bitmap@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (04/15/84)
<...> Jon White, still maintaining that nuclear power is more polluting than coal, quotes from an article, the main thrust of which seems to be that the tailings from uranium mills 'leaks' Thorium 230, which has a radioactive half-life of 80,000 years. Not pointed out, of course, is that a long half-life means low activity: few of the atoms are likely to be decaying, so they 'live' longer. Also not addressed was another person's (Martin Taylor's?) remark that coal burning also releases radioactive particles (radon, I think), as well as cancer-causing particulates. >You are also not allowing for advances in conservation, >alternative energy, and cleaner ways of using coal. Tit for tat, please: the same applies to you with nuclear. >..I don't think that it's reasonable to assign statistics like >"one-in-a-billion" to the possibility of a reactor being hit by an >H-bomb..." Risk assessment is fairly mathematical, but you have a point. Perhaps we should consider present day problems, rather than "what might happen". Surely, statistics exist on the number of coal-related (black-lung, emphysema, cancer [estimates?], mine-accidents) deaths vs. the number of nuclear-related deaths (mine accidents, cancer [estimates?]). Does anyone out there know where to look these up? Unbiased references are preferred, of course, if that is possible. It is unlikely that I'll be able to get ahold of an in-house paper written at Cornell University, so perhaps Mr. White would be willing to produce some of Dr. Pohl's arguments for us. At present, I am still of the opinion that coal is much more dangerous than nuclear power. Over to you, Martin. Sam Hall, UCB ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap
tac@teldata.UUCP (Tom Condon) (04/17/84)
, (sop to the blank line eaters--consider it a religious sacrifice) >> >..I don't think that it's reasonable to assign statistics like >> >"one-in-a-billion" to the possibility of a reactor being hit by an >> >H-bomb..." Isn't anyone out there familiar with nuclear physics? Radioactive materials are not at all like TNT or other explosives. If an H-bomb (or A- or any other letter bomb) hits a reactor the size of the explosion will not be any different from the same bomb hitting sand. Nuclear materials are not shock-volitile. The H-bomb will go off and scatter the materials of the plant it blows up over a large space, but unless it goes off in the core of the reactor the reaction materials will not "join" in the explosion. The area over which this radioactive material will be spread is the same as would be radioactive from the bomb anyway. 20000 years from now someone could complain because all of the other bomb craters were no longer hot but this one was still warm, no other difference would exist! If it does go off in the reactor (terrorists--don't blame the type of plant on them) it would still have to be of a similar type of material to make any sizable impression on the output. I think a little study of the subject at a text book level is in order for all sides in this debate!!! >> >> Surely, statistics exist on the number of coal-related (black-lung, >> emphysema, cancer [estimates?], mine-accidents) deaths vs. the number of >> nuclear-related deaths (mine accidents, cancer [estimates?]). Does >> anyone out there know where to look these up? Unbiased references >> are preferred, of course, if that is possible. You might try insurance companies. If they will not give you the actual facts, just ask for the rates to insure yourself while working in the relevant industry. Compare the rates and you will find the more dangerous job. >> >> It is unlikely that I'll be able to get ahold of an in-house paper >> written at Cornell University, so perhaps Mr. White would be >> willing to produce some of Dr. Pohl's arguments for us. At >> present, I am still of the opinion that coal is much more dangerous >> than nuclear power. Yes, please present some facts. >> >> Over to you, Martin. >> >> Sam Hall, UCB >> ucbvax!ucbtopaz!bitmap >> From the Soapbox of Tom Condon {...!uw-beaver!teltone!teldata!tac} A Radical A Day Keeps The Government At Bay.
hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick Hawkins) (04/18/84)
[boom] The odds of a nuclear power plant being hit by an H-bmb are irrelevant. The worst thing that could happen were the plant to be hit by an H-bomb would be a fission explosion. Seeing as a fusion bomb, which is triggered by a fission exlosion, has just occurred, the possible fission boom and radiation leakage will be the least of our worries. hawk, Olivetti ATC
rew@hao.UUCP (Russell K. Rew) (04/19/84)
>The odds of a nuclear power plant being hit by an H-bmb are irrelevant. The >worst thing that could happen were the plant to be hit by an H-bomb would be a >fission explosion. Seeing as a fusion bomb, which is triggered by a fission >exlosion, has just occurred, the possible fission boom and radiation leakage >will be the least of our worries. Wrong. Aside from the fact that there could be no fission explosion from such an event, the after effects would be far worse than either the fusion explosion by itself or any conceivable nuclear reactor accident. According to a Scientific American article on various catastrophic releases of radioactivity (Fetter and Tsipis, 1981), a typical detonation of a nuclear weapon on one nuclear reactor would result in an area of 25,000 square miles in which the dose would remain lethal for a year, which is 20 times larger than the lethal zone created by the detonation of the weapon alone. Furthermore, the lethal zone would remain lethal much longer because of the long-lived isotopes released in a hit on a reactor. "Vaporizing the cores of nuclear reactors with nuclear weapons is clearly an efficient way to desolate large parts of a nation." -- Russ Rew { hplabs | nbires | brl-bmd | seismo | menlo70 } !hao!rew