13-14yr olds standing next to used nuclear fuel

[paulharvey]

1 ... I would still not stand beside it after 250 years .... "not particularly radioactive" doesn't answer answer the original question of "when is it safe" as in " can I let my kids play beside it all day every day."

2 .... "stable geological rock formations in western Ontario" northern Ontario is "stable" at the present , but in the past it wasn't , and will be unstable in the future ..... ever hear of Pangea? the earths crust is constantly moving / changing , even today .... ???? tomorrow , we never know ( just ask the experts when and where the next earthquake is going to be )... things change ....
you may not consider waste disposal as a threat to future generations .... I do, same goes for "incidents" ( AKA human error ) ...

do I know all there is to know about nuclear ? ... hardly ...

Do I work in the field? ... nope and never said I was an expert.

can I read and make informed decisions ? .... yes

can I tell when a politician / press spokesperson is lying ? ... yes , their lips are moving ....:laughing:

So, it sounds like you are worried about 500+ years from now or maybe more like 50,000+ years from now... not our problem. Neither the USA or Canada are likely to still exist 500 years from now, so who cares. Doesn't seem like it's worth worrying about Pangea, or the next ice age.

 

[buickanddeere]

Used fuel at 250yrs gives the same dose as a CAT scan per minute. Not a lethal dose.
The rock formations are stable. The storage flasks are very robust. There is not going to be used fuel bundles laying around for the kids to find and bring home.
If you want something to worry about toxicity risk? Worry about pesticides, herbicides , dioxins, heavy metals or bacteria in your drinking water. There is where a death toll right now.
How about all the farm chemicals spilled or applied around the buildings near the well?
How about the asbestos in brakes and clutches ? You stand there with an air hose cleaning out the bel housing without a respiratory protection. Yet you worry about used fuel .
PHWR produce H3 from H2 when a heavy water hydrogen atom absorbs a neutron and becomes Tritium.
As the H2 was bonded to oxygen and was heavy water. Now it's tritiated heavy water.
Lots of demand for H3 tritium. Most is extracted from moderator heavy water at Darlington. The tritium gas is in high demand to fabricate self illuminating exit signs , glow in the dark instruments, watches and firearm sights. Tritium is the fuel of choice in fussion reactors. Tritium was at one time in demand to make the 2nd stage of hydrogen warheads until Lithium 6 was introduced.
The info on this site also applies to used fuel .

Ontario Power Generation: The Deep Geologic Repository (DGR)

 

[jaotguy]

am I worried about 500 years out? slightly , I won't be around by then .. but our kids will

Do I lose sleep over it ... nope .. I sleep quite well

am I a tree hugger? ... nope again... I like my creature comforts ...

when I mentioned "alternative" energy , notice a I left out wind and solar .. for good reason ... just like we should avoid LUCAS electronics ...

I did mention consistent power sources ... ocean wave , ocean current ,... stable, reliable, continuous power sources ( but still in development )

I did throw in natural gas / coal/ hydro electric ... all capable of supplying Ontario with power ...

all of these allow me to "throw the switch" and have power at my command.

I never said nuclear didn't have a place but no one has answered the question as to how long before I can sit beside "used fuel" without thinking about it .... 250 years being the same as a CAT scan tells me (and most other people ) absolutely nothing .... how many years before it becomes the same as the normal background levels ?

I apologized for any misspellings (tritium , not tridium ) and stated that N/A has some of the best standards in the world for plants and disposal, but many countries don't ....

"If you want something to worry about toxicity risk? Worry about pesticides, herbicides , dioxins, heavy metals or bacteria in your drinking water. There is where a death toll right now.
How about all the farm chemicals spilled or applied around the buildings near the well?"


Farms in Ontario must have a containment pad and shed in case of "spills " if you deal with dangerous chemicals .... been the law for years ..


"How about the asbestos in brakes and clutches ? You stand there with an air hose cleaning out the bel housing without a respiratory protection. Yet you worry about used fuel ."

nice to know you're standing behind me when I do that ... you'd see a respirator and all the proper safety equipment being used ... I do care about my health ( or whats left of it ) and others ... BTW most pads are no longer "asbestos" based ... we have gone to ceramics ... isn't science wonderful ?

You're an expert in the field , I'll give you that ... no arguments ...

but please don't try to paint me as an idiot , tree hugging , David Suzuki follower ... I think for myself

 

[whistlepig]

These places are not that far from home. I know folks that have worked at both.

The Enquirer's Fernald Investigation

http://www.epa.ohio.gov/portals/30/FFS/docs/doe/Mound/mound_history.pdf

 

[KennyG]

Maybe I can help with a few questions (or start arguments). I've worked in nuclear engineering for over 40 years. My degrees are in Mechanical Engineering but I took several post graduate courses in Nuclear Engineering.

There are differences in waste from different types of reactors, but direct exposure to fuel just out of a reactor would kill you in a few minutes. However, high radiation levels go hand in hand with short half lives. In 50 years the radiation is reduced by more than 1000 times. Because we are so conservative in protecting from radiation, we talk about protecting the waste until the radiation level is less than the Uranium ore that was originally mined. This generally takes 1000 to 2000 years. However, it takes a lot less time before it's not a major hazard. Say a few hundred years. You wouldn't want to build your house out of it but you casually be around it. If we encase the spent fuel in a geologic formation that has been stable for millions of years, there isn't much risk.

It does take some care and effort to deal with spent fuel, but keep in mind that other industries create a lot more toxic waste that don't have half lives - they last forever.

We are constantly trying to improve in the nuclear industry and events like TMI and Fukushima result in improvements. We've been running Western style nuclear reactors for about 60 years without injuring or killing any member of the public. Not many industries can say this. In recent years how many people have been killed because of transporting oil across Canada or distributing natural gas in California?

 

[jaotguy]

thank you for a straight forward and honest answer to the question ... 1000-2000 years to revert to "normal levels"

the "not a major hazard" and a few hundred years are ambiguous (but understandable as you specified that there are several types of reactors and therefore several levels of radioactivity)

yes, North America has come a long way in safety storing the "waste" in containers and in stable formations .... ( still many countries don't ) ... it is not our fault, but we will have to live with the results eventually. (accidents , dirty bombs ,etc )

many other industries do pollute badly and fail to "clean up" after themselves .... leaving the bill up to the taxpayer .... bad news all around
(shipwrecked oil tankers ,run away ocean oil rigs, battery factories , chemical factories , gas stations with leaking tanks ... the list goes on )

the nuclear industry does have a good track record in N/A when it comes to deaths (incidents on the other hand are a lot more common )

don't just list oil and natural gas as killers .... workplace accidents, airplane crashes, sinking cruise ships and ferries , sky diving , scuba diving , drunk drivers , texting while driving , and just driving on our roads .... all have higher death rates ...... they all take their toll on human life , but I'm still going to participate with my car , BBQ and vacations .....

once again , thank you for your candid answer.

 

[buickanddeere]

For those of you terrified of radiation. 5 rem or 50mSv is the legal yearly max dose for a radiation worker. If somebody sat on a 200yr old used fuel bundle while they ate their lunch. Or had a heart CAT Scan, the radiation dose would be less than half of the yearly safe max .
Used fuel "Radioactive and dangerous for 100,000's of years". Just a bunch of lying self serving rogues in Green Peace.

 

[whistlepig]

Then it is settled. A nuclear power plant or nuclear weopons plant upstream of your well is perfectly safe.

 

[flusher]

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.

Yes, you can replace most of the parts of a nuclear power plant. And that works up to a point. Except in a case like San Onofre where the replacement heat exchanger turned out to be a piece of junk manufactured in Japan. Cracks showed up in the new equipment soon after the reactors were restarted. SCE decided to decommission the plant rather than fix that screwup.

NRC sends special investigation team to San Onofre after more steam generator tube failures found during testing | Enformable

 

[buickanddeere]

Then it is settled. A nuclear power plant or nuclear weopons plant upstream of your well is perfectly safe.

Far safer than a farm or chemical factory upstream of your well.