in such a polarised atmosphere, to condemn an anti-nuke protest or appear to be defending the industry can sound on the surface, to a committed contranuker, like "taking the other side." but you notice that I haven't agreed with melo that your position is "diabolical" :-) I'm still trying to understand why this topic is so very loaded for so many of us -- almost as loaded as a debate over the political ethics of Israeli policy or Zionism, or the death penalty! -- what's the emotional freight that it carries with it... and why it is that I, for example, neither perceive Migeru as diabolical nor melo as sanctimonious :-) maybe your map would help, and I'm sorry I didn't have time last night to "do the survey". maybe tonight.
this is new territory for me, so forgive me if I'm stumbling or even flailing about a bit. I have mostly thought about the nuke question in terms of numbers, quantitative pragmatic considerations; or in terms of sociological implications as in the J Adams excerpt and related points in Part 2. I haven't actually thought about the debate itself and whether its demographics or the shape of the memespace tells us anything.
so this attempt at metanalysis is a departure, perhaps an ill-advised one... actually it was kcurie's stuff about narratives, and the sad reality that facts alone are not enough to convince most people of anything, that made me start to wonder what underlying assumptions and narratives lend the emotional heat to debates over nuclear power; why such debates are not as disinterested and abstract as debates over, say, the relative efficiency of LED lighting vs CF. why do we lose our tempers over nuclear power, why is it so polarising? and can we at ET, with a pretty good track record of civil discussion, manage to discuss this hot topic w/o a food fight?
of course, human beings are quite capable of quarrelling and remaining on frosty terms over the relative virtues of vi vs emacs :-) so perhaps trying to mute or compensate for (or even understand) the narrative/gut-level component of technology debates is a fool's errand. I thought it was worth a try. my intent is not to give offence. The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
I have been trying to understand why nuke power elicits such intensity of partisan feeling, polarised so sharply into "camps" or "sides"
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
I think it certainly has something to do with the unprecedented destructive power of the technology; inmediate severe damage in a short timeframe (very perceptible to humans as "disaster", more so than the slo-mo kind) and yet persistent, lasting damage over timeframes so long as to be almost transhuman. inherently Apocalyptic I guess -- poker doesn't get much more high-stakes than this; and it's not a private gamble, as so many people in the plume path found out when the Chernobyl team fumbled the ball. the risk from nuclear technology is willynilly shared by (imposed) on all, even if the benefits are more locally constrained.
this sense of having risk imposed on one against one's will (and risk of a high order) I think is a major component of contranuke anger and passion... much as nonsmokers can get really, really angry about being obliged to breathe others' cigarette smoke... nuclear particles are about as invasive as it gets, wandering right through our cell walls; a very intimate form of turf violation. only in the last few years are people beginning to understand the degree to which industrial chemicals generally have violated the skin boundary and taken up permanent residence in our bodies; I think the moment of political anger on that issue is yet to come... The difference between theory and practise in practise ...
The health risks from food additives and vehicle exhaust are probably higher and more widespread than those from nuclear power, excluding Chernobyl, but since they are mostly self-inflicted they're ok I suppose. Like the camel-smoking anti-capitalist Barbara met in Athens recently. And when it comes to accidents, in London we recently had this reminder of the price of gasoline addiction:
In May 2006 Three Valleys Water announced that it had detected the fire retardant perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS), used in fire fighting foam, in a ground water bore hole close to the Buncefield site. It stated that no water from this well entered the public water supply and that a nearby well and pumping station had been closed since the fire as a precaution. The chemical is a known health risk and the UK government had been about to ban its use. However just prior to the announcement the Drinking Water Inspectorate announced that it was increasing the safe level of the chemical in drinking water. This prompted the Hemel Hempstead MP, Mike Penning to accuse the government of changing the rules to suit the situation in which PFOS levels in drinking water in the area may rise in the future. (wiki)
nuclear particles are about as invasive as it gets, wandering right through our cell walls; a very intimate form of turf violation
PET scanning is non-invasive, but it does involve exposure to ionizing radiation. The total dose of radiation is small, however, usually around 7 mSv. This can be compared to 2.2 mSv average annual background radiation in the UK, 0.02 mSv for a chest X-Ray, up to 8 mSv for a CT scan of the chest, 2-6 mSv per annum for aircrew, and 7.8 mSv per annum background exposure in Cornwall (Data from UK National Radiological Protection Board). (wiki)
Solar panels were not a practical solution for Galileo's power needs at Jupiter's distance from the Sun (it would have needed a minimum of 65 square metres (700 ft²) of solar panels); as for batteries, they would have been prohibitively massive. The solution adopted consisted of two radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). The RTGs powered the spacecraft through the radioactive decay of plutonium-238. The heat emitted by this decay was converted into electricity for the spacecraft through the solid-state Seebeck effect. This provided a reliable and long-lasting source of electricity unaffected by the cold space environment and high radiation fields such as those encountered in Jupiter's magnetosphere. Each RTG, mounted on a 5-metre long boom, carried 7.8 kilograms (17.2 lb) of 238Pu [2]. Each RTG contained 18 separate heat source modules, and each module encased four pellets of plutonium dioxide, a ceramic material resistant to fracturing. The modules were designed to survive a range of hypothetical accidents: launch vehicle explosion or fire, re-entry into the atmosphere followed by land or water impact, and post-impact situations. An outer covering of graphite provided protection against the structural, thermal, and eroding environments of a potential re-entry. Additional graphite components provided impact protection, while iridium cladding of the fuel cells provided post-impact containment. The RTGs produced about 570 watts at launch. The power output initially decreased at the rate of 0.6 watts per month and was 493 watts when Galileo arrived at Jupiter. As the launch of Galileo neared, anti-nuclear groups, concerned over what they perceived as an unacceptable risk to the public safety from Galileo's RTGs, sought a court injunction prohibiting Galileo's launch. In fact, RTGs had been safely used for years before in planetary exploration. The Lincoln Experimental Satellites 8/9, launched by the U.S. Department of Defense, had 7% more plutonium on board than Galileo, and the two Voyager spacecraft each carried 80% as much plutonium as Galileo did. After the Challenger accident, a study considered additional shielding and eventually rejected it, in part because such a design significantly increased the overall risk of mission failure and only shifted the other risks around (for example, if a failure on orbit had occurred, additional shielding would have significantly increased the consequences of a ground impact). (wiki)
Each RTG, mounted on a 5-metre long boom, carried 7.8 kilograms (17.2 lb) of 238Pu [2]. Each RTG contained 18 separate heat source modules, and each module encased four pellets of plutonium dioxide, a ceramic material resistant to fracturing. The modules were designed to survive a range of hypothetical accidents: launch vehicle explosion or fire, re-entry into the atmosphere followed by land or water impact, and post-impact situations. An outer covering of graphite provided protection against the structural, thermal, and eroding environments of a potential re-entry. Additional graphite components provided impact protection, while iridium cladding of the fuel cells provided post-impact containment. The RTGs produced about 570 watts at launch. The power output initially decreased at the rate of 0.6 watts per month and was 493 watts when Galileo arrived at Jupiter.
As the launch of Galileo neared, anti-nuclear groups, concerned over what they perceived as an unacceptable risk to the public safety from Galileo's RTGs, sought a court injunction prohibiting Galileo's launch. In fact, RTGs had been safely used for years before in planetary exploration. The Lincoln Experimental Satellites 8/9, launched by the U.S. Department of Defense, had 7% more plutonium on board than Galileo, and the two Voyager spacecraft each carried 80% as much plutonium as Galileo did.
After the Challenger accident, a study considered additional shielding and eventually rejected it, in part because such a design significantly increased the overall risk of mission failure and only shifted the other risks around (for example, if a failure on orbit had occurred, additional shielding would have significantly increased the consequences of a ground impact). (wiki)
Your Wiki quote fails to mention the very real risk connected to nuclear batteries for space vehicles: contamination after destruction during a crash back to Earth. The likelihood of a space vehicle's crash back on Earth is rather high (much higher than that of a power plant accident), in the order of percents per launch. IIRC there were three US and five Russian cases when an RTG came back on Earth - at least two fell into deep sea (one I know for sure was the Apollo-13 lunar module's, the other was recovered intact), but at least four others did cause contamination, albeit in less populated areas (Canada, Andes).
After the controversy of the weak design of NASA's large planetary satellite series (remember even Cassini was from the same family as the two Voyagers - and that satellite swung by Earth three times, which in case of error would have meant much higher re-entry speeds than during a failed launch), on one hand other power sources were facilitated if possible in satellite designs (also by reducing consumption of instruments), on the other hand, the few RTGs still used were designed to withstand a crash back (for example the Pluto mission's would even have separated during fallback to not be affected by the crash deformations of the rest). *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
