|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
 Posted - 11/07/2013 : 18:28:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
For myself, I have no reason to give this article on this web site the slightest bit of creditability. |
Regardless of the host site's bias, this article is sound.
Here are my credentials as an expert witness:
I have been certified by the US DOE as a Nuclear Reactor Operator, by US Naval Reactors as a Nuclear Engineer Officer, and by US Strategic Systems as a Nuclear Weapons Officer. In addition to all of this, I am about halfway through a Master's Degree in Physics. I have 16 years of experience with nuclear power, 4 years with nuclear weapons, and extensive training in nuclear theory and engineering, as well as casualty/disaster response. This article is sound. The only reason I linked to it is because the author is a better writer than I am.| How do you feel about global warming Boron10? Has the scientific community come to an over whelming conclusion that it is in fact occurring or just a bunch of crazy "hysteria". According to the web site you linked, it's all bullshit, left media, Obama Democratic lies. Nice! |
You are poisoning the well. I agree that many things on that site are biased; however, this article is sound.Check out all their other articles on the subject, through the "Climate Depot" button, above the article. I wouldn't believe shit from "www cfact org". Unless it was backed up by real science elsewhere. Could you possibly find a more creditable website or article.Link
CFACT President David Rothbard and Executive Director Craig Rucker believe strongly that "the power of the free market, combined with the applications of safe technologies, can offer humanity practical solutions to many of the worlds pressing concerns.
Craig Rucker stated that mankind faces a threat "not from man-made global warming, but from man-made hysteria. |
That article was custom written and belongs only on this website. |
Neither of these people authored the article I linked to. Though Dr. Kemm is a member of CFACT's board, and has written many articles that I believe are out of his area of expertise, his PhD and work experience are in Nuclear Physics. This article is sound.| Philosophically this site has their own truths and science that differs from the real world. |
You are probably right. I have not looked anywhere else on that site. From your report, I will likely never link to it again. However, this article is sound.Edit:PS
I do appreciate you input here, as a regular member and do hope you can explain my concerns or enlighten me further. |
As I appreciate yours! I understand that your concerns are very real, legitimate, and are shared by a large percentage of the populace. This is one of the reasons I feel compelled to discuss, explain, and, if possible, alleviate them.PPS
Also, I would like to point out that the dilution into the pacific is not my concern. If it was that simple that would be fine. But as we all should know this radioactive material concentrates within the food chain as time passes and as it moves up. Starting with photo and zooplankton. Your assurances that it will simpley dilute out is not relevant to other hysterical people, as CFact see's us. ;) |
The funny thing about radioactive, well, anything, is that the danger it poses is a function of the amount of material and of the number of decays per unit time. In other words, the longer it has to concentrate somewhere the more of it will have decayed away.
Now, you are very right that in some cases, like Iodine-129 and I-131, the isotope goes right to a place in the body where it can cause significant damage. The good news is that I-131 has a half-life of about 8 days, and I-129 is extremely rare. Both have a biological half-life of about 100 days.
A majority of the radioactive isotopes really will just dilute or decay away. here is a list of the major radioactive by-products of nuclear reactors and weapons, along with their biological and (to some extent) their environmental impact.
I am not trying to say there is no danger, just that it is way overblown. Nuclear power is the only carbon-neutral energy source, and the one with the smallest historical impact on life and environment. Until I and people like me can invent something better, this is the best thing we've got to address the world's energy and climate issues. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2013 : 04:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
Just saying "x tons of water is leaking daily" is not enough.
|
Exactly. "x tons of water is leaking daily" is just plain scare-mongering.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2013 : 06:13:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by tomk80
Just saying "x tons of water is leaking daily" is not enough.
|
Exactly. "x tons of water is leaking daily" is just plain scare-mongering.
|
What's the saying?
"Some things sell themselves" |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 11/08/2013 : 17:23:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Regardless of the host site's bias, this article is sound. |
I can accept your opinion on it's soundness as far as your expertise applies but I don't have to agree that the article is sound beyond that, fair enough?
Moving on, I really have been struggling with what to finally post in reply and have deleted several finished attempts so far. However something wasn't right with all of them and I think I finally realized what's going on with me. I have no interest having you defending what I have big issues with in that article, starting with the title, the literary style and approach with how it was written or what was written by him outside his expertise. I can't imagine you want that either. You obviously have better things to do with your time. What I do have an interest in is for me and others here to have a far better understanding from you as to what the big issues and concerns are and what are not.
There is so much. Randomly, let's start with the "hot" cooling water which for me has some mystery.Originally posted by Boron10
This is a minor nitpick, but it annoys me every time news articles get it wrong: radiation and radioactivity can't leak. Contamination, or radioactive materials, can. The radioactive particles emit radioactivity, which can deposit an ionizing dose of radiation in human tissue, potentially causing damage. |
If I understand that explanation, how does the cooling water get or pick up it's radioactive material, if the fuel exist as pellets, in metal tubes, in bundles and the water never comes in contact with any radioactive material?
Never mentioned in the news is the level or amount of contamination in the cooling water. Can the cooling water that is getting out have different levels or concentrations of contamination? Wouldn't that make Tomk80's comment very relevant?
Originally posted by tomk80
Just saying "x tons of water is leaking daily" is not enough.
|
I'll let you reply. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 11/10/2013 : 11:47:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I can accept your opinion on it's soundness as far as your expertise applies but I don't have to agree that the article is sound beyond that, fair enough? |
Sure, but do you think anything in that article is outside my expertise? A reminder, my expertise (in this area) is in nuclear engineering and nuclear disaster response: the content of this article.| Moving on, I really have been struggling with what to finally post in reply and have deleted several finished attempts so far. However something wasn't right with all of them and I think I finally realized what's going on with me. I have no interest having you defending what I have big issues with in that article, starting with the title, the literary style and approach with how it was written or what was written by him outside his expertise. I can't imagine you want that either. You obviously have better things to do with your time. What I do have an interest in is for me and others here to have a far better understanding from you as to what the big issues and concerns are and what are not. |
I will be happy to discuss, and hopefully address and alleviate, your concerns. I do feel obligated to point out, however, there is little or nothing in that article (perhaps aside from justifiably loaded language) that was erroneous or outside the authors expertise.There is so much. Randomly, let's start with the "hot" cooling water which for me has some mystery.Originally posted by Boron10
This is a minor nitpick, but it annoys me every time news articles get it wrong: radiation and radioactivity can't leak. Contamination, or radioactive materials, can. The radioactive particles emit radioactivity, which can deposit an ionizing dose of radiation in human tissue, potentially causing damage. |
If I understand that explanation, how does the cooling water get or pick up it's radioactive material, if the fuel exist as pellets, in metal tubes, in bundles and the water never comes in contact with any radioactive material? |
First of all, some coolant will come in contact with radioactive material. That is unfortunate but unavoidable; a large effort exists in maintaining the minimum possible coolant contamination.
I briefly explained how coolant may become contaminated here, do you have any specific questions about it? I am attempting to keep this at a laymens level, do you feel I left something out?Never mentioned in the news is the level or amount of contamination in the cooling water. Can the cooling water that is getting out have different levels or concentrations of contamination? Wouldn't that make Tomk80's comment very relevant?
Originally posted by tomk80
Just saying "x tons of water is leaking daily" is not enough.
|
|
First, tomk80 is exactly right. The volume or mass of water is only a third of the required information. The other important information is the contamination levels, which is exactly your point; and the particular isotopes, specifically if the contamination is long- or short-lived. The short-lived contamination is relatively harmless because it will decay away rather quickly. The long-lived contamination is the more dangerous kind.
Contamination is mathematically expressed as
Contamination = (number of atoms)*(number of atoms decaying each second) / (volume or area), depending if its airborne, waterborne, or surface contamination.
Long-lived contamination can be very bad because for a given contamination level there will be far fewer decays per second, so there would be a far greater number of atoms. That means (as the name implies) that it will be around for a very long time.
The good news is that you wont find long-lived contamination with levels comparable to short-lived contamination. In other words, there really isnt a whole lot of long-lived contamination out there.
This article, though it has a biased tone, reports some levelsFrom the article:
radioactive cesium 137 may now be leaking into the Pacific at a rate of about 30 billion becquerels per day (with) estimates at up to 18 quadrillion becquerels |
Sounds serious, doesnt it?
It is.
Lets put this into perspective, though. Since the larger estimate had no basis given, we will use the more reasonable estimate of 30 billion, or 3.0x10^10 Bq with the 71,895 gallons, or 2.52x10^5 kg, reported in your previous article; we get 1.2x10^5 Bq/kg, or 3.2x10^-6 Ci/L contamination in the discharged water. This, clearly, isnt safe to drink. If you were to continuously drink this undiluted discharged water for a year, in such a way that you always had a significant amount of Cs-137 in your system, youd end up with a dose somewhere between 2 and 200 Rem.
Cesium, the particle of the most concern, beta-decays. The limit for beta-emitters is 4 mrem/year. In other words, if you were constantly drinking straight from the tailpipe of this plant, youd have at the most about 50 times the legal dose limit. Once this is diluted into the harbor, there becomes very little concern. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Japan
