7 ms·

That was a dye simulation you linked and it shows Fukushima is miniscule compared to enough reprocessing plants to cover a country's energy over a few decades.

That was a dye simulation you linked and it shows Fukushima is miniscule compared to enough reprocessing plants to cover a country's energy over a few decades. And that even a single reprocessing plant will release a Fukushima worth of radiation every few decades if they are operating without a group like Greenpeace to hold them to account. As usual, lies and attempted misdirection. Turns out the output in the English channel is measurable and has been measured. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0265931X16302053 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S02659... https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16376698/ From just two facilities reprocessing a tiny fraction of spent fuel the amounts are measurable and have historically been high enough to cause major problems at neigible fuel output. Stellafield alone released more Cs137 into the ocean than Fukushima. They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. The decreased output rate per kg of MOX is still not low enough for it to be safe with mass expansion. You are proposing the amount of nuclear derived electricity increase 20-fold. Including MOX in this would cause reprocessing to increase by several orders of magnitude. If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs.

Manuel_D 4y ago
The studies you link do not find any dangerous levels of radioisotopes. They also actually found higher radioisotope concentrations in the Baltic than in the north sea and English channel, because Chernobyl released more radiation than this reprocessing plant contrary to your assertion otherwise. You say that a reprocessing facility releases more radiation than Fukushima every few decades, but La Hague had been in operation for 50 years. Fukushima levels of radiation would have been released by now, and mysteriously nobody can seem to detect it. > They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. What measures? No source seems to mention any sort of changes or improvements following Greenpeace's stunts. What is far more likely for reductions in radioisotopes? Is the stopping of oceanic dumping of nuclear waste, that I explained later. > If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs. This is already happening! You just linked to two public studies on the concentration of radioisotopes in the waters around Europe. How can you simultaneously post studies measuring radiation density, while also claiming that it's not possible to measure the radiation in the vicinity of these facilities? And again, it's mysteriously only Greenpeace that cares. Belgium, Netherland, the UK, Spain - all of France's neighbors are apparently okay with their waters being polluted? To be blunt, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radioactive contamination works. The UK and USSR dumped huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean, and there was no observed ill effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... Whatever emissions this French reprocessing site is producing is negligible compared to the background concentrations of radioisotopes.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Two plants reprocessing a negligible fraction of the fuel for 2% of world energy provably have more effect on the north sea than chernobyl. Both plants, but especially Stellafield were producing many times as much before Greenpeace's 'stunts'. Scale it up at least 5000 times so that the amount of reprocessing isn't negligible and you have a chernobyl worth of radiation every 20 years or so. This is only the one pair of isotopes in the one place with an indisputable proof. Note that your claims about it being undetectable were proven to be yet another lie and you immediately went back to 'you can't prove that it's reached harmful levels yet' or the exact same script fossil fuel has been running for decades. When every pro nuclear claim that is easily checked is a lie, what possible reason is there to believe you about the ones that are harder to verify that you'd have even less incentive to tell the truth for?
  - Manuel_D 4y ago
    Radiation is everywhere. We can detect radiation incredibly precisely, to the point that we can tell which person ate a banana for breakfast. I wrote that contamination was not detected, not that zero radiation whatsoever was detected. Again, we can detect radiation that's a trillionth of a deviation above average. But we don't care about the mere presence of radiation - it's all around us in low quantities - radioactive contamination happens when levels reach harmful concentration. None of your studies concluded that radiation would reach harmful levels even if it increased by a factor of 1,000. And remember, we already get 10% of our electricity from nuclear power so I'm not sure where this figure of 5,000 came from. We all know that the cooling systems of nuclear power plants leak tritium. But the levels are negligible and nowhere near the concentrations that would cause harm. But organizations like Greenpeace continue to try lie and insist that it's contamination when it's not. The same thing is happening with La Hague. There is absolutely nothing misleading about saying radiation isn't at harmful levels. On the contrary, insisting that the presence of any radioisotopes is evidence of harmful contamination is, itself a highly misleading kind of rhetoric. If you care about the levels of radiation released by La Hague you should be frantically trying to ban stone and brick housing. Hopefully this will better convey a sense of what radiation exposure really means: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/

Manuel_D 4y ago

The studies you link do not find any dangerous levels of radioisotopes. They also actually found higher radioisotope concentrations in the Baltic than in the north sea and English channel, because Chernobyl released more radiation than this reprocessing plant contrary to your assertion otherwise. You say that a reprocessing facility releases more radiation than Fukushima every few decades, but La Hague had been in operation for 50 years. Fukushima levels of radiation would have been released by now, and mysteriously nobody can seem to detect it. > They both decreased since the 90s because Greenpeace were right and they won and better control measures were put in place. What measures? No source seems to mention any sort of changes or improvements following Greenpeace's stunts. What is far more likely for reductions in radioisotopes? Is the stopping of oceanic dumping of nuclear waste, that I explained later. > If the total quantity from those reprocessing facilities is safe, then this is trivial to prove. Set up publicly auditable monitoring around all of their outputs. This is already happening! You just linked to two public studies on the concentration of radioisotopes in the waters around Europe. How can you simultaneously post studies measuring radiation density, while also claiming that it's not possible to measure the radiation in the vicinity of these facilities? And again, it's mysteriously only Greenpeace that cares. Belgium, Netherland, the UK, Spain - all of France's neighbors are apparently okay with their waters being polluted? To be blunt, I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radioactive contamination works. The UK and USSR dumped huge amounts of nuclear waste into the ocean, and there was no observed ill effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_waste https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_disposal_of_radioactive_... Whatever emissions this French reprocessing site is producing is negligible compared to the background concentrations of radioisotopes.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Two plants reprocessing a negligible fraction of the fuel for 2% of world energy provably have more effect on the north sea than chernobyl. Both plants, but especially Stellafield were producing many times as much before Greenpeace's 'stunts'. Scale it up at least 5000 times so that the amount of reprocessing isn't negligible and you have a chernobyl worth of radiation every 20 years or so. This is only the one pair of isotopes in the one place with an indisputable proof. Note that your claims about it being undetectable were proven to be yet another lie and you immediately went back to 'you can't prove that it's reached harmful levels yet' or the exact same script fossil fuel has been running for decades. When every pro nuclear claim that is easily checked is a lie, what possible reason is there to believe you about the ones that are harder to verify that you'd have even less incentive to tell the truth for?
- Manuel_D 4y ago
  Radiation is everywhere. We can detect radiation incredibly precisely, to the point that we can tell which person ate a banana for breakfast. I wrote that contamination was not detected, not that zero radiation whatsoever was detected. Again, we can detect radiation that's a trillionth of a deviation above average. But we don't care about the mere presence of radiation - it's all around us in low quantities - radioactive contamination happens when levels reach harmful concentration. None of your studies concluded that radiation would reach harmful levels even if it increased by a factor of 1,000. And remember, we already get 10% of our electricity from nuclear power so I'm not sure where this figure of 5,000 came from. We all know that the cooling systems of nuclear power plants leak tritium. But the levels are negligible and nowhere near the concentrations that would cause harm. But organizations like Greenpeace continue to try lie and insist that it's contamination when it's not. The same thing is happening with La Hague. There is absolutely nothing misleading about saying radiation isn't at harmful levels. On the contrary, insisting that the presence of any radioisotopes is evidence of harmful contamination is, itself a highly misleading kind of rhetoric. If you care about the levels of radiation released by La Hague you should be frantically trying to ban stone and brick housing. Hopefully this will better convey a sense of what radiation exposure really means: https://xkcd.com/radiation/ https://xkcd.com/radiation/