Nukes are Killing Electric Cars

[Doug_G]

The only argument going for nukes, as I see it, is global warming. We basically have no other (practical, for now) choice.

Agreed. For now, at least, they are the only practical option.

 

[SByer]

One nit: we need to be clear we're talking about fission. And ancient designs at that (because certain types of designs were prematurely forbidden, and there's no political possibility of changing that now). The inherently fail-dangerous designs we have now are of course more susceptible to human factors that chip away at the systems that try to make things safe.

Fusion is a different beast altogether (inherently fail-safe, and nearly no radiation issues or by-product storage issues), and we'll want to start distinguishing now if we're going to have the public prepared to distinguish between the two when fusion is ready.

 

[Doug_G]

Fusion is a different beast altogether (inherently fail-safe, and nearly no radiation issues or by-product storage issues), and we'll want to start distinguishing now if we're going to have the public prepared to distinguish between the two when fusion is ready.

Unfortunately, unless there is some kind of radical breakthrough, fusion as currently envisioned is a bit of a pipe dream. It's even farther away than hydrogen. And although it's much safer, it's not entirely clean either.

Where's My Fusion Reactor?: Scientific American Podcast

 

[dmckinstry]

Unfortunately, unless there is some kind of radical breakthrough, fusion as currently envisioned is a bit of a pipe dream. It's even farther away than hydrogen. And although it's much safer, it's not entirely clean either.

Where's My Fusion Reactor?: Scientific American Podcast

Is there a thread on focus fusion on this site? i.e. the proton boron-11 reaction.

It is still a pipe dream, but a much better pipe dream than hydrogen fusion.

 

[rabar10]

(because certain types of designs were prematurely forbidden, and there's no political possibility of changing that now)

Certain design types like Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors? (though its own graphite and plumbing challenges remain, outside the political/entrenched industrial challenges)

Similar to the 'fusion is different' slant, i.e. the need to educate and differentiate public opinion on that compared to 'old nuclear', I think the same applies to LFTR and other radically-different fission tech.

 

[rabar10]

Back on topic -- here's a great Nature article about Risk perception that explains how, in our minds, some risks are exaggerated and others suppressed.

This chart of skewed risks/fears in the article specifically calls out nuclear radiation as an example:

 

[TEG]

On the flip side, just because you don't understand something, and don't see immediate effects doesn't mean it is safe.

United States Radium Corporation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The shoe-fitting fluoroscope: a little known application of the X-ray | HemOncToday


UC Santa Cruz Nuclear Expert Daniel Hirsch:

 

[rabar10]

I would say we've come a long way in understanding radiation in the last 60 years...

Specific to Hirsch's quote in the article title and text:
"Every amount of radiation exposure increases your risk of cancer,” he said. “There is no safe level of radiation."
I would argue that it has to be above the level of background radiation to have any significant impact. Otherwise you could argue that every exposure to sunlight increases your risk of melanoma...

 

[Lloyd]

Otherwise you could argue that every exposure to sunlight increases your risk of melanoma...

You could argue that. It is a true statement!!

 

[dpeilow]

There's also the AGR design that could never fail like Fukushima. Most of the plants in Britain are AGR. Unfortunately we won't deploy any more because they are marginally more expensive and we threw away the knowledge.

 

[Doug_G]

"Every amount of radiation exposure increases your risk of cancer,” he said. “There is no safe level of radiation."
I would argue that it has to be above the level of background radiation to have any significant impact. Otherwise you could argue that every exposure to sunlight increases your risk of melanoma...

Right, his statement might be considered plausible if there were no natural radiation background. However, since there is a background level, any effects from a small additional dosage above background isn't going to be statistically significant. As far as I know there is no credible evidence that it is.

So really statements like that aren't supported by science. Lacking that support, I would have to say that his statements lack credibility, and I would question where he has some other agenda.

Then there is the controversial notion of Radiation hormesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (No solid evidence for that either, of course!)

 

[richkae]

I would say we've come a long way in understanding radiation in the last 60 years...

Specific to Hirsch's quote in the article title and text:
"Every amount of radiation exposure increases your risk of cancer,” he said. “There is no safe level of radiation."
I would argue that it has to be above the level of background radiation to have any significant impact. Otherwise you could argue that every exposure to sunlight increases your risk of melanoma...

A friend of mine is a genetics professor who spent a lot of time studying aging. He said that if you lived in a huge lead shield to protect yourself from all manner of radiation and dramatically slowed your breathing to minimize oxygen consumption - you could dramatically extend your lifespan. Sound fun?

 

[Doug_G]

A friend of mine is a genetics professor who spent a lot of time studying aging. He said that if you lived in a huge lead shield to protect yourself from all manner of radiation and dramatically slowed your breathing to minimize oxygen consumption - you could dramatically extend your lifespan. Sound fun?

Don't forget starvation-level food intake. Works for mice. (Actually there are reasons to suspect it might not work on humans.)

 

[TEG]

... Otherwise you could argue that every exposure to sunlight increases your risk of melanoma...

Yes, particularly in areas where we have damaged the ozone layer. For instance in Australia where they are trying hard to make hats and long sleeves be fashionable...

Australia's Experience with UV protection, Skin Cancer and Sun Protective Clothing

National Shade Day 2011 | Upcoming Events

 

[Cobos]

Right, his statement might be considered plausible if there were no natural radiation background. However, since there is a background level, any effects from a small additional dosage above background isn't going to be statistically significant. As far as I know there is no credible evidence that it is.

So really statements like that aren't supported by science. Lacking that support, I would have to say that his statements lack credibility, and I would question where he has some other agenda.

Then there is the controversial notion of Radiation hormesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. (No solid evidence for that either, of course!)

I've read a few articles related to that study in Taiwan with the irradiated building. It now seems the newest research can indicate that for populations over 30 years the hightened levels of radiation caused by that building did not increase the risk of cancer. For those under 30 it seems like it did, if I'm reading this right.

Cobos

 

[William13]

1. There are people who are living at starvation levels in the USA who are trying to live an extra 30% of years.

2. The lead lined room does not stop all radiation and the lead causes some of it's own radiation.

3. There is a list of ten attributes/habits/activities that go with long life.

4. People will all die and cancer is not the only cause.