|
1. I don't know about worker safety comparative studies, but I do know that government OSHA, Ministry of Labour, Workers' Compensation Board and industrial organizations like IAPA affect worker safety across the board. The worst place by far for worker safety, that I have ever been is McMaster University. I have never called the MOL in any industrial place I have ever worked, and that included some noteable places like Derby Dog Foods and Darlington Nuclear Generating Station. At Mac, I called the MOL 3 times in 9 months. I don't know how they are now, but that was the worst place by far for unsafe handling of hazardous materials. I finally quit because of it. And these were professors in charge.
The best one was when I complained to a professor in the Nuclear Research Building (attached to the reactor) about a mercury spill on the floor. He made light of it and refused to have it cleaned up. The MOL came in with their Hg monitors and shut down that lab plus the one next door. The prof indicated his displeasure with me. And the MOL man said, "I don't know why you're upset with this man. If you have been working a regular work week in this lab, you already have some impairment of brain function". I thought that much was obvious, no need for a formula. I point out for those intentionally ignoring it, that this was a nuclear physics professor in charge of building a new experiment in this lab.
The Darlington NGS took a bunch of Instrument Techs and gave a 1/2 day familiarization for commisioning 600-volt starters. An accident with one of these things can draw up to 20,000 amps off the main buses so I'm told. One guy told me he saw an accidental short, and it looked like the Sun rising in the room. I'm not a High Voltage Electrician. I told them point blank that I was not about to touch that kind of an energy source with just a few hours of familiarization, and actually being outside my trade.
2. The last I heard, there had not been any contracts let for the building of new Nuclear Generating Stations for a very large number of years. But the problem of nuclear waste is not just with existing waste. It is being produced every day. The last I heard, even smoke detectors are supposed to be turned in when they stop working, because they use tritium (I think).
I've already dealt with the need to develop ZPE, or better yet let's call it my Power Waves Extraction, as non-polluting energy.
3. Real figures are not required any more than they are for the destructiveness of smoking tobacco. But the figures are not required just for so-called energy producing industries. Steel industry is a phenomenal user of coal and bunker c fuel oil, along with natural gas, and massive amounts of electricity for say, their cryogenic air-separation oxygen plants. Chemical industries do the same, but use nitrogen and argon for blanketing gasses. Hydrogen production for use in cars is just a massive scam.
But let's talk about "energy producers" for a moment. All thermoelectric generating plants; fossil fuel and nuclear, run at about 30% efficiency maximum. This is because the Latent Heat of Vaporization is so high compared to merely superheating the steam up to being a dry high pressure gas for use in turbines. The LHoV is not recoverable, and THAT's why we see the huge cooling towers at these plants. Close to 70% of the heat content of all fuels used, is wasted into the environment. That's why the fishing is so good off of generating plants, the water is warm enough for the fish to grow all year, even in Canada.
That means that almost 70% of the nuclear waste went to warm up the Great Lakes or whatever. For fossil fuels, almost 70% of the CO2 produced to cause green house effect, also produced warm water for the fishees.
5. The 30/70% rule for efficiency (or inefficiency) is a fact of physics, not technology. A home natural gas furnac can run up to about 98% efficient. No wonder the fuel producers prefer us to heat with electricity!
6. Chernoble and Three Mile Island both used carbon as the moderator. This makes them a whole lot cheaper to build than heavy water reactors. But a runaway accident using carbon, easily results in meltdown. A runaawy accident in heavy water reactors can't happen so I'm told, because just about any problem results in the water killing the reaction.
But then let's look at reactor lifetime. Last I heard, it is about 30 years. Then guess what they do with it? They entomb it in place, in a concrete sarcophagus, and maybe build a ski hill on it. |
