Is the World Ready for a New Nuclear Era?

[Astronuc]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6550029.stm

Under the Atoms for Peace Program, the nations which had developed nuclear energy were supposed to share the technology - for peaceful uses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atoms_for_Peace

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was established as an autonomous organization on July 29, 1957. It seeks to promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy and to inhibit its use for military purposes. United States President Dwight D. Eisenhower envisioned, in his "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly in 1953, the creation of this international body to control and develop the use of atomic energy. The organization and its Director General, Mohamed ElBaradei, were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize announced on 7 October 2005.

. . . .

The IAEA is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). The IAEA is not under direct control of any UN body, but reports to both the General Assembly and the Security Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency
http://www.iaea.org/index.html


With energy concerns on the horizon, the world is reconsidering nuclear energy as a major contribution to energy supply. If that be the case, there are significant issues such as proliferation and safety that must be addressed. Undoubtedly there will be conflicts over who controls access to the technology and materials.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6550029.stm

As the World Nuclear Association prepares to discuss how to meet the huge surge in demand for nuclear power, the BBC's Humphrey Hawksley wonders if the so-called "nuclear renaissance" could also prompt a complete re-examination of global nuclear policy.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/

 

[edward]

I think that no matter what a newer alternative to fossil fuels may be. It will happen only when the big energy companies like Exxon allow it to happen.

 

[russ_watters]

Exxon has no control over what type of power plants Excelon builds.

 

[ShawnD]

How about just not-share the technology with countries we don't trust? US, Canada, France, UK, Japan, and Russia all have nuclear power. Countries like Iran and Iraq do not.
The only countries that seem to have a shortage of energy are the ones that have a shortage of money (African countries), and in that case they can't afford to build nuclear plants anyway. What exactly is so bad about keeping our current system? The G8 countries have nuclear, and we use it. The middle east has lots of oil, and they use it. Africa has no money but lots of resources, and they'll eventually make use of them.

If the concern is about an energy shortage, there really is no crisis at this time, or even in the near future (this stuff will run out in literally hundreds of years).
If the concern is about nuclear armament, that is also not a problem because nobody is forcing us (G8 countries) to build nuclear reactors for Iran.
If the concern is global warming, that's a totally different can of worms.

 

[denverdoc]

Well I would submit to my colleagues that Iran--since it falls in the crosshairs on a couple of different dimensions--is a perfect test case for discussion. To summarize an obviously far more nuanced situation situation:

thay claim to want to develop ambitious nuclear energy program. They have several near neighbors, most notably Israel in current proximity with nuclear weapons. The ME is a smoldering tinderbox in general. Those with nukes are treated a lot more deferentially than those without.

So should they be told no, not under any circumstances, or allowed to develop breederless technology iff agreeable to close oversite with random inspections, on up to the other end of the spectrum. Not taking a particular POV, just underlining what a Gordian knot of developing a coherent strategy alluded to in Astronuk's thread.

 

[ShawnD]

If Iran is really interested in this stuff, give them the technology for thorium and maybe plutonium reactors. Uranium nuclear bombs are way too easy to make whereas plutonium bombs are ridiculously complicated, and I don't even think you can make a bomb out of thorium.

Thorium should satisfy their desire for nuclear, and if they say no, it's an obvious sign that they wanted nuclear technology for nuclear arms. In that case, they can go to hell.

 

[edward]

Exxon has no control over what type of power plants Excelon builds.

Unless there is a merger or buy out. Which is what I was really getting at when I said that the big energy companies will control energy production of all types. The assets of big oil far out weighs that of the nuclear industry. At one point Exxon was in the nuclear fuel production business.

 

[ShawnD]

Unless there is a merger or buy out. Which is what I was really getting at when I said that the big energy companies will control energy production of all types. The assets of big oil far out weighs that of the nuclear industry.

Which is bad because... ?

 

[denverdoc]

If Iran is really interested in this stuff, give them the technology for thorium and maybe plutonium reactors. Uranium nuclear bombs are way too easy to make whereas plutonium bombs are ridiculously complicated, and I don't even think you can make a bomb out of thorium.

Thorium should satisfy their desire for nuclear, and if they say no, it's an obvious sign that they wanted nuclear technology for nuclear arms. In that case, they can go to hell.

Well if a bomb can't be made from thorium (al least not a nuclear one, could make a mess I'm sure) maybe that suggests a tiered system where the entry level is with thorium or whatever recognizing dirty bomb potential, black market value, etc. After ten years of playing by the rules and donating to an escrowed acct a couple cents per KW to pay for policing and provide a good faith bond, maybe they get moved up the ladder.

Pakistan is ruled by General Nutcase, yet we need to curry favor and all of a sudden they are moved two rungs up the ladder. For how long will he be an ally or even in control. But this is how the US does things much too often. Saddam, a perfect example of giving technology away when it might suit our (and by our, I recognize that this is not necessarily we, the peoples interest) temporary interest only to have it bite us in the butt. Whoever is in charge of overseing such an important process needs to have the power to call the shots. But here again, if the US, UK, France or whomever doesn't buy into the whole enterprise, and along comes Jeb in 2012 saying the treaties are meaningless, then it is back to the incoherent policy of present.

 

[drankin]

A thought:
How about Iran gets their electricity from a neighboring country, like Turkey? We move/dismantle their current reactor facilities, and put them up in a "reasonably" friendly country nearby and run powerlines on in?

 

[Astronuc]

If Iran is really interested in this stuff, give them the technology for thorium and maybe plutonium reactors. Uranium nuclear bombs are way too easy to make whereas plutonium bombs are ridiculously complicated, and I don't even think you can make a bomb out of thorium.

Thorium fuel still requires some U-235 or Pu-239 initially, until one can make U-233 from the thorium. And one could make nuclear weapons of U-233. Pu-239 is a major proliferation issue, and its complicated, but not ridiculously complicated.

And don't forget China has nuclear technology, so do both Koreas, and India, as well as most European nations (including E. Europe), as well as South Africa, Brazil and Argentina.

I believe the Iran has its own uranium deposits, and could very well develop a self-sufficient nuclear energy program.

 

[Astronuc]

A thought:
How about Iran gets their electricity from a neighboring country, like Turkey? We move/dismantle their current reactor facilities, and put them up in a "reasonably" friendly country nearby and run powerlines on in?

Technically that would work. Politically - no nation voluntarily surrenders their energy supply to another country. And there is the matter of sovreignty.

 

[Cyrus]

A thought:
How about Iran gets their electricity from a neighboring country, like Turkey? We move/dismantle their current reactor facilities, and put them up in a "reasonably" friendly country nearby and run powerlines on in?

Why? Do you think any country in their right mind would rely on something as vital as power to another country, especially in the middle east? Need I remind you about Russia stopping fuel to Europe for demanding high prices until they paid?

No way would anyone in their right minds agree to those conditions. I don't want to rely on my power coming from Canada or Mexico, do you?

I think your idea is unreasonable.

 

[ShawnD]

Thorium fuel still requires some U-235 or Pu-239 initially, until one can make U-233 from the thorium. And one could make nuclear weapons of U-233. Pu-239 is a major proliferation issue, and its complicated, but not ridiculously complicated.
I believe the Iran has its own uranium deposits, and could very well develop a self-sufficient nuclear energy program.

Sorry that I'm not too familiar with the workings of nuclear cycles. I've only ever known U-235 to be easily made into a bomb while 238 is essentially useless. That one thorium turns into, 233, I can't find too much information on.

If Iran has its own uranium, how is any country capable of stopping their nuclear program? Do we keep close tabs on absolutely everything they do?

 

[Astronuc]

If Iran has its own uranium, how is any country capable of stopping their nuclear program? Do we keep close tabs on absolutely everything they do?

Presumably by force. There have already been comments about the use of military intervention to destroy the facilities - but then that would constitute an act of war.

So the world must rethink the use of nuclear energy.

 

[Cyrus]

If Iran has its own uranium, how is any country capable of stopping their nuclear program? Do we keep close tabs on absolutely everything they do?

The answer to that question is yes. We, and the world community should keep VERY close tabs on everything EVERYONE with nuclear technology does. I don't care who they are, if they have nuclear technology the world community better know what is going on. See: Russia, a very BAD example of nuclear technology.

I was watching a program on the Discovery Channel about EMP weapons. Apparently Russia had made many of these weapons that fit inside a suitcase and could cause major damage to electrical systems inside major cities...long story short...most of them are now missing and its a big security concern.

So I don't care who you are or how big a superpower you claim to be, if you have nuclear weapons you better have every last document and part under close watch at all times.

 

[denverdoc]

Been a while since I have seen an update, but plenty is missing from our stockpile as well. All of which argues IMO a move to steer clear of this path and develop fusion. If we poured the worlds resources into something analagous to the Manhattan project with a 20 year deadline, all these other issues such as AGW, nuclear prolif, etc would be moot. Not to say that countries would stop building bombs, but taking the fuzz out of the image as in what materials are going where would sure help police actions. It may serve an additional purpose as we reach the end game of fossil fuel supply to not battle over crude reasons and choose really important issues such as religion.

 

[Art]

Thorium fuel still requires some U-235 or Pu-239 initially, until one can make U-233 from the thorium. And one could make nuclear weapons of U-233. Pu-239 is a major proliferation issue, and its complicated, but not ridiculously complicated.
.

I'm curious as to how U235 changes U238 to Pu239? If U235 donates a neutron to U238 why doesn't this simply create U239 a new isotope of U238?? Or is it the case that U235 picks up an alpha particle and gets an extra 2 protons and 2 neutrons to make Pu239 Or am I totally wrong about the processes??

 

[Astronuc]

I'm curious as to how U235 changes U238 to Pu239? If U235 donates a neutron to U238 why doesn't this simply create U239 a new isotope of U238?? Or am I totally wrong about the processes??

Fissile isotopes U-233, U-235, Pu-239, Pu-241 produce two or three neutrons during the fission process. At least one neutron must survive to fission another fissile nucleus. The other neutrons are captured by other non-fissile atoms.

In the case of U-238, it absorbs a neutron and becomes U-239, which decays by beta emission to Np-239, which subsequently beta-decays to Pu-239. That happens in any reactor using natural or enriched U (which is predomninatly U-238, then U-235, and perhaps traces of U-234 and U-236.

Similar, Th-232 absorbs an neutron becoming Th-233 which beta decays to Pa-233, which beta decays to U-233. Thorium fuel is often/usually blended with U-235 until enough U-233 has been produced.

Even if U-235 absorbs a neutron, there is about a 16% chance that it will emit a prompt gamma and become U-236, which absorbs a neutron to become U-237. Similarly Np-239 could absorb a neutron becoming Np-240 and then decay by beta emission to Pu-240. And Pu-240 could absorb a neutron and become Pu-241, which beta decays to Am-241, could absorb a neutron and become Pu-242, which undergoes alpha decay. Am-241 may absorb a neutron becoming Am-242, which beta decays to Cm-242.

The isotopes heavier than U are termed transuranics.

 

[Art]

So presumably beta decay must convert a neutron into a proton then? Does it then capture an electron to neutralise the extra positive charge? And what's the half life of Np239?

Can U235 be converted directly to Pu239 by absorbing an alpha particle?

Oh and last question why does the plutonium need to be extracted? As Pu239 is fissionable wouldn't this just become part of the reactor fuel?

 

[Astronuc]

So presumably beta decay must convert a neutron into a proton then? Does it then capture an electron to neutralise the extra positive charge??

Correct. In beta decay, the nucleus increases in positive charge. It will attract an electron from another atom, or perhaps a free electron knocked out of another atom by the beta particle. The beta particle slows down and is eventually absorbed by an ion, perhaps not too far from where it was emitted. Beta particles (nuclear electrons), alpha particles and gamma rays all interact with atomic electrons in the matter through which they pass.

Can U235 be converted directly to Pu239 by absorbing an alpha particle?

Very unlikely. Pu-239 undergoes alpha decay to form U-235. Try this link - http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/chart/reCenter.jsp?z=94&n=145 - then press the '1' under the ZOOM (on the righthand side of the chart).

 

[Art]

Sorry for all the questions Astronuc it's just that one hears so much about nuclear fission but there is very rarely any explanation of the technical aspects.

One question I added to my previous post was why does the plutonium need to be extracted? As Pu239 is fissionable wouldn't this just become part of the reactor fuel? Or is it it's long half life that's the problem? I'm curious as I've read the US were considering building MOX reactors to use up their surplus Pu239 stock so I wondered why Pu239 is a suitable fuel in them but not in the current reactors.

Also I see types of fission of any given radioctive element is expressed in % terms. I take it there are assignable causes (ie nuclear interactions with other particles) dictating how a particular atom fissions i.e. what the fission fragments will be or is it purely spontaneous and random?

 

[Astronuc]

Sorry for all the questions Astronuc it's just that one hears so much about nuclear fission but there is very rarely any explanation of the technical aspects.

No problem. I am pleased to answer your questions.

One question I added to my previous post was why does the plutonium need to be extracted? As Pu239 is fissionable wouldn't this just become part of the reactor fuel? Or is it it's long half life that's the problem? I'm curious as I've read the US were considering building MOX reactors to use up their surplus Pu239 stock so I wondered why Pu239 is a suitable fuel in them but not in the current reactors.

Each fission produces two nuclei, which are called fission products. Some fission products such as Xe-135 and Sm-149 (samarium) have high neutron cross-section (i.e. they capture neutrons very easily), and they compete with the fissile material for neutrons. Pu-239 is produced in commerical light water reactors (LWRs) and in fact accounts for nearly half the fissions in high exposure fuel, IIRC.

The US (and Russia) are supposed to be converting the weapons grade (WG) Pu-239 (+ Pu240), which is in metal form for weapons, into nuclear fuel. The plan is to take the Pu metal, convert it to an oxide PuO₂ and blend it down (dilute it) with depleted U (residual from the enrichment process) in the form of UO₂. The oxide would then formed into ceramic pellets (small right circular cylinders) and loaded into Zr-alloy tubing (which seal-welded at both ends with metal caps of Zr-alloy), which comprise the fuel rod. The fuel rods are loaded into assemblies, which are loaded into the core. MOX can be used in current power reactors, so there is no need for a special reactor. People do refer to MOX cores.

Also I see types of fission of any given radioctive element is expressed in % terms. I take it there are assignable causes (ie nuclear interactions with other particles) dictating how a particular atom fissions i.e. what the fission fragments will be or is it purely spontaneous and random?

Some nuclei undergo sponstaneous fission (SF), in addition to simply decaying by beta or alpha emission. The % indicates that a small fraction of the nuclide will undergo spontaneous fission. Otherwise, an extra neutron is required to cause fission.

Some of these matters are discussed in the nuclear engineering forum. In particular there is a thread on the asymmetry of fission.

 

[denverdoc]

Can't we at least entertain fusion in this discussion?
Old link from another thread, but it talks about some significant advances.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn999

 

[Astronuc]

We can certainly discuss fusion, but it is still very much in research and is not yet perfected as a viable source of energy.

Nuclear technology based on fission has 50+ years of experience. The new plants/reactors in planning are based upon this experience.

 

[denverdoc]

We can certainly discuss fusion, but it is still very much in research and is not yet perfected as a viable source of energy.

Nuclear technology based on fission has 50+ years of experience. The new plants/reactors in planning are based upon this experience.

I guess my belief, or perhaps my fervent hope is that is doable in the near future, say within 20 years, if enough resources were devoted. The New Scientist article suggests maybe as soon as 8 years for a viable reactor.

So if AGW is not a near threat, than another 20 years of coal plus say 30 year phase out while we completely swap out technologies might be as viable an approach as using fission in the near future. Especially if we are talking about plants abroad and in unstable areas, where there are additional political concerns. If AGW is a major threat, I see the logic of doing more fission.

 

[J77]

Up to me, I'd let Iran have their nuclear capability -- the guys are always in dapper suits, they're not going to start any wars.

If there would be something to worry about, it would be the countries like China who have the ability to launch long-range rockets -- oh wait, because of this capability they can't be bullied...

 

[Astronuc]

I guess my belief, or perhaps my fervent hope is that is doable in the near future, say within 20 years, if enough resources were devoted. The New Scientist article suggests maybe as soon as 8 years for a viable reactor.

From the articles I've read in New scientist, I think they are somewhat overly optimistic, and perhaps not as objective as they should be, especially on things like nuclear energy and waste disposal. They remind me of OMNI magazine. The ITER experimental fusion reactor probably won't be ready to accomplish fusion until 2016, and it is still not clear that it will be a viable design for a commercial plant!

http://www.iter.org/a/n1/timeline.htm

So if AGW is not a near threat, than another 20 years of coal plus say 30 year phase out while we completely swap out technologies might be as viable an approach as using fission in the near future. Especially if we are talking about plants abroad and in unstable areas, where there are additional political concerns. If AGW is a major threat, I see the logic of doing more fission.

Utilities will go with what is proven and with minimal risk. Utilities have to be concerned about cost and liability, something with which government(s) don't seem to be. Nuclear power in unstable regions is unlikely, especially in the poorer regions. Rather solar power systems might be offered.

 

[Astronuc]

Up to me, I'd let Iran have their nuclear capability -- the guys are always in dapper suits, they're not going to start any wars.

That is a good point. Many nations get to the point where they have too much at stake, too much to lose, if they go to war. On the other hand, the problem with Iran (and perhaps other like Syria) is the support they provide to groups like Hezbollah.

If there would be something to worry about, it would be the countries like China who have the ability to launch long-range rockets -- oh wait, because of this capability they can't be bullied...

Also, look at Pakistan, which is currently a US ally, despite not being much of a democracy (following a military takeover on 12 October 1999, Chief of Army Staff and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, General Pervez MUSHARRAF, suspended Pakistan's constitution and assumed the additional title of Chief Executive;) - https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/pk.html

The use of nuclear energy requires great care, because the consequences of an accident which would release radioactive material to the environment could be significant or severe. Then there is the matter of the disposition of Pu-239 which is produced as a by-product in the use of U-based fission systems, or U-233 in the case of the Th-based fuel cycle.

 

[denverdoc]

Pakistan I believe was big blunder for greater technology sharing--deja vu in some ways with Saddam.

But getting back to fusion, in your opinion could these timetables be moved up significantly with more $$ and cooperation between the countries doing the most active research? Whether we agree on PF that fission makes the most sense for the gap, however long it may be before solar, etc plus fusion can meet the demands, there will be significant political and economic resistance on the part of the public and at least some utilities to fission. They do need to shield themselves from liability, and short of a tobacco like law suit that links coal based emissions to x number of deaths including Aunt Jenny and my sister Melissa, however remote the odds any nuclear accident is, still carries a significant exposure, vs the former which falls into the great morass of uncertainty re any specific individual even when epidemiology can show with near certainty an excess death rate.

 

[Art]

Pakistan I believe was big blunder for greater technology sharing--deja vu in some ways with Saddam.

But getting back to fusion, in your opinion could these timetables be moved up significantly with more $$ and cooperation between the countries doing the most active research? Whether we agree on PF that fission makes the most sense for the gap, however long it may be before solar, etc plus fusion can meet the demands, there will be significant political and economic resistance on the part of the public and at least some utilities to fission. They do need to shield themselves from liability, and short of a tobacco like law suit that links coal based emissions to x number of deaths including Aunt Jenny and my sister Melissa, however remote the odds any nuclear accident is, still carries a significant exposure, vs the former which falls into the great morass of uncertainty re any specific individual even when epidemiology can show with near certainty an excess death rate.

It seems you don't need an accident to have deaths from nuclear power generation. Various parts of the process release low level waste into the environment which will kill and injure some people based on the 'linear hypothesis'.

It seems gov'ts set 'safe' radiation exposure levels based on the principle of 'acceptable burden' whereby so long as in their view the overall benefit outweighs the overall deaths and illnesses caused then it makes sense to continue. Not much consolation if you happen to be one of the folk who fall on the wrong side of the equation.

 

[Astronuc]

But getting back to fusion, in your opinion could these timetables be moved up significantly with more $$ and cooperation between the countries doing the most active research?

More $$ will not necessarily speed up development of fusion. We are not waiting for construction of ITER, and that appears to be a necessary step. Presumably it takes current knowledge and applies it in an optimal manner. Hopefully it will be successful, but perhaps not until 2016. It has taken time to establish the organization and financing, and part of that was for the various participating nations (governemnts) to agree on one location. Now it is a matter of constructing the ITER facility.

Meanwhile, experiments and research are on-going. Perhaps there will be a breakthrough(s).

It seems gov'ts set 'safe' radiation exposure levels based on the principle of 'acceptable burden' whereby so long as in their view the overall benefit outweighs the overall deaths and illnesses caused then it makes sense to continue.

Not quite. There are strict limits on exposure levels to the general population, and higher limits on those who choose to work in the industry. Basically, the allowable exposure to anyone 18 or younger is zero - i.e. it's not allowed. Practically though, everyone is exposed to radiation via X-rays (medical and dental), or flying in an aircraft (exposure is effectively not regulated), or from natural sources. The release of radioactivity from coal plants is not regulated directly, but rather indirectly through air pollution control (scrubbers which remove ash).

 

[Art]

Not quite. There are strict limits on exposure levels to the general population, and higher limits on those who choose to work in the industry. Basically, the allowable exposure to anyone 18 or younger is zero - i.e. it's not allowed. Practically though, everyone is exposed to radiation via X-rays (medical and dental), or flying in an aircraft (exposure is effectively not regulated), or from natural sources. The release of radioactivity from coal plants is not regulated directly, but rather indirectly through air pollution control (scrubbers which remove ash).

Although radiation emission from power plants is controlled (though many studies have shown increased cancer rates around them) there is very little control or treatment of the low level waste produced in the mining of the Uranium ore itself which accounts for the vast majority of the total production of LLW eg

Uranium mining companies, including WMC and ERA, claim that they can minimise the risk to “acceptable levels” by attention to proper ventilation of the shafts, and close monitoring of workers to radioactive exposure. However, each time International Commission for Radiation Protection and other experts/organisations conduct a review on "safe" levels of radiation exposure, they conclude that low levels of ionising radiation are more dangerous than was previously decided. On average, these organisations have concluded that the actual danger is twice as bad as they thought twelve years before. This means that people are legally exposed to a certain dose of radiation one year and the next year they are told that the dose was far too high.

The new limits mean that the annual risk of death (from cancer) for a uranium miner is 1 in 1250, which is nearly ten times the risk of fatal injury in Australian industry generally, which is 1 in 20,000.
Even so the uranium industry has protested that the ICRP's new limits would be uneconomic for underground mining. In the Roxby mine underground miners have received up to 30 milliSv a year. The dose limits which the NHMRC has adopted permit a health risk which is clearly unacceptable.

http://www.anawa.org.au/health/oc-health.html .
Africa of course is far worse.

Then there are the reprocessing plants such as those in England and France which dump their LLW directly into the sea .

 

[Astronuc]

Although radiation emission from power plants is controlled (though many studies have shown increased cancer rates around them) there is very little control or treatment of the low level waste produced in the mining of the Uranium ore itself which accounts for the vast majority of the total production of LLW eg http://www.anawa.org.au/health/oc-health.html .
Then there are the reprocessing plants such as those in England and France which dump their LLW directly into the sea .

As far as I know, the incidence of cancer around nuclear power plants is the same as the general population living in similar areas where there are no nuclear power plants. This is an important factor to keep in mind. Nuclear power plants, for the most part, have been built in remote areas, e.g. agricultural areas. In agricultural areas, there is widespread use of herbicides and pesticides, so a high rate of cancer might be attributed to exposure to chemicals rather than radiation, which outside of a nuclear power plant is at background levels.

I agree however that mine tailings are simply dumped outdoors, and do represent a risk to the environment. This applies to mining in general, where heavy metals leach from tailing leach into environment. Certainly, the environmental policies of any country are a major issue when it comes to nuclear energy.

I agree that LLW at Sellafield (UK), Marcoule (FR) and LaHague (FR) should not be dumped directly into the environment.

 

[Art]

As far as I know, the incidence of cancer around nuclear power plants is the same as the general population living in similar areas where there are no nuclear power plants. This is an important factor to keep in mind. Nuclear power plants, for the most part, have been built in remote areas, e.g. agricultural areas. In agricultural areas, there is widespread use of herbicides and pesticides, so a high rate of cancer might be attributed to exposure to chemicals rather than radiation, which outside of a nuclear power plant is at background levels.

I must agree this is a valid point which I haven't seen taken into account in such studies.

I agree however that mine tailings are simply dumped outdoors, and do represent a risk to the environment. This applies to mining in general, where heavy metals leach from tailing leach into environment. Certainly, the environmental policies of any country are a major issue when it comes to nuclear energy.

I think you are understating the effect of LLW tailings when comparing them to other mine waste.

Studies have shown that back in the 50s and 60s before America adopted regulatory control the death rate from Uranium induced cancers amongst mine workers was 50%! One in every 2 workers died as a direct result of their work! I do not think any other industry comes anywhere near that, not even asbestos mining.

The most severe health problems associated with uranium mining have resulted from occupational exposure. During the 1950's and 1960's, insufficient regulatory control existed over radiation levels during uranium mining for defense-related purposes. Two epidemiological studies of these workers, one from 1981 and one from 1982, found that approximately 50 percent died from lung cancer, and many others developed an increased prevalence of chronic respiratory diseases.

http://www.nuclearpowerprocon.org/pop/mining.htm

Given the lack of regulation in African countries today this 50% death rate amongst workers is probably the level they are still at. Then of course there are on top of that the additional deaths in the general population through water contamination and radon gas emissions etc.

I agree that LLW at Sellafield (UK), Marcoule (FR) and LaHague (FR) should not be dumped directly into the environment.

It's particularly irritating when England had the audacity to build it on their west coast so the prevailing winds will carry any emissions away from them and over to us in Ireland as happened during their fire in 1957

The bottom line is I don't think anyone can deny the generation of nuclear power does currently create serious health problems even ignoring the accident scenarios so do we really want to increase these problems by expanding the industry? Which brings us back to the 'acceptable burden' criteria I referenced in my earlier post.