Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina

14/09/2013

UC Berkeley forum closed. Spent Fuku fuel “an issue of human survival”

Filed under: Uncategorized — grypa666 @ 18:37

Nuclear Expert: Fukushima spent fuel has 85 times more cesium than released at Chernobyl — “It would destroy the world environment and our civilization… an issue of human survival” -Former UN adviser

Forum Disclaimer

This forum was hosted by the UC Berkeley Nuclear Engineering Department from March 2011 until September 2013. It was an open, anonymous forum where all views were allowed to be expressed. The University in no way endorses the accuracy of the contents nor the views expressed therein. Please read at your own risk.

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-04-07 09:39

http://enenews.com/nuclear-expert-fukushima-spent-fuel-85-times-cesium-r…

http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html

[…] I asked top spent-fuel pools expert Mr. Robert Alvarez, former Senior Policy Adviser to the Secretary and Deputy Assistant Secretary for National Security and the Environment at the U.S. Department of Energy, for an explanation of the potential impact of the 11,421 rods.

I received an astounding response from Mr. Alvarez [updated 4/5/12]:

In recent times, more information about the spent fuel situation at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site has become known. It is my understanding that of the 1,532 spent fuel assemblies in reactor No. [4,] 304 [should be 301 – PB] assemblies are fresh and unirradiated. This then leaves 1,231 irradiated spent fuel rods in pool No. 4, which contain roughly 37 million curies (~1.4E+18 Becquerel) of long-lived radioactivity. The No. 4 pool is about 100 feet above ground, is structurally damaged and is exposed to the open elements. If an earthquake or other event were to cause this pool to drain this could result in a catastrophic radiological fire involving nearly 10 times the amount of Cs-137 released by the Chernobyl accident.

The infrastructure to safely remove this material was destroyed as it was at the other three reactors. Spent reactor fuel cannot be simply lifted into the air by a crane as if it were routine cargo. In order to prevent severe radiation exposures, fires and possible explosions, it must be transferred at all times in water and heavily shielded structures into dry casks.. As this has never been done before, the removal of the spent fuel from the pools at the damaged Fukushima-Dai-Ichi reactors will require a major and time-consuming re-construction effort and will be charting in unknown waters. Despite the enormous destruction cased at the Da–Ichi site, dry casks holding a smaller amount of spent fuel appear to be unscathed.

Based on U.S. Energy Department data, assuming a total of 11,138 spent fuel assemblies are being stored at the Dai-Ichi site, nearly all, which is in pools. They contain roughly 336 million curies (~1.2 E+19 Bq) of long-lived radioactivity. About 134 million curies is Cesium-137 — roughly 85 times the amount of Cs-137 released at the Chernobyl accident as estimated by the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection (NCRP). The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).

It is important for the public to understand that reactors that have been operating for decades, such as those at the Fukushima-Dai-Ichi site have generated some of the largest concentrations of radioactivity on the planet.

Many of our readers might find it difficult to appreciate the actual meaning of the figure, yet we can grasp what 85 times more Cesium-137 than the Chernobyl would mean. It would destroy the world environment and our civilization. This is not rocket science, nor does it connect to the pugilistic debate over nuclear power plants. This is an issue of human survival. […]

Comments

Actual Science

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 07:10.

Actual Science and engineering would be a plus!

Suppose we deal with SCIENCE and ENGINEERING as opposed to propaganda, lies, advertisements, promotional material, unjustified-safety-assurances, as well as superstition and unreasoning fear. Cool, INTACT spent fuel bundles, in a radiation shielding pool are not ACTUALLY dangerous. For brief periods of time, highly trained scuba divers swim in the spent fuel pools. Some expert divers receive big radiation doses, when things go wrong, even under tightly controlled circumstances. There are thus, a number of SERIOUS POTENTIAL DANGERS, associated with Spent Fuel.

Some of the ACTUAL PROBLEMS observed, at the Fukushima Spent Fuel Pools presumably include: damaged (burned) fuel bundles, corium slugs, contamination, unreliable cooling, high measured radiation, contamination, non-redundant filtering capability, unstable non-redundant electrical power supplies, and seismic degradation of the pool(s) structural integrity. Some very bad things have happened at Fukushima, since Mid-March 2011, due to PISSPORE TEPCO operations. The potential exists for a substantially more serious nuclear accident at Fukushima than occurred during the week of 311. The odds don’t look good, given the operational complexity and the OBVIOUSLY limited capabilities of the ‘On-Site-Team’.

Oh and the local population is already biologically compromised by their previous and ongoing exposures.

TTFN

http://www.isoe-network.net/index.php/publications-mainmenu-88/isoe-news…

Unplanned Exposure During Diving in the Spent Fuel Pool

Andreas Ritter, Kernkraftwerk Leibstadt (KKL) – ISOE/EPRI ALARA Symposium 2011, Ft. Lauderdale

Spent Fuel Pool Safety

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 09:53.

Recriticality & Autocatalytic oxidation leading to a runaway reaction are concerns at the FDNPP facility. The Fukushima Spent Fuel has already been reconfigured.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11263

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TPYl5bvaz-kJ:www.na…

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11263&page=38
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11263&page=39

SAFETY AND SECURITY OF COMMERCIAL SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL STORAGE

Public Report

The committee could probably design configurations in which fuel might be deformed or relocated to enable its re-criticality, but the committee judges such an event to be unlikely. Also, the committee notes that while re-criticality would certainly be an undesirable outcome, criticality accidents have happened several times at locations around the world and have not been catastrophic offsite. An accompanying breach of the fuel cladding would still be the chief concern.

That is, the reaction heat will increase temperatures in adjacent areas of the fuel rod, which in turn will accelerate oxidation and release even more heat. Autocatalytic oxidation leading to a “runaway” reaction requires a complex balance of heat and mass transfer, so assigning a specific ignition temperature is not possible. Empirical equations have been developed to predict the reaction rate as a function of temperature when steam and oxygen supply are not limited (see, e.g., Tong and Weisman, 1996, p. 223). Numerous scaled experiments have found that the oxidation reaction proceeds very slowly below approximately 900°C (1700°F).

I have written a series of

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 17:06.

I have written a series of articles on Fukushima on my blog http://www.puremalarkey.com I think the problems remain so severe that Japan needs to cooperate globally. Japan has acted as if it was Japan’s problem alone. It is not. Also unbiased experts who are not beholden to the nuclear power industry need to be allowed to asess the situation.

John D. Boice ~ Shunichi Yamashita IMHO

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 07:58.

Is John D. Boice ‘channeling’, translating, paraphrasing or singing in the chorus?

Watch the Japanese propaganda video that promises radiation won’t harm you if you just “laugh”. It is a video of Dr. Shunichi Yamashita — now known as “Dr. Brainwasher” — giving a propaganda lecture on March 21, 2011 in Fukushima City.

Propaganda Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOgaBUDFeb4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOgaBUDFeb4

Happy Horse Dung

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 09:04.

Dr. Brainwasher (AKA Shunichi Yamashita) is one major plop of ‘happy-horse-chit!

http://www.naturalnews.com/041720_Fukushima_radiation_Japanese_governmen… Wednesday, August 21, 2013 by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, Editor of NaturalNews.com

Natural News exclusive: Fukushima victim exposes Japanese government’s attempted bizarre brainwashing of radiation victims

This blogspot website has located and translated several key brainwashing phrases uttered by Dr. Yamashita as part of the Japanese government’s propaganda campaign. The following statements span several online videos featuring “Dr. Brainwasher.” Each of these statements is a total propaganda fabrication. The comments in ALL CAPS are my own:

• “To tell you the truth, radiation doesn’t affect people who are smiling. Only those who are worried. This has clearly been demonstrated by animal studies.” (HUH? WHAH?)

• “Laughter will remove your radiation phobia.” (COOL, ‘CUZ I’M LAUGHING ALREADY!)

• “If you laugh, radiation won’t get you.” (NOW I CAN SAFELY WORK AT A MAMMOGRAPHY CLINIC!)

• “Internal exposure has 10 times less health risk than external exposure.” (SO IF I EAT URANIUM, IT’S SAFER THAN USING IT AS A SKIN WHITENING CREAM?)

• “Children can play outdoors.” (AS LONG AS YOU DON’T MIND THEM DYING)

PSYCHO Propaganda II

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 09:41.

More total BS from Dr. Brainwash … I wuz wunderin where dat lyin, scrawny, blonde – Ann Coulter ‘is getting it’, and where John Boice learned to shovel this horse-dung. It appears that Dr. Brainwash is the ‘muther-load’. And what a stinking-butt-load it is. Follows, more translations and commentary from Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, Editor of NaturalNews.com. Actually, Mike Adams is at once hilarious and deadly serious.

TTFN

http://www.naturalnews.com/041720_Fukushima_radiation_Japanese_governmen…

• “I can tell you this, the health effects [of Fukushima radiation exposure] are minimal.” (TO COCKROACHES)

• “We don’t have to worry about the health effects of ordinary people.” (BECAUSE WE DON’T REALLY CARE IF ORDINARY PEOPLE DIE ANYWAY)

“The total spent reactor fuel

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 10:25.

“The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel).”

So according to this article the total world wide contamination of CS-137 would go up by 50% compared to the near undetectable levels that are already there from previous events.

But somehow that’s going to extinguish all life on earth?

Diemos

ELE Risk

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 10:29.

The ‘Village Idiot’ V. I. Diemos confuses: past, present, future as well as reality, risk and probability.

The RISK of a DEVASTATING LOCALIZED Extinction EVENT and/or a general ELE, relates to potential FUTURE screw-ups at the FDNPP Spent Fuel Pools; or for that matter a similar screw-up at virtually ANY brimming-full Spent Fuel Pool on earth.

Possibly the ‘Worst Case Scenario’, is a WIDENING Evacuation region, due to a meltdown AND fission event at a Spent Fuel Pool. In the instant case, a collapse of the Unit 4 Spent Fuel Pool causes a forced evacuation of the entire FDNPP facility, due to EXTREME radiation and ongoing fissioning. Thus ALL the reactors and Spent Fuel Pools are abandoned and uncooled. They all then melt down.

This radiation could theoretically cause the FORCED evacuation of the TEPCO Daini NPP which is about 8 miles away. And sequentially, all ~ 60 Spent Fuel Pools in Japan could (theoretically) suffer the same fate.

This is neither a prediction nor are probabilities assigned herein to such events. It is merely a discussion of one possible, worst case scenario. There are others.

TTFN

Background radiation numbers

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 07:16.

Courtesy of the Health Physics Society chapter at the University of Michigan:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

The average person’s radiation exposure due to all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing is given in the above table under “Fallout” as being <0.03 % of the average person’s background dose.

That is; Mother Nature continues to be the largest source of the average person’s radiation exposure by a factor greater than 3000!

So by increasing the Cs-137 exposure by 50%; one is making a 50% increase in a very small percentage of our radiation exposure.

It’s only the unthinking, unprincipled, lying, anti-nuclear progandists that say that this is going to extinguish all life on Earth. What do the scientists say? Here’s the testimony to Congress by the past President of the Health Physics Society; a Professor of Medicine at Vanderbilt University Medical School and a cancer epidimeologist with the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center:

http://www.vicc.org/dd/display.php?person=boicej_compuserve.com

Dr. Boice’s testimony on Fukushima to Congress:

http://www.hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent

Old Study , Cherry Picked Data

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 19:38.

Your Uof M link uses data from the 1980’s and is outdated. It is based on the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurement (NCRP 93) that has been has been replaced by NCRP 160
http://www.ncrponline.org/Publications/Press_Releases/160press.htmly

Dr Boise’s statements to Congress on May 13, 2011 have been rejected by the scientific community. At the time of Boice’s testimony not all the data had been collected and studied, in essence Dr. Boice cherry picked data. Since that time, Fukushima has continued to leak radioactive water into the Pacific. To this day the data is still coming in. Dr. Boice’s comments sound like the words of George W. Bush “mission accomplished”.

THINK about it!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2013-09-05 06:59.

The U of M link and the NCRP 93 study are NOT OUTDATED when it comes to NATURAL radiation.

The rate at which we receive radiation exposure due to natural sources such as cosmic rays, Carbon-14, Tritium…and other natural radiation sources is the same because those sources are in equilibrium. Radon is produced as a byproduct of Uranium decay, and the half-lives of Uranium isotopes are in the MILLIONS of years.

The radiation exposure due to fallout from nuclear tests is decaying with the 29 year / 30 year half-lives of Strontium-90 / Cesium-137 which are the longest lived components of nuclear test fallout.

Why don’t you look at the NCRP 160 study; which shows the SAME radiation exposure rates for natural radiation and fallout as the NCRP ’93 study. The main difference between NCRP 160 and the NCRP ’93 study is an increase in the radiation exposure due to medical sources, which wasn’t part of the argument.

Please THINK before posting and ask yourself if any new data conflicts with the old data cited.

That’s correct. Just because

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2013-09-05 08:20.

That’s correct. Just because we have a new report which contains the values of physical constants; doesn’t mean that the old reports which also contain those values are outdated or in error. The new radiation study focused on the increased radiation dose due to diagnostic and theraputic medical uses of radiation. It’s only these man-made uses that have changed in the last 20 years.

Candor

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 14:14.

Candor is desirable, in life-threatening circumstances.

IMHO, John D. Boice is less than candid. Ann Coulter is a less than candid. Shunichi Yamashita is less than candid. Barack Obama is less than candid. The USA Congress is comprised of about 535 members who are less than candid. When they chat, candor is unlikely. In My Personal Opinion.

The ‘more colorful’ earlier version was removed; no doubt because of complaints, from friends and fans of the above.

TTFN

YOU!!! ARE NOT… A

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 12:03.

YOU!!!

ARE NOT…

A BELIEVER!!!

Cooled enough?

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-23 10:20.

Its true #4 pool remains intact for two years, allowing cooling of the rods. Does this mean that exposing or dropping one would not cause it to ignite? Also any info on the other pools and rods seem rare. Does anyone have more data? Thanks

cooling is required

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-23 14:33.

It is REPORTED, (by TEPCO), that the #4 Fuel Pool is intact. However, TEPCO lies continuously. The word ‘intact’ is not defined by TEPCO. The phrase “its true” probably does not belong in the same sentence as the acronym TEPCO.

There is no independent 3rd party confirmation.

The possibility that the #4 Fuel Pool, and the fuel therein, would satisfy my PERSONAL parameters, for ‘INTACT’, are probably kinda remote. There may be 30 melted bundles at the bottom of the pool, and another 30 mangled and holding by a thread. It is likely that the #3 Pool and fuel are ‘hammered’, due to the FDU-3 reactor detonation and the fuel pool heating..

IF an assembly is dropped, proximal to a ‘near-critical-mass’, given the unknown and unverified condition of the fuel and the pool, may God save us all. For statistically, ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN, including one or more criticalities at the Fukushima Daiichi site.

I suppose the worst case would be a widening evacuation area, leaving the ~ 60 spent fuel pools of Japan unattended, and uncooled. Thus, I would prefer steady hands, competence, integrity AND honor. I have no clue where to find such characteristics in the Nuclear Power industry. We can probably rule out Japan, USA, Germany, France and England. Perhaps the Russians …

TTFN

“It is REPORTED, (by TEPCO),

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 10:33.

“It is REPORTED, (by TEPCO), that the #4 Fuel Pool is intact. However, TEPCO lies continuously. ”

Here you go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unvcryGXNv4

“IF an assembly is dropped, proximal to a ‘near-critical-mass’ ”

Did you look at the video? How could they be anymore tightly packed. Plus the water is filled with neutron poisons.

“Perhaps the Russians … ” Snort. The ones who gave us Chernobyl and Mayak ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayak )? Whatever your on, I want some.

Diemos

Label BELIEVER?

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 13:03.

Diemos, places a LOT of ‘blind faith’ in a TEPCO provided label of a photo, ostensibly of some spent fuel pool … somewhere. Such blind faith is a personal choice, but is decidedly NOT justified by the TEPCO public record.

This Email, from Karl Feintuch, of the USA-NRC reportedly documents the Fukushima Daiichi Spent Fuel Pool conditions. It also outlines the INITIAL, PLANNED response of the USA government, to the Fukushima nuclear disaster. It further documents several ARS deaths at the Fukushima Daiichi Power Station. We call this document, ‘The Smoking Gun’. It is doubtful that the NRC and/or Karl Feintuch were misinformed?

TTFN

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/only-nobodies.2012-11-03#comment-2…

http://enformable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Pascarelli-Robert.png

Bullet-5 indicates “Z-H (Zirconium-Hydrogen) fire in U4 Spent Fuel Pool.”

Bullet-7 indicates “multiple Z-H fires reported in Spent Fuel Pools”

http://enformable.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Pascarelli-Robert.png

Was Karl Feintuch, of the USA-NRC … ‘misinformed’?

Was the USA-NRC somehow … ‘misinformed’?

Experience

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2013-09-05 05:49.

Due to relevant experience, I was invited to comment upon the BP ‘live-feed’, for the Macondo well blowout early underwater photography.

There was a wide angle feed and a closeup. The wide angle feed was murky and the closeup was clear water. So I commented that the two feeds were inconsistent. In a jiff, the closeup became murky with ‘oil’. I then commented that the feeds were consistent.

So there is no particular reason why a TEPCO caption and ‘live footage’, would be conclusive proof of anything.

TTFN

Quote: “caution regarding

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 13:36.

Quote: “caution regarding maturity and reliability of following information”

Bullet-8 indicates “US to supply Japan with KI doses”

so I guess that proves we supplied them with KI doses too.

Diemos

No KI 4 Japan

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 16:26.

NO KI for Nippon,

The USA NRC, based upon years of carefully planned scenarios, and long-standing national policies, naturally ASSUMED that anti-radiation medications would be made AVAILABLE to the Japanese People.

The HEINOUS REFUSAL of anti-radiation meds, as well as Public Warnings by TEPCO, Japan, the Kenyan Native AND the United Nations caught ‘us ALL’ quite by surprise. The Western ‘Uranium Cartel and Japan, Inc. (AKA NPP Industry) have developed into quite a murderous lot.

The USA continues to LIE about the TMI meltdown, radiation releases and public health sequelae; aas fervently as ever.

I draw a ‘bright-line’ between the Stalinist regimes of the old USSR and the more modern and moderate Gorbachev/Yeltsin and their dissolution of the ‘Evil Empire’. The present day Russia appears to have dismissed the previous expansionist (metastatic-cancer growth) fervor.

TTFN

No KI 4 Japan

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 16:17.

NO KI for Nippon,

The USA NRC, based upon years of carefully planned scenarios, and long-standing national policies, naturally ASSUMED that anti-radiation medications would be made AVAILABLE to the Japanese People.

The HEINOUS REFUSAL of anti-radiation meds, as well as Public Warnings by TEPCO, Japan, the Kenyan Native AND the United Nations caught ‘us ALL’ quite by surprise. The Western ‘Uranium Cartel and Japan, Inc. (AKA NPP Industry) have developed into quite a murderous lot.

The USA continues to LIE about the TMI meltdown, radiation releases and public health sequelae; aas fervently as ever.

I draw a ‘bright-line’ between the Stalinist regimes of the old USSR and the more modern and moderate Gorbachev/Yeltsin and their dissolution of the ‘Evil Empire’. The present day Russia appears to have dismissed the previous expansionist (metastatic-cancer growth) fervor.

TTFN

Duplication in Error

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-24 16:32.

The above post was a duplication in error.

Fukushima disaster petition

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2013-08-18 17:56.

Reign In UN

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 06:54.

Would the WOLF please report to the sheep pen area?

SEVERAL tentacles of the United Nations are ACTIVE participants in the FDNPP CAUSES and COVERUPS. The U.N. is therefore SUBSTANTIALLY, ‘part of the problem’. The U.N., Barack Obama, Japan-Inc, TEPCO and ‘the NPP contractors’ are equal partners, in this crime against humanity: ex-ante, in flagrante delicto, and ex-post. And the CRIMES against humanity and the environment continue.

So why not WASTE MORE PAPER and cloud-memory; and petition ALL the criminals for relief from their crimes? Isn’t this rather like petitioning for the fox to reform the hen house?

TTFN

Perp Pays

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 07:22.

I favor a ‘Perp Pays’ system

http://www.businessinsider.com/countries-by-gold-reserves-january-2013-2…

#8 Japan – Official gold holdings: 765.2 tonnes

Japan Inc., by their own admission, CAUSED and willfully exacerbated the FDNPP disaster. The NPP industry (AKA Uranium Cartel) aided and abetted the criminal acts. Send them the bill and hold them ‘liable to the last button on their shirt’! When every (past & present) board member, of every NPP Contractor, is homeless and pennyless; ‘then-and-only-then’ should victims and taxpayers be placed ‘on the hook’!

Shake the perps down, for every farthing.

TTFN

“the nuclear disaster is

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-17 06:36.

“the nuclear disaster is still going on”

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/views/editorial/AJ201308170027 August 17, 2013

EDITORIAL: Clearer government role needed for Fukushima cleanup

The crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant is far from over. The government has yet to call off the state of nuclear emergency it declared on March 11, 2011, when the catastrophic earthquake and tsunami set off the nuclear accident.

Water contaminated with radioactive materials keeps leaking from the crippled plant, polluting underground soil and the sea in the area. This fact clearly shows that the nuclear disaster is still going on.

The government has made a big mistake by leaving it entirely to TEPCO. As a result, measures to stop leaks of radioactive water have been ineffective, allowing environmental pollution to escalate. The government’s move to step in and get involved in the efforts to sort out the problem came far too late.

No release of the Cs

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-11-05 11:16.

The fuel in the unit 4 spent fuel pool has been cooled for 2 years now. Due to the cooling this fuel can not cause a fire at this point. There is ongoing work on fires and spent fuel and it is not clear if a fire is ever credible but clearly not after two years of cooling. Dry storage casks often require only 5 years cooling. The cooling time limits are set from long term creep constraints certainly not fire and melting constraints.

If there were loss of water at the unit 4 pool now it would be a serious dose concern for the plant workers but not an event involving off-site populations. The radioactive material would be still contained in the fuel rod. It is very inappropriate to compare with the Chernobyl accident or nuclear weapons where the radioactive material was not contained.

Butt Load

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-17 07:07.

What a butt load of crapola

If ANY spent fuel pool, for ANY nuclear reactor on earth, LOST COOLING, the results would be a GLOBAL catastrophe.

Let us be candid with respect to these matters. Let us strongly censure the idiots, liars and nuclear stakeholders attempting to divert our attention, from this reality.

This is NOT a drill

WRONG!

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-23 13:29.

The above is certainly WRONG!

The radioactivity in the spent fuel elements decays exponentially; the greatest decay is in the earliest days. At some point, the rate at which heating takes place is low enough that passive, natural cooling can be effective.

For example, the electric incandescent lights in your home don’t need active cooling. You don’t need to supply either chilled water or forced air flow to keep an ordinary electric incandescent bulb cooled.

When the spent fuel has cooled to the point that the heat generation is comparable to electric incandescent lights – a few hundred watts – then passive cooling will also be effective; so you can’t “lose” cooling.

So the quote above that “ANY” spent fuel pool is certainly INACCURATE and was stated only for the effect of needlessly scaring people with baseless PROPAGANDA by some anti-nuke.

Decay

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-31 16:46.

At some point!

That ‘some point’ is WAY out there in time.

The Spent Fuel Pools in the USA are on average, on the order of 35 years old. The Cs-137 in the oldest bundle, will have half-lifed only once. The newest, spent fuel bundle, is ‘hot as a firecracker’, in every sense of that phrase, as the Cs-134 and Cs-137 are virtually at full strength.

So for example, if the newest bundle were exposed to air, and you walked up and touched it … you would contract Acute Radiation Syndrome and die. That is hot in the sense of radioactive. The bundle would, in air, subsequently overheat and melt. It would, in the presence of water spray, burn even if subsequently submerged. That is HOT in the thermal sense. But you would likely be dead, by that point. So it would become the concern of someone else.

TTFN

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-31 20:00.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decay_heat

“After one year, typical spent nuclear fuel generates about 10 kW of decay heat per tonne, decreasing to about 1 kW/t after ten years.[13] Hence effective active or passive cooling for spent nuclear fuel is required for a number of years.”

Dry cask storage systems using convective air cooling are designed to dissipate 24kW of decay heat.

Diemos

Useless Source

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 06:38.

Sad Source

What a sad excuse for a joke, wikipedia as a primary reference.

TTFN

Wikipedia is ACCURATE on decay heat

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 07:08.

Actually, the Wikipedia article is ACCURATE. However, for a more authoritative, academically acknowledged source; one can try MIT:

http://mitnse.com/2011/03/16/what-is-decay-heat/

or the following from Stanford University:

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tilghman1/docs/decayhe1b.pdf

where we see Eqn (3) on page 2 is EXACTLY what Wikipedia reports.

The sad excuse for a joke is actually posters that condemn a source BEFORE checking whether that source did indeed have the correct answer or not.

That’s the REAL JOKER; and we all know who that is.

Enquiring Minds The National

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 18:23.

Enquiring Minds
The National Enquirer says … so is that sufficient?

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime
http://www.nationalenquirer.com/true-crime/bradley-manning-let-me-die-woman
BRADLEY MANNING: LET ME DIE A WOMAN!
After getting 35 years in the slammer for leaking classified docs, PFC. BRADLEY MANNING pleads for sex change op. VIDEO Read More

A laughable argument

TTFN

1 Source is as good as another

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 19:18.

“Fukushima was orchestrated by Archons in association with human collaborators who continue to preside over the crisis.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZgG9hU07ps&feature=player_embedded
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/news/ufo_extraterrestrials/2013/08/22/6…

Fukushima demonstrates Manipulative Alien problem

Date: 22 August 2013 Posted By : Edited by John Stokes

An Ethical Extraterrestrial contactee reveals that Fukushima’s “Silent Spring” is part of an alien scenario toward the destruction of a vital biodiversity on our planet Earth. This contactee also suggests that Fukushima is part of an on-going alien directed war against humans, that is vitally associated with the biological diversity on our planet Earth.

Alex Collier is a self-described Ethical Extraterrestrial contactee apparently predicted Fukushima, and suggested that Fukushima was orchestrated by Archons in association with human collaborators who continue to preside over the crisis.

———————

Source = Source, What a ‘braindead’ notion …

TTFN

Nobody said…

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2013-09-05 07:56.

Nobody said that all sources are equal; which is what I think you are implying. ( I’m not quite sure what you are implying, since it is so poorly expressed. )

That wasn’t the point. The point is that you complained about the accuracy of a source that turned out to be giving an accurate answer. Why not check out the answer to see if it is right or wrong before you call it “wrong” just because it doesn’t say what you want it to say.

Qualify the Source

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2013-09-05 08:46.

Low Source quality does not command ANY attention to the math and arguments which may follow. Of course, the heat-sink and Fuel Pool points were dangerously uniformed/disingenuous. So the primary source as well as the examples, math and applications are misleading at best, and more particularly, deliberate logical flaw — LIES.

Why would anyone consider wikipedia, when VALID sources are easily available?

The Spent Fuel Pools at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant (FDNPP), and others scattered about the globe represent GRAVE hazards to local and distant life forms.

TTFN

Light bulbs vs. spent fuel

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2013-09-03 14:44.

The average weight of a light bulb is about 37 grams:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_weight_of_a_light_bulb

So a metric tonne ( 1000 kilograms ) of light bulbs is:

1000 kilograms * 1000 grams / kilogram / ( 37 grams/light bulb ) = 27,000 bulbs

Assume each bulb is 100 watts = 0.1 kilowatts

A metric tonne of plugged in 100 watt bulbs generates 2,700 kilowatts of heat = 2.7 megawatts of heat.

So a metric tonne of plugged in 100 watt bulbs generates 270 times as much heat as would a metric tonne of nuclear waste after 1 year.

Natural convection has no problem cooling 27,000 light bulbs.

Electrical Load Banks

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2013-09-05 06:41.

Rude Dog ignorance and plagiarism,

An interesting, (and no-doubt unattributed ‘cut & paste) theoretical math exercise, however in the REAL physical world …

I have had YEARS of experience with ‘load banks’ for electrical power sources. Small electrical ‘load banks’ consist of heat-sinked resistors, incandescent light bulbs and FANS. Else, the evolved heat would QUICKLY destroy the ‘load bank’ and wiring harnesses, indoors, in 25C air.

One heat-sinked thermal source can easily be designed as convective. As per usual, Rude Dog is an ignorant, uneducated, witless, amoral, idiotic LIAR. Rude Dog possesses exactly ZERO theoretical, educational, professional or practical understanding of ANY physical system. Any ‘point-made’ (attempted) by Rude Dog is ALWAYS USELESS, dangerous and brain-dead.

TTFN

Fukushima and Chernobyl

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-27 09:13.

There is all kinds of credible information from a number of different sources including UNSCEAR,
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html, posted on the web that shows the damaging effects of radioactivity released into the atmosphere and the oceans. UNSCEAR report clearly states that many of the effects are ongoing and will manifest over a long period of time. There is also the problem of the accumulation of increasingly greater amounts in the food chain. Most reasonable people would question why we have to be exposed to any incidental radiation at all, if its so safe then why are such costly procedures necessary to clean it up and handle it safely. There is an infinite source of energy in the sun which can be tapped by the appropriate technology and that is where we should applying our efforts, utility companies aren’t interested because they can’t monoplolize the source and governments want to develop nuclear energy so they can make bombs. Solar energy is the cleanest safest bet, there is always the possibility the human race will be wiped out by accident so we don’t have to make it any more likely by developing nuclear energy, except maybe on a very small basis, till the technology is fully perfected and 100% safe. Its far too dangerous to develop on a large scale. Corporations have yet to show that they have the will or the finances to dispose of the huge sums of nuclear waste that have already been created and are leaking out into the environment. By the way there is also plenty of info available on the web about how American soldiers were used as test guinea pigs for the US atomic testing program so people should look it up and don’t believe comments you read on this board about how safe nuclear power is.

Allright! Thanks!

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-06-05 16:57.

To who ever posted the below information. Thank you and right on! You really summarized why we need to wipe the guy from this site. See my post for this request.

The reason that the rude forum bully we all know as Mr. ‘Demented Reality’, ‘Anti-Nuke’, (who misrepresents himself as a Univ. Professor) so disgustingly engages in name calling and insults is because he is employed by the industry as a sock puppet in order to drive away any useful discussion regarding the ongoing disaster.
He is, unfortunately, very successful at driving away many people, who like myself tire of having to scan beyond his ugly comments in order to move to the other more useful comments posted by respected posters. I suppose he will continue to be with us much as the stink of an open outhouse is apparent to all those who find themselves downwind. Would it be that he was at least as useful as an open outhouse.
I’d like to thank those who are forced to slog around in the vomit of his diarrhea ridden mouth for continuing to supply useful information for the rest of us even under the harsh conditions he creates.
Thank you

Rude Dog

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2013-09-02 14:42.

Rude Dog is the name bestowed on the TROLL. Sometimes the Rude Dog answers to the name and uses it himself. Mostly though, his ‘writing style’, vocabulary, pseudo-academic pretenses and attack-dog, lying approach give him away.

The Rude Dog betrays his lack of education, breeding, class, ability, experience, judgement, style, context, depth, character and professional standing in virtually every (unsigned) lying, post.

TTFN

Frustrated when Rude Dog shows you to be wrong?

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 07:34.

I can see how frustrated you get when Rude Dog proves you to be wrong.

Instead of attacking the messenger; why don’t you attempt infuse some ACCURACY in your posts; instead of posting what you WANT to be true for your own parochial purposes and political agenda?

More anti-nuke STUPIDITY and PROPAGANDA above.

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-27 11:24.

Again we have some manifestly stupid anti-nuke spreading a bunch of propaganda.

The above poster states that the Government is interested in nuclear energy so it can make nuclear bombs. HOGWASH NONE of the material in the US nuclear weapons came from commercial reactors. ALL the nuclear material in US nuclear weapons came from the USA’s special production reactors located at Hanford, Washington and Savannah River, South Carolina. The reactors at both these sites have been shutdown since the late ’80s because the USA has all the weapons material it needs. Another grossly stupid anti-nuke didn’t do his homework to see where weapons material came from, and is just posting propaganda.

The above poster thinks that solar power is the total solution. Solar power doesn’t give you power at night. In fact the bulk of solar power comes in a 6 hour window from 9 am to 3 pm. When I tell this to solar proponents, they tell me we don’t need power at night. Sure we do. The number one user of electricity in the average home is the refrigerator and it needs power at night or what’s the use; your food is spoiled. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences states in their report on energy that only 20% of our electrical energy can come from renewables. That’s because renewables are intermittent. We don’t have a throttle on Mother Nature. We can only take what she gives. It’s not sufficient to have the amount of energy from renewables equal the demand in an “average” over the day. It has to meet the demand second to second, or the grid falls.

Our idiot anti-nuke also didn’t do his homework checking on how the disposal of nuclear waste is financed. The Government collects a special tax on nuclear generated electricity from the nuclear utilities as a condition of their license, and it is that money that is used to finance nuclear waste disposal. Google “Nuclear Waste Fund” or read the following:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-sued-over-nuclear-waste-fund-89826842.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/nuclear-waste-fund-us-24-billio…

We have above more proof that the anti-nukes are self-righteous, stupid, ignorant idiots that have no interest in providing the public and the readers of this forum with accurate information. They only want to spew their propaganda.

Mr. Anti-Nuke, Demented Reality Forum Bully

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-06-03 20:33.

The reason that the rude forum bully we all know as Mr. ‘Demented Reality’, ‘Anti-Nuke’, (who misrepresents himself as a Univ. Professor) so disgustingly engages in name calling and insults is because he is employed by the industry as a sock puppet in order to drive away any useful discussion regarding the ongoing disaster.
He is, unfortunately, very successful at driving away many people, who like myself tire of having to scan beyond his ugly comments in order to move to the other more useful comments posted by respected posters. I suppose he will continue to be with us much as the stink of an open outhouse is apparent to all those who find themselves downwind. Would it be that he was at least as useful as an open outhouse.
I’d like to thank those who are forced to slog around in the vomit of his diarrhea ridden mouth for continuing to supply useful information for the rest of us even under the harsh conditions he creates.
Thank you

The anti-nukes get so angry when their propaganda is exposed!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 07:53.

The anti-nukes get so angry when their propaganda is exposed.

Anyone interested in good information isn’t driven away by good information.

Only closed-minded anti-nukes that don’t want to hear the truth are driven away; and that’s no big loss. Their minds are made up regardless of the facts.

boil water

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2013-04-09 01:43.

look at us, we are humans. we boil water with nuclear fuel. look at us we add nuclear material in the world that was not here before us. LOOK, we do it to boil water. To make steam. LOOK AT US.

you can’t use solar panels at night? lulz well actually you can since you hook them to battery array. unless you stupid nuke person thinks its the actual solar panels running equipment?

Go boil some more water.

Now do the math!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2013-04-09 04:47.

Now do the math as to the scale of energy storage you need.

Do you think you have batteries that can store many, many megawatt-days or gigawatt-days of energy? That is what you need!!

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/forum/218/charlatans-imposters-and-idiots.20…

It always amuses me when I see anti-nukes attempting to disparage nuclear power by saying “it’s just boiling water”; as if that is something foolish.

When it comes to turning heat into work, one of the best ways of doing that is via a thermodynamic cycle with a working fluid that undergoes a phase change. Of the many materials available, good old water is nearly an ideal working fluid.

Rankine steam cycles have efficiencies of about 40%; as compared to the 20% of solar cells that the scientifically ignorant anti-nukes find so sexy.

BWR

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 04:00.

What’s the percentage of produced energy lost as waste heat in a typical GE Boiling Water Reactor?

Seems silly to superheat water(?°F) in order to simply boil it 212°F

Aren’t there significant inefficiencies involved there?

[Page 2 of comments]

Steam Turbine

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-31 18:39.

Quite Simple:

Steam Turbines use/require superheated steam in the temperature range of 3,000[F] (intake) to 850[F] (final stage exhaust). Condensing steam would quickly destroy the turbine. This is the case in ALL water/steam driven turbines, not merely nuclear. Politics have nothing to do with it. The heat engine equations are well known.

The 850[F] exhaust is ‘waste-heat’, for a water-steam turbine, but CAN be used to drive a different turbine using a different fluid, such as propane. This process is used in many industrial applications to generate electricity, and is called CCLC (Cascading Closed Loop Cycle). Such routine industrial efficiencies are NOT used in USA Grid applications, BECAUSE they: substantially increase efficiency, electrical power generation capacity as well as reduce water use, fuel use, electrical power cost and stack exhaust pollution. THIS is ALL about politics.

TTFN

Turbine – Generators

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2013-09-01 16:58.

General Electric, when it made money, earned about 65% of its profits selling the turbine-generator sets. That was the business model.

Fuel efficiency did not enter into the G. E. Business model. That has NOTHING special to do with nuclear plants, versus coal, oil and/or natural gas fired CONVENTIONAL thermal plants. The other players, stakeholders and politicians have been playing along with this inefficiency game for decades. And they fully intend to ‘keep playing’ this game, to the manifest detriment of the rest of the inhabitants of Planet Earth.

The continuing business model is anti-efficiency and it extends beyond the realm of electrical power generation.

Again, or in greater detail, Steam condensing on the turbine blades is highly corrosive. There are a lot of power engineers out there and lots of turbine designs. The finer points of material science and expected rates of return are not baby simple.

The reader was asking about the reasons for the 30% – 42% thermal efficiency of nuclear power stations. The reader now has a 1st order understanding of the physics and engineering involved in matching-up a prime-mover heat source, turbine and generator. The TROLL has surfed to WIKI and still thinks he knows something novel, when he still does not know a damting.

TTFN

Proper understanding..

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2013-09-02 10:34.

The reader was asking about the reasons for the 30% – 42% thermal efficiency of nuclear power stations.

Yes – the previous reader now should understand that that reason for a thermal efficiency in the range above has to do principally with the laws of physics and thermodynamics and NOT with corporate greediness.

The sale price of electricity for the power companies is regulated, so the power company has an incentive to be as efficient as possible and use as little heat as possible to make a given amount of electric energy. So the power company has an incentive to buy the most efficient turbine.

General Electric wasn’t the only manufacturer of turbines. Steam turbines were also made by Westinghouse, Babcock & Wilcox, Combustion Engineering, Mitsubishi… If GE wasn’t going to offer efficient turbines to the power companies, then any of the GE’s other competitors like Westinghouse could offer a more efficient turbine and eat GE’s lunch. It’s a very competitive market.

In addition to making steam turbines for electric power plants, the above competitors made steam turbines for US Navy warships, for cruise ships… and many other applications. In all those, each with different market forces, or perhaps no “market forces” in the case of Navy warships; and the efficiencies of all those steam turbines are in the 30% to 42% range or so; since the efficiency is constrained by the laws of physics and thermodynamics and not the greediness of corporations.

It seems a lot of people that oppose nuclear power must be political “scientists”, that are steeped in leftist, collectivist dogma. They believe all inefficiency can be explained by capitalist greediness ( which conforms to their hatred of capitalism ). However, the TRUE reasons for the limits on efficiency are based on the laws of physics and thermodynamics; which the leftist collectivists never study, and hold in contempt.

100% WRONG as ALWAYS, TTFN

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2013-09-01 09:52.

TTFN is INCORRECT ( surprise, surprise ) when stating above:

Condensing steam would quickly destroy the turbine. This is the case in ALL water/steam driven turbines, not merely nuclear.

A casual lookup of Wikipedia article on steam turbines tells us:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_turbine

These types include condensing, non-condensing, reheat, extraction and induction.

Condensing turbines are most commonly found in electrical power plants. These turbines exhaust steam in a partially condensed state, typically of a quality near 90%, at a pressure well below atmospheric to a condenser.

The two-phase exhaust of a condensing turbine commonly found in electric power plants, typically has a quality of 90%. The quality of a two-phase mixture being 90% means that 90% of the exhaust is steam, and hence, 10% of the exhaust is liquid water.

The condensing turbines found in electric power plants certainly DO condense some of the steam into liquid water – namely about 10% as stated above.

One can use turbine exhaust to drive another thermodynamic cycle with a different working fluid; OR one can accomplish the same purpose by using multiple turbine stages with / with out reheat of the exhaust.

The power company certainly has an incentive to make the process as efficient as possible because it means more product that they can sell. The State public utility commissions set the sale price for the electricity.

The power company is going to get a fixed price for each kilowatt-hour of electricity that it sells. Now, if the thermodynamic cycle is 40% efficient, that means the power plant had to generate 2.5 kilowatt-hours of heat for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they sell.

If the power plant were 20% efficient, then the power plant would need to generate 5.0 kilowatt-hours of heat for every kilowatt-hour of electricity.

The power company gets the SAME amount of income from a kilowatt-hour generated with 2.5 kilowatt-hours of heat from a 40% efficient plant; as they do from 5.0 kilowatt-hours of heat from a 20% efficient plant.

However, it will cost the power company more to generate that same kilowatt-hour with 5.0 kilowatt-hours of heat in a 20% efficient plant.

So the power company has a real incentive to make their thermodynamic cycle as efficient as possible. The cost of electricity is held fixed by regulation; and the power company can pocket the cost differential between generating 5.0 kilowatt-hours of heat vs 2.5 kilowatt-hours of heat for every kilowatt-hour of electricity they sell for a regulatory fixed price.

Fell for the propaganda?

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2013-08-31 16:43.

From which of the many anti-nuclear websites did you get that line about it being silly to heat water to high temperatures? It’s a common theme on the anti-nuclear websites, and it is also a flat our LIE.

The scientifically cognizant people know that the conversion of heat to work, like electricity; actually gets MORE efficient at higher temperatures. The limiting value of the efficiency imposed by physical laws is called the Carnot Efficiency, and it is a function of both the ambient temperature and the temperature of the thermodynamic cycle’s “hot” reservoir:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/carnot.html

Carnot Efficiency = (Th – Tc)/(Th) = 1 – (Tc/Th)

where Tc = ambient temperature or “cold” reservoir, and Th is the temperature of the “hot” reservoir.

Suppose the hot reservoir had an absolute temperature equal to twice the cold reservoir. Then, Th = 2 Tc, and (Tc/Th) = 1/2 so that the Carnot Efficiency = 50%

If we increase the hot reservoir temperature so that it is triple the cold reservoir, then Th = 3 Tc and (Tc/Th) = 1/3, and the Carnot Efficiency = 1 – (1/3) = (2/3) ~ 67%

So as the hot reservoir temperature goes up; the Carnot Efficiency goes up and the conversion of heat to work becomes MORE efficient.

But that doesn’t stop the anti-nuclear websites from “suckering in” the gullible that never studied high school physics.

WRONG!

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-30 08:02.

Once again the anti-nukes conclusively demonstrate that they are totally clueless about the technology. The above poster states:

Seems silly to superheat water(?°F) in order to simply boil it 212°F

The figure of the boiling point of water being 212°F is only true for water at atmospheric pressure

A BWR doesn’t operate at atmospheric pressure; it operates at a pressure of about 75 atmospheres or 1000 – 1100 psi. At those pressures, the boiling point of water is no longer 212°F but 550°F.

Perhaps the above poster can get a little education at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_water_reactor

The cooling water is maintained at about 75 atm (7.6 MPa, 1000–1100 psi) so that it boils in the core at about 285 °C (550 °F)

Why is the process carried out at these elevated pressures and temperatures? Because it is more efficient than if it were carried out at atmospheric pressure. Contrary to the ill-conceived, and UNEDUCATED opinion of the above poster; it is NOT SILLY AT ALL!

The above poster also states:

Aren’t there significant inefficiencies involved there?

Welcome to the REAL WORLD and the Laws of Physics.

The anti-nukes and so-called “environmentalists” are always pointing to inefficiencies, and wondering why we have those inefficiencies.

The reason is that the Laws of Physics MANDATE those inefficiencies and provide NO WAY to get around them. The anti-nukes and so-called “environmentalists” don’t understand that the Laws of Physics put constraints on the transformation of energy, and limits the efficiency by which we can do certain processes.

More research isn’t going to “solve” the “problem”; these are limits that we have know for a long time. Scientists have known about these limits since the earliest steam engines or about the time our Founding Fathers were drafting the US Constitution. We haven’t found a way around them in over 2 centuries, and we know there is no way “around” these limits since they are physical laws.

One of the limiting laws is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, courtesy of the Physics Dept. at Georgia State University:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c2

So many so-called “environmentalists” that I’ve conversed with want to dispense with “waste heat” as being unneccessary and want to do what is protrayed in the right half of the figure in the link above. They want to take ALL the energy in heat QH and turn it into useful work W.

Unfortunately, the Laws of Physics DON’T LET you do that!!

It says that would constitute a perfect heat engine which is FORBIDDEN by the 2nd Law.

If the so-called “environmentalists” are going to be listened to, they need to dispense with these childish notions of “perfectly efficient” machines, “grow-up”, and LEARN some Physics.

The Laws of Physics will ALWAYS limit what you can do.

We see that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics limits how efficient we can make heat engines like the Rankine steam cycle engine associated with nuclear power plants.

However, even the “greenie” energy sources are limited too by the Laws of Physics. For example, “Betz’s Law” puts a limit on the efficiency of wind turbines that the “environmentalists” don’t know about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27_law

Solar photovoltaic cells are limited by the “Quantum Efficiency”, “Charge Carrier Recombination”… and a host of other limits.

The Laws of Quantum Mechanics only allow a single photon of light to help boost an electron up and over, the “energy band gap” between the valence band to the conduction band, so that that electron can be part of the electricity produced in a solar cell. Unfortunately, not all the photons in sunlight are energetic enough to give the electron enough energy to get it into the conduction band, and the Laws of Quantum Mechanics don’t let multiple photons combine their energy to help a single electron. So we can NEVER extract all the solar energy in sunlight with solar cells. That’s the essence of the “Quantum Efficiency Limit”.

In a solar cell, you want the photons of sunlight to boost an electron to the conduction band ( leaving a “hole” ), and then you collect the electrons, run them external to the solar cell to power the load, and then return the electrons to the solar cell where they find one of the “holes”, and return to the valence band; hence maintaining the solar cell as electrically neutral.

However, a certain fraction of the electrons will find a “hole” before they power the load. They will emit a photon, and settle back into the “hole”. The energy of those electrons will NEVER find their way out to power the load.

So yes; there are inefficiencies in the Rankine steam cycle. A Rankine steam cycle will be, at most; 40% efficient.

The so-called “environmentalists” gasp at that figure.

However, solar cells are only about 20% efficient in practice, because of the concerns mentioned above.

Somehow, that doesn’t bother the so-called “environmentalists” as it does with the Rankine steam cycle.

The typical UNEDUCATED anti-nuke is so concerned for the 60-70% inefficiency of the Rankine steam cycle on a nuclear reactor, but they are not concerned at all about the 80% inefficiency and waste heat from solar cells.

Solar cells produce waste heat too – and don’t say that heat would have been there anyway. Solar cells are DARK for a reason; you don’t want to reflect sunlight, you want to absorb it.

So solar cells make the landscape “blacker”; they reduce the albedo, and hence the amount of sunlight that is reflected to space. If solar cells turned ALL the extra energy they absorbed into electricity that was sent somewhere else; they wouldn’t produce waste heat or thermal pollution. However, they don’t turn all the sunlight into electricity; only 20% or so. So the majority of the extra absorbed energy that is absorbed by the solar cell instead of being reflected to space, is turned into heat; and solar cells are thermal polluters. On a per unit of electricity generated; they are WORSE waste heat producers than Rankine steam engines.

We do not need nuclear power

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2013-07-28 12:35.

There are many sources of clean energy! Geothermal, solar, wind, and water as well as energy emitted from the earth. If all of these are used and researchers put in enough time and willpower into it, all of these systems can be improved. Solar power is getting more advanced.

Nuclear power is dangerous, and extremely harmful to the environment and all it’s inhabitants. No matter what figures you compile to be “right” or what expert says so, there is always another expert who disagrees, it is dangerous! Many people have died in nuclear accidents, and what if Japan has another big earthquake? The food supply in the Pacific is already contaminated, fish are testing positive for radiation such as tuna that spawns off the coast of Japan. They are finding radioactive particles in the seaweed and kelp off of the California shore, there are at least 3 types of radioactive particles in the rain and air all over the US that have come from Japan. Our bodies can repair the damage as long it is low exposure that is not too prolonged but if we get a massive dose or ongoing low exposure our health is very much at risk. Putting the health of the entire earth at risk is just really stupid, no matter how passionate you are in arguing about it.

REALLY??

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2013-09-04 17:14.

The above poster states:
Many people have died in nuclear accidents,…

It depends on your definition of “many”. More than one? Yes.

About 3 people died in the SL-1 accident in Idaho in 1961:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

NOBODY died due to the Three Mile Island Unit 2 accident in 1979:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/tmi.html

The official account is 31 deaths due to the Chernobyl accident:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

The impact of Fukushima in 2011 will be minor:

http://hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000087239639044477240457758927044405933…

In over half a century of the use of nuclear power, the world-wide death toll due to nuclear power accidents is under 100. A single crash of a commercial airliner usually kills more than all the deaths attributable to nuclear power in over 50 years.

Or take the use of automobiles. Each year in the USA alone, about 40,000 people are killed by automobile accidents; so over the 50 years that we have had nuclear power, over 2 million people have been killed in the USA due to the use of automobiles. Do I hear people clamoring to ban cars due to this carnage?

We accept the over 2 million deaths do to cars, but when less than 100 people have been killed by nuclear power, we have people posting that “nuclear power is dangerous”.

That’s just the usual propaganda and self-serving fabrications that one expects from those that oppose nuclear power.

You are entitled to your own opinions; but you are not entitled to your own facts!

The PRO NO NUKES do not resort to your tactics of bullying

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-06-06 12:55.

Talk about reverse psy-ops folks? This guy, right here. Don’t you fall for it. The propaganda is from the NUKE INDUSTRY and their handlers and their hit men, such as this one right here. NO nuclear is the only SAFE nuclear! Shut them all down NOW!

You shot yourself in the foot

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-06-07 07:10.

You want us to believe that the “no nukes” crowd tells us the truth and is being logical and rational; but you provide the counterexample right here. Where’s your evidence that your opponent is from the “nuke industry”? We are all anonymous, so you don’t know who he / she is and what industry he / she works for.

Last I read, the percentage of scientists and engineers that supported nuclear power was in the high 90s percentile; 98% or 99% Not all of these people work for the nuclear industry, in fact only a small fraction. So your opponent could very well be one of those, yet you are claiming a connection with the “nuke industry” based on what?

Where’s the logic and critical thinking that goes into drafting your conclusion that he / she is a member of the nuclear industry? Self-righteous indignation and warmed over leftist dogma is a poor substitute for logical reasoning and critical thinking.

In essence, you are proving your opponent’s contention about the anti-nuclear community. You just shot yourself in the foot.

Another Reminder Why I Don’t Come Here Much Anymore

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-06-01 20:12.

Tell you what. When you start to address the actual questions posed, and stop screaming and yelling about how “stupid” people are who post questions about the safety of this very controversial way to produce steam, then maybe I’ll come back. I last about five minutes here at BRAWM specifically because of douchebags like you.

I’ll tell you what’s really frickin’ dumb. Using energy from plants that can’t be insured and leave taxpayers on the hook. That’s F’n DUMB. Want to know what else is dumb?
San Onofre. Backup electrical system not separated from the main electrical system for TWO DECADES. The work-around? Someone checks once an hour. If they bother to do it.
THAT’S the reality of what’s going on in nuclear plants today. I mean, HELLO. That’s really basic stuff…..SEPARATE THE BACKUP WIRING.
But we’re dumbasses for asking about this in the wake of the worst industrial accident in decades?

You nukers are smart enough to split atoms but not smart enough to see that when the companies that run these joints are blinded by dollar signs, safety goes by the wayside.

You didn’t answer one bloody thing the OP posted. All you did was scream and yell and rant and rave and froth and bleed from the eyeballs about how dumb people because they ask questions.

And this is a university forum. Unbelievable. If I had the time, if I didn’t have to work for a living, I’d write to every god damn administrator in your department and complain about the horrible, disgusting, pathetic way that the public’s questions are being treated on this forum. But why should I? It’s your funeral.

Who’s really paying for nuclear power, anyhow?

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-11-09 13:53.

I think this is a very good point. If capitalism really is all about competition, then let The Marketplace decide if nuclear power is so attractive. Pull out all the taxpayer supports for nuclear energy and let nuclear power compete with all other forms of energy. (And, BTW, end “oil depletion allowances” for fossil fuel companies, too, which is more porkbarrel corruption.)

If the insurance industry won’t guarantee nuclear power plants, that should tell us something. Why should the taxpayer pay to be irradiated with unsafe nuclear power? Let the CEO’s of the power companies live next to nuclear power plants, instead of the poor and blacks.

More MISINFORMATION from the anti-nukes

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 07:51.

The above misinformed anti-nuke tells us that nuclear plants can’t be insured. This gullible person fell for the anti-nuclear propaganda without checking the facts.

The fact is that nuclear power plants are required by the Price-Anderson Act to obtain commercial insurance from an underwriter like American Nuclear Insurers:

http://www.amnucins.com/

American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) is a joint underwriting association created by some of the largest insurance companies in the United States. Our purpose is to pool the financial assets pledged by our member companies to provide the significant amount of property and liability insurance required for nuclear power plants and related facilities throughout the world.

Beyond this first tier of protection, the Price-Anderson Act provides a second tier administered by the Government; but paid for by the nuclear industry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price%E2%80%93Anderson_Nuclear_Industries_I…

Any monetary claims that fall within this maximum amount are paid by the insurer(s). The Price-Anderson fund, which is financed by the reactor companies themselves, is then used to make up the difference.

Once again, the anti-nukes have been caught red handed passing propaganda instead of giving the public good, accurate information.

“And this is a university

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-06-02 06:32.

“And this is a university forum.”

No. This is a public forum, hosted on a university website. A university that was the home of the “free speech” movement.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion but unfortunately not every opinion is equally valuable or presented in a non-confrontational manner.

PC translation

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-27 21:52.

Again we have someone that really does not understand nuclear energy.

The above poster states that the Government is interested in nuclear energy so it can make nuclear bombs. Hogwash! None of the material in the US nuclear weapons came from commercial reactors. All the nuclear material in US nuclear weapons came from the USA’s special production reactors located at Hanford, Washington and Savannah River, South Carolina. The reactors at both these sites have been shutdown since the late ’80s because the USA has all the weapons material it needs.

http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter13.html

The above poster thinks that solar power is the total solution. Solar power doesn’t give you power at night. In fact the bulk of solar power comes in a 6 hour window from 9 am to 3 pm. When I tell this to solar proponents, they tell me we don’t need power at night. Sure we do. The number one user of electricity in the average home is the refrigerator and it needs power at night or what’s the use; your food is spoiled. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences states in their report on energy that only 20% of our electrical energy can come from renewables. That’s because renewables are intermittent. We don’t have a throttle on Mother Nature. We can only take what she gives. It’s not sufficient to have the amount of energy from renewables equal the demand in an “average” over the day. It has to meet the demand second to second, or the grid falls.

http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-sources/renewable-sources/

The above poster also didn’t do his homework checking on how the disposal of nuclear waste is financed. The Government collects a special tax on nuclear generated electricity from the nuclear utilities as a condition of their license, and it is that money that is used to finance nuclear waste disposal. Google “Nuclear Waste Fund” or read the following:

http://www.lvrj.com/news/doe-sued-over-nuclear-waste-fund-89826842.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/30/nuclear-waste-fund-us-24-billio

IMHO self-righteous, stupid, ignorant posters that have no interest in providing the public and the readers of this forum with accurate information should check their sources first. Otherwise it would appear that they only want to spew their propaganda…

pro academia

You’re Why I Don’t Come Here Anymore

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-06-01 20:22.

Rude as hell. And you ignore the questions the OP asked.
Pathetic for a university forum.

How should people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES be dealt with?

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 08:04.

How should people who tell OUTRIGHT LIES be dealt with? Do we let their LIES go unchallenged; so that the public is not properly informed?

That’s what the anti-nukes would like.

Your so full of over dramatized propaganda all over the comments

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2013-07-28 12:51.

You speak of the “anti-nukes” as if they are an inferior race or criminals. How immature to use generalized blanket statements like that, along with your emphasis on certain words in capitol letters to drive home your point. No one is buying into your propaganda crap, we all know nukes are dangerous, and if the worst does happen with a nuclear power plant, the damage is catastrophic. So that is the end of the argument right there! Sure we might be pretty good at preventing the worst, but mistakes happen, cutting corners to save money happens, mother nature happens, errors happen, and when they do to a nuclear plant, and when the worst happens, the damage is non-containable, irreversable, widespread, deadly, and can last decades to thousands of years. Nuclear power is not the only way, there is never “one way” to accomplish things. Your propaganda fools no one. I could slam you in debates and find all kinds of evidence to debunk your claims, and so could anyone else who devoted the time and energy. Why bother, your clearly a propaganda agent either sent by the industry or all on your own.

Another anti-nuke flies off the handle…

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-23 13:15.

When confronted by facts versus their warmed over leftist dogma; the anti-nuke flies off the handle.

The number of accidents at nuclear power plants pales compared to aviation accidents. We don’t shutdown aviation; and those accidents actually kill people.

At least in the nuclear accident, the “victims” have a slightly increased chance of getting a curable cancer decades from now.

Nice post

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2013-08-16 12:17.

🙂

If you disdain so-called Global Warming deniers…

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-05-12 16:12.

I’d be grateful if a few of the UCB Engineers would chime in on this claim.

If you disdain so-called Global Warming deniers, as having no credentials, or having an agenda of their own, please take a look at Mr. Alvarez’ background. He’s a music major that dropped out of school, he’s never published a scholarly paper on nuclear ANYTHING, and he somehow wangled a job in the Clinton administration. He lost a government job, after being busted, when his daughter turned him and his wife in for growing their own Ganja at home.

So, we’re not talking about Dr. Robert Alvarez, well-published scholar and Professor of Nuclear Physics at Harvard, here.

We’re talking about Bob Alvarez, music-major dropout, busted for growing weed, who managed to get hired somewhere and write some hand-waving, attention getting, donation driving silliness that those of us in the environmental community seem to buy, as if anything that’s anti-nuclear is religiously-based.

We can’t do that and call ourselves scientists, period.

Fukshima Spent Fuel Pool #4

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-13 19:58.

No, this is Robert Alvarez who was formerly with the DoE. He is a spent fuel pool expert.

Robert Alvarez has no credibility

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-05-17 14:40.

Yes, he worked for the DOE, in a politically appointed position having nothing to do with nuclear power. He got canned after his teenage daughter turned him and his anti-nuke wife in to the police for growing pot for sale.

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/06/why-does-anyone-trust-robert-alvarezs-…

Why no one trusts Atomic Insights

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-05-17 20:54.

Because it is a pro nuclear ad hominem blog where Rod Adams give his personal opinions, long on wind short on fact. Rod has this to say about his scientific credentials “I never claimed to be a science person. If anything, I claim to be a practically trained engineer. (My undergraduate degree is a BS in English, but I also graduated from the US Navy’s nuclear power school, served as the Engineer Officer on a submarine.”
The vial he spews on Robt Alvarez is tripe typical to the smear campaigns of the AI pro nuke agenda.

VITRIOL, the word is VITRIOL!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-05-18 07:21.

The word you wanted was not “vial”, which is like a test tube.

The word you want is VITRIOL

Don’t try to impress people with your vocabulary, when you don’t have command of it, yourself.

A “vial” is a long, thin

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-05-17 23:20.

A “vial” is a long, thin container, like a bottle. “Vile”, the word you Armageddon-hyping disaster monkeys are attempting so pitifully to employ, is something else entirely. For one thing, it’s an adjective, whereas “vial”, like “idiot”, is a noun.

Way to display, once again, your knowledge, erudition and education. Or, you know, lack thereof.

Calm down

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 01:12.

Calm down and don’t listen to fear mongers:

a) this guy is no Authority
http://www.japanprobe.com/2012/05/07/fukushima-doomsday-predictions-from…

b) Is it bad? Yes. Is it catastrophic? Hardly… read the references at the base of this article re Chernobyl:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2988/is-nuclear-power-safe

Nuclear was a horrible idea, dirty, dangerous… but it’s too late. There’s 400+ NPP’s in the world & another 60+ under construction. It would take many decades to shut them down, dismantle them & store (not exactly safely and only once cool enough) the spent & remaining fuel. Not that the world could ever decide to do it in unison, or ever!

AND despite being horrible, it was and is necessary IF we want to live the way we do (as if we had a choice to stop ‘the world’ from evolving the way it has). Read another from Straightdope – incredible logic, undeniable: Why don’t we ditch nukes and coal?
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3000/followup-why-dont-we-ditch…

Living “The Way We Do”

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-06-01 20:21.

What if the choice is between “living the way we do” and polluting the planet to the extent that our species cannot survive any longer?

Are we so addicted to electricity that conservation can’t even come up as a topic?

And I mean, addicted—-all day every day. Every single thing we humans do is centered around machines.

The people who think the human species is somehow exempt from the possibility of extinction on this finite planet with its closed system, those are the people that scare me.
No I don’t need a bloody blow drier, no I don’t need a TV, no I don’t need a CAR, no I don’t need a refrigerator to LIVE. We do not need these things to live, we WANT them because they’re convenient and we are uniquely spoiled in all the history of the world.

No one here has respect for that. OK, so what if we had to conserve? So what if every house can’t have a megawatt-sucking refrigerator? Are we all gonna die? Of course not.
What if we had to stop our endless consumption? What if we had to entertain ourselves by reading books instead of watching TV or going to the movies or being entertained by our little gadgets?

If sustainability means I have to share a fridge with some other people on the block, so be it. If it means I will have to use a candle or oil lamp at night, SO BE IT.

Good luck with that!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-06-04 17:26.

Well at least we have someone who is honest.

We have someone willing to tell the people that if we forgo nuclear power, then we have to give up a lot of things that make our lives comfortable; like the refrigerator to have healthy food at hand when we want it. We have to give up the car, so we have to live close to work even if it means we can’t afford to, or we won’t have much living space…

Most people like the entertainment that they get from their TV and stereo, and watching movies with the family. We are so fortunate to be able to live the life we do in the USA.

However, we have those among us that want us to live like we lived in some 3rd world country. For what reason? Because they can’t handle a trivially small chance that something could go wrong.

The Fukushima accident was totally preventable if the Japanese Government insisted on US-style regulations; like burying the diesel fuel tank, and making sure the backup generators were someplace water-tight.

The US nuclear plants have these features, and we didn’t need to experience an accident in order to realize that. The Japanese can easily fix these deficiencies that visited this unfortunate circumstance on them. In the USA, the situation is already fixed.

We can have the lifestyle we have in the USA and we don’t have to adopt the lifestyle of a 3rd world nation, because we know how to handle nuclear technology responsibly.

Just like we handle jet air travel. At the first airliner crash, do we say “Jet airliners are a BAD idea. We just have to give up the vacations to far away places and just live out our lives in our own neighborhoods like they do in 3rd world nations because we can’t have jet air travel even if we know how to prevent the last crash”.

There are those that live out their pathetic lives in fear because they won’t risk a one in a billion chance of something going wrong.

I think most of us want to have more enriched lives that comes from using technology responsibly.

Urgent Petition to UN Secretary General for International Help t

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-05-01 21:50.

http://fukushima.greenaction-japan.org/2012/05/01/an-urgent-request-on-u…

An Urgent Request to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to organize a UN coalition for UN Intervention to Stabilize the Fukushima Unit 4 Spent Nuclear Fuel

Signed by former Japanese Ambassadors and 72 Japanese organizations.

Perspective

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-04-10 08:51.

From above:

The total spent reactor fuel inventory at the Fukushima-Daichi site contains nearly half of the total amount of Cs-137 estimated by the NCRP to have been released by all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing, Chernobyl, and world-wide reprocessing plants (~270 million curies or ~9.9 E+18 Becquerel)

The total amount at Fukushima is half what was released as fallout from all atmospheric nuclear tests. How much is the fallout from atmospheric tests affecting us? See:

http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/radrus.htm

We see that the fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests accounts for <0.03% of the average person’s yearly exposure.

Since the inventory of Fukushima is 50% of the weapons testing fallout; the potential release of the Fukushima fallout would increase our exposure by 50% of the amount that is represented by weapons testing fallout which is <0.03%

So Fukushima has the potential to increase our radiation exposure by <0.015%

Uhmm , wait a minute.

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 16:54.

The atmospheric tests were conducted over a period of decades. A Fukushima-Daichi site release from another earthquake would release it all at once.

Not the whole picture

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-04-11 10:32.

Yeah, I saw that. But what you are missing is that the majority of the Cs-137 from atmospheric testing was somewhat evenly distributed. The H-bombs in the Pacific and at Russia’s test site blew their contamination very high into the atmosphere and this stuff took years to rain out. Thus when it did rain out, the distribution was all over the hemisphere.

In the current situation, should Fukushima have another large release, it will likely be deposited much more according to an area’s proximity of the plant. This would be very bad for whoever is directly downwind.

BC 4/11/12

Fukushima

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-06 17:23.

If you’re making all these accusations and inciting fear, why are you Anonymous? Why are you not willing to say who you are and where did the initial quote from Mitsuhei Murata come from? “It is no exaggeration to say that the fate of Japan and the whole world depends on No.4 reactor.” – Mitsuhei Murata, Former Japanese Ambassador to Switzerland and Senegal, Executive Director, the Japan Society for Global System and Ethics.

I’ve seen this quote being tossed around with no reference to date, place or whom he said it to. I’m all for being informed, but it’s VERY important to use sources.
Thank you.
MMPetrich

Eventually….

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-04-12 08:03.

The releases from Fukushima so far have been both atmospheric and dumped in the ocean.

Those atmospheric releases plumes look almost exactly like the plumes of radiation released in nuclear tests. In the nuclear tests, the areas around the Nevada Test Site or the Marshall Islands got more heavily irradiated in the early times after the test, and the radioisotopes have over the years diffused to a more even distribution.

Likewise with the releases from Fukushima. The early “downwinders” will get more for a period of time; but over time the atmospheric releases from Fukushima are going to diffuse into a more even global distribution.

The releases in the sea will similarly diffuse in the waters of the oceans.

The releases from Fukushima look very much like the releases from nuclear tests and will similarly diffuse into more globally uniform distributions.

Testimony of eminent

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-04-07 14:38.

Testimony of eminent radiation expert Robert Alvarez:

http://akiomatsumura.com/2012/04/682.html

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be major.

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligent and existing.

This from someone that can’t spell

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-04-08 12:17.

Above, the heath consequences are…”negligent”.

Is that the word you wanted; “negligent”???

Perhaps the word you want is “negligible”????

You appear to be attempting to parody the posts with the testimony of Dr. John Boice to the US Congress. However, the last lines of those posts are QUOTES from Dr. Boice’s testimony.

The last two lines in the above, are NOT quotes from the cited reference; and hence the atrocious spelling; a hallmark of very poor scholarship.

Hey a-hole, you forgot!!!

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-04-08 18:25.

Hey a-hole, you forgot!!! It’s “THE EMINENT DR. JOHN BOICE”.
So eminent that his special interests are far and wide…

Don’t ya just love these forum bullies? They always get all stick up the butt about spelling and think that equates to logic and reasoning.
Meanwhile, Fukushima happened and is happening.
Talk about fiddling while Rome burns.

What I love to see…

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 12:19.

What I love to see is the anti-nukes squealing like stuck pigs when their self-serving LIES and fear mongering are exposed.

SQUEAL PIG SQUEAL

What I love to see….

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 21:24.

Sir,

Are you here to simply attack the messenger or do you have a rational rebuttal to the very bad news relating to the spent fuel pool at reactor #4 in Fukushima?

Oh yes….

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-04-11 08:55.

Oh yes, the possibility of a 0.015% increase in background radiation is such a catastrophe.

Run for the hills!!…

0.015%

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 05:48.

Do you have some science to show what a 0.015% increase in exposure will do to rates of cancer?

What are you talking about?

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 21:00.

What lies are you referring to? The spent fuel pool in Reactor 4 in Fukushima represents a real doomsday scenario and isn’t readily solvable apparently. Do you care to refute the testimony or are you simply here to attack the messanger.

trustworthy, objective info needed

Submitted by Anonymous on Wed, 2012-04-11 14:57.

I live in Japan, about 125 miles south of the reactor. As a lay person it is very difficult to sift through Internet information – which is the only way I can get info – to find info that seems likely to be reliable. I know there must be
people associated with this forum who have the knowledge and experience to help me understand the probable danger that those of us who live here face. Please, if you are a scholar with expertise in this field and you can help me understand the severity of the situation at Fukushima, I would be most grateful for your comments. The US Embassy in Tokyo is not much help. They simply refer one to Japanese government websites, but the Japanese government has proven to be something less than trustworthy I think. Please, UC scholars, help us understand what we are facing here.

The problem…

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-04-12 08:10.

The problem is how to distinguish between the real scholars, and the anti-nukes that are just out to scare you so they can get their way.

Certainly anything you see posted by BRAWM members can be trusted.

The other thing you can do is read what the real experts have to say. One of those experts was summoned by the US Congress to give testimony. So you can also believe what he says. Courtesy of the scientists at the Health Physics Society:

http://hps.org/documents/John_Boice_Testimony_13_May_2011.pdf

The health consequences for Japanese workers and public appear to be minor

The health consequences for United States citizens are negligible to nonexistent

Interesting seemingly false testimony

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2013-05-14 00:43.

.. Because my friend in Japan, tells me his father just passed away, as indeed, are many of the old, the infirm, and the vulnerable, already; all of course, written off on the death certificates with something nice and innocuous.

Of course, you can trust the Government, and the people who rely upon it, to tell you the truth.

Of course, you can trust the trustworthy Congress of America, to bring you the truth out, like they did about 911, you know.

Can’t you?

The problem…

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 11:33.

Testifying in front of Congress makes someone trustworthy and gives them credibility? What planet are you from? This is what we have to look forward to with up and coming Berkeley graduates? Wow, this is scary. Also, citing a source from over a year ago? Wow, there’s some solid information right there!!

So you can believe what he

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-05-07 05:49.

So you can believe what he says because he testified in front of congress?

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Congress demands the best advice

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-13 11:27.

Congress demands the best advice from the scientific community.

Congress doesn’t have to “make do” with advice from questionable sources.

When there is an issue of national importance that hinges on Congress gaining access to the best scientific advice; then they can get it.

The type of person that you need advising Congress on radiation releases would be a radiation epidemiologist. That’s the business of a radiation epidemiologist; to determine what effect radiation has on the environment and organisms.

The professional society that sets the standards for radiation epidemiologists, analogous to how the American Medical Association sets standards for medical doctors, is the Health Physics Society. Dr. Boice is a past President of the Health Physics Society and a distinguished leading member.

So it’s as if Congress had a question on a medical issue and they got a distinguished past President of the American Medical Association to testify.
That means the person testifying in such a circumstances is one of the leaders of the field.

Health Physics

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2012-05-13 20:04.

Now there’s an oxymoron if I ever heard one.

[Page 3 of comments]

This is one sick puppy.

Submitted by Anonymous on Mon, 2012-04-09 14:48.

This is one sick puppy.

No kidding he is a sick old dog!

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-04-13 22:17.

So lame honestly.

Folks, you clearly have some

Submitted by Anonymous on Sat, 2012-04-14 15:46.

Folks, you clearly have some tensions here on this forum, but could you please put that on hold? Please?

Consider, for example, my colleague, who has a four year old child. We live 125 miles south of Fukushima. If you had a young child and lived so close to Fukushima, would you move to back to Europe, as my colleague could do?

Study Up On Chernobyl

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-04-27 20:15.

If you came here looking for objectivity you came to the wrong place. BRAWM gets it’s funding (as does most of UCB ‘Science’) from industry sources and the US Dept of Energy. As you might imagine- that creates a ‘bit of conflict’ whereas the science is concerned.

If children are involved- then it is YOU who must decide as to whether your stance is to ‘err on the side of caution’ or otherwise.

If you live close to the site then YOU must decide as to whether it makes more sense to watch this unfold from a greater distance or not- and I presume that resources will play a great role in your decision.

Research Chernobyl and decide for yourself. It’s the closest realistic example to this current unfolding tragedy that we have- although ultimately I believe Fukushima will eclipse Chernobyl in a way not easily described.

In the meantime- if you believe that you are being exposed- you will find that the following was utilized in Chernobyl as well as other nuclear pollution sites in removing heavy metal toxins from the body: http://www.etszeolite.com/

This is offered IMHO. (No I’m not affiliated with the site or product)

Best of outcomes to you and yours.

Study Up On The History Of Chernobyl

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 2012-04-27 20:12.

If you came here looking for objectivity you came to the wrong place. BRAWM gets it’s funding (as does most of UCB ‘Science’) from industry sources and the US Dept of Energy. As you might imagine- that creates a ‘bit of conflict’ whereas the science is concerned.

If children are involved- then it is YOU who must decide as to whether your stance is to ‘err on the side of caution’ or otherwise.

If you live close to the site then YOU must decide as to whether it makes more sense to watch this unfold from a greater distance or not- and I presume that resources will play a great role in your decision.

Research Chernobyl and decide for yourself. It’s the closest realistic example to this current unfolding tragedy that we have- although ultimately I believe Fukushima will eclipse Chernobyl in a way not easily described.

In the meantime- if you believe that you are being exposed- you will find that the following was utilized in Chernobyl as well as other nuclear pollution sites in removing heavy metal toxins from the body: http://www.etszeolite.com/

This is offered IMHO.

Best of outcomes to you and yours.

Fear mongering…

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-04-24 07:51.

None of those links are substantiated. They are FUD, pure and simple. Yes people are in fear, yes people will associate anything with everything — but spreading and encouraging that fear does nothing to get to the truth of the matter.

But fear in a way is good

Submitted by Anonymous on Thu, 2012-05-24 16:14.

But fear in a way is good ...I think that people begin to react and think when fear is put on the table. If it’s the truth or not, a little bit of fear is not going to hurt anyone!

fear mongering

Submitted by Anonymous on Tue, 2012-05-22 18:05.

i agree those links to not add up to any credibility. Not one is from an organization that has any background in nuclear anything. none are from educational institutes or even gov agencies or labs that can verify or validate a thing.. like bloomburg ..come on hes a shock jock no more and expert than say howard stern or any other one of them

Conspiracy

Submitted by Anonymous on Sun, 2013-05-12 23:08.

Don’t know who anonymous is, obviously. Well
documented Russian research on Chernobyl
Mentiones close to 1 million casualties.
American hero Neil Armstrong lost his
Very young daughter because of brain
Cancer shortly before his moon trip. What
Do you think the chance was this was caused
by natural causes? He was living in California
At the time. Wouldn’t you feel deceived by
Your government and society to a degree
Where you decide to start to live like a
Hermit? I would.

3 Comments

  1. […] UC Berkeley forum closed. Spent Fuku fuel “an issue of human survival” […]

    Pingback by GLOBAL SUPER-ALARM: Fuku spent fuel = global threat | Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina — 14/09/2013 @ 20:09

  2. […] UC Berkeley forum closed. Spent Fuku fuel “an issue of human survival” […]

    Pingback by Fuku spent fuel = global threat | Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina — 15/09/2013 @ 08:59

  3. best dentist in south austin

    UC Berkeley forum closed. Spent Fuku fuel “an issue of human survival” | Piotr Bein's blog = blog Piotra Beina

    Trackback by best dentist in south austin — 19/03/2017 @ 21:19


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: