This mini reactor seems promising ...but scary.

How do you establish a causal link for something that kills decades later with common symptoms?

That is NOT easy.

 

We did it with asbestos and James (spit) Hardy is still paying out for the mesotheliomas

 

That's how you determine these deaths were caused by a nuclear plant.

If you haven't determined that then why bring it up?

You can say people got in car accidents or ship the tooth or fell off their bicycle because of nuclear energy.

 

Radiation from nuclear plants has some effect on some people. Just because we can't prove what that effect is or how much, doesn't mean the effects should be completely ignored. Cigarettes don't kill people for decades either, yet we all agree they still kill people.

Cancer has been on the rise for a very long time. How much research has been done into how much of that cancer is due to increased levels of background ionizing radiation and the increased amount of radioisotopes globally in the atmosphere? Certainly cancer is caused by A LOT of things, not just ionizing radiation or chemicals associated with fission, but those do contribute. Just because I can't tell you exactly HOW MUCH they contribute doesn't mean they arent. We know they do.

 

I have a certification from both the NRC, and the ASNT to perform industrial radiography.

We know exactly what effect and how much. If people were dying 20 years later over exposure to radiation from a nuclear power plant there would be clampdowns the NRC would be involved the federal government would be involved there would be class action lawsuits every single reactor in the United States would be dismantled.

From the sound of your post it sounds like you're just guessing at this.

I understand radiation is this huge thing and it's really impossible to know everything. But you can know some things. I suggest reading about it.

As for your claim you might as well be telling me that nuclear power plants are making Godzilla. I don't want to be rude but reading what you posted makes no sense. It's like hearing a virgin trying to explain to me what sex feels like.

 

No, not Gozilla, Im saying they can shorten lifespan by increasing risk of a multitude of ailments.
Short-Term and Long-Term Health Risks of Nuclear-Power-Plant Accidents | NEJM

And while 'accidents' are rare, not all radioisotope emissions are considered 'accidents', as the vast bulk of them are actually deliberate and a part of standard operating procedure. They are considered 'nonhazardous' emissions because the levels of radioisotopes emitted are low. But low is not zero, and thus they do have some effect. Maybe that effect results in an average lifespan decrease of only a few hours or days of everyone in 50 miles. Or maybe its a lot higher than that. We don't really know. There is some data, but its still also a lot of guessing and estimates.

The current estimation is that residents living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant recieve a radiation dose of about 0.01 millirem per year. Which is basically nothing. But that's not just radiation radiating from the reactor. Thats radiation coming from radioisotope emissions from the plant that contaminate the environment (mostly the air). Which means those residents are also going to have some effects from inhaling/ingesting those chemical particulates. Of course nuclear plants have filters, but there is no such thing as 100% when it comes to filters. Some people are being damaged to some degree by emissions from nuclear plants, and perhaps it's worth it for the relatively clean energy, but I don't get any reassurances of that from the overgeneralized way that standard exposures are reported. When the govt says 'don't worry about it' and provides some vague statistics, its always safer to assume they're leaving something out.

But that's all not really even the point. I don't have so much of a problem with standard nuclear power plant operations and emissions. All indications are that any effects are negligible. Having a multitude of micro-reactors all over the place might increase that from negligible to problematic. Or maybe not. The real problem is that having more reactors increases the likelihood of 'accidents' that release hazardous levels of emissions, and create even more problems in the case of an economic disaster where nuclear power plant operators stop showing up for work. That's my primary concern (as I stated in the OP...). Not what happens when we're doing it right, but what happens when we STOP doing it right. Because we're human, and that WILL eventually happen.

 

There's no air contamination there is no chemicals outside of the uranium. There are no filters because there is no gas.

The kind of radiation that can affect you comes in four forms. Alpha rays beta rays gamma rays and x-rays. These are actually a form of light. X-ray was discovered by a German scientist named Wilhelm Roentgen (pronounced Rankin). He was experimenting with something called a crooks tube. This is a rudimentary x-ray tube. When he noticed a piece of paper that he had that was treated with arsenic papers were treated with that back on those days when he turned off the lights and left the crooks too Bond the paper glowed and he held his hand in front of it and it cast a shadow and there was no light being admitted that was visible.

Radiation is light. There is no gas there is no chemical other than the source. You don't use filters that wouldn't do anything you use shielding.

That's why when you get an x-ray like at the dentist they put that lead apron on you that's not a filter and that camera they put next to your mouth is shooting X-rays at your face. Or if you've been to a hospital they all go in that little room the walls in that room are made out of lead and they shield them from the x-rays.

Hitting the patient with it once or twice and their lifetime isn't going to do a lot of damage to them if any. The radiographers that are exposed to it constantly they would have a problem.

Anywhere on the planet your annual exposure is 300 mR. So anywhere on the planet doesn't matter how far you are you are away from the power plant you're getting 30,000 times as much radiation as the increase you're talking about a year. That's from the Sun from the air you breathe from the paint in your house so the carpet on your floor or the food that you eat.

So I don't think 1/30,000 of an increase a year is going to make much of a difference. Human beings have evolved to live on the planet and that's the background radiation. You're exposed to that all the time no matter what.

You are as we speak right now if you're looking at a glowing screen being exposed to more radiation than you'd get from living within a 50 mile radius of a nuclear power plant. If you're old enough to remember the big box TVs before they were flat screen that was called a cathode ray tube look into that and see how much radiation you are exposed to watching cartoons when you're a kid. It's probably several orders of magnitude greater than this 0.01mR from being near a power plant.

I don't think micro power plants like this are a good idea they need to be large. And we can focus safety and personnel on that.

Let's do these mysterious people that died I have seen no evidence that that even happened. Nothing you said about a power plant suggests that it was caused by that.

I'm actually surprised the annual exposure is so incredibly low.

 

Have you ever gotten an x-ray? Does it bother you that there's 5G towers? What do you do to avoid sunlight?

 

What radiation? From what plants, where?

SO typical, you give no real information or data, juts make vague claims with absolutely nothing to back it up.

 

These are not for general power production, these are for remote locations where no other power is available.

 

"During normal operation, nuclear facilities such as nuclear power plants and research reactors discharge low level radioactive effluents to the environment. Regulations are in place to ensure these gases and liquids do not exceed dose limits to protect the public and the environment from the harmful effects of ionizing radiation."
Now Available: Upgraded IAEA Database on Discharges of Radionuclides from Nuclear Installations | IAEA

So is the International Atomic Energy Agency wrong?

 

During normal operation, watching a tube television or living in a basement exposes you to low levels of radiation as well.

In fact, you are exposed to more radiation than that just by standing outside.

Are to actually bring up anything of importance, other than repeated your own paranoia repeatedly?

 

I was responding to another poster who claimed nuclear plants dont have any emissions. I already stated I'm not particularly concerned about the emissions. But they do exist, and more nuclear reactors = more emissions. At some point, too many nuclear reactors = too much emissions. I don't think we're there yet, but their existance is a consideration that will eventually matter, so claiming there is none is problematic.

...which should have been obvious if you're taking everything I've said in full context rather than picking out snippets to focus on.

 

I advise you to read about the discovery of radiation and what it is.

 

you were talking about chemical emissions and then you changed your tone when I corrected you. Radiation isn't chemistry it's physics. They emit radiation. Radiation is light. I'm betting if you were within 25 miles of a nuclear power plant the radiation you get from your television is it probably about 50 times greater than what you get from that power plant.

you seem to be concerned about fallout. Do you drive a car? Do you know how much fallout comes from that?

compared to what you're exposed to on a daily basis?

Again have you ever had an x-ray?

I'm betting if there was one and every backyard in every house on the planet the emissions would be lower than background radiation. Essentially what you've been exposed to since you were conceived.

You made the point that the amount of radiation people are exposed to living within 50 miles of a nuclear plant is 30,000 times less than background radiation.

That was your point so just living in the world you get 30,000 times as much radiation in a year and you probably would being right next to a reactor.

I don't think you even know what you don't know. You keep bouncing back and forth between fallout and emission. The emission is light radiation is light you actually get it from the lights in your house did you know that probably more than what you'd ever dream of getting from nuclear power plant.

Fallout is radioactive materials getting into the atmosphere and the water table.

If you learn the terms you might not confuse everyone when you talk about it

But you go from talking about emissions to fallout like they're the same thing.

Nothing you say is obvious it's like having a virgin explain to me what sex feels like.

The emissions from a reactor would be gamma rays alpha rays beta rays. Thereabouts alpha and beta are blocked by things like paper or aluminum foil I can't remember which one is which. Gamma is the one that kills you quickly. That's a form of light that passes through matter it's very similar to an x-ray.

Have you ever had an x-ray?

Assuming you're an adult you're probably have do you know how much radiation you've been bombarded with?

 

You are not likely to see them in the US. The US government is very clingy when it comes to nuclear materials.

 

a lot of people are very ignorant when it comes to radiation and nuclear power. The basics of what people need to know are not that complicated there are libraries full of books about it and it's not enough to know everything but all you really need to know is about shielding distance and the different type of rays. I studied but never worked in the field of industrial radiography. People put a gamma ray camera in the truck and drive around on the freeway with it and it's perfectly legal.

When I learned about it I didn't become less a friend I just learned what to do to avoid dying. And that it's not really that complicated.

yeah he talked about people living near power plants within 50 miles being exposed to 0.01mr a year. Anywhere on the planet you're exposed to 30,000 times that a year. Background radiation is 300mr a year.

I used to be terrified of this too until I took the radiography class and radiation safety it's a knowledge thing, knowledge is power.

When you realize the underwear you put on in the morning are the soap you use to wash your body is more radioactive than what comes out of a nuclear power plant you tend not to be so worried about the nuclear power plant and the fallout

He's bouncing between emissions and fallout I don't think he knows what the difference is. Emission is raised fallout is radioactive material.

 

Depends on what you use them for. You got to have a background test and a lot of stuff like that to make sure you're not a terrorist I've been through all of that.

But if you live where there's a lot of refineries and industrial work we'll see radiography trucks. You typically diesel Ford f-350s with a windowless slide in camper. On that slide in camper they have a camera sometimes that has Cobalt 60 in it. And they can just drive down the road with it. Next to school buses and all sorts of things. These are the things that if you're exposed to them for like 20 seconds it's enough to kill you. But they're kept inside of a camera that's shielded.

So it is clingy to a degree and that you have to prove you're not a terrorist to be in control of it.

 

Currently, this micro-reactor is vaporware. RR hopes to have one working by 2029.

It differs from a radioisotope thermoelectric generator in that actual uranium fission would be going on, as opposed to simple decay of radioactive isotopes. And the power level would be a thousand times bigger.

This would not be making steam to spin a turbine. RR wants to take heat from a fission reactor and use that heat to thermoelectrically generate electricity. There have been a lot of advances in thermoelectric technology since the cold war era, so maybe it is possible. Wait and see.

 

FFS... you can tell me what a hot particle is, right? How bout you tell me what that is, describe whats dangerous about it in terminology that makes sense to you, and then I'll be able to use that terminology to properly communicate with you. I don't think we're understanding eachother right now.

 

that would only happen with a reactor breach. It from an atomic weapon exploding.

a hot particle is a microscopic radioactive particle that gets logged in an organism and emits radiation.

This would have been fallout either from a nuclear weapon or a reactor breach.