And how many people have died from nuclear reactors over the last 10 years?
The better question is, how many are about to?
The better question is, how many are about to?
THIS IS WHERE THORIUM steps in. Thorium itself is a metal in the actinide series, which is a run of 15 heavy radioactive elements that occupy their own period in the periodic table between actinium and lawrencium. Thorium sits on the periodic table two spots to the left (making it lighter) of the only other naturally occurring actinide, uranium (which is two spots to the left of synthetic plutonium). This means thorium and uranium share several characteristics.
According to Reza Hashemi-Nezhad, a nuclear physicist at the University of Sydney who has been studying the thorium fuel cycle, the most important point is that they both can absorb neutrons and transmute into fissile elements. "From the neutron-absorption point of view, U-238 is very similar to Th-232", he said.
It's these similarities that make thorium a potential alternative fuel for nuclear reactors. But it's the unique differences between thorium and uranium that make it a potentially superior fuel. First of all, unlike U-235 and Pu-239, thorium is not fissile, so no matter how much thorium you pack together, it will not start splitting atoms and blow up. This is because it cannot undergo nuclear fission by itself and it cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction once one starts. It's a wannabe atom splitter incapable of taking the grand title.
What makes thorium suitable as a nuclear fuel is that it is fertile, much like U-238.
Natural thorium (Th-232) absorbs a neutron and quickly transmutes into unstable Th-233 and then into protactinium Pa-233, before quickly decaying into U-233, says Hashemi- Nezhad. The beauty of this complicated process is that the U-233 that's produced at the end of this breeding process is similar to U-235 and is fissile, making it suitable as a nuclear fuel. In this way, it talks like uranium and walks like uranium, but it ain't your common-or-garden variety uranium.
And this is where it gets interesting: thorium has a very different fuel cycle to uranium. The most significant benefit of thorium's journey comes from the fact that it is a lighter element than uranium. While it's fertile, it doesn't produce as many heavy and as many highly radioactive by-products. The absence of U-238 in the process also means that no plutonium is bred in the reactor.
As a result, the waste produced from burning thorium in a reactor is dramatically less radioactive than conventional nuclear waste. Where a uranium-fuelled reactor like many of those operating today might generate a tonne of high-level waste that stays toxic for tens of thousands of years, a reactor fuelled only by thorium will generate a fraction of this amount. And it would stay radioactive for only 500 years - after which it would be as manageable as coal ash.
So not only would there be less waste, the waste generated would need to be locked up for only five per cent of the time compared to most nuclear waste. Not surprisingly, the technical challenges in storing a smaller amount for 500 years are much lower than engineering something to be solid, secure and discreet for 10,000 years.
But wait, there's more: thorium has another remarkable property. Add plutonium to the mix - or any other radioactive actinide - and the thorium fuel process will actually incinerate these elements. That's right: it will chew up old nuclear waste as part of the power-generation process. It could not only generate power, but also act as a waste disposal plant for some of humanity's most heinous toxic waste.
This is especially significant when it comes to plutonium, which has proven very hard to dispose of using conventional means.
The core is still intact. The amount of radiation that has been released so far doesn't constitute a serious environment problem. This is more in the TMI category than the Chernobyl category right now.
Simple answer: no.
The chernobyl reactors used graphite cores to moderate the nuclear reactions. During the disaster, inadequate cooling caused the core to overheat, the containment vessel was breached in an explosion (released hydrogen blew, I think it was), and the core was exposed to outside air and caught fire.
The fire - which burned for days - caused radioactive smoke to pour out into the atmosphere, which is the major source of the radiation released.
The Japanese powerplants don't use graphite cores, so there's nothing there to catch fire and burn like happened in Chernobyl.
TMI didn't pop its outer containment building open in a giant explosion. What's going to be left will look at lot more like Chernobyl. Hopefully the core is safe. I cannot see the actual building its in collapsing making cooling any easier. Anyone an engineer want to weigh in on the damage this could cause to cooling efforts? The pipe infrastructure must be damaged in some form and needing patching in a hostile environment immediately.
Can anyone confirm it was the actual reactors containment building that went up?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE&
That's a strawman argument. Nuclear accidents release their radioactivity into a much smaller area; the concentration is much higher and so is the danger.Burning coal releases 100 times as much radioactive material into the environment then nuclear power plants.
Afaik, there has been no studies that prove breast cancer in women is due to radioactive decay originating from coal-burning powerplants. With cancers, chemical agents in our daily environment (cigarette smoke, car exhaust fumes, brominated flame retardants and so on) is a much higher risk factor than radiation.To this day no one has an explanation for the sudden increase, but it is almost certainly due to an environmental contamination in the previous decades.
What equipment inside the building could possibly cause such an explosion? Have you seen the videos? There was a gigantic shockwave when the building blew up. The outer shell's completely wrecked. To say with any degree of certainty the status of the core seems premature, heavy debris could easily have fallen into it and caused all sorts of damage.The containment vessel is still intact. The explosion was from equipment inside the reactor building but outside the containment vessel.
No you can't. All have problems. I am just saying this will be some more odds stacked against nuclear industry. Overall it's a "safe" way of getting power, probably more so than overall damage from coal, oil burning, etc. but people are more able to remember distinct events than pain by attrition.Oil? Oil Spills...
Coal? Trapped miners...
Wind? No one wants those eye sores destroying their scenic views...
guess you can't make all the people happy all the time...
No you can't. All have problems. I am just saying this will be some more odds stacked against nuclear industry. Overall it's a "safe" way of getting power, probably more so than overall damage from coal, oil burning, etc. but people are more able to remember distinct events than pain by attrition.
Several high-speed trains were also swept away and at least 4 are unaccounted for.
Proves how dangerous high-speed trains are. Probably hundreds of people on each, all dead.
More will die from these high-speed trains than from anything having to do with this power plant.
I'm glad Throck agrees.
What equipment inside the building could possibly cause such an explosion? Have you seen the videos? There was a gigantic shockwave when the building blew up. The outer shell's completely wrecked. To say with any degree of certainty the status of the core seems premature, heavy debris could easily have fallen into it and caused all sorts of damage.
Here's a video of the explosion if you haven't seen it yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjx-JlwYtyE
The very worst HSR disaster in history had a 30% fatality rate. Everyone does not instantly die when there is a derailment.
Also, these got hit by a tsunami and cannot be found.
That's a strawman argument. Nuclear accidents release their radioactivity into a much smaller area; the concentration is much higher and so is the danger.
Odds of survival probably increase when a derailed train can be found.
Also, these got hit by a tsunami and cannot be found.