quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: From your link http://articles.latimes.com...ct/09/local/me-40943

Did you per chance notice the date? A lot of complications and research had been done since then, this article did admit that the mutation rates were up so, its not like one can say there is no way to know if the mutations were caused by chernobyl or normal.

Yeah, somehow I knew it wouldn't make any difference as what it actually said in the link you supplied.

It really doesn't make any difference to you what it says. You have made up your mind and that's that.

So the fact that the link YOU posted stated exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say - well it doesn't matter. You just change the facts in your mind to say what you want it to say.

ergo WACKO

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Did you per chance notice the date? A lot of complications and research had been done since then, this article did admit that the mutation rates were up so, its not like one can say there is no way to know if the mutations were caused by chernobyl or normal.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Yeah, somehow I knew it wouldn't make any difference as what it actually said in the link you supplied. It really doesn't make any difference to you what it says. You have made up your mind and that's that. So the fact that the link YOU posted stated exactly the opposite of what you are trying to say - well it doesn't matter. You just change the facts in your mind to say what you want it to say. ergo WACKO

You don't even know what a fact is. A fact to you is anything pro nuclear industry. Anything that makes the industry potential look bad is a lie. If the pro nuclear industry came clean, you would accuse them of being infiltrated, or some other insanity. I have posted sources you used later. When I posted them, they were wacko, when you use them, they are scientific. Amazing isn't it?

You posted this link and then dismissed what it actually said because it clearly states you are wrong and tried to replace it with your own mantra.

We are not that stupid to fall for it.

So what do we call someone when they foolishly post facts that show they are wrong but think they can just trick us into believing the opposite?

You know the word already.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: You posted this link and then dismissed what it actually said because it clearly states you are wrong and tried to replace it with your own mantra. We are not that stupid to fall for it. So what do we call someone when they foolishly post facts that show they are wrong but think they can just trick us into believing the opposite? You know the word already.

Articles dated further back were based on studies right after Chernobyl, as time progressed so did understanding of the magnitude of Chernobyls effects. If you are talking about UNICEF statement, you really would believe anything. That wasn't a recent study, and no other causes have been found to given the "unknown condition" any credibility, its 2011 and they still haven't found a excuse for the mutations and other health effects. So you are the one trying to spin facts.
Fact, Chernobyl core explosion 1986.
Fact, after core explosion mutations, cancers, and heart problems sharply increase.
Fact, its 2011 they still have no other explanation for the health problems.
See how logic does not favor your insanity?

Chernobyl Disaster's Health Impact Remains Cloudy

Stefan Lovgren
National Geographic News

April 26, 2004

At 1:24 a.m. on April 26, 1986, reactor number four of the nuclear power plant in the Ukrainian town of Chernobyl exploded as engineers conducted a test to determine how long the plant's generators could run without power.

It was the greatest technological disaster in history. Burning for ten days, the reactor released a cloud of radioactivity that some experts estimate was equivalent to that of 200 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

The accident killed at least 30 plant workers, caused the hospitalization of hundreds of others, and exposed millions of people to ionizing radiation. This type of high-energy radiation can break apart molecules and atoms.

But 18 years after the disaster, the true health costs of Chernobyl's radiation bomb are still unknown.

Up to 2,000 children later developed thyroid cancer as a result of radiation. While some experts believe the cancer rate has peaked, others warn that it could take decades for all cancers to be detected.

Thousands of other fatal illnesses have also been blamed on the disaster. Less controversially, it is widely accepted that the accident has caused great economic and psychological hardship, especially among the hundred thousand people who had to be resettled.

"Eighteen years after the Chernobyl disaster, we are still unable to give an exhaustive picture of the consequences of this accident and its health implications," said Denise Adler, a radiation expert at the University of Geneva in Switzerland. "It can't be compared to any other environmental disaster."

Contaminated Rains

Chernobyl is located about 80 miles (130 kilometers) north of Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, and 7 miles (11 kilometers) south of the border with Belarus. At the time of the accident, Ukraine and Belarus were still part of the Soviet Union.

Belarus was affected the most by the Chernobyl catastrophe. About 70 percent of all released radioactive substances from Chernobyl fell on its territory.

Some places in western Europe and Turkey received contaminated rains, and insignificant amounts of radiation even reached the United States. In Switzerland, it is still forbidden to eat mushrooms in some mountainous parts.

The secretive Soviet government at first downplayed the magnitude of the disaster. Few residents were told to evacuate the area, even though a large swath of territory soon became heavily contaminated by radionuclides—atoms that emit ionizing radiation"The actual radiation suffered by the populations is little known," said André Giordan, the director of the Didactic Science and Epistemology Laboratory at the University of Geneva. "It is therefore very difficult to quantify the health effects of the Chernobyl accident."

Poor recordkeeping and corruption also prevented the accurate registration of the 600,000 so-called liquidators—the workers who helped put out the fire and entomb the smoldering nuclear plant in the spring of 1986. Significant international efforts by the United Nations and others have been underway to better understand public and worker exposure, and the possible effects on their health.

A report published in the journal Nuclear Energy last year predicted that 4,400 people would develop thyroid cancer as a result of the Chernobyl accident, leading to 1,000 premature deaths. Most cases can be cured by surgically removing the thyroid and treating patients with tablets of thyroxin hormone for the rest of their lives.

So far, only three people have died from Chernobyl-induced thyroid cancer, according to Ted Lazo, the deputy head of radiation protection at the Nuclear Energy Agency in Paris. There is no evidence yet of an increase in other cancers, such as leukemia.

"This is not to say that the populations still living in contaminated territories are healthy," Lazo said. "It seems pretty clear that, in general, the health of these people has deteriorated and continues to do so."

In Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it took, in some cases, 20 to 30 years to detect certain cancers.

But studies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki victims may not be applicable to predicting the effects of Chernobyl. While the victims of those atomic bombs were exposed to radiation in a blinding flash, the people of Chernobyl have lived with chronic exposure—albeit at a lower dose rate—for years. The danger of such radiation is difficult to assess and is the topic of ongoing research.

There are many noncancer health concerns, too.

In a major study of children born in 1994 to mothers who had lived 186 miles (300 kilometers) from Chernobyl and had been exposed to radioactive fallout, researchers found never before observed "germ line" mutations: changes in the DNA of sperm and eggs.

"Genetic defects may remain hidden for several generations," Adler said. "We have to expect more [of them] in the future."

Fear of the effects of radiation had a significant effect. Around 200,000 women reportedly aborted fetuses after being exposed to radioactive fallout, fearing that the children would have birth defects. So far, no such birth defects have been observed.

Life Returning

There is evidence that the Chernobyl disaster has led to increases in cardiovascular and gastrointestinal diseases, diabetes, and disorders of bone and connective tissue. Some of these diseases may be linked to stress.

"A number of stresses are most likely contributing to the current degradation [of] public health," Lazo said. "Exposure to radiation and other toxic substances is a fact and probably is part of this biological and complex problem. But these are certainly not the only major contributors to public health decline. The people living in these territories feel that they and their children are, in some sense, doomed."

Radiation doses in the area are still a dozen times higher than normal. Unable to make ends meet elsewhere, several hundred former residents have returned to Chernobyl, which once had a population of 120,000. Thousands more are shuttled into the so-called exclusion zone to work on the gradual powering down of the plant.

Reactor 4 has been sealed. However, some experts have warned that nuclear fuel trapped in its remains could cause the structure to deteriorate, and radiation to be released once again.

http://news.nationalgeograp...40426_chernobyl.html

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-26-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Fear of the effects of radiation had a significant effect. Around 200,000 women reportedly aborted fetuses after being exposed to radioactive fallout, fearing that the children would have birth defects. So far, no such birth defects have been observed. http://news.nationalgeograp...40426_chernobyl.html

Thats a wacko claim, with other sources pointing out a increase in birth defects. You should go work for the WHO

Higher birth-defect rate seen in Chernobyl area
(Reuters Health) - Rates of certain birth defects appear higher than normal in one of the Ukraine regions most affected by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, according to a new study.
http://www.reuters.com/arti...USTRE62N4L820100324.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-26-2011).]

Fukushima Plant May Have Emitted Double Radiation Than Estimated

By Tsuyoshi Inajima - Oct 27, 2011 3:20 AM CT
Tokyo Electric Power Co. via Bloomberg

A handout photograph shows Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (Tepco) Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station in Fukushima, Japan.

A handout photograph shows Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (Tepco) Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station in Fukushima, Japan. Source: Tokyo Electric Power Co. via Bloomberg

The wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan may have released more than twice the amount of radiation estimated by the Japanese government, a study by European and U.S.-based scientists said.

Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima station, which was wrecked in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, may have emitted 35,800 terabecquerels of radioactive cesium 137 at the height of the disaster, according to a study in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journal. Japan’s nuclear regulator in June said 15,000 terabecquerels of cesium 137 was discharged.

The amount is about 42 percent of that released at Chernobyl in 1986, the worst civil atomic disaster in history, according to the study. The plant north of Tokyo may have also started releasing radioactive elements before the tsunami arrived about 45 minutes after the magnitude-9 quake struck, contradicting government assessments.

“This early onset of emissions is interesting and may indicate some structural damage to the reactor units during the earthquake,” according to the report.

Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency remains convinced the quake didn’t cause significant damage to the plant, Tadashige Koitabashi, a NISA spokesman, said by phone. He declined to comment on the report.

NISA and Tepco blame the tsunami, which swamped backup generators, causing a loss of cooling and the meltdowns of the three reactors operating at the time of the disaster. Explosions at the plant sent radiation into the atmosphere.
Radiation Effects

Cesium 137 is a source of concern for public health because the radioactive isotope has a half-life of 30 years.

A becquerel represents one radioactive decay per second and involves the release of atomic energy, which can damage human cells and DNA. Prolonged exposure to radiation can cause leukemia and other forms of cancer, according to the World Nuclear Association. A terabecquerel is one million times one million becquerels.

Almost a fifth of the cesium 137 fallout fell on Japan, while the remainder was carried by prevailing winds over the Pacific Ocean, according to the study.

Areas around the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, which is still emitting radioactive materials, may be uninhabitable for at least two decades, according to a government estimate in August.
Radiation Release

The study led by Andreas Stohl, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, was released on the website of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. The authors used readings from stations around the world to assess the amount of radiation release.

Japanese government officials and the utility known as Tepco haven’t updated figures on radiation from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station. Tepco said last week the amount of radiation being released has fallen to about 8 million times less than at the height of the disaster.

“We don’t need to add much to what was emitted in the early days,” Yasuo Kosaku, an official in NISA’s nuclear emergency division, said by phone today. Still, “the June estimate may have to be revised.”

The government plans to update the estimate, Goshi Hosono, the minister in charge of responding to the disaster, said in August.

The scientists provided other analysis that questions official assessments.
Reactor 4

The levels of cesium 137 emissions “suddenly dropped” after Tepco started spraying water on the spent fuel pool of the No. 4 reactor, they said. Reactor 4 was idle before the quake and the fuel assemblies in the core had been placed in the spent fuel pool of the unit.

“This indicates that emissions were not only coming from the damaged reactor cores, but also from the spent fuel pool of unit 4,” the report said.

Fukushima also discharged 16.7 million terabecquerels of xenon 133, “ the largest radioactive noble gas release in history not associated with nuclear bomb testing,” the study said.

The government estimated in June 11 million terabecquerels of the radioactive particle was released from the plant.

Xenon 133 has a half life of 5.2 days and is relatively harmless, Tetsuo Ito, the head of Kinki University’s Atomic Energy Research Institute, said by phone.

To contact the reporter on this story: Tsuyoshi Inajima in Tokyo at tinajima@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Aaron Sheldrick at asheldrick@bloomberg.net; Amit Prakash at aprakash1@bloomberg.net
http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...-than-estimated.html

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-27-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Fukushima Plant May Have Emitted Double Radiation Than Estimated By Tsuyoshi Inajima - Oct 27, 2011 3:20 AM CT Tokyo Electric Power Co. via Bloomberg A handout photograph shows Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (Tepco) Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station in Fukushima, Japan. A handout photograph shows Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s (Tepco) Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power station in Fukushima, Japan. Source: Tokyo Electric Power Co. via Bloomberg The wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan may have released more than twice the amount of radiation estimated by the Japanese government, a study by European and U.S.-based scientists said. Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima station, which was wrecked in the March 11 earthquake and tsunami, may have emitted 35,800 terabecquerels of radioactive cesium 137 at the height of the disaster, according to a study in the Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics journal. Japan’s nuclear regulator in June said 15,000 terabecquerels of cesium 137 was discharged. The amount is about 42 percent of that released at Chernobyl in 1986, the worst civil atomic disaster in history, according to the study. The plant north of Tokyo may have also started releasing radioactive elements before the tsunami arrived about 45 minutes after the magnitude-9 quake struck, contradicting government assessments. “This early onset of emissions is interesting and may indicate some structural damage to the reactor units during the earthquake,” according to the report. Japan’s Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency remains convinced the quake didn’t cause significant damage to the plant, Tadashige Koitabashi, a NISA spokesman, said by phone. He declined to comment on the report. NISA and Tepco blame the tsunami, which swamped backup generators, causing a loss of cooling and the meltdowns of the three reactors operating at the time of the disaster. Explosions at the plant sent radiation into the atmosphere. Radiation Effects Cesium 137 is a source of concern for public health because the radioactive isotope has a half-life of 30 years. A becquerel represents one radioactive decay per second and involves the release of atomic energy, which can damage human cells and DNA. Prolonged exposure to radiation can cause leukemia and other forms of cancer, according to the World Nuclear Association. A terabecquerel is one million times one million becquerels. Almost a fifth of the cesium 137 fallout fell on Japan, while the remainder was carried by prevailing winds over the Pacific Ocean, according to the study. Areas around the Fukushima Dai-Ichi plant, which is still emitting radioactive materials, may be uninhabitable for at least two decades, according to a government estimate in August. Radiation Release The study led by Andreas Stohl, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Institute for Air Research, was released on the website of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions. The authors used readings from stations around the world to assess the amount of radiation release. Japanese government officials and the utility known as Tepco haven’t updated figures on radiation from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi station. Tepco said last week the amount of radiation being released has fallen to about 8 million times less than at the height of the disaster. “We don’t need to add much to what was emitted in the early days,” Yasuo Kosaku, an official in NISA’s nuclear emergency division, said by phone today. Still, “the June estimate may have to be revised.” The government plans to update the estimate, Goshi Hosono, the minister in charge of responding to the disaster, said in August. The scientists provided other analysis that questions official assessments. Reactor 4 The levels of cesium 137 emissions “suddenly dropped” after Tepco started spraying water on the spent fuel pool of the No. 4 reactor, they said. Reactor 4 was idle before the quake and the fuel assemblies in the core had been placed in the spent fuel pool of the unit. “This indicates that emissions were not only coming from the damaged reactor cores, but also from the spent fuel pool of unit 4,” the report said. Fukushima also discharged 16.7 million terabecquerels of xenon 133, “ the largest radioactive noble gas release in history not associated with nuclear bomb testing,” the study said. The government estimated in June 11 million terabecquerels of the radioactive particle was released from the plant. Xenon 133 has a half life of 5.2 days and is relatively harmless, Tetsuo Ito, the head of Kinki University’s Atomic Energy Research Institute, said by phone. To contact the reporter on this story: Tsuyoshi Inajima in Tokyo at tinajima@bloomberg.net To contact the editors responsible for this story: Aaron Sheldrick at asheldrick@bloomberg.net; Amit Prakash at aprakash1@bloomberg.net http://www.bloomberg.com/ne...-than-estimated.html

Man, you're quick. I thought I'd post up this report of the the slight miscalculation (by half-as in twice as much radiation leaked) made about the Fukushima fall-out.

Japan Nuclear Disaster Released Higher Radiation Levels Than Previously Reported, Study Finds
Radiation Near Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Pla

By MALCOLM RITTER 10/27/11 04:22 PM ET AP


"NEW YORK -- The Fukushima nuclear disaster released twice as much of a dangerous radioactive substance into the atmosphere as Japanese authorities estimated, reaching 40 percent of the total from Chernobyl, a preliminary report says.

The estimate of much higher levels of radioactive cesium-137 comes from a worldwide network of sensors. Study author Andreas Stohl of the Norwegian Institute for Air Research says the Japanese government estimate came only from data in Japan, and that would have missed emissions blown out to sea.

The study did not consider health implications of the radiation. The long-term effects of the nuclear accident are unclear because of the difficulty of measuring radiation amounts people received.

In a telephone interview, Stohl said emission estimates are so imprecise that finding twice the amount of cesium isn't considered a major difference. He said some previous estimates had been higher than his.

The journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics posted the report online for comment, but the study has not yet completed a formal review by experts in the field or been accepted for publication.

Cesium-137 is dangerous because it can last for decades in the environment, releasing cancer-causing radiation.

Last summer, the Japanese government estimated that the March 11 Fukushima accident released 15,000 terabecquerels of cesium. Terabecquerels are a radiation measurement. The new report from Stohl and co-authors estimates about 36,000 terabecquerels through April 20. That's about 42 percent of the estimated release from Chernobyl, the report says.

It also says about a fifth of the cesium fell on land in Japan, while most of the rest fell into the Pacific Ocean. Only about 2 percent of the fallout came down on land outside Japan, the report concluded.

Experts have no firm projections about how many cancers could result because they're still trying to find out what doses people received. Some radiation from the accident has also been detected in Tokyo and in the United States but experts say they expect no significant health consequences there.

Still, concern about radiation is strong in Japan. Many parents of small children in Tokyo worry about the discovery of radiation hotspots even though government officials say they don't pose a health risk. And former prime minister Naoto Kan has said the most contaminated areas inside the evacuation zone could be uninhabitable for decades.

Stohl also noted that his study found cesium-137 emissions dropped suddenly at the time workers started spraying water on the spent fuel pool from one of the reactors. That challenges previous thinking that the pool wasn't emitting cesium, he said."

___

Just checking with phonedawgz to see what's current:
No peer-reviewed scientific studies published on the following topics:

Contamination of lands, crops, livestock.
Number of forced refugees and estimated return date.
Compensation paid to refugees for loss of use of lands and farms.
Cleanup and decommissioning cost estimates for facility.
Cleanup and restoration cost estimates to full use of all affected lands, homes, businesses, farms.

Just checking in on the status of these topics.

110 micro Sv/h at Tokyo Supermarket.
http://fukushima-diary.com/...28Fukushima+Diary%29

Japan's leaders must face country's 'latent' possession of nuclear weapons


I've made four visits to the Rokkasho Nuclear Reprocessing Plant in Aomori Prefecture which, since 1993, has cost the government over 2 trillion yen to build and run on a trial basis.

The reason for the multiple visits was the plant's significance in the country's energy security scheme. It was important that we probe and monitor not just the safety of the plant, but the trends in local residents' attitudes and their tactics in dealing with politicians, the speed of construction, and any "interference" by other countries.

The cold and wet northeasterly "yamase" winds -- also known as "gashifu," literally "starvation winds" -- were blowing every time I visited the village of Rokkasho, enveloping everything in a thick fog. The conditions in region were not conducive to growing crops; it was not a "rich" area.

So perhaps these winds had something to do with why the village gave up the land that had belonged to it for generations to nuclear power.
But it was the presentation of the plant as a national project that would fulfill government policy and goals that ultimately won the villagers' "cooperation." "Of a nuclear power plant's spent nuclear fuel, only 5 percent or less should be disposed of," the government had explained. "Uranium and plutonium can be recycled. We want to reprocess the fuel and pave the way to energy self-sufficiency."

In the 27 years since the application for the construction of a reprocessing plant was lodged with Rokkasho, the village has undergone tremendous change. Massive cranes have been brought in, and hefty structures have gone up one after another. Nuclear money has brought wealth to the village, making its per capita income the highest of any municipality in Aomori Prefecture. Despite some twists and turns, the national project was getting closer to becoming a reality.

There's a little "secret" to the reprocessing plant, however.

On July 17, 1988, Japan implemented revisions to the Japan-U.S. Nuclear Agreement that would allow Japan to construct nuclear fuel reprocessing plants, despite strong opposition from the U.S. Congress. Using its own enrichment technology, it was now possible for Japan, in theory, to produce the raw materials necessary to build nuclear bombs.

By 2005, the year I last visited Rokkasho, the facility had been subject to 11 routine inspections and 14 unannounced inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose aim was to ensure that the plant was not producing any such materials. Despite being a nonnuclear weapons state, Japan was now a "latent" nuclear weapons state. Japan claims it is protected against threats from other countries by the U.S. nuclear umbrella, but the rest of the world sees Japan as a state that would not hesitate to possess nuclear arms, if the circumstances called for it.


The call to eliminate our dependence on nuclear power has become widespread since the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant began. And yet, our leaders have failed to make any mention of the country's latent nuclear weapons capacity.

The true elimination of our dependence on nuclear power, however, must include our abandonment of nuclear weapons possession. The decisions we face now hold the key to the security of our country. (By Taro Maki, Expert Senior Writer)

(Mainichi Japan) October 28, 2011
http://mdn.mainichi.jp/pers...2a00m0na004000c.html

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: 31 year old fukushima worker has heart attack after 3 hours of work. http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/18136721

Might actually be useful if the video were in English, instead of Japanese.

Actually not really to Dennid_6.

What they say doesn't matter if you already have your mind made up as to why he died.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Japan's leaders must face country's 'latent' possession of nuclear weapons ...

And..?

I'd still rather Japan have nuclear weapons than Iran.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Actually not really to Dennid_6. What they say doesn't matter if you already have your mind made up as to why he died.

He didn't die, secondly a few instances of people dropping could easily be attributed to things other than radiation, a pattern however makes the circumstances other than radiation less and less believable. So time will tell, if its coincidence or not.

Oh look

The liberal is trying to think again.

Yeah I think the reason Japan uses Uranium technology instead of Thorium has a whole lot more to do with the fact that Thorium has never been proven viable for commercial power generation and a whole lot less about them wanting to make bombs to blow people up.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: And, now we know why Japan didn't use Thorium technology.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Oh look The liberal is trying to think again. Yeah I think the reason Japan uses Uranium technology instead of Thorium has a whole lot more to do with the fact that Thorium has never been proven viable for commercial power generation and a whole lot less about them wanting to make bombs to blow people up.

Would you mind refraining from speaking for me, and i am not a liberal, we had that discussion. I am a libertarian.

"Dr. Alvin Weinberg, the director of ORNL and the inventor of the solid-fueled light water reactor (LWR), recognized the remarkable potential of the fluoride reactor and turned the attention of the fluoride reactor team from aircraft propulsion to terrestrial energy. He was particularly impressed with the ability of the fluoride reactor to safely and efficiently use thorium. Unlike any other reactor power source, a liquid form of thorium existed (thorium tetrafluoride, ThF4) that could be easily reprocessed to unlock thorium's potential.

In 1959, using his contacts in the AEC, Weinberg pushed for funding of a more advanced demonstration of fluoride reactor technology and was able to win funding for the second fluoride reactor: the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE), which was built and operated by ORNL from 1965 to 1969. The MSRE was a much-improved design over the ARE and led to the demonstration of reactor operation on different fuels, stable self-controlling operation without control rods, removal of reactor poisons online, and strong passive safety features.

Nevertheless, the MSRE and fluoride reactors in general could not fulfill the most important mission of the AEC in those days: the production of weapons-grade plutonium. The LMFBR could make the plutonium for the nuclear build up the AEC desired. Furthermore, the safety features of the fluoride reactor highlighted the safety risks of the LMFBR; after the first commercial LMFBR suffered a severe core meltdown in 1966, the meltdown-proof fluoride reactors offered a safe alternative to LMFBRs that proved politically embarrassing. With a great deal of money and political capital already invested in LMFBRs, the AEC moved to shut down all research on fluoride reactors at ORNL in the mid-1970s, and the fluoride reactor team was disbanded and assigned to other projects."
http://energyfromthorium.com/history.html

When I call you a liberal, I am not speaking FOR you. I am speaking ABOUT you.

I did not say 'You say this" or "you think that".

Your actions show you are a liberal, not a libertarian when it comes to nuclear power. You want the government to control it and eliminate it, you surely don't want the government to deregulate the industry and then leave it to market forces.

So wrong again on both points.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-29-2011).]

Yes phonedawgz, I am very much against uranium/plutonium based nuclear power. However thorium based nuclear power makes a lot of sense. We probably wouldn't have a energy problem if Thorium was used by the world instead of conventional reactors. Thorium was not shelved because it didn't work, but it did not provide for nuclear weapons.
----------------------------------
Sometime between 2020 and 2040, we will invent a practically unlimited energy source that will solve the global energy crisis. This unlimited source of energy will come from thorium. A summary of the benefits, from a recent announcement of the start of construction for a new prototype reactor:

• There is no danger of a melt-down like the Chernobyl reactor.
• It produces minimal radioactive waste.
• It can burn plutonium waste from traditional nuclear reactors.
• It is not suitable for the production of weapon grade materials.
• Global thorium reserves could cover our energy needs for thousands of years.

If nuclear reactors can be made safe and relatively cheap, how popular could they get?

It depends on how cheap we’re talking about. Most reactor designs utilize thorium use molten salt (or lead) as a coolant. Even though they were developed as early as 1954, molten salt-coolant reactors are a relatively immature technology. Interestingly enough, the first nuclear reactor to provide usable amounts of electricity was a molten salt reactor. Three were built as part of the US Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE), whose purpose was to build a reactor small and sturdy enough to power a nuclear bomber. These reactors are about the size of a large truck.

State-of-the-art nuclear reactors, such as Westinghouse’s AP1000, cost $1.5 billion to build and produce 1.1 gigawatts of electricity. They cost around $50 million per year to maintain, and $30 million per year for uranium fuel. Nevertheless, they are slowly starting to compete with other sources of power like solar and fossil fuels. Eventually, they will rocket right past them. The goal is plants that only cost only $990 per kilowatt. A kilowatt-year of electricity sells for about $876, and a gigawatt-year $876 million, so even if these plants cost $1 billion to build, they can make $964 million worth of electricity every year. If fuel and maintenance costs are about $225 million per year, then your profit is $739 million/year. This is a huge profit. What prevented us from reaping the benefits of this in the past was inferior and more expensive building techniques frequently running overbudget, with some projects costing $4 – $5 billion to complete.

The AP1000 is a Generation III reactor, a new class of reactor that started coming online in 1996. More advanced Generation III reactors are sometimes called Generation III+, because they offer better performance but are not revolutionary. The benefits of Generation III+ reactors are obvious. They are economically competitive, but still have high capital and fuel costs. A lot of this high capital cost comes from excessive safety regulations. In “The Nuclear Energy Option”, Bernard L. Cohen calculates that ever-escalating safety restrictions increase the cost of nuclear power plants by as much as four or five times, compensating for inflation:

Commonwealth Edison, the utility serving the Chicago area, completed its Dresden nuclear plants in 1970-71 for $146/kW, its Quad Cities plants in 1973 for $164/kW, and its Zion plants in 1973-74 for $280/kW. But its LaSalle nuclear plants completed in 1982-84 cost $1,160/kW, and its Byron and Braidwood plants completed in 1985-87 cost $1880/kW — a 13-fold increase over the 17-year period. Northeast Utilities completed its Millstone 1,2, and 3 nuclear plants, respectively, for $153/kW in 1971, $487/kW in 1975, and $3,326/kW in 1986, a 22-fold increase in 15 years. Duke Power, widely considered to be one of the most efficient utilities in the nation in handling nuclear technology, finished construction on its Oconee plants in 1973-74 for $181/kW, on its McGuire plants in 1981-84 for $848/kW, and on its Catauba plants in 1985-87 for $1,703/kW, a nearly 10-fold increase in 14 years. Philadelphia Electric Company completed its two Peach Bottom plants in 1974 at an average cost of $382 million, but the second of its two Limerick plants, completed in 1988, cost $2.9 billion — 7.6 times as much. A long list of such price escalations could be quoted, and there are no exceptions. Clearly, something other than incompetence is involved.

That something is huge safety restrictions. When the risk of meltdown is removed, these restrictions will be lifted. Carlo Rubia, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and advocate of thorium power, writes, “after a suitable “cool-down” period, radioactive “waste” reaches radio-toxicities which are comparable and smaller than the one of the ashes coming from coal burning for the same produced energy”. So waste and containment – the two main sources of cost and controversy for traditional reactors – are all but eliminated with thorium.

The world-changing thorium reactor I am envisioning qualifies as a Generation IV reactor. A Generation IV reactor will pay for itself even more quickly than a Generation III reactor, and will replace every other source of electrical power in terms of cost-effectiveness. Generation IV reactors will be the fission reactors to end all fission reactors.

The Generation IV International Forum’s definition:

Generation IV nuclear energy systems are future, next-generation technologies that will compete in all markets with the most cost-effective technologies expected to be available over the next three decades.

Comparative advantages include reduced capital cost, enhanced nuclear safety, minimal generation of nuclear waste, and further reduction of the risk of weapons materials proliferation. Generation IV systems are intended to be responsive to the needs of a broad range of nations and users.

Currently, it is thought that Generation IV reactors will not come online before 2030, at least according to the Generation IV International Forum’s Technology Roadmap. A substantial amount of R&D must be done to develop the molten salt reactor idea into a viable construction plan. However, I am more optimistic on timescales. Improvements in materials science and high-quality manufacturing will relax design requirements, decreasing research time from 20 years to 10 years and building time from 3-5 years to one year. That is why I can imagine thorium reactors by 2020.

Thorium reactors will be cheap. The primary cost in nuclear reactors traditionally is the huge safety requirements. Regarding meltdown in a thorium reactor, Rubbia writes, “Both the EA and MF can be effectively protected against military diversions and exhibit an extreme robustness against any conceivable accident, always with benign consequences. In particular the [beta]-decay heat is comparable in both cases and such that it can be passively dissipated in the environment, thus eliminating the risks of “melt-down”. Thorium reactors can breed uranium-233, which can theoretically be used for nuclear weapons. However, denaturing thorium with its isotope, ionium, eliminates the proliferation threat.

Like any nuclear reactor, thorium reactors will be hot and radioactive, necessitating shielding. The amount of radioactivity scales with the size of the plant. It so happens that thorium itself is an excellent radiation shield, but lead and depleted uranium are also suitable. Smaller plants (100 megawatts), such as the Department of Energy’s small, sealed, transportable, autonomous reactor (SSTAR) will be 15 meters tall, 3 meters wide and weigh 500 tonnes, using only a few cm of shielding. From the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory page on SSTAR:

SSTAR is designed to be a self-contained reactor in a tamper-resistant container. The goal is to provide reliable and cost-effective electricity, heat, and freshwater. The design could also be adapted to produce hydrogen for use as an alternative fuel for passenger cars.

Most commercial nuclear reactors are large light-water reactors (LWRs) designed to generate 1,000 megawatts electric (MWe) or more. Significant capital investments are required to build these reactors and manage the nuclear fuel cycle. Many developing countries do not need such large increments of electricity. They also do not have the large-scale energy infrastructure required to install conventional nuclear power plants or personnel trained to operate them. These countries could benefit from smaller energy systems, such as SSTAR, that use automated controls, require less maintenance work, and provide reliable power for as long as 30 years before needing refueling or replacement.

SSTAR also offers potential cost reductions over conventional nuclear reactors. Using lead or lead–bismuth as a cooling material instead of water eliminates the large, high-pressure vessels and piping needed to contain the reactor coolant. The low pressure of the lead coolant also allows for a more compact reactor because the steam generator can be incorporated into the reactor vessel. Plus with no refueling downtime and no spent fuel rods to be managed, the reactor can produce energy continuously and with fewer personnel.

Because thorium reactors present no proliferation risk, and because they solve the safety problems associated with earlier reactors, they will be able to use reasonable rather than obsessive standards for security and reliability. If we can reach the $145-in-1971-dollars/kW milestone experienced by Commonwealth Edison in 1971, we can decrease costs for a 1-gigawatt plant to at most $780 million, rather than the $1,100 million to build such a plant today. In fact, you might be able to go as low as $220 million or below, if 80% of reactor costs truly are attributable to expensive anti-meltdown measures. A thorium reactor does not, in fact, need a containment wall. Putting the reactor vessel in a standard industrial building is sufficient.

Current operating costs, ignoring fuel costs, for a 1-gigawatt plant are about $50 million/year. With greater automation and simplicity in Generation IV plants, in addition to more reasonable safety and security regulations, this cost will be decreased to $5 million/year, equivalent to the salary of about 60 technicians earning $80K/year. Because the molten salt continuously recirculates the fuel, the time-consuming replacement of fuel rods is not necessary – you just dump in the thorium and out comes energy. However, if molten salt is used as a coolant, it must be recirculated and purified external to the reactor vessel. This requires a chemical reprocessing facility, of a type that has only yet been demonstrated in a lab. The scale-up to industrial levels has currently been labeled as uneconomic, but improvements in salt purification technology over the next decade will bring the costs down greatly, and eventually the entire process will be automated. If thorium reactors become popular, automated, and mass-produced, the technology could improve to the point where the cost of maintaining a 1-gigawatt nuclear reactor will eventually drop as low as $1 million/year, or less.

Today, the nuclear industry primarily makes money by selling fuel to reactor operators. So there is little incentive to switch over to a fuel that will eventually be obtainable for as low as $10/kg. According to “The Economics of Nuclear Power”, a kg of enriched uranium in the form of uranium oxide reactor fuel is $1633/kg.

Today, thorium is relatively expensive – about $5,000 per kilogram. However, this is only because of there is currently little demand for thorium, so as a specialty metal, it is expensive. But there is 4 times as much thorium in the earth’s crust as there is uranium, and uranium is only $40/kg. If thorium starts to be mined en masse, its cost could drop to as low as $10/kg. This factor-of-500 reduction in cost would be similar to the reduction in cost that electricity experienced throughout this century, only compressed into a few years. It is estimated that Norway alone contains 180,000 tons of known thorium reserves. Global deposits of thorium:

• 360,000 India
• 300,000 Australia
• 170,000 Norway
• 160,000 United States
• 100,000 Canada
• 35,000 South Africa
• 16,000 Brazil
• 95,000 Others

Thorium could cost a lot less than uranium fuel because it doesn’t need to be enriched to be used as fuel. As stated before, enriched uranium oxide gas costs $1633/kg, and 1-gigawatt nuclear power plants buy about $30 million in fuel annually, which works out to about 20,000 kg. You can read more at the wikipedia entry for the uranium market.

Even if the price of thorium never goes below $50/kg, it still represents a factor-of-32 economy improvement over uranium oxide. If a 1-gigawatt thorium reactor consumes amounts of thorium similar to the amount of uranium consumed by nuclear reactors today, fueling it for a year would only cost $1 milion, using the $50/kg price point, or $200,000, using the $10/kg price point.

Building a 1-gigawatt uranium plant today costs about $1.1 billion. Building a 1-gigawatt thorium plant will cost only about $250 million, or less, because meltdown concerns can be tossed out the window. This fundamentally changes the economics of nuclear power. We can call this the capital cost benefit of thorium.

Fueling a 1-gigawatt uranium plant today costs $30 million/year. Fueling a 1-gigawatt thorium plant will cost only $1 million/year, because thorium is four times more abundant than uranium and does not need to be enriched – only purified – prior to being used as fuel. We can call this the fuel cost benefit of thorium.

Staffing a 1-gigawatt uranium plant today costs $50 million/year. With greater automation, and (especially) fewer safety/security requirements, we will decrease that cost to $5 million/year. Instead of requiring 500 technicians, guards, personal assistants, janitors, and paper pushers to run a nuclear plant, we will only need a small group of 30 or so technicians to run the plant. (When the technology reaches maturity.) Generation IV nuclear plants will be designed to be low-maintenance.

Based on these numbers, over a 60-year operating lifetime, both plants produce 60 gigawatt-years of power. The total cost for the uranium plant is $4.9 billion, at a rate of $81.6 million per gigawatt-year. The total cost for the thorium plant is $490 million, at a rate of $8.16 million per gigawatt-year. Thorium power makes nuclear power ten times cheaper than it used to be, right off the bat.

Of course, ten times cheaper electricity is impressive, and blows everything else out of the water, but it doesn’t quite qualify as the “unlimited source of energy” I was talking about. Why will thorium lead to practically unlimited energy?

Because thorium reactors will make nuclear reactors more decentralized. Because of no risk of proliferation or meltdown, thorium reactors can be made of almost any size. A 500 ton, 100MW SSTAR-sized thorium reactor could fit in a large industrial room, require little maintenance, and only cost $25 million. A hypothetical 5 ton, truck-sized 1 MW thorium reactor might run for only $250,000 but would generate enough electricity for 1,000 people for the duration of its operating lifetime, using only 20 kg of thorium fuel per year, running almost automatically, and requiring safety checks as infrequently as once a year. That would be as little as $200/year after capital costs are paid off, for a thousand-persons worth of electricity! An annual visit by a safety inspector might add another $200 to the bill. A town of 1,000 could pool $250K for the reactor at the cost of $250 each, then pay $400/year collectively, or $0.40/year each for fuel and maintenance. These reactors could be built by the thousands, further driving down manufacturing costs.

Smaller reactors make power generation convenient in two ways: decreasing staffing costs by dropping them close to zero, and eliminating the bulky infrastructure required for larger plants. For this reason, it may be more likely that we see the construction of a million $40,000, 100 kW plants than 400 $300 million, 1GW plants. 100 kW plants would require minimal shielding and could be installed in private homes without fear of radiation poisoning. These small plants could be shielded so well that the level of radiation outside the shield is barely greater than the ambient level of radiation from traces of uranium in the environment. The only operating costs would be periodic safety checks, flouride salts, and thorium fuel. For a $40,000 reactor, and $1,000/year in operating costs, you get enough electricity for 100 people, which is enough to accomplish all sorts of antics, like running thousands of desktop nanofactories non-stop.

Even smaller reactors might be built. The molten salt may have a temperature of around 1,400°F, but as long as it can be contained by the best alloys, it is not really a threat. The small gasoline explosions in your automobile today are of a similar temperature. In the future, personal vehicles may be powered by the slow burning of thorium, or at least, hydrogen produced by a thorium reactor. Project Pluto, a nuclear-powered ramjet missile, produced 513 megawatts of power for only $50 million. At that price ratio, a 10 kW reactor might cost $1,000 and provide enough electricity for 10 persons/year while consuming only 1 kg of thorium every 5 years, itself only weighing 1000kg – similar to the weight of a refrigerator. I’m not sure if miniaturization to that degree is possible, or if the scaling laws really hold. But it seems consistent with what I’ve heard about nuclear power in the past.

The primary limitation with nuclear reactors, as always, is containment of radiation. But alloys and materials are improving. We will be able to make reactor vessels which are crack-proof, water-proof, and tamper-proof, but we will have to use superior materials. We should have those materials by 2030 at the latest, and they will make possible the decentralized nuclear energy vision I have outlined here. I consider it probable unless thorium is quickly leapfrogged by fusion power.

The greatest cost for thorium reactors remains their initial construction. If these reactors can be made to last hundreds of years instead of just 60, the cost per kWh comes down even further. If we could do this, then even if there were a disaster that brought down the entire industrial infrastructure, we could use our existing reactors with thorium fuel for energy until civilization restarts. We could send starships to other solar systems, powered by just a few tons of thorium. We will simultaneously experience the abundance we always wanted from nuclear power with the decentralization we always wanted from solar power. We will build self-maintaining “eternal structures” that use thorium electricity to power maintenance robots capable of working for thousands of years without breaks.
http://www.acceleratingfutu...actor-in-every-home/

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-29-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Yes phonedawgz, I am very much against uranium/plutonium based nuclear power.

Well there's a first. 38 pages and you finally admit you are anti-nuke.

Sometimes I think that the only thought you'd have when you capped a liberal would be that it was a shame you couldn't have got a second one with the same bullet. It's plain to me phonedawgz that you've fully dehumanized us in your mind now, that you don't consider us to be human, thoughtful, thinking beings anymore, if you ever did.

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Well there's a first. 38 pages and you finally admit you are anti-nuke.

So thorium is not nuclear? You truly are psycho. I am all for thorium NUCLEAR reactors. I am not for the uranium breeder reactors, do you work for the DOD? The only people who have a problem with Thorium are those with interest with nuclear weapons, and yes I am anti nuclear weapons. I hope those defending you see your madness and call you on it. That statement is your worse mistake, thats like saying i am not against internal combustion engines, and then saying I am pro diesel and anti gasoline, and you say see you are anti internal combustion engines while knowing diesel is a internal combustion engine, so you can fool people with no technological knowledge, or those wanting to hear feel good stories.

You are the worst kind of human being, you are a liar, a manipulator, and there will be a judge one day, you can count on it.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: I am all for nuclear power, but this article downplays the potential of the nuclear disaster. Sounds a lot like pro nuclear power industry spin.

Explain how this is not a lie

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: Explain how this is not a lie

Because Thorium is a form of nuclear power, and because I believe once the Uranium/Plutonium reactors reach the end of their life cycle they should be replaced with Thorium reactors. I never said to close down all reactors right now, and replace them with Thorium reactors. Just all new reactors should be thorium, and other forms of reactors should be phased out.

Are you saying that using a different form of nuclear fuel, makes one anti-nuclear? If you are that is one hell of a stretch. When they make containment that can withstand meltdowns, uranium and plutonium reactors will be fine. As for the near future, I don't see another way outside Thorium. So yes I am pro nuclear power.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-30-2011).]

What I am saying is during a discussion of present day uranium based nuclear power plants you make a statement that "I am ALL for nuclear power" and then you trying to later qualify that statement to that you are all for nuclear power, but not the kind we were talking about and not the kind that is currently available clearly indicates your intent was to deceive the people who would receive your message.

Don't bother trying to redefine the word 'all' either Mr. Clinton. It does not change your intent to deceive.

When you make a statement you know is false, and you do it with the intention to deceive the receivers of you statement, that is a lie.

Egro dennis_6 is a liar.

[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 10-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by phonedawgz: What I am saying is during a discussion of present day uranium based nuclear power plants you make a statement that "I am ALL for nuclear power" and then you trying to later qualify that statement to that you are all for nuclear power, but not the kind we were talking about and not the kind that is currently available clearly indicates your intent was to deceive the people who would receive your message. Don't bother trying to redefine the word 'all' either Mr. Clinton. It does not change your intent to deceive. When you make a statement you know is false, and you do it with the intention to deceive the receivers of you statement, that is a lie. Egro dennis_6 is a liar.

Funny last I heard China is building Thorium reactors, we have had working Thorium reactors in the 60's, so yes its currently available, and much cheaper. Thorium could replace all coal plants in the US and I would be all for that. I would say that makes me pretty pro nuke. I would say that also makes you a liar. I am pretty sure that makes me all for nuclear power. I commented on germany closing all their nuclear plants, and it wasn't favorable. We should run our uranium and plutonium plants until their designed life cycle is complete, then we should build thorium plants in their place. IT IS STILL NUCLEAR POWER. What part of nuclear power do you not get?

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium
A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...ay-with-thorium.html

So, the technology does not exist? See you are just here to promote uranium and plutonium based nuclear power, who do you work for?

Thorium makes current reactors look as smart as Chernobyl's graphite reactor. You might as well be telling everyone I am anti nuclear because I think graphite reactors are a bad design.

[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 10-30-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: Might actually be useful if the video were in English, instead of Japanese.

quote Originally posted by dennis_6: Google will turn up a few results, pick your source.

Well hell... Sorry to bother you to post story links that are actually useful to your potential readers.

Nevermind.