3 ms·

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 will

by 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.
        ch4s3 5y ago
        I need to dig in more and reevaluate my position. I’m largely informed on this by Rip Anderson and to some extent James Mahaffey. I need to go a bit broader and deeper.

by ch4s3 5y ago

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.
      - ch4s3 5y ago
        I need to dig in more and reevaluate my position. I’m largely informed on this by Rip Anderson and to some extent James Mahaffey. I need to go a bit broader and deeper.