Notes on Nuclear Power [Citation Needed]

[athelind]

... This is just a quick note. No substance, no references, no citations.


A lot of people are up in arms about how the situation in Japan underscores the "dangers of nuclear power".

To this point, the radiation leaked into the environment is minimal. Things are Very Bad Indeed if you're within a certain radius of the plant, but my suspicion is that the increased health risks and hazards caused by this amount of radiation will still be substantially less than those caused by fossil fuel plants.

Let me emphasize this:

The environmental and human impact of a complex of nuclear reactors failing catastrophically after a major disaster is less than that of fossil fuel plants in the regular course of their operation.^{[Citation Needed]}

I will endeavor to find numbers to confirm or deny this next week, after I return home.

---

Yes, I just used the Lorax as an icon in a possibly-pro-nuclear post.

---

Comments

[pathia.livejournal.com]

I'm fairly certain coal power plants in particular spew out quite a bit of 'radiation'. Not sure of any sources on it though, I've seen it mentioned frequently in the last few days.

[fengi.livejournal.com]

That's one massive "citation needed". I think this falls into the range of statements which one shoudn't offer - let alone in bold increased size - until after one has presented clear evidence. I suspect this is going to involve a lot of caveats, dubious comparisons and selective data.

In short: Chernobyl.

[paka.livejournal.com]

My gut feeling, too, has always been that no, nuclear power isn't a great solution - it's a limited resource and when it goes boom it really goes boom - but you have to get power from somewhere, and I'd far rather it be a nuclear source if you're not going for geothermal/solar/hydroelectric power. And what Pathia said; f'rex people in Arizona have health problems resulting from Uranium mining, but compare that to the much greater health and natural problems from coal mining throughout Appalachia, and that's before you stick the stuff in a plant and start spewing junk.

[terminotaur.livejournal.com]

I don't have the time to go looking, but this might be a start to your searching...
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/coalvswind/c02d.html

Of course you will also have to assess the potential catastrophic failure situation you talk of as well.

[moonfires.livejournal.com]

The biggest problem with nuclear reactors is spent fuel storage. Many reactors are reaching their limit of on-site storage, and the federal government is years late in opening up a national storage site due to lots of NIMBY and politicking.
We spent billions on a repository that might not even be used.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain_nuclear_waste_repository

[hafoc.livejournal.com]

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.

[hafoc.livejournal.com]

...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.

[bfdragon.livejournal.com]

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.

[vrghr.livejournal.com]

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