Skip to main content

The "blast zone" of a nuclear power plant?

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.

Comments

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

You think these things are chocolate factories?
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!)
gunter 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.
Brian 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 ....
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!

Popular posts from this blog

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…