Speak EV - Electric Car Forums banner

401 - 420 of 455 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
I choose to get on a plane, drive a car or leave the house. I don’t choose to have a nuclear reactor leak tritium into my dna.
You don't choose to not have a plane crash into your house. Or a car to run you over on the pavement (or modified electric bike).

Your entire existence is based on the trust that others will use equipment appropriately and without meaning to cause harm. Whether you choose to participate, or not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
You don't choose to not have a plane crash into your house. Or a car to run you over on the pavement (or modified electric bike).
Perfect example… nuclear power leaking tritium into your dna is like having a plane crash into your house, or a car run you over on the pavement…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Perfect example… nuclear power leaking tritium into your dna is like having a plane crash into your house, or a car run you over on the pavement…
And yet I don't live in fear of any of them happening because I understand the actual risk and take a balanced approach to how I accept risk in my life based on the probability of harm and the severity of the hazard occuring.

So what do you believe the likely occurrence rate of tritium causing harm to yourself, compared to a car running you over? And what are you doing to control hazard occurrence rate of the latter?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
And yet I don't live in fear of any of them happening because I understand the actual risk and take a balanced approach to how I accept risk in my life based on the probability of harm and the severity of the hazard occuring.
Based on the severity of an accident occurring, a rational person won’t choose to build nuclear plants…


The radionuclide tritium constantly leaking into your dna from operating nuclear power stations is only a small part of the “danger pie” when going nuclear…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Based on the severity of an accident occurring, a rational person won’t choose to build nuclear plants…
Neither would a rational person therefore ride a motorcycle, or eat oysters. Or, jump out of a perfectly working plane.



The radionuclide tritium constantly leaking into your dna from operating nuclear power stations is only a small part of the “danger pie” when going nuclear…
Based on the severity of an accident occurring, a rational person won’t choose to build nuclear plants…


The radionuclide tritium constantly leaking into your dna from operating nuclear power stations is only a small part of the “danger pie” when going nuclear…
You've still not stated the risk of hazard occuring or quantified the harm as a result.

For example, is that fire definitely going to happen, but is going to reduce life expectancy by 0.00001 second per person? Or is extremely unlikely to happen, and going to kill everyone on the planet?

This is basic risk assessment stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
The red zone pictured triggers mandatory Chernobyl style exclusion zone. All it takes is a crazy person in an airplane or cruise missile. You tell me the odds.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
1Mbq/m^2 means one million radionuclide disintegrations are happening each second on each square meter of soil. In the case of cesium-137 contamination, its 30 year half life means this will drop to safe levels after around 200 years.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,062 Posts
Based on the severity of an accident occurring, a rational person won’t choose to build nuclear plants…


The radionuclide tritium constantly leaking into your dna from operating nuclear power stations is only a small part of the “danger pie” when going nuclear…
Well we can take both viewpoints. There is risk from an accident and it could in a worst case be severe. Likewise if you're on a plane that crashes in the worst possible way - it will kill you, ergo by your logic a rational person would not get on a plane.

From the other side it is equally logical to look back at what actually happens in the real world. Deaths from flying are rare, the industry has improved safety over an extended period to become a relatively safe means of transport. Ergo a sane person may choose flying as being far safer than cars, motorbikes, horses etc.

If we do same for power generation - In the last 70 years pollution from coal fired electricity plants likely led to millions of deaths, and also leads to dangerous warming which may well do as much damage again in the next 100 years. Whereas nuclear power plants have been relatively safe even when they fail dramatically. Ergo a sane person might well choose to build nuclear on the basis that other methods of generating electricity are more dangerous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
There weren’t any nuke plants last time there was a world war so we don’t really have a great data sampling of all the possibilities do we?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
I’d personally rather hear the news—

“there’s been an underground explosion at the kinetic energy storage ring that’s been safely contained underground - backup ring has been activated”

rather than-

“there’s been an act of sabotage leading to a spent fuel fire at the nuclear plant— radiation levels are increasing by the hour and large portions of the country are expected to be uninhabitable for at least the next 200 years”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts

The magnetically confined kinetic-energy storage ring (MCKESR) is a new, fundamental type of energy-storage device. Energy is stored as kinetic energy in mass circulated at high velocity around a circular loop. The constraining force necessary to keep the circulating ring from flying apart is provided by radial, inwardly directed forced exerted along the perimeter of the loop by magnetic fields. The magnets and ring are contained in a tunnel, which may be buried in the ground. Levitational support against gravity is also provided by magnetic fields. Energy insertion or extraction is similar to that for a synchronous motor.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
The red zone pictured triggers mandatory Chernobyl style exclusion zone. All it takes is a crazy person in an airplane or cruise missile. You tell me the odds.
Yet again you're deliberately misleading.

An airliner hijacking or conventional weapon strike does not immediately lead to a spent fuel fire. And for either to occur, would require the active and passive control measures in place both in national security (airliners, military defence) and local protection (blast walls, fire control measures) for the outcome to occur with that level of contamination.

So what do you believe is the likely occurrence rate of that level of nuclear pollution?
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
29,800 Posts
Discussion Starter · #415 ·
I had a Prius which was 73.3mpg on the NEDC cycle, and the year round average, was about 55mpg on the dash, which over-read compared to tank to tank maths by 5-10%. I would be surprised if an "80mpg" one achieves that in the real world.
Well, chaps, I have done the unthinkable and an ICE (used) has arrived to replace the Zoe.

It's quieter outside when idling with the AC on than the Zoe with its AC on. It's quieter on the inside at speed than the Zoe. And the heat AND AC work together!!! Fancy that!!

Meanwhile .... first few trips of mine in this car (if you know the dash you will know the car) ....


145676



(cf .. I had a Nissan Micra 1.5dci once when my Fluence was being serviced and it refused to show me my over-100mpg achievement. I am expecting to find out if this one can at some stage but not quite there yet. If not, will have to go 'metric'.)
 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
29,800 Posts
Discussion Starter · #416 ·
Are there safe, natural background levels of radiation in the forests of Fukushima and Chernobyl?
The wildlife population has 'exploded' (pun) in those areas, now that humans have left.

No threat to animals, no. Quite safe.

Just don't go picking up lumps of glowing stuff.

Medium-low radioactive materials are pretty much like poisonous chemicals .. so long as they stay outside your body they are usually pretty harmless.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
The wildlife population has 'exploded' (pun) in those areas, now that humans have left.

No threat to animals, no. Quite safe.

Just don't go picking up lumps of glowing stuff.

Medium-low radioactive materials are pretty much like poisonous chemicals .. so long as they stay outside your body they are usually pretty harmless
Prior to the accident in Chernobyl, levels of Cs-137 in the UK hovered around 5 Bq/m2. Immediately after the accident, officials measured levels of Cs-137 as high as 1785 Bq/m2 in some areas of Wales. [1] However, months after the Chernobyl fallout, officials measured Caesium deposition from rainfall, rather than vegetation, and discovered that areas in Scotland received an astounding 20,000 Bq/m2. [3]”

“After the ban on sheep movement and slaughter, caesium levels remained higher than many experts were predicting in upland areas of the United Kingdom. Sheep that were grazing in exclusively upland areas persistently showed Caesium activity levels above the 1000 Bq/kg threshold for safe consumption.


 

·
I'm not crazy, the attack has begun.
Joined
·
29,800 Posts
Discussion Starter · #418 ·
Prior to the accident in Chernobyl, levels of Cs-137 in the UK hovered around 5 Bq/m2. Immediately after the accident, officials measured levels of Cs-137 as high as 1785 Bq/m2 in some areas of Wales. [1] However, months after the Chernobyl fallout, officials measured Caesium deposition from rainfall, rather than vegetation, and discovered that areas in Scotland received an astounding 20,000 Bq/m2. [3]”

“After the ban on sheep movement and slaughter, caesium levels remained higher than many experts were predicting in upland areas of the United Kingdom. Sheep that were grazing in exclusively upland areas persistently showed Caesium activity levels above the 1000 Bq/kg threshold for safe consumption.


You'll find radioactive stuff everywhere. What is your point? Are you saying these levels are known to be dangerous?

If that much Cs-137 showered the south west of the UK at those levels, then it'd do quite a good job of actually MASKING the natural radioactivity down there. If you dig up surface regolith from most parts of Cornwall, you'd have to then treat it as low level radioactive waste, it's that active down there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,610 Posts
Cs-137 and Sr-90 from nuclear accidents bio-mimics potassium and calcium so ends up in muscles & bones causing cancers, concentrates in animals at the top of the food chain, and the gamma photons Cesium-137 emits can penetrate multiple feet of lead shielding - 20000 disintegrations per second measured in Scotland per square meter after Chernobyl, 5 disintegrations before Chernobyl (from nuclear testing).

The unshielded spent fuel is so radiologically dangerous you’d receive a lethal dose before you could walk up to it from 100 ft…

145688

^It’s much higher than 1000000mSv/h in the subsequent hours, weeks and months after reactor shutdown…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,125 Posts
Prior to the accident in Chernobyl, levels of Cs-137 in the UK hovered around 5 Bq/m2. Immediately after the accident, officials measured levels of Cs-137 as high as 1785 Bq/m2 in some areas of Wales. [1] However, months after the Chernobyl fallout, officials measured Caesium deposition from rainfall, rather than vegetation, and discovered that areas in Scotland received an astounding 20,000 Bq/m2. [3]”

“After the ban on sheep movement and slaughter, caesium levels remained higher than many experts were predicting in upland areas of the United Kingdom. Sheep that were grazing in exclusively upland areas persistently showed Caesium activity levels above the 1000 Bq/kg threshold for safe consumption.


And? I've seen a video of a wind turbine catch fire. Does that mean all wind turbines catch fire?
 
401 - 420 of 455 Posts
Top