[Closed] The Long Shadow of Chernobyl

ernie.

The name comes from the ancient Greek "????" (Arkh?), meaning "beginning, origin".

I should like to go on record that neither side of this argument is succesfully making their point.

But do carry on.

transapp - Member

Im still after the proof that 10's of thousands died as a result of the op subject. Seriiously TJ, i'd like to see it but I can't find it. Pointers please?

There's apparently "plenty of proof", only problem is that TJ is the only person on the planet with access to this, and he won't share it with anyone else.

I should like to go on record that neither side of this argument is succesfully making their point.

But do carry on.

Well, I'm unsure what's meant by this. TJ has made several wildly inaccurate statements but failed to back them up when challenged. He's also asked several questions which have been answered by myself and others many times, usually on a point-by-point basis for easy digestion. I'm not quite sure how more plain I can be without drawing pictures or acting it out through the medium of mime 🙄

I appreciate that the subsequent head banging against the faith-healer's brick wall probably isn't very easy reading for the impartial, but this is what happens when TJ closes his eyes but carries on typing. Have a look on other threads with the tag "TJ Argues" for proof of this.

I'd actually quite like to carry this discussion on with Edukator and others in a much more civil manner, only without installing Chrome and Killfile for TJ, I'm not sure that can ever happen on this topic.

Thank you I_Ache, but what I was confused by was this :

Australia has been about for billions of years

.....it was mainly formed in the early archaean age - the clue's in the name

I wasn't aware that what we know as Australia has been about for billions of years, nor do I see a clue in the name, other than the fact that both words contain the letters A and R.

Of course I could very easily be missing something but I have no idea what it is.

The clue's in the name of the geological age in which it was formed i.e. the Archean. This is what I meant.

I believe the etymology of the name Australia is from the latin word for southern.

I wasn't aware that what we know as Australia has been about for billions of years

Well, unlike TJ facts, this is an actual scientific fact 🙂 Every day's a school day an' all....

Oh ok, I thought you meant there was a connection between the words Australia and Archean, my misunderstanding. I also thought Australia was a bit newer/more recent.

Some of it (Victoria in particular) is much newer, but what most people associate with Australia i.e. the red centre is certainly of the order of billions of years old, which to a human whose life expectancy is about 80 years, whose modern civilisation has only been documented for around two millennia, and whose species as a whole has only been around for 50,000 years, is an incomprehensibly long time. The Gawler Ranges (about 800 km NE of Adelaide) are reckoned to be amongst the oldest rocks on the planet.

I suppose "just sticking it in a hole in the ground" might be an improvement, if it can be kept there for eternity, seeing as CO2 doesn't decay at all...

It can be kept there for an eternity, and decay doesn't come into it, but then you already know that?

It can be kept there for an eternity, and decay doesn't come into it, but then you already know that?

If you can keep something that wants to be a gas in a hole for eternity without it escaping (and I am happy to believe the science on this), then presumably you can also keep something that is a solid, and that there will be much less of (e.g. vitrified nuclear waste) there too? Or am I missing something?

Put glass in humid and possibly corrosive conditions and it weathers quite fast. The next time you visit a cathedral with original glass have a look at the state of it. However, I examined samples of glass from the surface of the moon and they are in perfect condition despite being billions of years old. The trick then is to keep the glass dry and away from potentially corrosive conditions.

If you remember governments were trying to cinvince us (especially the French) that underground tests were safe as the whole lot would end up as stable glass due to the high temeperatures. Well [url= http://cyberplace.org.nz/peace/nukenviro.html ]that hasn't beeen the case[/url]. I know that link is biased but France 2, our state propaganda, has also shown programmes demonstrating that the atols are leaking radioactive isotopes.

Radioactive glass needs to be kept clean and dry or it weathers and releases radioactive material. Australia does indeed offer some of the best disposal sites on the planet, but why should a country that doesn't use nuclear power and has already been irradiated by foreign testing take the stuff off us?

because they'll make a lot of money if they do so.

they already make a lot of money digging stuff out of the ground, some of which is quite nasty, this way they can make even more money by filling a few holes.

or not, their choice.

but why should a country that doesn't use nuclear power and has already been irradiated by foreign testing take the stuff off us?

Money. It's an industry, isn't it.

Gotta say, this thread is awesome. Please carry on, it's stopping me getting bored on a middle eastern bank holiday.

Interesting stuff Edukator. I've just spent the past 10 mins or so poking Web of Knowledge for papers discussing leaching of nuclear materials from test sites, but I have to say I couldn't find anything. Admittedly this is partly due to the fact that both the search strings "atom*" and "nuclear" have meanings other than power or explosions in science. So just because it doesn't exist, doesn't mean the evidence isn't out there.

I'd happily accept that such research may well be carried out by state science organisations and as such not published in peer-reviewed literature, which doesn't help. One thing to bear in mind is that the force of a nuclear explosion at the test site would obviously disturb the geology somewhat, and this wouldn't be the case in a repository, so it's not a perfect comparison.

But, assuming it can be in some way encased in a material that isn't vulnerable to humidity, (PTFE might be an idea), sticking it in a hole does seem like a logical option.

The topic of an international repository does crop up from time to time down here, as does nuclear power. We do after all have the potential to export large amounts of uranium, why not make money selling it, then make even more taking it back! Also, we have one shut down and one operating research reactor, as well as numerous hospitals and research facilities (including my own) that generate various levels of nuclear waste. So as a country, Australia does deal with some amount of HLW waste already (not to mention the tons of VLLW from digging up U in the first place).

transapp - Member

Im still after the proof that 10's of thousands died as a result of the op subject. Seriiously TJ, i'd like to see it but I can't find it. Pointers please?

Lots of different studies giving lots of different answers.

One aspect to be considered is that is there a threshold below which radiation does not cause deaths? Some say there is, some say there isn't. Makes a big difference to the numbers of predicted deaths.
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model ) I believe this linear no threshold model is the most likely and numerous scientific bodies do as well.

UNSCEAR has conducted 20 years of detailed scientific and epidemiological research on the effects of the Chernobyl accident. Apart from the 57 direct deaths in the accident itself, UNSCEAR predicted in 2005 based on Linear no-threshold model (LNT) that up to 4,000 additional cancer deaths related to the accident would appear "among the 600 000 persons receiving more significant exposures (liquidators working in 1986–87, evacuees, and residents of the most contaminated areas)".[107] Later this number was revised slightly up to 5,000. The number of excess deaths among 5 million people living in the less contaminated areas is estimated at 3,000–5,000. The number of excess cancer deaths worldwide (including all contaminated areas) is approximately 27,000 based on the same LNT.[108]

That may well be the most rigourous but almost certainly a pessimistic view.

[b]27 000 deaths[/b].

Teh torch report gives 60 000

"Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment" published by the new york academy of sciences gives a figure of a million.

Given this to say tens of thousands of deaths is not unreasonable I believe

Lots more references from Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#cite_note-Union_of_Concerned_Scientists-109

Edit - the 27 000 prediction in not unescar - its a prediction made from using their methods and projecting them over the rest of the irradiated area.

Teh 5000 deaths unescar predicts is only in the most contaminated areas

Aha -

~zokes - are you now accepting that actually no one knows what the effects of burying waste for thousands of years is?

IE there is no solution to the issue of high level waste.

If you have one you really should apply for your Nobel prize.

Genius TJ and herr zokes going head to head, some perverse form of perpetual motion has been created. This will last forever 😆

Na - I only wanted to give an answer to a question I was directly asked and couldn't resist another poke and Zokes for " chuck it in a hole and forget about it" with no detail given at all.

I have had enough of it - its clear the pro nukes will simply continue to evade as there is no answers given or even known to the pertinent questions

I'm another "no threshold" supporter that puts the Chernobyl premature death rate in thousands.

On the nuclear waste front though there are lots of alternatives:

Burial in subduction zones: in the ocean floor if international agreement can be reached or in a continental zone if not.

Very deep burial using oil drilling techniques to reach geologically capped structures.

"Dilute and disperse" is a technique used for lots of pollutants. Mix high level waste with uranium mining waste and put it back where it came from (if Zoke's countrymen/women are prepared to take it).

Burial in tunnels in safe geology. So far the safe suggestions have proved less safe than originally thought and the projects I was aware of have been cancelled.

There's also the shoot-it-into-space idea but I'm trying to keep this sensible.

I'm another "no threshold" supporter

This is a huge bone of contention amongst scientists, as it's impossible to prove one way or the other. As the golden rule of HSE is to err on the side of caution, the official line is often to assume the model is linear unless evidence presents itself to the contrary i.e. the null hypothesis. You could write several health physics PhDs on this and not get close to the answer. Any scientific report on Chernobyl worth reading will certainly have discussed these issues in some depth, even if this isn't apparent from the summary.

There is actually lots of rational argument against the LNT model though. People are exposed to ionising radiation every day from UV the sun, from potassium-40 in everything they eat, from radio-medicine, x-rays, from cosmic rays when flying. The latter is usually the greatest source of radiation exposure for people who travel a lot, yet I'm not aware of any peer reviewed evidence to substantiate that air crew are more at risk of cancer than any other demographic.

I actually work with radiation (14C to trace carbon through ecosystems) on a daily basis for my research, and the maximum dose that I'm allowed to record on my dosimeter per year is 20 mSv. For medical staff I believe it's around 5 mSv, and for the general public, it's 1 mSv. All these are thresholds. If the LNT hypothesis was correct, these thresholds would be 0 mSv.

However, you are exposed to 0.007 mSv for every hour you're on a plane. So to get the maximum 20 mSv a radiation worker is allowed to be exposed to in a year (and not be considered at risk - that's the important bit, i.e. not 0 mSv), a pilot would have to be in the air for 7.8 hours a day every day of the year assuming they work 365 days a year. Now I don't know much about air crew shift patterns, but assuming they work 200 days a year, and are in the air either at rest or working on long haul flights, that's only 14 hours a day for 200 days, which sounds quite reasonable for someone on a long-haul route.

You would assume that as these different thresholds exist for the general public (and curiously given what I've just presented, pilots etc) vs me indicate a level of risk then. If so, and if air-crew receive around 20x the maximum permissible annual dose from anthropogenic radiation for non-radiation workers, why is there no strong evidence highlighting that they are 20x more likely to die from cancer than the general public? If the LNT model holds, there should be good evidence of this, and there isn't.

And on another note, anyone worried about contamination of groundwater from energy production had better have a read about CSG and fracking, then stop using gas asap.

There is evidence linking low levels of naturally occuring radiation and increased cancer risk, Zokes. I read something about it recently. I'll Google "naturally occuring radon and cancer" later but I've got some investments to look after this morning (including some in "développement durable" 😉 ).

I have stopped using gas, Zokes, and as a geologist that used to work for a water company talk of hydraulic fractures raises my blood pressure.

There is evidence linking low levels of naturally occuring radiation and increased cancer risk, Zokes.

Yeah, I'm aware of this - yet another reason not to live in Aberdeen 😉

So clearly it's a very interesting point, but as the sievert is a very good unit incorporating both the energy of the absorbed dose (in greys), and the relative biological efficiency of each type of radiation (i.e. you may receive a large number of Gy of one type of radiation, but it may not be as dangerous for what ever reason than a lower Gy dose of another type).

So comparing between radiation types in Gy is impossible, but doing it in Sv is equivalent. Therefore, assuming the LNT model holds, long haul pilots should be more at risk from cancer than the rest of the population. But yet, I'm not aware of any research demonstrating this to be true.

I need to have a read up on the exposure in Sv of these 'cancer clusters' to Rn before can say anything else on that topic. And right now, I really need to read up on what I should be doing!

Anyway, I still want proper answers to my questions!

I cannot see any option other than to, at the very least, 'top up' electricity generation with nuclear given what's possible today.

So, given that coal & gas will run out and/or become prohibitively expensive to extract, then what will we need for power generation that could realistically meet the demands of today's society? 'Green' power generation is all very well, but I'm yet to be convinced that it can be anything like a viable alternative yet

http://timeforchange.org/nuclear-energy

ALARA As Low As Reasonably Achievable

Stochastic Effects

Page 15

"The relationship between the probability of the occurrence of a stochastic health effect (the response) and the level of exposure to radiation (the dose) at the low levels of radiation exposure routinely experienced at work or in the environment is assumed, for the purposes of radiological protection, to be linear no-threshold (LNT)
– put simply, the response is assumed to be directly proportional to the dose with no threshold dose below which the effect does not occur. This approach is taken because it is believed to be prudent and so is likely to err in the direction of caution; it is also an approach that has the considerable merit of practicality for those managing radiation protection. The commonly used shorthand statement “There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation” derives from this assumption of no threshold dose for stochastic effects, but is a distortion of the LNT approach because it equates “safe” with “no effect at all, no matter how small”, which is not correct –
it is the level of risk upon which a judgement is made as to whether or not an exposure is safe."

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/nuclear-power-not-that-cheap-or-safe-it-appears

Cheesyfeet 🙂

For me it is to look at the countries energy consumption totally and to make saving where we can - and there is a lot possible.

it will be hard to generate even slightly lessor amounts of electricity without nuclear and reduce co2 output at the same time but there are huge savings to be made elsewhere to offset this

We also have plenty of coal.

Look at some of the work the green party has done on this.

Energy efficency, combined heat and pwer, microgeneration, insulation, heat managements, street lighting, illumination of public buildings etc etc

it simply needs the political will and an acceptance of the fact that we cannot reduce greenhouse gas production without altering lifestyles.

So in otherwords there is no viable alternative as it stands today then? If we turned off nuclear, coal & gas right now, then the UK stops.

Obviously energy consumption is a key issue, and needs to be addressed, but unless there's some key increases in energy generation efficiency, then our kids can look forward to evenings playing parlour games by candlelight!

Having said that, the pace of technology advance is astonishingly fast these days, so I'm very confident that it will be all instant cups of tea from the arm of the sofa whilst they are watching the latest blockbuster on the hologram wall!

Obviously energy consumption is a key issue, and needs to be addressed

This.

The trouble is though, people don't like being moaned at to do things by their government. They dislike it even more when they are being forced to do things by economic penalties such as taxes. They dislike it even more when the tax is to try to prevent something they don't even believe is happening or our fault.

The trouble with disliked governments is that sooner or later, they usually get booted out. The alternative usually gets voted in because they promise to repeal or fix whatever the previous government did to piss everyone off. [url= https://www.google.com.au/search?q=australian+carbon+tax&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a ]Australia's Carbon Tax[/url] is a good place to start, and that is even designed well enough to try to lessen the impact on low-income households...

something i found that interested me...

nuclear fission can occurr naturally:

[url= http://geology.about.com/od/geophysics/a/aaoklo.htm ]the oklo reactor[/url]

(basically, a load of uranium ore set itself going while it was still in the ground)

fascinating. 🙂

Still waiting for the proof that Chernobyl is a major drain on the Ukrainian economy and will preclude is entry into the EU.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/19/ukraine-funding-chernobyl-arch

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/economic-issues/71133-dutch-nuclear-project-shelved-not-economically-viable-under-market-conditions.html

http://www.nirs.org/c20/c20us.htm

TandemJeremy - Member
I have had enough of it
Posted 1 hour ago

Oh no he hasn't 😆

TandemJeremy - Member
Posted 39 minutes ago # Report-Post

http://www.luddites200.org.uk/nuclear_power.html

From that Guardian article:

Mikhail Gorbachev, president of the Soviet Union at the time of the Chernobyl disaster and now head of the environment group Green Cross International, used the occasion of the 25th anniversary to say nuclear power was not the answer to the world's energy problems or to climate change.

In a statement he said: "Nuclear power has been presented as a financially sound, economically efficient, clean and safe solution that will bring about energy security and drive economic growth. Recently, the so-called 'nuclear renaissance' has hitched a free ride on the back of the need to find low-carbon solutions to the climate crisis.

"The bottom line on the economics of nuclear power is that it simply does not add up. [u]That is why private investment is wisely focusing on better alternatives.[/u]

If private investment was "wisely focussing on better alternatives", noone anywhere would be discussing nuclear power. I have said all along that I see nuclear as a replacement for fossil, not renewable fuel. So if fossil fuel (which is discounted against the environment) is taken off the table, presumably all these companies would be talking about renewable energy. And they're not.

The main barrier to renewable energy generation is cheap fossil fuels.

Mccavity - I don't know if you were responding to me (because you never say anything apart from posting links) but none of those three links substantiates any of the suggestions about Ukraine made earlier.

because you never say anything apart from posting links

He's TJ's pet google-bot

I have had enough of it - its clear the pro nukes will simply continue to evade as there is no answers given or even known to the pertinent questions

Oh the irony when you simply refused to answer a question given to you re wind generators…you cannot have a go at folk when you do it yourself- well you can :roll:. They have repeatedly answered your claims…you live in a self awareness vacuum.

it will be hard to generate even slightly lessor amounts of electricity without nuclear and reduce co2 output at the same time but there are huge savings to be made elsewhere to offset this
We also have plenty of coal.

I am also pretty sure that coal wont be that good in terms of AGW unless of course you want to put the smoke in the hole in the ground and apparently that is not safe

Now TJ I await a full answer

Ok how hard will I be what exactly is your master plan and how do you implement it?
What are the huge savings to be made elsewher?
Can you quantify them in absolute termss and not just give an incomplete answer?
How many MW will we be generating in this reduced model?
How will you reduce these amounts ? Caps / quotas? Reduced food or home energy consumption? Reduced industry ?
What is the cost? Money , carbon time lost work etc
I am sure you will be able to provide more than partial answers about how “hard it will be and exactly what your solution is

The point is you cannot satisfy the same ludicrously high standards you demand of others
I am vainly trying to get you to the event horizon of awareness of your double standards/posting style [ we dont understand you we have not answered your question defeated by simple logic etc type posts] but I am aware it is an entirely futile exercise.

I agree with zokes [ who would have thunk it]*

Energy reduction is the key but they electorate wont vote for it or dp anything till it is too late
Nukes are a short term fix for fossil fuels power
Given the later is so cheap it hinders the development of renewable which, coupled with reduced consumption [ not sure how we would achieve this with electric cars mind]

FWIW I started these debates very much anti nukes But I have changed my mind due to these debates re safety and the choices we have to make. See sometimes these futile debates do result in people changing their opinion.
I am not a fan But I dint see a realistic alternative that the electorate will buy sadly. They are only a short term fix though.
Edukator also makes some excellent points about reduction and what we could all do- i used to do so much more than i do currently

I agree with zokes

Christ! I'm going to frame that 😆

FWIW I started these debates very much anti nukes But I have changed my mind due to these debates re safety and the choices we have to make.

This was my default stance too. It's not a long-term solution, but the least-worst stop gap before we all:
a) Wake up and realise we can't carry on living like this (you first, etc)
b) Completely FUBAR the place and die
c) Finally get fusion working

Sadly I feel we'll get to (b) before (a) or (c)

If you can keep something that wants to be a gas in a hole for eternity without it escaping (and I am happy to believe the science on this), then presumably you can also keep something that is a solid, and that there will be much less of (e.g. vitrified nuclear waste) there too? Or am I missing something?

CO2 storage as a liquid is not the same challenge as storing solid nuclear waste. The main difference is that CO2 is stored in (effectively microscopic) pore space throughout very large volumes of rock, rather than discrete packages of waste. Over long periods of time CO2 mineralises and becomes part of the rock, but even before this there are three other effective trapping mechanisms. So it is dispersed, difficult to access, and is of no intrinsic value to ne'er-do-wells.

Regarding comments on reducing energy use, I have been told (senior lecturer at Strathclyde in energy policy/politics) that making things more efficient does not reduce actually our energy consumption i.e. a more efficient TV will be used/left on standby for longer, or a more efficient fridge will be countered by increased gadget use, or more fuel efficient car will be used more often or driven faster, etc. Sorry no ref/links - never got round to reading around this subject in more detail!

Well the Strathclyde lecturer needs sacking. How much energy does the lecturer think gadgets use compared with a typical UK heating bill. Insulating my house and adding a solar hot water heater has cut energy use by around 5000kWh a year (more but I've knocked off the energy from the wood I burn). My gadget use including lighting, fridge, TV, Amp, various Internet/sat boxes, phone, hob, kettle, oven, microwave, power tools, battery chargers, PC, washing machine comes to around 2000kWh/year.

LED lights have knocked a bit more off my bill in the last couple of years.

Edit: UK electricty consumption is decresing if you refer back to the graph I posted a few pages back, and that despite ever more homes being built. I hope/suggest the saving is coming from more efficient appliances.

Right... clearly you are hyper-conscious of your energy consumption, and you are, or have done, all that you can to reduce it. This is a determined choice which you have made, which you will follow through for the rest of your life. How many other people in society are willing, educated, supported, aware, capable of making and implementing the same decisions as you? Very very few, I would imagine. So perhaps on a wider societal scale his point stands? Anyway, maybe I have misinterpreted/misunderstood/didn't remember correctly from a throwaway line in a lecture from a year ago. If you feel so strongly that he should be sacked, then [url= http://www.strath.ac.uk/economics/staff/bellinghamrichard/ ]I'm sure he'd love to hear from you.[/url]

As for your graph, it shows a decline of two years. But here are two other declines in energy use in the mid-70's and the late-70's-early-80's, before electricity use increased again. How do you know that we are on a long-term downward trend? Despite more houses being built, we've also been in a recession, which affects peoples energy consumption. Or do you have a graph for that too?

Perhpas not fair to demand the sacking of the man on the basis of what I now know you may have "misinterpreted/misunderstood/didn't remember correctly", Kit.

In terms of total energy consumption, taking per capita figures then Germany has being reducing consumtion for some time and the UK for a few year:

[img] [/img]

Even if people aren't making choices for themselves choices are being made for them:

Even the most energy greedy bulbs you can buy (halogen) are more economical than the old ones. Most people use the free "energy saving" ones they were given and a few people use LEDs.

Free insulation is making houses more efficient.

Try buying an appliance that isn't "A" rated. OK so the manufacturers cheat and rate the machines on settings people don't use but they are still more efficient than before.

LED TVs use less energy and they're what people want because the picture is better.

IMO the potential for demand increase due to people wanting more stuff is more than offset by efficiency increases. What do you want that you don't have? In the seventies you might have answered: American fridge, dishwasher, big TV... . What do you want now that you don't have? In my case nothing, and each time I replace an appliance it consumes less than the previous one.

As a respose to the title [i]The Long Shadow of Chernobyl[/i]

Evening all, this still going on?

Just back from a hard day helping big white whirly things produce 360MW for most of the day.

From Macavity's paper:

This might eventually represent up to four thousand fatal cancers in addition to the approximately 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected due to all other causes in this population

😉

Evening all, this still going on?

Just back from a hard day helping big white whirly things produce 360MW for most of the day.

You've harnessed the power of TJ wading into an argument, arms windmilling, shouting 'you haven't answered the question yet'?

Certainly discounts the need for nukes!

I might suggest a turbine next to the STW servers; there's certainly a lot of blustering.

So, a possible 4000, on top of the 57 killed at the time. The data we already knew. Hardly TJ's 10's of thousands.

As an aside directed at TJ's googlebot, Macavity: I, and everyone else on what TJ calls the 'pro nuclear' argument have been careful to post from non-biased sources where possible. I actually got my figures for wind turbine load factors from a pro-wind website. It would be very very easy to post hundreds of links from anti-wind organisations similar to your NIRS and luddites links. In this shining beacon of hope that is my current residence 🙄 people seem to have developed a deep belief of something called [url= http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2012/03/08/wind-turbine-syndrome-affects-more-people-than-previously-thought/ ]Wind Turbine Syndrome[/url].

Zokes - why are you so one eyed on this? simply ignoring anything that does not fit your preconceptions? You will note I was careful to put int he stuff about thresholds

The 4000 is only in the most irradiated areas a very limited geographical scope - if the same calculation is extended to all irradiated areas the number is 27,000.

If you take a more liberal interpretation the number is 60 000 plus, one study gives a million.

Given the varying numbers from a whole series of reputable sources tens of thousands is not unreasonable.

4000 DEATHS IS ONLY IN A LIMITED GEOGRAPHICAL AREA.

So - going to answer the questions put to you - are are you going to continue to ignore them or answer with meaningless platitudes again.

You ask for rigour - then present your arguemtnet with rigour.

I, and everyone else on what TJ calls the 'pro nuclear' argument have been careful to post from non-biased sources where possible. I

good - lets see teh data on disposal of waste then

references please

Where's that data from TJ?

references please

I gave a few of them this morning.

There is actually a series of good wiki entries on this if you want them Lots of references - just as with all wiki stuff have a good look at the sources.

the 4000 figure comes from UNSCEAR - and is now revised to 5000 and only considers a limited area where the radiation was highest. http://www.unscear.org/

Torch report is also worth looking at but its bias is well worth considering

http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment published by the American academy of sciences gives the number of around a million excess deaths. this does seem likely to be an over estimate.

Plenty of other studies can be found

Edukator - Member

IMO the potential for demand increase due to people wanting more stuff is more than offset by efficiency increases.

Locally, sure. But electricity production isn't a local issue.

This is the part that makes me not want to take part in this sort of debate because it always seems to come down to two sides arguing over how badly we're boned. World electricity consumption was up 5% in 2010 (wiki, sorry) and I don't see that any amount of first world efficiency gains will offset lifestyle improvements elsewhere over the next century- or in fact be more than a drop in that bucket.

As for how to deal with it... People through this thread have asserted that nuclear is a major producer and that renewables can't be- but according to my detailed wiki research nuclear produces just 5.8% of world electrical demand (and renewables 10.6% surprisingly, including biomass etc). Which I thought was strange since a common theme seems to be that it's one of the major producers.

But since 80% of power production is fossil and 6% is nuclear that requires a 1300% increase in the number of nuclear stations worldwide- from 436 worldwide to a little under 6000- in order to replace fossil entirely, even ignoring growth. Course, that's assuming that new plants produce as much power as the average existing plant, probably not fair- let's be generous and say they produce twice as much, that way we only need another 3000.

(to put it another way- to match the current growth in consumption we'd need to almost double the amount of power produced by nuclear, [i]each year[/i])

Anyone consider that likely? With nuclear generation apparently in decline and the need to replace existing stations?

TJ - I missed that. Thank you, I'll be mostly reading for the rest of the evening.

don't forget your large pinch of salt and consider who backs the reports.

Wiki pages have a lot of referneces but also need a high bullshit filter

Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously: Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.[12] An UNSCEAR report places the total confirmed deaths from radiation at 64 as of 2008. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that the death toll could reach 4,000 civilian deaths, a figure which does not include military clean-up worker casualties.[13] The Union of Concerned Scientists estimate that for the broader population there will be 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths.[14] The 2006 TORCH report predicted 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths as a result of Chernobyl fallout.[15] A Greenpeace report puts this figure at 200,000 or more. A Russian publication, Chernobyl, concludes that 985,000 premature cancer deaths occurred worldwide between 1986 and 2004 as a result of radioactive contamination from Chernobyl.[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Assessing_the_disaster.27s_effects_on_human_health

Course, that's assuming that new plants produce as much power as the average existing plant, probably not fair- let's be generous and say they produce twice as much, that way we only need another 3000.

Anyone consider that likely? With nuclear generation apparently in decline and the need to replace existing stations?

So, if we assume that those 3000 plants are 2 GW plants, that's 3 million 2 MW wind turbines, all producing all the time. Using the very optimistic load factor of 30% I quoted the other day (and that assumes a windy country such as the UK), that's over 9 million wind turbines. Anti-wind lobbyists seem to prefer a load factor of 10-15% as the correct figure, and as we're using anti-nuclear figures for every other argument on this thread, perhaps we should use that for balance?

Neither 3000 nuclear power plants nor 9 million (or 18 million if you're anti-wind) wind turbines sounds particularly likely to me.

Zokes, I take the point you're making, but putting my pedant hat on for a minute, the offshore turbine standard is currently 3.6MW; with the really big farms planned for Round 3 all made up of 6-10MW turbines. In fact Dogger Bank in Round 3 is touted as 13GW total. The most recent and next generation offshore farms have significant outputs.

Still a lot of turbines mind...

Zokes - why are you so one eyed on this? simply ignoring anything that does not fit your preconceptions?

You really dont have any self awareness do you

So - going to answer the questions put to you - are are you going to continue to ignore them or answer with meaningless platitudes again.

trully incredible work
I guess I have been lucky [ others may disagree] to mainly agree with you, this has been a real eye opener

Junkyard

I do not lack self awareness.

I am perfectly aware of what is going on here.

I asked the pro nuke guys on here a series of questions. they have been unable to answer beyond meaningless platitudes.

What relevance this has to your question about the mechanics of wind generators I do not know. I have not claimed any specific knowledge of this and what its relevance to the disposal of high level waste is I cannot see. I have not claimed wind generators are the answer.

Why you feel personal attacks are needed I do not understand. i simply asked questions about nukes and pressed for meaningful answers.

Why this means I have to answer a question about the mechanics of wind turbines I do not know.

Edit - I am not one eyed nor do I ignore stuff that does not fit my preconceptions - hence what I said about the threshold theory for radiation damage

zokes - Member

Neither 3000 nuclear power plants nor 9 million (or 18 million if you're anti-wind) wind turbines sounds particularly likely to me.

Aye, exactly my point!

Though- wind forms only 1/6th of renewables output so wrong to focus only on that (though it's currently growing ahead of the other forms IIRC). And why use outdated 2mw turbines when much better already exist?

We added 32GW (plate) wind output worldwide in 2010 and the trend is for that to rise. And though you're right to be skeptical about load factor claims, even back in 2005 the US Department of Energy found that then-new turbines were delivering around 1/3d load factor- that's neither a pro- or anti- wind source I would say, and it seems likely that it will have improved further especially since that's for on-land.

But I think the conclusion we're lead towards is that neither nuclear or wind is a fix- it'll take unrealistic development to make a dent in fossil dependance.

its it not a personal attack it is an observation- granted one you wont accept/like but I am not the first nor will I be the last. You cannot berate others for not answering questions [ they have repeatedly] and then just refuse to answer questions put to you...well you can but it has no credibility.
I am sur eyou would accept it has no relevance as a good answer from "pro nuke fanatics"

I would suggest saying you lack self awareness is on a par of "personal " as you claiming zokes is one eyed on this

Yes TJ you are open to persuasion on all the issues you enter into debate on and people often comment about how you are swayed by the arguments of others.. I refer you to my earlier point you dont like. I dont think many will agree with that view of you TJ even if you do

Its like me claiming i type well and can spell.

I have no desire to make this personal god knows you get enough of that on here and I dont wish to add to it

Junkyard - I simply cannot understand why the fact I press people for meaningful answers on one subject means I have to answer something obscure on another subject - one I have not claimed specific knowledge on

there has been no meaningful answers to the questions I have asked. You say there has can you copy and paste them or tell me what they are - and meaningless platitudes do not count or on the question you asked about wind turbines an answer of " ways will be found around it" is good enough

On a previous discussion on this Zokes and I discussed the thresholds and while previously I thought it had been settled that there was no threshold its clear to me now that there is no firm consensus on this thus when answering about the deaths I mentioned this.

But I think the conclusion we're lead towards is that neither nuclear or wind is a fix- it'll take unrealistic development to make a dent in fossil dependance.

And this is the problem.

However, we're not actually just turning off all existing nuclear and fossil plants in one go. It will be gradual, and that does make it at least in part achievable through a mix of tidal, solar, wave, biomass, wind, hydro, modern nuclear, and small, highly efficient CHP gas plants.

We could play devil's advocate and single out each of those technologies on their own as an example of how it won't work (e.g. 18 million wind turbines, nuclear will kill us all, or civilisation as we know it will end if we have to switch to energy-saving light bulbs), but I think it would be more constructive if we took a holistic approach without writing off any one technology or method.

Sadly, there is at least one person on this thread trying their best to have a destructive argument, rather than a constructive debate. That spoils things somewhat...

I asked the pro nuke guys on here a series of questions

There aren't (to my knowledge) any "pro-nuke" guys on this thread. My own position, and that of others it seems, is that we're "anti 'anti-nuke hysteria'", which is totally different.

I am not trying to have a destructive debate. I am not as you have variously called me hysterical or scared.

I simply see this in a different way to you - that the dangers of nuclear are two high for the benefits it can bring.

I pressed you on the flaws in your pro nuke argument - and you refuse to answer the pertinent questions apart from with generalised platitudes.

Nuclear is an expensive dangerous irrelevance in this debate. It can never be a significant part of the solution. Instead pursuing it will take money and effort away from solutions that can play a much more important role.

I have continually pressed yo because its an important point - and your refusal to answer in any meaningful way shows the paucity of your argument as does your use of pejorative terms to describe anyone who has the temerity to question you and press for answers.

I do not lack self awareness.

I am perfectly aware of what is going on here.

[img] [/img]

I'd go so far as to say that this sounds like Maggie in her final days as PM!

Still no answers then - just relying on insults. Nice.

I used to have some respect for you on this and indeed have shown it by listening and learning about the thresholds for example

No more. The paucity of your argument has been exposed and all you can do is hurl insults.

I used to have some respect for you on this and indeed have shown it by listening and learning about the thresholds for example

If this is the case, and the various estimates (some from sources with little more than hysterical guesses as basis) are all predicated on the veracity (or lack thereof) of the LNT model, why did you open your contribution to the thread with:

TandemJeremy - Member

plenty of proof of many ten of thousands of deaths from Chernobyl at a bare minimum

If you were aware of the issues around the LNT model (as you say, from previous debates with me), why did you then type such a subjective and non-contextual statement to open your contribution to this thread?

In fact, then,[url= http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/the-long-shadow-of-chernobyl/page/7#post-3610038 ] why did you try to defend the LNT model as fact[/url], rather than as one particular hypothesis (which it is)?

Despite various evidence to the contrary on all questions asked, you still claim that noone has answered your questions. This is why my questioning your ironic intent regarding your assertion of self-awareness seems fair enough to me. Given that I wasn't the first person to raise this question with you, I'd say I'm not the only one.

As Junkyard has highlighted, he and I rarely seem to agree on threads, and it has in the past unfortunately degenerated into the [i]ad hominem[/i] style of argument you have started here. The fact that JY and myself (who I'm sure on more than one occasion have probably disagreed with each other to the point of trolling) are in agreement on this subject implies that both of us are putting forward a reasoned argument, which stands up even when each of us might pre-judge the other's analysis from past encounters.

You are right to point out I'm reasonaing locally, on a European level in fact, Northwind. The world population increases by the population of the town I live in every day or so. Car production is still going up in an almost straight line:

[img] [/img]

Sooner rather than later a world energy crisis is going to bite and those nations and regions best prepared for a transition to a sustainable future will remain stable with a high quality of life for longer. Europe has the resources to make the transition, if we don't want our children to live in anarchy and poverty now is the time to invest in energy saving and sustainable energy production.

if we don't want our children to live in anarchy and poverty now is the time to invest in energy saving and sustainable energy production.

That would require political foresight and leadership, which might be a problem.

Hmmm, you have got some history on this one to be fair though, haven't you TJ?

TandemJeremy - Member
zulu - wrong there is no safe minimum dose for radiation. All radiation is mutagenic - its nothing like a chemical poison. radiation doses are also cumulative.

So yes - any radiation released into biosphere will mean more deaths.

POSTED 4 MONTHS AGO # REPORT-POST

TandemJeremy - Member
Yup - no safe minimum dosage - thats the scientific concensus

Low level radiation dosage is cumulative and mutagenic with no safe minimum dosage..

POSTED 4 MONTHS AGO # REPORT-POST

I know it's from 4 months ago, but what Z11 has quoted from TJ is priceless:

All radiation is mutagenic - its nothing like a chemical poison. radiation doses are also cumulative.

So yes - any radiation released into biosphere will mean more deaths.

Well, that's certainly complete and utter BS. You're being exposed to radiation on a daily basis. Everyone is. As I highlighted before, certain non-radiation workers are exposed to much more than radiation workers (air-crew, for example), yet none of my friends who are pilots seem to have dropped down dead yet.

I don't work in the nuclear industry as you would imagine it, but I do use radioactive substances for my job. As such, it is mandated by law that I have to go on regular courses and understand the risks posed by working with radiation, and the limits to which myself and, more importantly, staff under my supervision may be exposed to. I've now attended these courses in two different countries (UK and Aus).

If radiation was cumulative (which it's not, unless you ingest it in a form which your body does not get rid of, like mercury), and if there was no safe threshold to which I can be exposed to without risk of harm, then I wouldn't be allowed to work with radioisotopes. That doesn't just apply to me as an environmental scientist, but it applies to medicine, health workers, and a whole range of professions - none of whom would be associated with the nuclear industry as the general public might perceive it i.e. power or weapons.

Your presumption of harm from radiation exposure, no matter how low, is classic paranoia of something you don't understand. Classic hazard risk and perception psychology. That's not a criticism of you - most people are scared of things they don't understand (fear of poisonous spiders in Australia by European backpackers is quite a good example). Unfortunately it does leave a rather disingenuous argument though, which is what you fail to see.

This may seem rather harsh but let's asume TJ's figure of 100000 deaths due to Chernobyl is true. As that's over 26 years so less than 4000 deaths a year, and spread worldwide is that really that much of a problem?

Good point Gribs, only a handful of deaths over the last 26 years have posed a real problem for me. And I dare say several millions have died.

[i]"One death is a tragedy; one million is a statistic"[/i] - Joseph Stalin

[url= http://cancerhelp.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-questions/airline-staff-and-cancer ]Airline staff and cancer[/url]

And from another paper:

Melanoma

The estimated incidence of melanoma was found to be significantly increased among airline pilots—the estimated SIR for melanoma was 3.47. Because the incidence of melanoma has increased in the general population since 1970, estimated SIRs for airline pilots were calculated separately for the time periods 1970–79, 1980–89, and 1990–98 using SEER data for comparable time periods. For 1970–79, the estimated SIR is 1.77; for 1980–89, 2.15; for 1990–98, 2.60. These estimated rates suggest that the incidence of melanoma is increasing faster among pilots than among the general population.

[url= http://radiology.rsna.org/content/233/2/313.full ]X-ray workers[/url]

So you and your friends have been lucky so far, Zokes. We don't know what the cancer rate would be if we weren't exposed to background radiation. On the basis of what I've read over the years I think it would be lower, that's just my opinion as a non-specialist though. The background level isn't safe but perhaps useful as without mutations life on earth wouldn't have evolved to what it is now.

But are airline pilots getting more melanoma because of the work environment whilst flying or (as my mate keeps reminding me) they spend so much time sunbathing by the hotel pool so they have their prescribed rest between flights?

Or that they are from rich, privileged backgrounds and got sun burned as kids on the beaches of Spain, the decking of Greek flotila yachts, the pistes of Courchevel etc.

There are so many environmental factors it's hard to pin one. Add the complication of background radiation effectively eliminating a control group and there's lots of scope for debate.

There are so many environmental factors it's hard to pin one. Add the complication of background radiation effectively eliminating a control group and there's lots of scope for debate.

This is the problem, with the exception of acute radiation sickness, or possibly leukaemia, most other radiation-based cancers only come to the fore 20-30 years later (hence why the older workers at Fukushima volunteered). Perhaps if we see a big leap over the next 5 years in the former USSR and northern Europe where Chernobyl's fallout landed, TJ might have a point, but 20 years since the explosion was 6 years ago, and there's no proof yet.

Plus, we seem to have missed the thing about cancers - most, if caught early enough (especially skin cancers because you can usually see them) are curable with no ill effects.

The fact still remains, even people working on the clean-up of Chernobyl stand far more chance of dying from some other cause (most probably being run over, alcohol abuse, or smoking), than by radiation.

So you and your friends have been lucky so far, Zokes

Not really - the waste from my work gets disposed of as chemical waste and incinerated - the scintillation fluid is far more carcinogenic than the 14C within it. Despite that, statistically I stand far more chance of being killed on my ride to work one day over the next 40 years of my career, than I do from dying due to exposure to radiation or chemical carcinogens or toxins whilst at work.

Most lab fatalities are actually due to electrocution. I suppose if we banned electricity because it's dangerous, it would somewhat diminish the need for nuclear power!

It might be all the duty free fags.

In fact, then, why did you try to defend the LNT model as fact, rather than as one particular hypothesis (which it is)?

the very post you link to I say

One aspect to be considered is that is there a threshold below which radiation does not cause deaths? Some say there is, some say there isn't. Makes a big difference to the numbers of predicted deaths.

I think that rather shows that I understand LNT is a hypothesis. One that is generally accepted worldwide but sufficient doubt that I believe its worth mentioning. If yo wnt to atttack me then actually read what I wrote

Despite various evidence to the contrary on all questions asked, you still claim that no one has answered your questions.

Right - can you show me the answers then - not meaningless platitudes but actual answers?

What are you going to do with the waste? And no "turn it into glass bury it and forget about it" is not a meaningful answer

Waht you say about risk perception in general is right - but in this case I understand exactly what the risks are. I simply do not believe the benefits are worth it - your problem is you dismiss the risks and overstate the benefits.