13-14yr olds standing next to used nuclear fuel

[CobyRupert]

Ted Kennedy has killed more people than nuclear power.

Wow, I didn't know Ted killed somewhere between 28 and 985,000 people.

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the death toll of the accident, the report states that twenty-eight emergency workers ("liquidators") died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer in the following years, and it roughly estimated that cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4000 among the 5 million persons residing in the contaminated areas, the report projected cancer mortality "increases of less than one per cent" (~0.3%) on a time span of 80 years, cautioning that this estimate was "speculative" since at this time only a few cancer deaths are linked to the Chernobyl disaster.
The number of potential deaths arising from the Chernobyl disaster is heavily debated. The WHO's prediction of 4000 future cancer deaths in surrounding countries[150] is based on the Linear no-threshold model (LNT), which assumes that the damage inflicted by radiation at low doses is directly proportional to the dose.[151]

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists the number of excess cancer deaths worldwide (including all contaminated areas) is approximately 27,000 based on the same LNT.[153]

Another study critical of the Chernobyl Forum report was commissioned by Greenpeace, which asserted that the most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine the accident could have resulted in 10,000–200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004.[154] The Scientific Secretary of the Chernobyl Forum criticized the report's reliance on non-peer reviewed locally produced studies. Although most of the study's sources were from peer-reviewed journals, including many Western medical journals, the higher mortality estimates were from non-peer-reviewed sources,[154] while Gregory Härtl (spokesman for the WHO) suggested that the conclusions were motivated by ideology.[155]

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[

..there was an observed 2500 excess of otherwise wanted pregnancies being terminated, probably out of fear in the mother of radiation risk.

 

[TCJatko]

Wow, I didn't know Ted killed somewhere between 28 and 985,000 people.

Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
On the death toll of the accident, the report states that twenty-eight emergency workers ("liquidators") died from acute radiation syndrome including beta burns and 15 patients died from thyroid cancer in the following years, and it roughly estimated that cancer deaths caused by Chernobyl may reach a total of about 4000 among the 5 million persons residing in the contaminated areas, the report projected cancer mortality "increases of less than one per cent" (~0.3%) on a time span of 80 years, cautioning that this estimate was "speculative" since at this time only a few cancer deaths are linked to the Chernobyl disaster.
The number of potential deaths arising from the Chernobyl disaster is heavily debated. The WHO's prediction of 4000 future cancer deaths in surrounding countries[150] is based on the Linear no-threshold model (LNT), which assumes that the damage inflicted by radiation at low doses is directly proportional to the dose.[151]

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists the number of excess cancer deaths worldwide (including all contaminated areas) is approximately 27,000 based on the same LNT.[153]

Another study critical of the Chernobyl Forum report was commissioned by Greenpeace, which asserted that the most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine the accident could have resulted in 10,000–200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004.[154] The Scientific Secretary of the Chernobyl Forum criticized the report's reliance on non-peer reviewed locally produced studies. Although most of the study's sources were from peer-reviewed journals, including many Western medical journals, the higher mortality estimates were from non-peer-reviewed sources,[154] while Gregory Härtl (spokesman for the WHO) suggested that the conclusions were motivated by ideology.[155]

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 premature deaths as a result of the radioactivity released.[

..there was an observed 2500 excess of otherwise wanted pregnancies being terminated, probably out of fear in the mother of radiation risk.

That's the US nuclear power industry. We can hardly be responsible for cobbed-up Russian junk. France, by the way, gets about 70 percent of its electricity, quite safely, I might add, from nuclear power.

 

[CobyRupert]

That's the US nuclear power industry. We can hardly be responsible for cobbed-up Russian junk. France, by the way, gets about 70 percent of its electricity, quite safely, I might add, from nuclear power.

True. We've been lucky that the hair holding the nuclear Damocles Sword hasn't broke; i.e. reactors sitting on fault lines, a de facto nuclear waste storage policy consisting of permanently temporarily storing spent rods in open air cooling pools next to the reactors, etc...

 

[rockinmywaypa]

All I Know is that we've been using nuclear for roughly 40 years and the price has been around 4 cents a kwh, Now the gov't wants green energy and what I pay is up to 12 cents a kwh. I'll vote for nuclear any day over wind and solar.

 

[oldnslo]

5 Nuke plants in Illinois and the highest or second highest power rates in the 48 states. One Nuke plant is about ten miles south of me and was built with a 25 year life expectancy 40 years ago. Several friends either work at the plant or have worked at the plant and they say it all comes down to maintenance. Minimal maintenance to just meet the required safety code will more than likely lead to problems in the future.

 

[buickanddeere]

True. We've been lucky that the hair holding the nuclear Damocles Sword hasn't broke; i.e. reactors sitting on fault lines, a de facto nuclear waste storage policy consisting of permanently temporarily storing spent rods in open air cooling pools next to the reactors, etc...

I'll attempt to post a picture tonight of an open air used fuel bay? Worked around them for years , no big deal. Even if you fall in the danger is drowning. The water is kept polished clean with IX Columns. The worst thing would be getting cussed out by the boss, mocked in the coffee shop and change rooms by coworkers.Then all the reems and reems of paperwork and investigations.

 

[buickanddeere]

What happened in Japan is that they were too cheap and did not dry flask the used fuel from the 1970's into the 2000's. the fuel bays were overloaded.

 

[/pine]

...Nuclear anything is a bad idea...

if it were not for nuclear energy we would not be here because we would have no sun...!

 

[TCJatko]

True. We've been lucky that the hair holding the nuclear Damocles Sword hasn't broke; i.e. reactors sitting on fault lines, a de facto nuclear waste storage policy consisting of permanently temporarily storing spent rods in open air cooling pools next to the reactors, etc...

If the lunatic left would quit opposing the Yucca Mountain storage area, we could have this stuff safely stored for a long, long time.

 

[KennyG]

5 Nuke plants in Illinois and the highest or second highest power rates in the 48 states. One Nuke plant is about ten miles south of me and was built with a 25 year life expectancy 40 years ago. Several friends either work at the plant or have worked at the plant and they say it all comes down to maintenance. Minimal maintenance to just meet the required safety code will more than likely lead to problems in the future.

The linked table from the US Energy Information Administration shows that over 30 states have higher average electric rates than Illinois and that Illinois rates are about 15% lower than the US average.

State Electricity Profiles - Energy Information Administration

Your confusion is understandable. The "consumer advocate" groups in Chicago have been mangling data for years in attempts to convince everyone that Illinois electricity rates are extremely high.

Also there are no nuclear plants that were built with a 25 year life. They were originally licensed for 40 years because that gave a generous margin for capital cost recovery. The design life is essentially unlimited because almost all components are replaceable (and all safety related ones have either scheduled replacement or testing programs to establish replacement requirements) and the the structural components have large margins of safety and operate below fatigue thresholds. Almost all US reactors that were licensed for 40 years have been renewed for an additional 20 years and are planning for another 20 for a total of 80 years.