THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION. Since any random neutron could trigger a cancerous reaction in a cell, for example, there is no way to say “this is safe” in a categorical manner. We’re merely playing odds.
It is the cleanest running but produces some of the worst waste. Not just the metal, but all the secondary items “infected” by radiation.
Simon is right, parrotthead - you can’t wash off radiation.
I think we may need nuclear energy, but we can’t pretend it is a silver bullet. It isn’t - it has its costs and benefits like any other form of energy.
Also, note that Obama has made millions in loan guarantees available for new nuclear reactors, and NO INVESTORS WILL TOUCH IT. Note that when utilities say they think they might want a reactor, Wall Street downgrades their stock as risky.
Nuclear simply cannot compete in a free market.
Despite this vastly bigger socialized government involvement for nuclear (like the entire department of Energy and a promise that the government will socialize all risk), solar and wind are much, much cheaper than nuclear.
Actually, neither radioactivity nor dirt can be washed off completely. We notice the radioactivity because it’s detectable in extremely small quantities.
MM: Don’t forget that our environment is naturally abundant in radioactivity and radiation (two different things): carbon-14 and radon in the air, potassium-40 and other radionuclides in the ground, cosmic rays from space, etc., etc. We already accept these sources as “safe,” as well as medical x-rays and other things most people don’t know about (like Coleman gas lantern mantles, which (may) contain thorium-232).
I’m not defending the nuclear energy industry. In addition to safety concerns, uranium is no more a renewable resource than oil; its only advantage is its smaller carbon footprint.
Prof, I am fully aware that our environment has much radioactivity and radiation about - I recall a flack from Duke Power explaining to my high school class that the radiation from Three Mile Island is higher than the background radiation in some parts of the world high in the appropriate ores. My answer to him: that doesn’t mean it is safe, that only means that some places are naturally higher in radioactivity.
Perhaps I should have said “absolutely safe.” The things you cite we consider to be “acceptably safe” – meaning most people probably won’t die from it. But did you know that radium watches were phased out forty years ago?
I guess that my job as a decontamination operator was a sham.
We live only because of radiation from a great fusion plant in the sky called the sun. Without it we would all die. Radiation is in everything we use, eat, drink or even think about. Levels considered safe are several times the natural radiation levels of where you may live.
As I said the other day, more people have died “before their time” from coal than have died from all atomic accidents, bombs, whatever, but we are more afraid of atomic energy because of lack of education.
The Radium Girls are one more example of the need for a government to protect us from Big Business and of the need for labor unions to help protect workers.
baslim, my irritation is with those claiming radiation is safe, or, as Ann Coulter said, that it is “good for you.” This is utter, contemptible nonsense. As I have said, I think nuclear power may well be necessary and manageable, but being a Pollyanna about the dangers is naive at best, dangerous at worst. (Especially when the encouragement of nuclear power distracts us from other nonpolluting possibilities that we also need to use.) If you had read my second post, you would have realized that I do think there is acceptable risk, but it is a qualitatively different risk than that of other sources of power, and one that must be addressed differently. When some of the byproducts remain hazardous for fifty to a hundred thousand years, you have a different category of problem than you do with other pollutants - which is not to say that I approve of other pollutants, either!
Incidentally, you cannot “wash off radiation” - you can wash off the outer layers which have picked up secondary radiation, that is, the molecules that have picked up additional neutrons, etc., but that is not washing off the radiation. Let’s be clear here.
I’ve been following fusion research for just about as long. I think we need to dedicate serious effort – Manhattan Project level effort, if necessary – to establish whether it is practical or not. And unfortunately I think it is necessary.
As for radium: it’s extremely dangerous stuff, and was overused in commercial items (radium water, for God’s sake), among them watches. The danger is more if you broke the crystal and/or ingested any accidentally, but why use something that dangerous just to make your watch hands glow? (Though if you Google around, you can find old watches with the crystals darkened by the radiation!)
Too many people confuse radioactive contamination with radiation. Radiation is energy in the form of light, heat, x-rays, or alpha, beta and gamma rays. Contamination is the presence of radioactive particles in an undesirable location, such as on tools, clothing, skin or lungs.
The only reason we are able to survive on this little ball of cosmic dust is because we are constantly bombarded with radiation from our Sun. There is natural radiation constantly being emitted from granite and marble mountain deposits and from urban buildings, Coal acts like a sponge for radionuclides and releases huge amounts of radiation when the coal is burned. There is natural radiation from radon, cesium and other elements in our environment and man-made radiation from fire places and x-rays.
Yes, radiation is a concern. Too much exposure to the Sun’s radiation can cause skin cancer; excessive exposure to x-rays could cause cancer (as happened to Mme. Curie); exposure to intense thermal radiation (heat) can cause death. But without any radiation, we would all freeze and die.
People’s concern with nuclear radiation stems from elemental radioactive contamination on dust or water particles. Contaminated particles on non-porous surfaces (including skin) can, indeed, be washed off, captured and contained. Radioactive contamination on porous surfaces (cloth, plants, broken skin) is much harder to scrub out, and is therefore more of a concern. But the real problem comes when contamination is ingested or inhaled into one’s body where the radiation can interact with sensitive tissues and organs and is very difficult or impossible to flush out. This is why there is such concern with contamination on food (spinach) and milk. If the radioactive contamination gets inside your body, it’s yours to keep.
Thus, radiation may or may not be a concern, but radioactive materials should always be safely handled and managed. The worst concern for me isn’t spent fuel from nuclear power plants; it’s the discarded x-ray sources from hospitals and dentists offices that are handled and stored much more casually. People are also conerned about the long decay times for radiaoactive materials to “cool down”. This is, indeed, a concern and is why we need a well-engineered and protected storage facility like Yucca Mountain in Nevada and WIPP in New Mexico. But radioactivity is hardly the only source of pollution that can pose environmental problems for many, many years. The majority of the EPA Superfund cleanup sites are dealing with chemical pollution from oil and chemical refineries, mining and manufacturing, rather than radioactive materials.
grapfhics over 13 years ago
a little six sigma wouldn’t hurt.
parrotthead2009 over 13 years ago
The pollution can be washed off, just like dirt.
Simon_Jester over 13 years ago
^No it can’t. Once radiation gets in, it cannot be removed.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
Dear God, can we get some education here?
THERE IS NO SAFE LEVEL OF RADIATION. Since any random neutron could trigger a cancerous reaction in a cell, for example, there is no way to say “this is safe” in a categorical manner. We’re merely playing odds. It is the cleanest running but produces some of the worst waste. Not just the metal, but all the secondary items “infected” by radiation. Simon is right, parrotthead - you can’t wash off radiation. I think we may need nuclear energy, but we can’t pretend it is a silver bullet. It isn’t - it has its costs and benefits like any other form of energy.ARodney over 13 years ago
Also, note that Obama has made millions in loan guarantees available for new nuclear reactors, and NO INVESTORS WILL TOUCH IT. Note that when utilities say they think they might want a reactor, Wall Street downgrades their stock as risky.
Nuclear simply cannot compete in a free market.
Despite this vastly bigger socialized government involvement for nuclear (like the entire department of Energy and a promise that the government will socialize all risk), solar and wind are much, much cheaper than nuclear.
Prof_Bleen over 13 years ago
Actually, neither radioactivity nor dirt can be washed off completely. We notice the radioactivity because it’s detectable in extremely small quantities.
MM: Don’t forget that our environment is naturally abundant in radioactivity and radiation (two different things): carbon-14 and radon in the air, potassium-40 and other radionuclides in the ground, cosmic rays from space, etc., etc. We already accept these sources as “safe,” as well as medical x-rays and other things most people don’t know about (like Coleman gas lantern mantles, which (may) contain thorium-232).
I’m not defending the nuclear energy industry. In addition to safety concerns, uranium is no more a renewable resource than oil; its only advantage is its smaller carbon footprint.
charliekane over 13 years ago
The electric may be out,but you can read evening newspper by the light of a mackeral…
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
^Or from the blue light of a super-critical mass.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
Prof, I am fully aware that our environment has much radioactivity and radiation about - I recall a flack from Duke Power explaining to my high school class that the radiation from Three Mile Island is higher than the background radiation in some parts of the world high in the appropriate ores. My answer to him: that doesn’t mean it is safe, that only means that some places are naturally higher in radioactivity. Perhaps I should have said “absolutely safe.” The things you cite we consider to be “acceptably safe” – meaning most people probably won’t die from it. But did you know that radium watches were phased out forty years ago?
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
And as for me, I think we should aim at fusion, which, if practical, would give us a LOT more time…
Justice22 over 13 years ago
I guess that my job as a decontamination operator was a sham. We live only because of radiation from a great fusion plant in the sky called the sun. Without it we would all die. Radiation is in everything we use, eat, drink or even think about. Levels considered safe are several times the natural radiation levels of where you may live.
As I said the other day, more people have died “before their time” from coal than have died from all atomic accidents, bombs, whatever, but we are more afraid of atomic energy because of lack of education.
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
CHURCH: Oh? Read about “the Radium Girls”?
BrianCrook over 13 years ago
The Radium Girls are one more example of the need for a government to protect us from Big Business and of the need for labor unions to help protect workers.
Jaedabee Premium Member over 13 years ago
XKCD - Radiation Dose Chart http://xkcd.com/radiation/
Motivemagus over 13 years ago
baslim, my irritation is with those claiming radiation is safe, or, as Ann Coulter said, that it is “good for you.” This is utter, contemptible nonsense. As I have said, I think nuclear power may well be necessary and manageable, but being a Pollyanna about the dangers is naive at best, dangerous at worst. (Especially when the encouragement of nuclear power distracts us from other nonpolluting possibilities that we also need to use.) If you had read my second post, you would have realized that I do think there is acceptable risk, but it is a qualitatively different risk than that of other sources of power, and one that must be addressed differently. When some of the byproducts remain hazardous for fifty to a hundred thousand years, you have a different category of problem than you do with other pollutants - which is not to say that I approve of other pollutants, either! Incidentally, you cannot “wash off radiation” - you can wash off the outer layers which have picked up secondary radiation, that is, the molecules that have picked up additional neutrons, etc., but that is not washing off the radiation. Let’s be clear here. I’ve been following fusion research for just about as long. I think we need to dedicate serious effort – Manhattan Project level effort, if necessary – to establish whether it is practical or not. And unfortunately I think it is necessary. As for radium: it’s extremely dangerous stuff, and was overused in commercial items (radium water, for God’s sake), among them watches. The danger is more if you broke the crystal and/or ingested any accidentally, but why use something that dangerous just to make your watch hands glow? (Though if you Google around, you can find old watches with the crystals darkened by the radiation!)
Dtroutma over 13 years ago
Project “plowshare” did some interesting things.
Bluejayz over 13 years ago
Too many people confuse radioactive contamination with radiation. Radiation is energy in the form of light, heat, x-rays, or alpha, beta and gamma rays. Contamination is the presence of radioactive particles in an undesirable location, such as on tools, clothing, skin or lungs.
The only reason we are able to survive on this little ball of cosmic dust is because we are constantly bombarded with radiation from our Sun. There is natural radiation constantly being emitted from granite and marble mountain deposits and from urban buildings, Coal acts like a sponge for radionuclides and releases huge amounts of radiation when the coal is burned. There is natural radiation from radon, cesium and other elements in our environment and man-made radiation from fire places and x-rays.
Yes, radiation is a concern. Too much exposure to the Sun’s radiation can cause skin cancer; excessive exposure to x-rays could cause cancer (as happened to Mme. Curie); exposure to intense thermal radiation (heat) can cause death. But without any radiation, we would all freeze and die.
People’s concern with nuclear radiation stems from elemental radioactive contamination on dust or water particles. Contaminated particles on non-porous surfaces (including skin) can, indeed, be washed off, captured and contained. Radioactive contamination on porous surfaces (cloth, plants, broken skin) is much harder to scrub out, and is therefore more of a concern. But the real problem comes when contamination is ingested or inhaled into one’s body where the radiation can interact with sensitive tissues and organs and is very difficult or impossible to flush out. This is why there is such concern with contamination on food (spinach) and milk. If the radioactive contamination gets inside your body, it’s yours to keep.
Thus, radiation may or may not be a concern, but radioactive materials should always be safely handled and managed. The worst concern for me isn’t spent fuel from nuclear power plants; it’s the discarded x-ray sources from hospitals and dentists offices that are handled and stored much more casually. People are also conerned about the long decay times for radiaoactive materials to “cool down”. This is, indeed, a concern and is why we need a well-engineered and protected storage facility like Yucca Mountain in Nevada and WIPP in New Mexico. But radioactivity is hardly the only source of pollution that can pose environmental problems for many, many years. The majority of the EPA Superfund cleanup sites are dealing with chemical pollution from oil and chemical refineries, mining and manufacturing, rather than radioactive materials.