Conspiracy Against Nuclear Power In USA

For the past few weeks I've been researching nuclear electrical power plants. Originally, I was motivated out of a sense of dread. (See my earlier posts on nuclear power and weapons.). But as I read more and more about nuclear power, something isn’t adding up. I see a pattern of disinformation, and fear mongering associated with nuclear power. It looks like this has been going on for decades.

Here are three facts that appear to me irrefutable, and which go against what we normally hear about nuclear power, at least in the USA. (I omit citations below, available on request. All this info is on the web in multiple locations):

#

(1). French nuclear power plants work perfectly. France gets 80% of its electricity from nuclear power, and there has never been a significant nuclear accident. The French also have a practical way of disposing of spent nuclear fuel (that is, they warehouse it above ground.) Why can’t we implement nuclear power generation in the USA? I will admit that French technology is good, but it can’t be that much better than USA, UK, and German technology. This doesn’t make sense.

(2). During the Chernobyl disaster, arguably the worst nuclear catastrophe in human history, three other nuclear reactors in the complex continued to operate, with an active staff during the entire crises, and for nearly fifteen years afterwards. These other nuclear reactors were adjacent to the damaged reactor. How bad could the disaster really have been, given that there were people working normally at the Chernobyl site the whole time! This fact isn’t brought out much. Chernobyl is all about concrete sarcophaguses and Armageddon, not about uninterrupted generation of electricity by the three adjacent reactors. Someone is slanting the truth.

(3). Radiation is apparently not as harmful for people as originally thought. In fact, various studies have shown that moderate doses of radiation may actually be good for people, contrary to popular belief. In particular, there were no increases in cancer during the twenty years following Chernobyl, and no increase in birth defects. There was no harm to local plant and animal life. Similar evidence exists in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The threat of radiation is scary. But it appears to that it is over exaggerated. We’ve seen this cancer fear mongering over and over again, from power lines, cell phones, diet soda. It is human psychology.

#

Are the above facts true? They seem irrefutable. And if these are the actual facts, then why is it that nuclear is blocked in the USA? My guess is that the energy companies have put out a lot of disinformation in order to sell more coal and oil, and inhibit the progress of electric cars. We have full-scale energy crises. Energy companies are making billions. But we are not moving ONE INCH towards nuclear power. It seems like the French have these complex issues completely solved. Someone is blocking the nuclear power alternative.

Of the leading USA presidential candidates, only McCain and Huckabee are pro-nuclear power (and neither one of those is my favorite candidate.) It doesn’t look like there is much chance of a resurgence of interest in this area, regardless of who is elected as USA president.

The huge variance from what we are told, and what I observe directly as evidence, makes me think NWO conspiracies are legitimate. Someone wants to hobble the USA, drive our energy costs out of site, reduce production, increase dependence. We are frozen in fear. The fear appears to be purely induced, and groundless. Why is this happening?

I am looking for facts that counter my above three points, either pro or con. Deny ignorance. Thanks!

[edit on 9-2-2008 by Buck Division]

You say that your sources are available upon request; I request that you post them. It is common courtesy. We have no way of checking your sources unless you inform us of what your sources are.

That said, I have a couple of thoughts to pass your way...

1) Nuclear power provides 20% of the electricity produced in the United States, and the US is the largest producer of nuclear power in the world, according to the Department of Energy. France produces about 80% of its power from nuclear sources, but the US bests France in terms of megawatt-to-megawatt comparison. That means that the US produces more nuclear energy than France, has more nuclear reactors than France (103 operating reactors compared to 59), and has had one relatively minor nuclear accident compared to France's none. The Three Mile Island accident resulted in only minor release of radiation.

2) The remaining reactors at the Chernobyl site were operated for years after the accident, yes. The workers for these reactors were housed 30 kilometers away from the power plant and had their radiation exposure closely monitored; exposure was determined to be within acceptable limits.

It should be noted that these workers only worked at the site, and then within an enclosed space which could be scrubbed of radiation and had, in any case, been designed to withstand some degree of radiation exposure. They didn't live near the damaged reactor, they didn't eat food grown near the damaged reactor, they didn't go for strolls or walk their dogs in parks near the damaged reactor. They worked near the damaged reactor. They experienced higher radiation exposure than I do (and, I'm guessing, than you do), but - as you note in your point 3 - moderate, closely monitored radiation exposure is not as immediately deadly a health risk as some people feared at the time of the accident.

3) As for increases in incidents of cancer after Chernobyl the IAEA has noted that incidents of thyroid cancer in people who were between the ages of birth and 14 years are far above the levels that would be expected. Other cases could take more time to become evident as a trend.

You are right in saying that the environmental and human damage caused by Chernobyl has not been as bad as people expected, but this should be tempered by the fact that the average human being doesn't have the first clue as to what happens when the human body is exposed to heavy doses of radiation. At least in the United States we ("we" being the public in general) have managed to all but brainwash ourselves into freaking out every time we so much as hear the word radiation.

Chernobyl created numerous, well-documented environmental problems in Ukraine. Some sources include...

the BBC

the World Nuclear Association

A National Geographic article discussing animal and plant deaths due to initial radiation, as well as their resurgence.

Another National Geographic article discussing genetic defects in birds near the Chernobyl site.

In Response to Your "Edit" Note: 2007 saw the first initial permits granted for the construction of new nuclear power plants in the US. I won't chalk up the 30-year gap in plant construction up to any one cause, but keep in mind that there are expenses to consider beyond the construction of the plant itself. Nuclear power plants have faced - and likely will face in the future - numerous legal challenges. Being tied up for years in court can cost a great deal of money, and the extra hassle may be enough to dissuade (or at least give pause to) power companies from constructing new nuclear plants.

Here is a great link on Chernobyl disaster that I found just now tonight:

www.chernobyllegacy.com...

This site speaks to the huge over-exaggeration of the story. For example, the original 100 THOUSAND expected deaths (reported in the press) turned out to be a definitively lower 200 confirmed deaths.

It is heartbreaking to think of all the people who spent 20 years after this disaster, falsely expecting to get cancer and die an early death, just so western news outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the BBC could sell more advertisements and make a little more money.

For sure, it was a certified disaster! But it doesn’t look like it should have been sufficient, just by itself, to cause a dramatic back step in the evolution of nuclear electric power generation on a worldwide scale.

Apparent proof that the story actually did more damage then the actual meltdown of the power plant unit. Real damage due to disinformation.

To what real end?

Really great video about nuclear energy:

www.youtube.com...

Only part 1 of 3. All 3 are available at the link as well.

BTW, my speakers have stopped working on my PC, so if this isn't the right episode, let me know.

Originally posted by PhloydPhan
You say that your sources are available upon request; I request that you post them. It is common courtesy. We have no way of checking your sources unless you inform us of what your sources are.

Good deal. Give me a few moments. I just read your post, and I have nothing else to do tonight except research and document. (I was composing the previous post without seeing your post yet.)

Thanks for the info above. I will review this as well. Have patience and please check back later. Any more comments in the mean time are appreciated! I think this is an important topic.

EDIT: A quick review Phloyd of your notes -- very cool stuff. I will try to match your details with my own.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Buck Division]

This is ridiculous. You have no research just assumptions type in 'Chernobyl children' in any search engine my friend and don't forget the images. Radiation has alot to do with the decaying of your cells in your body when you die.

Radiation therapy on cancer patients is ricky not everyone survives being blasted by radiation.

Originally posted by xion329alpha
This is ridiculous. You have no research just assumptions type in 'Chernobyl children' in any search engine my friend and don't forget the images.

No sane person wants to see children in pain. And your argument is compelling. I googled the keywords, as you said, and it is a very disturbing set of images and articles

But, although your argument is believable, I don't know if your argument is factual. There is a large amount of research that indicates it may not be true at all, and that the story has been greatly exaggerated.

Please consider this reference, from the World Nuclear Organization:

www.world-nuclear.org...

By 2000 about 4000 cases of thyroid cancer had been diagnosed in exposed children. Among these, nine deaths are attributed to radiation. However, the rapid increase in thyroid cancers detected suggests that some of it at least is an artifact of the screening process.

Nine deaths of children is horrible. But the above study indicates that it may be possible certain children were actually saved by early screening processes, and massive medical testing after Chernobyl. Some children may have been saved who did not get cancer from Chernobyl, but rather from some other cause. Of course that is no justification for what happened, but perhaps a small silver lining to this aspect of the disaster.

I would also say that scaring children and adults with fears of radiation induced cancer, when these fears are remote, is also cruel, and I think this is what happened. The fear resulting from the Chernobyl disaster seems unreasonable. And this fear has severely debilitated the residence of the area, and the world at large. The article continues:

People in the area have suffered a paralyzing fatalism due to myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation, which has contributed to a culture of chronic dependency. Some "took on the role of invalids”

One more interesting citation deals with the effects of small doses of radiation. As PhloydPhan suggested, in the second post to this thread, radiation is scary. We have been brainwashed. By way of example, google the phrase "radiation is good for you" and you will see multiple articles that discuss this, with various degrees of authority. For example,

abcnews.go.com...

The New York Times wrote article after article about how radiation would change Japanese lives "for "centuries," that there would be genetic damage -- defects for the next 1,000 years. But surprise: So far no such damage has appeared. Some researchers, like toxicology professor Ed Calabrese, now say blast survivors, who were exposed to smaller amounts of radiation, are living longer than normal, and in small doses, radiation may even be good for you. "It's all in the dose," Calabrese said. "What's going on at low doses is often seen to enhance immune performance and enhance longevity," he said.

I think you can get to your opinion ONLY if you ignore substantial evidence to the contrary. And please understand, I am not criticizing your intentions at all, and I respect what you are saying. But I see your argument as applying directly to what I am trying to prove, which is that disinformation about nuclear power is rampant. I think that many people will dismiss this thread as "ridiculous", and in doing so will embrace something false. And the consequences of leaving nuclear power in the drawer are too substantial to our future and economy to ignore.

Consider the world poverty that nuclear power could prevent!

That poverty will affect children for many generations. That poverty is what we are headed to, here in the USA, largely because we aren't getting the full facts. We are being manipulated by what may be a superstitious belief at best, and malicious intent at worst! This is why I want to get the truth.

Edit: to correct spelling.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Buck Division]

Some more references, which back up my idea of a conspiracy of disinformation.

#

One of the big issues that I have come across is how toxic plutonium is. Much as been made about how it is the deadliest substance known to man, etc. This has gone a long way in making nuclear power a very scary thing. But during my research, I found multiple places that said that plutonium was not particularly toxic at all:

en.wikipedia.org...

While plutonium is sometimes described in media reports as "the most toxic substance known to man", from the standpoint of actual chemical or radiological toxicity this is incorrect…From a purely chemical standpoint, it is about as poisonous as lead and other heavy metals. Not surprisingly, it has a metallic taste.

I think it is somewhat striking that the above excerpt describes the taste of plutonium. Obviously someone was able to taste it and live. I have to assume all the talk about how toxic plutonium is must have resulted entirely from purposeful disinformation. Why? Perhaps to scare off people from manufacturing plutonium weapons? Or just to scare people about nuclear power?

#

Here is a very interesting article from the "New Republic" blog that I want to include:

blogs.tnr.com...

As it stands, nuclear power is the only environmentally friendly, economic, and efficient source of energy that can help the U.S. wean itself off foreign oil. Solar and wind will never meet our demand, and bio-fuels are still years--if not decades--away from becoming viable.

Gwyneth Cravens's illuminating “Power to Save the World: The Truth about Nuclear Energy” dispels many of the myths about nuclear energy. For example, she notes coal plants emit more radiation than nuclear ones. Also, nuclear energy plants are almost completely risk-free regarding nuclear weapons proliferation (it's a different enrichment process) and potential terrorist attacks (U.S. plants are simply too secure)

I respect Gwyneth Craven’s source for this: Sandia National Labs scientist Richard Anderson, called the world's top expert on long-term disposal of nuclear waste. A review of her book (which adds to the credibility of the above excerpt) is available here. My question is, who started all the myths alluded to in the above excerpt?

#

As I dig through my notes, I realize that citations and references are very important, as was originally suggested. (No doubt I should have provided better references in the OP. A very fair criticism!) This whole thread is about rumor and innuendo, and how to counter it. Obviously, you counter it with references that you can check for authenticity. It is the only way to make progress.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Buck Division]

One of the biggest arguments against building nuclear power plants is that they are too inexpensive! They are plagued with incredible overruns.

Two weeks ago, I believed this story, because there was ample evidence that this was true (for example the famous Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant overrun). This it seemed like the ultimate showstopper to me. Why go with nuclear power, when it is both dangerous AND expensive?

Hopefully, my previous posts have addressed and ameliorated the “too dangerous” fear of nuclear power, at least to some degree. (More debunking or considerations may be needed.) I would like to address the “too expensive” part of the argument in this thread.

#

The following article reveals the major, obvious reason why USA plants are so expensive:

www.nmcco.com...

One of the most important lessons: that customized designs can create inefficiencies, duplication of effort and higher costs-brought about a fundamental change in industry practice: design standardization.

Most of America's operating nuclear power plants are virtually one-of-a-kind, because they were designed and built at a time when regulatory requirements, licensing standards and the technology were evolving rapidly.

In addition to identifying the problem (i.e. lack of standardization) the article states why the plants are one-of-a-kind: continuous changes to regulation and licensing, and the need for technology changes to accommodate this regulation.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the reason for this increased regulation and licensing is purely FEAR OF NUCLEAR DISASTER on the part of the common people. Movies such as the “China Syndrome”, unfortunately being followed only weeks later by the Three Mile Island disaster, caused people to panic and expect unrealistic levels of safety.

So I propose: nuclear power plants increase in cost as people’s fear of nuclear power increases.

#

Later in the article, it is revealed as to why the French have been successful, but the USA has not.

The French nuclear program is based on standardized nuclear plant designs. Over nearly two decades, the French built 34 standardized 900-megawatt units and 20 1,300-megawatt units, which now supply about 75 percent of that country's electricity.

By using standardized designs, the French were able to cut construction times significantly. The first reactors in the 900-megawatt series took about seven years to build; the last reactors, only five years. Because of standardization, the cost of nuclear power plants in France is among the lowest in the world.

The objective of the conspirators: demand so much safety from USA power plants that they are not buildable. The exact same technique has been used to scare people about the disposal of nuclear waste, that being we need to design a system to last 10 thousand years, as opposed to four or five generations of humanity.

#

It seems amazing to me that this country, who is credited with pioneering mass production, has been unable to standardize on nuclear power plant design. France picked up on the need for standardization. It was obviously the only way to proceed! Perhaps we did also, but fear mongering caused excessively higher safety standards, changes to regulations, and micro-management, all of which drove prices for these plants to artificially high levels.

If we overturn the delusional fears about safety, it becomes clear that we can pick a solid design build this design over and over again to supply whatever energy requirements we may have, whether that is reducing costs to industry, building an electric car infrastructure, or creating vast desalination plants to turn our deserts into farmland.

I sense that there is nothing but a constant stream of misleading information and subterfuge associated with this topic, perpetrated by some forces that I don’t see. As with several of my previous posts, I have to conclude this post with wondering and confusion. We appear to be making nuclear power prohibitively expensive, by inducing unrealistic fear in people.

I just feel confused as to why this is, and who has perpetrated this false belief system?

#

It is now close to 3:00 AM, and I will give this thread a rest. I will try to address any comments, suggestions, criticisms that people post before writing a summary and conclusion.

Best regards, and thanks for listening!

The natural sources for radiation exposure are FAR worse than a nuclear powerplant. Living in a brick house exposes you a significant dose or radiation. Flying on a plane for 8 hours exposes you to a very significant dose of radiation. Chest x-rays, etc. I spent almost 10 years working on x-ray machines at the airport, including crawling around next to, and replacing the generators. I've never had any kind of health problem related to the radiation from it. If you want some really scary figures, I did a couple of posts on the radiation released from a coal power plant. Even a "clean" coal plant releases HUGE doses of radiation.

My concern with Nuclear power is the disposal of the waste. The plant and risk of meltdowns doesn't worry me nearly as much as burying the spent rods in containers that won't last nearly as long as the waste does.

reply to post by Buck Division


No matter how well Nuclear development seems to work, there are serious dangers involved here.

I will never support Nuclear reactors no matter how cheap or "polution free" they claim them to be.

Because when # hits the fan, disaster is the outcome!.

You dont get disaster from a broken wing of the windmill...
You dont get disaster of a broken wing in the water turbine...
You dont get disaster from a broken panel in the sunpanels...

But when the Nuclear reactors break you get polution, radiation, and destruction!.

Chernobyl Source

Within a short time after the nuclear disaster, a sharp increase in reproductive disorders - predominantly affecting pregnancy - was noted in Ukraine and Belarus. For the 1986-1990 period, the Ministry of Health in Ukraine recorded an increased number of miscarriages, premature births and stillbirths, as well as three times the normal rate of deformities and developmental abnormalities in newborns

Deformities, stillbirths, premature births...doesnt sound all that pleasent does it?

New research findings presented at the "Health Consequences of Chernobyl Children" symposium in Basel in 2003 show that infant mortality and the incidence of stillbirths and birth defects rose significantly in parts of Germany and other European regions exposed to high levels of radiation following the reactor disaster

The radius affected by an accident is huge, so how can people in one country be allowed to build theese Nuclear Death machines if an accident affects surrounding countries?

Chernobyl Source

When uranium (U-235) nuclei are split in a nuclear reactor, various radioactive fission products arise. In terms of harmful impact, the most relevant of these are iodine-131, caesium-137, strontium-90 and plutonium-239. These elements are spread via aerosols (dust particles in the air) and may be inhaled, deposited in the earth by rainfall and water, or enter the food chain via plants.

The Earth, air and waters are destroyed by theese dangerous particles too!

I see NO reason for further development of Nuclear facilities anywhere, and if people believe we will never suffor from Nuclear accidents in the future, I can only say one thing...

Its time to think outside the box!

I realize that you weren't quoting me directly, Buck Division, but I'd ask that you take a closer look at my comments regarding brainwashing. I never suggested that the public is being brainwashed regarding radiation; I said that we have all but managed to brainwash ourselves by being uninformed about radiation.

Speaking of radiation, I curious how well-versed you are in nuclear chemistry based on your comments about plutonium's toxicity. I apologize in advance if this you're already aware of this information - it is not my intention to talk down to you - but Plutonium's toxicity/radioactivity is not uniform for every scrap of plutonium ever produced anywhere. Plutonium has a number of different isotopes, an isotope being a form of an element with a number of neutrons in its nucleus that is not equal to the number of protons.

Plutonium-238 and -239 are highly radioactive and are used in RTGs and nuclear weapons/nuclear power plants, respectively. Plutonium-244, on the other hand, is relatively stable (having a half-life of ~82,000,000 years) and small quantities could probably be ingested with little consequence.

Finally, regarding your comments quoted below:

It is heartbreaking to think of all the people who spent 20 years after this disaster, falsely expecting to get cancer and die an early death, just so western news outlets like the Daily Telegraph and the BBC could sell more advertisements and make a little more money.

Before you start to badmouth "western new outlets" for over-exaggerating the original story, I'd ask that you consider exactly why those news sources were unable to present more reliable information. A bona-fide conspiracy related to Chernobyl is the Soviet Union's attempted cover-up of the entire situation at Chernobyl - see Time Magazine from 1989 and MSNBC for details. The Soviet Union only admitted that there was a problem with the reactor at Chernobyl AFTER the reactor had spewed radioactivity across Europe; one of the first indications that something was wrong in the Ukraine was a radioactivity alarm at a reactor in Sweden of all places. Initially the Swedes thought there might be a problem with their own reactor, but after their unit checked out they started looking for other sources. Even after the accident, the Soviets were not as open as they should have been with scientific details of the situation, resulting in best-guess speculation by western news outlets.

Incidentally, Sweden recently reported an increase in cancer cases that is likely due to the Chernobyl accident. Sweden had a respected national health system for the majority of the 20th century, and this upswing in incidents of cancer is unlikely to be due to increased screening and, therefore, increased detection.

Thanks for the excellent responses above. I have an empty Sunday afternoon in front of me with nothing else to do except continue my work on this thread. I will respond to all posts that I can, in the order they were submitted.

Please note: as I stated in the beginning of the thread, I have been opposed to nuclear electric generation. During the past several months, I have actually submitted several anti-nuclear threads at ATS.

I am now inclined to believe that there are forces at work to unfairly discourage nuclear power development here in the USA, and remove it as an option of progress. These forces are using unfair lies and distortions to make their points. They are creating unreasonable fear. They are manipulating our beliefs.

I do not want to shill for the nuclear power industry. I am looking for reasoned opposition to this thread as much as agreement. I am trying to discover what is true.

#

All that said, please scroll down to see my reply to your post. If it isn't there yet, please check back. I want to compose careful and accurate replies to all comments. Thanks for your patience!

Originally posted by bigbert81
Really great video about nuclear energy:
www.youtube.com...
Only part 1 of 3. All 3 are available at the link as well.
BTW, my speakers have stopped working on my PC, so if this isn't the right episode, let me know.

Thanks for the post Bigbert. I will have to get on my laptop in order to view this video, because I don't have speakers hooked up on my main server. I will check it out later.

Generally, I like and respect Penn and Teller., but I've had disagreements with them before. Off topic: I remember one show about the 2nd amendment to the US constitution. They said that the weird phrasing of that amendment was misinterpreted by the masses. They said the second amendment actually exists so common people can control (and regulate) the military, i.e. so that people could fight against their own government. Sounds right! But I later found out that this assertion appears to be false. The second amendment is apparently a justification for universal draft of citizenry into the military, as opposed to permitting citizens to fight their government. (Check out the Wikipedia Article on this, and look at the “Precedent” section.)

I say all this in advance of actually seeing the video, so I don’t know if Penn and Teller are supporting my viewpoint or refuting it. Regardless, they are a very persuasive team! I am not sure that they are a reliable source of info, but they are definitely entertaining.

People can be easily persuaded into false beliefs by demagoguery. That is one of the big issues in this current thread.

Nuclear is so much safet than coal but you just can't seem to convince people. I have 3 rfeactors within a 10 mile radius and many friends who work at them. Never had complaints of high cancer rates but just job burnout because of long hours. The lowes paid person probably makes close to 100k$ a year and you can make 5k$ a week durning an outage. how many people died in nuclear power last year?? How many in coal-Thousands.

mikell

I've posted this a couple times before, but feel that it needs to be read again.

The fact that coal-fired power plants throughout the world are the major sources of radioactive materials released to the environment has several implications. It suggests that coal combustion is more hazardous to health than nuclear power and that it adds to the background radiation burden even more than does nuclear power. It also suggests that if radiation emissions from coal plants were regulated, their capital and operating costs would increase, making coal-fired power less economically competitive.

Finally, radioactive elements released in coal ash and exhaust produced by coal combustion contain fissionable fuels and much larger quantities of fertile materials that can be bred into fuels by absorption of neutrons, including those generated in the air by bombardment of oxygen, nitrogen, and other nuclei with cosmic rays; such fissionable and fertile materials can be recovered from coal ash using known technologies. These nuclear materials have growing value to private concerns and governments that may want to market them for fueling nuclear power plants. However, they are also available to those interested in accumulating material for nuclear weapons. A solution to this potential problem may be to encourage electric utilities to process coal ash and use new trapping technologies on coal combustion exhaust to isolate and collect valuable metals, such as iron and aluminum, and available nuclear fuels.

Since the 1960s particulate precipitators have been used by U.S. coal-fired power plants to retain significant amounts of fly ash rather than letting it escape to the atmosphere. When functioning properly, these precipitators are approximately 99.5% efficient. Utilities also collect furnace ash, cinders, and slag, which are kept in cinder piles or deposited in ash ponds on coal-plant sites along with the captured fly ash.

Trace quantities of uranium in coal range from less than 1 part per million (ppm) in some samples to around 10 ppm in others. Generally, the amount of thorium contained in coal is about 2.5 times greater than the amount of uranium. For a large number of coal samples, according to Environmental Protection Agency figures released in 1984, average values of uranium and thorium content have been determined to be 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively. Using these values along with reported consumption and projected consumption of coal by utilities provides a means of calculating the amounts of potentially recoverable breedable and fissionable elements (see sidebar). The concentration of fissionable uranium-235 (the current fuel for nuclear power plants) has been established to be 0.71% of uranium content.

Using these data, the releases of radioactive materials per typical plant can be calculated for any year. For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

Based on the predicted combustion of 2516 million tons of coal in the United States and 12,580 million tons worldwide during the year 2040, cumulative releases for the 100 years of coal combustion following 1937 are predicted to be:
U.S. release (from combustion of 111,716 million tons):

Uranium: 145,230 tons (containing 1031 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 357,491 tons

Worldwide release (from combustion of 637,409 million tons):

Uranium: 828,632 tons (containing 5883 tons of uranium-235)

Thorium: 2,039,709 tons

Thus, by combining U.S. coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries.

www.ornl.gov...

I lived in California when they told us, the MSM that is, that with nuclear power, our home energy costs would be "too cheap to bother to meter". Yeah, right. Fact is, the nuclear power industry is mostly taxpayer subsidized. And they bill you for the power as well. What shmucks we are.

static.uspirg.org...

I'm not going to get into all the scientific details. I'll just say this: one tiny mistake is not just a tiny mistake--- it's huge. The Chernobyl wasteland, for example. KidofSpeed, a woman who rode her motorcycle through the wasteland and took photographs. I highly recommend taking a look at her website and the numerous photographs.

www.kiddofspeed.com...

And, there's the radioactive waste problem. What to do with it? Personally, I say we bury in the back yards of all the people who are for nuclear power, including the people running the industry.

Nuclear power makes no logical sense whatsoever to me. Mainly because the technology for safe and abundant alternative power sources such as solar and wind and geothermal exists. There's no need for nuclear power and all the dangers and problems it entails, imho.

[edit on 2/10/08 by kattraxx]

reply to post by Zaphod58

Great information, Zaphod. You make a good point that there are many natural sources of radiation, and that radiation exposure is an inescapable part of our existence.

I see that granite blocks give off a lot of radiation. Specifically, in buildings constructed primarily from natural granite, it is possible to be exposed to approximately 200 millirems per year (from Wikipedia) which is about the same as getting between ten and twenty chest X-rays.

#

As per your post, I see you contributed some interesting information to this thread in 2005:

Scientists Say No Level of Radiation "Safe"

The above thread is very pertinent, and is a perfect extension of this current topic. The above thread discusses an article about a Harvard University Panel that says there is no safe level of radiation.

This is the type of fear mongering that I find really disturbing. It is easily refuted by looking at the semantics of the word "safety". Yet, people find Harvard professors credible. They take studies by Harvard professors seriously. They incorporate these biased opinions into their personal knowledge base. They change their behavior based upon distortion.

I am struck by a line you added (jokingly) in that thread: "Scientists release study showing that studies are dangerous." The reason your quip is so humourous is that it is so true: some studies are definitely dangerous, if they are biased and misleading. Consider a study that says polio shots are dangerous, and because of that study people subsequently stop being immunized. That would be a dangerous study, requiring some heavy explanation and cautious qualifying before it was made public.

Thanks for the post. Very thought provoking. I will reply again to your later post (which I see has come while I was composing this one.)

Edit: to correct spelling and grammatical errors.

[edit on 10-2-2008 by Buck Division]

reply to post by Karlhungis

Your comment about how to dispose of nuclear waste is exactly on target, and I thank you for adding this, because it is a MAJOR argument against expanding nuclear power, and a topic that I haven’t addressed.

I found a lot of evidence and discussion regarding this. The principle facts are: we can guarantee safe store nuclear waste ONLY for about ten generations of humanity, or about 250 years. By many estimates, this falls approximately 9,750 years short of what is necessary to insure safe permanent disposal. That is a highly fearful proposition.

#

My opinion is that this is an overly smug, and somewhat malicious arguing point on the part of anti-nuclear activists. It attempts to micro-manage future generations, and insults them by presuming they are incapable of solving this issue. It is malicious to our current generation because it instills unreasonable and illogical worry, and thereby prevents very critical progress.

It is a powerful, but FALSE proposition It penetrates us because it deals with a HUGE speculation that we have no way of handling – that being, what is to become of humanity in the very far distant future?

I have to discuss this philosophically for a moment.

What will happen to humanity in 100 years? In 1000 years? In 10,000 years? The question, even without nuclear power, is scary and humbling. It is a primal question that addresses human destiny, mortality, and all the fearful baggage that comes with it.

Opponents of nuclear power have tapped into that primal fear in a very obvious and artificial way as follows: People fear the unknown. So they have specifically addressed the unknown, and paint the most dismal and faithless picture of it they can.

Please consider: we have devised various a methods of disposing of all the nuclear waste safely for about 250 years. I content philosophically that is all we are morally obligated to do. It is totally reasonable to assume that future generations will be more informed and smarter than us. Think about how 250 years is an immense span of time in the scale of human events. It corresponds to solving this problem for ourselves, as well as our great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great – great grand children.

I am confident that, after 10 generations, humanity can work out a more permanent solution, if that is what is required. To think otherwise is so presumptuous! How do we know that the nuclear waste of today won’t be the treasure of the distant future? And in the worst-case scenario, every 250 years someone has to spend a little effort repackaging our nuclear waste. Given the famously small quantity of nuclear waste material, this is not unreasonable to ask of every tenth generation, especially when we can assume that each repackaging will be done with better tools and more knowledge than before. Especially when those distant generations have so greatly benefitted from the progress of previous generations.

I worry much more that our distant progeny will live miserable lives if we let this generation slip into poverty, if we fail to realize our potential worth, if we become paralyzed by unreasonable fear that leaves us in long term stagnation. Will our distant progeny curse us for dumping the problem of nuclear power on them? Or will they curse us for letting the progress of civilization halt because we failed to trust in their capabilities?

#

I have a lot more to say on this subject actually, such as how France deal with this problem, and how Yucca Mountain is probably not the best way to go forward with our disposal plans. But I think to say more (without solicitation) would blunt my above points.

Thanks for the post, Karlhungis! I think there is much to say on your topic, and I have tried to do it justice with a good start.