eugene laylon said:

are you ****ing people nuts have you ever read stories about people that have cancer from tmi and animals born with birth defects

I don’t live near TMI and yet I know people who have cancer and some who have died of it. Go figure. If you look around TMI, I’m sure you’ll find plenty of people with horrible painful stories of their struggle against cancer, because if you look around ANYWHERE you’ll find plenty of people with horrible painful stories of their struggle against cancer.

My great grandfather died of cancer years before the first nuclear reactor ever went critical.

There are birth defects in animals (and humans) everywhere and always have been. Some are genetic and a few of those might be mutation-related, but many are due to things like folic acid deficiency.

Do you realize that there are literally hundreds of thousands of human births each year that suffer from some form of cleft lip and/or pallet? There always have been, although there are less now than ever before. One in a couple thousand births has hydrocephalus – again, always has been that way.

Of course, it’s even more common in animals which breed faster and don’t get the same degree of prenatal care. There have been conjoined twin calves, two-headed sheep, goats with two feet on each leg and so on and they have been reported for hundreds, if not thousands of years!

        eugene laylon said:

are you ****ing people nuts have you ever read stories about people that have cancer from tmi and animals born with birth defects,**** nuclear…

Nice try, Eugene, but everyone knows it was you. Your mom told you not to eat … what you ate … but would you listen? Na-O-O-oh!

        tfrab said:

Hi, I tried to sent an e-mail to your web address, but I’m receiving DNS errors. I understand it’s not a proper use of comments, but I’d like to ask you a couple things about this video:

I switched the server recently to accommodate some additional CGI and bandwidth. Whenever this happens there’s a period of time when the DNS needs to be updated. Ideally it should update the major DNS servers in a couple of hours and be complete to all DNS systems in a day.

That might be what happened so you can try again.

I don’t speak a word of Italian so I’ll go on what you tell me…

Yes, tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen and C-14 is carbon 14. Both might be produced in very minute amounts in a nuclear power plant but would be hardly detectable in the plant and not detectable outside the plant in almost any circumstance.

Carbon-14 is a natural radioisotope which is produced when a nitrogen atom is struck by a neutron. Most of the the carbon-14 in the world is produced by cosmic rays in the upper atmosphere. It’s found in all organic materials and is what is used for radiocarbon dating. A reactor would not generate any carbon-14 worth mentioning unless it were using nitrogen in the core. This is occasionally found in some reactors. The first generation of CANDU reactors had a nitrogen gas system and some pebblebed reactors (like the Addam’s Atomic Engine) propose using nitrogen. But in a standard reactor, there’d be no C-14 to really speak of.

In reactors that do have a system that might produce C-14 there’s almost always a trap to collect it and stop it from staying in the gas system and possibly leaking out. But the PWR’s used in France shouldn’t have this issue at all.

Still, I’m sure there is plenty of carbon-14 in the area if you take anything to a laboratory and test for it. Like I said it’s everywhere and found in all organic materials.

Now as for the tritium – tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. Tritium is usually produced by bombarding lithium-6 with neutrons. This is how it’s made when it’s being made intentionally for luminious dial watches, isotopic labeling of drugs and all the other uses of tritium.

However, tritium is also occasionally produced by the interaction of a neutron with a deuterium atom. Deuterium is hydrogen-2. The neutron cross section of a deuterium atom is very very small. So when a neutron strikes deuterium, it will almost never bind to it. Only once in a blue moon does it actually attach and become tritium.

A light water reactor uses water that is less than one half of one percent deuterium. So combine that with the low cross section and the tritium content is absolutely minuscule. You could drink the coolant water and you wouldn’t have to worry about tritium poisoning.

Heavy water reactors like CANDU reactors do create some tritium because their coolant has a lot of deuterium in it. But even in a CANDU reactor, the amount is relatively small and most of them have a system to continuously remove it from the coolant.

But in any case, neither would be present in any but the most minuscule amounts from the reactor and even if so, they wouldn’t be released in any significant amounts.

That number could be any number of things: REM’s, Roentgens, RAD’s, Seirvett’s, Barquettes, MicroRoentgens, MilliRoentgens, Millirem or some other dose unit per hour. Normally dosimetry is measured in a per hour interval.

But… as I look at the device, it looks to me like it might actually be measuring none of the above but rather counts as in counts per second or counts per minute

That basically means the number of times the detector detects a photon or a particle per a given unit of time. It’s the pulse rate of the detector. But the thing about this is that it is meaningless except for comparison to the same detector unit. It all depends on the sensitivity of the detector.

For example, I could have a simple side-window Geiger counter probe and measure 20 counts per minute in a given area. Then if I switch the probe to a more sensitive pancake-style probe, I measure 300 counts per minute. Then if I switch again to a big scintillation detector I measure 4000 counts per minute. It’s simply that the detector is more sensitive.

So it only matters in reference to the detector in question. So I have no idea what it means other than it is implying that the area around the plant is 4-5 times greater in radioactivity, in terms of counts, than the area around it. This is not entirely unusual simply due to background changes, if you take a geiger counter around an area, you’ll find hot spots when you get near certain rock formations and then low readings in other areas.

But there’s another thing to consider: Time constant. Most Geiger counters have a time constant setting to them. The time constant represents the time sample for a given rate reading. The time constant can matter a lot, especially if you’re only showing quick shots of the counter.

Remember: Counts are basically random. They’re not entirely constant. So if you have a given sample being read it won’t click continuously. It’ll sometimes get a burst of three or four clicks in rapid succession and then be quiet for a bit and then get a couple more.

The reading means number of pulses/time – but it’s an average. If you set the time constant really fast then the meter jumps all over the place. That’s because it’s dividing the pulse number by very small amounts of time. So it will go from zero to 1000 cpm and back again with each pulse. It looks to me like they have a relatively short time constant on there, so you’d expect some dramatic fluxuations in the reading. One second it’ll read 200 and the next 20 and then next 300 and the next second 0. It’s fine if you average them all out.

But notice something: They only cut into the shot of the meeter face very briefly. Suspicious???

        tfrab said:

Hi, 1. They say, at the minute 4.10, that the Plant release in the air radioactive gases, such as “Tritium” and “C14″. I find hard to understand what they mean exactly. Do you have a clue?
2. At minute 4.43 they show a kind of Geiger counter. It appears that the natural background is 50 (50 what?) and, near the power plant, rises up to 200-250. So they argue that it’s dangerous.

Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen. The nucleus of tritium contains one proton and two neutrons, compared to normal hydrogen which has only one proton. It is a by-product of nuclear fission in most reactors. Although much is made of its release in antinuclear circles. the truth is that if it is vented to the outside atmosphere it nominally rises to altitudes outside of the biosphere very swiftly.

C14 would be the isotope carbon 14 if it was released as a gas then it would have to have been in the form of CO2, but how this relates to this situation is unclear. My Italian is limited to the ability to order food and drink.

As for the Geiger counter readings 200-250 CPM is well within the boundary for natural radiation depending on where you are and it varies considerably over time as can be seen here

http://www.digistar.com/boston/

This video isn’t saying anything of value.

While you are right to some extent – and we have talked about solar hot water and such in the past – collectively these are a drop in the bucket in terms of the amount of electric energy needed to run our civilization, In the end it’s all a mater of numbers, and none of these, even the better ones can carry us forward. Ultimately when megawatts are needed they have to come from sources that can produce them and to do so with technology like solar-thermal, wave/tide and geothermal one has to build huge plants on the scale of that other successful renewable hydro, and this is not good for the local environment at all.

One of the real benefits of nuclear reactors is that they have a very small footprint for the amount of power they can produce.

Their are some REALLY smart and cheap “renewable” things that can be done – but the current plans to too wind and solar focused.

Solar heating is MUCH more effecent then solar electric and it directly offsets combustion which is very ineffeicent at a individual home level. If you can raise the temp of a house by even 10 degress have you greatly reduced the energy demand.

Solar hot water is also a no-brainer. Even if you cant get 105 degree water from the sun you might raise the temp from 50 to 80 degrees which is a HUGE energy input.

Solar panels on roofs will not save the planet – not now and not ever. It is a hippy pipedream.

Solar concentration to run a boiler does displace natural gas use now in parts of the Southwest and thier is room for more – but it is not worth doing north of Las Vegas (too little sun in the winter).

Tidal energy might have a future of some sort.

I live a few miles from the largest geothermal field in the US and I can tell you they make a lot of electrons up there.

Like anything you have to pic the techologies that WORK and dump the ones that don’t. Solar electric is a looser big time – it does not pencil out.

        Bruce said:

Nothing?? That doesn’t make sense, are you saying these don’t produce any power at all? I mean I know, you guys think the variability of wind and solar make them hard to harness, but are you arguing they don’t on average produce energy. If you have enough of them, that has to be some reliable supply. I mean, that’s a pretty big claim, that it has no results, I haven’t seen any proof of that!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032301350.html

Also, the total, is closer to ,b>210 Billion for Obama’s subsidies to renewable energy. That’s got to be enough to get some good results. Also, I don’t think these comparisons with spain make sense, because their economy has been grown a lot, so of course they get higher CO2 output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Spain

Bruce,
No amount of money can change the laws of physics. That money spent will do nothing to resolve energy issues and in fact will just make them worse. I once read a report of how a small wind farm nearly took the entire European grid down all the way from Antwerp where the problems started due to a scheduled shutdown of a trunk line and the misbehaving wind farm to Moscow and Bosnia. Look, electricity grids are like water systems with no reservoirs. Everything that flows in has to flow out. Demand has to be met with supply. I’ve visited the CL&P headquarters where they maintain the grid for New England and it’s a delicate balancing act meeting demand with supply. That’s why power companies want reliability over anything else. This is the renewable’s Achilles heel. 210 Billion, a trillion or all the money in the world will not make the wind blow at a steady constant rate and make the sky cloudless and sunny. Until that happens the renewables will be a pipe dream. That money would far better be returned to us the taxpayers to spend or save in our own best interest. That would free up the freedom to innovate that has solved our problems in the past. Big government just flushes the money down the toilet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FotHJvRClPc

It’s an italian TV show, talking about a French Nuclear Power Plant.

1. They say, at the minute 4.10, that the Plant release in the air radioactive gases, such as “Tritium” and “C14″. I find hard to understand what they mean exactly. Do you have a clue?
2. At minute 4.43 they show a kind of Geiger counter. It appears that the natural background is 50 (50 what?) and, near the power plant, rises up to 200-250. So they argue that it’s dangerous.

I find hard to understant exactly what they mean. I’m a chemist, but I have no particular expertise in nuclear field. Anyway I’m pissed off by this show: I suspect they’re manipulating facts, but I lack the knowledge to prove this. May you help me, please?

Thank you

        Bruce said:

Nothing?? That doesn’t make sense, are you saying these don’t produce any power at all? I mean I know, you guys think the variability of wind and solar make them hard to harness, but are you arguing they don’t on average produce energy. If you have enough of them, that has to be some reliable supply. I mean, that’s a pretty big claim, that it has no results, I haven’t seen any proof of that!

They produce some power, but saying that they produce “no useful power” or “no net power gain” is for all intents and purposes factually accurate. Within the context of the variability, the needs of the power grid and factoring in the costs in terms of money that could be spent elsewhere, economic impacts leading to less money to be spent on other projects, their construction materials, the need to maintain them etc etc their net power production is approximately zero – or in some circumstances, less than zero.

If you want to be technical about it, a perfectly accurate way of saying it might be to say “their impact is often negative and when positive it is negligible”

By negligible I mean so tiny it’s not even worth considering. It’s like the difference in fuel economy you get in your car after buffing the hood with some wax. In theory there should be small decrease in the friction of air molecules against the surface if it is smoother. But will you ever see a noticable difference? No, of course not. In fact, the change is so tiny that you might even lose a tiny amount of fuel effeciency if the wax adds a few grams of weight to the car or ever so slightly reduces the cooling effeciency of the engine.

I might point out that button cell batteries like the one in a wristwatch also produce power, but nobody is saying those should be hooked to the power grid in mass because they’re so tiny you’d never notice even the slightest effect.

Of course button cell batteries are good at powering things like handheld calculators… which is also something solar energy is good at. Both have their place, but they’re equally useless as a foundation of energy policy.

        Bruce said:

Nothing?? That doesn’t make sense, are you saying these don’t produce any power at all? I mean I know, you guys think the variability of wind and solar make them hard to harness, but are you arguing they don’t on average produce energy. If you have enough of them, that has to be some reliable supply. I mean, that’s a pretty big claim, that it has no results, I haven’t seen any proof of that!

They produce power, although almost always less than what they are rated for, but the real issue is something called ’spinning reserve’ . This is the electrical generation that must be on hand to absorb the fluctuation in output that wind and solar suffer from, and to guarantee that a certain amount of power will be available for dispatch when the grid calls for it.

To accomplish this all of these renewable plants must have a reliable generator running in parallel, and in most cases these are the fossil-fuel plants that they were supposed to replace. As a consiquence there has been in places like Germany, (which burns a lot of coal) no net reduction in CO2 production as the coal burning plants must be kept at hot idle, or natural gas generators need to be used to deal with the intermittent flow from the renewable sources.

This is the unfortunate truth of the mater, and the proof comes from analyzing posted numbers from industry and government sources that show no net benefit from renewable energy. Unfortunately, physics bats last.