Nuclear Energy Density

[sailorboy1]

"Peole sleeping with reactors" - I like this comment because I was on a nuclear sub (I was a nuclear trained guy). Of the things on the boat the one I worried about killing me the least was the reactor. I used to ask my guys when were out under the water if they were scared (a little fear is a good thing sometimes). If they said no I would remind them of where we were, what was in the boat with us, things that could happen etc. etc. The reactor was always WAY down on the list of things to be scared of.

One thing to keep in mind that that when you heard of radioactive leaks from a plant is what they mean is a release that exceeded the allowable limit for whatever. What they don't tell you in the story is the limit is set so that if you were exposed to it 8 hr/day for a year, you would exceed an allowable dose of radiation. So unless you are planning on getting friendly with a vent pipe I would be more worried about your sun exposure and walking in the mountains (were the natural radition levels are much higher than most understand).

[GordMay]

Americans typically tolerate 0.3 rem* annually from background radiation, and 0.01 rem from industrial operations without complication. Workers who deal with radioactivity can be exposed to 5 rem to their entire bodies and 50 rem to their extremities, as stated in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation.
Goto:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...s/cfr/part020/

Similarly, protective action guidelines values have been developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. For workers performing emergency services, these rem limits include:

* Protecting valuable property: 10
* Life-saving or protection of large populations: 25
* Life-saving or protection of large populations when rescuer fully understands the risks involved: >25

In a recent publication of the Health Physics Society, mention is made of real life, survivable doses of 25 rem and that doses reaching 50 rem may be acceptable under life-saving situations.

* The REM (Roentgen Equivalent, Man) is a unit of equivalent dose. Not all radiation has the same biological effect, even for the same amount of absorbed dose. Rem relates the absorbed dose in human tissue to the effective biological damage of the radiation. It is determined by multiplying the number of rads by the quality factor, a number reflecting the potential damage caused by the particular type of radiation. The rem is the traditional unit of equivalent dose, but it is being replaced by the sievert (Sv), which is equal to 100 rem.
The RAD (Radiation Absorbed Dose) is a measure of the amount of energy absorbed by the body. The rad is the traditional unit of absorbed dose. It is being replaced by the unit gray (Gy), which is equivalent to 100 rad. One rad equals the dose delivered to an object of 100 ergs of energy per gram of material.

Doses that induce clinical responses to radiation overexposure begin roughly at about 70 to 100 rad. At 100 rad, radiation fatalities are minimal, but become more probable as the whole body dose increases. The estimated dose that will kill 50% of exposed individuals within 60 days (no medical care) is about 350 rad.

[sailorboy1]

Wow Gord, I feel like I'm back in nuclear power school. But the number you give are the story, 5 REM/yr federal leagl limit whole body and this is pretty far below the level to cause problems. Keep in mind that we have lots of experience with exposure amounts and the level isn't a "hope and pray" number either. To put how hard it is to get this type of exposure, which is way below a health issue; in 11 years of nuclear power operations and maintenance I am in a rare "club" of exposure level. In those 11 years I joined the 1 REM club as a total lifetime level. To do this I had to be on an old plant (more radiation level as time goes by) and I spent a lot more time than most in the reactor compartment doing maintenance (during shutdown, no goes into reactor room during operation expect in the movies). So how much exposure danager is that train load of waste giving people as it goes by the them? The radiation level on the outside of the train container is probably below the federal level for continous exposure (in other words if you laid on top of it for 8 hours/day all year you might get to the yearly limit). And there is other thrumb rule for exposure; the rem:meter rule. If you are 10 meter from the source (assuming a point source) the rem is 1/100 of the radiation level. Nuclear power is about fear, not fact.

[Sam Plan B]

I used to work for Houston Lighting & Power. Their electric generating stations were coal fired. It took a lot of research but I found the following. A 1,500MW power unit consumes 11,000 tons of coal in 24 hours. This comes to about 4,000,000 tons of coal per year. A nuclear powered unit of the same capacity produces 634 cubic feet of waist fuel rod per year. It seems to me that no matter what the issues of nuclear waist may be, that problem is by far the mroe managable. Besides, miners die so often in the pit that it is hardly newsworthy. No blood for coal.

[Robertcateran]

I am all for nuclear reactors. If they do have problems, they make a wonderful wildlife refuge.
My objections to reactors is more that they still require a large amount of mining and there is not a perpetual supply of high quality uranium. There is a possibility of using Thorium and then there are fast breeders. It is hard to make sure that the fissile material doesn't fall into the hands of nutters. So far we have been relatively lucky with only a few nutty states with access to nuclear weapons.

[sailorboy1]

Aren't we all Nutty? Isn't that why we always think anyone who is different from us is Nutty?

[Robertcateran]

The cold war was definitely nutty. mutually assured destruction- MAD

[Pblais]

Aren't we all Nutty? Isn't that why we always think anyone who is different from us is Nutty?

I like being nutty. Seems natural to me. I find more nuts here than about any other place I frequent. Nuts of a feather flock together?

I defy anyone to separate the nuts.

[David M]

Coal plants put more naturally occurring radioisotopes in to the air than any reactor in the US ever has.

[Sailon]

Originally Posted by Robertcateran

I am all for nuclear reactors. If they do have problems, they make a wonderful wildlife refuge.
My objections to reactors is more that they still require a large amount of mining and there is not a perpetual supply of high quality uranium. There is a possibility of using Thorium and then there are fast breeders. It is hard to make sure that the fissile material doesn't fall into the hands of nutters. So far we have been relatively lucky with only a few nutty states with access to nuclear weapons.

A dead wildlife refuge perhaps.

[Artif]

In reply to bastonjock
I assume from your location you are talking about Sizewell power stations.
The water you see being pumped is to cool/condense the steam once it's used in the generator side of the power plant, It does not come into contact with fissile material or even contact with the pressurised water loop.

To put some perspective on nuclear waste, You are not allowed to take coal onto a licensed nuclear site in the U.K. because it is too radioactive, and would have to be handled as radioactive material/waste. You would quite happily have it in your front room though.

[Artif]

Originally Posted by Sailon

A dead wildlife refuge perhaps.

Take a look at how the wildlife has taken over the Chernobyl site, far from dead it is in fact thriving.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Artif

Take a look at how the wildlife has taken over the Chernobyl site, far from dead it is in fact thriving.

BULL!

The idea that the exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant has created a wildlife haven is not scientifically justified, a study says.
➥ BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven'

Excerpted from Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving

“... "One of the great ironies of this particular tragedy is that many animals are doing considerably better than when the humans were there," he (Tim Mousseau) said.

"But it would be a mistake to conclude they are doing better than in a control area. We just don't know what is normal [for Chernobyl]. There just haven't been enough scientific studies done."

[capngeo]

Just a friendly reminder that per the rules of CF:

Discussion of politics and religion is permitted only in association with the topic of this forum.

The discussion of the environmental aspects of Nuke Power Plants is flirting with political views and has nothing to do with energy densities the OP started this thread about.

[Artif]

Originally Posted by GordMay

BULL!

"

Far from BULL! there are animals and plants living there, O.K thriving might be the wrong term.
The area is far from a desolate nuclear wasteland that many believed it would be. In fact there are people still living in the exclusion zone.