Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: thedoc on 27/03/2012 16:47:35
-
Eric Lowen explains how the efficiency of the new PRISM reactors and how these new designs overcome previous reactor problems....
Read a transcript of the interview by clicking here (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/interviews/interview/2018/)
or
-
I don't know?
Japan is stopping their nuclear technology it seems. Not that I see where they will get their electrical energy from?
The ocean maybe, it's an island after all. But when it comes to ceramics as some 'new' technology for storing nuclear waste in? That's no 'new technology' as far as I know? And those that tried found that the heat and radioactive decay created thin cracks in the material if I remember right. And then you have different humidities and temperatures working on those cracks. The thing is, as long as you can't guarantee one of two things.
Either that you have found a way to reuse the material until it is at the same level as the 'natural radioactive background'.
Or that you can guarantee that this 'clay ceramic glass' etc will contain the radioactivity for at least some thousands of years, and that is me solely, trusting in that we will solve the problems giving us such a time to do it in.
The other step is what I've always said. Build those waste facilities in the middle of our towns, constantly measuring the radioactivity. That way we will know if it doesn't work as predicted :) And by God, when it goes wrong we will at least react. Promises is only as good as the facts.
-
the problem it seems with nuclear technology is its danger when something unexpected happens those 1000 year natural events or just human error, ok you can say that the odds are against anything happening , but history has shown that if something can go wrong it will go wrong given time and the risk of disaster to so many lives isn't worth the risk. take a look at chernobyl
http://acidcow.com/pics/16330-chernobyl-today-52-pics.html
25 years and still the same.
i understand that was a different type of reactor and safety has improved , but you have to sit back and think what if.. and if that risk is to big then its not worth that risk.
-
Excellent article.
I would wonder if the Sodium reactors would bring their own risks though. Pure sodium is extremely reactive in certain situations. In particular, it can explosively react with water. Is it possible to choose a less reactive coolant? Liquid Sodium Chloride? Lead?
-
Apart from the 200,000 odd people killed by the military at the end of WWII with nuclear bombs I doubt if an average of more than 5 people a year have died in nuclear mishaps since the start of the nuclear age , a number that have died on numerous occasions in petrol tanker accidents.
Yet this strange fear of nuclear power persist despite the large number of people that die from various other forms of power generation and the attendant pollution.
-
I doubt if an average of more than 5 people a year have died in nuclear mishaps since the start of the nuclear age ,
The estimates of the effects of the Chernobyl disaster are all over the board.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects
Perhaps around 200 died within a year of so of the disaster due to the explosion and acute radiation exposure.
The number of people globally affected by the disaster are likely in the thousands.
Likewise the Fukushima disaster has a small number of people that had immediate lethal doses of radiation, but there is debate about global spikes in infant mortality following the disaster, although perhaps no causative link has been established yet.
I do agree that much of this, however, is just panic and fear, but there do seem to be some real effects of increased birth defects, or increased rates of thyroid cancer in some areas.
-
If a plane crashes or a petrol tanker or a malaysian ferry goes downkilling 300 or so people it is forgotten in a few days but the 7 mile island partial melt down that killed no one ruined the American nuclear industry and has gone down in history as a major disaster.
In 1952 there was an air pollution incident in London caused by coal burning power stations and domestic fires, it resulted in an increase of 4000 deaths compared to a comarable period.
-
If a plane crashes or a petrol tanker or a malaysian ferry goes downkilling 300 or so people it is forgotten in a few days but the 7 mile island partial melt down that killed no one ruined the American nuclear industry and has gone down in history as a major disaster.
In 1952 there was an air pollution incident in London caused by coal burning power stations and domestic fires, it resulted in an increase of 4000 deaths compared to a comparable period.
but the coal burning power stations are cleaner now and don't leave the area contaminated for 40 years after neither did they cause Thyroid Cancer, Leukemia, increase in nervous system disorders, diabetes, Birth defects,miscarriages, premature births, and stillbirth increases , neither was the farmland remained contaminated from the decaying components of plutonium.
After the Chernobyl accident, almost 400,000 people were forced to
leave their homes for their own safety – homes and villages that had been part of
their families for generations. Over 2,000 towns and villages were bulldozed to the ground, and was a global disaster .. this was just one nuclear power station mishap..there have been 22 incidents so far.. so you really think that is a good risk to take to get our power?
-
Yep, and you have studies done by Russian scientists presenting quite different figures than what you see in Western media.
Chernobyl. (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-26-01.html)
-
This UN assessment summary supports a lower estimate of fatalities that can be blamed on the Chernobyl reactor disaster: http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
-
Sure they did :)
As did IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) and WHO (World Health Organization)
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"