Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2011 - 09:50pm PT
|
The waste will be closely guarded for the next 2000 years. Nothing to worry about it is taken care of.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2011 - 09:51pm PT
|
Okay... Thanks man. I'm reassured.
2000 whole years. man thats a long time. Just what was the half life of plutonium again?
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2011 - 09:56pm PT
|
How is it that the same personalities that insist on believing that 17 Arabs from the desert with box cutters can outsmart NORAD and attack the Pentagon, also claim that our 100 plus nuc facilities are all safe for all eternity?
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2011 - 10:18pm PT
|
Are you kidding. Seriously?
You linked probably 100+ pages of government regulations and I'm supposed to read the whole thing? No, Karl, just the 'purpose and scope', the very first few paragraghs on the very first page. The quote I gave you is like the 4th or 5th paragragh, where the 2nd on are pretty much one liners. So, would likely take just 30 seconds.
Here, I'll help:
PART 73—PHYSICAL PROTECTION OF PLANTS AND MATERIALS
Full Text Version (555.16 KB)
General Provisions
Sec.
73.1 Purpose and scope. <--- First part, it's clickable, as are all parts
73.2 Definitions.
73.3 Interpretations.
73.4 Communications.
After clicking that, you see this:
§ 73.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose. This part prescribes requirements for the establishment and maintenance of a physical protection system which will have capabilities for the protection of special nuclear material at fixed sites and in transit and of plants in which special nuclear material is used. The following design basis threats, where referenced in ensuing sections of this part, shall be used to design safeguards systems to protect against acts of radiological sabotage and to prevent the theft or diversion of special nuclear material. Licensees subject to the provisions of § 73.20 (except for fuel cycle licensees authorized under Part 70 of this chapter to receive, acquire, possess, transfer, use, or deliver for transportation formula quantities of strategic special nuclear material), §§ 73.50, and 73.60 are exempt from §§ 73.1(a)(1)(i)(E), 73.1(a)(1)(iii), 73.1(a)(1)(iv), 73.1(a)(2)(iii), and 73.1(a)(2)(iv). Licensees subject to the provisions of
§ 72.212 are exempt from § 73.1(a)(1)(iv).
(1) Radiological sabotage. (i) A determined violent external assault, attack by stealth, or deceptive actions, including diversionary actions, by an adversary force capable of operating in each of the following modes: A single group attacking through one entry point, multiple groups attacking through multiple entry points, a combination of one or more groups and one or more individuals attacking through multiple entry points, or individuals attacking through separate entry points, with the following attributes, assistance and equipment:
(A) Well-trained (including military training and skills) and dedicated individuals, willing to kill or be killed, with sufficient knowledge to identify specific equipment or locations necessary for a successful attack;
(B) Active (e.g., facilitate entrance and exit, disable alarms and communications, participate in violent attack) or passive (e.g., provide information), or both, knowledgeable inside assistance; See, 4th paragragh, on the very first page.
K... You try now:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/
I would like to know how that link Adam said we wouldn't read, proves that nukes are now safely guarded. No one doubts there are regulations in place. At least I don't. I just doubt an industry can keep it up constantly, and not make mistakes That is also contained in the CFR I linked, as it discusses penalties in the last parts under "enforcement", it is a clickable link, entitled 'violations'. I trust you can find it in the link above.
And if you didn't know, there are TWO resident NRC Inspectors at every nuke in the US, and all they do is look HARD to ensure that nukes abide by the CFRs, and if they miss just one little thing, they usually are assesed a fine.
And I said that Karl likely wouldn't read it, not everybody.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2011 - 10:33pm PT
|
I would like to know how you get from this..
Some info, you likely won't read, yet addresses everything you are asking about security:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/
Which is hundreds of pages of regulations...
To this..
Are you kidding. Seriously?
You linked probably 100+ pages of government regulations and I'm supposed to read the whole thing?
No, Karl, just the 'purpose and scope', the very first few paragraghs on the very first page. The quote I gave you is like the 4th or 5th paragragh, where the 2nd on are pretty much one liners. So, would likely take just 30 seconds.
Because the link you gave is hundreds of pages long. Not one liners and you didn't say anything about just reading the first few paragraphs.
Dude, what you wrote about him not reading it was snarky. And now you change the mark? Come on man. Not cool and one of the very things you complain those who disagree with you do.
I still don't understand how a bunch of regs proves we are now safe from attacks, given humans propensity to cut back wherever they can.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2011 - 10:38pm PT
|
Oh...
If you know what the protections against a nutcase are, just type the generalities up quickly. Again, I will NOT discuss any security measures, as that is 'safegaurds' information, other than to say 'no one nutcase can create a major problem'.
And I said before that the security forces at US plants are about the size of a normal county sheriff's department, only much better armed and trained. That is a bit more than 10 armed gaurds... It isn't a mall in the hood.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 14, 2011 - 10:42pm PT
|
Some info, you likely won't read, yet addresses everything you are asking about security:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part073/
Which is hundreds of pages of regulations...
To this..
Are you kidding. Seriously?
You linked probably 100+ pages of government regulations and I'm supposed to read the whole thing?
No, Karl, just the 'purpose and scope', the very first few paragraghs on the very first page. The quote I gave you is like the 4th or 5th paragragh, where the 2nd on are pretty much one liners. So, would likely take just 30 seconds.
Because the link you gave is hundreds of pages long. Not one liners and you didn't say anything about just reading the first few paragraphs.
Dude, what you wrote about him not reading it was snarky. And now you change the mark? Come on man. Not cool and one of the very things you complain those who disagree with you do.
I still don't understand how a bunch of regs proves we are now safe from attacks, given humans propensity to cut back wherever they can.
Another thing that seems to not be understood by some is that the security, engineering, and safety systems are WAY too complex and layered to just type up in a paragragh or 40. So this is why there are hundreds of pages that details the measures that MUST be accounted for. Seems many expect people to condense it into a short blurb that explains it all, and that just can't be accomplished.
If you want to know the details, then you have to research and understand the details yourselves, OR, listen to those that have. You can't have it both ways. (I.e, explain a complex system with few words so it can be understood, BUT don't leave anything out)
Don't take what I'm saying the wrong way... I don;t think anyone here is stupid, and can't understand any of this, just that many don't take the time to try to understand on their own, when anyone can research much of this on the net. How nukes work, basic designs, safety systems, regulations, redundancies, types of radiation and radionuclides and the effects on people and the environment, nuclear physics, etc... ALL can be well understood by ANYONE willing to invest the time AND the desire to understand.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:15am PT
|
Golsen wrote
Karl, not that it matters but that nuclear missile gaff was in 2007. I would not compare that to the happenings at nuclear reactors
My bad on the date. Still, it IS comparable because it is an example of how a very very strictly regulated nuclear threat is still very vulnerable because of human stupidity. I'm sure those cruise missles were never supposed to be able be loaded on that plane and that pages of regulations and protections are against it, and yet it happened.
Looking at the examples from around the world that I've cited and given what's happening now, it seems that a lot of things that are NEVER supposed to happen are happening every few years, which is my point about our human folly not be up to the gravity of a mistake.
I'm sure the Roman Empire never expected to fall, Good thing they didn't have nuclear waste. we'd still be looking after it and couldn't tax them in retrospect. (and hey GOP dudes, nuclear waste is like national debt, you pay for it long after it's served its purpose
PEace
Karl
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:46am PT
|
Reportedly the nuclear gaff in 2007 came about because nuclear and non-nuclear hardware was stored in the same bunker in the Dakotas. Normal Quality Assurance practice would require that one or two persons would have to sign off paperwork for any activity involving critical hardware and certainly the regulations would never allow intermingling of the two. The error came about because the rules were not followed and I have not heard of the sign-offs identifying who performed the intermingling. It is very significant that the numbers were not checked when the planes were armed. Very significant.
Now this is where I jump to a question. Supposedly a worker in Louisiana noticed that the nuclear armed hardware did not have the right numbers. It would be very instructive to see if USAF regulations require USAF personnel validate the hardware on each plane at the end of each and every flight. The check was not even performed before the planes took off! Because if it does not we are left to believe that someone on the Louisiana line took that task on voluntarily. The idea that someone would accidently notice some nearly unreadable and definitely meaningless numbers on the flight line - is a very long stretch. One in thousands I would think.
There is something wrong here. The secretary ascribed all of this to a breakdown in the system. A breakdown in the system for managing weapons of mass destruction. I don't believe it and even if I did I would not feel reassured - in the least.
Nothing that has been said about regulation of nuclear plants is any more reassuring. I believe it was the head of Excelon who complained bitterly to a Congressional committee that they were being over regulated - a week before the tsunami.
With forces like that in play, what "errors" might we encounter?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 01:09am PT
|
Jstan
I should probably note, for those who forgot, that there was a contingent of people who felt something was really fishy in the moving of those nuclear weapons. It came at the height of the "Bomb Iran" political times. Some felt something was up and calmer heads uncovered the operation to stop the madness.
Madness either way if you ask me. When you add up the nuclear "almosts" and actual accidents over the past few years, you have wonder what the worst cases would involve over the next 500 years.
PEace
Karl
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 08:21am PT
|
Re the miss-shipped nucs; the back story I heard at the time (deep conspiracy here - I forget where I read the article) is that Bush ordered the weapons to the middle-east, and the Air Force brass essentially pulled a coup-d'eta and miss shipped them out of harms way thus sending Bush a stern message that he can only go so far in his madness. Of course some peons took the fall.
All this other stuff about miss-stored or miss labeled missiles is, to me, a simplistic and transparent cover-up of a profoundly serious event, although in this case (who would of thought) I'm with the military.
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 09:29am PT
|
Morning all!
Let me again make clear... What happened, and is to a lesser degree, still happening at those nukes is a big frick'n deal, I don't mean to sound like I am down playing it, as I am not. My stance is that all I can do is go off of the verified information that is known, as going off of speculation (what if's, well maybe's) is too much of a guessing game, and I'm not into guessing.
I, just like all of us, am trying to make sense of what happened, and is still happening, but without detailed knowledge of the damage, mitigation activities, and other details, it's hard to know from here what happened, what is till happening, and the best choice of action(s).
What is known, as far as I understand, is that the plants and systems survived the 9.0 quake that far exceeded the design basis... The online units scrammed automatically in seconds, as designed. The EDGs did come online and supply power after all offsite power was lost, but then failed, for a still undetermined reason (flooding of the EDGs, or salt water in the fuel, or some other reason). Even if that were the case, the HPCI and RCIC systems still should have been able to supply plenty of water, as they are steam driven, and with the reactor scrammed and the MSIVs slammed shut, it still produces lots of steam, which can be blead off to run both of those systems... It's how it is designed. The units should be able to sit like this for quite some time, with the steam from scrammed reactor supplying the pumps to cool it. Why that didn't happen, or failed later, requires details we just don't have.
There certainly is lots of fuel damage, as the hydrogen explosions are a result of the hydrogen released from the zircalloy being oxidezed, not properly vented, causing explosions that strew debris all over the refuel floors, making access to the spent fuel pools difficult.
The spent fuel pools are relatively easy to keep full, so I am especially curious as to what lead to them being able to boil off, but for that, again, need more details... Also, see above.
The rad waste is processed in another part of the plant, with it's own control room, and goes through resin beds and filters to remove the vast majority of the bad stuff... What was the status of that after the quake/tsunami? They had to empty much of that 'low level' waste to make room in rad waste, and the wet-well (condensers) for the really 'high level' waste, as that was the ONLY choice, given the circumstances. Consider the alternative... Don't dump the low level, and the high level stuff gets out in quantity. That is a triage type situation/choice. And, it is even likely accumulating in the lower levels of the RB.
I'm in the same boat as all of us, as I want answers and details too, so I can better understand what happened. Thing is, filling in the blanks, of which there are many, myself based on even educated guesses is still just guesses, and I'm not in the business of 'guessing'. Unfortunately, many are more than willing to guess, and often fill in a blank with a 'guess' that that yields the outcome they want or already have in thier minds... And if done often enough, it is hard for one to accept something other than what they already have entrenched in their minds. 'Tis human nature. :/
Given the situation, and the lack of details, the right thing to do it to "fail conservative", which, looking at the LARGE evacuation areas, is being done... I saw video of a news crew with survey meters who drove all the way up to the fence, and throughout their trip, their meters read in the uS/hr, not mS/hr, until they reached the fence... Dose rates in the uS/hr are what can be expected from normal background radiation. Yes, uncontrolled releases of radionuclides (contamination) has been detected far from the plant, but from what I understand, NOT in quantities that are immediately threatening to the health of the 'general public'... But that doesn;t mean that it doesn't freak people out to hear that 'radioactive contamination' has been detected, as it can be detected at extremely low levels, and has even been detected here in the US.
Unfortunately, the nature of the ongoing events are such that we will not know many of these details for months, or even years in some cases. So, in order to have ALL the right answers (instead of guesses), it will take some time. That is not to say that some answers won't be had as details are better understood along the way.
|
|
Bargainhunter
climber
Central California
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 10:19am PT
|
Thanks Adam for the summary insight. I don't understand while people are so hostile on here. Everybody is trying to share info. and provide their own perspective. Not sure why Adam is unfairly the lightening rod for some; he's just trying to provide his own perspective and is confident in the backup stability of his own systems; but that's his natural bias as he has faith in his chosen field. Civility please.
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 10:57am PT
|
I sense a lull in the storm of this debate, and while the Japanese are still reeling, many are homeless and still many more are being kept from their homes due to the ongoing emergency at the power plants, I thought this was an interesting interview of an intelligent guy with regards to power and the direction that some Energy Companies are headed:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/14/news/companies/ralph_izzo_clean_energy.fortune/
And movement against TVA Coal Fired poewr plants:
http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2011/04/15/15climatewire-tva-agrees-to-shut-down-18-coal-fired-boiler-72955.html
The move by the Tennessee Valley Authority will result in nearly 1 percent of the nation's coal-fired power capacity going offline by the end of 2018, including 1,000 megawatts of coal-fired power TVA said it planned to retire last year. TVA's landmark deal with a suite of states and environmental groups and U.S. EPA resolves a number of lingering violation complaints EPA brought against the company for allegedly failing to comply with Clean Air Act pollution control requirements at 11 of its plants
I apologize up front because I know that this thread was initiated due to the terrible natural disaster in Japan; however, the event has catalyzed a discussion on whether nuclear energy is safe and what direction the USA should take with regards to its own electrical energy sources.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 11:30am PT
|
I don't understand while people are so hostile on here.
Merely an expression of Clarke's third law.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:24pm PT
|
I disagree on Clarke's third law. There have been some hostility going both ways and there are a couple of reasons. We are looking at our own mortality and vulnerability and it makes people unconsciously uncomfortable.
Also, both at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, risks and facts were downplayed and people were put at risk unnecessarily so there is a backlash against what I've been calling "happy talk" Here a video of expert-witness-at-the-time Gundersen about the chronology of TMI
http://www.fairewinds.com/content/nuclear-engineer-arnie-gundersen-discusses-radiation-releases-tmi-accident
I appreciate what Adam had written above but I don't think it's so simple. For example, in another video Gundersen deconstructed some officially released data to show evidence of a chain reaction at Unit one and later the company pulled the data off the website. There is distrust were government and corporate interests don't align with transparency. (for my example, look for "Newly Released TEPCO Data Provides Evidence of Periodic Chain Reaction at Fukushima Unit 1" at
http://www.fairewinds.com/multimedia
This might be intelligent guess work but with good logic and the same sort of guesses that the utility itself is basing it's concrete decisions on because they can't get in there to know everything. Life and death decisions are being made on guesswork by the utility and gov.
So people need to scrutinize what's happening to keep everybody honest when the data and announcements don't add up. I do think it's important to keep it civil while still checking each other's facts and welcoming all perspectives, particularly when supported with facts or examples.
Peace
Karl
|
|
rrrADAM
Trad climber
LBMF
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:34pm PT
|
...So people need to scrutinize what's happening to keep everybody honest when the data and announcements don't add up. I have done this repeatedly in this thread, Karl... Especially early on, when many reports in the media, and even in this thread, when what was written did not add up, had incorrect numbers, or had misunderstanding or misleading information.
As I said, I'm not one for 'guessing', even if I believe it's an educated and logical guess.
Why? Because, when it suits them, many use guesses that turn out to be wrong, even if logical and well reasoned, or just a little wrong, as evidence that people don't know what they are talking about. Yo gotta admit, brutha, some do look for any reason to do this.
So, if one is gonna gonna accept some of the myriad of guesswork that's all over the board, who's guesses does one accept? Perhaps the ones who's guesswork yields the answer they already slant towards, or that agrees with what one already believe? Isn't that cherry-picking?
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 12:44pm PT
|
Karl,
it is really good for everyone to receive any news with spuculation and a questioning attitude.
Also, both at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, risks and facts were downplayed and people were put at risk unnecessarily so there is a backlash against what I've been calling "happy talk" Here a video of expert-witness-at-the-time Gundersen about the chronology of TMI
First, Chernobyl was covered up by the USSR. It was a Swedish reactor that actually discovered atmospheric contamination and started asking. Then the USSR did not warn the people in the vicinity. My wife is from Leningrad and has absolutley no trust in what her present or past government tells the people. So I guess I am agreeing with you on Chernobyl. In fact, the USSR out right did not say anything at first.
Sorry, but the press of TMI was way to reactive.
Gundersen, I believe has his own axe to grind. So long as we all understand that there are agenda's being propagated that is the only way that we will be able to wade through the BS.
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 01:39pm PT
|
Adam wrote
.... many use guesses that turn out to be wrong, even if logical and well reasoned, or just a little wrong, as evidence that people don't know what they are talking about. Yo gotta admit, brutha, some do look for any reason to do this.
So, if one is gonna gonna accept some of the myriad of guesswork that's all over the board, who's guesses does one accept? Perhaps the ones who's guesswork yields the answer they already slant towards, or that agrees with what one already believe? Isn't that cherry-picking?
The heart of many information and opinion issues on this subject revolve around the axes different people have to grind. From my perspective, this goes triple for the nuclear industry themselves, who have billions of dollars and their careers at stake and a record of distortion. The anti-nuke folks are trying to prove their point as well. We have to be critical thinkers on all perspectives.
Whose guesses to give more benefit of the doubt to Adam? The ones whose previous guesses have proved true. Once somebody has cried wolf too much (or "no evidence for immediate concern" wrongly) too much, then everything comes with a red flag
Gunderson may have an axe to grind but claims documentation and cites references for the statements he is making. So far on this incident, he has proven more accurate than the official utility statements. Almost everyone could deduce they low balled the severity ranking of the incident
Peace
Karl
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2011 - 02:00pm PT
|
Truly excellent discussion guys! I will listen to Gunderson when I am confident exposing my email addy to facebook will not cause unending spam. The outside possibility of radiation rising sharply in the spent rod pools because they get close to criticality takes me back to Glasstone's discussion I read in the 50's. Stagg Field, the site of Fermi's original graphite pile was an open lot in the late fifties. Anyone know if something was ever built there?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!