For those who think all nuclear power is safe: A story from just this week

[archangel003]

Originally Posted by Concept

You're right, but I really wanted to point out Chernobyl more for the effects that may occur should something like that happen rather than the reasons for why it happened.

Fortunately Western reactors can't possibly be as unsafe as Eastern Bloc models. Chernobyl didn't even have a containment building. Some beauracrats wanted to make a name for themselves and screwed up an inherently dangerous experiment, intentionally violated their own regulations in a reactor designed without effective emergency systems.

[motivez]

Originally Posted by JaJae

More people have died in accidents related coal power plants than nuclear ones. That doesn't include the pollutant effects.

True, but it's the "mass casualties", all at once that's the problem and what people are worried about.

[PetriW]

Originally Posted by motivez

True, but it's the "mass casualties", all at once that's the problem and what people are worried about.

Which is quite unreasonable to be honest. Omg airplanes crash, but the chance you'll die in 100 hours of driving your own car is far higher than 100 hours of flying in a commercial airplane. But what is it people are scared of? Flying, not driving cars.

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Road-traffic crashes are one of the world’s largest public health problems. The problem is all the more acute because the victims are overwhelmingly young and healthy prior to their crashes. More than a million people are killed on the world’s roads each year, more than 40,000 on the roads of the United States. Since the coming of the automobile in the early days of the twentieth century, more than three million Americans have been killed in road-traffic crashes , vastly more than the 650,000 American battle deaths in all wars, from the start of the revolutionary war in 1775 through the war in Iraq.

Road-traffic safety - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by wikipedia

The likelihood of a fatal accident, estimated for this trip in this way, is about eight times greater when driving than when flying. As shown in this case, the largest part of the risk of flying is often the risk incurred driving to and from airports.

Transportation safety in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Emfuser]

Originally Posted by Concept

It is a safe system, but just like flying an airplane, which is also quite safe, it can have drastic effects if it for some reason didn't do what it was supposed to.

Chernobyl. I realize that our technology has increased massively since then, but still, it is a great example of what may happen.

As others have said, Chernobyl can't really happen in this country. What nobody has gotten into the details of is why.

Chernobyl was a perfect example of exactly how not to do nuclear power. From the design and use of the plant, to how it was managed on a day-to-day basis, you're looking at a whole slew of things that never happen in your western nations.

Basics:
The Chernobyl reactor design (RBMK) has inherent design parameters that would make it unlicenseable in the US and other western nations. It would never be built.

The plant design for RBMK reactors (stuff other than the reactor itself) was GROSSLY insufficient containment. Their reactor building itself was a sheet-metal enclosed building. In comparison, western reactors are all contained within heavily reinforced concrete structures that are specifically designed with withstand and contain the worst possible postulated accident, fully protecting the public (which is our first priority) and the plant workers themselves.

The operation and management of the reactor was outside of even their own poorly defined safety protocols. They ran tests that, from a reactivity management standpoint, were insanely dangerous. In western nations, we don't do anything without engineering evaluation, checking against plant technical specifications and limits, and regulatory involvement.

To sum it all up: Chernobyl is never going to happen in any nation that maintains proper standards for their plants and operation. To point at Chernobyl and use that as an excuse for denying a modern nuclear power program is ridiculous.

[WickedLou9]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

The new BMWs with side and front air bags are quite sturdy...driven safely with a seat belt...I like my odds

I've walked away from at least 3 accidents that should have been fatal, I am starting to believe I have a higher destiny

Sounds like you need to drive a little more carefully!

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

We're spraying back all over the middle east -- the sands will be hopelessly peppered with depleted uranium by the time we pull out of there.

Contrary to popular beleif DU is actually highly toxic,

As is all heavy metals. If we didnt use DU, we would use another heavy metal. We spred lead all over the place and that has similar toxicities.

and slightly radioactive,.

false. A half life of 4 billion years is not slightly radioactive.

Originally Posted by archangel003

Uranium is something the world should probably thank us for using up.

New reason for nuclear power. We are getting rid of the bad uranium

[archangel003]

I was being sarcastic.

Uranium could power the world for at least 10,000 years.

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

false. A half life of 4 billion years is not slightly radioactive.

How is that false? Once agitated, DU emits beta, gamma, and most deadly and important -- albeit least penetrating, alpha radiation.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

How is that false? Once agitated, DU emits beta, gamma, and most deadly and important -- albeit least penetrating, alpha radiation.

DU.. the "D" is "depleted"........ DU is lead.

WHO | Depleted uranium

[Nonphixion]

Originally Posted by 7960

DU.. the "D" is "depleted"........ DU is lead.

WHO | Depleted uranium

Rolleyes, right.

Did you read your link, 7960?

# The uranium remaining after removal of the enriched fraction contains about 99.8% 238U, 0.2% 235U and 0.001% 234U by mass; this is referred to as depleted uranium or DU.
# The main difference between DU and natural uranium is that the former contains at least three times less 235U than the latter.
# DU, consequently, is weakly radioactive and a radiation dose from it would be about 60% of that from purified natural uranium with the same mass.
# The behaviour of DU in the body is identical to that of natural uranium.

DU is nearly pure Uranium-238, you say this is lead?

---

If you're critisizing my termage, I got it from here. US Army Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness training video. DU; a heavy pyrophoric metal, radioactive and 1.6 times as dense as lead.

YouTube - Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness - US Army Training Video

[7960]

Originally Posted by Nonphixion

Rolleyes, right.

Did you read your link, 7960?

Did you read the rest of the page?

Originally Posted by world health organization

.
.
Exposure to uranium and depleted uranium

* Under most circumstances, use of DU will make a negligible contribution to the overall natural background levels of uranium in the environment. Probably the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used.
* A recent United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report giving field measurements taken around selected impact sites in Kosovo (Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) indicates that contamination by DU in the environment was localized to a few tens of metres around impact sites. Contamination by DU dusts of local vegetation and water supplies was found to be extremely low. Thus, the probability of significant exposure to local populations was considered to be very low.
* Levels of DU may exceed background levels of uranium close to DU contaminating events. Over the days and years following such an event, the contamination normally becomes dispersed into the wider natural environment by wind and rain. People living or working in affected areas may inhale contaminated dusts or consume contaminated food and drinking water.

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

* In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure. (ok, that's possiblely bad)
* In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated (oh shit, that can't be good, but....), but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products (Oh, it wasn't the uranium. So sorry). Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer. (where's the bad?)
* Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks). (haha...against the skin for WEEKS and nothing bad)
* No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver. (nope, no bad here)
* No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans. (again......... this is getting tiring)
* Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported. (so people have this shit embedded in them and they're still not reporting anything bad)

cliffs: I wouldn't sprinkle it on my cheerios every morning but it's not the " it's going to kill everyone" shit you're saying it is.

[Emfuser]

*sigh*

DU is hazardous for the same reasons as lead, mercury, or other heavy metals: chemical toxicity. There is far, FAR more damage to be done by chemical interaction than by effects of radiation. Uranium has a LONG half life, which means that its decay rate is slow. Slow decay rate = low radioactivity. Low radioactivity means the chemical effects trump the radioactive ones, and that one has no more of a leg to stand on in protest than they would with lead.

While DU is not literally lead, it might as well be.

[ballz2wallz]

Originally Posted by Emfuser

*sigh*

DU is hazardous for the same reasons as lead, mercury, or other heavy metals: chemical toxicity. There is far, FAR more damage to be done by chemical interaction than by effects of radiation. Uranium has a LONG half life, which means that its decay rate is slow. Slow decay rate = low radioactivity. Low radioactivity means the chemical effects trump the radioactive ones, and that one has no more of a leg to stand on in protest than they would with lead.

While DU is not literally lead, it might as well be.

yeah, i use 14C almost every day, and while i take safety measures not to spread it everywhere, it's halflife of about 5000 yrs makes me less cautious. i've probably spread it places i shouldn't have.

[7960]

Originally Posted by Emfuser

While DU is not literally lead, it might as well be.

I knew it wasn't literally lead, but I also knew that it's not the "silent killer of thousands" that...

DU emits beta, gamma, and most deadly and important -- albeit least penetrating, alpha radiation.

...implies.

[Nonphixion]

Well I stand corrected.