On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 11:08:38PM -0400, Apptech wrote:

[Snip]

> >> There are no cancers in the residential areas of Sellafield /
> >> Windscale caused by the nuclear facilities there.  It's true!  It's
> >> been statistically proven!  Utterly rigorous scientific investigations
> >> have shown that the cancer clusters in Sellafield are/were unrelated
> >> in any way to the adjacent nuclear facilities.

> > That's not what the Wikipedia entry for Sellafield says.  The COMARE
> > report http://www.comare.org.uk/press_releases/comare_pr10.htm
> > Indicates that while no significance at commercial nuclear power plants
> > in England, that places like Sellafield did have an increased
> > incidence.

> That is my point.
> PEOPLE claimed it was happening.
> COMARE investigated and agreed.
> BUT scientific investigations subsequently found that there
> was no evidence that radiological issues were to blame. ie
> the clusters "just happened" in that area, but it had
> nothing to do with the radiation.

What are these subsequent investigations?

> It would probably help their case long term if the
> proponents of nuclear power erred on the side of
> acknowledging that they may be due some of the doubt of the
> benefit in uncertain cases. Claiming squeaky cleanness in
> all events tend sto get non productive long term.

I agree. When Sellafield is dumping nuclear waste into the Irish Sea, you'd
best believe that there are going to be harmful effects on the environment.

> > Again Sellafield was used as a weapons grade plutonium
> > reprocessing plant
> > and that nuclear waste were dumped into the Irish sea and
> > gaseous releases
> > into the air.
> 
> Yes. But you get weapons grade plutonium from "residential
> grade" power plants. ie while this was not a direct reactor
> problem  it was utterly linked to reactors existing.

But it's only a small byproduct in residential grade power plants. You need
a breeder reactor to get significant amounts of plutonium. This article:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_security/Nuclear-Reprocessing-Factsheet.pdf

indicates that residential plutonium constitutes about 1% of a spent
reactor core.

According to the Plutonium Watch:

http://www.isis-online.org/global_stocks/plutonium_watch2004.html

"Civil plutonium is in two basic forms--contained in spent (irradiated)
fuel, or in separated (unirradiated) form. Unirradiated plutonium may be in
pure form, in the process of being fabricated into mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel,
or in fresh MOX fuel. Once it has been irradiated, however, the plutonium
in MOX fuel, like the plutonium produced when uranium fuel is irradiated,
is contained in spent fuel. The plutonium in spent fuel is considered more
proliferation resistant because it is difficult to separate the plutonium
from the other radioactive constituents of spent fuel."

BAJ

[snipped the rest]
-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist