Technical accuracy of the Chernobyl miniseries.

[Berni]

It's also that radioactivity decays exponentially, not linearly as people tend to assume, so it halves with a certain period (halflife). That means most of the radiation disappears in the beginning, but it never reaches zero. When it is considered safe depends on what radiation level you decide is safe which is pretty arbitrary. Mercury, lead and arsenic are dangerous for an eternity, yet we can del with those elements without much problem.

Well our solution for hazardous materials like arsenic and mercury is the same as for nuclear waste. Just fill a barrel with it and put it somewhere safe.

We can easily take care of things like chemical weapons because they are compounds of elements. And most of these compounds fall apart into something different once heated up hot enough. Most of these elements tend to be harmless as they are things like oxygen or nitrogen or carbon, while others like phosphorus or fluorine are so reactive that they will quickly grab something and turn into a more harmless compound where they are stuck and unable to react with anything else.

For things like mercury you can't decompose it as its already an element, its not very reactive so it won't quickly bind to other safe elements, and when you do react it with other things it usually forms harmful compounds (Many of them way more dangerous than mercury itself, especially if they are water soluble), and even then these mercury compounds are usually not stubernly stable so even if a safe mercury compound is made and dumped in the environment there is a good chance something is able to break it up and release the mercury.

Yes radioactive waste takes a long time to burn itself out because of the logarithmic curve, but after a few hundred years its pretty low. There are also natural uranium, radon.. etc deposits underground that are pretty darn radioactive too. Sure the long lived isotopes might take milions of years to decay but they are no worse than natural uranium that we haven't dug up yet and is still down there. The problematic highly radioactive short lived isotopes burn out to reasonably safe levels much much faster. But that mercury is no safer after 1000 years of sitting in a barrel.

[nctnico]

The fact is that highly radioactive waste decays quickly (highly radioactive inherently means that it will decay quick!) and after only 100 years the radioactivity levels are way more manageable.

What are you talking about nctico? 

Radioactivity level, from nuclear power plant waste, remain dangerous for thousand and ten of thousands of years. You are off by of factor or 100!

Source? There are a few common mistakes people make about safe radiaton levels and containment/shielding requirements. As others already pointed out the radiation level decreases exponentially. So after a relative short time (100 years) most of the radio activity is gone and the material is much safer & easier to store and handle.

[Buriedcode]

I do like these threads.  There is still a lot of vague hand waving regarding "nuclear radiation" and the dangers/health effects, both by the public and qualified scientists.  There is still quite some debate over what one considers "safe limits", with some calling them too low, and that feeds into the public's fear.   It's a bit like EM radiation, certain drugs and even vaccines, but with those there is an overwhelming consensus, with a minority still paranoid about the dangers - nuclear radiation is far more split - you can find a highly qualified doctor to claim that there are no safe levels, and you can find an equally qualified person to claim that current safe limits are far too low.

What makes matters worse is, it can be quite hard to get hard numbers on these things, because ionizing radiation and its damage relies on so many other factors: the radioactive elements, radiation type, method of exposure, be it ingestion through water, inhalation of particles, food sources, and absorption is dependent on chemistry!.  Sure we can measure radioactive sources fairly accurately, but only with standards like distances, exposure times and standardized shielding (clothing).  All this adds up to a pretty large ambiguity, so whilst some err on the side of caution (almost to the point of blind fear) and claim "no level is safe" the reality is almost always "it depends".

And with things like death toll, that includes those who died from non-radiation effects - toxic substances released from construction materials that cause chemical damage rather than ionizing damage. 
I vaguely remember a documentary on the disaster back in the 90's where several "scientists" (we just have to take the documentary's word on that) claimed that the death toll was tens of thousands, but investigation put it at less than 300, with a possibility of it increasing to 2000 - that is one hell of an error margin.  It focused on cancer rates in the following decades and pointed out the survival rate for thyroid cancer was 98%, where-as the guesstimates assumed that thyroid cancer was 100% fatal - as it projected the total death-toll based on the current rate of diagnosis.

I guess the arguments will always go from one side that believes we can turn the planet into a radioactive wasteland (there just ain't enough fissile material for that) to the other extreme that nuclear is far safer than any other source.  I guess its clear I'm for nuclear power, as the apparent immediate dangers of it are less than the dangers of fossil fuels, nothing is completely safe, everything is a risk/benefit analysis.  The fact that Chernobyl exclusion zone is now full of thriving wildlife is at least an obvious sign such a disaster didn't cause the kind of barren wasteland the 50's comics wanted you to believe.

[vad]

We could have a Chernobyl scale accident every year and coal would still be worse.

Well the same IAEA report that you quoted estimates economic impact of Chernobyl disaster as “hundreds of billions of dollars”. Not to mention 2,600 square km of land that will remain uninhabitable for thousands of years. So yeah, you can have Chernobyl-scale accident every year. May I only ask to have accidents somewhere else? Preferably in a galaxy far far away.

PS. Whether IAEA can be trusted in conducting unbiased investigations is another story. After all, if you ask industrial associations of coal miners and coal-fired power producers, they will have different view on detrimental of coal industry on people life expectancy. 

[SkyMaster]

The fact is that highly radioactive waste decays quickly (highly radioactive inherently means that it will decay quick!) and after only 100 years the radioactivity levels are way more manageable.

What are you talking about nctico? 

Radioactivity level, from nuclear power plant waste, remain dangerous for thousand and ten of thousands of years. You are off by of factor or 100!

Source? There are a few common mistakes people make about safe radiaton levels and containment/shielding requirements. As others already pointed out the radiation level decreases exponentially. So after a relative short time (100 years) most of the radio activity is gone and the material is much safer & easier to store and handle.

With all due respect, you have been misled; just like everybody else here who think that radioactive waste in no big deal and after 100 years it is safe.

100 years is about three generations; which is already a very long time. But the Truth is radioactive waste emits dangerous level of radiation for several thousands of years. It is so bad that nobody knows what to do with radioactive waste.

For almost 50 years, several countries were dumping their radioactive waste to the bottom of the oceans; which is now illegal. Today, every countries who operate nuclear power-plants accumulate the radioactive waste in temporary locations; because they don't know what to do with it.

Radioactive waste is one of nastiest stuff that Men created.

 

Oh you want a source...

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-wastes/radioactive-wastes-myths-and-realities.aspx

"Within a period of 1,000-10,000 years, the radioactivity of HLW [high-level waste] decays to that of the originally mined ore."

And this is coming from "World Nuclear Association". They are promoting nuclear energy and are therefore downplaying the negative side, yet they still come up with these ultra-long periods in several thousands of years.
 
 

[nctnico]

"Within a period of 1,000-10,000 years, the radioactivity of HLW [high-level waste] decays to that of the originally mined ore."

Again, without knowing what the radiation level of the originally mined ore is, you can't say anything about the danger. You are cherry picking meaningless numbers here.

Quote from this website: https://talknuclear.ca/2014/08/just-how-radioactive-is-uranium-ore/
Well, a handful of raw uranium ore actually has about as much radiation as 10 bananas – a “bunch” that is. But, how could that be? It’s simple really. Banana’s are radioactive because they contain trace amounts of the naturally occurring radioactive isotope potassium–40, just like uranium ore contains trace amounts of the naturally occurring radioactive isotopes uranium-238 and 235. Shocking isn’t it?

A quote from the site you linked to yourself:
Unlike other industrial toxic wastes, the principal hazard associated with HLW – radioactivity – diminishes with time. At present, interim storage facilities provide an appropriate environment to contain and manage existing waste, and the decay of heat and radioactivity over time provides a strong incentive to store HLW for a period before its final disposal. In fact, after 40 years, the radioactivity of used fuel has decreased to about one-thousandth of the level at the point when it was unloaded.

[Buriedcode]

With all due respect, you have been misled; just like everybody else here who think that radioactive waste in no big deal and after 100 years it is safe.

I don't see anyone claiming it is "safe" after 100 years.  The word was safer which is a relative term.

100 years is about three generations; which is already a very long time. But the Truth is radioactive waste emits dangerous level of radiation for several thousands of years. It is so bad that nobody knows what to do with radioactive waste.

It's true that we don't really know what to do with it, but it is also true that such waste can be contained - sealed drums and a underground lined room will do it.  Part of the danger isn't the radioactivity, it is the fact many of these heavy metals are chemically active, and can corrode the containers and subsequently leach into the surrounding soil.  There have been and still are some very clever people working on ways to mitigate these problems - we can't solve it to make it "perfectly safe" but they can work on ways to store and contain it.

Again, no-one is claiming this stuff is "safe" (and absolute term).  Also, I haven't read any statement hear claiming there is an agreed and effective form of storage.  But how many people have been killed by radioactive waste compared to those from fossil-fuels?

[donotdespisethesnake]

Again, without knowing what the radiation level of the originally mined ore is, you can't say anything about the danger. You are cherry picking meaningless numbers here.

You are the prime example of that, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, but are assuring everyone nuclear waste is safe. Are you really that ignorant or just trolling?

Finland are spending €800 million on a waste storage site which is expected to store waste for 100,000 years. They are not doing that for shits and giggles, nor because the waste is probably so safe you can spread it on your roses in a couple of years.

[SkyMaster]

Again, without knowing what the radiation level of the originally mined ore is, you can't say anything about the danger. You are cherry picking meaningless numbers here.

You are the prime example of that, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, but are assuring everyone nuclear waste is safe. Are you really that ignorant or just trolling?

Finland are spending €800 million on a waste storage site which is expected to store waste for 100,000 years. They are not doing that for shits and giggles, nor because the waste is probably so safe you can spread it on your roses in a couple of years.

You run the risk of being told that you are cherry picking meaningless numbers. Pffft   

I rest my case.

 

[nctnico]

Again, without knowing what the radiation level of the originally mined ore is, you can't say anything about the danger. You are cherry picking meaningless numbers here.

You are the prime example of that, you seem to have no idea what you are talking about, but are assuring everyone nuclear waste is safe. Are you really that ignorant or just trolling?

Finland are spending €800 million on a waste storage site which is expected to store waste for 100,000 years. They are not doing that for shits and giggles

And where does the 100,000 years number come from? There is no data to support needing such a long term storage from a technical point of view. The reason why they choose that number is much more likely to satisfy public opinion. In 100,000 years the surface of the earth will have changed so much that the storage facility is extremely likely to be compromised long before the 100,000 years have passed.

[SkyMaster]

Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization
https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today

"Although the used fuel's radioactivity decreases with time, chemical toxicity persists. The used fuel will remain a potential health risk for many hundreds of thousands of years."


Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility - How Toxic is Nuclear Waste Over 10 Million Years?
http://www.ccnr.org/usgs.html

CCNR COMPLETE DIRECTORY
http://www.ccnr.org/#HLW

From "19th REFORM Group Meeting, Salzburg Austria, September 1, 2014"
FACTS:
There are 100s of radioactive poisons with distinct biological pathways.   
We do not know how to destroy or neutralize these wastes.   
Nuclear wastes are dangerous for millennia, even millions of years.
Disposal = abandonment: this approach is not scientifically certain.   
Lack of precedent: humans have never safely “disposed” of anything.   
USA has tried 8 times to locate a disposal site and failed all 8 times.   
Germany has two failed underground repositories: Asse II, Morsleben.   
WIPP, the only Deep Geologic Repository in USA, recently failed.

"No data"? Yeah right 

[nctnico]

Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization
https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today

"Although the used fuel's radioactivity decreases with time, chemical toxicity persists. The used fuel will remain a potential health risk for many hundreds of thousands of years."

But the chemical toxicity is no different than that of other toxic substances. That is what I already wrote a few posts ago. If you put a barrel of Chlorine or CO2 in the ground it will be toxic until the end of time too. There is no need to be overly hysteric about nuclear waste in that respect; it needs to be treated as toxic chemical waste (mostly heavy metals) at some point.

[SkyMaster]

Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organization
https://www.nwmo.ca/en/Canadas-Plan/Canadas-Used-Nuclear-Fuel/How-Is-It-Stored-Today

"Although the used fuel's radioactivity decreases with time, chemical toxicity persists. The used fuel will remain a potential health risk for many hundreds of thousands of years."

But the chemical toxicity is no different than that of other toxic substances. That is what I already wrote a few posts ago. If you put a barrel of Chlorine or CO2 in the ground it will be toxic until the end of time too. There is no need to be overly hysteric about nuclear waste in that respect; it needs to be treated as toxic chemical waste (mostly heavy metals) at some point.

[ogden]

Finland are spending €800 million on a waste storage site which is expected to store waste for 100,000 years. They are not doing that for shits and giggles

And where does the 100,000 years number come from? There is no data to support needing such a long term storage from a technical point of view.

Fact that you are not aware of data does not mean that it does not exist. It's all around the internet. Particular report is not only one.

[nctnico]

From the same document:
“The general and widely publicized belief about spent fuel is that it is dangerously radioactive for millions of years ... this perception is incorrect”. “With radioactive decay, the dose rate associated with any radioactive material decreases with time. By the time 1,000 years have passed, there are no significant fission nuclides present, and the dose rate reflects the natural uranium content and the remaining transuranic nuclides”.

The table is interesting but only applies to handling the spent fuel or sitting on top of it (30cm distance). Increase the distance and the radiation levels will drop by inverse-square law law.

[apis]

We could have a Chernobyl scale accident every year and coal would still be worse.

Well the same IAEA report that you quoted estimates economic impact of Chernobyl disaster as “hundreds of billions of dollars”. Not to mention 2,600 square km of land that will remain uninhabitable for thousands of years. So yeah, you can have Chernobyl-scale accident every year. May I only ask to have accidents somewhere else? Preferably in a galaxy far far away.

An accident like that is expensive no doubt, but also very rare, if you divide the cost by the energy produced by nucelar power plants it's not so bad. In the end it's how it affects peoples health that is most important. The Chernobyl accident is the worst that can happen and it still caused less harm to peoples health than Coal power does in one year in the U.S. alone.

People still inhabit the "uninhabitable" zone and they kept operating the other reactors at the Chernobyl power plant for many years after the accident. You don't wan't children to grow up there, because children are more sensitive to radiation, but it's not a wasteland, more like a flourishing nature reserve.

Nuclear power isn't perfect, but what many people fail to realise is that it is better than the alternatives. If we compare the economic cost of the damages that coal plants cause with the damages from nuclear power plants, coal is again way worse (just consider the health care cost the air pollution cause). Unless there is an accident, nuclear cause near zero emissions, and what little waste is produces is carefully taken care of. Coal power plants on the other hand just dump their waste in the atmosphere and landfills.

"Within a period of 1,000-10,000 years, the radioactivity of HLW [high-level waste] decays to that of the originally mined ore."

Why should we compare with the originally mined ore though? A nuclear physicist once showed that after 100 years 10% of the waste has about the same amount of radioactivity in it as the original mined ore. The reason that it's more radioactive is that it's not as diluted as the original ore. But if you store the waste in the mine the ore came from and 10% were to leak after 100 years you basically have the same amount radioactivity loose in the mine as when you started. Of course, the storage is designed to not leak for 100000 years, but that doesn't mean it's all that dangerous for 100000 years. If you bury things deep in the bedrock in a geologically stable area you can be pretty sure it will stay there for many thousand years. And 100000 years is still much better than an eternity, like we have for arsenic and mercury.

Again, no-one is claiming this stuff is "safe" (and absolute term).  Also, I haven't read any statement hear claiming there is an agreed and effective form of storage.  But how many people have been killed by radioactive waste compared to those from fossil-fuels?

The so terrifying nuclear waste has killed, If not zero people, it is in the single digit range. And it can't be stressed enough: the study I posted before shows that air pollution from coal power plants kill about 50000 every year, in the U.S. alone. And that is just the air pollution. Coal also cause acidification, global warming, mercury pollution, and all kinds of other problems (lots of coal mining deaths for example).

[ogden]

From the same document:
“The general and widely publicized belief about spent fuel is that it is dangerously radioactive for millions of years ... this perception is incorrect”. “With radioactive decay, the dose rate associated with any radioactive material decreases with time. By the time 1,000 years have passed, there are no significant fission nuclides present, and the dose rate reflects the natural uranium content and the remaining transuranic nuclides”.

The table is interesting but only applies to handling the spent fuel or sitting on top of it (30cm distance). Increase the distance and the radiation levels will drop by inverse-square law law.

So you say that you are fine to store 1000 years old nuclear fuel rods in your backyard or what? This is ridiculous 

[Homer J Simpson]

[KaneTW]

In my backyard, no. In a radiation-shielded warehouse in reasonably leak-proof and shielded containers, yes.

Actually I'm fine with radiation sources of that intensity just being in my house in a safe somewhere. 0.8mSv/h unshielded is lower than what I've worked with during my Physics bachelor.

[Buriedcode]

From the same document:
“The general and widely publicized belief about spent fuel is that it is dangerously radioactive for millions of years ... this perception is incorrect”. “With radioactive decay, the dose rate associated with any radioactive material decreases with time. By the time 1,000 years have passed, there are no significant fission nuclides present, and the dose rate reflects the natural uranium content and the remaining transuranic nuclides”.

The table is interesting but only applies to handling the spent fuel or sitting on top of it (30cm distance). Increase the distance and the radiation levels will drop by inverse-square law law.

So you say that you are fine to store 1000 years old nuclear fuel rods in your backyard or what? This is ridiculous 

Where did anyone say they were OK with storing storing nuclear waste in their back yard? Where did anyone claim nuclear was was "safe" ? Lots of straw-mans going on here.

[ogden]

In my backyard, no. In a radiation-shielded warehouse in reasonably leak-proof and shielded containers, yes.

That was exactly my point - that your backyard have same radiation limits as common landfill sites. Even after 1000 years nuclear waste can't be sent to landfill but still must be stored preferably underground and guarded as well. Argument that after 100 or even 1000 years nuclear waste is "more manageable" is laughable. It still requires significant effort/money to transport and store, it's still dangerous waste.

Armchair nuclear "experts" easily talk about how safe/clean nuclear power is, how easily manageable waste is - maybe because they believe that it will not impact them directly? Why do we need radiation monitoring in landfill sites of Latvia? - Because nuclear power is clean? Hell no! It's because 33 years of radioactive decay is not nearly enough. When it can impact you or your descendants, you do not want to take even slightest chances. Of course fossil plants pollute more, kill more people but nuclear power is far from clean. Of course we better build nuclear plants than coal-burning plants but please do not fool ourselves by suggesting that nuclear power is "clean".

Where did anyone claim nuclear was was "safe" ? Lots of straw-mans going on here.

Claim was not "safe" but "clean". Here:

Modern plants are better designed, better built, better understood and ran without a big political pressure on them. At the same time they are the only reliable clean source of power we have that is essentially infinitely expandable.

I argued that nuclear energy can be considered as "clean" if we ignore waste disposal problem. Undeniably US, UK and not only are fine examples of this serious problem.

Again, no-one is claiming this stuff is "safe" (and absolute term).  Also, I haven't read any statement hear claiming there is an agreed and effective form of storage.  But how many people have been killed by radioactive waste compared to those from fossil-fuels?

The so terrifying nuclear waste has killed, If not zero people, it is in the single digit range.

With same success we can conclude that chemical weapons are "clean" and "safe" - because if people had not been killed by stockpiles. 

[ogden]

Those who say that nuclear waste is easily manageable - Japan needs your help. NOW.
By 2021 they will have 14m cubic metres of contaminated soil and 1.37 million tons of contaminated water.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/fukushima-toxic-soil-disaster-radioactive
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903190042.html

[nctnico]

Those who say that nuclear waste is easily manageable - Japan needs your help. NOW.
By 2021 they will have 14m cubic metres of contaminated soil and 1.37 million tons of contaminated water.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/fukushima-toxic-soil-disaster-radioactive
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903190042.html

The people in Bhopal (India) also need your help.

[Berni]

Im not trying to say nuclear power is completely clean, just that compared to other ways it is the cleanest reliable source of large amounts power that we have invented so far.

Sure solar and wind power is perfectly clean (Ignoring the process of building them) but they are not reliable and are unpredictable due to being very weather dependent. Hydroelectric is better because rivers have a bit more of a steady flow and there is a decent amount of water storage behind a dam, this also lets them adjust the power output very rapidly to stabilize the grid in the case of transients. Unfortunately (in Europe at least) we have already used up most of the nice geographical locations where a large hydroelectric dam makes sense, so we can't just keep building more of them.

Here in Slovenia we have about 10 decently sized hydroelectric plants 40 small hydroelectric plants, 6 coal fired plants and some wind and solar dotted all around. But we also have a single nuclear plant, yet that thing is producing about half of all electricity we make! Its even a pretty small plant with a single reactor. As far as i know the spent fuel rods end up being shipped off to the US, but we do end up having to deal with the rest of the low radioactive waste (Like old spare parts and equipment that became radioactive because of being around the core). And yes we don't have a proper place to put it and nobody wants it.

[ogden]

Those who say that nuclear waste is easily manageable - Japan needs your help. NOW.
By 2021 they will have 14m cubic metres of contaminated soil and 1.37 million tons of contaminated water.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/11/fukushima-toxic-soil-disaster-radioactive
http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201903190042.html

The people in Bhopal (India) also need your help.

There's space pollution as well. So what? How does chemical contamination of Bhopal can be argument in discussion about nuclear waste management problems? You somehow imply  that we shall send nuclear waste to Bhopal or what?