Nuclear Power In Thailand Remains On The Cards For Political Parties

[RPCVguy]

One link above wasn't linking as I'd thought - this should work now.

Predicting the global health consequences of the Chernobyl accident

Methodology of the European Committee on Radiation Risk

http://www.euradcom....healthrept3.pdf

[Soutpeel]

One link above wasn't linking as I'd thought - this should work now.

Predicting the global health consequences of the Chernobyl accident

Methodology of the European Committee on Radiation Risk

http://www.euradcom....healthrept3.pdf

Mate....give it a rest all the links you are posting are moot as regards commerical nuclear in Thailand.....As pointed out in an earlier post...The IAEC has stated they believe Thailand is not ready for commerical nuclear, and this statement was made pre-Japan.

If the IAEC doesnt give its blessing for Thai commerical nuclear...its not going to happen, in light of what has happened in Japan, its going to be highly unlikley the IAEC is going to give its blessing for any new programs, anywhere in the world for a long while yet.

So if you want to get on a soapbox about something, maybe start petitioning the Thai goverment about the pressing other issues this country has..

Its all doesnt matter because if you believe all the other tree hugger, hysterial, conspiracey theorists.....the world is f*kced December next year anyway.....

[RPCVguy]

One link above wasn't linking as I'd thought - this should work now.

Predicting the global health consequences of the Chernobyl accident

Methodology of the European Committee on Radiation Risk

http://www.euradcom....healthrept3.pdf

Mate....give it a rest all the links you are posting are moot as regards commerical nuclear in Thailand.....As pointed out in an earlier post...The IAEC has stated they believe Thailand is not ready for commerical nuclear, and this statement was made pre-Japan.

If the IAEC doesnt give its blessing for Thai commerical nuclear...its not going to happen, in light of what has happened in Japan, its going to be highly unlikley the IAEC is going to give its blessing for any new programs, anywhere in the world for a long while yet.

So if you want to get on a soapbox about something, maybe start petitioning the Thai goverment about the pressing other issues this country has..

Its all doesnt matter because if you believe all the other tree hugger, hysterial, conspiracey theorists.....the world is f*kced December next year anyway.....

Thanks Soutpeel, no problems here.

1) The replies may serve a purpose when, like in some horror movie, the beast that was supposedly killed by the IAEC statement comes back for a sequel.

... and 2) I don't believe that 2012 is the year of the apocalypse. Instead I believe there is still a slim chance humanity can wake up and act differently - so that the apocalypse can be avoided altogether. As for the trees specifically, I'd prefer saving the forests, not for hugging the trees so much as having them to absorb the rainfall and moderate the run-off, while maintaining the habitat for the complex gene-pool of flora and fauna that developed here.

When not posting I enjoy cheerful pursuits like photography of landscapes, temples and festivals, enjoying beer, playing chess, gardening or critters in the garden watching. Life here is basically good :jap:

[RickBradford]

2) I don't believe that 2012 is the year of the apocalypse. Instead I believe there is still a slim chance humanity can wake up and act differently

I think that Soutpeel is referring to the particular band of hysterical Mayan calendar crazies who believe that the world will end on Dec 21, 2012, no matter what humanity gets up to.

Of course, they have 580-odd days to wait, so in between polishing their tinfoil hats and dancing round megaliths in the rain, they are banging on about the usual subjects that attract people like this -- including nuclear power, of course.

Seems as I hear tell... a CME (coronal mass ejection) or solar flare of a decent or even small size... making a direct hit though our Earth's Magnetosphere can easily knock out one or many electric grids, around the USA or for that matter, the World, for months if not a year or two... or more. And, during this time... Nuclear Reactors MUST have... NOTE: that is MUST HAVE electrical back up to keep them on-line in order to stop deadly critical MELT-Downs...

Dingbat Central, no error...

right here in the USA... we have Nuclear Reactor Plants... that are ever so close to being brought down just as we are seeing at ground zero in Japan. ... AND, wheather we like it or not... we ARE TO SEE MORE, MANY MORE... CATASTROPHIC EVENTS IN THE IMMEDIATE NEAR FUTURE... AND IT IS TO CONTINUE STRAIGHT ON THROUGH UNTIL PEACE REIGNS ONCE AGAIN IN 2013!

You'd think they'd find something better to do with their time, seeing that they believe that there's so little of it left....

[Soutpeel]

I think that Soutpeel is referring to the particular band of hysterical Mayan calendar crazies who believe that the world will end on Dec 21, 2012, no matter what humanity gets up to.

[RPCVguy]

I think that Soutpeel is referring to the particular band of hysterical Mayan calendar crazies who believe that the world will end on Dec 21, 2012, no matter what humanity gets up to.

Something all three of us agree upon, the Mayan calendar apocalypse idea is wrong. I don't expect the rapture will happen this May 21st either.

After so many strong assertions made on this thread earlier, by Rick, and in support of nuclear energy, I again will point out his recent lack of substantive responses to comments/ opinions and facts contrary to his views. Nothing against Rick personally, he's likely many friends - but if the defense is not sustainable, then enough with the potshots. :jap:

[RickBradford]

After so many strong assertions made on this thread earlier, by Rick, and in support of nuclear energy, I again will point out his recent lack of substantive responses to comments/ opinions and facts contrary to his views. Nothing against Rick personally

At the risk of repeating myself, the 'open minds' you say you want to engage with in this thread are not going to be swayed by closed evidence.

It is poor strategy to try to persuade people to adopt an anti-nuclear stance by posting a barrage of links to sites run by eco-socialists, rent-seekers, Marxist crazies, sensation-seeking journalists, and anarchist wingnuts.

For every link you post claiming that the death toll from Chernobyl is over 1 million, I can quote you one claiming that the death toll is under 100. We're dealing with the Internet, and anyone can claim anything, so don't take it personally if people don't take your links seriously.

People can claim almost anything for the future -- but they can't change the past, which is why I prefer to look at the realities and statistics of what has happened rather than fevered speculation about what might happen in an imagined future.

Nuclear power is very safe, but persuading frightened, uninformed people about that is difficult, just as it is hard to explain to the Mayan crazies that the world will still be here on Dec 22, 2012 (and if it's not, sue me).

Edited May 19, 2011 by RickBradford

[Soutpeel]

run by eco-socialists, rent-seekers, Marxist crazies, sensation-seeking journalists, and anarchist wingnuts.

.....love it..... can I use the quote at some point in the future?

Oh and fully agree with the rest of your post as well

Edited May 19, 2011 by Soutpeel

[RPCVguy]

As in past discussions, the name calling and dismissal of reasoning contrary to yours becomes the primary form of rebuttal. Striving to apply reasoning – for the benefit of the bystanders: Why might scientists disagree so widely in their conclusion?

The crux of the issue centers on how the IAEA initially studied the effects of radiation, but is compounded by the agency's continued refusal to acknowledge its own experts when their commissioned research comes back unfavorably. Then these same experts become part of the critics you and the IAEA nuclear industry employees ridicule as "eco-socialists, rent-seekers, Marxist crazies, sensation-seeking journalists, and anarchist wingnuts."

The estimates by organizations like the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) are based on the cancer rates of people exposed to radiation in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The IAEA models show very low risk for low doses of radiation. Other organizations, like the European Committee On Radiation Risk say that even small amounts of radiation in addition to background radiation has very large consequence. They both cite the death toll from Chernobyl to back their ideas. But calculating the number of people that died from Chernobyl has proven to be a very complicated matter.

The IAEA sponsored Hiroshima Life Span Study didn't begin until seven years after the bomb was dropped. Everyone that died in the first seven years was excluded from the study. People were considered part of the exposed population only if they were in the city when the bomb exploded. The control group, the group that was considered unaffected by the radiation, was people who moved in after the bomb went off. The amount of radiation people inhaled or ingested was never considered.

Does the study seem reasonable so far? It gets worse, and appears logically skewed to amplify what was to be considered background levels and minimize counting those who might be affected. If, for example, a person was outside the city when the bomb dropped but went back the day after to dig through the radioactive rubble, they are considered part of the unexposed control group. Cancers that occurred in the control group weren't counted as caused by radiation. Only the number of cancers in the exposed group that were above and beyond the "control" group was counted. Even many non-scientists can see the manner in which this report was formatted to be mis-leading. It reminds me of how cigarette manufacturers cooked their studies for decades. That comparison continues below:

In 1963 John Gofman was hired by the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to study the effects of radiation. He was the Director/Founder of the Lawrence Livermore Radiation Laboratory Division of Biology and Medicine. Gofman and his partner on the project, Art Tamplin, came to the conclusion that safety standards were woefully inadequate. The AEC pulled his funding and tried to get Gofman to stop talking about the dangers of low level radiation but the man refused to shut up. In the 1982 book Nuclear Witnesses, Insiders Speak Out he said, "Licensing a nuclear power plant is in my view, licensing random premeditated murder."

Later, the AEC hired Thomas Mancuso, an epidemiologist, to put an end to all the controversy about low-level radiation. Forget whatever theory guys like Gofman might put forward about cell damage and radiation. Forget what they found in laboratories. Hard facts would put all of those concerns to rest. So they asked Mancuso to study the health of nuclear workers over twenty-five to thirty years. Mancuso didn't come up with the answers that the AEC wanted to hear. He found that long-term exposure to low-level radiation was, in fact, much more dangerous than anyone expected. His funding was pulled. They put an end to the study.

In 2006 The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) published the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR) report, VII Phase 2. The report contains this statement, "The committee concludes that the current scientific evidence is consistent with the hypothesis that there is a linear, no-threshold dose-response relationship between exposure to ionizing radiation and the development of cancer in humans." No threshold dose means there is no safe level of radiation exposure.

Fukushima workers are now struggling to get more frequent monitoring of their consumption of radionuclides http://www.yomiuri.c...10518006065.htm

Marianne Barisonek writes concisely and in more detail than I provided via extracts and paraphrasing above.

See the history in greater detail by going to:

http://www.opednews....110417-125.html and

http://www.opednews....110513-897.html

[dunkin2012]

the German said they have a much better security system than Fukushima but they admitted that they are vulnerable to any attack from the sky such as an air plane. They are now reviewing the nuclear power program and the Spanish. These nuclear power plants are off for 3 months for inspection of 17 reactors.

In the near future, they might see alternatives for long sustainable energy sources.

The European made plans to test all 143 nuclear power plants.

Edited May 20, 2011 by dunkin2012

[RickBradford]

It really should be nuclear experts, not politicians, who decide when tests are necessary. The attacks by Merkel et al on nuclear energy are simply cheap populism, and thoroughly irrational.

While Germany and Spain might be treading water, the Czech Republic and France are moving forward.

Czechs will move ahead with their nuclear energy expansion plans and want to retain sovereign control over the country's electricity generation mix, significantly depending on nuclear generators, the Czech Prime Minister said Thursday.

"Safety is of the utmost concern, but events and tests must be carried out on an expert level and must not be politicized," Petr Necas told a news conference during the European nuclear energy conference in the Czech capital.

The Czech nuclear reactors are ready to undergo inspections for safety carried out by experts but only without any form of a political interference, Necas said, adding that the European Union's Lisbon Treaty makes setting of energy policy a decision of individual EU members.

Nice to see some good sense around.

[RPCVguy]

Rick,

From our last exchange above, did you look at the Hiroshima Life Span Study methodology that is the basis of your past "expert assesments?"

If so, can you honestly accept that that study should provide the methodology for estimating death rates?

...when even independent analysis shows that the death rates experienced around Chernobyl can NOT be explained until factoring in the radiation fallout of Chernobyl? I'm referring to the February of 2005 report by researchers at Harvard University published entitled "Autopsy on an Empire: Understanding Mortality in Russia and the Former Soviet Union." It was cited in this link above: http://www.opednews....110417-125.html

Then in again dodging your assertions and assessments posted already on this thread you now add

It really should be nuclear experts, not politicians, who decide when tests are necessary. The attacks by Merkel et al on nuclear energy are simply cheap populism, and thoroughly irrational.

This current story (The Huffington Post, By Vivian Norris, May 18th, 2011) suggests one concern as to experts

Which experts and who does the choosing?

Japanese born, U.S.-educated nuclear engineering professor Tokuhiro wrote the following:

I want to bring up a sensitive point to many who are (may be) identified below. There is a difference amongst the following: nuclear physicist, nuclear engineer, nuclear reactor operator, nuclear non-proliferation specialist. During the current crisis, all these 'experts' have been in the media. The ranking of 'experts' who REALLY know how the reactor accident took place is as follows.

1) Nuclear reactor operator (he/she is really the forensic surgeon, the auto mechanic who can build and drive the car)

2) Nuclear engineer (he/she is the forensic and internal/external medicine practitioner; the automobile design and analysis engineer)

As for the other two, they only understand the principles. It is as if they know the principles of driving a car but have never driven the car nor designed a car nor repaired a car. Would you ask a podiatrist about a medical heart condition? Would you ask a medical ethicist? I think you get my point. It takes all kinds of people to run the global nuclear industry. However, who do you trust in terms of knowledge?

I'd hope you like professor Tokuhiro's perspective. He implies some of the same exclusivity as being needed in picking experts. For me I'd also want nuclear experts chosen from among critics, AND I'd want to include medical experts such as those hired by the NRC or IAEC whose work proved critical - costing them their jobs. (again cited in my last post) Lastly, I'd want an open report/ able to be openly assessed as to risks and benefits - not a closed door review by people who'll avoid living downwind - or who'd have another villa to move into if/ when there is an accident. Done openly ths would put the politicians in their appropriate role of communicating and representing their constituents.

Edited May 20, 2011 by RPCVguy

[RPCVguy]

Which experts and who does the choosing?

Japanese born, U.S.-educated nuclear engineering professor Tokuhiro wrote the following:

I want to bring up a sensitive point to many who are (may be) identified below. There is a difference amongst the following: nuclear physicist, nuclear engineer, nuclear reactor operator, nuclear non-proliferation specialist. During the current crisis, all these 'experts' have been in the media. The ranking of 'experts' who REALLY know how the reactor accident took place is as follows.

1) Nuclear reactor operator (he/she is really the forensic surgeon, the auto mechanic who can build and drive the car)

2) Nuclear engineer (he/she is the forensic and internal/external medicine practitioner; the automobile design and analysis engineer)

As for the other two, they only understand the principles. It is as if they know the principles of driving a car but have never driven the car nor designed a car nor repaired a car. Would you ask a podiatrist about a medical heart condition? Would you ask a medical ethicist? I think you get my point. It takes all kinds of people to run the global nuclear industry. However, who do you trust in terms of knowledge?

Here is a May 22nd video update by one expert (who qualifies on both measures - nuclear engineering AND as a nuclear operator)

on the Fukushima Reactor lessons learned http://vimeo.com/24112635

"The Implications of the Fukushima Accident on the World's Operating Reactors"

is the latest in a series of reports by Arnie Grundersen of Fairewinds Associates http://www.fairewinds.com/

Arnie Gundersen explains how containment vents were added to the GE Mark 1 BWR as a "band aid" 20 years after the plants built in order to prevent an explosion of the notoriously weak Mark 1 containment system. Obviously the containment vent band aid fix did not work since all three units have lost containment integrity and are leaking radioactivity. Gundersen also discusses seismic design flaws, inadequate evacuation planning, and the taxpayer supported nuclear industry liability fund.

For those who'd want to discredit the information of the video ==>>

Arnie Gundersen is an

energy advisor

with 39-years of nuclear power engineering experience.

A former nuclear industry senior vice president, he earned his

Bachelor's and Master's

Degrees in nuclear engineering, holds a nuclear safety patent, and was a licensed reactor operator.

During his nuclear industry career, Arnie managed and coordinated projects at

70-nuclear power plants around the country

. He currently speaks on television, radio, and at public meetings on the need for a new paradigm in energy production. An independent nuclear engineering and safety expert,

Arnie provides testimony on nuclear operations, reliability, safety, and radiation issues to the NRC, Congressional and State Legislatures, and Government Agencies and Officials throughout the US, Canada, and internationally.

In 2008, he was appointed by the Vermont Senate President to be the first Chair of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant Oversight Panel. He has testified in numerous cases and before many different legislative bodies including the Czech Republic Senate. Using knowledge from his Masters Thesis on Cooling Towers, Arnie analyzed and predicted problems with Vermont Yankee's cooling towers three years prior to their

2007 collapse

. His Environmental Court testimony concerned available and economically viable alternatives to cooling towers in order to reduce consumptive water use and the ecological damage caused by cooling tower drift and heated effluents. As the former vice president in an engineering organization, Arnie led the team of engineers who developed the plans for decommissioning Shippingport, the first major nuclear power plant in the US to be fully dismantled. He was also an invited author on the first DOE Decommissioning Handbook. Source term reconstruction is a method of forensic engineering used to calculate radiation releases from various nuclear facilities after nuclear incidents or accidents.

[Scott]

This topic has strayed a little too far off the Thailand connection. Nuclear accidents are not confined to political borders and drawing on information from other countries is acceptable, however, let's stick to the topic of nuclear energy in Thailand.

[RPCVguy]

What has been the history of seeking nuclear reactors for Thailand?

It appears that Thailand has pushed to develop nuclear power several times

AND that this thread has many more readers than participants - so it is of general interest.

Chronology (Source: Thailand Goes Nuclear – Considerations and Costs, Sheila Bijoor, Palang Thai, 13 August 2007)

1966: Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) proposes Thailand's first nuclear project.

1974: Bhai Bay, Chonburi, 350-500 MW, proposal approved. Project shelved after a drop in natural gas costs.

1977: EGAT re-proposes and government approves. Global and public opposition leads to cancellation.

1993: Office of Atomic Energy and Peace (OAEP) proposes research reactor (5-10 MW) in Ongkarak.

1993-2003: Ongkarak plans halted multiple times due to safety and environmental problems. US-based General Atomics, contracted to build, threatens legal action for stall in plans. 2

2007: National Power Development Plan (PDP) calls for nuclear energy by 2020. EGAT to invest six billion dollars to build 4,000 MW nuclear power plant.

http://gc.nautilus.o...-power/thailand

Following the above link also shows an interesting graphic and an in depth history of the proposed contractors. Due to what has happened in Japan recently, many of the assumptions as to costs and safety issues are being reconsidered. The discussion anticipates moving the schedule back from 2020 to 2023. The plan as listed appears to be described in this 3 page PDF described at the PEA-AIT International Conference on Energy and Sustainable Development: Issues and Strategies (ESD 2010) The Empress Hotel, Chiang Mai, Thailand. 2-4 June 2010. http://esd2010.ueuo....wer%20Plant.pdf

Then a review of Wikipedia lists the Planned locations for nuclear power plants in Thailand are:

1.

Nakhon Si Thammarat

2.

Surat Thani

3.

Trat

4.

Nakhon Sawan

5.

Ubon Ratchathani

This suggests the plans are for three of the reactors to be along the coast, one (Nakhon Sawan) along the Chao Phraya River system, and one (Ubon Ratchathani) along the Mun/ Mekong Rivers. http://en.wikipedia....wer_in_Thailand

Trying to find such information on a planning project still evolving without knowing or meeting any of the particular parties to these events does not assure accuracy. In the interests of focusing all my prior concerns as to nuclear reactors, cooling, tsunamis, drought, earthquakes, etc... I hope the above information serves to illustrate what has been the plan - though might not still be the plan.

If readers on Thai Visa have access to newer, better information as to what is being considered for nuclear energy in Thailand, and the pros versus cons of such concepts, please help update the information as assembled above.

Edited May 26, 2011 by RPCVguy

[Soutpeel]

Mate, Give it a rest....this topic has been discussed numerous times on TV as has the Wiki links you are posting...you are just recycling old information and this is why no one is really interested...

The day the IAEC gives it's blessing for commerical nuclear in Thailand I will glady debate you on commerical nuclear....until that time...give it a rest....you are not posting any information that hasnt been discussed at length before and frankly getting bored with you just posting links and quoting paragraphs from other sources...

Yes you have shown your ability to use google and wikki

[TongueThaied]

Mate, Give it a rest....this topic has been discussed numerous times on TV as has the Wiki links you are posting...you are just recycling old information and this is why no one is really interested...

The day the IAEC gives it's blessing for commerical nuclear in Thailand I will glady debate you on commerical nuclear....until that time...give it a rest....you are not posting any information that hasnt been discussed at length before and frankly getting bored with you just posting links and quoting paragraphs from other sources...

Yes you have shown your ability to use google and wikki

Ah, like a breeath of fresh air, somebody finally said something intelligent.

[themockrat]

While most countries around the world are talking about leaving nuclear power, Thailand now wants to join it. Maybe they can purchase the old nuclear reactors from other countries and use them for another 50 years?

[Soutpeel]

While most countries around the world are talking about leaving nuclear power, Thailand now wants to join it. Maybe they can purchase the old nuclear reactors from other countries and use them for another 50 years?

One hopes this is said tongue in cheek...

If you are are serious...only one thing to say......Another resident TV nuclear "expert"...

[RickBradford]

While most countries around the world are talking about leaving nuclear power, Thailand now wants to join it. Maybe they can purchase the old nuclear reactors from other countries and use them for another 50 years?

One hopes this is said tongue in cheek...

If you are are serious...only one thing to say......Another resident TV nuclear "expert"...

Well, with the new Toshiba and Hyperion micro nuclear plants, it is possible to ship them around. Perhaps Thailand could invest in a few of those before 2020, get the ball rolling before building the big ones.

Stick a small 10MW Toshiba 4S on Koh Samui, you could power the whole place using an area of just 22×16×11 meters -- no need to take up valuable tourist space.

[Soutpeel]

While most countries around the world are talking about leaving nuclear power, Thailand now wants to join it. Maybe they can purchase the old nuclear reactors from other countries and use them for another 50 years?

One hopes this is said tongue in cheek...

If you are are serious...only one thing to say......Another resident TV nuclear "expert"...

Well, with the new Toshiba and Hyperion micro nuclear plants, it is possible to ship them around. Perhaps Thailand could invest in a few of those before 2020, get the ball rolling before building the big ones.

Stick a small 10MW Toshiba 4S on Koh Samui, you could power the whole place using an area of just 22×16×11 meters -- no need to take up valuable tourist space.

Very true, dont know about 10MW for the whole of Koh Samui though ?....they could also consider the pebble bed reactors, although yet not fully proven.....

At 22x16x11..could put one in every garden....

[maidu]

.....As pointed out in an earlier post...The IAEC has stated they believe Thailand is not ready for commerical nuclear, and this statement was made pre-Japan.

If the IAEC doesnt give its blessing for Thai commerical nuclear...its not going to happen, in light of what has happened in Japan, its going to be highly unlikley the IAEC is going to give its blessing for any new programs, anywhere in the world for a long while yet.

That's good news (to me) if the IAEC has not given its blessing for Thailand to go nuclear. It's also surprising, as I would have thought the IAEC is only too eager to give the go-ahead to just about any country which wants to go nuclear. It appears there are some clear thinkers at the IAEC. Kudos to them!