The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: does a picture say more than a thousand words?  (Read 86650 times)

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #175 on: 27/05/2012 23:58:21 »
I can add this

""http://www.iaea.org/inis/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/33/043/33043484.pdf

"There exists no widely accepted definition for the concept of a 'hot particle'. It is often used in the meaning that the particle is highly active; sometimes it is used for particles having high specific activity. Khitrov et at. (1994) have suggested the following definition: a hot particle is a particle with any radionuclide or composition with size up to 50 - 80 ^m and activity over 4 Bq. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP 1999) states that "hot particles are considered to be > 10 \im but < 3000 |um in any dimension. Hot particles smaller than 10 (xm may be treated as general contamination...". Radioactive particles originating from atmospheric nuclear tests are historically referred to as hot particles. This concept was later attributed to fuel fragments originating from the Chernobyl accident."

"In the present thesis, nuclear fuel particles are studied from the perspective of their characteristics, atmospheric transport and possible skin doses. These particles, often referred to as 'hot' particles, can be released into the environment, as has happened in past years, through human activities, incidents and accidents, such as the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986. Nuclear fuel particles with a diameter of tens of micrometers, referred to here as large particles, may be hundreds of kilobecquerels in activity and even an individual particle may present a quantifiable health hazard.""

And that is a discussion about what should be seen as constituting 'hot dust' as i understands it.

Chernobyl had this to say.

"Problem of Hot Particles," from Yablokov & Nesterenko's, "Chernobyl, Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment"


1.4.2. Problem of “Hot Particles” (pg. 21) A fundamental complexity in estimating the levels of Chernobyl radioactive contamination is the problem of so-called “hot particles” or “Chernobyl dust.” When the reactor exploded,it expelled not only gases and aerosols (the products of splitting of U (Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, etc.),but also particles of U fuel melted together with other radionuclides - firm hot particles. Near the Chernobyl NPP, heavy large particles of U and Pu dropped out.

Areas of Hungary, Germany, Finland, Poland, Bulgaria, and other European countries saw hot particles with an average size of about 15 μm. Their activity mostly was deter mined to be (UNSCEAR,2000) Zr-95 (half-life 35.1 days), La-140 (1.68 days), and Ce-144 (284 days).

Some hot particles included beta-emitting radionuclides such as Ru-103 and Ru-106 (39.3 and 368 days, respectively) and Ba-140 (12.7 days). Particles with volatile elements that included I-131, Te132, Cs-137, and Sb-126 (12.4 days) spread over thousands of kilometers. “Liquid hot particles” were formed when radionuclides became concentrated in raindrops: Radioactivity of individual hot particles reached 10 kBq.

When absorbed into the body (with water, food, or inhaled air), such particles generate high doses of radiation even if an individual is in areas of low contamination. Fine particles (smaller than 1 μm) easily penetrate the lungs, whereas larger ones (20–40 μm) are concentrated primarily in the upper respiratory system (Khruch et al., 1988; Ivanov et al., 1990; IAEA, 1994). Studies concerning the peculiarities of the formation and disintegration of hot particles, their properties, and their impact on the health of humans and other living organisms are meager and totally inadequate.

From III Introduction, (p. 221): “Hot” particles have disintegrated much more rapidly than expected, leading to unpredictable secondary emissions from some radionuclides. Sr-90 and Am-241 are moving through the food chains much faster than predicted because they are so water soluble (Konoplya, 2006; Konoplya et al., 2006; and many others). Chernobyl radioactive contamination has adversely affected all biological as well as nonliving components of the environment: the atmosphere, surface and ground waters, and soil.

From Ch. 9 (Introduction, p. 237): With the catastrophe’s initial atmospheric radiotoxins powerful irradiation caused by “hot particles,”the soil and plants surfaces became contaminated and a cycle of absorption and release of radioisotopes from soil to plants and back again was put into motion (Figure 9.1).

... and finally, (p. 92):

5.5. Respiratory System Diseases There is a marked increase in respiratory system morbidity everywhere in the territories contaminated by Chernobyl fallout. Respiratory system diseases, which include those of the nasal cavity, throat, trachea, bronchial tubes,and lungs, were among the first apparent consequences of the irradiation and ranged from nose bleeds and tickling in the throat to lungcancer.

Hot particles, or “Chernobyl dust,”consist of particles containing radionuclides derived from nuclear fuel melted together with particles from metal construction, soil, etc. (see Chapter 1 for details). These persist for long periods in pulmonary tissue because of the low solubility of uranium oxides. In the first days after the catastrophe, respiratory problems in the mouth, throat, and trachea in adults were basically linked to the aseous–aerosol for ms of radionuclides.

During this initial period I- 131, Ru-106, and Ce-144 had the most serious impact on the respiratory system (IAEA, 1992; Chuchalin et al., 1998; Kut’kov et al.,1993; Tereshenko et al., 2004). Further damage to the respiratory system was caused by hot particles and external irradiation, and was also a consequence of changes in the immune and hormonal systems. The smallest hot particles, up to 5 μm, easily reached the deepest parts of lungs, while larger particles were trapped in the upper respiratory tract (Khrushch et al., 1988; Ivanov et al., 1990; IAEA, 1994). Bronchopulmonary morbidity increased quickly among liquidators in the contaminated territories (Kogan, 1998; rovotvorov and Romashov, 1997; Trakhtenberg and Chissov,2001; Yakushin and Smirnova, 2002; Tseloval’nykova et al., 2003;and others).

Liquidators,whose health was supervised more carefully than that of the general population, developed marked restrictive lung disease due to a functional decrease in lung elasticity (Kuznetsova et al., 2004). Chernobyl dust was found in liquidators’ bronchial tubes, bronchioles, and alveoli for many years. The syndrome of “acute inhalation depression of the upper respiratory system” presents as a combination of a rhinitis, tickling in the throat, dry cough, and difficulty breathing (Chuchalin et al., 1993; Kut’kov, 1998; Romanova, 1998; Chykyna et al., 2001;and others).

Since this is terminology directly from the industry, it's a good bet this is a solid read on Gundersen's intended definition/usage. "
« Last Edit: 28/05/2012 00:25:23 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #176 on: 28/05/2012 15:55:41 »
Now, getting back to the molten salt reactors. I'm not sure I understand how those proposing it look at the decay of waste. I've been discussing this topic with a rather nice guy, but he seem to take some things for granted, or else it's me missing out? I need to read a lot more to find what I really think about this molten sand design. But as always, I'm mixing apples with oranges here, discussing one design at the same time we have another going to smithereens in Fukushima. Now, what will happen if those fuel rods blows? As in getting converted to dust... Well, as Alex points out.

"Yoron, please Google "plutonium decay chain". Lasting 240,000 years doesn't mean anything until you know what happens during those tears. Pu doesn't continuously emit particles -- no radioactive element does.

Pu decays in about 15 steps to stable Lead. That means 15 particles (Alpha, Beta...) are emitted in total over 240,000 years. On average, that's 240,000/15 = 16,000 years between particles. So you'd need 16,000 Pu atoms to average 1 particle per year, or 500 trillion Pu atoms to get 1 particle per second, or 1 Becquerel. Your body's Potassium produces 4400 Becquerel.

You'd need to have about 4 milligrams of Pu ingested to equal just the natural Potassium decay in your body.

For Beta (electron) decay, use this nice tool...
www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/applets/iso.html

Click on the O20 box for instance, and see how it decays because it has too many neutrons."

So? Are that Japanese diplomat exaggerating the issue saying it will be a world wide catastrophe?

I don't know, although I would prefer it Alex way, I doubt he is, But I need much more information to decide here. In the mean time I can offer this on the issue of what should be considered dangerous, as well as what 'mass/size' of particles one should worry about.

"one must bear in mind that the Radium dial painters of the 1920s and 1930s all suffered radium induced cancers at the site of deposition of the internalised radium, commonly, the jaw. It must also be borne in mind that Robley Evan’s identified by observation that while the contaminated young women manifestly suffered various radium related disablity, below a certain level of total intake, none suffered radium induced cancers. Above that level, many did. Not all did.

The study turned out ( due to the intervention of war and the subsequent need to know for weapons related purposes. One could add as an aid to nuclear industry.) to be secret and whole of life – the women were secretly monitored until their deaths. The study thus ended in 1990s.) Radium is not plutonium. Both though are toxic chemically, and both are alpha emitters. Radium is endemic in the environment due to the decay of uranium. Plutonium is a transuranic – bigger than uranium and produced artificially. (though there is more to that, I’ll not go into Africa here.)

In terms of the radiological effects of plutonium vs radium weight for weight, the variables are 1. rate of radioactivity per unit mass of hot particle, 2. energy of the emitted alpha particle in MeV. In that comparison there is nothing unique about plutonium. Radiologically, its the alpha radiation emitted that is of interest. A comparion of Pu and Ra will follow the paper below. This argument is important. Understanding both points of view is a must so that one may decide on some logical basis what threats are being unleashed by nuclear industry.

Will a single “bullet” kill or is the concept of the allowable lifetime dose valid? Perhaps both concepts are imperfect. One the one hand, given the presence of radium in everyone from birth, well, we live passed the age of 5. On the other, As Pecher showed in 1942, a very small internal dose of Strontium 89 to a patient delivered a massive dose to local target tissue when converted into exteranl whole body X ray equivalent. And there is the record of the variable outcomes of the Radium Dial Painters. This debate is not a new one.

I’d rather not have any plutonium or cesium or any other fission fuel or fission product or transuranic thank you. Anyway, on with the expert response circa 1975." And if you want to read the rest of this guys wondering, much the same as me there, you have to go to The Hot Particle Problem – long but worth the effort. (Paul Langley's Nuclear History Blog)

And then there is what I asked Alex.

"You know Alex. I never though I would need to dive into this so deep. But your molten sand reactor interests me, and yeah I am checking up on the 233U in the neptunium series. But it takes time, and I also have other things on my mind, as Fukushima. And I'd take that seriously, as seems a lot of other experts on that subject. Would you call your view on that matter a majority view Alex?

And what about responsibility for what one present as safe. Where does it end? Someone sold the design to Tepco, Does it end with Tepco buying it? Tepco probably sold it (the idea of safe nuclear power) to the Japanese state. Does it now end with the Japanese state being responsible? And the state sold it too their citizens so to speak. So would you then say that it ends with the individual?

Wouldn't be true would it? We all want to trust each other, life is a game of trust where we choose who we will trust, or sometimes gets it chosen for us, Somehow this catastrophe will get people killed, real people with families that will get hurt. Where is the responsibility for that Alex? The more you know, and the more you push for something, the more responsibility you take upon your own shoulders, in Japan they have this idea that if you save someones life (like someone suicidal), you also gain a responsibility for seeing to his future happiness. Can you see the logic behind that?"

 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #177 on: 28/05/2012 17:01:38 »
Some random voices on the net.

"Here's a video showing damage to the reactors from last Spring. Done by Japanese Defense Forces, flying in a helicopter. Pretty good footage showing massive destruction at the plant.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/crane-fell-plutonium-containing-spent-fuel-rods-crushing-them

The professor interviewed here confirms the crane for moving the fuel "has dropped in." (Professor Naoto Sekimura of Tokyo University) From the video — it is possible the fuel rods have been damaged and radioactive material has been released … and that likelihood cannot be denied. The caption says the crane likely crushed spent fuel rods at SPF#3. If the diagrams are done right, why on earth would they have designed it so the SPF's are right next to the reactors? Dumb and dumber!

Then the video goes to Reactor #4 where it is clear the wall from top to bottom has collapsed on one side of the reactor. It appears the crane has also fallen here. It would be the large green object lying on the lower right side of the frame at about 2:10 – 2:13 in the video. The narrator states the lid "has been opened" as Reactor #4 was being inspected at the time of the accident. (Supposedly there was no fuel inside this reactor.)

The way this is worded (paragraph above) begs the question whether or not there really was fuel in #4. The narrator discusses the hydrogen explosion. If no fuel in the reactor, then the hydrogen explosion originated in SPF #4. So apparently #4 had no fuel in it, but if so the hydrogen explosion came from SPF #4. If this occurred and the crane also fell at #3, could both hydrogen explosions be linked to the cranes having crushed the fuel? And could these hydrogen explosions occur if there was water in SPF #3 or SPF #4?

The other possibility is there really was fuel in #4 and an explosion blew the lid off (or skewed it so that it's open). But that's not what they have been telling us, so far. " from HoTaters April 13, 2012.

By now we know that the Japanese deem unit 4 as the 'king pin' of them all.

"Ambassador Murata strongly stated that if the crippled building of reactor unit 4—with 1,535 fuel rods in the spent fuel pool 100 feet (30 meters) above the ground—collapses, not only will it cause a shutdown of all six reactors but will also affect the common spent fuel pool containing 6,375 fuel rods, located some 50 meters from reactor 4. In both cases the radioactive rods are not protected by a containment vessel; dangerously, they are open to the air. This would certainly cause a global catastrophe like we have never before experienced. He stressed that the responsibility of Japan to the rest of the world is immeasurable. Such a catastrophe would affect us all for centuries. Ambassador Murata informed us that the total numbers of the spent fuel rods at the Fukushima Daiichi site excluding the rods in the pressure vessel is 11,421 (396+615+566+1,535+994+940+6375).

I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods. I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:

In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. 304 assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident. The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel). It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet."
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #178 on: 28/05/2012 17:13:53 »
So, we have two scenarios here. One that I will call 'short term' now bearing in mind that , let's say three hundred years in no way is short term for a human. Defining a generation as twenty five years 300 comes out as twelve generations into the future, that all will be crippled as i understands it, by the radioactive dust.

Who will pay for that :)
What insurance company can afford it? For those of you translating it into profits, greed, and the holy grail, money..

As for the other stuff, that Alex point out not to be that specifically worrisome? I don't know, will this be the only accident then? What about all those 'old' Russian, secret or not, Waste dumps. What about under the oceans. what about the plutonium particles under the grass, even after you cleaned it up? It costs too much to transport all that earth away as I read somewhere :) I can go on, but I won't. And maybe Alex still will be correct in this, I'm not sure in the same way that I'm not sure what it will do to our natural background radiation. It's a terribly complicated field.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #179 on: 28/05/2012 17:25:09 »
So what about that natural back ground radiation?
Does it have a impact on our genes?

"Studies at lower doses are currently being conducted as new tools become available to both deliver the radiation and study the response of cells and molecules. This research has resulted in some very interesting results, suggesting that low doses of ionizing radiation with matter triggers many biological responses that were not predicted from past experience. These results include bystander effects, changes in the spectrum of gene activation, adaptive responses, and genomic instability. All these are discussed further in the following cited review papers.

Morgan, W.F. (2003). Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: I. Radiation-induced genomic instability and bystander effects in vitro. Radiation Research 159:567-580.

Morgan, W.F. (2003). Non-targeted and delayed effects of exposure to ionizing radiation: II. Radiation-Induced genomic instability and bystander effects In vivo- Clastogenic factors and transgenerational effects. Radiation Research 159:581-596.

Redpath, J.L., Lu, Q., Lao, X., Molloi, S., and Elmore, E. (2003) Low doses of diagnostic energy X-rays protect against neoplastic transformation In vitro. International Journal of Radiation. Biology. 79(4):235-240."

Well, what do you think?

Myself I think we are adapted to this Earth. And that we are adapted through 'geological' time scales. What we do introducing 'man made', extremely fast changes as compared to a geological process, is to ruin the clock work. I don't think we are prepared for handling very fast changes, as long as those changes don't revert back in a relatively short time. That is, I do expect defense mechanisms but I do not expect us to be 'instantly adaptive' if you can see how I think there.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #180 on: 28/05/2012 17:35:42 »
You just need to consider Chernobyl.

'Reverting back' here, just means. "Get Out Of There"
But what about when we have no "Out Of There" left to go too?
=

Earth is getting smaller, each day.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2012 17:37:24 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #181 on: 28/05/2012 18:04:45 »
Then there is another, more subtle but terribly important effect, that I would refer to as 'human nature'. We don't really want it to be as dangerous as some suspects, do we :) . Take a look at Heart disease and depression are likely to claim more lives than radiation after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear accident, experts say.

Do they still state that?

And what about ignoring Russian science on the subject? The nation that is likely to have the most hot spots in the world, as I suspect, inside its (former USSR) territory or in its close vicinity, including us in Sweden, as well as the other Nordic Countries, as we share some borders over the Baltic sea?

What about it?
Is only western science 'scientific'?
Don't think so.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #182 on: 28/05/2012 18:30:32 »
And now to what I find most frustrating. The idea that anyone 'knows it all'. You will find the same phenomena in each generation. They all have their 'gurus' that they will refer too as 'scientifically impossible to question'. And when you insist on doing it a lot of huffing and puffing will commence. Nobody knows it all and we would all do well in trying to remember that. That would put a immediate end to most 'sects', of whatever kind, out there.

So what is the proper response to a problem as Fukushima?
Get the information..

As long as it can be validated it will be relevant, and if it is statistics instead of hypothesis, so much better. And use common sense when finding validating hard. A minimalistic approach to danger is to be preferred when it comes to what is unknown, or questionable. Especially if it is other peoples life you are gambling with.

Would you say that this is what we do, gambling on safe nuclear designs?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #183 on: 28/05/2012 20:43:45 »
So, has Tepco lied?

Yes.

Has the Japanese government lied?

Depends on if you think that holding in the truth is lying?

If you asked me if a road is safe and I say 'as for last week it was' knowing that it has changed since that.
Would that consist of lying? Or if refusing to answer, would that consist of lying?

I don't know, well I do know, but that's, that's my personal opinion :)
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #184 on: 28/05/2012 21:06:30 »
Then there is one more thing. How much MOX is there in those fuel rods?

the used up fuel rods will contain plutonium. The unused will either contain MOX, which is a mix of uranium, weapon grade plutonium, and plutonium from other nuclear facility's waste. Or they will contain enriched uranium which is made from ;

"Uranium found in nature consists largely of two isotopes, U-235 and U-238. The production of energy in nuclear reactors is from the 'fission' or splitting of the U-235 atoms, a process which releases energy in the form of heat. U-235 is the main fissile isotope of uranium.

Natural uranium contains 0.7% of the U-235 isotope. The remaining 99.3% is mostly the U-238 isotope which does not contribute directly to the fission process (though it does so indirectly by the formation of fissile isotopes of plutonium).  Isotope separation is a physical process to concentrate (‘enrich’) one isotope relative to others. Most reactors are Light Water Reactors (of two types - PWR and BWR) and require uranium to be enriched from 0.7% to 3% to 5% U-235 in their fuel.

Uranium-235 and U-238 are chemically identical, but differ in their physical properties, notably their mass. The nucleus of the U-235 atom contains 92 protons and 143 neutrons, giving an atomic mass of 235 units. The U-238 nucleus also has 92 protons but has 146 neutrons - three more than U-235, and therefore has a mass of 238 units. The difference in mass between U-235 and U-238 allows the isotopes to be separated and makes it possible to increase or "enrich" the percentage of U-235. All present enrichment processes, directly or indirectly, make use of this small mass difference.

Some reactors, for example the Canadian-designed Candu and the British Magnox reactors, use natural uranium as their fuel.  (For comparison, uranium used for nuclear weapons would have to be enriched in plants specially designed to produce at least 90% U-235.) Enrichment processes require uranium to be in a gaseous form at relatively low temperature, hence uranium oxide from the mine is converted to uranium hexafluoride in a preliminary process, at a separate conversion plant. "

So you can see that there is a difference between the Chernobyl 'fuel' and what Fukushima used.
And Tepco lied to us, and to the Japanese government before the catastrophe according to workers/whistle blowers there. Isn't it strange that it takes a catastrophe for a human to start telling the truth? I find it strange at least.

Anyway, if they lied about that? Then I don't know what to think about how many fuel rods there will be that contain MOX either? According to what I've found out only reactor three was certified for using MOX.

But?
And, as a byside:

Sweden do not use MOX but yet we found us forced by OKG AB to accept such, 850 kg of it.

  ---- G r e e d ---

"Swedish christmas present for Sellafield

The approval gives OKG AB the opportunity to return 850 kilos of plutonium recovered at the Sellafield Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP). According to the contracts between OKG AB and British Nuclear Fuel Ltd (BNFL) the Swedish plutonium will be converted in to MOX fuel in the Sellafield MOX plant (SMP).

The licence is limited and does not mean a changed policy for treatment of Swedish nuclear waste.

Unplanned stoppages

The Swedish plutonium is a product of spent nuclear fuel sent to Sellafield by OKG AB between 1975 and 1982. In the 1980’s the Swedish government subsequently reversed its spent fuel policy of reprocessing in favour of the direct disposal of its spent nuclear fuel. According to the English environmental organisation CORE, BNFL was alarmed by the Swedish plans in 1996 to have its spent fuel returned to Sweden unreprocessed. BNFL promptly reprocessed all the fuel in 1997, well in advance of its scheduled reprocessing date.

Anyway it will probably take some time before the Swedish MOX-fuel will be shipped to Oskashamn. Despite BNFL’ s best efforts to get SMP into full production in order to meet customer delivery targets, unplanned stoppages have contributed to the plant’s slow commissioning progress. Early statements by BNFL indicated delivery of the first assemblies in January 2003. But when Bellona inspected the plant last week, the first MOX-fuel assemblies was expected in april 2003. SMP was commissioned in December 2001.

Switzerland first

It is still uncertain when the plant will start the production of the Swedish MOX assemblies. The first assemblies are to be sent to Switzerland. Two weeks ago the SMP was forced to a halt because of problems with the constructions of a fuel pin. Still smarting from the negative publicity surrounding the return shipment of rejected MOX-fuel from Japan to Sellafield this summer, BNFL is planning to ship the new MOX to Europe with reduced levels of safety and security for the dangerous cargo. Instead of using their MOX carriers, Pacific Pintail and Pacific Teal, BNFL are planning to ship MOX to Europe with Atlantic Osprey, a ship bought second-hand by BNFL in 2001 from the German shipping firm Adler & Sohne.

The Atlantic Osprey has few of the safety/security features attributed to BNFL’s MOX carriers. No naval cannon or other armament has been added and unlike the Pacific ships the Atlantic Osprey will travel unescorted around the British coast to Europe. The Atlantic Osprey must rely on a single engine, and has no double hull.

Bellona visit

The Bellona foundation inspected the Sellafield MOX plant last week. Bellona also had meetings with BNFL staff, and discussed different ways of cleaning out Technetium-99 (Tc-99) from the discharges. The British environmental minister Michael Meacher have instructed the Environmental Agency to find out if it is possible to put a moratorium on the Tc-99 discharges.

Bellona also visited the tanks where BNFL store vast amounts of Tc-99 contaminated liquid waste. The tanks was constructed in 1951 and was once part of the secret British weapons programme. Today there are about 2000 cubic metres of radioactive liquid waste in the tanks, containing about 200 Terrabecquereles of Tc-99." From Sweden approves limited MOX use.

Anyone else than me feeling tired here.

I have kids, you have kids, we know that MOX is a material we don't want to get spread around. We know that we don't want to have a accident with it either (remember 'moist environment' anyone?). And we don't want it sunk to the bottom..

Sure, in the end it's the 'individuals responsibility' right?
I'm responsible, because in a market policy it is 'always' the customer that decides :)

What BS.
« Last Edit: 28/05/2012 21:43:56 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #185 on: 29/05/2012 10:27:57 »
Just got this from Alex.

And it sounds no good.  Nobody can afford that when it comes to nuclear power plants. If the companies managing them can't make a profit without, then I think it's time for the government to take over the plant.

Culture of Complicity Tied to Stricken Nuclear Plant.
Japan Nuclear Disaster Caps Decades of Faked Reports, Accidents.

So, how is it with other countries nuclear 'oversights'?
==

Eh, that is assuming a 'state' having a integrity of course.
Without integrity, neither a state, nor a man, has anything.

« Last Edit: 29/05/2012 10:45:42 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #186 on: 30/05/2012 22:01:41 »
So, how is it to live there?
Near Fukushima?

"It was an email from an old friend that led me to the irradiated sunflower fields of Fukushima. I had not heard from Reiko-san since 2003, when I left my post as the Guardian's Tokyo correspondent. Before that, the magazine editor had been the source of many astute comments about social trends in Japan. In April, she contacted me out of the blue. I was pleased at first, then worried.

Reiko's message began in traditional Japanese style with a reference to the season and her state of mind. The eloquence was typical. The tone unusually disturbing: "It is spring time now in Tokyo and the cherry blossoms are in bloom. In my small terrace garden, the plants – tulips, roses and strawberries – are telling me that a new season has arrived. But somehow, they make me sad because I know that they are not the same as last year. They are all contaminated."

Reiko went on to describe how everything had changed in the wake of the nuclear accident in Fukushima the previous month. Daily life felt like science fiction. She always wore a mask and carried an umbrella to protect against black rain. Every conversation was about the state of the reactors. In the supermarket, where she used to shop for fresh produce, she now looked for cooked food – "the older, the safer now". She expressed fears for her son, anger at the government and deep distrust of the reassuring voices she was hearing in the traditional media. "We are misinformed. We are misinformed," she repeated. "Our problem is in society. We have to fight against it. And it seems as hard as the fight against those reactors." "

From Fukushima disaster: it's not over yet 
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #187 on: 30/05/2012 22:19:04 »
This is not Europe, it's Japan.
Where can they go?

And is that acceptable, to lose land for centuries, or longer?
Even if it will be shown that we can live with a higher radiative background I doubt anyone to want to live in Fukushima, or Chernobyl. Those that do live in similar neighborhood have their kids dead-born or severly genetically damaged. I gave a link in the beginning, as I reopened the question of Fukushima, why not read it if you missed it.. Here it is, again.

Instead of defending those outmoded expressions from a cold war, why not ask yourself if you are prepared to live like that. And then ask yourself how we can make sure that no one ever will need too again.

Then we come to the weak radiation theory in where it can be seen as benevolent at times as well as the idea is that we can stand a lot more radioactivity than what we allow. I don't think so myself, we are adapted to Earth in a geological perspective, from the very beginning of life. And to assume that we can adapt over decades or even centuries lie a heavy weigh over those shoulders, thinking that.

Prove it, and not on mice.
We have had some few laboratories.

The link above is one of them, the other is Chernobyl and there we have the study made by Russian that I linked too. We could count in the atom bombs and the Japanese victims of the same, but that's not this type of slow radioactivity from waste etc. And now we have a new laboratory, with new unwilling participants.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #188 on: 30/05/2012 22:44:33 »
"The village of Muslymova, just outside the 50 km zone was particularly contaminated, but it was never evacuated. Muslyumova lies 45 km north west of Chelyabinsk city and has 4,000 inhabitants. The village had no wells and until recent years depended on the river Techa, for drinking water.

The villagers of Muslyumova grew increasingly ill following contamination of their water. The number of birth defects and cancer deaths soared, but the authorities refused to take remedial measures. Statistics show that gene-mutations in the villages just outside the evacuated zone were 15 times the average for the Russian Federation. The local authorities attributed the high level of birth defects among newborns and the high mortality rates to a low standard of living."

(Anyone meet this argument in western science? Russias low standard of living? I've seen it several times when it comes to criticizing the Russian study of Chernobyl.)


"A report on the health of the people living on the banks of the Techa River was published in 1991, which showed that the incidence of leukemia increased by 41% since 1950. From 1980 to 1990, all cancers in this population rose by 21% and all diseases of the circulatory system rose by 31%. These figures are probably gross under-estimations, because local physicians were instructed to limit the number of death certificates they issued with diagnosis of cancer and other radiation-related illnesses. According to Gulfarida Galimova, a local doctor who has been keeping records in lieu of official statistics, the average life span for women in Muslyumovo in 1993 was 47, compared to the country average of 72. The average life span of Muslyumovo men was 45 compared to 69 for the entire country.

Chelyabinsk regional hospitals were not allowed to treat the villagers and they were sent to the Ural Centre for Radiation Medicine. The medical data of the UCRM was classified until 1990. Records of the UCRM chart the decline in health of 28,000 people along the Techa and all of them are classed as seriously irradiated. Since the 1960s, these people have been examined regularly by public health officials.

According to the head of the UCRM clinical department the rate of leukemia has doubled in the last two decades. Skin cancers have quadrupled over the last 33 years. The total number of people suffering from cancer has risen by 21%. The number of people suffering from vascular diseases has risen 31%. Birth defects have increased by 25%. Kosenko carried out a small epidemiological study of 100 people selected at random. From this group 96% had at least five chronic diseases (heart diseases, high blood pressure, arthritis and asthma), 30% had as many as ten chronic conditions.

Local doctors estimate that half the men and women at child bearing age are sterile."

And?
Low living standards is it?
Remind me of getting a better wage.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #189 on: 30/05/2012 22:56:34 »
Is it strange that people doubt those 'experts' telling them that they don't have to 'worry'?
I am worried, I told my kids to worry too. I'm no expert on this but it is clear to me that some real big money is involved in this type of energy, like ? Couldn't find a answer on the net, not even for a single Country?

Isn't that strange.

Makes you wonder, if you have a estimate validated by sources, feel free to tell me.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #190 on: 31/05/2012 00:22:50 »
Okay I have some leads now, but?

Anyway, let's get back to my first question.
That is... Are we sane?

I don't know, we're very territorial animals, as well as easy to manipulate. Maybe one is needed for the other? We seems to like weapons, don't we? Like the b o m b World Spending On Nuclear Weapons Surpasses $1 Trillion Per Decade. 

Is that sane? Considering that using just one of them will be ... Be my guest The Nuclear Seduction. It's a gas..

So what about those costs for a nuclear facility? I still don't now how much that has been invested, as well what it has cost to clean up after accidents, failures, waste, etc. But I can offer this. New Nuclear Reactors Would Be Too Risky. From 2010.. As well as 10 Reasons Not to Invest in Nuclear Energy from 2008. From the Center for American Progress.

Against it we have the World Nuclear Association Information. World Energy Needs and Nuclear Power.. from 2011.   I don't use  IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and WHO (World Health Organization) here to get my costs. Why?

Well, I'm looking for unbiased sources firstly.

And they are both interrelated through a agreement.

"In the early days of nuclear power, WHO issued forthright statements on radiation risks such as its 1956 warning: "Genetic heritage is the most precious property for human beings. It determines the lives of our progeny, health and harmonious development of future generations. As experts, we affirm that the health of future generations is threatened by increasing development of the atomic industry and sources of radiation … We also believe that new mutations that occur in humans are harmful to them and their offspring."

After 1959, WHO made no more statements on health and radioactivity. What happened? On 28 May 1959, at the 12th World Health Assembly, WHO drew up an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); clause 12.40 of this agreement says: "Whenever either organisation [the WHO or the IAEA] proposes to initiate a programme or activity on a subject in which the other organisation has or may have a substantial interest, the first party shall consult the other with a view to adjusting the matter by mutual agreement." In other words, the WHO grants the right of prior approval over any research it might undertake or report on to the IAEA – a group that many people, including journalists, think is a neutral watchdog, but which is, in fact, an advocate for the nuclear power industry."

And when it comes to IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) its own charter says.

"[t]he Agency shall seek to accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world. It shall ensure, so far as it is able, that assistance provided by it or at its request or under its supervision or control is not used in such a way as to further any military purpose"
==

So, okay, how can I say that the sources I use don't have a bias?
I can't :) It's just that I prefer private persons investigating, before using what cooperations and organizations tell me. But yeah, they probably have a bias too. To live is to get them, don't you agree? If you have better sources than this..? And I'm sure there are better sources, somewhere? There always is :) But we have to do with what we have.
==

You can turn it around if you like, then I'm using clearly biased sources, but avoiding those 'in the shades' that one otherwise easily might expect 'objective', not knowing about that agreement, and charter of intent.

Can you see my point?
« Last Edit: 31/05/2012 01:02:28 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #191 on: 31/05/2012 00:50:43 »
One reason more for worrying about MOX.

"According to the Nuclear Information Resource Center (NIRS), this plutonium-uranium fuel mixture is far more dangerous than typical enriched uranium -- a single milligram (mg) of MOX is as deadly as 2,000,000 mg of normal enriched uranium."

But hey, we 'need plutonium' don't we?
Well, those of us not living in Mayak, Chernobyl, Fukushima, or anyway near a waste facility.
Because it's a deterrent to war :)
Eh..
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #193 on: 01/06/2012 21:32:32 »
How is it with the 'State' honesty?
Is a democratic state answerable to its citizens? Is it acceptable with a political change after a state been found to lie, or should there also be a individual responsibility from those partaking in covering ups and lying?

I think it should, having a individual legal responsibility to not lie those politicians, and other servants of the state, would be forced to reconsider not only their jobs, but also legal procedures taken against them, as prison sentences.

The democratic state is a servant of the people, is that not so?
 

Offline CliffordK

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6321
  • Thanked: 3 times
  • Site Moderator
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #194 on: 06/06/2012 09:23:32 »
I don't know, we're very territorial animals, as well as easy to manipulate. Maybe one is needed for the other? We seems to like weapons, don't we? Like the b o m b World Spending On Nuclear Weapons Surpasses $1 Trillion Per Decade.

So, why is the USA spending $60 Billion a year on weapons that are completely useless, or otherwise are designed to never be used?  And the expenditures are INCREASING   [xx(]

And, all being done in a period when the USA is completely unable to balance the budget.
« Last Edit: 06/06/2012 09:25:29 by CliffordK »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #195 on: 23/07/2012 03:25:18 »
My view Clifford?

Why is China going for molten salt reactors? They do seem safer, as far as I understand it, but what more do they do, as new 'fuel/waste'?

"The one hypothetical proliferation concern with Thorium fuel though, is that the Protactinium can be chemically separated shortly after it is produced and removed from the neutron flux (the path to U-233 is Th-232 -> Th-233 -> Pa-233 -> U-233). Then, it will decay directly to pure U-233. By this challenging route, one could obtain weapons material. But Pa-233 has a 27 day half-life, so once the waste is safe for a few times this, weapons are out of the question. So concerns over people stealing spent fuel are eliminated by Th, but the possibility of the owner of a Th-U reactor obtaining bomb material is not. "

 "Tread softly, wearing a big stick" seems to be the motto for today,  just as it was yesterday, and the day before. There seem no end to the aspirants wanting to shoulder that nuclear burden. Still, I suspect this kind of attitude is inbuilt in us, visible even in the most civilized of society's. And one has to remember that USA has a lot of foreign interests to defend, after all, they are 'the' Super-Power.. No joke there, just as Rom once was.

=

As for Fukushima..

The Guardian has a recent piece.

The Fukushima nuclear plant's slow recovery offers lessons to the US.

The comments are interesting too.
==

Sorry, had to correct myself regarding Chinas planned thorium plants (molten salt reactors)..
It's not plutonium but you can still make a bomb from it, if you own the plant.
Still, it's the waste problem I find really troublesome.
« Last Edit: 23/07/2012 04:37:01 by yor_on »
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #196 on: 23/07/2012 05:18:38 »
The problem with those molten sand reactors is still the waste as it seems to me. We've had the bomb a long time now, humanely seen :) long at least, but the waste products coming from a Thorium reactor seems even worse when looking at how long they will be with us?

"Putative waste benefits – such as the impressive claims made by former Nasa scientist Kirk Sorensen, one of thorium’s staunchest advocates – have the potential to be outweighed by a proliferating number of MSRs. There are already 442 traditional reactors already in operation globally, according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The by-products of thousands of smaller, ostensibly less wasteful reactors would soon add up.

Anti-nuclear campaigner Peter Karamoskos goes further, dismissing a ‘dishonest fantasy’ perpetuated by the pro-nuclear lobby.

Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – ‘so these are really U-233 reactors,’ says Karamoskos. 



This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).

Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium’s superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste. "

I don't know. If we want to keep the standard of living raising for the whole earths population, at the same time we want to keep the hierarchy's and power structures we already have? And those feeding from the top most certainly want to stay :) And then naturally also include everyones freedom to get as many children they want? It becomes a strange picture to me. More people on a impoverished earth, losing its natural resources and diversity by the hour, with around 10 percent of the population 'owning' around 70-90 percent of the natural resources directly or indirectly?

I think it sounds as a recipe for war.

Money has worked for the longest time, but we need something more.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #197 on: 23/07/2012 16:03:44 »
Still, I like the Thorium concept so much more than the reactors we use today. A added advantage seems to be that we can burn down the nuclear waste we already have into deposits that , theoretically, 'only' will be (extremely) dangerous for 300 years. Let's see, assuming a generation to be twenty five years that leaves us twelve generations. But then you have it, we will all make those reactors won't we :), if they work..

So let's ass_u_me, making an ass out of both me and you as they say :) that we get a thousand reactors in the end? or maybe two thousand? As oil and coal becomes too expensive, both economically and environmentally, with methane gas as our new 'dark horse', a waiting environmental disaster for profit. That as nobody see that methane released as it gets released from the exploiting. And as most states don't really seem to care, or wanting to understand about it, for diverse reasons which I won't go into now, as they differ from Country to Country, but they all go back to one thing as a guess, profit (and greed).

We really seem the same, don't we. Where is the human progress? The mechanical is there, and the electronic, but us that use this new freedom of choice? Ah well, never mind :)

Two thousand reactors spread over the planet, all producing very dangerous waste for at least three hundred years. And as the waste add up under those three hundred years? How much will it become? And we haven't found any safe storage for the waste we already have, that is if you're not dreaming. Practically nobody can proof a 'safe geological storage' although sooner or later we probably will try for something, as we don't want it visible scaring us :) But I would say that it being visible is the safest storage, never mind the dangers.

But I really like the idea of burning down the waste we already have.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #198 on: 23/07/2012 16:27:00 »
Also it might be a deterrent to war :)
Who, in his right mind, want to attack a waste facility? And considering winds, ground water etc, poison a whole planet. On the other hand, are we a sane species?
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #199 on: 16/10/2012 21:08:04 »
Hm, is this one sane?

And the other hilarious :)
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: does a picture say more than a thousand words?
« Reply #199 on: 16/10/2012 21:08:04 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums