Nuclear Power?

Question

If nuclear power is clean can anyone tell us how long before Chernobyl is safe to live in again and how many have died as a result of the near meltdown of this reactor.

Would it be a minor hiccup if you lived next to it?

Answer 1

Nuclear power is clean (non-polluting) as long as things go right, which in western countries they always have with some minor hiccups like 3-mile island and naval reactor accidents, which were not nearly so bad. Chernobyl won't be habitable for a long time.
--3-mile island, which has been the worst accident in the west except for naval reactors, didn't kill anyone and hasn't been shown to have increased the rate of cancers of folks living nearby.

Answer 2

Nuclear power is clean in the sense that it does not release CO2 and other environmentally damaging substances directly into the atmosphere during normal operation. In the event that the plant is not operated correctly there is a danger of radiation being released, such as happened at Chernobyl.

Nobody ever claimed that nuclear power, or indeed any other human endeavour, is risk-free. An accident or error with disastrous consequences is always possible, whether it is a radiation leak, or an oil slick, or an explosion, or the collapse of a hydroelectric dam.

Answer 3

Whilst I would not recommend living on top of the old Chernobyl plant, I would not live on top of an old coal mine or gas plant either .. (coal and gas have contaminated a million times more land than Nuclear, accidents involving coal mining and gas extraction has killed thousands of more people than Nuclear accidents)

Don't believe the hysterical rantings of the 'popular press' == they are idiots who did Media Studies and Politics at Uni.

Ask instead 'If Nuclear is so dangerous why are people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki ?'

NB. Chernobyl killed only a few dozen people (see first link below), not the "500,000" that some uneducated morons try to claim .. and 3 Mile Island killed no-one ..

Answer 4

bearing in mind the chernobyl power station was antiquated at the time of meltdown in 1986, this was an accident caused by management incompetence, the control of the reactors was in the hands of inexperienced staff who were ordered to take the reactors to full power before safety checks had been carried out, the main problem with nuclear power is not the safety but how the radioactive waste would be disposed of.

Answer 5

Nuclear power is clean at the point of production, however, I believe it requires a lot of CO2 to be released making the feedstock

Answer 6

'Safe' is a relative term, air travel is 'safe' however planes crash or occasionally are hijacked, cars are 'safe' but accidents happen, so given that our domestic energy needs continue to rise and commercialism is a reality that can not be reversed environmentalists need to get used to reality and accept their concepts are both flawed and dangerous.

Answer 7

Conventional thermal power plants all have a fuel source to provide heat. Examples are gas, coal, or oil. For a nuclear power plant, this heat is provided by nuclear fission inside the nuclear reactor. When a relatively large fissile atomic nucleus is struck by a neutron it forms two or more smaller nuclei as fission products, releasing energy and neutrons in a process called nuclear fission. The neutrons then trigger further fission. And so on. When this nuclear chain reaction is controlled, the energy released can be used to heat water, produce steam and drive a turbine that generates electricity. While a nuclear power plant uses the same fuel, uranium-235 or plutonium-239, a nuclear explosive involves an uncontrolled chain reaction, and the rate of fission in a reactor is not capable of reaching sufficient levels to trigger a nuclear explosion because commercial reactor grade nuclear fuel is not enriched to a high enough level. Naturally found uranium is less than 1% U-235, the rest being U-238. Most reactor fuel is enriched to only 3-4%, but some designs use natural uranium or highly enriched uranium. Reactors for nuclear submarines and large naval surface ships, such as aircraft carriers, commonly use highly enriched uranium. Although highly enriched uranium is more expensive, it reduces the frequency of refueling, which is very useful for military vessels. CANDU reactors are able to use unenriched uranium because the heavy water they use as a moderator and coolant does not absorb neutrons like light water does.

The chain reaction is controlled through the use of materials that absorb and moderate neutrons. In uranium-fueled reactors, neutrons must be moderated (slowed down) because slow neutrons are more likely to cause fission when colliding with a uranium-235 nucleus. Light water reactors use ordinary water to moderate and cool the reactors. When at operating temperatures if the temperature of the water increases, its density drops, and fewer neutrons passing through it are slowed enough to trigger further reactions. That negative feedback stabilizes the reaction rate.

The current types of plants (and their common components) are discussed in the article nuclear reactor technology.

A number of other designs for nuclear power generation, the Generation IV reactors, are the subject of active research and may be used for practical power generation in the future. A number of the advanced nuclear reactor designs could also make critical fission reactors much cleaner, much safer and/or much less of a risk to the proliferation of nuclear weapons.

Controlled nuclear fusion could in principle be used in fusion power plants to produce power without the complexities of handling actinides, but significant scientific and technical obstacles remain. Several fusion reactors have been built, but as yet none has 'produced' more thermal energy than electrical energy consumed. Despite research having started in the 1950s, no commercial fusion reactor is expected before 2050. The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power.



Health effect on population near nuclear plants
A couple fishes near the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor dome is visible on the left, and the massive cooling tower on the right.
A couple fishes near the Trojan Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor dome is visible on the left, and the massive cooling tower on the right.

Most of human exposure to radiation comes from natural background radiation. Most of the remaining exposure comes from medical procedures. Several large studies in the US, Canada, and Europe have found no evidence of any increase in cancer mortality among people living near nuclear facilities. For example, in 1991, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health announced that a large-scale study, which evaluated mortality from 16 types of cancer, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality for people living near 62 nuclear installations in the United States. The study showed no increase in the incidence of childhood leukemia mortality in the study of surrounding counties after start-up of the nuclear facilities. The NCI study, the broadest of its kind ever conducted, surveyed 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities.[8]

However, in Britain there are elevated childhood leukemia levels near some industrial facilities, particularly near Sellafield, where children living locally are ten times more likely to contract the cancer. The reasons for these increases, or clusters, are unclear, but one study of those near Sellafield has ruled out any contribution from nuclear sources. Apart from anything else, the levels of radiation at these sites are orders of magnitude too low to account for the excess incidences reported. One explanation is viruses or other infectious agents being introduced into a local community by the mass movement of migrant workers.[46][47] Likewise, small studies have found an increased incidence of childhood leukemia near some nuclear power plants has also been found in Germany [48] and France.[49] Nonetheless, the results of larger multi-site studies in these countries invalidate the hypothesis of an increased risk of leukemia related to nuclear discharge. The methodology and very small samples in the studies finding an increased incidence has been criticized. [50] [51] [52] [53] Also, one study focusing on Leukemia clusters in industrial towns in England indicated a link to high-capacity electricity lines suggesting that the production or distribution of the electricity, rather than the nuclear reaction, may be a factor.[dubious – discuss][citation needed]