Notes on Nuclear Power [Citation Needed]

Mar 24, 2011 08:42

... This is just a quick note. No substance, no references, no citations ( Read more... )

energy, reference, ecology, science

Leave a comment

Comments 27

hafoc March 25 2011, 00:05:51 UTC
Nuclear power is scary. You are using facts and logic so you must be one of them there libruls or commonists or natseys or something.

Reply


hafoc March 25 2011, 00:10:21 UTC
...although to be fair to the antinuke crowd, I would have to agree with them about the TYPE of reactor.

With all the different, safer nuclear reactor designs that have been developed since, our power reactors are STILL all just remakes of a 1952 submarine engine. There's no possible reactor design in the world less refined and more primitive than that...

...except the 1942 graphite-core type, designed to produce bomb-making material, that the Russians tried to use to generate electricity. And we all know what happened with that one.

Reply


bfdragon March 25 2011, 01:23:06 UTC
Err.. isn't it that "Certain Radius" that we are worried about?

Also, many elements that are potently part of the fallout act differently in the body then the carbon-14 that is in the coal. Iodine-131 for instance tends to concentrate in the thyroid. The problem isn't just for people, but for the pants and animals that make up the food we eat.

Reply

hinoki March 25 2011, 03:01:39 UTC
The problem isn't just for people, but for the pants and animals...


Wait, what? When did we start eating the pants off of the animals?!

(I'm SO sorry.. but I spit-took when I read that and simply couldn't resist...)

Reply

notthebuddha March 25 2011, 09:49:45 UTC
Iodine-131's half life is 8 days; that means in 90 days, it will have diminished to 1/2000 of its previous amount, and will be essentially undetectable in 90 more. You'll lose the season's crops for human consumption, but you might can salvage some value by converting to feed for the animals you'll have to postpone slaughtering for about the same time.

As for wildlife, which ones does Japan have that live long enough to get cancer that might be in the area? Tortises and maybe dolphins, anything unreplaceable?

Reply


vrghr March 25 2011, 02:32:57 UTC
Hmm... Not sure the difference is quite that extreme. Here a rather excellent chart though, that shows relative exposures from a variety of sources:

http://xkcd.com/radiation/

While perhaps your assertion of the difference between coal fired emissions and those of the damaged reactors isn't quite accurate, according to the link, it DOES show that a whole lot of other exposures that we ignore or take for granted are far stronger. Yup, there's a whole lot of 'hysteriaizin' goin' on!

VARGR

Reply


Leave a comment

Up