Problems with Nuclear Power Highlighted by Gulf Disaster?

[Better Believe It]

Problems with Nuclear Power Highlighted by Gulf Disaster?
by Ritt Goldstein
June 18,2010

Nobody's perfect, and so mistakes do happen. But while I doubt if any of us could conceive of the tragedy coming with a reported 35,000 to 60,000 barrels of oil daily entering The Gulf, are we any more capable of conceiving what might come with a nuclear disaster? While optimism is important, it's sometimes a trap - just ask BP.

While we got lucky at Three Mile Island, managing to avoid a scenario that could have been far worse, the illusion of infallible nuclear safety systems was temporarily tarnished. Then came the Chernobyl, and with it a reminder of our sad capacity for boundless technological optimism, plus the inherent dangers which we, as beings that are 'only human', bring to any equation.

It's estimated that it will be a couple centuries before the countryside in the vicinity of Chernobyl is safe again; though, it's thought that the immediate area of the meltdown will take an estimated 2,000 years before being habitable. The human costs were staggering as well, and though only about thirty died either immediately or not long thereafter, excess cancer cases, birth defects, and a host of radiation induced maladies are yet debated as to their eventual toll. According to a Greenpeace report, the number of additional cancer fatalities could top 100,000.

Even if we had legislation guaranteeing payment for ‘damages' in case of nuclear mishap, realistically, how can one put a price tag on the catastrophic suffering, not to mention those parts of America that would be uninhabitable? Perhaps we have been ‘unduly optimistic', but we're only human.

While the ongoing Gulf Spill presents an ecological crisis of yet untold proportions, the effects of any substantive 'nuclear spill' would be far worse. But hey, even the best of us 'make mistakes', and given that, maybe the President will realize his position on nuclear power could well prove a huge one.

The damaging effects of radiation can last a lot longer than those of oil. Though some of us certainly claim that today's nuclear power is ‘clean, safe, and reliable', of course, wasn't the same said of today's deepwater oil exploration?

Read the full article at:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/06/18-3

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. In the same way that abotion clinic bombers highlight the problems with environmental activists.

Sure.

[SidDithers]

3. +1...nt

Sid

[Better Believe It]

5. So what do right-wing abortion clinic bombers have to do with oil spills and nuclear accidents?

There might be an analogy in there somewhere!

:)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Here's a scientific study proving that Code Pink murdered that abortion doctor.

http://improb.com/airchives/paperair/volume1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

[Better Believe It]

15. There is nothing at that link even suggesting that. So please explain what point, if any, you are

trying to make regarding enviornmentalists and oil spills or nuclear power.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. In the seventies, I went out with a guy who was an assistant salesperson.

His company sold parts for nuclear power plants. The long and short of it is that his supervisor would bribe the general contractor to purchase his company's components at the lowest price but the merchandise was known to be suboptimal or defective. This is why I don't trust nuclear power. They're built to fail.

[defendandprotect]

12. Karen Silkwood . . . an interesting story of nuclear industry corruption there --

Of course, it's also the inane goal of capitalism to "save a buck"

rather than to save nature and humanity!!

[defendandprotect]

4. I'll say . . . the oil disaster leads us right into the potential for nuclear disaster ...

We already have 103 nuclear reactors which are aging and in private hands --

uninsurable except by taxpayers -- inane evacuation plans --

It takes 6 months to properly shut down a nuclear reactor --

Terrorists don't generally give you 6 months warning --


and then there's the little problem of N U C L E A R W A S T E --

[Statistical]

9. "It takes 6 months to properly shut down a nuclear reactor"

:rofl:

Reactor can SCARM in seconds (and routinely do for detected potantial issues).
With control rods deployed fission halts within minutes.
Even residual heat drops below point where it can melt reactor pressure vessel in hours.

Please show me the reactor which takes months to shut down. :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. I suppose he's talking about decommissioning a nuclear reactor.

But I'm still more interested in his opinion about how oral sex is an "unnatural act."

[defendandprotect]

11. Takes 6 months to properly shut down a nuclear reactor . . .

that's what I've read on it --

Here are two more jokes you can laugh at -- both by Obama --

"Oil rigs these days don't spill" --

"The Gulf will bounce back!" --



:nuke:

[fishbulb703]

6. Lol, three mile island wasn't even noticed until a few days after it started. "avoided disaster" my

ass.

[defendandprotect]

13. Remember the nuclear reactor they were going to put out on Long Island--???

I think Gov. Mario Cuomo finally folded that one --

the evacuation plan was a disaster in itself!

[NNN0LHI]

8. It demonstrates that everything is perfectly safe. Until it isn't

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. right

the effects of radiation could be more devastating than oil.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

16. Winscale disaster UK

Winscale had a devastating fire in 1957. Something could be much worse than Chenobyl.

The Winscle fire itself released an estimated 3700-7400 megabecquerels (20,000 curies) of iodine-131, and around 370 megabecquerels (1,000 curies) of caesium-137<5> into the nearby countryside, although recent reworking of contamination data has shown national and international contamination to have been much higher than previously estimated.<6> For comparison, the 1986 Chernobyl explosion released approximately 1.9 exabequerels of radionuclides. The presence of the chimney scrubbers (although only somewhat effective) was credited with maintaining partial containment and thus minimizing the radioactive content of the smoke that poured from the chimney during the fire. Of particular concern at the time was the radioactive isotope iodine-131, which has a half-life of only 8 days but is taken up by the human body and stored in the thyroid. As a result, consumption of iodine-131 often leads to cancer of the thyroid. It had previously been estimated that the incident caused 200 additional cancer cases, although this figure has recently been revised upwards to 240.<6>

No one was evacuated from the surrounding area, but there was concern that milk might be dangerously contaminated. Milk from about 500 km2 of nearby countryside was destroyed (diluted a thousandfold and dumped in the Irish Sea) for about a month.

It has been suggested that the official meteorological records may have been altered in an attempt to cover up the possibility that, throughout the radiation leak, the wind was blowing out to sea, significantly increasing the contamination dose to Ireland and the Isle of Man.<7> An Air Ministry synoptic chart for 11 October reproduced at the same source, however, suggests that Windscale was under the influence of an airmass and associated cold front which was tracking eastwards across the Irish Sea and over mainland UK.

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