4 ms·

"I'm criticizing you for not reasoning through this stuff." I did not even say that I was alarmed, so I criticize you for lumping me in with an imaginary enemy

• tptacek 16y ago
  Watch the video I posted at the top of this thread; they actually break down on the periodic table how the decay produced by the fission at reactors is produced, and the different types and half-lives of the nuclides involved. The reason "other clouds of ash" (presumably you mean Fukushima's) won't be as damaging as Chernobyl is that Chernobyl was an unshielded graphite fire that raged, producing a gigantic plume of radioactive ash, while Chernobyl was still critical and fissioning. Chernobyl was like a gigantic generator of radioactive contamination; it would have taken engineering effort to make it more damaging. The things that have caught fire at Fukushima are 100x less radioactive than fissioning reactor fuel, and the fires themselves were much smaller (because, unlike Chernobyl, they aren't essentially being fed by a fuel source almost as flammable as anthracite coal). I don't think Fukushima was a triumph for nuclear power, by the way (and, because for whatever reason you brought it up, I believe in global warming and support policy initiatives to curb it). There are (more expensive) plant designs that handle loss of cooling power better. Fukushima is a disaster, and it may end up killing many volunteers at the plant itself. But that doesn't mean it's giving everybody --- or even anybody --- within a 50km radius cancer.
  • Tichy 16y ago
    "But that doesn't mean it's giving everybody --- or even anybody --- within a 50km radius cancer." No, just the twentieth of an increased risk for cancer. As for the isotopes, I thought I heard that Cesium was released, which lasts several years? (no time for watching movies sorry). Some reactors apparently also used Plutonium, though maybe not in the blocks that exploded.
    • tptacek 16y ago
      Cesium has a longer half life than most of the radionuclides in vented steam, but it also settles out of the air and doesn't travel as far. Cesium was detectably elevated, but the region isn't blanketed in cesium soot. The fact that the reactors use MOX fuel doesn't mean plutonium is getting into the atmosphere! That's not how it works. The reactors also don't use cesium as fuel. Finally, please stop waving the words "increased risk of cancer" around like a voodoo totem. Everything increases your risk of cancer in some way. The notion of cancer risk is only meaningful in relation to something else. More cancer than what? The risk to the general population that you are referring to is, according the published evidence, so low as to be unmeasurable. Because, you're talking about this situation as if the alternative was "simply not using nuclear power". The cost to human health of not using nuclear power is higher than using it, in two ways. First, the fossil fuel sources which are the only scalable alternative cause demonstrably more harm, both to the environment and to carcinogenesis, than xenon radionuclides detected 50km from Fukushima. Secondly, the malaria and dysentery pathogens that ride alongside lack of electrical power infrastructure reliably kill 1.7 million people every year.
      • Tichy 16y ago
        "The notion of cancer risk is only meaningful in relation to something else." I thought it would be obvious from the context in this thread that the relation is to "not being exposed to radiation". "as if the alternative was "simply not using nuclear power"." I never said anything about what I imagine the alternative to be. I don't think I even said nuclear power should be abandoned (although I would like to see it go, true). Just signs for me that you use me as "the imaginary enemy" and don't even look at what I say. "First, the fossil fuel sources which are the only scalable alternative" Now you start to make very broad claims. Obviously a lot would have to change, but I heard that humans actually survived for millenia without any electricity at all (no idea how, but still). Not saying we should abandon electricity, but a lot of things could be changed. For example I would not miss cars - I think abandoning the majority of cars would actually enhance our quality of life, not reduce it. Just one example - but I don't claim to have "the" or even "a" solution. One aspect, though: I think fossile fuels and nuclear power are both limited resources (or is nuclear power a perpeteum mobile?). Even if we take it as a "free gift of capital from earth", perhaps we should use that energy to prepare for a time when it is not available anymore, rather than blow it on entertainment. That is, use it to build infrastructure that is less power hungry. As for the malaria, sorry, but that is bullshit. I know it used to be a problem in areas where it is not now, but I don't think every area without electricity gets a malaria problem. Is there malaria at the north pole?? Isn't malaria far more likely to be caused by politics (and/or population growth), namely groups of people being left in poverty and forced to move into unhealthy regions (swamps) because of that?