Reminds me when I was stationed in Ilwaco and caught Sturgeon from the Columbia that had cancerous legions on them. WDFW agents stated there was a problem with waste, this was 10 years ago. They didn't say what kind but you knew. :beathead: Make you wonder! Mike From: Environment News Service <www.ens-newswire.com Hanford Area Tests Find Plutonium in Fish, Mulberry Trees SEATTLE, Washington, June 15, 2005 (ENS) - Radioactive contamination in public areas surrounding the Hanford Nuclear Site in Richland, Washington is higher and more geographically widespread than previously thought, according to a report today from a government watchdog group and a chemical data firm. The Government Accountability Project (GAP) and Boston Chemical Data Corporation issued a study that includes the first reports of plutonium in clams and fish in the Columbia River. The report includes evidence that radiation levels in mulberry trees are higher than previously reported, and that strontium-90 has entered the ecosystem in high levels. "This is hard evidence that points to past Department of Energy reports as being inadequate to protect the people of southwest Washington and northern Oregon," said Tom Carpenter, GAP Nuclear Oversight Campaign Director. Cleanup of radioactive facilities at the Hanford Nuclear Site on the Columbia River is ongoing. (Photo courtesy Hanford Richland Operations Office) The data collection and written report was completed by Marco Kaltofen, a registered professional engineer and environmental scientist with more than 19 years of experience in environmental investigations. He is the president of Boston Chemical Data, a corporation specializing in environmental investigations. The company is a member of the American Chemical Society and the American Society of Civil Engineers. Samples were analyzed by Pace Analytical Services, Inc. of Madison, Pennsylvania and PASC/Maxxam of Burlington, Ontario, Canada. The report, "Citizens Monitoring of Columbia River Radionuclides," was peer reviewed by a retired Hanford scientist and reviewed by the Oregon Office of Energy. In addition to plutonium being found for the first time in fish, increased levels of strontium, mercury, beryllium, uranium, and cesium were detected in aquatic creatures. Short and long term effects of this exposure remain unknown, the report states. It was also found that mulberry leaves from the shoreline of the Columbia River at the Hanford perimeter are toxic, indicating that the mulberries themselves may be contaminated. Strontium 90 levels in mulberry leaves in the area tested "are 875 times higher than levels found near Richland," the report states. "At this level ingestion of 0.05 ounces per day of similarly-contaminated food would exceed EPA's maximum allowable risk level of 4 mRem [millirem] per year." While the mulberry contamination shows "increased environmental risk via transfer of groundwater hazards into the biosphere," Kaltofen writes that the uptake of strontium 90 by mulberry plants may offer a potential method of remediation for groundwater cleanup in the root zone of mulberry plants. Rodent scats from the test area showed greater than 13-fold elevated levels of strontium 90 compared to downstream areas, "showing that the material has entered the food chain for higher organisms," according to the report. House in Richland, Washington, the nearest town to the Hanford Nuclear Site (Photo by Jeremy Wells courtesy East Benton County Historical Society) An area of the Columbia River 20 miles upstream from the Hanford site showed high uranium readings, according to testing conducted for this report. "There is no explanation for this finding at this time, though possible explanations could include that the uranium comes from natural sources, from a source upstream of Hanford, or that contamination was either windblown or carried up the river by aquatic organisms," the report states. Possible windblown contamination was also measured in attic dust collected from homes in Richland. One sample showed levels of radiation six times higher than samples taken from attics in houses in other parts of the country. The 586 square mile Hanford Site is located along the Columbia River in southeastern Washington state. A plutonium production complex with nine nuclear reactors and processing facilities, Hanford played a pivotal role in the nation's defense for more than 40 years, beginning in the 1940s with the Manhattan Project. Today, under the direction of the U.S. Department of Energy, Hanford is engaged in the world's largest environmental cleanup project, "with a number of overlapping technical, political, regulatory, financial and cultural issues," the Hanford Office of River Protection states. The Hanford Site includes more than 50 million gallons of high-level liquid waste in 177 underground storage tanks, 2,300 tons of spent nuclear fuel, 12 tons of plutonium in various forms, about 25 million cubic feet of buried or stored solid waste, and about 270 billion gallons of groundwater contaminated above drinking water standards, spread out over about 80 square miles, more than 1,700 waste sites, and about 500 contaminated facilities, according to Hanford officials. Included in this report is a reproduced graphic by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers that shows the regions which were sampled for this study. "The Corps' original graphic directs the reader to conclude that the Columbia River marks the end of the portions of the Hanford Reservation which are not yet cleaned of radionuclide wastes," Kaltofen writes. "One purpose of this study has been to determine whether the Columbia River truly represents the point where contamination ends," he writes. Girl digs clams on a Washington State beach. (Photo courtesy Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife) "In reviewing the test results, the data do not show that the river is a barrier or boundary to Hanford-related contamination. Instead," Kaltofen writes, "the Columbia River is both a sink and a transport mechanism for these wastes." Decision makers from the Department of Energy, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Washington State Department of Ecology host the Fourth Annual "State of the Hanford Site" Public Meeting tonight at the Red Lion Hanford House in Richland. Carpenter and Kaltofen attended that meeting to publicize the results of their study. "The DOE does not place a priority on testing conditions outside of the Hanford perimeter in places where the public is allowed to fish and recreate. Our findings call for increased scrutiny on all levels regarding this area that is of grave public concern," Carpenter said. GAP is requesting Congressional funding for a Natural Resources Injury Assessment, independent of the Energy Department, to examine contamination around the Hanford site, said Carpenter. "We need to find out what this data means for public health concerns immediately. At a time when the government is planning to import nearly double the amount of contaminated waste already at Hanford, it is crucial to have credible environmental data," he said.
And GW wants to increase the amount of nuclear reactors in the U.S... Nuclear waste, no matter how much effort they put into storing it, ends up in the groundwater, which ends up in our rivers.
Great read thanks for posting. Yeah, Bush the fool wants to create more nuke power plants. There is no safe way to dispose of nuclear material. Keep on keep'n on Bush, "somewhere a small Texas village is missing an idiot"
Regardless of who is in office we need to communicate to Congress and the people around us of what we are doing to our environment and alternatives. There is an untapped sustainable energy source out in front of us. Japan, Germany and many other countries are buying most solar arrays. Do they know something we don't? Imagine if every house had a small PV panel tapped into the grid how much energy they could put out for themselves and their neighbors. I think this week the Senate is voted on thier version of the Energy Bill. Did we contact them and let them know our views? ...But then again talk is cheap!! Mike
Thanks MDL for providing something more productive than Bush-beating. Any other smart ideas on how to produce electricity so y'all can sit at a keyboard and point fingers? Maybe we should burn more coal, or build more dams... :beathead:
Roper THere are plenty of other energy options, bush just doesn't want to invest in them because his cronies love the old fashioned oil and nuke. He could invest in science that produces more efficient solar power, as well as increasing the pace of hydrogen fuel cell technology. Bush could also suggest conservation of power, imagine that. So yes Bush does deserved bo be bashed. Clinton would have invested in conservation and hydrogen fuel cells, so whatever. Be critical, whiny or whatever you want to be, just act like fly anglers are supposed to act, like conservation minded people who want to live in balance with their enivornment. G
Wind farms have sprung up all over Iowa. When I was home earlier this year, I was surprised to see that the small town of Stuart, population 1100, has got theirs up. It is expected to meet most of the town's energy needs, and at times, it may even put power back onto the grid. Northern Iowa, where the wind blows all the time, has thousands of them churning away over fields of corn and soybeans. Windmill technology is ever-improving, and production is up on windmills, which helps drive down cost. It's as clean an energy form as we are liable to get, and exept for visual alteration of the landscape, it has very low impact. Tremendous! When I was in El Salvador on a mission trip a few years ago, we visited a geothermal plant. Even in a so called "third world" country, they were harnessing natural heat from the earth's core to create power. In China, organic waste is being burned to create energy, which solves two problems, landfill and energy issues, in the world's most populous country. Air pollution can be controlled through "scrubbers" that eliminate toxins from the burned material. Many engines that run on gasoline, a fossil fuel, will also run on ethanol, which is renewable. An emphasis on use of ethanol solves two problems, the sagging farm economy, which could create an economic collapse in middle America, and the issue of dependance upon oil - foreign and domestic. The options are there. We can be good stewards of this Creation we've been given, we can enjoy it and pass it on. We must advocate for this vocally and tangibly though, and who better than the primary users of the resource - us - the people of the outdoors - whose appreciation and experience with the impacts is greatest?
Gordon, my internet communication skills must really suck, because I'm not sure you understand my point. I hope this helps: I don't like Bush either, or his cronies. Heck, I don't like most politicians. I don't like nuclear power, or coal, or dams, they all impact negatively. I don't think grousing about others gets much done, taking action on your own does. I like Teeg's positive response with suggestions and insght... :thumb: Did this help any...?
I was travelling last week and heard a great discussion about this on NPR. Already the DOE representatives were suggesting the science might not be precise and it was alarmist and presumptive to be releasing the information. Of course they also assured us that they're on top of it all and there's no reason not to trust their information or methods. One late caller who phoned in made a point that was made by others in this thread - that even at a point when we still don't have a handle on safe disposal or nuclear waste, we're producing more, and even after an initiative passed in Washington to stop further shipments to Hanford, it's been sidelined by judicial review Meanwhile, DOE's budget for waste clean-up is threatened with reductions. What ties all this together for me, especially after some others here have noted the positive things that are happening on the energy front, is a comment I heard on the same NPR station a few days before the Hanford story. A commentator was summarizing some of the points of the "energy bill" currently under debate in Congress, and was questioned about the lack of a strong conservation component. His comment: "I think our politicians and leaders still remember the lesson that Jimmy Carter learned the hard way in the 1970's - we Americans weren't then and still aren't ready to make the necessary sacrifices that would assist our society in reaching energy independence." I hate that we're sold short that way, and I happen to believe that our leaders DO think that of us. I wonder what would happen if this president, or the next, for that matter, would challenge us by setting an agenda that we as a nation become energy independent in ten years, and set aggressive goals for reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. Make it a priority - THE priority. Here's what I think would happen: It would unite us around a common goal. It would spur the creation of new technologies and industries. It would give us a reason to get the heck out of the affairs of the Middle East - let the Chinese get in there and try to sort it out for a few decades, if they wish. It would give us a legacy that celebrates what America approached during World War II - a nation willing to sacrifice, innovate, and strive for something that was a benefit to all of us, and in particular to the Americans who'll follow us. Imagine what we might have already done if our government had committed even 25% of what we've spent in Iraq on serious investments in energy independence - which I think would be about ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS. Am I dreaming? I don't think so. Here's examples of what this country has done when our leaders got behind a common goal: The New Deal, many of whose programs gave back hope, opportunity, and dignity to working Americans through WPA, CCC. etc., and left behind a wealth of benefits we still enjoy today. Rural Electrification The Interstate Highway System Space Exploration The GI Bill Please don't nitpick these - I don't claim any of them to be perfect or to have had 100% positive outcomes, but hopefully you get the idea. This country can do amazing things when our leaders get the "vision thing" and get the people behind it.
When China is given any credit in the arena of environmental stewardship, I have to inject a little dose of reality: † Pollution poses grave threat to the poor Chang WeiminChina Daily †Updated: 2005-06-23 05:53 Residents living along the Zaojiang River in Changzhou, East China's Jiangsu Province, were found to be indifferent to worsening pollution in the already filthy river last week. Zaojiang flows into the Yangtze River. Apparently disappointed at the failure of the authorities to improve the situation for at least four years, people did not even bother to complain, a Xinhua report said. Such an attitude is more worrying than the pollution itself, given the fact that pollution is getting worse in China. It seems that more and more people are trying to learn to live with an increasingly unhealthy environment rather than complain about it. It is not difficult to know why a scandal does not hold people's attention for long, though, as there seem to be too many to take notice of. Also last week, a sewage disposal facility worth US$8 million was found lying idle, letting toxic water flow by to harm people downstream in Tongchuan, a city in Northwest China's Shaanxi Province. This aroused concern about public money being spent on the environment. In spite of worsening pollution there, the facility has never operated since being built about two years ago, allegedly because of a lack of cash, China Central Television reported last week. The scandals are just two of many such cases. Some are much bigger in nature and relate to bad planning, inefficiency, the misuse of public funds or even corruption. In 2003 alone, 426,000 complaints about the contamination of waterways, air and land were acknowledged by the environment authorities. Reports say that due to bureaucracy, many complaints have been shelved for years. In 2003 alone, unsolved problems led to 60,000 disputes or incidents, posing a threat to social stability, the China Environment Daily said. The statistics make people wonder whether these pollution problems reported so far are just the tip of the iceberg. In addition to media reports, people judge the situation by what they see everyday as they go about their business at home or while travelling to other parts of China. They are right to question a situation that concerns their health and the spending of State revenue that they contribute to by paying taxes. One can easily see while travelling about that more rivers and lakes are dark and smelly due to contamination, with increasing industrial emissions and everyday toxic wastes flowing into them. You might recall the notorious Huaihe River scandal, when 60 billion yuan (US$7.26 billion) of public funds was allegedly used to treat contaminated water in the river in Anhui Province, with little result. In China nationwide, 700 billion yuan (US$84.6 billion) was apparently spent on improving the environment between 2000 and this year, more than 14 times the amount spent between 1986 and 1990. A big portion came from State revenue. Chen Bin, deputy director of the financing department of the State Environmental Protection Administration, has estimated that for the next five years, 1,300 billion yuan (US$157.2 billion) will be needed to clean China up, half of which will come from the State, xinhuanet.com reports. By looking a bit closer at the pollution problem, one can see worsening pollution in districts and villages where low-income, underprivileged residents and poor farmers live. Profit-maximizing enterprises, facing a trade-off between conscience and efficiency, tend to spend as little as possible on treating waste even though toxic emissions can harm many people downstream or downwind. If firms cannot avoid residential areas, they choose areas where residents are mostly poor and have relatively little say in policymaking. In the name of appealing to investors, local authorities tend to spend public cash in key city areas, in image-building districts and streets. Affluent people can buy relatively clean water and air, or at least keep a distance from contaminated water and air, by choosing to live in locations that coincide with a city's image-building areas. Environment watchdogs, also facing a trade-off between revenue and justice, usually pay less attention to poor areas and accept with little protest emissions from polluting plants, which are a source of government revenue. The environmental landscape in China increasingly displays this feature - pollution occurs more often than not in poor districts and villages. Environmental problems are closely associated with other problems, such as injustice and inefficiency. This all adds an extra dimension to the widening gap between rich and poor. Poor urban residents and farmers are entitled to enjoy clean water and air; they too contribute to State coffers, which grew by 26 per cent to 2.57 trillion yuan (US$310 billion) last year. Market failures and the inefficiency of government intervention can both be blamed for worsening pollution. And corruption is probably the biggest root cause. To curb worsening pollution, the people-first principle should help policymakers listen to problems in poor districts and villages, where environment problems, the inefficiency of the use of public funds, social injustice, bureaucracy and corruption all converge. An initiative for a new tax - an environmental protection tax - has received little response. It is meaningless to have a new tax while existing State revenue resources are not used efficiently or are even misused. The Beijing-based China Business newspaper has reported that the initiative is being studied by central government departments. Pan Yue, deputy-director of the State Environmental Protection Administration, warned in May at the Fortune Global Forum in Beijing that an environment crisis is not looming, but is already a reality in China. Pan urged the government to treat the problem as a political one, as an issue of justice and democracy. Let's hope his words are heeded. (China Daily 06/23/2005
And some more.... A report released in 1998 by the World Health Organization (WHO) noted that of the ten most polluted cities in the world, seven can be found in China. Sulfur dioxide and soot caused by coal combustion are two major air pollutants, resulting in the formation of acid rain, which now falls on about thirty percent of China's total land area. • China IndexStatistics indicate that, as a result of industrial production, 21 million tons of sulfur dioxide are emitted into the atmosphere each year, in addition to 14 million tons of smoke-filled dust and another 13 million tons of suspended particulate matter. Industrial boilers and furnaces consume almost half of China's coal and are the largest single point sources of urban air pollution.
And some more.... Fall 1998 * El Salvador Challenge From Peace to Sustainable Development by Theodore Panayotou * Over the past few years, El Salvador has accomplished what can only be described as a political and economic miracle. Peace accords were concluded, ending a decade-long destructive civil war. Political reforms led to democratic elections and peaceful government transitions. Economic reforms have resulted in macroeconomic stability and rapid economic growth. However, a degraded and dwindling resource base, coupled with serious challenges of mass poverty, could threaten the sustainability of both peace and economic growth in El Salvador, if not promptly and effectively addressed. The country has already lost 98% of its original habitat. Fifty percent of households are below the poverty line, as defined by the World Bank, and the country's already overburdened urban infrastructure cannot afford faster rates of urbanization. At the same time, with 50% of the country's population under 20 years of age, El Salvador is facing massive entry into the labor force, a trend likely to continue well into the 21st century. El Salvador's current economic structure cannot sustainably assimilate the high population growth rate. The rural resource base and the urban environment, both under severe strain already, would suffer further encroachment and degradation if the new entrants into the labor force do not find gainful employment in non-resource-based, labor-intensive, export-oriented sectors. El Salvador's challenge is how to regulate economic activity, address market inefficiencies and protect the environment without harming competitiveness, stifling investment, or introducing burdensome regulations. The country must find ways to invest in environmental improvement and social development without compromising fiscal discipline, enlarging bureaucracy, or jeopardizing economic growth. The problems are immense. Poor access to water and sanitation exacts a high toll on human health and productivity. About 12,000 children die each year from preventable diarrheal diseases related to contaminated drinking water, poor hygiene, contaminated food and uncollected/untreated sewage and solid waste acting synergistically with poor nutrition and inadequate health care. Diarrheal diseases are implicated in 50% of the deaths of infants from one to twelve months and in one-third of the deaths of children from one to five years. Despite an annual rainfall of 1800 millimeters per year and a physical abundance of water (the Lempa River watershed is Central America's largest), El Salvador suffers from severe economic shortage of water due to wasteful use and mismanagement. In 1990, over 85% of the available surface water of 677 cubic meters per second was needed to assimilate the municipal and industrial wastes dumped untreated into rivers and lakes, leaving little to cover the country's estimated "demand" of 408 cubic meters per second. One in four rural residents has no sanitary facilities, and almost none is connected to sewage pipes.
Jason, Thanks for the articles and your comments. China's demand on fossil fuel and their use of coal is astronomical. China's rivers are very polluted as they do not have many laws or regulations set up to deal with their industrialization. The cheap labor will be coming to an end. Teeg, Can you believe there are towns and people who do not like wind power because they believe it is an eye sore and does not do the environment justice. Choose the lesser of the two evils I guess. Roper, I agree the current admistration is not looking out for our best interest but hey we do have voices and we should focus it on support of the Congressional members to enact alternatives based on the facts at hand. I would rather be out fishing than here at the computer but I gave my back to the military...so am a bit sidelined. I believe there was an article that stated if we had solar arrays in Arizona in the unused portion of the land it would provide a great deal of power...the needs of the nation. Thanks for your replies and I hope everyone can do their part. Mike
Unfortunately this situation has been ongoing for many years. About 6 years ago I was hunting on the east side of the river across from Hanford. Every few hundred yards test holes were being drilled and samples being taken. When I inquired what they were sampling for it became apparent that they were looking for contamination that had seeped to the other side of the river, or if some of the stuff buried on that side of the river was leaking. What exactly was buried on the east side of the river I have no idea. Back in the early 70's when I first started hunting in there signs warning of stuff buried were kind of scattered around and there were many rectangular depressions that had not been drifted over by sand. There may well be other hazards in there that we aren't being told about. At one time the Reservation was on both sides of the river! Dave
*sigh* I hate political discussions... Fortunately (at least on that front), this has nothing to do with politics. Despite what you may think of any political party, energy production is something that we all need to continue on with our lives. Let me start by saying that I'm all for "alternative" energy sources. Geo-thermal, tidal, wind, and solar are all great, but they have their own problems. The main problem with them is that they are not cost effective. They simply can't (at this time) produce the amount of energy that we need in a volume that can meet our needs without dramatic increases in cost to the consumer. The American consumer simply is not willing to foot the extra cost at this time. I'll give you an example. Biodiesel is made from a vegetable oil (a renewable source) and burns much cleaner than traditional diesel or gasoline. Any modern diesel engine can run on biodiesel with no ill effects. You could go buy a spankin' new F250 with a big diesel, use biodiesel for its lifetime and it would run fine and you would be using less fossil fuels than a yuppie in their brand new Prius. So why aren't we doing it? Well, for one, it isn't available on every street corner, but there are 25 places in Washington where it's available. I guarantee that that # would grow given demand, but there isn't the demand. Why? Well, the initial diesel engine costs more up front than the one that burns gasoline. Biodiesel does cost about 15-20% more than Dinodiesel ( but you could make it yourself for less than a dollar a gallon). That price difference, 35-50 cents per gallon, and convenience's sake keeps folks from using it. So while we need to peruse the "alternative" energy route, until it is cost effective, people won't pay for it. Nuclear power is a current option that can help bridge the gap until these sources are commercially viable. Nuclear power is much friendlier to the environment than other mass energy sources. The amount of waste that is produced per kilowatt is far less than coal, natural gas, or oil plants and doesn't ruin my fishing with dams. The small amount of waste produced is concentrated and dangerous. It can't just be released into the atmosphere like the burnt byproducts of the fossil fuel plants. People ignore smog, but they would stand up and take notice if hundreds of Curies of waste was left sitting around to expose folks. The contamination around Hanford is really us revisiting the sins of our fathers. 50 years ago, we simply didn't know how to properly handle this waste. (They used to just bury old cores etc in the ground...) The contamination today is because of poorly designed containment facilities then. There is a huge ongoing cleanup effort at Hanford to try and fix problems that we created then. The fact is that our technologies and understanding of the waste is much better today. The waste still will have to be stored while the radioactive isotopes decay, but it can be processed and contained today (and has been for the last couple decades) without risk of "leaking". The fuel itself can be used more than once (something we couldn't do 50 years ago). Start off with a thermal fission reaction utilizing uranium and the spent fuel can be processed to fuel a fast breeder reactor utilizing the fission products of the first reactor. This further utilizes the fuel and further reduces the partial grams of waste per megawatt hour. The real reason why folks have such a knee jerk reaction to nuclear power is that they are ignorant and fearful. Next to no one in this country has clue one about the technology and generally equate nuclear energy with Chernobyl, TMI, or nuclear weapons. In reverse: • Nuclear weapons are a reaction that is basically brought super prompt critical causing a massive release of energy in a very short time. This can't occur in power generating plants as this cannot physically happen (by design). • TMI was an incident that occurred that while significant, posed no risk to the surrounding community. The small amount of contamination that was released from the vessel was kept in the containment facility and subsequently cleaned up. No one hurt. However, because to the fear associated with the word “nuclear”, this was blown way out of proportion. It was an incident, but it was contained. • Chernobyl... Ok, this was a nasty accident that occurred due to one big problem and three errors. The problem is they didn't have an organization like the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) that would have prevented the errors. The first error was an inherently unstable design that relied on water as both the coolant (the media to transfer away the heat) and a poison (slows down the reaction). The second was allowing an electrical engineer and a mechanical to design a test that would remove the feed pumps without consulting a nuclear engineer. Basically, they removed the feed pumps, the water boiled away removing the ability to both remove the heat and slow down the reaction... Meltdown. <here comes the science>The high temperatures caused a reaction in the zirconium in the alloy cladding that contains the uranium in the fuel cell. Zr+H2O+heat--> Zr(OH)4 +H2 </science> This basically split releases hydrogen. Add high temperatures... Boom! Multiple explosions releasing contaminants. The Russians had no NRC, so they didn't have regulations requiring a containment facility and the contaminants were released into the atmosphere. Bad juju. Industrial accidents happen, but there is no industry that is more stringently controlled than nuclear power in the US. The regulations and oversight in place ensure that everything from design to procedures have backup systems on backup systems. Its very real and very strict and its like that for a reason. Safety first. Safety for the operators and engineers at the plant. Safety for the environment. The key to getting nuclear power to work here is to overcome the ignorance and fear with education. I knew nothing more than anyone else about anything “nuclear”, but through an extraordinary series of events, I ended up in the Navy and headed to Nuclear Power School. I ended up working as a reactor operator for 9 years on three different reactors. If the population had a tiny portion of the education that I had to overcome the ignorance, the fears would start to dissipate as well. I'm no longer in the industry (computer geek now), but I still think that nuclear power is a viable, safe, and relatively clean energy source for the next 50 years. With regards, Trevor
Mike, I was very glad to read your post. I also believe Americans are capable of great things. Our leaders should lead us on this issue. "War on Pollution"?
Trevor, I understand your view on nuclear power but there is one problem with it...Human Error! What happens when it does get out of control or unstable?. It has been a few years since being down at the entrance to the Columbia, tugs taking waste up to its graveyard was mostly from the Navy. I am not certain if it is still being done but it still makes me cringe. When we look at alternative energy sources, the Renewable kind, you have to look at it as an investment. You invest in your house for 30 years and the stock market why not your own energy. Same goes with Solar, Wind and small Hydro systems. You have to look at your Rate of Investment because energy rates will only increase. It may take you 30-40 years to get back your investment if energy rates increase 5- 7.5% a year if you bought a 5 kWh system for $6K after state refunds. Another good reason is satisfaction you are not depending on fossil fuels or foreign oil... Biodiesel is prevelant in the MidWest and if we can get tax breaks the price will come down. You can check updates and legislature at biodiesel.org. Thanks Uncle J... Mike
Mike, There is always a possibility of human error, that's why so many safeguards are in place. Both mechanically and procedurally, there safeguards on safeguards. If a human were to do something stupid, several other layers of safety (some not left up to operators) would have to fail before anything untoward could happen. I'll give you an example, but not even scratch the surface of all the safeguards that are in place. If the same thing that happened at Chernobyl were to happen at one of our thermal neutron reactors, several safeguards would be in place. First would be design related. In a thermal pressurized water reactor, water is a moderator, not a poison. In other words, water is required to slow down enough neutrons to keep the rx critical (self sustaining). A loss of water would shut down the nuclear reaction. Also, we use a two loop system. The primary loop is a system unto itself. If flow were lost to the secondary, emergency cooling methods (more than 7 different ways even without power) to remove the decay heat from the core. Lets say that you had a different problem that caused a power excursion (a spike in power) due to operator error, there are many different temperature and/or power settings on the instruments that if (the very conservative) setpoints are reached, the rx is automagically shut down. The control rods are pulled with a device that, if power is lost for any reason to it, will forcefully inject the rods to the bottom and hold them there in less than a second. It would take someone all day to list, much less explain, all the safeguards that are in place. Let me put it this way, I would have no trouble living with my family next to one. As far as the vessels that you see being transported, there is really nothing to worry about. The standards that must be met are extreme. The vessels that the waste is moved in are literally designed to be dropped out of a plane or hit by a train (no exaggeration) and not be breeched or even compromised. You could hit it with a train and it fall down the Royal Gorge Canyon and it would not be breeched. Again, education helps remove the fear. Regards, Trevor
