Skip to main content

The "blast zone" of a nuclear power plant?

By Kevin McCoy
A recent article in the Washington Post discusses an NRC public meeting on new construction at Calvert Cliffs. It ends with the following backhanded endorsement:
Clyde Thomas, who works at the plant, said experience makes him feel confident
the area is safe.

"I wouldn't live in the blast zone if I didn't," he said.
The "blast zone" of a nuclear power plant? What's that? It seemed like a rather clumsy comment. But later I received an e-mail with this explanation from Mr. Thomas:
I still think I was set up!

I told the reporter I lived close to the plant and then he asked me if I didn't mind living in the "blast zone" and then I said "I wouldn't live in the blast zone if I did." I guess I shouldn't have repeated his "blast zone" comment...
Sometimes it's interesting how reporters choose their quotations.
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
You can get "blasted" by a radiation dose, don't you think?

You think these things are chocolate factories?
August 20, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Anonymous said…
No I don't really think so. You get more radiation dose from emissions from coal-fired and some geothermal plants than you do from a nuclear plant. In fact, you might get more from chocolate. There's 40K in there. Ahhhhhhh! (We're all gonna die!)
August 21, 2007 at 8:39 AM
Anonymous said…
Anon,

More radioactivity in a chocolate bar than a nuclear power plant?

You must be refering to Hershey's following the TMI accident---though luckily that was appartently a pretty narrow plume.
August 21, 2007 at 11:25 AM
Brian Mays said…
Well, gunter, if you mean to suggest that you plan to eat the entire nuclear plant (or just the highly radioactive parts, if you are on a diet), then I get your point. Otherwise ....
August 21, 2007 at 1:46 PM
Anonymous said…
Gunter, you'd eat a Hershey's bar that dated back to 1979? Geez, I knew anti-nukes were a little kooky, but that's just plain gross.

Better stop eating bananas too, Gunter. Plenty of K-40 in those.

Radiation?! Omigod, we're all gonna die!
August 21, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

By
Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...
23 comments
Read more

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

By
Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...
7 comments
Read more

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

By
You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...
6 comments
Read more