3 ms·

Yes I would like less regulation of nuclear. The NRCs 15mrem per year requirement is nonsense. It means that a person living on site year round, growing all foo

by ch4s3 5y ago

Yes I would like less regulation of nuclear. The NRCs 15mrem per year requirement is nonsense. It means that a person living on site year round, growing all food on site, and drinking the groundwater must receive less radiation than eating 3 bananas per year. It’s an unscientific requirement. The ban on reprocessing is stupid, and results in more waste. The ban on long term storage outside of Yucca Mountain is dumb. Prehistoric salt deposits are far better and cheaper to maintain. Requiring waste storage that won’t expose a hypothetical persons 10k years in the future to more than 15mrem per year is also stupid. It’s all based on the linear no-threshold model which isn’t supported by evidence. We know from experience that 35 mrem dental x-rays and 70mrem chest x-rays don’t pose any risk to the average person over their lifetimes, for example. Adhering to the 15mrem standard is insanely costly. Especially since it can be super difficult to separate from background radiation that’s at times 2 orders of magnitude higher. You’d get 600mrem standing in Grand Central In NYC all year, and more on a flight to Europe.

pfdietz 5y ago
What ban on reprocessing? The one Carter created that was removed by Reagan? We aren't reprocessing in the US not because of some "ban", but because reprocessing is economically senseless. It literally costs more than it saves. The separated plutonium has negative value -- it costs more to convince someone to put it into MOX fuel than it saves in enriched uranium.
- ch4s3 5y ago
  The ban was lifted in 81 but the closure of the facilities required investment in order for them to restart. So the ban continued in a de facto sense. I’m willing to concede that this isn’t my strongest point. What I’m aiming at though, is that it strongly mitigates the waste issue.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    Reprocessing makes the waste issue worse. Instead of all the stuff nicely sealed up in fuel rods, it's now spread all through the reprocessing plant. The volume of contaminated material will increase greatly. And it doesn't really reduce the volume of underground storage needed (from heating due to alpha decay of higher actinides.) BTW, your comment about LNT is also misguided. There is no good evidence that LNT is wrong, and without LNT you might instead get a "precautionary" approach: assume radiation has the worst damage not ruled out by evidence. This would be much WORSE for nuclear than LNT, as it would increase the presumed damage from low doses. LNT is nuclear's friend; it is looked askance at by some of the anti-nuclear people for that reason.
    - ch4s3 5y ago
      I was referring primarily to reprocessing through IFR, but I can see you point that the proceeding steps carry risk. I think the issue with LNT is that is ISN'T supported by evidence and observationally in real life it seems to be wrong. I would prefer a PRA based approach that is focused on minimizing probable real world risks.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        LNT is consistent with the evidence. And it's a simple theory, and it makes sense mechanistically. What more do you want? You could concoct a more complicated theory, but Ockham's Razor says no. I also wonder why you think this approach would be a good thing for nuclear. There's an assumption in these pro-nuclear LNT arguments that LNT would be replaced by something (hormesis or whatever) that would make radiation less dangerous. But there's no reason to think that would happen. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. BTW, the NRC recently denied petitions to reconsider LNT. Their responses to the arguments are worth reading. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
        ch4s3 5y ago
        I've read most of that report, and I think you could summarize it as saying that LNT critics haven't established scientifically a threshold at which there is 0 tumor risk, and that the state of current research is mixed. I don't buy into hormesis, as the evidence isn't well established. The main issue to me is that ALARA seems overly strict compared to the way small radation exposure is treated across other industries and aspects of daily life. I need to read more about the recent Hiroshima study they mentioned.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        What was particularly damning was where they pointed out how petitioners were cherrypicking evidence that supported their position, even if later more complete data on the same subjects didn't.

by ch4s3 5y ago

pfdietz 5y ago

What ban on reprocessing? The one Carter created that was removed by Reagan? We aren't reprocessing in the US not because of some "ban", but because reprocessing is economically senseless. It literally costs more than it saves. The separated plutonium has negative value -- it costs more to convince someone to put it into MOX fuel than it saves in enriched uranium.

ch4s3 5y ago
The ban was lifted in 81 but the closure of the facilities required investment in order for them to restart. So the ban continued in a de facto sense. I’m willing to concede that this isn’t my strongest point. What I’m aiming at though, is that it strongly mitigates the waste issue.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  Reprocessing makes the waste issue worse. Instead of all the stuff nicely sealed up in fuel rods, it's now spread all through the reprocessing plant. The volume of contaminated material will increase greatly. And it doesn't really reduce the volume of underground storage needed (from heating due to alpha decay of higher actinides.) BTW, your comment about LNT is also misguided. There is no good evidence that LNT is wrong, and without LNT you might instead get a "precautionary" approach: assume radiation has the worst damage not ruled out by evidence. This would be much WORSE for nuclear than LNT, as it would increase the presumed damage from low doses. LNT is nuclear's friend; it is looked askance at by some of the anti-nuclear people for that reason.
  - ch4s3 5y ago
    I was referring primarily to reprocessing through IFR, but I can see you point that the proceeding steps carry risk. I think the issue with LNT is that is ISN'T supported by evidence and observationally in real life it seems to be wrong. I would prefer a PRA based approach that is focused on minimizing probable real world risks.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      LNT is consistent with the evidence. And it's a simple theory, and it makes sense mechanistically. What more do you want? You could concoct a more complicated theory, but Ockham's Razor says no. I also wonder why you think this approach would be a good thing for nuclear. There's an assumption in these pro-nuclear LNT arguments that LNT would be replaced by something (hormesis or whatever) that would make radiation less dangerous. But there's no reason to think that would happen. Radiation is not a criminal defendant that will be presumed innocent until proven guilty. BTW, the NRC recently denied petitions to reconsider LNT. Their responses to the arguments are worth reading. https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671 https://www.regulations.gov/document/NRC-2015-0057-0671
      - ch4s3 5y ago
        I've read most of that report, and I think you could summarize it as saying that LNT critics haven't established scientifically a threshold at which there is 0 tumor risk, and that the state of current research is mixed. I don't buy into hormesis, as the evidence isn't well established. The main issue to me is that ALARA seems overly strict compared to the way small radation exposure is treated across other industries and aspects of daily life. I need to read more about the recent Hiroshima study they mentioned.
        pfdietz 5y ago
        What was particularly damning was where they pointed out how petitioners were cherrypicking evidence that supported their position, even if later more complete data on the same subjects didn't.