« Disney Loses Lawsuit Against City of Anaheim | Main | Red County/OC Blog News Roundup -- September 25, 2007 »

September 24, 2007

Comments

Dr. Van Nostrom

nuke power is clean but still radically dangerous. The San O plant has had leaks as late as 6 months ago--- NO leaks are permissible. I wonder what those knuckleheads Jon and Ken think?

Dr. Van Nostrom

nuke power is clean but still radically dangerous. The San O plant has had leaks as late as 6 months ago--- NO leaks are permissible. I wonder what those knuckleheads Jon and Ken think?

Chuck DeVore

Van Nostrom, "...radically dangerous"? Compared to what?

Coal kills tens of thousands per year and belches toxins into the air, including radioactive particles, dams have broken across the world, killing thousands, oil refineries blow up, natural gas pipelines rupture.

Meanwhile, the Western nuclear power industry has amassed 2,000-reactor-years of a perfectly safe safety record without one death. Not even our "worst" nuclear accident, Three Mile Island, injured anybody.

Let's have some perspective here.

Lastly, if you are concerned about global greenhouse gas emissions, nothing is better as producing power with the lowest amount of lifecycle emissions per kWh.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

Dr Van Nostrom

Radically as oppossed to slowly or deliberatly etc. Nuke power has the potential to kill in huge quantity quickly. Of course coal increases greenhouse, global dimming etc etc, that's why in my post I said Nuke is clean.It is relatively clean but has the potential of killing large amounts of people quickly. There is still inadequate resolution of storage of waste, and it leaks. I have lived VERY near the San O reactor for 3 decades. I have watched 6 well publisized radoactive releases and 5 well known leak stories and saved the clippings while I have "hoped" it does not effect my family's health in the long run.The plant sent all of us neighbors iodine pills to swallow in event of a melt down or leak--- I swear to God it's true! you have to be kidding me. Do you have any concept of how inadequate oral iodine is in these situations? Are you in any way supported by the nuke industry? These plants are required by law to have zero leaks-- they do not. Some day we may be ready for Nuke power-- we aint there yet Devore... best--- Dr. Van Nostrom

Chuck DeVore

Van Nostrom,

Iodine pills work quite well to prevent your thyroid from uptaking a radioactive isotope of iodine. The authorities around Chernobyl did not tell the residents in the vicinity of the plant to take their pills soon enough, as a result, about 4,000 people or so have now come down with thyroid cancer some 20 years later. While very treatable (my wife had it) about four have died from it.

The “disaster” you fear cannot happen with a containment dome over the reactor as is the case in San Onofre. I am sorry that you have been frightened into thinking otherwise. Chernobyl had no containment dome. That allowed what is called a “large, early” release of radioactive material. The heaviest isotopes stayed in the plant or very close to it. The lighter, more chemically reactive isotopes, iodine, strontium, and cesium, went further. Damage from iodine can be prevented with the iodine pills. Strontium and cesium can replace calcium so they end up in the food supply when people drink milk from cows that have eaten grass with strontium and cesium on it. This then gets concentrated in bones, which is not good. It can be avoided by not consuming milk or meat from the contaminated area. As for the rest of the radiation, did you know that the area around Chernobyl has a lower background radiation than many parts of Europe, such as the Alps, which, because of granite, have more natural radiation? There is no such thing as a radiation-free environment. No such place exists.

As for the “leaks” at San Onofre, put them into context. They are detectable with equipment that did not even exist a couple of decades ago. The levels of radiation are so small, that if you took a plane trip to New York, you’d get far more radiation from the extra cosmic rays at 40,000 feet than you’d ever get in a lifetime of living near San Onofre. Does this stop you from flying? Of course the risk of driving the I-5 is far, far greater than the risk of flying or of the additional dose of radiation you’d receive from a six hour trip at 40,000 feet.

Now, I know that there is an obsolete study from the early 1980s that posits a catastrophic release of radiation from San Onofre in a worst-case scenario. This study is no longer valid. It is likely the source of your fears as the anti-nuclear crowd continues to tout it as gospel. It can’t happen because the containment domes at San Onofre are extremely strong and not at all capable of being ruptured, even with a direct hit by a 747 jet.

Lastly, you are free to review my campaign finances as they are all online with the Secretary of State’s office. You’ll find I have raised money from a wide array of people and companies, with no special concentration in any area. Companies interested in nuclear power have probably contributed less than one-half of one percent of my funds raised over the years. But, if you wish, check it out yourself by going online.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

Dr. Van Nostrom

Devore, No offense amigo but if (and I don't assume) you indeed believe all you are saying you are truly an industry fan--- most of the info you gave me is widely availible on the internet and of course I am aware of some of it. Your interpretations are conclusory and weak. The iodine pills will do almost nothing compared to the raveges of radioactive uptake on all tissues and organs. This is also widely reported in the lit. of toxicology. You can not seriously believe that the containment domes at San O will do much in a melt down? Right? Have you read Boster et al's paper on d541 cabbit construction and the plume effect? I am sure your industry friends won't tell you about that. Are you kidding when you assert that the leaks recently detected below the San O unit in the ground water would have been undetectable 5, 10, 20 years ago? Whoa--- you need some academic help my friend. The literature about the chronic exposure to and uptake of radioactive material in many forms let alone reactor "fuel" and waste is resolved of the chronic danger of the material. You sound like a guy trying to make Chernobyl appear to be a nice place to have lived. It wasn't. Only a fool would be so sanquin to the constant exposure to leaked radioactive material ad to the inherrant danger of living with nuke power reactors in ones back yard. You'll do well with John and Ken, have you ever eard those guys? They sound like pepsi cola and gobstopper stoned teenagers screaming talking over one another and generally broadcasting ignorance over 50,000 watts of radiated power. I can't think of a better place for a nuclear power commercial. All the very best, Dr. Van Nostrom.(lifelong conservative Republican)

Dr. Van Nostrom

Devore-- Before the show, you need to read Iodine Prophylaxis and nuclear accidents by Franic--- widely availible and probably even on the web--- you are wildly off base amigo-- sorry.

Chuck DeVore

Actually, I'm pretty well aware of all the literature. I applied to go into the Navy nuclear program out of high school with the intent to go to CalTech. The Navy recruiters messed up my paperwork and got it in a day late. I ended up going into Army intelligence for 24 years on an Army scholarship at Claremont McKenna College instead.

I have to disagree with your doomsday conclusions and reply that 2,000 reactor years of safe operation -- excluding the 20 or so military reactors that rest in San Diego harbor at any given time -- make me believe that the relative risks of nuclear are well known and acceptable compared to the benefits.

As for the damage to tissue by radioactive action, how, pray tell, does it get into the body? Because, unless you know of a pathway that I do not, alpha and beta in the environment cannot do much as they don't travel far. You have to actually absorb the radioactive material for it to damage you.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

Chuck DeVore

I just spent 11 hours up at U.C. Berkeley's nuclear engineering lab last week and I asked the exact question about idodine and radioactive releases. They are not as worried as you appear to be.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

DP Resident

How do the newer generation of nuclear plant designs hold up? These are the Gen IV designs vs. the Gen II the US currently uses. If the US were to ramp up production, it would NOT be old Gen II.

How is France holding up with their significant reliance on Nuclear Power? They have 56 working nukes, generating 76% of their electricity. The funniest part is when the French starting building plants in the early 70's, it was an AMERICAN design they chose as their starting point!

just..asking

"I'd put my money on the sun and solar energy. What a source of power! I hope we don't have to wait till oil and coal run out before we tackle that." - Thomas Edison

Just spent the day at Solar Cities in Long Beach. PG&E announced purchase of the largest pv system ever. Palm Desert just deployed its system to run City Hall. They also announced a $1m subsidy above state assistance to encourage solar investment.

Portions of Canada pay less than 6% of what we pay per kw by use of solar. Thats Canada where the sun does not always shine.

No pills, no waste dumps, no thousands of years of contamination. This is something we can do right now without fighting the legislative, public, and federal legal issues that nukes present.

just..asking

Dr. Van Nostrom

DeVore, Unless Iodine prophylaxis is perfectly administered, which of course it will not be, it actually can be and is counter productive. Of course the polish cancer experience post Chernobyl calls for iodine you are talking life boats on the Titanic vs life jackest. Not sinking is the thing. Nuke power leaks, can be a catastrophic problem and there is still no waste resolution. While I hear you when you claim to have read th literature, have you read the paper I cited? Have you read Wolfe J.'s paper on excess KI? Taborsky's fundemental Ki work? Or are you just selling us something you know little about? All the very best, Dr. Van Nostrom

Chuck DeVore

Have I read every paper? No. Neither have you, I'd wager, based on your comments.

Iodine is only an issue in "large, early" release. Something that's not going to happen with the containment structure at San Onofre. Radioactive iodine has to escape in large quantities before it is a problem. This has happened once: at Chernobyl where there was no containment dome.

Regarding "Just Asking's" Thomas Edison comment. He would be very glad he didn't put his money on solar as it is still 10 times more costly than hydro, nuclear or coal.

PG&E's proposed installation is driven by state law, not economics. It will cost over a $1 billion for 500 mW of power -- when the Sun is shining. This may compare favorably with inflated natural gas peaker plant prices, but it will not come even remotely close to nuclear.

As for Canada, please cite your data. The number you cite is impossible without huge government subsidies due to pure physics. Solar radiation energy density is not all that high, thankfully, otherwise we'd all die in the daylight. This low density means higher costs to capture it as compared to nuclear, coal, etc.

I use as my data, California's CEC website -- hardly a source of pro-nuclear propaganda. Check it out yourself. You'll see nuclear’s costs to generate electricity compared to other sources. Go to: http://www.energy.ca.gov/electricity/comparative_costs.html then tell me why the CEC is wrong. Otherwise, you are certainly welcome to solar, even courtesy of the subsidy I am paying for as a rate payer, and you will still pay FAR, FAR more for power than I will be paying.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

Dr. Van Nostrom

Well Devore, 2 things. I beg to differ with you. In fact I have probably read and considered everything that has been published in peer reviewed organs regarding Ki issues and corresponding thyroid-hystological uptake in the nuclear context since probably 1940, which one can assume is all of it. I have done several tons of bench work myself but I don't think my experience is as powerful as the obvious dangers well known to even the casual observer. I merely commended those articles to you because I can see that you have a gapping hole in you argument. Nuclear power is also clearly not affordable and may very one day be safe and affordable. I sure hope it is. But now it is not and your beating the drum in its favor is sad and dangerous. You have merely wieghed the costs/dangers as best as you can within your obious limititations and made a determination to accept the risk for yourself. But not for me. I know far too much about the subject. Oddly you'll like John and Ken. All the very best indeed, Dr. Van Nostrom

Chuck DeVore

This, from the O.C. Register's story a couple of weeks ago about the leak you mentioned at San Onofre:

?Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor L. Dricks said there was no public-health danger from the radioactive water. He said that annual radiation exposure from natural sources is about 300 millirems a year. Anyone in contact with the water found under San Onofre would receive about 1/10 millirem of radiation exposure, he said."

So, 1/3000th more radiation than the average American receives in a given year if you came into contact (by drinking, presumably) the water with trace amounts of tritium in it directly under the plant. An airline pilot gets about 3-5 millirems of added radiation a year by flying at 40,000 feet all the time. This is what I mean by proportion.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

Chuck DeVore

So, what are your credentials, professor? I see listings for a Prof. Van Nostrom, who, was critical of the Bush economic record in the 2004 campaign, are you the same? Just wondering.

How can you say "nuclear power is clearly not affordable"? The French get 78 percent of their electricity from nuclear, the Swedes, 48 percent. They seem to do fairly well in the affordable power category.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

duplojohn

The Assemblyman is mostly right regarding the safety of nuclear power generation. It is one of the safest forms.

Specific factions of environmentalist causes have promoted otherwise. This was and is a huge disservice to America.

Having said that, the Assemblyman is clearly misguided in his quest. The permit process for the first nuclear generation plant (outside Houston Texas)in thirty years is just now coming to review.

It is estimated the cost of the process will be close to TEN MILLION dollars. Who is going to put up that dough? SCE, PG&E, ENRON.

I doubt this could happen. Even with a termed out Assembly/Senate member lobbying for it.

Chuck DeVore

These electricity cost figures from the California Energy Commission put a BIG hurt on your credibility, Dr. What paper do you have that backs up your assertion that "Nuclear power is also clearly not affordable"? Or, is it just your opinion?

Without additional nuclear power, are you prepared to pay triple the costs for your electricity? Are other Californians? Are California businesses?

Cost of Electricity Generation
1994 Compared to 2003
Technology [1] 1994 Cost of Electricity
(cents/kWh) Current Cost of Electricity
(2003 data, cents/kWh)
Hydroelectric 1994: 0.31 to 4.4 2003: 0.25 to 2.7
Nuclear [3] 1994: 2.5 2003: 1.4 to 1.9
Coal [4] 1994: 1.9 to 2.3 2003: 1.8 to 2.0
Natural Gas [5] 1994: 2.5 to 11.7 2003: 5.2 to 15.9
Solar [6] 1994: 16.4 to 30.5 2003: 13.5 to 42.7
Wind [7] 1994: 7.6 2003: 4.6

Chuck DeVore

duplojohn,

San Onofre's two reactors save about $1.3 billion a year in natural gas from being burned to make electricity. So, you see, $10 million for a permit isn't much.

Also, I'm not termed-out -- not yet anyway. I've got another reelect ahead of me!

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

Dan Chmielewski

Not even our "worst" nuclear accident, Three Mile Island, injured anybody.


Chuck -- there is one cancer related death attributed to Three Mile Island.

Might I inquire how much the Fresno people have contributed to your re-elect campaign (the last one and the next one) and your initiative? No snark. Simple question.

Dan Chmielewski

http://www.ceet.niu.edu/faculty/vanmeer/tmi.htm

a portal of research on TMI.

Chuck DeVore

DanC, a cancer-related death at TMI? Who? How proven?

In reading "Mortality among the Residents of the Three Mile Island Accident Area: 1979-1992" in Environmental Health Perspectives, June, 2000 by Evelyn O. Talbott, et al, they cite one thyroid cancer death in the cohort, meaning that one person in the area died from thyroid cancer. My wife had thyroid cancer. She lived no where near Three Mile Island (TMI). Thyroid cancer occurs all the time. The study found no higher incidence of deaths in the TMI area. I dispute your contention.

As to your question about "the Fresno people" and what they may have have contributed, you keep asking such questions as if you expect every (GOP) politician to have some sort of bright quid pro quo linkage. The answer is, sadly, not a damn penny. Although I'd gladly accept all legal donations up to the legal limit. Do you know anyone up there?!?

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

Dan Chmielewski

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9802E2DC1E3FF932A35752C1A9649C8B63

This article was in the NY Times; Go to the last sentence in the story fo the thyroid cancer death in the area. And the study showed a higher incidence of lymphona (see below).

"But Dr. Talbott added, ''We did see one blip.'' From 1985 to 1989, 24 women in the group died of lymphoma or hematopoietic tissue (blood-forming organs), up from 14 that were expected to contract the disease during that period.

So to say there was no injury due to the accident at TMI would be a presumption at best.


Chuck DeVore

Ah, but DanC, you are dealing with an extremely large population base being studied. What about all the other cancer rates that are below the statistical amount expected? Surely you do not mean to attribute that to the accident? Statistics all across the nation show "clusters" in various populations. Some of those clusters are do to nature variation, others due to something else, such as genetics, diet, or the environment.

The point it, that the amount of radiation released at TMI resulted in very small exposures of radiation to the surrounding population. In most cases far than than 10 percent above the average amount they would have received from the environment around them (assuming their house didn't a natural radon problem).

Radiation is all around us. We need to keep things in perspective.

Oil refineries blow up. Coal mines kills people. Pollution from fossil fuels is harmful to the lungs. Natural gas pipelines explode. Even PV solar gives off nasty toxic fumes when it catches on fire. Everything has a relative risk a benefit associated with it.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

The comments to this entry are closed.


Categories