind. Radioisotopes do. Chernobyl put out nowhere NEAR the amount of radioisotopes that the US and Russia put out during nuclear testing. Look up the EPA reports on Strontium-90 in the environment. You might be surprised.
3. Radiation falls off at the same rate as light. i.e. The amount of radiation is inversely proportional to the distance.
4. Radiation shielding abounds. Standard building materials are quite good at reducing radiation. Air and water also shield, although it takes much more air than say concrete.
There's a reason for a push to make fusion work. It's not only cheap and plentiful, it's SAFE.
Don't be so sure about that.
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow
on
Mine The Moon For Helium-3
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
According to that `report', perhaps the few dozen people in my family who have Thyroid cancer are just imagining it.
Nope. According to that paper, Thyroid cancer was the biggest problem. Thankfully, only 14 people have died of it so far. You and your family were actually treatable.
I really don't want to downplay the fact that Chernobyl was a huge tragedy. You and your family have probably suffered quite a bit and I am not immune to that. My only point is that Chernobyl was not much worse than other industrial accidents. For example, a coal burning plant in London managed to kill 3500 people in one week back in 1952. Areas of the United States have seen their property values go to zero as chemical spills made the areas uninhabitable. There are much worse things that can go wrong than a nuclear melt-down.
There is no such thing as 100% "safe" industry and nuclear power is far from the worst. That is my point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Imagine the fallout when this recently exploded space shuttle would have been carrying one of those
That's why NASA puts radioactive materials/devices in "black boxes" that can survive an unshielded reentry. That way they can pick up the box, dust it off, and possibly even reuse it (as they did with one RTG). No fallout, see?:-)
Incorrect. A melt-down would actually shut down a modern reactor. Older designs would result in a boiler explosion like the one in Chernobyl which killed a whopping total of 44 people. That's right, 44 people, 30 of whom were on site. While that's not good, it's hardly that much different than any other industrial accident.
I see that you also failed to read the report. PLEASE READ IT, THEN COMMENT. It states that *Norway* has a higher background radiation level than Chernobyl.
Perhaps you didn't read the report. 44 people died. Period. End of story. Ukraine is perfectly inhabitable (As my Russian wife can attest to. I'm sure there's a few annoying ones she'd like to see irradiated tho.)
Besides that, the population in the region has been affected: cancer and birth deformity rates have gone up significantly since the accident.
DID YOU READ THE FSCKING REPORT? IT IS THE OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION.
Most cancer situations were in newborns in the area of Chernobyl at the time of the accident. These babies consumed radioactive iodine and developed Thyroid cancer. Most were treated, but a few (14, as I said) did die. Whoever told you otherwise was lying.
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow
on
Mine The Moon For Helium-3
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, some people are waging wars to avoid that they come into wrong hands.
Which is just plain goofy. Uranium is one of the most common substances on the planet. All you need is a process to separate and enrich the stuff.
Next, they are highly profiliated targets for terroristic attacks, and are in need of strong protection.
Just about anyone with the proper resources can build an atomic nuke (H-Bombs are a little trickier). The main problem is shaping the triggering explosion correctly to instill "super-critcial" fission into the material. The only ways to make sure you got it right are:
1. Test it. This is sure to be noticed by someone when you succeed. 2. Use a computer model. This is why Saddam wanted Playstations. 3. Drop it on your enemy and hope like hell it works.
The third is the only option for terrorists right now (because of technology embargoes and such), but has issues with moral in the case the bomb fails.
Which is all inherent to the fact that they use and need very refined and radioactive fuel and produce waste with similar attributes.
Strontium-90 has a half life of less than a century and is a beta emitter. It's not a huge problem. The stuff that is the real problem (Gamma emitters, etc) are in very small quantities and are NOT highly radioactive. If they were, they'd have shorter half-lives.
In any case, a breeder reactor can reuse the "waste". Carter was just afraid that terrorist boogey men would somehow get ahold of the materials if they were reprocessed.
Even if we assume that "nuclear waste" can't be reprocessed, there's very little of it. Besides, it's unfair to call it "waste". Some of us want that stuff!
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow
on
Mine The Moon For Helium-3
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Apparently no one knows how to build a nuke reactor safely enough for the insurance companies.
Considering that there have been zero civilian deaths from nuclear power use in the US, and that thousands die every years from diseases brought about by coal-burning, I have to wonder what type of design they want. Perhaps a nuclear power plant that produces power but doesn't actually have a reactor?
Re:Is there REALLY anything wrong with Fission pow
on
Mine The Moon For Helium-3
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Chernobyl
I hate to break it to you, but an industrial accident is an industrial accident whether we're talking chemical spills, molten steel, coal burning, nuclear fission, or nuclear fusion. They all can potentially result in a lot of deaths. Yet we deal with these risks every day and trust that companies will do their best to be safe about handling dangerous materials.
In the case of Chernobyl, the Russian government stole a US design, built a reactor, and assigned engineers who didn't understand how it worked. As a result, they did quite a few things that no sane plant manager would have allowed (such as removing control rods and cutting wires). The end result was a boiler explosion that killed about 30 people on site, and about 14 from chemical contamination of radioactive iodine. (I just recently came across these figures from an official report. Here's a link if you wish to verify.) Modern reactor designs make Chernobyl type situations impossible because a melt down situation will boil away the water that is used to keep the reaction going. In older designs, the water was under pressure and would super-heat instead of boiling.
Perhaps the most telling point is that the Chernobyl design had actually been decommissioned here in the US as being unsafe. Yet the communist government was so intent on getting an atomic bomb that they used the stolen specs just to show that they as well could use nuclear power for "peaceful" uses.
In any case, the other 3 Chernobyl reactors continued running for many years despite the safety problems, so it's not like the entire area was leveled or anything. It takes a very specific shaping of the fissible material to produce a nuclear explosion. That shaping doesn't happen inside a reactor.
Slashdot Mirror
The lesson to be learned? QNX all the way, baby! ;-)
Coal's been in use for far longer than Uranium and Plutonium
And a single plant today *still* kills or poisons more people than all the nuclear plants that have ever existed.
To compare the number of people killed at this point is risky (and irresponsible) as your sample size for the latter of the two is far, FAR too small.
That's a difficult statement to make. Currently, there are ~500 nuclear reactors in the world, plus the 50+ used by US Navy Vessels (8 on the Enterprise alone, 2 on a standard Nimitz carrier, and 1-2 on each nuclear sub). In addition, there's about 550 research reactors operating worldwide. That's about as good of a sampling as we're going to get. (More info here.)
I'm not saying that we should shut down all the coal and oil plants overnight and replace them with nuclear. Such a rush would be irresponsible at best. Instead, we should be slowly scaling up and improving our use of nuclear power instead of shutting down the reactors without replacements (which tends to result in problems like California's rolling blackouts, or Wisconsin's summer brownouts).
A release has dire consequences- ones you keep downplaying just because few have been killed.
Just about every industrial accident has dire consequences. That's a fact of life. Considering the number of operating reactors, and the relatively few accidents that have happened, I'd say nuclear power has had a pretty thorough shake-down. The few accidents that have occurred have ranged from best case (TMI), to worst case (Chernobyl) and a few in between that have produced interesting info (Fermi I Breeder Reactor).
The truth is that nuclear power is an industrial operation that deals with tons of potentially dangerous chemicals. In the event of a catastrophe, people will die. There's no changing that. However, the number of people who die will not be significantly more than any other comparable industrial accident. Thus, similar safety precautions are taken and have to date shown to be effective.
Worst case scenarios such as the China Syndrome have been shown to be wholly incorrect and based on bad science. Similarly, winds do not carry radiation as many have feared. They can carry small radioisotope particles which present a mitigable danger. Larger chunks and heavier isotopes are simply too heavy to be carried by winds (or at least very far).
I will admit some selfishness, however. While we can continue poisoning ourselves with coal and oil here on Earth, we simply can't make it to space on those technologies. There just isn't a great enough energy to mass ratio in those or other "socially acceptable" technologies. The ONLY way we're going to be able to colonize other planets, or take frequent trips to the moon, is by use of nuclear technology. In many ways, this is the safest application of all. Rockets would be launched over the seas, have their materials packed in survivable containers, and designed to burn their fuel at a rate that would normally be considered a melt-down. You can't have a melt-down if it's already melted (or gaseous)!
Once in space, the amount of radiation and nuclear material expelled simply can't compare to the amount put out by the Sun or contained in Asteroids and Meteorites.
Unless someone can provide links to a more definitive study
I believe I already did that. Where do you think this "44" figure keeps coming from?
But consider the volume of the atmosphere (vast), the amount of fissile materials in the nuclear tests (way less than 1000 kilograms per test), the conversion rate of u-235/pu-240 into sr-90, the locations of the tests (remote, or over water) and the likely dispersal pattern.
:-)
So you're saying that Sr-90 can't be a worldwide issue because the concentrations will decrease the more it disperses? So that means that Sr-90 is just like any other dangerous chemical in that it is most dangerous only to the immediate area of the accident.
Thank you for making my point for me.
BTW I suggest that you stop your poorly-informed ranting about the safety of nuclear power (which I personally *prefer* nuclear to burning fossil fuels). You aren't going to have any credibility to argue your position if you make factually incorrect statements, just because they sound nice.
Where was I factually incorrect? I honestly would like to know so that I can get them correct next time.
One thing that is a proven fact that you need to consider, is that some Sr-90 does get into your body. It's not much, but it is there. That's why I get annoyed when people say it instantly condemns you to a slow death. The truth is that there's always a chance you could get cancer just from cosmic rays. The chances simply increase as your body stores radioisotopes.
Sorry, I had to run so I didn't finish answering. Here's the rest:
8 &oe=UTF-8&safe=off&selm=33fe4f52.0312121455.3c1c11 7d%40posting.google.com
Sorry, the link you provided does not explain how they can replace power-plants. As far as I can tell from the responses and a quick search on Google, their task is to generate some Watts, like fuel cells, not some Gigawatts, like fusion or fission reactors.
That's because I'm not talking about generating power for the grid. I'm referring to generating power for devices such as cell phones and laptops. The nuclear "waste" is still usable for generating tens of watts of power on a constant basis. Not enough to light your home, but more than enough for many of the portable devices we use today.
BTW, it looks like I posted the wrong link. Here's the correct one:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
Well, I have to take your word for it, but cannot believe it, since Uranium has a greater atomic mass than Gold, which would make it less common fission product than Gold and is more unstable than Gold, which makes the product even rarer.
Actually, Uranium is about 500 times more common than gold. It's a *very* common substance. IIRC, most of it gets deposited on earth from meteroites (including the ones that burn up). You'll be pleased to know (sarcasm) that coal generally contains high levels of Uranium and that coal burning disperses large quantities of Uranium in populated areas.
Which requires next to no technical expertise and doesn't enables one to build atomic bombs (Hint: Sarcasm)
I didn't say that it doesn't require expertise. I said that anyone with the proper resources (ususually enough money to train or hire scientists and buy or build equipment) can enrich it. I don't know the details, but they probably use a fairly standard process of melting the metal and impurities, then using a centrifuge to separate lighter from heavier.
I did not meant that terrorists will build an atomic bomb (there are cheaper ways to scare and kill people (dirty bomb)), but that nuclear reactors are highly profilic targets for terrorists (dirty bomb for free), so they are in need of special protection.
"Dirty bombs" are not effective weapons. All the building materials in cities would tend to shield against radiation. An atomic bomb is far more effective, but takes more resources to build. An H-Bomb is all but impossible for a terrorist to build.
To say that it's any safer than coal fired plants at this point or any point in the near forseeable future is really picking one evil for another.
But you still have to admit that nuclear power has killed far, far, FAR fewer people than coal. It is (IMHO) very much the lesser of two evils. As a bonus, it has the potential to allow us to expand into space, something that no other technology can offer.
Ok, I have to admit. I chuckled at that one. Kudos! :-)
If you had also read the link, you would have read: "Strontium-90 was widely dispersed in the 1950s and 1960s in fall out from atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons."
In other words, there are significant deposits of Sr-90 all around us from the nuclear testing. The levels have been dropping simply because nuclear testing was banned. If Sr-90 condems us to death, why hasn't the entire 50's-60's generation already died? Why is it instead that lifespans are longer than they've ever been in recorded history? (Save for Biblical references.)
The answer is that we recognize these dangers and do our best to mitigate them. When you drink water, you don't get it directly from a stream. You get it from a plant that has processed it and deemed it safe. When you get milk, cheese, corn, or other foods, they were tested to make sure that they didn't contain harmful materials. Even salt is fortified with Iodine so that Iodine radioisotopes don't have a chance to take hold of your system.
Dangerous chemicals are a way of life for us today. We learned how dangerous they were in the Industrial age. But instead of sticking our heads in the sand and crying for our mammas, we decided to apply what we learned and make sure that it doesn't become a problem. Anti-nuclear activists would have us stick our heads in the sand and say that nuclear power is too dangerous. That's despite the fact that all the nuclear power plants in the world have yet to kill as many people as a SINGLE coal burning plant.
Now you can decide that nuclear power isn't worth it, and live in dirty cities where the very air is slowly poisoning people, but I myself would rather see a day in age where we embrace nuclear technologies while at the same time recognizing its dangers. Not only will our cities be clean and our children healthier, but we will be able to explore our Solar System or visit the moon. The only thing holding us back are people who are too afraid. Are you willing to take that step?
Then would you like to explain why we're not all dead yet. Unlike a typical slashdotter, I *have* done my research. I'm not always right, but that's why I'm willing to listen when someone has a point. In any case, I was referring to it being buried. It doesn't last millions of years like some of the other stuff. In fact, it wouldn't be much of a hazard at all within about a century. Of course, the stuff that lasts millions of years isn't really the hazardous stuff anyway. People just forget to mention that fact.
Oops. That should read "morale".
The blast would have still lifted the roof of the containment and the surrounding building- and we'd still have had the fallout, etc.
That depends on how strong the walls are. Despite all the toxic chemicals that can be released, Chernobyl was still a boiler explosion. You can't get any more force out of that explosion than the amount the reactor structure was built to contain.
What I don't get is if only 14 people died of it, why do the docs scare the hell out of you when they diagnose you with it...
Doctors are people too. They only know what they've been taught. If they haven't been taught about nuclear physics (why would they) they'll be just as far in the dark as anyone else.
The experienced ones who understand more, are worried about the possible effects of radioisotopes on your body. Certain isotopes can be more harmful than others because your body will recognize them as things it needs and store them. Still, it isn't nearly as harmful as drinking hemlock or accidentally mixing bleach and amonia.
Ummm wrong.... the water is the only thing that keeps the reactors from melting down. Its used to cool the reactor. With out the water the heat from the unrianum would melt itself and cause a meltdown.
You might want to recheck your physics. During fission, more "fast" neutrons are released than "slow" neutrons. The slow ones are useful for propogating the fission, the fast ones are not. Thus reactors use water or heavy water as a moderator to slow the fast neutrons. Without the moderator, the fission rate will slow and eventually come to a stop. The fact that water can be used for cooling is simply an side effect made use of by reactor designers.
Finally, an intelligent response. I salute you, sir.
My answer is that I'm well aware of the problems with Sr-90, Cesium-137, and the various radioisotopes of iodine. But I also realize that there are far more dangerous chemicals that get accidentally released during chemical spills. Some were even used intentionally without knowledge of their true effects. Not to mention that *most* of the radioisotopes in our environment are from nuclear bomb testing, not Chernobyl and are present worldwide.
As for normal circumstances, there are two ways of looking at the "waste". If the waste is much "hotter" it means that it will no longer be a problem in a few decades, perhaps a century. If it's cooler (i.e. lasts thousands or millions of years) then it's just plain less dangerous to begin with. If you have waste in the middle of the spectrum, it's best to reprocess it so it lands in one of these two categories.
I want you to look at something...
A few comments:
1. That looks like someone spray painted a globe rather than scientific data. Still, it looks like someone took care to try to portray the wind paths.
2. Radiation does not "spread" on the wind. Radioisotopes do. Chernobyl put out nowhere NEAR the amount of radioisotopes that the US and Russia put out during nuclear testing. Look up the EPA reports on Strontium-90 in the environment. You might be surprised.
3. Radiation falls off at the same rate as light. i.e. The amount of radiation is inversely proportional to the distance.
4. Radiation shielding abounds. Standard building materials are quite good at reducing radiation. Air and water also shield, although it takes much more air than say concrete.
There's a reason for a push to make fusion work. It's not only cheap and plentiful, it's SAFE.
Don't be so sure about that.
According to that `report', perhaps the few dozen people in my family who have Thyroid cancer are just imagining it.
Nope. According to that paper, Thyroid cancer was the biggest problem. Thankfully, only 14 people have died of it so far. You and your family were actually treatable.
I really don't want to downplay the fact that Chernobyl was a huge tragedy. You and your family have probably suffered quite a bit and I am not immune to that. My only point is that Chernobyl was not much worse than other industrial accidents. For example, a coal burning plant in London managed to kill 3500 people in one week back in 1952. Areas of the United States have seen their property values go to zero as chemical spills made the areas uninhabitable. There are much worse things that can go wrong than a nuclear melt-down.
There is no such thing as 100% "safe" industry and nuclear power is far from the worst. That is my point. Nothing more, nothing less.
Imagine the fallout when this recently exploded space shuttle would have been carrying one of those
:-)
That's why NASA puts radioactive materials/devices in "black boxes" that can survive an unshielded reentry. That way they can pick up the box, dust it off, and possibly even reuse it (as they did with one RTG). No fallout, see?
Incorrect. A melt-down would actually shut down a modern reactor. Older designs would result in a boiler explosion like the one in Chernobyl which killed a whopping total of 44 people. That's right, 44 people, 30 of whom were on site. While that's not good, it's hardly that much different than any other industrial accident.
I see that you also failed to read the report. PLEASE READ IT, THEN COMMENT. It states that *Norway* has a higher background radiation level than Chernobyl.
Perhaps you didn't read the report. 44 people died. Period. End of story. Ukraine is perfectly inhabitable (As my Russian wife can attest to. I'm sure there's a few annoying ones she'd like to see irradiated tho.)
Besides that, the population in the region has been affected: cancer and birth deformity rates have gone up significantly since the accident.
DID YOU READ THE FSCKING REPORT? IT IS THE OFFICIAL INTERNATIONAL REPORT ON THE SITUATION.
Most cancer situations were in newborns in the area of Chernobyl at the time of the accident. These babies consumed radioactive iodine and developed Thyroid cancer. Most were treated, but a few (14, as I said) did die. Whoever told you otherwise was lying.
Well, some people are waging wars to avoid that they come into wrong hands.
Which is just plain goofy. Uranium is one of the most common substances on the planet. All you need is a process to separate and enrich the stuff.
Next, they are highly profiliated targets for terroristic attacks, and are in need of strong protection.
Just about anyone with the proper resources can build an atomic nuke (H-Bombs are a little trickier). The main problem is shaping the triggering explosion correctly to instill "super-critcial" fission into the material. The only ways to make sure you got it right are:
1. Test it. This is sure to be noticed by someone when you succeed.
2. Use a computer model. This is why Saddam wanted Playstations.
3. Drop it on your enemy and hope like hell it works.
The third is the only option for terrorists right now (because of technology embargoes and such), but has issues with moral in the case the bomb fails.
Which is all inherent to the fact that they use and need very refined and radioactive fuel and produce waste with similar attributes.
1. Breeder reactors
2. Atmoic batteries
Nuff' said.
Strontium-90 has a half life of less than a century and is a beta emitter. It's not a huge problem. The stuff that is the real problem (Gamma emitters, etc) are in very small quantities and are NOT highly radioactive. If they were, they'd have shorter half-lives.
In any case, a breeder reactor can reuse the "waste". Carter was just afraid that terrorist boogey men would somehow get ahold of the materials if they were reprocessed.
Even if we assume that "nuclear waste" can't be reprocessed, there's very little of it. Besides, it's unfair to call it "waste". Some of us want that stuff!
Apparently no one knows how to build a nuke reactor safely enough for the insurance companies.
Considering that there have been zero civilian deaths from nuclear power use in the US, and that thousands die every years from diseases brought about by coal-burning, I have to wonder what type of design they want. Perhaps a nuclear power plant that produces power but doesn't actually have a reactor?
Chernobyl
I hate to break it to you, but an industrial accident is an industrial accident whether we're talking chemical spills, molten steel, coal burning, nuclear fission, or nuclear fusion. They all can potentially result in a lot of deaths. Yet we deal with these risks every day and trust that companies will do their best to be safe about handling dangerous materials.
In the case of Chernobyl, the Russian government stole a US design, built a reactor, and assigned engineers who didn't understand how it worked. As a result, they did quite a few things that no sane plant manager would have allowed (such as removing control rods and cutting wires). The end result was a boiler explosion that killed about 30 people on site, and about 14 from chemical contamination of radioactive iodine. (I just recently came across these figures from an official report. Here's a link if you wish to verify.) Modern reactor designs make Chernobyl type situations impossible because a melt down situation will boil away the water that is used to keep the reaction going. In older designs, the water was under pressure and would super-heat instead of boiling.
Perhaps the most telling point is that the Chernobyl design had actually been decommissioned here in the US as being unsafe. Yet the communist government was so intent on getting an atomic bomb that they used the stolen specs just to show that they as well could use nuclear power for "peaceful" uses.
In any case, the other 3 Chernobyl reactors continued running for many years despite the safety problems, so it's not like the entire area was leveled or anything. It takes a very specific shaping of the fissible material to produce a nuclear explosion. That shaping doesn't happen inside a reactor.