Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nuclear power. Show all posts

Thursday, April 7, 2011

The Human Toll of Coal vs. Nuclear

I should preface this post with a reminder that devastation is devastation, it comes in all shapes and sizes without discrimination, and pain is universally felt. Considering the human toll of different energy sources this soon after the natural and unnatural disasters in Japan is in no way meant to diminish the sympathy we feel for every single soul over there. So it is with continued support and hope for the people and animals of Japan, as well as so many who have suffered from the toll of coal, that we suggest taking a look at the following graph courtesy of an "Electricity Generation and Health" study reported on by the Washington Post's David Brown.


Brown's accompanying article explains how the data was and continues to be gathered and reveals the following:

"History suggests that nuclear power rarely kills and causes little illness. That’s also the conclusion engineers reach when they model scenarios for thousands of potential accidents. Making electricity from nuclear power turns out to be far less damaging to human health than making it from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas, according to numerous analyses. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in."

Thursday, September 16, 2010

State of the Wild Boars


Boars sure are having a tough time lately. In recent decades, the German government has been shelling out big bucks to properly discard contaminated meat. Contaminated by what, you ask? Radioactive cesium-137 that they've ingested via truffles and mushrooms and nose-burrowing in soil still ripe with radioactive fallout from Chernobyl's nuclear meltdown in 1986. It may not be headline news here in the states, where contamination tends to come mostly from a poorly regulated industrialized food system, but in Europe and Asia the boars remind us of the basics: the human impact on soil, the troubles of explosive populations, the perils of farmers and the danger that comes along with progress.

AP writer Verena Schmitt-Roschmann reports:

"Almost a quarter century after the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear meltdown in Ukraine, its fallout is still a hot topic in some German regions, where thousands of boars shot by hunters still turn up with excessive levels of radioactivity. In fact, the numbers are higher than ever before.

The total compensation the German government paid last year for the discarded contaminated meat shot up to a record sum of euro425,000 (about $558,000), from only about euro25,000 ten years ago, according to the Federal Environment Ministry in Berlin.

 
"The reason is that there are more and more boars in Germany, and more are being shot and hunted, that is why more contaminated meat turns up," spokesman Thomas Hagbeck told The Associated Press. "But this also shows how long radioactive fallout remains a problem in the environment," he said. Boars are among the species most susceptible to long-term consequences of the nuclear catastrophe 24 years ago. Unlike other wild game, boars often feed on mushrooms and truffles which tend to store radioactivity and they plow through the contaminated soil with their snouts, experts say.

 However, boars are actually the beneficiaries of another ecological crisis - climate change. Central Europe is turning into a land of plenty for the animals, as warmer weather causes beech and oak trees to overproduce seeds and farmers to grow more crops the boars like to feast on such as corn or rape, said Torsten Reinwald of the German Hunting Federation. "The number of boars in Germany has quadrupled or quintupled over the last years, as has the number of boars shot," Reinwald said, adding that other countries like France and Poland are seeing a similar proliferation of boars.

Last season, hunters brought home a record 640,000, and following that trend, the amount of contaminated meat also went off the charts. Judging from the total compensation paid out in 2009, about 2,000 to 4,000 boars were found to have levels above the 600 becquerel of radioactivity per kilogram allowed for human consumption. That compares to about 125 to 250 a decade ago."


In China's eastern province of Zhejiang, it's a slightly different story. Reforestation is fueling the boar population and the little foragers are pigging out in the region's farmland, devastating crops and villagers. Treehugger reports:  

"The county's director of wildlife protection, Song Weizhen, explains: "In some aspects, the growing boar population shows us the success of the policy of returning farm land to its original use as forests." Because the boars are enjoying more room to grow, they're forced to look elsewhere for food, which can be found readily in the region's farmland. In some parts, as much as one-third of crops have been destroyed, but that's not the only toll. In the last decade, 22 people were killed and 188 injured by encounters with the animals.

When it became clear that something had to be done to reduce the boar population, the government authorized farmers to hunt them -- but the allowance of 10,000 boars proved not enough to quell their growth rate. Other, more humane methods were ineffective in scaring them off as well.


"The growing wild boar population is now a disaster to our village and neighboring ones. We knock on gongs, explode firecrackers and even use bombs, but there are just so many," one farmer in the region told Xinhua.

Now the gloves are coming off. Vuvuzelas, made infamous for their unrelenting drone throughout the World Cup -- and even karaoke -- are two of the most recent methods being used in the fight against marauding animals.


A group of 23 villagers have gotten together to form a "crops-protection team," patrolling the farmlands with noisemakers at night to ward off the invasive boar."

Bad time to be a boar, huh? Either you're glowing in the dark, constantly dodging hunters or your ears are being assaulted by karaoke!

Friday, November 7, 2008

nuclear renaissance

Champions of nuclear power are working to change the face of the carbon-free industry, and according to World Nuclear News, they're hoping to "recreate some of the excitement that surrounded nuclear technology in the 1950s." World Nuclear News, a publication of the World Nuclear Association, has asked readers to submit ideas for more aesthetically pleasing power plants. Learn more about it from today's NY Times Green Inc post and check out some of the design submissions here.

Monday, October 13, 2008

Nukes contd.

I know I said the blog would focus on recycling this week, but with the upcoming election and so much focus on nuclear power last week, I feel that it is my duty to at least post this link to an article in the NY times that examines both candidates' approach (that I meant to link to last week).

Thursday, October 9, 2008

(Successful) Nuke Poll

As much as I'd like to report some results from my poll about nuclear power, it appears to have only gathered three votes so.... lucky for us the TierneyLab has posted some interesting findings from a new Harris Poll. It appears that age, i.e. whether or not you are old enough to recall Three Mile Island without the use of Wikipedia, does not play the "China Syndrome" role you might expect. Check it out:

From the TeirneyLab: "The level of support increased with the age of respondents - just as it happens to increase with the age of the presidential candidates this year. The only group in the poll that opposes new plants, by a margin of 38 to 35 percent, consisted of people aged 18 to 31." Read the entire post here.

Hard Path supporters in Columbia, MD


Wednesday, October 8, 2008

Top priorities for top priority: energy

Great representation from the NY Times showing seven steps industry and governments could take to help cut heat-trapping emissions in the next 50 years. 880 is a big number - but not as big as 14 billion.




More from NY Times dotearth here

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Terrestrial Energy

As previously predicted right here on this blog, nuclear power may be making a rebound and becoming, to the surprise of many, the greener solution. John Tierney talks about the politics of the soft path versus the hard path towards the future of energy here and follows up on the TierneyLab here.

To summarize, the soft path is energy conservation and power from the sun, wind and plants. These are the technologies that Obama supports. The hard path, on the other hand, is about building nuclear power plants, something McCain is more enthusiastic about. This debate was big in the 70s and melted away after the partial meltdown of the reactor at Three Mile Island and the soft path was taken by most. Fast forward to today. About 20% of America's electricity is generated by nuclear power. Furthermore, from the article:

Nuclear power also costs less, according to Gilbert Metcalf, an economist at Tufts University. After estimating the costs and factoring out the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy, he estimates that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than windmills, solar power or “clean coal” plants.

Supporters, like William Tucker, are saying that just as they have come around to understand and address Al Gore's views on the dangers of global warming, environmentalists need to come around, stop thinking atomic bombs and start associating nuclear plants with natural radioactive processes in the earth. The hope and proposal to re-frame views of nuclear power comes from a new book by Tucker called, "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey." Learn more about the book here.

And my father didn't want to share his lecture notes on the topic from the 70s with me for fear of Green Peace protests in his front yard...