From the Nuclear Policy Research Institute

[Senior citizen]

"....Chicago is surrounded by eleven operating nuclear power plants."

".... wants to extend the forty-five year operating life of these plants by another twenty years and many of these reactors are old and dilapidated already."

".... is proposing to build up to 65 new power plants by the year 2020...."

Here's the link:

http://www.nuclearpolicy.org

[phantom power]

1. This could be good news.

I suppose it depends a lot on what sort of reactors they plan to build.

Anyway, it represents decreased dependence on fossil fuels, and a hedge against peak oil and global warming.

[Senior citizen]

4. Good news?

The institute is announcing a symposium on nuclear power and children's health.

Reactors that are old and dilapidated are going to have their operating lives EXTENDED!

Did you think Chernobyl was good news?

[phantom power]

5. I was thinking more of the 64 new reactors.

Regarding the old ones, I wouldn't want to just let them deteriorate and keep operating them. I'd expect them to be maintained properly.

[Senior citizen]

7. Uh, has anyone told you we now have the biggest deficit in US history?

Just where do you expect the money for building new reactors and maintaining old ones to come from?

[phantom power]

8. If you think our deficit is bad now,

wait until we start running out of oil.

Whatever strategies we implement to replace fossil fuels are going to cost an assload of money. It's a damned crime, but the fact is that our country has saddled itself with so much debt that I doubt we're going to pay it back before oil starts to become more expensive, and stays that way.

If I had my way, we'd be a debt-free country, and move forward from there, but look at it this way: I'd rather debt-finance a big project to secure an oil-free energy source than, say finance a giant counterproductive occupation of the middle east.

[Senior citizen]

11. RENEWABLE RENEWABLE RENEWABLE

And CLEAN.

Do you think that just because we could run out of oil, it doesn't mean that we'd ever run out of uranium?

Or do you think that we've solved the disposal problem for nuclear wastes?

One reason that money hasn't been put into wind turbines and solar cells is that big oil finds war profiteering more profitable.

Another reason is that pharmaceutical companies can't profit from energy sources that don't cause cancer.

Renewable energy resources don't require deficit spending. They can be financed through energy conservation programs. What I really don't understand is why so-called "conservatives" have never heard of energy conservation.

If you are spending a certain amount to pay for energy for your home, and you would have to pay a certain amount to switch to renewable energy sources, which would pay for themselves in a given amount of time, all the government has to do is let you do it through a program that rewards energy conservation. The government simply guarantees your switchover, so that you can solarize without paying it all in front, and from then on you pay whatever you'd have been paying in electricity costs, to the people who did your solar installation, until it is paid for. With a government guarantee behind them, companies would be happy to finance you, and so many people would do it that the costs would drop quickly.

The same sort of thing would work with cars. With a government guarantee behind them, cities could provide EFFICIENT public transport, and people would pay for it out of the money they saved.
A few weeks back I was on a trolley and happened to sit across from a woman who was holding a car key. Thinking that she was on the trolley because her car had broken down, I asked her what had happened to her car. She explained that she always parked her car at a trolley station near her home and took the trolley from there to work and back because it was cheaper, easier, and saved time. A few million more like her and we wouldn't have a problem.

[phantom power]

13. Those are all fine too. But a couple comments...

1) I support all those ideas, but every one of them will also cost tons of money, which is also going to either increase our deficit, or require increased taxes. There will be eventual payoff, but there is also payoff from fission power.

2) Current photovoltaics involve heavy metals, in the same way that computer chips do. Manufacturing them produces industrial waste.

3) Payoff time on solar energy is still fairly long. I know, I ran the numbers for my home. And I live in Phoenix. Even with existing tax breaks, payoff time is out around 10 years.

4) Any system based purely on solar and wind will require ENORMOUS energy storage facilities. These will be expensive, and also add a very significant environmental impact, which is not usually factored in.

5) What we call nuclear "waste" can be used, if we do it right. I'll let NNadir do his spiel on that one.

6) Although nuclear fission fuel is finite, it can last a long time. And it buys us time to either move off-planet, or get fusion working, or both.

[Senior citizen]

16. Nope.

1) I used solar power when I lived on my sailboat. There was a small cost. Every 5 or 6 years I had to buy a new storage battery. Since my solar cell cost less than most people's generators, and they had to keep buying gas while I didn't, I know which is cheaper. Since people are NOW paying a lot for electricity, and solar power would save them a lot of money, it doesn't require deficit spending to get private solar power companies to finance solarization--just a government guarantee. Since the people who get their homes solarized won't have to pay any more each month than they currently pay for electricity, and they'll know that once it is paid off, they won't have an electric bill, in only rare cases would the government have to step in if somebody defaulted. Since the photovoltaics companies and solar installation companies would be making huge profits and paying taxes, there would still be a large profit.

2) With the increase in production, better methods that involve less pollution can be developed.

3) The existing tax breaks aren't sufficient. ENRON didn't want them to be sufficient. But 10 years sounds like a long time to me. I think that in most cases it would only take 2 or 3 years. The more energy a home uses, the higher their electricity bill, so the payoff time should be about the same at any level.

4) Enormous? Well, I had a small sailboat and only needed one storage battery. But the larger the home or building, the more space they would have for storage cells.

5) Spare me, please. Toxic waste is already being recycled. Ask the vets suffering mysterious ailments after being around weapons that used depleted uranium, or the people who are sick and found out that toxic wastes were in the fertilizer used to grow their food, or spread on the fields near their homes.

6) The sooner you and NNadir move off-planet, the happier I'll be. But I'm an environmentalist and I don't think we should metastacize into space until we've become less malignant. Just because you've destroyed your home, doesn't necessarily mean you have the right to destroy the rest of the universe. In fact, unless we become a viable species that does not overpopulate and can live harmoniously, I hope some superior life form surgically removes us before we kill again.

[Massacure]

20. From the power companies.

[Heyo]

2. I am all for nuclear power.....

It is the cleanest and most abundent source of energy (among the sources that have the capability to supply *enough* energy. Solar power and wind/hydroelectric are great but just dont have enough oomph yet.)

Heyo

[Senior citizen]

6. Yes, nukes sure do have "oomph."

"Enough" energy for whom?

I don't have a car. I lived off the grid for most of my life.

Even now that I'm in senior housing with electricity and running water, I use very little energy, mostly for the refrigerator and computer. I have heating and cooling vents, but I never turn the thermostat on. If it is hot, I take some clothes off, and if it is cold, I put more clothes on. Same thing with pajamas and blankets. I never formed the habit of using electricity when it wasn't necessary. Of course I happen to live in a very moderate climate. But from what I've read, this country uses a lot more energy than it needs to.

I think President Kerry will teach us how to become energy independent without nuclear power plants, simply by putting more money into renewable energy sources and rewarding energy conservation.

I used to think the cost of building an all-solar house was exhorbitant--until I learned that people living in comparable non-solar houses paid that much for electricity every few years, and in some cases every year.

Nuclear power plants are a tempting target for terrorists. Their routine and accidental radiactive emissions cause cancer in neighboring communities.

Reclassification of nuclear wastes permits recycling into household goods.

Transport of nuclear wastes for disposal at Yucca mountain has been referred to as a "mobile Chernobyl."

Nuclear plants are not actually "clean." The nuclear fuel cycle involves CO2 production.

Ask the Downwinders about how our government protects us--the ones who are still alive, that is.

Oh, and please don't drink any more Kool-Aid.

[phantom power]

9. Explain to me how 300 million people can live "off the grid"

If you can make a convincing case for that, you'll have an audience.

And yes, it would also be nice if we had avoided letting our population get that big, but we have to start from where we are, not where we wish we were.

[Senior citizen]

14. For my 800th post, I shall explain:

Sun, wind, water.

Most people like to save money.

The moment President Kerry starts programs to reward energy conservation, millions of people will want to take advantage of them.

Anyone who learns that they can almost completely eliminate their electricity bill through a program that lets them finance it without paying any more than they pay for electricity now, until it is paid for, is likely to take advantage of it. People just don't like having high electricity bills, and when they learn that they don't need to, millions of them won't. I explain it elsewhere in this thread.

People don't like paying a lot of money for gas. Once communities have government guarantees for programs that make public transportation more efficient, that can be paid for by the people who use it, out of the money they save by not using their cars as much, millions of people will benefit by taking advantage of it, like the woman on the trolley that I refer to elsewhere in this thread.

Programs that reward conservation can also pay for development of thermal and tidal energy sources.

Let me make it simple.

People are paying a lot of money for unclean, nonrenewable energy, and the prices keep going up.

When they find out that they can pay a lot less for clean, renewable energy, they will take advantage of it. If there is one thing that 300 million people in this country can agree on, it is that they like to save money.

[phantom power]

15. Hmmm. That isn't really off the grid, that's powering the grid with

different sources.

Also, remember that replacing our power sources isn't the same as conservation. Installing solar power on my roof is, sadly, more expensive than getting it from natural gas power plants (or wherever it is that we get it here in Phoenix. I think mostly it's gas)

Now, if I upgrade the insulation on my roof (which I did) that is conservation. But even that costs money. The payoff is much faster, though.

I guess what I'm saying is: switching to renewables is not the same as using less energy. And our current civilization depends on a LOT of energy. Without it some largish fraction of our population couldn't live.

I hope that we can learn to live somewhat simpler lifestyles. That IS conservation, and it will ease the load on our planet. But the disturbing fact is, it's gone beyond that. Just feeding the population we have requires a level of energy production that will be difficult to replace with pure renewables. Nuclear is one way to complement the weaknesses of renewables. Maybe the only way.

[Senior citizen]

17. Who you calling "we," pal?

Some of us already have learned to live simpler lifestyles.

More people are doing it every day. As the economy gets worse, many people have no choice.

You know how us old folks are. Let me tell you a story. Way back when I was much younger, I found myself living in a very underdeveloped country in a place where there wasn't any electricity or running water, and people burned wood or dung for fuel to cook. I wasn't sure if I could adapt to such conditions until it occurred to me that if my ancestors hadn't successfully survived such conditions, I wouldn't be around. Since I had their genes, I figured that I would be able to manage, and sure enough, I did.

You know how some vegetarians feel that anyone who eats meat should have to kill the animal themselves? Well, I feel the same way about energy. I think anyone who drives a car should have to kill an Iraqi themselves instead of sending other people's kids to do it. You'd be amazed at how many people would quit driving immediately.

I want to thank everyone in this thread for helping me escape from the 700 club. I have some things I want to do now, so I'll stop posting to this thread. Have fun, kiddies, and don't forget your rad badge.

[phantom power]

23. Right, I almost forgot. You're the 2nd coming of Thoreau.

Living off the land, in harmony with nature. Off the grid.

Posting with your computer constructed from plastics made with fossil fuels, created with energy generated by fossil fuels, and most likely running on electricity generated with fossil fuels.

[snowFLAKE]

24. A facetious post, I take it?

Personally, I make do just fine with my organic DNA-based computer:

http://cism.jpl.nasa.gov/program/RCT/DNACompUD.html

Of course, obtaining a source of DNA to keep it Up and Running is always A Challenge. Back when I lived Texas, there were plenty of Road-Kill Armidillos, and what with each of their cells having 64 chromosomes (see http://morgan.rutgers.edu/morganwebframes/level1/page2/ChromNum.html ) they were a great source of DNA. Now I live near some Mosquito-infested swamps, and with these critters - first of all them being small, and secondly with them only have 6 chromosomes/cell, it's a real pain in the ass trying to keep my DNA-based computer functioning.

[phantom power]

28. I was thinking of "Thoreau's Axe". Or, in this case, "Thoreau's computer"

I was also being rude. However, I am offended to be told that I ought to go kill Iraqis, by somebody who's using a computer constructed on the back of the fossil fuel industry. "Thoreau's computer", as it were...

[AZCat]

27. You're just up the road from me

I'm here in Tucson, and we get a big chunk of our energy in Arizona from coal. The summer peak loads (about twice of the nighttime load) is covered by natural gas but coal is generally the most common and the cheapest form of energy production in the U.S.

Regarding conservation versus increased power production: this isn't a switch that can occur rapidly. As you point out, quite a few Americans depend on an obscene amount of energy to live. We will have to work hard over the next two or three generations to change our lifestyles, or we will be forced to build quite a few nuke plants to supply the energy demand. Some of this is structural - lower density of cities requires more energy (greater trip distances) - but a lot has to do with trivialities that consume huge chunks of resources without any corresponding increase in quality of life.

I won't argue with NNadir's points about the relative qualities of nuclear power when compared with alternatives, but I believe it is all pointless if we are to maintain an inefficient system. Only by realizing that we must consider energy use of the community an issue (rather than leaving it up to individual choice and a free market) can we make necessary decisions. Otherwise we will continue postponing the inevitable.

[MercutioATC]

18. Yeah, "clean" except for that pesky waste....

We can do better than that.

[Heyo]

21. The waste is a problem for sure...

.. but you mean to tell me al the scientific minds in the world can't think of a way to deal with the waste?

Imagine if the waste were not a factor anymore, then it would be an extremely good option. Reactors are very safe nowadays and another three mile island or Chernobyl is astronomically unlikely.

Heyo

[snowFLAKE]

3. More Nuclear Reactors . . . AAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH

(Yeah, I know it's getting A Bit Old)

[NNadir]

10. Let's be clear. Every nuclear plant built SAVES lives.

Please unambiguously demonstrating a single nuclear death anywhere in the United States from a pressurized commercial water reactor. Given that millions of Americans have died from air pollution since the building of the last nuclear plant in the United States and no one has died from a nuclear plant, or so called nuclear "waste" storage, or from nuclear terrorists (insert mythology here), it should be immediately clear that 65 new nuclear plants is about the best news an environmentalist could here.

But no, we will now repeat all of the usual stupidity and insistent ignorance that always accompanies this topic.

The fact that no one gives a shit about deaths unless they involve radiation does not secure the future or revive one dead person.

Oh, and when we're counting dead, how about considering global climate change? Four Category 3+ hurricanes this year, and counting. Or do we all agree with George Bush that global climate change has nothing to do with these events?

[Senior citizen]

12. Where have you been?

The nuclear fuel cycle involves CO2 production.

How can you consider global climate change without considering CO2 production?

Do you know what CO2 production is, and how it effects the climate?

Are you just in denial?

What have you got against CLEAN, RENEWABLE energy sources, like wind and solar power? If you don't own stock in any, why not buy some now, because when President Kerry gets his energy programs going, their value will rise as sharply as the deficit will decrease.

[Heyo]

22. Hey wind and solar power are great...

hydroelectric, too.

Wake me up when they alone can generate the kind of power it takes to power the country.

Heyo

[NNadir]

25. You will name one form of energy that does NOT involve the expenditure

of CO2.

What planet are you living on?

The payback in CO2 (the point at which the CO2 expended in manufacturing the energy is recovered by CO2 not released in fossil fuel) burned is about 10 times shorter than it is for any known form of renewable energy except wind energy.

This is one of the more ridiculous claims against nuclear energy, this tired old bit about CO2 expended in building nuclear plants.

In every single one of these scientifically illiterate threads I point out that the EU has commissioned a study of the external cost of energy, and the lowest external cost (the cost paid in environmental and health degradation) is for wind energy, which is more or less equivalent to nuclear energy. Put another way, nuclear energy is one of the two SAFEST AND CLEANEST forms of energy known.

The method of calculation of the risks and impacts of energy use is known as EXTERNE, and the model is being developed by people who address in hopes of dispelling ignorance and fear with measurement and knowledge. Of course, given the power of ignorance and fear and religion, the outcome of this struggle is no where near certain.

The report is available here: http://www.externe.info/externpr.pdf

If you will refer to the table on page 15, you will see that nuclear energy has 1/3 the external cost of photovoltaics in Germany, the only country where enough PV capacity has been installed to quantify it's environmental health impact. So much for the "danger" of nuclear energy, and so much for the "safety" of PV. The only country in which the entire EU where the external cost of biomass is lower than nuclear energy is the Netherlands, where the difference is a minuscule 0.002 Eur/kW-hr. In Denmark on the other hand, biomass is 15 times more expensive than nuclear energy when measured in terms of the environmental damage it costs. It costs 3 Euro cents per kilowatt hour to use biomass, as opposed to 0.2 cents for nuclear. In the UK biomass is 4 times more expensive than is nuclear energy.

I covered all of this before in another thread here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=5609&mesg_id=5609

Whenever this particular anti-nuclear (which I regard as an anti-environmental) thread rears it's head, I bump up the external energy thread. I will do it again.

You have claimed that I am AGAINST wind and solar. I am not. I believe that even though photovoltaics are more dangerous and expensive than the nuclear option, we need to install them to the maximal possible extent, as a duty to future generations. Nuclear fission resources will only last about 3,000 years at an energy demand of 1000 exajoules per year on a planetary scale. Every atom of fissionable material that we avoid using, every fissioned atom we replace with solar energy, is one available for the future. Still, the crisis we face NOW demands that we scale up the only scalable form of safe energy we have: Nuclear energy. If we do not scale up nuclear energy quickly, many billions of us will die prematurely, if not catastrophically.

I am particularly outspoken in support of wind farms. I am outraged by the NIMBY partisans who have fought against the Cape Wind project in Massachusetts and who are now objecting to wind projects off the coast of my home state, New Jersey. Still I recognize that these installations will be no panacea.

Only in the United States are people so abysmally ignorant as to think that energy can and should be risk free. It is not. Our preferred option, which in the age of Bush is to demand that other people - like Iraqi children or Bengali families living at low elevations - accept our risk without question will damn us forever in history.

[MercutioATC]

19. SAVES lives? Remember the plant at Three Mile Island?

"Pennsylvania Health Commissioner Gordon MacLeod publicly stated that downwind from the plant the number of babies born with hypothyroidism jumped from nine in the nine months before the accident to 20 in the nine months after. MacLeod reasoned that the thyroid gland was affected by the large amount of thyroid-seeking iodine 131 released from the plant. He also emphasized the increase in deaths of infants within a 10-mile radius, as did Ernest Sternglass, a University of Pittsburgh physicist. In the six months after the accident, 31 infants living within 10 miles of the plant died, more than double the 14 deaths during the same six-month period the previous year."

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2004/so04/so04mangano.html

[NNadir]

26. First of all, to discuss saving lives one has to COMPARE.

This means that one looks at the alternatives, which happens to consist of something called AIR POLLUTION, which is, in spite of what you may have heard NOT harmless.

If, for instance, 500,000 people died at Three Mile Island, which clearly didn't happen except in the minds of people with a tenuous grasp on reality, and 1,000,000 people died from air pollution from coal plants (as actually happens) then we use a mathematic operation called SUBTRACTION to determine that 1,000,000 - 500,000 = 500,000 lives have been SAVED.

Only nuclear power is examined in this very peculiar (and immoral) light. This is what is known as marketing, the use of specious pseudo information and spin to prove a point that is not connected with reality.

Let us consider your excerpt quoting Mr. McLeod and Mr. Sternglass. There is absolutely no information in this reference which says for instance that they are CORRECT, no information comparing statistics, just some reference to a twenty four year old publication making a claim.

Then we have this gem, from the same reference:


"Twenty-five years after the largest accident in the history of the U.S. nuclear power industry, the research to date is limited. Only the Hatch, Wing, and Pittsburgh studies on patterns of several types of cancer have been published. Nothing exists in the literature on infant mortality, hypothyroidism in newborns, cancer in young children, or thyroid cancer, even though data for all of these were routinely collected in 1979. All of these conditions are especially sensitive to ionizing radiation. Many prominent journals have remained silent. Why?"

The implication here is that some vast conspiracy exists in the scientific journals "covering up" Three Mile Island. No data to support this implication is offered however.

Then there's the nonsense about Xe-133. Xe-133 is a gas. It is detectable on an atom by atom basis. The article states that the Xe-133 concentration was "three times above normal," which is rather incredible, given that the normal concentration of a gas with a half life of 5 days would be zero. (It was also infinitely above normal). (In fact, the half life is NOT 5.3 days as reported in the article; it is 20.8 HOURS.) http://atom.kaeri.re.kr/ton/nuc9.html

The fact is that the mean molecular speed of Xe-133 is given by the relationship

v =2*(3*kT/2*M)^1/2 where k is Boltzmann's constant, T is the temperature in Kelvin and M is the mass of Xenon 133, 2.027 X 10^-25 kg. If you do the math, you find that the mean molecular speed of Xe-133 at 25C (298K) is about 167 meter/sec which translates to 601 kilometers per hour or, for those still using non scientific units, 373 miles per hour. Therefore it would be most surprising if in fact any xenon-133, (an inert gas very much unlike I-131) hadn't diffused far around the world in a short time.

This article is deploring the fact that there is a lack of research on Three Mile Island, but actually offers no data indicating what such research might prove. The claim is implied that the lack of research reflects indifference to the health effects of Three Mile Island, but another case suggests itself. A reactor accident exists in which 300 million curies of radioactive were released to the environment, at Chernobyl.

At the end of this post I will list some articles (from a relatively small part of the scientific literature, ACS journals). Here is a link where one can find links thousands of scientific references on Chernobyl: http://www.unscear.org/chernobyl.html. Hardly a conspiracy of silence, I think.

Even if, and I very much doubt that one can except by specious inference and innuendo, that one could PROVE that Three Mile Island actually lead to real deaths, it is worth noting that both Three Mile Island and Chernobyl represent nuclear energy in its FAILURE MODE. Neither accident has been repeated, mostly because the engineers did what engineers should do, look at failure modes to prevent repetitions of the failure. I note with some alacrity, and deep moral apprehension that most forms of energy on this planet kill in NORMAL OPERATING MODE. The most pernicious form of energy on this planet, fossil fuels, are especially egregious in this regard. It is disgusting that people twaddle around with trying to figure out if 20 or 30 people died from thyroid cancer, while millions die from other preventable causes.

(Oh wait a second, the article you link implies in an unreferenced study that 212,000 people will die of radiation related thyroid cancer. This is astounding since only 8000-14000 cases of thyroid cancer are diagnosed each year in the United States. This claim thus (at the lower limit) alleges that 26 years of Thyroid cancer doses are attributable to radiation. As this link http://www.utmb.edu/otoref/Grnds/ThyroidCA-9810/ThyroidCA-9810.html notes, thyroid cancer was not unknown before the invention of nuclear power. Theodor Kocher won the 1909 Nobel Prize in Medicine for research and treatment of over 2000 Thyroid cancer victims. Maybe his patients all got Thyroid Cancer from intuition that there would be two nuclear accidents world wide seven or eight decades after they saw Dr. Kocher. Note: Thyroid cancer is largely curable - using radioactive Iodine-131. Of the cases ten thousand or so diagnosed cases, only 1000 or 10% lead to actual deaths.)

Here is a 2002 Scientific reference that flies in the face of the claim that Three Mile Island was in fact a major health disaster: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/docs/2003/5662/abstract.pdf. Although the article does not conclusively eliminate possible health effects, it shows that they are very, very tenuous at best. I note that Three Mile Island, which is not particularly far from where I live, happens to be downwind (as I am) of the major coal burning regions of the United States.

Here is a list of 44 articles in the last five years covering Chernobyl:

Livestock flood the environment with estrogen
Paul D. Thacker;
Environ. Sci. Technol. A-Pages ; 2004; 38(13); 241A-242A.
Full: PDF (110k)



77% Current
Radioactivity near the Sunken Submarine "Kursk" in the Southern Barents Sea
Matishov, G. G.; Matishov, D. G.; Namjatov, A. E.; Smith, J. N.; Carroll, J.; Dahle, S.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2002; 36(9); 1919-1922. DOI: 10.1021/es0112487
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (88k)



77% Current
Records of Change in Salt Marshes: A Radiochronological Study of Three Westerschelde (SW Netherlands) Marshes
Dyer, F. M.; Thomson, J.; Croudace, I. W.; Cox, R.; Wadsworth, R. A.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2002; 36(5); 854-861. DOI: 10.1021/es0110527
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (197k)



77% Current
Rhizospheric Mobilization of Radiocesium in Soils
Delvaux, B.; Kruyts, N.; Cremers, A.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2000; 34(8); 1489-1493. DOI: 10.1021/es990658g
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (64k)



77% Current
Rapid Dating of Recent Aquatic Sediments Using Pu Activities and 240Pu/239Pu As Determined by Quadrupole Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry
Ketterer, M. E.; Watson, B. R.; Matisoff, G.; Wilson, C. G.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2002; 36(6); 1307-1311. DOI: 10.1021/es010826g
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (63k)



77% Current
Impact of Preferential Flow on Radionuclide Distribution in Soil
Bundt, M.; Albrecht, A.; Froidevaux, P.; Blaser, P.; Fluhler, H.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2000; 34(18); 3895-3899. DOI: 10.1021/es9913636
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (181k)



77% Current
Post-World War II Uranium Changes in Dated Mont Blanc Ice and Snow
Barbante, C.; Van de Velde, K.; Cozzi, G.; Capodaglio, G.; Cescon, P.; Planchon, F.; Hong, S.; Ferrari, C.; Boutron, C.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2001; 35(20); 4026-4030. DOI: 10.1021/es0109186
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (64k)



77% Current
Reduction of Crop Contamination by Soil Resuspension within the 30-km Zone of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant
Sauras-Yera, T.; Vallejo, R.; Tent, J.; Rauret, G.; Ivanov, Y.; Hinton, T. G.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2003; 37(20); 4592-4596. DOI: 10.1021/es026377h
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (64k)



77% Current
High-Resolution Record of Pyrogenic Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbon Deposition during the 20th Century
Lima, A. L. C.; Eglinton, T. I.; Reddy, C. M.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2003; 37(1); 53-61. DOI: 10.1021/es025895p
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (221k)



77% Current
Global Distribution of Radionuclides (137Cs and 40K) in Marine Mammals
Yoshitome, R.; Kunito, T.; Ikemoto, T.; Tanabe, S.; Zenke, H.; Yamauchi, M.; Miyazaki, N.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2003; 37(20); 4597-4602. DOI: 10.1021/es030362h
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (118k)



Baltic Countries at theTurning Point
Kellyn S. Betts;
Environ. Sci. Technol. A-Pages ; 2002; 36(21); 414A-421A.
Full: PDF (674k)



77% Current
Concentrations of 239Pu and 240Pu and Their Isotopic Ratios Determined by ICP-MS in Soils Collected from the Chernobyl 30-km Zone
Muramatsu, Y.; Ruhm, W.; Yoshida, S.; Tagami, K.; Uchida, S.; Wirth, E.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2000; 34(14); 2913-2917. DOI: 10.1021/es0008968
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (58k)



77% Current
Sample Cleanup by On-Line Chromatography for the Determination of Am in Sediments and Soils by -Spectrometry
Perna, L.; Jernstrom, J.; Aldave de las Heras, L.; de Pablo, J.; Betti, M.;
Anal. Chem. ; (Article); 2003; 75(10); 2292-2298. DOI: 10.1021/ac034093p
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (155k)



77% Current
129I from the Nuclear Reprocessing Facilities Traced in Precipitation and Runoff in Northern Europe
Buraglio, N.; Aldahan, A.; Possnert, G.; Vintersved, I.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2001; 35(8); 1579-1586. DOI: 10.1021/es001375n
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (152k)



77% Current
Assessment of the Suitability of Soil Amendments To Reduce 137Cs and 90Sr Root Uptake in Meadows
Camps, M.; Rigol, A.; Vidal, M.; Rauret, G.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2003; 37(12); 2820-2828. DOI: 10.1021/es026337d
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (132k) Supporting Information



76% Current
Sorption and Desorption Behavior of Organotin Compounds in Sediment-Pore Water Systems
Berg, M.; Arnold, C. G.; Muller, S. R.; Muhlemann, J.; Schwarzenbach, R. P.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2001; 35(15); 3151-3157. DOI: 10.1021/es010010f
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (178k) Supporting Information



76% Current
Global Analysis of the Riverine Transport of 90Sr and 137Cs
Smith, J. T.; Wright, S. M.; Cross, M. A.; Monte, L.; Kudelsky, A. V.; Saxen, R.; Vakulovsky, S. M.; Timms, D. N.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2004; 38(3); 850-857. DOI: 10.1021/es0300463
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (213k) Supporting Information



76% Current
Environmental Security: An Evolving Concept Environ. Sci. Technol. A-Pages ; 2001; 35(5);
Full: HTML



76% Current
DNA Damage Detection Technique Applying Time-Resolved Fluorescence Measurements
Cosa, G.; Vinette, A. L.; McLean, J. R. N.; Scaiano, J. C.;
Anal. Chem. ; (Article); 2002; 74(24); 6163-6169. DOI: 10.1021/ac025888j
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (199k)

Smart Polymeric Coatings for Surface Decontamination
Gray, H. N.; Jorgensen, B.; McClaugherty, D. L.; Kippenberger, A.;
Ind. Eng. Chem. Res.; (Article); 2001; 40(16); 3540-3546. DOI: 10.1021/ie010034v
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (99k)



76% Current
Analysis of Sources of Dioxin Contamination in Sediments and Soils Using Multivariate Statistical Methods and Neural Networks
Gotz, R.; Lauer, R.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2003; 37(24); 5559-5565. DOI: 10.1021/es030073t
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (113k) Supporting Information



76% Current
Triclosan: Occurrence and Fate of a Widely Used Biocide in the Aquatic Environment: Field Measurements in Wastewater Treatment Plants, Surface Waters, and Lake Sediments
Singer, H.; Muller, S.; Tixier, C.; Pillonel, L.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2002; 36(23); 4998-5004. DOI: 10.1021/es025750i
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (146k) Supporting Information



76% Current
Heterogeneous Reaction of HOI with Sodium Halide Salts
Mossinger, J. C.; Cox, R. A.;
J. Phys. Chem. A.; (Article); 2001; 105(21); 5165-5177. DOI: 10.1021/jp0044678
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (183k)



76% Current
The Historical Record of Atmospheric Pyrolytic Pollution over Europe Registered in the Sedimentary PAH from Remote Mountain Lakes
Fernandez, P.; Vilanova, R. M.; Martinez, C.; Appleby, P.; Grimalt, J. O.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2000; 34(10); 1906-1913. DOI: 10.1021/es9912271
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (149k)



76% Current
Spatial Distribution and Temporal Accumulation of Polychlorinated Dibenzo-p-dioxins, Dibenzofurans, and Biphenyls in the Gulf of Finland
Isosaari, P.; Kankaanpaa, H.; Mattila, J.; Kiviranta, H.; Verta, M.; Salo, S.; Vartiainen, T.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2002; 36(12); 2560-2565. DOI: 10.1021/es0158206
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (95k)



76% Current
Selective Trapping of Organochlorine Compounds in Mountain Lakes of Temperate Areas
Grimalt, J. O.; Fernandez, P.; Berdie, L.; Vilanova, R. M.; Catalan, J.; Psenner, R.; Hofer, R.; Appleby, P.; Rosseland, B. O.; Lien, L.; Massabuau, J. C.; Battarbee, R. W.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2001; 35(13); 2690-2697. DOI: 10.1021/es000278r
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (148k)



76% Current
Plutonium from Mayak: Measurement of Isotope Ratios and Activities Using Accelerator Mass Spectrometry
Oughton, D. H.; Fifield, L. K.; Day, J. P.; Cresswell, R. C.; Skipperud, L.; Di Tada, M. L.; Salbu, B.; Strand, P.; Drozcho, E.; Mokrov, Y.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2000; 34(10); 1938-1945. DOI: 10.1021/es990847z
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (374k) Supporting Information



76% Current
Establishing Remediation Levels in Response to a Radiological Dispersal Event (or "Dirty Bomb")
Elcock, D.; Klemic, G. A.; Taboas, A. L.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Policy Analysis ); 2004; 38(9); 2505-2512. DOI: 10.1021/es034894+
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (76k)



76% Current
Historical Trends of N-Cyclohexyl-2-benzothiazolamine, 2-(4-Morpholinyl)benzothiazole, and Other Anthropogenic Contaminants in the Urban Reservoir Sediment Core
Kumata, H.; Sanada, Y.; Takada, H.; Ueno, T.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2000; 34(2); 246-253. DOI: 10.1021/es990738k
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (187k) Supporting Information





76% Current
Modeling Lead Input and Output in Soils Using Lead Isotopic Geochemistry
Semlali, R. M.; Dessogne, J.-B.; Monna, F.; Bolte, J.; Azimi, S.; Navarro, N.; Denaix, L.; Loubet, M.; Chateau, C.; van Oort, F.;
Environ. Sci. Technol.; (Article); 2004; 38(5); 1513-1521. DOI: 10.1021/es0341384
Abstract Full: HTML / PDF (172k) Supporting Information