Please share far and wide!

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

The Nuclear Industry Is Based On a Series of Lies Out Of the Gate -- And They Don't Give a Damn About You

From an article at WUWT, regarding "Climate Cash" there were a number of pro-nuclear comments in the comment section, in particular, pushing Pakistan of all places, towards more nuclear.   I found it particularly disgusting and wrote of the article below.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/15/pakistan-give-us-climate-cash-or-well-keep-burning-coal/comment-page-1/#comment-2582836


The pro-nuclear sentiment here is disturbing, from a bunch of people who are otherwise pretty free thinking.    I am MSME thermal fluids and material science with specialties is radiation, probability and statistics.    Around 2005 I started hearing how nuclear was now being considered "green".   This is shortly before I started catching on to the scams related to the entire financial system, including the lies and intended massive wealth transfer related to CO2 and "Global warming".    So I thought it was "cool" that nuclear was being called green, it was high tech, and from a young lad being exposed to Cook Nuclear plant and all the great lies of "too cheap to meter"....I did not look further.    

After Fukushima, I started studying the industry and what they have been doing, and was rather appalled at the highly risky ways they handled their most dangerous product, spent fuel, and their superficial focus on "safety" in stupid ways.   A welder friend who does work at nuke plants states how they go through advanced safety training on vacuous type things as "if you are using a cart on a sloped floor stand behind it or it will run you over".   And they ignore the elephant in the room, storing spent fuel, often hundreds of tons, in water pools that are often located at the top of the reactors.   In fact, they do calculations, to "prove" that tighter packing densities are possible if they use boron sheets to separate them.   And then ignore the fact that these boron sheets degrade with time. 

The direct costs of an accident at a nuke plant, will more than wipe out any long term financial benefits of even a fleet of nuclear plants.    Fukushima will see direct costs of over $1 Trillion, and the indirect costs of pain, suffering, loss of productivity, loss of life will also be enormous.   Chernobyl was "not as bad" it was just one reactor, and they took effective action, although it put hundreds of thousands of people at risk in the mitigation effort, it was the right thing to do.   

But when you get to studying the industry, you see that the whole thing, from the bottom up, is built upon a stack of lies.   Starting with "background" which they pretend is around 6 mSv, even though in reality it is less than 1 mSv.    Then the ICRP dose model, which models the human body as a bag of water with energy being "deposited" by ionizations.   This dose model makes a mockery of science and epidemiological studies that clearly show that even low dose radiation causes cancers and contributes to many other diseases / morbidity.    

But it's big money projects, and when those happen, money can be siphoned off for bribes, kickbacks, and so industry and politicians love them.    And it has the entire backing of the Military/Industrial complex.   

But to see those who don't even buy into the CO2 lies, support nuclear on "other grounds" that I find hard to even establish, is disappointing.    Study it with an open mind, and it is very likely you will come to the same conclusions that I have, it is time to phase out all civilian nuclear power plants.

Each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation, EACH DAY.    And there is no solid, safe way to store it for the tens of thousands of years that it needs to be stored.

------------------------------------------------------------------
We shall see if I get past moderation.   This is the first time in years a comment at WUWT has been sent to moderation.  <note it did get through moderation>

  • Fukushima was an inept design putting standby generators where they were susceptible to flood. Had the standby generators been above the flood there would have been no problems with any of the plants. Putting generators in a secure position above floods with sufficient fuel to run for 150% of the expected worse case is a sensible approach but one that is beyond architects to understand. This was not a problem with nuclear power – in the same way that Chernobyl was not a problem with nuclear power.
    • Incorrect, the pipes with irradiated water from the reactor that goes directly to the turbine buildings were broke as radiation alarms were going off even before the tsunami hit. Fukushima was placed at sea level because GE didn’t want to have to design with high head pumps. The fuel tanks were placed right at waters edge for “convenience”.
      They also realized before the earthquake that potential of a tsunami to swamp the plant, and they did nothing about it. This is the whole industry, secretive and greedy. In 2015 Pilgrim in Boston was one step away from a massive release of radiation, the torus heat exchanger worked and they were able to reject heat. That was the last step of their “defense in depth”. Think MSM covered how close that was? No way.
      It’s a systemic problem in what is basically the most dangerous thing on earth. In an EMP or CME was percent of plants wouldn’t shut down correctly, say 10% (note 440 running nuke plants on earth, not all would be effected by the CME or EMP, but you get the drift).
      It is nothing short of insane, chasing after the most expensive free lunch we could conjure up.
      Ian said “This was not a problem with nuclear power – in the same way that Chernobyl was not a problem with nuclear power.
      uh, yeah, I think when nuclear power plants blow up and create vast sacrifice zones, I would yes, that is in fact a problem with nuclear power.
  • stock that is one of the worst bits of layman science ever. This bit I really love
    quote => Each running nuclear plant produces the equivalent of 3 nuclear bombs of radiation, EACH DAY.
    So lets explain this radiation is an emission of electromagnetic waves or subatomic particles and a percentage of that emission will be used to sustain the reaction (you extract heat to make the electricity) but the process irradiates materials in the reactor and cooling water etc which is the waste.
    Once you close the reactor the radiation stops. The problem is the materials that got irradiated along the way which are waste continue to emit radiation. So how long your run the process and your 3 nuclear bombs per day garbage is of little importance, what is important is what got irradiated. The fuel rods and much of the steel in the reactor itself are the main worries. There is a complete list of decommissioned plants on wiki
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_decommissioning
    You will note many of those closed ran for 25-30 years and several are now greenfield with only the fuel rods and close reactor structure stored. They produced your 3 nuclear bombs of radiation per day and it doesn’t really mean a dam thing it’s a layman nonsense statistic.
    The moment you have to start using emotive nonsense to try and validate an argument you have already lost.
    • Its not a “laymans nonsense statistic” it is a way to make the amount of dangerous materials created very real. Say in 30 years, some of that radioactive material has half lifed away, but most haven’t. It’s being stored, usually in water pools that require circulation for cooling. Very little is dry casked (safer but only a can kick down the road for 50 to 100 years).
      Once you close the reactor, the radiation does not stop, the fission stops. The used fuel is not as you say irradiated, new radioactive elements have been created by the splitting of the atom which occurs in a controlled by somewhat random way called the double hump.
      http://www.nukepro.net/2015/09/radiation-education-how-fission-works.html
      My 3 bombs worth of radiation per day, IS WHAT IS STILL in the used fuel. If you are going to support “nuclear science” you ought to man up on facts.

3 comments:

  1. Yet another incident, No One Can Figure Out What's Behind a Mysterious Radiation Spike Across Europe. From a reading in Worksop, Great Britain between Sheffield and Lincoln we have a reading of 2600 uSv/h where 0.3 uSv/h is harmful, equivalent to 108,120 CPM depending on the isotope. Yesterday when I looked it was at 2200 uSvh. At these levels the unit recording the readings is on autopilot, there could be no one at that area! Go here for the reading uRADMonitor. https://www.uradmonitor.com/ Also when this story broke. https://www.sciencealert.com/no-one-can-figure-out-what-s-behind-a-mysterious-radiation-spike-across-europe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That unit went offline in May 15 2017, yesterday I didn't notice the offline, focused on the mid point of that reading and just thought, WOW!

      Delete
  2. All this ratfarm junk science to turn radiation on its ear. You get more radiation flying to Fukushima than being there.

    Why single out nuclear when other riskier industries get a free pass.

    Hatred for radiation is hatred for nature.

    ReplyDelete

Insightful and Relevant if Irreverent Comments