I don't have the time or patience to address all of it, but skimming through it, this stands out:
>...it is generally agreed that, prior to 1945, the human body had evolved to correct mutations from natural radiation exposure over time. Anthropogenic radioactive materials however, which have been produced by nuclear bombs or power plants cannot be balanced so easily, whether internally or externally exposed to the human body.
"Balanced"? What does that even mean? Anyhow, moving on to the more important issue raised by this claim:
Anthropogenic sources of radiation are not special. Their effect on the human body is no different than naturally-occurring sources of radiation. A sievert is a sievert is a sievert. It doesn't matter which radionuclide emitted it. Measure the dose and you'll have measured the harm.
Natural sources of radiation are of little concern because the dose is (almost always) low (there is a great example of the rare case of this not being true in this book). Equally low anthropogenic doses, such as from a medically recommend x-ray or Fukushima-derived cesium mixed into in the Pacific Ocean, should be regarded with the same amount of indifference because their impact to public health is infinitesimally negligible.
Ooo eee! /u/jamessnow! Language! Anyway, here are the definitions of the word "myth" from the Oxford dictionary. We're using the first definition:
>A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
Definition 2.1 is also fairly relevant:
> A misrepresentation of the truth
In both of these definitions, there is no implication that the statements are untrue. In the second they are misrepresented, but in the first there is no falsehood necessary.
I bet you're not the only one who doesn't know these other definitions. Maybe you wouldn't be so angry if they weren't called myths. I'm leaning towards changing it to that just so it's not so abrasive. The content is more important than the particular delivery.
From my experience everything to do with post trip cooling is surrounded in allot of concrete. With the outside steel clad of the building earthed to rather allot of earth parks. And all the instrumentation is contained within steel housing. With seperation of earth's and special earthing arrangements to prevent interference.
Check out modern the books Modern Power Station Practice for a guild on how to build a power station. All contained in there.
That's why, although I applaud the decision, I'm cautious in my optimism. Nuclear should never be rushed, especially in places that already have a tendency for rushing.
And because in our industry we are so hostage of each other, the last thing we need is another Fukushima.
You are preaching to the choir here. I wish people were a bit more logical and data grounded on this topic.
So I don’t if you have read this but it’s absolutely great:
It’s a fascinating analysis of virtually every nuclear incident. One of the most interesting observations is the extent to which most likely problems can be designed around but the variable tends to be human involvement. So many incidents were avoidable except operators tried to out think systems.
A bit like the observation of Casey Sullenberger and the miracle on the Hudson. What he did better than most pilots was trust his plane to do what it was designed to do.
Book is great and very pro-nuclear but absolutely recognizes the issues involved
I saw that, I'm looking to see if I can find a bigger piece of it.
"The Dark Horse: Nuclear Power and Climate Change" by Finnish authors Janne M. Korhonen and Rauli Partanen is an excellent read. Also the more compact pamphlet "Climate Gamble" by the same authors covers this topic quite well.
I recommend Michael Shellenberger's book Apocalypse Never for environmentalist's view on climate change (it involves reducing the alarmism and focusing on nuclear)
> while a nice option, are in a crowd of similarly nice options that are all worthy upgrades from current-gen nuclear nevermind fossil fuels.
I am not so sure I would call a sodium fast breeder an upgrade, for any other reason than it's ability to breed Pu239 for use in weapons.
Sodium coolant is highly reactive in air and moisture, and history shows many nuclear accidents forcing the reactors to be shut down,
https://www.amazon.com/SuperFuel-Thorium-Energy-Source-Future/dp/113727834X
Starting on Page 68
A 2010 report from the International Panel on Fissile Materials noted that more than $50 billion had been spent worldwide on fast breeder R&D, including more than $10 billion each by Japan, Russia, and the United States. “None of these efforts has produced a reactor that is anywhere near economically competitive with light-water reactors,” the report concluded.
“After six decades and the expenditure of the equivalent of tens of billions of dollars, the promise of breeder reactors remains largely unfulfilled
This book is broadly about the engineering of steam production units and goes into some great specifics in regards to nuclear plants. What are some types of questions?