How many nuke plant disasters would be needed to equal deaths from coal, oil etc.?

[Little-Acorn]

I keep hearing how dangerous and deadly nuclear power is, how we shouldn't have any, etc. The earthquake and tsunami hitting Japan has knocked out a number of their nuclear power plants, with the possibility of core meltdowns and releases of radiation. Japanese officials say they have already released small amounts of radiation to keep plant pressures manageable.

How safe is nuclear power? We've had it for more than fifty years now, while the nation has also been producing large amounts of electricity from coal-fired plants, oil-fired plants, hydroelectric etc.; plus small amounts from geothermal, wind, and solar.

In the last fifty years, how many people have died from nuclear energy plant mishaps? How many died at and near Chernobyl in Russia? How many at Three Mile Island, at plants in France, in Japan, and all other nuclear power plants around the world? How many in uranium mines where the uranium was used in power-generation plants, from transporting uranium, storage and transportation of nuclear waste, etc?

And how many have died from coal-generated energy? How many in coal mines, from black-lung disease, from air pollution from coal-fired plants, coal transportation mishaps, from accidents at coal power plants? And the same questions from oil-fired energy plants, oil fields and pumping plants, refineries, oil tanker mishaps, and the rest?

It's hard to evaluate the safety of each, if you don't know the facts. Each has now had a long time to compiles its relative safety record.

Anybody know the numbers for each?

In fact, if coal and oil generation had compiled the same safety record that nuclear plants have for the past fifty years, wouldn't we be calling coal "the safest industry the world has ever known"?

[sundaydriver]

I do know that China has averaged ~5,000 deaths per year in coal mining accidents for quite some time.

[Little-Acorn]

Several people have pointed ouut to me that emissions from a coal-fired power plant are more radioactive than emissions from a nuclear power plant generating the same amount of electricity.

Radioactive elements such as uranium and thorium exist as very small trace elements in coal, that occur naturally. But when the coal is burned, all those pesky impurities like carbon are eliminated, effectively concentrating the remaining substances in the fly ash that results... and which come out the smokestacks into the air.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

How many people have come down with various forms of cancer from the emissions of coal-fired power plants? And how many from the emissions of nuclear power plants?

[revelarts]

you make good points, seems both are dangerous.
choose your poison.
Though I'm not a green freak, I do like the Idea of clean energy.
we have local a school that's fully geo thermal. no dangers to speak of.

as you say nuke energy is 50 yrs old, geo thermal and solar and wind are a little less old but still could be and are being improved every year.
If you asked me which I rather have put in my area
Nuke
Coal
Geo Therm
Solar, or wind wave.

All things being equal, I'd go for the cleaner versions.
It may not be quite equal yet but Nuke power wasn't/isn't the cheapest thing to start up either. to Multi-millions of gov't investment -wartime- whole secret cities dedicated to nothing but perfecting the technology to make the energy source available initially.
Since energy is an obvious cause of national strain , And we are willing to put troops on the ground abroad to protect "our" interest in it. that a pre-emptive Multi Billion dollar effort to create/improve local clean cheap energy sources would free us from a lot of unnecessary conflict abroad. And any dangers of radiation, black lung, cancers etc etc..
just a thought.

Frankly don't see the point in pushing power sources that take you out of your neighborhood if you don't have to go there.

[revelarts]

<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/fewSyoH3oDk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

McCain makes some good points here.

Alternative fuels and nuke power.

But it's funny that he says the oil cartels are a problem and we need to get away from them.
but then the say that the oil companies should invest in alternative energy.

wouldn't that mean we get alternative energy cartels.
6 and half a dozen.

there needs to 10,000 wys to fuel items and 100, million groups selling it IMO.

[revelarts]

Check this out,

this MIT guy says he has create a cheap way to cheaply split the H and O in water store it and covert it. That (if I heard correctly) would make so that an olympic size pool of water would be all that you need for all your energy needs in a lifetime.

skip the 1st 10 minutes, it's gloom and doom, CO2, not enough nuke, wind etcc etc.
<iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/8194089?title=0&amp;byline=0&amp;portrait=0&amp;color=006666" width="400" height="225" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/8194089">Dan Nocera: Personalized Energy</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/poptech">PopTech</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

[namvet]

one nuke explosion is kiss your ass goodbye. you can run but not hide. I don't know the figures from Chernobyl, but it was in the thousands.

Japanese civilians are now testing positive for exposure. prevailing winds are headed east.

but hey don't worry be happy

[Nukeman]

If our gov't wasn't so hell bent on making weapons grade plutonium we wouldn't even have Uranium reactors. Int he early 70's when our program kicked off the leading researcher pushed for Thorium reactors..

Here is a more recent article about the type of reactors I'm talking about. It doesn't go into great detail but it is informative!!

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/next-generation/the-truth-about-thorium-and-nuclear-power


Three to four times more plentiful than uranium, today's most common nuclear fuel, thorium packs a serious energetic punch: A single ton of it can generate as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, according to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Carlo Rubbia. In the mid-twentieth century, some U.S. physicists considered building the nuclear power landscape around thorium. But uranium-fueled reactors produced plutonium as a byproduct, a necessary ingredient for nuclear weapons production, and uranium ended up dominating through the Cold War and beyond.

Thorium could recapture the lead if a Virginia-based company called Lightbridge (formerly Thorium Power) fulfills its promise. Lightbridge was founded on the vision that the existing fleet of nuclear reactors would continue to function for decades to come, so its proprietary nuclear fuel assembly—which features a small amount of uranium surrounded by a blanket of thorium—is designed to work in light water reactors, the most common variety in service worldwide. The company is also developing an all-metal fuel capable of incorporating thorium. "This is like going from leaded to unleaded fuel for your car—the operation [of the reactors] is the same," says Seth Grae, Lightbridge's CEO.

Examining the reactions inside a thorium-fueled reactor, however, reveals some important differences. In a traditional light water reactor, uranium-235 interacts with uranium-238 to produce plutonium-239 as a byproduct—a radioactive isotope that can be used for weapons. But when thorium is used instead of uranium-238 as a fertile material to kickstart nuclear fission, the thorium eventually "becomes uranium-233, which fissions almost instantaneously in the reactor, generating other isotopes that make power," Grae says. That means usable weapons-grade nuclear material is not produced, which would theoretically eliminate some security issues now associated with nuclear plants. Grae also claims thorium-powered light water reactors produce a much smaller volume of waste products that decay to relatively safe levels in just six to seven hundred years. Lightbridge has completed test runs of its thorium-based fuels in Russia and hopes to conduct tests at Idaho National Labs next year, meaning its thorium-fueled reactors could be up and running here in the U.S. as early as 2015.

[Kathianne]

one nuke explosion is kiss your ass goodbye. you can run but not hide. I don't know the figures from Chernobyl, but it was in the thousands.

Japanese civilians are now testing positive for exposure. prevailing winds are headed east.

but hey don't worry be happy

Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster at a power plant. It was NOT nearly as devastating as commonly believed, thanks to scare tactics of the media:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100079763/nuclear-power-some-perspective/

[Little-Acorn]

one nuke explosion is

...is not physically possible with any nuclear power plant on the planet.

The fuel they use is not sufficiently enriched to go bang. Best it can do is get really hot, and make things around it radioactive. That's bad enough - it's what Chernobyl did.

One of Japan's nuclear plants has now had two explosions. Both were chemical ignitions of hydrogen gas - basically they did a "Challenger". The engineers had vented hydrogen gas from the reactor, into the containment building, to reduce the pressure in the reactor. The hydrogen mixed with air, and somehow ignited. First explosion was big, and the second one (a few days later in a different reactor building) was even bigger.

In both cases, the hydrogen was OUTSIDE the reactor vessel, and the vessel did not rupture. The outer building concrete walls were destroyed, and the mildly-radioactive hydrogen released.

Bad news, but not an atomic explosion. The reactor plant was deliberately built on the east coast of the island, where prevailing winds blow out to sea, and the mildly-radioactive hydrogen is being carried out into the Pacific ocean.

[pete311]

japans nuke plants are 60 years old and housed on fault lines. the US would have modern plants in safe locations.

[namvet]

...is not physically possible with any nuclear power plant on the planet.

The fuel they use is not sufficiently enriched to go bang. Best it can do is get really hot, and make things around it radioactive. That's bad enough - it's what Chernobyl did.

One of Japan's nuclear plants has now had two explosions. Both were chemical ignitions of hydrogen gas - basically they did a "Challenger". The engineers had vented hydrogen gas from the reactor, into the containment building, to reduce the pressure in the reactor. The hydrogen mixed with air, and somehow ignited. First explosion was big, and the second one (a few days later in a different reactor building) was even bigger.

In both cases, the hydrogen was OUTSIDE the reactor vessel, and the vessel did not rupture. The outer building concrete walls were destroyed, and the mildly-radioactive hydrogen released.

Bad news, but not an atomic explosion. The reactor plant was deliberately built on the east coast of the island, where prevailing winds blow out to sea, and the mildly-radioactive hydrogen is being carried out into the Pacific ocean.

and if the fuel rods melt???

[Little-Acorn]

japans nuke plants are 60 years old
The oldest was built in the 1970s and is less than 40 years old. The rest are newer.


and housed on fault lines.
All of Japan is on fault lines. True also of many sites in the U.S., such as San Onofre between San Diego and Los Angeles.


the US would have modern plants in safe locations.
Starting when?

[Kathianne]

and if the fuel rods melt???

Not good, but not as devastating as much of the media have you believing:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0314/Meltdown-101-What-is-a-nuclear-reactor-meltdown


Meltdown 101: What is a nuclear reactor meltdown?

Metal rods melt in a meltdown, but it's not synonymous with disaster. In Japan, three reactors at the Fukushima I nuclear power plant appear to have experienced at least a partial meltdown.

By Peter Grier, Staff writer
posted March 14, 2011 at 6:26 pm EDT
Washington

Combine the word “nuclear” with the word “meltdown,” and you get something which sounds really scary to the average person. But all those scientists on cable news talking about what’s happening in Japan aren’t always clear about what a nuclear meltdown is, and isn’t. Is it an explosion? Will it burn a hole to the center of the earth? Does it spray radioactive stuff into the air, poisoning the surrounding landscape?

The answers: No, it’s not an explosion, though there can be some explosive side effects. We’ve seen that already in Japan, where a couple of reactor buildings have blown up. No, it would not burn a hole to the center of the earth. The movie “The China Syndrome,” which popularized that notion, was fiction. And whether a meltdown is an environmental disaster depends on a number of factors, including how extensive it is, and how well the nuclear power plant's safety features can contain it...

I keep posting these lay person links from reputable sites, but you have to read them to understand.

[namvet]

Not good, but not as devastating as much of the media have you believing:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0314/Meltdown-101-What-is-a-nuclear-reactor-meltdown



I keep posting these lay person links from reputable sites, but you have to read them to understand.

Kath if they're not so dangerous then why are people there testing positive for radiation exposure??? add to it Helo's from the Reagan encounted a nuke plume about 60 mi off the coast. the Reagan alarms sounded at 100 mi. they claim the exposure is minimal.
they are pulling the fleet back to a safe distance and redeploying north of the stricken area.

USS Reagan Crew Members Exposed To Radiation

http://www.10news.com/news/27191823/detail.html

[trobinett]

Well, if you feel, that you need to worry about something else, feel free, but personally, I'm all worried out.:cheers2:

[sundaydriver]

Kathianne;465827]Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster at a power plant. It was NOT nearly as devastating as commonly believed, thanks to scare tactics of the media:

A statement such as this must mean that over 4,000 radiation cancer deaths, areas still uninhabitable 23 years later, reindeer herds contaminated almost a thousand miles downwind and clean up materials left in the open or buried and marked for future clean up in coming decades is just liberal media hype to scare us?

Those are the reasons it was the worst nuclear disaster ever!

[Kathianne]

Kath if they're not so dangerous then why are people there testing positive for radiation exposure??? add to it Helo's from the Reagan encounted a nuke plume about 60 mi off the coast. the Reagan alarms sounded at 100 mi. they claim the exposure is minimal.
they are pulling the fleet back to a safe distance and redeploying north of the stricken area.

USS Reagan Crew Members Exposed To Radiation

http://www.10news.com/news/27191823/detail.html

There's a vast difference between 'catastrophic' and even Chernobyl. Compared to either of those, it was the workers in the containment building that suffered full body radiation exposure and what's been released into the atmosphere is not good, but not on the levels of 'the sky is falling' and everyone for miles around is going to get cancer.

Again, I'm not arguing that this isn't a significant event, but it is not a strong case for ending nuclear reactors. In fact, considering the stresses of the earthquake and tsunami causing structural stress, followed by the loss of power for the cooling and the real possibility of a partial to total meltdown, so far the redundancies appear to be doing what they were designed to do. Much will be learned from this.

[Kathianne]

Kathianne;465827]Chernobyl was the worst nuclear disaster at a power plant. It was NOT nearly as devastating as commonly believed, thanks to scare tactics of the media:

A statement such as this must mean that over 4,000 radiation cancer deaths, areas still uninhabitable 23 years later, reindeer herds contaminated almost a thousand miles downwind and clean up materials left in the open or buried and marked for future clean up in coming decades is just liberal media hype to scare us?

Those are the reasons it was the worst nuclear disaster ever!

Ok, though it seems that some disagree with you:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html

Feel free to read.

[logroller]

Interesting article. As for me -- NIMBY still applies!

[trobinett]

Oh please, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Give it a fucking rest.:slap:

[namvet]

Oh please, the sky is falling, the sky is falling. Give it a fucking rest.:slap:

ill bet that's what they said after the Abombs

[namvet]

There's a vast difference between 'catastrophic' and even Chernobyl. Compared to either of those, it was the workers in the containment building that suffered full body radiation exposure and what's been released into the atmosphere is not good, but not on the levels of 'the sky is falling' and everyone for miles around is going to get cancer.

Again, I'm not arguing that this isn't a significant event, but it is not a strong case for ending nuclear reactors. In fact, considering the stresses of the earthquake and tsunami causing structural stress, followed by the loss of power for the cooling and the real possibility of a partial to total meltdown, so far the redundancies appear to be doing what they were designed to do. Much will be learned from this.

I don't want to compare this with Chernobyl. there is none. but many did die from cancer as far away as Kiev. and are still dying today. the sky is falling has already fell. they can't keep potassium iodide on the shelves in CA

radiation alarms are sounding as far away as the Yokosuka naval base.

Sunday, May 03, 2009
Chernobyl Fallout Continues
link (http://news.kievukraine.info/2009/05/chernobyl-fallout-continues.html)

[namvet]

looks like the sky is falling fell on one dem

Congressman Calls on Obama Administration to Expand Distribution of Anti-Radiation Pills


A congressman is calling on the Obama administration to expand by 10 miles its distribution of anti-radiation pills to people who live within 10 miles of a nuclear plant in the event of a crisis like the one that has now gripped Japan.



link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/15/congressman-calls-obama-administration-expand-distribution-anti-radiation-pills/#)

[trobinett]

ill bet that's what they said after the Abombs

And I'll bet ya its NOT.

[trobinett]

looks like the sky is falling fell on one dem

Congressman Calls on Obama Administration to Expand Distribution of Anti-Radiation Pills



link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/03/15/congressman-calls-obama-administration-expand-distribution-anti-radiation-pills/#)

I rest my case.................:lame2:

[revelarts]

this is very interesting .
It's funny the info you get on Chernobyl depending on where you look.
the infos all over the map.

Here's are links to IAEA/UN reports links on a fairly recent look at the issue.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html

I'm not sure what to think but,
I tell yeah this. I wouldn't buy farm land there myself.
And i wouldn't hang around Tokyo right now either.

Would any of you that support nuke power move to the Chernobyl area to live and raise you kids?
are you that confident of it's safety?
this is a serious question.

what about what's going on in Japan would you be calm an unconcerned about the effects.
I've got no dog in this fight, As I mentioned before my druthers are for Alternatives, Nuke and Coal both have great benefits and heavy downsides IMO.

But really, I would like to know if you folks believe that it's relatively safe to hang out in the area near the Japanese reactor right now?
Not right next to it, but how close do you think is safe?
Safe enough that you would feel comfortable just continuing to live there at least?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366308/Japan-earthquake-tsunami-Meltdown-3rd-reactor-blast-hits-nuclear-plant.html

Also Kathianne, trobinett, Lil Acron,

it's very interesting to me in general that you seem to be fairly comfortable with the level of safety of Nuke plants despite the real but unlikely chance of a serious problems even fairly significant numbers deaths come across like as a sad but relatively small price to pay compared to the value of the energy generated and strong record of safety. even when the numbers of Chernobyl mentioned might have been up to 4000+ with illnesses.

I understand the concept,
it's been a point I've made concerning the "terrorist" and our freedoms. As bad as 9-11 was (over 2000 loss) it's no reason to give up ANY of our freedoms or privacy to the Gov't under the guise of protection.
As bad as 911 was, it's a sad but relatively small price to pay compared to the value of our freedoms under the constitution and strong record of safety. (Been 10 years since any real U.S. Attack)

I couldn't pass up the op to mention that.
Seems it's really the 1st I've heard some of say anything relative the risk of life and health verses other benefits where your making calm assessments just based on numbers harmed vs benefits and safety record.

Freedom is at least as valuable as electricity A?

[Kathianne]

Here's the thing Rev, no one is saying that the land around Chernobyl is habitable. I believe it's at least 40 miles out. No, I wouldn't farm or eat anything grown in that area or from that area even much further out.

What is happening in Japan is still undetermined. Pete put a 'very dire' situation link up around 3:30, but the article was from early this morning. What I've been arguing all along is that there are many redundant systems built into those plants, as is true of those built in US and Europe. There's no doubt that it's a serious situation and I am not saying that lives may not be at stake, immediately or in the future.

But, scare tactics are not the way to address the issue. Indeed it seems our government is the one issuing the 'dire warnings,' admitting that it's counter to what Japan is saying, but they are erring on the side of caution when it comes to advising Americans and dependents. It's what they should do.

There's no doubt that these reactors have experienced pretty much the worst nature can throw at them, outside of a meteor making a direct hit. I'm seeing stories about it being 'worse than Three-Mile Island, well no duh! http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/3mile-isle.html

That's not news.

Will it become a Chernobyl? So far the experts are saying it can't happen, even with rods exposed and water gone. Are they right? That I can't answer, but looks like the answers will be coming. I'm just guessing they know the real probabilities better than those writing headlines or posting on messageboards.

[revelarts]

aw Crap here we go...
Like BP oil spill problems .. cover ups from the time the thing was built...

AND Thank God #4 wasn't even running , one of the original engineers says the thing was/is a "time bomb".

Thank God for People who get a conscience, better late than never.


...One of the reactors in the crippled Fukushima nuclear plant may have been relying on flawed steel to hold the radiation in its core, according to an engineer who helped build its containment vessel four decades ago. Mitsuhiko Tanaka says he helped conceal a manufacturing defect in the $250 million steel vessel installed at the Fukushima Dai-Ichi No. 4 reactor while working for a unit of Hitachi Ltd. in 1974. The reactor, which Tanaka has called a “time bomb,” was shut for maintenance when the March 11 earthquake triggered a 7-meter (23-foot) tsunami that disabled cooling systems at the plant, leading to explosions and radiation leaks….“Who knows what would have happened if that reactor had been running?” Tanaka, who turned his back on the nuclear industry after the Chernobyl disaster, said in an interview last week. “I have no idea if it could withstand an earthquake like this. It’s got a faulty reactor inside.” What follows is the harrowing tale of a criminal cover up at the only reactor that luckily was empty when the catastrophe occurred....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-03-23/fukushima-engineer-says-he-covered-up-flaw-at-shut-reactor.html

[revelarts]

Alaska has 2000 yrs worth of Coal.
25% of the worlds natural gas


New tech Coal to liquid fuel
less CO2
5.3 barrels of jet fuel per ton of coal w natural gas
+ 20% more BTU per barrel Oil based jet fuel

[revelarts]

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel. html

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/N2vzotsvvkw&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N2vzotsvvkw&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>

thorium instead of uranium for nuke energy

[Nukeman]

http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternative_nuclear_fuel. html

<object width="640" height="360">


<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/N2vzotsvvkw&rel=0&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>

thorium instead of uranium for nuke energyRev. go back to the first page of this thread. I posted that last year. The ONLY reason we went with Uranium reactors in the 60s-7-s was for the weapons grade plutonium and the continued enrichment of uranium. Thorium was recommended at the onset of our nuclear program. It is SAFE doesn't hit critical mass, doesn't have a "melt down, and is self regulating. Not to mention it is FAR more abundant that Uranium, and doesn't need to be enriched!!

[revelarts]

Sounds like the facility to produce it would cost less and could be located just about anywhere too. the radiation and fluoride itself are still bad items to deal with but it still seems a whole lot safer than the current method.

so do you know why it there hasn't been much progress on this other than the weapons issue?

[Nukeman]

Sounds like the facility to produce it would cost less and could be located just about anywhere too. the radiation and fluoride itself are still bad items to deal with but it still seems a whole lot safer than the current method.

so do you know why it there hasn't been much progress on this other than the weapons issue?
Unfortunately it is mostly to do with the weapons grade ore that they need. Thorium reactors are about a quarter the size of a uranium reactor and like I said they are self regulating, no chance of a "melt down". Our media makes such a hype about "nuclear power" and the scare tactics that thorium will probably never have a chance to get started. What with all the fear mongering and demonizing of nuclear power. Unless our media and govt decided to do a complete 180 on the issue it will be a LONG time for any of this to come to fruition.. Of course this is just my 2 cents worth..