American Radiation Issues

[Poriwoggu]

A thousand above ground nuclear weapons tests - some as damaging as a worst case Fukushima reactor (China Syndrome) - raised the background radiation level 1%. Castle Bravo for instance clearly released more radiation than Fukushima could have. No appreciable radiation will come to the US.

Lets look at the radiation released at Fukushima: 13,600 TBq of Cesium-137. There was some Iodine-131 and some Cesium-140 released as well but this has half-lifed itself out of significance. The ocean volume is 1386000000 cubic kilometers. Dividing the released radiation by the ocean volume: 13,600 TBq/1386000000 km3 = .0000098 Bq m-3. For comparison, the ocean background radiation is 2-3 Bq/m-3 for Brazil and 35.2 Bq m-3 for the Baltic Sea.

See the following for radiation and food: http://truenorthreports.com/facts-an...ation-exposure.

The ICRP in 1928 adopted the linear no-threshold model for radiation and there is no conclusive science evidence that it is a valid model. There is a lot of evidence that it is not. Normal background radiation is 2 mS (milliSieverts) per year - 15% is produced by your own body. This is a global average, the rate varies by location: the US background rate is 3.6 mS/yr, the Australian rate is 2.4 mS/yr, and the rate for Ramsar (Iran) 260mSv. The radiation level for optimum health is 120-200 mSv (milliSievert) annually (hormesis hypothesis). The radiation level has to reach 2 Sieverts/year before cancer mortality is as high as the death rate from normal background radiation. Allowing radiation levels up to 2 S/yr will save lives.

Japanese government raised the level of permissible exposure to schoolchildren twenty fold, from 1mSv/year to 20mSv. Given the above facts this is a wise decision.

The dismantlement issue is a created issue.
1. The allowed radiation level for reactor steel is set 100,000 times lower than the radiation level for natural gas pipe steel.
2. The radiation level allowed at Yucca mountain was barely above the background (granite) radiation level.
3. Using fast reactors or thorium reactors the spent fuel issue could be solve by burning spent fuel. 95-99% of high level waste could be eliminated.
4. The linear no-threshold model of radiation is provably killing people and forcing unnecessary and expensive nuclear cleanup.

The issue that gets missed in the nuclear debate is that we shouldn't be using pressurized reactors at all. There are alternative reactor designs, LFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor) or LMFR (liquid metal fast reactor) that would be better for installations in populated areas since they are not pressured reactors - there is no water to boil off. The LFTR doesn't need active cooling - the reactor expands until it reaches steady state. The LFTR reactor has no core, the solution in the reactor is a mix of salt and fuel that cools when it expands. There is also the subcritical Thorium reactor (ADS) design that is absolutely safe since a particle accelerator is needed to operate the reactor.

[spacemaverick]

The dismantlement issue is a created issue.
1. The allowed radiation level for reactor steel is set 100,000 times lower than the radiation level for natural gas pipe steel.
2. The radiation level allowed at Yucca mountain was barely above the background (granite) radiation level.
3. Using fast reactors or thorium reactors the spent fuel issue could be solve by burning spent fuel. 95-99% of high level waste could be eliminated.
4. The linear no-threshold model of radiation is provably killing people and forcing unnecessary and expensive nuclear cleanup.

The issue that gets missed in the nuclear debate is that we shouldn't be using pressurized reactors at all. There are alternative reactor designs, LFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor) or LMFR (liquid metal fast reactor) that would be better for installations in populated areas since they are not pressured reactors - there is no water to boil off. The LFTR doesn't need active cooling - the reactor expands until it reaches steady state. The LFTR reactor has no core, the solution in the reactor is a mix of salt and fuel that cools when it expands. There is also the subcritical Thorium reactor (ADS) design that is absolutely safe since a particle accelerator is needed to operate the reactor.


I love it. Especially the bottom paragraph.

Many thanks for that input!

[spacemaverick]

San Onofre’s Steam Generator Failures Could Have Been Prevented


San Onofre’s Steam Generator Failures
Could Have Been Prevented
Summary
Southern California Edison’s four replacement steam generators at their San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station failed in less than two years of operation, while the original equipment operated for 28 years. Fairewinds has been analyzing the data in order to determine how such an expensive investment could fail so quickly.

In June of 2006 Edison informed the NRC that the replacement steam generators to be manufactured by Mitsubishi would be fabricated to the same design specifications as the original San Onofre Combustion Engineering (CE) steam generators. According to Nuclear Engineering International, Edison has admitted that this was a strategic decision to avoid a more thorough license amendment and review process.[1]

At SONGS, the major premise of the steam generator replacement project was that it would be implemented under the lOCFR50.59 rule, that is, without prior approval by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). To achieve this goal, the RSGs were to be designed as 'in-kind' replacement for

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/sa...been-prevented

[Poriwoggu]

San Onofre’s Steam Generator Failures Could Have Been Prevented


San Onofre’s Steam Generator Failures
Could Have Been Prevented
Summary
Southern California Edison’s four replacement steam generators at their San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station failed in less than two years of operation, while the original equipment operated for 28 years. Fairewinds has been analyzing the data in order to determine how such an expensive investment could fail so quickly.

In June of 2006 Edison informed the NRC that the replacement steam generators to be manufactured by Mitsubishi would be fabricated to the same design specifications as the original San Onofre Combustion Engineering (CE) steam generators. According to Nuclear Engineering International, Edison has admitted that this was a strategic decision to avoid a more thorough license amendment and review process.[1]

At SONGS, the major premise of the steam generator replacement project was that it would be implemented under the lOCFR50.59 rule, that is, without prior approval by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). To achieve this goal, the RSGs were to be designed as 'in-kind' replacement for

http://www.fairewinds.com/content/sa...been-prevented

This really isn't a radiation issue per se, the problems may have caused some primary coolant to leak but it is really hard to make water radioactive. The worst that could happen (and did) is a leak in the exchanger that they would mop up. It is serious since they can't operate legally with a leaking heat exchanger.

I can tell what happened - Combustion Engineering had very good mechanical analysis people (I used to work with an ex-Combustion Exgineer who worked on Diablo Canyon and may have worked on Onefre) and had about 20 plants worth of experience with this type of exchanger. Mitsubishi was trying to use a Westinghouse compatible design and had no experience with this design. The design they used had more tubes and increased the primary coolant capacity of the system. At that point someone should have forced a serious engineering analysis of the entire system - it didn't happen. There were dissimilar metal and a number of other issues besides.

SCE may or may not have thought they were getting a drop-in replacement. Mitsubishi knew it wasn't a drop-in. 2300 PSI water is very unfriendly to design mistakes. Your home can get water hammering with 40 psi. Just imagine water hammering 100 times as bad.

They have lawyers to solve these problems.

[Poriwoggu]

Radiation Coverups And Dangers Exposed Worldwide

By Alex Thomas
July 12, 2011

http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/12/ra...sed-worldwide/

Even though this stroy was brought forth back in July, it gives us a compilation of problems in different areas of our country. There are dangers around us and coverups to keep us from getting panicky. Is it right to coverup or should we be aware? My belief is we should be made aware of the dangers.

Read that. The problem is that there is a large segment of the population that has poor judgement and little common sense. Explaining that a 1 or 2 or 50% increase in radiation level is insignificant and at worst will make them healthier is impossible. There is a significant group of people who oppose progress in all forms and create straw men out of every piece of news.

Nuclear radiation from power plants kills fewer people than almost any other human activity. More people died in the back of Ted Kennedy's car than have died from radiation in US nuclear power plant accidents. Coal fired power plants have killed 10s of thousands of people. Natural Gas utilities can sell used steel pipe with 100,000 times the radioactivity allowed for steel from a nuclear plant.

Not reporting non-problems isn't the same as covering up. You don't tell news stations when your shoe lace breaks - you get another shoe lace.

As to this Buzby business with the "enriched uranium". I had to stop typing until I could quit laughing. It is difficult to believe anyone was foolish enough to say that let alone say it on the air. The US has over half a million tons of depleted uranium that it can use for FREE. Why in the world would they use enriched uranium that costs them $1000/kg? That is crazy.

There was hundreds if not thousands of tons of yellowcake in Iraq. The Iraqis are known to have dumped some of it in the rivers so they could use the barrels it came in.

[spacemaverick]

Study: Contaminated water from Fukushima reactors could double radioactivity levels of US coastal waters in 5 years — “We were surprised at how quickly the tracer spread” (PHOTO & VIDEO)

http://enenews.com/study-contaminate...r-spread-video

Radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan could reach the US West Coast in the next 5–6 years, doubling the radioactivity of US coastal waters, according to simulations carried out by German oceanographers.

[...]

Tentatively assuming a value of 10 petabecquerel (PBq) for the net 137Caesium (Cs) input during the first weeks after the Fukushima incident, the simulation suggests a rapid dilution of peak radioactivity values to about 10 Bq/m³ during the first 2 years, followed by a gradual decline to 1–2 Bq/m³ over the next 4–7 years. The total peak radioactivity levels would then be about twice the pre-Fukushima values.

[...]

[Poriwoggu]

Study: Contaminated water from Fukushima reactors could double radioactivity levels of US coastal waters in 5 years — “We were surprised at how quickly the tracer spread” (PHOTO & VIDEO)

http://enenews.com/study-contaminate...r-spread-video

Radioactive water from the Fukushima nuclear reactors in Japan could reach the US West Coast in the next 5–6 years, doubling the radioactivity of US coastal waters, according to simulations carried out by German oceanographers.

[...]

Tentatively assuming a value of 10 petabecquerel (PBq) for the net 137Caesium (Cs) input during the first weeks after the Fukushima incident, the simulation suggests a rapid dilution of peak radioactivity values to about 10 Bq/m³ during the first 2 years, followed by a gradual decline to 1–2 Bq/m³ over the next 4–7 years. The total peak radioactivity levels would then be about twice the pre-Fukushima values.

[...]

I updated my hosts file to exclude enenews.com a while back. After reading 10 alarmist articles that had no factual content my blood pressure was starting to concern me. Enenews.com is an entertainment site for the environmentally minded. I can suggest some REAL news sites if you would like to discuss facts. If you like more entertainment I suggest environmentalresearchweb.org, no-rad-zone.com, etc. These sites are on the level of the national enquirer. Please do not ask me to pretend anything on these sites is true.

Lets go look at this one.
10 petabecquerel Cesium-137... The TEPCO figure is 360,000 TBq of cesium-137. That's 360 PBq??? Ok, it looks like enenews is pooh-poohing the Cesium threat. If you assume only half the Cs-137 went into the ocean - that's 180 PBq. Gee, this article seems to be responsible journalism, I take back what I said about ENENEWS.

Well, how bad is that much Cesium??? The ocean has a background concentration of 2 Bq*m^-3. The ocean is 361 x 10¹⁵ m³. Committing some math as is my wont: 361 x 10¹⁵ m³ * 2 Bq.m^-3 = 722 PBq. So the concentration (according to enenews) is going to change 1.3%... Yawn.

However, and I hate to say this (I really hate to say this), spacemaverick - you are a sunshiny hopeless optimist. The situation is much worse than you stated.

The power company says they released about 360 PBq and we really have to take them at their word (they wouldn't exaggerate). Assuming 1/2 of the released cesium went in the water that is 360/2 or 180 PBq. So we had 722 PBq and we are adding 180 PBq and that is a... 25% change. And it is concentrated in the pacific which means the California coast will be among the hardest hit. THAT'S AWFUL. HOW TERRIBLE. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING... Errr. I wonder what the effect on the California coast would look like.

In 2002 tuna had a total of about 400 bq/kg of miscellaneous radioactivity and the Cesium levels were 2.7 bq/kg. The Cesium levels are 4.0 bq/kg today. 4.0/2.7 = 1.48, that's a 48% increase which we expected as Japan is also in the Pacific. Let's see, if the radioactivity of tuna doubled (100% change) we should be concerned. So how have the levels changed? 4.0 - 2.7 + 400 = 401.3 bq/kg vs 400 bq/kg = 0.325% change. Color me skeptical but a 0.325% change isn't close enough to a 100% change (doubling) to worry me.


Some background on radiation concentration, pre-fuku.

In 1994, Concentration factors for Cs-137 in marine algae from Japanese coastal waters, "[concentration] in edible species were within the range of 5.4 approximately 67 [Bq/kg]"

Variation of Cs-137 in California Coastal Sea Water: "measurements of specimens of surface sea water taken last year at a single nearshore, coastal, sampling point fluctuated widely, from 0.046 to 0.23 micromicrocuries/liter. These are consistent with other measurements made off California, but much lower than those reported for the Western Pacific."

And finally:
Fukushima Update | No radioactive cesium found in Fukushima. "No radioactive cesium has been detected in tests on the breast milk of mothers in Fukushima Prefecture, the prefectural government said Monday."

[Cloudman]

I live 30 miles from San Onofre. It's right next to Camp Pendleton. They have more people working on the issue then you can imagine. They seem to be taking every precaution to find the problem which Poriwoggu outlined and is on the mark. The tree huggers out here love to express outrage and over react which leads to false alarms and clouds the facts. I'm all for safe energy and protecting our environment. The plant is shut down and being evaluated as to whether it will ever be restarted. The bigger issue to me is the costs. They recently installed the now damaged tubes and other parts at millions of dollars. It will cost millions more as the attorneys work out who's at fault and either repair or shut down the plant. I'm pretty sure it stays and is repaired and we keep rolling along.

[spacemaverick]

It is nice to have someone on the scene we are familiar with to tell us the truth. Porriwoggu is correct and I am glad to see the input regarding the media. Each has their spin for their own agenda. I was wondering; Arnie Gunderson seems to be on the up and up regarding his information. What is your input on Arnie?

[Poriwoggu]

It is nice to have someone on the scene we are familiar with to tell us the truth. Porriwoggu is correct and I am glad to see the input regarding the media. Each has their spin for their own agenda. I was wondering; Arnie Gunderson seems to be on the up and up regarding his information. What is your input on Arnie?

Arnie Gunderson uses the cautious measured circumspect language of a professional and states the caveats on his views. He appears (and has a reputation for being) somewhat alarmist but technically competent, ie his concerns may be overblown but they have to be responded to. He turns out reasonable footnoted engineering reports. It must be kept in mind that he operates a for-profit anti-nuclear consulting business (he is a hired gun). He has about 20 years experience in the nuclear industry but hadn't worked in the industry for the last 20 years (he has been a teacher).

Bottom line: Arnie says they screwed up, that appears to be correct. Arnie says they should have gotten NRC approval - that appears to be correct. Arnie says it can't be fixed... Jury is out.