Melissa Carsner
Professor Holly DeGrow
Research Journal
July 23, 2009
1) Mcleish, Ewan. The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Power. NewYork: The Rosen
Group, (2008): 22-36.
22 The half-lives of different
radioactive elements vary enormously,
literally from seconds to billions of
years. U-238 has a half life of 4.5
billion years, whereas U-235 has a
more modest half life of 704 million
years. Different isotopes of plutonium
have shorter half-lives, between 88
and 37,600 years. It is obvious, then,
that material with a long half-life will
remain radioactive for longer than
material with a shorter half-life.
23 This book is explaining the
difference in “half-life” and “level of
radiation” as being opposite of each
other. So, if something has a short
half-life (meaning it will lose its
radioactivity quickly) then it has a very
high level of radiation. The author
states that the radioactivity of fuel
falls very rapidly because of its high
level of radiation, but that U-238 and
U-235 have half-lives of millions or
billions of years because they are
decaying much slower and giving off
very little radiation.
30 The author is claiming that
Chernobyl was an over exaggeration
as far as death and destruction are
concerned. He explains that less than
60 people died as a result of the
Chernobyl accident, many of whom
were trying to contain the damage
immediately after the explosion. And
there have been no recorded birth
defects as a result of radiation
exposure.
This book is describing the half-lives
being so different between uranium
and plutonium, making it sound as
though maybe using one versus the
other would be safer, however, I
wonder if there is realistically a
difference to us? When compared to
4.5 billion years, 37, 600 years may
not seem like much, to me however, it
still seems like a long time to have
deadly toxins buried on our planet. Is
there a realistic difference between
these time variations?
So fuel has a higher level of radiation
than Uranium or plutonium? I need to
figure out the relevance of radiation
levels as it pertains to human and
planet health.

Could this be true? Will have to check
some other sources. Also, didn’t a
huge area (like miles upon square
miles) get evacuated, and the people
who once lived there still cannot
return??
33 “All technologies carry risk-nuclear
power is no exception. Its probably
true to say that more coal miners are
killed in a year than have ever been
killed in nuclear accidents.
36 The cost of nuclear power
(including decommissioning) is 4-6
2) The Thomson Corporation. Fueling the Future Nuclear Power. Farmington Hills:
(2007): 19-56.
19 “In 1939 German Scientists Otto
Hahn and Fritz Strassman showed that
fission not only released a lot of
energy but that it also released
additional neutrons which could cause
fission in other uranium nuclei and
possibly a self-sustaining chain
reaction leading to an enormous
release of energy.”
27 This page displays a pie chart
from the Nuclear Energy Institute
breaking down the percentages of
public exposure to Radiation being as
follows: Radon in Nature=55%,
Internal (body)=11%, Medical X-
rays=11%, Terrestrial=8%,
cents per kilowatt-hour. Offshore wind
is 6-8 cents, onshore wind is 3-5 cents,
and coal and gas fired plants are
around 7 cents per kilowatt-hour.
This is a good quote for giving some
perspective on numbers of deaths in
relation to energy related jobs etc.
I would be interested in finding
comparisons to other forms of energy
as well. Saving money isn’t always
everything, but it is a puzzle piece in
the big picture!
Cosmis=8%, Nuclear Medicine=4%,
Consumer products=3%, and Nuclear
Power Plants=<1%.
52 After the disasters of 3 mile island
and Chernobyl, organizations were
created to monitor nuclear power
plants. The Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations closely monitors all of the
nuclear power plants in the United
states and identifies any aspects that
are not up to its standards of
excellence.
Need to get definition of Fission does “half-life” and amount of
radiation come into play here?

But what are the consequences

Interesting to see were radiation is for not being up to standard? Aside
coming from, however, how much from the obvious?

56 Terrorist attacks on Nuclear power Wouldn’t terrorist be afraid of the

plants are a realistic possibility for the radiation reaching them?
following reasons: symbolic character,
killing large areas of people, and the
collapse of electricity for a large group
of people.

3) ”Nuclear Fission.” Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008.

<http://www.britanica.com>

Definition of Fission: Subdivision of nuclear energy is by controlled nuclear

Heavy Atomic nucleus, such as that of fission in devices called reactors, which now
uranium or plutonium, into two operate in many parts of the world.
fragments of roughly equal mass. The How does this produce large amounts of
process is accompanied by the release energy? When does this occur naturally?
of a large amount of energy. Fission
may take place naturally or may be
induced by the excitation of the
nucleus with a variety of particles.

Atomic energy: Energy that is released in

significant amounts in processes that affect
atomic nuclei, the dense cores of atoms. It is
How do the reactors create this release of
distinct from the energy of other atomic
energy via fission? Aside from energy what
phenomena such as ordinary chemical
if any are the other by-products of nuclear
reactions, which involve only the orbital
fission?
electrons of atoms. One method of releasing
4) Kidd, J.S., and Renee A. Kidd. Quarks and Sparks the story of Nuclear Power.
New York: Facts on File,( 1999): 30-97.
pressurized-water reactor, was rated
at 250 million watts of power.

30 When Nuclear physicist Enrico

Fermi is conducting laboratory tests in
1932, he learns that when heavy
atoms such as Uranium are irradiated
with neutrons, more neutrons arose
from the collision(a multiplier effect).
Along with an increased number of
neutrons, there was a release of
energy.

91 In the 1950s scientist began

brainstorming alternative/peaceful
uses for nuclear power. Proposals
included using nuclear energy to
power naval submarines, nuclear
propulsion system for large aircrafts,
or mining or the construction of canals Was the energy released a by-product
or underground storage. of the splitting of the atom or because
of the increased number of neutrons?
94 The first nuclear reactor built to Is the increased number of neutrons
produce electricity via steam was in harmful?
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and
produced enough electricity to
activate four lightbulbs.

97 During the late 1950s through the
1960s reactors were designed to
produce less than 400 million watts of
power. In 1963 the largest commercial
reactor built in New York, a
Did scientist understand ,at the time,
the level of danger involved with using
nuclear energy? Perhaps that is why
many of their ideas never came to
light?
I just think this is a cute and cool
factoid!

What is the significance of these

numbers? How many watts does it
take to power a city etc.?

5) Butler, Declan. “Nuclear power’s new dawn.” Nature May 20, (2004): 238-
240.

238 The author describes a possible
future of a reactor that is operating at
temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius,
stating that in today’s time, this would
be cause for panic.
238 “Nuclear power is not a source of
carbon dioxide, and with emissions
soaring, and global energy demands
predicted to double by 2050, the
nuclear option is finding its way back
onto the table.”
238 A group of ten nations(called
GIF) have joined scientific forces to
brainstorm and test prototypes for
some new generation reactors that
they believe will be safer. While
today’s water-cooled reactors can
operate around 300 degrees Celsius,
all of the new concepts are designed
to run at temps of 510-1,000 degrees
C.
239 Four of the six prototypes not
only produce electricity but hydrogen
as well. Only one of the four would be
able to operate without having to
depend on the controversial
reprocessing of plutonium waste.
240 Reprocessing waste is
controversial because it separates out
a key ingredient used in advanced
nuclear weapons. The US has refrained
from reprocessing this waste and has
discouraged other nations from
processing it as well. This reprocessing
is attractive because it could cut the
final amount of waste produced. 96%
of spent fuel consists of uranium and
plutonium, meaning only a small
amount of waste would be left over.
How does this compare to today’s Can Hydrogen be used as a source of
operating temperatures? What is the electricity as well? Why is reprocessing
significance in wanting to be able to plutonium waste controversial?
operate at higher temps?

What has been happening to the

Intersting waste if it hasn’t been reprocessed? Is
that what is in all of the containers
buried at nuclear waste sites like
Hanford? If the waste is reprocessed,
does it make it better for the
environment?

6) Wald, Mathew. “Is there a place for Nuclear waste?” Scientific American Magazine August 2009
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-there-a-place-for-nuclear-waste
“The Hanford Nuclear Reservation is the largest
nuclear waste dump in the Western Hemisphere
and a major Northwest environmental issue. It is
a serious long-term threat to the Columbia River,
Sounds great, so why would Obama
which Oregon depends on for power generation,
cancel plans for storing waste here?
farm irrigation, fishing, transport and recreation.’
Has any research been done to find
out if this man’s ideas could be a
reality?
President Obama has cancelled plans for storing
nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain near Las
Vegas where the federal gov. has been trying to
create a storage facility for 22 years.

In New Mexico, the Director of Carlsbad
Environmental Monitoring and Research Center
at New Mexico State University, believes that
this desert would be the perfect place for burying
nuclear waste because the salt seeps into
cracks in the rock and seals it in. He states
“permeability is not just very low, but zero”, and
“you couldn’t engineer something this good.”
How does something like this happen
and no one blinks an eye? Why are we
as a society ok with longer term
deadly waste from other sources of
energy, but we have a closed mind to
nuclear energy because of its negative
aspects?

Nuclear waste does not cascade from storage

lagoons as billions of gallons of toxic coal waste
did in Tennessee in December 2008. And unlike
carbon dioxide, it doesn’t disappear into the
atmosphere.

How has this affected our local environment? I

would be interested in learning both the negative
and positive outcomes of having the Hanford
nuclear site. I would also like to learn a bit more
about the spillage of waste that happened there.

Why / why not, would they store

waste here? What are the advantages
and disadvantages?