Irresponsible Physicians Oppose Nuclear Energy

Dec 15, 2013 Full story: Forbes.com 268

The Columbia Generating Station's nuclear power plant in Richland, Washington that, together with hydroelectric power, gives Washington State the lowest carbon, cleanest energy footprint in America, delivered with the lowest cost per kWhr of any state.

Full Story
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#22 Jan 4, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
The Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant accident
UNSCEAR's assessment of levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the nuclear accident after the 2011 great east-Japan earthquake and tsunami
On 11 March 2011 the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant suffered major damage from the failure of equipment after the magnitude 9.0 great east-Japan earthquake and subsequent tsunami. It was the largest civilian nuclear accident since the Chernobyl accident in 1986. Radioactive material was released from the damaged plant and tens of thousands of people were evacuated.
UNSCEAR is in the process of finalizing a major study to assess the radiation doses and associated effects on health and environment. At the high-level meeting on nuclear safety and security convened in New York on 22 September 2011, the Secretary-General of the United Nations called on Member States to ensure that UNSCEAR has the necessary capacity and resources to accomplish its task. The work was also endorsed by the UN General Assembly resolution 66/70 on 9 December 2011. To date eighteen UN Member States have offered more than 80 experts to conduct the analytical work cost-free. When finalized, it will be the most comprehensive scientific analysis of the information available to date.
An interim report to the General Assembly (A/67/46) was issued in September 2012. The draft UNSCEAR Fukushima Report was discussed by the Scientific Committee at its 60th session (27-31 May 2013). The summary report that is finally adopted by the Committee will be presented to the General Assembly, and the detailed report with the scientific data and evaluation underpinning the summary will be published separately.
Among others, the assessment is addressing the following questions:
•How much radioactive material was released and what was its composition?
•How was it dispersed over land and sea, and where are the hotspots?
•How does the accident compare with those at Chernobyl (1986), Three Mile Island (1979) and the Windscale Fire (1957)?
•What are the radiation effects on the environment and on foodstuffs?
•What is the likely radiation impact on human health and the environment?
From nature.com ;

Costing and planning of new nuclear power stations will now be carried out in the light of three data points: Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011. In each case, excuses are readily made by supporters of nuclear power. For Three Mile Island, they were that radiation releases were minimal, and that a supposedly unsophisticated American public confused the accident with the plot of The China Syndrome. Communist incompetence, we are told, contributed to Chernobyl being as bad as it was. The race is now on to find a narrative that explains away the ugly reality of the Fukushima disaster. The alleged uniqueness of the earthquake and tsunami event is already emerging as the front runner.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#23 Jan 6, 2014
"Billions will die"

They better start dying quickly, cuz so far no one has died from this radiactive spill.

As to excuse, what are Big Oil's for its (actually) exploding bombs across land and sea?
Dan

Upton, NY

#24 Jan 7, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>You might be immune to these concerns but you are not immune to nuclear radiation:
An estimated 14,000 excess deaths in the United States are linked to the radioactive fallout from the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan, according to a major new article in the December 2011 edition of the International Journal of Health Services. This is the first peer-reviewed study published in a medical journal documenting the health hazards of Fukushima.
[The authors] note that their estimate of 14,000 excess U.S. deaths in the 14 weeks after the Fukushima meltdowns is comparable to the 16,500 excess deaths in the 17 weeks after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986. The rise in reported deaths after Fukushima was largest among U.S. infants under age one. The 2010-2011 increase for infant deaths in the spring was 1.8 percent, compared to a decrease of 8.37 percent in the preceding 14 weeks.
Children are innately sensitive to the carcinogenic effects of radiation, fetuses even more so. Like Chernobyl, the accident at Fukushima is of global proportions. Unusual levels of radiation have been discovered in British Columbia, along the West Coast and East Coast of the United States and in Europe, and heavy contamination has been found in oceanic waters.
This is not a medical journal
The journal contains articles on health and social policy, political economy and sociology, history and philosophy, ethics and law in the areas of health and health care. The editor is a professor of public policy, sociology and political studies. Hardly what I would consider a valid peer reviewed journal determining medical outcomes. I reviewed the study and found out some very interesting things. The single largest being:

The data before and after Fukushima differ: After Fukushima, the authors included 119 cities in their evaluation, before Fukushima only 104 cities. The excess infant deaths come from the 15 additional cities. A trend analysis of weekly infant deaths with the official CDC data from week 50, 2009, to week 25, 2011, yields no upward shift, but a 1.3% decrease of infant deaths after Fukushima. The study is flawed at best and intentionally misleading at worst.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#25 Jan 7, 2014
Dan wrote:
<quoted text>
This is not a medical journal
The journal contains articles on health and social policy, political economy and sociology, history and philosophy, ethics and law in the areas of health and health care. The editor is a professor of public policy, sociology and political studies. Hardly what I would consider a valid peer reviewed journal determining medical outcomes. I reviewed the study and found out some very interesting things. The single largest being:
The data before and after Fukushima differ: After Fukushima, the authors included 119 cities in their evaluation, before Fukushima only 104 cities. The excess infant deaths come from the 15 additional cities. A trend analysis of weekly infant deaths with the official CDC data from week 50, 2009, to week 25, 2011, yields no upward shift, but a 1.3% decrease of infant deaths after Fukushima. The study is flawed at best and intentionally misleading at worst.
Bingo! Your words apply to your post: flawed and intentionally misleading.

Why won't you wait for the UN results?

Since: Jul 13

Neptune, NJ

#26 Jan 7, 2014
The Nuclear Option is by today's standards scary....using existing designs really should not me considered they are just too dangerous in many different ways.
The 3rd and 4th generation of designed reactors run on spent fuel rods and would reduce or eliminate the dangerous implantation of using today's designed reactors.
There are ongoing projects to build these types of reactors which I "think" are or should be part of our energy future.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/business/en...
BDV

Decatur, GA

#27 Jan 7, 2014
But BigOil exploding trains of doom are not scary because they get thrown down the memory hole.

When was the last news story published about Lac Megantic by Thompson Reuters?

When was the last Fukushima story published by Thompson Reuters.

As we speak some sort of radiation hysteria is being stoked by "concerned citizens".
Dan

Upton, NY

#28 Jan 8, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Bingo! Your words apply to your post: flawed and intentionally misleading.
Why won't you wait for the UN results?
I guess I could ask you the same question about the UN report, but then again I did not post the article as proof positive of some massive infant mortality rate post Fukushima now did I. The difference between you and I is I have a questioning attitude and will give benefit of the doubt until I do the research on my own. I did the research and what Mangano and Sherman did in this article is cherry pick the statistical data to provide only the set of data which actually supported their preconceived beliefs. In my job I use statistics all the time and if you don't include all the data then you can skew the results to reach a convenient conclusion. In researching Mangano I found that he is quite pervasive in this effort and has been soundly debunked by many notable scientific journals which actually do peer review before they print.
http://atomicinsights.com/11317/
The attached I am sure you will dismiss outright because it is a pro nuclear website but it was the source that provided the CDC data in its entirety!!!! You probably won't even go and look at it or the links within the article because it does not fit your pre conceived ideas on nuclear power. But then again you have to actually know something about a subject before you have an informed opinion and I doubt you have ever had enough will power or ethics to do the work. Have a nice life!
Dan

Upton, NY

#29 Jan 8, 2014
bligh wrote:
The Nuclear Option is by today's standards scary....using existing designs really should not me considered they are just too dangerous in many different ways.
The 3rd and 4th generation of designed reactors run on spent fuel rods and would reduce or eliminate the dangerous implantation of using today's designed reactors.
There are ongoing projects to build these types of reactors which I "think" are or should be part of our energy future.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/25/business/en...
The 3rd and 4th generation reactors you are talking about are known as fast reactors because they use fast neutrons versus the slow (thermalized) neutrons used in todays Light Water Reactors (LWR). The primary advantage as you stated was the reactor could essentially burn up all the long lived and transuranic waste by a process called transmutation. This would result in spent fuel that would be radioactive for only about 300-500 years versus what we have today because of not reprocessing current LWR fuels for reuse. The disadvantage is the fuel needs to be highly enriched (> 90% U-235))which is not allowed by todays laws the only reactors with highly enriched fuel are used for navy nuclear propulsion reactors. Todays commercial LWRs use <10 enrichment. There are no fast reactors that have current approval by the NRC to my knowledge and unless the enrichment issue gets answered I don't think there will be. I personally support the use of Thorium reactors such as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). If you are interested look it up it has been proven to work and is inherently safe which is quite different from mechanical safety systems required for gen 1 and 2 reactors and even better than the passive design safety systems for the gen 3+ and 4 reactors.

Since: Mar 13

Sequim, WA

#30 Jan 8, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Bingo! Your words apply to your post: flawed and intentionally misleading.
Why won't you wait for the UN results?
The discussion was about a report of infant deaths in the US. The UN is not reviewing that AFAIK. The UN report has been released in draft form. It basically says that no excess deaths are expected among the general population.

Since: Mar 13

Sequim, WA

#31 Jan 8, 2014
Dan,
The LFTR, which is a thermal spectrum reactor, will also run on reprocessed SNF fissile material as a starter charge for the thorium. Because of it's good neutron economy it can also slowly burn up the fertile SNF material.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#32 Jan 8, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> The discussion was about a report of infant deaths in the US. The UN is not reviewing that AFAIK. The UN report has been released in draft form. It basically says that no excess deaths are expected among the general population.
Read more carefully.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#33 Jan 8, 2014
To readers:

These nukists always praise the least viable. There they go again on Th reactors or fast reactors because we don't do those.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#34 Jan 8, 2014
More than 300 groups are rejecting calls from top climate scientists to embrace nuclear power to fight climate change since renewables cannot be deployed fast enough.

Environmental and anti-nuclear groups from the United States and 22 other countries told former NASA scientist and activist James Hansen and three other scientists who have alerted the public to the dangers of climate change in recent years that nuclear power is too dangerous and relies too heavily on federal subsidies.

The groups, spearheaded by the Civil Society Institute and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, also called for a global phasing out of nuclear power and said wind and solar deployment, in the United States in particular, is far outpacing the development and construction of new reactors. The Civil Society Institute is an advocacy group focused on clean energy issues and climate change, and the Nuclear Information and Resource Service is a Maryland-based anti-nuclear activist group.

"Instead of embracing nuclear power, we request that you join us in supporting an electric grid dominated by energy efficiency, renewable, distributed power and storage technologies," the groups wrote in the letter Monday. "We ask you to join us in supporting the phase-out of nuclear power as Germany and other countries are pursuing."

The letter was signed by a number of groups opposed to fossil fuels and uranium mining, including the Coal River Mountain Watch and Utah-based Uranium Watch, as well as pro-renewables, social and religious organizations.

Since: Mar 13

Sequim, WA

#35 Jan 8, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Read more carefully.
Lets see:
You mention a report that claims 14,000 dead in the US.
Dan demonstrates that the report you mention is bunk.
You said that he is bunk and he should wait for a UN report.
I said the UN report doesn't cover the purported deaths in the US.
What am I supposed to read more carefully?

Since: Mar 13

Sequim, WA

#36 Jan 8, 2014
Yup, there are lot of groups that get money from the fossil fuel syndicate to oppose nuclear power for them. Useful idiots they are called. But the world is not listening to them, thank goodness.

Germany is one reason the world is beginning to ignore the "greens". The German experience is overwhelmingly expensive, and BROWN, as in lignite coal brown. That bastion of "green" energy has among the highest electricity costs and the highest carbon footprint in Europe. France meanwhile has among the lowest. France is ~80% nuclear. The world sees that lesson and is turning to nuclear pretty much everywhere.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#37 Jan 8, 2014
KitemanSA wrote:
<quoted text> Lets see:
You mention a report that claims 14,000 dead in the US.
Dan demonstrates that the report you mention is bunk.
You said that he is bunk and he should wait for a UN report.
I said the UN report doesn't cover the purported deaths in the US.
What am I supposed to read more carefully?
What I posted is not what you claim. You live in a pro-nuke fantasy that alters reality.

The UN report was not out yet because I checked at the UN site. There's no reason to take your word for the report until I read it.

STOP.
BDV

Decatur, GA

#38 Jan 8, 2014
Oil. Too expensive. Too deadly.

Coal. Too polluting.

nuclear power. Has to be done right, without military hanky panky (see Dai Ichi) and shortcuts (see many entertaining yankee anecdotes).
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#39 Jan 8, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
Three Mile Island in 1979, Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.
Come on...... I dare ya...... three major nuclear accidents....... I dare ya....... come on....... three more major nuclear accidents...... oh, don't forget Fermi 1 that almost got Detroit.

Come on...... I dare ya...... two major nuclear accidents....... I dare ya....... come on....... two more major nuclear accidents......
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#40 Jan 8, 2014
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on...... I dare ya...... three major nuclear accidents....... I dare ya....... come on....... three more major nuclear accidents...... oh, don't forget Fermi 1 that almost got Detroit.
Come on...... I dare ya...... two major nuclear accidents....... I dare ya....... come on....... two more major nuclear accidents......
Easy. Fermi 1 was a fast reactor by the way. "We Almost Lost Detroit" is a book written by local Detroit newsman John Grant Fuller (subtitled "This Is Not A Novel"). The book "Normal Accidents" by Yale professor Charles Perrow describes this accident in more detail.[Wikipedia]

Just two more? Can't do that.. have to tell the truth from Wikipedia..

A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." Examples include lethal effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, or reactor core melt."[3] The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactivity are released, such as in the Chernobyl Disaster in 1986.

The impact of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate practically since the first nuclear reactors were constructed. It has also been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities.[4] Some technical measures to reduce the risk of accidents or to minimize the amount of radioactivity released to the environment have been adopted. Despite the use of such measures, "there have been many accidents with varying impacts as well near misses and incidents".[4][5]

Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants.[6] Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 57%(56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[6] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[7] Nuclear advocate Stuart Arm maintains that, "apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."[8]

Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown mishaps include the K-19 (1961), K-11(1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), K-314 (1985), and K-431 (1985).[7][9][10] Serious radiation accidents include the Kyshtym disaster, Windscale fire, radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica,[11] radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza,[12] radiation accident in Morocco,[13] Goiania accident,[14] radiation accident in Mexico City, radiotherapy unit accident in Thailand,[15] and the Mayapuri radiological accident in India.[15]

The International Atomic Energy Agency maintains a website reporting recent accidents.[16]

For me, these two stand out as serious accidents:

-1940s August 1945: Criticality accident at US Los Alamos National Laboratory. Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., dies.[26]

- May 1946: Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Louis Slotin dies.[26]

P.S For a list of many of the most important accidents see the International Atomic Energy Agency site.[54]
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#41 Jan 8, 2014
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>Easy. Fermi 1 was a fast reactor by the way. "We Almost Lost Detroit" is a book written by local Detroit newsman John Grant Fuller (subtitled "This Is Not A Novel"). The book "Normal Accidents" by Yale professor Charles Perrow describes this accident in more detail.[Wikipedia]
Just two more? Can't do that.. have to tell the truth from Wikipedia..
A nuclear and radiation accident is defined by the International Atomic Energy Agency as "an event that has led to significant consequences to people, the environment or the facility." Examples include lethal effects to individuals, large radioactivity release to the environment, or reactor core melt."[3] The prime example of a "major nuclear accident" is one in which a reactor core is damaged and significant amounts of radioactivity are released, such as in the Chernobyl Disaster in 1986.
The impact of nuclear accidents has been a topic of debate practically since the first nuclear reactors were constructed. It has also been a key factor in public concern about nuclear facilities.[4] Some technical measures to reduce the risk of accidents or to minimize the amount of radioactivity released to the environment have been adopted. Despite the use of such measures, "there have been many accidents with varying impacts as well near misses and incidents".[4][5]
Benjamin K. Sovacool has reported that worldwide there have been 99 accidents at nuclear power plants.[6] Fifty-seven accidents have occurred since the Chernobyl disaster, and 57%(56 out of 99) of all nuclear-related accidents have occurred in the USA.[6] Serious nuclear power plant accidents include the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster (2011), Chernobyl disaster (1986), Three Mile Island accident (1979), and the SL-1 accident (1961).[7] Nuclear advocate Stuart Arm maintains that, "apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident."[8]
Nuclear-powered submarine core meltdown mishaps include the K-19 (1961), K-11(1965), K-27 (1968), K-140 (1968), K-429 (1970), K-222 (1980), K-314 (1985), and K-431 (1985).[7][9][10] Serious radiation accidents include the Kyshtym disaster, Windscale fire, radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica,[11] radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza,[12] radiation accident in Morocco,[13] Goiania accident,[14] radiation accident in Mexico City, radiotherapy unit accident in Thailand,[15] and the Mayapuri radiological accident in India.[15]
The International Atomic Energy Agency maintains a website reporting recent accidents.[16]
For me, these two stand out as serious accidents:
-1940s August 1945: Criticality accident at US Los Alamos National Laboratory. Harry K. Daghlian, Jr., dies.[26]
- May 1946: Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Louis Slotin dies.[26]
P.S For a list of many of the most important accidents see the International Atomic Energy Agency site.[54]
Won't dare you no more, no how, no way!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richland Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
GEORGE GANNON and Linda M Oct 16 NeedHelp 3
Fewer animals in our shelters Oct 15 Mary Schuck 1
Five Disgraced Business Owners Who Learned That... Oct 13 Ryan 41
KSD Asking For Community Input Oct 12 Mary Schuck 1
Review: Music Machine Oct 10 LeeBear 1
Review: Essential Healing Oct 8 mwhite1811 1
West Richland moves toward ban on recreational pot Sep 19 Puph 1
Richland Dating
Find my Match

Richland Jobs

Richland People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Richland News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Richland

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]