[LINK] Radiation

[Fernando Cassia]

On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 12:20 AM,  <stephen at melbpc.org.au> wrote:
> Nuclear-reactor energy sure is one good thing to have fear, uncertainty
> and doubt about.

I wonder if GE will pay damages to the Japanese people, after
documents have surfaced showing the company KNEW since the 1970s about
the design shortcomings of the Mark I reactor design. Surely they
communicated such dangers and shortcomings to the Japanese when they
sold them their technology, right? (sarcasm).

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/world/asia/16contain.html?_r=1&src=me&ref=world


> This seems healthy to me, and surely not irrational in
> terms of future world energy needs. If FUD prevents another plant, good!

I agree. Yet I´m not totally opposed to nuclear energy but with HEAVY
safeguards, and surely not in places with seismic activity and
definitely NOT near urban areas, just to diversify the national grid
from fossil fuels. Having 10-15% of a country´s energy coming from
nuclear is common sense grid diversification, having 50-60% or more
like France is insane.

Back to safeguards, I think it isn´t totally unreasonable to require a
100 to 150-mile exclusion area forbidding urban developments near nuke
plants. For large countries like the USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil or
Argentina, it shouldn´t be too hard to find a vacant spot in the
middle of nowhere to locate a bunch of nuclear power plants (and the
emergency/safety systems near it), just to have as an additional
generation not to go totally dark in case hydro fails on some dry year
or there´s some disruption in traditional or non-traditional
generation means.

Shipping nuclear waste across country borders is also just insane*,
each country should be responsible for its own nuclear waste
management.

* http://www.foe.org.au/media-releases/2001-media-releases/mr_21_12_01.htm/?searchterm=argentina%20australia

FC

PS: a lot has been repeated these days about the nuclear industry
moving to safer designs with "passive" safety systems that can be
operated and the facility shut down even in the event of total loss of
power and cooling systems (for instance by placing the emergency water
cooling sysems above the reactor, so that fluid can drop down by
gravity, and other measures).

Well, that was until I read this... not very comforting...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety#Examples_of_reactors_using_passive_safety_features

Add to that the 40-years old designs with known design defects still
working around the world...

PS 2: still I´d sleep safer now if our nukes were located further than
the 100 km from where I´m sitting. ;)