A great article. This is the first time I have heard about the Taiwan aspect. Thanks for taking the time to explain it in terms than many people can understand.
I don't agree with your starting premise: that the case against nuclear power rests upon concerns about low-dose radiation! My case against includes: the benefits of nuclear power must be offset against the burden imposed upon future generations: nuclear waste will have to be managed for tens of thousands of years. (And most every area in the world falls into a war zone at least every few centuries. We now hold our breath as Chernobyl is subject to attack.)
The thousand of years figure was computed using LNT principles. If it assumed that the body can cope with low doses of radiation the timescale is reduced to a few hundred years which though long is more manageable
If nuclear power is to become more prevalent its promotors must present a credible case for handling long term storage and governments need to commit to carrying it out and not continue kicking the can down the road.
Nuclear waste is not a problem that can't be managed. It is also a relatively small amount compared to other kinds of waste, like the massive landfills of wind turbine blades and solar panels, and certain toxic tailings from some kinds of mining. Used radioactive material is cooled for a few years and then contained in large, safe concrete containers.
The new, advanced nuclear reactors, which I hope will be successful, have the wonderful promise of re-using nuclear fuel, reducing the final waste by a factor of close to 10X.
Thank you, great article. First I heard of the Taiwan case.
The claim that radiation is harmful even in small, spread-out doses ignores the fact that the DNA and RNA in our cells is capable of making repairs. That's good, because we're all exposed to many forms of radiation all around us every day.
We did an experiment in college physics that measured daily radiation from cosmic rays. I was surprised to see how many tics we registered on our lab type geiger counter.
With all due respect: Bhopal is common knowledge to over one billion people. It's taught in school. It's not a subject only known by specialists.
A great article. This is the first time I have heard about the Taiwan aspect. Thanks for taking the time to explain it in terms than many people can understand.
Ditto.
Excellent analysis, thank you! I suspect the field of environmental toxicology is riddled with similar issues but my experience is limited.
I don't agree with your starting premise: that the case against nuclear power rests upon concerns about low-dose radiation! My case against includes: the benefits of nuclear power must be offset against the burden imposed upon future generations: nuclear waste will have to be managed for tens of thousands of years. (And most every area in the world falls into a war zone at least every few centuries. We now hold our breath as Chernobyl is subject to attack.)
The thousand of years figure was computed using LNT principles. If it assumed that the body can cope with low doses of radiation the timescale is reduced to a few hundred years which though long is more manageable
If nuclear power is to become more prevalent its promotors must present a credible case for handling long term storage and governments need to commit to carrying it out and not continue kicking the can down the road.
Very interesting.
Nuclear waste is not a problem that can't be managed. It is also a relatively small amount compared to other kinds of waste, like the massive landfills of wind turbine blades and solar panels, and certain toxic tailings from some kinds of mining. Used radioactive material is cooled for a few years and then contained in large, safe concrete containers.
The new, advanced nuclear reactors, which I hope will be successful, have the wonderful promise of re-using nuclear fuel, reducing the final waste by a factor of close to 10X.
As someone who just went to Chernobyl, I’m very glad that this is true!
Thank you, great article. First I heard of the Taiwan case.
The claim that radiation is harmful even in small, spread-out doses ignores the fact that the DNA and RNA in our cells is capable of making repairs. That's good, because we're all exposed to many forms of radiation all around us every day.
We did an experiment in college physics that measured daily radiation from cosmic rays. I was surprised to see how many tics we registered on our lab type geiger counter.