archive-ca.com » CA » N » NUCENG.CA

Total: 276

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • AuthoritarianFollowers
    fringe groups to question and delay implementation without being held accountable etc I feel we as a Canadian society are paying a big price Due process yes by all means But I firmly believe that one should not have rights without responsibilities And one cannot correctly assign a responsibility to someone to do a task without giving that person the authority and the means to carry out that task It seems to me that industry has the responsibilities but insufficient means while those opposed to nuclear have the right but are not held responsible The governments have the right the responsibility and if the public deems it so the means Again it comes back to the public Any activity involves some risk Nuclear is no exception We have calculated the risk to be small and it has proven to be so A lot of the reason why nuclear costs have been high can be traced back to the public perception of risk associated with small amounts of radiation Many people are terrified of what is a very small if not zero risk Consequently at every turn implementation of nuclear is impeded to the point that we get mired down It is very sad really because the replacement power has to come from coal oil and gas The increase in pollution from fossil fuels kills thousands each year mainly those with respiratory problems if you can trust the medical stats Maybe those people would have died anyway but you can explain that to their loved ones not me And the added cost of getting mired down in implementing nuclear because of irresponsible intervener actions and having to pursue alternate means ie the added cost of inefficiently and half heartily following a path has the direct effect of having less resources to spend on other things like improved health care Either we are in the game or not Half measures are a dangerous literally waste of time and money Lobbying can work to a degree but if the public is not behind nuclear then it just won t happen So public outreach is the key issue I am not in favour of sales pitches and sales tactics What we nuclear folks need to do is engage in conversations to help people think about the issues correctly If the public in the end chooses to reject nuclear then so be it If they are properly informed and have correctly weighed the pros and cons then that is the right decision to make as a society My wife was a social worker dealing with pregnant teenagers She wisely insisted on the girl taking responsibility for the decision to abort keep or give up for adoption My wife made sure the girl had all the facts for each option and supported her in her choice irrespective of her choice The public deserves no less The onus is now on us all to pull together through outreach activities to engage the public as they make decisions

    Original URL path: http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/outreach/context.htm (2014-10-09)
    Open archived version from archive


  • AuthoritarianFollowers
    some degree then saving ALL future generations from hypothetical deaths dominate over the much lower numbers at risk today We d end up spending all our resources in prevention of distant future hypothetical deaths rather than focusing on immediate needs For similar reasons we care more about those closer to us physically and emotionally Presumably people close to you are more valuable that distant people you don t know So there is a space discount rate too Uncomfortable with making a risk calculation that requires putting a value on human life We do it all the time because we must Should I buy a Prius to step lightly on the earth thus helping to save the planet for future generations or should I drive a more substantial vehicle to lower the risk to my family We can t be absolutely sure about future political follies so we can t be sure that what we create today will not be misused in the future All we can do is weigh the odds and safeguard as best we can But are you sure that picking a nuclear free path will lower the projected number of deaths See The Risk of Energy Production Solar wind and hydro are not benign Nor can they meet energy demands worldwide So no nukes means more fossil which means more deaths Nuclear waste can be safely and securely stored and would hardly be the preferred terrorist weapon given the ready availability of conventional weapons including biological weapons We also have a pretty good handle on real world death rates when nuclear goes terribly wrong The actual body count is actually pretty low compared to the wild estimates of the fear mongers TMI and Fukushima death totals Zero Chernobyl 31 Don t believe the wild Chernobyl estimates you

    Original URL path: http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/outreach/safeguards.htm (2014-10-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • AuthoritarianFollowers
    out because we believe that the facts plus rational thinking are the essence of making sound decisions The author points out that access to more information has been shown to usually create MORE uncertainty not less my take No one can be an expert in everything so as more and more aspects of an issue come out the individual feels less and less certain Invariably experts disagree and bringing in more and more experts just makes it worse But agreement or closure requires certainty The author says that culture creates certainty by creating taboos setting strong norms closing off debate etc This flies in the face of our devotion to the modern post industrial empowered free thinking individual our hero of the modern age We are stuck it seems in this contradiction of our firmly held belief in enlightened rational thinking as a key element in our belief system and the fact that we as a society need and create certainty by closing off free thinking my comment try challenging someone s cherished belief and you will quickly see what she is getting at The author concludes that all is not lost In fact she suggests that what we are doing is actually quite rational Our current cultural belief in rational thought is our way of bringing certainty to our society It is a powerful belief that we can use as a motivating belief to create certainty and agreement my take In short it is pretty much a universal belief in our society that if we sit down together and work on our differences honestly we can find a way forward That shared belief is solid common ground Yes the more we discuss the issues the more convoluted the discussions will get and the more the uncertainty will grow and the farther we will seem from agreement But we will sort it out in the end such is our faith in our belief in rational thought The alternative is to believe in the rule of force or some other form of having others make our decisions I ll leave it to another time to ponder just how delusional we are or not This paper helped me understand a bit better the culture we live in and the audience we wish to educate I highly recommend it Related to this is an interesting paper Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus by Kahan Jenkins Smith and Braman The study looked at belief responses to info on climate change nuclear waste disposal and handguns Nuclear it seems is not unique in this regard The paper is about the cultural cognition of risk which is the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values The discussion is cast in the framework of Bayesian reasoning you know the updating of prior probabilities by the ratios of new evidence The authors point out that the issue is that the values people use in their mental updating are very subjective And what values

    Original URL path: http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/outreach/humannature.htm (2014-10-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  • Risk
    3 6Mb of the ExternE coal publication I found this buried on page 103 There are now numerous studies which associate particulate air pollution with a wide range of acute health effects These associations have been found at normal background levels in a wide range of locations In the present study we have assumed that there is no threshold level of pollution for these effects Note they assumed LNT Reading though the pages there seems to be no end to hedged statements and provisos For instance a flat background death rate is assumed across the board independent of region They reference Schwartz and others who found increased mortality for people with lung ailments when pollution went up which is not surprising One review paper by Pope and Dockery 2006 Archive 2 3Mb states that acute a few days or so effects are insignificant contradicting the quote above which states that acute effects were seen ie brief exposure to particulate matter has little negative effect But chronic long term effects were noticed for people living next to busy streets and roadways I can t help thinking though that income levels have a marked effect on where you live and on lifestyle in general so data about people living next to a busy street is problematic for a number of reasons not related to pollution The authors also admit to the usual problems associated with statistically extracting low level effects against a background of compounding effects of deaths from all other sources It is not hard to imagine some negative effects due to pollution but extrapolating the delta in the progression of disease is error prone to say the least Assuming a rate of 30 deaths per TWhr means that a 1 GW coal fired station leads to more than 250 excess

    Original URL path: http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/risk/coal.htm (2014-10-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Temperature Trends
    the temperature rise in this period But this is a superficial conclusion To make such a claim one would need to show that other effects have been counted for and that this correlation is truely a cause and effect relationship As a colleague once said One s view can get badly distorted if there is nothing to provide scale and perspective Let s step back to a larger time scale You can see that our local warming trend seems to fit a pattern that is not driven by CO2 level And we are still cooler than some of the past good times for civilization Let s step back even further to the beginning of civilization and further still to 100 000 years and further still to see the 100 000 year cycles and finally back to early earth note time scale is reversed So tell me again about man made global warming To learn more about this check out this interesting new book Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1 500 Years by S Fred Singer and Dennis T Avery Rowman Littlefield Publishers Inc Also check out www cgfi org 2006 12 a warm and fuzzy feeling from the institute of one

    Original URL path: http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/temptrends/temptrends.htm (2014-10-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Slide 1

    (No additional info available in detailed archive for this subpage)
    Original URL path: /refer/nuced/HowWhyCANDU_files/frame.htm (2014-10-09)


  • Radiation
    in the future here is the pdf version 941 kb of the chart Radiation info introductory level by Jeremy Whitlock with permission pdf 296kb H J Moe Operational Health Physics Training Covers Reactor Operations Particle Accelerators and X Ray Devices as well as the basics It s a Must Read apparently Resolving the controversy over beneficial effects of ionizing radiation overheads pdf 44 kb and text pdf 33 kb by

    Original URL path: http://www.nuceng.ca/refer/radiation.htm (2014-10-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • IGCAR

    (No additional info available in detailed archive for this subpage)
    Original URL path: /igna/index.htm (2014-10-09)