San Francisco, 12:15 PM
Tue Dec 1
28 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz |
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders |
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner |
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis |
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan |
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier |
Ed Grabianowski |
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan |
Lauren Davis |
Chris Hsiang |
Lynn Peril |
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins |
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox |
Interns:
Tim Barribeau |
Julia Carusillo |
Alex Eichler |
Cyriaque Lamar |
Caitlin Petrakovitz |
Mary Ratliff |
Josh Snyder |
Used to be you could order a tiny piece of uranium ore from a scientific supply house via Amazon.com. I have it setting on the bookshelf in my office at home, along with a tiny sample of Aerogel.
I once startled some government officials on a train we were traveling on through the PRC that I had some tritium. It was in my wristwatch dial. Not the smartest thing I've ever said under the circumstances.
Pierre Curie did not die of radiation poisoning. He might have been on his way to that eventually, but he was run over by a horse cart. Sucks to be him...
@Fall-Apart: Hm. No mention of that in the book, and I was writing this up without the benefit of any other sources. I'll work in a correction somewhere.
Yeah, this book has the heady scent of Agenda wafting from it. Zoellner seems irresponsible to avoid the very real negative aspects of nuclear power. Scads of cheap clean energy is great but the Waste problem and the occasional meltdown still disturbs me.
Can you suggest any books with a more objective take on the subject?
@Grey_Area: Sadly, no, I'm not well versed in the subject.
One point that a friend of mine noted is that the book is simply about Uranium, not about nuclear technology, which might account for some of this lack of viewpoints, but the two are so inseparable, it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other.
@Grey_Area: Meltdowns are a design problem, not endemic to nuclear power. New reactor designs prevent meltdowns by making it physically impossible to bring together a sufficient critical mass.
The waste problem isn't trivial, but it's blown somewhat out of proportion. The biggest problems with nuclear power continue to be the cost of mining the fuel - and the fact that there's relatively little uranium in the United States, making us dependent on foreign trade for power.
So we have to replace these older plants, much money but quite the wise investment.
The waste: big ol' case of NIMBY right?
Launch it out of the gravity well? Yeah, right. Very expensive and one botched launch would be a big PR problem to say the least. Is there any way to recycle it besides as ordnance?
The reliance to different foreign sources, hmmm, this sounds depressingly familiar.
Who are we talking about? A quick search tells me Canada and Australia have the most, okay cool, they are pretty level-headed cats. After that is Kazakhstan, Russia, Namibia, and Niger- could be tricky but not as annoying as dealing with the Middle East or Venezuala.
@alphanumeric1971: That does sound safer and more efficient than the Light Water Reactors. Pebble Bed Reactors produce more waste but in a less hazardous form. I guess they are crazy expensive to build but could be very useful. Maybe opposition to them will weaken as young people who want a change in energy policies mature.
Hipsters might support Pebble Bed Reactors, they love PBR, right?
Thanks for the nice review, Andrew. But because I am a horrible pedant, I would quibble with your characterization of Three Mile Island as one "of the worst disasters in the civilian world." I assume you meant "worst nuclear disasters," but even with that caveat, TMI was not a very big deal. Very little radiation (in a form hazardous to humans) was released: only 13 to 17 curies of iodine-131. People who lived within a mile of the reactor received radiation doses less than from an X-ray. I'm not trying to downplay the danger of radiation or the seriousness of accidents at nuclear power plants, but there were no fatalities and evidence of even long-term health problems for exposed people is contested.
Also, nuclear power shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum. Nuclear power produces radioactive waste, but so do coal burning plants, and coal power stations are unregulated w.r.t. radiation. They can just dump radioactive ash (that would be classified as high-level radioactive waste if produced by a nuke plant) into a landfill.
@riotnrrd: Very good point - Worst Nuclear disaster would be more appropriate.
It's all relative - you can argue that it's the worse accident in the US, and it's had quite an impact on the use of the technology in the US.
I'm right there with you - I think that nuclear power is an incredibly helpful thing, just so long as you have competent people at the controls. An engineering friend told me that one of the problems was that there was a button that told the coolant valves to open, except that the light that was supposed to alert you that the valves were open only let you know that you threw the switch.
@tk.: fascinating stuff. one thing i liked about McCain was his acknowledgement of nuclear power as a necessity to our power grid. it took guts to suggest building new plants in this supersensitive environmental age. if we could recycle all our materials, that'd be incredible. we'd have virtually no need for coal anymore. and those solar and wind generators? they cannot get the job done with as much efficiency or power as nuclear.
disclosure: i once worked in a nuclear radiation lab and still have a strange fondness for the subject.
@alphanumeric1971: Zoellner talks about that style of reactor, and notes that it is far more advanced, and, if memory serves, that there were plans for a couple in the US, but they were scrapped because some butterflies would be offended... or something.
I'm not entirely sure, because almost nothing about the anti-nuclear movement is talked about.
04/29/09
I once startled some government officials on a train we were traveling on through the PRC that I had some tritium. It was in my wristwatch dial. Not the smartest thing I've ever said under the circumstances.
04/29/09
Tritium, eh? Do you, by any chance, wear goggles and sport mechanical arms attached directly to your cerebellum through an inhibitor chip? :)
04/29/09
04/29/09
Yes, the one and only.
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
The Europeans have experimented with vitrification, running current through the waste until it becomes glass. No leaking! Mr. Atom IS our friend!
04/29/09
04/29/09
Can you suggest any books with a more objective take on the subject?
04/29/09
One point that a friend of mine noted is that the book is simply about Uranium, not about nuclear technology, which might account for some of this lack of viewpoints, but the two are so inseparable, it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other.
04/29/09
The waste problem isn't trivial, but it's blown somewhat out of proportion. The biggest problems with nuclear power continue to be the cost of mining the fuel - and the fact that there's relatively little uranium in the United States, making us dependent on foreign trade for power.
04/29/09
So we have to replace these older plants, much money but quite the wise investment.
The waste: big ol' case of NIMBY right?
Launch it out of the gravity well? Yeah, right. Very expensive and one botched launch would be a big PR problem to say the least. Is there any way to recycle it besides as ordnance?
The reliance to different foreign sources, hmmm, this sounds depressingly familiar.
Who are we talking about? A quick search tells me Canada and Australia have the most, okay cool, they are pretty level-headed cats. After that is Kazakhstan, Russia, Namibia, and Niger- could be tricky but not as annoying as dealing with the Middle East or Venezuala.
Food for thought, thanks again.
04/29/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
04/29/09
Hipsters might support Pebble Bed Reactors, they love PBR, right?
04/29/09
Also, nuclear power shouldn't be evaluated in a vacuum. Nuclear power produces radioactive waste, but so do coal burning plants, and coal power stations are unregulated w.r.t. radiation. They can just dump radioactive ash (that would be classified as high-level radioactive waste if produced by a nuke plant) into a landfill.
04/29/09
04/29/09
It's all relative - you can argue that it's the worse accident in the US, and it's had quite an impact on the use of the technology in the US.
I'm right there with you - I think that nuclear power is an incredibly helpful thing, just so long as you have competent people at the controls. An engineering friend told me that one of the problems was that there was a button that told the coolant valves to open, except that the light that was supposed to alert you that the valves were open only let you know that you threw the switch.
04/30/09
disclosure: i once worked in a nuclear radiation lab and still have a strange fondness for the subject.
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
...I'll get my coat.
04/29/09
It could replace coal burning powerplants overnight.
[en.wikipedia.org]
04/29/09
I'm not entirely sure, because almost nothing about the anti-nuclear movement is talked about.
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
04/29/09
"Today, gave Marie Curie cancer. Kinda felt bad about that."
04/29/09
Nah, that's enough snark for today.
"Made a scientist's balls fall off. Asshole kept prodding me and trying to dismantle my very core being."