Is nuclear energy "polluting"? (was Re: Is car pooling f
Nick Janow
> In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
> the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
> years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated than
> you would think).
That's true, but timescales are important in determining what is "environmental
damage". Do you consider the Chernoby area a "clean environment" because the
radioactivity is temporary in geologic timescales? PCB's do break down
eventually, does that make them environmentally safe?
Uranium mine tailings will eventually become soil, with a lower radioactive
content than if it hadn't been processed, but you'll have a lot of generations
of humans for whom the tailings will be an environmental problem.
Sorry, but you can't dismiss a problem by simply using a time frame that is
inappropriate.
--
Nick Janow
> Repeat after me 1000 times. This is a POLITICAL problem. The technology was
> developed decades ago. POLITICAL, not technical. Remember that.
Being a political problem and not a technical problem doesn't make it any less
of a problem. In fact, technological problems are often easier and faster to
solve. :-\
--
Kenneth Ng
: k...@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) writes:
: > In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
: > the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
:> years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated than
: > you would think).
:That's true, but timescales are important in determining what is "environmental
: damage". Do you consider the Chernoby area a "clean environment" because the
: radioactivity is temporary in geologic timescales? PCB's do break down
: eventually, does that make them environmentally safe?
In Guyana they used Koolaide (mixed with potasium cynaide) to kill several
hundred people, should they therefore ban Koolaide? I think not. These
are two different subjects. Unless of course you also believe that policemen
and murderers are both law enforcement officials because they both use guns.
The reference was to the toxicity hazard of nuclear waste.
: Uranium mine tailings will eventually become soil, with a lower radioactive
: content than if it hadn't been processed, but you'll have a lot of generations
: of humans for whom the tailings will be an environmental problem.
Hm, changing the subject again eh? Whats the problem? Can't win the
arguement so you change the focus again? I spent several months looking
up the radiological hazards of nuclear waste to find the facts behind the
myths that nuclear waste remains hazardous for 24K, 100K, 1 million, 25
million, and 4 billion years ( I have no idea where the heck the opponents
dream up these numbers. They sound like the Iraqi deaths suffered in the
gulf war. Every so often add another zero or two.) And because there
is a variance in how toxicity is measured, I quote both ends of the ranges
that I have found, 300 years and 1200 years.
By the way, tailings are just as radioactive as they were in the ground,
mankind added no radiation.
--
Kenneth Ng
Please reply to kdn...@hertz.njit.edu for now.
"No problem, here's how you build it" -- R. Barclay, ST: TNG
Kenneth Ng
Stating that it is a political problem rather than a technical problem puts
the focus on where it belongs. To do so would be like blaming companies
for paying zero taxes rather than blaming the Congressmen who wrote the
laws that let them pay zero taxes.
Nick Janow
> Stating that it is a political problem rather than a technical problem puts
> the focus on where it belongs.
True, but it neither solves the problem, nor ensures that it will be solved.
Until the political problems regarding nuclear waste are solved, nuclear waste
is a concern (potential problem) and the technological solutions are
meaningless unless they work _despite_ the politicians and corrupt contractors.
--
Nick Janow
>+> In the research I have done on the toxicity of nuclear waste, it seems that
>+> the waste is less toxic than the ore it comes from in between 300 and 1200
>+> years, depending on how you measure toxicity (its a lot more complicated
>+> than you would think).
>+
>+ That's true, but timescales are important in determining what is
>+ "environmental
>+ damage".
>
> The reference was to the toxicity hazard of nuclear waste.
Yes, but the hazard is still dependent on timescales. Something that is a
hazard for 300 years is considered environmental damage for several generations
of people. A clearcut forest can recover in 300 years (depends on several
factors), but a clearcut is still considered environmental damage. If nuclear
waste became safe in five years, it wouldn't be considered a serious
environmental problem as long as it was contained during that time.
>+ Uranium mine tailings will eventually become soil, with a lower radioactive
>+ content than if it hadn't been processed, but you'll have a lot of
>+ generations of humans for whom the tailings will be an environmental
>+ problem.
>
> Hm, changing the subject again eh? Whats the problem? Can't win the
> arguement so you change the focus again?
No, it's the same subject: the importance of time as a factor in determining
how serious an environmental hazard is. I don't have an exact figure for how
many years a "generation" is, but I think it's somewhere between ten and fifty.
Whatever it is, 300 years would mean a lot of people who might be affected by
the radioactive waste, whether it's by being unable to use a particular area,
dealing with a site that might start leaking (climatic changes affecting
groundwater levels) or eco-terrorists releasing the waste to prove that it's
dangerous (people do the craziest things).
> By the way, tailings are just as radioactive as they were in the ground,
> mankind added no radiation.
Tailings tend to release materials (radon, uranium, etc) at a faster rate as
tailings than as solid rock. The radioactivity is the same, but the rate of
release into the environment is higher. The tailings are also an environmental
problem from non-radioactive factors too (acid leachate).
I'm a supporter of nuclear technolgoy. I just don't like to see valid concerns
brushed aside with invalid arguments. I know that the waste will become
relatively safe in several hundred years. However, it's going to be dangerous
for _my_ entire lifetime, so I do consider it an environmental hazard unless
it's handled properly.
As John so carefully pointed out, handling the waste properly is a political
problem. There are techniques I trust for handling waste safely; it's the
politicians (and the companies who win the contracts) that I don't trust to do
things properly.
--
Carl J Lydick
Not to mention the technophobe greenies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CA...@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL
Disclaimer: Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS. That's what I get paid for. My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below). So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it. If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Paul Houle
>tailings than as solid rock. The radioactivity is the same, but the rate of
>release into the environment is higher. The tailings are also an environmental
>problem from non-radioactive factors too (acid leachate).
>
Yes, many people don't realize that transport properties determine
how dangerous different radioisotopes are. About 30 megacuries of radioactive
noble gases were estimated to be released from the TMI accident. That's
alot of radiation -- but noble gases don't stay in the body or get
concentrated in the ecosystem, so this isn't as severe as it could be.
Probably between 10-20 curies of radioactive iodine were released;
this stuff is really bad because it concentrates in the thyroid. Had 30
MCu of radioactive iodine leaked from TMI, this would have been a serious
health problem... But 30 MCu of noble gases is much less severe.
--
John De Armond
> Yes, many people don't realize that transport properties determine
>how dangerous different radioisotopes are. About 30 megacuries of radioactive
>noble gases were estimated to be released from the TMI accident. That's
>alot of radiation
Wrong and no. 30 megacuries is not a lot of "radiation" because the curie
is a measure of radioactivity. The amount and quality of radiation
emitted by a curie of radioactive material is strictly dependent on
the elements present.
Thirty megacuries of mainly Kr-85 (~80 kev gamma, 0.4% abundance) (if
that number is valid - I don't have my TMI file handy.) released
as it was over several days, emitted such a trivial amount of radiation
that it was never detected at the site boundary. In the case of TMI,
that boundary is only a few hundred feet away. That, despite the
fact that Kr-85 is a very heavy gas that tends to lay around
in low spots despite significant draft. (I've had to use smoke
ejection fans to clear out the basement of a lab where we
spilled a few thousand curies of Kr-85.)
>-- but noble gases don't stay in the body or get
>concentrated in the ecosystem, so this isn't as severe as it could be.
Correction, it was zero severe.
> Probably between 10-20 curies of radioactive iodine were released;
>this stuff is really bad because it concentrates in the thyroid. Had 30
>MCu of radioactive iodine leaked from TMI, this would have been a serious
>health problem... But 30 MCu of noble gases is much less severe.
The release of I, if any, was postulated. None was ever measured. It
should be noted that essentially the entire core inventory of I was
released at TMI as the fuel melted. This I either plated out on
internal surfaces (minor contribution) or immediately combined with
the cesium also released and made cesium iodide which happily stayed
in solution in the primary coolant. It should also be noted that the
inventory of I in the core quickly (minutes) drops below 30 MCi (note
the correct abbreviation) number you hypothesized due to decay.
You really ought to know what you're talking about in this group and
not just read that greenie stuff to us.
John
--
John De Armond, WD4OQC |Interested in high performance mobility?
Rapid Deployment System, Inc. |Interested in high technology and computers?
Marietta, Ga |Write me about "Performance Engineering" (TM)
j...@dixie.com |Magazine.
Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
Paul Houle
>should be noted that essentially the entire core inventory of I was
>released at TMI as the fuel melted. This I either plated out on
>internal surfaces (minor contribution) or immediately combined with
>the cesium also released and made cesium iodide which happily stayed
>in solution in the primary coolant. It should also be noted that the
>inventory of I in the core quickly (minutes) drops below 30 MCi (note
>the correct abbreviation) number you hypothesized due to decay.
>
>You really ought to know what you're talking about in this group and
>not just read that greenie stuff to us.
I got those numbers from a textbook on nuclear reactor engineering,
which is decidedly not a "greenie" source.
>j...@dixie.com |Magazine.
>Need Usenet public Access in Atlanta? Write Me for info on Dixie.com.
--