# Nuclear power **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 3, 2005, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417 "2005-08-03T13:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/101 "2005-08-04T16:10:41Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > What if terrorists hit it with an anti-tank missile? > > Put it this way - suppose the nuclear industry agreed to store all their waste on site. Would you support expanded use of nuclear power then? > > Regards, > Shodan If they built strong, safe 1000 year vaults on site, and put operations into Naval or Quasi-Naval hands I would be happy. I really want to see us stop burning oil & Coal. Without Fusion, Nuke is the best solution. My concerns are waste & operations. From fairly detailed replies in this thread, I now know fuel is not a problem. I am happy to hear the Plutonium is not as dangerous as I have always believed. No one as changed my mind on shipping waste, lets keep it at the plant. BTW this is definitely not NIMBY as I live 23 miles and work 7 from a plant and nowhere near the proposed storage sight. Obviously I also think we need to continue developing Solar, Wind, Geo-Thermal, Fuel Cell, Bio-Mass, Solar Chimneys and most importantly Fusion. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/102 "2005-08-04T16:13:38Z")
How much waste would an average fission plant produce? anyone know? **Stranger**? ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/103 "2005-08-04T16:13:46Z")
:smack: Sorry most importantly reduce use with more efficient appliances. Diode lighting should start replacing a portion of current lighting within next 10 years. Fluorescent already should replace most Incandescent. Etc. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/104 "2005-08-04T16:58:11Z")
> [@Larry Borgia](#): > > How much waste would an average fission plant produce? > > anyone know? **Stranger**? In terms of high level waste (used fuel elements) don’t think there’s a simple answer to that (or at least, I don’t have the specific knowledge to make a credible claim); it depends upon the type of design, the rated output, how the fuel is initially packaged, et cetera. Depending on how it is packaged, it may be technically and economically feasible to reprocess it, and this should be a consideration when designing a reactor. High level waste is nasty to handle but is readily contained and stored indefinitely using existing methods. [This site](http://www.uic.com.au/wast.htm) makes this claim: “Whether reprocessed or not, the volume of high-level waste is modest, - about 3 cubic metres per year of vitrified waste or 25-30 tonnes of spent fuel for a typical large nuclear reactor. The relatively small amount involved allows it to be effectively and economically isolated.” It doesn’t provide a reference or bibliography, though. The bulk of waste is actually low-level and intermediate-level wastes; contaminated coolant, handling materials, processing byproducts and mill tailings, et cetera. This stuff tends to come in more mutable and chemically reactive form; while solid pellets of [sup]238[/sup]U aren’t going to readily dissolve into the aquifer in large quantities, tailings and coolant can leak, seep, and contaiminate. Fabric, irradiated reactive metals, et cetera are prone to dissolve. I question the wisdom if placing this kind of stuff in deep underground reservoirs, actually. It seems like it would be better (though probably much more expensive) to maintain storage in fabricated bunkers that can be inspected for structural and environmental integrity. We learned the hard way with Love Canal and hundreds of other toxic waste dumps that stuff put underground doesn’t tend to stay put. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/105 "2005-08-04T17:23:57Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Please pay attention to what you already posted. You asked people to look at the potential jobs created by a net increase in repair work. Other posters pointed out that this was a foolish idea and that these were a net drag on the economy. No, what I was doing was showing that there is an alternative to Sam’s scenario of 50,000 extra injured people a year, due to their having to clean solar panels. **Patty** , I’m not making any arguments in favor of coal or oil based energy production. **SteveMB** , your analogy is so far off base, I’m astounded that you think it accurately reflects the real subject. In order for your analogy to make any sense, you would need to believe that the windows served a purpose in place of a door, and then you hired the hooligan’s to clean the window, but they break it instead, with rocks with notes wrapped around them? What possible sense or bearing on the issue you are singling out do you think this has? Why don’t you just try addressing the issue directly, rather than through poor metapor? > [@Shodan](#): > > Put it this way - suppose the nuclear industry agreed to store all their waste on site. Would you support expanded use of nuclear power then? No, I don’t think I could whole heartedly support the idea, as it still leaves us producing waste which will take hundreds of thousands of years to begin to breakdown. Storage doesn’t solve the problem; it just means we have more rugs covering things up. But would I rather see the people who produce the waste store it than see it shipped to here, where we don’t use nuclear power and don’t want other people’s trash? Yeah, absolutely. **Stranger** , you asked for a cite about falsified & fabricated data? I thought I linked to a news story about that; I’m sorry if I did not. Here’s three: > [@](#): > > Inspectors general for the Energy Department and the Department of Interior are investigating e-mail messages written between 1998 and 2000 in which workers spoke of making up dates and names and using “fudge factors” to satisfy quality assurance requirements for their research on climate and water infiltration. [cite](http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/Apr-12-Tue-2005/news/26271464.html) > [@](#): > > In one e-mail, a USGS employee writes, “I’ve made up the dates and names… If they need more proof I will be happy to make up more stuff.” > > Other comments include: “Like you’ve said all along. YMP [Yucca Mountain Project] has now reached a point where they need to have certain items work no matter what.” [cite](http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/apr2005/yucc-a06.shtml) > [@from USGS email](#): > > In the end, I keep track of two sets of files, the ones that will keep QA (quality assurance) happy and the ones that were actually used. [cite](http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html/2005/04/01/96097.php) ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 5:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/106 "2005-08-04T17:44:33Z")
lol I just noticed that my 2nd cite for Stranger was an article on the World Socialist Web Site. Definitely wouldn’t be my first choice for a cite, but there it is. On April 5, 2005 the House Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce and Agency Organization met to discuss this very issue. [This is the report from the American Geological Institute](http://stage.agiweb.org/gap/legis109/yucca_hearings.html#apr5) which contains the following excerpt: > [@](#): > > As one email reads, “…[Yucca Mountain Project] has now reached a point where they need to have certain items work no matter what, and the infiltration maps are on that list.” Joe Egan, an attorney representing the State of Nevada, told the panelists, “falsification is nothing new to DOE.” He cited other incidents in the project, in which DOE falsified documents relating to the toxicity of tunnels under the mountain, exposing workers to toxic silica dust. He also testified that the email disclosure was not voluntary and officials have been aware of the emails since December, 2004. The silica dust story broke in 2004. More than 1,200 workers were exposed to the toxic dust for a period of 4 years. > [@](#): > > Energy Department officials were aware of potentially hazardous silica at Yucca Mountain from early studies but did not enforce health protections until after workers had excavated a large portion of the site, according to a letter made public Wednesday. > > Margaret Chu, director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, made the admission in a letter sent Tuesday to Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev. [cite](http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2004/Feb-19-Thu-2004/news/23254984.html) What’s happening out at Yucca Mountain is not good science or good policy. It’s a sham, and a potentially deadly one. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/107 "2005-08-04T18:02:30Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > =No, I don’t think I could whole heartedly support the idea, as it still leaves us producing waste which will take hundreds of thousands of years to begin to breakdown. Storage doesn’t solve the problem; it just means we have more rugs covering things up. But would I rather see the people who produce the waste store it than see it shipped to here, where we don’t use nuclear power and don’t want other people’s trash? Yeah, absolutely. Which is sort of the problem with debating some subjects, like nuclear power. Much or most of the opposition to nuclear power is more or less faith-based - they begin with a conclusion (“Nuclear power is bad”) and then look for justifications for the conclusion. Storing waste on site is out of the question, and transporting it is bad because someone might shoot a missile at it and create a hole as big as your fist. I suspect it is mostly based on the peculiar human preference for familiar risks over unfamiliar ones, even if the familiar ones kill more people. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/108 "2005-08-04T18:04:26Z")
Ultimately, Yucca Mountain is irrelevant to the general policy. If need be, a site can be changed. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/109 "2005-08-04T18:11:37Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Ultimately, Yucca Mountain is irrelevant to the general policy. If need be, a site can be changed. Yeah, we’ll set up the waste site in Buffalo, NY or Gary, IN. People there will be happy for a reason to move far away. Or we could just send it to Afghanistan as part of an Aid and Support package. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/110 "2005-08-04T18:16:30Z")
Wow. This thread has really mushroomed! I’d like to thank everyone (especially those who have brought actual science into the thread) for contributing. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/111 "2005-08-04T18:29:32Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Which is sort of the problem with debating some subjects, like nuclear power. Much or most of the opposition to nuclear power is more or less faith-based - they begin with a conclusion (“Nuclear power is bad”) and then look for justifications for the conclusion. Storing waste on site is out of the question, and transporting it is bad because someone might shoot a missile at it and create a hole as big as your fist. > > I suspect it is mostly based on the peculiar human preference for familiar risks over unfamiliar ones, even if the familiar ones kill more people. > > Regards, > Shodan I agree that nuclear power is a difficult subject to debate, but I take exception to how you single out the “con” side for being intractable. I’ve presented quite a bit of factual information about one particular facet of the debate, and have yet to see _any_ acknowledgement that the “pro” side may be basing their opinion on incorrect data. In fact, you make a blanket statement that “storing waste on site is out of the question”, but you I see no reasoning behind the statement. It’s been there for 40 years, why does it have to leave now? And attempting to simplify the reasons that Yucca is a bad idea with the phrase “transporting it is bad because someone might shoot a missile at it and create a hole as big as your fist” is disingenuous as it ignores all of the other things that I’ve mentioned, including the accidents which even the DOE admits are inevitable. > [@Shodan](#): > > I suspect it is mostly based on the peculiar human preference for familiar risks over unfamiliar ones, even if the familiar ones kill more people. To date, no one has been killed by nuclear waste stored on-site. Why trade a perfect track record for a risky, unknown course of action? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/112 "2005-08-04T18:36:52Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > Ultimately, Yucca Mountain is irrelevant to the general policy. If need be, a site can be changed. **smiling bandit** , Yucca **is** the general policy. 18 years and billions of dollars have gone into a flawed study of a site that the DOE is determined to use. Once the site was known to not fit the bill for a geological repository, new sites should have been brought to mention. None have. Instead the requirements were changed (they attempted to change them, anyway) to fit the site. The DOE is, by law, supposed to begin waste shipments to Yucca by 2008. A deadline for shipping to begin was made _by law_ before the suitability study had even been completed. The truth is, there is a “need be”, but no “did it”. ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/113 "2005-08-04T18:41:31Z")
I thought there were alot of liberals on these boards. What happened to the diehard anti-nukes? Do they just not bother to post? I would also like to echo Johnny L.A. > [@](#): > > I’d like to thank everyone (especially those who have brought actual science into the thread) for contributing. This is a great thread and a good primer at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/114 "2005-08-04T18:57:28Z")
[QUOTE=jrfranchi] I thought there were alot of liberals on these boards. **[A]** What happened to the diehard anti-nukes? \*\*\*\*\*\* Do they just not bother to post?[/QUOTE Does **A** |= **B**? 😕 Policy decisions regarding science and technology should be based on an understanding of science and technology, not “diehard” advocacy of some philosophical position. Failure to do so leads to the kind of ignorance that currently plagues many areas of research and education. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![What\_Exit](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/what_exit/32/10652_2.png) [@What\_Exit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/What_Exit)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/115 "2005-08-04T19:02:20Z")
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train] [QUOTE=jrfranchi] I thought there were alot of liberals on these boards. **[A]** What happened to the diehard anti-nukes? \*\*\*\*\*\* Do they just not bother to post? [/QUOTE Does **A** |= **B**? 😕 Policy decisions regarding science and technology should be based on an understanding of science and technology, not “diehard” advocacy of some philosophical position. Failure to do so leads to the kind of ignorance that currently plagues many areas of research and education. Stranger[/QUOTE] No they don’t but I am in a local Environmental group and I am on the right of the average. There are still a lot of old school no-nukes lefties in the group. I was expecting to find some like them on these boards. Your statement is correct, I was just expecting some of the “US is evil” people to also be “Nukes are Evil” people. I appear to be misguided. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/116 "2005-08-04T19:05:47Z")
> [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > In fact, you make a blanket statement that “storing waste on site is out of the question”, but you I see no reasoning behind the statement. It’s been there for 40 years, why does it have to leave now? I was stating what one side in the debate was arguing. NIMBY and all that. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > And attempting to simplify the reasons that Yucca is a bad idea with the phrase “transporting it is bad because someone might shoot a missile at it and create a hole as big as your fist” is disingenuous as it ignores all of the other things that I’ve mentioned, including the accidents which even the DOE admits are inevitable. Again, it was an example of the way the debate was trending. The nuclear industry takes precautions, almost to the point of ridiculousness, to guard against various hazards. Every time they do, the objections of the anti-nukes became more and more far-fetched. > [@Snowboarder Bo](#): > > To date, no one has been killed by nuclear waste stored on-site. Why trade a perfect track record for a risky, unknown course of action? No one has been killed by radiation exposure at any US civilian nuclear power plant, whereas some fifty or more iron miners die every year digging up ore to make into (among other things) frames for solar panels. So? I mention it primarily because, as I mentioned, most anti-nuke types are not arguing against nuclear power because of this or that risk that they deem unacceptable. They deem any risk unacceptable, even if it is lower than risks currently incurred. As you more or less did in your previous post. You won’t accept the risk either of transporting the waste, nor of keeping it on site. And I rather suspect that, if the nuclear industry found some third alternative, that would be too risky as well. Incidentally, your earlier cite does not exactly prove that any data was falsified. An attorney hired (presumably) for the State of Nevada to argue against Yucca Mountain alleged so, but > [@](#): > > Garrish, who is in charge of overseeing the progress of Yucca Mountain, testified that “there have been misunderstandings relative to what the emails allege.” According to Garrish, one employee only failed to properly date his work according to quality assurance procedures. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/117 "2005-08-04T19:14:46Z")
> [@jrfranchi](#): > > No they don’t but I am in a local Environmental group and I am on the right of the average. There are still a lot of old school no-nukes lefties in the group. I was expecting to find some like them on these boards. Yeah, baseless dogmatism doesn’t tend to survive too long around here. ::looks around:: Excluding Objectivists, of course. 😉 > [@jrfranchi](#): > > Your statement is correct, I was just expecting some of the “US is evil” people to also be “Nukes are Evil” people. I appear to be misguided. Eh, we all know that the only _real evil_ are those who are against the US. War protesters are _evil_; anti-nuclear demonstrators are just…nostalgic. 😃 Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/118 "2005-08-04T19:43:25Z")
**Shodan** thanks for clarifying some of your statements. However, I must protest your conclusion here: > [@Shodan](#): > > I mention it primarily because, as I mentioned, most anti-nuke types are not arguing against nuclear power because of this or that risk that they deem unacceptable. They deem any risk unacceptable, even if it is lower than risks currently incurred. > > **As you more or less did in your previous post. You won’t accept the risk either of transporting the waste, nor of keeping it on site**. And I rather suspect that, if the nuclear industry found some third alternative, that would be too risky as well. (bold added) Please don’t misrepresent what I have said. I never said on-site storage of nuclear waste was unacceptable. In fact, I have been arguing for a continuation of on-site storage policy. What I said was > [@](#): > > No, I don’t think I could whole heartedly support the idea of expanded use of nuclear energy, which is a far cry from the intractable position you ascribe to me. I don’t whole-heartedly support the death penalty, the electoral college, or many other things. But I can recognize when an option is the best solution amongst several alternatives. Even if nuclear power is the best alternative, the problem of waste doesn’t go away. It only gets worse as more is created. As to the false data, read the articles. Read the emails. The email states he made things up, and will do so again if need be. How could it be any clearer? ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/119 "2005-08-04T20:11:31Z")
> [@An Arky](#): > > I don’t consider having a big mountain to put waste in all that great of a plan. How do you put up warning signs that you are certain to be seen or understood tens of thousands of years from now? Why does 10,000 years matter? In 10,000 years: 1.) There may be nobody left to care, and signs won’t matter. 2.) We’ll have the technology to easily detect and clean it up. 3.) Even if society has blown itself back to the stone age by that time, it’s not like it’s going to be a vacation spot in any case. People don’t like to hang around areas where people get sick with just a few hours of exposure. Even without the signs, it won’t take long for people(no matter how far we may have regressed) to realize there is something forbidden about the place. ---
**Author:** ![HPL](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3da27b/32.png) [@HPL](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HPL)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2005, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417/120 "2005-08-04T20:30:50Z")
Damn, forgot to add “or” between each number. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nuclear-power/315417.md?page=7)