Solar Vs Nuclear

Which is more cost effective, better for our health and capable of sustaining the planet?

(Hint: It looks prettier too!)

Here we'll present the facts, plain and simple. We'll expose some of the hidden costs for nuclear power, explain the financial incentives for solar as they are today, and we'll explore where the future appears to be headed.

The Energy Bill that was recently passed by Congress and signed by President Bush contains a $10 billion appropriation for renewable energy which includes solar, wind, bio-mass, geothermal, hydro power and fuel cells.

In the same bill, $25 billion is appropriated for guaranteed loans to corporations to build a nuclear power plant.

Imagine what the solar industry in the U.S. could accomplish with $25 billion now ... or even $10 billion. What has been accomplished in the U.S. solar industry up until now?

New Jersey's Supercharged Solar Future

The NJ solar industry has seen explosive growth over the past five years due to the biggest renewable energy rebate incentive in the United States, the NJ Customer On-Site Renewable Energy (CORE) rebate. Historically, the rebates have amounted to 40-70 percent of the installed cost of the system. Depending on a customer's ability to take advantage of tax incentives, the payback range is four to nine years. There has been a growth spurt in NJ's solar industry due to these aggressive rebates, but not without 'growing pains.'

Currently, the money for the CORE rebate program comes through a tariff charged in statewide utility bills called a 'societal benefits charge.' The SBC provides a yearly fixed budget to fund the rebates.

The overwhelming interest in the core rebate has caused a waiting list (queue) to be created, and the waiting time for rebate approval is currently 12-18 months. Essentially, the growth of the solar industry has led to slowdowns and market uncertainties.

After more than a year of public discussions about how to restructure New Jersey's solar market, the state's Board of Public Utilities (BPU) unanimously approved the transition of the CORE program from an upfront rebate system to a commodity market based on Solar Renewable Energy Credits (SRECs). They still plan to keep a rebate in place for residential systems until 2012 which could result in a windfall for these solar customers.

Renewable Energy Credits (RECs), also known as Green Tags, are tradable environmental commodities that represent the 'clean aspect' of onemegawatt-hour (MWh) of electricity generated from renewable energy. These certificates can be sold and traded and the owner of the REC can claim to have purchased renewable energy. RECs put a monetary value on carbon-neutral renewable energy by providing financial incentive for electricity generated from renewable sources. A solar generator is issued one REC for every 1,000 kwh of electricity it produces. The electricity is fed into the electrical grid or used on-site, and the accompanying REC can then be sold on the open market.

In NJ, electricity suppliers are legally required to produce a percentage of renewable energy, buy the SRECs, or pay a Solar Alternative Compliance Payment (SACP). Solar system owners earn SRECs for solar electricity production, which are registered and traded among electricity suppliers and other buyers within an established infrastructure.

There are three ways that have been used to help fund renewable energy worldwide. 1) Rebate - the authorities refund part of the cost of installation; 2) Feed-in tariff - the electricity utility buys PV electricity from system owners at a guaranteed price set well above current prices; 3) Renewable Energy Credits - creating a commodity out of the carbon-neutral aspect of the energy production.

Each method has its subtle pros/cons, and often the three are used in some combination. In NJ, we have rebates and RECs. Moving forward, they are scheduled to have a rebate for homeowners and small commercial systems, and RECs for over 10kw commercial.

In Germany, they have a feed-in tariff that was 3X higher than end-user price, and 8X higher than 'wholesale.' California has the 'California Solar Initiative,' offering a choice of rebate feed-in tariff for small and medium systems, and a feed-in tariff for large systems. The small-system feed-in tariff is far less than Germany's.

Under the future NJ Office of Clean Energy plan, the BPU essentially doubled the price of the SACP in an effort to phase out the core rebate program. With the plan, solar owners will receive around $1000 a year in cash and electricity for every kilowatt installed for a 15-year period. This means the solar system will pay itself off in six to nine years depending on production and market conditions.

"Because of delays in application approvals associated with the popularity of upfront rebates, the BPU has decided the SREC-only system is the best way to ensure rapid adoption of solar in New Jersey," said Mike Winka, director of the BPU's Office of Clean Energy. "And because the system is not tied to a budget, there will be no chance that the budget will run out or that it will be diverted to another program."

New Jersey's Public Service Electric and Gas Company (PSE&G) announced support for the plan. In April, the company is proposing to invest up to $100 million to help finance the installation of solar systems for its customers. Under its proposal, PSE&G's loans would be repaid with SRECs. Other companies may soon enter the NJ market, financing solar installations via SREC money as a guarantee for their investment.

"In making today's decision on the future of solar in New Jersey, we are taking steps to align solar capacity and costs to be consistent with the priorities of the governor's energy vision," said BPU President Jeanne M. Fox. "We believe this strategy will spur both private and public investment in New Jersey's solar market."

For more information, email Angus McDougald at angusmcdougald@hotmail.com

It Doesn't Add Up

Photovoltaic cells are 1/50th their price in the 1970s.

Wind energy is 80 percent cheaper than it was 15 years ago.

Nuclear energy, once promoted as the cheap energy source of the future, is now the most expensive commercial energy option in the United States.

Source : Financial Review, June 21, 1996. Shut Down or Melt Down?

Oyster Creek Radiation

Containment Barrier Likely

to Fail in Serious Accident

The owner of the Oyster Creek nuclear generating plant in Lacey, NJ, wants to renew its operating license with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), for another 20 years. It is the oldest operating plant in the nation.

According to AmerGen, the owner of the nuclear plant, a steel and concrete containment system at Oyster Creek that surrounds the reactor core and its fuel, has a 74 percent chance of failing if there is a serious accident to the core or the fuel.

Over the years, corrosion and leaks in the cooling system have been found, repaired, found again. At press time, another leak was found and hadn't yet been repaired at Oyster Creek.

The NRC concurred with AmerGen that "increased inspections will result in additional radiation exposure to personnel involved in the inspections," as stated in the license renewal application, and gave the green light to proceed with renewal, along with a reduced inspection schedule.

It's a key step toward the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's coming decision on whether to relicense the plant to operate beyond 2009.

Inspections by the NRC are down sharply. In 1990, each reactor was inspected an average of 4,700 man-hours. In 2002, that number was 3,100 hours - a decline of about one-third.

Coalition Appeals

Ruling On Contention

A coalition of six citizens organizations got a landmark hearing by the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) on September 24, 2007, to review safety contentions about Oyster Creek's dry well, which is a 100-foot-tall spherical containment shell.

On December 18, the ASLB rejected the contention by the coalition. The federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board issued a ruling that checking the steel dry-well liner around the reactor every four years "is sufficiently frequent to ensure an adequate safety margin will be maintained."

The coalition has just filed an appeal to ASLB's ruling. In its 30-page appeal, filed January 15, 2008, it states that the sandbed region at the bottom of the freestanding part of the shell is not being monitored enough. The appeal questions whether the ASLB failed to consider critical testimony and other issues concerning compliance.

Corrosion of the steel shell cased in concrete was discovered in the 1990s, and was partly due to excessive moisture. In AmerGen's own re-licensing application, they state that the shell has a 75 percent chance of leaking radiation during a meltdown.

AmerGen then coated the surface of the corroded areas with an epoxy.

The coalition maintains in its appeal that the sandbed region's thickness monitoring, proposed by the plant's owner, AmerGen, will not ensure the safety of the facility throughout its future operation.

The coalition includes the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS); Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch; NJ Public Interest Research Group; Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety; The Sierra Club; and the NJ Environmental Federation.

The plant's current license will expire in April 2009. According to Neil Sheehan a spokesman for the NRC, the plant could continue to operate beyond its license if legal challenges were still being reviewed.

A presidentially appointed commission that oversees the NRC will decide on the appeal.

More concerns with Oyster Creek include: the ineffective and impossible evacuation plan; the plant's vulnerability to terrorism, corrosion of the dry well liner; millions of fish being killed by the once-through cooling system; and the storage of the growing radioactive spent fuel nuclear waste being dumped less than 400 feet from Route 9. All the evidence shows that OCNGS is not a safe, clean, reliable source of power.

"Get Off The Fence"

"Oyster Creek is not worth the risk," states Edith Gbur, president of Jersey Shore Nuclear Watch. She recently spoke to the Ocean County Board of Freeholders about the issues. "It is time for the Freeholders to get off the fence and take a position on closing the nuclear plant at Oyster Creek. This plant has a long history of health, safety, security and environmental problems and over 15 municipalities in New Jersey have called for its shutdown," Gbur told them.

The Freeholders have dodged the issue for eight years, "by passing the buck" to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the agency to decide the fate of Oyster Creek, said Gbur.

"We're not passing the buck. The NRC will make the decision. We've tried to hold their feet to the fire," said Freeholder John P. Kelly.

Local governing bodies in 15 communities voted to oppose the relicensing.

Oyster Creek's Excessive Radiation & High Cancer Rates Nearby

Oyster Creek is among the largest emitters of airborne and waterborne radioactivity of any U.S. reactor, according to a report from the Radiation and Public Health Project (RPHP), a nonprofit educational and scientific organization. Oyster Creek has emitted five times the amount of radiation than the Three-Mile Island Nuclear Plant during its 1979 meltdown according to RPHP.

Ocean County is about 20 percent above the U.S. average for cancer and has the highest cancer incidence rate of any New Jersey county, according to NJ Health Department statistics.

"We believe it is the responsibility of the Board of Freeholders to investigate the source of these rising cancer rates, as they are required to 'act in concert to protect the health and welfare of its citizens' as stated on page 6 of the Ocean County Directory," said Gbur.

Even the NRC, in their 2006 environmental impact statement, noted Oyster Creek plant has been dumping radioactive waste materials and is the worst polluter of Barnegat Bay.

According to the Tooth Fairy Study conducted by RPHP, average Strontium-90 in over 500 New Jersey baby teeth doubled since the late 1980s. Strontium 90 comes from nuclear radiation.

"The good news is, if similar changes in cancer rates near the [closed] Rancho Seco, CA reactor occurred, closing Oyster Creek could mean 4810 fewer local cancer deaths over 20 years," says Joseph Magnano, executive director of RPHP (see http://www.radiation.org).

In 1999, the Freeholders said they were concerned and encouraged meetings on the Tooth Fairy Project, when Alec Baldwin spoke at Ocean County College on the links between the childhood cancer cluster in Toms River and Strontium 90 emissions from Oyster Creek, according to Gbur.

Alec Baldwin will return to speak at a community dialogue sponsored by the League of Women Voters at 6:30 pm on February 20th at the Ocean County Library's Toms River Branch on Washington Street.

Study Finds Increased Child Cancer Near Nuclear Plants

Children living near nuclear power plants have a significantly higher risk of developing leukemia and other forms of cancer, according to a German study reported in December of 2007.

"Our study confirmed that in Germany a connection has been observed between the distance of a domicile to the nearest nuclear power plant, and the risk of developing cancer, such as leukemia, before the fifth birthday," Suddeutsche Zeitung newspaper quoted the report as saying.

The study was done by the University of Mainz for Germany's Federal Office for Radiation Protection. The researchers found that cancer incidences in children under 5 years of age increase with proximity to reactor sites. Within a 5-kilometer (3-mile) radius of the reactors, 77 cases of child cancer, 37 of which were leukemia, were registered for the survey period 1980 to 2003. On a statistical average, 48 cases of cancer with 17 cases of leukemia would be expected.

The study deals exclusively with the statistical connection between cancer incidences and the distance of the place of living from the nuclear power plant site.

Some experts familiar with the study believe the data showed there was an increased cancer risk for children living within 50 kilometers of a reactor.

Germany plans to prematurely shut down all of its nuclear power plants by the early 2020s.

Challenging Nuclear Renaissance

Now that the new Energy Bill provides $25 billion in guaranteed loans for new nuclear plants, several other companies have expressed interest in either expanding existing plants around the country or building new facilities, including Chicago-based Exelon. Federal regulators expect to process applications for about 30 new reactors along the East Coast and in the Southeast in coming years.

Anti-nuclear activists are ready to challenge the "so-called nuclear renaissance" that chose Texas as the first state in the US to consider a new nuclear power plant project in nearly 30 years, reports Tom Fowler of the Houston Chronicle.

A coalition of groups plans to intervene in the Federal review of Princeton, N.J.-based NRG Energy's application to build two new reactors next to the existing South Texas Project nuclear plant in Matagora County, Texas.

A 60-day public comment period is under way until end of February '08 for those who care to intervene in the review for the joint construction and operation permit.

Officials with the Sierra Club, Public Citizen and the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition (SEED) plan to intervene. Karen Hadden, director of SEED, urges people to "create a new nuclear resistance movement to say no to the nuclear regurgitation."

In addition the dangers of storing nuclear waste indefinitely and the role it may play in nuclear weapons proliferation, SEED points out that in the late 1970s and early 1980s projects regularly ran way over budget and schedule, as proof new projects will also be costly.

The nuclear industry's reliance on government incentives and subsidies, including $2 billion in risk insurance, billions in construction loan guarantees and a production tax credit, illustrates how the true cost of nuclear is hidden and a burden to taxpayers.

Neil Carman, director of the clean air program for the Sierra Club in Texas said a lot of people are "coming out of the woodwork and wanting to work on this." Carman stated, "I think you will see a very strong anti-nuclear movement in Texas."

Californians Reject More Nukes

An initiative to lift the California's ban on new nuclear power plants will not appear on the June 2008 ballot. State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, has withdrawn the ballot initiative he submitted to state elections officials, after public opinion polls found lukewarm support for new nuclear power plants in the state. The initiative would have overturned a 1976 state law prohibiting construction of new nuclear reactors until a permanent solution for the storage of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel is found.

WorldWide Nuclear Proliferation

There are more than 100 nuclear reactors now being built, planned or on order, including one in Vietnam. Argentina, Brazil and South Africa plan to expand existing programs; and Thailand, Egypt and Turkey are among the countries considering building their first reactors. China plans to bring more than 30 more nuke plants online by 2020, adding to its 11 existing ones.

Countries new to or still learning about nuclear power "have to move down the learning curve, and they will learn from (their) mistakes," says Philippe Jamet, director of nuclear installation safety for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), a U.N. body set up in 1957 to provide quality controls and expertise to countries with nuclear programs. They oversee safety standards, but now the agency is preoccupied with monitoring Iran and North Korea over suspected nuclear arms programs, and as IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei says, they cannot be the main guarantor of safety.

Review to Renew Oyster Creek Nears Conclusion

The final steps in the NRC's consideration of the Oyster Creek license renewal application will be the commission's ruling on the appeal and, if it rejects the appeal, the issuance of a license extension. If the coalition's appeal is rejected, the decision could then be challenged in federal court.

The coalition says it's prepared to go forward to the federal court if the appeal is denied.

For more information contact Edith Gbur at 732-240-5107. http://www.bized.com

Cathy Sims holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Sociology, graduate work in psychology, has worked as a journalist for over 30 years and is editor of publisher of the biz.ed Guide since 1986. She is also host of the Business Education Talk Show at Cablevision for over 10 years.

Nuclear Will Never Be the Solution

Early on man realized that fossil fuels would soon run out, and so nuclear power was born.  It was glorified as the cleaner alternative to oil and coal power stations, promising lower emissions and environmental safety.  But has it really lived up to our expectations? And is it the ideal energy solution for the future? We think not.

Although nuclear power is efficient and responsible for about 25% of the world's electricity production, it is flawed in many respects:

Nuclear power cannot solve global warming:

Once seen as the solution to global climate change, nuclear power is far from it. Everywhere along the nuclear chain - from the mining of uranium to its transportation to the construction of the power plant - greenhouse gases are emitted.

Furthermore, their construction takes too long to solve global warming. In fact, investing in nuclear power deprives other efforts - such as energy efficiency, conservation and renewable energy - of further funding and development.

Nuclear plants release radiation:

The levels of radiation released in the air, water and soil are considered "safe".  However, this standard is based on how it impacts healthy, white males and does not take consideration for children that are sensitive to cancer-causing radiation.

They create harmful radioactive waste:

From mining to milling, processing to enrichment, fuel fabrication to fuel irradiation in reactors, large amounts of harmful, long-lasting radioactive waste is produced. In addition to 20-30 tons of high-level radioactive waste per reactor per year, this includes so-called "low" level radioactive waste.

The current solution for the "disposal" or "storage" of this waste is unacceptable. There is no scientifically safe place to dump this waste, and new reactors would exacerbate the problem. Additional "low" level radioactive waste would have to be dumped in landfills or incinerated, polluting the water and air.

Nuclear plants are too costly:

At $6 to $12 billion each, nuclear reactors are not a cheap solution. Nuclear power has already been subsidized hundreds of billions of dollars. Why should we, the taxpayers, subsidize the electric utility companies' investments any longer?

Development of nuclear technology brings war and terrorism:

This has been seen at the September 2007 bombing of Syria's suspected nuclear site by Israel, and the controversy over Iran's nuclear program. Reactors will always set the stage for atomic weapons production. So, as long as power plants exist, there will always be tension over the possibility of a nuclear attack. Furthermore, reactors are soft targets for terrorists to get hold of nuclear materials, so the more reactors built, the greater the risk.

Any accident will be catastrophic:

All nuclear plants are vulnerable to accidents or attacks. Nevertheless, if an accident did occur, the current evacuation plans are completely unrealistic. In addition, the Price-Anderson Act ensures the utility's liability of an accident is limited to only $10.8 billion. This is absurd, considering a serious reactor accident could cause as much as $600 billion of damage. Once again, the balance would likely have to be paid by us, the taxpayers.

There are better alternatives:

What bothers us most is we already have better, cleaner, safer and cheaper alternatives available and ready to implement. Perhaps with the recent election of our new US government, nuclear energy will be put to rest and renewable energy will be harnessed on a larger scale.

But while we wait, it is possible to start harnessing renewable energy at home.  What's more is, it does not cost very much and is rather simple to implement.  Various solar and wind power guides have already become available, which you can see in our reviews section.

Tim McDonald and his wife have been living off the grid since June 2008. If you want to learn to get off the grid and save thousands on your electricity bills, then be sure to Try Earth4Energy, For FREE before you go out and start any renewable energy project.

Radiation Shielding and X-Ray Shielding

Radiation to some extent is tolerable to human body. Radiations from daily devices like mobile do not create any problems in our body. When it comes to radiations like X-Ray, Gamma Ray and Nuclear radiation, they cause cancer and other health hazards in human body. Radiation shielding has always been a problem in human history. There were no standards for radiation shielding until 1913. Only then were there was professional efforts towards radiation shielding. By 1925 instruments capable of shielding were produced. With our advanced technology we are able to shield radiation.

Radiation shielding could be achieved using 3 materials concrete, Tungsten and Lead. Concrete is used for shielding buildings. But the walls had to be very thick and it could not be used for instruments used in medical industry. Tungsten has excellent radiation shielding properties but it costs $11 per 100g while lead costs $0.02 per 100g. Lead is dense metal and has good radiation shielding properties. Lead is used more than any other material in radiation shielding and source shielding.

X-Ray shielding: X-rays are an important part of medical technology and are indispensable tool for monitoring and diagnosing medical conditions. We use lead to produce X-Ray shielded products ranging from lead syringe shielding, shipping containers, laboratory accessories, lead sheet, lead bricks etc. X-Ray shielding can be done using lead sheet of 2 mm thickness. Mobile X-ray barrier can be mounted on wheels and moved around easily. This is used extensively in medical industry. Patient is exposed to controlled intensity X-ray for some time while the doctor stays behind a curtain. This safety measure is taken as doctor will do the producer on many patients. Regular exposure to X-Ray is dangerous to health. Lead containers are available now a days for shielding instruments form x-rays. Every thing in X-Ray room is X-Ray shielded. Radiation shielding for syringe is available in the market.

The process used to protect instruments form radiation is lead casting and lead coating. Lead casting is used to produce products like lead dustbin, lead containers, lead bricks, lead sheets, source shielding containers etc.

Radiation Shielding: Shielding for radiation source is very important as the source will contaminate the environment. We do not have the technology yet go dispose radio active nuclear waste which is produced by radio active materials. Radioactive materials are used in many fields. This radio active waste is stored in lead containers until we find a way to safely dispose them. Wide range of radio active shielded products are available in the market like lead syringe shields, source shields, lead vile shields etc.

Custom made lead products discussed above can be found in Medi-Ray. Medi-RayTM, Incorporated is totally unique in the market. From its inception over thirty-five years ago, Medi-RayTM has been the world's foremost manufacturer of shielding products for nuclear medicine. For many firms, that would be enough but not for Medi-Ray. Our goal is the relentless pursuit of innovation, and we are proud to be the recognized leader in lead metal technology and radiation shielding. We realized that only a multi-disciplinary approach would provide a complete solution to the numerous problems of high costs and other related operational factors that faced many of the fields that required precision lead metal and alloy technologies.

Roger Bowne does internet marketing for http://www.mediray.com

Radon in Homes Linked to Nuclear Bombs and X-Ray Radiation

Many homeowners are unaware of the level of radon within their home. In fact most homeowners probably assume the levels are fine. Maybe they don't even know what radon gas is and why people are fussing about it all of a sudden. If it were a problem you would've known about it already, right?

Of course we'd love to think that we know about these toxic things in our homes before they cause any damage, but unfortunately that's not been the case for the hundreds of thousands, even millions who have been killed by radon induced lung cancer. This gas is estimated by the World Health Organization (WHO) to cause about 15 percent of lung cancer cases, which the Environmental Protection Agency estimates to be about 20,000 per year.

There is good news amidst this quite scary information: radon testing is fast and easy and your home's gas levels can be significantly reduced through mitigation and maintained for the rest of your time living in the home.

Radon And The Nuclear Bomb

As though the information about this gas isn't bad enough already-- it's completely unnoticeable to humans and causes lung cancer-- it also quite easily relates to the nuclear bomb. In fact, it's one in the same. Here's how.

Radon is the result of uranium decay in soil. Once this process begins, polonium and radium get released into the air, which produces high toxicity levels.

Similarly, the nuclear bomb used during the Cold War, utilized uranium. Thus, once the bomb destroyed an area of land and the uranium decayed, the radon gas was produced in high enough levels that people suffered from radiation.

Although the average natural outdoor level of radon is about.4 pCi/L (picocuries per liter,) when unnaturally produced in the form of a nuclear bomb the levels of toxicity in an area are understandably heightened.

Radon and The X-Ray

Did you know that the radon in your home potentially creates more radiation than a hospital chest x-ray? Look at this.

As a group A carcinogen, this gas is very harmful and is the cause of increased levels of radiation.

The radiation in a 4.0 pCi/L level of radon is equal to the radiation from 100 chest x-rays. The number of chest x-rays permitted by most hospitals is what makes that number all the more interesting. Most hospitals actually only allow people to have four chest x-rays each year. That's.16 pCi/L per x-ray and.64 pCi/L a year. In other words, can you understand why the WHO has their action level at 2.7 pCi/L?

The effects of radon are far higher than even the effects of chest x-rays, which should make any homeowner quick to have testing and mitigation.

For an expert in radon mitigation in Michigan, contact Insta-Dry Basement Systems today! They are a member of the National Radon Defense network and provide radon testing and proven radon mitigation techniques through Michigan.

Samantha Walton currently works as a web content writer for home improvement sites. She's a college graduate with a B.A. in communication and a concentration in public relations. She's aspiring to one day further her education with a seminary degree. Her experience ranges from internships in marketing and public relations, content writing for local television broadcasts, to writing and editing newsletters, fliers, and other content for her local church.

Nuclear Energy Is Not a New Clear Resource

In the recent times more and more developing countries are moving towards the nuclear energy so-called clean fuel of the 21st century. India, Iran and later Pakistan is stressing upon this nuclear resource (we are not talking about nuclear warheads here). When the first combustion engine was mounted in a vehicle, it had a charm of horseless ride. The world was so excited to see that happen. Industries, motor vehicle, printing press, etc. progressed human growth, at that time no one had ever thought that we will be facing such a big problem of global warming later. No doubt nuclear energy promises a solution to the current energy crisis and reduction in global carbon level in the future, but we refuse to see the ill effects of nuclear energy and leaked radiations which can be even more disastrous to the life.

A study by J. P. Descy and C. Mouvet titled "Impact of the Tihange nuclear power plant on the periphyton and the phytoplankton of the Meuse River (Belgium)" said that Phytoplankton and periphyton were affected during low water flow. In the reach downstream of the plant, the maximum observed temperature increase is 4.2 ?C and the maximum decrease in dissolved oxygen is 15%. Phytoplankton are responsible for half of the photosynthesis activity on the earth. Hence, phytoplankton are responsible for much of the oxygen present in the Earth's atmosphere. And so most of the nuclear reactors which are situated on the coasts are contributing to the depletion of oxygen. We cannot afford to lose oxygen in a bid to reduce carbon emission.

After three mile Island and Chernobyl incident, it is hard to believe that the people of developing countries are so confident and keep faith in this resource. As Helen Caldicott, co founder of Physicians for Social Responsibility said in her article 'Nuclear is not the answer': Nuclear reactor routinely emit noble or inert gases which are fat soluble and can get inhaled by anyone living near a nuclear reactor. Not only this, but nuclear radiation have capacity to give our tissues an irreparable damage. The radiation effect is not only near the reactors, but can also be seen in then uranium mines. Once the nuclear energy is harnessed, the safe disposal of its waste is another serious problem, no country has been able to come out with a perfect solution until now. Wherever you dispose it, there remains a risk of contamination of the soil, water, vegetation, etc.

Developed countries who have played enough with this technology are now trying to stay away after watching some disastrous incidences. the UK, US, Japan and France have shut down their breeders and now selling their spent fuel waste to the developing country like India for its reprocessing, which is a very risky task for both the environment and life of the people, it also involves a risk of terrorists stealing the fuel for destruction purposes. These countries bring their ships fully loaded with toxins and leave it on the Indian shore for the local authorities to dismantle and dispose, in this case even if any accident occur, the damage will be done only to the Indian waters and coast.

Nuclear reactors are also favourite target of terrorists as they just have to do a little mischief and rest is taken care of by the uncontrolled radiations. Which gives slow and painful deaths. Iran, Pakistan and India all are infested with terrorism.

Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, in his presentation at Institute of Science in Society, London: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/PTTP100PCR.php: talked about the potency of renewable resources in the future. If followed and spent money on that instead of in nuclear technology, we can build much greener and safer world.

Sanskar Shrivastava is the author of the blog World Today, where he does analysis and gives opinion on the news which has global impact. http://enewsreport.blogspot.com

Alternate Energy - How About Nuclear Power?

We all know the immense power of the atom, especially in fission reactions. According to several scientists, this could a viable and trustworthy source for alternate energy, as the nuclear power plants use technologies that are clean and can command supreme efficiency of operations. With 80% energy efficiency, power produced by nuclear energy is nearly as much as energy put into producing the fission, though there is some amount of energy that gets wasted in the process.

Of course, this is expected. Environmentalists on the other hand, are overtly concerned about this 'wasted' energy which contains harmful radioactive gases.  

One of the most important downsides to nuclear energy is that the gas radiation is long-lasting. Therefore once it is stored, it can never be released. But the point to be noted here is that the volume of this waste is negligible compared to the amount of nitrous oxide, the biggest air pollutant, emitted during rush hour in Los Angeles traffic. Between these two air pollutants, radiation gases are undoubtedly more dangerous, but it is also easier to contain and store. Contrary to popular belief, nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and environment-friendly alternate sources of energy with the chances of leakage of radiation extremely low. If the volume of waste material is kept low, it can be easy to contain and store the radiation gases. Coupled with technological advances this may provide clean energy solutions for the future. 

Therefore before rejecting the idea of nuclear power as a viable source of alternate energy, it might be useful to know more about the technology and safety aspects of this form of energy. 

Ron is an avid article writer who has written articles for over 3 years. Visit his site that has helpful information on kitchen cabinet handles [http://carterscabinantiques.com/page/3/] and home loans for bad credit [http://stanfordhomeloans.com/page/2/].

The Dangers of Radiation Exposure

Radiation is a naturally occurring form of energy that occurs in sunlight and sound waves. However, mankind has harnessed this power through nuclear materials, such as uranium, plutonium, and thorium. These materials can be utilized for weapons, electricity production, and medical devices. While radioactive materials have helped further things like clean energy and medical diagnostics, exposure to the radiation can cause serious damage to your health.

First, everyone experiences small doses of radiation throughout their lives. This is called background radiation. It comes from small amounts of radioactive materials in rocks and dirt, and it can also come from cosmic radiation. Additionally, most people at some point receive medical treatment that involves radiation, such as taking an x-ray. Over time, this low-intensity exposure is mostly harmless although it can increase your chance of developing cancer.

The frightening type of radiation exposure comes from a short-term, intense dose that causes radiation poisoning or sickness. This typically occurs due to radiation accidents. There are several different types of jobs that involve radiation and are therefore at risk for radiation poisoning, including:

Mining or handling nuclear materials
Working in a nuclear power plant
Testing or working with nuclear weapons
Nuclear pharmacists
X-ray technicians
Doctors who perform radiation cancer treatment, vascular embolization, etc.

If something goes wrong, like if the radioactive materials spill in a nuclear pharmacy, the pharmacists can be exposed to a high dose of radiation. This can cause radiation poisoning. Although there are several symptoms of this condition, they may only appear much later after the accident. Immediate signs of exposure include:

Red, painful skin burns
Welts or ulcers where the skin touched the radioactive material
Nausea
Diarrhea
Hair loss
Organ failure

Radiation sickness treatment depends on the extent of your exposure. Doctors must try to remove external contamination, such as radioactive particles on your clothing, as well as nuclear materials inside of your body. Sadly, there is no cure for radiation poisoning, and doctors attempt, instead, to fight the complications arising from the sickness, such as loss of bone marrow, increased risk of infection, etc.

If you have suffered from radiation sickness due to a nuclear accident at work, you may be entitled to workers' compensation to help with your pain and suffering. To discuss your case, contact a New Jersey workers' comp lawyer from Levinson Axelrod, P.A., today.

James Witherspoon

Cell Phone Radiation, Senility and Brain Cancer

An entire generation of teenagers may become senile or have brain cancer at the peak of their lives due to cellular phone usage and other wireless technologies.

These are the findings of the study published in Environmental Health Perspectives.

The study, based on intensive use of cellular phones, may cause apprehension in Western countries because it reveals new ways in which microwaves can affect our health.

Leif Salford, the researcher who led the study that was conducted at Lund University in Sweden, claims that the fact that we voluntarily expose our brain to cell phone radiation is ?the largest biological experiment in the history of the world.? Professor Salford fears that as the wireless technology becomes more popular people will "drown in a sea of microwaves.?

The study tested the leakage of albumin in the circulation of blood in the brain. Prior studies of the subject have focused on the possibility that cell phones heat brain tissue thereby causing cancer. But the many studies trying to determine whether cell phones cause cancer have not been conclusive.

Thus, the cell phone industry in the US has managed to minimize findings regarding cellular radiation effects, but now the World Health Organization has taken over the research.

Exposure to cellular radiation affects the cells

"This study proves again that interference with cell activity of the body does not necessarily occur with high exposure to radiation that leads to heating of the area of exposure but can also occur with low exposure" says Professor Rafi Korenstein, a scientist from the University of Tel-Aviv.

In a study published by Professor Korenstein with a number of other scientists six months ago (Bioelectromagnetics, 2003), it was proven that long-term exposure to cell phone radiation can affect the duplication of hereditary substance creating during the cell-division process, thereby increasing the risk for cancer.

The Head of the Cancer Department at the Israeli Ministry of Health, Dr. Mike Brichna, disagrees: in studies conducted on mice, researchers found changes in brain activity. The problem is to prove that what harms mice brains will cause the same effect in human brains. Regardless, the doctor has three pieces of advice for people using cell phones:


Always talk with a wide open antenna.

Keep the antenna as far away from your ear as you can.

Use speakers whenever possible.


Some common questions and answers to learn more about this issue:

What is E.M.R.?

Answer: E.M.R. refers to Electromagnetic Radio-frequency Radiation which is the potentially dangerous frequency emitted by cellular or mobile phones. High frequency ionizing forms of radiation exists as X-rays, Gamma rays and forms of nuclear radiation known to be hazardous . Non-ionizing radiation of lower frequency ionizing forms such as early cell phones were thought to be safe. That view has changed since cell phones and mobile phones have grown in strength from low-level radio waves to high-level microwaves. No scientific study has proven conclusively that the use of cellular phones is hazardous to human health, yet continued use of higher frequency phones could adversely affect the central nervous system, diminish the effectiveness of the immune system and facilitate the development of cancer according to scientific research. Perhaps this is why governments and health organizations worldwide are spending millions of dollars towards on-going research to determine the long term effects of exposure to E.M.R from cellular and mobile phones.

What is S.A.R.?

Answer: S.A.R. or Specific Absorption Rate of Radiation is used to measure the amount of radiation that the human body absorbs from any source, including cellular phones. The F.C.C. (Federal Communications Commission) sets limits as to what they deemed were safe levels of radiation from cell phones. In the beginning when analog phones were 800-900 MHZ of power, most of the cell phones manufactured met these safe guidelines. However as manufacturers raised the power of their phones up to 1800-2000MHZ and analog was replaced by digital, the majority of the cell phones now exceed the safe levels set by the F.C.C. In fact the manufacturers continue to lobby to have the levels raised, so they may keep increasing the power of the phones. The highest S. A. R. in the body is in the ear, thus the concern about excessive cell phone use and the strength of the signal.

How is S.A.R. measured on a cell phone?

Answer: When a call is made or received there is a band of radiation from the antenna, half of which disappears into space. The remaining radiation is around the skull, face and ear area of the user and runs through the circuitry of the phone when transmitting the call. A dummy head is immersed in a gel-like solution similar to body fluid and a cell phone is attached to the ear. Readings are taken from the antenna to determine the S.A.R. strength which will vary from phone to phone and proximity to the closest signal tower.

Bob Shobi is a freelance writer providing information and research the hazards of cellular phones. To find out more about the dangers, get more cell phone radiation information, or check out how dangers your phone is with the common phones SAR chart.

Nuclear Medicine Technologists - Career Opportunities

Nuclear Medicine Technologists handle medical equipment, administer radiopharmaceuticals to patients, and observe the characteristics and functions of the relevant tissues or organs.

They create diagnostic images using cameras that detect and map the radioactive drug in a patient's body, and they explain test procedures to patients. The images are interpreted by a physician.

Technologists keep patient records and operate diagnostic imaging equipment. They also assess the behavior of the radioactive substance inside the body.

In the U.S. there are about 20,000 people working as nuclear medicine technologists. Some 70% of the jobs are in hospitals. Other technologists work in offices of physicians or in medical and diagnostic laboratories, including diagnostic imaging centers.

Nuclear medicine technology programs are from 1 to 4 years, leading to a certificate, an associate degree, or a bachelor's degree. Certificate programs are offered in hospitals, associate degree programs in community colleges, and bachelor's degree programs in 4-year colleges and universities. Courses include physical sciences, biological effects of radiation exposure, radiation protection and procedures, the use of radiopharmaceuticals, imaging techniques and computer applications.

One-year certificate programs are for health professionals who already have an associate degree and wish to specialize in nuclear medicine.

Certification or licensure is required by many employers and an increasing number of states. Certification comes from the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists and the Nuclear Medicine Technology Certification Board. Nuclear medicine technologists are required to meet the minimum Federal standards on the administration of radioactive drugs and the operation of radiation detection equipment.

The Joint Review Committee on Education Programs in Nuclear Medicine Technology accredits most formal training programs in nuclear medicine technology.

Nuclear Medicine Technologists must be able to:

have much physical stamina as they are on their feet much of the day and may lift or turn disabled patients,


be sensitive to patients' physical and psychological needs,


pay attention to detail, follow instructions, and work as part of a team.,


operate complicated equipment that requires mechanical ability and manual dexterity.

Job growth for nuclear medicine technologists is much faster than for all occupations, although the number of openings yearly will be relatively low because the occupation is small. Technologists with training in other diagnostic methods will have the best prospects.

How Much Do Nuclear Medicine Technologists Earn?

As of May 2004, the median annual earnings for nuclear medicine technologists were $56,450. The middle 50 percent earned between $48,720 and $67,460. The lowest earnings were less than $41,800, while the highest 10 percent earned more than $80,300.

A Day in a Nuclear Medicine Technologist's Life:

On a typical day a nuclear medicine technologist will:

administer radiopharmaceuticals to patients,


monitor the effect of the drug on the tissues or organs,


operate cameras that detect and map the radioactive drug in a patient's body,


explain test procedures to patients,


prepare a dosage of the radiopharmaceutical and administer it,


position patients for the procedure,


keep patient records,


operate diagnostic imaging equipment,


assess the behavior of a radioactive substance inside the body.

I hope this article gives you a good idea of what is involved in the career of a Nuclear Medicine Technologist. Health care is the largest industry in the world. In the U.S. about 14 million people work in the health care field. More new wage and salary jobs are in health care than in any other industry. (Some figures from Bureau of Labor Statistics.)

Mike Clark is the director of Health Care Hiring (http://www.healthcarehiring.com) an online portal to the health care and medical community. Check out this website to find out more about career & training opportunities, and nationwide employer contact information, in the health care and medical sector.

Collection of Space Radiation for Spacecraft Power

Way back in 1955 a then secret project set out to build an aircraft which could fly indefinitely, never needing power. How so you ask? By using a nuclear reactor powered jet engine. In fact the aircraft concept was called the NB-36 and it was built with a 10,000 lb lead bulkhead to shield the pilots from radiation. Originally the aircraft would have spewed radiation out the back and then some brilliant scientists came up with a heat conversion process using liquid metal which allowed the nuclear reactor to remain in a closed loop system heating the liquid metal which was used to spin a turbine jet engine.

The new design was contracted with GE to build the engine although they did not know what the engine was to be used for. It was to be what would be called the Convair B-36 WS125, (weapons system 125), a project which would eventually be cancelled. Perfect for the cold war, never needing fuel with unlimited range. Something we will need for our future exploratory spacecraft, which may be used for generations and cannot simply stop to re-fuel you see?

The USSR was said to have build during this past period the Soviet Bounder supposedly "Atomic-Nuclear Powered Aircraft" as they were having difficulty building an aircraft, which could reach the United States. There aircraft during that time were extremely heavy and huge gas hogs. Could it be possible to build a nuclear aircraft-space craft.

Better yet since there is radiation in space already and it is problematic for space flight (human life), why not hook up a system to collect the radiation waves, modify them to a specific resonance and use that as energy thru heat exchangers to power up a specific propulsion system.

How could this be done? Perhaps with an energy sphere pointed in the direction of the highest consistency of space radiation coming in, which would be attached to a pole with runners or stringers to the corners of the space craft collecting all the radiation energy which would normally hit the space craft. The pole and the runner system could be made of high-tech nano carbon tubes. The premise of the engine would be similar to the WS125 project, but would fire up a different sort of motor. Consider this in 2006.

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Congress Needs to Wake Up to Nuclear Waste Disposal, Part 2

Inside Alloy 22 Engineered Barrier Canisters

Within the first 1,000 years, about 99 percent of the radioactivity in the reactor fuel will have dissipated through the natural process of radioactive decay. For those who believe the nuclear waste will be dumped in some hole in the ground - as some fanatical environmentalists falsely compared this to a landfill disposal - think again. The Department of Energy designed rust-resistant canisters lined with titanium drip shield to prevent water entry. A new alloy for these canisters was created in 1987 called Alloy 22, which is a blend of nickel, chromium and other corrosive-resistant metals.

In one DOE simulation, it was found the waste canisters wouldn't begin to rust for about 80,000 years. Kraft told us, "From the presentations at the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board meetings, the amount of time that the metal is actually subjected to the corrosive environment is actually far less in terms of hundreds of years." And who's to say how much technology will advance over the next 10,000 or 80,000 years? Imagine for a moment how much technology has changed our lives over the past one hundred years, let alone over the previous 10,000 years. The fact is we will all be long dead before a single drop of moisture ever rusts one of those canisters. And so will the next 2000 generations of our great grandchildren.

As a result of the geological and man-made barriers, scientific reports demonstrate the largest expected annual radiation dose near Yucca Mountain would be 0.1 millirem. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) set an annual 15-millirem limit. The EPA's dosage is about one-half what most of us get from cosmic rays every year. A chest x-ray gives you a much higher dose. Occupational standards for workers at nuclear power plants are ten times higher. Clearly, both science and logical rationale are being ignored when politicians and environmentalists dream up such "Twilight Zone" guidelines for Yucca Mountain. When the EPA standard of one million years was proposed, based upon a 1995 National Academy of Science study, it was "unprecedented worldwide," Kraft said.

Is Transporting the Nuclear Waste to Yucca Mountain Safe?

Critics worry about the dangers of transporting nuclear waste from local sites to Yucca Mountain. They seem to overlook an important fact. During the past 30 years, more than 3000 shipments have traveled across the United States over 1.6 million highway and rail miles without a single radioactive episode. Used nuclear fuel has been safely shipped tens of thousands of times outside the United States. Environmentalists would have already pounced had there been an accident involving radioactive releases.

The DOE estimates about 175 used fuel shipments will travel to Yucca Mountain each year for 24 years, transporting between 300 and 500 containers. Numerous tests performed by Sandia National Laboratories to "destroy" the canisters demonstrated the ruggedness of the containers. Crashing trucks into concrete barriers at 65 mph, trains broadsiding the trucks at 80 mph and engulfing the trucks and canisters at crispy temperatures failed to destroy the canisters. "To get a certificate from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), they have to pass very severe accident tests," Kraft explained. "My guess is that, at this point, it will be fundamentally rail shipments with limited trucking, but we had to analyze both."

Fear of terrorists? "Before September 11, 2001, these (nuclear storage facilities) were the most secure, heavily guarded industrial sites there were," Kraft told us. "And they have only gotten even more protected. We have increased the number of guards, the stand-off distance from the gate, and other things I can't talk about because of the nature of the information. We do have very good terrorist protection."

But what about on the open road? The DOE hope to construct a 300-mile railroad spur to connect the nation's existing rail system to Yucca Mountain. In an August 2006 Fact Sheet, the NEI writes, "The shipments are heavily guarded. Travel routes and times for shipment are not publicly available; transport vehicles are equipped with devices to prevent unauthorized movement; and satellites track shipments constantly." Sandia National Laboratories also simulated a terrorist attack using a weapon 30 times more powerful than a shoulder-fired, anti-tank missile. The result? The weapon made only a quarter-inch hole, which the NRC estimated would release only about one-third of an ounce of radioactive material, a minute amount of radiation posing no risk beyond the immediate vicinity, and would be easy to clean up.

U.S. Left Behind in the Nuclear Renaissance?

In 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, amending in 1987, levied a tax on consumers for electricity generated by nuclear power, and set a 1998 deadline to begin accepting used fuel. The U.S. government defaulted. "1998 has come and gone," said Kraft. "It's almost nine years later and 50 utilities are suing. Lawsuits are in the multiple, multiple billions of dollars." One wonders if the federal government will actually honor this obligation. "No one is being helped by this," Kraft complained. The DOE has settled with Exelon and a few others to repay their interim storage costs. Utilities have been paying about $750 million per year since 1982. For example, Illinois consumers have paid $3.5 billion since the inception of the Nuclear Waste Fund; Pennsylvania consumers have paid $2.4 billion.

"There are a lot of places that want to build new nuclear plants," Kraft pointed out. "There are about 30 on the boards right now." But a lot of the communities are asking, "Wait a minute, we still have the spent fuel from the other reactor, when is all that stuff going to leave the site?"

Kraft explained, "What the communities are not asking for is an actual functioning disposal system, but a believable sustainable plan for getting there. At the moment, the DOE program does not look terribly sustainable to these communities. In each case that wants a facility, the community is making it very clear 'we want to know what the plans are for moving the nuclear waste offsite.' We have to be able to answer those questions."

He is earnest about moving Yucca Mountain into the operational stage. "I've been waking up for the past 30 years wanting to solve this problem," Kraft told us. "The person that has to wake up is Congress."

In a September 13th press release, the NEI wrote, "To meet a projected increase in electricity demand of 45 percent by 2030, 12 companies or groups of companies are developing federal construction and operating license applications, and four companies already have filed applications for early site permits with the NRC." The first wave of those nuclear power plants could be ready for commercial operation in the 2014 to 2015 time frame.

In a nutshell, U.S. consumers would be in a no-win situation in the absence of nuclear power. More than 70 percent of the electricity which comes from energy sources that do not bring about greenhouse gases or are linked to smog and acid rain comes from nuclear energy. The rest comes from renewables, especially hydroelectric power. "By shutting down 20 percent of our electricity doesn't make sense for this country," Kraft argued. "It's not something the average ordinary homeowner is going to want to have happen."

And the fate of the emerging nuclear revival, or the nuclear renaissance, hangs by the decisions Congress must soon make in honoring the government's obligation as the ultimate stewards of the nuclear waste. "We capture all our waste," said Kraft. "We store it all, we know where it is, we got it numbered and we treat it with great respect." Ironically, with the ongoing renaissance in uranium mining in the United States, if there were no reversal by Congress, the yellowcake would end up in Asia or elsewhere to fuel their galloping nuclear energy programs.

In 2002, after more than 60 public hearings were held in Nevada, then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham certified that Yucca Mountain meets the site selection requirements. Both house of Congress approved the Yucca Mountain site in July 2002. "Yucca Mountain is an approved project as far as Congress and the President are concerned," concluded Kraft. "And now we have the license application to complete, get it through the NRC, and start building it." Approval for Yucca Mountain came after one of the most extensive scientific investigations in U.S. history. The NRC review may take up to three years.

The remaining stumbling block appears to be the 1995 report by the National Academy of Sciences, and adopted by the EPA, demanding a million-year guarantee of safety at Yucca Mountain. This came about while Yucca Mountain was passing every scientific test for the original 10,000-year safeguard. Congress can remedy this absurdity with legislation relieving this EPA standard. In other words, it is time to get realistic. Otherwise, the nuclear waste remains in limbo, chilling out in the cooling ponds or dry casket storage instead of the Yucca Mountain tunnels.

COPYRIGHT © 2007 by StockInterview, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

James Finch contributes to StockInterview.com and other publications. StockInterview’s “Investing in the Great Uranium Bull Market” has become the most popular book ever published for uranium mining stock investors. Visit [http://www.stockinterview.com]

Does Nuclear Power Lead to Weapons Proliferation?

You can make a bomb out of used fuel, but it is non-trivial

Not all used nuclear fuel material is suitable for bombs, particularly the materials found in spent reactor fuel that has undergone a full cycle of use in a reactor. A variety of plutonium and uranium isotopes, the usual materials used to form the core of a nuclear warhead, are found in spent nuclear fuel. The issue is that they are quite?difficult?to separate from the rest of the material. It possible to do, but?not easy. Making a bomb out of used fuel is not a simple process. Current techniques require sizable infrastructure for refining the fuel and extracting the plutonium. This is the sort of industry that the United Nations Security Council keeps a close eye on in the world today. There are very few nations with the scientific and industrial base necessary to build this sort of industry?who do not already have nuclear weapons or have chosen to not create them.

This is a point often missed by people who lobby against using nuclear power or nuclear fuel reprocessing. They do not realize that a large part of the developed world has both the technical affluence and the available physical resources to create nuclear weapons and yet have chosen not to. The 'nuclear club', those?nations who possess nuclear weapons?is only composed of The United States, Russia, The United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and probably Israel. There are many wealthy nations that possess nuclear power plants who do?not?have nuclear weapons such as Canada, Germany, Japan, Finland, South Korea and many others. For the full list see Wikipedia's article on?Nuclear Power By Country. These countries have?chosen?to use their technical ability to create?prosperity?rather than weapons. This is important because these countries demonstrate that it is by no means a certainty that development of nuclear power technologies leads to availability of weapons.

There will be more spent fuel to look after

This is?true?if the status quo regarding reprocessing continues. With our current system of once-through fuel use for most nuclear reactors, the volume of used nuclear fuel will?certainly?increase. With increased volume of fuel comes increased difficulty in transport, safety, accounting, and security. As more fuel is used and goes into various kinds of storage, the possibility that a mistake will be made somewhere does go up. In short, it makes thefts of used nuclear fuel more likely.

Someone can steal the fuel

So in the case that someone steals used fuel, they will still need to acquire access to refining equipment if they wish to make a nuclear weapon. In order to get the used fuel to their equipment they would need to transport, most likely over quite a large distance, incredibly dangerous material. Nuclear fuel has many 'features' that make it extremely hard to steal. For starters, the developed world keeps a?very?close eye on it. The regulations regarding the safekeeping and transport of nuclear waste are quite?stringent, and rightfully so. The developed world does not like the possibility of widespread nuclear armaments. Used fuel is a?military asset?and is usually very closely watched by the militaries of the developed world.

Secondly, used nuclear fuel is highly radioactive. There are a variety of containers employed for the storage and transport of nuclear fuel, all designed to be safe as well as conspicuous. It would not be easy to hide and smuggle a used nuclear fuel bundle in its normal container. If someone changes the container, they risk exposing themselves to large amounts of radiation and toxicity. Assuming that someone can steal the fuel without alerting the military and move it into a container of their own that can correctly shield them from the radiation, they would have a better chance of smuggling the fuel elsewhere.

Lastly, radiation is something we can detect. If fuel went missing, it is possible that instrumentation used by the military would be able to detect nuclear fuel unless it is inside extremely good shielding. It is important to keep in mind that there are several different kinds of radiation being emitted by used fuel. Shielding all of them enough that they are undetectable nearby would require an?impressive?container. Such a container is technically possible, however.

Do 'they' need to steal the fuel?

It is possible to create weapons-grade plutonium without creating electricity for a power grid first. This is accomplished using systems similar to those used during the Manhattan Project. These systems basically consisted of a large amounts of uranium close to each other with a moderating material in between. Fissions would take places as well as neutron-capture events that turn uranium-238 into plutonium-239, a popular weapon material. If a country has access to uranium ore and the industry mentioned above, they can eventually build a?crude?nuclear weapon. We say crude because this technology took extremely wealthy nations a long time to perfect, and early bombs were nowhere near as powerful as more modern ones, even without considering the fact that we now use hydrogen bombs which are an additional order of magnitude more difficult to produce.

Protecting used fuel in the developed nations still makes?tremendous?sense, but it seems crucial that we also pay close attention to the development of industry that can separate out weapons materials such as plutonium-239. These are some of the actions that are being taken already by the United Nations to suppress the chances of weapons proliferation in the world today. The political will of the UN Security Council seems to be steady on this issue. They?do not want?weapons proliferation for several reasons. First of all, nuclear weapons terrify most of the people in the developed world. It would be political suicide in the developed world to advocate policies that clearly lead to weapons proliferation. Secondly, nuclear weapons are part of the reason why the UN Security Council has the members that it does. The superior military power of the members of the nuclear club is not something they would like to see taken away from them. At the very least this is an area in which they do not want a level playing field where many states have nuclear weapons.

Megatons to Megawatts

Thanks to this joint program between the United States and Russia, hundreds of tons of highly enriched uranium has been down-blended and used in United States nuclear reactors as fuel. This program has turned a?huge?amount of weapons-grade material into both useful energy and resulting material that is no longer easily used for weapons.

Programs such as these are a?crucial part?of the nuclear disarmament of the world. Since much of the world uses uranium as an electricity source, it is guaranteed that the market price remains relatively high. A high market price encourages the dismantling of nuclear weapons and the safekeeping of the uranium stockpiles not just because they are?dangerous?but because they are incredibly?valuable. It has been noted that without this program it is likely that the Russian stockpiles would not have been as well-cared-for in the time following the downfall of the Soviet Union.

Closing the nuclear fuel cycle

New reactor designs exist in various stages of development that make significant progress towards?closing?the nuclear fuel cycle. What this means is that there would be less nuclear waste from a system such as this. In theory it may be possible to someday design and engineer a system that will produce only very, very small amounts of waste.

These designs exist primarily on paper, but some of them have been prototyped in the past. We have good reasons to believe that many of them have significant merit, but scale prototypes are necessary to refine their construction and operation. We can currently make estimates on cost, but there are generally a large number of unknown or uncertain variables that will affect the cost of these theoretical reactors.

A lot of?research?is still required to be confident that these reactors can actually deliver as expected. The possibilities for future development are compelling because it seems possible to design reactors that are more safe, reliable and inexpensive along with reduced proliferation risk. Some of these designs have systems wherein the fuel never leaves the reactor site for reprocessing. The reprocessing system is designed into the power plant so that there should not be a need to move large quantities of used fuel around for reprocessing and then redistribution. Each of these reprocessing systems would have to be very inexpensive in order to include one economically with each power plant. This is noteworthy because reprocessing facilities for today's fuel cycle cost several billion dollars.

Reprocessing techniques usually involve chemically working with the fuel between intervals where it is in the reactor. There are a number of approaches which will not be elaborated upon here. Suffice to say that there seem to be some practical proposals for safe and affordable nuclear power sources that will help reduce the threat of proliferation. This is claimed because they have some or all of the following properties:

they can burn up some of our current stockpiles of nuclear waste.
they can be used to burn up weapons-grade materials, reducing the volume of nuclear stockpiles.
the fuel cycles are designed so that the fuel is never in a state in which it is easy to steal and separate out plutonium or any other material useful for building nuclear weapons.

Nuclear technology brings dangerous knowledge

If we say that advancing science in this area will bring about a more dangerous world, we are relying on a number of?premises. First, we are assuming that some facet of whatever we learn can be applied to hurt people. This is a reasonable assumption since every major technological development in recent history has brought with it more possibilities for making weapons and war.

On the other hand, an equally valid argument is that the forward march of science has brought with it increased health, safety, and enjoyment for much of the world. The same chemistry that unlocked the dangers of guns and bombs made possible almost every facet of the modern era. Everything from the materials that make our homes and cars to the food we eat and the medicines we consume owes part of its intellectual heritage to basic chemistry. With advancing science comes an?empowerment?of humankind. It is clear that this power can be used by humans to do harm to each other. The question is?whether it will be used as such.

This brings us to the second premise, that the net effect of our advancing knowledge in this area will be negative. That is, the additional danger outweighs the possible benefits. Humans will use this advanced technology more for evil than for good. This premise assumes that regardless of the good or evil nature of those people who develop additional energy technologies, their discoveries will lead to horror and pain for humankind.

For the purposes of discussion, the worst-case scenario is one in which the people developing the technology are the ones who will use it. That is, the most advanced nuclear nations in the world-the USA, France, the UK, Russia and China-will choose to use their powers for evil. In this case, they?already have?the power to do so. Fearing them is?moot?in this discussion.

A more reasonable scenario is that the technology or the materials involved will be stolen by someone else, and used for evil. For this discussion, see the above section on about how?someone can steal the fuel. The scientific discoveries have shown that these weapons that we all fear so much are thankfully relatively hard to build. The fact is that the personal stance on nuclear weapons is rather homogeneous throughout the world. People fear them, and rightfully so. Those nations that consider producing them are quite likely acting somewhat in their own self-defense. Ownership of a nuclear arsenal is pretty much guarantee that no one is going to invade you. Much of the world fears and distrusts the nuclear powers because they quite literally have doomsday machines, and that isn't something most people want to exist at all.

How can we reduce the world's nuclear weaponry?

Hampering the development of nuclear power plant research or construction will?not?change the fact that nuclear arsenals exist. Nor will it stop the creation of weapons by nuclear club countries that choose to build them. What these actions might do however is change the markets enough that uranium and other nuclear materials become easier to obtain. In this case there would be little to no valuable use for the existing stockpiles and industry except to build weapons, and sell them to the highest bidder. The economics of the?arms industry?are terrifying to peace-loving citizens of the world.

We should instead look for actual?solutions?to the problems at hand. The world has nuclear arsenals that should never be used except perhaps to defend the earth itself from an asteroid collision or something similar. That specific issue requires very impressive rocketry, astronomy, and navigation, but not very much of a nuclear arsenal. If the political will is there, the developed world can?continue?to lead a?disarmament of the world. We have shown that we as a species are politically capable of cutting down our weapons stockpiles. It is the?responsibility?of each and every-peace loving citizen of the world to support the?continued reduction?in nuclear arms.

The political will also currently exists in the nuclear nations to ensure that other nations do not acquire the ability to produce nuclear weapons. Yes they have failed to stop the development of all such weapons, North Korea being a notable example. This is one area however that the citizens of the nuclear nations should stand together on. It should make abundant political sense for the nuclear nations to present a united front with regards to their dedication to stopping the development of nuclear weapons in the world. Of course this is only really morally justifiable if these same nations undertake substantial nuclear disarming of their own militaries as well as take steps to guarantee that they will not be used against other human targets. It is the?responsibility?of every citizen to make it be known that this is their clear wish for the?direction of their country.

Supporting the economics of the nuclear power industry makes sense. If nuclear materials are highly valued and profitable in terms of energy, there will be a disincentive to create weapons with them. There will also be additional incentive to safeguard them against theft and misuse. Thus it makes sense to support the continued research into newer and cleaner forms of nuclear power so that this industry can continue to exist and improve.

The nuclear power plants that are currently being built and used in the world are?by no means ideal. They leave a lot to be desired in a number of areas that we have gone into here and elsewhere on this site. What we as concerned citizens of the world should?support?is?better fuel management?and use. Advanced reactors, if we support their research and construction, should be capable of reducing the amount of material in the world that can be made into weapons. It is also the case that many of todays reactors can help reduce our used fuel stockpiles, if we?support?the use of?reprocessing?technologies. Many of todays reactors can use reprocessed fuel, but do not for economic and political reasons. With broad-based support and subsidization from the citizenry in the interest of peace, these disadvantages of reprocessed fuel will go away.

Economically, reprocessed fuel is currently a bit more expensive than fuel that has been created out of natural uranium. This difference in price is?not?necessarily?permanent. It is expected that eventual advancement in reprocessing technology will lead to economic advantages over fuel freshly created from natural uranium. Additionally,?proposed fuel cycles?for next-generation reactors are expected to employ much less expensive reprocessing techniques. These techniques are less expensive because these newer fuel cycles are being designed with economics and safety in mind rather than bomb-making. The main fuel cycle of currently existing nuclear power plants owes its origin to weapon development programs such as the Manhattan Project in the United States. These fuel cycles were designed in an effort to create a nuclear weapon as fast as possible. That is, the currently used fuel cycle was purposely selected because it seemed to be the easiest and fastest way to create the materials for nuclear weapons. In this sense it makes abundant sense for us to support the development of safe reprocessing techniques for currently existing fuel as well as support the development of advanced fuel cycles and advanced reactors that are designed to be safe, economic, and proliferation-resistant.

Politically, reprocessing is currently held back because people fear that the same facility and techniques could be used to separate out weapons material rather than for reprocessing fuel. It is true that some modern reprocessing facilities could be used to separate out weapons material from used fuel. This can only happen however if the people running or overseeing the facility?choose?to do that. The national governments of the nuclear club keep a close tab on their reprocessing facilities. It should be made clear that the creation of weapons material in these facilities would only be possible?if the government allowed it?to happen. If the populace is unyielding in its commitment against the construction of nuclear weapons, the government would be forced to act out these wishes. In the case of the nuclear club, this point is moot because they already have nuclear arsenals. For those countries of the developed world that do not have weaponry, this is also moot because they have chosen not to create arsenals. Non-nuclear nations may not have the chance of developing this sort of technology or facility due to international pressure. These nations would possibly be able to negotiate a reprocessing agreement with a? peaceful nuclear nation that already performs reprocessing such as Japan.

It makes sense to support advanced reprocessing in order to reduce the amount of used nuclear fuel we have to keep safe in the future. Supporting advanced reprocessing would mean that we would be taking some of the burden off of future generations to store and deal with our used fuel. All things considered, supporting reprocessing makes sense in a global scheme of nuclear disarmament. Citizens should educate themselves on the basics of the matter as presented here and elsewhere, and make their choice. The question of whether reprocessing will continue to be pursued is?primarily?a question of whether the?people?of the nuclear nations will support it.

Does nuclear power increase weapons proliferation?

Arguments can certainly be made to support either side of this argument. This article gives examples of valid arguments on both sides of the issue. In general it is clear that understanding of nuclear energy fundamentals is a prerequisite for creating nuclear weapons. In this area however, the proverbial cat is out of the bag. Pandora's box has been opened. The knowledge exists and is relatively widespread. The real question is what to choose to do with the knowledge that the world now has.

The developed world does not want nuclear proliferation, so they take measures to guard against it. Some argue that these measures are not enough. Some argue that nuclear power plants are contributing to a proliferation problem by increasing the availability of nuclear materials such as used fuel. On the other hand it can be argued that nuclear power plants are steadily using up the world's supply of nuclear warhead material, and also that their used fuel is in a state that makes it very difficult to turn into a nuclear weapon.

It is possible to do however, which is the crux of the argument. This possibility however depends entirely upon advanced technology necessary for extracting certain isotopes of plutonium and uranium from the fuel. This technology is carefully watched for by the nuclear nations. In order for a rogue state to develop a nuclear weapon in this way, they would have to hide their advanced equipment from the countries in the world with the most powerful militaries and economies, and the most extensive intelligence networks on the planet. The rogue state has drawn the short straw in this situation. It seems to be incredibly difficult to create a weapon without the developed world learning about it.

Stealing a completed weapon might be easier, but would likely require advanced military ability or espionage, both things that the nuclear nations also pay very close attention to. Regardless, stealing a completed weapon is not the focus of this discussion. This discussion is about whether using nuclear power for electricity contributes to proliferation risk.

Lastly, newer conceptions of the nuclear power plant should be capable of producing extremely little waste. They should also be capable of using up some of our currently existing stockpiles of used fuel if reprocessing techniques are supported politically. Some of these proposed reactors are developing a large following because of their planned practicality, safety, and anti-proliferation properties. Fuel in some of these reactors is never in a form that is easy to turn into a bomb. Reactors such as these are a logical next step for the fission industry. Capable of burning up the used fuel stockpiles of the world, these reactors may one day end our fears of nuclear proliferation because there will be no more substantial nuclear material stockpiles.

Our conclusion is that development of nuclear power that is properly managed and regulated should not lead to increased proliferation risk. With the correct political will and backing, nuclear power can lead to a much safer world, especially if development of advanced reactors and reprocessing facilities is supported and carefully regulated by the concerned citizens of the world. It is our opinion that research into these advanced technologies deserves our support because they have such tremendous potential to better the lives of all humanity. The application of these technologies for good rather than evil depends on the courage of the citizen of the developed world to make clear to their government that they want to live in a safer world with minimal nuclear stockpiles and conscientious management of our nuclear materials to maximize the benefit and minimize the risk that these materials embody.

Ben Harack
Leader of the Vision of Earth project, a volunteer group trying to figure out some of the problems that society faces. You can find us at http://www.visionofearth.org/

Nuclear Ventilation

LEGISLATION

Since 1928 the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) has regularly produced recommendations for the protection of people from the effects of ionising radiation. The ICRP recommendations are reflected in European Directives on Radiological Protection. The United Kingdom as a European member state is obliged (under the EURATOM Treaty) to adopt these European directives. The Health and Safety at Work Act (HASAWA) is the over arching UK act of parliament which protects people at work. The Ionising Radiation Regulations 1999 enforce the HASAWA with respect to radiological protection and implement the ICRP recommendations. Protection of the environment is enforced by the Radiological Substances Act 1993.

IONISING RADIATION REGULATIONS (IRR 99)

IRR99 sets down requirements for the safety of people who work with ionising radiations, including radioactive substances, and are enforced by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) or in some cases by local authorities. Major Components of the Regulations:

1) Every radiation employer shall, in relation to any work with ionising radiation that he undertakes, take all necessary steps to restrict so far as is reasonably practicable the extent to which his employees and other persons are exposed to ionising radiation. IRR section 8 (1)

2) Restriction of exposure should be achieved using the following hierarchy of measures: Engineering controls and design features, systems of work, personal protective equipment.

3) IRR99 sets the legal dose limit for individuals and a requirement for risk assessments prior to undertaking work.

4) Requirement for qualified experts; radiation protection advisors (RPAs) and radiation protection supervisors (RPSs).

5) Demarcation and control of areas where doses could be received from radiation or contamination.

RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1993 (RSA 93)

RSA93 is enforced by the Environment Agency (EA) in England and Wales and SEPA in Scotland. The primary Purpose of RSA93 is to control radioactive substances and in particular radioactive waste. The act flows down (like IRR99) from the EURATOM Basic Safety Standards Directive. It requires:

1) Registration with EA/SEPA/EHS for the keeping and use of radioactive materials and mobile radioactive apparatus; and

2) Authorisation by EA/SEPA/EHS for the accumulation and disposal of radioactive waste.

3) Radioactive materials accountancy.

4) Qualified experts (including in Nuclear Ventilation).

NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS ACT 1965 (NIA65)

The act is enforced by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) which is a part of the Nuclear Safety Directorate (NSD), a directorate under the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). NIA65 states that a site cannot have a nuclear plant, or conduct licensable activities without a site license issued by the HSE. The license includes 36 conditions which must be met by the site license holder to ensure that the site is operated in a safe and appropriate manner. Nuclear Ventilation is affected mainly by (but not limited to) the following license conditions:

LC18. Radiological Protection LC33.  Disposal of Radioactive Waste LC34.  Leakage and escape of radioactive material and radioactive waste

The author is a Chartered Engineer with 15 years experience in the design of nuclear facillities including nuclear ventilation. Nuclear Ventilation is a major contributer to radiation protection.

Nuclear Batteries - Powering the Micro Devices of Tomorrow

Engineers and researchers at the University of Missouri have produced a nuclear powered battery which is approximately the size of a penny. This battery produces power from the decay of radioisotopes and is claimed to produce a million times more power than an ordinary battery. This is an amazing feat for battery engineering. There are numerous uses of such a device such as in micro medical devices, remote sensors, spacecraft and other hard to reach devices which require a continual source of power.

Radioactive substances are known to decay in a continual and reasonably predictable manner. When they decay, they release charged particles which can be gathered and routed into creating electric current. This differs from the nuclear processes in power plants where energy is obtained from the splitting of radioactive atoms creating multitude of other radioactive byproducts. This is much safer since it is a natural process of decay harnessed into electricity. Since radiation emanates from the source in every direction, the contraption that contains this radioactive substance must successfully capture all the discharged particles without letting any harmful particles escape.

Nuclear batteries are currently being used for numerous applications mainly in aerospace and military uses. Although people may think that nuclear radiation is something to be cautious about, nuclear power sources are already powering a number of useful devices such as satellites, pacemakers and systems underwater. Radiation is a well researched and known phenomenon and if these radioactive substances can be used in the correct manner and application, they are extremely effective and last for hundreds of years.

The ability of these engineers to make a battery smaller is through the use of liquid semiconductors as opposed to solid semiconductors which were required to be larger in size. This liquid semiconductor captures the decaying particles that are emitted more effectively than solid semiconductors. This is because due to the highly volatile energies of the emitted particles, solid semiconductors suffer great structural damage and need to be larger in size. This is why liquid semiconductors are better suited for batteries by cushioning and absorbing the energy of these emitted particles and putting them to proper use.

Although these batteries are not commercially available, they are continually being researched and being made even smaller to power the micro devices in medical applications. The main use of these nuclear batteries is to power tiny devices which are known as nano and micro electromechanical systems. These will give the medical field more options in terms of electrical implants as well as robot assisted surgery.

Although we may be far from using these nuclear batteries to power our remote controls and alarm clocks, the research is ongoing to solve our power problems and allow us to probe further and understand the world we live in today.

Full-Body Scanning, Radiation Exposure and Help From An Erupting Volcano

Can Hot Lava from an Erupting Volcano restore your physical health?

Innocent people these days are being unknowingly subjected to harmful levels of radiation exposure by well-meaning security officers. Did you know that every time you, your spouse and kids go through a full-body scanner or metal detectors (like the ones at airports or government offices) they are exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. This exposure can directly lead to cancer, cell death and other severe illnesses and even flu symptoms and colds that never seem to go away. There is only one "Silver Bullet" known to man that has the power to wash away the effects of heavy metal toxins and even radiation exposure. That silver bullet is called a Zeolite.

Hot Lava and Seawater to the Rescue

Zeolites are unique minerals that are formed when a volcano suddenly erupts and spews hot lava into the ocean. When they come together and harmonize they form a special type of highly charged particle called a Zeolite.

This precious Zeolite particle is negatively charged and attracts heavy metals like mercury, lead, aluminum (from chemtrails too) and radioactive isotopes (from scanners or nuclear explosions) and binds to them like a magnet to iron and flushes them out of the body. Zeolites are much more powerful than other antioxidants. They have been proven to absorb free radicals, and heavy metals (even uranium 238 and plutonium) from your body, as well as enhancing the immune system without any side effects. This mineral is safe to living organisms and will balance the body's pH. Disease forming organisms can not live in a balanced pH environment.

Zeolites Can Save Your Health

Eliminates Radiation Exposure Effects (x-rays, full-body scanners, nuclear)

Detoxes Heavy Metals, Including Mercury, Lead & Aluminum (chemtrails)

Flushes Environmental Toxins (chemicals and cell phone radiation)

Starves Cancer Cells and Parasites

Enhances Your Immune System Naturally

Alkalizes Your Body (Healthy Balance for Peak Health)

Zeolites Can Even Help Rid Your Body from Nuclear Radiation Poisoning

Zeolites are extremely powerful! They have been used in toxic dump cleanup. In fact, they are being used to remove radiation from the Chernobyl Nuclear Explosion area. They are safe for human and animal usage. The best forms to use are either liquid or micronized powder Zeolite. Liquid Zeolites easily penetrate our cells and draw out any toxins they contact.

Powdered Zeolites (micronized - which are very small particles) are also very good, as they are small enough to get through to small cells and deeply detox our bodies and restore our health. I highly recommend that you have some on hand and use them regularly as we are all exposed to heavy metals that make us sick.

Don't forget to have some on hand. They could just save your health, as well as your loved ones. Get more information about zeolites by clicking Zeolites.

James Cruise is a holistic practitioner that loves helping others in their quest for optimum health and peak performance. Get the inside advantage today! Visit me on the web @ http://thehealingfrequency.com

Nuclear Radiation and Nuclear Power Accidents?

We have groups in our nation who are very anti-nuclear, yet that would be the answer to those who believe in Global Warming? If they really do not want CO2 and other pollution gases in the atmosphere then nuclear is the most obvious answer. In fact because of its power it maybe the best solution not only on Earth but for Space Stations on the Moon or Colonies on Mars.

The anti-nuclear groups are quick to point out nuclear accidents such as the 1979 Three-Mile Island disaster in PA, in which no one was even injured. But as soon as you point this out, they immediately attack you on the Chernobyl accident, which was a disaster of biblical proportion. Yet if you consider the Soviet Union at the time had nothing even close to the NRC in the United States, in fact there was NO regulation or oversight Also realize the newest technology in nuclear reactors would be nothing similar to that technology used in Chernobyl. Even so that accident, a complete meltdown, reports said 30,000 people died, yet in reality it was only 47 in the actual accident. The total number who died later was 4,000 people, yet not even all can be confirmed to be from radiation poisoning. The disaster was not anything near what it was made to be in the media spurred on by environmentalists against nuclear power.

Did you know that each year wind generators kill thousands of birds? Did you know that the special additives demanded to be added to gasoline into the fuel by environmentalists nearly doubles the production costs and kills thousands people per year? Did you know if we made more nuclear power the air would be cleaner and lower health care costs? Did you know that the only reason we do not have more nuclear power in our nation is because lawyers filing lawsuits on behalf of environmental groups have blocked these nuclear projects?

Lastly and I want you to think about this one. Did you know that the survivors from Hiroshima have lived well past the average expected life span in their country? Did you know that such studies tend to suggest that nuclear radiation may be good for you? Have you considered what would happen to Earth if we turned off the Sun? What kind of energy do you suppose it runs off of? That's right, nuclear energy; think on this?

"Lance Winslow" - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/. Lance is an online writer in retirement.

Is Nuclear Power Safe?

The Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power plant in Japan discharged approximately 350 gallons of radioactive water into the sea today after an earthquake shook the Japanese town, which is 160 miles northwest of Tokyo.

Fortunately, the radioactive contamination levels fell well below legal limits. The power plant is the one largest nuclear facility's in the world and just one of fifty-five nuclear reactors in Japan. The incident, in light of the recent swarm of headlines regarding alternative energy use and the possible re-emergence of nuclear power as a primary alternative energy source, leaves many to wonder, is nuclear power safe?

Nuclear energy has both good and bad points. It creates a huge amount of energy without using valuable fossil fuels, but it also produces radioactive materials that can be extremely harmful to the environment. Consequently, nuclear safety includes actions taken to prevent nuclear and radiation accidents or to limit their consequences.

Workers at nuclear plants, and the larger environment, run a risk due to this radioactive material. Nuclear power plants must be run very carefully to ensure that there are no mistakes, which is why nuclear power plant operators promote a safety culture. The term "safety culture" is a term introduced by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group in a report published on the Chernobyl disaster in 1986. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) defines safety culture as "an assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals, which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance." Safety culture is about improving safety attitudes in people, but it is also about good safety management established by organizations with a holistic, whole community, whole of life approach. A good safety culture implies a constant assessment of the safety significance of events, such as earthquakes or other natural disasters.

Additionally, nuclear power plants possess both active and passive safety systems. Active safety systems are systems activated by a human operator, an automatic computer driven system, or even a mechanical system to respond to dangerous events in an appropriate manner. Passive safety systems rely on the laws of nature to ensure a reactor responds in an appropriate manner during potentially dangerous events. The laws of nature include for instance, incorporating the law of physics in engineered components of nuclear power plants whereby a nuclear reaction would slow versus accelerate during potentially dangerous situations or events.

Nuclear power plants also possess structural safety systems. Surrounding a nuclear reactor are certain containment structures, such as the fuel ceramic, metal fuel cladding tubes and the reactor vessel and coolant system. Finally, nuclear reactors are housed in containment buildings. Containment buildings, which are made of steel or concrete, enclose nuclear reactors to contain the escape of radiation.

Ultimately, human exposure to radiation, the primary contamination of concern at nuclear power plants, is more likely to come from exposure natural background radiation and from some medical procedures. In fact, studies exist finding no evidence of increased risk of exposure to radiation or occurrences of cancer in individuals living near nuclear facilities. For instance, in 1990 a study by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) of the National Institutes of Health, which surveyed over 900,000 cancer deaths in counties near nuclear facilities, found no increased incidence of cancer mortality in people living near 62 different nuclear facilities in the United States.

Regardless of the safety systems in place, which promote a culture of safety in nuclear power plant operations, no industrial activity is risk-free. Occurrences take place, which are completely outside our control, as evidenced by the earthquake, which impacted the Kashiwazaki Kariwa nuclear power. Any malfunction, accident or natural disaster at or near a nuclear power plant presents potentially devastating, long-term impacts to the surrounding community and environment.

About the Publisher: This report is published by Energy Business Reports an energy industry think tank and leading source for energy industry information and research products.

To read more about this topic, see 'Global Nuclear Power Outlook and Opportunities 2007'