Nuclear energy is more expensive than renewables, CSIRO report finds

Sure you can release water over and over, and the Pacific Ocean will show everything within their guidelines. Meanwhile, we can all ingest particles from that released water. If we're lucky, they'll pass right through our body. Otherwise - not quite so lucky.

Are you just going to continue to be cool this with water for hundreds and hundreds of years, and continue to release this water into the ocean incessantly. The insanity of all of this is that you're now calling for more nuclear.

What do you expect the UN to say in this regard? "We can no longer allow Fukushima to release radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean, dues to Cesium isotopes". There are environmental groups calling for these kinds of actions. The sad reality is that there is NO answer. The best answer - NO MORE NUKES.

 

The biological half life of Tritium is 10 days. Its physical half life is 12.5 years.
The biological half life of Cesium is 70 days. Its physical half life is 30 years.

Do you understand that this means the probability of decay within your body before your body expels it is very minimal?

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34120488/

Again, you get a higher dose of radiation from a cross country flight. You're speaking with the language of emotions, trying to convey the idea that I should be afraid of some great danger posed by Fukashima. A lot of this fear stems from an intent do demonize radioactivity through over exaggeration of the health risks it poses. Your body is constantly bombarded with radiation. Both man made and natural. Do you eat bananas? Do you have a smoke detector? Do you have granite counter tops? Do you heat with natural gas? You have more cause to be concerned about radon in your basement than you do Fukushima cesium in your fish.

https://www.nationalradondefense.com/radon-information/radon-map.html

I expect them to publish data. They did publish data.

I can read the data and see that there's very little cause for concern. Its local effect shows indiscernible health impact, and its global effect barely bumps the needle of natural background radiation

https://www.thoughtco.com/map-of-natural-radioactivity-in-the-us-3961098

 

The story has been updated. Looks like they made some of the changes I recommended.



Look at that huge energy gap in the morning and in the evening. What type of fuel are they using for that I wonder?

 

You are quite underestimating the danger of cesium. First of all, you are equating man-made radioactive Cesium with naturally occurring Cesium. Cesium is one of the main elements that is the reason behind Chernobyl's Exclusion Zone (1040 Square Miles).

https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/PHS/PHS.aspx?phsid=575&toxid=107

Radioactive forms of cesium are unstable and eventually change into other more stable elements through the process of radioactive decay. The two most important radioactive isotopes of cesium are 134Cs and 137Cs. Radioactive isotopes are constantly decaying or changing into different isotopes by giving off radiation...

As 134Cs and 137Cs decay, beta particles and gamma radiation are given off.
...
However, radiocesium can enter plants upon falling onto the surface of leaves.
...
If you were to breathe, eat, drink, touch, or come close to large amounts of radioactive cesium, cells in your body could become damaged from the radiation that might penetrate your entire body, much like x-rays, even if you did not touch the radioactive cesium. You would probably experience similar effects if you were exposed to any other substance with similar radioactivity. You might also experience acute radiation syndrome, which includes such effects as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding, coma, and even death.

 

I'm not confused. Cesium 137 & Cesium 133 behave chemically the same in your body. You treat it like a salt, and you excrete it in your sweat and in your urine within a couple of weeks. The radioactive version doesn't release a lot of energy during that time, because it has a fairly long half life. It decays slowly. So you'd need a lot of it in your body to overwhelm your immune system's natural ability to remove dead and damaged cells.

How did plant and animal life fair in that zone?

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/how-chernobyl-has-become-unexpected-haven-wildlife

Doesn't sound so catastrophic for the Russian animals, does it? Now let's compare this to Fukushima. The cesium, & iodine released at Chernobyl were released as gasses. Cesium vaporizes at extremely high temperatures, and condenses at high temperatures. It's very dense, but it can be an aerosol in very tiny particle sizes. If Chernobyl had a secondary containment vessel, like Fukushima did, most of the Cesium would have condensed inside the vessel. The only thing that escaped from Fukushima's secondary containment were gasses that were intentionally purged to prevent the rupture of the vessel. While some cesium was allowed to escape, the amount that escaped was tiny comparatively. Again, read the report. There's a great comparison between Chernobyl and Fukushima.



Look at the difference in the amount released between the two. It's a tiny fraction, with 80% of it sitting harmlessly at the bottom of the pacific. These elements are insoluble in water, and are heavy. They sink to the bottom. The water they are sitting in easily absorbs their radiation. Ever see video of students peering into the reactor at MIT? The only thing between them and the active reactor is 10 feet of water.

I'm not saying there's not cause for concern. I'm saying the risk is being blown way out of proportion. The primary concern in situations like this are the elements that decay rapidly, and are soluble in the human body. The Xenon, for example, is inert. You don't absorb it when you breath it in. That's why they don't talk about the Xenon emission which was the highest concentration of the release.

The biggest concern there is the amount of Iodine 131 released. That has a short half life, and it does get absorbed. It has a half life of 8 days. This means it decays rapidly and very radioactive. The iodine is soluble and it will sit in your thyroid emitting radiation until it has finished decaying in a couple of months. This is why they make you take iodine-127. They are both chemically the same in your body, just like Cesium 137 & Cesium 133 are chemically the same. The 127 saturates your ability to absorb the 131 so you excrete the 131. Regardless, this is why they are closely monitoring the responders for thyroid cancer. The report makes clear they haven't found any elevated occurrences of it within them.

The cesium that was released into the atmosphere by venting was small. And again, it's a heavy element. Most of what did escape fell within a few hundred yards of the plant. Much of that has been scooped up and contained. There was a huge project washing houses, removing top soil, etc. Unless you're out there eating dirt, you're not going to get any appreciable amount of cesium in your body. For comparison, there are naturally quite popular radioactive beaches in Brazil that are more radioactive than the dirt in the Fukushima exclusion zone. Don't eat the sand at the beach, and you'll be fine. There's only about 50 people that died as a direct result of the Chernobyl melt down. They were all on site playing in the dust. Zero people died as a direct result of Fukushima. They knew to filter their air for particles. They knew not to allow particles to enter their body.

The further forward we get in time the less and less of a disaster this is proving to be. A disaster that takes decades to kill you isn't much of a disaster...

 

Look at that beautiful Cherenkov radiation MIT's 6 megawatt reactor is emitting right into those student's faces. One of em's even poking it with a stick!

Notice the ladder...what do you think that's for?

 

Your Posts are full of untruths…


https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-020-0099-x

• Intensive monitoring after the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident in Japan revealed radionuclide, including radiocaesium (137Cs), contamination in the terrestrial environment, in forests, soils, cropland, paddy fields, urban areas and rivers.

 

Boom! Chukka-lukka-lukka!

 

You are leading with your chin.

 

I don't know, that one sentence refutation might compel someone to actually read a paper. Any paper on the subject. Maybe even the one offered as a refutation...that actually confirms everything I said.

Though I'm at a loss to see how a paper that documents the distribution of radionucleotides refutes any of my claims about the risk posed by those radionucleotides. I suppose I could make a post that references Onda.



Look at all those micro Sieverts...

 

View attachment 247493 View attachment 247494

Here's two images that tell a story. The first in the natural background radiation map in Japan. The second is a map produced more than 10 years ago. Current man made radiation is much less, because as the mass of the material decays its becquerels decrease. That's why we measure things in half lives. The decay is nonlinear.

If you look at the map on the left you can see that those that live in the Shikoku region are getting over 1.10 mSv / year of natural background radiation and virtually nothing from Fukushima. Someone that lives in the Tohoku region would have less than 1 mSv/y of natural radiation, and 1mSv/y from Fukushima. OMG Fukushima doubled the radiation exposure for those poor Tohokuians!

But how bad is that? Pilots experience about 3.07 mSv/y. People that live in Denver get about about 10 mSv/y. Man, if you know anyone that lives in Denver, you should beg them to move to Japan for the lower radiation exposure.

10 years ago, the people that live in the orange and red areas were getting 35 mSv/y.

The primary U.S. limit for occupational exposure to ionizing radiation is 5,000 mrem (50 mSv)/year.

So yes, there is man made radiation there. I am not and have not disputed that. What I am disputing is the idea that it's the boogyman you are portraying it to be.

 

I think it's funny how the goal in map making seems to be to put as much red on the map as possible or as little red on the map as possible depending on your motives. Notice the scale change between the two maps?

All I care about are the numbers. They don't scare me a bit.

 

I think the disconnect here is the fact that it's really easy to detect man made radiation. We can detect it in incredibly small quantities, and people generally have very little concept of how much is dangerous. So they take the stance that any amount is too much, completely ignorant of the dose they receive naturally.

 

The problem with all your analysis is that 1. You are no expert. 2. You don't just look at ambient radiation dosages. You can ingest radioactive particles, and if you're lucky, they'll be passed on. Otherwise they may lodge in an organ. This is a boogeyman, because it can cause short term and long term damage, including cancers. 3. You want to live in Chernobyl, by all means - move there. This will be your neighbor. There are 3 of these corium cores in Fukushima. After 12 years, they haven't even started to do anything with them.


It is ridiculous when novices, who know nothing about the dangers of these plants, act like they're some kind of expert, because they parrot some industry statements. And let's not forget - there is no containment policy for nuclear power high-level radioactive wastes.

 

Stop appealing to authority.

Appeal to data.

Don't just tell me I don't know what I'm talking about ,(I do by the way)

Show me.

Quantify this risk, please.

No more allusions to some unquantifiable danger that will appear in some unmeasurable amount of time.

 

And you just said NOTHING - nothing about ingesting radioactive particles. Nothing about the corium cores. Nothing about storage of high level radioactive waste.

 

I wrote quite extensively about the internal effects.

I don't plan on eating corium.

I'd love to see some data from you.

Side bar，did you know that I-131 is sometimes used to treat thyroid diseases like cancer?

 

Your "data" is nothing but industry propaganda.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(16)30112-7/fulltext

30 years have passed since the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, and 5 years have passed since the crisis at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. After the Chernobyl disaster, a significant increase in thyroid cancer was reported among children and adolescents exposed to radioactive iodine released at the time of the accident in Belarus, Russia, and the Ukraine.

https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation

Radiation of certain wavelengths, called ionizing radiation, has enough energy to damage DNA and cause cancer. Ionizing radiation includes radon, x-rays, gamma rays, and other forms of high-energy radiation.

And these are medical sources, which tend to be conservative about cause and effect. What the industry loves to ignore, and you continue to ignore it as well are the waste products. Here is an extensive article about waste plutonium (the industry - no solution to disposal - there is no long-term repository). Note: Plutonium is just one of many waste products. The NCBI has similar studies for the many others.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK599413/

The half-life is the time it takes for half of the atoms of a radionuclide to undergo radioactive decay and change it into a different isotope. The half- life of plutonium-238 is 87.7 years. The half-life of plutonium-239 is 24,100 years. The half-life of plutonium-240 is 6,560 years.

When you breathe air that contains plutonium, some of it will get trapped in your lungs. Some of the trapped plutonium will move to other parts of your body, mainly your bones and liver. The amount of plutonium that stays in your lungs depends on the solubility of the plutonium that is in the air you breathe.
...
Plutonium leaves your body very slowly in the urine and feces. If plutonium were to enter your lungs today, much of the plutonium would still be in your body 30–50 years later.
...
You may develop cancer depending on how much plutonium is in your body and for how long it remains in your body. The types of cancers you would most likely develop are cancers of the lung, bones, and liver. These types of cancers have occurred in workers who were exposed to plutonium in air at much higher levels than is in the air that most people breathe.

 

Let me try a different approach.

How much plutonium have the Japanese ingested as a result of Fukushima?

 

Australia is subsidizing coal power.
Not Zero? NSW State Government to Pay up to $225 Million per Annum to a Single Coal Plant to Remain Open
Eric Worrall
“… after warnings the shift to renewable energy has fallen off track.”

 

You're not getting off that easy. I presented three major issues, and your answer is a QUESTION. What do you plan to do with the High Level radioactive wastes?

 

When determining a course of action it's prudent to start by defining the scope of the problem. I've done plenty to provide you with concrete data from credible research to fill in the gaps of the scope of the problem. It's your turn. The source you quoted stated:

When you breathe air that contains plutonium, some of it will get trapped in your lungs. Some of the trapped plutonium will move to other parts of your body, mainly your bones and liver. The amount of plutonium that stays in your lungs depends on the solubility of the plutonium that is in the air you breathe.

Please answer my question so we can complete the definition of the scope of the problem. The answer to my question is in the paper you provided in your rebuttal.

 

Just sayin'.

 

No, that’s BS. Like this pathetic industry, you want to control the narrative. Answer the question- What are you going to do with High Level Radioactive Waste?