Nuclear Hazard, yells STYRGE!

[Tapio]

Hi!

I'd like to hear some thoughts of the claims made here:

STYRGE (http://styrge.com/English.html)(roll down for English text)

The guys who've put the site up are part of the most prominent anti-Nuclear Power people in Finland, and getting notably extensive support from all around. For a long time I've felt annoyed by how they handle their activism. After receiving their latest email update I got a boost to start an actual discussion with these people about it. But I need to get my facts straight first.

I think their emotionally-biased stuff is quite revolting, as are the movies they're advertising. Ideas regarding that side are plenty. But as a layman I can't say anything of the actual data and charts they provide. So critique on the alleged "facts" is something I'd be interested in hearing (of course with evidence/sources supporting the critique).

All help appreciated!

ETA: If there's something you'd like me to translate in order for you to get a more comprehensive picture, I'd be happy to do it.

[dahduh]

Wow, that's such a concentrated collection of BS that it would take a year just to catalog it.

But starting with their photos of 'beta flare (http://styrge.com/Betaflare.html)', it looks like they have enhanced various pictures taken at sunset in selected color channels to the point of saturation, to bring out sunset colors reflected off clouds. What they don't supply are pictures taken at night, during which visible radiation emitted by these 'beta flares' would presumable be even more visible. Neither do they provide control pictures taken over similar non-nuclear facilities.

[Tapio]

Wow, that's such a concentrated collection of BS that it would take a year just to catalog it.

Exactly. :rolleyes: That's why I'd like to see them, and their thousands of advocates given something real to chew on. It's not like people are idiots, they just don't know...you know...

Thanks for your comment!

[Klimax]

Just two nice quotes...

A serious threat to all life arises from the very physical nature of radiation as it doesn't mysteriously disappear or get turned into heat. Instead, it accumulates into the environment.

Right,then how does it come that land around older czech nucelar plant is not deserted.How does it come that there is not significantly increased number of illnesses...

The amount of rainfall is dramatically decreased in the areas containing nuclear power. Even some 100 km radius can receive 30% less rain than it used to! It is shockin especially when the global warming should have increased rainfall the same amount.
And this is just better. Somehow it is not true for land around czech reactors.
Why is that? :rolleyes:

I used "local" examples as one reactor is of older design and one heavly upgraded during construciton by USA technology.

But I didn't went much further... (brain wanted to take spaceship to moon)

[wackyvorlon]

What in the world is a "beta flare"?

EDIT: <LOL> Wow, I just checked out the site. It is *really* special. Get this:

"The name comes from the main cause for the phenomenon which is free neutrons decaying into protons and electrons."

I'd love to hear their explanation for neutrons in the atom's nucleus.

[wackyvorlon]

"That's why nuclear power plant even has a chimney; for fierce ventilation, to get rid of ions and excess neutrons within their quarter-an-hour lifetime. If the air flow stops, everyone inside the powerplant would die in 15 minutes or so. "

I take it they don't know what a cooling tower is? Oddly enough, I didn't think ventilation could influence the path of a neutron...

[BenBurch]

Well they DO have chimneys. I was responsible for designing a system to read out the monitors that say when radionuclide noble gas isotopes are being emitted and declaring site alerts and etc.

Only in a core damage situation would there be much of anything for that system to do.

The vent gas is passed over a charcoal bed and that is sufficient to hold most effluents long enough for them to decay (they have a very short half-life) and if there WERE a major event the stack flow would be shut down so that major amounts of gas would not be emitted.

The stack is how they provide ventilation to the containment building proper.

What is usually emitted is just filtered clean air.

[macdoc]

Too depressing and ridiculous for words....can someone please point them at a coal plant and let them loose on a REAL threat.....:eusa_doh:

[soylent]

"The name comes from the main cause for the phenomenon which is free neutrons decaying into protons and electrons."

I'd love to hear their explanation for neutrons in the atom's nucleus.

No, that's one of very few things on that page that's actually correct. Free neutrons beta decay with a ~10 minute half-life.

Neutrons in a stable nucleus do not decay because it's not energetically favourable to turn a neutron into a proton and kick out an electron for one reason or another(look at the semi-empirical mass formula and liquid drop model of the nucleus for some more insight into why that is. Coloumb repulsion, Pauli energy and pairing energy are the relevant terms).

If you have too many neutrons in a nucleus the usual decay mode is beta-, just like with free neutrons.

[Hindmost]

This is just sooooooooo wrong on so many levels. Beta flare??? Neutrons going up the waste gas stack...not even possible to imagine a scenario where that could happen.

The whole thing is just random words with no scientific meaning.

ON the &quot;fierce ventillation&quot; thing.

The containment on a nuke plant is essentially a closed system--although water, steam and air systems do go through walls. Steam goes out to the turbine, water is returned to the steam generators...cooling water is sent to components....air to operate valves...etc.

Cooling water is used to cool air handlers on the inside which cools the air. Occassionally, pressure will build up in containment and it needs to be &quot;burped&quot;...For this--as Ben Burch pointed out--it goes through filters and sent to atmosphere...but it is only operated for a few hours during a year period. Before a shutdown, the ventillation system with the charcol filters is operated for a period of time to reduce any airborne radioactive particles in containment. It makes it safe for entry to refuel...now, the levels of airborne in containment are less than in a granite building and probably most homes that are build on large granite deposits.

There are other ventillation systems to keep the plant in reasonable temperature and humidity.

If you &quot;lose&quot; any ventillation system, well not much happens. Inside containment, there are redundant systems and if one fails you have the other to keep things cool to either shutdown or do repairs. Loss of ventillation in a plant is just not a big deal.

The waste gas system has waste gas stack..it is used to disperse waste gas from plant operations. It will have some noble gases, hydrogen and other gases stripped out of the reactor coolant. It is held in storage tanks to decay and then released up the stack. Not really an issue.

I just can't understand the thought process in someone's mind--is it stupidity and delusion, or just lying?

glenn

[Tubbythin]

Wuh?

Radiation dose we receive from natural sources has increased ten times since the pre-nuclear era.

[Tapio]

Thanks for your responses everyone!

I'd definitely want to hear more. The more detailed on why/how the better. I'll make a summary of what's been written now and fast-preview it here before sending the questions to the Finnish guys. Might take a couple days...also, I'd better contact the local experts on this too.

I'm quite annoyed right now, because if it's true that they fail to present this simple, basic stuff in an according manner, how much more wrong will they be regarding the stuff requiring real expertise. Remember these are one of the MAIN anti-Nuke people in Finland...

Thanks again!

[BenBurch]

Hindmost,

In my plants, IIRC after all these years, the containment blowers were generally run throughout fueling/maintenance to maintain a slight negative pressure in the containment.

The SPNG and WRGM never registered anything of note the whole time I was attached to that project.

-Ben

[Hindmost]

Hindmost,

In my plants, IIRC after all these years, the containment blowers were generally run throughout fueling/maintenance to maintain a slight negative pressure in the containment.

The SPNG and WRGM never registered anything of note the whole time I was attached to that project.

-Ben

Depends on the plant. Some have an annulus outside containment but inside the shield wall that run negative pressure. Some run a negative pressure in containment--but I am not a containment expert.

I have seen pressure build up in the can from the instrument air for valves. I know tech specs typically allow about 90 hours of burp time a year.

The plant I am working on now has two systems: one for clean up of airborne and to do the integrated leak rate stuff. The second one is just for cooling. However, I don't know if it runs at negative pressure...it just runs chill water into the can and the air units are all inside--so I don't see how it could keep the pressure negative. The cleanup system is only to prepare for shutdown. ( I don't work on ventilation much)

Respirators are rarely needed in contaiment anymore...they really know how to prep the plant before an outage.

glenn

[ChrisC]

Awesome thread.
I'm trying my hand at dissecting that website to learn more about nuclear energy since it's something I've been interested in lately. I'll post it here if I ever feel confident about my facts and understanding.

FWIW, that site is utter BS from the very first sentence. 1 sentence, 3 statements, all totally wrong.

[Tapio]

Awesome thread.
I'm trying my hand at dissecting that website to learn more about nuclear energy since it's something I've been interested in lately. I'll post it here if I ever feel confident about my facts and understanding.

Great! I do want to encourage you to post your thoughts regardless, since this seems to be a good place to check those facts...it's all part of the (jr)E(f)ducational process :)

I'm not going to take any posts here as straight forward facts without triple-checking them. But I do enjoy the direction we're moving towards...keep 'em coming!

[Kuko 4000]

Great thread Tapio, I hope members here can shine some much needed light on the issues and fears that many people share because of information resources like STYRGE website.

[Tapio]

Here's a quoted question from the "beta-flare" pictures.

There is definitely something coming out, something much more hazardous than the claimed room temperature air. C'mon, why else would you need a 100m high ventilation pipe?

Could somebody shed light on this? This kind of simple questions are the kind I'd like to start addressing first...

[Tapio]

Right,then how does it come that land around older czech nucelar plant is not deserted.How does it come that there is not significantly increased number of illnesses...

Good points. Do you have any reliable source for these?

[Tapio]

Glenn and BenBurch, since you seem to have true knowledge on this topic, I'd like to translate some of your points for the styrge-guys. But first I need to check your given info...what's your background on the subject, how do you know this stuff? Can you lead me to a source where I could verify what you said?

Don't mean to sound impose on you, but I don't want to start playing their games of ambiguous claims. I think it's better to stick to confirmed facts from the start. That's the only way I see we might make an actual differnence = educate people more.

Thanks!

[wackyvorlon]

Here's a picture of Bruce Nuclear:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Bruce-Nuclear-Szmurlo.jpg

Not sure I see the purported 100m high "ventilation pipe". And 328 feet is a *very* tall stack.

I'd be curious what they think of the Inco Superstack:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inco_Superstack

[BenBurch]

Here's a quoted question from the "beta-flare" pictures.



Could somebody shed light on this? This kind of simple questions are the kind I'd like to start addressing first...

If there were a core-damage accident, and noble gas radioisotopes were released into the containment and containment pressure rose high enough, you would have to release it. This is why the stack, to get the release as high as possible so it mixes with non-stagnant air and hopefully stays aloft until it decays. This scenario is very, very, very unlikely. And the plant emits nothing whatsoever of note in normal operation.

IIRC, In the event that core damage DOES happen, the first reaction would not be to blow it up the stack. Stack blowers would be shut down and every attempt would be made to keep any effluents in the containment until they decayed. Only if pressure became too high to contain would that system be used in such an event.

So, the stack exists to increase safety, not diminish it.

And these people are insane.

[Klimax]

Here's a quoted question from the "beta-flare" pictures.



Could somebody shed light on this? This kind of simple questions are the kind I'd like to start addressing first...

Good points. Do you have any reliable source for these?

I will go to hunt down sources again and it is highly possible they'll be in czech documents ,but there are some basic infos about both nuclear plants:
Dukovany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukovany_Nuclear_Power_Station
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VVER
http://insp.pnl.gov/-profiles-dukovany-du.htm
http://www.insc.anl.gov/neisb/neisb4/NEISB_4.2.A1.html
Temelín:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temel%C3%ADn_Nuclear_Power_Station
http://www.cez.cz/en/power-plants-and-environment/nuclear-power-plants/temelin.html

Anyway reason I used originally older plant is that it was operating for longer time and if radiation was being acumulated it would be very obvious by this time.
http://www.mapy.cz/#x=137074432@y=132399744@z=13@mm=FP@sa=s@st=s@ssq= elektr%C3%A1rna%20Dukovany@sss=1@ssp=136871936_132 278272_137306112_132620288

http://maps.google.cz/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=cs&geocode=&q=elektr%C3%A1rna+Dukovany&sll=49.930008,15.369873&sspn=3.444099,9.283447&ie=UTF8&ll=49.087246,16.149387&spn=0.027375,0.072527&t=h&z=14

This should be good enough until I get either translated or translate it myself documents about monitoring. (Like this one http://www.env.cz/www/zamest.nsf/0/3622ee877f08be9fc125672b0034cbf0?OpenDocument )

Am going to make another post.

[jasonpatterson]

Pink sky

This is something everyone can observe and verify whether this is to be taken seriously. Sky is getting increasingly pink at sunset (or sunrise). Well, it has been a colourful event before but now the traditional red is virtually extinct! It comes now with some blue addition shifting towards purple, magenta and other psychedelic tones.

I think that these guys have been talking with this lady...
_c6HsiixFS8

Is your intent to try to refute this website to its authors? If so, it seems very unlikely that anyone so completely and utterly clueless about nuclear power will be swayed by even the most reasonable of arguments. They honestly seem to believe that there is a grand conspiracy to hide all of the supposed dangers from the public; you're just going to be another deluded fool (or an agent of the government/nuclear power corporations) in their eyes...

[Hindmost]

Glenn and BenBurch, since you seem to have true knowledge on this topic, I'd like to translate some of your points for the styrge-guys. But first I need to check your given info...what's your background on the subject, how do you know this stuff? Can you lead me to a source where I could verify what you said?

Don't mean to sound impose on you, but I don't want to start playing their games of ambiguous claims. I think it's better to stick to confirmed facts from the start. That's the only way I see we might make an actual differnence = educate people more.

Thanks!

A thread back a long time ago went on for quite a few pages...link (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77079&page=24)

There is a bunch of information on nuclear power that would take a bit to go through. There were contributions from many people with good knowledge. There were disagreements that were logically discussed, so you can see the view from both sides. I wish I had copied a subset of links that I posted in that thread so post them quickly again.

The link in the OP was just so ridiculous, there is almost no way to counter the claims with real science...it would be like trying to dispute the technobabble of a Dr. Who episode written by Douglas Adams. The bit about neutrons going up the stack is just nonsense.

I know you are going through some pain with AREVA now, but it will work out eventually.

FYI: my degree is in nuclear engineering and I worked for the US nuclear navy and performed a few startups of commercial nuclear plants. I am currently working on startup requirements for an advanced reactor--generation III. Feel free to ask me anything...if I have time, I will do my best to provide a reasonable answer--if it is something I have knowledge about.

glenn

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Gratuitous plug: Skeptically Speaking, "possibly the world's only skeptical talk show" (their words, they aren't egomaniacs and would love to hear they are not alone) has posted the mp3 of last fridays program (http://skepticallyspeaking.com/2009/05/30/nuclear-power-part-2/) wherein they hosted a debate between Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, reactor phsyicist and manager of safeguards and non-proliferation at Canadas Chalk River nuclear laboratories and Elena Schacherl, founder and Co-chair of Citizens Advocating the Use of Sustainable Energy (CAUSE).

Much of what was discussed there applies here. The show was entertaining as well.

[Tapio]

Is your intent to try to refute this website to its authors? If so, it seems very unlikely that anyone so completely and utterly clueless about nuclear power will be swayed by even the most reasonable of arguments. They honestly seem to believe that there is a grand conspiracy to hide all of the supposed dangers from the public; you're just going to be another deluded fool (or an agent of the government/nuclear power corporations) in their eyes...

Thanks for your question. It made me re-think what I'm aiming at here. This is what I came up with.

My intent (at this stage) is to dig up defined (inaccurate/false) points from their website and find out, as simply and clearly as possible, the how's/why's they ain't so.

Then I'll compose an open email of what I've gathered (thanks already for the help, all of you:)) which I will send to the guys themselves, as well as the subscribers of their "monthly newsletter". I personally know many of the people supporting this stuff, so I believe I can make my statement in a way that will benefit all sides. I don't think they're as crackpots as the website makes them look. I think they're just uneducated, worried silly, people who're trying to make a (in their view) positive difference.

What I want to do, is to try to make them answer, in public, just why they haven't done enough research before openly claiming these things. This way I hope to get the people supporting them to put pressure on re-evaluating and fixing the false claims in their website (I honestly believe these people don't want to lie about facts, they just don't know what the facts really are).

I don't know enough of the why's/how's, pro's/con's of Nuclear Energy to try to debate on a larger scale. I only want to try to make a difference in the way these anti-Nuke people bring their message forth. These people are active members of the local Green party, with considerable influence over local decision making and a far reaching affect on especially the young, environmentally/politically interested people in our area. I think the influence should be based on scientifically proven facts, not emotionally biased scaremongering.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

The link in the OP was just so ridiculous, there is almost no way to counter the claims with real science...it would be like trying to dispute the technobabble of a Dr. Who episode written by Douglas Adams. The bit about neutrons going up the stack is just nonsense.

Pure win. :D

[SezMe]

Of all the utter bullroar there, this particularly caught my eye:

As radiation is being artificially produced more than it escapes the earth, it's just a matter of time when the atmosphere will set on fire, burning nitrogen into carbon.

That's impossible...and just silly.

[Tapio]

Of all the utter bullroar there, this particularly caught my eye: That's impossible...and just silly.

Yes, but could you/do you have the time to explain why it's silly? So, that a layman can understand it...is it possible? :o

[BenBurch]

Yes, but could you/do you have the time to explain why it's silly? So, that a layman can understand it...is it possible? :o

Because no amount of "radiation" being emitted will cause the earth's atmosphere to become a star. Because fusion of Nitrogen can only happen in the core os a star at immense temperature;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNO_cycle

Because were that true, the H-bomb tests, especially the Russian Tsar Bomba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba) would already have wiped out the planet.

Because if that sort of radiation were being emitted in the first place, nobody downwind would have ever been able to use photography because the film would have been fogged, and nobody would have been left alive for miles and miles around from bone marrow collapse. And every kid with a geiger counter would know of it. (What? Most kids don't have geiger counters? I had three!)

[Cuddles]

OK, I'll bite.

Radiation emissions from civilian nuclear reactors are vast, continuous and covered up.

Evidence of this cover up?

A serious threat to all life arises from the very physical nature of radiation as it doesn't mysteriously disappear or get turned into heat. Instead, it accumulates into the environment.

This doesn't really make sense. Radiation can't accumulate, it is a short-lived phenomenon. Radioactive material could certainly accumulate, but saying that radiation builds up makes no more sense than saying light builds up. In fact, a fair amount of radiation is light.

I suspect this is down to misunderstanding (I'm being generous here) the concept that damage caused by radiation can build up. This is certainly true, which is why there are strict limits on how much radiation a person can be exposed to over certain periods of time. However, the radiation levels around nuclear plants are not any higher than normal background radiation, so that's not something to worry about.

Radiation dose we receive from natural sources has increased ten times since the pre-nuclear era.

Firstly, this is simply not true. Secondly, if it actually were true, then surely we should be far more worried about whatever is causing this natural increase, rather than attacking nuclear power?

This is something everyone can observe and verify whether this is to be taken seriously. Sky is getting increasingly pink at sunset (or sunrise).

This is just bizarre.

The phenomenon is resulting from the global growth in ionizing radiation which in turn creates more ionization in the atmosphere.

No, it doesn't. The only part of the Earth's atmosphere that is significantly ionised is the aptly names ionosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere). This is the very upper part of the atmosphere and is ionised mainly by radiation from the Sun, with some small contribution from cosmic rays. Any ionisation caused by radiation at ground level is utterly insignificant and neutralised almost immediately. In any case, this has exactly nothing to do with the colour of the sky.

Sky appears blue or the sunset yellow and red because of the oxygen and nitrogen molecules. They consist of two atoms and are just the right size to scatter the blue wavelength. Single atoms are too small to affect visible light when separated, and that is what ionization does. So more ionization, more blue is getting through in addition to yellow and red when the sun is shining from a low angle.

No. Just, no. The colour of the sky has absolutely nothing to do with ionisation. The colour is actually caused by scattering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rayleigh_scattering) of light. Short wavelengths of light (blue) are scattered more than longer wavelengths (red). This means that during the day, when light from the Sun comes straight down through the atmosphere, most of the red light takes a straight path, while blue light is scattered and appears to be coming from all directions. At sunrise and sunset, the light is coming at a low angle and passes through much more of the atmosphere, which means the red light is scattered as well and the sky appears red/yellow rather than just blue.

Importantly for the claim here, if this scattering did not occur, the whole sky would appear black and the only light would be directly from the Sun. Obviously if the claim that ionisation reduces scattering were correct, the effect would be apparent during the whole day, not just at sunrise and sunset, and would make the sky darker, not make "psychedelic tones" appear.

The present palette of colours has occurred before only with the maximum in solar activity which is not at hand earlier than the year 2012.

Solar activity varies over an 11 year cycle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle) (technically the cycle in the Sun is 22 years, but the effects on Earth vary over 11 years), so maximums are actually quite common. The next maximum will probably be around 2010, although since the cycles are not entirely regular it is possible, but very unlikely, it could be as late as 2012. Note that the cycle was first discovered in 1843, rather too early for it to have anything to do with nuclear power.

The extra radiation load from utilizing nuclear power might be sufficient to collapse our protective system against the solar wind

There are two things that protect against the Solar wind. The main mechanism is the Earth's magnetic field (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_magnetic_field). Charged particles encountering the Earth's field are directed along the magnetic field lines and mostly become trapped in the Van Allen belts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt), well above the atmosphere. When there are a particularly large number of particles reaching the Earth, some will manage to get through to the atmosphere causing aurora (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(astronomy)). Due to the magnetic field, these occur in the upper atmosphere above the poles.

The other protective mechanism is simply the atmosphere. As previously noted, the ionosphere is the region of the upper atmosphere that absorbs a lot of the radiation from the Sun. By the time the Sun's light gets down to ground level, virtually all the ionising radiation has been absorbed.

Obviously, neither of these mechanisms can be in any way influenced by the presence of radiation on the Earth's surface, since they both act hundreds, or even thousands, of miles above the Earth.

but perhaps you are more familiar with the destruction in ozone layer. It is happening again altought the CFC-compounds have been banned for decades.

The ozone layer is actually involved with ultraviolet light. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of radiation produced in nuclear power plants. As for the destruction continuing, that is partly true. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that CFCs are not the only compounds that damage the ozone layer, and there are many chemicals still in use that can also cause problems. The second is that CFCs are very long lived. Even though we have mostly stopped using them, there are still CFCs left floating around in the atmosphere from decades of use. The good news is that while the ozone layer does not seem to be recovering particularly quickly, it is at least not getting worse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Min_ozone.jpg) any more.

Reddish glowing air above a nuclear power plants is called a beta-flare.

This is simply a lie. There is no reddish glowing air seen above nuclear plants, and no such thing as a beta-flare.

The energies involved in beta-flare are sufficient to kill birds mid-flight. Or bring down airplanes if they defy the restricted area.

Again, nonsensical lies. It's not even worth trying to address the mangled science attempted as an explanation, because it is obvious that this is just made up with no attempt to support the claim.

The amount of rainfall is dramatically decreased in the areas containing nuclear power. Even some 100 km radius can receive 30% less rain than it used to! It is shockin especially when the global warming should have increased rainfall the same amount.

Again, nonsense with no attempt to provide evidence in support. I will note, however, that global warming certainly does not predict that rainfall will increase everywhere by 30%. In fact, although predictions are not completely reliable, it is expected that global warming will result in severe droughts in many places. Australia and sub-Sarahan Africa, for example, are expected to face serious problems in the near future.

The mechanism is ionization which prevents the clouds from forming.

Far from preventing cloud forming, ionisation actually provides a nucleus for condensation and would be expected to increase the formation of clouds. This principle has been used since the early 1900s in cloud chamber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_chamber) particle detectors.

In the following video rain clouds literally disappear when they reach the vicinity of a nuclear power plant.

It may be interesting to note that the JREF Million Dollar Challenge specifically excludes claims of cloud-busting (http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html) for precisely this reason - you can imagine clouds to be doing just about anything you like if you watch them for long enough.

In a nuclear reactor every fission produces 2-3 neutrons but only one is needed to sustain the chain reaction. So it's evident that most of the neutrons escape into the environment.

That's not evident in the slightest. In fact, it's another lie. Firstly, the majority of the neutrons are absorbed by the fuel rods themselves. Virtually all kinds of power plant use uranium as part of a compound, so the majority of atoms in the fuel rod are not uranium. Even out of those atoms that are uranium, only a few percent are usually uranium-235, with the rest being non-fissile (meaning they don't take part in the nuclear reaction) uranium-238. In addition, the reaction is controlled by control rods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_rod) that are used to absorb excess neutrons.

As if that weren't all enough, the reactor core is enclosed in a reactor vessel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor_vessel) which will stop any un-absorbed neutrons. As noted in that article, only one kind of reactor actually has any significant radiation at the vessel. Finally, there will be a large containment vessel (usually the whole building) to prevent any release of radiation in an accident. This will be up to several metres of concrete, and will likely be built to withstand things such as aircraft crashes as well as an internal accident.

The only way radiation can get out of a nuclear plant is when old fuel rods, moderators and other working parts are removed for reprocessing. Nothing just leaks out.

The 30 year maximum operating time, however, derives from the fact that then the whole power plant structure along with the soil underneath becomes neutron-saturated

With regards to the structure itself, this is almost true. Over 30 years, a lot of the mechanisms within the reactor core will become irradiated. In the interests of safety, they must be shut down well before there is any chance of them failing due to damage, and since this effectively means dismantling and replacing a large portion of the core, it is easier and cheaper to decommission the whole thing rather than attempting to service it as you would a car.

However, claims that the whole structure or surrounding environment become irradiated are completely wrong, as explained above.

Neutron flux is hardly measured at all. Partly because they are hard to detect (as the speed varies from a floating stage to few kilometres per second).

Actually, yes it is (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_detection). Neutrons are not as easy to detect as some forms of radiation, but they're really not all that difficult. In fact, measuring neutron flux is one of the main ways of measuring the power output of a nuclear power plant.

They are moderated to travel under the escape velocity of earth (11 km/s) so they can't escape all the way to space as gravitation pulls them back.

Since all the neutrons are absorbed before they can even leave the reactor vessel, the escape velocity of Earth is utterly irrelevant. It's also worth noting that not all kinds of nuclear plants use moderated neutrons, some allow them to stay at high speeds.

The nucleus of every atom (expect basic Hydrogen) can get charged and carry this charge for a wide range of times.

This is just plain nonsense. All nuclei are always charged, including hydrogen.

Most of them are short but some are metastable in the sense that they need an another hit from gamma radiation to release their energy.

This charge is not visible to any measurement until it's discharged. So particles, even air itself, can contain energy that is released as a quantum of gamma or röntgen after they have found their way out from the power plant.

What this person is probably trying to talk about is exciting the nucleus of atom, not charging. However, excited nuclei tend to decay very quickly. A more sensible point to make here would be the transmutation of nuclei due to absorption of neutrons. In this situation, a perfectly stable and safe atom can become radioactive when hit by radiation. This is precisely why decommissioning nuclear plants is so tricky and expensive - as already noted, all the material becomes damaged and potentially radioactive due to radiation and must be looked after and disposed of very carefully. However, again as already noted, this stuff does not simply float around the place and escape from the plant during operation.

As for the idea of a "quantum of Rontgen", the Rontgen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rontgen) is a unit of measurement. The phrase makes no more sense than saying a "quantum of kilogram". It should be noted that the Rontgen is an outdated unit and is no longer generally used.

As radiation is being artificially produced more than it escapes the earth, it's just a matter of time when the atmosphere will set on fire, burning nitrogen into carbon.

At this point I'm really not sure what to say other than what the ****? Even if every single thing said in the rest of the article were true, this is just plain nonsense. No matter how much radiation you release into the environment, you can't suddenly start nuclear fusion in the atmosphere. Not with hydrogen, and certainly not with heavier elements such as nitrogen.

To start with, nuclear reactions are extremely difficult to initiate for most elements. Even just "burning" hydrogen and helium requires the massive temperatures and pressures found in the centre of the Sun. The production of heavier elements (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_evolution) only happens in much bigger stars or when a smaller star has used up all of its hydrogen and helium fuel and collapses in on itself, creating temperatures and pressures extreme even for a star.

However, even under these conditions, it is carbon that is burned to produce nitrogen. The reaction just doesn't occur in the other direction because energy is not released that way around. And these reactions simply cannot occur in out atmosphere. We may one day be able to replicate them on small scales in a laboratory, but the extreme conditions required would mean we'd all be dead and the entire planet vapourised long before they could occur by accident.

It was speculated whether it would happen already with the first atomic test explosion.

This is almost true. It was not speculated that nitrogen would burn to carbon, since as explained above that is nonsense. However, at the time of the first atomic tests we understood much less about nuclear physics and some people did speculate about the possibility of a chain reaction occurring. As we can see, many nuclear bombs have now been set off, and that has rather obviously not happened.

And the bees? Added ionization alters the electromagnetic field bees use to navigate. They fly off too high and the colonies are getting lost.

As far as I am aware, bees navigate simply use their vision. Even if that were not the case, as has been explained in detail above, there is no effect of small amounts of radiation on the Earth's magnetic field. Unfortunately we still don't really know the cause of colony collapse disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_collapse_disorder). At the moment, the most likely explanation is that there is really no such thing, and that the decline in bees is the result of several unrelated factors in combination. Certainly no-one in any position to know what they are talking about has considered blaming radiation, because such a claim would be complete nonsense.


So, yeah. I can't really comment on whether the author actually believes some of what he says, but at least a portion is obviously deliberate lies, and all of it is complete nonsense. To be honest, I'm not really sure why I just went through and did that. You say that this guy has a fair amount of support, but I really struggle to think of a significant number of people being stupid enough to fall for this crap.

[ChrisC]

So, yeah. I can't really comment on whether the author actually believes some of what he says, but at least a portion is obviously deliberate lies, and all of it is complete nonsense. To be honest, I'm not really sure why I just went through and did that. You say that this guy has a fair amount of support, but I really struggle to think of a significant number of people being stupid enough to fall for this crap.

I'm quickly coming to the same conclusion. Still, it's a learning experience for me. That website is educational, but probably not in the way intended.

[jasonpatterson]

Yes, but could you/do you have the time to explain why it's silly? So, that a layman can understand it...is it possible? :o

In particular this bit is silly not only for the reasons listed, but because they claim that the nitrogen in the atmosphere will be converted into carbon. (In the plainest terms I can think of:) In general when small atoms are fused, they form larger atoms. Nitrogen is already larger than carbon. If nitrogen-14 and nitrogen-14 were to fuse, you'd expect to get silicon-28 as the product. (This happened in a supernova already to produce the silicon that Earth already has.) This argument is equivalent to saying that if you heat up ashes, they will convert into wood.

It would be possible to split a nitrogen-14 atom into carbon-12 and hydrogen-2, I suppose, but the process would consume energy and would not be sustainable. (C-13 and H-1 would be worse in that regard.)

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I forwarded the "STYRGE" webiste to Dr. Jeremy Whitlock, a reactor physicist at Chalk River. Hi comments follow:

That's great! Thanks for the morning chuckle.

Of course I'll alert the commandos to take out this author, who obviously knows far too much about our plan to Take Over the World.

Either Dr. Whitlock thinks the site is a complete joke and is responding in kind, or the author of STYRGE isn't going to be a problem anymore. ;)

[Tapio]

WOW. Cuddles, what a gem you are!! And the rest of you...I...well, this should be sufficient :wave1

I thank you deeply for getting involved. Now I must halt the process for a while to get this stuff coherently down on "paper" and send it forward. I believe this first wave of comments should be enough to show me if we can actually make a differece, or if we'll simply have to let the commandos loose :D

[Tubbythin]

As for the idea of a "quantum of Rontgen", the Rontgen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rontgen) is a unit of measurement. The phrase makes no more sense than saying a "quantum of kilogram". It should be noted that the Rontgen is an outdated unit and is no longer generally used.


I'm pretty sure in Germany they use Roentgen radiation instead of X-rays. Presumably they do in Finland too. So by "quantum of Rontgen" I think they mean X-ray photon.
The whole article is still, however, a load of crap.

[Klimax]

I'm pretty sure in Germany they use Roentgen radiation instead of X-rays. Presumably they do in Finland too. So by "quantum of Rontgen" I think they mean X-ray photon.
The whole article is still, however, a load of crap.

I suspect so. Same thing in Czech Republic,so I think it same in the rest of Europe. When going for "X-raying" we say "roentgening".

Just small addition.

[Hindmost]

Great job Cuddles..

One minor nit:

As if that weren't all enough, the reactor core is enclosed in a reactor vessel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor_vessel) which will stop any un-absorbed neutrons. As noted in that article, only one kind of reactor actually has any significant radiation at the vessel.

I'm sure you know this, but the reactor vessel doesn't stop all the neutrons that exit the fuel. Some neutrons escape the vessel and we use neutron detectors outside the reactor vessel to measure reactor power--in PWRs. (BWRs typically use incore detectors)

To continue the thread:

Any neutrons that escape the reactor vessel will be absorbed in the primary shielding around the vessel.

The basemat under a nuclear plant is typically a minimum of 2 meters of steel reenforced concrete. Directly under the reactor there is about 8 to 10 meters. Radioactive material doesn't get through the basemat and into the soil...it is certainly doesn't get neutron saturated as the neutrons don't make it there.

It is not that difficult to measure neutrons...we use a variety of detectors that take advantage of how neutrons interact with matter. Some detectors use U235---the neutron fissions the uranium and the fission products are charged particles that are used to create a measureable current in a gas...the more fissions, the more current. A boron triflouride detector take advantage of boron's ability to absorb neutrons...when it does absorb a neutron it splits into lithium and helium--which are charged and will ionize gas. We measure the ionization pulses and infer the neutron count.

When we startup a plant, radiation surveys are done all around the plant to make sure everything is fine. There are also numerous radiation detectors in the plant that monitor processes and areas to ensure radioactive material is not released in excessive quantities.


glenn

[CaveDave]

<SNIP>

As for the idea of a "quantum of Rontgen", the Rontgen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rontgen) is a unit of measurement. The phrase makes no more sense than saying a "quantum of kilogram". It should be noted that the Rontgen is an outdated unit and is no longer generally used.



Just a historical nitpick:

ISTR seeing in some of my father's old books (he was a Dermatologist and treated skin cancers and certain other lesions with X-rays with a centimeter or so of depth range or Grenz rays [SUPER soft X rays] with a couple millimeter penetration in skin) the use of Roentgen as a unit and also mention of "Roentgen Rays" to mean any electromagnetic emissions above the Ultraviolet but below hard Gamma in energy range.

We may just have a situation of archaic terminology and/or language variation working here.

Carry on, nothing to see here.:)

Cheers,

Dave

[CaveDave]

I'm pretty sure in Germany they use Roentgen radiation instead of X-rays. Presumably they do in Finland too. So by "quantum of Rontgen" I think they mean X-ray photon.
The whole article is still, however, a load of crap.

Damn...

Caught again in the posting-before-reading-all-the-other-posts trap.:o

Carry on,

Dave