neal@druxv.UUCP (07/25/84)
What amazes me is that these sorts of things happen all the time (floods, coal mining accidents, oil spills, black lung, acid rain, the future danger of carbon-dioxide-induced climate changes, etc.), but the public still believes that hydro power, coal power, and oil power are safer than nuclear power! Now don't get me wrong: I believe that nuclear power is worse than almost any other power source based on many other arguments (waste disposal, expense, overly complicated, etc), but the fact is that many more people die per megawatt of fossil fuel power than nuclear power. Reference: a book, "The health hazards of NOT going nuclear" by a professor at U. Colorado (sorry, forgot his name). -Neal McBurnett, ihnp4!druny!neal, 303-538-4852
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (07/28/84)
> Nuclear power is (usually) just slower about its destructive work > than the fossil fuels. Nuclear waste will leach into the environment > for the next quarter million years. Most nuclear waste, with the plutonium removed (if for no other reason than it being too valuable to throw away) is no more radioactive than natural uranium ore within a few centuries. There are impossibly huge amounts of natural uranium ore in the Earth's crust already; if stuff at that level of activity is dangerous, we've had it. Also, please note that the wastes associated with some other means of power generation, such as coal, are dangerous chemical poisons -- they have no halflife and will be around *forever*. > As for "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear", I haven't read it. You should. It's very interesting, particularly when Petr Beckmann (the author) starts comparing the statements of the anti-nuclear folks with the facts. There is no doubt that many of the anti-nuclear people are sincere, but some of them aren't, and there are some outrageous lies masquerading as facts. > But I'll bet nuclear is put against large coal and oil plants instead > of the real winners, decentralized solar, biogas, and natural gas. Nuclear is put against everything in Beckmann's comparisons. All forms of power, bar none, have health hazards. (Including decentralized solar. After car accidents, the biggest cause of accidental death in North America is accidental falls. Solar systems will often be on rooftops.) Industrial accidents occur in all forms of industry, hence in all forms of power generation. Nuclear generally wins simply because it is so concentrated -- there is less volume of hazardous material, hence less handling and less opportunity for accident and injury. > Read "Soft Energy Paths" and other works by Amory Lovins for further > info. But check his claims before taking them as facts. Some are not. -- "We almost lost Lockport!" Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
phil@amd.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (07/28/84)
I recall that the scenerio of a liquified natural gas tanker
exploding in Boston harbor would be about equivalent to a nuke going off.
Well, at least the ashes wouldn't be radioactive.
Lots of joules in one of those things.
--
"amd70" is dead! long live "amd"!
Phil Ngai (408) 982-6554
UUCPnet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amd!phil
ARPAnet: amd!phil@decwrl.ARPAdgary@ecsvax.UUCP (07/31/84)
< ... quoting ...> >From: mjk@tty3b.UUCP (Mike Kelly) Mon Jul 30 11:19:09 1984 >Come on, Henry, everyone should know by now that ALL radiation is dangerous. >There is no such thing as a "safe level"; there is only a officially >approved "acceptable level". "Acceptable" to whom is never talked about. I guess it's worth noting that light is electromagnetic radiation, so perhaps I should move into a cave somewhere ... :-) In any event, a number of studies suggest there perhaps ARE safe levels of ionizing radiation. For instance, mortality and morbidity in China is actually lower in some areas with higher than normal background radiation. There doesn't seem to be any clear relation in the US or Europe between low-level radiation and cancer, birth defects, and so on; studies have been inconclusive. I am very leery of going by what "everybody knows" because it often turns out that "everybody knows" that we'd better keep commie pinkos out of this country and the dinosaurs are gone because they turned a blind eye to the threat of pornography. Also, I believe questions like "acceptable for whom" have been discussed quite a bit. I have certainly seen a lot of that go by in the scientific press, even though I get none of the specialist journals in the health physics field. In any event, I find it hard to believe that everyone in favor of nuclear power is a scoundrel or a fool; I have met too many distinguished scientists of both camps to believe that the issue is as simply cut and dried as some of the discussion on this net has implied. >I can't believe this. This man is comparing "a few centuries" worth of >high-level radioactive waste with a fall from a rooftop. This is incredible. The point is that if we can keep these wastes out of the environment for just a few centuries (not exactly an impossible dream), then EVEN IF THEY LATER leak out we are no worse off than we are already. In fact, it could be argued that if we manage to keep the wastes out of the environment for longer than that (which we almost certainly can), we are in fact LOWERING the amount of radiation in the environment, if only by a little. As I have said before, it is a pity these questions become so emotional and politicised, with people swearing there is no way you can convince them that they are mistaken. D Gary Grady Duke University Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706 (919) 684-4146 USENET: {decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
mark@teltone.UUCP (Mark McWiggins) (08/01/84)
<Mutants for Nuclear Power "-;> Nuclear power is (usually) just slower about its destructive work than the fossil fuels. Nuclear waste will leach into the environment for the next quarter million years. As for "The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear", I haven't read it. But I'll bet nuclear is put against large coal and oil plants instead of the real winners, decentralized solar, biogas, and natural gas. Read "Soft Energy Paths" and other works by Amory Lovins for further info. -- ....tektronix!uw-beaver!teltone!mark
dand@tekigm.UUCP (Dan C. Duval) (08/02/84)
Mike Kelly makes two statements about nuclear power that I believe aren't true under my set of assumptions. Mike says noone can change his mind, so this isn't an attempt to do so, but to point up the falacy of these two statements under a different point of view on life, the universe, and everything. >>1) We don't need it. There are quite a number of processes which will not work with diffuse power sources, such as solar, biomass, etc. I have grown fond of steel and aluminum products(my car, the nails that hold my house together, the plating that makes this terminal work, etc), petroleum cracking products (gas for my car, paint for the house, the epoxy the terminal boards are made of, etc), and, even etc. The concentrated power sources are currently fossil fuels, fission, and hydro/aero-dynamic power. The West is pretty well fixed with hydropower and windpower, but the rest of the US is out of luck with those. Which brings us to fossil fuels. They are limited in duration ("what the hell, they'll last a few centuries...I'll be dead by then') and the current plants seem to have a problem about pumping nitrates and sulfates into the air in forms that combine with water and strip the leaves from trees (Germany is trying to figure out how to put the Schwartzwald back together) as well as causing reductions in crop productivity, not to mention the long-term health hazards involved with breathing the stuff. Each improvement made in reducing these air pollution problems means more fuel burned to get the same amount of energy from the plant (scrubbers are not cheap, to build or operate) and thus the limited fossil fuels are even more limited. There will be improvements in the use of fossil fuels, but they haven't arrived on an industrial scale, and I'd rather have the trees come with leaves, than forests full of firewood waiting to be blown or cut down. The nukes suck. Hard radiation will kill you, make you sick, and/or cause mutations that wouldn't look good in a side-show. I don't want to live next to a pile of uranium tailings, poorly-operated nuclear power plants, or in a high-level waste dump, but on the other hand I don't want to live in 1880s London, either, what with the smog and the lack of technology's benefits, such as NMR-scanners, microwave communications, farmers that can grow food enough to feed hundreds of others, and even more etc. There are ways to deal with the radioactive waste from power plants, the simplest being to scatter it evenly over the face of the earth -- I don't recommend this method, but it increases the background radiation flux less than 0.1%, much less than sitting close to your pre-1975 color television set, or having your dentist take a picture of your gums. >>2) The danger is not to people living today, but to the human gene pool. I hate to put this to you, but it's too late to worry about that. Radiation mutations started the instant the first nucleotides showed up some number of billions of years ago. Man is not something set apart from the way the universe works, but it a part of it. By burning the fossil fuels, we raise the temperature of the Earth more than if we hadn't. By blocking off rivers, we prevent the natural flooding that washes millions of tons of topsoil into the sea. We foul the air with nitric and sulfuric acid that kills the plants that provide the oxygen that we breathe. We put up solar panels and houses that prevent the sun from arriving on certain pieces of ground, so only the shade-loving plants can grow there. The chemicals we use in the normal course of living are more potent carcinogens than radiation, and not all of them decay by way of biological or chemical processes -- PCB, DDT, 2,4,5-T, dioxins, these are going to be with us for awhile. Hell, we're even trying to make the very ground collapse on itself by pulling all the water from the aquifers. True, the human future was threatened the first time someone pulled the first radioactive ore from the ground, but no more than the first time an alchemist discovered how to make sulfuric acid, or glass and wool were brought together to make electricity. Harry's point is that you can't point at a single tiny part of the world and go "Icky, I don't want to have anything to do with that." So, "we don't need it"... you can live in a cave and eat wild hickory nuts, but I like to kick back with a fine French Bordeaux and listen to Jethro Tull or Yes on my stereo; I want to be able to go to a hospital and find a doctor who can work on me even if it is dark outside; I want to be able to call for an ambulance to get me to that hospital during an infarct. We need energy to maintain the standard of living, and you can't convince me that nuclear power is any more of a threat to future generations (gene pool or THEIR standard of living) than any of the other concentrated energy sources. Indeed, if we succeed in killing off all the land plants with the emissions of coal-fired plants, there won't BE any future generations, and their standard of living is going to be very low. Enough. You can't make me fear nuclear power more than I fear the entire structure of our technology, and I refuse to accept less than we have now. Indeed, you can't make me fear anything more than I fear the greed and ignorance of your average human being(How's that for cynical?), but these are the things we need to get over, not telling other people what toys they can and can't play with, and how stupid they are for not agreeing with you or having a different idea of how the universe works. Needless to say, these opinions do not reflect those of my employers, and I might not even agree with myself in two weeks. Dan C Duval ISI Engineering Tektronix, Inc tektronix!tekigm!dand
al@ames.UUCP (Al Globus) (08/02/84)
One argument against nuclear power that is seldom brought up is defendability. I believe this is because most anti-nuke folk don't know or think much about military matters. I'm an exception. Nuclear power plants are sitting ducks, and taking one out - done 'properly' can make entire regions unihabitable. For example, a Scientific American article some time ago pointed out that a single atomic bomb dropped on the right nuclear power plant during normal wind conditions could contaminate the ENTIRE RUHR INDUSTRIAL REGION for decades. A nuke isn't necessary to take out a reactor, as the Israeli's proved in Iraq. What's more, if you get the coolant input pipes you can cause a melt down without too much trouble. Presto chango, no one can live nearby for years, if not centuries. Actually, all centralized power plants have defense problems because of the major disruptions caused when they are destroyed. Nuclear plants compound the problem since the radioactive fuel can be used as a weapon.
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (08/02/84)
...and if we send all the nuclear waste to the moon, we might get a chain reaction that causes the moon to blast off and go wandering around space. Mission: Impossible, no Space 1999. -Ron :-)
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (08/03/84)
... But I'll bet nuclear is put against large coal and oil plants instead of the real winners, decentralized solar, biogas, and natural gas. ... Hmmm. Let me know how to power a blast furnace from decentralized solar. Frankly, the problem is that heavy industry needs *large* quantities of high-grade energy. None of the alternate sources can provide that. And if we're going to pull the rest of the planet above subsistence level living, then we need heavy industry. (I *firmly* refuse to lower my lifestyle, so the only alternative is to raise everyone else's.) Unfortunately, the same problem applies to central urban areas--you have to find some place to put those bleedin' collectors, and covering 2/3 of Manhattan or the Chicago Loop isn't going to work. The extremely large biomass converters also have their pollution problems; and that gas has to be converted to electricity at some point, to be generally usable. And natural gas, while clean and relatively abundant, falls in the same category as petroleum: it's a finite resource. Everyone has their own axe to grind, and I'll agree that nuclear power, as implemented by the powers that be, is far from a desirable legacy to our kids. (At least WE put containments around the beasts--the Soviets don't believe in them!!) But I think it's high time that all of us who love our home (i.e., this amazing planet we have the luck to live on) agree that the important thing is to stop fouling our own nest. Would you put your trash incinerator in the living room? Then why have a blast furnace just a few miles away from residential homes? To do this sanely, we have to get out of our closed ecosystem. How? (You knew it had to come to this.) Leave the planet. Get the stinky, messy, sloppy stuff out where you can REALLY use solar, on a large scale. Get it where nuclear power plants are an intelligent and elegant solution. Get out where there are plentiful raw materials. GO ORBITAL. I won't go on a tirade justifying this stance here; it belongs in net.space. (Of course, there, it's the converted preaching to the converted...:-)) But I hope that enough people take enough time out from laughing at this "Sci-Fi" idea to examine the economics, engineering, and logistics long enough to think... Dave "I'd take a job as janitor on the Shuttle" Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (08/03/84)
> Nuclear power plants are sitting ducks, and taking one out - done 'properly' > can make entire regions unihabitable. For example, a Scientific American > article some time ago pointed out that a single atomic bomb dropped on the > right nuclear power plant during normal wind conditions could contaminate > the ENTIRE RUHR INDUSTRIAL REGION for decades. Later commentary on that article pointed out that a nuclear power plant isn't exactly a "sitting duck": Western nuclear plants (as opposed to the Soviet ones) are probably the toughest structures ever built by man. They are built to shrug off direct hits by crashing airliners, after all. Hitting one of them with a missile would need silo-killing accuracy, and missiles with silo-killing accuracy will have more important targets in a war. Bombers are a different matter, but we have defences against them (or we're supposed to...). Splattering a nuclear plant would also be a rather stupid thing to do. Making a large and immensely valuable industrial area uninhabitable for years is the sort of mistake that generals get shot for. Tactical nuclear weapons are generally designed for *minimum* fallout for just this reason. (Strategic weapons don't figure in this because use of them will mean a situation sufficiently bad that the reactors will be only a minor worry.) I would consider it very surprising to find the Soviets planning to blast reactors (with nuclear or non-nuclear weapons) in anything short of dire extremity. Much more likely would be a non-nuclear strike against the generators or the switching gear, with intact survival of the containment shell an explicit *objective* of the mission. > .................................................... What's more, if you > get the coolant input pipes you can cause a melt down without too much > trouble. Presto chango, no one can live nearby for years, if not centuries. The most likely result of a meltdown, actually, is a hell of a mess within the reactor building, and perhaps immediately underneath it, but not much of a problem outside. Why do you think those nice thick containment walls are there? > Actually, all centralized power plants have defense problems because of > the major disruptions caused when they are destroyed. No argument. But this applies to many things in an industrial civilization, not just power plants. > Nuclear plants > compound the problem since the radioactive fuel can be used as a weapon. Only if you've got a nuclear weapon, or something close, to liberate it with. There are other things that would also make an awful mess which are *not* so well protected. A few years ago, just west of where I sit typing this, an entire city was evacuated for several days when some chlorine tank cars were involved in a derailment accident. And there is alleged to be at least one hydroelectric dam in California where a major dam failure might kill a quarter of a million people. You don't need to invoke nuclear methods to achieve mass murder. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
ignatz@ihuxx.UUCP (Dave Ihnat, Chicago, IL) (08/04/84)
Gosh, Mike, if you could have said anything more damaging to your stance, I don't know what it is: "...you will never convince me we need nuclear power." Closed-minded, or what? Say things like that, and no one will listen to what you say, either. Suppose I informed you that a means DOES exist to get rid of those nasty nuclear wastes? Is, and has been feasible, and results in a waste product with a half-life measured in 10s of years, not 10000s. A friend of mine is an editor at Nuclear News. (For those not in the know, this is the publication of the American Nuclear Society; but it's not always in good odor with the industry, because of some misguided notion that it should report facts, instead of being an industry propaganda sheet. Believe me, Mike would not espouse some position to make ANS happy.) He told me, a couple of years ago, that the means to get rid of the worst of the nasty long-lived radioactives in the waste fuel has been tested. It involves building high-energy accelerators to, essentially, transmute the materials and hasten their decay. The problem is that you're talking about an industrial accelerator, not a scientific test tool. To build ones big enough, reliable enough, and safe enough to process power-plant waste, it would take a massive, multi-megabuck building program RIGHT NOW to process this country's wastes by 2000. It isn't going to happen, for a lot of reasons. Mostly political. (Incidentally, those who question this technique, or want more info--let me know, via mail; if I get enough requests, I'll ask Mike to write a brief USENET article expressing the details and considerations.) The question is not whether we need nuclear power. The question is: We need intense power sources for our industrial lifestyle. Where do we get them, and where do we want to use them? (Note that I am NOT willing to 'conserve', if by conserve you mean back off to an energy-starved economy. High-tech is the only way we're going to support this planet, and high-tech needs abundant energy.) Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz
rbg@cbosgd.UUCP (Richard Goldschmidt) (08/04/84)
>the means to get rid of the worst of the nasty long-lived radioactives >in the waste fuel has been tested. It involves building high-energy >accelerators to, essentially, transmute the materials and hasten >their decay. The problem is that you're talking about an industrial >accelerator, not a scientific test tool. To build ones big enough, >reliable enough, and safe enough to process power-plant waste, it >would take a massive, multi-megabuck building program RIGHT NOW to >process this country's wastes by 2000. >Dave Ihnat ihuxx!ignatz There is another alternative way of eliminating nuclear wastes: lift them off the planet into space, and aim them for the sun. It is imperative to package them in such a way that the container will withstand any kind of launch failure and still be recoverable, but the technology exists now, without a major building program or long delay. As the costs of lifting into orbit goes down, this may well be feasible for many kinds of highly toxic wastes. Rich Goldschmidt UUCP: {ucbvax|ihnp4|decvax|allegra}!cbosgd!rbg ARPA: cbosgd!rbg@Berkeley.ARPA