Someone asked about other nuclear reactors, so I checked.

I did a quick count, based on this source, and came up with 231 "research" reactors in the US, plus power reactors, and military reactors, it seems that there are a lot more nuclear reactors than we have been concerned with.

This site, seems to list all the nuclear facilites in the world, perhaps, and even has a lot of maps and much more data. Click on the button in the top left corner for "research" reactors.

http://www.insc.anl.gov/

-- Anonymous, July 15, 1999

Answers

Don't forget that each major hospital has a slow-poke reactor for chemo-therapy. And most military satellites are nuclear powered. And nuclear subs, and russian nuclear ice-breakers, and...

The US government has admitted to at least 3 nuclear subs that have been lost under the arctic ice cap. So that means there are really how many down there? And how many russian ones?

A russian satellite broke up during its secondary boost a few years ago and now there are ten thousand or so 1cm diameter globules of radioactive material orbiting above your head.

Five more weeks until the GPS test...

-- Anonymous, July 15, 1999

> http://www.insc.anl.gov/

why is the fuel cycle facilities page forbidden?

just curious

spiff

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

I can't say precisle why, but fuel processors house the "holy grail" of nuclear secrets -- the enrichment process. There have been more than a dozen security breaches in the last 3 years. Maybe its has something to do with security.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

To clarify a certain amount of disinformation: Hospitals do not have there own reactors. Radioactive isotopes for medical uses (such as radiation treatment for various cancers, not chemotherapy) are obtained commercially from a number of outfits that do have their own reactors.

Additionally, you can be sure that there are a great deal more than 10,000 "globules" of radioactive material orbiting above your head. In fact, everything orbiting above your head is radioactive. As well as the planet you're standing on, and the body your soul inhabits. Interestingly, the predominant isotope in the human body is potassium- 40 (also known as K-40), a naturally occuring radioactive isotope which makes up 0.0117% of natural potassium and a half life of about 1.3 billion years, so that a 150 pound human being represents a 100,000 picoCurie source. That's potassium as in potassium iodide, something to think about before swallowing one of those KI pills.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

Let's see now, a KI pill might contain at most 1 trillionth the amount of radiation as compared with a 100 rem dose to the thyroid from a nuclear accident. I need to think about that for 1 trillionth of a second. You're disinformation has been noted.

Get real!

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

Tom: Don't forget ~5 rem/yr from living in a brick house, 16 rem (localized to the lungs) for a pack a day smoker, and how many for a New York to Japan flight? About the same as the offsite dose at TMI. I'm within spitting distance of the reactor 2500 hours a year and my dose for 1999 is .023 rem. Quit scaring the children! To those lurkers who are not yet rabidly anti-nuclear, please research all the salient facts. I have a vested interest in protecting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. I try to back up my statements with fact and reason. Others have an interest in banning nuclear energy. They also should use fact and reason. VERIFY THE FACTS OF BOTH SIDES! If you do not, you just as well believe Bill Clinton. Marianne, the simple fact that I said TMI means you are typing right now. Use facts. I wish TMI had never happened; there is no excuse for exposing off site personnel to man-made radiation and if I had been there I would apologize. Use facts. A.J: Please point me to a source to verify the three lost subs under the arctic ice pack, this is a new one on me.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

"Quit scaring the children." You're the bast***s who irradiated them and settled out of court for millions.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

Nucpwr,

Well, you admit you have a vested interest in keeping the nuke plants going. Glad to see you're honest about that point. Then you say they don't pose any serious risk to human health. But you also say that smoking does create a radiation hazard. Yet, those with a vested interest in the tobacco industry say it's not harmful to you, or that there is little or no scientific data to support that. Gosh, I'm wondering about these vested interest statements.

-- Anonymous, July 16, 1999

How could I not have an interest, Gordon; I work at a nuclear plant, remember? Re: Tobacco: Is there a preponderance of evidence that shows tobacco causes health problems? Any studies that show nuclear power plants are harmful to the public? Use facts. That is what differentiates this forum from TB2000. State your case, back it up.

As far as being a bastion, I suppose we are a stronghold of sorts... And although I'm no lawyer, can the defendant choose to settle out of court against the wishes of the plantiff? Isn't that scenario how the plantiff gets a bunch of money without putting his case in front of a jury?

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Nucpwr,

First off, let me make it clear that I am not on any "anti-nuke" agenda. In fact, without the nukes running in my NJ area next year I will be hurting big time for power. Keep them running, and running safely, please. What I do take exception to is your knee-jerk defensive attitude. I used the tobacco example, after you brought it up, to draw attention to the misdirection and denial that is so very clear with the executives in that industry. They are so outrageous in their public statements that they will sit before Congress and lie, lie, lie. The Three Mile Island data available regarding radiation danger indicates that there are significant increases in cancer downwind of that plume. Please don't take the tobacco industry position and question the scientific methods and conclusions. I have quite honestly had enough of that sort of denial, thank you. And then there is the Chernobyl disaster, which has rendered the land downwind of the explosion unusable for literally *thousands* of years. It can not be cleaned up in the worst areas, only avoided by all human population.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Its the same scenario where TMI withdrew its suit against Babcock & Wilcox to avoid airing the dirty laundry which would have given the nuclear industry an earlier death.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Gordon, I phrased that poorly. My rant should have inferred that there IS a preponderance of evidence regarding tobacco as a health problem, compared to a decided lack of evidence regarding commercial nuclear power as a health problem.

What TMI data are you referring to? Specifically.

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

nucpwr,

i believe that gordon might have been referring to this[see below.] mary olson from the nirs posted this in response to my post titled "a reactor may be taken down safely and other fairy tales."

there is alot of data... if you want me i to i will try to contact the people that put all of the information together and post it for you.

as i live in close proximity to tmi i am aware of the mutations in the insect population, birds, animals, genetic damage to infants, excessive cancer rates, etc.

text from mary olson:

FYI recent reanalysis of Three Mile Island health data shows that actual doses were in some cases 600 -- 900 times higher than previously reported, and there were excess cancers in Harrisburg attributable to the accident. (Steve Wing, et al 1994)

-- Anonymous, July 17, 1999

Oh, that study. Here we go...

I choose to use this study: Am J of Epidemiol 1990;132:397-412 conducted by the Columbia University School of Public Health. I'll just give you the conclusion because I know that you will want to read it in full --- The results do not provide convincing evidence that radiation releases from the Three Mile island nuclear facility influenced cancer risk.

I also like to use this quote from the Federal Supplement of June 12, 1996: The parties... have had nearly two decades to muster evidence in support of their respective cases... The paucity of proof alleged in support of the Plaintiffs' case is manifest. The court searched for any and all evidence which construed in a light most favorable to Plaintiffs' case creates a genuine issue of material fact warranting submission of the claims to a jury. This effort has been in vain.

Another good one from the National Cancer Institute, Press Release, October 26, 1994, which says that in this type of study, any statistical data that doesn't show at least a 100% increase in risk cannot be attributed solely to the risk in question. (hint: your study doesn't make that grade)

The NRC report shows an average dose for the surrounding two million people of 0.0014 rem. In the last six hours, I received 0.0025 rem. Perspective.

This psuedo-science is refuting studies by the NRC, the EPA, the Dept. of Health, the Dept. of Energy, and the great state of Pennsylvania.

For your reading pleasure, those of you who choose to make up your own mind may want to consider the references listed at http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/gmo/tip/tmi.htm

Don't believe me. Don't believe Marianne. Don't say it's true because you've heard it before. Read. Learn. Surf the web for opposing viewpoints and then THINK about it. Go to your local library and get below the soundbites of TMIA.com. If you decide that nuclear power is inherently unsafe, do the right thing, go to your breaker box and move the biggest switch to OFF. Then tell your power company why you did it.

Marianne, if you are telling me that you see all these genetic mutations, infant cancers, etc... why can't anyone else see it but anti-nuclear activists? In this world of cut-throat lawyers; advertising on TV to sue anyone, for anything; not one is willing to even TRY for the big payout?

C'mon.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

OK, how about a word from the nuclear ambivelant?

I don't doubt the fact that there have been people irradiated from 3MileIsle, minute or major, however, does the government (i.e. DOE, NRC, [especially NRC] etc.) have a 'vested interest' in not telling the 'whole truth' about the incident? Pseudo-science it may be, but it may also be the only explanation that was not government researched.

Really folks, I don't care about 3MileIsle. I care about the safety systems on nukes. Can we return to subjects at hand? Hmmm? -All in moderation. -The Rookie

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

nucpwr,

you are not going to like this response but i swear that this is the truth. i don't know any nuclear activists... i exchanged email with one and he was not very kind, in fact, he was more arrogant and condescending than most of the engineers on this forum can be when they are having a bad day.

this part is also true, but it is anecdotal and will not pass the quality assurance tests of the studies you like to reference.

the insects, animals, etc. are all pretty well known to those of us that live in this area. the farmers are a good example of seeing the things that most people might not notice as they deal with the earth on a daily and much closer basis than the rest of us.

the cancer rate in this area is horrendous.

one of the reasons that i am so sceptical of these 'happy face reports is that this is not the first time that they have flown in the face of reality.

it's like that bad joke about a man who is caught by his wife while in the act:

are you going to believe your eyes or are you going to believe what i tell you?

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

Frankly, I don't know what the "truth" is about the TMI radiation release. I can read all the currently published data, sure, but who do I then believe? I think the *local* residents/farmers experience should count for a lot, as Marianne says. What I *do* know is that in the past whenever the government had some bad radiation exposure situation they always covered it up with debunking reports from the highest levels. If we can agree that there is a strong tendency toward governmental coverup in other situations, such as nuclear testing, then we can infer that they are not to be trusted in their reports. And they can certainly fund professional reports to support their position. Regardless, the point is that there is an inherent risk and we need only go to the Chernobyl site to validate this. I am not trying to shut down anything, but I do agree with Marianne that we could/should be making some contingency plans to idle any nukes that are even slightly suspect for the rollover and then bring them back up one by one. Certainly, this being in the winter will work to the advantage of such a plan. I hope to hear more official talk along this line in the months ahead, but prior to the end of December.

-- Anonymous, July 18, 1999

And this has what to do with Y2K?

-- Anonymous, July 19, 1999

Jake,

Uhhhh, you really stopped me cold with that question. But I have considered it and here is what I think. You see, Y2k has a potential to cause interruptions in the flow of data and the transmission of instructions to various components of the power industry. If these Y2k induced problems become complex enough or severe enough, it could create a loss of control of the facility. So, we talk about the potential dangers in loss of control, while taking it as a given that the underlying cause would be Y2k connected. See? Y2k problems can create a far more complex problem than a snow storm, wind storm, or nest of squirrels. That's the connection here.

-- Anonymous, July 20, 1999