Taswegian

"I wonder if green utopians realise that steam from hot granite geothermal contains radioactive radon gas."

Yes, the thought occurred to me too. However, the areas of the hottest rocks are in remote areas, and radon has a short half life, so its contribution to the radon level in major inhabited areas would be limited.

The wikipedia article on radon says "The danger of radon exposure in dwellings was discovered in 1984 with the case of Stanley Watras, an employee at the Limerick nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania. Watras set off the radiation alarms on his way into work for two weeks straight [...].They were shocked to find that the source was astonishingly high levels of radon, around 100,000 Bq/m3 (2,700 pCi/L), in his house's basement and it was not related to the nuclear plant."

If he hadn't been working at a nuclear plant, it appears likely he would eventually have succumbed to cancer. There's a certain irony there that I'm sure will have escaped the greenies.

Sylvia.

Sylvia, don't for a second assume that all of "the greenies" opposed to the nuclear industry (its inherent complicitness with weapons which makes it far from being a "green", "left" or even "enviro" issue) fail to recognise the dangers posed by Radon 222 gas - emitted from all uranium mines.
In fact I've letterboxed the town of Roxby Downs about it. A half-life of 7 days is plenty enough, carried by winds, to cause lung cancer risk to populations over vast distances.

http://www.VoteNuclearFree.net

I'm always intrigued when nuclear proponents endeavour to air-brush the hazards of radon-222 and allude only to the natural background releases of this radioactive gas.

Radon can can seep through soil and cracks in rock into the air. It can seep through foundations into homes and accumulate into high concentrations.

Rn222 decay emits alpha particles which presents the greatest hazard to lung tissue. A major concern is that radon's very short half life means that it emits alpha particles at a very high rate.

Rn222 also has a habit of adhering to microscopic dust particles where it can be carried significant distances therefore it does not necessarily remain in-situ.

One should be concerned also that radon is the daughter product of radium-226 which continues to generate radon-222 during its much longer half-life of 1602 years.

In addition, it decays to polonium 210 and while not significantly harmful on the outside the body, one would not need to unwittingly ingest this material. We've all read on the radiation demise of Livinenko.

And so while humans must cope with natural background levels of radiation, anthropogenic emissions of radioactive materials, originating from the mining of uranium, have significantly increased Earth's background levels.

And like those emissions, other radioactive releases include the atomic activities of the military, naval, air space experiments and nuclear industries use of RA materials.

Many of those emissions have contaminated our eco systems and insidiously damaged human and animal health - though the pro-nukes remain in denial or simply consider those who succumb to these hazards, as collateral damage.

Established scientists continue to assure us that we have nothing to fear, however the science, with its undeniable facts also assure us that man's fiddling with uranium has simply created a prognosis for a more radioactive earth.

It is evident that Mother Nature is not pleased with humans pillaging and plundering her waste repositories, contaminating her Earth and desecrating her natural mechanisms for environmental harmony.

After all, the entire polluted state of the global environment is a result of we humans digging holes - now that is an established, scientific fact!

I'm always intrigued when anti nuclear proponents endeavour to air-brush the hazards of humans continuing to breed in order to secure economic growth, past 6 billion already unsustainable rapists, murderers and ugly faceless investors in doom.

Radon-222 might kill or injure a few hundred people worldwide from uranium mining. By 2025 "PEOPLE" will have killed 6 billion and NOT with expensive nuclear weapons but with guns, hammers and communicable diseases .. whatever is at hand.

Radon can can seep through soil and cracks in rock, into the air and take decades to kill. Humans just walk in, hit you with a hammer and its goodnight Irene. At PEAKOIL this Rwanda style civil kill mode for survival will seep through the foundations of our society into homes and accumulate survival stashes into high concentrations for modern warlords .

In addition, polonium 210 has killed one person in the history of the world, so does that mean we should not build a total nuclear engineering research and development industry in Australia as a bridge over the troubled waters of PEAKOIL? NO, it means nuclear power is no threat. Nuclear can't harm us and it can save us from the sweeping disorder that will arise when petrol reaches >$5/litre in less than a decade.

Emissions of radioactive materials, originating from the mining of uranium, have NOT significantly increased Earth's background levels. In addition Australia will continue mining uranium. Protesters are ineffectual, effete and CANNOT stop this because WHY? Because they are attacking nuclear energy when they should be attacking governments proposing and fostering economic growth through usustainable populations. In Thermodynamics, 'ENERGY=ORDER". Only Nuclear energy can replace the order of fast growth eCONnomies with a sustainable order that does not rely on overpopulating and destroying Earth's human civilisations.

continued ..

Continuing ..

We have nothing to fear, fiddling with uranium doesn't create a prognosis for a more radioactive earth. RA's are heavy and quickly settle to the deepest ocean trenches or subduction zones, the very place we should position our RA wastes up to a 2040 phase out of nuclear in favour of Geothermal power sources.

It is evident that Mother Nature is not pleased with 6.5 billion humans pillaging and plundering and contaminating her Earth and desecrating her natural mechanisms for environmental harmony. She will not tolerate 9billion and Rwanda has shown us how she will deal with this ugly, ugly human threat.

After all, the entire nuclear cycle is part of mother nature. That nuclear energy will help clean the polluted state of the global environment as a result of we humans defecating all over the planet and its oceans is an established, THERMODYNAMIC scientific fact!

And remember aUSstralia doesn't need millions more questionable immigrants to help fight off PEAKOIL invaders, the reality is that we just need a handful of nuclear weapons to DETER any such invasion.

Any Australian who doesn't support a Total-nuclear-Industry within a decade is just a DICK.

"After all, the entire nuclear cycle is part of mother nature. That nuclear energy will help clean the polluted state of the global environment as a result of we humans defecating all over the planet and its oceans is an established, THERMODYNAMIC scientific fact!"

How or when will a required minimum of 1,000 nuclear reactors reduce the pollution of the global defecation by humans?

How will the "THERMODYNAMIC scientific fact(s)" cope with 1 billion gallons of water per unit reactor per day, multiplied by the potential of 1,000 nuclear reactors?

How or when will these reactors reduce the enormous carbon based emissions from other mining industries (gold, aluminium, nickel, lead, etc etc) and the resultant contamination of entire townships and the ongoing desecration of our fragile eco systems?

How or when will Australia, with its proposed 25 reactors, reduce the 2 billion, 2 million kilograms of CO emitted by motor vehicles last year?

How or when will emissions be reduced from the steel and iron manufacturing industries - up there with coal burning emissions?

What do you make of the DOIR's briefing note on Lucas Heights which said:

"Be careful in terms of health impacts - don't really want a detailed study done on the health of Sutherland residents. Don't say 'no extra risk' - say 'acceptable risk'."

Why are communities not privy to an accurate account of the self-regulated, self-reporting nuclear industy which currently operates only on extrapolations from their "computer modelling" to assess radioactive releases to soil, air and water?

Why did the European Commission threaten to take the British government to court in 2004 for failing to account for hundreds of tonnes of dangerous radioactive waste at the Sellafield nuclear complex?

Why does the World Bank deny lending money around the world for nuclear projects?

"The required 1000 nuclear power plants would slow the warming by about 0.11C in a century." (John Cristy - Member IPCC.)

Any Australian who wears the nuclear "kaep" of concealment must surely be regarded as "TRIPLE DICKS?"