|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 07/07/2005 : 16:02:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Hitchiker1:
DAVE : Evidently you don't rock. You're trying to hide my posts in the health category where nobody is going to look. The problem is with the nuclear power industry that is creating a health hazard.
Why on earth would you think that the health folder is not of interest to us skeptics? And if your concern about the nuclear power industry is a matter of health, well..? After reading the above quote, I have to resist moving the thread over to humor. You really need to calm down. On this site, if you have reasoned arguments, that is sufficient. Paranoia just makes you look, ummmmm, paranoid.
quote:
Hitchiker1:
Hey keep up the light bulb jokes we know where
your paycheck comes from !!!
More paranoia? Dave is the editor of SFN. As another staff member here, and as the administrator who hired him, I can say with some confidence that he is worth more then he gets. Hell, he's worth more than I get! And the last time I looked, none of us works for the nuclear power industry.
Go ahead and make your case, and please try to avoid foolish statements. They just make it hard to take you seriously.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 17:43:27 [Permalink]
|
Ho-kay. Let's see how much of this I can put up with.
quote:
More replies : I would like to thank that nuclear industry guy for that
GEM of doublespeak : - There is no toxic waste going into the water /
followed later by : -Liquid effluents from other sources are allowed to be released within limits./
BINGO!!!
Emphasis added: Boron10
Bingo? Perhaps you should read the post prior to responding (although, I have made the same mistake). I trust you understand that other sources means things like sprinkler drains, fire hoses, etc. Not so much radiation hides in there.quote:
Effluents are guess what ? Liquid waste.
That's correct.quote:
That goes where ? In the river nearby.
among other places; there might be a separate sewage system. quote:
And what's in those effluents ? Radioactive elements!
Where do you get this idea? You assume that, since the water comes from a nuclear reactor facility, it must be radioactive? Think about this. Every place of business has liquid waste. A nuclear facility is a place of business. The radioactive liquid is retained at the site. The non-radioactive liquid is released. Quite simple.quote:
And how the hell do I know anyway ? I just happened to have read the DRIRE report about the limits which were not respected in the Vienne
river from the effluents at the Civaux Nuclear power plant. They use
the same technology as we do. The DRIRE is the French government industry watch dog. And Civaux was naughty-naughty just like the rest of you guys.
You do realize that we are not in France, right? Our watchdog organization is called the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and is far more stringent than the DRIRE. Also, what makes you think that France uses the same technology as the US? I haven't seen any evidence of that (to be fair, I also haven't seen evidence against that, either). quote:
More replies . First off some facts : 1947 nobel prize winner Physicist
and geneticist Pr. Dr. Mueller demonstrated in his work that even the
most infinitessimal amount of radioactivity effects cell growth.
No, he didn't. He demonstrated that there are biological effects of low-level radiation. There is no reliable model for infinitesimal amounts of radiation: since we can't detect it, we can't model it. quote:
Conclusion ? There are no lower limits to radiation safety !
You're probably right. As several others on this board have pointed out, though, http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/radiation/sour |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/07/2005 : 18:03:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hitchiker1
What do you think Marie Curie died of ? 1. A heart attack. 2. A car crash. 3. CANCER. ?
None of the above:On July 4, 1934, Marie Curie died of aplastic anemia, a blood disease that often results from getting too much radiation. She was buried next to Pierre. And Pierre died from...
...having his head run over by a horse-drawn carriage. (Does that count as a "car crash?")
As I tried to tell you before, Hitchiker1: no matter how passionately you feel about an issue, if you don't have your facts straight, you'll just look like an idiot.
By the way, do you own a smoke detector? If so, what kind? If not, do you really think they pose more of a risk than does a fire? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/08/2005 : 15:40:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hitchiker1:
At the Civaux nuclear power plant which is based on American technology the FAIL-SAFE command cluster device which is supposed to prevent criticality by dropping Boron into the pool and seperating the neutrons from knocking the hell out of each other FAILED
TWICE !!! during trial runs and a third time was obstructed by a jacket or something left draped over the mechanism by a temp worker ?
The Civaux is a recently completed two unit pressurized water reactor plant, based on technology developed by Westinghouse. It is similar to many American plants, and I am quite familiar with the Westinghouse design.
I'm having trouble deciphering what exactly you are referring to by a "command cluster device" and a "pool". The reactor is not a pool, it is a ~6 inch thick steel vessel. Criticality is simply a self-sustaining nuclear reaction, that is there are enough neutrons released from fission to create enough additional fissions to keep the amount of fissions constant over time. The plant is designed to operate in a critical condition at steady state power. It operates at supercritical to raise power, and subcritical to reduce power and shutdown. This is designed to be a controlled process.
Power is controlled by use of soluble boron and neutron absorbing rods, none of which are designed to "(separate) the neutrons from knocking the hell out of each other". They are designed to absorb neutrons to reduce the amount available to cause fission, thus reducing power, or on a trip (automatic shutdown) when all the rods are rapidly inserted into the core, stop the reaction completely. I can't tell from your description what system failed or why. Perhaps a reference to a report documenting the problem would help. And as Boron10 pointed out, that's why we test before operating.
quote:
the cooling system pipes developed cracks within the first 3 months of operation and the amount of water rushing into the containment area caused a problem which took 36 hours just to locate.
Any leak that takes 36 hours to locate has to be pretty small, and most likely would be from a small diameter valve or fitting. Again, reference to an actual report would help. The plant where I work is limited to one (1) gallon per minute (gpm) of unidentified leakage from the reactor coolant system (measured using a mass balance calculation). We normally operate at less than 0.2 gpm, and any time there is a noticable increase, we go find it and fix it. Also, this leakage cannot be "pressure boundary leakage", i.e. a leak due to a through wall break or crack in the reactor vessel or connected piping which cannot be isolated from the reactor. Any pressure boundary leakage requires the unit to shut down.
quote:
at the Blaye plant near Bordeaux France an important part of the electrical system was constructed near ground level.The Gironde river nearby overflowed after 3 days of rain causing major problems
Can't speak for the French, but a US plant must design for the worst flood predicted in a 100 year period. And the failure of any single component is anticipated in the design.
quote:
I would like to thank that nuclear industry guy for that
GEM of doublespeak : - There is no toxic waste going into the water /
followed later by : -Liquid effluents from other sources are allowed to be released within limits./
BINGO!!!
Effluents are guess what ? Liquid waste.
That goes where ? In the river nearby.
And what's in those effluents ? Radioactive elements!
Perhaps I was not clear enough. Spent fuel pool water (which is not highly contaminated anyway) is not released to the environment. It's not cheap to purify it, cool it, and keep the required boron concentration in it, why would we throw it away? Low level radioactive liquid wastes are allowed to be released to the environment, provided they are within legal limits. These are isotopes with short half-lives (they won't be radioactive for long) and at low concentrations. Long lived fission products like plutonium are not released. They are contained within the fuel itself.
More later. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 07/09/2005 : 06:32:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Hitchiker1:
Who is going to remember where they put the plutonium in 20 000 years ? Thats the half-life of the wonderful stuff that's produced in nuclear power plants!
...20 000 years from now when there is an earthquake and the nuclear waste in the protective cement encasements buried in a supposed geologically secure area comes to the surface again with a vengence
I understand this concern. And I don't have a definitive answer. I do know that spent fuel shipping containers have been rammed by locomotives, smashed into concrete walls, and immersed in fire, and retained their integrity. These containers are not made from cement, they are made from steel. The motions typical of an earthquake are pretty mild compared to what the containers are designed for, so it would be just about impossible for an earthquake to expose the fuel inside.
Long term storage of spent fuel is, in my (admittedly biased) opinion, technically feasible. I think its much more of a political problem finding someplace to accept being a repository.
BTW, H1, I don't know where you are getting your information from. It sounds like you may have been talking to a construction or temporary worker at a plant. While these people may be very good welders or carpenters or electricians, they usually know little or nothing about the operation of the plant. I suggest that if you are really concerned about this issue, you do some research and learn about the technology. You may still be against it, but at least you'll have a reasonable basis for your concern. You might start here or here. |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
