Shale oil and fracking

[Chuks]

There you go then, ob. Problem solved, one barrel at at time. We can get the NRC to paint smiley faces on the barrels to ease those unreasonable fears of "the nuclear," fears raised by such as myself. (I can see it now, a headline in the Tri-City Herald: Richland doctor complains of 'giant mutant cockroaches' in basement; Orkin man flees in panic.)

[obgraham]

Chuks, my friend, you might enjoy this. Today's front page headline in the paper you refer to above is on workers beginning to start cleanup of a building found to have an unexpected big heap of Cesium and Strontium all over it. Remote control and robotic demolition equipment in being developed to handle these things.

The cause of that spill? ::

A spill during work in the 1980s for Germany is suspected of making its way through the cracked lining of a sump at the bottom of the cell. Workers were fabricating concentrated cesium and strontium into a heat source for Germany to test a repository for radioactive waste, which emits heat.

So there you go. Germans as always wanting someone else to do their dirty work!

[Chuks]

Here's the full article: http://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/loca ... 02599.html

Tell me again about how most waste is just gloves and overalls and such, not something that can kill you stone dead in two minutes. I think I liked your version of nuclear waste better than the one that your paper tells about. (What the hell kind of neighborhood is yours, anyway? You have this scrote running around whacking people with a machete; some random woman stealing someone's phone; and some guy facing 21 felony charges of harassing children. What did he do, steal their Lucky Charms? With neighbors like these I can see why you are so cavalier about a little plutonium dust floating around.)

[obgraham]

Well Chuks, I'll take my level of crime over yours there in sunny and peaceful Germany any day.
When someone stealing a phone makes the local paper, you know they are scrambling for news.

I find your line of argument really interesting, considering your career as a pilot. I'm only a private pilot guy, but I well remember my first CFI, on day 1, telling me "flying is really pretty safe--but it's not very forgiving, and if you don't do what you are supposed to, it'll kill you". In the many many aviation accident reports I've read over the years that certainly seems to be the case, from private through ATP. Do you think we should abandon flying because sometimes people die as a result of the pilot's error?

The same is the case in my field, (except someone else dies if I don't do what I'm supposed to,) and it is true in every area of advanced technology that I can think of. Nuclear science is no exception. If you spill your Cesium, someone else will have to clean it up, and it won't be easy. If you can't decide what to do with thousands of gallons of carbon tet when mixing up a batch of Uranium Hexaflouride so you dump it out onto the ground, someone else will have to deal with it.

This is the legacy we have to deal with. It's the humans that are the problem, not the isotopes.

[Chuks]

You stopped a bit short there, I think.

Advocates of nuclear power invite us to ignore powerful human factors such as greed and negligence, when those human factors can cause very long-term and very serious problems. It seems like a long time ago now, but less than 50 years ago nuclear power was still being sold to us as cheap and clean. White-coated, highly trained technicians would always be working to the very highest standards to give us completely safe power "too cheap to meter." Wonderful! No, unbelievable, and for some, unacceptable. Fukushima was the impetus here for an official turn away from nuclear power.

Of course, as you pointed out, the French are still happily nuking away right next door. Out to the east we have some very messy nuclear operators, particularly Russia. Then there's the way that other forms of power production also cause problems across a range from superficial to profound. It's not that La Merkel was able to just make the problems with nuclear power in particular, and power generation in general, just go away by decree.

In your little corner of the world, ob, you have some unique problems to do with "the nuclear," problems our government, the original source of those problems, does not see to be very adept at solving. I don't think that's all down to some rag-tag cabal of tree-huggers wearing sandals as you seem to think that it is, but suit yourself.

Has the Donald made any promises about fixing this for you? I don't think he knows anything at all about those problems, but you tell me. In fact, he's trying to gut the EPA, isn't he? You better hope he doesn't wake up on the wrong side of the bed at 3 a.m. and start a fresh tweet war against the NRC ... or do you see the NRC as part of the problem rather than as part of the solution?

[BenThere]

Which advocate of nuclear power sent that invitation, Chuks? Greed and negligence? I haven't seen it. Would you be so kind as to Google it and post an article from one of the anarchist, left-wing sources you seem to flit towards?

Try as you might to convince otherwise, the world's experience has shown nuclear power to be the safest source of energy over a sustained period, based on actual casualties. Outside Chernobyl, every malfunction has been successfully contained, and Chernobyl has shown to have had less of an impact than was initially reported. And Chernobyl was operated to a low standard.

By the way, do you have rail cars, laden with oil tanks, running through your community? Is the electricity running your home fired by coal? Does Germany scent its natural gas with a sulfurous scent to help you detect a leak? And have you done a personal carbon footprint assessment? So who is really the greedy and negligent one?

I think the ultimate compromise can be attained by improving resistance technology. If power can be transmitted over long distances with minimal loss, we can put those nuclear plants far, far away from people, and cluster many reactors, while sending unlimited power to the grid.

[obgraham]

A well reasoned proposal some years back would have solved the problems the climatologists moan about, but no, the agenda of those who wish to return our civilization to the level of, say, Afghanistan, wouldn't hear of it.

You build a large group of nuclear power plants. Off somewhere remote, if you like. Here in my town -- we won't oppose them. They produce power 24/7, regardless of the sun shining or the wind blowing. Then you supply a gajillion electric vehicles. When power demand is lower, such as at night, and you have excess supply of power, you charge a lower electric rate to recharge those vehicles when they are not being used.

Drops the use of fossil fuel for vehicles, decreases CO2 emissions, lets the sandal cloggers still get about.

But no, the anti-growth crowd won't have it. Hell, they even want to tear down the hydroelectric dams around here, which is the only other clean energy source, but is maxed out in the US. They won't be happy till we are huddled around the campfire at our cave entrance -- except campfires won't be allowed either.

[Chuks]

Ben, you make this too darn easy! With this, " Outside Chernobyl, every malfunction has been successfully contained, and Chernobyl has shown to have had less of an impact than was initially reported," I only need to cite a few things:

Fukushima, successfully contained? Last news I got was that they were shooting radiation-contaminated wild boars there. Then there is the fact that it's still widdling radioactivity into the ocean, not as much as it used to, but ....

Chernobyl was not initially reported at all. It got 0% reportage from the Soviets: complete radio silence. It was the reports of fall-out from Sweden that led investigators back to the source of the radiation. Therefore it's completely incorrect to state that its impact is less than was initially reported.

You know, Ben, a case can be made for the disaster at Chernobyl being a major cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was good for us, but there was a disaster that contributed to the collapse of a vast country. How's that for "impact"?

It's pretty funny that you see me as the fellow sat in his rose garden taking a sunny view of events. Here you are looking right past a couple of disasters, seeing no real problems with nuclear power, nor with Trump.

[BenThere]

Chernobyl had very little to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Who taught you that? Fukushima has had issues, but it has been contained. How many fatalities have been accorded to it, as well as Chernobyl?

And how is Hiroshima doing after all these years? It seems to be a bustling, modern metropolis today, despite its nuclear exposure.

And why do you refuse to acknowledge the body count of the other sources of energy we utilize?

[Chuks]

Try to follow along, Ben. Chernobyl showed the urgent need for Glasnost, an inseparable part of Perestroika. Perestroika, strengthened by Glasnost, led, without the intent for it to do so, to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

That's not 100% factual, mostly merely an opinion, but it's still factual in its basis. If you are perfectly willing to believe in "thousands and thousands" of completely imaginary

cheering Muslims then you should have no problem at all in seeing Chernobyl as something that led in part to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Fukushima has had issues?! Radioactive wild boars is having "issues"? What kind of neighborhood do you live in, anyway?

Damn, man! We used to get excited about raccoons taking the lids off our garbage cans; that was an "issue" with us. Okay, we were suburbanite weenies, but even a real tough guy with a Kimber .45 would have to get a little bit more excited than that by goddam wild boars (glowing light blue, presumably) out there digging up his taters. "Git me my .45, Maw! I got me more than a issue with them radioactive wild pigs! I got me a problem!"

[Bob]

Fukushima has had issues, but it has been contained

Alternative fact?, I'd love to hear your definition of

contained

[BenThere]

Then consult any reputable dictionary. I recommend OED for comrehensiveness.

[Chuks]

Yes, and I can recommend the OED for how to spell "comprehensiveness." Bada bing!

Ben, a wrecked nuclear power plant that is leaking radioactive material is not contained. Finding a radioactive wild boar in your garden ... that is not a radioactive wild boar that is "contained," either!

Ben, Fukushima is not contained, nor are those radioactive wild swine. You might want to say that Fukushima's almost contained, or just a teensy-tiny bit still out of control, but as nuclear disasters go, this one is still not contained.

[Magnus]

Is the boar dying of radiation sickness?

[Chuks]

No. It's just that their flesh is not safe to eat, due to all the radioactive stuff they have been feeding on.

The reports state that the wild swine have moved into areas that the people were evacuated from, making themselves right at home; now they have to be killed off so that the people can move back.

If the Japanese swine are like the German swine they can be quite aggressive under certain circumstances. Too, they are a traffic hazard; hitting one can wreck your car and/or cause an accident. Here, people often swerve to avoid them and then merge with the roadside vegetation, including fairly stout trees.

[Karearea]

I've been thinking about this thread for a while.
Living in a seismically active country, I'm grateful we have no nuclear power generators; I also have reservations about fracking.
Sometimes I wonder whether endless and exponential "growth" and therefore power-consumption is such a great idea.
I try to be mindful of my consumption of electricity and the all costs involved in its production.

From a New Zealand poet:

Inscription for the wall of a power station

Matiu Jackson fell from the face of a dam,
18 years old and lately out of borstal.
They buried him without a tangi.
John Ball died here drunk, yelling,
Pinned under the blade of a bulldozer.
Thomas Macfarlane, killed when the tunnel
caved in...

Ko te Kawana rite ki a Parao.
A thousand nomad workers
Built this power station, tomb and pyramid,
Where even the water is owned by Pharoah.

The grass bends when the wind blows over it,
But their lives were less to King Cheops than grass,
So many pay packets, so many marks on a sheet,
Today so many statistics of unemployment.

When you plug the cord in for the electric toaster,
Remember the blood of men is flowing through it.

James K. Baxter 1969

[Magnus]

If the radiation hasn't killed the boar, then why would a sausage from said boar kill you?

[Chuks]

It's very simple, Magnus. That wild pig only lives on average for about 4 to 8 years, due to predation, with a maximum lifespan of about 20 years. It doesn't usually live long enough to develop, let alone die of, cancer.

A Scotsman, unlike the obviously feral, hence the name, wild pig, is a merely semi-feral life form. (Proof of this: "Much may be made of a Scotchman, if he be caught young." Dr. Samuel Johnson) Some Glaswegians aside, he's only distantly related to the wild pig, so that he can live on average for about 72 years before succumbing to his normal diet of whiskey, haggis, and deep-fried Mars bars. If he were to add radioactive wild pig to this usual diet then he might well die of cancer well before his time.

This is like smoking and drinking, Magnus. One fag or one glass of that hooch your people distill is not going to cause you to drop dead, but a steady consumption of these things can certainly be mortal. In the same way, one Saucisse de Sanglier Japonais a la Fukushima is not going to make you drop dead on the spot, but a steady diet of them from a young age on might well cause you to develop a cancer in middle age which could either kill you or else make you very ill.

[Cacophonix]

Not to mention the strontium in your favourite tuna based sushi (along with the mercury and other nasties that are not nuclear related)!

http://fukushimawatch.com/2017-02-16-fu ... -tuna.html

Caco

[Magnus]

Make up yer mind, Chuks. Scotsman or Scotchman? You think Dr Johnson is an authority on Scottish people? Live happily in your delusions, perceived from afar in Germany.