NUCLEAR WASTE....A NIGHTMARE for us now and for future generations to come!

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

125 posts / 0 new

Comments

Radiation, far from being a major cause of cancer, is one of its major cures through radiotherapy applied in every major hospital.

That is because it kills fast growing cells. Thus the unborn and young children are affected the most. Conveniently left out fact.

The major side affect of radiation exposure is cancer. Ever notice that the Nuclear Power Industry does zero to track cancer in the workers lives.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Thank you for that article! Imagine if we had spent the money that is mentioned in the quoted paragraph below, on clean, sustainable, renewable power instead of the project mentioned, how far we ahead we would be with our clean energy. It's SHAMEFUL how much money has been wasted!

"Watts Bar 2 holds the world record for thelongest gestation of any nuclear plant in history, having been listed as "under construction" for 43 years. The project was launched in 1972 and suspended in 1985, when it was already 60% complete, Safer and Barczak observe. By then, despite an initial cost estimate of about $400 million, some $1.7 billion had been spent. The total cost is now estimated at $6.1 billion.

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

http://www.wsj.com/articles/japan-says-fukushima-nuclear-plant-worker-di...

This is interesting in that in the USA they do zero to track if a worker that has been exposed comes down with cancer. Also the dose is less that 20 milliseverts which is the maximum annual dose that a USA worker can legally receive. Until the mid 90's it was much higher at 120 milliseverts per year. Again there is no tracking if a worker gets cancer. You are on you own. Many workers had lifetime exposures over 1000 milliseverts.

In order to keep below the 20 milliseverts per year maximum they are going through thousands of workers at Fukushima per year.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

that's not true- its tracked. I've worked nuclear clean up and worn badges - that was 20 years ago and still get annual mailing from state of Michigan Department fo public health to report to NRC. I usually fill out the form with the third arm I grew beginning 8 years ago.

stwo's picture
stwo
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I worked in it for 30 years. Yes, dose is tracked. Death from cancer, not at all. nobody that I know receives letters from the dept of health. What do they ask you about? How is the 3rd arm? I could use one at times.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Another one shutting down due to Economic reasons. This time Fitzpatrick near Oswego NY.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/02/ny-nuclear-plan...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am
Quote Legend:

Another one shutting down due to Economic reasons. This time Fitzpatrick near Oswego NY.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/11/02/ny-nuclear-plan...

Another one bites the dust! :-)

MrsBJLee's picture
MrsBJLee
Joined:
Feb. 17, 2012 8:45 am

http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20160104/PC05/160109765/1005/build...

When they were discussing a nuclear Renaissance in America 10 years ago, They knew that the first ones built would have to be on schedule and on budget. An issue that has plaqued the nuclear industry. They talked about how they had computerized design, computerized scheduling and modular construction that would make it easy to construct these plants on schedule and within budget. Well, here they are several years into the projects and they are behind schedule and over budget by considerable amounts. I will not argue the carbon free side of the plants, the radioactive waste problem outweighs that. It is the history of these plants. Meltdowns, near misses, 400 security guards per reactor, cost overruns, shut downs due to unsafe operation.

This does not count the 20 or so that were planned in this Renaissance that they gave up on building after billions were spent.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

If Germany can not handle its Nuclear Waste what are the other countries going to do?

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2075615-radioactive-waste-dogs-germ...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Taiwan took over an island from the local natives. Appropriately named Orchid Island. Canada wants to bury it next to the Great Lakes.

https://euobserver.com/energy/131924

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

The 2 reactors under construction are all ready $1 billion over estimate. They are barely out of the ground and have a long ways to go before startup. Westinghouse had to buy the contractor which will make this project a disaster.

http://onlineathens.com/breaking-news/2016-02-02/georgia-public-service-...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

If you get information from anti nuclear sites then you are going to be scared and anti-nuclear. I I have a great idea for you. It is fairly easy to get on as a laborer at a nuclear plant during a refuel outage. Why don't you go work one? You can maybe get on and work dry cask storage. Then you can watch the process, walk all over the casks, and see for yourself.

It is always kind of amazing to me that there are certain subjects that one has ZERO experience or education in, but feel Googling information is a reasonable subsitute. And this article is simply a "may". There is no reason to think they will. A meteor may hit you. You may get cancer this year. The big one may strike tomorrow in CA. Jeez chicken little.......take a deep breath, go work a nuclear plant outage, and come back with some actual knowledge and experience instead of showing us your silly googling skills and how scared you can be of things you don't know about. Classic risk factor misperception--being afraid of technology you don't understand. Just because you don't understand it, that doesnt make it dangerous.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

Every large project is super expensive, is delayed, and comes out to be way more expensive than planned. The Big Dig, Syndey Opera House--huge overruns. Really huge things are hard to build and hard to plan for. This is nothing new. This is the nature of huge projects. New nuclear technology puts the behemoth nuclear plant in the past. Cheaper, faster to build, more flexible siting. I'm sure this makes you happy.

Why are you troubled about Westinghouse? Have you worked for them or with them in the past? What is your beef with them? Oh...did you GOOGLE something negative. Well, that's all you need for an opinion I guess.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

Oh Lordy! Spoken like somebody who has never worked around nuclear material or radiation in their life!!!! Goodness. Nuclear workers are the most certainly tracked and tracked and tracked and tracked. You just do not know about it. Why would you? I live in Richland, WA. I work at the National Laboratory. I used to work in commercial nuclear power. I current go to school refining some internal dose reconstruction education (aka...tracking cancer and risk probability). You are just wrong wrong wrong. I mean, you are wrong because you have no reason to know. You clearly are not a scientist. You clearly have never worked in anything related to nuclear power. You can join the Health Physics Society and read until you want to tear your eyes out study after study after study after study. Why would you come on here and make claims about things you clearly know nothing at all about. It would be like me going on some thread and talking abou the finer points of Japanese motorcycles when I have never ridden on, never owned one, never even touched on in real life. You get to be concerned and you get to be involved and you should ASK lots of questions. You should! But you should not come on here TELLING people things that are not true, that you don't even know are true or not. You are not exactly enlightening people, which I think is your misguided mission.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

There is a very amazing video of containment test involving flying a commercial jet into it. Go on You tube and watch it. Who cares if somebody flies a jumbo jet into the side of a nuclear plant. All you will end up with is an atomized plane. Now, there are some plants with the spent fuel pool not inside of containment. I worked at one. A very large commercial plane would have to get there undetected. Never going to happen. Its not exactly like flying a plane into a building in New York city.

No, cyber warfare will not cause a meltdown. This demonstrates that you have never worked in a nuclear plant. You know how old these plants are? New plants will be entirely passive with emergency cooling using gravity. Go watch some videos.

You now more people die on the highway in a year than have ever died in the entire operating of every single nuclear plant in the world, right? Do you know anything about the science of risk perception? You should go read up on it. Things that really are risky in this world seem safe and things that pose really very small risk are considered dangerous. Its pretty easy psychology. You should do some reading. It is extremely predictable what people think will harm them, even when it poses little harm. Nuclear power is one of those.

And since you don't know anything about nuclear power, maybe you should ask some questions instead of telling everybody what you found when you googled Arne Gundersen.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

We are running nuclear plants that were built in the 50s-70s. Imagine if we were still driving cars from the 50s and 70s. Not that they wouldn't run just fine, but they are not efficient with fuel and we have improved on safety. Nuclear has not udergone that sort of design change. The awful nuclear design of Cherenobyl will never happen again, just like Pinto will never exist again. We need lots and lots of emission free base load energy and nuclear power it. Rooftop solar and wind is nice, but its not going to give us the power to take third world countries out of energy poverty and its not going to replace coal. End of story. So, "the industry has never solved its problems" is because it is an old industry with old people running it. Check out the new nuclear technologies and especially check out the environmental groups who are pro nuclear. Young people and young ideas are why nuclear power is evolving. This is a beautiful thing. I agree that we should not build old style behemoth nuclear plants. We should get new nuclear technology up and running.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

Why do you think there is no safe dose? You know that the Linear Non Threshold model is just a model, right? There isn't a good way to measure how many people get cancer from radiation. Because people get cancer from all sorts of other things and often it takes a long time to get cancer from whatever pathogen you are exposed to. So....all there exists is guessing. I have class tonight--guessing at radiation doses inside the body. I promise you, I actually do know about this.

I used to think cervical cancer was caused by tampons and I was scared to death of them. They don't cause cancer. Doesn't matter, my fear is deep and cultural--I am still afrad. Human Papiloma Virus cause nearly all cervical cancer--add rectal and throat to that as well. Now, you can say that every time you have unprotected sex your likely hood for getting cancer increases. Does the Public Health put some kind of percent chance (stochastic risk) number to this. No. Because they know that it would be impossible to know which people who have been exposed to HPV will end up with cancer. They just say, "its impossible to calculate." We can't equate exposure to getting cancer. It doesn't run linear like that. It would be against nature.

Yet, we try to calculate this with regards to radiation protection all the time. And unfortuantely, it gives people like you--the great unwashed masses not involved in the science of radiation protection--the idea that somehow we know that low dose radiation is going to hurt people. No. We don't really know that. It is just alot of math and speculation. We know that high doses will kill people. But when you talk about somebody meeting the regulatory dose limit--that limit is really low. In essence, that is a number chosen that says, "We know as best we can that being exposed to this amount of radiation will NOT cause harm." So, its just a really low ceiling. It is not the number that means, "You can't get more than thins or you will begin to suffer problems." Im sure that the idea of a limit probably means this to you. It is a very low number--5 REM is not alot of accumulated dose. Most plants have an administrative limit 2 REM per year. Now, if you get a upper GI exam with barium, you will get a dose of about 1REM all at one time. Perspective. My son got probably 4-6 REM before he was six years old. And guess what.....nobody even keeps track of that in medicine-they consider that amount of radiaition inconsequential. So please don't be afraid of number that have no frame of reference.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

Legend, why in the world do you think there is no tracking? You can pull up the tracking. There are entire organizations entirely devoted to reconstructing dose and trying to figure out who has cancer and what part radiation played in it. Jeez. Where did you get this idea? If you have questions about how this has been tracked, what studies have been done, and what the outcomes are, just go ask on the Health Physics Society site. They can steer you right.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

Natural gas is really cheap. Coal is really cheap. Both of these emit greenhouse gases.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

Reprocess it.

wiesner1
Joined:
Feb. 3, 2016 9:28 am

I do not waste my time giving long answers to students. First your "reply to" do not match up in some cases. such as post 113 refers to post 15 which is someone else post.

113 It would probably be easier to get on at Fukushima where they have all ready dosed out 45,000 (received maximum annual dose of 2 rem) in the clean up. One of the employees was diagnosed with Leukemia that they admit was caused by dose that he received at Fukushima. His dose was <2 rem.

A pessimist is an optimist with experience.

114 When they were talking about building the 4 reactors (plus 20 others that were canceled after Fukushima) they knew that if the new plants were not built on schedule they would never get bank loans in the future. The nuclear industry has a terrible record of being past schedule and over budget.

They are in such trouble at the current plants under construction that Westinghouse had to buy the division of CB&I that was constructing them. They have had to hire Flour to help them manage the projects. They are seriously in trouble.

115 The plants track the dose that you receive at the plants. The NRC tracks your total dose. Records of this are well maintained. There is zero tracking if a present or past employee (receiver of dose) dies of cancer or comes down with cancer and is cured. If you can prove otherwise please post a reference. The major side effect of radiation dose is cancer. So if Joe Employee has a lifetime dose of 20 rem and dies of cancer there is zero record of his death from cancer and the fact that he had a lifetime dose of 20 rem. If you do not correlate the 2 there is no problem, right?

116 There is a reason that there are 400+ security guards at every nuclear plant. They are very vulnerable to many ways of attack. If they want to test an airliner crashing into a containment why not use Marble Hills (you can Google it) for a real test. You are correct that they are vulnerable in many ways. Look at pictures of Fukushima 3.

117 The new plants being built in GA and SC are identical to the old plants with a few hours of extra cooling water. They cannot build them on schedule and on budget. What are they going to do with new technology from newbie engineers?

118 The NRC lowered the allowable maximum annual limit from 12 REM to 5 REM in the 90's for a reason. The plants limit it to 2 REM because that is what every other country is doing. Some have set it at 1 REM. Again the plants have no tracking of dose received and cancer. Thus they have no idea.

119 Show me the tracking.

120 True. Nuclear plants have rad waste.

121 They have had 50 years plus to build a reprocessing plant. They have had 50 years plus to solve a lot of problems. The industry has a terrible background. TMI could have been much worse if one person had not come in on dayshift and saw what they were doing wrong on nightshift. There have been at least 5 close calls in the USA where the plants came very close to a major accident. Utilities have been shut down by the NRC for years due to poor unsafe operation. Plants in France and Finland are years over schedule and billions over budget in construction. We are following their lead on the new plants that we are building. Plants that have recently shut down (for economic reasons) are scheduled for 40 years of decommissioning and billion of dollars. It is a matter of time until the next major nuclear accident. They obviously did not plan for worse case scenario at Fukushima.

Tillions of dollars were spent on these. They were all cancelled for a reason:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canceled_nuclear_plants_in_the_Uni...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/02/france-cant-build-its-own-new-nuclear...

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am
Quote Legend:

Plants that have recently shut down (for economic reasons) are scheduled for 40 years of decommissioning and billion of dollars. It is a matter of time until the next major nuclear accident. They obviously did not plan for worse case scenario at Fukushima.

With that remark I think you draw attention to the underlying thesis in the title of this thread. That is, to the moral implications of what modern civilization is doing and its long term impacts on future generations of species of all sorts that make up the biosphere of this planet. A biosphere that we are not capable of separating ourselves from no matter how much technology we create.

The urge to believe that we can somehow magically extricate ourselves from our inherent biology is an exclusively rational impulse on our part. An impulse of a piece of purely rational technology, not a fully human impulse of a living being taking part in a biological world of this planet. Machines, like computers, may be capable of rational operations exclusive of the many other features of our humanity, but we, as biological beings, are not. So we must use a more expansive sense of our awareness and our ability to act in a morally wise way if we are to safeguard our true, biological relationship with the planet that made our very biological existence possible. That's a matter of what ought to be common sense, that is: a sense common to us all as living beings.

The pure rationalists and the technocrats can limit themselves to the realms of Cartesian logic and reasoning. In doing so, they can create the rule-bound, logical institutions which have come to rule us. These are, in essence, very rational, mechanistically-designed institutions to which we are constantly adapting ourselves, often to the detriment of our psychological well-being.

Our common sense, that is, the sense that we develop in common that we need as social beings in order to act in concert with each other for our long term survival (the Common Sense Thomas Paine was appealing to back in 1776), now takes a back seat to the institutional mechanisms and poorly coordinated systems of pure reason. The "experts" who specialize in various specifics, like producing nuclear power with a technology even most of the highly educated people (PhD's, for instance) I know don't comprehend, do not take into consideration in the practice of their specialty a big picture of common sense morality. A common refrain in this regard might be "it's not in my job description." Those technology-specific arguments bereft of any common sense morality are obvious to anyone who cares to look wherever these issues arise. In so doing the majority of us are dismissed as irrelevant. Thereby technocratic specialists' only morality must service the logical amorality of institutions that employ them.

Reason alone cannot be a moral compass or force. It was through the technocrats' compartmentalized reasoning that the Nazi death camps were created. In fact, the extermination of a huge labor pool through this process actually made no broad picture attempt to address any of the larger systemic issues of a nation at war; the loss of that labor pool didn't in any serious way serve the Nazi war effort. It was a pure bit of rational engineering put together through the efforts of a set of technocrats. In the tribunals that followed, none of them could account for its purpose in any but the most hellish language. Hannah Arendt gave us some of the more chilling accounts of the dictatorship of technocracy in works like On Revolution. I personally am forever haunted with her "banality of evil" phrase.

And institutions of various sorts always trump our common sense when they are, de facto, the culture we live in. And tell me, who is not dependent on the systems that these institutions create today in our global economy? Who does not perpetually find themselves up against the expertise of "the specialist" talking down at our lowliness when calling upon our own sense of common, decent morality?

So we are ruled by institutions that produce these various forms of energy necessary to keep these economic systems viable. And the systems have become our Dictators. Our common sense and our urge to live in a moral way that looks to the effects we may have on future generation is rendered irrelevant. But that urge underlies the moral implications in the title of this thread. Yet we cannot really discuss it without being deemed ignorant, even "un" progress-ive in outlook. Progress there being the operative work underlying the Age of Reason and the reliance on the methodologies of reason that produce technologies we are mostly helpless as individuals to create or control.

What you raise there with your acknowledgement of the time and cost of decommissioning this extremely complex and highly specialized technology, that we must acknowledge that only an tiny minority of us can deal with, is a very moral issue. As we have seen by looking through the lens of history, complex civilizations rise and fall. None of them have been sustainable, all have fallen. And, importantly, we are only coming to grips through a few specialties, like environmental science, with the features of sustainability needed to make certain this current version of civilization does not collapse. The likelihood of its collapse is extremely high, at this point, and we are getting plenty of warning from the sciences that we are in the process of creating a Sixth Mass Extinction event.

And here's the issue you've raised: if the current economic system that makes up the global economy collapses, the distinct possibility arises that many, if not all the existing 437 nuclear power reactors in the world will need to be safely decommissioned. If they are not decommissioned, experts tell us that we face the potential for a multitude of Fukushima-like or worse events happening all over the place. As you note, this decommissioning will cost money, expertise, and time. All that involves a kind of institutional integrity that we, at the moment, take for granted. Most of us do not have the foggiest notion of how to go about decommissioning a nuclear reactor so that its nuclear poisons will be contained for the multitude of half lives it contains. It truly is far beyond the technical expertise of the vast majority of us. I hear from some sources it will take an average of ten years to safely decommission each one of them. Imagine that in the midsts of the chaos of a global collapse of the current economic system. That of course is another matter we must rely upon experts to understand for us.

In the face of the possibility for collapse (and no past civilization ever looked forward to that possibility, never planned for it, any more than the one we are living in does), the very existence of these nuclear-based technologies becomes a moral question. And that's a question we do not need a specialist to address. It's actually a kind of democratic-based question. And we need a democracy if we are going to address it, along with all the other burgeoning issues of long term sustainability. These experts are perpetually the bane of any democracy.

.ren's picture
.ren
Joined:
Apr. 1, 2010 6:50 am
Quote .ren:

I hear from some sources it will take an average of ten years to safely decommission each one of them.

They have actually scheduled decommissioning for 40 years at the reactors such as SONGS (3 units) Crystal River, Vermont Yankee, Kewaunee, Pilgrim, Fitzpatrick and the lsit goes on. Not easy to predict costs in 40 years or what anything will be like. Talk about leaving it for the next generation. Decommissioning is pure money out the door, nothing coming in.

Legend
Joined:
Nov. 27, 2012 6:46 am

Impeachment: The Difference Between Nixon & Trump

Thom plus logo There is a very simple reason why some Republicans participated in the impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, but none have so far broken ranks against Trump. That reason is the US Supreme Court.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system