It may be the most substantial arms control treaty in two decades, but the Prague Treaty‘s cuts to the USA and Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons aren’t exactly earth-shattering.
At Arms Control Wonk, Jeffrey Lewis notes describes the cuts as modest but real. In a nutshell, once you take out all manner of accounting gimmicks surrounding nuclear-capable bombers, the likely consequences for American nuclear forces are something like this:
• Option A eliminates two squadrons of Minuteman III missiles (100 delivery vehicles)
• Option B eliminates one squadron of Minuteman III missiles and converts two additional ballistic missile submarines (RM: to cruise missile-carrying submarines for conventional attacks)(98 delivery vehicles)
• Option C converts four additional ballistic missile submarines (96 delivery vehicles)
According to this New York Times article, the cutbacks for Russia will be similarly small.
Nothing in this alters the “strategic balance” in any substantial way – the USA and Russia still have more than enough nuclear weapons to turn all of their large cities into smoking radioactive ruins and quite possibly cause a nuclear winter that wipes out the rest of us. It’s better than nothing, but not much.
Perhaps just as significant is the Obama Administration’s new Nuclear Posture Review, which Jeffrey Lewis calls a pivot:
Although I will focus on the nitty-gritty details in a bit, none of that will matter a year from now. I suspect we will look back at this period — the release of the Nuclear Posture Review, the signing of the Prague Treaty, the Nuclear Security Summit and the NPT Review conference — and say that this was a pivot point, the moment when we began talking about nuclear weapons on terms that are different from those of the Cold War. The implication of this conceptual shift isn’t fully realized in any of the documents.
Maybe he’s right, but from the evidence of the concrete outcomes from the US-Russia deal (two decades, for an almost meaningless cutback of a few warheads?), I’ll be a very old man before the results of that conceptual shift make any substantive difference.
Alternatively, it’s a way for both sides to retire old, unreliable and possibly non-functioning weapons without losing any face in domestic politics while simultaneously gaining a facade of high moral ground while moralising about Iran and North Korea.
Meh, the US and Russia aren’t going to blast each other these days, except by accident.
If either country’s governing elites thinks that China, India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea and Iran will change their attitude to nukes because of this agreement, they are incredibly naive.
The interesting aspect of this treaty is the effect that it may or may not have on the development and deployment of anti-missile systems. Russia rattled the sabre over this issue and Obama blinked.
To give both parties credit, its a clever way of saving money, and as ute man mentions, retire older weapons.
Theres still more than enough MAD to go around anyway…
Really, Obama and Putin/Medvedev and Hu Jin Tao for that matter, could agree tomorrow to decommission all of their nuclear weapons. It wouldn’t make a flyspeck’s bit of negative difference to the national security of either power.
Unless you plan to use them, or want others to think you might, then they are a huge waste of money and of course create a security risk of their own, since you have to make sure nothing goes seriously awry with them.
These days, you can blow people to smithereens just as effectively with conventional weapons, especially when you can afford the delivery systems the major powers have. Conventional weapons allow a calibrated response, whereas nuclear weapons either make you look weak when people call your bluff and you blink, or like monsters when you go ahead.
Agreeing that these weapons should be permanently decommissioned would allow all the parties to score major brownie points for doing something that would cost them nothing.
Really, nuclear weapons only make “sense” for small isolated states that would have no chance of resisting assault by conventional weapons/armed forces and are just wacky enough to persuade others that they might use them. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper than running a military machine that can’t possible be effective against any invader. Of course, persuading the outside world that you really do have deliverable nukes and are nutty enough to use them works brilliantly if people believe it, whether you have them or not. Had the US really believed Saddam had deliverable nuclear weapons in 2003, it’s most unlikely they would have attacked, and ironically, both Americans and Iraqis would have been better off. The problem here was that Saddam just wasn’t convincing enough. Everybody knew he was bluffing.
The conventional weapons argument doesn’t stack up. What does stack up is the reality that no nation can dominate another equally sized nation in a sustained way.
The real issue with these weapons is where do you put the plutonium if you take it out of the weapons. Storage. This material is just as dangerous out of the weapons as in. Yes I hear the clammer of “lets quickly build fast breader reactors to gobble it up”. I’m sure that there will be one somewhere.
As Obama says this is a gesture, a nod, a hat tip, a recognition of the reality that the human race has reached a point where the notion of global domination is dead.
I have a fantasy where the Russian and US presidents meet one-on-one, no advisers or generals in sight, and say “Oh fer Chrissakes let’s just keep 10 each and get rid of the rest … it’s not like anything apart from surviving will matter much if we ever use them.”
Yeah I know, I’m a hopeless romantic.
BilB
already being done and here and here …
Of coruse, IFRs and LFTRs would be even better …
I’m aware of that, Fran. The point that I am making is that plutonium is a problem no matter where it is. It is almost better to keep it in bomb form where it is safely contained until it can be reshaped to be consumed in a purpose built disposal reactor, but that does not make a political statement.
It’s always going to be kept securely.
But are you in favour of purpose-built “disposal” reactors?
There is no other option. The plutonium material once created must be consumed for disposal at the highest safe rate. Chernobyl would be a good spot to build such an internationally managed reactor with the power generated being supplied free in compensation to that country and others affected by the contamination from the accident there. I’m sure that I recall you saying that the site is perfectly safe now, so it would be a fitting symbol of the end of the cold war.
As it goes BilB, Ukraine sources about 50% of its primary energy from nuclear power. Using all of the MOX fuel in Ukraine wouldn’t be practical as there is a lot more than they alone could use.
As a matter of interest, Belarus, which was also seriously affected by Chernobyl decided in 2008 to build some nuclear capacity — VVERs as I recall.
By the way, Fran,
This “It’s always going to be kept securely” is a totally nonsense statement, absolutely nobody on this planet can give that assurance.
BilB said:
If we are talking about the Pu239 that is in the nuclear capable devices (submarine- and land-based missiles) that were the subject of this treaty, then yes, one can.
For future reference, all of the five NPT nuclear states have vast reserves of bomb-grade fissile material – bomb-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium – that could be assembled into arsenals orders of magnitude larger than what they currently have.
A lot of surplus Russian bomb material has, as Fran has noted, already been burned in nuclear reactors, including American ones. However, there is a great deal of the stuff still lying around.
The HEU, particularly, represents perhaps the biggest risk of nuclear terrorism because it’s so easy to turn it into a weapon.
There are two non-bomb uses HEU – as research reactor fuel, and as nuclear submarine reactor fuel. HEU research reactors are gradually being converted to LEU. However, apparently HEU-fuelled submarine reactors are quieter than equivalent LEU-fuelled designs.
The other issue is that the NPT nuclear powers have agreed that they won’t make any more HEU or bomb-grade plutonium. Hence, they want to hang on to some of their HEU stockpile to fuel future generations of nuclear subs.
Personally, I wonder whether it might be better if they got rid of their entire stockpiles, but made HEU to fuel their submarines on a declared, safeguarded and as-needed basis.
Our civilisation is moving towards a new understanding that it is immoral to engage in endeavours which have residual consequences beyond the lifetimes of the participants. Simply put we have to properly cleanup the mess that we make. CO2 and fissile residues included.
I agree BilB ..,
Of course, one still has to prioritise. CO2 is a lot more dangerous and longlived tha fissile reside, properly secured.
No,no, not “properly secured”, Fran. Neutralised. Eliminated.
Putting hazardous material in containers and creating a certified management regime to be followed for hundreds or thousands of years does not pass the “beyond the lifetimes of the participants” test.
BilB
The objection would have some merit if that is indeed what occurred or were projected to occur. If the Pu239 is used as the fissile material for nuclear power, then at the end of its cycle it will not be of any use to those seeking weaponisable materiel at all. It will then be rather like other radioactive hazmat which will need to be kept sequestered from human contact for some hundreds of years, assuming some better solution isn’t found earlier. That’s not all that hard to do as the volume will be quite modest.
“kept sequestered from human contact for some hundreds of years” This has to mean rendered harmless and neutral within the commercial life of the organisation that created the material. Rendering harmless means “safe to handle” and returned to the its original condition of isolation before extraction. Anything else is externalising responsibility.
Bilb began by quoting me as follows about radioactive hazmat which could be:
No it doesn’t. Duties can be passed on to others without externalising, provided the transfer is by consent to someone in a position to accept this burden. Thus, if a fund were set up to fund this sequestration and administered by an entity around for several hundred years — e.g. the government — this would be OK. Of course the funding provision would need to be adequate and should be levied from revenue attached to commercial operation, but this is not impossible.
Fran,
“Duties can be passed on to others”
No they cannot, Fran. This arrogantly presupposes continuity of purpose beyond the bounds of originating influence. There are endless examples of the failure of this type of thinking. An easy one, James Hardy asbestiosis compensation fund. A more extreme example would be the economic decline of the Zimbabwean State. What you are proposing engages in stratospheric levels of blind optimism.
Lets think what can go wrong in the medium to long term.
Commercial missmanagement
Political mismanagement
Human error
Human abandonment
criminal intervention
military reassignment
Economic collapse
political collapse
disease pandemic
climate change intervention
geological intervention
space intervention (meteor strike)
I will think of many more as the day goes by.
How can you be expected to plan for these things? You can’t. That is why the the proposal is preposterous.
BilB
One can always appeal to “what if?”. The problem with your objection is that there is no reason to draw the line at the lifetime of commercial operation. Plants — not merely nuclear opnes, but all industrial, commercial and retail operations can be bought and sold with their liabilities as part of the sale.
James Hardie isn’t a valid comparison because the payments came well after the liability was created, whereas with nuclear, one knows that these liabilities will exist before the plant is approved. A levy on each KwH can be taken and put into trust.
It is true that we humans have to be proactive in securing accountable and responsible government, but that is so whether we have nuclear power or not. And of course, we do mhave nuclear power (and nuclear weapons), whether you like it or not and it falls upon us all to make sure we develop systems for managing the waste
and safe decommissioning. You acknowledged as much in your proposal above, so no backpedalling is possible now.
Fran,
“A levy on each KwH can be taken and put into trust”
this fails many tests. The obvious one is the Zimbabwe test. It would take very little time for excessive inflation to destroy the value of any type of contingency fund. The list of countries where this would have happened is very long.
As with all tradgedies of history there are consequences. Nuclear weapons and nuclear energy fall into this arena, within our life times. It is our responsibility to deconstruct the danger that we have created, and to not pass this mistake or the consequences of our failed thinking onto future generations.
The list of risks above is not a “what if” list. This is a list of absolute certainties. Every single one of these things has occured and will occur again, many of them many times over in the centuries long time frame. If there was a “schedule of tragic events” it might be possible to design around some of these problems. But there is not.
Bilb continued:
The fund would have to be vested securely. Plainly, you wouldn’t want it held as cash but in some secure portfolio of assets. Currently, we have a “future fund” secured against solid assets in just this way.
Zimbabwe is not a good example because the causes of the inflation derive from poor governance more broadly, and the serious breakdown of its agricultural base. The problem there is far larger than what would happen with nuclear hazmat.
The fact is that in most countries, the state ensures that the banking system stays viable, and in major economies, the interpenetration of trade and investment prompts other states to stand behind the soundness of each other. That is one reason why the EU/IMF won’t let the banking system of a relatively small economy like Greece fail. It’s why economies about to default on loans get rescheduling.
Fran,
Your arguments do not stack up however “well intentioned” they may be. You are relying on a very narrow band of positive possibilities. This is not “life” as history tells it, or even the future as many studies are predicting it. It is a fanciful imagining as only an Australian can conceive.
Zimbabwe is a perfect example of what can happen…..because it did. I did my very best to get my hands on a 4 billion Zimbabwean dollar bank note, but missed out. That was last year. Do you remember the Sarajevo Winter Olympics? Did you not then next witness television images of women being shot in the streets with their shopping in hand?
That could never happen again??? Please. It is one thing to live in comfort and security, but to believe that this will persevere forever is the utmost foolishness, and very human.
BilB
There are in life, as you know, no gurantees. Nobody can promise that you will live another day or another month. We humans live with uncertainty. If you want to live, you risk dying.
One makes provision, based, as closely as one can, in the best available evidence and modelling, and then takes one’s chances. You acknowledge that there is a problem with nuclear hazmat, and so do I. There’;s also a problem with CO2 and fossil fuel harvest, transport and combustion more generally.
All one can do is devise the best set of policies to manage the costs, risks and benefits associated with these challenges.
It may not work out, but if we have done all we reasonably can with the information avialable at the time we had to decide, then we have nothing with which to reproach ourselves.
Fran, now you are trying to rationalise that it is acceptable to off load responsibility onto future generations on the basis that “well, that’s life”. Not acceptable. Most of the carnage that we created in the 20th Century can and will be reconciled in the 21st Century. It is vitally important that we do not compromise that effort by creating a bigger different kind of mess for the 22nd Century and beyond.
“we did our best, and here is the mess” thinking is where we have come from. “we did our best and there is no mess” is where we are going. And this is achievable. Success in this is about making the correct choices in the future and not taking seemingly easy convenient approaches, and this will fly glaringly in the face of free market thinking.
The difference between nuclear waste and excessive CO2 waste is that the danger of nuclear contamination was known from very early on in the use of this material. The CO2 risk broad awareness is even younger than that for Nuclear contamination risk. And, yes, it is a much larger danger. But it is a managable problem. Nuclear danger is even more managable, we simply can stop using that technology and dispose of its artefacts. Not so with CO2.
Bilb continued:
Or we can trade a higher and harder to manage certainty for a much smaller and knowable risk/cost. The reality is that a large share of the world is already using nuclear (about 35 countries IIRC) and they won’t stop. On the contrary, they will augment their nuclear capacity and others will join them. That will occur whatever you and I say.
So what we need to do is to manage that risk and extract maximum benefit from that course. In a rather flippant way you alluded to a reasonable trade-off.
The reality is that almost every kwH of nuclear capacity is sold at the expense of coal. If we can get cars onto the grid it will be at the expense of oil too. That is a very good risk trade, in terms of GHGs, more general pollution and human health, ocean acidity and resource depletion terms. The legacy we would hand on would be a tiny fraction of the problem of that we will hand on if we don’t act.
You know it makes sense BilB …
Within hours of the treaty being signed the U.S. was talking about new conventional weapons which can be launched within an hour.
The world’s biggest warmonger is never going to get away from war. Then it’s never going to give up its plan to control the world either!
No, Fran, what makes sense is to use the one free absolutely clean energy source, the sun. Franz Trieb’s information will demonstrate the undeniable certainty of that.
This is what I mean about making correct choices. Examine this conceptually, practically, and even commercially (properly), and using natures own energy source the one that sustains all life rather than poisons us is the correct choice. In the so doing we will have eliminated one of the primary causes of modern wars. The battle for energy. Simply because it is universally available.
BilB said:
Except it’s not free, or even cheap, and in most places it demands piles of physical resources and water and gas (a finite and polluting resource) as backup. In Australia, unless we sacrificed efficiency and went for air cooling, we would need to use a lot of water, unless we placed them at the coast on very expensive land. As a full commercial CSP has not yet been built we don’t really know the lifecycle cost. Maybe they will last 40 years … or not. There are many places where this would not work anyway.
And as I said, even if we do go this way, this will not change what large parts of the rest of the world are doing. We will still need repositories for waste and deal with decommissioning of weapons and so forth.
It’s undeniable the Sun is a source of energy BilB – sadly it’s just not practical for base load power no matter what the fantasists dream up with molten salt, or pumping water uphill and letting it flow back down at night, or whatever else you try to do to store the (meagre) power you generate during the day.
Fran’s approach (turning all weaponable fissile material into energy) is, in my estimation, the cleanest practical way to continue business as usual. It’s going to be incredibly expensive, but we know it works and we know it’s the only demonstrable way to replace coal fired stations other than the slightly lesser evil of natural gas, which is a stopgap at best. It’s a horrible position to be in, there’s no arguing that. Horrible.
I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that all those dusty, cobweb covered Minutemen III missiles have lead filled warheads though and our great and powerful friend has been running a monstrous bluff for 40 years and simply doesn’t have the plutonium they say they do.
Sadly Uteman, I doubt it is so. The US started with thorium but abandoned it precisely because it yielded no Pu239 for weapons
The new IFR the Russians are working on, (developed originally at Argonne by the US but abandoned by Clinton as a sop to the anti-nukes) could use this very cheaply. Also the Candu-9 is a pretty good option for MOX
If nuclear waste is eventually buried, unprocessed, in deep geological repositories, the idea that it will need detailed monitoring for millennia is incorrect, in my view.
If it’s going to move, it’s only really important for the first few decades. Beyond that, there’s more radioactive stuff in the rocks that any water molecule would have to pass to get to the surface, than there is in the waste itself.
As for the threat of a future society digging nuclear waste up and turning it into bombs, if they’ve got the ability to do so, they’d be able to build a bomb by easier methods not involving isotopic separation of plutonium.
In my mind, Robert, if nuclear waste residues are processed into vitrified pebbles this would likely be a satisfactory burial form to flow into deep cavities in a bentonite based cement like slurry. The pebbles I am imagining could be designed to provide guaranteed nuclear seperation and the vitrifing material might have a high lead content to dampen neutron emissions. This would be as near to returning the material to its original condition of geological isolation as would be possible. The risks of having the material dug up are more to do with accidentally encountering the material in the process of accessing other minerals previously not known to exist in that location. But the notion of burying unprocessed material is a non starter for a whole catalogue of reasons.
Fran, “Except it’s not free, or even cheap, and in most places it demands piles of physical resources and water and gas……….” this is only in your inexpert limited understanding highly biased opinion. The reality will be that Solar (in its many forms) becomes the primary energy source of the future with nuclear being the reserve backup after natural gas (methane). Only time will tell but as FT points out nuclear growing a -1% PA, renewables +25% PA. Do the maths.
UteMan Your first para there is just being under informed. Pumping water uphill is what we do now to make coal power work smoothly. The eutectic salt energy storage utilising the latent heat of liquifaction is commonly used around the world now. When ever you see a Streets Ice Cream mobile freezer you are seeing this method at work. Nothing new or revolutionary, just ultimately reliable and extremely effective to the extent that you do not know that these processes are used all around you without your being aware. “meagre power”?? you really need to use your calculator more.
Coming up in a few years (2014) is the shutdown of 3 Mile Island number 1 reactor and the deconstruction of the entire facility. It is going to be interesting to see what that cost becomes because as you know this cost must be added to the construction cost to obtain the TRUE cost of building nuclear facilities. I am willing to put money on the site being shut down, made safe, and then just left there as an eye sore forever. And that deconstruction cost will never be known. It kind of distorts the whole commercial viability when you only get 90 days running out of your investment (TMI-2) before it gets trashed, doesn’t it.
BilB said:
You do your credibility little good making such claims. Partly as a result of what happened at TMI-2, when TMI-1 reopened in 1985 it went on to become recognised as one of the safest and most reliable nuclear plants in the world. In 1997 it broke the record for continuous operation for all energy plants in the US — 616 days 23 hours and in 1998, the plant had operated for two years without a lost working day through injury. The plant has been re-licenced to operate until 2034 Not 2014). In short, in 2034, TMI-1 will have been in operation for 50 of the 56 years following TMI-2′s failure and for five years prior.
It’s worth noting that despite the anxiety, there is no persuasive evidence of elevated radioactivity within the footprint of the plant or that any person suffered a life-altering injury as a result of TMI-2′s partial meltdown. In the years since this incident, training and regulatory procedures have been greatly improved, and of course plants themselves have been re-engineered to include passive shutdown measures as well as the active ones.
I’m wondering when the first renewable plant will be able to operate continuously for 616 days …
That license reneral is recent and good news for the company, however it does come with a $US 350 million dollar price tag along with a lengthy shutdown period to replace generators and perform a 25,000 long list of checks. Also the containment vessel has had to be cut open to fit the new generator. This does of course push the whole plant into a new risk category with hugely increased probability of mechanical and core failures. And this still only marginally improves the value of the investment returns. However if pushing the old core to its life time limits produces another major failure all of that gain can be lost several times over. As for fatalities apparently there was a huge increase in the infant mortality rate for the next 2 year following the TMI-2 accident, but of course some people will remain unconvinced of that as this is not bullet through the heart evidence.
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/10/three_mile_island_shuts_down_t.html
As for record performances TMI-1 did have a 6.6 year shutdown period to make up for. Operation continuous 616 days (actually multiple up to 705 days according to the above article)? I’m sure that CSP plants are way passed that.
But you still don’t understand the way hybride CSP plants run. In principle CSP plants are never shut down. They are delivering electricity 24/365. And contrary to your oft repeated suggestion that CSP has a short commercial life, it actually has an indefinite life ie permanent.
At the end of the day Nuclear power is used in some countries albeit at a declinig rate. There exists internationally a small mountain of radiation contaminated material that must be disposed of in a permanent manner. There is an embarrasing large quantity of high grade nuclear fuel that must be burnt down to diposal level. There is still no nuclear energy industry in Australia and in reasonable certainty never will be. Australia is still not an international nuclear waste dump, an in reasonable certainty will remain that way. The sun is still shining, and Australia will bake in its energy every day till the planet’s life expires.
Solar plant outputs are meagre BilB – most places investing heavily in renewables are going for wind power for a reason. Molten salt might be fine and dandy for a truck full of paddle pops but get back to us if it’s ever scaled to a small town full of A/C and flat screen tellies.
BilB said:
For pity’s sake BilB. There was no measurable incerease in radiation outside the plant, which means that any variance in infant mortality stats could not have been causally related to the TMI-2 incident. It’s also naughty to follow this observation with a link that says nothing about infant mortality at all, but refers to the plant upgrade. [administers wrist slap]
That was the point when the record was achieved. It continued.
How can you be, since you supply no actual data? Please supply an instance of a CSP operating at greater than 90% capacity for 705 days in commercial operation.
So there’s a lot of available fuel feedstock that would save us money exploiting?
And for the record, the 6.6 year shutdown had nothing to do with TMI-1. It was shut down so the NRC could investigate the issues surrounding TMI-2 and was driven by administrative and political matters, rather than anything to do with safety or engineering.
Well where do we start there, Fran.
The nuclear power industry claims that there were no deaths, injuries or adverse health effects from the accident,[13], and an independent government report authored by Columbia University epidemiologist Maureen Hatch agrees with this finding.[14]. However, another study by Steven Wing of the University of North Carolina found that lung cancer and leukemia rates were 2 to 10 times higher downwind of TMI than upwind, but without considering the effects of stress or improved screening.[15] In addition, the Radiation and Public Health Project reported a spike in infant mortality in the downwind communities two years after the accident.[16][17]
You should take up the arguement Steven Wing.
Further, a shut down is a shut down no matter what the reason. You said earlier that following there was an improvement in operating proceedures. With the latest and best reactor just crashed and burned next door there had to be huge doubt about the reliability of TMI-1. That shut down was entirely necessary. Did NASA keep flying shuttles when the first shuttle accident occurred? No. Same deal.
UteMan, clearly your knowledge of solar energy systems starts and stops with Dick Smith’s solar pathway lighting.
Fran,
“So there’s a lot of available fuel feedstock that would save us money exploiting?”
The stocks of fissile material in weapons will save someone some money, not us. But this statement demonstrates your blinkered attitude to energy. Everyday around 51,000 times our total daily energy needs arrives from the sun. Now that is just plain wasteful because we (some of us) are just not interested.
Bilb said:
Now BilB, post hoc ergo propter hoc applies. It is clear that increased radiation levels are an absolutely necessary condition for claiming that any adverse health outcome was caused by increased local radioactivity. No radioactivity increase = no causal connection. Sequence does not show causality.
Doubtless that is so, but as it turned out, the design flaws in TMI-2 were fairly minor, and management/training procedures were inadequate rather than the probelems arising inevitably from nuclear power or even the TMI-1 reactor. So really, this doesn’t help your claim about poor reliability. With hindsight, they could have kept operating for much of that time.
BilB wrote:
…and why wouldn’t it? Between Dick Smith and Solahart, they’ve delivered more useful gigawatt equivalents to consumers than every hare-brained solar furnace, large scale PV and ridiculously complicated stirling engined scheme that the best and brightest have thought up.
It’s a dud BilB – a pipe dream that can never furnish our energy needs unless the conversion efficiency at least triples and the storage problem can be realistically solved.
Fran,
“No radioactivity increase ”
I can remember when this accident occurred and I do remember that there were gasses released. Other reports spoke of a cleanup in the downwind area and talk of short half life contamination. Now the story is that there was “no significant radiation above background levels”. This comes down to what you want to believe. One study says no another says yes. You, clearly want to take the industry view. I have no real opinion other than that the accident occurred through a series of failures and I have more faith in the probable reality that those failures were more extensive than is declared or understood. The belief that no significant radiation was released is only as good as the sensors or the understanding of the compound effects of the gasses that were released. And again I say take up the argument with Steven Wing. I am more inclined to believe his assessment rather than yours.
What is your background UteMan? What did/do you do for a living? What life thread leads to someone making such outlandish and dismissive statements as the ones above? Fran, we know is a teacher (social sciences?) of sorts. What are you about?
Fran,
Like I have said, Fran, it comes down to what you want to believe
“The official figures are not uncontested. Independent measurements provided evidence of radiation levels up to five times higher than normal in locations hundreds of miles downwind from TMI. According to Randall Thompson, the lead health physicist at TMI after the accident and a veteran of the US Navy nuclear submarine program, radiation releases were hundreds if not thousands of times higher. Some other insiders, including Arnie Gundersen, a former nuclear industry executive turned whistle-blower, concur; Gundersen offers evidence, based on pressure monitoring data, for a hydrogen explosion shortly before 2 p.m. on March 28, 1979, which would have provided the means for a high dose of radiation to occur. Gundersen cites affidavits from four reactor operators according to which the plant manager was aware of a dramatic pressure spike, after which the internal pressure dropped to outside pressure. Gundersen also notes that the control room shook and doors were blown off hinges. However official NRC reports refer merely to a “hydrogen burn.” The Kemeny Commission referred to “a burn or an explosion that caused pressure to increase by 28 pounds per square inch in the containment building”. The Washington Post reported that “At about 2 p.m., with pressure almost down to the point where the huge cooling pumps could be brought into play, a small hydrogen explosion jolted the reactor.” ”
And here is another little bill to add to the overall cost of the investment of Three Mile Island
“Cleanup started in August 1979 and officially ended in December 1993, having cost around US$975 million. Initially, efforts focused on the cleanup and decontamination of the site, especially the defueling of the damaged reactor. Starting in 1985 almost 100 tons of radioactive fuel were removed from the site, the defueling process was completed in 1990, and the damaged fuel was removed and disposed of in 1993. However the contaminated cooling water that leaked into the containment building had seeped into the building’s concrete, leaving the radioactive residue impossible to remove.”
Bilb said:
No it doesn’t. Radiation levels are a part of measurable and observable reality. You can’t have an opinion about radiation levels that is distinct from what is measured anymore than you can have an opinion about the distance between the stuimps at either end of a cricket pitch or the length of a swimming pool that is sperate from competent measurement. You are adopting the same intellectual method of the climate change deniers here. Why can’t there be a range of opinions on whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether the Earth is warming or what Earths radiation budget is?
The radiation levels were measured and monitored competently. There was no increase in local radiation. It’s as simple as that.
You have faith? You claim that public policy consideration requires no solid body of evidence? Gosh. Perhaps this is why you are so keen on the work of Dr Trieb. You have faith that his proposals will work out and that CSP really will one day do the job that nuclear can already do. I would love to share your belief, but I do need evidence. I gave up on faith a very long time ago.
No. Local measurements were taken. The milk of local cattle and dear were examined. Soil and water assays were taken. There was no measurable increase.
Of course you are. It’s based on faith and on your inclination rather than any body of evidence, or even in this case, any kind of formal analytic process. There’s a word for that approach but I won’t repeat it here.
Fran,
“Of course you are”
You need to read the comment ahead of your last one. There is great doubt about the validity of the “official” account. I haven’t had to dig very far to find significant discrepencies. Vested interests appear to have had an influence on the completeness of the published account of the accident.
“Perhaps this is why you are so keen on the work of Dr Trieb”
I am keen on the work of Franz Trieb because he is actually “doing it”. CSP plants are being designed, installed, operated and are returning on their investments. Totally safely, no radiation releases or irreversible environmental devastation. It is underway and no amount of negative dismissive blog comment can stop that.