Guest essay by Eric Worrall
If Greens want to decarbonise the economy to prevent climate change, why are they so opposed to nuclear power? A small but growing number of greens are also asking this question. Some of them accuse their fellow travellers of misleading the public.
Climate change is an energy problem, so let’s talk honestly about nuclear
Fear of nuclear energy runs deep but it may be the most efficient and clean energy source we have, albeit with complications.
…
The vast majority of the carbon and greenhouse gases we spew into the atmosphere are generated by our need for energy, prompting the late Prof Sir David MacKay to observe that “the climate problem is mostly an energy problem”. Clearly then, we must reduce our carbon emissions drastically, and it is likely that nuclear power will play a substantial role in this endeavour. Yet despite the pressing nature of the problem, there are few topics as consistently contentious as the one of nuclear power, and the long history of opposition to it cannot be ignored.
Fears about nuclear energy run deep: the 1986 Chernobyl disaster remains a towering linchpin in anti-nuclear narratives, presented as an irrefutable case that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe. These claims are so profoundly entrenched that it is almost accepted as common knowledge that the Chernobyl disaster killed thousands.
Yet, as I’ve written here before, these claims do not stand up to scrutiny and persist in the face of report after report to the contrary. Years of subsequent investigation place the death toll of the disaster at approximately 43 people, with deleterious health effects failing to materialise at any appreciable rate. That this information is surprising to many is indicative of quite how polarised the discussion on such a vital topic has been.
Much of the reason for this is ideological – Greenpeace is but one organisation that has been criticised for releasing misleading anti-nuclear information, claiming that up to 200,000 deaths are attributable to Chernobyl. This figure has been roundly debunked, but predictably strikes fear into the public conscience, encouraging panic in place of reason.
…
This is not the first time The Guardian has published a pro-nuclear article. Guardian environment columnist George Monbiot in 2011 insisted that Fukushima demonstrated the safety of nuclear power. Former NASA GISS chairman James Hansen is also a fan of nuclear power – a stance which upset Naomi Oreskes so much, she accused Hansen of being a “denier”.
I believe future historians will judge this irrational hatred of nuclear energy as the single greatest reason why greens lost the climate debate. The obvious contradiction between green claims that we face an existential climate crisis and their vehement opposition to nuclear power is what led me and I suspect many other skeptics to question their claims.
If greens had embraced nuclear power from the start, I would have accepted claims about the climate impact of anthropogenic CO2 emissions at face value.
I would just like to point out that Water Vapour is a potent greenhouse gas and that the human addition of Water Vapour to the earth’s atmosphere is indeed a climate crime.
Imagine how many giga tonnes of water is piped to warm arid areas for irrigation…most of that water ends up as Water Wapour in the atmosphere which as we all know plays a critical role in ‘the positive feedback loop’ which results in catastrophic warming.
I say ban steam (and all forms of irrigation) immediately.
yeah and lets pretend the water doesn’t evaporate and take heat from the surface while we’re at it 🙂
Sounds logical but it fails all reasonable rationality tests. Won’t work, (even with the entertaining sarcasm and the conversion to Water Wapour.) And there are 50 to 100 H2O molecules in Earth’s atmosphere for each CO2 molecule that’s present. The difference in atmospheric dwell time? Who cares when the so-called greenhouse effect is generated by discreet processes of absorption and emission that take place in a few microseconds.
70% of Earth’s surface is covered by oceans. The waters of oceans absorb more than 90% of the — full spectrum — solar energy that reach their surface. Then it is through the process of evaporation that the most of that absorbed energy is transferred back to the planet’s atmosphere. To that enormous amount of naturally solar energy-generated water vapor, the activities of humankind add a virtually meaningless, piddling additional amount of water vapor. CO2? It’s kinda sorta ridiculous that (overpoliticized) CO2 has even become a part of the discussion.
But then politics as a generic activity tends toward being a ridiculously silly activity which may occasionally sideswipe reality on rare occasions. (We are cruising for a face-first collision with reality on our current path.)
It’s all about the sun. The sun is the primary ‘control knob’ for Earth’s climate and the sun is the primary (direct and indirect) driver for any climate variability. Without the sun, the surface temperature of Earth would be a few Kelvins above absolute zero. Then where would the CO2 and CH4, etc., be. Without the sun, they would form a very, very thin and very cold crust on the planet.
And that lazy ol’ sun just rolls ’round heaven all day.
Yes…but try telling that to a Warmist!
charles nelson June 29, 2017 at 1:53 am:
Not so, Charles. Accumulated water vapour turns into cloud, which reflects away incoming sunlight and thereby cools the surface, thereby also reducing the rate of further evaporation (i.e. water vapour production) into the bargain.
Thus, the water-cycle acts as a net-negative feedback on surface temperatures, not a positive one, and there is no possibility of catastrophic (i.e. runaway) global warming occurring from it.
…..I believe future historians will judge this irrational hatred of nuclear energy as the single greatest reason why greens lost the climate debate. The obvious contradiction between green claims that we face an existential climate crisis and their vehement opposition to nuclear power is what led me and I suspect many other skeptics to question their claims…..
I believe that the biggest problem facing humanity – dwarfing the damage that greens are doing to our energy generation – is that humans are NOT able to be influenced by fundamental science, such as the obvious mathematical frauds used to start this scare, and instead have to rely on simplistic arguments from mindless journalists and peer pressure to make up their minds…
Fukushima
To debunk that all you need is how much was released, half-life of that cesium and a calculator to show that there is more radioactive decay from things currently in your home than anything in Fish from Fukushima in the pacific
What would Naomi Oreskes know about nuclear power? I guess it’s about as much as she knows about climate, physics, heat transfer and thermodynamics. And George Monbiot’s conclusion is spot on. At Fukushima and surrounding towns the nuclear industry did its job but 19000 people died because building and town planners, and the general population, refused to recognize the most probable hazard, that being tsunami which is something that everyone in Japan should be aware of.
ahh but…
Google “Guardian” + “Climate change causes earthquakes and tsunamis”
:DDDDDD
The town planners were aware of tsunamis and had built a 9 meter sea wall to protect the town.
Unfortunately they were hit with a 10 meter tsunami.
Your attitude that they were completely ignoring the problem is rather insulting.
That the primary goal of nuclear energy is clean, cheap, environmentally friendly power can easily be shown to be a canard. One only needs to look at the proximity of weapons production plants, road and rail infrastructure, or the timing of nuclear power plant expansion to the parallel upgrading of ballistic weapons systems.
In any event the only true assessment of the cost of nuclear is whole life cycle, from mine and construction to disposal and decommissioning to clean site. (including use of battlefield weapons originating from part or semi processed fissile material). The absence of a global effort to rid the Pacific ocean of the worst (and ongoing) civilian nuclear waste disaster in human history illustrates our reluctance to tackle the planetary consequences head on.
The mimicking of plant photosynthesis research and other conversions of sunlight
would appear to be a more time proven symbiotic way to generate power. What we do until such systems are mainstream is to manage the negative consequences as best we can. Following Germany’s lead may be a more prudent approach.
What is the current fashion of tin foil hats? Trefoil? Napoleanic? Inquiring minds want to know.
Wow, does insanity run in your family or are you some kind of prodigy?
There is no “proximity” between civilian nukes and “weapons production plants”. First off most nuclear weapons are built in one place in Tennessee while nuclear plants are all over the country.
Additionally if you knew anything at all about the subject you would know that the type of fuel and process used to create plutonium for weapons is completely different from the one used in civilian power plants.
The cost of de-commissioning nuclear plants is already built into the cost of nuclear power.
If you think that is possible to create electric power from the mimicking of photosynthesis go ahead and spend your own money on the research. There are several Nobel’s in your future if you are right. By the way, photovoltaic’s are way more efficient at converting sunlight to useful energy than is photosynthesis. If you were half as smart as your mother says you are, you would know that already.
” most nuclear weapons are built in one place in Tennessee”
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantex_Plant
…
Remember the saying about glass houses when you post: ” If you were half as smart as your mother says you are”
“Guardian environment columnist George Monbiot in 2011 insisted that Fukushima demonstrated the safety of nuclear power. ”
What an extraordinarily ignorant and misleading statement. If it wasn’t so tragic it would be hilarious.
* 3 reactor core meltdowns that they don’t even know the locations of except to know that they’ve melted through their containment vessels, i.e., China Syndrome; so they are unable to control or stabilize the situation as Chernobyl was. The area is so radioactive that even robots sent into the reactors, die after a couple of hours (maybe minutes, can’t remember).
* A sub-critical explosion (not just a hydrogen explosion) of reactor #3 spread plutonium throughout the area.
*Millions of gallons of highly radioactive water have been discharged, and are still being discharged 5 years later, to the Pacific
* Soil samples taken by a US nuclear engineer at random locations around Tokyo were so radioactive they’d have to be handled as radioactive waste in the US.
* Areas decontaminated through pressure washing and soil removal become re-contaminated later.
I could go on and on. The Japanese are living a nightmare right now.
Maybe you should read Monbiot’s article so you understand why he thinks Fukishima demonstrates nuclear power is safe. Then you can argue the points he made, rather than shooting from the hip.
The man has no business commenting on Fukushima. Based on his comments in the article, he is woefully ignorant.
I Came – Please share your deep knowledge with us.
Just because you are p@ranoid beyond belief is not evidence that you know what you are talking about.
and people don’t live in reactors either
I obviously missed the bit where Nuclear power causes Tsunamis in Japan and make people build nuke plants near the coast.
We’ve got all the nutjobs coming out today. The proof of a cover up about Fukushima is in the lack of evidence. Those rays coming off the top of the Illuminati pyramid are radiation. They’re contaminating our precious bodily fluids! Wake up, Sheeple!
Who was the guy who was trying to prove that all of the whales in the Pacific ocean had been killed by Fukushima radiation.
Based on a couple of carcasses that washed up in the Aleutians in the 20 years after the accident.
The radioactive water in Fukushima is so dangerous that this Japanese politician drank it from the reactor that meltdown. Hey give me some of that radioactive water. I want a nuclear energy drink too.
Publicity stunt. That was decontaminated water. Here’s another publicity stunt that didn’t end so well
Japan TV host diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia — Had been eating Fukushima produce on show
http://enenews.com/japan-tv-host-diagnosed-acute-lymphocytic-leukemia-eating-fukushima-produce-show
There are 119,000 new cases of acute lymphocytic leukemia every year worldwide. They just love to eat foods from Fukushima LOL
Too many cancers and health abnormalities in Japan following Fukushima.to be attributable to chance. Not widely publicized because doctors are threatened with losing their license to practice if they attribute illness to radiation, and due to the state secrets act passed after the Fukushima disaster journalists and politicians can go to jail for 5-10 years for talking about it.
A new conspiracy theory. I am delighted.
(My comment is still in moderation)
A new conspir@cy theory. I am delighted.
Please show this evidence of a major outbreak of cancer in the area around Fukushima.
From a real medical source, not one of your conspiracy hot houses.
We cant distinguish cesium 137 in the oceans from nuke tests and Fukushima, so 134 is a good measure of 137 as they were\are released in equal amounts. 2yr to 30yr half-life respectively. Iodine 131 is only about 8 days half-life
If you test in the area of Fukushima the readings are going to be far higher as dispersal reduces concentration, the levels drop more and more as you move away from ground zero
137 poses a problem for sure though it’s hard to tell which is Fukushima cesium 137 when you start moving far away from the site, but regionally, soil and water is polluted with it and it is a real problem. Can’t deny that.
There is no doubt Japan’s planning of the site and the management of the disaster have been the real disaster here
“There is no doubt Japan’s planning of the site and the management of the disaster have been the real disaster here”
That’s true, although I don’t think they really could have done anything to manage it better due to the magnitude and scope of the disaster.
Did anybody do the testing you describe, or is it just a reasonable assumption?
I came says
Soil samples taken by a US nuclear engineer at random locations around Tokyo were so radioactive they’d have to be handled as radioactive waste in the US.
Tokyo is over 200 kilometres from Fukushima. So what does this (unattributed) statement tell us, assuming that it has any truth at all? It probably tells us that US environmental limits on radiation levels are unrealistically low.
If you have any more of these pearls of wisdom to share with us, why don’t you give a reference to their source so we can assess if they are genuine facts? And give numbers rather than verbal generalizations. Some of us have technical educations and experience, you know.
And “sub-critical explosion” – really? Tell us how that works in a commercial power reactor. Please.
“What an extraordinarily ignorant and misleading statement” How very true
Is there anything you know that is actually correct?
First off, the robots sent into the reactor were doing just fine. One broke down when the camera stopped working and the other when it’s track got caught on debris. None have been retrieved because they aren’t worth the cost of decontamination.
Nope, the only explosions were hydrogen, the concentrations of even brand new nuclear fuel aren’t high enough to go critical, and there is no such thing as a sub-critical explosion.
None of the nuclear material escaped the containment vessel.
Millions of gallons of water that was slightly more radioactive than back ground have been released.
I don’t know where you got that info about soil samples around Tokyo, but you are so misinformed that I wonder whether your brain is still functioning.
You could go on, but I’d advise you not to. You’ve embarrassed yourself enough already.
Cold War Plutonium factories (all pressurized water reactors with solid fuel belong to this category), are certainly a no-go in the long run.
They have no inherent safety (need sophisticated control), have high pressure reactive stuff (water) in core, burn less than 1 percent of fuel, produce a vast amount of waste, laden with long half life transuranics, need active cooling on shutdown for an extended period (otherwise Hydrogen is produced, which is simply explosive – chemically), they have no negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, crystalline structure of fuel rods is damaged by neutron radiation, and finally they do not lend themselves to proliferation control easily.
That’s their primary job after all, to manufacture Plutonium for nuclear weapons, energy production is only an afterthought.
Molten salt reactors are just the opposite. An experimental design was operated at Oak Ridge in the 1960s for years, successfully. Unfortunately the project was killed by the Nixon administration, the director of the lab, Weinberg (who was also the inventor of PWR), fired. A sad story.
However, we do have lots of docs, so no further taxpayers’ money is needed. There are several private enterprises ready to restart it as soon as the regulatory framework makes it possible. Another job for Trump, I guess.
An MSR can burn virtually all Uranium and Thorium in fuel, so it produces a hundred times less waste for the same energy output as a PWR, with no long half life isotopes in it, therefore storage time can be reduced to several hundred years from a hundred thousand. It is operated at atmospheric pressure (boiling point of molten salt is 1500 centigrade), with only chemically inert stuff in core. No meltdown is possible, nor neutron damage to fuel, because it is already dissolved in molten salt. It can be operated at high temperature (~700 centigrade), using a closed cycle gas turbine even in the secondary circuit, with no water anywhere in the system, and with excellent thermal efficiency at that. But those temperatures are high enough to drive chemical reactions directly, like synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels, if needed.
Anyway, a ton of ordinary granite, the default stuff continents are made of, contains as much recoverable energy (in the form of fertile material) as 50 tons of coal. Therefore it is a renewable energy source in the sense it would last as long as the sun does. However, we have much better ores than that for many thousands of years.
“That’s their primary job after all, to manufacture Plutonium for nuclear weapons, energy production is only an afterthought.”
No, it isn’t. The mind is a terrible thing to waste, so don’t waste it. Reactors to manufacture weapons grade plutonium are very different from standard LWR reactors. They are operated very differently (in short bursts) because you need an enriched ratio of 239Pu vs. 240Pu or your bomb doesn’t go bang when you want it to. They use graphite moderators to breed up the Pu while power reactors use water. They’re just totally different beasts. Period.
Still, there is an awful lot of Plutonium left in waste, this is why you have to store and guard it for countless millennia, an impossible task at that. Or otherwise storage sites can serve as Plutonium mines some time in the future, not a happy prospect.
“Millions of gallons of highly radioactive water have been released and will be released 5 years later ……..” And the Pacific Ocean contains trillions about trilliar gallons of water. Mass the dilution and you will find that the radio activity may have increased by 0.0000000000001 percent.
Scaremonger and Fearmongerer do not need a discussion about nuclear power. Nuclear power is still developing technologically. You do not have to measure them at the dinosaurs of the beginning time. There are not only the Molten Salt Reactor, but several other safe developments, among others, which can transform the old waste of the atomic dinosaur period into energy.
For the other claims I would sometimes call serious sources, otherwise I treat them as fake news.
Can I came, I saw, I left, provide any evidence links for his comment about radiation hotspots around Tokyo please?
Weird, Fukushima was not like Chernobyl, which was a massive expulsion of radioactive material into the atmosphere. Dispersal potential is far greater than most of the material going into the ocean.
Reactor 3 experienced a sub-critical explosion that ejected core material into the atmosphere. Watch the 3 reactor explosion videos. Reactors 1 and 2 exploded mostly sideways (hydrogen explosion); reactor 3 went straight up like a nuclear bomb.
And reactor 3 was a MOX reactor – very dirty.
Here’s a good video that shows reactors 1 and 3 exploding . – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE2eTebInJ8
Reactor 1 explosion is maybe 100 meters high. The reactor 3 explosion is at least 400 meters high. That’s plutonium (among other things) going into the air. Notice which way the wind’s blowing – towards Tokyo.
Well, Perhaps we should also consider banning ALL air travel as it is just too deadly.
In the 1920’s there were 11 crashes killing 78 people
Date Crashes
1920 11
1930 30
1940 67
1950 91
1960 156
1970 170
1980 160
1990 151
2000 162
2010 125 (so far)
since the 1960’s Killing thousands of people per decade
Nuclear energy is Far Safer than Air travel so Air travel should be banned for the good of the populace
Forgot the info source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incidents_involving_commercial_aircraft
My sources tell a very different story. These were not reactors exploding; these were hydrogen explosions in containment buildings. They did not want any hydrogen – including a radioactive tritium – escape in the atmosphere. Then they got it all at once, plus anything previously contained in the containment building.
Yes, hydrogen explosions at reactors 1 and 2 only destroyed the buildings. Reactor 3 was a sub-criticcal explosion of a MOX reactor. There were actually 2 explosions at reactor 3. The second one was much more powerful than a hydrogen explosion. They’ve found plutonium scattered about the area. That could only come from one place.
I Came I Saw I Left – your account flatly contradicts that of Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_(Unit_3_Reactor)
Three comments: 1.Please edit the Wikipedia article. 2.Your opinion seems to follow mostly that of Arnold Gunderson, not really a great diversity. 3.You did not leave – consider changing your pseudonym, to avoid any possibility to be called a liar.
Wikipedia. Please, don’t make me laugh. And I don’t bother editing it anymore.
Air crashes refer to that time and place but radioactive material is not so.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Not just Gunderson
” ‘I watched video of the Reactor 3 explosion,’ said veteran Japanese nuclear-reactor designer Setsuo Fujiwara. ‘There was an orange flash, which suggests the temperature must have been thousands of degrees centigrade before the explosion. Then there was black smoke.’ Fujiwara insisted to me that a hydrogen explosion created white smoke and steam, as witnessed after the Reactor 1 building was torn apart. He continued, ‘The second piece of evidence is that plutonium was scattered about after this blast. Plutonium is consistent with the mixed oxide fuel [used in Reactor 3]. The third point is that the Reactor 3 building was bent like candy, unlike the Reactor 1 building, where the steel framework remained intact. So this could only mean it was a nuclear explosion.’”
http://enenews.com/reactor-designer-it-was-a-nuclear-explosion-at-fukushima-unit-3-plutonium-was-scattered-after-blast-abc-theres-willful-denial-and-lying-going-on-here-even-at-the-highest-levels
From your link: “Gov’t Experts: It was Reactor 2 explosion that released plutonium from Fukushima plant; Highest levels found over 20 km away.” And you did not leave yet. Liar.
I Came I Saw I Crapped,
Sub-critical explosion? I’m shocked that it didn’t knock the Earth out of its orbit and into the 9th dimension!
Everything you’ve claimed is tripe.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-accident.aspx
But please, cite more you tube videos of guys in lab coats.
Dr Reddy,
You are correct that Air Crashes tend to be localized events and generally do little collateral damage (unless they explode in a forest and start a fire burning thousands of acres or happen over an urban area raining fire and debris over a city area causing numerous structure fires. But most air line accidents since 1965 have killed more people in every single accident than has been killed by All 7 nuclear accidents combined.
Nuclear Generation, as a measure of deaths attributable to, is still far safer than Air Travel
So you can tell what type of explosion it was by the direction of the plume?
Please tell me you aren’t this dumb.
The entire basis for the sub-critical nonsense was some guy saw an orange flash, from which he concluded the temperature reached thousands of degrees. A few nights ago we had a fire in the old fire place, I saw not only orange flames but yellow ones as well. I guess that proves that my fireplace had gone sub-critical as well.
Bryan A — with nuclear power plant accidents, the issue is not the deaths but the issue is the health hazards not only to those at that time but also future generations. Environmental groups fought against establishing nuclear power plant near a Nagarjuna sagar dam that provide both drinking water and irrigation water needs. Later government wanted to establish a uranium mining on the edge of the same reservoir that causes radiological and non-radiological pollution. The problem here is compulsion by vested groups that meets the greed of some people at the cost of human lives and health.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“radiation” is meaningless too. Which “Radioactive materials” matter
http://enenews.com/gundersen-tokyo-soil-hot-be-shipped-radioactive-dump
Or search gunderson + tokyo + soil + samples , then take your pick.
I agree with I Came I Saw I Left
Putting additional radiation into the atmosphere is no solution to our energy needs.
Alpha,beta and Gamma radiation even in minute amounts can damage cell DNA and cause cancer.
Who needs that?
In addition if any fault develops in a nuclear power plant it can lead to catastrophic consequences.
If you had a house anywhere within 20 miles of Fukushima or Chernobyl you would be excluded from your property or watch the value of the property effectively vanish.
Further nuclear power plants and nuclear waste storage has become increasingly expensive as the reinforced concrete is unexpectedly crumbling.
Those in the know like EDF are now getting reluctant to tender for new nuclear power plants as the cost are spiraling out of control .
Read about the negotiations for the UK’s Hinkley Point plant.
Also read about the spiraling cost of nuclear waste storage at Sellafield.
All this to solve a non existent problem with fossil fuels.
Get the miners back to work and stick to cheap proven technology.
It is nice to meet a fake news specialist. A foreigner grabs eight random samples in Tokyo, all dangerously radioactive, and the Japanese government – allergic to radioactivity since 1945 – does nothing.
Chris Busby found similar contamination in air filters sent to him from Tokyo.
What I find shocking is the silence of the Japanese government.
I note that Dr. Busby wore a lab coat long before it became a fashion.
I came, I saw, I left (my brain behind)
There is no evidence that small amounts of radiation are dangerous.
If it was, all of us would be dead because the earth itself is radioactive and always has been.
Would I be right in saying the faster the radioactive decay the more dangerous the material, while it is decaying that is?
Spent nuclear fuel is hardly any more dangerous than the high voltage power that travels serenely year after year thru our power transmission lines. We have stored spent nuclear fuel for the past 60 years without any significant incidents worthy of note. I guess there are those in the country who automatically asociate radiation with Hiroshima and not cancer treatments. Nuclear radiation has saved millions more lives than it has taken, which are very few. Chernobyl killed all of 43 souls and the escaped radiation has produced no long term effects on the folks in the area. Fukushima killed exacltly no one, and the radiation affected none in any serious fashion. Three Mile Island has had zero long term fatalities, an obvious result since the released radiation amounted to less than one x ray to any local citizens. The point is that nucelar power is far and away the safest means of producing power – safer than solar, wind, you name it. Funny how al those deaths from skin cancer from solar rays don’t lead the morons in htis country to therefore opose sol;ar power. or hurricane winds do the same for wind power.
Apparently, according to Greens, living is a climate crime.
Guarapari beach beats Fukushima in radiation level. Tourists flock to Guarapari to enjoy the radioactive sand
Guarapari beach = 175 mSv/yr
http://mw2.google.com/mw-panoramio/photos/medium/80135196.jpg
Fukushima = 166 mSv/yr (19 uSv/hr)
http://www.sonomacountygazette.com/cms/images/thumb_2_2012-fukushima-radiation-levels.jpg
Those people on the beach are only getting gamma radiation from monzanite. Low level gamma radiation external to the body (alpha and beta are basically harmless) has a very different effect than radioactive isotopes incorporated into cellular structure.
Sounds scientific but sheer nonsense. Sievert (Sv) is a measure of equivalent dose. It is already adjusted for the different types of ionizing radiation. Gray (Gy) is the absorbed dose that varies depending on type of radiation. BTW alpha particle has a radiation weighting factor of 20. It’s 20 times more harmful than gamma ray.
I cannot agree with this I Came I Saw I Left on this point
“alpha and beta are basically harmless.”
If you keep an alpha source anywhere near your skin ALL the incident radiation will be absorbed and cause significant damage.
Houses in the UK where even the background radiation from rocks is reckoned to be too high have their basements pumped out to reduce alpha decay.
That’s why alpha radiation is deadly when isotopes that emit it are incorporated within cellular tissue nestled right up against DNA.
Bryan, OK, I didn’t know.
Alpha rays can be contained in a paper bag, gamma requires inches of lead. Once alpha emitters are in your body they are very dangerous because of the close proximity. Radon is an alpha emitter which is why it’s a good idea to pump it from your basement if you’re in an area where igneous rocks are present. The in vogue granite counter tops are a potential source of radon too!
The question we should be asking is whether the greens actually believe in CO2 caused CAGW.
All the evidence is, they do not. No group of people who sincerely believed that civilisation was at risk from emissions would oppose measures to reduce them, and promote actions which have so little effect on them.
The classic example of this, the critical experiment if you like, is attitudes to cars. The current auto market is about 95 million a year, about 30 million of which are sold in China.
What do the greens want to happen to this? If they really believed what they claim to, they would be calling for the dismantling of the car industry, the closure of city streets to cars, heavy taxes on car ownership…. and so on. The author is also right to point out that if they really believed it, they would favor nuclear electricity over all other generating technologies.
Are they? Absolutely not.
Instead of this we have enthusiasm about Paris, which fails to reduce emissions, a refusal to condemn Chinese plans to raise their emissions from 10 billion tons a year to something over 15 billion. And so on.
In any other walk of life we would conclude that this was evidence the people concerned did not believe what they claim to.
michel June 29, 2017 at 6:11 am
Well said. I’ve thought similar for ages, along the lines of ‘what would be a normal human reaction when faced with the Greatest Threat to Humanity, Ever’?
Cars? If not an outright ban then no new cars over 1.0 litre engines for the general public.
Deforestation for ‘biofuels? Forget it. Death penalty for illegal logging and burning!
90% of air travel stopped immediately. No fancy holidays, no away football matches and no appeals.
2,400 new coal fired power plants around the world…ALL cancelled. Go nuclear for zero emissions. No exceptions.
Oh and finally the pause (which is actually great news.) How would a normal person react to being told by their oncologist ‘it’s NOT cancer’? Delight, then relief, I’d guess. But Greens react to the great news of a pause – which could herald the falsification of the runaway warming theory with….absolute fury!
They’re idiots. All of them.
What’s rather funny about all this, is that all of the arguments against nuclear power (there really are no valid ones, as such) refer to a technology that is very soon to be replaced by molten salt nuclear technology, for about a thousand reasons : far cheaper to build and operate, levelized power costs lower than any other power technology, can be deployed quickly, requiring little site preparation for a plant which is a shadow of the size of a typical light water reactor plant, physically incapable of having a meltdown and also without any significant pressure associated with the radiactive portion of the plant, therefore incapable of spewing forth radiactive materials, and any radiactive materials that might (somehow) manage to escape quickly freeze below 450 degrees and cease fissionable reaction. These plants are walk away safe – no operator actions are required to shut down the nuclear reaction, nor any mechanical actions (such as cooling, etc). Only the laws of physics are required. Anyone who objects to these plants mught cite proliferation concerns, but they would be mistaken – these fuel assemblies are very well portected against any proliferation attempts.
And concerns about “nuclear wastes:” can also be answered by pointing out that these “nuclear wastes” are not wastes at all, but is spent uranium fuel that has lost too much of its energy to power the turbines of a nuclear plants, but still retains enough energy to heat the dry casks they are stored in to well beyond the boiling point of water, providing an opportunity to use that energy to desalinate huge amounts of sea water, heat building, etc. For hundreds of years. Instead of a cost, spent nuclear fuel presents an opportunity to save enormous sums of money. But don’t expect a population of greenies so dense that they associate nuclear radiation with Hirshima and totally false claims of deaths due to accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima and Three Mile Island (total deaths, both short and long term associated with those three accidents stands at 43 – all at Chernobyl)
to get the picture : they will continue to conveniently forget about the millions of lives saved by cancer radiation treatments.
QUESTION: Why has the natural world changed so a small change to slightly higher trace levels of CO2 not be absorbed by increased vegetation as it always has, through volcanic periods, disasters and extinctions, for the last 1 Billion years? By plants, the proven natural control of CO2.
Why would this change? Where are plants as a dynamic factor in the climate models? No forcing required. The reality is that CO2, even on modellers’ crack, is not the cause of climate change. Correlated with temperature, yes, but lagging it in statistical model, not a scientific detrministic model. e.g. a consequence, not a primary cause at all..
CO2 is innocent!
Lovelock’s Gaia takes care of CO2. Doesn’t need any puny human meddling.
The evidence from nature is clear. CO2 is NOT a control of our global climate, or a catastrophic runaway threat to the global climate through AGW.
In fact CO2 is a lagging indicator, a consequence of larger controls, solar and volcanic, but modellers aren’t paid to study these, mostly the atmosphere, which is a consequence of the oceans and solar radtiation, including CO2, mainly expressed in global temperature terms through the oceans that control the atmosphere. CO2 was easily managed down to trace levels for Billions of years by the plants. Keeping their heads in the clouds and missing this and other obvious fundamentals because it isn’t what they are paid to prove is just one major failure of climate so called science.
FACTS: Plants are capable of massive reduction of atmospheric CO2, no forcing required. . Plants reduced volcanic CO2 from 95% to trace levels of < 0.1% in the initial "decarbonistion" of the planet's atmosphere, from a CO2 rich volcanic atmosphere to an oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere, leaving just enough CO2 for plant and animal life to exist at all. They maintained this ever since with relatively small variations.
Undisputed facts
Plants finally ceased to grow by the obvious response to the rapidly declining levels of CO2 to protect themselves (and us as a by the way), and established the ideal conditions for carbon based oxygen breaters..
This is a strong, proven, natural, negative feedback system.
2. IEA just published the full 2015 energy cost study for free, with full breakdowsn and total cost per KWh at three discount rates. https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2015/7057-proj-costs-electricity-2015.pdf
Nuclear remains cheapest on LCOE, and the only sustainable approach at the level required, and zero carbon if that matters. It's just wrong to claim otherwise, as the facts show, not opinions, proven science as costed engineering, which no statistical models can be manipulated to produce a different forecast, because this is costed science fact based on the laws of science, actual builds and operational experience of 60 years or so.
Such terrors of delivering wat you promise is omething science denying climate scientists (see above) don't have to worry about, because, just as they can never prove their statistical models, which prove no laws and only show correlation, not cause, in science fact, neither can they be disproved. Perfect way to coast to retirement on our money for renewable enrgy lobbyists and their well rewarded captive politicians and academics.
Radiation therapy 8 times greater than Fukushima reactor in radiation dose
Radiation therapy patient = 2,000 mSv (typical)
Fukushima worker = 250 mSv (worst case)
Anti-nuke protesters are mad at you. Why aren’t you dead yet? Or at least turn into a mutant ninja turtle
http://static.diffen.com/uploadz/2/20/radiation.jpg
The natural load for a flight:
EFFECTIVE DOSE THROUGH HEIGHT RADIATION ON SELECTED FLIGHTS
Route Dose range * [μSv]
Frankfurt – Las Palmas de Gran Canaria 10 – 18
Frankfurt – Johannesburg 18 – 30
Frankfurt – New York 32-75
Frankfurt – Rio de Janeiro 17-28
Frankfurt – Rome 3 – 6
Frankfurt – San Francisco 45 – 110
Frankfurt – Santo Domingo (Dom. Rep.) 30 – 65
Frankfurt – Singapore 28 – 50
Frankfurt – Tokyo 45 – 110
-Dose depends on weather-
The fact that frequent flyers still are alive, one wonders directly.
In New York itself, the radiation exposure is the multiple, e.g. In Hong Kong.
As Fake³ News is produced in points of radiation exposure to the Pacific, this map shows the NOAA, which has been falsely shown in various alarmist portals as radioactive contamination of the Pacific. This is a map of the wave of the tsunami of Fukushima, which of course spread not only to the Japanese coast, but also to the American coast:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQzjj3v0dwevXQ1Gw9cbM7cqhgtDeAYH4LZXmANw7_zZhsIixk59A
Yes, that map was wrongly attributed to ocean radiation plumes. Genuine maps show it going north and east towards the US.
But it is unfortunately so: waves do not transport water.
It is the same as El Nino, which was often referred to be a water carrier from the West to the East Pacific. In the meantime, however, it is known that variation of the SSH depends not in the transport of water, but in the main in thermal expansion. Between El-Nino and La Nina there are only small water transports between the West and the East Pacific. Larger is the water transport in the north-south direction.
It can be assumed, for example, that the radioactive water of Fukushima either did not arrive at all in America or when it was not measurable.
The latest research also includes the idea of a well-known host system for the cure of many diseases: radon caves with radon contaminated air. In the meantime, it is known also in the field of school medicine: radioactivity up to 800 to 1000 m / sv is an advantage and not a disadvantage for health.
“It can be assumed, for example, that the radioactive water of Fukushima either did not arrive at all in America or when it was not measurable.”
It’s already been detected off the west coast. It will continue forever because the leakage continues.
In the lawsuit between Greenpeace and Resolute, Greenpeace’s defense is that they are not guilty because they bullshit and should not be taken seriously.
http://business.financialpost.com/news/greenpeace-admits-its-attacks-on-forest-products-giant-were-non-verifiable-statements-of-subjective-opinion/wcm/c80fcfa3-38c7-43a4-88a3-f9fc41e31232
The question is: do we encourage the false premise that we need to reduce atmospheric CO2 in order to sell NP?
No. That’s what Margaret thatcher did. Many people still advise that being truthful is the best long term option, because you never really know where your lies might lead you.
Most politicians can’t even look as far forward as the end of their political careers. The worst ones are those focused on “leaving a legacy” in the shortest possible amount of time. If you look at green activists they are, despite their words, often guilty of just the same short-termism: They want to save the world today by passing draconian laws, not tomorrow by becoming a scientist/engineer who might actually invent something useful after putting in the hard yards.
People today forget Greenpeace was founded to fight nuclear power.
What took you so long, robot?
Greenpeace misleads about virtually everything. They need to be sued out of existence when they engage in defamation……which is pretty much constant.
“Climate change is an energy problem.” No, it’s an imaginary one.
Actually, it is not a problem at all. Tell me the last time climate has not been changing.
Part of me doesn’t mind the nuke guys suffering a bit of rebound from their watermelon friends. Much of the early hype about global warming was pumped up by the nuclear industry to make the economics more favorable. But long term the only prime sources of power are nuclear and gravitational and only one of those is going to be practical for us to use for the foreseeable future, so taking the shackles off the nuke industry would be a refreshing change.
‘I Came, I Saw…’
“”It can be assumed, for example, that the radioactive water of Fukushima either did not arrive at all in America or when it was not measurable.”
It’s already been detected off the west coast. It will continue forever because the leakage continues.”
The fukusima radioisotopes in the water CANNOT be destinguished from background radiation(natural and above ground Nuke testing) after 27 years. 10 half lives of cesium-134.
FYI, the natural radiation(K-40) from your body (‘I came, I Saw…’) can be easily detected after 27 years, by an experienced rad control tech.
And now he came to the end of his fake name. He’s gone “I’ve come, I’ve seen ……. and in change: I’ve lost.
It is clear that natural radioactivity is higher in many places on Earth than in the vicinity of old nuclear power plants. Business travelers rely on their flights of high radiation exposure. However, I have not yet read a study that shows that these are particularly affected by diseases such as cancer and others. Man and with him his fellow-beings on earth has emerged with natural radiation from the earth under him and from the cosmos. It would be surprising from a physical point of view if he had not developed any antidote to radioactivity. But what is not to be armed is that every day a Fearmongerian and Scaremongerer stands up and tells the contrary, a completely radiantless time, on the earth. Before the evil people came, and, in addition to global warming, the atomic contamination of the earth had advanced. This fits the search for man’s guilt in AGW and in general this is a religious behavior. The man was to blame for his expulsion from paradise, he was to blame for Jesus’ death, and now he is also to blame for AGW and the atomic radiation. This, however, is religious behavior and has nothing to do with a scientific point of view
Appreciate if you could specify the the radioactivity limits of exposure under (1) natural radioactivity, (2) in the vicinity of old nuclear power plants – uranium mining – uranium processing plants – tail ponds, and (3) in flights. Such data will facilitate to discuss their impact on health.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I don’t understand your reasoning. It takes about 3-4 years for cesium to reach the US west coast from Japan. The half life is 30 years. The discharge of cesium from Fukushima into the Pacific hasn’t stopped, and will never stop. Therefore there will always be detectable cesium from Fukushima. You seem to think that it was a one-off event.
And btw most K40 is expelled from the body, not metabolized.
Correction: meant 2 year half life (134), not 30 years (137). That fingerprint has already been detected off of Oregon.
cuckoo, cuckoo…..
I came, I saw but did not understand, I wrote something unverifiable and internally self contradictory I made up, I left – more appropriate? How will Caesium of any sort “never stop” entering the sea from Fukushima? This was Ipso Fato a one off event. Fact denial is hardly a way to win credibility. The facts also are that the amounts involved were globally insignificant even vs safe levels off Japan. America is wholly unaffected by this. If the reactor isn’t working how will the flow “never stop”. How will all this new C2-137 be created w/o fission? What there is must also decay to undetectable. How will this be more than a one off event? Waste of keystrokes.
Natural Radiation Levels: Evacuation level at Fukushims 20 mSv pa, Chernobyl 6mSv pa.
Most cities and inhabited low lands 2mSv’ish pa. BUT:
SW France 85mSv pa, Ramsar Iran over 300mSv pa, Guardparil Beach and orher sin Brazil, up to 888 mSv pa , if you live on the beach. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvgAx1yIKjg
No epidemiological effects in any of these places, at levels way above the supposed danger level. Nuclear power stations rarely exhibit radiation levels above local natural background. Except Chernobyl and Fukushima, both of which are well below the higher natural levels around the world, before and after the evacuations.
Just the facts.
PS, If Plants consumed all the CO2 in our 95% CO2 early volcanic atmosphere, and consumed it right down to <1% to create our oxygen and nitrogen rich atmosphere, where they then maitained it through multiple disasters and REAL extinctions over 1 Billion years, how come they have suddenly lost their ability to maintain this equilibrium in climate model assumptions, that started of trying to blame CO2 by proving a statstistical correlation, not by actual detrministic science that proves/uses a law that is verifiable. Not possible.
Which is more likely? That plants will carry on maintaining the CO2 balance by greening up or down as they always have, so no significant lasting effect on atmospheric temperatures from CO2 from humans is likely, or the biased statistical models based on flawed assumptions that are not determinsitic science are right – and CO2 causes runaway climate change, for the first time on Earth, and quite unlike effects before Climate Models, when CO2 was correlated with temperature as a lagging indicator of ocean temperature, through the process of absorptions and desorption. To err is human, to really mess up takes a computer, and rubbish software. Climate science is obvious GIGO, if you can think for yourself.
Well said!