If one person drank every drop of tritium water that leaked from Vermont Yankee...

[wtmusic]

"Based on reading a number of different articles and checking through the tables provided by the Vermont Department of Health, the fluid that was leaking into the ground contained tritium at a concentration of approximately 2.5 million picocuries per liter. That is equal to 2.5 x 10^-6 curies per liter. The rate that it was leaving the pipe was roughly 100 gallons (370 liters) per day. If the leak had been going on for a year before being detected and stopped, the total quantity of fluid that left the pipe would equal 138,000 liters. The total activity released would be 0.35 curies.

If a single person consumed every drop of that water, their whole body radiation dose would equal roughly 30 rem. According to a 1977 UNSCEAR study, the LD-50 (lethal dose for 50% of the population receiving the exposure) for tritium in adult rats was determined to be 1000 Rad. For the kind of low energy beta emissions that are produced by tritium, a rem is equal to a Rad. A dose of 30 rem received over a 1 year period would be unlikely to cause any immediate health effects, though it might add an additional risk of developing cancer sometime during the person's life. The magnitude of that risk could be computed using the conservative linear, no-threshold dose assumption.

Of course, a person who tried to drink 378 liters per day for a year would have problems more immediate than the possibility of increasing their lifetime risk of cancer."

http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/60921?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=The+Energy+Collective+%28all+posts%29

[jtuck004]

1. Interesting take on this

Much has been made of the management "lying" about whether there were pipes that carried radioactive material underneath the plant. Drawing had been submitted, the various boards could have confirmed it independently. This blog http://yesvy.blogspot.com/2010/02/tritium-and-misinformation.html takes the position that it was a "mis-communication".

It would seem to me that someone under oath speaking for Entergy should have known or found out before they said there were no such pipes under oath. It would be nice to know if there are other problems with mis-communication that might affect operation.

And unless someone can show me a plant design that was submitted to the regulatory commissions that shows the plant will be leaking radioactive material when in operation, then this thing is clearly broken, even if it is just a little bit broken. And something about plumbing, whether it is in big steam pipes or drains or any other pipe that carries fluid. Leaks get bigger.

[NNadir]

3. All nuclear power plants leak some tritium. The world tritium concentration is measurable easily.

It has been falling by a huge factor since 1963, which is just around the time nuclear energy began to rise to the status of the single largest non-fossil fuel form of energy on earth, a status it holds until this day.

The drop is dramatic, three orders of magnitude.

The source of all that tritium in 1963 was nuclear weapons tests.

I explained this in detail, using an appropriate level of sarcasm and contempt in several places:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2463434&mesg_id=2465393">Well? OK then, let's get right to the core of the distortion.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/3/15/211420/246">Every Cloud Has A Silver Lining, Even Mushroom Clouds: Cs-137 and Watching the Soil Die

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/1/17162/29083">Profile of Radioactive Substance Associated With Nuclear Power: Tritium.

So everyone on earth after 1963 has lived with more tritium than they are living with now.

Unfortunately, as the concentration of tritium has declined, the decline of public knowledge of science has declined even more precipitously, so that now - especially where nuclear science is concerned - the general public level of knowledge approaches Pat Robertson's knowledge of evolutionary genetics.

The tritium scare is garbage thinking, comparable to Condi's "mushroom cloud" hysteria, and like the "mushroom cloud" hysteria, will actually kill people, since the nuclear plant will be replaced with the filth and garbage of the dangerous fossil fuel industry, which produces and dumps wastes that actually kill people, as opposed to some dumb fantasy about a putative risk foisted by people who know no science whatsoever.

Entergy dug the wells where the tritium was discovered. Stupid anti-nukes didn't discover it, because it was, in fact, harmless.

NOT ONE human being is known to have a dangerous level of tritium in Vermont, although undoubtedly some people have deliberately eaten tritium labeled compounds for medical applications.

By contrast every human being on the planet contains measurable - and often medically significant concentrations of dangerous fossil fuel waste. It kills millions of people each year.

Nuclear power need not be perfect and risk free to be vastly superior to all the stuff anti-nukes don't care about. It only needs to be vastly superior, which it is.

The cloture of Vermont Yankee will kill people, just like the cloture of Maine Yankee is killing people right now, just like the cloture of Trojan is killing people, just like the cloture of Rancho Seco is killing people. At note the three closed reactors were all poor reactors.

Someone should have stopped the anti-nukes before they could kill again. The President of the United States tried to do so, in Vermont during the campaign, but it didn't do much good. They are killing again.

[jtuck004]

7. You actually do make some very good points

with some links that gave more information I had not read.

And the burning of fossil fuels is killing a lot of people, so that point is very strong, whether people want to put aside their fears or not.

What do we do with the waste? I read about reprocessing, etc, but also that the waste is all still in temporary storage, with no solution yet. And how much are we talking about in volume?

again, thanks for this

[NNadir]

27. The only energy "waste" problem on this planet that is trivial involves used nuclear fuel.

It's a very broad topic involving many elements in the periodic table.

I have covered many of these elements elsewhere, and cannot cover them all in a short space.

For a general flavor of how I (and many others) approach this topic, try this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/10/143946/647">Supply of Rhodium in Used Nuclear Fuel To Exceed World Supply From Ores by 2030.

There are very few constituents of so called "nuclear waste" that are not extremely valuable.

Thank you, by the way, for being reasonable.

[Statistical]

30. Exactly spent fuel is no more "waste" then hydrocarbons are spent solar waste.

Traveling wave reactor could run on 99% depleted uranium with a tiny seed of fissile material (uranium or plutonium).

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



The current depleted uranium stockpile in the US is worth about $100 trillion in electrical power if used as fuel in a TWR. Using just small amount of seed fissile material TWR can run up to 60 years without refueling by continually converting fertile depleted uranium (U-238) into plutonium by neutron bombardment and then fissioning it.

Today's waste is tomorrow's fuel. Currently the low price of fossil fuels and uranium makes exotic designs for power generation less practical but raw material costs of everything will rise in future.

A company like Terrapower could charge the govt a disposal fee to "dispose" of depleted uranium in its reactor and then use that to produce electrical power (more revenue). Rather than paying for fuel it could be paid to use waste as fuel.

[kristopher]

32. Another mythical technological fix to con people with...

I wish someone would compile a list of these "miracle cures" the nukophiles keep trotting out.

Nuclear energy - it's a preventable disease.

[Statistical]

33. Even if we shut down the 104 PWR and BWR reactors in US today

and never built another one we have 10,000 tons of High Level Waste and 700,000 tons of Depleted Uranium Waste.

They won't go away just because you shut down GenII/III reactors. Long term it makes sense to burn, transmute, process that waste rather than just letting it sit there.

[kristopher]

34. Not necessarily. It depends on the consequences and costs of that particular solution

You are reciting another myth that is designed to justify spending MORE money on a failed technology.

I'd suggest more patience while we continue R&D into alternatives that are not as expensive.

[Statistical]

35. What do the alternatives do about the existing waste?

Solar going to make 700,000 tons of depleted uranium go away?

[kristopher]

36. Alternative and less expensive ways of dealing with the waste.

We are just beginning to tap the potential of genetic engineering as one example of an area of research that needs time to mature.

[Massacure]

37. The depleted uranium could be put back in the mines without issue

The spent fuel is a different story. I'd like to see that reprocessed into safer forms.

[Statistical]

43. Depleted Uranium is in gas form (UF6). Conversion is expensive and energy intensive.

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

During enrichment uranium is combined with Florine to produce UF6 gas (called "hex").
This suspends the uranium particles and allows it to flow through gas centrifuge matrix.

After enrichment you have two "pools" of UF6. UF6 which is "enriched" with higher than natural concentration of U-235 becomes nuclear fuel.

UF6 which has now has a lower than natural concentration of U-235 is "depleted" of U-235.

There are some uses for DU (weapons, armor, radiation shielding, aviation balance weights) however the amount of DU vastly exceeds any commercial purposes.

It is left in gas form because separating it from Florine is expensive and energy intensive.
We have 700,000 tons currently in gas form in massive tank-yards (about 5 high security locations across the country).





Each one of those cylinders contains about 11 tons of UF6

Estimated cost to convert all of it back to solid oxide is about $1 billion to $2 billion.

The US govt currently has a program that only damaged, leaking, or degraded containers are converted back to uranium oxide form on a case by case basis.

We could spend billions of dollars to convert that into solid waste, then we would need to spend billions to mill it into sold blocks (unless you want to just dump powered uranium into mine shafts) and then billions more to fill old mines up with it and billions more on environmental studies and monitoring.

The other option is we could use it as fuel in a traveling wave reactor. Hell we could even use other countries waste as fuel too (for a modest disposal fee :) ). The potential electrical value of our current depleted UF6 is about $100 trillion.

[Massacure]

46. We should convert the UF6 to UO2 and use the UO2 to make solar panels

Per Wikipedia:

Uranium dioxide is a semiconductor material. Its band gap is about 1.3 eV, which lies between the band gap for silicon and gallium arsenide, near the optimum for efficiency vs band gap curve for absorption of solar radiation, suggesting its possible use for very efficient solar cells based on Schottky diode structure; it also absorbs at five different wavelengths, including infrared, further enhancing its efficiency. Its intrinsic conductivity at room temperature is about the same as of single crystal silicon.

I didn't realize depleted uranium was stored as a gas, and I came across the above passage when I was reading up on how to convert depleted uranium back into a solid state. With 700,000 tons of UF6 sitting around, we should be able to make enough UO2 to put solar panels on every house in California. :)

[Statistical]

48. Interesting idea.

I wonder about two things:
a) the cost. we have panels that are up to 40% efficient however they are about 100x the cost of 10% efficient panels. Ultimately the most important metric is $$$ per watt.

b) the marketability of radioactive solar panels

It wouldn't bother me. Uranium is an alpha emitter and it will be on top of my house. On the other hand one millionth of a curie of tritium dispersed into thousands of gallons of water despite having no possible health risk was enough to cause a media sensation and scare the living crap out of the uninformed. Likely GreenPeace would push to make "nuclear solar" illegal.

:)

[Massacure]

71. The cost would be interesting.

The radioactivity wouldn't be an issue. Uranium-235 is less radioactive than the americium-241 used in smoke detectors. UO2 is also supposed to be radiation resistant so a pv cell would be fairly stable I think.

700,000 tons of Uranium Hexafluoride would yield roughly 537,000 tons of Uranium Dioxide. I'm going to use your two billion dollar "clean up" cost you cite as the upper limit, since Wikipedia cites 15 to 450 million dollars. The cost would be $1.86 a pound for UO2. The most recent figure I could find for metallurgical grade silicon was $1.45 a pound.

I'm curious if UO2 could be used to make solar cells which are both as efficient as monocrystalline silicon yet as cheaply as amorphous silicon.

[Statistical]

72. From back of napkin calculation it certainly seems plausable.

Not only that the govt could split the cost of processing.
Govt gets waste taken care of at reduced cost. Solar company gets high grade PV material at reduced cost. That would make production cost cheaper than silicon and govt gets reduction in waste processing expense.

I am not worried about the radiation but others aren't so logical. Just look at the sheer amount of fear mongering on this forum. You have to factor in the protest/legal/challenge/anti-nuke lobbying costs.

[cliffordu]

2. Yep - just the time spent in the bathroom would lead to starvation.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. Let's take cancer clusters seriously this time

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19826535.300-comment-lets-take-cancer-clusters-seriously-this-time.html

Comment: Let's take cancer clusters seriously this time

* 26 April 2008 by Ian Fairlie
* Magazine issue 2653. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

...

Studies in the 1980s revealed increased incidences of childhood leukaemia near nuclear installations at Windscale (now Sellafield), Burghfield and Dounreay in the UK. Later studies near German nuclear facilities found a similar effect. The official response was that the radiation doses from the nearby plants were too low to explain the increased leukaemia. The Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment, which is responsible for advising the UK government, finally concluded that the explanation remained unknown but was not likely to be radiation.

There the issue rested, until a recent flurry of epidemiological studies appeared. Last year, researchers at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston carried out a meta-analysis of 17 research papers covering 136 nuclear sites in the UK, Canada, France, the US, Germany, Japan and Spain. The incidence of leukaemia in children under 9 living close to the sites showed an increase of 14 to 21 per cent, while death rates from the disease were raised by 5 to 24 per cent, depending on their proximity to the nuclear facilities (European Journal of Cancer Care, vol 16, p 355).

This was followed by a German study which found 14 cases of leukaemia compared to an expected four cases between 1990 and 2005 in children living within 5 kilometres of the Krümmel nuclear plant near Hamburg, making it the largest leukaemia cluster near a nuclear power plant anywhere in the world (Environmental Health Perspectives, vol 115, p 941).

...

If radiation is indeed the cause of the cancers, how might local residents have been exposed? Most of the reactors in the KiKK study were pressurised water designs notable for their high emissions of tritium, the radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Last year, the UK government published http://www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1197382221858">a report on tritium which concluded that its hazard risk should be doubled. Tritium is most commonly found incorporated into water molecules, a factor not fully taken into account in the report, so this could make it even more hazardous.

...

[wtmusic]

8. So a rat that drank 138,000 liters of VY water would have a 1 in 16 chance

of dying from it, instead of 1 in 33. That's the doubled risk. I'm serious.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities

http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/tritium-hazard-report-pollu

Tritium Hazard Report: Pollution and Radiation Risk from Canadian Nuclear Facilities

12 June 2007

The report concludes that official attitudes on tritium are unscientific and incorrect, that tritium’s hazardous nature should be fully acknowledged by radiation protection agencies in Canada, and that tritium’s dose coefficient should be increased substantially.

This report on tritium releases in Canada is in two parts. Part 1 discusses tritium discharges from nuclear facilities in Canada and compares them with those from reactors in other countries. It examines the resulting tritium concentrations in drinking water, air and in food near Canadian nuclear stations. Although tritium releases from Candu facilities are very large, radiation protection regulators continue to maintain that these releases are of little concern because tritium’s radiation doses and its resulting hazards are small. Part 2 examines these contentions in considerable detail. It shows that tritium’s radiation “doses” are, questionably, estimated to be several hundreds of times lower than most other radioactive elements. Radiation and radioactivity (including risks, doses, biology and epidemiology) are complex matters which are often difficult to grasp. Therefore Part 2 is designed to be read primarily by health physicists and radiation protection scientists. However, efforts have been made to make this report more accessible to the wider public. In particular, technical terms have been explained and scientific jargon has been avoided. The report concludes that official attitudes on tritium are unscientific and incorrect, that tritium’s hazardous nature should be fully acknowledged by radiation protection agencies in Canada, and that tritium’s dose coefficient should be increased substantially

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/content/canada/en/documents-and-links/publications/tritium-hazard-report-pollu.pdf">Download Document

[wtmusic]

11. So a rat that drank 138,000 liters of VY water would have a 1 in 16 chance

of dying from it, instead of 1 in 33. That's the doubled risk. I'm serious. :silly:

[OKIsItJustMe]

13. Clearly, you didn't read the Greenpeace analysis

Your attitude reminds me of Hugh Carey's who, when the residents of Binghamton were concerned about PCB's offered to drink a glassful of them.

Naturally, he was at no risk, just as you are at no risk.

However, I cannot help but wonder if you would drink a glass of tritiated water.

[wtmusic]

14. Every glass we both drink is tritiated.

Mmm, that last one was most refreshing.

[OKIsItJustMe]

17. Mutagenic Effect of Tritiated Water on Spores of Bacillus subtilis

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3574959

[wtmusic]

18. Um, thats 400 RAD/HOUR

or over 10x the radiation you'd get from drinking 138,000 litres of VY water. In one hour.

OK - please. You. Are. Going. To. Lose. This. One.

Please. Accept. Defeat. Gracefully.

[wtmusic]

21. delete

[wtmusic]

22. Goodnight, OK.

Rest well, there aren't any tritium atoms lurking under the bed.

:hi:

[wtmusic]

10. You're quoting New Scientist?

Maybe aliens are causing the leukemia...

[OKIsItJustMe]

15. Please, give us an exhaustive list of scientific journals you accept

I'll be sure and consult it.

[wtmusic]

16. Anything peer-reviewed would be fine.

Thanks.

[OKIsItJustMe]

19. Like "The Energy Collective" for example?

:rofl:

[wtmusic]

20. Simple math.

You're quoting conclusions based on bullshit.

And selectively, I might add (your source):

"Surprisingly, the most obvious explanation for this increased risk - radioactive discharges from the nearby nuclear installations - was also ruled out by the KiKK researchers, who asserted that the radiation doses from such sources were too low, although the evidence they base this on is not clear."

:rofl:

[OKIsItJustMe]

26. Background information on the KiKK study

http://www.bfs.de/en/kerntechnik/kinderkrebs/kikk.html

Background information on the KiKK study

Why carry out a new study?

The discussion about increased cancer rates in the vicinity of nuclear power plants has continued since the use of nuclear energy has been considered to be a problematic issue. For instance, in 1987 and 1989 British studies reported a statistically significant increase of childhood leukaemia within a radius of 10 miles around nuclear facilities in England and Wales. In 1992, an analogously performed ecological study of the German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) for the period from 1980 to 1990 observed a statistically significant increased incidence rate for leukaemias among children below five years of age within the 5-km-zone around the sites.

Since these results were discussed very controversially and since at the same time a statistically significant increase in leukaemias occurred in the vicinity of the Krümmel nuclear power plant, a second ecological study was published in 1997. This study was again carried out by the GCCR, and it included data for the subsequent period of five years, i. e. from 1991 – 1995.

The discussion about a possible link between the occurrence of cancer in children and their residence in the vicinity of nuclear facilities in normal operation did not stop after the second study had been published. Moreover, the data of the GCCR were exploratively evaluated by other working groups.

The results of the GCCR studies and their re-evaluation by third parties were debated in the public and in the media. The question was if these results were chance findings or if their interpretation was governed by political motivation.

In 2001, upon invitation of the President of the Federal Office for Radiation Protection, Wolfram König, a „Round Table“ with various groups took place in Kassel. Here BfS decided to commission a study on the basis of these findings, although the study was to be methodically more ambitious. In order to gain more reliable results a so-called case-control-study was developed. This so-called KiKK-study (Kinderkrebs in der Umgebung von Kernkraftwerken – Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants) started in 2003. The study design was developed by a multidisciplinary panel of experts consisting of 12 members. BfS acted on that suggestion and, following an invitation to tender, charged the German Childhood Cancer Registry (GCCR) in Mainz with the implementation of this study. After four years of research and altogether five meetings of the panel of experts, the GCCR submitted the final report in November 2007. At the same time, two scientific publications concerning the study will be published in mid-December.

...

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Yankee Swap: tritium contaminated water anyone?

http://theneighborhoodtoxicologist.blogspot.com/2010/01/yankee-swap-tritium-contaminated-water.html

Monday, January 25, 2010

Yankee Swap: tritium contaminated water anyone?

First published in the Montague Reporter

First we hear about tens of thousands of picocuries* in the groundwater beneath http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20100116/NEWS02/1160313/Search-on-for-Vermont-Yankee-tritium-leak">Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power plant, next it’s over one hundred gallons of water contaminated with over 2 million picocuries in some sort of concrete trench. Oops. Besides sloppy practices, lax monitoring, shoddy construction, and obfuscation (what underground pipes?) what do these numbers mean? Should we worry about all that tritium? And what the heck is a picocurie anyway?

...

Tritiated water is particularly insidious. The tritiated water lurking below Vermont Yankee for example, could be absorbed by the root systems of nearby plants, or imbibed by unsuspecting animals. Once consumed, distributes rapidly throughout the body of plant or animal. Additionally, ingestion of tritiated water, can lead to incorporation of tritium into organic materials like DNA, proteins and amino acids. Only, unlike hydrogen, tritium will eventually decay, leaving behind an atom of helium and releasing a beta particle with enough energy to break nearby chemical bonds.

...

The human genome is contained within the DNA of our 46 chromosomes located in a cell’s nucleus. Replication of these chromosomes during cell division is a critical process, requiring a number of complex biochemical interactions including copying and construction of identical chromosomal pairs that are then split off into the newly divided cell. Because integrity of the genetic material is essential to life, not only are there biochemical systems involved in maintaining chromosomes during division, but there are also a number of mechanisms by which errors may be repaired.

Say a few molecules of tritium enter the cell and cozy up to nuclear DNA. At some point in their unstable life-time they will disintegrate, releasing their energized electrons. Should the cells’ chromosomes be in their pathway, the transfer of energy from electron to chromosome may be enough to break off a bit of chromosome. Sometimes, depending on conditions within the cell and location of the break, the broken pieces may rejoin the chromosome, leaving little or no evidence of damage; other times a broken piece remains separate, becoming a chromosomal deletion; or both the deleted piece and the damaged chromosome will be copied as if nothing happened, only it will be altered. Or, instead of direct interference with DNA, emitted electrons may interact with other molecules such as oxygen, causing “indirect” damage by creating highly reactive oxygen radicals.

...

[wtmusic]

12. Tritium "lurks" less than two weeks in the human body.

"HTO has a short biological half life in the human body of 7 to 14 days which both reduces the total effects of single-incident ingestion and precludes long-term bioaccumulation of HTO from the environment."

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

Since its beta decay half-life is a little over 12 years, there's a 1:365 chance of a tritium atom radiating anything in your body.

What is truly of concern, however, is anti-nuclear hysteria being imbibed by unsuspecting humans. :scared:

[Go2Peace]

6. I doubt you could get any of these guys to drink that water for just a month

Easy to make statements like that. But would they back them up with their own bodies? Not in your life!

[joshcryer]

23. A healthy male drinks about 4 liters of water a day. That's 94 years of drinking water.

30 rem spread out over 94 years just about doubles my radiation exposure going by this link: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html

Assuming I could live to be 130.

[joshcryer]

24. To be clear, this is 15 times less than the radiation the NRC says a nuclear engineer can accept.

A nuclear engineer would probably drink the water if it wasn't contaminated with other actual toxins.

[jpak]

25. Those who deny the threat of Deadly Dangerous Tritium deny science!!111

the end



























:rofl:

[joshcryer]

40. Do the math, if you can.

Bet you can't. :rofl:

[Statistical]

28. If coal had a rad limit even 1000x as high as Yankee there would be no operating coal plant in US.

According to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the average radioactivity per short ton of coal is 17,100 millicuries/4,000,000 tons, or 0.00427 millicuries/ton. This figure can be used to calculate the average expected radioactivity release from coal combustion. For 1982 the total release of radioactivity from 154 typical coal plants in the United States was, therefore, 2,630,230 millicuries.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

0.00427 mCuries / ton of coal.
0.00427 mCuries = 4.27 million pCuries.

1 ton of coal = 4.27 million picoCuries
Vermont Yankee = 2.95 million picoCuries.

So the amount of radiation released from Vermont Yankee is roughly equal to the amount of radiation released by burning a half ton of coal.

Last year Vermont Yankee produced 4.7 BILLION kWh of energy.
Burning 1/2 ton of coal in coal plant at 35% efficiency (6670 kWh / ton * 0.5 * 0.35) 1167 kWh.

Not only is the radiation release negligible but no coal plant in the country could operate is subject to same regulatory standards that nuclear plant are.

To produce the same amount of power as Vermont Yankee does annually, a coal plant would require two million tons of coal and release 9.47 TRILLION picoCuries. That is roughly 4 million times as much as found in the tritium leak at Vermont Yankee.

4.7 billion KWH / 6670 kWh * 0.35 = 2.01 million tons of coal
2.01 million tons of coal * 4.7 million pCuries per ton = 9468451 million pCuries.

The attack of Vermont Yankee is an attack of science.

[Nihil]

29. And yet some people just don't see it.

> Not only is the radiation release negligible but no coal plant in the country
> could operate if subject to same regulatory standards that nuclear plants are.

That's OK though as after shutting down all of the nuclear plants across the
country, the anti-nukes will move on and shut down all of the coal plants across
the country and so we will be saved from all possible sources of radioactive
pollution (except for all the weapons of course).

Or maybe they'll just give up, rest on their laurels at having achieved such
a wonderful act and forget all about the coal plants after all.

Who can tell?
:shrug:

[joshcryer]

39. The hysteria is embarrassing isn't it?

I'm embarrassed I was "one of them."

[joshcryer]

38. You forgot to multiply the nuclear plant emissions by a million.

(This is kind of an inside joke where some guy on this forum attempted to pawn off Chernobyl as releasing more radiation than all coal in the world combined.)

The EPA calculates higher radiation due to proximity to a coal plant for a reason: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/understand/calculate.html

Scroll down to where it asks if you live near a coal or nuclear plant.

[kristopher]

41. Still making light of tragedy, he?

You wrote, "(This is kind of an inside joke where some guy on this forum attempted to pawn off Chernobyl as releasing more radiation than all coal in the world combined.)"

Chernobyl = 100 megaCuries

A retrospective view of the Chernobyl accident of Apr 26, 1986 assesses the total radiation release at about 100 megaCuries or 4 x 1018 becquerels, including some 2.5 MCi of cesium-137. The cesium is the most serious release in terms of long term consequences. The total release was around 4% of the total accumulated activity of the core and compares to a release of 15 Ci at Three Mile Island. The release was then about 7 million times that at TMI. Anspaugh, et al. suggest that essentially all the noble gases and about half of the volatile elements (iodine-131, cesium-134 and cesium-137) were released . The cesium release from all of the atmospheric weapons tests is estimated to be about 30 MCi. The noble gas releases were estimated by Levi to be 45 MCi of xenon-133 and 5 MCi of krypton-85. About 3-5% of the core inventory of the relatively refractory elements such a strontium, plutonium, and ruthenium were released, much more than from a light water reactor meltdown.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/NucEne/cherno2.html

All emissions fm coal 1937-2040 = 2,721,736,430 millicuries.

Thus, by combining U.S. coal combustion from 1937 (440 million tons) through 1987 (661 million tons) with an estimated total in the year 2040 (2516 million tons), the total expected U.S. radioactivity release to the environment by 2040 can be determined. That total comes from the expected combustion of 111,716 million tons of coal with the release of 477,027,320 millicuries in the United States. Global releases of radioactivity from the predicted combustion of 637,409 million tons of coal would be 2,721,736,430 millicuries.

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

100 megaCuries > 2,721,736,430 millicuries ?

100,000,000 Curies > 2,721,736 (global) Curies ?

100,000,000 Curies > 477,027 (US) Curies ?

Is that correct?

Are these sources also trying to "pawn off Chernobyl" for some reason you and the other nukophiles who are on the "inside" find amusing?

Yeah, real funny.

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Volume 1181 Issue Chernobyl
Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment, Pages 31 - 220

Chapter II. Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe for Public Health

Alexey B. Nesterenko a , Vassily B. Nesterenko a ,† and Alexey V. Yablokov b
a
Institute of Radiation Safety (BELRAD), Minsk, Belarus b Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia
Address for correspondence: Alexey V. Yablokov, Russian Academy of Sciences, Leninsky Prospect 33, Office 319, 119071 Moscow,
Russia. Voice: [phone]; fax: [phone]. [e-mail]
†Deceased


ABSTRACT

Problems complicating a full assessment of the effects from Chernobyl included official secrecy and falsification of medical records by the USSR for the first 3.5 years after the catastrophe and the lack of reliable medical statistics in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. Official data concerning the thousands of cleanup workers (Chernobyl liquidators) who worked to control the emissions are especially difficult to reconstruct. Using criteria demanded by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) resulted in marked underestimates of the number of fatalities and the extent and degree of sickness among those exposed to radioactive fallout from Chernobyl. Data on exposures were absent or grossly inadequate, while mounting indications of adverse effects became more and more apparent. Using objective information collected by scientists in the affected areas—comparisons of morbidity and mortality in territories characterized by identical physiography, demography, and economy, which differed only in the levels and spectra of radioactive contamination—revealed significant abnormalities associated with irradiation, unrelated to age or sex (e.g., stable chromosomal aberrations), as well as other genetic and nongenetic pathologies.

In all cases when comparing the territories heavily contaminated by Chernobyl's radionuclides with less contaminated areas that are characterized by a similar economy, demography, and environment, there is a marked increase in general morbidity in the former.

Increased numbers of sick and weak newborns were found in the heavily contaminated territories in Belarus, Ukraine, and European Russia.

Accelerated aging is one of the well-known consequences of exposure to ionizing radiation. This phenomenon is apparent to a greater or lesser degree in all of the populations contaminated by the Chernobyl radionuclides.

This section describes the spectrum and the scale of the nonmalignant diseases that have been found among exposed populations.

Adverse effects as a result of Chernobyl irradiation have been found in every group that has been studied. Brain damage has been found in individuals directly exposed—liquidators and those living in the contaminated territories, as well as in their offspring. Premature cataracts; tooth and mouth abnormalities; and blood, lymphatic, heart, lung, gastrointestinal, urologic, bone, and skin diseases afflict and impair people, young and old alike. Endocrine dysfunction, particularly thyroid disease, is far more common than might be expected, with some 1,000 cases of thyroid dysfunction for every case of thyroid cancer, a marked increase after the catastrophe. There are genetic damage and birth defects especially in children of liquidators and in children born in areas with high levels of radioisotope contamination.

Immunological abnormalities and increases in viral, bacterial, and parasitic diseases are rife among individuals in the heavily contaminated areas. For more than 20 years, overall morbidity has remained high in those exposed to the irradiation released by Chernobyl. One cannot give credence to the explanation that these numbers are due solely to socioeconomic factors. The negative health consequences of the catastrophe are amply documented in this chapter and concern millions of people.

The most recent forecast by international agencies predicted there would be between 9,000 and 28,000 fatal cancers between 1986 and 2056, obviously underestimating the risk factors and the collective doses. On the basis of I-131 and Cs-137 radioisotope doses to which populations were exposed and a comparison of cancer mortality in the heavily and the less contaminated territories and pre- and post-Chernobyl cancer levels, a more realistic figure is 212,000 to 245,000 deaths in Europe and 19,000 in the rest of the world. High levels of Te-132, Ru-103, Ru-106, and Cs-134 persisted months after the Chernobyl catastrophe and the continuing radiation from Cs-137, Sr-90, Pu, and Am will generate new neoplasms for hundreds of years.

A detailed study reveals that 3.8–4.0% of all deaths in the contaminated territories of Ukraine and Russia from 1990 to 2004 were caused by the Chernobyl catastrophe. The lack of evidence of increased mortality in other affected countries is not proof of the absence of effects from the radioactive fallout. Since 1990, mortality among liquidators has exceeded the mortality rate in corresponding population groups.

From 112,000 to 125,000 liquidators died before 2005—that is, some 15% of the 830,000 members of the Chernobyl cleanup teams. The calculations suggest that the Chernobyl catastrophe has already killed several hundred thousand human beings in a population of several hundred million that was unfortunate enough to live in territories affected by the fallout. The number of Chernobyl victims will continue to grow over many future generations.

[joshcryer]

42. Here ya go folks, Vermont Yankee = Chernobyl

:rofl:

[kristopher]

54. Only you say that VY = Chernobyl

See post 53 and http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236102&mesg_id=236243

[Statistical]

44. Thanks for pointing out how much of a non-event TMI and Yankee are.

A retrospective view of the Chernobyl accident of Apr 26, 1986 assesses the total radiation release at about 100 megaCuries.
The total release was around 4% of the total accumulated activity of the core and compares to a release of 15 Ci at Three Mile Island.

Chernobyl = 100,000,000 Curies
TMI = 15 Curies
Vermont Yankee = 0.0000025 Curies

:hi:

[kristopher]

53. Interesting what your take-away message is from that data...

In the first case, the data on Chernobyl, TMI, and Vermont Yankee are all suspect for being skewed in the same direction - they are almost certainly too low. So using that data for anything but disproving the lies used to draw an equivalency between the radiation from nuclear and coal would be a misuse of that data.

Second is idea that the primary problem with Vermont Yankee and TMI is the fact that they were not as bad as Chernobyl. If that is what you believe, then your thinking skills are indeed poor.

Chernobyl shows the potential scale of disaster associated with nuclear and the persistent nature of the damage done.

TMI shows that the nuclear industry is subject to failures that have the potential to reach the scale of Chernobyl. When someone drives their car and they have a near miss, they don't see that as evidence that driving is safe nor that having a major accident is not going to happen to them.

Vermont Yankee shows that the nuclear industry is still actively engaged in either lying or is incompetent, and it is one more piece of evidence that there is a persistent problem with local contamination from operating nuclear plants.

[Statistical]

57. "were not as bad" that is a slight understatement.

Release at TMI was one four-millionth the release of Chernobyl.
Release at Vermont Yankee was one forty-trillionth the release of Chernobyl.

Me personally looking at stuff logically wouldn't consider 1/4,000,000th or 1/40,000,000,000,000 to be "not as bad".

It would be like saying a Bill Gates financial situation is "not as bad" as a homeless man. Most people would say they aren't even in the same league.

[kristopher]

59. I think the 'car accident near miss' is a better analogy.

[Statistical]

61. TMI wasn't a near miss any more than me applying the brakes and the car stops is a "brake event".

The meltdown was contained within core, reactor never breached, fission was halted, emergency coolant system worked as designed and prevented serious accident.

Compare that to Chernobyl where physics of positive void coefficient design, inadequate cooling system, minimally redundant systems, and lack of containment had a far different outcome for essentially the same problem (buildup of decay heat after fission halt).

[kristopher]

63. "TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."

If you say so. :nuke:

"TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."



"TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."



"TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."



"TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."

[Statistical]

64. Yet another emotional response. Not sure what nuclear weapons have to do w/ TMI.

[kristopher]

66. "TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."

No one brought up nuclear weapons but you.

"TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."


"TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."


"TMI wasn't a near miss... The meltdown was..."

:nuke:

[wtmusic]

45. My porcelain crowns are 8x more dangerous than living near a nuke plant?

I demand an immediate and thorough investigation of the dental industry. :D

[kristopher]

56. .

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236102&mesg_id=236243

[Javaman]

31. Then knock yourself out. Bottoms up!

Me, I'll pass.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. In fairness, Yankee appears to have mismanaged the investigation or the PR effort around it.

Didn't it go something like this?

'no there's no leak'
'Ok there's some tritium maybe, but there's no pipes there'
'Ok there's pipes there, but it's a tiny amount'

Do I have that right?

Not confidence inspiring. Not that I'm terribly terrified of Tritium, I use it all the time. Tritium provides the soft, soothing glow in my slant pro 8 night sights.

[wtmusic]

49. Absolutely.

So-called "damage control" is rarely productive.

However, it's a double-edged sword. Had Entergy shut the plant down and announced the leak publicly, they are left with trying to explain why the leak was harmless: "Why are they shutting the plant down if it's so 'harmless'"?

There are no great ways to deal with something like this when up against profound ignorance of the public regarding nuclear issues.

[Statistical]

50. I don't think increased tritium levels are what sunk them.

Denying (or not knowing) about underground pipes and continuing to testify to that effect only to discover the pipes exist and they are leaking was a million times worse.

Likely they will lose their 20 year extension and considering the plant is already paid for and marginal cost of reactor are about 1 cent per kWh that mistake/lie/coverup will end up costing them tens of billions in profits.

Hopefully the other better run nuclear utilities will look at this example and see how easily it is to flush about tens of billions of dollars in risk-free future revenue by mishandling tritium leak.

[wtmusic]

51. Possibly.

However, Entergy has vowed to continue the fight, and something tells me this is not the end of the story until we see the true cost of alternate energy sources take shape:

"Axlerod put the case in even starker terms.

'I’m not saying the state would go black . . . you will get electricity, but it will be expensive. If you are at the whim of the market, customers will go ballistic on you. Electric bills that were $200/month could become $1,000 or more.'”

http://djysrv.blogspot.com/2009/08/hardball-pitch-to-save-vermont-yankee.html

[Statistical]

52. No doubt they will continue to fight however I think they have a good chance of losing.

My prediction:
It won't be closed early.
It won't be extended.
It will cease criticality on March 21, 2012

As much a pro-nuclear guy as I am they should lose the license extension. The company has shown themselves to be utterly reckless. A major accident by a reckless operator would kill nuclear renaissance. I mean it would utterly end it. No more plants, early shutdown of rest of plants, US exiting nuclear power forever.

I would only support a license extension is it was under a new owner.

It isn't the tritium leak that bothers me. The tritium is minor. It is the bad light the operators put the industry in, the potential damage they could do to the future of nuclear power, and the fact that I simply don't trust them.

[Statistical]

55. This quote is interesting

Greenhouse gases would increase

In a shot at green groups who have engaged in attacks on Vermont Yankee, Axlerod said fossil sources obtained on the spot market will increase CO2 emissions by two million tons to make up for the lost electricity from Vermont Yankee.

Ferland added to Axlerod’s analysis that Vermont’s clean carbon footprint is a “gift horse.” He notes that despite very strong promotion of renewable energy sources, few are willing to commit to long-term energy contracts with predictable pricing.

[kristopher]

58. That is one of the stupidest pieces of analysis I've ever heard...

I don't know who Ferland is, but since both capital expense and O&M are able to accurately predicted the ability of renewables to guarantee long term pricing is one of the strong points of the technologies.
If there are a lack of long term contracts it is because the *buyers* are trying to lock in below cost pricing and the electricity is more valuable if sold into the spot market. That means the refusal to enter into a *legitimate* contract is on the shoulders of the buyers.

[Statistical]

60. I was more interesting in the tons of CO2 released. n/t

[kristopher]

65. And yet you included the analyst's lie about pricing...

If you didn't know that was a lie then you really haven't the knowledge base to evaluate the energy issue.

[Statistical]

67. Says the guy who thinks an air compressor can absorb same amount of energy as a containment

:rofl:

[kristopher]

68. The compressor has a 200 psi limit and the domes have a MAX 200 PSI limit.

"My Strength of Materials prof would have flunked you if this was your answer to an essay question
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236498&mesg_id=236527

200psi is the strength of the vessel wall, no matter the size of the vessel."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=236498&mesg_id=236527


You do realize it is obvious you are reduced to antics like this because you can't argue the substance, right? It is just like your attempt the other day to frame public support as something it isn't by spinning poll data.

If you are driven to that kind of argumentation, it should be clear to any reasonable person that they need to re-evaluate their commitment to their original proposition. Since you can't defend nuclear power honestly and on it's merits, you should accept that nuclear power isn't a good solution to our needs.

[Statistical]

69. He is wrong. You are wrong.

At worst you had no idea the many magnitudes more energy required to raise pressure to bursting point in containment vs compressor.

At best you knew but attempted to mislead the audience. You used the comparison to make is appear that since air compressor can't survive a meltdown or steam explosion containment structure couldn't either.

The good news is I doubt you were beiing misleading or dishonest. You likely weren't even aware of relationship between pressure, volume, and energy. If you were you attempted to prey on other people's lack of knowledge to use emotion not facts to drive the argument.

Everything you post continually reinforces the fact that you copy & paste without any critical thinking. Like the blonde bimbo on Fox news who parrots what the teleprompter says perfectly but has no understanding about what the words really mean.

Another example you used recently:

You also thought using a F-4 (fighter jet) in force test disproves the safety of containment against a larger heavier jumbo jet. That it was a trick or a scam. You even posted "facts" like the weight was too low or the engines too light. Once again a failure to understand physics.

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 mv^2. Notice the power of 2 on velocity. A lighter higher speed impact will contain more kinetic energy than a slower heavier one. There is no scenario in which a slower moving jumbo jet would result in more kinetic energy than a high performance fighter would.

The high performance fighter (and other high velocity objects) is the higher threat to containment. This is why even today the outer layer of containment is called .... "missile shield".

[kristopher]

70. You're peddling a totally false line of bull

Highlighting the pressure required to EXPLODE a containment dome from the inside was a direct response to the claims you and others have repeatedly tried to promote that the THICKNESS of the dome (which is always wildly exaggerated) is evidence that it can contain virtually anything.

That simply isn't true. In the best of cases it has a pressure LIMIT of 200PSI, which is the same as the compressor. The lower limits are less than 1/3 of that.


IF you want to make the argument that it requires a large quantity of energy to fill a space the volume the of a containment dome with that much pressure, then that is a valid response. I would reply that as noted in several publications, the possibility is still very real that a breach can occur depending on specific circumstances and the type of explosive force that is involved.

You know that is the way the reasoning plays out so you attempt to turn it into a personal attack instead. You are becoming more and more desperate and the fact that you are increasing resorting to such fraudulent tactics should tell you something.

[joshcryer]

73. Then you should link those studies about the types of explosions required.

[kristopher]

62. VPIRG Vermont Public Interest Research Group

Repowering Vermont: Replacing Vermont Yankee for a Clean Energy Future
CleanEnergy Report VPIRG
Download full report
http://www.vpirg.org/repowervt

We are on the edge of making the biggest decision about Vermont’s energy future in the past 40 years. The choice to repower Vermont with renewable energy resources or commit to an additional 20 years of Vermont Yankee will determine the legacy we leave future Vermonters.

Closing Vermont Yankee and moving forward with energy efficiency and local renewable energy would cost Vermonters 47–50% less, between 2012 and 2032, than relying on Vermont Yankee at predicted market prices. Replacing Vermont Yankee with local renewable energy resources would also add tens of millions of dollars to our state tax base and support the creation of hundreds if not thousands of new jobs.

The way that electricity is being produced, distributed and even used is undergoing monumental change. Wind power and solar power, which were once fringe energy sources, are now being talked about as main stays of our energy future.Massive coal and nuclear plants are increasingly seen as symbols of the past and not compatible with a smart energy grid. Clean technology is moving fast to develop large scale energy storage and advanced batteries for plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles, and our traditionally slow-to-change utility industry is running to keep pace.

The old ways of generating electricity— oil, coal, and nuclear—have created unsustainable environmental and economic costs. Continued reliance on these old technologies will only worsen the situation we face in years to come and we cannot simply pass these costs on to the next generation.

Globally, our climate is in jeopardy from increased greenhouse gas pollution and collectively, Vermonters emit approximately 8,000,000 metric tons of global warming pollution every year.

The Vermont Yankee nuclear reactor has generated more than 1 million pounds of radioactive waste which is stored on the banks of the Connecticut River and will remain radioactive for more than 100,000 years. It is estimated to cost millions of dollars every year to protect the waste and it will cost an estimated $1 billion dollars to decontaminate and decommission the reactor site.

All of the nuclear and fossil fuels used in Vermont are imported to the state. In an age of increasing supply constraints and market volatility, this is an untenable economic, political and social situation.

Repowering Vermont lays out two clear and achievable visions for replacing Vermont Yankee with local renewable resources. The first,moderate, scenario was designed to meet our traditional electricity demand and anticipates a slow transition to more electricity being used in our transportation sector. The second, strong renewable energy growth, scenario sought to identify how much renewable energy could be built in Vermont over the next two decades. The results exceeded all of our expectations. Vermont could meet well over 100% of its future electricity demand, including complete electrification of our transportation sector, with in-state generation and existing levels of regional hydroelectric power.

[abqmufc]

74. HANFORD NUCLEAR FACILITY RELEASE REPORTS

In 1997 I had the honor to have a summer internship (while in grad school) with the environmental deaprtment for the Nez Perce Tribe. Ever since then I've worked on issues surrounding the U.S. nuclear legacy and impacts to Tribes. Tritium is one factor that we are now paying attention to. However that is not the only issue. One only needs to review the declassified reports of the releases from the Hanford Nuclear facility located in Richland, WA, to realize a lot more can be released! One should also note the number of breaches in public safety and environmental protection. Hanford was allowed to run hours, days, weeks without controls at various times. Allowing a lot of different toxins to be emitted into the air and the Columbia River (and thus into the Pacific Ocean).

The impacts of Hanford on the Columbia River from the Hanfrod Reach to the Pacific Ocean is unchagnable. It has altered the immediate and surrounding ecosystems. The cancer clusters, the high rates of diabetes (now linked to exposure of toxins like PCBs which where released from Hanford) all paint a different reality of the nuclear legacy.

Add to that the mining issues on the Colorado Plateau (Navajo Nation, Laguana Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo)I don't see how nuclear is a good idea.

http://www.doh.wa.gov/hanford/publications/history/release.html
http://www.hanfordwatch.org/
http://www.em.doe.gov/tribalpages/initiatives.aspx#siteprogs1
http://www.npaihb.org/programs/project/arch_hanford_tribal_service_program/

[kristopher]

75. +1

It may sound corny, but thanks for caring.

[hunter]

80. You should check into agricultural chemicals too.

Cancer and birth defect "clusters" tend to be associated with things like atrazine levels. The Colombia River drains huge areas of chemically intense industrial agriculture.

Hanford may be a special case, but most cancer clusters associated with civilian nuclear power plants are more attributable to agricultural chemicals and other non-nuclear pollutants of fossil fuel origin.

There were several cold war paranoia-induced experiments conducted at Hanford such as the notorious "Green Run," which was an attempt to reproduce exceptionally "quick and dirty" plutonium production practices in the Soviet Union in order to improve U.S. ability to detect such production.

[abqmufc]

76. Nuclear power gives the military plutonium for weapons...the real purpose?

Another longstanding concern I've had is the structure of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,AEC, and the military.

"For as long as there has been federal control of nuclear research and materials, there has been an interest in using commercial nuclear reactors as a source of materials to make weapons. In the early 1950's it was recognized that the weapons program would require more plutonium than could be furnished by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). One suggestion, made by Dr. Charles A. Thomas, then executive vice-president of Monsanto Chemical Company, was to create a dual purpose plutonium reactor, on which could produce plutonium for weapons, and electricity for commercial use.

A 1951 study undertaken by the AEC concluded that commercial nuclear reactors would not be economically feasible if they were used solely to produce electricity; they would be, however, if they also produced plutonium which could be sold. Utilities themselves were only mildly intrigued with the notion of being able to produce "too cheap to meter electricity," and only so long as someone else took over the responsibility for the waste products, and indemnified them against catastrophic nuclear plant accidents. The 1952 Annual Report for Commonwealth Edison is instructive on the former point:

"In last year's report, we announced that our companies, as one of four non-governmental groups, had entered into an agreement with the Atomic Energy Commission to study the practicability of applying nuclear energy to the production of power. The first year's study has been completed and a report has been completed and a report has been made to the Commission. Included in the report were preliminary designs of two dual-purpose reactor plants. By "dual-purpose" we mean that the plants would be primarily for the production of power but would also would produce plutonium for military purposes as a by-product. In our judgment, these plants...would be justified from an economic standpoint only if a substantial value were as- signed to the plutonium produced.""

http://www.neis.org/literature/Brochures/weapcon.htm

Dual purpose reactors. Are building power or are we preparing to restock our arsenal of nuclear weapons? Living in a state who has more nuclear weapons than most countries, this concerns me.....

[Dogmudgeon]

77. I was also reading about this recently

Other than a few proof-of-concept demonstrations, I'm not sure anything came of it.

The reason? Same as why we have been so nonchalant about spent fuel reprocessing: money. It's more profitable to purpose-build reactors. Unfortunately, the zeal to bank the fires of Satan's Hearth Infernal has led its crusaders to fudge the truth. The truth is that it CAN be done; the fudge is that they say it actually IS done when, in fact, it isn't.

Likewise, medical isotope producing reactors aren't used to power cities or manufacture weapons material.

If you are aware of any civilian reactors that have regularly produced enough plutonium to build bombs, please post about it. I think that the last one in the USA was Hanford, a military site, which also made some electric power for the townies. Most of the antis seem to think that changing fuel cycle output is simply a matter of turning a dial. And broadsides like the one you cite are notoriously deceptive; the NEIS gives the impression that a series of 55-year-old speculations and "what-if" questions were real, common, modern engineering practice. It's a lot like the speculation in the late 1960s that hippies could make LSD in a bathtub and intended to dump it into the water supply. As with all things "nuke", imaginary fear proved to be much more effective -- and economical -- than reality.

Putting together a worldwide system for nuclear arms control and abolition is a different issue altogether. The IAEA is a good start, and under Mohammed ElBardei, tremendous progress was made. My own worries do not come from possibilities for misuse of energy and medical reactors, but of better and simpler technology for isolating weaponizable uranium from cheap ore, agricultural phosphate, coal ash, and seawater.

--d!

[abqmufc]

78. Hanford Nuclear Facility - weapons and power and nobody knew for decades.

Hanford located in Richland, WA comes to mind. For decades nobody new what Hanford was (it developed the fuel for the first bombs). Hanford also provided power.

They lied once, they can do it again.

[Statistical]

79. As I indicated in another thread we have enough weapon grade matieral to build 50,000 new weapons.

When we "dismantled" the Cold War era stockpile the didn't scrap the plutonium core. We simply remove the plutonium pit (fuel for fission part of nuclear weapon) from the bomb itself (explosives, arming & firing mechanisms, guidance equipment, gravity package, etc). The bombs aren't "gone" until we get rid of the weapon source.

We have 24,000 of stockpiled plutonium pits according to DOD reports (real number might be higher).


THIS is essentially the nuclear part of a nuclear weapon. The rest of the bomb (in fission bomb) exists simply to cause this core to undergo fission.
In a thermonuclear device (H-bomb) the entire fission package exists simply as a super powerful "spark plug" to begin the fusion chain reactor. To date the only method we know of to quickly begin fusion reaction inside a H-bomb is a fission bomb as a trigger.

If you have one of these cores you can make a nuclear weapon from it.

They are stored in a series of bunkers at US Pantex Plant


We also have a couple tons of bulk stored weapons grade plutonium which can be used to make new pits.

So if US wanted to expand nuclear weapons program there would be no need for commercial power reactors (which are ill-suited for the job).
We could (depending only on construction time/capacity) expand the nuclear arsenal by about 50,000 warheads without producing a single gram of weapons grade material.
At the peak of the cold war we had about 33,000 warheads.

If you want to really get rid of potential for US to rapidly increase arsenal something needs to be done to that stockpile of weapons grade material.

One option:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel