joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) (08/01/86)
I think one of the most important differences between the effects of nuclear and chemical power generation has been overlooked. The effects of a nuclear accident, either reactor failure or waste spill is localized. It is very bad for those close to it, but has almost no effect on those farther away (statistical increase in chance of disease). Human effects can be avoided by evacuation. Though the pollutants are very toxic, the quantities are small. The effect on the environment is small. Cleanup, though expensive, can be done. The pollution occurs only in the unusual case of the worst type of accident. No pollution is generated during normal operation. Energy generation from fossil fuels generates gigantic quantitys of pollutants that are dispersed throughout the environment. They affect the whole world and everyone in it. They are part of the atmosphere, the ocean, the soil, the plants and the animals. These materials are not very toxic compared to nuclear waste, but they are toxic. We can see their effects in dead lakes and dying forests. We have little idea exactly what the overall effects will be, and there is nothing we can do to reverse them ( that is remove the pollutants). These pollutants are generated, not in the case of an unusual accident, but every hour of every day. The effects of fossil fuel pollution are potentially much greater than those of nuclear (except for WAR, of course) pollution. We may even be on the verge of the next "great extinction". Don't worry though, Nature is resilient and will recover from the worst we can do. Evolution will create replacements for all the species we destroy. In a million or two years there will be no evidence that humanity ever existed. Joel Swank Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon
mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (08/15/86)
++ > I think one of the most important differences between the effects of > nuclear and chemical power generation has been overlooked. The effects > of a nuclear accident, either reactor failure or waste spill is > localized. It is very bad for those close to it, but has almost no > effect on those farther away... > Joel Swank This is ridiculous. Tell the northern Italians and the Welsh that waste from Chernobyl was localized!! -Mark
joels@tekred.UUCP (Joel Swank) (08/19/86)
> ++ > > I think one of the most important differences between the effects of > > nuclear and chemical power generation has been overlooked. The effects > > of a nuclear accident, either reactor failure or waste spill is > > localized. It is very bad for those close to it, but has almost no > > effect on those farther away... > > Joel Swank > In article <271@petrus.UUCP>, mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) writes: > This is ridiculous. Tell the northern Italians and the Welsh that waste > from Chernobyl was localized!! > -Mark Typical Hysteria from media hype. The Itialians and Welsh had less effect from Chernobyl than from a chest X-ray. The crazy anti-nukes would have you believe that this radiation is a deadly killer when it is just insignificant when compared to background radiation. A sunburn is more dangerous than anything received by anyone outside of the USSR. Joel Swank Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (08/20/86)
>> I think one of the most important differences between the effects of >> nuclear and chemical power generation has been overlooked. The effects >> of a nuclear accident, either reactor failure or waste spill is >> localized. It is very bad for those close to it, but has almost no >> effect on those farther away... >> Joel Swank >This is ridiculous. Tell the northern Italians and the Welsh that waste >from Chernobyl was localized!! >-Mark Well although the media once again went into the panic mode, when they heard the word nuclear, the facts speak for themselves. The data collected by US embassys has now been collated and evaluated by the EPA. In Kiev, let alone the West Europe, the dose received in the first four days was about 300 millirems, or roughly the dose recieved by citizens daring to live in Colorado for a year. (And well below the 500 millirems allowed as an occupational risk in the US.) The dose received by West Germans was estimated at about 25 millirems. The dose recieved by the people actually working in the plant is estimated by Dr. Henry Hurwitz of being up to 1000 rems an hour. This means the personell in the plant would recieve a lethal dose in about a half-hour. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (08/20/86)
++ > >> The effects > >> of a nuclear accident, either reactor failure or waste spill is > >> localized. It is very bad for those close to it, but has almost no > >> effect on those farther away... > >> Joel Swank > > >This is ridiculous. Tell the northern Italians and the Welsh that waste > >from Chernobyl was localized!! > >-Mark > > Well although the media once again went into the panic mode, when they heard > the word nuclear, the facts speak for themselves.... > In Kiev, let alone the West Europe, the dose received in the > first four days was about 300 millirems, or roughly the dose > recieved by citizens daring to live in Colorado for a year.... > The dose received by West Germans was estimated at > about 25 millirems. > Michael V. Stein Well perhaps I should elaborate. I checked with my "source," a friend working in a nuclear research lab in Ispra, Italy. That lab is administrated by the Commission of European Communities (part of the EEC). I wasn't sure if the information he told me was public before, so I didn't give any details. Ispra is close to the Italian/Swiss boarder. After Chernobyl they measured radiation levels "far in excess" of normal conditions for the area and discovered traces of radioactive iodine, cesium and other fallout. They are very worried and are sure that health problems due to this contamination will become apparent in the next 10-15 years. I also heard on the radio (the week after the accident) that a shipment of vegetables arriving in Vancouver, Canada from northern Italy had to be dumped because of radiation problems. Radiation levels were unacceptably high in meat of Lambs in Italy and Wales (although I can't remember the source for that one). The Italians were particularly upset because they had been consuming the meat for a few weeks before it was discovered. Anyway my impression from talking to my friend (and visiting Ispra in July) was that they are quite concerned and angry because a) this accident happened in the first place, b) the soviets were irresponsible in notifying affected populations in Europe and c) there are not sufficient international means for controlling such contamination and accidents. -Mark Garrett
mvs@meccts.UUCP (Michael V. Stein) (08/22/86)
In article <281@petrus.UUCP> mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) writes: >Ispra is close to the Italian/Swiss boarder. After Chernobyl they >measured radiation levels "far in excess" of normal conditions for >the area and discovered traces of radioactive iodine, cesium and other >fallout. They are very worried and are sure that health problems >due to this contamination will become apparent in the next 10-15 years. Could you get any numbers on the above releases? Doses of radiation measuring a couple of hundred millirem, are significant in terms of what can be measured. The health effects though are not very significant when 5 rem is allowed as an occupational hazard. If the numbers are much higher than what I quoted, I would be interested in hearing them. >Anyway my impression from talking to my friend (and visiting Ispra >in July) was that they are quite concerned and angry because a) >this accident happened in the first place, b) the soviets were >irresponsible in notifying affected populations in Europe and >c) there are not sufficient international means for controlling >such contamination and accidents. Agreed. The Soviet arrogance was amazing. -- Michael V. Stein Minnesota Educational Computing Corporation - Technical Services UUCP ihnp4!dicome!meccts!mvs
mwg@petrus.UUCP (Mark Garrett) (08/25/86)
++ > >Ispra is close to the Italian/Swiss boarder. After Chernobyl they > >measured radiation levels "far in excess" of normal conditions... > Could you get any numbers on the above releases?... I left my description qualitative since I don't have access to numbers. If and when they are released, I'll post them. -Mark