Protesting for the Fun of It

[dgs49]

I saw in the paper this morning that thousands of German protesters were doing their best to stop a train of reprocessed nuclear power plant fuel from being moved from one location to another. The protesters are apoplectic at the government's decision to refurbish several plants for longer life (something that is routinely done around the world, since the plants last much longer than their "design" lifespan).

Here is Pennsylvania, we have thousands of protesters trying to get in the way of exploiting the Marcellus shale natural gas fields.

The perennial protests at the G-8, G-20, etc, are apparently a journalistic joy.

I attended a few protests during the Vietnam War, and in spite of the seriousness of the subject, the crowds were generally having a pretty good time. I sense that many protesters in America around the world look back to those protests and long for the day when private citizen-activities can change the course of history.

But most of them are just plain stupid, and they get in the way of real, useful and valuable projects, costing whole societies untold losses.

In the U.S., we no longer reprocess spent nuclear fuel because of President Carter's stupidity and the efforts of thousands of misguided protesters. A completed Nuclear power plant in Long Island still sits, useless and wasted, after New York ratepayers have paid hundreds of millions of dollars for NOTHING as a result of those misguided idiots protesting the plant.

Protesting nuclear power in Germany (because of what happened at Chernobyl) is like protesting auto production because your nephew was killed in a soap-box racer. Not one person in either Europe or North America has been as much as given a case of nausea in the past 50 years over an "accident" at a nuclear power plant. No fatalities. Not one.

In PA, not a single verified case of watertable pollution has been found due to exploitation of the Marcellus find. Not one. Indeed the water table is at least a thousand feet above anyplace that might be welled for natural gas. Still the protests continue.

And we haven't built a single oil refinerey in the U.S. in - howmany decades? due to NIMBY attitudes.

And don't get me started on Yucca Mountain (thank you Harry Reid and Barry O). Even under the worst possible scenarios, there is no physical chance that groundwater in Las Vegas could be contaminated in at least ten thousand years. And that's making every possible negative assumption.

Idiots affecting our lives in negative ways. Costing us money and progress. Nice, huh?

[rubato]

So many different subjects and yet they are all tied together by an inability to feel affection or trust for his own species.

yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Protesting nuclear power in Germany (because of what happened at Chernobyl) is like protesting auto production because your nephew was killed in a soap-box racer. Not one person in either Europe or North America has been as much as given a case of nausea in the past 50 years over an "accident" at a nuclear power plant. No fatalities. Not one.

You'd save yourself a lot of heartache if you restricted yourself to being stupid about the USA. You seem to think you have the ability to speak for, and give information on Europe and European matters, however each time you do, you end up looking like an idiot.

There were 31 fatalities directly cause by the Chernobyl meltdown on the day of the disaster. The fact that these may have been over some line on the map, and therefor not actually "in" Europe just goes to show your idiocy.

* Down syndrome (trisomy 21). In West Berlin, Germany, prevalence of Down syndrome (trisomy 21) peaked 9 months following the main fallout.[ 11, 12] Between 1980 and 1986, the birth prevalence of Down syndrome was quite stable (i.e., 1.35–1.59 per 1,000 live births [27–31 cases]). In 1987, 46 cases were diagnosed (prevalence = 2.11 per 1,000 live births). Most of the excess resulted from a cluster of 12 cases among children born in January 1987. The prevalence of Down syndrome in 1988 was 1.77, and in 1989, it reached pre-Chernobyl values. The authors noted that the isolated geographical position of West Berlin prior to reunification, the free genetic counseling, and complete coverage of the population through one central cytogenetic laboratory support completeness of case ascertainment; in addition, constant culture preparation and analysis protocols ensure a high quality of data.

* Chromosomal aberrations. Reports of structural chromosome aberrations in people exposed to fallout in Belarus and other parts of the former Soviet Union, Austria, and Germany argue against a simple dose-response relationship between degree of exposure and incidence of aberrations. These findings are relevant because a close relationship exists between chromosome changes and congenital malformations. Inasmuch as some types of aberrations are almost specific for ionizing radiation, researchers use aberrations to assess exposure dose. On the basis of current coefficients, however, one cannot assume that calculation of individual exposure doses resulting from fallout would not induce measurable rates of chromosome aberrations.

* Neural tube defects (NTDs) in Turkey. During the embryonic phase of fetal development, the neural tube differentiates into the brain and spinal cord (i.e., collectively forming the central nervous system). Chemical or physical interactions with this process can cause NTDs. Common features of this class of malformations are more or less extended fissures, often accompanied by consecutive dislocation of central nervous system (CNS) tissue. NTDs include spina bifida occulta and aperta, encephalocele, and—in the extreme case—anencephaly. The first evidence in support of a possible association between CNS malformations and fallout from Chernobyl was published by Akar et al.. in 1988. The Mustafakemalpasa State Hospital, Bursa region, covers a population of approximately 90,000. Investigators have documented the prevalence of malformations since 1983. The prevalence of NTDs was 1.7 to 9.2 per 1,000 births, but during the first 6 months of 1987 increased to 20 per 1,000 (12 cases). The excess was most pronounced for the subgroup of anencephalics, in which prevalence increased 5-fold (i.e., 10 per 1,000 [6 cases]). In the consecutive months that followed (i.e., July–December 1987), the prevalence decreased again (1.3 per 1,000 for all NTDs, 0.6 per 1,000 for anencephaly), and it reached pre-Chernobyl levels during the first half of 1988 (all NTDs: 0.6 per 1,000; anencephaly: 0.2 per 1,000). This initial report was supported by several similar findings in observational studies from different regions of Turkey.

24 years on:

Twenty four years after the catastrophe, restriction orders remain in place in the production, transportation and consumption of food contaminated by Chernobyl fallout. In the UK, they remain in place on 369 farms covering 750 km² and 200,000 sheep.

In parts of Sweden and Finland, restrictions are in place on stock animals, including reindeer, in natural and near-natural environments. "In certain regions of Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Poland, wild game (including boar and deer), wild mushrooms, berries and carnivorous fish from lakes reach levels of several thousand Bq per kg of caesium-137", while "in Germany, caesium-137 levels in wild boar muscle reached 40,000 Bq/kg.

The average level is 6,800 Bq/kg, more than ten times the EU limit of 600 Bq/kg", according to the TORCH 2006 report. The European Commission has stated that "The restrictions on certain foodstuffs from certain Member States must therefore continue to be maintained for many years to come".[6]

As of 2009, sheep farmed in some areas of the UK are still subject to inspection which may lead to them being prohibited from entering the human food chain because of contamination arising from the accident:

And like a good American "right winger" you display your ignorance of the right to protest by peaceful means. Of course to you "freedom" and "Liberty" mean the "freedom and liberty to conform to my narrow and stupid view of the world."

[Lord Jim]

There were 31 fatalities directly cause by the Chernobyl meltdown on the day of the disaster. The fact that these may have been over some line on the map, and therefor not actually "in" Europe

Come on Strop....

We're not talking about just "some line on a map"...

Surely you're not suggesting that the design and safety standards for nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union are comparable to those in Germany in 2010...(or comparable to those anywhere in Western Europe, even in 1987)

The fact is, if the US got a percentage of it's energy needs from nuclear power comparable to those of most Western European countries, we could tell all the mid east thugs and Hugo Chavez to go give each other enemas with their oil, for all we care....

But no, we're too busy navel gazing with hippy dippy solar panels and windmills, which will produce a meaningful amount of US energy needs about the same time we develop Warp Drive....

You should be happy Strop...

Here's an area where I think where we actually should be copying a European approach....

[Gob]

No I do recognise the need for nuke power, and the relative safety of modern reactors.

What galls me is Dave's constant idiocy about events and people he knows nothing about.

As I said (to Dave);

You'd save yourself a lot of heartache if you restricted yourself to being stupid about the USA. You seem to think you have the ability to speak for, and give information on Europe and European matters, however each time you do, you end up looking like an idiot.

It is hysterically funny that Dave who espouses right wing ideology more than anyone else here or over there, is one of the most restrictive and anti-freedom people here.

[Guinevere]

And then there is this:

Vermont Yankee shut down

Radioactive leak forces Entergy to pull plug while repairs made
By Casey Farrar
Sentinel Staff
Published: Monday, November 08, 2010
The Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant remains shut down today as officials investigate a radioactive leak that led to its closure Sunday night.

The shutdown of the Vernon, Vt., reactor came less than an hour after one of two reactors at the Indian Point complex in Buchanan, N.Y., was taken offline due to a transformer explosion.

Full article: http://sentinelsource.com/articles/2010 ... 418028.txt

[dgs49]

My god.

Gob, are you really this dense or are you just bored? Does the concept of "Europe" mean anything to you? Are you aware that nuclear power in the old Soviet Union and nuclear power in Europe are...shall we say...somewhat different? Have you ever heard of a "containment vessel"?

Can you cite a single example for me of a nuclear incident IN EUROPE in which anyone was killed? Or made sick? Or bothered?

Please, please, please, come forth with your information.

I'm glad someone brought up Vermont Yankee. Again, please cite one instance where a nuclear incident resulted in harm to some human being. Seriously. A first degree burn. Nausea. Cancer. Please, find the information and publish it here.

IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

The reason why plants shut down with some regularity is BECAUSE THE SAFETY STANDARDS ARE SO FREAKIN' HIGH! BECAUSE THEY TAKE NO CHANCES!

Name any heavy industry in the world that has not had a single fatality in fifty years. There is only one. Nuclear power.

The basic designs of Western nuclear power plants were developed by scientists working in academe and for the governments, WITH NO PROFIT MOTIVE. Nuke is the only such industry in the world. Which is why it is ridiculously safe.

The Bogey Man postings here are a classic illustration of public ignorance on the subject, among people who should know better.

And the paranoia of the ignorant is the reason why nuke plants cost billions to build rather than hundreds of millions.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Being less than 10 miles from the Lilco shorem plant made me a little "uneasy" especially when they reviewed the technical x-rays and found a bunch of irregularities. But being a ratepayer who, by my esitmate, has paid for it three times over, someone should hang for this. LIPA (formed after the gov forced LILCO out) bought the plant for $1 witht eh promise of never putting it online and dismanteling it. Meanwhile the rate payers paid for it when lilco built it, paid for it when lipa bought it and refinanced the debt are paying for it again as lipa still hasn't paid it off.

It was supposed to cost in the area of $500 million, but was finally built at a price tag of $6billion. After interest on teh loans and such, I think we, the ratepayers, will be lucky if we only pay $18billion for the damn thing. and it's has been "fixed" so it can never generate a milliamp of electricity even if one hooked up a battery.

Biggest boondoggle in history.

[Crackpot]

YOU are a moron DGS Chernobyl was/is in Europe the Ukraine to be specific.

[Gob]

Oh, you went and spoiled it C-P.

Of course, Dave probably thinks radioactive fall out respects national boundaries too...

Dave seems to have missed that the huge increase in Downs syndrome in Germany, directly attributable to Chernobyl, is IN EUROPE. Of course as the accident happened in the Ukraine, which he thinks is in Russia, then those kids suffering doesn't count.

[rubato]

The eastern boundary of Europe is the Ural mountains which are hundreds of miles east of Ukraine; where Chernobyl is.

A reasonable person would take Chernobyl to illustrate the realistic size of a potential nuclear failure. Not ignore it as an example of "Russian incompetence". Having seen the recent effects of regulatory failure with the Gulf oil spill ought to bring all of this into clearer focus.

yrs,
rubato

[Jarlaxle]

Anyone drawing even a faint connection between a meltdown at a poorly-designed, poorly-maintained reactor with no containment building and a modern reactor (or even a not-so-modern reactor, like Vermont Yankee or Millstone) is being dishonest or is just stupid. That simply could not happen at an American or Western European nuclear plant...it would shut itself down.

And, of course, there have been reactors operating in the worst possible conditions for 56 years now, operated by one organization. Their safety record is PERFECT. Those would be the reactors powering ships of the US Navy.

[Crackpot]

So you're saying that nuclear power plants should be run by the US Govt?

[rubato]

Yes, it would be what he is saying.

The exact same people who claim (against all evidence) that anything the government does is going to fail are the same ones who say that the government is capable of perfection.

Once you've ignored all facts and all of history logical self-contradiction is easy.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

I disagree with Dave on a number of issues, but it seems to me he could have spared himself all these geography lessons if he had simply said "Western Europe" rather than "Europe", which it's clear to me is what he meant....

Also, in fairness to him, I don't see where he referred to "Russia"...

The reference I see that he made was to the "Soviet Union", of which, of course, Ukraine, (then known as "The Ukraine" was an integral part.)

[Gob]

He'd spare himself a lot of pain if he stuck to commenting on the USA, and didn't ascribe views to people he has never and will never meet.

[Andrew D]

The notion that a nuclear disaster "simply could not happen at an American or Western European nuclear plant" is, of course, hyperbolic. Neither a malfunction nor a deliberately induced disaster is inherently impossible. There is some chance, however minuscule it might be, of catastrophe.

And like all risks, it has two components: (1) how likely is it that the bad thing will happen? and (2) how bad is the bad thing? Those components operate on a sliding scale, which includes extremes. At one exreme, the likelihood that the bad thing will happen is so high that the risk is unacceptable, even if the bad thing is not very bad. At the other extreme, the bad thing is so bad that the risk is unacceptable, even if the likelihood that the bad thing will happen is very low.

The operation of nuclear plants is somewhere near the latter extreme. It appears to be generally acknowledged that the risk of a total failure (whether accidental or deliberate) of the safety systems is extremely low.

But then there is the "how bad is the bad thing" component. One study concludes that a worst-case scenario at a single nuclear plant could cause more than half a million deaths (most of them long and slow).

Assume that terrorists carry out successful attacks on ten nuclear plants. That brings the worst-case-scenario death total to more than five million. For comparison's sake that's:

--> about the population of Denmark or Nicaragua
--> about the population of Chicago and Houston combined
--> about the population of Dallas and Los Angeles combined
--> about the population of Philadelphia and Phoenix and San Antonio and San Diego combined
--> about eight times the number of military deaths on both sides in the Civil War
--> more than twelve times the number of US military deaths in World War II
--> more than eighty times the number of US military deaths in the Vietnam War
--> more than one-thousand six-hundred times the death toll of 9-11.

That's right: Recall 9-11. Then imagine 1667 9-11s.

How low does the likelihood that the bad thing will happen have to be to make the possibility that between five and six million people will be killed an acceptable risk? Is any likelihood greater than zero enough?

Then, of course, there is the more mundane problem: What do we do with the radioactive waste that nuclear power generates? No good solution has yet presented itself.

[dgs49]

I'm still waiting for your substantive reply, Gob.

Care to cite any examples? People hurt? Cancer? Sore throats? Anything?

Spend fifteen minutes on the Web and you can learn the fundamental differences in safety between both the plant at Chernobyl and their operating practices, and what's done in the west (and what has been done for the past 55 years). The biggest incident in the history of U.S. commercial nuclear power, TMI, did not result in a single sickness, injury, or death - even now, decades after it happened. And you KNOW epidemiologists are studying the local population just hoping to find some health benefits they can blame on TMI.

The protesters in Germany (and the rest of Europe) are morons. The fact that they are in Europe and not in North America does not have any effect on the fact that they are morons. As has been pointed out the past few days in the German legislature, the Greens HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM. Wind? Get serious. They have thousands of windmills now all over Europe and THEY STILL NEED SOMETHING TO GENERATE THE BASE LOAD! Wind, solar, tidal - none of them is good for anything but an unreliable backup.

Nuclear power is the safest, and the "greenest" source of energy in the world. 90% of the "problems" with nuclear energy are the direct result of public ignorance. The spent fuel can be reprocessed and used again FOREVER. Breeder reactors can be built that actually produce more fuel than they use, but nobody's doing it because it is "NUCLEAR" and people are afraid of it. The portion that can't currently be reused can be safely stored for hundreds of years in facilities that we already have. And do any of you suppose it is remotely possible that technology might be developed IN THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS(!) that might facilitate more efficient re-use of spent fuel? Maybe?

Spent nuclear fuel has less than one percent U235; weapons-grade uranium must be at least 90% U235. There is no connection between the two. Nuclear radiation is a manageable hazard, just like many other hazards that we deal with every day - nowhere near as harmful as coal emissions from existing power plants.

The Shoreham plant in Long Island is another example of public ignorance. Political grandstanding, coupled with nonsense actions by the NRC increased the plant cost geometrically, and the blame falls on.....you guessed it....the Nuclear power industry.

Unbelievable.

[dgs49]

Andrew weighs in. It gets gooder and gooder.

Andrew, tell me why a terrorist group with the intelligence and resources to obtain and deploy a nuclear weapon would go after a power plant AND NOT JUST BLOW UP NEW YORK?

It is a wonder, I tell you, how government, academic, and industry scientists have been studying scenarios for 60 years and designing plants that are engineered to withstand every conceivable eventuality, and any asshole with a political science degree can simply "poof" it all away, by saying, "it could happen." No, wait. Ten successful, simultaneous attacks on ten separate nuclear power plants. That's realistic.

Let's see....fossil fuels are too dirty and will eventually lead to the earth's burning itself up...Nuke is no good...hydro has already been tapped out...wind and solar are inconsistent and unreliable - totally inadequate for baseload generation.

No problem. We can all become organic subsistence farmers.

[Gob]

Are you seriously telling us that people in Germany have no right to protest as the nuclear melt down which happened at Chernobyl wasn't "In Europe"? God that's so banal...

How about this lot?

December 12, 1952

A partial meltdown of a reactor's uranium core at the Chalk River plant near Ottawa, Canada, resulted after the accidental removal of four control rods. Although millions of gallons of radioactive water poured into the reactor, there were no injuries.
October 1957

Fire destroyed the core of a plutonium-producing reactor at Britain's Windscale nuclear complex - since renamed Sellafield - sending clouds of radioactivity into the atmosphere. An official report said the leaked radiation could have caused dozens of cancer deaths in the vicinity of Liverpool.
Winter 1957-'58

A serious accident occurred during the winter of 1957-58 near the town of Kyshtym in the Urals. A Russian scientist who first reported the disaster estimated that hundreds died from radiation sickness.
January 3, 1961

Three technicians died at a U.S. plant in Idaho Falls in an accident at an experimental reactor.
July 4, 1961

The captain and seven crew members died when radiation spread through the Soviet Union's first nuclear-powered submarine. A pipe in the control system of one of the two reactors had ruptured.
October 5, 1966

The core of an experimental reactor near Detroit, Mich., melted partially when a sodium cooling system failed.
January 21, 1969

A coolant malfunction from an experimental underground reactor at Lucens Vad, Switzerland, releases a large amount of radiation into a cave, which was then sealed.
December 7, 1975

At the Lubmin nuclear power complex on the Baltic coast in the former East Germany, a short-circuit caused by an electrician's mistake started a fire. Some news reports said there was almost a meltdown of the reactor core.
March 28, 1979

Near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, America's worst nuclear accident occurred. A partial meltdown of one of the reactors forced the evacuation of the residents after radioactive gas escaped into the atmosphere.
February 11, 1981

Eight workers are contaminated when more than 100,000 gallons of radioactive coolant fluid leaks into the contaminant building of the Tennessee Valley Authority's Sequoyah 1 plant in Tennessee.
April 25, 1981

Officials said around 45 workers were exposed to radioactivity during repairs to a plant at Tsuruga, Japan.
April 26, 1986

The world's worst nuclear accident occurred after an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. It released radiation over much of Europe. Thirty-one people died iin the immediate aftermath of the explosion. Hundreds of thousands of residents were moved from the area and a similar number are belived to have suffered from the effects of radiation exposure.
March 24, 1992

At the Sosnovy Bor station near St. Petersburg, Russia, radioactive iodine escaped into the atmosphere. A loss of pressure in a reactor channel was the source of the accident.
November 1992

In France's most serious nuclear accident, three workers were contaminated after entering a nuclear particle accelerator in Forbach without protective clothing. Executives were jailed in 1993 for failing to take proper safety measures.
November 1995

Japan's Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor leaked two to three tons of sodium from the reactor's secondary cooling system.
March 1997

The state-run Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Corporation reprocessing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, contaminated at least 35 workers with minor radiation after a fire and explosion occurred.
September 30, 1999

Another accident at the uranium processing plant at Tokaimura, Japan, plant exposed fifty-five workers to radiation. More than 300,000 people living near the plant were ordered to stay indoors. Workers had been mixing uranium with nitric acid to make nuclear fuel, but had used too much uranium and set off the accidental uncontrolled reaction.

And before you squeak, yes they are not all in Europe / the USA.

And yet again you troll by intimating that people are saying we can do without nuclear power...