LATEST ACCIDENT SHOWS UP AREVA AGAIN

Uranium liquid leaks at French nuclear plant http://www.wtop.com/?nid=383&sid=1436351

July 18, 2008 - 7:31am

PARIS (AP) - Uranium-bearing liquid has leaked from a broken underground pipe at a nuclear site in southeastern France, the national nuclear safety authority said Friday. It was the second leak discovered at a French site this month.

Experts are working to determine how much leaked uranium is present at nuclear company Areva's plant in the town of Romans-sur-Isere, the Nuclear Safety Authority said in a statement. Specialists are to work to clean up the site.

The communique said the pipe is believed to have ruptured several years ago. It added that the pipe "was not in line with the applicable regulations, which require shock resistance ability sufficient to avoid rupture."

Areva spokesman Charles Hufnagel said the leak of lightly enriched uranium did not spread outside the site and had "absolutely no impact on the environment." He said the factory hoped the leak would be classified as a level 1 problem _ the most minor of seven possible rankings.

Still, the announcement was a new blow for Areva after a similar incident last week, when a liquid containing traces of unenriched uranium leaked from a factory in Tricastin in southern France. Areva said that problem "did not affect either the health of employees and local populations, or their environment."

France is the most nuclear-dependent country in the world, with 59 reactors churning out nearly 80 percent of its electricity. The French state owns Areva, which is the key to France's international nuclear influence.

The incidents have prompted questions about the still-secretive state-run nuclear industry, and the French government ordered a check of the groundwater around all the nuclear sites in France.

(Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

SOCATRI Production Site

SOCATRI, a subsidiary of EURODIF SA, is a Uranium Recovery and Cleanup Facility (IARU). It is located on the Tricastin nuclear site at Pierrelatte, in the Drôme region

(France)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080711/wl_afp/franceaccidentnuclear_080711162031

LYON, France (AFP) - French authorities ordered Friday the temporary closure of a nuclear treatment plant in a popular tourist region of southern France after a uranium leak polluted the local water supply.

But site operator Socatri, a subsidiary of French nuclear giant Areva, said it would permanently shut down the facility at the Tricastin nuclear plant in Provence as part of a previously-planned upgrade.

France's ASN nuclear safety authority cited a "series of faults and human negligence that is not acceptable" when it ordered the closure following an inspection at the plant on Thursday.

Residents in the Vaucluse region have been told not to drink water or eat fish from nearby rivers since the leak on Monday night, in which 75 kilogrammes (165 pounds) of untreated liquid uranium spilled into the ground.

Swimming and water sports were also forbidden as was irrigation of crops with the contaminated water.

ASN said it would recommend to local councils that the precautionary measures remain in place for at least a week.

Part of France's popular Provence summer tourist destination, the Vaucluse draws legions of holidaymakers to its picturesque towns.

One of France's 58 nuclear plants, Tricastin is located in Bollene, some 50 kilometres (30 miles) from the city of Avignon, which is currently hosting a major theatre festival.

Socatri said it would shut down the facility -- one of two at the nuclear treatment plant -- in the coming weeks.

"We take note of the ASN's decision," said Socatri spokesman Hugues Blacher. "We will take steps to ensure that this type of incident does not happen again."

The ASN severely criticised Socatri's handling of the crisis, saying it had been too slow to inform authorities following the incident, local ASN head Charles-Antoine Louet told reporters.

A safety inspection carried out on Thursday found that "security steps aimed at preventing any further pollution were not completely satisfactory," according to an ASN statement.

The ASN also detected a series of "irregularities" at the site's operations at the time of the incident, and has ordered Socatri to implement "a reinforced surveillance plan including analysis of the surrounding rivers and ground water."

The ASN said its report would be handed to the state prosecutor for possible legal action against Socatri, which was singled out by the safety body in May over "repeated leaks" last year in the site's waste water evacuation system.

The leakage this week occurred when liquid was transferred from one container to another at the Tricastin site, which has a nuclear reactor as well as a radioactive treatment plant.

Socatri said Wednesday that tests carried out on the groundwater, three local wells and the rivers had shown "no abnormal elements" and French Ecology Minister Jean-Louis Borloo insisted Thursday there was "no imminent danger" to the local population.

But the ASN this week found abnormal levels of radiation in several rivers and lakes in the region although these were found to be decreasing.

The incident at Tricastin ranked as a level-one incident on the seven-point scale to rank nuclear accidents.

French anti-nuclear group Sortir du nucleaire (End nuclear power) had accused Areva of withholding information about the spill and "deliberately putting the population at risk."

On Thursday, it said it would lodge a complaint against the ASN for failing to quickly notify the population of the incident.

The 75 kilogrammes of untreated uranium amounts to 6.26 cubic metres of liquid containing 12 grammes of uranium per litre, according to Socatri.

Previous accidentshttp://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=3961

UK: October 1, 1999

Story by Simon Gardner

The Paris-based OECD Nuclear Energy Agency estimated workers had used eight times the average amount of liquid uranium hexafluoride at the plant in Tokaimura. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said five-to-six times too much was used.

LONDON - Nuclear industry watchdogs said yesterday workers caused a nuclear accident at a Japanese uranium processing plant by trying to enrich too much material in one batch.

Japan's national broadcaster NHK TV said at least 19 people were exposed to radiation in the accident. The government has evacuated 60 people from the site of the accident 140 km (87 miles) northeast of Tokyo and told local residents to stay in their homes.

OECD agency spokesman Jacques de la Ferte said he had been told by a Japanese colleague that workers at the private plant had used 16 kg (35 lb) of the material used to make low enriched nuclear fuel, some eight times more than the average amount.

"Private company JCO was converting uranium hexafluoride into uranium oxide (the basic fuel for reactors) to produce low enriched uranium," de la Ferte said.

IAEA spokesman David Kyd said details remained sketchy but it appeared some six times the usual amount had been used.

"It appears they put too much uranium into a bath of nitric acid which is part of the conversion process," Kyd told News 24 Television.

"It would appear from the sketchy points we have been receiving in Vienna that they may have put five or six times the amount that they ought to have," he added.

OECD's de la Ferte said using too much material would have been an important factor behind the accident.

"This was a liquid solution poured into a recipient or tank. The accident happened apparently because there was a large quantity instead of limited quantity. They used 16 kg instead of just two kg," he told Reuters by telephone, citing "a Japanese colleague".

"It was a factor in triggering this incident," he added.

British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which recycles nuclear material into nuclear fuels, told Reuters it had not supplied the material the plant was using.

"This particular incident is absolutely in no way related to fuel currently being unloaded in Japan or any other previous shipment," a BNFL spokesman said.

Ill-equipped workers frantically tried to stop toxic leakBy Lynn Hulsey and Tom Beyerlein

http://www.daytondailynews.com/n/content/oh/story/news/special-reports/piketon/2006/11/13/ddn111306pkaccident.html

Staff Writers

Monday, November 13, 2006

PIKETON -- When a 14-ton cylinder ruptured, spewing a caustic, radioactive cloud, supervisors ordered Kenny Estep to stop the leak with something that happened to be all over the ground: snow.

Estep, a truck driver with no special emergency training, used a front-end loader to bury the cylinder in snow in hopes of chilling and solidifying the remaining uranium

hexafluoride inside.

He was given an air cylinder and a pair of paper coveralls to wear as he repeatedly drove through radiation-contaminated snow, according to an internal investigative report issued months after the March 7, 1978, accident at the U.S. Department of Energy's Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.

The night of the accident, Estep came home talking about walking in "green poison" -- slushy radioactive snow surrounding the cylinder and in the path of his front-end loader, said his widow, Barbara Barker, 62, of Piketon.

"He told me when he got home, he was like, 'That was dangerous what we done tonight. They really panicked,' " Barker said.

"They took a shower but no urine test," she said. "When he got back the next day he said not only were his clothes gone but the lockers were gone. So they knew everything was contaminated."

Even so, plant health officials dismissed as unrelated to the accident serious rashes that Estep and another man developed about five days later, Barker said.

Seven years after the accident, Estep died of a rare form of liver cancer at age 42. Although no one knows for sure what triggered his illness, Estep's widow said he believed the cancer was caused by regular contact with radioactive and chemical contaminants in his job as a truck driver at the plant.

After Estep's death, Barker filed a workers' compensation claim, but it was denied, so she gave up and moved on with her life. She was spurred to try again after watching news coverage of proposed government compensation for the families of 9/11 victims.

"I kept thinking, the federal government didn't come right out and kill them the way they done ours," said Barker. "These guys out here die slowly."

She said it took the intervention of U.S. Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Lisbon, now governor-elect, to convince the federal government that the plant made Estep sick. In 2002 -- 17 years after his death -- Barker was compensated for her loss.

The cylinder accident was the worst in the plant's 47 years of operation.

The plant's accident investigation board later found that the "conditions contributing to the accident have existed for a considerable number of years," even dating to the plant's opening in 1954, according to the board's June 1, 1978, report.

Unenriched uranium hexafluoride, which is what leaked at Piketon, is not highly radioactive but is very corrosive. When it hits air, it releases a scalding cloud that can cause severe burns and death. Uranium hexafluoride killed one worker and injured 40 other people after a cylinder burst in 1986 at a Kerr-McGee uranium processing plant in Gore, Okla.

The night of the accident at Piketon, the government's own investigative report shows that much of what needed to go right with the emergency response did not.

Still, the next day's news release from Goodyear Atomic Corp., which operated the uranium enrichment plant for the Energy Department, downplayed the accident.

The news release said the cylinder of "mildly radioactive" uranium hexafluoride had developed "a small crack" when it was accidentally dropped on concrete. According to Goodyear, the incident resulted in no injuries.

The plant's accident investigation board subsequently found that 21,125 pounds of uranium hexafluoride leaked from the ruptured cylinder, nearly draining it after a chronically defective straddle carrier dropped the cylinder in an outside storage yard. Plant operators had ignored workers' warnings about the unsafe carriers and previous accidents involving dropped cylinders, according to the report.

The investigative report paints a gripping account of the 21/2 hours it took to stop the leak.

It began with a worker, who forgot his protective mask, using the forklift-like carrier to move the cylinder of hot liquid uranium hexafluoride. When the cylinder slipped off and burst, forming a toxic cloud, the worker ran to a nearby building to call for help.

Outside, workers threw tarps and sandbags on the cylinder in an unsuccessful attempt to plug the breech, according to witnesses.

They decided to try snow, but it took 45 minutes to find a working front-end loader to haul it.

Supervisors assigned a driver, whose name is redacted from the report but was Estep, according to Barker and Estep's friend Clyde Blanton. Estep dumped snow on the cylinder for 30 minutes before staunching the flow.

By that time, the wind had carried off 10,600 pounds of uranium in a toxic airborne plume. Meanwhile, employees frantically worked to stop uranium flowing into a ditch at the western edge of the plant site. But ice, rocks and debris clogged the opening of a pipe in the ditch, and workers wielding sledgehammers were unable to force the gate closed. It leaked heavily throughout the night.

By the time they plugged the pipe with dirt, an estimated 1,500 pounds of uranium had escaped into the Scioto River, which flows south to the Ohio River.

Although officials knew they'd failed to stop the uranium hexafluoride from escaping the plant grounds, no mention was made in the next day's public news release.

Despite all the problems that night, the internal investigative report applauded the emergency response, saying, "There were no injuries or internal exposures of personnel to radioactive material in excess of Plant Allowable Limits. Under less favorable

circumstances, injury and possibly even fatalities could be expected from such a release."

Barker said the government doesn't want people to know what really happened that night. She remembers hearing one company official say he'd been there during the accident and it hadn't made him sick.

But he was safe inside a building, said Barker, who recalls thinking, "You weren't out there with those guys walking in that green muck."

(Bq) measures the activity of a radioactive source, i.e. the number of atoms transformed and emitting radiation per unit of time. 1 Bq = 1 radiation emission per second.The Becquerel is a very small unit of measure and is often expressed in multiples:1 MBq = 1 megabecquerel = 1,000,000 Bq1 GBq = 1 gigabecquerel = 1,000,000,000 Bq1 TBq = 1 terabecquerel = 1,000,000,000,000 Bq

The radioactivity of a medium, material or food is expressed in becquerel per kilogram or becquerel per liter.

(Gy) measures the absorbed dose, i.e. the energy released to matter when ionizing radiation crosses through it. 1 Gy = 1 joule per kilogram.The most commonly used sub-multiples are:1 mGy = 1 milligray = 0.001 Gy1 µGy = 1 microgray = 0.000001 Gy1 nGy = 1 nanogray = 0.000000001 Gy

(Sv) measures the effect of ionizing radiation on living matter. For an equal dose, the effects of radioactivity on living tissue is a function of the type of radiation (alpha, beta, gamma, etc.), the organ involved and, naturally, the exposure time.Unlike the Becquerel, the sievert is a very large unit. Its commonly used sub-multiples are:1 mSv = 1 millisievert = 0.001 Sv1 µSv = 1 microsievert = 0.000001 Sv

Radioactivity mesures units

The Becquerel

The gray

The sievert

Report on a Seminar held in Room 46, Marks Building, Houses of Parliament, 1 June 2005

2.2. Reprocessing, Conditioning and Recycling “will be investigated” (Ibid.)

2.3 Deep Geological Disposal is “currently the most internationally acceptable option”. It is no secret that this disposal is planned for the existing dump site at Vaalputs in Namaqualand (Kenney later stated the matter as if it were an established fact), an option bitterly opposed by the indigenous Namaqualand community, whose rights have already been compromised by the low-level and intermediate waste that has been imported from Koeberg. Curiously enough, the Western Cape Government opposed the importation of toxic chemical waste from the Eastern Cape but are quite content to ship radio-toxic waste to the Northern Cape.

A further curiosity from the EIR Final Report on the PBMR in Annexure 19 “Impact of PBMR Spent Fuel on Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System” at page 5 is that, while the Light Water Reactor generating 1 GWe of electricity a year would produce 3.6 waste packages, the PBMR ten-pack generating 1 GWe electricity a year would produce 31 packages of spent fuel, which is well over the volume of waste from a conventional nuclear power plant. Moreover, this comparison assumes that the ten PBMRs will all operate at 90 percent capacity, a questionable value.

More curious still is the comparative costs between an LWR and a PBMR at US$ 2000 levels (Annexure 19, p.24): while the cost of 3.6 waste packages for an LWR is given as $10.5 million, the cost of 31 packages from ten PBMRs can be calculated from the figures given as $80 million, or roughly R500 million per year in today’s terms. Considering Minister Erwin’s commitment to 24 reactors (

, 2-11-2004), that would mean a hefty R1,2 billion a year in waste disposal alone for future generations of taxpayers to bear. So much for sustainable development!

eight times

per yearper year

Nucleonics Week

John Busby www.after-oil.co.za/nuclear.htm

download 13 March 2008

Why nuclear power is not a sustainable source of low carbon energy

1. Introduction

Although not every scientist agrees, emissions of carbon dioxide from the combustion of fossil fuels, mostly petroleum, natural gas and coal are considered to be a major factor in causing the onset of global warming. Unacceptable rises in temperature are leading to rising sea levels from the melting of polar ice and corresponding climate changes may effect plant and animal life in otherwise temperate zones.

Technological advances reduce the growth in energy demand to around 1% below the rate of economic growth, but the world’s demand for energy is expected to continue to rise exponentially, particularly in respect to emerging economies such as China and India. What is desired is a number of renewable sources of energy, not limited by resource depletion (as is the case with fossil fuels) and that are “clean” in that they emit little or no so-called “greenhouse gases”. Renewable sources include wind and sea current power, but there is a so-called “renaissance” in nuclear power, which is purported to meet both criteria.

A rising awareness of the imminence of a peak in crude oil production together with the increasing demands for energy of the developing economies, together with concern over climate change has stimulated interest in the replacement of stations due for closure, extension of the operational life of some and the building of new stations.

A nuclear power station of 1000 megawatt electrical generation capacity (1000 MWe or 1 gigawatt electrical = 1GWe) with a load factor of 0.9 requires around 200 tonnes (metric tons) of uranium per annum. For example, the United States has 103 operating reactors with an average generation capacity of 952 MWe expected to consume 19,715 tonnes of uranium in 2006.

Uranium production is subject to the same “Hubbert” cycle which characterised US oil production, which peaked in 1970. In spite of improved extraction technology oil production has declined since then, so that currently around 65% of US oil demand is imported. An individual uranium mine provides a rapid build-up followed by uniform production over 5 –10 years after which it declines and is closed. To maintain supply a series of mines have to be opened in succession. As the propensity of prospective new mines in respect to the depth and ore grades tends to be progressively lower, the succeeding mines require ever greater energy inputs for the same production. In consequence the aggregate of the individual mine supply curves produces a world

“Hubbert” peak in uranium production which will eventually limit the level of “once-through” nuclear power generation, whereby spent fuel is not re-cycled.

This limit was recognised from the inception of nuclear power resulting in several abortive attempts to develop fast breeder reactors and waste recycling processes. In December 2002 ten nations produced “A Technology Roadmap for Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems” which concluded that to extend the nuclear fuel supply into future centuries it will be necessary to recycle used fuel and convert depleted uranium rejected from the enrichment process to new fuel. Six types of reactor were considered, three of them fast, each requiring US$ 1 billion to take to a demonstration phase in 2025. The authors found it impossible to choose between the six options and recommended

between rival participants. (1) However, from the six types, two have been selected for implementation, one very high-temperature reactor for hydrogen production and one fast reactor, constituted as a "burner" to reduce waste rather than as a "breeder" to provide fuel supply sustainability, the development of which appears to be abandoned.

MIT’s study “The future of nuclear power” opted for the “once-through” mode in which discharged spent fuel is sent directly to disposal. The team believe that

. In an appendix (5.E) they argue that the extraction of low concentrations of uranium in phosphate deposits will suffice for a programme ending with a

by mid-century. (2) In any case, in the USA reprocessing is prohibited and spent fuel resides in ponds until it is "cool" enough to be placed in dry casks, then stored in the open before its ultimate geological repose underground.

The World Nuclear Association (WNA) also recognises that regular mined supplies of uranium are limited and sees the survival of its industry in the universal occurrences of uranium in the earth’s crust and in seawater.

In judging the sustainability of nuclear power the continuing availability of its uranium-based fuel is the main consideration. As will also be shown, the carbon emissions from the overall nuclear fuel cycle are inversely-exponential to the grade of ore from which its uranium source is extracted, the lower the grade, the more energy to retrieve it is needed and the more carbon dioxide is emitted.

Before considering alternative sources, it is necessary to understand the size of the problem by examining current global energy consumption. Energy units exhibit little uniformity, but the joule can be used as a universally acceptable basis for analysis. Big numbers have to be employed to express global energy parameters, i.e., the exajoule (joule x 1018) and the petajoule (joule x 1015), abbreviated as EJ and PJ respectively. The world’s primary energy consumption in 2006 was 457 EJ, of which 88% was provided by fossil fuels. Of this 68.5 EJ was in the form of electrical energy (19,028 TWh), with 9.6 EJ (2,658 TWh) which is 14.0% of it provided by nuclear generation.

“crosscutting R&D”

“the world-wide supply of uranium ore is sufficient to fuel the deployment of 1000 reactors over the next half-century”

“1500 GWe scenario”

2. Could all our energy be supplied by nuclear power?

If not restrained by uranium supply problems, nuclear power could in theory substitute for gas and coal for all the world’s electricity generation, but electricity is not readily adaptable for mobile transport.

Transport constrained to fixed guide systems, such as rail and tramways can use electrical energy directly from current collectors, but mobile transport able to move on roads or rough terrain uses mostly liquid fuels derived from oil. As oil reserves deplete, liquid fuels will be synthesised increasingly from natural gas and then coal, until all fossil fuels able to be economically extracted are exhausted.

To use electrical energy as an alternative to conventional liquid fuels for mobile transport requires the production of hydrogen from electrolysis and its subsequent cryogenic liquefaction for on-vehicle storage. This has an inherent energy penalty over the derivatives of primary fuels and of course, unless the electricity used to produce the hydrogen fuel is from a renewable and “clean” source, offers no panacea to global warming. Assuming mobile transport requires 40% of global energy and taking into account the energy loss in conversion, the primary energy requirement for global electrical generation rises from 457 EJ to 790 EJ. The problem is that electrical energy of whatever means of generation is a poor substitute for the adaptable primary energy obtained from fossil fuels.

Assuming world economic growth of 3%/annum, with growth in energy requirements 1% less, extrapolating from 2006 to 2020, increases the energy requirement to 980 EJ.

A typical 1200 MW nuclear power plant produces 32 PJ per annum, so to provide for 790 EJ around 24,700 nuclear power stations would have to be built. To provide for 980 EJ would require 30,000 stations, each requiring 200 tonnes/annum of uranium fuel. To fuel this number of stations, around 6 million tonnes/annum of uranium production would be required.

In 2006 world annual mine production totalled only 39,600 tonnes of uranium, of which Canada produced 9,860 tonnes and Australia 7,590 tonnes resp. Only Canada has reserves of high grade ore, while the grade of the ores remaining in Australia progressively lowers. The balance of 26,900 tonnes required to meet the 2006 nuclear generators’ demand for 66,500 tonnes came from inventories, ex-weapons material, MOX and re-worked mine tailings. This secondary uranium supply is due to run out within a decade, so primary production would have to be increased 150-fold to match the anticipated global energy needs exclusively from nuclear power in 2020. (3)

From the above projections it is clear that nuclear power has no chance of matching the coming energy deficit by supplying the needs of an equivalent hydrogen economy to that currently sustained by fossil fuels. Even if there was sufficient uranium to fuel it, the building of a of 30,000 nuclear power stations would be an impossible prospect. The processing and sequestering of the consequential enormous volume of radioactive waste would be also be an impossible task.

parc

3. Can the world’s electrical energy be supplied by nuclear power?

5

4. Is there enough uranium to supply the currently operating nuclear stations for their remaining years of operation?

The MIT team have produced a more modest plan for the building of power stations to provide 1,500 GWe of nuclear generation capacity by 2050, which would provide 13,140 terawatthours per annum (TWh), about a third of the anticipated global total electricity consumption of 39,000 TWh in 2050. The uranium requirement for their programme over the 45 years from 2005 to then amounts to 9.5 million tonnes. In 2050, the uranium demand would be 306,000 tonnes/annum, which would require a 7-fold increase in current mining production rates. But they assume a total uranium consumption for their scenario of 17 million tonnes, because the average remaining life of the after 2050 would require a further 7.5 million tonnes.

Uranium reserves of ore of a sufficiently high grade (see below for a definition of this) are estimated at only 4,500,000 tonnes. So to get round this difficulty, MIT compute that the reserves can be expanded to suit the requirement by progressive increases in the uranium price. They consider that ore deposits of grades between 0.001% and 0.03% would hold 22 million tonnes of uranium and would be viable at increased uranium prices without unacceptable consequent rises in the electricity price. However, with the processing of these low ore grades there is a yield loss and larger energy inputs, leading to a negative energy gain in the overall nuclear fuel cycle.

In 2050 when reactors of 1500 GWe generation are in service, if the required 306,000 tonnes/annum of uranium were to be extracted from the best of the low grade ores, i.e., 0.03%, with an optimistic yield of 50%, the mining of 2 billion tonnes of rock, plus the removal of the over-burden, would be needed every year. Assuming that by 2050 the best of the ores has been taken, to extract the same from the lowest remaining, i.e. 0.001%, the yield would be even lower at say 10% and the production of 306,000 tonnes of uranium would require the mining of 300 billion tonnes of ore, plus the overburden. (4)

World phosphate mining results in 150 million tonnes of phosphogypsum accumulating every year in diverse locations as a waste product containing 10-20 ppm of uranium. If the uranium was extracted it would only produce 1,500 to 3,000 tonnes of uranium, so its production as a co-product does not seem a viable possibility.

The scale of such inconceivable operations and the commensurate input energy provided largely by fossil fuels is totally non-viable. MIT has failed to give the location of the low grade deposits of uranium ore on which their programme depends or to examine the methods of extraction and the energy consumption related to the ore grades assumed.

There is no chance that a of 1500 GWe of nuclear power plants, providing only one third of the projected electrical energy consumption in 2050, can be fuelled.

parc

parc

There is a current world building programme of around 33 new stations, with some 94 further stations on order or planned. Some existing stations are having their operational life extended and some are now being de-commissioned. The 2007 (equivalent) uranium fuel demand of 66,500 tonnes/annum is required by 439 operating stations averaging 847 MWe capacity.

As the secondary sources of uranium, consisting of ex-weapons material, ore stocks, re-worked mine tailings and a modicum of mixed-oxide, which provided 40% of the fuel demand in 2006 are expected to be exhausted by 2013, many of the operating stations will close within a decade for lack of fuel, depending on how many have become obsolete and closed, how many have their operation lives extended and how many are built and commissioned in the intervening period.

The end of the price competition from secondary sources might intensify mining activity and lead to a resurgence in production, but to open new mines, always assuming that suitable opportunities emerge to locate them, will take more than the intervening years.

The current demand/supply situation is best illustrated by Table 1.

Country Uranium required 2007

(WNA)(5)

% of world demand

Indigenous mining production 2006 (WNA)(6)

Deficit

USA 20,050 30 1692 18,358France 10,368 16 0 10,368Japan 8,872 13 0 8,872Russia 3,777 6 3400 377Germany 3,486 5 50 3,438South Korea 3,037 5 0 3,037UK 2,021 3 0 2,021Ukraine 2,003 3 800 1,203Canada 1,836 3 9,862 -7,926 SurplusSpain 1,473 2 0 1,473Rest of world 9,606 14 23,851 -14,245

SurplusTotal 66,529 100 39,655 26,874 (40%)

Unsurprisingly the USA, the world’s largest consumer of oil and gas, turns out to be the biggest consumer of uranium. The USA consumes 25% of the world’s oil production, 25% of its gas and takes 30% of the world’s available uranium, while producing only 4% of its requirements from its own mines. The figure of 20,050 tonnes of natural uranium shown for the US is an equivalent. Half of the fuel consumed is imported from Russia

Table 1 Uranium demand, mining production and deficit in tonnes

under the Megatons to Megawatts agreement as uranium hexafluoride gas, made by blending ex-weapons highly-enriched uranium with re-enriched enrichment tails. The agreement is set to terminate in 2013 and, as can be seen from Table 1, Russian internal supplies are in deficit and it is unlikely to be renewed thereafter. There is a tentative agreement for the 'limited' import of Russian low enriched uranium as a follow-up, but this merely allows it to enter the US, not guarantee its supply.

Japan ranks next followed by Germany, Russia, South Korea and the UK. The combined uranium consumption of the principle seven nations with nuclear power totals 50,122 tonnes (77% of the supply), compared with their own primary mining production in 2004 of only 4,554 tonnes (11% of the supply).

A of around 450 nuclear power stations, maintained by the replacement of ageing reactors and the building of yet more, would require a supply of 90,000 tonnes/annum, so that mining production will have to increase 2½ times in the next 7 years – an unlikely prospect.

In Canada, the leading supplier of uranium, two mines have closed and two of the three operating uranium mines have passed their “Hubbert” peaks as is shown in the plot below. (7) For production to remain at its 2005 level a series of new mines will need to be opened. Canadian primary production in 2006 was 15% below that in 2005 and in 2007 fell a further 5% to 19.5% below that in 2005.

France ranks second and relies on nuclear power for 78% of its electricity. But since its own mines are now worked out, it is the most insecure.

parc

Meanwhile in 2006 in Australia, production (7,574 t U) was 20% below its level in 2005 (9,493 t U) due to the decline in grades at the Olympic Dam underground mine and the flooding of the Ranger mine, recovering somewhat in 2007 (8,603 t U) at 9.4% below that in 2005. The replacement of the Olympic Dam mine by an open pit is not due until 2014, if it goes ahead while the Ranger mine is shortly due for closure and is merely processing its ore stocks. However, a feasibility study into the possible continuation of mining at Ranger is underway.

There seems little chance of replacing the lost secondary sources or stemming the decline in primary mining production, a shortfall in fuel supply seems inevitable and the nuclear contribution of electricity generation will progressively decline.

Then the claim for the carbon-free status of nuclear power proves to be false. Carbon dioxide is released in every component of the nuclear fuel cycle except the actual fission in the reactor. Fossil fuels are involved in the mining, milling, conversion and enrichment of the ore, in the handling of the mill tailings, in the fuel can preparation, in the construction of the station and in its de-commissioning and demolition, in the handling of the spent waste, in its processing and vitrification and in digging the hole in rock for its deposition.

The lower the ore grade, the more energy is consumed in the fuel processing, so that the amount of the carbon dioxide released in the overall fuel cycle depends on the ore grade. Only Canada has ores of a sufficiently high grade to avoid excessive carbon releases and to provide an adequate energy gain. At ore grades below 0.01% for ‘soft’ ores and 0.02% for ‘hard’ ores more CO2 than an equivalent gas-fired station is released and more energy is absorbed in the cycle that is gained in it. Ores of a grade approaching the “crossover” point such as those in India of 0.03%, if used, risk going into negative energy gain if there are a few “hiccups” in the cycle.

The Olympic Dam mine in Australia, described as potentially the world’s largest uranium producer, survives as a co-producer of copper, silver and gold, but even so the uranium ore grade averaging 0.04% is below the current industry “cut-off” point of 0.08% for economic viability. The future of the mine is the subject of a feasibility study into its conversion from an underground to an open pit 3km x 3km x 1km deep, but the owners have stated that without the copper the expansion would not be considered. As the price of diesel rises, the incentive for Australians to import expensive oil to provide others with nuclear energy reduces and with it a large potential for emissions of carbon dioxide.

The industry points to the presence of uranium in phosphates and seawater, but the concentrations are so low that the energy required to extract it would exceed many times the energy obtained from any nuclear power resulting and the resulting carbon emissions would be massive.

5. Is nuclear power “clean”?

When the energy inputs, past, present and future are totalled up and set against the actual energy derived from the entire nuclear power programme and its waste handling, it may well be that the overall energy gain has been negative. This has been masked by the availability of cheap fossil fuels, but as that era passes it behoves energy professionals to make an honest assessment of the energy and monetary economics of proceeding further with a failed technology.

In the UK in 2006 the government's Energy Review concluded that nuclear power can only be economic if its claimed low carbon status allows it to sell its "carbon credits" to carbon-emitting generators requiring an off-set. As fossil fuels will be considerably depleted before the operational cycles of the proposed new fleet of nuclear stations end, the generators are asking for guaranteed carbon credits for a 100 years to justify their investment, in effect demanding a subsidy.

Maybe the world does not need to stop carbon dioxide emissions, but even if nuclear power was considered to be carbon free and a doubling of nuclear generation capacity were possible it would only provide 20 EJ, i.e., 5% of world energy consumption as electricity. So there is no possibility of an extension of nuclear capacity solving to any significant degree the problem of global warming.

It is claimed that nuclear power meets the two characteristics of sustainability and zero or low carbon dioxide emissions and so might be able to substitute for fossil fuels once they are exhausted and in the meantime to avoid release of some greenhouse gases. The claims are baseless.

In conclusion, perhaps the scale of global warming has been overstated by omitting to take into account fossil fuel depletion. A guide to the maximum amount of carbon dioxide released from the combustion of fossil fuels can be calculated, given that they are limited. The graph below shows that if economic growth continues as currently, the reserves of oil, gas and then most of the coal will have emptied by the end of the century. From a knowledge of the carbon content of the three fuels, it is then possible to work out the total amount of carbon dioxide likely to be released.

6. Global warming

all

This comes out as 5 exagrams or 5,000 billion tonnes.

An earth scientist should be able to work out the temperature rise that the release of this limited amount, mostly over the next 50 years, is likely to produce. Before hampering the world with useless measures unable to reduce the eventual amount of the release of carbon dioxide, it would be more appropriate to estimate the ultimate consequences of today’s immoderate exploitation and exhaustion of fossil fuels.

The real problem the world faces is the depletion of fossil fuel reserves – the very same depletion will ease the carbon burden of the atmosphere by an inexorable emptying of its energy resources by the world’s economies.

© John Busby 7 March 2008

(1) “A technology roadmap for Generation IV nuclear energy systems” http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

(2) MIT “The Future of Nuclear Power”, http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/

Pages 152-155 Appendix 5.E -- Price and Availability of Uranium

(3) WNA Symposium 2004, Dzhakishev,

http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2004/pdf/dzhakishev.pdf

(4) Storm van Leeuwen and Smith http://www.stormsmith.nl

(5) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/reactors.htm WNA Table

(6) http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/uprod.html Production tU

(Multiply by 0.848 and convert lbs U to tonnes)

(7) http://uic.com.au/nip03.htm

(8) Title page of The Busby Report

Fears raised over pebble bedsPublished:Jul 27, 2008

So far the pebble bed programme has cost the SA

taxpayer about R4- billion

Article Tools

Save and Share

A new foreign report casts a further shadow over SA’s troubled nuclear project, but a local research company says there’s no need for alarm. Bobby Jordan reports.

The research centre that invented pebble bed nuclear reactors has rung alarm bells over the safety of the technology — which features prominently in SA’s R350-billion nuclear energy programme.

The safety concerns are contained in a report released this week by the world-renowned state-owned German Jülich Nuclear Research Centre.

Ironically, a team of Jülich researchers is helping SA develop a commercial-size pebble bed reactor based on the prototype that Jülich operated for more than 20 years. If successful, the project could provide much-needed electricity to the local market — and the reactors could be exported worldwide.

Now the latest report, authored by a senior Jülich nuclear safety researcher, casts a further shadow across SA’s beleaguered nuclear project. The report signposts higher-than- anticipated temperatures generated by fuel pebbles used in the prototype reactor (AVR), which was closed in 1988 — but is still the subject of much research.

The chief scientist in charge of exporting Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) technology at the Jülich Centre this week denied any crisis of confidence among the nuclear fraternity, and said that although the report was important, it would not undermine confidence in SA’s nuclear energy ambitions. The report has been slated as alarmist by SA’s PBMR company, which is spearheading local research.

PBMR spokesman Tom Ferreira said that although useful, the latest report was “no basis for concern”.

Some of the fears raised in the Jülich report include:

ý The graphite pebbles in the original reactor experiment in Germany generated much more heat than expected, sending temperatures soaring to more than 1450 C — at least 300 degrees hotter than the maximum temperature allowed for in the design of SA’s PBMR;

ý The movement of the pebbles brushing up against one another inside the reactor created a dangerous level of highly radioactive graphite dust — something that was partly unexplained;

ý The risk of graphite fires, like the one at Chernobyl in 1986, cannot be ruled out; and

ý The prototype reactor in Germany is extremely contaminated by metallic fission products, which escaped from fuel elements during operation. The contamination, possibly due to unexpectedly high temperatures, is higher by a factor of more than 10000 than acceptable for modern reactors. This also creates huge decommissioning costs.

The report suggests the SA government may have jumped the gun in pushing for a demonstration PBMR plant at Koeberg, when there is still a need for a prototype pebble bed reactor to understand reasons for high temperatures.

The German report also raises questions about whether senior SA officials have been downplaying safety

Print E-Mail

concerns about pebble bed technology.

Jülich scientists this week confirmed that draft copies of the latest report have been in the possession of SA authorities since December.

So far the pebble bed programme has cost the SA taxpayer about R4-billion, is years behind schedule and is over budget. SA plans to build as many as 30 pebble bed reactors, which collectively would represent about 20% of Eskom’s potential R350-billion nuclear building programme of about 20000 MW. The country’s current mainly coalfired power supply is 39000 MW.

Ferreira said the report was not a consensus position for the Jülich centre. He said many of the points raised in the report were disputed by other scientists.

Tony Stott, Eskom senior manager of Nuclear Stakeholder Management, said: “Eskom is aware of the report and its findings. Eskom has requested independent nuclear consultants, who are assisting Eskom with the safety evaluation of the PBMR Demonstration Power Plant technology, to investigate and establish the basis of the report and determine whether any aspects warrant introduction into the safety evaluation of the technology.”

He said the safety analysis process was still under way.

16 Dirty Secrets About Nuclear Power

By RUSSELL D. HOFFMAN

1) Isn't France almost entirely dependent on nuclear power?

Sure, they have something between 70% and 80% nuke-generated electricity (the exact figure depends on who you ask). It's NOT particularly CHEAP for the French, by the way, and THAT should tell you something. But more to the point, COULD they have gone with renewables and still achieved their electricity goals (and their rates would now be vastly cheaper)? Certainly!

From wave power off the coast of Brittany to in-stream and small-scale hydro in the French Alps and the Pyrennes (and five other mountain regions in France), and bio-fuels, sunshine, and wind everywhere, and lousy conservation standards to begin with, there is no question France could get along without nukes entirely, as could anyone else. France has used extraordinary measures to stop the so-called "anti-nuclear" (I call it the Pro-DNA) viewpoint from being heard. And one more point: AREVA, France's nuke power company, is even more secretive than our nuke mega-corporations, and their nukes have had serious problems which could have, with a little different luck, resulted in meltdowns. And AREVA buys up wind power and other clean energy companies all over the world, yet remain focused on nuclear!

2) Don't nuclear submarines prove the technology works?

Even if every nuclear submarine worked perfectly (they don't), the spent fuel from nuclear subs and other military nuclear vessels adds about 30% to the world's nuclear waste stream. The United States has launched nearly 200 nuclear submarines, but the reactors actually charge batteries, which power electrical motors, the same as on the old diesel subs. Staying submerged for months at a time, while theoretically possible, is seldom done and of little practical value in today's military threat scenarios.

Whenever we lose a nuke-powered sub (and it's happened twice to us, and about half a dozen times to the Russians) we lose the reactors and their radioactive fuel, to be dispersed into the waters. The Kursk's reactors were reportedly recovered (though undoubtedly, the highly radioactive cooling fluid was dispersed), but I don't think ANY other lost sub reactors have been recovered. Plus, Russia has hundreds of rusting subs that are releasing radioactive and other poisons into the oceans and will do so at ever-increasing rates unless WE somehow force the Russians to clean them up and remove them from the water. Russia's already proven they won't do it themselves.

Plus, at least in America, ex-nuke-submariners think they are ENTITLED to a job in a civilian nuke plant when they quit the service after securing a pension and life-time health benefits (such as they are) from the Navy. And there is good reason to believe the scuttlebutt that is rampant about ex-nuke-submariners dying of brain tumors and the like at MUCH higher rates than the rest of the population. THAT is their true sacrifice, but their promotion of nuclear power is by far the most damaging thing they have done (considering, for example, that they have never launched a single nuclear weapon at an enemy (thank goodness)).

3) Nukes are getting safer all the time, aren't they?

Actually, they are getting LESS safe. They are getting older, and the crews that run them didn't build them and haven't looked at the original plans even once in their lives. Any specific nuclear power plant is way too complex for any one person to understand, and their training is too specific, anyway. So one "expert" really just knows a piece of the puzzle, and leans on other experts to "solve" the whole puzzle for humanity, and excuse their own dirty part of the whole dirty job. Thus they convince themselves that nukes are safe and low levels of radiation might even be (in their opinion) GOOD FOR YOU. The old nuke power plants are rusting, becoming more and more embrittled, and parts that have lasted for 30+ years (and were designed to last only 20) are failing left and right. The companies all have a "replace on failure" policy for most components, since it would be impossible to guess what's going to break next. And as for future possible generations of new reactors, they have their own problems INCLUDING unexpectedly rapid embrittlement of the cladding for the radioactive fuel pellets, which could lead to the very catastrophic failures they CLAIM can't happen. AND the new reactors are no better protected from terrorism than the old ones -- a fact of life, but then, so are TSUNAMIS and they are IGNORED, as well (yes, some coastal reactors have sea walls, but they are pitifully small).

4) Can't nuclear power solve the problem of Global Warming?

No. First of all, nuclear power doesn't produce MUCH of our energy mix. Only about 7% of America's energy usage is from nukes, if even that (it depends, of course, on how you measure it). The "20%" figure you might often hear is the percentage of ELECTRICITY nuclear produces, but electricity is a relatively small portion of our total energy usage.

Second of all, the global warming problem is (finally) considered IMMINENT. But no workable plan for building new nuclear power plants can possibly contribute more than a small percentage of the needed energy. The plants are too big, the lead time too long, the difficulties of siting them away from population centers and then running high-power lines, all doom the technology even if numerous OTHER important reasons are IGNORED!

Third, and most damaging, is that when you take into account: Caring for the nuclear waste afterwards; Caring for cancer victims; The energy needed to mine the uranium; The energy needed to clean up after an accident; All the other costs; Nuclear simply doesn't produce ANY net energy for the country! Not one watt!

So how can it solve the global warming problem?

5) What exactly IS radiation and how does it harm us?

Every element in the universe is made of atoms, and every atom is made of protons and neutrons in the core, then lots of empty space, with the tiny little electrons spinning around the outer edges. The number of protons determines what element something is. Except for hydrogen, which has a lone proton and can have zero neutrons, there are one or more neutrons in the core of each atom. Every element can have several different numbers of neutrons (called different isotopes of an element), but as long as the number of protons stays the same, it's the same

element -- with the same chemical and biological behavior as any other atom of that element. All elements above and including element 86 have NO possible stable number of neutrons in their core, meaning, all isotopes of these elements are radioactive. Element 43, which doesn't exist naturally on Earth, also has no stable isotopes.

Unstable atoms decay, which means they break down into a stable isotope of some element, or into another unstable isotope of some element. For any particular atom, there is no way to predict WHEN it will decay, but for large aggregates of the same isotope of the same element, the decay rates of the whole group are approximately predictable. The "half-life" is defined as the amount of time it takes for half the atoms to decay, in repeated tests of carefully measured, pure samples of an isotope. It is important to understand that the OTHER half of the sample will then take the SAME amount of time for HALF of THOSE atoms to decay. Thus, after about 20 half-lives, still about a millionth of the radioactive isotope will remain, along with a dirty little rainbow of daughter products, each decaying their way around the periodic table, in big and small leaps, stopping only when they become stable elements such as lead.

The moment of decay is of particular interest, because various particles and / or rays shoot out from the decaying atom, damaging other atoms. For example, a NEW electron can be ejected from the core of an atom, simultaneously changing one of the core's neutrons into a proton and converting the atom into the next element UP in the Periodic Table of the Elements. (For example, converting an radioactive isotope of hydrogen (element 1) that has two neutrons and one proton, into a stable isotope of helium (element 2) with one neutron and two protons.) The ejected NEW electron may be traveling as much as ~95% the speed of light when it is ejected. It is called a beta particle (sometimes it's called a beta ray). Another type of radioactive decay shoots off TWO protons and TWO neutrons in one clump -- which is called an alpha particle (sometimes it's called an alpha ray) and is ejected with as much as ~5% the speed of light. Still other types of radioactive decays shoot off high energy photons, which are called gamma rays or x-rays. Some radioactive decays shoot off gamma rays along with beta particles or alpha particles.

It is mainly the shooting particles or energy rays that do the damage to biological systems. Your body is made of highly complex molecules -- in fact, the truest wonder of life is that it is so very, very complex. The most complex molecule known, the biggest, most intricate, most amazing molecule of all (a triple crown of molecular development) is YOUR DNA, and you have trillions of copies of it, and EACH ONE needs to remain exactly the same as all the others. No easy trick with RADIATION around! But it's not just your DNA that needs to be protected. Each of the 50,000+ DIFFERENT kinds of molecules your body manufactures for its own use all need to be protected, too. Many of the molecules your body makes are thousands of individual atoms in size, and if any ONE of those atoms is damaged, the molecule is ruined. Information -- perhaps vital information -- is lost.

Radioactive decays are thousands of times STRONGER than the CHEMICAL and ELECTRICAL BONDS which hold your body's various molecular structures together. When a radioactive decay occurs it can destroy thousands of proteins your body carefully created, or it can damage the RNA -- the creators of those proteins -- or it can damage a copy of the DNA chain itself.

It is now absolutely certain and well-known that radiation causes cancer, leukemia,

heart disease, birth defects, and thousands of other ailments. Recently, even some official regulatory bodies have accepted the theory that there is NO THRESHOLD below which radiation is not damaging and CANNOT cause "health effects."

But the RATE of health effects in the population, and the degree to which a general degradation of YOUR body should be considered a problem (even if it doesn't kill you outright) is the subject of cover-ups, lies, debates, pseudo-debates, and a thousand other tricks, trials, and tribulations.

6) Won't Yucca Mountain solve the nuclear waste problem?

Or couldn't we just rocket it to the sun? No, neither solution is adequate. Yucca Mountain is a scientific boondoggle AND at least 15 to 20 years away if it ever opens. The problem is simple to state, but very hard to solve: How can you build a device which will successfully contain something for millions of years, when the thing you wish to contain can destroy any container you build to contain it? Radioactive decays destroy steel, diamond, gold, glass, every alloy known or conceived by physicists and chemists, and -- of course -- radioactive decays destroy all biological systems.

The rocket solution is STILL brought up TIME AND AGAIN by otherwise-sane "rocket scientists" and their promoters. But it's a lousy idea because rockets fail WAY too often, including because of prior rocket failure's high-speed, microscopic, deadly SPACE DEBRIS in Near Earth Orbit, which the waste would have to successfully pass through. Also, there is WAY too much nuclear waste to expect much of it to get "up there" safely before a truly catastrophic accident occurs, not "vaporizing" (as in "rendering harmless through the process of incineration") but "particle-izing" the waste ("going particulate" is the actual technical expression). Why does such a lousy idea keep coming up then? Because rationally, all OTHER choices have ALSO failed to pass scientific muster.

Besides, Yucca Mountain, even if built would not be nearly big enough for all the waste we will generate in the coming decades, it's barely going to be big enough to hold the current amount we already have!

7) Science will surely cure cancer some day, and isn't that the main danger from radiation?

First of all: DON'T bet YOUR life that science will cure cancer any time soon! Most "progress" has been in identifying cancers early, and identifying environmental risks you CAN individually address. Many laws, in fact, which PURPORT to protect us from CARCINOGENS specifically exclude the regulation of RADIOACTIVE carcinogenic substances!

There are thousands of different kinds of cancers that have been identified and further sub-categories are being discovered all the time. Cancer research is alive and well (and needs more funding). But its successes have been few.

Second of all, cancer ISN'T the only disease radiation CAUSES or ENHANCES, because radiation causes the random destruction of your body's sub-cellular structure, and the creation of thousands -- or even hundreds of thousands -- of "free radicals" with EVERY atomic breakdown. Understanding how radiation impacts cells is closer to the root of the problem than merely declaring that radiation causes specific

cancers, such as "thyroid cancer" and then handing out KI (Potassium Iodide) after an accident. Science isn't anywhere near solving any of the THOUSANDS of diseases associated with free radical creation in your body.

DNA damage to multiple (future) generations is a bigger threat to civilization than the combined radiation-induced threats from cancer, heart disease, leukemia, and every other radiation-induced ailment combined! And there is no pill that protects your fetus. Mothers and fathers of the world MUST understand this: Radiation sickens, weakens, and kills YOUR babies! It makes them less like you, and it makes them like you less.

8) Doesn't the nuclear industry protect humans from all its radioactive waste?

NO THEY DON'T! Tritium, for instance, is routinely released from ALL operating nuclear power plants. Some kinds of nuke plants release 20 times (or more) more than other types. Is it ALL okay? Not at all. Tritium standards are absurdly lax. For example, in America the Environmental Protection Agency standard for drinking water is 20,000 picoCuries of tritium per liter. But if you drank water at this level consistently (and you might be doing so right now and not even know it), the water portion of YOUR body would also reach this level, and your body will silently experience tens of thousands of ADDITIONAL radioactive decays every second of your life, above and beyond all your OTHER EXPOSURES. These additional radioactive decays will EACH create thousands of "free-radicals" (which can damage your DNA) or they might damage your DNA directly. Sounds bad? Of course it is --but the EPA basically feels that it's bad ONLY above 20,000 picoCuries per liter and PERFECTLY OKAY below that! A more realistic figure, that would probably merely bring the protection standard in line with that of other chemical assaults we must invariably put up with (engine fumes, coal power plant fumes (see below) etc.), might be 50 picoCuries per liter -- or maybe 5.

But 20,000 picoCuries per liter of drinking water is just ABSURDLY HIGH and allows U.S. nuclear power plants to release about 1,000 Curies of tritium each year, on average. Any year they release more is forgiven and averaged into prior years, if possible, or future years, if prior releases exceeded even the standard "forgiveness" rate. Get it? No matter what they release, it's simply duly noted (but the information is seldom released to the public) and the regulatory toadies forgive the nuclear industry for their trespass into YOUR life.

9) Isn't our other choice coal, and isn't that even worse?

Coal is pretty bad stuff -- and there's 500 years' worth in the earth, laying around the planet waiting to be mined, whereas there is probably less than FIFTY years' worth of uranium!

Coal plants emit Uranium and Thorium -- radioactive heavy metals -- into the atmosphere in quantities MUCH greater than a properly operating nuclear power plant does. BUT -- and this is a BIG, BIG, BUT -- they DON'T create or release FISSION PRODUCTS in comparable quantities. Fission products -- the daughter elements of atomic decay -- include cesium, strontium, and a deadly rainbow of other radioactive elements, which are created when the radioactive fuel is "burned" in the reactor. These elements get into biological systems in a way that heavy metals

generally don't do (although heavy metals are very bad). Fission products BIOACCUMULATE in plants and animals which we then eat. Many fission products are chemically similar to elements that are essential for life. Therefore our bodies readily absorb fission products at specific sites such as our thyroids, gonads, bone marrow, and other organs.

Additionally, a coal-fired power plant will never be the target of a serious terrorist who is intent on doing the most harm for his or her "investment." A coal-fired plant will not leave extremely toxic waste -- the word "extremely" being key here. A coal-fired plant creates waste, and it is unhealthy -- both the part which is released into the atmosphere AND the part that isn't. BUT these waste streams pale in comparison to a nuclear power plant's. As proof, just consider what the major fear is from coal, according to all the politicians in Washington these days, and everyone else besides: CARBON DIOXIDE! NOT the heavy metals or even the URANIUM that is also released by coal-fired power plants! In truth, it would be GOOD to reduce ALL emissions from coal plants. But hasn't CARBON SEQUESTRATION been proven to work -- its ONLY REAL PROBLEM is that it REDUCES THE EFFICIENCY of the coal plant -- so you burn MORE coal to get the SAME POWER OUTPUT?

Or is there ANOTHER CHOICE? You bet there is! Solar energy works. Wind power WORKS. Wave energy, tide energy, in-stream river power (no dams) -- these ALL work. Yes, I would rather see a hundred coal plants be built than the 30 or so nukes that could produce the same electrical output, BUT those are NOT the real choices.

10) Don't some people say that a little radiation might actually be GOOD for you?

Hmmm... WHO have you been picking this stuff up from? Ask yourself that. The only people I've ever found who actually believe that the debris from, for example, a 1963 NASA nuclear space probe, which dispersed plutonium all over the world, is like a VITAMIN to our bodies are invariably directly associated with USING RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES IN THEIR WORK. In other words, their jobs depend on the public believing that low levels of radiation is probably HARMLESS, and may even actually be GOOD for you.

In reality, NO level of radiation is beneficial and all medical radiation is given after a supposedly careful cost-benefit analysis has been done for the patient. In other words, the risk of getting cancer from a USELESS and UNNECESSARY CT scan is utterly unfair: That same risk from a CT SCAN that resulted from a proper initial diagnosis, is fair, regardless of whether a tumor is actually found in any individual case.

When your regular dentist uses their x-ray equipment as part of your regular check-up, that's considered a "fair use." (I would argue that the equipment is much more ionizing than it needs to be.) But when the dentist sends you to another expert, and that expert takes NEW x-rays of the same tooth, from the same angle, rather than using your dentist's original x-rays, that's an UNFAIR use, but it happens ALL THE TIME.

Some people get cancer because of dental x-rays, but it's considered okay, not because dentists pretend it doesn't happen (though some do, in fact, do that), but because the dentists believe that, for the population at large, the benefits outweigh the dangers.

But what if low-level radiation (LLR) is significantly WORSE than calculated by the "experts," who, invariably, base their guestimates of the danger on faulty HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI bomb studies of people who have been called the "healthy survivors" by more realistic observers?

(Note: Males in the northern hemisphere are said to piss out about a million atoms of plutonium every DAY of their LIVES, mostly Pu-238 (with a half-life of about 87.75 years), just from that one 1963 NASA space probe accident (let alone all the other poisons we must ingest). The chance of getting bladder cancer is about one in 30 for American men (it's about one in 90 for American women). Some portion of that is undoubtedly due to radioactive poisons.)

11) Aren't we desperate for energy?

Yes, we ABSOLUTELY are desperate for energy. CLEAN energy.

Every study ever done has shown that as populations get more and cheaper, CLEANER energy, they achieve an improvement in living standards "across the board." Death rates go down, disease rates go down, birth rates even go down -- as babies live to age five and beyond, families tend to have LESS children, not MORE! Cheap, clean energy allows the FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS via the Internet and cheap exchange of goods via every other transportation method. As living standards go up, the environmental degradation that occurs per human life goes DOWN because people don't, for example, have to burn down trees for cooking or for heat when electric stoves and heaters powered by renewable energy are available instead. The environmental benefits continue to increase as the available cheap, clean energy increases, until / unless the society reaches a certain "critical" level of affluence and misbehavior, and does not properly REGULATE itself (such as by having gas-powered lawn trimming devices, when electric, renewable-energy-powered devices could be used instead.)

PROPER energy regulation IS the key to success! But you can't have proper regulation if government dishonestly, ignorantly, and stubbornly supports nuclear power, against all logic and reason.

12) What about reprocessing? Can't we just "recycle" the waste?

Reprocessing is nothing like recycling aluminum cans!! It's a filthy process that Jimmy Carter banned when he was president, and it should STAY banned. It involves grinding up hot, poisonous nuclear reactor cores and spilling a little at every step. The process gobbles up enormous amounts of energy, and uses up enormous amounts of chemicals that are spilled into the environment along with many of the "fission products" which "poison" the reactor cores. What they want is the mainly unspent U-235, and a few other isotopes of Uranium and Plutonium, especially Pu-239. What they DON'T want is a rainbow of radioactive isotopes of every element in the Periodic Table -- but it's what they've got. So, France, which currently reprocesses reactor cores, pours enormous amounts of radioactive and chemical waste into the North Sea (as do several other countries) and that waste is then spread throughout the planet. THAT's their idea of "reprocessing" nuclear waste, and they want to bring this awful concept to America in the form of something called GNEP, which stands for Global Nuclear Energy Partnership because America will be

the cesspool of the planet, accepting nuclear waste from anywhere. (Transported, usually, by boats, which will sometimes be lost at sea -- guaranteed.)

But the WORST thing about reprocessing the "waste" from nuclear reactors is that you can ALSO separate out some isotopes which can be used in DIRTY BOMBS, and in -- you guessed it -- ATOMIC BOMBS.

13) Are nuclear power plants responsible for nuclear weapons proliferation?

One can start with the simple fact that WITHOUT NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS, THERE WOULD BE NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS. Hydrogen bombs all use tritium in addition to plutonium and / or uranium, and both the plutonium and the tritium always come from nuclear power plants. Tritium has a half-life of about 12.3 years. You need to keep making more tritium or, after a batch has decayed to too low a grade to be useful, you have to remove it from your nuclear warhead and re-isolate the tritium isotopes you have left over. But you won't be able to refuel as many warheads as before, if you aren't making more tritium.

The main plutonium isotope needed for nuclear bombs is Pu-239, which is ONLY created in nuclear reactors. If you don't isolate it from other plutonium isotopes, it'spretty much USELESS as bomb-making material. If you let it decay for a few years, it ALSO becomes useless as bomb-making material until it has been reprocessed.

So if you want to remove nuclear weapons from the face of the earth, you MUST shut down the reprocessing plants, which are enormous and dirty death-machines which specialize in Weapons of Mass Destruction, AND the nuclear power plants, where many of the raw materials that can be turned into nuclear weapons are made.

14) Why does the industry keep going, if it's SO bad?

I dunno. Why DOES murder-for-hire keep happening, since it's SO bad? Why does war keep happening?

The nuclear industry relies on lies and obfuscations to hide its true effect on humanity from curious or prying eyes. ANYONE who begins to understand the truth is immediately labeled an "activist" even if they base every comment they ever make on scientific principles which the pro-nukers cannot and WILL NOT ANSWER. People who are labeled "activists" are soon kicked out of their jobs, so that they can no longer be considered experts who are current in the field. They are ridiculed, and destroyed financially.

The "debate" over nuclear power -- the one a democratic people SHOULD have had -- NEVER HAPPENED, and next thing we knew, there were more than 100 operating nuclear power plants in America alone. One that was gutted by fire more than 30 years ago, on March 22, 1975 (and nearly melted down, but didn't, or you would know its name) was reconstructed and restarted recently (June 2007). How? Because the Tennessee Valley Authority, which owns the Browns Ferry site, is as corrupt an organization as you will find on the face of the earth.

What keeps the industry going is government contracts, government subsidies, government insurance, and tax breaks. The government feeds BILLIONS into the industry, financing the "research and development" of new reactor designs, and the training the commercial reactor operators through the military reactor program.

Research reactor institutes are often controlled jointly by the industry and by the government. It's self-perpetuating.

But the biggest break the industry gets is, of course, the fact that if you or your children or loved ones get cancer or leukemia, it COULD be due to anything, NO MATTER HOW CLOSE you live to a reactor, and no matter how many people around you SEEM to be dying as well. To make matters worse, after a meltdown, most people with reactor-caused illnesses will never be paid a red cent by any insurance company, the reactor owners or operators, or any local, state or federal entity. Check your homeowner's insurance policy if you have one. Reactor accidents are specifically excluded! And you need look no further than the nuclear industry's under-funded, federally-mandated minimalist insurance policy known as The Price-Anderson Act to KNOW that no citizen will be paid their due if they survive after an accident. You'll get fractions of a penny on the dollar if you live to collect anything at all. You'll be called stupid for living so close to a reactor, or paranoid for thinking that accident "X" miles away caused YOUR cancer. "X" could be a little as 11 miles or less!

15) Is the threat from terrorism real?

YES, IT'S REAL. There have been NUMEROUS threats from terrorists against OUR nuclear power plants. Books by scientists, written more than 30 years ago, which were ignored then and are ignored now, warned America of the threat. The threat is worse now: The militants are at least as determined as ever, the targets contain MORE radioactive materials than ever, the populations around the reactors are vastly greater, and the explosive power and penetrating power of the weapons that might be used are both SIGNIFICANTLY greater. But the reactors are the same, only older!

A half-dozen armed guards per reactor won't stop ANY determined foe. Similarly, the Transportation Security Administration is incapable of guarding the skies completely, especially from RENTED BUSINESS JETS which could be easily hijacked and flown into a reactor or its spent fuel, with devastating results.

The Pentagon does NOT patrol the airspace above each reactor and even if it did, they couldn't stop the wide variety of incoming flying objects that can exist --missiles, small and large planes, etc.. They can't stop boat-launched small nuclear weapons attacks against our coastal reactors. They couldn't stop 9-11; not even close.

The military has NOT built anti-aircraft missile embankments around the nuclear power plants or even established permanent "no-fly" zones around the plants. And even if they did, it probably wouldn't help against a determined, 9-11 "inspired" foe.

Shutting the reactors down permanently improves the survivability significantly. Nothing else makes any sense at all.

16) Are people who oppose nuclear power simply opposed to ALL technology?

No usually, and not in this case. Most of them are just like everyone else. They like

baseball, they want their car to be first off the line at the light, they like rock and roll music.

But there is ONE big difference: They've studied up on some of the issues presented here. So they've decided -- on their own -- that nuclear power is a silent killer, and that its corporate and government proponents are liars, cheats, scoundrels, and --yes -- murderers.

But that is no reason to hate "technology." Nuclear technology is generally 50-year old, has-been stuff anyway. Renewable energy is where all the exciting, great work is being done these days. In fact, most people who oppose nuclear technology think that GOOD technology can and MUST enrich and lengthen our lives.

The author of THIS document has been a computer programmer for more than 25 years. He has programmed everything from lasers to classroom lessons, robots, mice, and joysticks. It's easy to label someone "anti-" and figure they just have an ax to grind. But the reality can be quite different. The author considers himself not only "pro-technology" but "pro-DNA," instead of the more common phraseology: "anti-nuclear." The term pro-DNA is correct because the damage to our DNA is the most dangerous thing we have to deal with regarding radioactive poisons in our midst. DNA damage is also among the hardest problems to detect. This essay is a demand for scientific, humanitarian, democratic and financial JUSTICE, nothing more, nothing less.

Russell D. Hoffman, a computer programmer in Carlsbad, California, has written extensively about nuclear power. His essays have been translated into several different languages and published in more than a dozen countries. He can bereached at: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States, including over 1500 data points, accurately placed in time and space:www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

How does a nuclear power plant work (animations of the two typical U.S. reactor designs):http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/nukequiz/nukequiz_one/nuke_parts/reactor_parts.swf

Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon Hot Atom," a look at the history of nuclear power:http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm

NO NUKES IN SPACE (what was on board Columbia?):http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swfor try:http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.html

SCE Memo / One Bad Day At San Onofre (roll mouse over ONE BAD DAY and leave it there for a minute or two to watch an animation of several disastrous events take place at San Onofre):http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/2005/sce_memo/sce_memo_2004.html

List of every nuclear power plant in America, with history, activist orgs, specs, etc.:http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist.htm

List of ~300 books and videos about nuclear issues in my collection:http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/mybooks.htm

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

Depleted Uranium: The Malignant Bullet:http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/du/dumb.html

Animated Periodic Table of the Elements:http://www.animatedsoftware.com/apt.html

Selected Pump Animations with full frame control:www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/ProductDemos/FourPumpGroups/FourPumpGroups.html

"All About Pumps" educational software tutorial:

http://www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/All%20About%20Pumps/aapumps.swf

"Statistics Explained" educational software tutorial (co-author):http://www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/Statistics%20Explained/statexpl.swf

"The Heart: The Engine of Life" educational tutorial about the human heart, originally written in 1984 and released for the first time in 1986 (co-author):http://www.animatedsoftware.com/elearning/Engine%20of%20Life/eolife.swf

All four of the educational products require passwords to be entered once:

ZINC (for the Animated Periodic Table)MR. PUMP (for All About Pumps)ANOVA (for Statistics Explained)AORTA (for The Engine of Life)

The programs also ask for a "login ID," but that can be anything in the current releases.

Tritium Explained (why "Low Level Radiation" can be disproportionately harmful):http://animatedsoftware.com/environment/tritium/2006/EPATritiumStandard.htm

Nuclear Power Kills: Here's How:http://www.counterpunch.com/hoffman06272007.html