Bishop Hill The benefits of radiation
Apr 7, 2013 Energy: nuclear Somewhat off topic for this blog, but I thought this paper by a group calling itself Scientists for the Public Understanding of Radiation was quite interesting and probably rather timely too.
The health and economic prosperity of the human race depend on applications of science in engineering and medicine, and these have involved the outer (or electronic) part of atoms. Use of the inner (or nuclear) part has raised public and political apprehension when used for energy production but less so when used for human health e.g. following the legacy of Marie Curie. The cause of this concern is historical and cultural with no basis in science. Appreciating this misunderstanding in everyday terms is not difficult, but future prospects for world economic prosperity and a sustainable environment depend critically on overcoming these concerns through explanatory education and improved public trust in science. Only then may the known benefits of nuclear technology (access to power, clean water, food preservation, as well as advances in healthcare) be widely accepted and realised.
The full article can be found here.
Reader Comments (37)
This is something that the crooks at the BBC, NBC and ABC should be concentrating on rather than the non science of fossil fuels.
"This is something that the crooks at the BBC, NBC and ABC should be concentrating on rather than the non science of fossil fuels."
Well, they are. Just in their usual way. The wrong way.
Savage's Law.
"The General Public's increasing irrational fear of all "radiation", regardless of its quantum, source or nature is directly proportional to the General Public's increasing ignorance of all things even vaguely "scientific"."
"The cause of this concern is historical and cultural with no basis in science." But with considerable input from the former Soviet Union and its creatures in the West.
The Guardian seems to have made a choice... Savage's Law in action.
Bacofoil hats adjusted and welding goggles tight everybody?
Electrosensitivity
You haven't heard the last of it.
In the Oxford Union debate (1985) David Lange argued that "nuclear weapons are morally indefensible," and included his memorable statement "I can smell the uranium on it [your breath]...!"
The comical rhetoric has since morphed into a NZ cultural mill stone to include absolutely anything prefaced with the word 'nuclear'. Education hasn't a prayer here, well perhaps not unless reactors are rugby ball shaped.
Isn't this more of the same we've had from the CAGW people though? In fact often enough they are the same people and I notice the document gives the nod to "low-carbon" energy. Trust us, we're scientists, we should drive policy. The nuclear industry enjoys a massive subsidy from taxpayers and from people living near the plants, in the form of reinsurance which no commercial organisation will touch, but because, as with the banks, no money actually changes hands until there's a disaster, they can pretend it's not a massive subsidy.
Didn't these scientists' models tell us that an accident like Fukushima was essentially impossible, until it happened? And we should trust them, now?
We've been lucky with weather events in the 50 years that these plants have been operating, because any of them would do a Fukushima in a disorderly shutdown. As will be familiar to many here, there have been weather events in the past which reshaped the coast of south-east England, throwing half of Hastings castle into the sea, submerging a large area of the Netherlands until it was partially reclaimed in the 20th century, and removing large areas of eastern Schleswig-Holstein.
And we still have no credible permanent solution for disposing of high-level waste, which will stay hazardous for hundreds of thousands of years.
Perfectly suitable for this blog and its science literate readers.
An excellent essay by a William Tucker (E=MC2) was published in the Energy Tribune and on the Climate Realists blog July17 2010 - I don't have a direct link - but well worth a 10 min read.
Ultimately, Thorium reactors will be the answer.
@G. Watkins
Is it this one?
http://www.energytribune.com/2771/understanding-e-mc2
I hope that people will take the time to download the statement at the address given, read it and then give their opinion in the survey, anonymous if you want, all at the address given. The science is simple, no maths, just six pages of English. Sorry it is a bit longer than we would have liked but it takes a little space to roll back the legacy of the Cold War with its threats. We are facing some real threats, like socio-economic instability, food, water etc. Nuclear radiation is no global threat or even much of a local one. There was no radiation disaster at Fukushima. Read why....
The troubling issue for me is not so much the technology (in the West) as that has proved more robust than expected. The tricky issue is the fallibility of the owners/operators.
At Fukushima it was well known that the protective bunds were well below the levels of previous tsunamis in the region. Worse, everyone knew that the spent fuel ponds were never intended to store multiple cores for many years but it had become accepted practise.
Wrt the waste "problem", there are technical solutions but it is the political/local issues which are blocking implementation here.
This information has been well known for quite some time. The Japanese know all too well as those that suffered low dose radiation at the time of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have a higher life expectance than the average. Now this could just be down to the fact that this group is monitored closely, but it is the best evidence we have that at worst low dose radiation is not harmful.
The BBC did an excellent program back in the early 2000's called Nuclear Nightmares which showed that all the fuss over the radiation from Chernobyl was over blown and false. Its a pity they don't follow their own research. It must have been the last decent documentary they ever made.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/07_july/11/horizon.shtml
Lots of good information here http://atomicinsights.com/1996/04/chernobyl-health-effects-best-available-data.html but be careful as Rod Adams who runs the site is of the opinion that AGW is a pressing issue. It doesn't however detract from the excellent information he provides.
And scientific misdirection (cover-up?), see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21717110 and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22166484 .
Check out, BL Cohen, Cancer Risk from Low-Level Radiation , American Journal of Roentgenology (2002), and EJ Calabrese, Hormesis: Why it is important to toxicology and toxicologists, Environmental Journal of Toxicology & Chemistry (2009).
Apr 7, 2013 at 9:56 PM | HeavySighed
sigh
there was no accident at Fukishima; there was a larger than anticipated tsunami. The tsunami killed 100s of 1000s of peop;e. None of the Japanese nuclear reactors killed anyone; during or after the tsunami.
yes; there was one small item of bad design (the air intake for the generators turned out to be below the higher than expected tsunami; and allowed water to flood the emergncy generators).
2ndly the waste stored in ponds on site was only there because the green movement had embargoed itsmove to the re-processing plant many miles inland (law of unitneded consequencies - it was (crazy as this sounds) deemed unsafe to move the spent rods; safer to leave them in **temporary** storage ponds on the 2nd floor of the reactor buildings; madness shear utter madness).
The reactor shut down as expected; the 2ndry; tertiary etc fall back plans all worked as expected. You should be aware that they did NOT run out of fall back plans eithe r(fall back plan : if that did not work then do this) so the emergency response plans actually worked exactly as designed once the generator failed.
There was NO core exposure.
Hydrogen vented from the reactors; and then when ignited the sides of the cosmetic outer building blew off exactly the way they were designed to do (because they knew H2 may build up outside the reactor PWR; and may go bang; so they made sure the *BANG* would not damage the PWR, simples).
NO ONE WAS KILLED by a low level nuclear incident. AN it was only an nuclear incident BECAUSE it took place on a nuclear plant. One (posibly two) Fukishima workers WERE killed by the tsunami.
I haven't had a chance to read SPUR's appeal (the download locked up) but I guess it would be aimed at people who repeat urban myths - disorderly shut down indeed - the shutdown started when the earthquake was detected; and; if left unattended even after the emergency generators failed over an hour later; would NOT have breached containment as there was insuffeciant enrgy left in the core to burn through the PWR vessel.
Fukishima was not anything near to a disaster. The tsunami was; and anyone conflating the incident at Fukishima with a disaster has a perverted sense of prioities.
For radiation dossages see here http://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart and especially read and understand this http://xkcd.com/radiation
And also you may like to find out just how radiactive N Wales is compared to the Fukishima 'exclusion zone'; oh and Dartmoor too.
SPUR sound like they are long over due; and have a mountain even bigger than the CAGW one to climb.
.
I suggested in the comments of P.U.R. that they would not convince the average Eng. Lit. Graduate let alone the average 'Joe'.
Units of radiation are a mess - Sieverts, Becquerels, Grays as well as Rads, Roentgens, Rems etc.
It is very difficult to explain to Joe that driving a car is much more dangerous than all our nuclear reactors put together.
Thorium, especially LFTR, seems to be the long term solution. Apparently, the Chinese are already exploring the possibilities. Low pressure and minimal long lasting waste products.
So I'm looking forward to a BH campaign to have the UK's first long term nuclear waste storage site underneath somewhere like Oxford. Or there's some disused underground tunnels under London, you could stick it there. It's not dangerous.
You could get your mate Delingpole to promote it too. And threaten to have anyone opposing it lynched (only joking of course)...
Wouldn't be allowed in central Oxford...unless the waste could somehow be persuaded to use the Park & Ride buses or to ride a bike.
Any motorised transportation is streng verboten in the City Centre.
I have given talks on nuclear power including a section on radiation hormesis. I have found that most people have been brain-washed from a very young age into believing that all radiation is dangerous and to be avoided at all cost. Yet again it is another case of green-washing, with a mostly scientifically ignorant population (including politicians of course) accepting the scare-tactics and being totally close-minded. BitBucket is a prime example of somebody who is totally immune to any scientific logic. Professor James Lovelock has said he would be happy to have spent nuclear fuel stored under his house (reduced heating bills), and why not?
Check out radiation hormesis at Ramsar in Persia (Iran). There are many articles out there about the nonsense that the LNT model is.
you may like to find out just how radiactive N Wales is compared to the Fukishima 'exclusion zone'; oh and Dartmoor too
Fair enough, where in North Wales or Dartmoor am I going to find several the several MBq per square metre which is found in the Fukushima exclusion zone? Natural radioactivity in those areas is orders of magnitude lower.
You can put the nuclear waste site in my back garden. The level of ignorance surrounding all aspects of anything labelled 'nuclear' is astounding and can be blamed on the effort of generations of greens to demonise it. A couple of the green reps have shown up here and confirm what I have said. The greens have a track record in pedalling and encouraging ignorance as a means of stopping most people from asking tricky questions. They did the same with DDT, a chemical that could have largely eradicated malaria by now. Used without control and inappropriately it can be a hazard. However, as the Romans knew, the poison is in the dose. The subtlety of that phrase is lost on the zealots that can only respond with extremism.
We are going through the same tedious process today with fossil fuels. The good old BBC, realising that, despite its overt propaganda campaign, people don't buy the AGW scam are still running stories like this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22044229
Anyone else remember when Horizon was required viewing and the cameraman knew how to hold his camera still?
Good article. I'm not sure we can blame 'greens' exclusively for irrational fear of radiation. It is too closely linked with the words 'Hiroshima' and 'Nagasaki' in the public's consciousness.
Wondering what the Chernobyl exclusion zone looked like in 2007?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcAEpCt1MdU
Ed Calabrese on LNT:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxcyUle81_8
"Low dose linearity is really the new homeopathy"
Slightly off topic: New York Times issued an invitation for dialogue on new energy solutions as a response to climate change.
The following response was sent by Nobel laureate Dr. Brian Josephson:
The NYT chose not to publish the above in the responses.
So why is an actual Nobel prize winner (as opposed to the well-known poeple who just claim to have won one) being ignored?
Peter dtm;
Your comments conflict with the final report into the events at Fukushima so it would be interesting to know where you got your info?
As an example, here is an excerpt from the report concerning Reactor 1:
<< It will be months or years before the exact status of the reactor core and vessels can be determined, but computer modelling performed by both TEPCO and NISA suggests that Reactor Unit 1’s core was exposed two to three hours after the earthquake, suffered damage in the subsequent hour, and the RPV would have failed in five to 15 hours after the earthquake. The current assumptions (based on this analysis rather than observations) are that the fuel has melted and a considerable amount is lying at the bottom of the RPV. However, if the RPV has failed as predicted, some fuel may have dropped and accumulated in the drywell. Computer modelling of the expected severe accident phenomena is discussed further in Annex L.>>
It is also clear from the report that the operators struggled heroically to regain some control of the situation in the almost total absence of any instrumentation or control system since the tsunami drowned not just the generators (bar one) but most of the switchboards. They opened relief valves manually despite high levels of radiation, rigged up portable compressors to power valves and even took the batteries from their own cars to power instruments to try and find out what was happening. All of that was far beyond any fallback plan. At the time, of course, they were working round the clock fully aware that their homes and families had been hit but they stuck to the task.
There's a lot of good stuff to read but the best of the lot in my opinion is still Chesser and Baker's paper - Living with Chernobyl, http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/dmo2/Chesser%20Baker%2006%20Chernobyl.pdf
Phillip Bratby, you've lectured people on radiation hormesis? That is mind boggling unless you trained in medicine before becoming an engineer and windmill activist. The medical profession doesn't seem to agree on the subject so what do you have to contribute? That casts your views on anything else in an entirely new light for me...
Steve Jones, malaria could have been eradicated? Are you a malaria researcher? Do you have any relevant qualification that can justify such an assertion?
Maybe Steve Jones and Phillip Bratby could do a lecture tour. Mike Jackson could make up a trio with an explanation of how white asbestos is completely safe and I'm sure you'll find someone here who says smoking is harmless to make a foursome... Boy what a stonker of a lecture that'll be...
Somehow a post I submitted earlier has not appeared so I will give it another shot (although I usually agree with the old cliche: If at first you do not succeed, its time to head for the pub!). The post was not incendiary so I can only guess it failed somewhere in the ether.
Peter dtm @ 01:59...
Your comments contradict the findings of the official final report into the events at Fukushima.
To take just one excerpt:
<< It will be months or years before the exact status of the reactor core and vessels can be determined, but computer modelling performed by both TEPCO and NISA suggests that Reactor Unit 1’s core was exposed two to three hours after the earthquake, suffered damage in the subsequent hour, and the RPV would have failed in five to 15 hours after the earthquake. The current assumptions (based on this analysis rather than observations) are that the fuel has melted and a considerable amount is lying at the bottom of the RPV. However, if the RPV has failed as predicted, some fuel may have dropped and accumulated in the drywell. Computer modelling of the expected severe accident phenomena is discussed further in Annex L.>>
The report also states that the explosion in No 4 reactor demolished the upper floors and walls of the building - far worse than simply blowing off the cladding.
The situation got far beyond any fallback plan. The operators toiled heroically to try and recover a semblance of control. They rigged up portable compressors to power valves, went into radiated areas to open valves manually and even scavenged batteries from their own cars to power instruments. They carried on working in the full knowledge that the tsunami had also hit where their families lived.
The report is very clear that the plant's safety systems were overwhelmed and the subsequent damage was massive. Pressure and/or temperature levels exceeded the max safe limits on reactor vessels and containments.
It was a close-run thing.
Apr 8, 2013 at 1:17 PM | Unregistered CommenterBitBucket
I see you have decided to appoint yourself as the arbiter who decides who can and cannot hold opinions. Your desire to close down debate is precisely what my original post was about. Were you aware of this when posting?
BitBucket,
Presumably you'll now furnish us with your certification for being an omniscient gobshite? If not, then refrain from passing judgement on people who can read, understand and make rational judgements on evidence.
Maybe it's just that some people are much cleverer than you?
Steve Jones.
DNFTT BB. He/she is like zebedee; a troll out to disrupt the site, full of insults and empty of logic.
Apr 8, 2013 at 5:41 PM | Registered CommenterPhillip Bratby
You are absolutely right. I normally don't bite but had a moment of weakness.
@pter_dtm
"The tsunami killed 100s of 1000s of peop;e."
While not the main point of your post, the official death toll is about 16,000 with a further 2,600 or so still missing.
Empty logic? What is empty about questioning your degree of expertise on radiation hormesis or Steve Jones expert status on malaria control?
RE storage of spent fuel rods:
There is no engineering or technology related lack of solution to this. More than one plant in the US has been decommissioned, including one of the plants I worked at. One of the steps is to move from water cooled Spent Fuel pool storage to Dry Cask storage. The containment casks are designed to serve as both a storage and transportation vessel. Sites which have received approval for this currently continue to store on site. However there is no good reason for not shipping these to a storage facility. The American west has a lot of property perfect for such a facility. In fact there are multiple Native Tribes which have offered land for such a facility.
steveta @ 10:32 AM Apr 8, 2013
Maybe because he has swallowed the Rossi fraud hook, line, and sinker.
Human brains can deteriorate with age and even Nobel prize winners are not immune to the process.