• Thank you for visiting the Cafe Rad Lab Forum
  • We present & discuss radiation health, science & news
  • To keep you informed about vital nuke information.
Hello There, Guest! Login Register

The rolls royce of nuclear power plants
Rolls-Royce factory plan puts nuclear reactors on mini scale


"Rolls-Royce plans on building mini nuclear reactors, which could be in operation by 2029. They are less the size of traditional nuclear reactors and they do not take as many years to build.

How mini is that? Roger Harrabin and Katie Prescott reporting in the BBC: "They are about 1.5 acres in size - sitting in a 10-acre space. That is a 16th of the size of a majorpower station such as Hinkley Point."
The company has stated that this is a low-cost alternative for a global market. "With a modular design that's built in a factory, it can improve certainty of delivery, reduce complexity, optimize safety."

Woohoo! Because, we've never had major failures in factory built products, especially not if they're low cost and intended for the global market!

Apparently, Rolls Royce have some similar safety and engineering issues as Boeing these days (read, cost/safety/QA reduction coz of profit margins)...

This is all I could think of (short Simpsons clip) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Vk5uxMpgIk

I mean, it DOES seem quite analogous... gambling, fraud, toxicity, wastefulness AND the glamour and girls, much like https://www.dw.com/en/czech-republic-nuc...a-39404100, except the girls in the Simpsons clip are more representative, considering their mutations, physical deformities and general degeneracy.
I've been struggling quite a bit with arguments/comments on that article due to my non-involvement with the nuclear stuff in a while and not keeping references and such (aside from more personal issues currently).

Any help/notes, particularly about tritium, since I figured start with some of the most ubiquitous, yet not particularly well-understood and quite misrepresented, crap related to nuclear facilities would be appreciated.

For instance, how should I explain that there's a big difference between tritium as a natural result in the atmosphere due to cosmic rays, including the numerous effects it would undergo, such as results from basically accompanying protons before it may or may not be a toxic factor near say, the surface of the earth and considering its half life, if it even gets there....to say, all that tritium produced near surface, unnaturally at very highly concentrated levels (in a volumetric distribution sense)? Maybe I can ask that question as rhetoric? I might just.
Tritium is not considered very harmful to humans. The effects on aquatic species are profound. Many studies were done in the seventies to see how much could be released without killing all the fish in the ultimate heatsink.

"tritium produced measureable, dose dependent, and irreversible suppression of immune capacity in affected fish."

"It appeared that there was no threshold or significant dose-rate effect for either beta or gamma rays on germ cell survival, and that tritium beta rays were more effective than cesium-137 gamma rays in germ cell killing."

"Barnacle embryos were reared in millipore cytology monitors containing approximate tritiated water (HTO) concentrations of background plus 0, 10-5, 10-4, 10-3, 10-2, 10-1, and 100 uCi/mL. After 32 days the cultures were fixed and the numbers of larvae counted. A "molting index," the percentage of larvae that molted at least once, was used to evaluate the effects of HTO on normal development. Effects were observed at concentrations as low as 7×10-6 uCi/mL, and were exponentially related to HTO concentration."

Tritium is hard to measure making it easier to cover-up. They started in the 70's when anglers weren't catching fish downstream from NPP's. They had to dial tritium releases way down to keep enough fish in rivers to satisfy anglers demands. They know exactly how devastating tritium is to marine life. Atmospheric tritium ends up in the ocean. Its not really that safe for humans.
"First, as an isotope of hydrogen (the cell’s most ubiquitous element), tritium can be incorporated into essentially all portions of the living machinery; and it is not innocuous — deaths have occurred in industry from occupational overexposure. R. Lowry Dobson, MD, PhD. (1979)"


"Tritium emits a weak form of radiation, a low-energy beta particle similar to an electron."
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."

Did you not read what I said? Bye bye, whores.

You won't be able to swim or fly again. It's your censorship of expression, for no good reason. You try to suppress me and as such you are rejected, dejected and ejected. Mortally reflected.

I noticed good soil, you planted bad seeds, guess why you're discarded fertilizer. I don't ask questions to know.

You may as well start deleting my other threads/posts too, because you should understand by now what I'm going to do.

Your inability to deal with my perspective is absolute. As much as you cannot acknowledge or accept what I have to say, I highly suspect you cannot expect me to respect what you try to project.

Go find another Sun, it abandons you.
Nonsense posts of Egyptian mythology and music links aren't pertinent at all to radiation. You've had lots of latitude and made good posts to express yourself. Don't expect me to put up with nonsense.
"The map is not the territory that it is a map of ... the word is not the thing being referred to."
(01-28-2020, 06:33 PM)Horse Wrote: Nonsense posts of Egyptian mythology and music links aren't pertinent at all to radiation.  You've had lots of latitude and made good posts to express yourself.  Don't expect me to put up with nonsense.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Jay Inslee's view on Nuclear Power Jebus 1 1,571 04-22-2019, 11:57 AM
Last Post: HHD
  Arnie Gundersen - Nuclear power & CME/EMP Horse 2 5,799 09-08-2015, 06:53 PM
Last Post: Horse

Forum Jump:

Browsing: 1 Guest(s)