"Only nuclear power can halt global warming" - James Lovelock

[Emperor_Norton_II]

Offered without comment. No, really.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=524313

Global warming is now advancing so swiftly that only a massive expansion of nuclear power as the world's main energy source can prevent it overwhelming civilisation, the scientist and celebrated Green guru, James Lovelock, says.

His call will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement. It has long considered the 84-year-old radical thinker among its greatest heroes, and sees climate change as the most important issue facing the world, but it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call.

Professor Lovelock, who achieved international fame as the author of the Gaia hypothesis, the theory that the Earth keeps itself fit for life by the actions of living things themselves, was among the first researchers to sound the alarm about the threat from the greenhouse effect.

(more, as always, in the link)

[wtmusic]

1. He's right.

The benefits far outweigh the risks.

[patricia92243]

4. I agree.

[Massacure]

2. This is the same link as in Breaking News isn't it?

Anyways, America's second generation reactors are getting old and crumbly. I think that they need some updating. I'll be pissed off if they decide to build coal instead. The third generation is a lot better, and pretty soon the fourth generation will be done. France and Germany did a great job with their reactors. We should follow in their footsteps.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

6. *looks* Huh, so it is.

Though this thread is far more genteel in tone. At the very least I don't see thundering denunciations of James "Gaia Hypothesis" Lovelock as a paid shill for The Nuclear Industry(tm). ;)

[Spinzonner]

3. We'll bury the nuclear waste

in his backyard.

Of course, he'll have to commit to its stability and provide adequate security and maintenance for a million years or so.

[NNadir]

9. We will NOT bury nuclear waste, except maybe in this stupid generation.

We will recycle it. 97% of the composition of so called "nuclear waste" is actually uranium that can be recovered and fissioned to make more energy.

Unfortunately, the American people (in comparison to civilized nations) are toldly consumed by irrational fear. So they think that "nuclear waste" is a worse problem than global warming and air pollution. This is scientifically and frankly, morally, absurd. If a knowledge of risk assessment were required to graduate from the sixth grade, American junior high schools would be practically empty.

We have lots of threads on this subject, but it ain't even close. We have yet to lose the first person in this country from the storage of "nuclear waste."

It happens that in a complete actinide recycling program, nuclear power will reduce the radioactivity of the earth in about 1000 years time. So any talk of a million years is based wholly on ignorance. Anyone with a modicum of scientific literacy (who can understand what a graph means) can find, (if they can find the book) a picture of this situation page 231 of William Stacy's "Nuclear Reactor Physics" John Wiley and Sons copyright 2001.

[Dead_Parrot]

10. NNadir - just a quick question...

...Has anybody actually used transmutation, or is it still in the theory stage? (Don't worry, I'm sold, just wondering far along the technology is.)

[NNadir]

16. All nuclear reactors engage in some transmutation as a normal

function of their operation. The most profound effect is on the concentration of isotopes having a mass number 135; the long lived Cesium isotope, Cs-135, is one of the most problematic of fission products. Most of the isotopes having a mass number of 135 are transmuted as Xenon-135. They are tranmuted into isotopes have mass number 136. The longest lived radioactive isotope having mass number 136 is Cesium-136, with a half-life of 13 days. Most of these isotopes end up as non-radioactive Barium-136 or Xenon-136.



All breeder reactor plants are transmutation plants; unfortunately they currently are used only to transmute Uranium into plutonium. As we know, the world is awash in plutonium and the task for nuclear engineers is not to increase plutonium but to decrease it.

The MSRE (Molten Salt Reactor Experiment) operated as a transmutation plant, transmuting Thorium into Uranium-233. In one of the collosal mistakes of the twentieth century, this brilliant experiment was defunded in the 1970's.

The IFR (Integral Reflux Reactor) was planned to be usable both for breeding and for transmutation but it was defunded.

The first ADR (Accelerator Driven) transmutation pilot plants will probably be in Europe, Japan, Russia in the next decade or two. These reactors are subcritical and thus shut down at the flick of a single switch. They have many attractive features, but I'm dissappointed a little that these systems will probably be the first commercial systems since I'm a Molten Salt kind of guy. I think they will be commercial in thinking countries by 2020. The construction of these plants will probably involve a few billion dollars. Initially they will be economic by obtaining fees for the disposal of so called "nuclear waste," but I expect that within a short time, they will in fact have to pay for their fuel which will be increasingly recognized as extremely valuable material. (Japan will be selling Rhodium, Ruthenium, and Palladium derived from so called "nuclear waste" within a decade or so, and will collect hundreds of millions of dollars.)

(Note: It has recently been discovered that Xenon-136, a normal constituent of our atmosphere is very, very, very slightly radioactive. The half-life of 9.3 X 10^19 years, meaning that in 1 MT of Xenon-136, there is on average a single decay or 1 ten billionth of a curie. The universe is thought to be about 18 billion years old or 1 billionth the half life of Xenon-136. This interesting and very, very, very difficult discovery was probably obtained because of an interesting theoretical consideration, it is very unusual for two stable isotopes to have the same mass number. Until recently though, Xenon-136, which comprises 8.6% of the Xenon found in our atmosphere, was thought to be a stable isotope. I'm sure that the discovery that yet another radioactive isotope is found in our atmosphere will cause many people to consider not breathing.)

Sorry I missed your question, and I hope I wasn't too late getting back to you.

[LARED]

17. So funny and true

This is scientifically and frankly, morally, absurd. If a knowledge of risk assessment were required to graduate from the sixth grade, American junior high schools would be practically empty.

Great line.

Can I use it?

[NNadir]

18. Absolutely.

[jpak]

21. The National Research Council estimates actinide burning will cost

US taxpayers 50 -100+ billion dollars.

(Note: the DOE estimates that accelerator transmutation of the current spent fuel inventory would cost $279 billion)

The NRC recommended a once-through no-reprocessing fuel cycle and disposal in a federal waste depository as the best way to handle spent commercial reactor fuel.

Unfortunately taxpayers (not nuclear utilities) will foot most of the bill for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository.

YM was supposed to be funded by the Nuclear Waste Fund - a 0.1 cent per kWh tax on nuclear generated electricity.

The estimated cost of constructing and operating YM is $58 billion. The Nuclear Waste Fund, however, will generate a maximum of ~$28 billion.

Taxpayers will have to make up the difference.

"Recycling" uranium, plutonium and MA's from spent fuel requires reprocessing.

Commercial reprocessing in the US was an economic failure. The closure of only commercial reprocessing plant in the US (Nuclear Fuel Services Inc., West Valley NY) saddled taxpayers with the custody and disposal of 600,000 gallons of high level nuclear waste.

The DOE estimates that taxpayers will ultimately spend ~$8 billion to vitrify and dispose of this material.

Who will build and operate future repossessing facilities - the taxpayers of course. Venture capital wouldn't touch this dog with a ten foot pole.

Taxpayers will also pay for the disposal of depleted uranium hexafluoride generated by US enrichment facilities (which, BTW, are the largest single sources of ozone-depleting freon in the US).

US uranium enrichment plants in Ohio and Kentucky have generated 700,000 metric tonnes of toxic/corrosive depleted UF6 - all which is stored in corroding steel containers and all on which will have to be converted to uranium dioxide and hydrofluoric acid prior to geological disposal.

Who will pay for this??? The nuclear plant operators that profited from the uranium enriched at these facilities???

Nope - taxpayers will fund every penny of it.

What other nuclear boondoggles are/were funded by taxpayers???

Lots

Taxpayers spent $250 million to develop the AP-600 reactor.

How many were ordered by US utilities? ZERO!

Taxpayers will spend ~$2 billion to build and operate MOX fuel fabrication facilities that will provide commercial US reactors with fuel manufactured from blended-down weapons grade uranium and plutonium.

It would be cheaper to vitrify and bury these materials - but that's not the concern of nuclear lobby...

Furthermore, the amount of energy yielded from this cock-eyed scheme is substantially less than the energy used to produce the HEU and WGPu in the first place.

Energetically and financially this makes no sense whatsoever.

From 1948 - 1998 US taxpayers spent $66 billion on nuclear power R&D - roughly $600 million per operating nuclear reactor.

(Note: wind and solar R&D funding over this period was ~$5 billion)

What else does the nuclear industry have in store for US taxpayers??????

Plenty.

Part of the Bush administration's energy package would have taxpayers subsidize 50% of the cost new nuclear reactors -$14-30 billion in direct subsidies and loan guarantees.

Furthermore, the government would buy electricity produced by these plants at ABOVE market prices and sell it to the grid at lower market prices.

Taxpayers will absorb the losses.

The GAO has also reported that many nuclear utilities are underfunding trust accounts that will pay for nuclear plant decommissioning.

If these plant owners cannot fund the decommissioning of these facilities, who will??? (clue: people who pay federal income taxes).

Finally, Lovelock was wrong on the Gaia Hypothesis - and he is wrong on nuclear power as a solution to global warming.

Conservation and renewables are the only sustainable way to deal with greenhouse gases.

[NNadir]

22. Really? I have the full National Research Council Report in front of me

and have read it pretty much cover to cover several times and have never seen your rather silly figures approached. Maybe you would care to direct me to the page. (But while we're on the subject did you object to the 200 million dollars and 10,000+ human lives spent in just this last year (with no infrastructure improvements included) to maintain oil? That was an awful tax, but don't Halliburton.

Now let's back to your claims and compare them with an actual reference, ie. this one:

http://www.neutron.kth.se/publications/library/DanielMSc.pdf

You site no references and I'll bet you don't actually have references. You seem to ignore critical analyses like what is the cost benefit. For instance, you speak of 270 billion dollars (about what the cost of the Iraq war has been) and make no statement of the energy output of these systems. In fact these systems put out huge amounts of energy and generate vast amounts of electricity which is sold defraying the cost of building them. I could indicate the trillion dollar cost of solar cells to replace all known nuclear plants, but unless I indicate the amount of energy they put out, I'm not honest, now am I? In fact ATW systems are environmentally dreamy, they recycle waste and make it into products, energy, and precious metals.

According to the (Swedish) analysis, linked above a full transmutation system might result in a 50% increase in the cost of nuclear electricity under certain scenarios. It happens that nuclear energy is so cheap that even in this case, it would still be competitive.

For the record, you subsidize every form of energy used on earth, usually with your flesh, your lungs and life expectancy. In the nuclear case you only pay cash, since people are not usually killed or injured by nuclear operations on a scale anywhere near the rate they are killed in other energy operatons.

I believe in using transmutation systems, even though they are more expensive than once through technology because it allows each generation to clean up after itself. But there is no financial, technical or environmental impediment to doing so.

[jpak]

23. You need to "sight" the references you "site" before you post

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309052262/html/7.html#pagetop

from the NRC report...

<snip>

Conclusion: The excess cost for an S&T disposal system over once-through disposal for the 62,000 MgHM of LWR spent fuel is uncertain but is likely to be no less than $50 billion and easily could be over $100 billion if adopted in the United States. The additional cost of generating wholesale electricity could increase from 2 to 7% for a total increase of about $25 to over $80 billion.7

<snip>

The ignorance is appalling.

LOL!!!!!!

BTW, I stand by every statement in the previous post.

[NNadir]

24. 80 billion to 100 billion, compared to 7,191,000,000 barrels of oil

burned at $40 bucks a barrel representing 800 billion dollars/year, not counting the military, the dead or the pollution. This means that a nuclear infrastructure of 80 to 100 billion dollars will save our country untold loss of life (since nuclear energy operations are responsbible for very, very few losses of lives compared to fuel operatons, and, oh yes 700 billion dollars in direct costs in its first operable year. If we count the 270 billion military cost of keeping oil, we then have a whooping 1 trillion for oil (which is accepted) and an 100 billion investment for a completely and irrefutably clean form of energy, nuclear energy.

Not a bad deal I think. I shudder to think what a solar conversion would cost in pollution and loss of life by the way, though it couldn't be nearly as bad as a single year of oil.

Of course, one can through around or dig up numbers without stating what they mean (for instance ATW are power plants, they produce electricity, and imagine that one is substituting reading for thinking, but I'm not going to go there.

[Bdog]

26. 7,191,000,000 barrels of oil??? Why do you make that comparison?

In this country, we don't use oil to make electricity...you know that. Why do you make that comparison?

[jpak]

27. Exactly

Less than 2.5% of the petroleum consumed in the US is used to generate electricity.

The few plants that do burn petroleum products are either intermediate load plants that burn residual oil (essentially the dregs of the refining process that cannot be further refined for gasoline, heating oil etc.) or smaller peak load plants that burn diesel fuel.

Nuclear power plants are base load plants. They are not designed to to meet fluctuations in electrical demand and cannot replace these smaller oil-fired facilities.

Once again - the ignorance is appalling.

[NNadir]

39. The issue is money and carbon, not the origin of the pollutants.

The rather argument of the extremely absurd case that the world cannot afford $200 billion dollars to completely eliminate (and I do mean completely eliminate) so called nuclear waste through transmutation. I simply used a comparison of the cost of blood and treasure for oil to state that 187 billion ain't that much, bub.

A very very simple minded approach of course would attach oil and electricity and claim that I am saying that I only discuss the financial cost of things used to generate electricity. This completely misses the point. Oil is indeed only a minor contributor to electrical generation (and it may surprise you to learn that people do indeed use diesel powered generators, particularly in cogenerating buildings). We might note that one possible option for replacing oil is coal liquification, plants that might well cost trillions of dollars while we're listening to silliness about the "high cost" of transmutation.

We might well argue that from a cost benefit analysis that simply storing fission products is a low cost alternative: Since the accumulation of fission products has not killed a single person, we might argue also that the cost per life saved (assuming that someone somewhere somehow is actually harmed by so called "nuclear waste")will be on the order of 187 billion per life saved. This is unsettling of course since we hardly spend $1000 per life saved to distribute condoms, for instance, to high risk AIDS populations. But we have to accept stupidity since stupidity exists. However, as we see time and time again in discussions of nuclear issues, stupidly and obtuseness prevail every time over realistic cost benefit analysis. The purveyors of nuclear stupidity, the ignorant and the confused, DEMAND that proponents of nuclear energy prove conclusively that no one will ever be harmed by nuclear energy ever again. Although such people are completely (AND I DO MEAN COMPLETELY) tolerant of the millions and millions of deaths that occur from other energy related industries, in a kind of immoral indifference to anything beyond their fantastic navels, I think that the risks of NOT immediately expanding nuclear industry might well require that we satisfy the absymal thinking of those who have managed to make our scientifically illiterate culture fearful of nuclear energy. I for one am willing to spend 187 billion dollars if it eliminates the silly claim that so called "nuclear waste" is more dangerous than chemical waste, specifically carbon dioxide. For 187 billion dollars, we can render the three long lived important fission products, Cesium-135, Technetium-99 and Iodine-129 into stable nuclei and further convince deadly fools that they have nothing to worry about (even though in the status quo, they have nothing to worry about).

Further, I think from a resource management perspective, it is vital to begin recycling nuclear fuel, and to build an infrastructure to do it. Fissionable resources will not last very long unless this infrastructure is built. To wit, the world supply of naturally occurring fissionable U-235 is about 60-70 years, although the world supply of fertile nuclei (Uranium-238 and Thorium-232) is measured in millenia.

I do note that for the 187 billion dollars (and I'm buying a very dubious figure that is offered by the claimant here with no references) many hundreds of exajoules of pollution free energy will be returned in the processing. Transmutation plants are energy producing plants. They are more expensive dollar per watt than are simple fission plants, but they do offer a realistic return on investment, especially in the ignored area of external cost (environmental and health destruction associated with non nuclear options.) We might argue that 187 billion dollars is too much to pay for energy, but in fact we know that the rather filthy and possibly life destroying energy industry (still using the 19th century technology of chemical combustion) dwarfs that figure every damned year. The cost of maiming and killing human beings this year in Iraq alone in 2003 dwarfs this figure.

Like all anti-nuclear arguments, which are in essence anti-environmental arguments, this one is specious. It is rather similar to the rather stupid claim that the absence of insurance for nuclear plants is an indication of the safety of nuclear plants, although not a single claim has needed filing, whereas the industries that do kill - and don't pay claims either - coal for instance, are somehow more acceptable.

I hope I have answered the question to your satisfaction, though of course, I very, very, very, very much doubt that I have done so, since, as we have noted many times previously I am a ninth grader who is failing alegbra and you are a genius, and that you only value genius of your own quality.

[Bdog]

45. More wild claims???

Now you claim "completely eliminate (and I do mean completely eliminate) so called nuclear waste through transmutation"

But in your post #42 you go to great lengths to tell us there are radioactive wastes...aparently some that are quite radioactively hot.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x9016#10714

[Bdog]

25. The nuclear advisory board is well represented around here

[jpak]

28. The Nuclear Lobby repesents the biggest Corporate Republican Whores

in the Big Energy Lobby Universe.

You can bet your bottom dollar they wore their best kneepads when they met with "Fuck Off" Dick Cheney's Energy Task Force.

[PeaceForever]

29. But, you know, that can be a good thing.

Nuclear power doesn't emit greenhouse gas. If Democrats can change their position on nuclear energy (thus giving bipartisan support for it), then the US can replace fossil fuel energy with nuclear power as a temporary measure until solar power becomes economical.

[jpak]

31. New nuclear capacity is and will remain uneconomical

compared to coal and natural gas in the near term.

And it it certainly more expensive than new wind generator capacity (which, BTW, has lower life cycle greenhouse gas emissions than the nuclear fuel cycle).

And it is certainly much more expensive than good ol' conservation (i.e., new energy efficient refrigerators; compact fluorescent light bulbs; low-e, low-u, high r-value windows, etc). - an ethic that "Fuck Off" Dick Cheney derides as a "personal virtue".

It is so expensive that it will make "expensive" (sic) roof-top grid-intertie PV look REAL good to homeowners.

But wait...there's more...

Domestic uranium resources cannot support US reactor demand. Currently 96% of the uranium used by US nuclear power plants is imported.

Republicans have repeatedly attempted to subsidize the US uranium mining industry. Even if they are successful, government subsidized uranium production will be inadequate to support even a modest expansion of the US nuclear power industry.

The rest of the US nuclear fuel cycle is is serious trouble.

The only remaining UF6 conversion plant in the US (Honeywell, Metropolis IL) experienced a serious UF6 accident in December 2003 that halted domestic production of UF6 for at least 2 years. (Note: the accident also prompted the evacuation of all workers/residents within a 1 mile radius of the plant).

Illinois Republicans have been whining for years for the DOE to purchase this financially ailing plant. If taxpayers do not bail this thing out, the US nuclear fuel cycle will be seriously fractured.

The DOE privatized its uranium enrichment facilities in Kentucky and Ohio during the Clinton administration. The consortium that purchased these facilities (at fire sale prices), however, quickly went bust. Uncle Sam had to step in and repurchase the whole shebang at a loss to the taxpayers.

Commercial reprocessing in the US was also a commercial failure. Taxpayers had to take over that mess as well.

Massive government subsidies and government ownership of the nuclear fuel cycle is the only way to revive the ailing US nuclear power industry.

This is exactly what the Cheney administration has in mind...

Government subsidized uranium mines.

Government owned and operated uranium conversion and fuel fabrication facilities.

Government owned and operated uranium enrichment plants

Massive government subsidies for the construction of new nuclear power plants.

A federalized nuclear plant security apparatus (note: the 9/11 commission reported that nuclear power plants were on the original target list of the 9/11 attackers).

Massive government intervention into US electricity markets.

Government custody of spent nuclear fuel (a reality today).

Government owned and operated spent fuel reprocessing plants (if it comes to that).

Government owned and operated actinide burning facilities (if it comes to that).

Government owned and operated nuclear waste depositories (coming soon to Nevada and where else?????).

This a prescription for fascism.

Who would profit from all this?

Politically well connected Republicans.

Who would lose?

Everyone else.

Democrats embrace nuclear power??????

Fuck that...

[PeaceForever]

33. Well, given those facts, I agree with your viewpoint. n/t

[treepig]

34. why oh why can't we compete with china anymore?

they're rapidly moving to nuclear power - which is great from an environmental standpoint (their current coal-based system is a complete disatrophy).

and since they're angling to be the world's low cost producers of pretty much everything, it's somewhat surprising they'd opt to go away from low-cost coal to (supposedly) high-cost nuclear power (since i doubt the powers-that-be in china give a damn about the hundreds of thousands of chinese lives lost each year through coal-based power generation).

technical information here:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf63.htm

http://english1.peopledaily.com.cn/200401/07/eng20040107_132027.shtml


assuming china's move to nuclear power isn't entirely based on economic considerations, could they

1) actually trying to live up to their kyoto obligations?

2) be concerned about issues such as this:

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-climate-rice,0,5667701,print.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

that add $$s costs and more, big time, to the calculus of burning fossil fuels.

[Bdog]

35. The greening Automotive Industry in China.

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/studies/report-30377.html
The worldmarket for biofuel exceeded $ 12 billion in 2003 and is expected to grow to $ 34 billion in 2015. Brasil is worldwide market leader representing 45 percent, the USA accounting for 20 percent, soon China will be number 3 with the aim to be number 2 in several years with the help of Brasil and wants to be oil-free by 2030 according to a new study of hkc22.com. The chinese government program includes a $ 200 million r&d budget, low interest loans, and different subsidies. All car companies in China follow the trends and present cars using biofuel, electricity or hybrid technologies . Europe is following and passed the start-up stage. The transition takes a long time but the time has come for the technologies and the market too. Increasing oilprices will speed up the developments.

This market segment of the clean energy markets is a key for the reduction of Carbon Dioxide where China is the second producer after the USA today. Due to the impact for the Environment quality in Beijing, China could already affect the olympics 2008 positive.

[jpak]

37. China is a communist dictatorship

They have a state owned electrical electric power grid - as do virtually all countries looking to build new nuclear capacity.

Economics mean nothing to the Butchers of Tienanmen Square.

Does Beijing give a shit about the environment?

Nope

(e.g. Three Gorges Dam Project , severely polluted lakes/rivers, some of the worse automobile produced smog in the world, etc.)

Nuclear power = National Socialism

[treepig]

43. now there's a well-reasoned, irrefutable set of facts

plus i learned something - specifically that "Nuclear power = National Socialism" - before now i was not aware that political systems and sources of power were equivalent, perhaps much in the same way that energy and mass - two seemingly different entities - are.

anyhow, in the spirit of fleshing out this concept, let me say that i'm typing this message on a computer that can be operated either by energy derived either from a participatory democracy or an absolute monarchy. earlier today i took a shower in water heated by a military junta and ate some toast that was toasted by libertarian socialism. later, i'll be getting in my constitutional monarchy-powered automobile and heading to work where i usually park right next to somewhat who drives one of those alternately (islamic republic) - powered cars. finally, it looks to be a bit on the warm side today, so hopefully the theocratic oligarchy-powered air conditioning will be be functioning in high gear.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

38. Transmutation of 90-strontium and 137-cesium is impractical

These are the principal fission products present in spent fuel.

They are biologically active, extremely radioactive and have a high thermal output.

If actinide burning and accelerator transmutation are implemented, these isotopes, other fission products, and fuel cladding will have to be separated from spent fuel by reprocessing, vitrified and buried in a geological waste repository (along with contaminated aqueous and organic solvents from the separation processes).

Actinide burning won't make them go away.

And...because of their small neutron cross-section, accelerator transmutation is highly impractical.

All claims that "environmentally dreamy" "advanced" nuclear processes will somehow make all nuclear waste "go away" are disingenuous and just plain wrong.

US taxpayers will be saddled with the disposal and monitoring of fission product wastes for the next 600 years.

[NNadir]

42. Yes they are. There is no need to transmute them. Their half-lives are

suitably short. As it happens, because of the radioactive equilibrium, the total possible accumulation of either of these isotopes, is less than 20,000 MT, an amount that could fit in a small warehouse, assuming 100% of the world's 2050 energy demand was nuclear. It would take several hundred years to accummulate this amount at which point the isotopes would decay as quickly as formed and the net increase would be zero. In fact more than half of the Cs-137 formed in 1970 is gone. What portion of coal ash has decayed to non-toxic compounds in that time?

It's worth noting that this amount of Strontium 90 will be putting out as much energy as 4 additional nuclear plants (roughly 1 watt per gram.) So an intelligent society composed of thinkers and reasonable people would be capturing this energy. A society composed of fools would be running around hysterically screaming "It's radioactive! It's radioactive!" and thereby attempting murder by demanding the shutdown of nuclear energy.

[jpak]

44. Good luck peddling radio-cesium/strontium heat sources to public schools

or day care centers

or restaurants

or movie theaters

or homeowners with infants and young children

These sources would emit lethal doses of gamma radiation and would be prime targets for terrorists.

This is suggestion is more than just a little stupid - it's psychotic.

BTW: 20,000 MT of vitrified and encapsulated 137-Cesium or 90-Strontium would not fit into a "small warehouse".

The volume of vitrification substrate required would be huge and would require enormous quantities shielding as well.

Taxpayers would have to monitor these wastes for 20 half-lives (the half-lives of these isotopes are ~30 years - 600 years total).

How will we pay for all this - more Cheney administration tax cuts???? More Red Ink Republican deficit spending????

[NNadir]

46. Maybe you can tell me what a pure beta emitter is.

Strontium - 90 is a pure beta emitter. The only way to render it harmful is to eat it, since beta particles can be shielded by simple means. The energy of Strontium-90 beta particles is 0.546 MeV (http://sutekh.nd.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/CoNquery?nuc=Sr-90) and as the following graph shows, can be shielded by less about a millimeter of steel. In fact about 15 centimeters of air is sufficient to stop Strontium-90 beta particles. So much for the huge concrete and steel shields.

http://www.triumf.ca/safety/rpt/rpt_2/node23.html



One could in fact put a canister of Strontium-90 in one's basement to generate electricity and heat with less harmful effects than people generally face from oil tanks they have in their basements now. Each kilo would generate about a kilowatt (Sr-90 in equilibrium with Y-90 conveniently puts out about a watt a gram). This is because strontium sulfate and carbonate are completely insoluble compounds. This same effect explains why Strontium's cogener, the toxic element Barium is eaten by people for barium studies using x-rays (radiation, gasp!). Barium sulfate is sufficiently insoluble that it passes right through the patient. Barium is sulfate is usefule in x-ray studies because happens that Barium is a shielding agent. It also happens that Cesium-137 decays into Barium 137. Although this may be beyond your ken, all nuclei at this atomic mass are thus self shielding.

If you're going to argue science, you need to know some. Since you clearly don't know anything about Strontium-90 or the nature of radiation, I will not bother to explain to you that Strontium-90 is in radioequilibrium with Yttrium 90 which is often ingested by people as part of tracer and imagining experiments designed to save their lives. Fortunately Y-90 is also a pure beta emitter.

In fact the only reason that we cannot successfully build hybrid type cars powered by Strontium is that, as I've tried to tell you again and again, it is impossible to accumulate more than four or five nuclear plants worth of this valuable isotope, hardly enough to build millions of cars. This is, to repeat to the point of extreme frustration, because at the same time as radioactive nuclei are formed they are also decaying. In science, when one has two processes, one which forms an element or compound, and one which destroys it, one establishes something called an equilibrium. The relative concentration of the equilibrated product depends on the relative rates of formation and destruction. In the case of a 100% nuclear world at 1000 exajoules per annum, the equilibrium quantity of Strontium-90 is about 10,500 MT. It can be shown with a rudimentary understanding of differential equations that the quantity of new Strontium-90 accumulated in the first year of such a program would be about 450 MT of Strontium 90. The density of natural strontium is 2630 kg per cubic meter, (Strontium-90 is slightly higher in density) so all of the Strontium produced on the entire earth in that first year would fit into a cube about 5.5 meters on a side and would easily fit into a small ordinary garage. (As I explained, shielding is completely unnecessary for Strontium) In the 200th year, new Strontium accumulated (unmatched by strontium that simultaneously decays) will be only about 50 MT, requiring a cube of about 2 meters on a side.

Zirconium-90 is the product of the Strontium-90 Yttrium-90 decay series. Zirconium is always found in nature in the presence of its cogener Hafnium (which is extremely difficult to separate from Zirconium). Hafnium in turn is a neutron poison and so that one of the primary capital costs associated with nuclear power plant construction is, in fact, obtaining Hafnium free Zirconium. If however, one isolates Strontium-90 from fission products and allow it to decay, one can obtain pure Hafnium free monoisotopic Zirconium. This is just another example of the "waste into products" mentality that real environmentalists (as opposed to ersatz environmentalists) embrace.

Real environmentalists think. Ersatz environmentalists spew rote dogma. On that note, I'm quite sure you'll come back with yet another specious objection to nuclear energy. I am also sure that whatever objection you pick off a greenpeace website will be unaccompanied with an analysis of the comparative risks of non-nuclear alternatives, because if one attempts such a comparison, the anti-nuclear argument is patently absurd.

[struggle4progress]

51. Ooh La La! I just love your idea for nuclear-powered automobiles.

How tragic that there is insufficient strontium! But your nuclear utopia will generate gobs of Ce-137! Let's use it instead! Since most auto insurance policies already exclude coverage for radioactive contamination, there will be no excess corporate liability in the rare case of an auto accident! What a happy world it will be! :)

[jpak]

53. Bremsstrahlung from large beta sources produces secondary x-rays

that require extensive shielding.

15 cm of air ain't gonna to stop 'em.

90-Sr heat sources for the home?

Guess again.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jpak]

56. Nonsense: An Sr-90 source large enough to power/heat an average house

would produce significant amounts of Bremsstrahlung radiation and require both a low-Z primary shield and a beefy lead secondary shield to absorb the x-rays produced from the low-Z shielding.

Large unshielded Sr-90 sources in American homes? I don't think so.

"one would still yet to establish that even dumped Strontium-90 is dangerous"

Yeah, I guess we were wrong to worry about 90-Sr fallout from atmospheric nuclear tests (idiot moron "Downwinders" !!!) And a little radio-strontium in the milk supply would be good thing for school kids (radiation hormesis and all that nonsense).

Maybe we should repeal the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty and blast away...LOL!

"The Cadmium from discarded solar cells will just START leaching into the environment then, millions of tons of it."

Cd/Te solar modules constitute less than 0.5% of the US PV market and even less of the global PV market. "Millions of tons" it ain't, and Cd leaching Cd/Te modules is not a problem.

A little refresher course on the Chernobyl "nondisaster":

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/6/1455

In April 1986, a power plant in Chernobyl (also known as Chornobyl), Ukraine, had a mishap that produced a meltdown. The area around the reactor was heavily contaminated with plutonium, cesium, and radioactive iodine. An estimated 120 million Ci of radioactive material were released, contaminating more than 21 000 km2 of land, with the greatest areas of fallout occurring in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation. Approximately 135 000 people were permanently evacuated. A total of almost 17 million people, including 2.5 million younger than 5 years of age, were exposed to excess radiation. The first delayed effect, beginning 4 years after exposure, was the occurrence of a great excess of cases of thyroid cancers in children and adolescents, especially among those younger than 4 years of age at the time of the accident. Seventeen years later, the area remains uninhabited because of persistent concerns about environmental contamination.

nothing to see here...move along.

[treepig]

60. about the "great excess of thyroid cancers in children"

let's put a numerical value on them:

Late in 1995, the World Health Organisation linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl accident, and among these some 10 deaths are attributed to radiation.

http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

i completely agree that's outrageous that even one child had to suffer the effects of the horrific chernobyl accident.

what's not exactly clear to me is the lack of outrage over the many-fold higher number of people who suffer and die from the business-as-usual effects of fossil fuel combustion:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/nws/content/nws_1_1x_air_pollution_linked_to_deaths_from_lung_cancer.asp

Study Longest, Largest Yet

Earlier studies suggested air pollution might be linked to disease and death, but some studies were too small or didn't follow people exposed to air pollution long enough for scientists to be sure of the connection.

Risk Increases As Pollution Increases
The study found there was no level of air pollution that was safe, and that the more air pollution increased, the higher the risk became of dying from lung cancer, heart disease, or from any cause.

Pollution drove up the risk of dying from lung cancer the most, followed by risk of death from heart disease, and then by risk of dying from all causes.

The risk of lung cancer death went up by 8% for every 10 micrograms of fine particles in a cubic meter (about 3 feet by 3 feet) of air, the study found. Heart disease deaths went up 6%, and deaths from all causes 4%, for every such increase.

A 1994 study by Pope estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Americans died yearly from the effects of outdoor particulate air pollution.

The new study looked at the health of about 500,000 people in over 100 US cities from 1982 to 1998, long enough for lung cancer or heart disease – which can take decades to develop – to show up.

The data for the study came from the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II study, an ongoing program that has tracked the health of over 1.2 million people since 1982.

[jpak]

76. There was a hundred-fold increase in thyroid cancer in children

affected by the Chernobyl "nondisaster".

V. S. Kazakov, E. P. Demidchik & L. N. Astakhova (1992) Thyroid cancer after Chernobyl. Nature 359, 21 (1992).

A 2.6-fold increase in infant leukemia and congenital malformations in newborns were observed as well.

E. Petridou, D. Trichopoulos, N. Dessypris, V. Flytzani, S. Haidas, M. Kalmanti, D. Koliouskas, H. Kosmidis, F. Piperopoulou & F. Tzortzatou (1996) Infant leukemia after in utero exposure to radiation from Chernobyl. Nature 382, 352 - 353

See also:

Dubrova, Y. E. et al. (1996) Human minisatellite mutation rate after the Chernobyl accident. Nature 380, 683-686.

How anyone could dismiss the Chernobyl incident as anything less than a major environmental disaster is beyond me.

Millions of lives were affected by this incident and the full consequences have yet to been determined.

[jpak]

61. This is what happens when kids play with a 137-Cs source

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/6/1455

<snip>

On September 13, 1987, in Goiania, Brazil, a lead canister containing 1400 Ci of radioactive cesium was left in a building when it was abandoned by radiotherapists. The canister was taken and opened by looters. Children played with the material inside, rubbing it on their bodies so they glowed in the dark. An estimated 250 people were exposed, with some receiving radiation doses as high as 10 Sv (1000 rem); 4 died of acute radiation sickness. Victims developed radiation-associated illnesses that ranged from significant skin injury (radiation burns) to acute radiation sickness to long-term health problems. Thousands of people rushed to emergency departments because of fear of contamination. Mitigation efforts required the removal of 6000 tons of clothing, furniture, dirt, and other materials.

<snip>

Who would actually BUY a Cs/Sr heat source for their home (assuming they could afford one)????

A partial list of early adopters....

Osama Bin Laden
The Mullah Omar
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
Ayman al-Zawahiri
Abu Hagar Al Moqrin
Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi
Jemaah Islamiah

and many many more...

[NickB79]

47. Those facilities are already heated/powered by nuclear

Unless there is some absurd law saying the electricity generated by nuclear plants cannot be used for these places. I'm pretty sure at least some of the power my old high school recieved was from one of the nuclear reactors here in MN. The only way there would be a radiation risk at these places is if each one had a nuclear reactor in their basement, which is a silly argument.

[Bdog]

49. You have missed the point

As you said.."The only way there would be a radiation risk at these places is if each on had a nuclear reactor in their basement, which is silly argument."

However, that is exactly what NNadir is implying...using radioactive waste as a heating source
http://www.greenclippings.co.za/gc_main/article.php?story=20040114114346388
Radioactive strontium-90 in baby teeth
Date: Wed 14 January 2004
Category: Nuclear
Issue No: 48


A new US study, published in the journal The Science of the Total Environment, concludes that counties within 40 miles of six nuclear power plants have higher levels of radioactive strontium-90 than other counties in their states.

Strontium-90 is one of the pollutants emitted into the air by nuclear reactors. If inhaled or ingested, it collects in bones and tissue and increases the risks of cancer and leukemia, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. The study by the Radiation and Public Health Project found that most counties near nuclear plants had strontium-90 levels that were 31% to 54% higher than counties farther away. The study says its most unexpected finding is that strontium-90 levels have steadily risen after decades of decline. Nuclear experts claim that strontium-90 levels should be decreasing as above-ground atomic bomb tests stopped decades ago and the only other source of strontium-90 is emissions from nuclear power reactors.

And as far as eating it...well NN and his family can eat all they want

http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/profiles/strontium_90_c_V1.shtml
Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope of strontium that is produced in nuclear fission. It is a low energy emitter with a physical half-life of approximately 28 years. In the environment, it is accompanied by its decay product, yttrium-90, also a emitter (NCRP, 1991).

Metabolically, strontium is an analog of calcium. Strontium-90 is rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract or the lung into the bloodstream and is subsequently deposited in bone (Hobbs and McClellan, 1986). Retention in the bone is long-term, with yearly loss of the existing burden in adults of 7.5% from cortical bone and 30% from trabecular bone (Papworth and Vennart, 1984)....

The primary effect in adult beagle dogs administered strontium-90 in a single inhalation exposure and surviving more than 2 years was an excess of bone tumors (McClellan et al., 1973; NCRP, 1991). This effect was induced in dogs with long-term retained bone burdens of >1.0 x 106 Bq/kg.

Bone tumors were induced in 2 of 7 adult monkeys administered strontium-90 by gavage (NCRP, 1991), in adult beagle dogs administered strontium-90 by intravenous injection (Mays and Finkel, 1980), and in mice administered strontium-90 by intraperitoneal injection (Nilsson and Ronnback, 1973). Soft tissue sarcomas in tissues near the bone were observed in the beagle dogs (Mays and Finkel, 1980).

[treepig]

50. wow, that nnadir is one wacky guy

down in the basement like that snacking on strontium 90.

myself, i'm fond of ingesting my home's energy sources as well - believe me, there's nothing as refreshing as a frosty mug of heating oil on a hot day. and best of all - it's all natural! no health hazard there at all!!

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Pale Blue Dot]

81. NNadir

Please direct any questions about DU policies to the Ask The Administrators forum, and if you would like to know what constitutes an infraction, please consult the message board rules:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

[Speck Tater]

5. But what if

global warming is the only thing holding back the ice age that should have arrived 50 years ago? We fix global warming and WHAM! instant ice age. You never know. ;)

[shreck]

70. do-over

Do we get a do-over?:)

[Warpy]

7. hey, Lovelock!

What are gonna do with all that GARBAGE? Remember, it stays poisonous for longer than people have had HISTORY.

Nuclear power will be a great idea once we figure out what to do with the waste it produces. Until then, forget it.

[Massacure]

8. Yuccan Mountain Depository

Its an old salt cave in stable bedrock that will be geologically sound for the next 10,000 years. By then, it won't be nearly as dangerous. Plus 3rd and 4th generation reactors make much less waste.

[struggle4progress]

52. You're confusing two different DOE repositories. eom

[Viking12]

11. The Future of Nuclear Power

Here's a decent report on nuclear power. There are still some serious issues that need to be addressed, waste & that pesky nuclear proliferation problem, but the future looks good.


http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

[phantom power]

12. another angle: quantum nucleonic reactors

This seems to be developed in the context of aircraft propulsion. Maybe there's a reason why it isn't being developed for power generation, but I don't know what it is.

Anyway, it seems to have some attractive properties. It's easy to switch on and off, with no danger of meltdown.
http://popularmechanics.com/science/aviation/2004/5/atomic_wings/

[Emperor_Norton_II]

13. Doesn't seem to have much power potential

Judging by the PopMech article, this doesn't look like much more than a new angle on nuclear thermal propulsion.

The idea's pretty simple: run a fluid (like liquid hydrogen, or even ordinary diesel) through the heart of a reactor, and toss the resulting vapor from when the stuff boils out the back of the engine.

Good for transporting stuff, not so hot for generating power.

[factroid]

14. Lovelock and nuclear

I disagree with Lovelock on this one. Radioactive materials are not a good idea for a power source. I have read that an experiment was done that discovered that oxygen placed (canister) within 1/4 mile of a nuclear reactor would then not 'ozonate.' Therefore, there could be an actual ozone depleting effect, among other problems. This would likely not be investigated by scientists with some weight in the field (and political voice?); as is the case with much advanced and unknown areas that are not politically popular.

Then we have the pervasive water supply-line cracks found in many reactors that the Union of Concerned Scientists have investigated... very scary. As many of us know, the NRC does a poor job, with nuclear reactors having serious flaws, as reported by a number of sources; for example, Howard Dean's run-in with a flawed reactor in his state recently.

If we continue to use nuclear power, we MUST have better quality control, but I think other sources should be developed, and nuclear relegated to the unwise. Fissionable materials have their place - and that is deep in the crust. Not on the surface. There are a number of ramifications that science has yet to fully grasp about use of nuclear materials.

I have worked as a geologist and have a geology degree from a 'semi-ivy league' school, graduate work in geology and an M.S. in engineering math - computer science, so I am not just talking out of my hat wrt science. Current science is rather blind and myopic (and politically driven); as compared to what we will understand in the not too distant future I believe.

I am surprised about Lovelock, but anyone with strong credentials in main-stream science is subject to serious perspective distortions, given the dissective methodologies that ignore systemic synergies and inter-connections; Lovelock included, even, apparently.

[treepig]

15. could you kindly explain

just why you'd want oxygen to "ozonate" within 1/4 mile of a nuclear power plant?

anyhow, i suppose if los angeles had only known of the magical anti-ozone properties of nuclear power plants, they'd been better off spending their $$'s building nuclear power plants everywhere rather than that boondoggle of a subway in their efforts towards cleaning up their air.

oh well, live and learn - that's what so great about du - you never know when you'll get some free knowledge from a 'semi-ivy league"r.

[NNadir]

20. Ozonate? Do you really know any science?

You are claiming that the chemical properties of oxygen are permanently changed by exposure to radiation.

That is an extraordinary claim.

[PeaceForever]

19. Nuclear power doesn't emit carbon dioxide . . .

and emission of CO2 is by far the worst environmental problem today. Therefore, even though nuclear power is far from ideal, it's much, much better than coal or petroleum.

So why not make a massive switch to nuclear right now, and then switch to solar in a few decades when it becomes cost-effective?

It seems so fucking obvious. It's like so many people are TOO idealistic, which means the planet is basically fucked.

Another advantage to nuclear power, by the way, is that the right wing and corporate sector are in favor of it. So if the left can accept it, society can make the switch.

Of course, ideally, Kerry will win and then we can have massive government subsidies for solar energy.

[cprise]

30. Is nuclear energy a global power source?

Or is it only for the white and powerful?

[treepig]

32. sure it's global

and being embraced by "emerging" economies:



suppose the question is whether the usa will pull its collective head out of its ass, or continue to lose global competitiveness over the next few decades when the effects of being on the downside of peak oil really start to bite.

of course, coal is still fairly plentiful for the new 200-500 years (depending on whose numbers you believe). but then look for wv to be flatter than indiana and life expectancy to tail off.

[cprise]

36. That's a very weak showing

The list in green is not really anyone's idea of "emerging economies" or the 3rd world.

I'd still like to know what happens politically in the US when Arabs, muslims, Africans, Latin Americans undertake aggressive measures to develop and control their own nuclear power.

[NNadir]

40. It would depend, hugely on who the President is.

The current occupant of the oval office, if anything, is a nuclear scare monger who might well feel at home here. It is only because of general public nuclear ignorance that the right wing press was able to pull of that lie about the necessity of killing Iraqis because "they were buying Uranium in Niger."

Anyone who knew anything about nuclear weapons and nuclear energy was very aware of how absurd this claim was. The claim succeeded because people are generally scientifically illiterate.

I note that countries that are rapidly becoming economic powers of the first order, specifically China and India, have actively embraced nuclear power. Countries in severe economic decline, among whom we may include a rather prominent North American country, have lots of kooks running around claiming that nuclear energy is unsafe.

Note that I do not expect President Kerry to seat himself in the Oval Office and immediately announce a massive commitment to nuclear energy. I do hope that he, like Bill Clinton and Al Gore before him, will help to create a climate where reason and energy will not be mutually exclusive. I quote one of my political heros, President-elected Al Gore: "The lesson of the accident that destroyed the plant's unit number 4] "isn't an indictment of nuclear power as such. Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, and cared for meticulously, has a place in the world's energy supply." "is not that we should retreat from new technology. Technology used for humane reasons, in humane hands, holds the promise of improving the quality of our lives." (Source: Nuclear Energy Insight, August 1998)

[AndyTiedye]

48. They Built a Nuke in my Hometown & People Started Dying of Cancer a Lot

Fortunately for me, I had moved out by then.
Not so fortunate were my parents, a grandparent, and some of their friends.

[wuushew]

55. I am waiting for your carefully researched study

that controls was all the various changes in the environment that happened during the construction and commissioning of this plant, the changes in air quality, population densities etc.


I looked at a cloud in the sky and later got a headache, therefore logically clouds cause headaches. Prove me wrong.

[AndyTiedye]

57. Not Much Else Has Changed

It was a rural community and it is one today. Population 5000.
There is no significant (non-nuke) pollution there.
The population of the town increased by about 50% since the 60's
but housing densities are still very low.

[struggle4progress]

58. This is intellectually dishonest argument.

1. From a philosophical point of view, there is no way to prove that anything causes anything else. So the notion "casuality" is justified in every case only upon pragmatic grounds, as a useful idea for organizing actual experience.

2. A relation between radiation and cancer became rather obvious to the medical establishment in the early twentieth century, based on experiences of radiologists and radioisotope workers. At the same time, several geneticists were deliberately inducing mutation by X-rays and using the mutations to study heredity in simple animal models.

3. The discovery of the molecular basis of heredity at mid-century has led to continuing study into the origins of cancer, which show that "cancer" is not a single disease but a broad variety of diseases, which usually appear to be associated with multiple damages to cellular mechanisms. Consequently, in most cases, it would be misleading to speak of "the" cause of a cancer: a cell has, at some point, from various causes, accumulated enough damage that it becomes cancerous. Certain chemicals can cause damage of concern; so can radiation.

4. Since multiple damages are required, the cancer may appear some time after the first cellular insults. Early cellular damage does not necessarily cause later cancer, but can increase susceptibility to later becoming cancerous.

5. As the damage occurs randomly, and it's effects may appear long after the exposure, one seldom expects to "prove" in court that a power plant "caused" a cancer, even when it is entirely credible that exposure to vented plant gases etc may actually have played a role in the development of that cancer. (Under our current legal and health cares systems, this means that the plant owners have externalized a cost associated with operation.)

6. There seems to be no serious question that, as a rule of thumb, increasing exposure to radiation increases susceptibility to cancer, simply because radiation damages genes.

[treepig]

59. there is a relatively small window where increasing radiation

exposure causes increasing susceptibility to cancer.

at low exposure, everyday common sense bears this out. for example, air travel significantly increases radiation exposure (see

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/students/calculate.html

to calculate how much, and compare to other day-to-to sources).

yet, i have seen no studies to suggest that frequent fliers have increased incidence of cancer (although i suspect that readers of this forum will present evidence that such studies are suppressed by the bfee-halliburton-monsanto juggernaut).

also, cancer rates are not higher in denver, where much higher exposure to radiation occurs (due both to the high altitude and 10x levels of uranium in the soil) compared to florida (low altitude and 10x less uranium).

and what about people who pass through grand central station (exposure to radioactive granite) or eat alot of bananas (ingestion of radioactive potassium)? do they have elevated risk of cancer?

ok i could babble on and on about how the "Linear No-Threshold Theory of Radiation Carcinogenesis at Low Doses" is proving to not be based in scientific fact, but fortunately others have done so more coherently:

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/1998/cohen.htm

and a short synopsis of the biological basis explaining why cells are not damaged by low levels of radiation:

http://www.lfr.com/news/EBulletins/e-bulletin016.htm

of course, at some point cells are unable to repair radiation-induced damage and mutations can occur that lead to cancer. however, it is likely by this time that they also cannot repair non-DNA related damage either - therefore acute radiation sickness occurs and the cell/organism dies. consequently, like i stated originally, there is a surprisingly small "dose window" where radiation actually contributes to cancer.

as i've pointed out before, offen to accusations of being a paid shill for the nuclear poisoning industry (btw, halliburton - if you're reading this - please send the checks ASAP!! and by fedex with a tracking number - your excuse of them getting lost by usps is wearing a bit thin . . .) small to moderate amount of radiation may even have beneficial effects. this "crackpot" theory, btw, has appeared in the well respected popular scientific press, such as:

Hormesis. A healthful dab of radiation?
Science. 2003 Oct 17;302(5644):378

Hormesis. Nietzsche's toxicology.
Sci Am. 2003 Sep;289(3):28-30

as well as the more scholarly scientific journals:

Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2003 Jun;30(6):921-33.

Hormesis, an update of the present position.

Johansson L.

Radiation Physics, Radiation Sciences, Umea University Hospital, Sweden. [e-mail]

The ongoing debate over the possible beneficial effects of ionising radiation on health, hormesis, is reviewed from different perspectives. Radiation hormesis has not been strictly defined in the scientific literature. It can be understood as a decrease in the risk of cancer due to low-dose irradiation, but other positive health effects may also be encompassed by the concept. The overwhelming majority of the currently available epidemiological data on populations exposed to ionising radiation support the assumption that there is a linear non-threshold dose-response relationship. However, epidemiological data fail to demonstrate detrimental effects of ionising radiation at absorbed doses smaller than 100-200 mSv. Risk estimates for these levels are therefore based on extrapolations from higher doses. Arguments for hormesis are derived only from a number of epidemiological studies, but also from studies in radiation biology. Radiobiological evidence for hormesis is based on radio-adaptive response; this has been convincingly demonstrated in vitro, but some questions remain as to how it affects humans. Furthermore, there is an ecologically based argument for hormesis in that, given the evolutionary prerequisite of best fitness, it follows that humans are best adapted to background levels of ionising radiation and other carcinogenic agents in our environment. A few animal studies have also addressed the hormesis theory, some of which have supported it while others have not. To complete the picture, the results of new radiobiological research indicate the need for a paradigm shift concerning the mechanisms of cancer induction. Such research is a step towards a better understanding of how ionising radiation affects the living cell and the organism, and thus towards a more reliable judgement on how to interpret the present radiobiological evidence for hormesis.

[enki23]

62. you're still on that hormesis canard?

there's a reason most of the available information about "radiation hormesis" comes from angelfire websites and "presented at <foo> conference" papers. it could be that it's an exciting new direction being ignored by the sometimes-dogmatic scientific community. it could also be that it's as well supported as cold fusion.

[treepig]

63. excuse me? is reading comprehension plummeting?

the radiation hormesis information i presented comes from peer-reviewed scientific journals, accessed through a search of the nih's PUBMED website.

even though you seem oblivious to such sources, i'll urge the open-minded reader to do their own search, at

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

(choose the PUBMED link).

also, i also assume a scientifically literature reader will recognize that "Science" and "Scientific American" - both of which i cited, are well respected and completely mainstream.

[enki23]

66. sure thing. reading comprehension has always been my worst suit

note the use of "most" in the post above.

i think it's instructive to observe just *who* has rushed to embrace hormesis, and the politically convenient conclusions they've drawn from the scanty evidence.

[treepig]

68. i'm not sure that anyone has "embraced" hormesis based on current

levels of understanding.

however, like you say it is indeed instructive to observe just *who* is rationally considering the scientific evidence instead of sticking their head in the sand. basically, it appears that groups in australia, sweden, and japan are publishing on this topic - believe it or not there is a strong link between scientific advances and economic growth. i can easily seen these three economic competitors easily out-distancing the increasing superstitious and irrational USA in the near and mid-term. perhaps in the long term sanity will prevail.

btw, has it never struck you odd that epidemiological evidence does not support any adverse health effects of radiation exposure until exposure levels exceed 100-times the normal background levels? i submit that to a rational person this simple fact suggests that cells are not defenseless against radiation, but well equipped to deal with it. and sure, you can mock the idea that life evolved against a background of higher-than-today's-levels of radiation - and therefore has mechanisms to cope - and i realize that > 50% of americans refuse to believe in evolution. despite all that, it's real.

[struggle4progress]

65. Well, there's a hodge-podge!

Are you inviting discussion of the difficulties of epidemiological investigation, arguing against scrutiny of Halliburton and Monsanto, suggesting airlines should advertise the extra cosmic rays enjoyed by frequent fliers, or perhaps simply offering to "babble on and on" about LNT?

If you intend to say that real dose-response curves are unlikely to be linear, I would happily agree but would then note that no meaningful work can be done until dosimetry is modernized. The rem is a rather crude notion; given modern biomolecular knowledge and modern computational facilities, one should be able to design detailed models that account for the precise mechanisms of damage and start to predict precise effects in animal models. Given the slow pace of science, such work would take time to reach maturity. I should expect the resulting dose-response curves to be complicated and (in the case of internal emittors) to vary depending on the radioisotopes involved, since these partition to different cells and different parts of cells, depending on chemistry. Until such work begins in earnest and has the opportunity to reach scientific maturity, the significance of "hormesis" claims must remain unclear.

Since we know, without question, that radiation damages DNA and that damaged DNA leads to other problems, I myself have found simple propaganda for hormesis laughable: for example, it is unconvincing to be shown (as I once was) two photographs of plants, one grown with an enhanced radiation background, the other not, with the claim that the accelerated growth of the irradiated plant was evidence of benefit from radiation; if the radiation may indeed have had some effect, it is by no means clear that the effect was a "benefit" to the plant.

Similarly, seizing at random (from the database you are apparently using) an article summary

Some effects of radiation hormesis for bacterial and yeast cells
Radiats Biol Radioecol. 2003 Mar-Apr;43(2):176-8.
Petin VG, Morozov II, Kabakova NM, Gorshkova TA.
<snip>
It was ascertained that chronic action of ionizing radiation, 2-10,000 times exceeded the natural background, resulted in slowing down of aging and dying off of both pro- and eukaryotic cells. A single acute irradiation of yeast also resulted in the retardation of dying off of the yeast cells surviving after irradiation.
<snip>

I am only inclined to remark that slowing down the death mechanisms of mammalian cells might actually be associated with a failure of apoptotic mechanisms and enhanced survival of pre-cancerous cells, so that this sort of "hormesis" literature does not encourage me to seek further unnecessary exposure to radiation.

[treepig]

69. huh, if you'd actually bother to read the information

instead of arguing from your own biases and superstitions, that'd be helpful.

for example, the fact that radiation damages DNA, while true, has little relevance. that's because in a living cell

(1) the level of damage produced by background radiation is dwarfed by the level of chemically identical DNA damage produced by natural metabolism

(2) cells are well equipped to repair this DNA damage before it causes mutations.

this was fairly concisely explained in the link i provided in my previous post.

second, the hormesis effects are postulated to be effected by the stimulation of the immune system. bacteria and yeast do not have immune systems, so the relevance of the study you cited to human health and the development of cancer escapes me at the moment. in any event, as you're quite the expert on the development cancer, i'm sure you're aware that the vast majority of wanna-be cancer cells are destroyed by immunosurveillence mechanisms before they can grow into a full-fledged tumor. hence, increasing the efficiency of the immune system likely has an cancer-suppressing effect. if the effects of the bacterial/yeast study magically do apply to humans (i'm going to have to go get myself educated on the mechanisms of apoptosis in bacteria!!), then yes, the retardation of apoptosis my have a counteracting effect. i suspect an open-minded person would want to study these issues. most readers of this forum would prefer to rely on their pre-conceived notions than each and every molecule of radiation is out to kill them.

[enki23]

72. i've read quite a lot

i'm a semester from a MS in toxicology, with a perfect gpa, and going on to a four-year program in pharmacology with an eye for cancer research. i'm also currently taking a class under someone who just finished his dissertation on chemical hormesis, and we've talked about this subject a number of times. i'm no expert, but i've got a pretty strong background.

in response to 1 and 2...

1) ionizing radiation causes two primary kinds of damage. direct hits of sufficiently energetic radiation causes strand breaks. the rest of the damage, the greater part, comes from hitting water and generating reactive oxygen species, particularly OH* radicals. cellular metabolism definitely *does* result in the creation of reactive oxygen species. we also note that these are harmful, though in some degree unavoidable. we wouldn't argue for "OH* hormesis" based on the fact that some amount of it is generated endogenously. this would be an amazingly silly claim, not unlike the "we evolved with background radiation, therefore background radiation is good for us" panglossian argument.

about background radiation being "dwarfed" enodgenous DNA damage... that depends entirely on the level of background radiation, doesn't it. also, there is no reason to believe, given what we know, that the damage isn't additive. every little bit of DNA damage is a little bit worse for you. while this isn't absolutely true in every case, we have no reason whatsoever to believe it isn't the general rule. this idea of "chemically identical DNA damage" is also not really true, as radiation is far more likely to cause single- and double-strand breaks than is metabolism.

2) "cells are well equipped to repair this DNA damage before it causes mutations."

that's an extremely oversimplistic view of DNA repair. rapidly dividing cells often do *not* have time to repair damage. that's why radiation is so hard on your bone marrow, your sperm production, and on tumors. also, strand breaks are particularly prone to misrepair, especially double strand breaks. and in any case, adding more DNA damage, on top of the *known* rates of unrepaired DNA damage, seems highly unlikely to INCREASE the overall rate of DNA repair. yet this is precisely what the devotees of hormesis would have us believe is the general rule. it may not be impossible, but is far from being proven. the empirical evidence and the proposed mechanistic explanations are extremely unconvincing at this point.

and this is even *more* true regarding mammals, humans, and the full range of hyper- and hyposensitivity in human populations--in order of increasing uncertainty. anyone trying to argue for regulatory changes based on the scanty-at-best hormesis evidence has an agenda which is very unscientific in nature. no responsible scientist would make such a recommendation at this point.

[struggle4progress]

73. It is not clear to me what in my previous post ...

... you are describing as "bias." Is it simply that I remain unconvinced about "hormesis"?

In brief, what I said: Any "hormesis" debate is a question about the shape of dose-response curves; I agree that there is no reason to expect the curves to be straight lines but see no general reason to expect them to follow the convenient U-shape so loved by hormesis enthusiasts; it is a research problem to discern the shape of these curves, so far as the shapes can be determined in any meaningful way; and the shapes should vary with a number of factors, including the biological endpoint considered. You are free to call this "bias" -- but I will continue to regard it as scientific method.

Biology, unfortunately, lacks the simplicity of physics: gross biological effects are obtained by interaction of multiple (and often competing) changes in subsystems, and because subsystems interact, it can be misleading to point to a single biological effect and claim, without further understanding, that it is a "benefit." If, for example, radiation can be used to delay cell death, as in the article I cited, I say that it is still unclear, without further careful consideration, whether that is evidence of a "benefit" for us: we want cancerous cells to die.

I actually did read the Science article last year and was unimpressed. But if you like this article so much, why did you merely post the citation, without excerpt or summary? The fact that the database you are using does not provide anything other than the bare citation for the Science article will unfortunately suggest to some ruthless cynics that you merely found the citation, have not read the article, and want only to wrap yourself in the prestige of the journal.

Meanwhile, the one summary, that you do quote, remarks clearly that the critical notion "hormesis" remains ill-defined, which I suppose means many different people can write papers about "hormesis" without any assurance that they are discussing one and the same phenomenon. I personally expect that biologists who proceed into these murky waters will, in no time at all, obtain for their field the same scientific certainty which economists have so long enjoyed.

If you want to compare relative damage done to DNA by environmental chemicals and radiation, that would certainly be interesting. But you apparently believe that whatever has the lesser effect is unimportant. Would you similarly compare injuries from automotive accidents and from guns, and argue that one was unimportant because the other was larger? This thread involves greenhouse gas emissions: why not argue that we need not care about CO2 emissions, since the effects of CO2 are swamped by those of H20?

I cannot understand your assertion that "the fact that radiation damages DNA .. has little relevance .. because cells are well equipped to repair this DNA damage before it causes mutations." Although cells indeed have repair mechanisms, these mechanisms obviously do not completely prevent unpleasant radiation-induced mutations, as one sees clearly from the association between sunlight and skin cancer.

Am I a skeptic? You bet. Can I change my mind? Absolutely -- but it will require better than you have provided.

[struggle4progress]

74. OK. You have shamed me into reading the SciAm article.

I am pleased to be able to summarize.

Synopsis: One hand, other hand; perhaps might maybe could; research needed.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00019A70-0C1C-1F41-B0B980A841890000

It's filler article, neither survey nor research paper. Not a "must read." Barely worth the effort required to google for the link IMHO. Did you actually read this masterpiece yourself before recommending it?

[enki23]

67. here's my favorite argument in that mess:

"Furthermore, there is an ecologically based argument for hormesis in that, given the evolutionary prerequisite of best fitness, it follows that humans are best adapted to background levels of ionising radiation and other carcinogenic agents in our environment."

now *there* is a panglossian argument if i've ever seen one. it FOLLOWS that humans are best adapted to background levels of ionizing radiation? we must be, then, the best of all possible humans. there is no other way the second claim could follow from the first. who knew? gould must be spinning in his grave.

[jpak]

75. Hormesis: a canard indeed

Check out the Science news article (note: this isn't a peer reviewed research paper).

cnts.wpi.edu/RSH/Docs/Kaiser03Sci-DabOfRad.pdf

The evidence for radiation hormesis in humans is - at best - scant, anecdotal, and equivocal.

and...

The human epidemiological evidence is nonexistent.

[cprise]

77. OK, assuming the RW press does not go away

..if Kerry is elected (which they won't... they'll grow in popularity):

What does the U.S. government do when, say, Brazil undertakes a nuclear development program with Venezuela and Cuba?

And S. Africa.. the U.S. press has put some interesting trial balloons out against their character recently. If they expand their nuclear program beyond the 2 reactors built under the apartheid regime, how long before we hear any number of stories from this usually-ignored country that begin with: "And now South Africa. The country that was off to such a promosing start 20 years ago in ridding itself of apartheid has taken a troubling turn in recent months according to adiministration officials and diplomats assigned to monitor the deterioration of democracy taking place there." Then more editorializing in reporting the 'shocking' evidence that the government is linked to "anti-white terrorists" (actually old anti-apartheid revolutionaries) and all sort of twisted, out of context crap. And I'd bet that only ONE thing of significance would need to have changed: S. Africa's nuclear energy program.

I agree that India and China can pursue this option at will, but as I said they are among the powerful and are simply not messed with. But U.S. policy makers intend to keep the powerless that way.

[shreck]

71. France

What is France's saftey record with nuke power?

[cprise]

78. Excellent

And they try to keep the public interested so the subject stays familiar and non-threatening (I hear plant tours are common).

[SHRED]

79. Oh really?

"According to one study, nuclear power may actually be a net CO2 producer. According to Gene Tyner Sr. of the Oklahoma Institute for a Viable Future, Robert Costanza of the Coastal Ecology Institute, Center for Wetland Resources, Louisiana State University, and Richard G. Fowler of the University of Oklahoma, nuclear power is probably not even a net energy producer. In their view, nuclear power, even without including past or future accidents, "is at best a re-embodiment of the fossil energies by which it was set in place."

In other words, if all the energy inputs necessary to mine and process uranium for use in reactors, to build and operate a reactor, and to decommission it and store the wastes it produces are added together, they are greater than the amount of energy a reactor produces over its lifetime. If this is true, less CO2 would have been released to produce the same amount of energy if the fossil fuels used up to create the nuclear industry had been burned directly to make electricity instead."

http://www.jimbell.com/Book/book_ch7.html#s4

[struggle4progress]

80. Is this the Robert Costanza known for his research ...

into ecological economics? HE does great work!

[Pale Blue Dot]

82. I'm locking this.

I understand that this is a contentious issue, but over the past few days I have had to remove posts from both sides accusing the others of being Conservatives or Freepers. The level of personal attacks has also risen.

In the past, I have been extremely impressed with the posters in this forum and their ability to handle even the most devisive issues with decorum and good humor. I would hope that we can return to that. Fair warning: Until the temperature drops a little on this issue, I will lock any and all threads that devolve into name-calling, personal attacks, and accusations of being a Freeper.