3 ms·

Looking at table 13 of annex b, how does the plutonium-239 emitted in the atmosphere by the reprocessing plants compare to naturally occurring atmospheric pluto

Looking at table 13 of annex b, how does the plutonium-239 emitted in the atmosphere by the reprocessing plants compare to naturally occurring atmospheric plutonium? (scnr - the comparison to cosmic rays just reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural) I know the answer, i want to highlight the cherry picking ;-) Sure there is natural carbon-14, but there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can also be ignored when comparing coal and nuclear power generation industries to each other? I think not. The UNSCEAR boils all these complex details down to a collective effective dose per generated electricity (in man-sievert per gigawatt year) for atmospheric discharges. This hides a lot of details, including the mentioned plutonium-239 as well as the carbon-14 releases, the radon-222 exhaust, and the uranium-238 traces being discharged to the atmosphere both by coal burning power plants and the uranium mills required for nuclear power. How half life plays into that, why nuclear accidents were taken out of scope, and why you don't want an old italian geothermal complex in your backyard. As i said, any TLDR i can give will not do justice to the details and quality of the report.

defrost 3y ago
I wrote my comment to put your original comment [1] in proportion. You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". > the "compared to cosmic rays" reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural It might remind you of that but I assure the intent was to legitimately compare the actual amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (which originates from cosmic ray collisions) against the additional amount added by PWR + BWR reactors. Reactors add very little by magnitude to an amount that is already very small and in toto the effect on humans is a very small part of the "normal" human exposure to environmental radiation that has persisted for our time on this planet. > there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can be ignored .. Absolutely not, but for a meaningful understanding it should be compared to the already occurring creation of radon from 'natural' uranium decaying within granites and expressing to the surface. I'd suggest paying attention to ground topography also - radon pools in valleys until stiff breezes clear them of those pools - hence the recommendations for venting in basements in granite rich areas. > This hides a lot of details, ... will not do justice to details and quality of the source. If it's hiding details you can find better sources that drill deeper in the individual components. Eg: Australian AGSO and National Pollution Inventory reports on Olympic Dam [2] and other "uranium mills". Water usage might be an issue of greater significance there (at Olympic Dam). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine
- Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
  > You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". i did, within minutes of posting it, and before ever knowing about your follow up response, because i was unhappy with pinpointing such a detail and wanted to avoid this exact situation of someone over-focusing on that specific detail, disregarding the larger context of comparing whole sectors. I take full responsibility for pointing at the cherry you picked, before realising i should not.
- Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
  > Water usage might be an issue of greater significance there (at Olympic Dam). Then you may be happy to hear that the UN report also notes water pollution by the nuclear industry, citing a publication by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency as reference L2 concerning Olympic Dam

defrost 3y ago

I wrote my comment to put your original comment [1] in proportion. You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". > the "compared to cosmic rays" reminds me of the fuel industry claiming that atmospheric lead is natural It might remind you of that but I assure the intent was to legitimately compare the actual amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere (which originates from cosmic ray collisions) against the additional amount added by PWR + BWR reactors. Reactors add very little by magnitude to an amount that is already very small and in toto the effect on humans is a very small part of the "normal" human exposure to environmental radiation that has persisted for our time on this planet. > there is natural radon-222 as well, does that mean the radon exhaust of coal power plants can be ignored .. Absolutely not, but for a meaningful understanding it should be compared to the already occurring creation of radon from 'natural' uranium decaying within granites and expressing to the surface. I'd suggest paying attention to ground topography also - radon pools in valleys until stiff breezes clear them of those pools - hence the recommendations for venting in basements in granite rich areas. > This hides a lot of details, ... will not do justice to details and quality of the source. If it's hiding details you can find better sources that drill deeper in the individual components. Eg: Australian AGSO and National Pollution Inventory reports on Olympic Dam [2] and other "uranium mills". Water usage might be an issue of greater significance there (at Olympic Dam). [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35783728 [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Dam_mine

Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
> You appear to have since edited your original comment to replace "Carbon-14" with a broader non specific "radioactive waste". i did, within minutes of posting it, and before ever knowing about your follow up response, because i was unhappy with pinpointing such a detail and wanted to avoid this exact situation of someone over-focusing on that specific detail, disregarding the larger context of comparing whole sectors. I take full responsibility for pointing at the cherry you picked, before realising i should not.
Jon_Lowtek 3y ago
> Water usage might be an issue of greater significance there (at Olympic Dam). Then you may be happy to hear that the UN report also notes water pollution by the nuclear industry, citing a publication by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency as reference L2 concerning Olympic Dam