why do people suddenly fear nuclear power plants?

[starkiller212]

According to at least one news article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16nuclear.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp), at least one reactor's container (I think that's the 4' concrete thing some of you have referred to) is probably breached or compromised, meaning that if the reactor does go into meltdown it will release high amounts of radiation. Admittedly, I know almost nothing about this stuff, so I'm curious if any of the people claiming to be knowledgeable can comment on this. Regardless, I'm glad I'm not in Japan right now

 

[Evil Tim]

Fact are that we, as general public, know close to nothing about what there really has happen, are happening or will happen.

Yes, everything is a secret operated by wizards.

 

[Phishfood]

According to at least one news article (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16nuclear.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp), at least one reactor's container (I think that's the 4' concrete thing some of you have referred to) is probably breached or compromised, meaning that if the reactor does go into meltdown it will release high amounts of radiation. Admittedly, I know almost nothing about this stuff, so I'm curious if any of the people claiming to be knowledgeable can comment on this. Regardless, I'm glad I'm not in Japan right now

Disturbing if its true, but is it? I tend to think of the BBC as a reliable source. HOWEVER they infamously fell for the whole "water drains clockwise in the north, anticlockwise in the south" I remember seeing the exact clip of a guy on the equator showing the effect using a funnel and a jar. It was a scam. BBC fell for it, I fell for it. I know better now.

In a round about way this kind of leads directly back to the OP:
Q. Why are people afraid of nuclear power?
A. Because the media is quick to jump on every slightest failure and show it off for all to see while glossing over the more boring and massively more common success stories.

Q. Why do the media do this?
A. Because "OMG Japan is about to become a nuclear wasteland for a billion years and then we will all fall into the sun!" sells more newspapers than "Nuclear powerplant suffers damage but still holds up well"


Ok, so just read something similar on BBC. Still sceptical though. Leaking radiation has been detected and is bad, but does it mean the 4' concrete shell is bust or just a nearby pipe? Either way leaking radiation is bad, but one is a lot more fixable than the other.

 

[UnwishedGunz]

because im sure most of us dont want extra limbs, radiation can mutate people O____o ...or just kill them

 

[James13v]

Because most people don't understand them.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I'll also point out that "pockets of deadly radiation" is a gross exaggeration. There are still areas with elevated radiation counts, yes, but the risk is in terms of long-term cancer or reproductive problems rather than radiation sickness. No, I wouldn't want to live there either... but the risks are closer to those of living in an old house with asbestos insulation than of the stereotypical image of radiation poisoning.

No, it is not a gross exaggeration.

In the exclusion zone, particularly the 10 km area that used to be the Red Forest, there are still pockets of radioactivity well beyond 40 curies mark. That is more then double the amount to kill you instantly.

That sounds a bit high. I'm having difficulties gauging that, though, as I'm more familiar with Rads or Sieverts in this context instead of Curies and I don't know enough about the context to do a conversion. Do you have a source for that figure I could look at?

I could see very high levels inside the Sarcophagus, certainly, but not outside it unless you're talking about a biggish chunk of the core expelled in the explosion... and those, I thought, had been collected in the post-accident clean-up.

-- Steve

 

[SinisterGehe]

But why not use solar and wind power? It will never explode and produces absolutely no yellowcake. Why invest in a type of power which produces waste instead of clean ones which can potentially continue until the sun explodes in 5 million or so years.

Well for an example in Finland where I live. We do not have enough wind to make it efficient enough
and 60% of the year we do not have enough sun light to make it efficient and more up north you go the number drops consistantlt. Example in areas of Rovaniemi and up during wither there is less than 3 hours of sunlight and that is non direct sunlight.
There isn't enough great pools of water to make water power efficient. SO the ways to go are either Nuclear or to Burn wood - that is if you want to replace the Oil and Gas plants.

 

[SinisterGehe]

because im sure most of us dont want extra limbs, radiation can mutate people O____o ...or just kill them

You can not grow extra limbs because of radioation. Sorry it doesn't work like that. Ionizing radiation destroys DNA doesn't generate it. If you are able to survive extremely high doses of ionizing radiation you would devolve instead of evolve. For you to grow extra limb it requires that a right combination of DNA is added to your DNA and for the limbs to grow you would need to be younger than a week old and even then they wouldn't fully grow since the other parts of our DNA is doesn't support it.
So if you are favored by odds that are smaller than 1 to googolplex then you might get an extra finger because of exposing to radiation, if you manage to survive it to begin with.

 

[Jackle_666]

When did people stop becoming afraid of Reactors? Rare and extreme situations are one thing but when they occur, shit gets fucked up!

 

[Phishfood]

That sounds a bit high. I'm having difficulties gauging that, though, as I'm more familiar with Rads or Sieverts in this context instead of Curies and I don't know enough about the context to do a conversion. Do you have a source for that figure I could look at?

-- Steve

This highlights another problem with radiation, most of us (me included) have no basis for units of radiation. I can't even find a site to convert Curies to Rads. They seem to be completely different measurements. The BBC article I am reading starts talking in Greys (4 is fatal) then moves on to mili-Sieverts. Thanks for that.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

That sounds a bit high. I'm having difficulties gauging that, though, as I'm more familiar with Rads or Sieverts in this context instead of Curies and I don't know enough about the context to do a conversion. Do you have a source for that figure I could look at?

This highlights another problem with radiation, most of us (me included) have no basis for units of radiation. I can't even find a site to convert Curies to Rads. They seem to be completely different measurements. The BBC article I am reading starts talking in Greys (4 is fatal) then moves on to mili-Sieverts. Thanks for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation_units - I've been using that page to do my conversions. Grays is the raw measure of how much energy is being given off, whereas Sieverts measure that energy plus how readily it penetrates the skin. (Both are SI: the old measures were Rads and REMs respectively.)

The problem is that Curies don't translate directly to Rads; Curies count how many particle emissions there are, not how much energy is transmitted by those emissions. In order to convert I'd have to know what particles were being emitted and at what energies.

-- Steve

 

[Unesh52]

Okay I know you want to pretend that nuclear meltdowns aren't a serious issue, but now you just sound silly. Chernonbyl was back on it's feet in months? Are you joking? I've never heard a single source, even those in favor of nuclear power, make such a wildly inaccurate claim.

Quoting myself again:

...people still live there. It's not a browning, putrid wasteland. In fact, according to the Chernobyl Forum [http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf]

Following the natural reduction of exposure levels due to
radionuclide decay and migration, biological populations have been recovering from acute
radiation effects. As soon as by the next growing season following the accident, population
viability of plants and animals had substantially recovered as a result of the combined
effects of reproduction and immigration from less affected areas. A few years were needed
for recovery from major radiation-induced adverse effects in plants and animals.

...

The recovery of affected biota in the exclusion zone has been facilitated by the removal
of human activities [i.e. the evacuations of the local people] ...the Exclusion Zone has paradoxically become a unique sanctuary for biodiversity.

The Chernobyl forum is a big, international panel of health organizations, radiation and nuclear experts, and environmentalists, at least a few of which I know are sponsored by the UN. It's kind of the source on what happened at Chernobyl. What sources do you have that suggest... whatever scale of destruction you're suggesting?

Last I heard the majority of US government energy investment goes into coal, natural gas, oil, and ethanol. That's to be expected, however nuclear power does receive a decent chunk of it. Even if the amount of funding nuclear receives is small compared to the others, it's still way more than the pitiful amount that renewable energy gets.

I concede. I don't know much at all about our budgeting practices, and that sounds plausible.

In addressing number 1, the plan you're referring to is a wreck. I assume you're talking about Yucca mountain ...As for U-235 waste reactors, ...Granted there's a lot less of the waste, but it still exists.

The plan I was talking about actually is the U-238[footnote]I goofed. U-238 is the abundant isotope, U-235 is the rare one used in fission generators.[/footnote] waste reactors. And you're right, there will still be waste. But it's waste that has a much shorter shelf-life, and even to say there would be much less would be a massive understatement. Something like 98% of the mass of our fuels right now is considered waste. We're talking about turning that around and using up 98% of that. Besides, we're even working on more reactors to use the waste from that process too, which would produce even less waste with an even shorter shelf-life. And if it's only a tiny fraction of the waste we have now, and essentially all you need to store it is a good strong box, I don't see why keep it around for a few decades is going to hurt. I certainly don't see any evidence that our already rather large supply of waste is doing significant damage to the environment, besides a few vague and as-of-yet unsubstantiated claims.

As for 2, you're correct that renewable energy sources such as wind and solar require more investment to become practical on a large scale. However they are by no means a pipe dream, as I have heard some people claim. ...We'd get 100 years of power before running out of uranium and having to deal with this all again, along with a ton of nuclear waste to go along with it. Excuse me for not seeing the point in doing this.

I don't think renewable energy is a "pipe-dream." In fact, I think developing those technologies is absolutely essential to providing a cleaner, more efficient, safer energy future. I just think that the perceived risks of nuclear energy are blown way out of proportion, even by those who think they're taking a conservative view on the issue, like yourself. And I already countered the claim that it would only last 100 years. Yes, U-235 is extremely rare and deposits might only last a while, but there are other nuclear fuel sources. If they were properly funded they could be developed, and conceivably power everything in the world for several lifetimes.

Not that I suggest that. Nuclear energy should be part of the solution, used in places where the economics allow it to be fruitful. Some places just don't have enough wind or sun or land or infrastructure or what have you for other alternative energy sources. Take a developing nation dependent on agriculture. Can you really justify building a 10 mile across wind farm over fertile soil when a nuclear plant could be built on about a city block and do the same job[footnote]Of course, that rhetorical question only applies if you accept the relative safety of the energy source. You should ignore it altogether if you still disagree with that.[/footnote]?

EDIT: And one last thing. I included the reference about coal burning plants merely as a scale of reference. It's baffling that lobbyists petition for preposterously strict safety regulations on, if not out and out dismantling of, nuclear power plants when they've done less damage in the entire span of their existence than other, conventional sources of energy do in a year.

 

[FightThePower]

Apparently this disaster has all but killed the Nuclear industry in Germany, they likely won't be investing in it any time soon.

Nuclear Power is a lot like Air Travel really. People worry about the risks because on the rare occasion things go wrong it gets very bad very quickly but statistically it's much safer than the alternatives. It's a fact that per year, fewer people die in the Nuclear Power industry than any other Energy industry; statistically the fossil fuel industry has the most casualties.

And really, this reactor is 41 years old, it's hit by an 8.9 magnitude Earthquake, a 20ft Tsunami and three Hydrogen explosions. Only after the 3rd explosion was the containment damaged. And of the course there's the other 10 Nuclear Plants affected by the disaster that are perfectly fine. And you're saying it's not safe?

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Two lines from Pearl Jam's "Garden" song from the album Ten sum up my feelings on this:

I don't question our existance,
I just question our modern needs.

 

[C2Ultima]

Worried about earthquakes disrupting their nuclear plants now, are they? I think they'll be OK. Russia isn't known for having a notorious amount of earthquakes.

 

[keinechance]

And really, this reactor is 41 years old, it's hit by an 8.9 magnitude Earthquake, a 20ft Tsunami and three Hydrogen explosions. Only after the 3rd explosion was the containment damaged. And of the course there's the other 10 Nuclear Plants affected by the disaster that are perfectly fine. And you're saying it's not safe?

Somehow I think 1 reactor meltdown is quite enough for the japanese people.

 

[Unesh52]

The graphite wasn't the coolant, it was the moderator, and it doesn't... er, "increase heat" (maybe you meant it insulates? I don't know if it does that either...), it just caught fire.

He's thinking of the tips of the control rods being made of graphite; the bit that did things was above that, and was boron carbide. They displaced the coolant as they were inserted, and the graphite briefly increased the rate of reaction in the core. Briefly was enough, the reactor blew up a few seconds into the 18-20 second SCRAM process.

I've always read about a "positive void coefficient" causing the increased temperature at insertion, but I have little to no idea what that means. Are you saying that it was the graphite displacing the coolant? Is that what that means?

 

[keinechance]

In the current news, one fukushima reactor is now so highly radiated, that personal is being evacuated + the incident is now a 6 on the INES-scale .( Tschernobyl was the one and only 7)

 

[x EvilErmine x]

Well to answer the OP's question the people still fear nuclear power because they don't understand how radiation works. Ask most people to describe how a nuclear power plant works and chances are 9 times out of 10 you will get an answer that while basically right in principle is missing a lot of the key information or is a worst hideously miss informed.

People like to bring up Chernobyl as an illustration of the dangers of nuclear power and that's fair enough because it WAS an example of what can happen when thing go seriously wrong with nuclear power. However when one looks at the details of the core meltdown it becomes clear that the accident was entirely avoidable and only occurred due to politics and people failing to listen when they were told that the situation was getting dangerous and they really should stop and shut down the reactor. Add to this the fact that the design of the reactor it's self was poor and we can see that the danger is not really all down to the fact that this is a nuclear plant. Rather the problem was due to management of the reactor and people failing to stick to the operational safety limits of the plant.
Yes the core did breach and allow radioactive material to contaminate the surroundings but this only happened because the way the reactor was designed compounded the human errors made, today's reactors will not do this. They are actually made to be 'fail safe'.

To explain it is necessary to know a few facts about the the way in which the reactors generate there power.
All nuclear power plants need to produce 'slow neutrons' in order to split the atoms of Uranium (It is this splitting that generates heat -> which boils water -> Creates steam -> Turns a turbine = Generating electricity)
Now the thing about the 'slow neutron' is that it is not produced (well not in any amounts worth mentioning) as a bi-product of the uranium atom splitting. Rather this process produces a 'fast neutron' that then needs to be slowed down before it can cause another atom of uranium to split. As it turns out water will slow down neutrons quite well, so will graphite, paraffin, and a few other things too.

The Chernobyl reactor used graphite to create the 'slow neutrons' and this was one of the big problems with the design. Modern designs do not include the graphite, thy just use water.

The problem with using graphite and water as opposed using just water is that using the graphite/water method creates a reactor that has something called a 'positive void coefficient'. This is a very bad idea.

The reason it's bad is that if something goes wrong with the cooling system the reactor actually increases heat output rather that reducing it. This is because the heat from the reaction causes the water to turn into steam inside of the core, and steam is a poor absorber of neutrons compared to liquid water. This allows the graphite to slow down more of the neurons produced thus causing more of the nuclear fuel to fission (split) and more heat to be generated and so on and so on.

Modern reactors have a 'Negative void coefficient'. This means that if steam forms in the core then the reaction actually slows down as the reactor loses it's ability to slow down neutrons. So they can't suffer a core meltdown this way.

The reactors that have had to be shut down because of the earthquake/tsunami are of the newer design so there's very little danger of them going critical and exploding. Also the reported radiation 'leaks' that have been reported have not been explained properly, the radiation was not dangerous and has a half life of only minutes at the most so basically by the time you finish reading this then it will have already decayed to a level that is at most only slightly more radioactive than your average granite kitchen worktop.

Woah that turned out to be a bit longer than i intended...sorry about that folks.

 

[Anton P. Nym]

He's thinking of the tips of the control rods being made of graphite; the bit that did things was above that, and was boron carbide. They displaced the coolant as they were inserted, and the graphite briefly increased the rate of reaction in the core. Briefly was enough, the reactor blew up a few seconds into the 18-20 second SCRAM process.

I've always read about a "positive void coefficient" causing the increased temperature at insertion, but I have little to no idea what that means. Are you saying that it was the graphite displacing the coolant? Is that what that means?

That's part of it. Here's Wikipedia's account [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Experiment_and_explosion], which doesn't precisely match my recollection but I must admit I didn't follow the accident too closely after a year or so... it's likely they're right and I'm remembering (or misremembering) old data.

-- Steve