Finishing an old Nuclear plant - Alabama

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL


Did you miss anything in your Greenpeace talking point rant?



Oh, I forgot...you have to be in Greenpeace to understand the dangers of radiation. You got it bud

Quote:

Is there a correlation between countries that have the highest incidences of cancer and those that have Nuclear power?


No idea. Lots of things cause cancer. Some of those countries have the highest rate of smokers per capita. Does that make an impact? Probably. Does that have any bearing on this conversation? Not at all.

Does having a refinery, chemical plant or nuke facility in your backyard raise your chances of illness? Yes.

Are there documented cases of exponential spikes in rare childhood cancers and diseases in those living around industrial and research facilities of all flavors? Yes.

Once again, and I cannot stress this enough, ALL OF THESE INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES LEAK. Everyone knows it and they laugh it off, much like those who smoke laugh off the fact smoking causes cancer. That may not have been part of your tour, but it very much is the truth, and if you hang out around one of these mentioned facilities long enough your chances of getting sick go up more than someone who doesn't.


Quote:

The Nuclear industry provides valuable medical isotopes


True. And those who work with them understand how good for you they are, thats why they wear lead PPE to (try) and lessen the effects of exposure. Or they give pregnancy tests before administering therapies involving radiation because if they dont it can kill or seriously impact the child. Radiation falls into the category of a teratogen. It's worth a Google.

Quote:


...and directly contributes to reduced CO2 and other emissions that are the result of burning fossil fuels


Who cares about reducing CO2 emissions? Off topic but global warming from CO2 is junk science. If you are that worried about it plant more trees. They take in CO2 and make 02. Which IS good for you.


Quote:

Also, regarding your comment about folks working in and around these facilities:
1. I've personally toured Bruce Nuclear
2. I have a good friend who worked on the Bruce Refurbishment project and has been in the industry for 40 years
3. My next door neighbour growing up was a nuclear engineer that worked at Darlington and then eventually Bruce
4. A friend of mine's husband currently works at Bruce
5. Al, on this site, who worked in the industry

Not one of those people shares your jaded position, which primarily appears to be based on hyperbole, green-washed fear-mongering nonsense and "the government is out to get you" hysteria

Get out of here! A neighbor and a tour? I had no idea you had such qualifications.

When you took the tour did they make you wear a dosimeter? They do that because of how healthy radiation is for you.

Also,

It doesn't surprise me a nuclear engineer had good things to say about it.

I have heard engineers argue the "safe" level of human exposure to 99.9% Cyanide. But if you think it is safe to go take a deep breath of that healthy almond smell please be my guest. Engineers argue everything and they are never wrong. You can be sure that the last person to drown on the titanic was an Engineer arguing that it was impossible to sink.

You want to talk about a better way? Natural gas and coal are the way to go. Out of all of the industrial sites I have worked, as a lowly safety and health professional, the cleanest of them all bar none were coal and natural gas plants. When people think about coal they have the image of some turn of the century smoke stack bellowing black, carbonaceous sputum when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. At least here in the US.

Quote:

I find the paradox of the anti-nuclear activist utterly delicious. They oppose all development of nuclear power while knowing full well that the only way to deal with our existing stores of waste is to further develop nuclear power. To be so conflicted must seriously take its toll.


I find it a perplexing that you don't understand the dangers endemic to radiation? This is the 21st century, by now I thought pretty much everyone realized the earth isn't flat, cigarettes cause cancer and radiation exposure is bad for you. But hey, its a free-ish country, if you are cool having a plant in your backyard knock yourself out!

 

[Shannow]

I find the manufactured hysteria around radiation laughable.

There's a difference between living near a reactor and handling medical isotopes for a living...clearly, and obviously. So why use the latter to impose paranoia about the former ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636



I find it a perplexing that you don't understand the dangers endemic to radiation? This is the 21st century, by now I thought pretty much everyone realized the earth isn't flat, cigarettes cause cancer and radiation exposure is bad for you. But hey, its a free-ish country, if you are cool having a plant in your backyard knock yourself out!

I find it equally perplexing that you can't seem to wrap your head around the concept of exposure/dose limits, but this is indeed the 21st century, where radiation can simultaneously cause and treat cancer, depending on how it is administered and the same folks freaking out about it don't mind flying in a jet. But let's slam Engineers and have a circle-jerk about how awesome fossil fuels are and apparently, the only thing they emit worth mentioning is CO2

I don't think we are going to get anywhere in this thread, so I'd greatly appreciate it if you would steer clear of my nuke topics if this is going to be the extent of your contribution.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
I find the manufactured hysteria around radiation laughable.

There's a difference between living near a reactor and handling medical isotopes for a living...clearly, and obviously. So why use the latter to impose paranoia about the former ?


Because it's fear mongering at its most basic.

When we were building our X-Ray room I had to determine the correct amount of lead shielding for the room that the machine would be operating in. The reason for the lead is of course because people situated outside the room would be subject to constant dosing without the shielding and potentially exceed the established public dose limits, which are quite low. I also had to have my plans and calculations approved by one of those dastardly Engineers (oh, the horror!!) before we were good to operate. Comically, our new machine, which has a CSI detector, greatly reduces the dose and now the shielding in the room is overkill

A typical chest X-ray is the equivalent of about 10 days of regular radiation (0.1mSv), which is comparable to what one gets on a 7 hour flight. Given the number of X-Rays vs flights I've taken, I've had far more exposure to radiation from flight than from Medical Imaging for example.

Also, background radiation from cosmic rays, Uranium in the soil....etc, all have a significant effect on what we are exposed to during the year. The Canadian government has a neat chart that breaks this down:
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/resources/radiation/introduction-to-radiation/radiation-doses.cfm

So for example, somebody living in St. Johns Newfoundland is exposed to 1.6mSv of natural radiation a year, whilst somebody in Winnipeg experiences 4.1mSv. Neither of those locations have Nuclear reactors. In Toronto, where there are 12 nuclear reactors, the dosage is 1.6mSv

In Canada, the dose limit for the public is 1mSv a year, typical exposure for somebody working in a nuke plant or uranium mine is 1mSv/year. Somebody living near a plant is 0.001mSv/year. Ergo, moving to Regina would result in much higher exposure to radiation than living beside Bruce's 8 units.

 

[jk_636]

Quote:

I find it equally perplexing that you can't seem to wrap your head around the concept of exposure/dose limits, but this is indeed the 21st century, where radiation can simultaneously cause and treat cancer


If you consider the statistic of five year survival rates post radiation treatment as "cures" it sure does, and in the process is steadily poisoning the host. I don't think you have any idea how any of this works friend.

I'm not an engineer but I do know how the body works. And arguing the safety of radiation at this point is like arguing the Earth being flat.


Quote:

...depending on how it is administered and the same folks freaking out about it don't mind flying in a jet. But let's slam Engineers and have a circle-jerk about how awesome fossil fuels are and apparently, the only thing they emit worth mentioning is CO2

The other things "they" emit don't have half lives measured in tens of thousands of years, and are exponentially easier to remediate after accident and treat after human exposure so....yeah. They are safer.

I don't know who these "same folks" are you refer to, but if you want to start a thread and "educate" us about the effects of ionizing & non ionizing radiation, the dangers posed by other sources emitting EMF and the "safety" of long term low dose exposure then be my guest. I would love to entertain that conversation.

But I doubt seriously you are concerned about the toll these things take on public health; so at this point, if you want to believe these things are good for you, have a nuke plant in your backyard, fly as much as you can, vacation in Chernobyl and retire in Fukushima, get your yearly chest x-rays, talk on your cell phone as much as possible, turn the volume on that Wifi up to 11 and ramp up the speed on that 5G internet. It is all good for you!

I don't know which one is more inflamed at this point friend, your head or your thyroid gland! I can do nothing to help the former but the latter should really get some iodine. It will thank you!

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636

If you consider the statistic of five year survival rates post radiation treatment as "cures" it sure does, and in the process is steadily poisoning the host. I don't think you have any idea how any of this works friend.


I used the word "treat", not cure. Perhaps being so high up on that horse has affected your vision

Originally Posted By: jk_636
I'm not an engineer


That's breathtakingly obvious.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
but I do know how the body works.


So you are a doctor? Somehow I doubt that as well.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
And arguing the safety of radiation at this point is like arguing the Earth being flat.


It appears discussing the nuance of the topic is forboden at jk's flat-earth bonanza.


Originally Posted By: jk_636
so at this point, if you want to believe these things are good for you, have a nuke plant in your backyard, fly as much as you can, vacation in Chernobyl and retire in Fukushima, get your yearly chest x-rays, talk on your cell phone as much as possible, turn the volume on that Wifi up to 11 and ramp up the speed on that 5G internet. It is all good for you!

I don't know which one is more inflamed at this point friend, your head or your thyroid gland! I can do nothing to help the former but the latter should really get some iodine. It will thank you!

Cool bro. You stay off those jets, use your land line and live in your lead-lined bunker. Though I'm amazed you can get on the Internet to troll my threads given the limitations you appear to have imposed on yourself

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: jk_636



I find it a perplexing that you don't understand the dangers endemic to radiation? This is the 21st century, by now I thought pretty much everyone realized the earth isn't flat, cigarettes cause cancer and radiation exposure is bad for you. But hey, its a free-ish country, if you are cool having a plant in your backyard knock yourself out!

I find it equally perplexing that you can't seem to wrap your head around the concept of exposure/dose limits, but this is indeed the 21st century, where radiation can simultaneously cause and treat cancer, depending on how it is administered and the same folks freaking out about it don't mind flying in a jet. But let's slam Engineers and have a circle-jerk about how awesome fossil fuels are and apparently, the only thing they emit worth mentioning is CO2

I don't think we are going to get anywhere in this thread, so I'd greatly appreciate it if you would steer clear of my nuke topics if this is going to be the extent of your contribution.

Agreed. But jk, you have latched on to what you believe to be true and its quite obvious that you will never change your opinion. You indicated all industries have leakages that affect the environment. And that is true. People that have been exposed to radiation all their lives will have increased incidences of cancer, but it is very very slight. Life is full of risks and most benefits come with risks.

Take coal fired plants. They release more radiation into the atmosphere than nuke plants. I assume you didn't mention that fact bc it did not fit into your talking points.

Wont waste my time further

 

[jk_636]

You said you hoped I was kidding, and when you found out my point was earnest, I was in Greenpeace.

Shocking. Agree with me or you are a Greenpeace activist.

When I defended the position (that radiation is bad for you and all industrial facilities leak) I became a troll as announced by the guy with the tour and the neighbor as his credentials.

Am I a doctor, no. Of course you have to be a doctor to definitively say something is harmful for you right?

But that is irrelevant in this case, as any...individual...can google "Is radiation bad for you" and will see tons of evidence provided by real doctors, scientists and organizations that prove that it is, in fact, harmful to your health.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=is+radiation+bad+for+you

I don't live in a lead lined bunker, I fly when I have to, I have wifi and use a cell phone. But I do so understanding the risks they pose, and take measures to reduce said toxic effects.

Is nuclear power a safe, viable option to power the nation? Up for debate, and has been so for a looooong time.

But what really isn't, or perhaps shouldn't, be up for debate is that radiation is bad for you. Something everyone understands as fact.



Except overkill.

And his neighbor.

I will bow out now and let the pro nuke guys have at it.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
When I defended the position (that radiation is bad for you and all industrial facilities leak) I became a troll as announced by the guy with the tour and the neighbor as his credentials.

You just continue to try and play it personal as if it is me and my "credentials" that are the issue here, misconstrue what I say because your "position" is one that's based on fear-mongering and you are unwilling, perhaps incapable, of ceding any ground.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Am I a doctor, no.


That was quite obvious.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Of course you have to be a doctor to definitively say something is harmful for you right?


But apparently the extent of my credentials are "a tour and a neighbour" and you've chosen to construe them not only in that manner but of course as inadequate, yet you are admittedly neither a doctor or an Engineer but are entirely qualified to speak authoritatively on the subject, see how that works?

Basically, you are expecting us to take broad-brushed blanket statements and hyperbole as absolute fact but dare to question the merit of those claims and it is pot shots at credibility and a circus of misconstrued claims and misrepresentation.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
But that is irrelevant in this case, as any...individual...can google "Is radiation bad for you" and will see tons of evidence provided by real doctors, scientists and organizations that prove that it is, in fact, harmful to your health.


Gotcha, so education by Google is OK in your camp, but learn from people that work in the industry and you are an uneducated, indoctrinated hack

And God help you if the people that work in the industry are Engineers like Al and Shannow, because they simply cannot, in any way, be trusted.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
Is nuclear power a safe, viable option to power the nation? Up for debate, and has been so for a looooong time.


You quite literally stated it was the dumbest way to boil water, which is what resulted in this ridiculous excursion into the depths of your ego. Saying it is "up for debate" after this exchange is like somebody blowing off your leg with a 12-gauge, you telling them that they shot you and them responding "well, that's up for debate".

Originally Posted By: jk_636
But what really isn't, or perhaps shouldn't, be up for debate is that radiation is bad for you. Something everyone understands as fact.



Except overkill.

And his neighbor.

I will bow out now and let the pro nuke guys have at it.

Ending on a beautiful note of misrepresentation adds that extra hint of class to this exchange. Anybody who has read my posts will see that to be the case. There's a massive difference between understanding dosage and exposure limits and a position that simply parrots "radiation is bad" while ignoring the nuance because it makes the topic complex, and complex topics aren't as fun as just labelling somebody, making fun of them, and then pretending to bow out like you are the definition of awesome. Hope you can fit that head of yours through the door on the way out.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
If you consider the statistic of five year survival rates post radiation treatment as "cures" it sure does, and in the process is steadily poisoning the host. I don't think you have any idea how any of this works friend.

I'm not an engineer but I do know how the body works. And arguing the safety of radiation at this point is like arguing the Earth being flat.


No, you don't understand the subject...again, using the behaviour of massive doses of radiation and extrapolating it down to the near zero case.

Originally Posted By: jk_636
But that is irrelevant in this case, as any...individual...can google "Is radiation bad for you" and will see tons of evidence provided by real doctors, scientists and organizations that prove that it is, in fact, harmful to your health.


Using the heavy dose response and applying it all the way to zero (the Zero Linear Threshold Approach) is the stuff that fuels the paranoia that you are emotively displaying here.

A LOT kills you, so a little bit automatically kills you just slower...

It doesn't work like that...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477708/

I'm not saying that leakage is a good thing...it's tiny...and the health effects on the surrounding populations are only estimated to be higher, if using the flawed zero linear threshold model. And Anti (insert demon technology here) will use whatever scare tactics they can.

It's a fact that Greenpeace have papers in circulation as to which scare campaign they are going to use in which district to achieve their aims...and that includes strategic scare campaigns, for specific groups of the public.
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/1206_greenpeace.pdf

 

[jk_636]

First, Shannow I hope you have a PhD in Physics, are an MD Oncologist, have ever taken a tour and/or had a neighbor as a reference; because if not your point is automatically invalid here.

I recently found out that my experience serving as a lowly safety and health professional, as well as the years I wasted studying & teaching human anatomy & physiology didn't qualify me to have a valid position...on an off topic thread on BITOG... So I just want to make sure I know you are, in fact, qualified to have an opinion.

All nonsense aside,

There is plenty of evidence available that proves long term exposure to low dose radiation can be just as hazardous to your health as short term exposure to relatively higher doses. So yes, it does more or less "work like that" and even "tiny" leaks can have a big impact. Pair that with the the improper disposal of contaminated waste, which of course never happens, and you have a real public health hazard on your hands.

And you people are killing me with the Greenpeace!

You do realize that there are more people (other than Greenpeace affiliates) that don't want nuke plants in their backyards or their country period! Superfund sites are not really as fun as they sound.

 

[sleddriver]

Originally Posted By: jk_636
There is plenty of evidence available that proves long term exposure to low dose radiation can be just as hazardous to your health as short term exposure to relatively higher doses.
How low is low?

Given your posts, it follows you don't eat bananas, fly, avoid dental x-rays, avoid chest x-rays, avoid granite counter-tops including any food prepared on them, never enter any granite building, have any radon in your basement, nor spend any time in Sunlight. Further, you wear a respirator 24/7/365/lifetime.

After all, zero exposure means ZERO according to your own extreme definition.

 

[jk_636]

Originally Posted By: sleddriver
Originally Posted By: jk_636
There is plenty of evidence available that proves long term exposure to low dose radiation can be just as hazardous to your health as short term exposure to relatively higher doses.
How low is low?

Given your posts, it follows you don't eat bananas, fly, avoid dental x-rays, avoid chest x-rays, avoid granite counter-tops including any food prepared on them, never enter any granite building, have any radon in your basement, nor spend any time in Sunlight. Further, you wear a respirator 24/7/365/lifetime.

After all, zero exposure means ZERO according to your own extreme definition.


If you had been following this thread a little more closely, you would realize, as posted above, that I live a normal life just like everyone else, while taking steps (as much as anyone can in today's world) to minimize exposure. What I don't do is go around acting like exposure is no big deal, or that nuclear anything is safe, because its not.

And yes, do some research. Low dose long term exposure can be just as detrimental to your health as short term exposure to higher doses.

It is, in fact, pretty much just that simple.

So is nuclear energy a good idea?

If you are making that decision from the standpoint of its collective impact on human health/animal health the answer is, NO.

If you make this decision, taking into consideration the toxic effects on the planet we all live on, the answer is still NO.

I can hear more Greenpeace accusations from here...

If you are making that decision from an economic standpoint: The answer is OVERWHELMINGLY NO. It is the cheapest form of energy, until it breaks. Then the cost of remediation when things go wrong is TREMENDOUS or INCALCULABLE.

And the idea that you can clean up a site after constant leaking or industrial accident really is a non sequitur, when first the contaminated media is either collected by humans absorbing huge doses of radiation (if they are able to even physically handle the exposure depending on the situation)

or robots, if they are able to perform the work without getting fried in the process.

Then everything contaminated has to be contained, encased and buried in the desert. And it doesn't matter how much lead you wrap it in or how thick the concrete you encase it in happens to be, all it does is reduce the continuous amount of radiation being emitted right through the vessel used to contain it.

Everyone hates coal, natural gas etc. which, oddly enough, is one point Greenpeace and Pro-nuke people have in common. Yeah sure, whatever. But the reality is that if one of those fossil fuel facilities has a catastrophic failure, explosion, fire, whatever; it can be repaired, rebuilt or replaced in relatively short order for a relatively small price tag, with minimal impact (comparatively speaking) to the community surrounding it. The same cannot be said for nuclear power.

I will let you be the judge.