• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

First US Nuclear Power Plant License since Early '90s

Take a look at the chart. Notice how living the average dose to someone living within 10 miles of the Three Mile Island incident is comparable to the dose from living in a brick/concrete house for a year.
In early 2009, the debate was partly rekindled by the renowned KiKK study (Kaatsch et al, 2008) commissioned by the German Government which found a 60% increase in total cancers and 120% increase in leukemias among children under 5 yrs old living within 5 km of all German NPPs.

Childhood Leukemias Near Nuclear Power Stations: new article - Dr Ian Fairlie
 
Then tell me whether you think we'll see spent fuel in our front yards anytime soon.
Um, I'm sorry that a "physicist" was not able to understand the question posed, apparently you have no problems living next to a nuke waste facility.....or a NPP....and that is fine, you are biased....and apparently ignorant of the issues living next to said facilities.
 
Should that not be factored into the amount it charges for the electricity it supplies on an ongoing basis rather then after the fact
yes, definitely.....if they are allowed to by state corporation commissions.
But, when was the last time that kind of expense has ever been accurately forecast?
 
yes, definitely.....if they are allowed to by state corporation commissions.
But, when was the last time that kind of expense has ever been accurately forecast?

Probably never, which is why setting the rate on the high side, and if the cost of clean up is lower, return the money to the operate after clean up has been completed and certified.

Of course it would jack up the electrical rates, probably making the plant uneconomic to operate in the market
 
Yes, 10 to 100 times higher than "virtually indistinguishable from zero" is still not a significant concern.

How about a dinner of some Fukushima seafood then?

This paper focuses on an overview of radioactive cesium 137 (quasi-Cs137 included Cs134) contamination of freshwater fish in Fukushima and eastern Japan based on the data published by the Fisheries Agency of the Japanese Government in 2011. In the area north and west of the Fukushima Nuclear plant, freshwater fish have been highly contaminated. For example, the mean of active cesium (quasi-Cs137) contamination of Ayu (Plecoglossus altivelis) is 2,657 Bq/kg at Mano River, 20-40 km north-west from the plant. Bioaccumulation is observed in the Agano river basin in Aizu sub-region, 70-150 km west from the plant. The active cesium (quasi-Cs137) contamination of carnivorous Salmondae is around 2 times higher than herbivorous Ayu. The extent of active cesium (quasi-Cs137) contamination of Ayu is observed in the entire eastern Japan. The some level of the contamination is recognized even in Shizuoka prefecture, 400 km south-west from the plant.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23625055

It should also be noted that the Fukushima disaster isn't near over yet. They haven't even begun to dimantle the 3 corium cores. This won't start, until at the earliest, 2020. They will then probably have to erect a sarcophagus, similar to that at Chernobyl. The Chernobyl structure is in the process of being replaced, because of deterioration. The new structure will cost over $3 Billion, and should be set in place this year (2017).
 
Back
Top Bottom