That Manhattan Project Document on Aerosolized Uranium

Once every few weeks, people who want to portray depleted uranium as the most dangerous substance on the face of the Earth trot out a document from the Manhattan Project stating that uranium could be aerosolized and used as a radiological weapon.

This happened recently, and doesn’t have anything to do with what we know about uranium’s radiotoxicity today. It doesn’t prove any conspiracy theories and doesn’t make uranium magically increase its radioactivity when aerosolized.

For the record.

Filed under Applications, Conspiracy, Non Sequitur

Posted on June 3, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“A single accident releasing radiation into the environment could cost tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up, and could kill and injure hundreds of people (according to Dr. Marvin Resnikoff of Radioactive Waste Management Associates, a graduate of the University of Michigan nuclear science department).”

-Nuclear Information and Resource Service

What purpose, other than scaring people, is served by speculating on the number of people killed by the physically impossible?

By the way, Jan Peczkis is a graduate of the Northeastern Illinois University Geology Department. That doesn’t mean that Northeastern endorses any of his strange ideas, but the above internationally-prominent anti-nuclear group apparently feels the need to associate one of their creationist-style “independent researchers” with a credible educational institution. Note: Northeastern, nicknamed “Northeasy” and/or “Northleastern” by many Chicagoans (including its students) is essentially a diploma mill; it’s basically one step up from the City Colleges. Peczkis is notable in that he is the only major “creation scientist” who has a degree from an actual secular institution instead of a “degree” in “biology” from a bible college.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Crackpots, Health, Missing the Point, Non Sequitur, Physics, Practical Problems

Posted on May 11, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“8,000: Cubic feet of out-of-compact waste advocated by Studsvic lobbyists as more “moderate” approach. In reality, this restricted quantity favors Studvic’s processing faciliy in Tennessee which could reduce the volume of the nation’s 40,000 cf of waste generated annually by 5 times. Radioactivity is not reduced, however, meaning that 8,000 cf would be equally as hazardous as 40,000 cf. “

-Don’t Waste South Carolina

So what? If you’re complaining about low-level waste volume (which they are), why not use a process that compresses it?

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Non Sequitur, Waste

Posted on May 2, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

The News-Journal on New Jersey New Build

No, the fact that there’s another reactor doesn’t mean that an accident could reach farther than it can; no, the probability of core damage at the existing ones hasn’t gone up in the last 25 years (and in fact was way overestimated in the days before powerful computer models); no, the proposed new one isn’t more dangerous (and is in fact safer–because it replaces backup systems with physics–although the old one was good enough); and no, incidents (read: trash can fires in the manager’s office) aren’t indicative of anything nuclear. The article basically uses the old “aging-means-we-shouldn’t-build-new-ones” argument throughout; the good news is that we have at least a chance to be heard.
This isn’t Nazi Germany; we shouldn’t think we’re so marginalized that we can’t act like a counterculture.

Link (hat tip: Know_Nukes).

Filed under Emergency Response, New Build, Non Sequitur, Safety

Posted on April 30, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

For Christ’s Sake, It’s Only a Transformer Fire

Over the past few days, anti-nuclear activists have been jumping up and down, bouncing off the walls, and raising six kinds of hell about a non-problem at Indian Point.

Power plants use devices called transformers to increase the voltage produced by their generators to the 575,000 volts required by long-distance transmission lines. These are essentially two coils, with the number of windings in the coils proportional to the voltage; for example, if you had 575 volts coming out of the generator, you would use 1,000 windings in the coil that’s connected to the grid for every winding in the coil that’s connected to the power plant. The problem is that 575,000-volt electricity will arc through the air quite well, so a better insulator must be placed between the coils or the transformer will short out. That insulator is a type of oil, and oil can catch fire if there’s an ignition source (say a stray piece of metal that gets too close to the coils) and oxygen present. A few days ago, that happened at Indian Point, which, as a power plant, has transformers. Everything requires transformers. Windmills require transformers, for crying out loud. Not only is it not dangerous, it wouldn’t even be solved by shutting down Indian Point, because you need some kind of power facility to generate power. When the media says “no radiation was released,” they are not in fact saying that no radiation was released, but are implying that radiation could have been released but luckily wasn’t (not to mention the fact that radiation isn’t a substance and can’t be “released”). And that is the height of irresponsibility.

What’s worse is the author of an article linked below even knows all of the above, yet refuses to de-link it from the word “nuclear.” Anything that has anything to do with anything nuclear gains super-powers, apparently, in the doctrine of Nuclear Exceptionalism that completely and totally ignores how things actually work. Replacing physics is a system of shooting-the-messenger associations with absolutely no basis in reality.

Everybody’s been treating this as though it were some kind of close call, and that they were planning to run for the hills. Even the NRC has used this as an excuse to downgrade the safety status of Indian Point Unit 3 (!) so as to bring closer scrutiny upon Unit 3’s reactor. It’s simply yet another example of overkill (nobody should worry about this; these types of things happen all the time and pose exactly zero safety threat) and mission creep (the NRC has simply no business worrying about Indian Point’s switchyard).

I would like to reprint a comment left on an article in The Journal News:

“In large installations, like factories, or fossil power plants, about 150-250 items are broken, failed, worn out or needing attention every day. A townhouse complex I lived in years ago was much the same. The maintenance crew there was about 15 men, augmented by contract gardeners. The complex would not have hired 15 people on a full time basis, if there was nothing for them to do. That simple enclave of a dozen brick buildings had maybe 50 to 100 unfixed problems being worked on at any time.

Now just imagine yourself being in the real estate market for a townhouse, and being handed a sheaf of papers as you approach the place, listing stuck toilets, failed radiators, uncollected garbage, windows that failed to open, cable TV hookups that didn’t work, seamy stories of the personal problems of some of the maintenance mechanics, contagious sicknesses in certain children living there, and a hysterical pre-cooked agenda, telling you to never rent there, because of the great danger, and urging you to call your congressman, to have the place torn down.

Would you become afraid of the Townhouses? Would you join up, get agitated, and march around the place holding placards? (admittedly,…. some poor souls would…… its just that most people would not). In point of fact, I thought the maintenance there was lousy, and I moved out. However, the place is still there, and the townhouses are selling for about $450,000 dollars, so the broken toilets didn’t seem to affect the realities of the marketplace.

In a non-nuclear power plant where I once worked , we had about 1500 outstanding unfixed problems at any time, and incidents happened constantly. Once a mugger, pursued by the police, ran in the front gate, climbed a transformer tower, and got fried to a crisp by the 345KV electricity. That kept us down for about 8 hours. Once a 48 inch high pressure steam line ruptured, and two workers and a fire lieutenant were scalded to death before it was brought under control. That caused a 2 month outage. Once a supervisor led his men to the wrong compartment, and set them to work dismantling the wrong 13KV breaker. They were both incinerated, the lucky man dying in 2 days, the unlucky one taking 3 weeks to die. The entire plant staff of 400 people was bussed to both the funerals. It sucked. Once a worker was careless and cut the wrong cable with a power saw. He lost his sight. He was 45 years old , and lives today as a blind man. A worker made a slip up while pouring powdered caustic into a vat, and got covered with harsh caustic solution, removing the skin from 80% of his body. He lives on disability now, and looks quite a bit less attractive than he did before the incident. Once the entire office complex burned completely overnight, causing 2 million dollars’ damage, and resulting in the place being run from rented construction trailers for a year.

There was never a week’s period, where something did not break, or fail, or explode, or hurt someone. The rythm of steady disaster was constant. It was a high risk, high energy business, and nobody was dismayed by it. Those working on oil rigs will tell you the same. That’s how it is, for those of us who work reality jobs. There’s nothing wrong because of it. Its regrettable, should be avoided if possible, but its also perfectly normal, expected, even, in its own way.This kind of real-world enterprise cannot be run without it.

But kindly note, dear reader, that none of you ever heard anything about it. Not a single word. You see, people are generally oblivious to the agonies of those who serve them. Who cares if the chef scalds his finger? Just serve my steak, and be quick about it. I only heard about it, because I had to write the work orders to fix the stuff. My predecessor had quit, because he couldn’t keep up the pace. I was young, wanted to show the world, so I dug in for all it was worth, and fixed disaster, after disaster, after disaster, after disaster, for 20 years. Therefore, when I see all the alarmist ranting about Indian Point, I have a point of comparison.

The number of incidents at Indian Point is orders of magnitude less than at the fossil power plant where I worked. The number of failures, is likewise way, way lower than at a typical factory or plant of any kind. The safety regimes preventing the life threatening stuff (for the workers) are so much better at Indian Point, that nothing like that happens there, most of the time. The inherent overdesign built into the plant is so robust, that no danger ever exists for people outside the fence …AND… a specific watchdog agency is built in to the woodwork in the nuclear industry (NRC) , to make sure this is true, on a 24 hour, seven day, 52 week basis, forever, by law.

So, if a transformer burns , its not a point of worry to me, because Entergy is so good, none of our toasters or TV sets even stopped working because of it.(In case you hadn’t noticed). Entergy didn’t even need the fire department. Looking at pictures of Entergy’s fire brigade, I thought it WAS the fire department. But it wasn’t. It was just Entergy’s capable, professional well trained, well equipped employees, as good as any fire department, stopping a nasty fire in minu
tes.

Oh, and yes, as the newspapers have relished in saying “There was no release of radiation” . They love saying that, overtly acting as if trying to calm you, while at the same time covertly trying to worry you. Journalistic duplicity, I’d call it. Reporters love the wild, the garish, the worrisome, and want to jiggle your emotions if they can. They get promotions when they succeed at this. For those not wishing to be manipulated in this way, its best to shrug it off. It’s THEIR thing, not ours.

And for those of us who like to relish their own feelings of fear, all I can say is, it is your preference to choose fear over calmness, exaggeration over normal confidence in our world being generally OK.

As I read the TJN story above, it is not about Indian Point at all, but it is about the reporter’s own imaginary preference to expect (almost wish) bad things to happen.

You should get some counselling for that.

Otherwise, the chlorine in that manhole down the street from you, or the gasoline in your car, or the high voltage inside your TV set, or the diseases lurking right there in your toilet might cause an undue agony for you.

We wouldn’t want that now, would we?”

Amen, to quote the article. Not only do I hope people read it, but I hope pro-nuclear people can write and communicate more like that. It’s precisely the right tone and exhibits an excellent choice of words, without sounding like right-wing propaganda. It doesn’t distort anything and it makes people think.

I think we can all agree that this incident is going to pop up in the future in the anti-nuclear literature.

Filed under Activism, Alternatives, Missing the Point, Non Sequitur, Politics and Regulation, Safety

Posted on April 14, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“In 1996-97 some 2.7 million tonne of radioactive tailings were dumped into a 190 hectare containment at the Olympic Dam copper uranium mine.

These wastes consist of the radioactive isotopes uranium-238, thorium-230, radium-226, lead-210 and polonium-210, with half lives of 4.5 billion years, 80,000 years, 1,602 years, 21 years, and 138 days, respectively. The wastes will therefore be a radiation hazard for hundreds if not thousands of generations of South Australians.”

-Conservation Council of South Australia

It was all there before. There’s no increased hazard; you can’t blame the nuclear industry for something that happened billions of years ago.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Environment, Fuel Cycle, Non Sequitur

Posted on April 14, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

The first Video Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day (and it’s a doozy):

-The Birth of Europe, BBC, 1991

1. The pile of coal at the beginning is not supposed to be part of that clip.
2. Chernobyl did explode, but it was a steam explosion (the reactor’s heat output spiked and boiled the water in the cooling system, which exploded and took radioactive material with it), not a nuclear explosion, which would require a nuclear weapon. Reactors are a lot easier to build than current nuclear weapons, and if they could explode, they would have been used as weapons.
3. The old technique of “close-up on damage to make it look more extensive than it actually is” features prominently; if you look at the surrounding area, there’s very little physical damage beyond the building itself.
4. The point on the construction of nuclear power plants being a way to displace domestic use of oil and gas to increase export revenues is absolutely correct. Today, they’re trying to use basically the same technique to turn anti-nuclear Germany into a gas- and oil-powered puppet of Moscow.
5. The narrator, dripping with contempt, pronounces nuclear power dead–neglecting the fact that Chernobyl was not developed to “provide an energy panacea” but for the production of weapons-grade plutonium. The only reason to design a reactor like that is weapons-grade plutonium production; it is more complicated, more expensive, and harder to control than a normal nuclear power plant.
6. The narrator repeats the false claim that Chernobyl had anything to do with civilian nuclear power, that it was a nuclear explosion, and that it somehow vindicated decades of scaremongering by illiterates.
7. They say that public opposition caused reactor cancellations, but in a part of this documentary that I did not upload, they grant that 1986 was a world low in oil prices. Cheap oil hurts nuclear just as much (or more) as it hurts coal.
8. This is one of the first uses of the unbelievably specious Economics Argument: that laws should be passed against nuclear power because it’s expensive. If it’s as expensive as they say it is, they should be confident enough in their projections that they shouldn’t need a law against it; all the Economics Argument demonstrated was the departure of the anti-nuclear movement from its traditional concerns–they now felt they could say anything they wanted and get away with it.
9. Nuclear power was not the first source of energy to be rejected–coal was banned in much of Europe in the Middle Ages until they started to run short of wood. Again, another part of this documentary mentions this, so they should know better.
10. The rest of the clip is fairly decent except for the complaints about EdF’s debt–which has long been paid off and whose nuclear fleet is now a cash cow and the backbone of the European grid. And nationally, the US has the “biggest nuclear program”–although it’s obviously not under the control of one operator.

This clip is disturbing not only because it’s indicative of the anti-nuclear movement going off the deep end while managing to retain all of their power, but because the rest of the documentary is an excellent history of energy. Did they feel pressure to trash nuclear power, when they should have treated it as they did other topics? Do they somehow feel that nuclear power is special, that it is not subject to the same market forces and business cycle that everyone else is?

Filed under Alternatives, Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Chernobyl, Economics, Energy, Environment, Financing, Health, Industry Performance, International, New Build, Non Sequitur, Perception, Physics, Politics and Regulation, Proliferation, Radiation, Safety

Posted on March 28, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 2 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz has called for 100 new reactors in the United States. That means 100 times more nuclear waste and makes a terrorist attack on a nuclear plant 100 times more likely. And, given that new reactors like the old ones now in use are prone to breakdowns, it multiplies the chance of a serious accident by 100 as well.”

-Nuclear Information and Resource Service

“Jeeee-sus.”

-Former US Attorney General John Mitchell

There are 104 power reactors in the United States.

100 more like them would multiply the risks by 2, not 100.

And nobody is proposing to build reactors like they were built in the 1960s. NIRS apparently wants to pretend that we don’t know anything more about nuclear reactors than we did 40 years ago. Do they know or care that a Canadian reactor can run on American nuclear waste, meaning that we could double the number of reactors without any more nuclear waste production? Do they know or care the difference between a mechanical failure and a safety problem? Do they know or care that a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant would do absolutely nothing?

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Clueless, Fun With Statistics, Non Sequitur, Safety, Security and Terrorism, Waste

Posted on March 26, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 3 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“Nuclear waste dumps, toxic incinerators, atomic reactors and other such facilities typically are located where there is cheap land, cheap facilities, and little organized opposition. Too often, this has been in minority and poor communities that have felt powerless to oppose corporate giants.”

-Nuclear Information and Resource Service

1. The problem is not that a toxic waste facility is located in a suitable area, but rather that racist governments have forced minorities onto land suitable only for toxic waste facilities.
2. The implication is of course that people are not allowed to support things that NIRS doesn’t. People either oppose something or “feel powerless to oppose” it. I think nuclear power is a good idea, just like they think windmills and solar panels are a good idea. This is entirely possible, and while I am aware that I am in the minority, it’s not a result of corporate bribery. People can have honest disagreements about issues without one being a liar.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Crackpots, Non Sequitur, Perception, Politics and Regulation, Sustainability, Waste

Posted on March 23, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 3 Comments »

Bookmark and Share

Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day

“In 2003, the NRC found that a record number of unplanned outages at both units could have been avoided had Entergy corrected known problems.”

-Indian Point Safe Energy Coalition

That doesn’t make it a safety problem–they had mechanical breakdowns, and shut the power plant side (and hence the nuclear reactors, since there’s no point operating them without producing electricity even if that were possible) down for repairs. Was there, at any point, even a potential for a nuclear accident? Well, no.

Filed under Anti-Nuclear Quote of the Day, Industry Performance, Non Sequitur, Perception, Safety

Posted on March 10, 2007 by Stewart Peterson | 0 Comments »

Bookmark and Share
Nuclear Advocacy Webring
Ring Owner: Nuclear is Our Future Site: Nuclear is Our Future
Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet Free Site Ring from Bravenet
Get Your Free Web Ring
by Bravenet.com
taking viagra woman; Order Viagra Cheap gerneric viagra cheap herbal herbal viagra viagra viagra 576.