Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Feb 23, 2018 3:28 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Author Message
PostPosted: May 20, 2011 9:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 11, 2007 6:17 am
Posts: 21
Although I support nuclear energy, I can't help thinking that the dirtiest coal plant will never make a whole region uninhabitable for tens of years, as it will probably be the case around Fukushima. And this time, it is not a "soviet accident" that occured on an oddly designed reactor.
I don't agree the German decision to close reactors after Fukushima, but I can understand it.
Even in France, there will be a debate about the real risks of nuclear energy (yes, I know, I should say "risks of LWR technology", but it may be difficult to explain this kind of subtlety).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2011 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 19, 2006 11:01 am
Posts: 396
Location: Knoxville, TN
lambda0 wrote:
Although I support nuclear energy, I can't help thinking that the dirtiest coal plant will never make a whole region uninhabitable for tens of years, as it will probably be the case around Fukushima.


This seems to be entirely due to irrational perception of risks (and consequently irresponsibly set rules). Coal kills in the US 24 000 people per year.

If this was the impact of a nuclear accident, and not a regular operation of coal burning, the whole US area (and more) would be declared uninhabitable...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2011 11:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 11, 2007 6:17 am
Posts: 21
ondrejch wrote:
lambda0 wrote:
Although I support nuclear energy, I can't help thinking that the dirtiest coal plant will never make a whole region uninhabitable for tens of years, as it will probably be the case around Fukushima.

This seems to be entirely due to irrational perception of risks (and consequently irresponsibly set rules). Coal kills in the US 24 000 people per year.
If this was the impact of a nuclear accident, and not a regular operation of coal burning, the whole US area (and more) would be declared uninhabitable...


I know, I know... I often use these numbers (the european version : pollution due to coal and oil burning kills 300000 people per year in Europe).
But it will be more difficult to convince with this kind of argument as people see the images of a major nuclear accident, a situation out of control, and the evacuation of a region.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2011 11:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 3069
So far, in the region you have an oil refinery that killed a hundred or so versus a set of reactors where one worker has died (not from radiation). Hydro fared worse with a dam that failed wiping out 1800 homes. If Japan ends up with more LNG as a result of shutting down nuclear for caution's sake they will surely be increasing their overall risks. People are exceptionally poor at judging risks (including apparently designers of sea walls to protect nuclear power plants).

As for the evacuation area - it is too early to know how large an evacuation area will be. The readings I've seen say that most (perhaps 80%) of the evacuation area does not currently have high radiation levels and so the evacuation should end once they have the reactors in cold shutdown. There are some areas outside the current evacuation zone that have high enough readings that people should move out for a while. I would guess that the area will be scraped to remove surface contaimination and then see if it is OK. I should also note that the definition of OK is very stringent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2011 5:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
There's a considerably area with >100 mSv/year dose at ground level. Almost all from radiocesium.

That's not quite as bad, in terms of cancer risk, as background fossil fuel carginogens in most of my country (the Netherlands). If we use the chance of getting cancers as determining variable, most of my country would have to be evacuated. Because of particulate matter and unburned hydrocarbons such as benzene. We should also outlaw all red meat and diary products, because of the damage this causes to our cells (far bigger than Fukushima radiological impact on surroundings).

To be internally consistent, I'd suggest letting all evacuated Japanese residents go back to their homes, if they want to. Immediately. If we allow people to live within 20 miles of an oil refinery, eat charcoal broiled steaks and drink a gallon of milk per week, they can live within 20 miles of Fukushima Daiichi.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21, 2011 2:33 am 
Offline

Joined: May 15, 2009 3:29 pm
Posts: 489
Cyril,
My understanding is that radiation levels anywhere outside the plant boundaries do not approach 100 mSv a year anywhere, including in the worst affected region which is Iitate:
http://www.jaif.or.jp/english/news_imag ... 53470P.pdf

Eyeballing the chart it seems that the level for Iitate is around 4 micro Sv/hour, or about 35mSv/year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 21, 2011 4:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Jul 14, 2008 3:12 pm
Posts: 5060
According to these overflight maps, all of the red area is over 100 mSv/year.

http://blog.energy.gov/content/situation-japan/

In reality I suspect there's a big difference in locations, some might have a local accumulation of cesium, that would have to be cleaned up.

The 20 mSv/year evacuation criterion from the government remains quite absurd, though; based on that they'd also have to evacuate all areas near highways (carginogenic particulate emissions) and industrial areas. Which they won't do. Fossil fuels always get easy standards, resulting in mass death (over 1 million pollution related premature deaths per year).


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group