Hi
This is just going out to new subscribers who joined because of wider distribution of the 16 Dirty Secrets essay. It's some follow-up comments. Also included is a follow-up to my Rattling the Reactor article about the Kashiwazaki earthquake. Sincerely, AceSubject: Follow-up to popular 16-question nuke Q&A: Suggestions for activists
July 2nd, 2007 Dear Readers, [Re:] http://www.counterpunch.com/hoffman06272007.html In response to various comments, I've modified the answer to question 2 a little -- mainly by dropping the discussion about nuclear submarines sometimes running on batteries. Although nuclear submarines could in theory run on their emergency backup batteries for up to about 12 hours, and can maneuver on them, and although it would, indeed, be quieter than when the reactors are running, I'm assured it's seldom, if ever, actually done that way. Of course, the Navy defines "emergency" pretty loosely, as in: "This is an emergency so dump those pollutants into the sea!" And if by an "emergency" they mean needing to cool the reactors on backup power, well, I'd guess that's a bad time to be using those batteries for any maneuvering, except to a better possible grave site. The author apologizes for the confusion secrecy brings. Another "small" change: I had used the word "size" when I should have said "mass" when comparing an electron to protons and neutrons. (There will be a lot more on THAT subject in a soon-to-be-completed newsletter.) The "new and improved" version of the Q&A appeared in OpEd News on June 29th. Here's the URL: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russell__070629_nuclear_power_kills_3b.htm The still-wider audience drew additional -- mostly favorable -- responses. One person posted four comments at the OpEd News site. Those comments are presented, and answered, below. Another person made a more rambling attack, trying to claim I'm "anti-technology." My answer to that also appears below. The ridiculous statement I'm answering can be found at the OpEd News web site given above. If you missed the original Q&A, I will be expanding it and (hopefully) printing it, in order to make it available to more people, and so it can be used as a quick-reference when attending a nuke-related public meeting. In the meantime, I'd like to suggestion going to your Congressperson's web site and "cut-and-paste" the original newsletter, or perhaps the URLs of the CounterPunch or OpEd News versions, or some portion of the newsletter, into their comment form. Even if only a few people do this, who knows? It MIGHT make a difference. Cheney's secret energy policy continues to be exposed, bit by bit, for the pro-nuke garbage it is. Congress is on vacation this week, of course. Let's give them something to think about when they get back. Sincerely, Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA
Answers to OpEdNews posts about my Q&A
July 1st, 2007 In response to the first two posted comments, which contained four claims from a pro-nuker: The four claims are:
1) "Solar cells require ten times more energy to create than they will ever produce."
2) "Wind will require a massive windmill in every yard to replace the power used by the related household."
3) "Reactor pools of spent rods are not cooled."
4) "I would gladly accept a spent fuel rod, to be placed in my yard, for a small yearly stipend. And so would anyone else who knows and cares." Responses:
1) "Solar cells require ten times more energy to create than they will ever produce."
This is a classic nuke-generated lie based -- at best -- on 40-year-old data from the first laboratory samples of solar panels -- if there's any reality to the oft-repeated (by pro-nukers) comment at all. A modern solar panel is a wonder of recyclable engineering, and includes high-tech components such as microscopic prisms, electronic diodes and software-actuated switches. Some modern solar panels have expected 100+ year life spans, with a 3- to 5-year payback. People who put solar panels on their homes in the 1980s are still using them, and the panels paid for themselves years ago. That's a more accurate description of what solar cell technology has already achieved, even without a fair regulatory playing field to encourage consumer investment.
2) "Wind will require a massive windmill in every yard to replace the power used by the related household."
An even worse lie. A typical wind turbine can generate 3 to 5 megawatts whenever the wind is blowing sufficiently. In the U.S.A., you'll find, on average, enough wind to generate electricity at least 7% of the time. In many places there's enough wind 30% or more of the time. America is considered "the Saudi Arabia of wind" because we have so much potential wind power. But it's not really a good comparison, since Saudi Arabia's oil WILL run out. 5 megawatts is enough juice for 5,000 homes according to my local nuclear power plant, although it probably could serve 50,000 energy-efficient homes utilizing passive measures such as solar panel roofs, L.E.D. lighting, proper insulation, geothermal heat exchangers, and energy-efficient appliances. Even if the wind blows only 7% of the time, 7% of 5,000 homes is 350, so ONE wind turbine actually would create ALL the juice needed for about 350 homes. And 10-megawatt wind turbines are coming. In fact, MUCH BIGGER DESIGNS are possible! Wind turbines are beautiful -- don't let anybody fool you! They replace nukes, but they can also replace coal and oil-burning solutions. And wind technology is still in its infancy! Wind energy, like solar energy and many other renewable energy solutions, only needs a major manufacturing push, which will come from a properly regulated market. Long-distance transmission lines are one way to solve the problem of wind power not being available locally all the time. Since the wind IS always blowing SOMEWHERE, you just capture THAT energy, and distribute it to where it is needed. Buckminster Fuller (1895 - 1983) proposed the Global Energy Grid for just such a purpose.Local storage of wind-generated power (by, for example, pumping water into a reservoir) also solves the problem of having the energy available when you need it. Nuclear reactors are old, dirty, dangerous, foolish, and faulty. And their frequent and unexpected outages are very difficult for power grids to handle. And, it's not uncommon to have 100-megawatt power fluctuations as nuclear power plants come on line, along with sudden losses of 1,000-megawatt power sources, often just when you need them most (as happened in California in 2003, when three of four nuclear power plants dropped out of the power grid).
3) "Reactor pools of spent rods are not cooled."
Reactor pool water must be circulated constantly, to cool the fuel rods. Depending on the age of the fuel, it can be shut off for a while, but whatever you do, don't accidentally drain the pool, don't drop a flaming airplane into it, don't wash a tsunami over it and fill it with cars and trucks from the nearby highway, or push a bunch of fresh-from-the-reactor "hot" fuel rods together to achieve a criticality event, etc. etc. etc.. It's only after about 3 to 5 years (at the earliest) that the spent fuel rods can be removed from the deep pools, and even then it's dangerous and probably shouldn't be done for at least 50 or 100 years, if ever. All nuclear power plants should be stopped forever, immediately! A spent reactor fuel fire is virtually impossible to quench (I'm not even sure why I bothered to say "virtually" since any actual fire WILL burn itself out, since no one will be able to get close to it to pour INERT GASSES on it to quench the flames). When the Department of Energy or the Nuclear Regulatory Commission talk about possible accident scenarios involving the transportation of nuclear waste, they NEVER refer to ANY accident which could release more than a tiny, tiny fraction (say, 0.00001%) of the total in that particular SINGLE CONTAINER shipment! Larger accidents are considered statistically unlikely and their consequences are completely ignored. So, thousands of realistic accident scenarios are ignored, and you can bet a 9-11 style attack was NEVER considered in their calculations prior to 9-11, and STILL isn't. The actual tests they run are contrived and unrealistic. And there's no place to SHIP the fuel to anyway, so it stays near the reactors. Spent reactor fuel fires are the most likely thing to bankrupt America unless we stop putting fresh fuel in the reactors and spend a lot more money protecting the fuel storage systems from terrorists, evil geniuses, stupid humans, and normal humans who make mistakes.
4) "I would gladly accept a spent fuel rod, to be placed in my yard, for a small yearly stipend. And so would anyone else who knows and cares."
You want a nuclear waste dump in every yard, but one windmill for every 350 homes is out of the question? And you want someone to pay you for storing the waste you, yourself, generate? That's absurd! And anyway, please define "small" as in "small yearly stipend" so we can calculate it out for hundreds of thousands of years, which we would need to do to cover the time the fuel rods are actually dangerous. Your children, and their children for 10,000 generations or so, will be required to keep your spent fuel rods (in addition to their own spent fuel rods) for THEIR ENTIRE LIVES -- but there is no plan to give THEM a stipend (and they might not agree with your stipulated rate). The money is NOT charged to the people who created the fuel rods (YOU). So WHO is going to come up with the money? And then there's the constant LEAKAGE from the fuel rod. First of all, you'll need one of those "dry casks" which, even for ONE fuel rod (or ONE pellet of fuel (several hundred pellets per fuel rod), for that matter) would need to be several inches of steel, lead, etc., and then a few feet (like, 10 or 12 or so) of CONCRETE. And that's just to get it to a point that only nuke workers are allowed near, because of the intense radioactive "shine" being released from the spent fuel pellet. And in 40 or 60 years -- maybe 100, but I sincerely doubt it -- that whole containment will have to be removed (and treated as extremely hazardous rad waste) and a NEW ONE put around the fuel, and so on every 50 or 100 years for hundreds of thousands of years. And all day and night, every day and night, someone will be using electricity, and if they choose your system, that electricity will cause ANOTHER FUEL ROD to be created, and another and another and another. WHO will pay the stipend for someone to take care of THOSE fuel rods? Conclusion: These four points only make the folly of using nuclear power more obvious -- so thanks for writing. It's time to stop this evil. Nuclear power has met its match: Sanity.
"Not Very Scientific:"
The last OpEd News comment posted above this one (titled "not very scientific") -- claiming I'm "anti-technology" -- is at least as flawed as the two posts discussed here, and the answers are already in the document, which the antagonist ignored or twisted. To respond briefly: There is NO immunity buildup from radiation, space missions (including missions with nuclear materials) HAVE an extraordinarily high failure rate, and MANY of the "early nuclear physicists" never made it to old age because they died of cancer. Madam Curie (1867 - 1934), who died of leukemia in her 60s, is the most famous example. There were thousands of scientists, so of course some have reached the ripe old age of 90, as the writer mentions. I work with some very old "opposition scientists" myself, so I'm well aware that radiation doesn't kill everyone. That, perhaps, is why it's so exquisite at killing us silently, but in droves. Knee-jerk pro-nukers always claim I'm anti-technology. Such a claim is impossible to sustain, as any look at my "Best Buy" receipts would prove -- let alone the fact that one of the software programs I co-authored is for sale there as part of an educational suite of products, and another one of my products won Adobe's "Site of the Day" award on November 7, 2006. Additionally, here are a few relevant URLs, all created by this author, a computer programmer. Does this really look like the work of someone who is "anti-technology" to you? Or is it the work of someone who has lost friends and family, and who has become FED UP with being lied to, and wants to help other people learn the truth as quickly as possible? The public has to get a good grasp on ALL these issues, because the pro-nukers will kill you if you let them. And you're letting them. Suggested URLS (all created by Russell "Ace" Hoffman): POISON FIRE USA: An animated history of major nuclear activities in the continental United States, including over 1500 data points, accurately placed in time and space: www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf How does a nuclear power plant work (animations of the two typical U.S. reactor designs): http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/nukequiz/nukequiz_one/nuke_parts/reactor_parts.swfDepleted Uranium: The Malignant Bullet: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environment/du/dumb.html Animated Periodic Table of the Elements (Adobe "Site of the Day" November 7th, 2006) (Any login ID will work with the password: ZINC): http://www.animatedsoftware.com/apt.html by AceHoffman (5 articles, 1 comments) on Sunday, July 1, 2007 at 1:31:55 PM
Subject: How to make a nuclear bomb:
July 3rd, 2007 Dear Readers, I'm happy to report the Q&A has been translated into Spanish and is available at the Rebelion.org web site at: http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=53066 I am grateful to Germán Leyens for doing the translation. Also, a few additional comments were posted at the OpEd News web site this morning. My responses appear below, with the comments. Sincerely, Ace Hoffman, Carlsbad, California USA Op Ed News web page: http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_russell__070629_nuclear_power_kills_3b.htm or: tinyurl.com/3afehf
New Comments at OpEd News web site:
nuclear proliferation A reactor is not required to proliferate nuclear weapons. The easiest way to create an atomic bomb is with enriched uranium which does not require a reactor. That is the way the Hiroshima bomb was made and it is the reason why the Iranian enrichment program is a threat. Reactors are required to make plutonium which is the very difficult way to make an atomic weapon because you have to separate it from the highly radioactive fission products. by prc (0 articles, 1 comments) on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 11:39:17 AM
Dude, you're way off... That's right, PRC... you don't need a reactor to make uranium bombs. Actually most of the things listed in this article are false. I'm not sure where you are getting information... but you're way off. I would talk to an authority on the subject before posting anything else in the future; I know I got directed to this piece because someone was making fun of all the errors that were made. by evilpixie (0 articles, 1 comments) on Tuesday, July 3, 2007 at 2:29:09 PM
My Response:
The comment by "prc" is a technicality, since most "modern" nuclear weapons use plutonium and tritium, products of nuclear reactors. The comment by "Evil Pixie" doesn't have any substance to respond to (yawn). It's true that you can make a 1940s-style A-bomb by enriching mined uranium over and over thousands of times, at a cost of tens-of-billions-of-dollars, utilizing a large quantity and variety of chemicals and poisoning the earth terribly, especially the land downwind of the facility, and the water downstream. And it's true the reprocessing spent reactor fuel is even dirtier. But either way, you will invariably SAY you are doing it for your nuclear power plants, in order to make electricity. Terrorists can steal Highly Enriched Uranium ("HEU") from so-called "research" reactors. No country builds nuclear power plants without fooling itself, either by pretending the unsolvable problem of nuclear waste will be solved, or by pretending that the world is so vast, that if some other country agrees to take the radioactive waste away, it magically disappears from humanity. Even in Iran, where gasoline, we're told, is still only 38 cents a gallon in 2007, they somehow seem to think they need nuclear power plants and a uranium enrichment facility. Curious indeed. NPPs don't generate ANY electricity compared to the cost of the loss for other uses of all the materials they irradiate, the cost of caring for all the spent fuel waste they generate, the potential catastrophic costs associated with all the worst-case scenarios, and compared to the cost in democracy and health care of all the employees and members of the public the Nuclear Mafia first befuddle, then irradiate, and then kill. In addition, using uranium to boil water to turn steam turbines isn't a very efficient way to generate electricity, so most of the energy held within the uranium is still wasted in ANY nuclear power plant that splits the atom to boil water. A more efficient method IS still the dream of "top-notch" nuclear scientists and engineers. But what's holding them back is the same problem the scientists who are studying how to deal with nuclear waste keep running into: Radiation destroys -- at the atomic level -- whatever you have near it. What NPPs do well is disrupt the power supply with up to 1,150 megawatts of sudden dropouts and near-death experiences. That's why geeks like me have spent billions of dollars, collectively, on UPSs (Uninterruptible Power Supplies) for their computers -- because America's power grid in unreliable, because the energy isn't produced by a million small sources. Instead our electricity comes from 104 unreliable nukes, at an average of about 800 megawatts each, and about 600 coal plants, at an average of about 500 megawatts each. Both drop out unexpectedly, and together constitute about 60% of our electricity generation, the rest being mainly (in descending order) gas, hydro, and oil, plus a very tiny amount (<1%) from ALL renewables other than hydro. We got ourselves into this mess. The question is: Can we dig ourselves out? My governor is doing his part: He's converted his Hummers to run on alternative fuels! America can and should lead the world in designing and manufacturing the green revolution. But we can't make the conversion if we love nuclear to death. Summary: You COULD do a lot of things. You could build nuclear-powered airplanes that could stay aloft for months at a time. Nuclear wrist-watches that never need winding! But it always comes back to: What happens when the nuclear poison, often in the form of a poison vapor, gets out?
July 20th, 2007 follow-up to Rattling the Reactor
(also published in CounterPunch):
[Re:] http://www.counterpunch.com/hoffman07192007.html Hi, My responses to the pro-nuker's comments are in [[[ triple brackets ]]]. Sincerely, Ace At 02:23 PM 7/20/2007 -0400, <nuspl@cox.net
> wrote:
>Please help with rebuttal of this nuclear
>technologist's opinions on Japan nuclear accident.
>/Tony
> >Michael Liesenfelt (UF) replied to your post about an hour ago:
> >"Approximately four hundred drums of so-called >"low-level" radioactive waste toppled over (of
>more than 22,000 such drums located at the site)"
> >What a shame, somebody will actually have to go
>and pick up all of those bagged gloves and
>anti-contamination suits. I think they've got that under control. [[[ They'll probably wash a lot of it into a drain and out into the Sea of Japan, and a lot will also evaporate (that's why the containers had "tightly" sealed lids in the first place). The preferred "solution" to pollution is dilution, in their eyes. They use it whenever possible. -- Ace ]]] >"All four automatically SCRAMed when the jarring
>started. A "SCRAM" of a reactor is a violent,
>sudden, dangerous stoppage which causes enormous
>wear and tear (and sometimes causes leaks)."
> >The control rods slide in and shutdown the
>reactor. Not quite violent, or dangerous. For
>heaven's sake, it's a shutdown safety s [[[ Every SCRAM is violent, as I stated. If a reactor has more than one or two in a year, that's officially cause for concern. More than a dozen or so over two decades is also cause for concern. Slamming on the brakes, shutting everything down, changing the thermal and flow characteristics of about a hundred thousand gallons of fast-circulating, boiling-hot, pressurized, continuously-reheated water, cooling the metal pipes, etc., is NOT easy on the system. And to SCRAM the reactors just when they're needed most, right after an earthquake! Here are some additional problems with SCRAMs, and control rods in particular: From: http://cnic.jp/english/newsletter/nit118/nit118articles/nit118scandal.html Revelations continue On April 6th Hitachi submitted a document revealing an additional incident involving TEPCO. In October 1988, one of the 185 control rod drive mechanisms in the Fukushima II-4 reactor was out of order. TEPCO requested Hitachi to inscribe the serial number of the out of order control rod drive mechanism onto a new one and load it without subjecting it to the required government inspection. Two of the four people involved in this incident are still working at TEPCO. The power company and manufacturer were fully aware that their action was illegal when they conspired to deceive the government, but the government's nuclear safety inspectorate was incapable of uncovering the deception.
--------------------
From: http://cnic.jp/english/news/newsflash/2007/malprac2ap07.html When three control rods fell out of position at Hokuriku Electric's Shika-1 reactor in 1999, criticality continued uncontrolled for 15 minutes. In 1978, five rods fell out of position at reactor number 3 of Tokyo Electric Power Company's Fukushima I power plant. On that occasion criticality continued for seven and a half hours. And in 1998 34 rods slipped 15 cm out of position at Fukushima I unit 4, although the reactor did not reach criticality. --------------------
... And should I mention the illogical design of the control rods is considered a "prime suspect" as one of the (many) "root causes" of the Chernobyl disaster? They were designed with a tip which actually increased the reactivity before decreasing it! It was no cause for concern most of the time, but it proved to be a crucial difference April 26th, 1986. But of course, I can't expect a pro-nuker to remember anything that far back or in a foreign country. -- Ace ]]] >"However, reportedly "90,000 Becquerels of radioactivity"
>or 2.432e-6 Ci
> >I think I've held stronger laboratory test
>sources sources in my hand before. Cmon' [[[ As I pointed out, simply providing the Becquerels is an incomplete expression of the danger. But sure, 90,000 is only about 13 times your own personal "normal" dose of "background" radiation. But that "normal" dose kills some percentage of us, too. The 90,000 Bq. should cause pause on principle, but no one thought it was really that, anyway. No one but a pro-nuker, that is. However, at the NIRS web site when I checked yesterday, the current figure was given as 402 million Becquerels. Quite a leap up, but certainly not in an unexpected direction, considering the 63 (up from 50 in my article) different significant problems identified so far (not including delayed and dishonest reporting). Would your pro-nuker hold THAT much radiation in his hand, absorb it into his lung, store it in his gonads, feed it to his wife or infant daughter, for it to lodge in THEIR reproductive organs, to harm yet another generation? And what right did we have to burden humanity with 90,000 Bq, anyway? If they were long-lived isotopes, this "punishment" will last a correspondingly long time, poisoning people (and other living things) for eons. But 402,000,000 Bq. -- and climbing -- ought to give anyone pause. -- Ace ]]] >"The Japanese should be especially able to realize the insidious
>nature of radioactive poisons, since the effects of DNA damage from
>Hiroshima and Nagasaki still continue to this day, and could be
>carefully measured."
> >Yet another piece of sensationalist propaganda
>published by our favorite religiously anti-nuclear activist, 'AcE' Hoffman. [[[ The effects ARE continuing to this day -- and will continue for generations to come. These insults are undeserved. My opposition to nuclear power is based on logic, reason, science and humanity. I'm not the one doing any worshiping or propagandizing -- they are. They worship the Demon Hot Atom, and Demonize all who stand in their way. We don't call pro-nukers a "Nuclear Mafia" for nothing. -- Ace ]]] >---- Thinkcivic@aol.com wrote:
> > BG: The following is further comment by by an environmental and energy
> > writer who covered Three Mile Island and the construction of the last two
> > commercial nuclear power plants in the US.
> > ---------------------------------
> > I am tied up on a project unrelated to
> energy, but wish i had time to really
> > review information on this. the bits and
> pieces i am seeing raise some real
> > questions not only about plant procedures but > also about the quality of the > > japanese nuclear regulatory system.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > BG: Well, we know the US regulatory system is horribly flawed....
> >
> > BG
> > thinkcivic@aol.com
> > [[[ There is little question the Japanese nuclear industry is even MORE corrupt and dishonest than our own -- perhaps even rivaling the Russian or French nuclear industries. Many local residents have wanted the Kashiwazaki facility shut down for years. -- Ace. ]]]
Contact information for "Ace:"
Carlsbad, California USA
Author, The Code Killers:
An Expose of the Nuclear Industry
Free download: acehoffman.org
Blog: acehoffman.blogspot.com
YouTube: youtube.com/user/AceHoffman
Email: ace [at] acehoffman.org
Founder & Owner, The Animated Software Company
