I know that across this month or two I feel like I have bombarded the reader with all sorts of information. I really do hope that some of it was interesting and all of it was informative. That truly was my goal: to inform about some nuclear knowledge and to at times share an interesting opinion. It does actually sadden me a little to end this. I sometimes imagine some person late in the future stumbling upon my blog and finding it to be really interesting. Then hopefully in some way I help that person with this information. I doubt it but maybe. So in that sense it is a little sad to cut this to an end. However, this has been quite a lot of back to back blogging and I am happy to let it go. Maybe sometime from now I'll come back to it, but for now this is it and onwards to what comes after this. After graduation. Just in case you're interested I'll be heading off to medical school. Wish me luck. Okay now getting back into it...
I just wanted to briefly talk about a recent risk involved with working in nuclear power. Today we're talking about terrorism. I want to take a moment to give my support and prayers for those in Brussels and family members that may have been affected by the recent attacks.I truly do hope for a resolution to this unrest. The Brussels attacks claimed at least 30 lives and left many more wounded. There were also somewhere around 200 wounded as well. There were 3 blasts. 2 went off at the airport and 1 at the subway. You may have already known this. But did you know that after these attacks there has been a sizable increase in security at the Doel and Tihange Nuclear Power Plants? Working at a nuclear power plant is very much a dangerous job possibly beside the low risk of radiation and such.It seems that the men behind the bombing also had hopes of crafting a dirty bomb instead. They even went as far as to set up a camera at a researcher's house that worked at a plant. Their probable plan was to cause some type of blackmail situation and force access to the plant or the theft of some material that would aid their development. Luckily, this plan did not come to fruition as the results could have been worse, even though I acknowledge the weight of this tragedy currently. This really is a recent example of the current threats of working with nuclear energy. If after you land your future industry job you guys come back to your house and spot an unknown camera watching you, be wary. These things do very much happen and I hope for all my friends' future prosperity and safety.
I had a lot of fun with classmates and I am grateful to any of my readers.
So I guess this post will be a short update on what seems to be actually one of the worst spills in American history yet I also feel like not many knew about. When I left off TVA had just spilled 1 billion gallons of coal sludge-waste into the local rivers. It was fined a sum of 11 million and then proceeded with a billion dollar plan to repair what it caused. I do recognize that they do deserve credit for cleaning up what they caused. They pledged to return the environment to its previous condition or better and I am confident that they made strides to do as such. But whether that will actually be possible or will they just return it to an acceptable state is hard to see. I believe they may be done with their repairs but finding information on the current state is very difficult. However, they did build public parks in the cleaned area to better utilize the space. But what is the actual aftermath? How has the world changed to combat such catastrophe and what have we learned?
I do respect TVA in some cases for making this effort in clean up. They even spent another billion plus in order to convert their facility into a solid coal ash waste site instead of liquid, the solid state appears to be much safer... Other than that, I think that's about it...Shocking right? No government inspections and tightening down of regulations? No probationary periods. Nah. The EPA did for years since the accident in 2008 debate passing stricter regulation for the coal ash. They thought about but probably decided it wasn't worth it (or they decided it was more worth it for them to stay close friends with coal). Recently in 2014, they passed their first regulations on the "toxic" waste product. Did they decree that it was toxic and hazardous? No, they decreed that it was the same as household waste and should be regulated the same as landfills. They mandated that coal companies should regularly check for signs of possible future spills and leaching, but they are not going to enforce that rule. They mandated that they publish about the safety of their site and about the contamination of local groundwater. But all those results will likely get buried in piles of other information. It is up to the state and citizens to prove that they were harmed by the coal plant, likely after massive harm and intense legal battles. Oh and the old ponds that were used before for coal ash deposits and are currently leaking into groundwater? Well, they passed laws stating that coal plant must begin to line their active ponds in order to stop leaking. However, those ponds that are truly problematic from a long time ago are abandoned and actively leaking, but they are not actively in use. They will not be taken care of by this set of law. I feel that all of this was basically the state of regulations before this accident anyway now it just is explicitly stated...
Finally, did these regulations have any impact? I don't know. It's actually pretty hard to find information about any spills since 2008, but I kept at it. And the answer to the previous question is probably not. I haven't seen any recent spills since the regulation passed in 2014, but if I were to guess its probably a matter of time. There have been multiple spills since the 2008 TVA spill. I saw one in 2009 which was comparably small at 4,000 gallons (it is sad that I can call this small but in comparison it is). In 2014, there was also a larger spill in which 82,000 tons of coal ash was spilled. There was a fine of 102 million (which is a little more than the previous fine) for Duke Energy, yet I'm sure the spills won't stop.
Sad note to end on, but it's the truth. No tight laws were made and even while they were writing these laws the spills keeping popping up.
No this is not the same video as before, yet another spill.
Any of you guys out there have any siblings? Any of you that are saying yes have those kinds of siblings? Those kinds of siblings that truly get away with murder and parents seem to just let them off with a slap on the wrist. Truly infuriating just because you remember that times when you tried to get away with murder and nearly got murdered. If you couldn't tell, I've been there and preferential treatment is horrible. It can really just get under your skin. I could make my post about this along, but the true goal was to hopefully rile you guys up to. Get you all in the right type of mood for the upcoming example of preferential treatment. I don't know at what point it stops being called preferential treatment and gets the label of corruption, but either way I'll get down to it.
So this post was inspired by a post by my blogger-friend NukeStudentLife. In this post, they talked about similar unfairness in regard to a catastrophe that occurred in 2015 in California in the form of a natural gas leak. This was a great disaster yet it seems to not have been covered thoroughly on the news. Not many people knew about it. I sure didn't. Yet the world knows about Three Mile Island and Fukushima and such. Many detest nuclear power for these events despite the "true evil" that is lurking under their nose. This one-sidedness is unfair. So I decided I'd look up another incident that is also fairly recent and I'll possibly take a post or two to explore it. I'd be surprised if you guys have heard about it and comment if you have. Today we're talking about the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant Slurry Spill (long name...maybe that's why it didn't get coverage as news reporters couldn't handle the mouthful).
So were going to quickly mention that BP Oil spill not too long ago. Do you remember it? It happened in 2010. It continued for months. It was a major catastrophe and was listed as the largest spill that happened in US waters. Deepwater Horizon. Well that catastrophe dumped some 200 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I remember this being on the news for months. So why haven't we heard of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Kingston Fossil Plant Slurry Spill? Well, it only spilled 5.4 million cubic yards of liquid fly ash (coal waste) into the surrounding environment. Not too bad right? Well google is great with conversions as 5.4 million cubic yards equals about 1 billion gallonsof toxic sludge. Still wondering why we haven't heard of it? Me too. It was not before our time and it's not currently on the news. This happened in 2008, about 2 years before the supposed "worst accident" in US waters. Yet somehow it didn't get the media coverage it deserved. Coal power was allowed to keep its reputation somewhat clean despite this massive calamity.
A brief summary is that a dike (had to look up the actual dictionary definition of this and its basically a dam, either natural or artificial) burst causing this massive release and spill into the nearby Emory and Clinch rivers. Of course, it also coated another 300 acres of land with the toxic wave of sludge, snapping trees and even destroying some houses. Many more houses were damaged and properties ruined. Luckily there were no casualties. TVA got slammed (not really, more like poked) with a meh minor 11.5 million dollar fine. They then at least bought up the properties pledging to return them to their original state or better. This is why that earlier fine was rather minor, as the repair has been proceeding for the past six years. It's only now that TVA has said that these properties are up to standard and ready for resale. The repair process has cost about 1.1 billion dollars.
I really think the public might need to worry more about the coal and gas plants being built in striking distance to them. This fly ash is also the dangerous ash that I mentioned in my earlier post that is not only toxic but can be just as radioactive if not more than anything a nuclear power plant releases. On top of that, it could wind up as a wave crashing into your front door. Go Nuclear. Maybe another post later about some aftermath.
Environmental Protection or Protection from the Environment. That will be the question for this blog post today. I think today, I will choose an easy topic. So, what is the purpose of ENU4641 Applied Radiation Protection? Should we be using this knowledge to protect ourselves from the environment or protect our environment?
Well, I feel this to all come down to personal opinion. With an appropriate definition, either task seems like a worthy endeavour. However, personally I feel that I would reside on the protecting our environment side. There are a few simple reasons. A "protect ourselves class" seems more like shielding. That class seems to have a learn to protect yourself and then you can protect others philosophy. I also feel that the majority of time spent in this class was spent on the environmental impact: dispersion, modeling, waste, and such. Although, I guess the end self-improvement material could be considered protecting ourselves from the challenges of the real world.
I also feel that protecting the environment to be a slightly more worthwhile goal, although again they are both great. If you don't protect yourself you can't protect the environment. There are real threats in the natural world and background radiation and radon gas can be scary things. But the majority of exposure seems to come from lifestyle. For my definition of protecting the environment, though I believe it can be a much harder task but with necessary responsibilities.
Yes we should save the trees. The trees, the plants, the animals are beautiful creatures that deserve our respect and protection. I also want to state quickly that a majority of nuclear power activities have negligible effect on the biology of its environment. But, we need to keep it that way. We need to keep exposures low and not only low if the pathway comes back directly to us. We still need to innovate and model and try to protect our surroundings that really has no earnings from the nuclear plants or any plants that are built. This is where I like to make my definition clear. It's not only the plants and environment that need protection. We need to protect our surroundings: all the elements outside of our industry that have come together to provide for our ability to built a plant. Whether it be the ecosystem right outside our walls, or the rivers that we use to cool the plant, the nearest city, or the farmer and his family a few miles south. They have graced us with the ability to be here and we should protect the environment that has given us so much, and we hope to give back to.
Yup. Well that's as soap-boxy as I can get for the day. Thanks as always.
In honor of all these last boxing related blog posts, I guess I'm winding up starting something, I probably didn't have to. But when you actually have an idea to blog about you should. This originally started as a comment-rebuttal of NuclearNicks post, but for what this was turning into I figured I should clearly organize my thoughts and make it into a clear rebuttal post. His was on "Gun Freedom" and I will try to counter that with my own thoughts. Maybe I'll even try to make this somewhat nuclear related. Here goes nothing...
I like your comparison to insurance. I like comparisons. However, my first problem is I don't think it's completely equal and substitutable. Have YOU ever killed someone? Across your X years of life, have you taken someone else's life? I hope you haven't, but you never know. Have you needed to take someone's life? I mean needed as there was no other way around it. Have you needed to take the government's life? Well that's X years of safety so far that you haven't needed it. How about your parents' Y and Z years? Compare those values to insurance needs and you'll see its very different. The need for a dental checkup and insurance is much different from that of a gun.
My problem with guns is that they have this tendency to cause people to undervalue another person's life. I mean guns give you the ability to feel the weight of their life in the palm of your hand. To feel it as you pull the trigger .... pow and then its gone. Simple. Easy. All the future possibilities this person had gone thanks to the purchase of this $600 dollar Glock-17 you bought a few months ago. Is that equitable? $600=One Life. Maybe if your conservative on your shots too you could make 600=2-3 lives. Thrifty, Simple and Easy. College students on a budget. Maybe that's partly it too. This world is pushing for simplicity and guns are one of the simplest "solutions" to violence and conflict. I am using the word "solution" liberally, however.
So.. continuing on..let me ramble on some specific problems I have with your post. Do you need Gunsurance? (lol catchy). Are they the same. One you pay over the course of your life possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars that hopefully if you get sick you will get monetary compensation in order to save your life or the people your death and bills will impact. Now with a gun you again pay $200 to a few thousand dollars and a few dollars in bullets to take the life anybody that you see fit. For the ability to kill someone either legally or illegally. Owning a gun provides that power, there's no necessary legality to the actions that follow. That's maybe a $500 dollar investment and then if you're a sharpshooter every single bullet could be someone's life. So insurance saves you money through money valuing, your life at maybe hundreds of thousands. The purchase of a gun allows you to kill freely valuing, life at maybe a few hundred. Do you see how this starts to become a questionable deal? Someone's getting financially screwed. Who? That would be the person dead at the pull of your trigger. Insurance is great and something everyone should have. However the fact that anyone doesn't see that insurance valuing lives in the $100,000s and guns value lives in the $100s doesn't lead to more deaths is questionable to me. Gun's tell you that lives are on sale. Take one now. Moral of the story there is a big ethical price tag that the low price of guns masks. It's not the same as insurance.
Not sure which point to choose next for rebuttal as I have already written a lot. "Taking away guns is not going to stop the murder or suicide". This is actually a powerful statement. In its truth lies most of the fight against gun-control. This is actually the type of statement that should be backed by statistical evidence truthfully. If you say this, I would like to see the evidence not mere conjecture. I will take the stance of the opposite and as this is a an important point in my argument, I will follow it with evidence:
Australia
In one of his first acts as leader, Prime Minister John Howard announced major reforms to Australia's gun control laws just 12 days after 35 people died at the hands of a lone gunman wielding a military-style semi-automatic rifle at a popular tourist spot in Tasmania on April 28, 1996.
In the wave of public revulsion against what became known as the Port Arthur massacre, the move for stricter gun controls was led by Howard, who had taken office just seven weeks earlier.
He took his anti-gun campaign around the country, at one stage addressing a hostile pro-gun rally wearing a bullet-proof vest. He also oversaw a successful gun "buy-back" scheme that took some 650,000 guns out of circulation.
High-caliber rifles and shotguns were banned, licensing was tightened and remaining firearms were registered to uniform national standards -- an accomplishment regarded by many in the country as Howard's enduring legacy.
Australia has been compared to the United States for its "frontier mentality." But unlike the U.S., there is no constitutional right to bear arms and gun ownership is markedly lower.
In the years after the Port Arthur massacre, the risk of dying by gunshot in Australia fell by more than 50% -- and stayed there. A 2012 study by Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University also found the buyback led to a drop in firearm suicide rates of almost 80% in the following decade.
I'm sure I could add more examples, but in hopes of keeping this short. Have you ever known someone who committed suicide? I hope you haven't. A better question is have you known someone who committed suicide by gun? I don't think its right to assume that if they can't get their hands on a gun they're going to kill themselves anyway with whatever they can find. I personally believe most suicides to not be dedicated actions. It's not "X is killing themself tomorrow in whichever way X can find". I would believe most of these to be a string of moments of weakness by troubled people with one instant that is a complete breaking point. Not having the simple answer (gun) easily available at this breaking point could save someone's life. But even if this wasn't the case and this person was searching for any way to kill themselves, if you really cared about them wouldn't you be willing to try anything even if it's not a certain bet to save your loved one's life. To put it another way, with a volatile troubled person you'll be mitigating risk. Bringing home a gun raises their likelihood of committing suicide some amount, thus gun control should lower it. Multiply that by thousands and randomness of chances, then it should save lives. Do responsible parents leave knives and small choking hazards on the ground if they have a baby in the house? In the same way that making a sharp object hard for a baby to reach, gun control can save lives of troubled people. Even though that's not the only thing that can kill a baby. It is an easy way for a baby to harm itself and something also easy for us to control with better habits.
I could go on and on. Maybe I'll save some for another time and for comments, Very open to comments and I mean no harm by my words but where there is passion about a topic there is the potential for someone to get hurt. I'll end with a nuclear tie-in. In your world with these supposed reasons, what is the end point in mind? Where does it lead? With this reasoning, it would make sense that every single person be armed with guns. Hell, they should be armed to the teeth. I mean they need to be well-stocked in gunsurance just like everyone should have good medical insurance. I also need my new glock to protect myself from the big bad government. My handgun will surely protect me from a tank anyhow... After everyone is armed to the teeth, does this seem like a world in which there will be less violence and less death? Safety?? You instinctually know the truth. Let me liken it to this, why is there this big push for nuclear disarmament? It is very similar. A country, as it is a country, should have the right to make nukes as freely as it wants to. They are supposedly a great deterrent from another power "the government" coming into your life and doing whatever it wants. But why does each country or each individual person owning one of these not seem like a good idea? If they are just strictly a deterrent, proof of freedom, and "supposedly" could (using your reasons) be good insurance and lead to safety. Yet many people believe the opposite. Some may disagree, but I believe it to be very similar. There also are some good topics about guns and your rights, freedom, wars, ethical dilemmas and so on, but maybe later. Sorry about the long one but being thorough.
QUICK SIDE NOTE Too-- My views aren't exactly against guns but for knowledge. Maybe if people could rationalize the cost of a life they would then be fit for a gun. I don't hope for a gun free world. Gun Control not Gun Free. I'm not taking your guns away from you but I would make it harder to get one. Names IDs and Signatures, Intention, Background Checks, Gun-safes, are all things that I believe would be make the world better if enacted.
*** Edited to add video .... Wouldn't let me add the regular version here's regular one. Should watch the link. I think its pretty funny.
Just when you thought it was over and that oily giant was gonna lie down for the count. He gets right back up. So now for this post I think Coach is gonna advise a different approach so our nuclear contender can land a crippling hit.
So where do YOU think would hurt the most? Well, when the standard attacks aren't working and none of your lucky shots are connecting, where do you go? The answer: dig to the body. Why there? Have you ever tried to work on no food or a non-cooperating stomach. The body (stomach) is your core. It's your foundation. Hit it a few times and the oily champ will get shaky. Hit it a few more times and the oily Champs own punches will get weak as he starts going on defense. A few more times and that defense will break, his hands will fall down, and you can land that final blow to the head. Or he just will fall over in the pain. It's textbook. Also making a champ look silly and disproving his foundation is a sure way to get those fans (the public) that were on his sides to come over to the right corner.
So what are the gut-shots we need in order to get those fans and stop oil in his tracks? What is the foundation of this supposed oil over nuclear advantage? Well, that would be fear. That's what this all boils down to. Fear and misinformation. So the coolest coach of all time is going to counsel Radioactive Rocky to land some gut punches by showing exactly why the public should actually be afraid of oil and how nuclear compares. I'm talking misconceptions about oil vs. nuclear and those startling facts about oil.
How about I land the first one. Energy production from oil gives you (the public) more of a radioactive dose than your friendly nuclear power plant on average. Oil burning refines and condense the leftover contaminants concentrating them into leftover ash. This leftover ash is much more radioactive than what was started with. Add to that some slacking containment protocols and then you have a higher dose to the general populace than the nuclear power industry, which was designed to contain their hazardous materials from the start. Oil plants thus put out equal or higher radioactive dosage. This may not seem like a scary fact, but this is what I believe to be the root of fear of nuclear power. This and the believe that a nuclear Armageddon is going to happen from a power plant going haywire. It needs to be known that there is less risk than oil and more benefits to nuclear. It needs to be know that the third arm you think your going to develop when a nuclear power plant opens in your neighborhood is not going to happen and is even more likely with oil.
Feel free to comment or make posts about your Oil-Gut-Shots. I really do think we need to consider nuclear from a PR stance and how to get into a good light with the public. Thus I don't think this boxing metaphor is that farfetched of an idea. Well anyways guys, its always great rambling and being random. Hope yall enjoyed it...
Okay well now that I have lured you in again I will sadly admit that I lied. No, this will not be an ultimate showdown. Maybe later sometime down the line. Also what truly is winning? Coal is currently holding the market, but am I expecting nuclear to make shocking upset sometime down the line. Of course, I am. I wouldn't be a nuke if I wasn't. So let's have a fair match and make sure nuclear wins. I mean we were bound to win. Mwhaha. I hope to actually compare some different facts than what is normally suggested in favor of nuclear. Yes, we are much more energy efficient. Yes, we are cleaner. Yes, we are safer. Please reader, if you do not already know this I hope you will look it up. There are numerous sources that confirm this. But for a post or two I will go into possible ways I would coach "radioactive champ" if I was in his corner.
"Alright champ, all I'm asking for you is to go the distance. That oily chump over there can't go the 12 rounds aka 200 years like you can. Just outlast him and let him get what's coming to him" says the coolest boxing coach ever. There are estimates out there that coal may run out somewhere in the next 100 years. I guess for clarity I will state that this is off current known supply and assumes a compensating demand, as the other fossil fuels run out the usage of coal will increase and we will run out of it sooner. But truthfully its gonna run out sometime. The article took a guess and shot for 2088 as the magical year when nuclear's enemy (competitor) bites the dust. But it didn't account for the increase in demand due to the population growth of the world and technological growth. It could be sooner. Also, it didn't account for the unknown future coal or some other fossil fuel pocket that will extend these decays, ever so slightly.
Coach time again. Coach: "So with efficiency, safety, and cleanliness were a better fighter. We have all we need to take this fight. But we also can go the distance (oh for all you non-boxing/non-rocky fans that means to go for the full length of the match)." There are sources that state we should have enough Uranium for the next 200 years (though this doesn't include increasing demand and possible nuclear growth). "The reigning champ (oil) is a fake that bribed and corrupted his way to the top. He has all the fans now currently because of how corrupt he is and how bad he made us look. What's a possible winning strategy then? We could just jab every now and then mainly dodge (stick and move). Then wait till he runs out a steam and KO's himself. Over this fight of attrition the fans are sure to see who the real champ is and fans (public) will come straight to us."
Nuclear Coach returns...What if that oily chump somehow gets a second win and lasts closer to our 200 years? "Well then we hit them with that second wind and those new fast breeder hooks we've been practicing" With Uranium depleting we would be able to extend our nuclear industry lifetime by focusing on Plutonium-based fast breeder technology.
This plan shows a clear path to victory. It would also be a fun path as we get to stop worrying and watch the slow demise of our competitor. Also the fans come running to us, and we no longer have to worry about our image. It would be a funny path in the way in the ring, but probably not so great in real life. At that point, the cost of burning all that oil would have a heavy environmental cost. Also not taking this fight seriously would be a serious blow to innovation. Nuclear industry should actually stay in the fight and continue to struggle and grow. As the better fighter, I think they are bound to make it to the top. It is just a matter of time.
This was just as always some random nuclear facts....all disguised in a funny metaphor and some hypotheticals. Hope yall enjoyed it.
