Nuclear Evacuation Zones

[patandchickens]

I have a underground house with a inside drilled well.I need to know how long that water source will be good.This plant has been here since 1974.I don't fish anywhere near it but I still wonder how it could harm the water.I haven't research it but I wonder is there someway to "clean" the water of radiation?

You need to know your aquifer and the state of the well casing. (these are awfully good things to know for all sorts of other purposes, not just in the remote chance of a nuclear incident).

Some deep aquifers have a recharge time of tens of thousands of years or more, thus as long as your well casing is intact you would expect in a perfect world for the water to be 100% fine for way longer than you care about

In reality of course you have to remember that wells go *both ways* and that if someone *else's* well into that aquifer should get contaminated -- by E coli, by a leaky fuel oil tank, by chemicals, by a buncha radioactive particle input -- then what matters is the transit time of the aquifer water from their well to yours. It is hard to envision too many circumstances where *radioactive* contamination could happen this way -- yeah, I can make up baroque one-off scenarios, but I don't see anything particularly *likely*. However there are certainly a number of cases where this demonstrably *does* happen with OTHER kinds of contamination, e,g. bacterial or chemical, typically because folks have been unwise around poorly-sealed or poorly-lined wells. So it IS something to have on your mental radar, IMHO.

Then there are other wells or other aquifers. Some wells are really shallow and thus they both have short recharge times (the time it takes for surface water to infiltrate into the aquifer water) AND have a lot more locations where surface water CAN get into the aquifer. This is particularly true where you're talking about shallow dug unlined wells, or places like some of KY where you may actually be drawing water not so much from an aquifer but from an underground stream that may not have been underground for *all* that far.

If your well often tests high for bacteria (it is smart to have it checked at least yearly, a lot of places the municipality/state/province will do it for free) then it is probably smart to assume that it is pretty vulnerable to contamination by other things too. Although if your well *never* tests high in bacteria I would not necessarily assume nothing can get to it.

In terms of removing radioactive contamination from water (well or other), in principle excellent filtration and distillation-or-RO will do it. In reality there are enough ways for those things to be done not quite right that I would not be doin' em unless I had run out of bottled water and there was no realistic possibility of any other safe water source. HOWEVER note that if this should happen, either it is because of some very, very, very, very, very, very odd circumstances that have contaminated ONLY groundwater and thus there are likely to be official distributions of safe water and/or effective distillation systems to those effected; or minor radioactivity in groundwater is quite frankly going to be THE LEAST of your problems

Pat

 

[Farmfresh]

Where we are with nuclear in this country is bad enough. I just hope and pray that the situations that happened at Chernobyl and in Japan, wake up Americans enough that nuclear energy programs in this country are stopped where they lay right now and completely phased out and eliminated in the future.

We have lots of wind, solar and hydro electric options. Lets use them.

 

[k0xxx]

We have lots of wind, solar and hydro electric options. Lets use them.

***WARNING*** Long, somewhat rambling, "essay" on alternate energy sources. Those with any sanity may want to skip this and preserve said sanity.

Unfortunately, these are not truly viable options on a national level.

Wind in only a realistic option any areas where there is a consistent wind profile. Once you've located an area, then you have the problem of transmission lines to carry the electricity great distances. We've already seen several wind farm projects canceled due to the logistics involved. You also have a problem with the "not in my backyard" mentality. Remember when a wind farm was proposed offshore of Martha's Vineyard? Oddly enough it was the big time political elites (like the Kennedy's) that objected.

Solar is similar to wind, in that you need areas of consistent sunshine. You also have the same logistical problems, as well as the eco-warriors spazzing out over shading some desert turtles, or something similar.

Hydro is even less of an option in most areas due to the the problems of enough area for containment, water flow consistency and rate. Not to mention the eco-warriors and the loss of wetlands, tidal zones, spawning routes, snail darter habitat, etc., etc.

Currently there is no method of large scale energy storage for these sources of electricity. With all three, if we are to expect a consistent source of electricity, there is a need for regular power plants to be online to pick up spikes in electrical usage, or for too much wind/water flow or a loss of wind/water flow, or a loss of sunshine. For an industrialized nation of our size, the only currently viable options are hydrocarbons in it's various forms, and nuclear.

What we need to change, is our populations' ideas of its' energy needs, usage, and conservation. We need to promote community level, small scale, green energy projects, as well as household level energy production. States need to mandate that utility companies purchase energy (at a reasonable rate) that comes from small scale and community level producers. Some do, but a lot either don't, or they put unreasonable restrictions on it.

The largest hurdles currently are the associated costs, especially the cost of energy storage. The good news is a lot of those costs are starting to decline. There's still a long way to go, but it's happening. While these won't solve our energy problems, I believe that they could definitely help.

ANother problem is that I believe we are headed into a period of diminishing wealth on a national and personal level, and I don't believe that the funds will be there to make the needed changes.

When it comes down to it, a nation that produces nothing, is a poor nation. And there is no way to power most heavy industries and manufacturing with alternate energy sources. I wish that it weren't true.

IMHO xXx

Edited to correct FFS and grammar.

 

[Dunkopf]

Great post Pat. Well thought out and informative. Also sounds feasible. I know we had a Geologist that heads the dept at CU come to our town and give a presentation to the local water conservation group. All the ranchers and farmers were there of course. We are on the Denver Aquifer. He said the refresh rate was 75,000 years. There was a lot of concern because it is shared with Denver. We are on the opposite end of a bowl that holds it. He said no chance of contamination but running out is quite possible due to over development on the front range. I would be worried if I had a shallow well anyway. Still a lot of stupid people around that don't care where their waste may end up. A core meltdown or a breach of the containment pool for the reactor or the storage pool would give me some grave concern.

 

[FarmerChick]

taking nuclear plants off the grid is not feasible and won't happen

solar, wind, hydro will not support a nation

what we need is better plants, safety, etc. UNTIL better than nuclear on a huge production scale for energy is in working order, nothing can change.

 

[Farmfresh]

We have lots of wind, solar and hydro electric options. Lets use them.

Unfortunately, these are not truly viable options on a national level. YET!


What we need to change, is our populations' ideas of its' energy needs, usage, and conservation. We need to promote community level, small scale, green energy projects, as well as household level energy production. States need to mandate that utility companies purchase energy (at a reasonable rate) that comes from small scale and community level producers. Some do, but a lot either don't, or they put unreasonable restrictions on it.

The largest hurdles currently are the associated costs, especially the cost of energy storage. The good news is a lot of those costs are starting to decline. There's still a long way to go, but it's happening. While these won't solve our energy problems, I believe that they could definitely help.

I agree with your assessment. Lots of things have GOT to change. Little steps like making a more efficient light bulb, a more efficient battery and more thrift and awareness by the general public. We ARE taking baby steps in the correct direction at least.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy as well. When we have people trying to protect our environment by protesting wind farms or tidal generators it just makes extra road blocks. :/

 

[patandchickens]

What we need to change, is our populations' ideas of its' energy needs, usage, and conservation. <snip>ANother problem is that I believe we are headed into a period of diminishing wealth on a national and personal level, and I don't believe that the funds will be there to make the needed changes.

Four hundred and sixty-seven thumbs up to that.


Pat

 

[Farmfresh]

Another interesting way to look at that map is to look at what resources would be lost within those 10 or 50 mile zones. What farmland or grazing areas might be permanently lost, what oceans would be contaminated, and what other resources lost.

 

[Icu4dzs]

We have lots of wind, solar and hydro electric options. Lets use them.

Unfortunately, these are not truly viable options on a national level. YET!


What we need to change, is our populations' ideas of its' energy needs, usage, and conservation. We need to promote community level, small scale, green energy projects, as well as household level energy production. States need to mandate that utility companies purchase energy (at a reasonable rate) that comes from small scale and community level producers. Some do, but a lot either don't, or they put unreasonable restrictions on it.

The largest hurdles currently are the associated costs, especially the cost of energy storage. The good news is a lot of those costs are starting to decline. There's still a long way to go, but it's happening. While these won't solve our energy problems, I believe that they could definitely help.

I agree with your assessment. Lots of things have GOT to change. Little steps like making a more efficient light bulb, a more efficient battery and more thrift and awareness by the general public. We ARE taking baby steps in the correct direction at least.

Sometimes we are our own worst enemy as well. When we have people trying to protect our environment by protesting wind farms or tidal generators it just makes extra road blocks. :/

While this may seem "political" it is NOT taking any side of, nor position. What follows is my opinion of what WE, THE PEOPLE can do to help US, THE NATION and merely amplify what is written in the posts above by Farmfresh and K0xxx! The basic premise here is: THE SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS THE GREASE Both of the posters above have said this in slightly different terms. Here is my addition to their position (which I share with them)

New technological advances are being invented and produced every day in this country. Many of these things already exist in a usable form. These technologies are currently in place and many are in the consumer market NOW. For instance, LED light bulbs are now to the point that they produce a significant number of lumens and work quite well. Some burn as little as 1/10th of a watt. Think about that. You could have 200 light bulbs in the house and burn only 20 watts.

Q: How much electricity would you need to generate that kind of demand?
A: very little!

What we have to consider are the actual NEEDS vs. WANTS in our society. What do we actually NEED to stay in the 20/21st Century?
My guess is really much less than we currently use.
If we look at the reality we find that modern living with electricity can be pared down to the basic necessities quite easily and still maintain the QUALITY OF LIFE we currently enjoy. It would reduce our carbon foot print and extend the life of our current infrastructure on into the future so our great grandchildren will manage to enjoy the quality of life they should inherit.
Things like:
1. Refrigeration. Do we need 24 cubic foot boxes or could we get by with 10 cubic foot boxes that are much more energy efficient? Certainly THAT is an easy answer.
2. Water. Currently most folks in the SS environment (probably) pump water from their own well or water source. This requires energy but that amount can be produced by a very few solar panels Hot water (a great luxury in this life) is a sub topic of this and again, there are solar panels which would reduce the need for a NON-renewable form of energy to produce hot water. Why are these NOT readily available and reasonably priced so that the average home owner could afford their cost and installation?
3. Light at night. We live in an age where we "light up the night" often for one of two reasons; advertising or security. WHile security is felt to be important, lets' think about WHY we should have a problem necessitating greater levels of security? Why is there so much crime? Why do we allow this? Is the justice system so overwhelmed that it just can't meet the demand or is it too lenient that crime is not deterred by the system of punishment? Putting folks in jail only costs society money and does not punish them as much as making them pay real dollars and cents RESTITUTION to the victim/state would punish them. Making them REALLY work instead of making license plates would get that point across real fast. Especially if they had to pay for their own food and clothing, etc.

That would make folks think more carefully about doing crime. We never had the crime rate we have now. WHY? We have to address the function of our justice system and figure out how to stop this ever increasing level of more blatant and heinous crime. Society should NOT have to carry the burden of supporting criminals financially.

Advertising on the other hand is simply wasteful and could be eliminated without serious loss to society; quite the contrary. Look at the amount of energy used for advertising. Why not legislate that advertising has to meet either certain energy use levels, or make their own with solar panels or simply not use energy at night?. You'd see them only during the day. (Hey, it's a thought)
If the merchant wants to use energy, they should be the ones who make it for advertising since that is discretionary rather than requirement energy use.

4. Transportation: We all drive a car/truck etc. We all know that there are energy systems that have been invented that eliminate the need for fossil fuel to make the current designs work quite well. The problem comes from people NOT demanding the change.
We could certainly use hydrogen to work in all of our vehicles with only a very minor modification of the way they are designed right now. Why isn't that going on? We can also "grow" our fuel if we were so inclined. Any plant that has an oil containing seed can be used to make diesel fuel to power our engines. We can do this now.
We need to know WHY the cost of the independent energy is so prohibitive.
LED lightbulbs in my farm cost as much as $15 each. Why? 100 watt incandescent bulbs which burn as much electricity as 10000 times more energy than an LED bulb cost significantly less. WHY?

One, maybe two PV panels would be able to light an entire home in America with NO difficulty. Imagine the change in energy consumption with just that one adaptation.

The question becomes ARE WE REALLY SERIOUS ABOUT OUR ENERGY NEEDS/WANTS? Currently, the answer appears to be NO but with people like the SS type of folks, who are educated and concerned about being good stewards of their "talents" given to us, we can demand changes from those whose business is industry. If we demand, they will produce. That is one of the oldest "laws of business" that exist. WE, THE CONSUMER have to demand what we want by "voting with our purse" and the industry WILL RESPOND to our demands if they want to continue in business.

That way, we can show that we are good stewards of our Earth and our gifts and talents.

While I am sometimes regarded as not agreeing with certain of the policies of our current administration their policies in this regard are definitely a welcome use of our tax dollars. I am VERY AWARE that the policies regarding energy independence have substantially IMPROVED and are being extended to help the general population. The industry folks are responding by raising the price of their product because the government is taking part of the burden away from the consumer...THAT is WRONG. But WE the consumer have to let industry know that "you catch more flies with honey than with Vinegar". If they want to sell their products they will have to price them within range of the entire spectrum of consumer. The government IS doing the right thing in subsidizing these purchases but the industry MUST respond to do THEIR part.

CHANGE in the way things are done in order to make our country safe, and secure will only come when the consumer/voter makes their voices heard. Write to your legislator and tell them what you want. Don't let them decide for you.
MY advice FWIW:
Vote every chance you get; at the polls and in the free market.
Dollars are still the most powerful ballot in the country and we have to make them count.That is the ONE single action that will make our country great once again.
And FWIW: I have taken the steps I recommend and discuss. I am NOT expecting others to do something that I have NOT done. One leads by pulling the rope, not pushing it!

 

[Dunkopf]

Great post ICU. Nothing really needs to be added. That's pretty much it in a nutshell.