Windscale fallout underestimated (BBC)

[eppur_se_muova]

Rebecca Morelle
Science reporter, BBC News

The radioactive fallout from a nuclear accident that rocked Britain 50 years ago was underestimated, scientists say.

In 1957, a fire at the Windscale nuclear reactor in Cumbria led to a release of radioactive material that spread across the UK and Europe.

But new research claims the incident generated twice as much radioactive material and caused dozens more cancers than was previously thought.

The research was published in the journal Atmospheric Environment.
***
more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7030536.stm

[gateley]

1. Nuclear ANYTHING is just too dangerous. We can't even store the waste safely.

If it were my daddy's store, I'd put a halt to nuclear and go balls-to-the-wall to get up and running with solar and wind power, while researching like crazy other benign alternatives.

We always find out too late.

[NNadir]

3. And do what, exactly?

I know...

Talk about sequestering dangerous fossil fuels 50 years from now...

Nuclear doesn't have to be perfect to be vastly superior to everything else. It merely has to be vastly better than everything else, which happily, it is.

The anti-nuke religion is always the same. It attempts to view nuclear energy in isolation from its alternatives. In fact, this religion couldn't care less about what, who, and how dangerous fossil fuels kill.

[gateley]

5. Is it vastly better than solar? Vastly better than wind? Since you asked, what

I would do is what I stated in my previous post.

I would go full-tilt into research, development, manufacturing and implementation of solar and wind power, all the while looking for other additional benign alternatives.

By the time we build new reactors here in the U.S. -- or shore up our old antiquated ones, I really believe we could have implemented solar and wind and be in the process of converting, if not already converted.

There are other countries that utilize these methods efficiently and economically. We need to become another one.

If I didn't care about how dangerous fossil fuels are, I wouldn't be driving a hybrid (waiting for an electric).

[skids]

13. To split hairs...

...it isn't really that nuclear can't be done safely, it's that we as a global society lack the quality people (in both moral character and competence) to do it right.

We could figure out how to store that waste safely or recycle it, but instead we screw around with daft Yucca insanity.

We could keep the cooling towers/circuits properly maintained and inspected but instead we shave expenses for profit's sake.

We could keep the plants guarded by conscious people, instead we hire some guy's cousin Bob,

We've proven time and time again that when it comes down to it we just don't do this stuff right.

We also screw up renewables, but at least with most renewables the potential is for less severe consequences -- ice throw, a non-toxic mineral oil explosion or two -- mostly stuff that can be risk-minimized by proper siting.

That said, I am fully in favor of improving the honesty, integrity, and capabilities needed to handle projects like nuclear plants. Even if they are obsolete by the time we do so, I am sure a day will come when we as a species have to put a lot of trust into a few hands surrounding dangerous physics, for some reason or another, and we'll only be better off if the crooks are in jail instead of in government, and the boobs are sweeping high school cafeteria floors instead of exercising executive stock options.

Either that or it's back to the stone age for us -- or at least for those of us that survive.

[gateley]

23. My concern with nuclear, of course, is the radioactivity. It's just so insidious.

In addition to the screw ups we commit in the pursuit of nuclear energy, and the importance of the dollar placed over importance of safety, I've always felt that the waste storage was the final nail in the coffin. I'm not convinced it could be stored SAFELY.

I've never even considered recycling it. If that could be done then it's a definite possibility. You pose some valid arguments, and again I find my thinking expanded by an astute DUer. Thanks!

[TheWraith]

26. It can indeed be done, and results in several benefits.

The reason that they swap out the nuclear fuel rods once a year is because byproducts of the fission reaction start to "poison" the reaction, decreasing its power. But the uranium rods themselves are fine, if you simply remove the neutron absorbers. We don't do that currently because it's never been deemed necessary--uranium is fairly cheap, so it's easy to simply make/buy new fuel rods. But reprocessing the old rods allows us to reuse the uranium, as well as greatly reducing both the mass and the radioactivity of the waste products.

By the way, the Yucca Mountain depot is not actually a bad idea, despite people's concerns. There's ample evidence in nature that even if we simply threw the waste in there wholesale, not even securely packaging it, it wouldn't be able to move far enough through the rock and the soil to escape or contaminate anything else. Do a google search on the natural fission reactor they found at Oklo, in Gabon.

Lastly, I think you overestimate the "insidious" radiation. Too many people have had their understanding of radiation formed by Hollywood movies or anti-nuclear activists, both of whome play extremely fast and loose with the facts. The reality is that radiation, while dangerous, requires a fairly substantial quantity, or very long term exposure, to do any damage. A good example is the claims by Greenpeace and others that Chernobyl resulted in 250,000 deaths: the actual number is around 4,000. They exaggerate for shock value, and to scare people.

[NNadir]

2. Two hundred and forty cancer cases, over 50 years from a complete core failure.

This would compare to British lung cancer rates from dangerous fossil fuels working in normal operations how?

I'll bet 50 Britons a week die from the normal operations at the Drax coal station, and the world couldn't care less.

[havocmom]

4. Why is it always nuke or fossil?

Answer: IT ISN'T. There are alternatives

[kestrel91316]

6. Some people ONLY see in terms of black and white,

while seeking to deflect attention from the abundance of grays.

I suspect there is some sort of personal benefit associated with pushing the idea of nukes so unremittingly.

Note the unfailing references to "DANGEROUS fossil fuels" and derisive attitude toward sustainable sources of energy.

There are 3 or 4 of these on DU E&E. Silly shills.

[NNadir]

9. Look pal, I'm not paid by Royal Dutch Shell and Gazprom.

The anti-nukes Gerhard Schroeder and Amory Lovins are.

In fact, the anti-nuke Amory Lovins used to pal around with Jeff Skilling and Ken Lay in Aspen.

Kenny Boy, of course, is dead, but Jeff's still around serving 24 years in the Federal Pen for fraud.

I have no idea whether they serve nuclear power plants for breakfast in the Federal pen, but since you're an expert of shills, maybe you can put in a call to Amory and find out.

Here's a speech from Jeff hawking his favorite fucking paid off shill, Amory:

http://www.commonwealthclub.org/archive/01/01-06skilling-speech.html

In this speech, the fraud Skillings expresses for the same consumers he was raping - along with tens of thousands of life long utility pensioniers - while hawking his buddy Amory.

Jeffrey Skilling
Chief Executive Officer, Enron Corporation



Consumers in California are angry, and they should be - prices shouldn't be what they are in California for a number of reasons. I think you'll still be angry when I'm finished, but I hope that you'll have a better idea about what to be angry about. I'm angry about it as well. Electricity markets are an important part of what's going on in California and they are not functioning the way they should.

Electricity is one of the most unusual commodities on the world because you can't store it; imbalances of supply and demand are very hard to fix in the short term.

Over two or three years, imbalances can easily be cleared by building new facilities or reducing demand. Amory Lovins is an articulate spokesman for ways to conserve electricity. They can be done cost effectively and quickly, but they can't happen over night.

And now while we're talking about fucking anti-nuke fossil fuel shills, let's see ole' Amory "Walmart pays me $20,000/day" anti-nuke shill return the favor:

http://units.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/october/a3oct01.cfm

The anti-nuke industry is one of the most dishonest, paid off industries on the face of the earth. There is NOT ONE prominent member of that community who does what he or she does for anything but money.

There is NOT ONE member of that community who gives a rat's ass about dangerous fossil fuels.

Go ahead and squirm about that phrase that you can't take, "dangerous fossil fuels." The fact is, they are dangerous.

I can fucking repeat it every twenty minutes and you can whine all you want about it. What you can't do is to deny dangerous fossil fuel wars, dangerous fossil fuel terrorism, dangerous fossil fuel accidents, dangerous fossil fuel water pollution, etc, etc, etc.

Now, pal, it's time for you to write to Gerhard Schroeder and get your check from Gazprom.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4871368.stm

You scratch the surface of anti-nuke and you either find someone who couldn't care less about dangerous fossil fuel death and destruction, or you find someone directly paid off.

Now.

You're pretty fucking free with claims of dishonesty, aren't you? You couldn't care less who's a shill, and you know as much about it as you fucking know about energy, which isn't fucking much.

[bananas]

12. You swift-boat anyone who criticizes nuclear power

You even tried to swift-boat Jimmy Carter the other day: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x114686

[jpak]

17. Brought to you by good folks (and $3 billion lobby group) at the Nuclear Energy Institute

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

who give Dick Cheney standing O's...

Nuclear Power Convention Applauds Cheney, Energy Program

The nuclear power convention sported the bold slogan "A Flourishing Renaissance," and Vice President Cheney went before the reactor executives yesterday to accept their adulation and underline the administration's enthusiasm for nuclear power. Vice President Cheney was greeted by two standing ovations at Tuesday's Nuclear Energy Institute's annual conference in Washington Tuesday, May 22, 2001. (AP Photo/Doug Mills)

The energy policy President Bush released last week includes promises to speed up relicensing for safe and efficient nuclear reactors and take a number of other steps to encourage production of nuclear power. The report refers to it as a "clean and unlimited source of energy."

Cheney was the policy's architect, and was greeted by two standing ovations from the crowd of 375 at the Nuclear Energy Assembly. The annual conference is sponsored at a Washington hotel by the industry's major trade group, the Nuclear Energy Institute.

Cheney said the nuclear industry is allowing electricity to be generated "efficiently, safely, with no discharge of the greenhouse gases or emissions."

<more>

and they roam the internets too...

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

so beware...

[havocmom]

18. They tell us all is safe, then they want to bury their wastes in my backyard

If it's so safe, they can fucking keep it in THEIR back yards; let THEIR kids play over it; drink water from wells and aquifers close to it.

Yep, they roam the internets and are damned predictable.

[jpak]

19. Roam they do - check out the blogroll...

http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/

[havocmom]

10. Also always a no show in news threads about serious problems at a nuke plant

Yep, stock holders or something would be my guess too.

[madokie]

14. I agree with you. Here's a link to my all time hero, Carrie Barefoot Dickerson

http://www.ecn.cz/temelin/CARRIE.HTM


The state of Oklahoma has no nuclear power plants, and Carrie Barefoot Dickerson is the biggest reason why.

On May 8, 1973, Dickerson, a registered nurse and the proprietress of Aunt Carrie's Nursing Home in Claremore, Oklahoma, read a newspaper article entitled "$450 M N-Plant Planned for Inola." Although not an activist, Dickerson had a habit of clipping and collecting articles on environmental issues. Inola was a nearby town, and Dickerson was concerned enough by what she read to take action. First, she did some research on the hazards of atomic reactors, and then she made a point of attending the first public hearing on the proposed plant. A person who had always assumed that her government would protect her safety, Dickerson was outraged to find that the government would allow construction of a nuclear reactor even though it knew a meltdown could render an area the size of Pennsylvania uninhabitable.

Dickerson did not have to look far for motivation for her new-found activism. "When I saw my little grandson playing outside on the green, uncontaminated grass, I knew in my heart that I was obligated to do all I could to keep him and future generations safe," she said.

She threw herself -- and most of her worldly goods -- into the effort to stop construction of what was called the Black Fox nuclear power plant. To raise money for a legal challenge to the reactor's construction, she sold her nursing home. When those funds were depleted, she mortgaged the family farm. When even more money was needed for the cause, she stitched quilts and raffled them off, all the while devoting hundreds of hours to learning all she could about nuclear energy.

Dickerson founded a group, Citizens' Action for Safe Energy (CASE), and attracted many dedicated allies to her cause. They reached a turning point in 1981 when the Oklahoma Corporation Commission, which regulates utilities in the state, held hearings on the high electric rates that consumers would have to pay if the expensive nuclear plant were built. After hearing testimony from Dickerson and many others, the Commission declared that Black Fox was no longer economically viable and that ratepayers would not have to swallow its construction costs.

After the regulators' decision, the utility threw in the towel in 1982, and Black Fox joined the ranks of reactors cancelled before they could contaminate a community. The year Dickerson began her crusade, 1973, turned out to be a high-water mark for the nuclear industry, as no reactor ordered since that year has been completed in the United States. Dickerson gives credit to Ralph Nader and the "Critical Mass" conferences, which led to the founding of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, for providing vital assistance to her nine-year struggle against Black Fox.

Dickerson remains active in the fight for safe, renewable energy and against atomic power. She recently alerted Oklahomans to the dangers posed by nuclear-industry plans to transport radioactive waste through the state. Dickerson, who is of caucasian and Native American ancestry, also helped persuade Oklahoma's Tonkawa tribe to reject an effort to dump highly radioactive waste on the Tonkawa reservation.

She has written a book about her experience with Black Fox, called "Aunt Carrie's War Against Black Fox Nuclear Power Plant." It's an inspirational tale of a citizen's efforts to protect her community and can be ordered by sending $30 (includes tax and shipping) to Carrie Barefoot Dickerson, 3609 East Blue Starr Drive, Claremore, OK 74017.

Now a great-grandmother nearing her 80th birthday, Dickerson is one of a select group of people who have sacrificed everything and overcome powerful odds to further a cause they believe to be just. Presently living on modest means, Dickerson was asked how she feels about having thrown so much money into the cause? "I'm only glad I had it to spend," she replied.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

as I live only a few miles northeast of this proposed site and not wanting to live in the constant fear of radiation poisoning I was an early supporter of this cause. best I can remember back then one of the questions we were asking is what would you do with the waste and almost 40 years later the best they can do is give us Yucca mountain depository in Utah, which sets on a fault line BTW. I don't trust anyone in support of nuclear energy to be honest with me, they weren't then and so far none seem to be today. Ask what are you going to do with the waste, which is much more than what they start with in the first place IIRC, and you'll get some of the damnedest answers some of which sound pretty far out, as us ole hippies were want of saying back then, such as Yucca Mountain depository. The worlds energy needs was not solved with the development of nuclear energy, simple. I understand that fossil fuels are killing many today but how long into the near future will that waste still be killing, not long, where as how long into the distant future will the waste of 'clean' nuclear fuel still be killing, as long as I can conceivably see the world will be inhabitable. If nuclear energy is the solution to our energy needs today and into the future we truly are screwed.

I guess since it is a very highly intelligence required technology that to the pro crowd us con's are just plain, ignorant.



http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=yucca+mountain+nuclear+depository
for some more reading on the subject

[Systematic Chaos]

16. And to go along with this highly illustrious article...

...I bring you some graphs to really be proud of!

Or not.

Pathetic. Just pathetic.

If I had a big-ass trust fund, I'd spend part of it giving a certain "great-grandmother nearing her 80th birthday" her very own all-expense-paid vacation to Melville Island.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[havocmom]

11. Let's pretend the powers that rule have not been shoving nuclear power down our throats

along with lies about the safety, for say fifty years... how far along would wind and solar have been if we hadn't taken the dumb nuke detour to real renewable SAFE energy?

Oh, I forgot, the uber rich & their minions still haven't figured how to meter the sun and wind to keep their lifestyles.

[TheWraith]

24. What powers that rule are these?

Nobody's been shoving anything down your throat. The people who actually wield the money are quite happy with the status quo because that's what they make their money from, and nuclear isn't profitable enough that they would want to have anything to do with it. Or do you postulate a conspiracy that's powerful enough to squash "renewable" energy but can't support nuclear?

"how far along would wind and solar have been if we hadn't taken the dumb nuke detour to real renewable SAFE energy?"

They wouldn't. Unless, of course, you're willing to pave over the entire state of Nevada with solar cells, which is what it would take to produce power for the entire US. Or we could simply build and place 10 million 1 megawatt wind turbines, each of which requires a 350 foot tower and 200-foot wide propellers. That's roughly 3 turbines on every square mile of the United States.

The math kicks the hell out of renewable energy. You would quite literally need three thousand of those wind turbines to replace just one mid-size nuclear plant. Make all the conspiracy theories you want, but it doesn't change the actual engineering reality.

[TheWraith]

22. Those alternatives generate less than one half a percent of all our power.

That's not an alternative, it's a smokescreen for why we shouldn't do whatever is necessary to rid ourselves of fossil fuel consumption right now. Do you ever wonder where the anti-nuclear groups get all their money? Trace it back, and you'll likely find that some of their biggest contributors are in the oil and coal industries.

Wind power produces about 0.4% of all our power. Solar produces even less, just 0.1%. They could both increase by a factor of 10 and still be producing less than a third of the energy we'd need JUST to replace our nuclear reactors.

Solar and wind are not an alternative. Maybe after 20 more years of continuous deployment, they might make up a noticible amount of our power needs, but for the near future they're an astrisk. And meanwhile, we're still killing thousands of people a year with smog and soot.

[phantom power]

21. 240 people are killed every 60 hours by automobiles.

I assume everybody here must be fucking terrified to get near a road, and must also be lobbying day and night against the automobile industry.

[soothsayer]

8. power in nuclear europe is $$$$. i fail to see what's great about nukes.

ever been to paris? man you'd better turn off the lights when you leave the room (not a bad idea, but they do it because it's EXPENSIVE)

[TheWraith]

25. Nonsense.

Yes, electrical prices can be a little higher in Europe--a whopping 11 cents per kilowatt hour in Britain, 15 cents in Germany, compared to 8 cents average in the US, and 12 cents where I live. God forbid that they should pay an extra few dollars a month for producing so much less in the way of greenhouse gases. Oh, wait--I forgot that solar power is, under even the most absurdly optimistic measurements, 25 cents per kilowatt-hour.

Not to mention, if you measure actual cost of power generation, nuclear is 3.8 cents per KWh, compared to 2.5 cents for coal or gas, and 4 cents for wind.

[losthills]

15. How safe can anyone in this world feel

to know that China is cranking out dozens of these things.

And they can't even make dog food right...

[phantom power]

20. Every nuclear plant they build instead of a coal plant makes me feel safer.

Of course, mostly they're still building coal plants. So I don't feel very safe.

[NickB79]

28. Does it make you feel better China is building dozens of COAL-fired plants per month?

3 per week at last count. Each one of those plants will undoubtedly kill thousands of people during the few decades the operate from air pollution and global warming.

And, I'm pretty sure even the crappiest nuclear reactors China is building today have WAY more safety features than a plant built in 1957.

[losthills]

29. The same old coal vs. nuclear feint?

Not worth responding to, really...

Chinese "safety features" are internationally acclaimed. In wrongful death lawsuits.... How many million defective toys have they had to recall this month?

[havocmom]

27. I see the bench is in play today

;)