Amen. And these lies are promulgated because a job with the government or, better yet, a prime contractor is the next thing to eternal life, but with higher pay. If that job can be marketed as useful and necessary with information that is confusing to most of the public only because it takes a little more than a 30 second sound bite to understand, it becomes a slam dunk.
Good point. I guess they are taking advantage of the fact that the body is very good at regulating potassium levels. (5) and (6) would probably set alarms off. Does anybody know what restrictions they place on the volunteers?
The purpose of this delusion is to hide the fact that radiation is only dangerous above a certain dose rate and that the US military has hidden this danger.
@JD thoughts on the mammogram study in the linked article? It seems to imply harm from relatively low dose radiation though there are a lot of confounding factors.
Confounding factors are eliminated because observations on incidence, corroborated by observations on mortality (absence of benefit from screening) are made in many countries at different times and only at the time expected for cancers induced by mammography.
The mammograms happen at intervals and at minimum are correlated with age. And just the fact that they are being done implies greater awareness and concern about breast cancer.
Corcos seems to want to replace LNT's the-only-thing-that-counts-is-total-dose with the-only-thing-that-counts-is-dose-rate although AFAIK he has not proposed a well-defined model. Neither makes biological sense.
We know the cell repair process takes tens a minutes to several hours. If that's the case whether a dose is delivered in a second or spread over tens of seconds would not make any real difference.
When Corcos comes up with a well-defined model. I will look at it. Until then I've got better things to do thento respond to bunch of rants about some kind of military conspiracy.
A dose-response model is based on data. The only data we can seriously consider, given a sufficient number of cases, are those that 2 x 2 mGy administered to the breast in one second causes 4 cancers in 1,000 women and that high total doses below 1 nGy per second have no effect.
70 years of indoctrination. The nuclear complex has been promulgating the Two Lies since the 1950's. CEMRC is a pretty clever way of stating the Intolerable harm Lie.The anti's merely echo the Intolerable Harm Lie, and point out the Negligible Probability Lie is obviously false. .
When both the industry and the opposition are claiming that radiation, even tiny amounts of radiation, is perilous., the public is supposed to believe differently?
Fair point, but that highlights a broader issue. Most people aren't interested enough to look beyond mainstream commentary to see what's really happening. Even many so‑called pro‑nuclear environmentalists don't know nearly enough about this issue.
It's not just main stream commentary. It's the nuclear experts. Most of the new supporters of nuclear assume the problem is the anti's. Quite a few were recently anti's themselves. These converts naturally turn to the nuclear establishment for the truth. And the establishment tells them that radiation is indeed extremely dangerous as you were told, but with enough money and strict, independent (aka autocratic) regulation we experts can handle this very difficult problem.
OK, you have convinced me that use of WIPP for NPP waste is not just a convenient use of an already existing facility, but a boost to the anti-nuclear position that the danger of NPP waste is extreme. This is relevant to our discussion on Waste Management in Citizendium. I will add a link to your article. We already have your earlier response on our Debate Guide page:
// Response from Jack Devanney, Principal Engineer, ThorCon USA Inc, and author of Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop email 14 July 2023:
"Deep Geologic Disposal is an order of magnitude more expensive than dry cask. It is both unnecessary and stupid. It is stupid because you are throwing away already refined U-238, which we will need for breeders. It is stupid because it sends a clear message that spent fuel is uniquely dangerous. In fact, after the [penetrating radiation] is gone, spent fuel is just another poison, and not a particularly dangerous one."
A far cheaper plan would be to solution-mine a small salt cavern, then add cement to the TRU waste and pump the grout down. Then seal the rest of the cavern and borehole with more (clean) grout. The should-cost would be under 10 million, and no need for ventilation systems or flammable kitty-litter.
Of course this idea would never be used, as it is too cheap for modern merchants of despair.
A still cheaper plan is to grout the unusable heavy metals, and landfill the grout. There's no need for any deep disposal any more than there is a need to put lead far underground.
Not sure. Landfilling involves various long-term monitoring costs, and it's hard to claim long-term conflict of land usage won't be an issue. Likely you will end up paying for expensive containers to retain long term isolation. Tough to beat a simple wellhead, both from a PR viewpoint and from costs. The more because the solution salt can be sold on the market, so the should-cost ends up being nil or even negative.
The more salient problem as you have pointed out, that we never obtain should-costs anymore. $11 billion for something that should cost 1% of that is rather a pork project, and sadly, has become the norm. What's the cost per life saved of WIPP?
If it were truly cheaper, maybe. But that's going to be hard to do. As soon as you go deep, you create a heat problem for yourself which means a lot of drilling. And if you dont monitor, you get into satisfying the worst scenario somebody can dream up. And you have to avoid the impression that you are putting it down the hole because its horrendously dangerous or you create all sorts of problems for nuclear elsewhere. And remember the waste will by an interesting mixture of very heavy metals. What's not economically recoverable today, may be extremely valuable in a few hundred years.
I say stick with Class C landfills. If we use phosphate grout even the uranium will be insoluble. The combination of insoluble amterial and monitoring should avoid the need for expensive containers, If it doesn't, we've already lost the war.
Obviously this would not be a good idea with spent fuel, very wasteful of fuel. It is my understanding that most of the WIPP waste is TRU waste that likely is not going to be economical to recover for fuel due to isotopics and dilution. It is mostly not heat generating. Though heat shouldn't be a problem - rock salt has higher thermal conductivity than other rocks, and the heat will aid in plastic deformation resealing the cavity. That's a big advantage of salt formations. Paying 11 billion for it is the madness. Got to be at least 50x the should-cost.
We are talking past each other. I'm focused on spent fuel, not a bunch of chemicals left over from bomb production (some of which are quite nasty chemically.)
I agree landfill versus borehole/leached cavern should be a straightforward which costs less problem. But by going deep for alpha and beta emitters, you create all kinds of psychological issues for nuclear. Landfill makes a positive statement.
You’re a funny guy if you think landfills are a positive statement. I can hardly think of a more negative depiction of the state of humanity than a landfill.
Amen. And these lies are promulgated because a job with the government or, better yet, a prime contractor is the next thing to eternal life, but with higher pay. If that job can be marketed as useful and necessary with information that is confusing to most of the public only because it takes a little more than a 30 second sound bite to understand, it becomes a slam dunk.
This is so stupid. They are measuring trivial stuff. What about the following locals:?
1) Local who has just enjoyed a banana
2) Local who drinks local well water - any magnesium or calcium?
3) Local who has just enjoyed a beer
4) Local taking a potassium supplement for a heart condition
5) Local who has recently had a Tc-99m diagnostic procedure
6) Local or their cat who has recently had an I-131 procedure for hyperthyroidism - meow!
Good point. I guess they are taking advantage of the fact that the body is very good at regulating potassium levels. (5) and (6) would probably set alarms off. Does anybody know what restrictions they place on the volunteers?
The purpose of this delusion is to hide the fact that radiation is only dangerous above a certain dose rate and that the US military has hidden this danger.
https://x.com/daniel_corcos/status/1860567542202319323
@JD thoughts on the mammogram study in the linked article? It seems to imply harm from relatively low dose radiation though there are a lot of confounding factors.
Confounding factors are eliminated because observations on incidence, corroborated by observations on mortality (absence of benefit from screening) are made in many countries at different times and only at the time expected for cancers induced by mammography.
The mammograms happen at intervals and at minimum are correlated with age. And just the fact that they are being done implies greater awareness and concern about breast cancer.
Corcos seems to want to replace LNT's the-only-thing-that-counts-is-total-dose with the-only-thing-that-counts-is-dose-rate although AFAIK he has not proposed a well-defined model. Neither makes biological sense.
We know the cell repair process takes tens a minutes to several hours. If that's the case whether a dose is delivered in a second or spread over tens of seconds would not make any real difference.
When Corcos comes up with a well-defined model. I will look at it. Until then I've got better things to do thento respond to bunch of rants about some kind of military conspiracy.
A dose-response model is based on data. The only data we can seriously consider, given a sufficient number of cases, are those that 2 x 2 mGy administered to the breast in one second causes 4 cancers in 1,000 women and that high total doses below 1 nGy per second have no effect.
Your "model" is far from complete. A welldefined model returns a cancer incidence for any arbitrary doe rate profile, not just your minuscule subset
You persist in considering only the DNA repair process. The critical factor is the control of the level of ROS.
But why? Cui Bono? I know “follow the money” is always a place to start, but why are people so willing to believe this BS?
Phil,
70 years of indoctrination. The nuclear complex has been promulgating the Two Lies since the 1950's. CEMRC is a pretty clever way of stating the Intolerable harm Lie.The anti's merely echo the Intolerable Harm Lie, and point out the Negligible Probability Lie is obviously false. .
When both the industry and the opposition are claiming that radiation, even tiny amounts of radiation, is perilous., the public is supposed to believe differently?
Blame the liar, not the liar's victims.
Fair point, but that highlights a broader issue. Most people aren't interested enough to look beyond mainstream commentary to see what's really happening. Even many so‑called pro‑nuclear environmentalists don't know nearly enough about this issue.
It's not just main stream commentary. It's the nuclear experts. Most of the new supporters of nuclear assume the problem is the anti's. Quite a few were recently anti's themselves. These converts naturally turn to the nuclear establishment for the truth. And the establishment tells them that radiation is indeed extremely dangerous as you were told, but with enough money and strict, independent (aka autocratic) regulation we experts can handle this very difficult problem.
Who's saying differently?
OK, you have convinced me that use of WIPP for NPP waste is not just a convenient use of an already existing facility, but a boost to the anti-nuclear position that the danger of NPP waste is extreme. This is relevant to our discussion on Waste Management in Citizendium. I will add a link to your article. We already have your earlier response on our Debate Guide page:
// Response from Jack Devanney, Principal Engineer, ThorCon USA Inc, and author of Why Nuclear Power Has Been A Flop email 14 July 2023:
"Deep Geologic Disposal is an order of magnitude more expensive than dry cask. It is both unnecessary and stupid. It is stupid because you are throwing away already refined U-238, which we will need for breeders. It is stupid because it sends a clear message that spent fuel is uniquely dangerous. In fact, after the [penetrating radiation] is gone, spent fuel is just another poison, and not a particularly dangerous one."
//
Excavating half a million m3 of rock salt at this depth would cost less than 0.1 billion, much less when taking credit of salt sales.
Where did the other 99% of the money go?
A far cheaper plan would be to solution-mine a small salt cavern, then add cement to the TRU waste and pump the grout down. Then seal the rest of the cavern and borehole with more (clean) grout. The should-cost would be under 10 million, and no need for ventilation systems or flammable kitty-litter.
Of course this idea would never be used, as it is too cheap for modern merchants of despair.
A still cheaper plan is to grout the unusable heavy metals, and landfill the grout. There's no need for any deep disposal any more than there is a need to put lead far underground.
Not sure. Landfilling involves various long-term monitoring costs, and it's hard to claim long-term conflict of land usage won't be an issue. Likely you will end up paying for expensive containers to retain long term isolation. Tough to beat a simple wellhead, both from a PR viewpoint and from costs. The more because the solution salt can be sold on the market, so the should-cost ends up being nil or even negative.
The more salient problem as you have pointed out, that we never obtain should-costs anymore. $11 billion for something that should cost 1% of that is rather a pork project, and sadly, has become the norm. What's the cost per life saved of WIPP?
If it were truly cheaper, maybe. But that's going to be hard to do. As soon as you go deep, you create a heat problem for yourself which means a lot of drilling. And if you dont monitor, you get into satisfying the worst scenario somebody can dream up. And you have to avoid the impression that you are putting it down the hole because its horrendously dangerous or you create all sorts of problems for nuclear elsewhere. And remember the waste will by an interesting mixture of very heavy metals. What's not economically recoverable today, may be extremely valuable in a few hundred years.
I say stick with Class C landfills. If we use phosphate grout even the uranium will be insoluble. The combination of insoluble amterial and monitoring should avoid the need for expensive containers, If it doesn't, we've already lost the war.
Obviously this would not be a good idea with spent fuel, very wasteful of fuel. It is my understanding that most of the WIPP waste is TRU waste that likely is not going to be economical to recover for fuel due to isotopics and dilution. It is mostly not heat generating. Though heat shouldn't be a problem - rock salt has higher thermal conductivity than other rocks, and the heat will aid in plastic deformation resealing the cavity. That's a big advantage of salt formations. Paying 11 billion for it is the madness. Got to be at least 50x the should-cost.
We are talking past each other. I'm focused on spent fuel, not a bunch of chemicals left over from bomb production (some of which are quite nasty chemically.)
I agree landfill versus borehole/leached cavern should be a straightforward which costs less problem. But by going deep for alpha and beta emitters, you create all kinds of psychological issues for nuclear. Landfill makes a positive statement.
You’re a funny guy if you think landfills are a positive statement. I can hardly think of a more negative depiction of the state of humanity than a landfill.