Grönarealisten

Få se vad jag får för svar... Här är blogginlägget jag kommenterar och nedan är en kopia av min kommentar. Lite humoristiskt att en greenpeace pamp vill ha en objektiv diskussion. Ungefär lika trovärdig som att en kreationist skulle vilja ha en vetenskapligt baserad diskussion om evolutionen.

Nej precis som en kreationist definerar objektiv som anti evolution så definerar greenpeace objektiv som anti kärnkraft. Nåja här kommer kommentaren.

If its a objective discussion you are interested in, what is your view on the life cycle assesements made by Öko institute, ExterE, IEA, Vattenfall and others(some summaries on my blog
http://gronarealisten.blogg.se/2007/may/karnkraft-och-koldioxidutslapp.html ) and others that show that nuclear power has equal or smaller external costs and emits equal or less polutants compared to wind and hydropower?

when it comes to waste storage. I dont se whats wrong with KBS-3? What manner of event could possible lead to the following chain of even?
1. Break a large portion of the copper cannisters.
2. Transport the aktinides through the bentonit clay.
3. Transport the aktinides from the repository through the rock without the majority of it adsobring on the rock walls.
4. Lead to high enough concentrations in the water at ground level despite the fact that actinide oxides have a solubility of around a microgram or less in water.

I can not imagine any scenario that would lead to even modest dosages(10mSv) to the population group closes to the repository. Study of the Oklo natural reactor has shown that actinides are very immobile, during the eon's since the reactor shut down the actinides has stayed within a few meters of the reactor.

And what about other methods?
What about the american WIPP repository, what about waiting 20-30 years until its possible to transmute the actinides on a industrial scale?

Surely its false to claim there is no solution to the waste problem when there is already one repository running(WIPP), one beeing built in finland and KBS-3 soon to be built in sweden. Soon russia will demonstrate actinide burning in fast reactors when they start to burn weapons grade plutonium in the BN-600 reactor beeing constructed in Sverdlovsk.

When it comes to modern uranium mining, whats your oppinion on the countless studies published in peer review journals that show the dosages to the population closes to the mines are around 0.01-0.1 mSv and that the dosages to the miners are equal in magnitude(a few mSv at most) to the dosage workers receive in other mines like LKAB's iron mines in nothern sweden. Dosages that low exclude the posibility of statisticaly significant cancer increases on purely biological grounds.

There is no doubt however that historicaly uranium mining was dirty dirty buisness, just like other mining was. LKAB workes used to get dosages as high as 80mSv in the northern sweden iron mines. dosages 20 times as high as workers get in modern uranium mines. Judging todays uranium mining on the merit of historic mining is not very relevant however.