a reminder of that nuclear energy is no harmless affair

Skybird · 07-09-2008, 09:29 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7496998.stm

Quote:

Some 30,000l (7,925 gallons) of solution containing 12g of uranium per litre spilled from an overflowing reservoir at the facility - which handles liquids contaminated by uranium - into the ground and into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. (...) "It is impossible that such a spill, containing uranium, does not have important consequences for the environment and for health," it said.

Simple math: 36 kg of uranium escaped into the environment, then. If somebody seriously tells me that is harmless for health and environment, I would not believe it, too.

kurtz · 07-09-2008, 09:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7496998.stm

Quote:

Some 30,000l (7,925 gallons) of solution containing 12g of uranium per litre spilled from an overflowing reservoir at the facility - which handles liquids contaminated by uranium - into the ground and into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. (...) "It is impossible that such a spill, containing uranium, does not have important consequences for the environment and for health," it said.

Simple math: 36 kg of uranium escaped into the environment, then. If somebody seriously tells me that is harmless for health and environment, I would not believe it, too.

Not so simple maths 30,000*12 =360,000=360 Kg. This does seem to be rather a lot I think I'd like some confirmation on these figures.

Raptor1 · 07-09-2008, 09:51 AM

I HIGHLY doubt the 360kg figure...

Unless it's U-238, is it?

Skybird · 07-09-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kurtz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skybird

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7496998.stm

Quote:

Some 30,000l (7,925 gallons) of solution containing 12g of uranium per litre spilled from an overflowing reservoir at the facility - which handles liquids contaminated by uranium - into the ground and into the Gaffiere and Lauzon rivers. (...) "It is impossible that such a spill, containing uranium, does not have important consequences for the environment and for health," it said.

Simple math: 36 kg of uranium escaped into the environment, then. If somebody seriously tells me that is harmless for health and environment, I would not believe it, too.

Not so simple maths 30,000*12 =360,000=360 Kg. This does seem to be rather a lot I think I'd like some confirmation on these figures.

"Medic...! I shot my leg!"

That figure has been mentioned in several media reports now. no doubt that if it is real the officials will try to talk it down.

Raptor1 · 07-09-2008, 09:54 AM

But what kind of Uranium?

joegrundman · 07-09-2008, 10:09 AM

it's unenriched

Raptor1 · 07-09-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joegrundman

it's unenriched

Thought so

How dangerous is U-238 anyway?, all I ever hear about is the 235...

Frame57 · 07-09-2008, 10:16 AM

Didn't Rickover drink reactor coolant? Do not see a problem, just depend on who builds and runs them.

SUBMAN1 · 07-09-2008, 10:25 AM

Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick.

I'd say someones in trouble though.

The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone!

-S

Raptor1 · 07-09-2008, 10:36 AM

I doubt there's too much danger, sure U-238 is toxic, but It's not nearly as dangerous as U-235 because Alpha radiation is rather harmless (Considering your not actively in touch with the source or something)

Anti-Nuclear Energy fanatics are obviously using this as an excuse to further their goals

Or...I might not know what I'm talking about

SUBMAN1 · 07-09-2008, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

I doubt there's too much danger, sure U-238 is toxic, but It's not nearly as dangerous as U-235 because Alpha radiation is rather harmless (Considering your not actively in touch with the source or something)

Anti-Nuclear Energy fanatics are obviously using this as an excuse to further their goals

Or...I might not know what I'm talking about

The river will dilute it into a harmless substance too.

Uranium is heavy, so I am kind of curious as to why it would be found in an overflow situation anyway? It should sink to the bottom of the tank, and theoretically wouldn't overflow with the liquid unless that liquid was in constant motion.

-S

Platapus · 07-09-2008, 05:29 PM

Well considering that U238 is what is called Natural Uranium, I am not all that concerned. Uranium is about 40 times more abundant than silver.

It does pose a toxicity hazard in what is commonly called "heavy metal poisoning" and needs to be treated with due respect. Respect, but not fear. Caution not panic.

However the referenced article is a great example of how the media can get people spun up with the very mention of that evil element Uranium oohhhh very scary.

UnderseaLcpl · 07-09-2008, 05:31 PM

What Europe should really be worried about is U-48. I just started a new GWX career

Sailor Steve · 07-09-2008, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick.

I'd say someones in trouble though.

The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone!

-S

No, that's not right. There's coal...no, wait - that pollutes too much. We still use it here in Utah. I know: oil! No, wait - we're running out. Wind farms? Not enough space for all the mills it would take to power a city. Solar? Maybe, but the space problem still exists. We have plenty of room for both here in the desert, but we're not a truly major city, and no one is going to allow that kind of uglification.

Gee, Subman, looks like we agree on this one.

orwell · 07-09-2008, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raptor1

Alpha radiation is rather harmless

I thought Alpha radiation was very potent if you manage to take it into your body, but was blocked by most things? Wasn't that how they killed the spy who died in london a while back?

07-09-2008, 09:51 AM	#3
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Golden Land Posts: 7,919 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I HIGHLY doubt the 360kg figure... Unless it's U-238, is it? __________________

07-09-2008, 09:54 AM	#5
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Golden Land Posts: 7,919 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	But what kind of Uranium? __________________

07-09-2008, 10:09 AM	#6
joegrundman Ocean Warrior Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2,839 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	it's unenriched __________________ "Enemy submarines are to be called U-Boats. The term submarine is to be reserved for Allied under water vessels. U-Boats are those dastardly villains who sink our ships, while submarines are those gallant and noble craft which sink theirs." Winston Churchill

07-09-2008, 10:25 AM	#9
SUBMAN1 Rear Admiral Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 12,858 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	Still its the safest form of energy in the world. What are the real alternatives? Only one thing in the world can produce more power than a nuke reactor - Grand Coulee dam. And its not much more , and the trade off is the killing of the salmon runs, etc. Take your pick. I'd say someones in trouble though. The real problem is, people want their cake and eat it to. Can't have no electric generating plants and still have a computer, or even a phone! -S __________________

07-09-2008, 10:36 AM	#10
Raptor1 Navy Seal Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: The Golden Land Posts: 7,919 Downloads: 5 Uploads: 0	I doubt there's too much danger, sure U-238 is toxic, but It's not nearly as dangerous as U-235 because Alpha radiation is rather harmless (Considering your not actively in touch with the source or something) Anti-Nuclear Energy fanatics are obviously using this as an excuse to further their goals Or...I might not know what I'm talking about __________________

07-09-2008, 10:16 AM	#8
Frame57 Sea Lord Join Date: May 2008 Location: 1300 feet on the crapper Posts: 1,872 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	Didn't Rickover drink reactor coolant? Do not see a problem, just depend on who builds and runs them.

07-09-2008, 05:29 PM	#12
Platapus Rear Admiral Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 11,165 Downloads: 54 Uploads: 0	Well considering that U238 is what is called Natural Uranium, I am not all that concerned. Uranium is about 40 times more abundant than silver. It does pose a toxicity hazard in what is commonly called "heavy metal poisoning" and needs to be treated with due respect. Respect, but not fear. Caution not panic. However the referenced article is a great example of how the media can get people spun up with the very mention of that evil element Uranium oohhhh very scary. __________________ abusus non tollit usum - A right should NOT be withheld from people on the basis that some tend to abuse that right.

07-09-2008, 05:31 PM	#13
UnderseaLcpl Silent Hunter Join Date: May 2008 Location: Storming the beaches! Posts: 4,266 Downloads: 0 Uploads: 0	What Europe should really be worried about is U-48. I just started a new GWX career __________________ I stole this sig from Task Force

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode