U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 01-27-2013, 10:45 PM
 
Location: SWFL
22,879 posts, read 19,312,220 times
Reputation: 21328

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SunnyTXsmile View Post
Someone posted a great news article in the OC, CA board:
U.S. to study cancer risks near 6 nuclear plants - latimes.com

And they also shared this fabulous article!:
Is It Safe to Live Anywhere Near the Nuclear Plant at San Onofre? - San Clemente, CA Patch

I also shared a great interactive map of the nuclear plant locations in the country.

There is no doubt in my mind that these plants cause illness / cancer /death (something other countries know), yet I'm baffled as to why no one in this country seems to be concerned.

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to the topic than most because I've survived cancer, and have also lost the majority of my family, all except one (of varying ages) to cancer (though, even she too had cancer but survived it then later died in an accident). Everyone in the last three generations of my family have had cancer, on both sides of my family. Why no one suspects something like Three Mile Island or the fact that we live so close or down wind / stream to not one but ten nuclear reactors as a possible cause, is beyond me.

Perhaps I'm also more sensitive to the topic because I plan to soon be a mother, if I'm still able, and where I raise my children is of utmost importance to me.

I suspected these plants long before Fukishima. Yet, afte Fukushima, many nuclear plants were closed in more than one country, but our government, due to the all mighty dollar, doesn't seem to learn from or care about the lesson learned there. I get that, because I don't expect much out of the government. What confuses is me is why so many citizens appear to not care or be concerned.

I feel like Erin Brockovich, where no one seems to get it. Tell me someone does.
I can see the Nuclear Plant from my house. I don't worry about it because if it goes, there's no where to run to. We have only three two lane roads going out of town and one of them goes right by the plant and too too many people living down here now with more coming every day. I just hope it's an explosion and not just a leak. That way I go quickly and don't have to suffer rad poisoning. C'est la vie. I grew up here and so did my kid, not effects yet. Knock on wood. My parents did not die of cancer either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-27-2013, 11:22 PM
 
389 posts, read 487,820 times
Reputation: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever View Post
How would that happen?
RE:thorium reactors. Should a future society want to deal with nuclear waste, a thorium fuel cycle waste is inherently hazardous and doesn't fit to the PUREX reprocessing cycle for workers will get irradiated at unacceptable rates.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 07:44 AM
 
Location: DC
6,528 posts, read 6,463,148 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SETI_listener View Post
RE:thorium reactors. Should a future society want to deal with nuclear waste, a thorium fuel cycle waste is inherently hazardous and doesn't fit to the PUREX reprocessing cycle for workers will get irradiated at unacceptable rates.
All nuclear fuel waste is hazardous. As far as I know waste from a thorium cycle reactor, which relies on the fission of U-233 isn't much different from the waste generated by the fission of U-235. Since we in the United States aren't reprocessing any fuel right now fitting into some arbitrary fuel cycle doesn't seem particularly important.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 08:37 AM
 
389 posts, read 487,820 times
Reputation: 202
Spent natural uranium fuel are reprocessed into mixed oxide fuels, which like fresh enriched uranium, does not require shielding. When you go to a thorium cycle, reprocessed fuel pellets are extremely radioactive and requires remote handling. Why not plan for the future and at least discuss why the thorium fuel cycle is not optimal for current technology? Dry cask storage won't contain the spent fuel rods forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 08:50 AM
 
Location: DC
6,528 posts, read 6,463,148 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SETI_listener View Post
Spent natural uranium fuel are reprocessed into mixed oxide fuels, which like fresh enriched uranium, does not require shielding. When you go to a thorium cycle, reprocessed fuel pellets are extremely radioactive and requires remote handling. Why not plan for the future and at least discuss why the thorium fuel cycle is not optimal for current technology? Dry cask storage won't contain the spent fuel rods forever.
U-233 requires different, but not difficult reprocessing techniques. U-233 is not "extremely radioactive." As I recall the decay product is a beta particle which is easy to shield. As I see it there are several potential advantages to the thorium cycle:

1. Less likely to be diverted to weapon production than plutonium.

2. Thorium 232 is abundant and requires less processing than uranium.

3. You can build thermal or fast reactor cores. Thermal cores are drop in replacements in existing light water reactors.

The assertion that workers will be exposed to more radiation is just bogus. To me it's just a matter of economics. As long as there is a lot of cheap enriched uranium around thorium probably doesn't make much economic sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 07:22 PM
 
389 posts, read 487,820 times
Reputation: 202
You're forgetting U-232 with a half life of 60 years. Even though the daughters of U-232 are the same as Th-232, decay to those daughters occur much much faster, 10 to the 10th power faster. Thorium lantern mantles show how these gammas trickle out, but with U-232 they flood out. Scary stuff to have in fresh fuel. I guess reprocessing could wait 600 years for the U-232 to decay out completely, since we have quite a backlog on regular uranium spent fuel
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 07:41 PM
 
Location: DC
6,528 posts, read 6,463,148 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SETI_listener View Post
You're forgetting U-232 with a half life of 60 years. Even though the daughters of U-232 are the same as Th-232, decay to those daughters occur much much faster, 10 to the 10th power faster. Thorium lantern mantles show how these gammas trickle out, but with U-232 they flood out. Scary stuff to have in fresh fuel. I guess reprocessing could wait 600 years for the U-232 to decay out completely, since we have quite a backlog on regular uranium spent fuel
Problem with relying on memory. But remote processing is not that difficult today. It really doesn't change the economic significantly. You never addressed my fundamental points.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-28-2013, 08:51 PM
 
389 posts, read 487,820 times
Reputation: 202
I can only agree with your points on the thorium cycle. Economics 600 level course: Economics, health and well being. Nuclear power is very labor intensive. Living next to a nuclear facility will only do good to the community. The plant produces a product purchased by all surrounding communities at a constant demand. The direct neighbors to the plant get all this income and spend it locally increasing the health and well being of those citizens.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 07:06 AM
 
Location: DC
6,528 posts, read 6,463,148 times
Reputation: 3137
Quote:
Originally Posted by SETI_listener View Post
I can only agree with your points on the thorium cycle. Economics 600 level course: Economics, health and well being. Nuclear power is very labor intensive. Living next to a nuclear facility will only do good to the community. The plant produces a product purchased by all surrounding communities at a constant demand. The direct neighbors to the plant get all this income and spend it locally increasing the health and well being of those citizens.
Your problem is that I took economic during my graduate studies so you aren't going to be able to slide bs by me.

Nuclear power is at the opposite end of the labor-capital intensive spectrum. It's the ultimate capital intensive product. The question in production of a commodity product like electricity is price and current new construction nuclear plants just can't compete on a level playing field with other production technology. Without dedicated government programs dedicated to building nuclear regardless of the ultimate cost, one would not be built in this country.

Just to correct some factually incorrect assertions, electricity demand is anything but constant. The "neighbors" of a nuclear plant get no benefit from the plant other than the standard property tax paid by all land owners and perhaps a few jobs. The income from the plant goes to remote investors not local citizens. Are you sure you took economics, because this assertion is really not well founded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2013, 11:05 AM
 
119 posts, read 113,538 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit View Post
Only reason it's a dead horse is because people like you can't answer any of my questions due to the fact that THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE TO THE CANCER STATISTICS FOR ANYONE LIVING CLOSE TO NUCLEAR REACTORS IN 60 YEARS......

Outside of psychosomatic issues for those who have a fear and deep misunderstanding of nuclear technology of course....

You people seem to think that refusing to answer questions and then calling the questions dead horses shows anything other than ignorance and lack of understanding on the subject?
Calling the elephant in the room a dead horse is the epitome of the anti nuclear mentality.
I would also like to hear some answers to your questions. They shouldn't be hard to come up with if there is really any danger.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top