Just a reminder: The "famous" pebble bed modular reactor was ABANDONED this year

[jpak]

Pebble Bed Modular Reactor Project Canceled

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Pebble-Bed-Modular-Reactor-Project-Canceled-135840.shtml

For a long time, physicists have said that conventional nuclear power is a lot less safe than a prospective new technology, called pebble-bed nuclear reactor. A proof-of-concept for the new approach should have been constructed in South Africa, but the nation's government announced last week that it would effectively stop funding for this project. The company in charge of building the facilities, Pretoria-based Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR), is now about to fire about 75 percent of its 800-strong staff, most of which are scientists, physicists and engineers, Nature News reports.

“The resources available to the company will not sustain the current cost structure,” officials at the company announced. The same statement also showed that the new measure was very likely to trigger an exodus of sorts, which would see a large number of nuclear experts leaving the country for more welcoming positions in other countries. However, critics to the new technology say that South African authorities have already funded the project for too long, even if signs showed clearly that no clear outcome would be produced from this effort.

Experts in the African nations began working on this technology in the mid-1990s, when they licensed it from the German Julich Research Center. Authorities hoped that by developing this approach they could transform the country's nuclear energy sector into a lucrative business model that could then be exported in other nations as well. “It caught the mood in South Africa, and the feeling among South Africans was that their technology was as good as anybody's. This was their chance to show the world what they could do,” says University of Greenwich in London energy-policy researcher Steve Thomas.

The PBMR was set up in 1999 by the Johannesburg-based Eskom, which is the country's main electricity producer. The end goal of the research was the development of an economically viable reactor that would use enriched uranium fuel. The thing about the new approach is that the radioactive material would be embedded in graphite sphere called “pebbles,” which are no larger than a tennis ball. The fuel could therefore run at temperatures between 750 and 1,600 degrees Celsius, and also not melt down even if the helium liquid regularly used for cooling was lost. This safety feature persuaded many.

<more>

It's probably a good thing becasue these so-called "meltdown proof" reactors had serious safety issuses (according to US nuclear scientists anyway....)

The Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR): Safety Issues

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/october/a6oct01.html

<snip>

Conclusion

The greatest amount of experience worldwide with nuclear reactor technology has been with the LWR. Even so, many outstanding technical and safety issues with LWR technology remain unresolved, and new surprises in well-established areas, like metallurgy, continue to arise. The development needed to take a new and unproven technology like the PBMR to a point where one can have confidence in the workability of the design will be substantial. Fundamental issues associated with the relationship between fuel quality control and fuel behavior under normal and accident conditions will have to be resolved, probably through extensive testing. While it is hard to estimate the amount of time and effort that would be required to do a satisfactory job, it is clear that the schedule that has been proposed by Exelon is inadequate for the task.

To get over the high hurdle of public acceptance, new nuclear plants should be clearly safer than existing ones. This is not the case with the PBMR. This problem is compounded by Exelon's desire to reduce safety margins required for current plants. In the aftermath of Chernobyl, the U.S. nuclear industry tried to reassure the public that such an accident could not happen here because U.S. reactors were equipped with robust containments, unlike Chernobyl. This argument will make it more difficult for Exelon to justify its choice of PBMR containment to th

<snip>

....and there was that thingy about another "meltdown proof" pebble bed reactor that had an "oopsie" in Germany in the '80's...

The demise of the pebble bed modular reactor

http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/features/the-demise-of-the-pebble-bed-modular-reactor

<snip>

Critical faults in the PBMR design

For some, helium-cooled, graphite-moderated reactors such as the PBMR have always been the ultimate evolution of fission reactor design. The use of helium and graphite allows the reactor to burn the fuel efficiently and to operate at much higher temperatures than conventional light water reactors. It is hoped the temperatures would be high enough to allow for the reactor's heat to be used directly for industrial processes such as hydrogen production and tar sands processing. High temperature reactors can also be designed to use thorium-based fuel as well as uranium and can be developed as fast neutron reactors that don't need moderators.

In Germany, a 15-megawatt-electric prototype PBMR was designed, built, and operated from 1967 to 1988, followed by a 300-megawatt-electric demonstration Thorium High Temperature Reactor, which only operated from 1985 to 1988. A report explaining the delays and problems in the German pebble bed design became public in 2008 when the Jülich Center released a review of its previous pebble bed reactor work.1 It was Jülich's design, specifically the prototype pebble bed reactor, which South Africa had taken as the basis for its PBMR.

The prototype, known as the AVR (Arbeitsgemeinschaft VersuchsReaktor or Research Group Experimental Reactor) had been portrayed to the South African public as an unqualified success. The new Jülich report, however, presented a starkly different picture. In particular, it found that the AVR's fuel had reached dangerously high temperatures during operation. Although the exact temperature reached inside the reactor is unknown, melt strips placed within dummy fuel pebbles, which are designed to withstand heat of up to 1,400 degrees Celsius, melted, meaning the reactor was being operated beyond the design limits for the fuel. The report disagreed with a 1990 Association of German Engineers report on the AVR that stated that high temperatures within the reactor were solely the result of poor-quality fuel. Other factors, as yet unknown, were probably involved, the Jülich report concluded.

According to the South African PBMR joint venture, the maximum fuel operating temperature within the reactor should not exceed 1,130 degrees Celsius.2 If the large temperature variations observed in the AVR are a guide, however, this assumption is far too optimistic, and the PBMR's fuel would fail. The Jülich report found that such fuel failure would contaminate reactor components on an order of magnitude higher than similar contamination in traditional light water reactors, and would thus increase decommissioning costs. The report concludes that irradiated graphite dust created by the rubbing of fuel pebbles within the AVR as they worked themselves through the reactor could become a major safety issue in the case of an accident.

<more>

and pronuclear idiots wanted to build these things without robust containment structures....

idiots

yup!

Bye Bye Famous Pebble Bed Modular Reactor - we hardly knew ya!

:rofl:

[ensho]

1. thanks for the facts

nt

[OKIsItJustMe]

2. Probably too soon to dance on its grave

http://www.engineeringnews.co.za/article/pbmr-pullback-a-painful-decision-hogan-admits-2010-04-15

PBMR pullback a ‘painful' decision, Hogan admits

By: Terence Creamer
15th April 2010

Public Enterprises Minister Barbara Hogan explained that government had been forced to make the "painful" decision to reduce cash injections to State-owned enterprises, such as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) programme, owing to the fact that government "no longer has pockets deep enough to fund it on the scale and length of time required".

The National Treasury indicated in February, that government's allocation to the PBMR Company would all but end, falling from the R1,74-billion in 2009/10, to R3,6-million this year 2010/11. Between 2006/7 and 2009/10, the country allocated R7,2-billion for the development of the demonstration and fuel plants to prove the PBMR technology, while it allocated a further R1,73-billion in 2009/10 for the programme.

...

The fact that the PBMR Company had not secures an investor or a customer had precipitated the decision to reduce funding, but the intention was still to retain the company's critical skills, capabilities and intellectual property.

"There is no uncertainty about the soundness of the technology; in fact the PBMR has been nominated by the American government as a partner in its New Generation Nuclear Programme (NGNP) programme," Hogan noted.

...

[RC]

3. I knew this was another anti-nuclear hit piece when I read 'Chernobyl'

as if it were just another nuclear reactor, instead of a primitive pile of graphic blocks, maintained by poorly trained personal.
Comparing Chernobyl to most any other nuclear reactors is like comparing a model T engine to a modern car engine. The basic concept is the same, but not much else.

[jpak]

4. Yes - graphite + oxygen @1600 degrees C =

:nuke:

[madokie]

5. only fools would advocate for more nuclear power plants being built anywhere

Chernobyl was real and it will be a long time before humans can safely live near there. Chernobyl shows us how dangerous nuclear power can be and is.
Your comparison is way off too

[Confusious]

6. No his comparision is spot on

And there are already people living there. and animals too.

[madokie]

8. And those people would be fools too

How many people died because of Chernobyl and are still dying?
Let me guess you're going to say few if any or an out right NO

[Confusious]

10. Chernobyl was a bad design from the start

No containment building, and graphite moderated. They are illegal to build in the United States.

As for the number who died, it wasn't the United States who didn't care, it was the Russians.

If you have anything else to say, besides emotional rants, I'll be happy to listen.

[madokie]

12. It doesn't make diddly squat

there is no such thing as a good design when it comes to nuclear energy. TMI was what???

[Confusious]

14. Like I said, emotional rants don't appeal to me

nor do they change my mind.

[madokie]

16. Didn't expect it to

and wasn't trying to do that. so there
Nuclear power still sucks

add: If you want to hear an emotional rant I can sure give you one but I don't think you're up to it :hi:

[Statistical]

17. Nobody was injured as a result of TMI. No I take that back.

TMI "hype" galvanized anti-nuclear opposistion. As result less nuclear plants were completed and what took up the slack.... coal. Not just a little but a mountains worth of coal.

So indirectly the accident at TMI, the media hype, and the anti-nukkers lead to hundreds of thousands of extra deaths from fossil fuel.

Of course today we have a chance to correct that three decade mistake. Which is why 55 new nuclear reactors are currently under construction and 98 in planning.

[jpak]

13. and building a pebble bed reactor with graphite fuel pellets and NO robust containment is OK?

don't think so

[Confusious]

15. You forgot about the helium

and the fact it's a completely different design.

[jpak]

19. No - I did not "forget the helium". If there is a breach and air enters the PBMR core

it will either ignite the graphite or react with the hot graphite to produce explosive carbon monoxide.

Either way - if there is no robust containment under those accident scenarios, then....

:nuke:

and it's stupid to suggest it isn't an irresponsible and dangerous design.

yup

:rofl:

[Confusious]

21. Try again

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged. The machinery can be repaired or the fuel can be removed. These safety features were tested (and filmed) with the German AVR reactor.<9>. All the control rods were removed, and the coolant flow was halted. Afterward, the fuel balls were sampled and examined for damage and there was none.

Most pebble-bed reactors contain many reinforcing levels of containment to prevent contact between the radioactive materials and the biosphere.

1. Most reactor systems are enclosed in a containment building designed to resist aircraft crashes and earthquakes.
2. The reactor itself is usually in a two-meter-thick-walled room with doors that can be closed, and cooling plenums that can be filled from any water source.
3. The reactor vessel is usually sealed.
4. Each pebble, within the vessel, is a 60 mm (2.6") hollow sphere of pyrolytic graphite.
5. A wrapping of fireproof silicon carbide
6. Low density porous pyrolytic carbon, high density nonporous pyrolytic carbon
7. The fission fuel is in the form of metal oxides or carbides

Pyrolytic graphite is the main structural material in these pebbles. It sublimes at 4000 °C, more than twice the design temperature of most reactors. It slows neutrons very effectively, is strong, inexpensive, and has a long history of use in reactors. Its strength and hardness come from anisotropic crystals of carbon. Pyrolytic graphite is also used, unreinforced, to construct missile reentry nose-cones and large solid rocket nozzles.<10> It is nothing like the powdered mixture of flakes and waxes in pencil leads or lubricants.

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

TO BE CLEAR: Pyrolytic graphite is also used, unreinforced, to construct missile reentry nose-cones and large solid rocket nozzles.<10> It is nothing like the powdered mixture of flakes and waxes in pencil leads or lubricants.

Or the graphite used in the old graphite moderated reactors.

[jpak]

24. Nice try but FAIL again....

The Pebble-Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR): Safety Issues

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/2001/october/a6oct01.html

<snip>

Among the largest sources of uncertainty for the PBMR are the potential for and consequences of a graphite fire. The large mass of graphite in the PBMR core must be kept isolated from ingress of air or water. Graphite can oxidize at temperatures above 400 C, and the reaction becomes self-sustaining at 550 C (the maximum operating temperature of the fuel pebbles is 1250 C)<1>. Graphite also reacts when exposed to water vapor. These reactions could lead to generation of carbon monoxide and hydrogen, both highly combustible gases.

If a pipe break were to occur, leading to a depressurization of the primary system, it has been shown that flow stratification through the break can cause air inflow and the potential for graphite ignition<2>. While the PBMR designers claim that the geometry of the primary circuit will inhibit air inflow and hence limit oxidation, this has not yet been conclusively shown.

The consequences of an extensive graphite fire could be severe, undermining the argument that a conventional containment is not needed. Radiological releases from the Chernobyl accident were prolonged as a result of the burning of graphite, which continued long after other fires were extinguished<3>. Even though the temperature of a graphite fire might not be high enough to severely damage the fuel microspheres, the burning graphite itself would be radioactive as a result of neutron activation of impurities and contamination with "tramp" uranium released from defective microspheres. An even worse consequence would be combustion of carbon monoxide, which could damage and disperse the core while at the same time destroying the reactor building, which is not being designed to withstand high pressure. In contrast, the large-volume concrete containments utilized at most pressurized-water reactors can withstand explosive pressures of about 9 atmospheres.

<snip>

Finally, even if the above two criteria are satisfied, there must be assurance that the behavior of the fuel will not be significantly worse than expected if conditions in the core deviate from predictions --- that is, the fuel should "fail gracefully." It is on this count that the current TRISO fuel technology is clearly a loser. While past experiments have shown that the SiC layer of TRISO fuel limits the release of highly hazardous radionuclides like Cs-137 to below 0.01% of inventory up to 1600 C, the retention capability is rapidly lost as the temperature continues to increase. At 1800 C, releases of 10% of the Cs-137 inventory have been observed, which is on the order of the release expected during a LWR core-melt accident<7>. Without a leak-tight containment present, the release into the environment would be comparable to the release from the fuel.

<and much much more>

and this was cited in the OP too!

:rofl:

[Confusious]

25. Well, seeing as your report was from 2001

I guess age is no barrier for proof for you.

How's about you tell us how man was not meant to go faster then 5 miles an hour, or he'll turn to goo?

I'm sure the studies from 1830 are still good in your eyes.

Besides, you missed: A wrapping of fireproof silicon carbide

Not surprising.

Also:

There is significantly less experience with production scale Pebble Bed Reactors than Light Water Reactors. As such, claims made by both proponents and detractors are more theory-based than based on practical experience.

From 2001, there's even less experience.

Ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater, just 'cause it's the scary N-U-C-U-L-E-A-R.

[jpak]

26. Oh I forget - nuclear safety *facts* decay like radionuclides but pronucular bullshit is 4-evah

Yup - all those PBMR safety concerns are moot because they have a short half-lives and if you wait long enough they disappear....

(((poof))))

:rofl:

[Confusious]

27. No, what you forget is that science doesn't stand still.

As much as you may like it to.

If you're going to use science, instead of stupid misspellings, to prove your point you could AT LEAST get some current research.

[jpak]

28. No - you forget that design and concept has not changed since 2001

and those safety concerns remain valid an un-addressed by PBMR advocates.

[bananas]

29. Nature Magazine - from this year

Maybe YOU should catch up on current research,
science is based on repeatable results, and we have very repeatable results:
"Every nuclear nation in the world has had a programme to commercialize this type of reactor, and they all got nowhere."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x233033

[Confusious]

30. Yea, I suppose the others are just playing with blocks

In various forms, it is currently under development by MIT, General Atomics (U.S.), the Dutch company Romawa B.V., Adams Atomic Engines <1>, Idaho National Laboratory, and the Chinese company Huaneng.<3>

I think what bothers me most, is that these things are experimental, and you crow when they get shut down. I get the feeling you wouldn't be happy until all of them, even the research ones, are shut down. Am I right?

What others science projects would you like to shut down? the Large Hadron Collider? Any number of the fusion experiments which go on around the world which produce radiation?

[jpak]

31. That's rich - point out the engineering flaws of this really stupid reactor design and

suddenly you are against ALL science.

Now where have we heard this ridiculous argument before?

From a Sock Puppet?

:rofl:

[Confusious]

32. No, I'm just asking an honest question

They are all experimental. Not one has been a production reactor, but you're crowing when it get shut down.

You don't even WANT people looking into it.

Point out how I'm wrong.

A 15 MWe demonstration reactor, Arbeitsgemeinschaft Versuchsreaktor (AVR—roughly translated to working-group research reactor or working-group experimental reactor)

[joshcryer]

41. Being against research = good.

You must not have read the memo.

[bananas]

42. Here's where you're wrong

In post #21, you wrote:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=242402&mesg_id=242509

A pebble-bed reactor thus can have all of its supporting machinery fail, and the reactor will not crack, melt, explode or spew hazardous wastes. It simply goes up to a designed "idle" temperature, and stays there. In that state, the reactor vessel radiates heat, but the vessel and fuel spheres remain intact and undamaged.

That's wrong. When South Africa realized the PBMR could melt down, they decided to defund it, because adding a containment dome would make it too expensive for generating electricity. They tried to save it by redesigning it for process heat, to melt oil out of tar sands and shale rock, but there wasn't enough interest in that.

This wasn't basic research, it was an attempt to build a commercial prototype. Once they knew the final product would be too expensive, they cancelled the project. It's not "anti-science" or "anti-research" to cancel development of a useless product. As the 2003 MIT report said, the "Future of Nuclear Power" for the next 40 years will be old-fashioned LWR's using a once-through fuel cycle.

You probably got some other things wrong, but I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of your post.
There is a massive PR campaign by the nuclear industry, and a lot of people are falling for it.
You fell for it, your post #21 is based on junk science.

[Confusious]

45. That's wrong

When South Africa realized the PBMR could melt down

No, it states clearly in the OP that the reactor was running 200 degree hotter then it should ( 1600 C normal ) that would not cause a meltdown.

It also clearly states there were metallurgy issues and graphite dust issues.

This was not "basic research" but research none the less.

It's not "anti-science" or "anti-research" to cancel development of a useless product.

And what qualifies something as useless? It took 25 years for the internet to become what it is. Would you have cut it off, or is the only thing that needs to be cut is anything nuclear?

You probably got some other things wrong, but I'm not going to waste my time reading the rest of your post.

Yea, sorry, don't want to challenge you. You might learn something besides what your "gut" tells you.

There is a massive PR campaign by the nuclear industry, and a lot of people are falling for it.

Sorry, been a supporter for a long time. Not just the past 5 years. I don't run on "gut" or "feelings" when it comes to science.

You fell for it, your post #21 is based on junk science.

It's all theory at this point. your doctoral degree to understand the math and engineering would be in.................?

My response stands. You folks don't even want people looking into anything nuclear.

When to the protests against the fusion plants start? They're going to be creating "scary" radiation and nuclear waste.

[bananas]

58. Nope.

Here's the bottom line:

The Jülich report further recommends that gas-tight containment structures be built for any commercial pebble bed plant deployed ... the additional cost would make the reactor prohibitively expensive to build commercially.

You're also wrong about me, I've posted a number of times that I support research on fusion and fission,
for example: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=191997&mesg_id=192249
(and be sure to read this post in that thread: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=191997&mesg_id=193383 )

I've also posted about accelerator-driven reactors: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x60525

[kristopher]

47. All their information is sourced to the industry.

I know of no other group anywhere that gobbles up with such a complete lack of critical thinking anything put forth by an industry trade organization.

The swallow ANYTHING from the World Nuclear Association or the Nuclear Energy Institute as if it were an edict from the pope and they were alter boys.

[Confusious]

54. projection. nt

[jpak]

11. living in danger

yup

and those animals exhibit extraordinarily high mutation rates due to exposure to radiation.

yup and yup again

[kristopher]

7. Chernobyl demonstrates the scale of what failure means, no matter what the specific cause.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[madokie]

9. Thanks

The lies, its always the lies that gives them away every time. One cannot have an honest discussion with a pro nukie about anything nuclear and that is a fact.

:hi:

[Statistical]

18. Well there is lies and that "study" Kris keeps COPY & PASTE ing is one of them.

World Health organization reached much different conclusions.

[jpak]

20. Yeah - the WHO estimated 4000 deaths - whoopdeedoo and way to go Chernobyl apologists

not

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2005/pr38/en/index.html

20 Years Later a UN Report Provides Definitive Answers and Ways to Repair Lives

5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -- A total of up to 4000 people could eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but others who died as late as 2004.

<snip>

“This compilation of the latest research can help to settle the outstanding questions about how much death, disease and economic fallout really resulted from the Chernobyl accident,” explains Dr. Burton Bennett, chairman of the Chernobyl Forum and an authority on radiation effects. “The governments of the three most-affected countries have realized that they need to find a clear way forward, and that progress must be based on a sound consensus about environmental, health and economic consequences and some good advice and support from the international community.”

Bennett continued: “This was a very serious accident with major health consequences, especially for thousands of workers exposed in the early days who received very high radiation doses, and for the thousands more stricken with thyroid cancer. By and large, however, we have not found profound negative health impacts to the rest of the population in surrounding areas, nor have we found widespread contamination that would continue to pose a substantial threat to human health, within a few exceptional, restricted areas.”

<more>

:puke:

[Liberation Angel]

34. They did not find more because they are not looking

no deaths here

look away

only 4000

not bad

(but do they count the damage to our immune systems? the mutation of bacterias and viruses which become more deadly? infant deaths? spontaneous abortions?

No

just people who got so severely exposed they died quickly or got cancer quickly

meanwhile the genes of all who were dosed (including in the US where the chernobyl radioactive plume cloud dropped radiation) may be forever altered.

any plant could melt down that is why NONE of them are ever "safe" and when operating at all are deadly...because they MUST release man made deadly radiation to operate.

[Statistical]

36. "because they MUST release man made deadly radiation to operate."

:rofl:

Next you will be telling me than Man did ride on dinosaurs!

[Liberation Angel]

37. They (commercial reactors) do release radiation emissions/effluents and you know that

they have to release the gases into the air and water to function.

But you knew that already despite your snarky fundy comment

[Confusious]

39. Do you know how a reactor works at all?

The same water is circulated continuously through the core, but it's tied to a heat exchanger, which heats up more water, which is tied to another heat exchanger, which heats more water, which then runs through a generator.

None of the water exposed in the core ever gets sent out. It circulates continuously.

[Liberation Angel]

43. Yeah - I worked in the industry. This peer reviewed paper explains how/why all nukes leak

or release or emit deadly man made radiation (ALARA)

ALARA is what is known as "As Low As Reasonable Achievable"

It is the bullshit industry "standard" for how much they get to dose us with legally.

YOU know the cycle produces waste, effluents and emissions, though.

Your ad hominem attacks are buillshit.

Here is a good overview and while I disagree with the overall tone it gets the technical info about emissions ALARA out for consideration.

The radiation is in the gases and is released in effluents NOT normally in the cooling water (but you knew that already, didn't you)

Here is the good overview of the system I know a lot about:

http://www.eolss.net/ebooks/Sample%20Chapters/C09/E4-23-03-03.pdf

Excerpt:

INTERACTIONS: ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT - Environmental Effects of Nuclear Power Generation - A. S. Paschoa

{i}1. Introduction

The nuclear power generation constitutes the intermediate phase between the front- and
back-ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. There are in this intermediate phase routine
releases of radionuclides to the surrounding environment in liquid and gaseous forms.
As far as the environmental effects of these routine releases are concerned a system of
dose limitation to control public exposure to radiation is adopted in mostly all cases.
This system of dose limitation is based in a tripod which includes the justification of a
practice, the optimization of protection of public exposure, and dose limits for public
exposure.

[Confusious]

46. Interesting

But in the conclusion, it seemed to me, more of an argument was being made to keep these things in mind, then any indictment of nuclear power.

One of the other interesting things I found in the article, was that all liquids are kept in storage to allow radioactivity to decrease, if it found.

Also, as a side point, the coal industry releases more radiation and radionuclides then the nuclear industry does.

New passive systems are being implemented that reduce the chances of failure, new ways are being found to deal with the waste.

[Liberation Angel]

48. Still - the radiation IS released into the environment where it kills people and babies in utero

Also the KIND of radionuclides released by coal is not a man made radionuclide and different in its biological effects on the human body

(For example radioactive stronium mimics calcium and is absorbed by the bones and teeth - radioiodine is absorbed by the thyroid)

If one fails to compare the actual radionuclides from coal and nuclear fuel cycles the "amounts" are comparable but the damage is not" nuclear produces much more damaging radionuclides because they are more readily absorbed into the human tissues and organs where they mutate and damge cells and dna causing cancers. YES particulate radiation from coals is dangerous too, but not in the same way or as dangerous as nuke radiation produced in nuclear power plants (although death from radioactive cancer always sucks no mater what the source) Additionally the radiation exposure is cumulative (radiation is stored in the bones, teeth and organs and blood) and therefore BOTH kinds add top each other and act synergistically with chemical damage to organs and tissues (like lung and thyroid and prostate and breast).

Radiation from coal and nuclear is not equal -nuke radiation is worse. But it is ALL bad.

As for the conclusions of the article, my point is that radiation IS released by nuclear power plants as part of normal operation AND that the standards are vague and dangerous and unreasonable BECAUSE they balance the NEED for nukes against the cancer risk and death caused and, because these are industry promoted determinations, they find that the damage to humans is worth the benefit of nuyclear power. I think this is criminal, wrong and insane.

NOTHING is worth giving my kids (and your and/or your loved ones) cancer and death for electricity.

[Statistical]

51. Virtually all strontium-90 in the biosphere came from nuclear weapons testing.

We know this because EPA has monitored its levels since 1960s.

The following graph shows how Sr-90 concentrations in milk measured by RadNet's predecessor ERAMS's data also correspond to blast yields. The the highest Sr-90 concentrations in pasteurized milk, seen in 1963, follow the intensive nuclear weapons testing of 1961-1962. After the majority of above-ground nuclear tests ceased in 1963, the Sr-90 level in pasteurized milk dropped sharply. Because other countries continued a small number of above-ground tests, the Sr-90 level reached a plateau rather than disappearing. Since the last above ground nuclear test in 1980, the Sr-90 in milk has steadily decreased as the radionuclide has decayed away.

http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/rert/nuclearblast.html

So Sr-90 exists in the biosphere (most detectable in milk) but to link it to nuclear power is false. Please provide a single real study (EPA, University, DOE, American Cancer Society, World Health Organization, UN, etc) that shows Sr-90 is being released from nuclear reactors.

Strontium-90 levels in milk are now about 1% of their peak and they continue to fall. Pretty soon they will drop below the detection limit of our equipment. The correlation between number of weapon tests and Sr-90 concentrations based on expected behavior as a result in decay and mobility is exactly what one would expect.

Of course this only comes from the EPA not some junk science website like radiation.org.

[Confusious]

52. Your entire premise is wrong

There is NO difference in radiation.

radiation is radiation whether is comes from the sun, burning coal, fission.

A gamma ray from the sun is the same as gamma ray from a reactor. An alpha particle from the sun is the same as an alpha particle from a reactor.

There is no "special" radiation. There are also NO "special" radionuclides. They have the same effect, no matter where they come from.

131I is a fission product with a yield of 2.8336% from uranium-235, and can be released in nuclear weapons tests and nuclear accidents. However, the short half-life means it is not present in cooled spent nuclear fuel, unlike iodine-129 whose halflife is nearly a billion times that of I-131.

The risk of thyroid cancer in later life appears to diminish with increasing age at time of exposure. Most risk estimates are based on studies in which radiation exposures occurred in children or teenagers. When adults are exposed, it has been difficult for epidemiologists to detect a statistically significant difference in the rates of thyroid disease above that of a similar but otherwise unexposed group.

[Dogmudgeon]

53. PLEASE tell me that LibAng didn't just write what he did ...

I mean, that uranium in coal is "better" than uranium from a reactor. As if uranium from coal is "organic" and uranium from a reactor is "artificial" or doesn't have Positive Orgones or Life Force or something.

I have way too much of a headache this afternoon to bang my head against the wall in frustration.

--d!
How the f**k did we ever make it to the Moon?

[Nihil]

59. Hell, it was a welcome change from the other news ...

... I needed a laughter break after all of the serious, truthful and sad stuff.

As Confusious noted:
> There is no "special" radiation. There are also NO "special" radionuclides.
> They have the same effect, no matter where they come from.

Unfortunately, there are *definitely* some "special" people posting on DU ...

:-)

[Confusious]

23. Ctrl-V for victory

I think, if he pastes it ONE more time, I might believe him.

Or not.

[Liberation Angel]

33. Model t's were prob'ly a lot safer than toyotas and better designed

bad analogy, dude.

Nukes are ALL poorly designed and unsafe as they ALL release deadly radioactive gases and particulates which cause mutations and cancer.

Chernobyl was just one more corporate killing machine like all the rest of 'em.

[Statistical]

35. Well if you think Model T were safer than Toyotas due to a single recall

well that explains a lot and basically anything you think about nuclear reactors should be discounted.

Toyota has 18 million vehicles on the road. To date number of people who have died as a result of unintended acceleration is 50.

50/18,000,000 = 0.00028%

Then again based on emotional appeal (which is all anti-nuker have) that makes sense.

"Model T safer than a Toyota". :rofl: I mean the stupidity of that. A model T with its lacks of any safety features (not even seat belt), low weight, and no crash cage would be a 100% instant fatality at high impact speeds.

[Liberation Angel]

38. And the rate of deaths for model T unintended accelerations is probably zero

thanks for making my point

I was referring to the acceleration problem not overall safety

but my point again is that your analogy sucks

Science is on my side not yours.

www.radiation.org

www.nirs.org

Nukes kill numbers of people in the millions from cancer and genetic and dna mutations (infant death and spontaneous abortions, internal organ damage)

Is murder not emotional just because it is a corporate profit/policy thing?

But emotion is not all we have.

we have science

[madokie]

55. Actually the jokes on you

when the model t was being built there were no high speed impacts as the top speed was less than 40 mph. most roads could be traveled at barely more than a walking speed. How do I know all this because my dad told me so. He was born in 1897 and his first car was a model t when he was 16 years old. He and his brother made moonshine and thats how he made the money to buy it, 200 bucks he said, damn fine car too he said. He said it was rare that someone was killed in what rare mishaps, car to car etc, they had and thats what he referred to them as. Taking all that in consideration the model t very well may have been safer then than a toyota is now. Nothing safe about a vehicle that takes a notion to go balls to the wall, one toyota was too many. Whose telling you that they've only been 50 deaths, toyota? I trust them to tell me the truth like I trust the nuclear industry to tell me the truth about anything, not one iota of trust there for me. Toyota still don't know what the problem really is. For some reason they are protecting that it isn't the program like it was life or death for them and thats more than likely where the problem lies. How do I know this because I used to work on lot more complicated machines than the throttle of a toyota, in fact something like the throttle would be but one very small item. I spent the 80's upgrading the machinery in the local foundry to process controllers, My brother and I. Give me access to their code/program and I'd like to see if I couldn't find the problem, I have before on lot bigger machines than a little ole TOYota fucking piece of shit.

[Statistical]

56. Statistics would disagree with your antecdote.

Even with lower speeds Model T and other early vehicles were far more lethal than modern vehicles.

Still 40mph is certainly a high speed collision. An impact safer than 20mph without modern safety equipment can be lethal. Of course a head on collision with another vehicle would have an impact speed double the average speed.

[Dogmudgeon]

40. A "corporate killing machine". In the Soviet Union.

A corporate killing machine.

In a Communist country.

I must have missed that class in Social Studies while I was out protesting the radioactive Bismuth in Pepto-Bismol.

--d!

[Liberation Angel]

49. Some corporation or business entity built Chernobyl

and the Soviets have a long history of doing business with Wall Street and energy companies in particular.

Google Armand Hammer or Anthony Sutton (who documents it well)

[Statistical]

50. Corporations built Chernobyl? Really?

Is it the same one what built the Berlin Wall? (Nuke & Wall Company nc)
How profitable was Chernobyl Incorporated?
Did they issue a dividend to shareholders?

[Liberation Angel]

57. It was a commercial reactor

The soviets often had help from US corporations with their industries

Buty you'd have to ask them for the details

I recommend Antony Sutton on US financial/corporate/industrial ties to the Soviet/Stalin regime.

see

www.antonysutton.com

Wall street financed the bolshevik revolution according to Sutton and financed Stalin's industrial and energy base and technology.

You can look that up.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0817917918/trineday0e-20

Bercause of secrecy the details in later years are hard to come by but you gotta know that just like with almost all modern dictators wall street was pulling strings and making profits off the "conflict"

[JohnWxy]

22. you heretic. get the stake, get the faggots (classical definition) and the torch!!

[Liberation Angel]

44. All Nukes release man made radiation onto ourselves and our children

1. Introduction

The nuclear power generation constitutes the intermediate phase between the front- and
back-ends of the nuclear fuel cycle. There are in this intermediate phase routine
releases of radionuclides to the surrounding environment in liquid and gaseous forms.
As far as the environmental effects of these routine releases are concerned a system of
dose limitation to control public exposure to radiation is adopted in mostly all cases.
This system of dose limitation is based in a tripod which includes the justification of a
practice, the optimization of protection of public exposure, and dose limits for public
exposure.

INTERACTIONS: ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT - Environmental Effects of Nuclear Power Generation - A. S. Paschoa

You can look it up