Learning About Energy

How Are Permissible Radiation Limits Set?

[This is an up-date on some previous discussions we've had here]

How Much Is Science, How Much “Prudence”?

U.S. Regulatory Report NCRP-136 examined the question of establishing  permissible radiation limits.  After looking at the data, it concluded that most people who get a small dose of nuclear radiation are not harmed by it, and in fact are benefited.  That’s what the science said:  Most people would benefit by receiving more radiation. 

But curiously, the report’s final conclusion was just the opposite.  It recommended that our regulations should be based on the premise that any amount of radiation, no matter how small, should be considered harmful.  It made that recommendation just to be “conservative” or “prudent.”

Let’s think about that.  Why is it prudent do just the opposite of what the science indicates?  Why is exaggerating a panicky situation considered prudent?  I’ve never seen a good answer to that question.  Whatever the reasoning, that’s where we’ve ended up.

We’ve had three uncontrolled releases of radioactivity from serious malfunctions of nuclear power plants: Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima.  In each of these, fear of radiation proved to be much more harmful than the effects of radiation itself.  And announcing that no amount of radiation is small enough to be harmless was certainly effective in creating and nurturing phobic fear of radiation, when none was justified by the facts.

In addition, the problem is aggravated by the fact that we’ve been told for sixty years (two human generations) that nuclear terror is infinitely more dreadful than any non-nuclear threat, particularly when you blur the distinction between power plants and bombs.

But what Fukushima tells us is that this abstract, academic position looks very different when you’re telling people they can’t go home – perhaps for years, because, well, it seems more prudent that way, even though radiation hasn’t actually hurt anyone there.

Radiation expert Professor Wade Allison, author of “Radiation and Reason,” has cast the question in a new light.  He suggests, let’s set the permissible radiation limit the same way we set all other safety limits.  Not by asking how little radiation we can get by with, but how much can we safely permit?  There’s no intention of lowering the safety margin, and it will not be lowered.  That’s not the issue.  It’s a matter of working with the scientific data, rather than from a generic fear not supported by the science.

Prof. Allison concludes that setting the permissible radiation limit, with a good margin of safety, results in an annual permissible level about 1000 times the current figure.

To see a brief video of Prof. Allison’s talk to the Japanese people, click on:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj8Pl1AiOuA&feature=youtu.be

 

Ted Rockwell

A Plea for Common Sense on Fukushima

 

New lessons are beginning to emerge from Fukushima.  Each new concern leads to additional safety requirements.  But some contradictions are beginning to raise questions:  Amid tens of thousands of deaths from non-nuclear causes, not a single life-shortening radiation injury has occurred.  Not one!  And while some people in the housing area are wearing cumbersome rad-con suits, filtered gas-masks, gloves and booties, there are many people living carefree in other places like Norway, Brazil, Iran, India where folks have lived normal lives for countless generations with radiation levels as much as a hundred times greater than forbidden areas of the Fukushima homes.

At Fukushima this is no abstract issue.  People are being told they cannot return home for an indeterminate period – perhaps years.  And efforts to decontaminate their home sites may require stripping off all the rich top-soil and calling it RadWaste.  People who were evacuated have been reduced to economic poverty, clinical depression, and even suicide.

There is good scientific evidence that, except for some hot spots, the radiation levels at these home-sites are not life-threatening.  The current restrictions are based on a desire to be “conservative.”  No matter how well intended, this “conservatism” is cruelly destructive.  The respected radiation authority Wade Allison, author of Radiation and Reason, has proposed that the current annual radiation dose limit be raised 1000-fold, which he says is still well below the hazard level of clinical data on which he bases his proposal.  Other radiation protectionists are beginning to feel unhappy about the harm their rules have caused and are joining in the cry for quick action as the Japanese head into winter.

It’s time that the draconian measures be revoked.  A simple declaration of the known health facts about radiation from the proper authorities would be a good first step.

      Ted Rockwell

An Interactive Course on Nuclear Power by NYT's Matt Wald,

I just got some news that I expect many of you will want to follow up on.  Have you ever wished you could argue with NY Times reporter, Matt Wald, about one of his articles on nuclear energy?  Well, soon you will have that opportunity, and more.  I just received the following news, which I will pass on to you:

NUCLEAR ENERGY
New York Times’ Matt Wald Teaches New Online Course

America is looking for electricity that is clean, safe, and cheap. Where does nuclear power fit in? For those who want to explore the history and prospects of nuclear technology, The New York Times presents “Nuclear Energy <http://www.nytimesknownow.com/index.php/nuclear-power/> ,” an interactive two-week course led by Matt Wald, a Times correspondent who has covered the industry’s ups and downs for 30 years.

The course includes extensive background materials and opportunities for oral and written Q&A with Matt Wald. “Nuclear Energy” will cover a variety of topics and issues, including:

• The history of the nuclear industry
• Recent advances in nuclear technology and the future of nuclear power
• Financial incentives for transitioning to nuclear energy and implications for the coal industry
  

“Nuclear Energy” will run from February 15-28, 2011. To register for this new online course or for more information, please visit: http://www.nytimesknownow.com/index.php/nuclear-power/.
 
This Program of Study <http://www.nytimesknownow.com/index.php/category/type/new-york-times-type/>  course is part of the New York Times Knowledge Network, which is open to consumers nationwide. Programs of Study courses, developed and taught by New York Times journalists or professional staff, cover a variety of topics and are delivered online. Students can select any number of these courses: to stand alone, or be taken as a sequence.

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000149 EndHTML:0000000804 StartFragment:0000000199 EndFragment:0000000770 StartSelection:0000000199 EndSelection:0000000770

Katherine Morrison
Assistant Account Executive
Goodman Media International, Inc.
750 7th Avenue, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10019
tel: 212-576-2700 ext. 238
fax: 212-576-2701
kmorrison@goodmanmedia.com
www.goodmanmedia.com <http://www.goodmanmedia.com> 

Only nuclear advocates would work so hard to hurt themselves

People  ask me, "Where does all that nuclear subsidy money go?  I've never seen any of it."  Well, some of it goes to research that may or may not have an impact on the real world.  But more of it goes for  activities that nobody but a nuclear advocate would think up.  No other community, with such a commendable record for safety and reliability, would keep thinking up ways to make themselves look bad.  Nukies themselves started it with the Price-Anderson Act, which assumes that only nuclear power could suffer an accident so horrendous that it would overwhelm all the resources of the world's insurance companies and require the government to cover the losses.  Then, they set up a program that involved several nations in a coordinated, billion-dollar  research effort over several decades, to determine the consequences of the worst realistic accident or terrorist act.  That program proved that the worst we could expect would result in "few if any deaths off-site."  In other words, there is no substantive basis for the Price-Anderson Act. 

"You don't understand," I'm told.  "We need that law so that, in case of an accident, people don't sue the supplier of every little widget in the plant."  Well, we shouldn't have to create an apocalyptic myth to accomplish that simple task.  What I do understand is, that the tougher and more mysterious a task is, the more grant money you get.

But the topper is this one:  When Bill Richardson was Secretary of Energy, a council of economists was set up (yes, economists!) that studied "some previously discredited reports" (their words) by people like Ernest Sternglass, Steven Wing, and Alice Stewart.  Despite valid evidence to the contrary, they decided that radiation was killing workers in DOE facilities and persons living as far as several hundred miles downwind of A-Bomb tests.  Richardson made great publicity from this, stating that although his predecessors had covered up this information, he was going to compensate these "cold war heroes" for their involuntary suffering.  He then sent out teams of eager investigators to visit retirement communities and old age homes, and ask former nuclear employees there if they were suffering from any health symptoms.  If any of the symptoms could possibly be attributed to the radiation they were exposed to fifty years previous,  they were urged to apply for the new program, where they would get a minimum of $150,000. 

I don't know whether these bounty-hunters had a quota, or were rewarded for bringing in large numbers of "victims," but there were several consequences from this program.  The congresspeople who voted to hand out this largess gained support from this new special interest group, but the "victims" themselves were generally  turned down when the facts were examined, because the radiation levels in question were not significantly above the natural background and other radiation sources we all encounter in daily living.  Despite this, the taxpayers were still tapped for over a billion dollars so far, with more to come.  And the nuclear enterprise was labeled by Congress an "ultra-hazardous activity" despite insurance statistics to the contrary.  I presume that the money spent in this program is included in "subsidies to nuclear" to compare with subsidies to wind, solar, and other energy sources.

Now, I learn that there is a move by some senators to lower the eligibility barrier still further, to admit greater numbers of "victims."   

And this is just ONE example.  There's the case of a critic asking about terrorist-driven aircraft, right after 9/11.  The nuclear spokesman replied that we had never previously considered such a problem.  When a number of us pointed out that, in fact, the issue of aircraft collisions has been specifically dealt with, our spokesman replied, yes, but we had not thought about terrorist-driven aircraft.  

Do you know any other industry that pays so much to shoot itself in the foot?

Radiation is not THAT special!

Despite our detailed knowledge of the subject, nuclear technology still suffers from a belief that it is more dangerous than anything else--by an immeasurable amount.  This provides extra income for workers in the field, but it loads an unreasonable burden on its economic future.  This problem is well illustrated by a few paragraphs in the book, "Prescription for the Planet" by Tom Blees, on the discharge of radioactive materials from power plants.  Tom has agreed to let me quote those words here.  I commend them to your thoughtful consideration.  This is an exact quote, but I won't encumber each paragraph below with quote marks.

• A typical power plant annually releases 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of fissile U-235...and 12.8 tons of thorium) 
• Total U.S. releases for 1982 came to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of U-235) and 1971 tons of thorium.
• Worldwide releases totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of (U-235) and 8960 tons of thorium...

By the year 2040, cumulative releases of radioactive materials from these plants will have reached the following levels:

• U.S. releases: 145,230 tons of uranium ( including 1031 tons of U-235) and 357,491 tons of thorium.
• World releases: 828,632 tons of uranium (including 5883 tons of U-235) and over two million tons of thorium.
• "Daughter products" produced by the decay of these isotopes include radium, radon, polonium, bismuth and lead.

Why is this not splashed all over the front pages?  Who in their right mind can consider this acceptable?

[And then Blees springs his punchline, citing a well-known report by Alex Gabbard of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory  (Feb 5, 2008)] : These are the radioactive release figures for coal-fired power plants!

Population exposure to radiation from coal-burning power plants is over a hundred times higher than anything conceivably coming out of nuclear power plants...[and then Blees quotes Gabbard:]

"Large quantities of uranium and thorium and other radioactive species in coal ash are not being treated as radioactive waste.  These products emit low-level radiation, but because of regulatory differences, coal-fired power plants are allowed to release quantities of radioactive material that would provoke enormous public outcry if such amounts were released from nuclear facilities.  Nuclear waste products from coal combustion are allowed to be dispersed throughout the biosphere in an unregulated manner.  Collected nuclear wastes that accumulate on [coal-fired] electric utility sites are not protected from weathering, thus exposing people to increasing quantities of radioactive isotopes through air and water movement and the food chain."

[Blees continues:]  If this isn't crazy enough for you, ponder this little factoid: The energy content of the nuclear materials released into the environment in the course of coal combustion is greater than the energy of the coal that is being consumed.  In other words, coal consumption actually wastes more energy than it produces...[End of Blees quote.]

The important point here is NOT that the radiation from coal combustion is a public health problem.  It is not.  (Inhalation of the soot particles, production of acid rain, release of mercury, etc. are another story) But radiation from burning coal is not a hazard.  And thus, treating radiation released from nuclear plants, which is at least 100 times lower, as a problem, is not scientifically defensible, and concern over radiation release from nuclear plants is not rational.

How fast can we build new reactors?

There has been a lot of speculating and theorizing about how few new nuclear power plants one can realistically plan on completing per year.  The more the matter is pondered, the less capable we seem to become.  So, in line with my policy of tackling political and theoretical questions by drawing on events in the real world, let's look at what we actually produced in the Naval Reactors program, in building the first, large-scale power reactors, first for ship propulsion, and then for the world's first fully commercial nuclear power station under President Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace Program. .

Download NR KeyDates

Yes, today we lack much of the manufacturing capability we had then, but we had almost none of the relevant knowledge and materials, and none of the experience.  Without arguing the point, can't we get some inspiration from what we demonstrated could be done, with enough determination and organizational skill?  That's what the French did, after the OPEC oil embargo of 1973.  They decided to go nearly all nuclear, and they just did it.  They did it safely and reliably, and they've been selling nuclear electricity at a profit ever since.

We Tackled this Question 36 years ago!

 In 1973, the oil-producing countries, speaking through their cartel, OPEC, hit us with a full-scale oil embargo, and the whole world was faced with the same decision-making dilemma we're now puzzling over.  Wouldn't it be useful to review what we decided to do then, and how it all worked out?

This is not a new situation.  We poured money and development into all the available options, with the lion's share of the subsidies going to sun, wind, and "refined coal," on a per-kilowatt-hour basis.* 

36 years later, with people still raising false fears about TMI and "nuclear waste"--neither of which ever hurt anyone, the only energy source that reliably and affordably met all the requirements, and is still pouring energy into the grid, is nuclear!

Do we have to start all over again every 36 years, trying to overlook the lessons we learned? We know how to build some of the old standbys.  We ought to build 100 or more of them, just like we did in the 20 years between 1970 and 1990.  At the same time, we can try to come up with designs that are simpler, cheaper, etc. And continue to develop the best breeding cycle, to recover fissionable material and create new fissionable material, by recycling and processing the used fuel.

*Refined Coal; $29.81, Solar: $24.34, Wind: $23.37, Nuclear: $1.59, all per megawatt-hour.
From Energy Information Administration, SR/OAIF/99-03 and SR/EMEU/ 92-02..

Talking to the Senators

The past couple of weeks have kept me pretty busy. June 26 was my 87th birthday.  The following day was the memorial service for my wife of 62 years.  Our whole family had assembled here for the service, so they treated both affairs as family reunion parties.

June 22 I testified before the Senate Republican Conference, on the bill to build 100 new nuclear power plants during the next 20 years.  It was covered by C-SPAN, which was picked up by a number of blogs and other sites, and I ended up getting a lot of positive feedback. ( None negative . I know only people who are both smart and friendly  ; <  D  )

If you'd like to sample a couple of minutes of the hour-and-a-half session, picked up by a fellow blogger, click here

The blog that picked this up is one you should know about.  It's called "Atomic Insight' by Rod Adams. A sample of Rod's work is here

We'll get into more and more of these new sources of information as I begin to learn about blogging from my new blogmeisters, "The Blog Squad" (www.blogsquad.biz) and specifically Denise Wakeman, who is just great!  Don't wait for me.  Start checking some of this stuff out!

I'll be back shortly.  Stay tuned.  It just keeps getting better.

Special Note on Nuclear Accidents

Last week, in the Nation's Capital, a speeding subway train piled into another, killing nine and shaking up the whole area.  The press noted that this was the type of accident the system design "made impossible," and they explored the implications of that.

The discussion was eerily reminiscent  of discussions we had fifty years ago about the designs of nuclear power plants. Could we design to make accidents "impossible," and what did it mean, when the chips were down?

The term, as generally used by engineers, means that a particular event (in this case, one train hitting another), cannot happen, if all the system's parts work as intended.  Since we know that components do fail, does this assurance mean anything useful at all?  Yes, it can mean that most, or nearly all, accidents of this type are precluded.  The word "impossible" then means "highly improbable."  Many people stop their accident analysis at this point, saying the designer's job is to make serious accidents highly improbable.  Period.

I suggest two further considerations.  First: There are events that are simply impossible, as decreed by the Laws of Nature (which physicists call the Laws of Physics).  For example, used nuclear fuel is shipped in armored casks, built to survive car wrecks.  Some nuclear critics call these casks "Mobile Chernobyls," trying to imply that they might undergo some sort of nuclear accident.  But they cannot behave like a reactor, because there is simply not enough uranium in them.  This is as certifiable as 2+2=4.   All the time.  No probabilities involved.  Guaranteed by Mother Nature.

The other factor is the magnitude of the accident.  If the consequences of the worst realistic accident are tolerable, then the whole situation is different than if a catastrophe is possible.  This factor does not involve probabilities at all.  There are two separate tasks for the designer: to make serious accidents highly improbable, and (if possible) to make the consequences of the worst realistic accident tolerable.

For some reason, many nuclear people don't like to talk about consequences, even though the relevant data are reassuring.  They say it scares people.  My experience is that people are more disturbed about concerns they can't get answers to.  It happens that we do have a great deal of information on how Nature limits the harm that a mass of molten reactor fuel can cause, even if it is surrounded by a containment structure with a large hole in it.  Because that's the worst realistic case that we'll talk about next.

Meanwhile, here's a link to the papers in SCIENCE that reports the research and its conclusions.

Download App IB-Sci9-02

What About Nuclear?

The nuclear promise is dazzling; the actual performance is stellar.  So what's the problem?

As discussed in previous blogs, the advantages of nuclear power are too good to ignore, and the performance of the first 400+ commercial nuclear power plants and an even greater number of naval nuclear  propulsion plants worldwide, over nearly half a century, is equally impressive.  So, what's the problem?  Why is the subject controversial?

The stated concerns include:

1. Nuclear plants just cost too much..

2. Some of the "nuclear waste" stays toxic for thousands of years.

3  The used fuel contains material that might be convertible to a bomb.

4.  There might be casualties that could spread dangerous quantities of radioactivity.

5.  Shipping radioactivity might lead to spills that would endanger the public.

6.  Buildup of radioactivity might end up in contaminating the earth.

We'll start tackling these concerns one at a time, starting with cost.  We'll dig out the relevant facts, challenge some of the common assumptions, refer you to some good cost data and analyses, and invite your comments  I'd like to see if we can come to some degree of agreement, and deal with your comments fully, before we move on to the next concern.

Are you with me, so far?  Stay tuned.