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".
  • Radiation
    Session has we are hopeful opened the door to a change in our attitudes with the foundation of scientific evidence about radiation It is dedicated to the residents surrounding the Fukushima site who are still unable to return to their homes due to the overreaction toward low level radiation As posted on radsafe bounces agni phys iit edu Wednesday March 23 2011 7 32 PM by Bobby R Scott Senior Scientist Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute Albuquerque NM USA He writes Calculations Feinendegen L Health Physics 100 3 274 276 2011 indicate that for each second it takes you to read these comments your body is receiving more than 1 000 000 not a typo radiation energy deposition events here called radiation hits from natural radiation sources Many advocates the linear no threshold LNT hypothesis think that just one extra beta radiation hit from an iodine 131 atom that was previously released among other atoms from the damaged Fukushima nuclear power facility in Japan could cause you to develop cancer Please note that if the greater than 1 000 000 natural radiation hits to your body during the last second did not harm you which is very likely the case you have no reason to be concerned about one extra radiation hit from a stray iodine 131 atom before your next greater than 1 000 000 hits from natural radiation occur during the next second Multiply 1 million radiation hits by 60 sec min x 60 min hour x 24 hours day and it can be seen that each day we are likely receiving more than 86 billion harmless radiation hits to our bodies from natural radiation This has happened over millions of generations of mammals humans included here since first originating on the planet thanks largely to a hierarchy of efficient natural defenses that have evolved antioxidant defenses selective apoptosis of aberrant cells anticancer immunity Feinendegen 2011 as cited above Scott BR Health Physics 100 3 337 339 2011 In fact a small amount of extra radiation can amplify our natural defenses Scott 2011 The cited references are extended abstract that relate to a special issue of the Health Physics Journal that contains the Proceedings of the Conference on Biological Consequences and Health Risks of Low Level Exposure to Ionizing Radiation In Honor of Victor P Bond Health Physics 100 3 2011 It is well established that large amounts of radiation can cause harm However the harm after high doses at least in part relates to suppression of the body s natural defenses Thus biological responses after high and low radiation doses are not the same which invalidates high to low dose extrapolation of cancer risk based on the LNT hypothesis The frequency assertion by so called experts that there is no safe dose of radiation related to the Fukushima power plant in Japan should therefore be challenged by those reporting the news Interestingly those making the implicated LNT related proclamation often reference the descriptive risk models based BEIR VII report but appear to be unaware of the related biological mechanisms based French Academies Report that challenged the finding of the BEIR VII Report related to the claimed validity of the LNT hypothesis for radiation doses less than 100 mSv I realize that there is a discrepency between Bobby Scott s numbers 1 000 000 hits per sec and mine 89 000 hits per sec Perhaps the average energy of background radiation is more like 50 kev rather than my assumed 500 kev but from the spectrum shown here I think 500 kev is the better figure The peak is at about 100 kev and the tail is long note the semi log scale Dr Bernard Cohen see link below did a similar calculation using 600 kev but with a background radiation level of 0 8 mSv per year compared to my assumption of 3 mSv per yr He arrived at 15 000 hits per second I figure 500 kev and 3 mSv per year are good enough figures for a ball park number to illustrate The main point is that the number of hits per second is large enough to say with confidence that we are awash in radiation even at the lower more conservative value Nuclear Radiation and Health Effects a good summary by the World Nuclear Association WNA Lots of great info there A Layman s Introduction to Radiation by a Senior Reactor Operator at the Reed Research Reactor Nicely done local archive pdf 142kb 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 Dr Jerry M Cuttler PEng Atomic Energy of Canada Limited presented at the conference on the Effects of Low and Very Low Doses of Ionizing Radiation on Health World Council of Nuclear Workers WONUC Versailles France 1999 June 16 18 The LNT Hypothesis Ethical Travesties pdf 168kb an article by Margaret N Maxey Ph D Professor Biomedical Engineering College of Engineering The University of Texas at Austin Wingspread Conference Racine WI August 1997 Slowly but inexorably radiation scientists are recognizing that the LNT hypothesis at one time administratively useful in regulating radiation exposures during the infancy of radiation science has in its maturity become scientifically illegitimate and ethically indefensible It s Time to Tell the Truth About the Health Benefits of Low Dose Radiation by James Muckerheide 21st Century Science Technology Magazine local archive pdf 245kb Ionizing Radiation in the 20th Century by Zbigniew Jaworowski pdf 1161kb Dr Bernard Cohen University of Pittsburgh an authoritative source on nuclear energy Links to a number of papers his famous book data etc particularly those disproving the LNT Linear No Threshold hypothesis The 3 R s Radiation Risk and Reason pdf 1 9Mb found at ThreeMileIsland org is

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


  • Costs
    s and early 80 s when all this was happening our plant operating records were on top of the world mostly because we did not experience nearly as many steam generator failures are other plants world wide thanks to good design and more important good maintenance The debt was one of the major reasons for the OH admin suffering under the political winds decreed a maintenance cutback and staff reductions By the mid 80 s OH stopped hiring summer students and they used to hire a lot of them So naturally students turned elsewhere for career opportunities All the other companies combined were small potatoes compared to OH We as the nuclear enterprise have not recovered from that chain of events It appears to me that there was a political decision made on high to privatize OH and that was that The Bay Street boys had their finger in the pie I suspect To sell the idea to the public OH had to look bad So capitalize on the maintenance issues by bringing in the US cowboys for a quick fix at the expense of the long term Things were so bad they HAD to shut down 7 plants at once Ya right Would it not have been more sane to fix them one at a time thereby not causing so much coal fired pollution that there were 1000 extra deaths a year attributable to respiratory disease in the youth and elderly I believe that was the number I heard from the medical people And we would have built a crack team of maintainers who could move on to the next station We had problems within the industry to be sure But I fail to see how the path we took addressed those problems I suspect that we could have done much better by fessing up to the public how all this happened and just got on with the job of slowly paying down the debt and systematically getting our stations in order As you can probably tell I fail to see how privatization where the stakeholders are the shareholders will be of more benefit in the long run to the public than the public run system where the stakeholders are the public Sure there are inefficiencies with the public run system So No system is perfect We as a society need to deal with it But if we are well and truly on the road to privatization then let s do it well In the end it probably doesn t matter what system we put in place as much as how well we implement the system that we have put in place Tell me how a private system is to work with a rate cap and with no way for the home owner to get credit for using electricity during off peak times The marketplace only works if I have choice of whether I want to buy an article or not and if I have a choice of when

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

  • Chernobyl
    the accident there in 1986 A talk on Chernobyl by Jeremy Whitlock AECL given in 1995 posted with permission pdf 692 kb UN site on the Chernobyl disaster UNSCEAR Focuses on Chernobyl Accident in General Assembly Report The Truth about

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



  • Japan
    interesting summary by US BWR Plant Operators ppt 1 4Mb posted March 16 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Accident and Initial Safety Measures Worldwide from the NISA site The 2011 off the Pacific coast of Tohoku Pacific Earthquake and the seismic damage to the NPPs 4th April 2011 pdf 3 8Mb a comprehensive 76 page presentation On the Implementation of Emergency Safety Measures at Other Power Plants drawn from the 2011 Accident

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

  • Blackout
    Electrical Blackout of August 2003 A collection of information on the electrical blackout of August 2003 Dark Days at Pickering by student Tracy Lui McMaster University pdf 2 5 Mb

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

  • Nuclear Facts
    Ottawa Citizen newspaper report AECL claims to have been operating in compliance The CNSC claims to be merely enforcing the regulations as required by its mandate The government appears to have acted in the best interest of the public Crisis averted for now But oh the politics This raises serious and far reaching questions such as Why did the world let itself get into this vulnerable situation Who decides the regulations Surely not the regulator the police do not set the law Surely not the operator Who resolves disputes Who polices the police The government stepped in and removed the CNSC President from her government appointed position so their action was legal But should any body have the power to influence and affect the regulator If medical isotopes are vital why were there no contingency plans in place Whose responsibility was it to provides such plans Who provides the societal balance between genuine needs and safety How is the balance of the few in this case those who need medical isotopes and the many those who shoulder the risk Just how big was the actual risk anyway compared to the benefits What role does the international community have to play in national affairs The 2009 crisis NRU springs a leak On May 14 2009 the National Research Universal NRU reactor shut down automatically due to a power outage and a leak of heavy water was subsequently discovered The reactor is on extended shutdown until the problem can be fixed AECL s Returning NRU to service web site On May 14 2009 the National Research Universal NRU reactor at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited s AECL Chalk River Laboratories was safely shut down due to a loss of electrical power that occurred in parts of eastern Ontario and western Quebec During routine monitoring in the early morning hours of May 15 a small leak of heavy water was detected within the NRU reactor facility An initial investigation confirmed the location of the heavy water leak at the base of the reactor vessel As a result NRU will remain out of service until repairs are complete Return to service is projected to be the end of July 2010 as of May 26 2010 CNSC NRU web site focusing on status reports and announcements How big is the problem really Isotope shortage means fewer tests and higher costs Report by Joanna Smith The Toronto Star June 16 2010 pdf 34kb Rescheduling procedures and using thalium 201 helped mitigate the effects of the shortage but costs and up and staff morale is down After NRU what then The government quickly forms and enacts a process to deal with the isotope situation Natural Resources Canada web site focused on the Expert Panel Review of November 2009 Backgrounder on Government actions Report of the Expert Review Panel on Medical Isotope Production Presented to the Minister of Natural Resources Canada 30 November 2009 pdf 1 3Mb The panel recommended among other things that a replacement for the

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

  • Climate Change
    up in coal usage at 10 per year We had better address those issues first The Koyoto frency while well meaning is misdirected Like radiation emissions need to be put into context so that considered judgments can be made and meaningful actions can be taken For instance our chronic carbon based emissions should be placed on a chart next to natural emissions including volcanic eruptions biota decay and human made accidental ones Hemel Hempstead oil depot fires in England in December 2005 for instance We need to balance the footprint of our industrial progress against the likely footprint that will occur if developing countries are NOT assisted in moving quickly to a state where they are no longer denuding the planet Farming for instance is by no means a benign activity And so on My concern is the opportunity cost of the misdirected attention There is a direct cost in time effort and resources but there is a deeper indirect cost of an increased mistrust of the scientific world when the penny finally drops that the scientific community sold its integrity to the political process Climate Change Water we worried about pdf 221kb by David Brian Barber dbinid at msn com No Models No Predictions Just a simple collection of data facts and the one thermodynamic implication that should be understood by all Dave Barber has degrees in Physics Radioecology and Chemical Engineering is wholly devoted to advancing nuclear energy and as of December 2005 is a staff member at the Idaho National Laboratory Think global warming is a sure thing Don t be so sure Supplementary information It is instructive to superimpose the solar energy spectrum on the graph on page 4 in the pdf file above About 50 of solar energy is in the visible range and there is little absorption by water in that range I guess we evolved sight in that range for that reason The bulk of the remaining 50 is in the infared and about 1 in the UV This reinforces the notion that water vapour is the biggest single player even if you can t see it It is an interesting aside that we animals are well equipped to detect 99 of the solar emissions we can see half and feel the heat of the other half Since we need energy to survive that is not surprising I suppose So tell me again how human activity and not something else is causing global warming If that were true how come we see these temperature trends over the ages Think you can believe the dire predictions on climate change Here s what the IPCC has to say about it In climate research and modeling we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non linear chaotic system and therefore that the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible IPCC Chapter 14 14 2 2 2 Working Group 1 The Scientific Basis The infamous Hockey Stick click on the image to

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

  • Generic Sub-page
    Mark Mills the things we know are mostly myths They explain why demand will never go down why most of what we think of as energy waste actually benefits us why more efficient cars engines and bulbs will never lower demand and why energy supply is infinite In the automotive sector gas prices matter less and less and hybrid engines will most likely lead us to cars propelled by the

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