To those not know the reference:
SPOON!
To those not know the reference:
I feel terribly, everyone. I've definitely killed the discussion by being such a douche; my knee jerk response was to get defensive and angry that some of you weren't trusting what I had to say. But, I honestly don't blame you for feeling that way, since my arguments really have been quite hand-wavy so far. Let's try to be a little more precise in our arguments from here on out. And, please, don't be afraid to post with your own opinions/claims, even if you don't have a lot of background in the subject. Anyone should be able to talk about this (the only way we can find a solution is if we all generally agree on it), and I really will try my utmost not to get annoyed and flame others for coming to their own (different) conclusions.
For those of you who are (still) interested in this topic, if you have the time, then I highly recommend that you read the [UNSCEAR 2008 Report on Sources of Ionizing Radiation](http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_GA_Report_corr2.pdf). It's pretty interesting, and does a good job of explaining some of the basics in how we currently evaluate our levels of environmental radiation exposure (the Wiki page SN and I were referring to and the pie chart that TFE posted both use this article as their main source). Remember, though, that this study is extremely limited: It only looked at the average _human_ exposure to radiation in the environment, and does nothing to consider the effects on the environment itself (though it does spend some time at the very end talking about how some animals are effected by the intake of radioactive substances). Furthermore, it makes no attempt whatsoever to measure the effects of nuclear waste leakage on the population or the environment, which is a huge mistake in my opinion. The reasoning for this presented in the document is that "the public is expected to be exposed to radiation from disposed waste only in the distant future, if at all, so assessment of the radiological impact has to rely on mathematical modelling". Basically, the whole report is completely ignoring all of the waste leakage that has already certainly occurred, and is probably using inaccurate models to explain a very poorly understood phenomenon in the first place. We really have no way of estimating just how effective our waste storage facilities are going to be, and there's plenty of evidence already that they're not working properly. To say that the public will only be exposed to waste leakage "in the distant future" is utterly ridiculous, if you ask me.
It's very important that we use correct terminology when discussing the dangers of radiation exposure. First, I'd like to clarify some things about radiation that might not be very well understood by the community. When a [radionuclide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide) (radioactive element) decays, it usually emits a high energy particle ([in some rare cases, the decay occurs because a particle is absorbed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture)) before turning into a brand new element (though the new element is usually _still_ a radionuclide). Emitted particles (alpha, beta, neutron, photon, etc.) and their energies/speeds vary widely from one radionuclide to another. Unfortunately, we usually lump all of these decay particles together into a single category, and only look at whether they are moving fast enough to ionize atoms in the environment that they collide with. The unit used to describe this sort of radiation exposure (simply the ionizing effects), is called the [sievert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert) (Sv).
There are a lot of problems with using the Sv to talk about radiation exposure. As I've said, it only includes the ionizing effects of the radiated particles. Certainly, ionization is a very important piece of the radiation puzzle (since this is the effect that will typically break DNA strands), but it isn't anywhere close to the whole story. Additionally, the Sv tells you NOTHING about how long the radiation will last. Just how long the exposure lasts is a big deal, since recent studies have shown that chronic exposure to (relatively) low levels of radiation is actually much more dangerous than short exposures to elevated radiation levels (airplane trips, dental x-rays, etc.). Of course, even short exposures can be extremely dangerous when the radiation levels are high enough.
The radioactive decay processes themselves are unpredictable in the sense that any given radionuclide has many available paths to choose from. For example: The entire sequence of Uranium isotopes ranging in mass from 233-236 AMU are able to decay back and forth between each other. Each of these isotopes has a half life of well over 100,000 years (yikes). While most fission plants will try to burn through this entire piece of the Uranium decay sequence before completely depleting its Uranium fuel, there will always be a bit left over, and this stuff lasts for _a very long ass time_. And this is just _one example_ of an icky part of the decay sequence. Believe me, there are many, many more to be found if you just [take a look](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain).
Typically, radiated particles carry away almost all of the excess energy released by a radioactive decay (though some of this energy will always go into heating up your fuel source - one of the reasons that meltdowns are a problem). In your standard fission plant, the majority of the emitted radiation is in the form of high energy neutrons, which are then cooled/slowed by a surrounding vat of water (which heats up and is then used to turn the turbines) and allowed to bounce back towards the fuel. When the neutrons are sufficiently cool/slow, they can be reabsorbed by the fuel in the center of the reactor, which makes the fuel _even more radioactive_. Here, it should start to be obvious why we cannot simply reduce our analysis of the dangers of radiation to whether the radiated particles have enough energy to ionize the atoms in the environment that they collide with. Already, we can see that even a "slow" radiated neutron is extremely dangerous, since absorption by a nearby element will automatically turn that element into a radionuclide (radioactive isotope).
And the limitations of the Sv as a measurement of radiation exposure don't stop there. The Sv is only a measurement of how much ionizing radiation you are essentially being bombarded by from the outside. But this completely ignores the most harmful version of radiation exposure; when a radionuclide is actually absorbed by the body, becomes a part of the bloodstream or some other tissue, and THEN undergoes radioactive decay. Most of the time, your skin is more than enough to protect you from the mSv-levels of radiation you're constantly getting from the environment (though you can still get skin cancers from this kind of exposure). But what protects the body from radioactive decays that happen INSIDE the body? I'll tell you: Nothing.
Considering all of the above, we should begin to see the UNSCEAR report as extremely flawed. The authors have only attempted to measure how much radiation the public gets by estimating the levels of radioactive radon in the atmosphere, which generally increases the amount of radiation people are bombarded by, but is a poor indicator of the amount of radioactive materials being absorbed by a typical human body. In some ways, this evaluation of environmental radiation may seem appropriate (indeed, most of the radiation we get from natural sources is because of radon production from naturally occurring uranium in the Earth). Unfortunately, because Radon is inert (it's a noble gas, after all), it is hardly absorbed by the body and is probably not a good indicator of how people actually get cancer from radiation in the environment. On top of this, the report doesn't account for all of the other radionuclides in fission byproducts which may get released during an accident/spill/leak (Iodine is a big problem, for instance, because of how soluble it is, and how readily it is absorbed by the human body). Furthermore, the report COMPLETELY ignores any other sources of radiation that do not have ionizing effects like neutron leaks from existing plants and waste storage facilities, even though these stray neutrons will ALWAYS make other materials they encounter into radionuclides.
I'll say it again: We are nowhere near close to figuring out all of the environmental impacts of fission power. It's a really big mistake to think that we've got our heads completely wrapped around this problem, especially when we've only just started making fission power in the last 60 years. People say that Fukushima wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, but many are also unaware of the fact that Fukushima was made out of six reactors, each one far more powerful than Chernobyl ever was, three of which went into a runaway meltdown! Also, people think that it wasn't as bad since there wasn't a huge plume of radioactive stuff released into the atmosphere. Just because you cannot see the plume does not mean that it wasn't there. The graphs I've posted showing the atmospheric dispersal of radiation from Fukushima are more than enough proof that there was a significant radioactive plume released from the accident. Additionally, to try and stop the meltdown, TONS of ocean water was constantly flowed through these broken reactors, dispersing a lot of their waste into the ocean instead. I'm not entirely sure whether I'm right about this or not, but I feel pretty confident saying that Fukushima must have released more radioactive stuff into the environment than even the much lamented Chernobyl did.
So here's a reasonable timescale, we got a hundred or so years to get this shit under control. What are our options? Let's look at the two being suggested here in the thread.
A. Continue improving the efficiency of our use of hydrocarbons enough that we can limit emissions to a point where we can start dropping the levels.
B. Switch over to a fission based energy model
We can also continue to develop/deploy other alternative energy methods, each of which seem to be at least somewhat useful. The most promising of these, IMO, is solar.
In my opinion, choosing option A is problematic given the timescale. You'd not only have to discover more efficient methods of consuming it, but at a level in which to offset the increasing net usage of hydrocarbons in a world where we need more energy. You'd have to not only slow the increase of usage, but to accelerate the declining rate of emissions. And you only have 100 years.
Choosing option B would most likely accelerate this turnaround. You're providing an alternative source that could meet the demands of the increasing energy needs of the planet, thereby simultaneously decreasing the present usage as well as offsetting the future needs. And who says you can't have your cake and eat it too? You could still developing more efficient methods of harnessing those hydrocarbons to a level where whatever remaining need for it can have it's effect on the environment diminished.
But you argue against option B because you fear the rise of a much greater threat to the planet, increased background radiation in the environment. But lets examine the next hundred years. We've looked at the current sources of what is giving us background radiation, and our contribution to that is about 20% (in which 99.6% of that is from medical sources.) So in the 75 or so years since we started harnessing nuclear power, our contribution to average background radiation levels measures at about 0.2%.
The problem with your numbers, here, is that they are based off of that UNSCEAR report. I've tried my best to show how this report is flawed in a lot of ways. For instance, UNSCEAR is trying to compare how much radiation a typical person gets from the environment to how much he/she gets from other human sources. But it does nothing whatsoever to consider the average exposure of the environment itself to our radioactive waste. By doing this, UNSCEAR makes medical visits/examinations look really bad (when the only things actually getting irradiated by these are people), and makes nuclear power look great in comparison. The easiest way to see this is when you consider the fact that most people don't live near fission power sites (mines, plants, dumps, etc.), and go to the doctor pretty frequently. Your average environment, though… well, he never goes to the doctor. And he's also a lot closer to all of our fission power sites than your average person.
One of the biggest problems with this report is that it is only considering how much radiation humans are getting from their environment. It's not meant to be a study of how much radioactivity we are adding to the environment itself, and it does next to nothing to consider the environmental effects of continued radioactive pollution.
Basically, I'm saying that we people are so stupid that we can't even take what we've learned from the whole hydrocarbon energy debacle and apply it to how we think about fission power. It's sad, but it's probably going to take another hundred years before people start noticing the really bad effects of fission, and by then we'll have created a noticeable problem that will essentially last forever. FOREVER! There's literally nothing you can do about the radioactivity of our fission waste except wait for it to go away. At least hydrocarbon waste can be chemically and biologically processed (both artificially and naturally)!
But now I'd like to know what you think. How likely is the possibility we can learn to improve our hydrocarbon usage before we reach a tipping point in climate change without resorting to nuclear energy? If we choose to use it, at what level of background radiation or presence of nuclear waste will be as great a risk to our society as the threat of global warming? And how long do you believe it would take us to get there?
You probably noticed I haven't talked much about the risk of nuclear waste. Honestly, that's because I am not as knowledgeable in that area. Perhaps you can shed some light on these matters. At what level of increase to the radiation of the environment does the risk of uncontainable nuclear waste represent? How much area it effect and how globally rampant do you believe it could become?
ps. For what it's worth, I like reading everyone's posts on the matter. So even if you stop responding to Supernova and others you deem not worth discussing with, I hope they choose to continue sharing their thoughts on the matter with us.
I don't know, TFE. I really don't know how likely we are to significantly reduce carbon emissions just by increasing efficiency and employing more renewable power sources. My gut feeling, though, is that if we really clamp down on this problem, put more money into it and into fusion research, then we should be able to completely mitigate all of our carbon emissions within 100 years or so. As I've said, I'm totally convinced that a viable fusion energy scheme is only about 50 years away from being ready for commercial use. It's totally possible that, once this gets figured out, we'll be able to replace all of our hydrocarbon plants in a matter of just a couple plant life cycles (10-20 years). Will this be fast enough? Who really knows?
It's also extremely hard to directly compare the adverse health effects of hydrocarbon pollution and fission pollution. While hydrocarbon pollution accidents are really scary and cause lots of deaths in their immediate aftermath, these pollutants will be completely processed by the environment in just a few hundred years or so. A much smaller release of radioactivity from a fission accident may at first appear to be less deadly, but because the waste essentially lasts forever, it's going to have a bigger impact on the global environment in the long run. One of the worst parts about our understanding of chronic radiation damage to the human body is that we are still using the so-called linear no-threshold (LNT) model. The problem with the LNT model is that it quickly loses validity as radiation exposure levels vary from what it was based on (atomic bomb data). The model assumes that the adverse health effects grow in severity linearly with the amount of radiation received, which is just patently wrong. Increase the radiation levels enough, and you've crossed the border from stochastic health effects to deterministic ones. Exactly where this transition occurs is still being debated by even the best scientists, but there are those who think that it happens well below the radiation levels that were used to create the model.
And, remember, we're really limiting our discussion way too much if we are only choosing to look at the direct effects of radioactive pollutants on people, alone. It's an extremely selfish way of looking at our impact on the environment. We're also completely ignoring the fact that these pollutants are STILL environmental pollutants even after they have lost their radioactivity!
edit: I guess that what I'm saying is that just because the waste will last forever, we can guarantee that it will become a widespread problem for the entire planet. Chernobyl has polluted the entire atmosphere, and will continue to do so for a long time (don't forget that radionuclides deposited in the soil will continue to decay and release radioactive gasses). The plots that I posted from Fukushima show just how quickly that became a worldwide problem. A single month was all it took to cover the entire Pacific and large parts of Asia and the Americas. Waste facility leaks will add to the radioactive gasses in the atmosphere, too, but they're even more dangerous since they will eventually start seeping radionuclides into the surrounding food/water supply. The radionuclides that we eat/drink then become part of our bodies, leading to even more adverse health effects than those caused by the stuff that we breathe.
Supernova, I was really going to reply to your last big post here, too. But I'm just way too tired now after all this writing. I will try to address some of your comments by this weekend. Again, I'm really sorry for being so rude to you during our earlier exchanges.
There's literally nothing you can do about the radioactivity of our fission waste except wait for it to go away.
Or transmute it into other isotopes with shorter halflives? :ninja: Or build a whole bunch of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators? Waste not, want not? :v
One of the worst parts about our understanding of chronic radiation damage to the human body is that we are still using the so-called linear no-threshold (LNT) model. The problem with the LNT model is that it quickly loses validity as radiation exposure levels rise.
I've heard it the other way around… That the LNT model came out of data from the bombings and as such is a good model for high levels but perhaps not for low levels.
Or transmute it into other isotopes with shorter halflives? :ninja: Or build a whole bunch of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generators? Waste not, want not? :v
Well, now you're talking about even more processing of our nuclear waste, which is only going to pollute the environment even more because of inefficiencies/accidents/etc. Also, and this is something a lot of people have trouble understanding, shorter half lives are not a good thing. When a radionuclide has a short half life, that means that it is very radioactive (a large clump of the stuff will very quickly turn into something else, meanwhile irradiating its surroundings at an alarming rate).
Even if we use our waste to make more fission, this is effectively using the waste to make itself and its surroundings even more radioactive than would be expected if we just buried it under the ground for millenia. And even if we use the waste just for thermoelectric power (MAN is that an inefficient scheme, BTW), we'll have to be keeping it above ground where it is more likely to irradiate people and other wildlife.
I've heard it the other way around… That the LNT model came out of data from the bombings and as such is a good model for high levels but perhaps not for low levels.
Yeah, that's partially true, but the LNT model is also inaccurate for radiation levels above what people got from those bombings.
Basically, the model assumes that all of the health effects at "low dosage levels" are stochastic. This is a fancy word for a type of random behavior, and basically says that the only thing you need to worry about is whether the radioactive pollutant will decay near a DNA strand and cause ionization. It completely ignores the additional effects of absorbed/incorporated radioactive elements, production of even more radionuclides by neutron emission, etc. All of these ignored effects can lead to deterministic (i.e. predictable, not stochastic/random) detrimental health problems. Also the LNT model is almost completely ignorant of the actual biological processes involved in absorbing, incorporating, and excreting the radioactive substance(s) in question.
Anyway, I edited my last post to help clarify what I meant about the shortcomings of the LNT model.
I am really sorry to keep spamming the thread. But I felt that I really needed to add this:
Once we take it out of the reactor, fission waste will undergo normal radioactive decay, but please don't get this confused with what actually happens inside a fission reactor. In a fission reactor, the Uranium is being forced to undergo fission, where instead of decaying as it would naturally, it suddenly explodes into two or more smaller atoms (which really can be totally random) whilst spraying a bunch of radioactive particles about (neutrons are the most important for a sustained fission reaction).
Anyway. I just don't want anyone going to the standard U-238 decay chain and thinking, "well, hey, it ends in Lead, so why is Ben telling us to worry about Iodine?"
And even if we use the waste just for thermoelectric power (MAN is that an inefficient scheme, BTW), we'll have to be keeping it above ground where it is more likely to irradiate people and other wildlife.
Oh, not if it's high enough above ground. :v
Yeah, that's partially true, but the LNT model is also inaccurate for radiation levels above what people got from those bombings.
People received fatal doses in those bombings…
Oh, not if it's high enough above ground. :v
I don't know what the :v emoticon means so I can't tell if you're being silly or not!
I'm totally down with using fission power, as long as it's way out of Earth orbit. Put as much of this stuff onto exploration satellites and space rovers as you want (Go, Curiosity, Go)!
People received fatal doses in those bombings…
Yup. And LNT is still inaccurate at describing how they will die if you give them even more radiation, I think!
Basically, even what most of the people in the bombings got is called low levels of radiation, because they weren't diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome. Still doesn't make a lick of sense to use LNT when comparing the radiation that the bombing victims got to what people are getting now from elevated background levels (which, for all we know, may indeed be fatal to some).
I don't know what the :v emoticon means so I can't tell if you're being silly or not!
Ah, it means… Something. It's even a facebook thing. You can pretty safely assume that I'm always being silly. ;)
I'm totally down with using fission power, as long as it's way out of Earth orbit. Put as much of this stuff onto exploration satellites and space rovers as you want!
Sweet. I'm sending up ten of 'em to Neptune pronto then!
Basically, even what most of the people in the bombings got is called low levels of radiation, because they weren't diagnosed with acute radiation syndrome.
Quoting the page you linked, "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in high acute doses of radiation to a large number of Japanese, allowing for greater insight into its symptoms and dangers."
Still doesn't make a lick of sense to use LNT when comparing the radiation that the bombing victims got to what people are getting now from elevated background levels.
Agreed, I was reading the wikipedia page about LNT and it seems the scientific community is debating this currently.
Ah, it means… Something. It's even a facebook thing. http://calebbrown.id.au/static/media/images/fb_emotes/fb_pacman.png You can pretty safely assume that I'm always being silly. ;)
o
.
.
.
v: - om nom nom
I think that I may get it now. :D :v
Sweet. I'm sending up ten of 'em to Neptune pronto then!
Say hello for me, and ask him if he'll lend you his trident. I hear it mystically grants you command over all of the Earth's water. The solution to rising sea levels has been found. :v
Quoting the page you linked, "The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in high acute doses of radiation to a large number of Japanese, allowing for greater insight into its symptoms and dangers."
Yeah, but a lot more got non-acute doses, and the model's based off of them, too.
Holy Crap.
I could not read this whole thread - but seriously at no point should we prefer fossil fuels over nuclear waste.
Solar Wind and Hydro power should be developed more - but its not the tech thats holding it back its the storage. There is no power storage system suffecient enough to store all the energy we get during the day to release during the night. Hence why they keep power plants running - if we make a switch to the renewables then you could have nuclear for night time use.
As for storage of materials - find a pacific island dig into the center deep enough and dump it in there.
Holy Crap.
I could not read this whole thread - but seriously at no point should we prefer fossil fuels over nuclear waste.
Maybe you should read the thread, because I'm positive that you're completely wrong, here. In fact, that's what I've been trying to explain for the entire thread (lol).
Solar Wind and Hydro power should be developed more - but its not the tech thats holding it back its the storage. There is no power storage system suffecient enough to store all the energy we get during the day to release during the night. Hence why they keep power plants running - if we make a switch to the renewables then you could have nuclear for night time use.
Hydroelectric power is already as good as you can make it. I don't know what you mean when you say it should be "developed more".
Solar wind? Isn't that a space propulsion method, not a power source?
Yes, you're right about power storage, which is why I brought up batteries in the very first post of this thread.
As for storage of materials - find a pacific island dig into the center deep enough and dump it in there.
And then wait for the wholly undermanaged waste to suddenly blow up and then shower the planet with more waste. Yes, a fantastic idea, Mr. Cymelion. (BTW, your statement is a really great way to say "fuck you" to all of the people living in/around the Pacific)
sigh
I've already explained that this is pretty much exactly what we already do. And I've already explained how it's simply not enough to manage the problems of radioactive waste. I don't know, buddy. I really think that you should read what I've already posted, because I highly doubt that anyone wants me to argue it all over again.
:v
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Ugh, I just don't know what's the proper, nice way to respond to posts like these. They annoy me, but I don't think it helps the discussion when I reply in such a manner. Am I supposed to link you to specific posts where I've already refuted your points?
Maybe you should read the thread, because I'm positive that you're completely wrong, here. In fact, that's what I've been trying to explain for the entire thread (lol).
Hydroelectric power is already as good as you can make it. I don't know what you mean when you say it should be "developed more".
Solar wind? Isn't that a space propulsion method, not a power source?
Yes, you're right about power storage, which is why I brought up batteries in the very first post of this thread.
And then wait for the wholly undermanaged waste to suddenly blow up and then shower the planet with more waste. Yes, a fantastic idea, Mr. Cymelion. (BTW, your statement is a really great way to say "fuck you" to all of the people living in/around the Pacific)
sigh
I've already explained that this is pretty much exactly what we already do. And I've already explained how it's simply not enough to manage the problems of radioactive waste. I don't know, buddy. I really think that you should read what I've already posted, because I highly doubt that anyone wants me to argue it all over again.
:v
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
Ugh, I just don't know what's the proper, nice way to respond to posts like these. They annoy me, but I don't think it helps the discussion when I reply in such a manner. Am I supposed to link you to specific posts where I've already refuted your points?
Here's a pretty good one.
And another.
Ok first of all - Split up quoting is mainly used as an exhaustion method of trying to win - by splitting up a post into multiple things you respond to you're trying to elongate the thread post so much that people get sick of reading and just give up.
Or worse you encourage someone else to do the same and other people give up following it because instead of useful information it becomes a war of walls of text.
I should have included a comma - Solar, Wind and Hydro was what I meant to say - and no Hydroelectric isn't at its peak it's actually quite a few generations behind because coal and fuel/gas was so cheap all the power stations were built in that manner. I can tell you now if the fuel prices we had now were back in the day they were building these power stations solar, wind and hydro power would have won out. It was the cheap cost that got the coal and gas where they are now.
Now onto the next troubling post - just piling up spent nuclear waste will not explode dude. It's spent its radioactive waste yes but its not in a state of fission which just means it sits there being radioactive. Dump it in the ground with enough shielding and it will just sit there being radioactive … you know like it is in its natural state .... which is in the ground.
I'm at work which means I can't link anything but if I remember when I get home I'll happily help you out with some information on the subject.
Here is the thing - Nuclear power gets a bad rap for a miriad of reasons - some deserved others not so much.
Ok first of all - Split up quoting is mainly used as an exhaustion method of trying to win - by splitting up a post into multiple things you respond to you're trying to elongate the thread post so much that people get sick of reading and just give up.
Or worse you encourage someone else to do the same and other people give up following it because instead of useful information it becomes a war of walls of text.
I should have included a comma - Solar, Wind and Hydro was what I meant to say - and no Hydroelectric isn't at its peak it's actually quite a few generations behind because coal and fuel/gas was so cheap all the power stations were built in that manner. I can tell you now if the fuel prices we had now were back in the day they were building these power stations solar, wind and hydro power would have won out. It was the cheap cost that got the coal and gas where they are now.
Now onto the next troubling post - just piling up spent nuclear waste will not explode dude. It's spent its radioactive waste yes but its not in a state of fission which just means it sits there being radioactive. Dump it in the ground with enough shielding and it will just sit there being radioactive … you know like it is in its natural state .... which is in the ground.
I'm at work which means I can't link anything but if I remember when I get home I'll happily help you out with some information on the subject.
Here is the thing - Nuclear power gets a bad rap for a miriad of reasons - some deserved others not so much.
If splitting up posts is offensive to you, then I'll try not to do it to yours. Sure, one goal of that kind of discourse can be to exhaust the opponent, but that's not my goal. I'm simply trying to be precise in my responses, and show people exactly what I'm responding to.
It's unfortunate that this topic is very convoluted and difficult to talk about. Its extremely technical nature is sort of a problem since, just to cover all of the important information, "walls of text" must be created (do scientific journals look like typical forum threads to you?). It doesn't lend itself very well to being discussed in a forum setting, and I'm honestly beginning to regret that I ever decided to talk about it on this website.
If you would actually read the thread, then you would understand that your stance and my stance on renewable energy sources are practically identical. With the "solar wind" comment, I was kind of trying to point out to you what I've said at the top of this page; that we need to be very precise with how we talk about these technical things.
Now, onto your next troubling point - just piling up lots of nuclear waste DOES and WILL cause explosions if not done in a very careful way. Did you even read the articles that I linked people to regarding explosions in the American nuclear waste facility in New York just earlier this year? Why you think that nuclear waste produced by fission plants is composed of the same stuff that naturally exists in the Earth's crust (in abundance) is completely beyond me. You're making the nuclear equivalent of a comparison between natural forest fires and human carbon pollution. Which one of these do you think is more harmful for the natural environment?
I would love to hear what else you have to say about the subject, though. While I do think I am already pretty knowledgeable about it (I have been studying it for nearly a decade), I am always happy to learn more. It's one of my passions, really.
If splitting up posts is offensive to you, then I'll try not to do it to yours. Sure, one goal of that kind of discourse can be to exhaust the opponent, but that's not my goal. I'm simply trying to be precise in my responses, and show people exactly what I'm responding to.
It's unfortunate that this topic is very convoluted and difficult to talk about. Its extremely technical nature is sort of a problem since, just to cover all of the important information, "walls of text" must be created (do scientific journals look like typical forum threads to you?). It doesn't lend itself very well to being discussed in a forum setting, and I'm honestly beginning to regret that I ever decided to talk about it on this website.
If you would actually read the thread, then you would understand that your stance and my stance on renewable energy sources are practically identical. With the "solar wind" comment, I was kind of trying to point out to you what I've said at the top of this page; that we need to be very precise with how we talk about these technical things.
Now, onto your next troubling point - just piling up lots of nuclear waste DOES and WILL cause explosions if not done in a very careful way. Did you even read the articles that I linked people to regarding explosions in the American nuclear waste facility in New York just earlier this year? Why you think that nuclear waste produced by fission plants is composed of the same stuff that naturally exists in the Earth's crust (in abundance) is completely beyond me. You're making the nuclear equivalent of a comparison between natural forest fires and human carbon pollution. Which one of these do you think is more harmful for the natural environment?
I would love to hear what else you have to say about the subject, though. While I do think I am already pretty knowledgeable about it (I have been studying it for nearly a decade), I am always happy to learn more. It's one of my passions, really.
Here I'll let this guy who is a Nuclear Physicist/Scientist explain it.
No the guy in the image is not who I am talking about its an image youtube picked from his clip.
1. I sort of am a nuclear physicist/scientist. Shouldn't that make my claims worth something, in your eyes?
2. I think that the stupid pharmaceutical companies capitalizing on the problems of nuclear pollution are stupid.
3. I've already explained why the Sv is a shit unit for measuring radiation exposure. Did you read the post on this page, that I even linked you to?
4. Why do you think that bringing things from deep under our feet to the surface of the planet is "natural"? Yeah, the stuff exists naturally, but we take it and do something VERY unnatural to it.
… and I could keep going.
This guy is really downplaying the problems of fission, just like you are. Is anyone interested in hearing what else I have to say in response to this video?
I'm about 7 minutes in now, and I'm just tired of hearing him gloss over a lot of the problems and agree with me on the others.
For you to compare what I'm saying to the ravings of those "madmen" is a little silly, I think.
I feel terribly, everyone. I've definitely killed the discussion by being such a douche; my knee jerk response was to get defensive and angry that some of you weren't trusting what I had to say. But, I honestly don't blame you for feeling that way, since my arguments really have been quite hand-wavy so far. Let's try to be a little more precise in our arguments from here on out. And, please, don't be afraid to post with your own opinions/claims, even if you don't have a lot of background in the subject. Anyone should be able to talk about this (the only way we can find a solution is if we all generally agree on it), and I really will try my utmost not to get annoyed and flame others for coming to their own (different) conclusions.
For those of you who are (still) interested in this topic, if you have the time, then I highly recommend that you read the [UNSCEAR 2008 Report on Sources of Ionizing Radiation](http://www.unscear.org/docs/reports/2008/09-86753_Report_2008_GA_Report_corr2.pdf). It's pretty interesting, and does a good job of explaining some of the basics in how we currently evaluate our levels of environmental radiation exposure (the Wiki page SN and I were referring to and the pie chart that TFE posted both use this article as their main source). Remember, though, that this study is extremely limited: It only looked at the average _human_ exposure to radiation in the environment, and does nothing to consider the effects on the environment itself (though it does spend some time at the very end talking about how some animals are effected by the intake of radioactive substances). Furthermore, it makes no attempt whatsoever to measure the effects of nuclear waste leakage on the population or the environment, which is a huge mistake in my opinion. The reasoning for this presented in the document is that "the public is expected to be exposed to radiation from disposed waste only in the distant future, if at all, so assessment of the radiological impact has to rely on mathematical modelling". Basically, the whole report is completely ignoring all of the waste leakage that has already certainly occurred, and is probably using inaccurate models to explain a very poorly understood phenomenon in the first place. We really have no way of estimating just how effective our waste storage facilities are going to be, and there's plenty of evidence already that they're not working properly. To say that the public will only be exposed to waste leakage "in the distant future" is utterly ridiculous, if you ask me. It's very important that we use correct terminology when discussing the dangers of radiation exposure. First, I'd like to clarify some things about radiation that might not be very well understood by the community. When a [radionuclide](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radionuclide) (radioactive element) decays, it usually emits a high energy particle ([in some rare cases, the decay occurs because a particle is absorbed](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture)) before turning into a brand new element (though the new element is usually _still_ a radionuclide). Emitted particles (alpha, beta, neutron, photon, etc.) and their energies/speeds vary widely from one radionuclide to another. Unfortunately, we usually lump all of these decay particles together into a single category, and only look at whether they are moving fast enough to ionize atoms in the environment that they collide with. The unit used to describe this sort of radiation exposure (simply the ionizing effects), is called the [sievert](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert) (Sv). There are a lot of problems with using the Sv to talk about radiation exposure. As I've said, it only includes the ionizing effects of the radiated particles. Certainly, ionization is a very important piece of the radiation puzzle (since this is the effect that will typically break DNA strands), but it isn't anywhere close to the whole story. Additionally, the Sv tells you NOTHING about how long the radiation will last. Just how long the exposure lasts is a big deal, since recent studies have shown that chronic exposure to (relatively) low levels of radiation is actually much more dangerous than short exposures to elevated radiation levels (airplane trips, dental x-rays, etc.). Of course, even short exposures can be extremely dangerous when the radiation levels are high enough. The radioactive decay processes themselves are unpredictable in the sense that any given radionuclide has many available paths to choose from. For example: The entire sequence of Uranium isotopes ranging in mass from 233-236 AMU are able to decay back and forth between each other. Each of these isotopes has a half life of well over 100,000 years (yikes). While most fission plants will try to burn through this entire piece of the Uranium decay sequence before completely depleting its Uranium fuel, there will always be a bit left over, and this stuff lasts for _a very long ass time_. And this is just _one example_ of an icky part of the decay sequence. Believe me, there are many, many more to be found if you just [take a look](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_chain). Typically, radiated particles carry away almost all of the excess energy released by a radioactive decay (though some of this energy will always go into heating up your fuel source - one of the reasons that meltdowns are a problem). In your standard fission plant, the majority of the emitted radiation is in the form of high energy neutrons, which are then cooled/slowed by a surrounding vat of water (which heats up and is then used to turn the turbines) and allowed to bounce back towards the fuel. When the neutrons are sufficiently cool/slow, they can be reabsorbed by the fuel in the center of the reactor, which makes the fuel _even more radioactive_. Here, it should start to be obvious why we cannot simply reduce our analysis of the dangers of radiation to whether the radiated particles have enough energy to ionize the atoms in the environment that they collide with. Already, we can see that even a "slow" radiated neutron is extremely dangerous, since absorption by a nearby element will automatically turn that element into a radionuclide (radioactive isotope). And the limitations of the Sv as a measurement of radiation exposure don't stop there. The Sv is only a measurement of how much ionizing radiation you are essentially being bombarded by from the outside. But this completely ignores the most harmful version of radiation exposure; when a radionuclide is actually absorbed by the body, becomes a part of the bloodstream or some other tissue, and THEN undergoes radioactive decay. Most of the time, your skin is more than enough to protect you from the mSv-levels of radiation you're constantly getting from the environment (though you can still get skin cancers from this kind of exposure). But what protects the body from radioactive decays that happen INSIDE the body? I'll tell you: Nothing. Considering all of the above, we should begin to see the UNSCEAR report as extremely flawed. The authors have only attempted to measure how much radiation the public gets by estimating the levels of radioactive radon in the atmosphere, which generally increases the amount of radiation people are bombarded by, but is a poor indicator of the amount of radioactive materials being absorbed by a typical human body. In some ways, this evaluation of environmental radiation may seem appropriate (indeed, most of the radiation we get from natural sources is because of radon production from naturally occurring uranium in the Earth). Unfortunately, because Radon is inert (it's a noble gas, after all), it is hardly absorbed by the body and is probably not a good indicator of how people actually get cancer from radiation in the environment. On top of this, the report doesn't account for all of the other radionuclides in fission byproducts which may get released during an accident/spill/leak (Iodine is a big problem, for instance, because of how soluble it is, and how readily it is absorbed by the human body). Furthermore, the report COMPLETELY ignores any other sources of radiation that do not have ionizing effects like neutron leaks from existing plants and waste storage facilities, even though these stray neutrons will ALWAYS make other materials they encounter into radionuclides. I'll say it again: We are nowhere near close to figuring out all of the environmental impacts of fission power. It's a really big mistake to think that we've got our heads completely wrapped around this problem, especially when we've only just started making fission power in the last 60 years. People say that Fukushima wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, but many are also unaware of the fact that Fukushima was made out of six reactors, each one far more powerful than Chernobyl ever was, three of which went into a runaway meltdown! Also, people think that it wasn't as bad since there wasn't a huge plume of radioactive stuff released into the atmosphere. Just because you cannot see the plume does not mean that it wasn't there. The graphs I've posted showing the atmospheric dispersal of radiation from Fukushima are more than enough proof that there was a significant radioactive plume released from the accident. Additionally, to try and stop the meltdown, TONS of ocean water was constantly flowed through these broken reactors, dispersing a lot of their waste into the ocean instead. I'm not entirely sure whether I'm right about this or not, but I feel pretty confident saying that Fukushima must have released more radioactive stuff into the environment than even the much lamented Chernobyl did.
We can also continue to develop/deploy other alternative energy methods, each of which seem to be at least somewhat useful. The most promising of these, IMO, is solar.
The problem with your numbers, here, is that they are based off of that UNSCEAR report. I've tried my best to show how this report is flawed in a lot of ways. For instance, UNSCEAR is trying to compare how much radiation a typical person gets from the environment to how much he/she gets from other human sources. But it does nothing whatsoever to consider the average exposure of the environment itself to our radioactive waste. By doing this, UNSCEAR makes medical visits/examinations look really bad (when the only things actually getting irradiated by these are people), and makes nuclear power look great in comparison. The easiest way to see this is when you consider the fact that most people don't live near fission power sites (mines, plants, dumps, etc.), and go to the doctor pretty frequently. Your average environment, though… well, he never goes to the doctor. And he's also a lot closer to all of our fission power sites than your average person.
One of the biggest problems with this report is that it is only considering how much radiation humans are getting from their environment. It's not meant to be a study of how much radioactivity we are adding to the environment itself, and it does next to nothing to consider the environmental effects of continued radioactive pollution.
Basically, I'm saying that we people are so stupid that we can't even take what we've learned from the whole hydrocarbon energy debacle and apply it to how we think about fission power. It's sad, but it's probably going to take another hundred years before people start noticing the really bad effects of fission, and by then we'll have created a noticeable problem that will essentially last forever. FOREVER! There's literally nothing you can do about the radioactivity of our fission waste except wait for it to go away. At least hydrocarbon waste can be chemically and biologically processed (both artificially and naturally)!
I don't know, TFE. I really don't know how likely we are to significantly reduce carbon emissions just by increasing efficiency and employing more renewable power sources. My gut feeling, though, is that if we really clamp down on this problem, put more money into it and into fusion research, then we should be able to completely mitigate all of our carbon emissions within 100 years or so. As I've said, I'm totally convinced that a viable fusion energy scheme is only about 50 years away from being ready for commercial use. It's totally possible that, once this gets figured out, we'll be able to replace all of our hydrocarbon plants in a matter of just a couple plant life cycles (10-20 years). Will this be fast enough? Who really knows?
It's also extremely hard to directly compare the adverse health effects of hydrocarbon pollution and fission pollution. While hydrocarbon pollution accidents are really scary and cause lots of deaths in their immediate aftermath, these pollutants will be completely processed by the environment in just a few hundred years or so. A much smaller release of radioactivity from a fission accident may at first appear to be less deadly, but because the waste essentially lasts forever, it's going to have a bigger impact on the global environment in the long run. One of the worst parts about our understanding of chronic radiation damage to the human body is that we are still using the so-called linear no-threshold (LNT) model. The problem with the LNT model is that it quickly loses validity as radiation exposure levels vary from what it was based on (atomic bomb data). The model assumes that the adverse health effects grow in severity linearly with the amount of radiation received, which is just patently wrong. Increase the radiation levels enough, and you've crossed the border from stochastic health effects to deterministic ones. Exactly where this transition occurs is still being debated by even the best scientists, but there are those who think that it happens well below the radiation levels that were used to create the model.
And, remember, we're really limiting our discussion way too much if we are only choosing to look at the direct effects of radioactive pollutants on people, alone. It's an extremely selfish way of looking at our impact on the environment. We're also completely ignoring the fact that these pollutants are STILL environmental pollutants even after they have lost their radioactivity!
edit: I guess that what I'm saying is that just because the waste will last forever, we can guarantee that it will become a widespread problem for the entire planet. Chernobyl has polluted the entire atmosphere, and will continue to do so for a long time (don't forget that radionuclides deposited in the soil will continue to decay and release radioactive gasses). The plots that I posted from Fukushima show just how quickly that became a worldwide problem. A single month was all it took to cover the entire Pacific and large parts of Asia and the Americas. Waste facility leaks will add to the radioactive gasses in the atmosphere, too, but they're even more dangerous since they will eventually start seeping radionuclides into the surrounding food/water supply. The radionuclides that we eat/drink then become part of our bodies, leading to even more adverse health effects than those caused by the stuff that we breathe.
Supernova, I was really going to reply to your last big post here, too. But I'm just way too tired now after all this writing. I will try to address some of your comments by this weekend. Again, I'm really sorry for being so rude to you during our earlier exchanges.
im am too scared to breath radioactive.
On a more serious note: We are all breathing radioactive gasses, all day long, albeit in very slight amounts. Radon is everywhere, and is actually trapped by buildings (especially basements, garages, etc.), which is the main reason why some people get upwards of ten times the normal human average of ionizing radiation (in Sv).
But, as I've said, breathing the gasses isn't all that harmful (especially if the gasses are chemically inert). What's really bad is eating radionuclides that have become part of your food. There have been a lot of nuclear submarine accidents, and these have definitely caused our oceans to become more radioactive. Most of the salt that we eat comes directly from the oceans. It's probably not unreasonable to think that some people have already gotten pretty significantly elevated chronic doses of radioactive sodium, potassium, and iodine throughout their lives, just from their table salt.
Ok first of all - Split up quoting is mainly used as an exhaustion method of trying to win - by splitting up a post into multiple things you respond to you're trying to elongate the thread post so much that people get sick of reading and just give up.
Or worse you encourage someone else to do the same and other people give up following it because instead of useful information it becomes a war of walls of text.
No, splitting up a quote provides structure. It means that any third party reading the post can see, when they are reading a response, the relevant section of the previous post right above the response, rather than having to look for it.
For example, if I were to respond to the rest of your post, and I would definitely separate it out from this comment because the two are not related.
And a series of long walls of text is much less manageable than short responses broken up by quotes.