General > Environment

Radioactive Launch Site?

(1/1)

Ichabod Spoonbill:
You've probably heard about the leaks at Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant. It was in the national news. I live a mile from that plant. I can paddle to it from my launch site in less than 15 minutes. Is this leak a problem? There's a lot of flow from the Hudson, and while I'm upstream of it, the river does go both ways with the tides.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/indian-point-nuclear-power-plant-called-a-disaster-waiting-to-happen/

I don't want to be a worry wart, but it's been bugging me. I'm not ultra-paranoid about radiation, but I want to be smart about this.

PonoBill:
A. It's not radiation, it's radioactive contamination. Reporters are dolts.

B. It's tritium, an isotope of hydrogen. Decays by beta emission with a relatively long half life. Beta particles are electrons, they don't travel far and don't penetrate unless they have a lot of energy. tritium beta is low energy. Paper is an effective shield. so is your skin. More of an issue if you ingest it, but still minor, a lot less of a concern than the radon concentrating in your basement.

Any kind of issue at a nuclear plant is of concern, but this sounds like riverkeeper maintaining their cred. Rest easy. And be thankful that ADD boy isn't working there as a reactor operator. I am.

Ichabod Spoonbill:
Thanks, Bill. I figured you'd be the vote of reason here.

eastbound:
Coincidence--piece below just appeared in the publication i can proudly say my daughter "works" for. Not her piece but she edits and writes for this esteemed publication. Excuse my gloatfulness.

I am torn re nuclear. I see it as a great technology, which could benefit humans in so many ways. But I know it to be potentially catastrophically lethal if run with cavalier safety precaution.

Not sure I can trust our corporation bought and owned government to regulate such potentially dangerous situation, and the history of collusive foxes watching the nuclear hen house is extensive.

I have property within a 2 mile crow fly of the Millstone Nuclear Facility on the CT coast (plant is downwind 9/10 days). A few years ago, the plant was closed for several years due to continual illegal poor storage of spent fuel rods (stored similarly to problematic storage at Fukishima)--only after destroying the career of the stubborn whistle-blower who fought both Millstone and the NRC to get the issue dealt with--thank God he prevailed. I was surprised and disappointed that the plant was allowed to reopen, much as a NIMBY issue, but also given the company had willingly deceived regulators and put the community at serious risk. Not sure that there should be more than one strike for nuclear entities that clearly disregard safety. Too much at stake to get another at bat.

PonoBill:
Its been a long time since I worked at a nuke plant, but in my day the NRC was not collaborative in any way. Never had any respect for FEMA, but the NRC guys were badass and had no interest in making sure the plant could operate--only that it was safe. That might have changed, but it's hard to see how it could.

Onsite fuel storage after the initial year of removal from the reactor is a travesty. Plants were not designed to be waste facilities. The spent fuel is supposed to be reprocessed or stored in safe, secure waste disposal sites. the federal government collected billions in fees to build the facilities, but never did. Onsite cask storage is a reasonable interim approach, the casks are safe--I'm not so sure about secure--but are acceptable only if the ultimate solution is on the horizon. It's not.

It's never been a technical issue. Deep burial in geologically stable structure is a well tested, effective and secure option. The politics of doing it are terrible, so instead we have a much less secure result. Pathetic.

Navigation

[0] Message Index