PDA

View Full Version : water pollution big time



Dan McCosh
05-20-2014, 10:16 AM
The geological formation of Lake Huron is the western side of the Niagara Escarpment, which among other things also makes Niagara Falls. Here is a caveat concerning its impact on local water supplies (From the University of Wisconsin):

"The Niagara Escarpment is an important source of groundwater and drinking water. The Niagara Escarpment and Cuesta are considered to be a ‘karst’ landscape, which means it has a highly fractured – and dissolvable – dolomite geology. This type of geology causes fractures, sinkholes and caves to appear, and creates an environment where groundwater is highly prone to contamination.

Private wells must be maintained, and tested regularly, and the impacts of new or existing land uses need to be carefully considered when living along the Escarpment corridor."


Sounds like a good place to store nuclear waste, right?

Maybe not. Still, the plan for storing some of the waste from the Canadian Douglas Point plant on Lake Huron--one of the largest in the Western Hemisphere--includes putting it in wells in this rock structure. It's being question by some local state representatives in Michigan. Might wonder why this doesn't get a bit more concern from the U.S. EPA, or a few folks in Washington. To their credits, the Douglas Point folks have deferred the plan to ship some of their waste by boat through the Great Lakes to Sweden.

Of course this is a local issue, hence the interest from a couple of local state representatives. It's only a fifth of all the fresh water on the planet that is involved.

Willin'
05-20-2014, 10:49 AM
Thanks for the heads up Dan, pure insanity r<

Yet another example of how government controlled environmentalism is a complete joke and driven by stealth money interests.

I'm not sure what you mean by government controlled environmentalism. Isn't the power plant privately owned?

No doubt you'd approve of Maine Yankee's damn fine spent fuel storage plan, which is to leave it in pools on site and walk away. It's still sitting there on the edge of the Sheepscot River 15 years after the plant shut down.

Ah, the private sector always has the public's best interest at heart.

Flying Orca
05-20-2014, 10:57 AM
Um... do either of you have any scientific evidence that the storage of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste at Douglas Point poses any significant risk to the groundwater? I'd be surprised if you did...

Captain Intrepid
05-20-2014, 11:05 AM
It was bloody ridiculous that they've been prevented from shipping equipment to be decommissioned in Sweden. People hear the word nook-lee-are and go batcrap crazy!

Ron Williamson
05-20-2014, 11:42 AM
It was bloody ridiculous that they've been prevented from shipping equipment to be decommissioned in Sweden. People hear the word nook-lee-are and go batcrap crazy!

Here's a link about that.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/making-waves/2010/11/why-canadian-nuclear-safety-commission-should-stop-bruce-power%E2%80%99s


Part of their plan involved leaving the steam generators on the dock at Owen Sound until they could be loaded for shipment.
People were told that the radiation was about the same as radium watch dial,but also that they were too radioactive to leave on site.


The other BS seems to be the idea that it's perfectly fine to store all the waste "temporarily" in concrete vaults,on site,(never mind the whole rest of the place,8 reactors plus decommissioned,but still pretty hot Douglas Point),but a proper permanent storage facility is bad for the groundwater, property values and life in general.

Different people,but with the same mindset also hate the wind farms.

R

Durnik
05-20-2014, 11:46 AM
Thanks for the heads up Dan, pure insanity r<

Yet another example of how government controlled environmentalism is a complete joke and driven by stealth money interests.

Ummm, how 'bout "yet another example that the lack of government controlled environmentalism is a complete joke". As Willin' observed, " Ah, the private sector always has the public's best interest at heart. "




Um... do either of you have any scientific evidence that the storage of low- and intermediate-level nuclear waste at Douglas Point poses any significant risk to the groundwater? I'd be surprised if you did...

Of course not - 'evidence' being 'after the fact'. But a rational, thinking person might consider that taking that great a chance on polluting one of the things necessary to life might be not a good idea..

Our record on "this won't hurt" being pretty bad, eh?

Just sayin'..

enjoy
bobby

Flying Orca
05-20-2014, 12:10 PM
Of course not - 'evidence' being 'after the fact'. But a rational, thinking person might consider that taking that great a chance on polluting one of the things necessary to life might be not a good idea..

Our record on "this won't hurt" being pretty bad, eh?

I believe Canada's nuclear storage record is actually quite good, and I'm willing to trust the experts who evaluated this particular storage solution.

Captain Intrepid
05-20-2014, 12:18 PM
Here's a link about that.
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/making-waves/2010/11/why-canadian-nuclear-safety-commission-should-stop-bruce-power%E2%80%99s

I can't even make sense of what they're talking about.


Based on Bruce Power's estimates, the radioactivity levels in the steam generators are approximately 90% plutonium. In particular, the levels are approximately 64% plutonium-239. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency, plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24,100 years. They have noted that "internal exposure to plutonium is an extremely serious health hazard. It generally stays in the body for decades, exposing organs and tissues to radiation, and increasing the risk of cancer. Plutonium is also a toxic metal, and may cause damage to the kidneys."

Whaaaa? Are they saying that the steam generators contain plutonium? Are they saying that they emit 90% the radioactivity of plutonium? How much is that? What does plutonium's toxicity and half life have to do with induced radioactivity in the steam generators? :confused:

Captain Intrepid
05-20-2014, 12:21 PM
In addition, you would be amazed what is shipped without a peep. This is only getting press because it's radiative, while chemical tankers routinely ship dangerous goods that could kill thousands within a single day.

Flying Orca
05-20-2014, 12:40 PM
As soon as I read this from the blog post: "the radioactivity levels in the steam generators are approximately 90% plutonium"

...I realize that the author is a complete idiot who hasn't got a hot (pardon the pun) clue about nuclear anything, and cannot be relied upon to get the simplest facts correct. I've seen more accurate stories in the National Enquirer.

Dan McCosh
05-21-2014, 07:48 AM
I believe Canada's nuclear storage record is actually quite good, and I'm willing to trust the experts who evaluated this particular storage solution. Canada has been monitoring nuclear waste storage for more than 10 years now.

Flying Orca
05-21-2014, 08:24 AM
Canada has been monitoring nuclear waste storage for more than 10 years now.

Rather longer than that, I would think - Canada has had operative reactors since 1945.

Dan McCosh
05-21-2014, 02:32 PM
Rather longer than that, I would think - Canada has had operative reactors since 1945. Federal policies on nuclear waste were initiated in 1996--10 years later, they started to look at the future planning for storage. Might remember that Toronto has only had capability to handle municipal trash since 2010. Might also note that Wiki says this is the largest nuclear power generating plant in the world, and handles nuclear waste for much of Canada. Security is provided by the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario, population 7,000.

Flying Orca
05-21-2014, 03:13 PM
Federal policies on nuclear waste were initiated in 1996--10 years later, they started to look at the future planning for storage. Might remember that Toronto has only had capability to handle municipal trash since 2010. Might also note that Wiki says this is the largest nuclear power generating plant in the world, and handles nuclear waste for much of Canada. Security is provided by the municipality of Kincardine, Ontario, population 7,000.

Not sure where you're getting your information, but I find it very hard to believe that Canada had no policy on nuclear waste prior to 1996, and no planning storage prior to 2006. As for Toronto's municipal trash, I don't believe it had to develop the internal capacity prior to 2010 because it contracted out.

What does the size of the facility or the size of the municipality have to do with the safety of the groundwater?

Bob Adams
05-21-2014, 03:50 PM
I can't even make sense of what they're talking about.

[/COLOR][/FONT]

Whaaaa? Are they saying that the steam generators contain plutonium? Are they saying that they emit 90% the radioactivity of plutonium? How much is that? What does plutonium's toxicity and half life have to do with induced radioactivity in the steam generators? :confused:

This is the kind of psudo-science article that used to send Tilty over the edge.Total rubbish.

Ron Williamson
05-21-2014, 05:36 PM
Exactly,but that's the sh1t we get, or else it's some PR shill for the megacorp.

I hate the thought of the waste here buried in my backyard,so near the lake,but it's already here, on site, contained and controlled.

40-odd% of the nuclear waste in Canada is already here.

The less that it has to be moved,the better.

The science says that the local geology at 1500 m depth is impervious and self repairing, so appropriate for long term storage.

If anyone has a better idea let's hear it.





Hmmmm.....Crickets.......

BTW,Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO) and Ontario Power Generation (OPG) run the show.
Bruce Power operates the plant under lease from OPG.
Hydro One does transmission.
R

Flying Orca
05-21-2014, 05:46 PM
Actually, I do, but the technological challenges would make it expensive: subduction zone disposal.

Ron Williamson
05-21-2014, 05:54 PM
They could ship it all to California and wait for The Big One.:d

They figure that they might want future access to it,in case they find a reasonable way to recycle it.
R

Barry
05-21-2014, 06:04 PM
I believe Canada's nuclear storage record is actually quite good, and I'm willing to trust the experts who evaluated this particular storage solution.

Chalk River?

Flying Orca
05-21-2014, 06:09 PM
Chalk River?

Not exactly storage related, and pretty minor events, all things considered.

Dan McCosh
05-22-2014, 08:09 AM
Not sure where you're getting your information, but I find it very hard to believe that Canada had no policy on nuclear waste prior to 1996, and no planning storage prior to 2006. As for Toronto's municipal trash, I don't believe it had to develop the internal capacity prior to 2010 because it contracted out.

What does the size of the facility or the size of the municipality have to do with the safety of the groundwater? There may have been some planning or maybe not. The federal authorities were set up 35 years after the plant was first constructed. The source is the Canadian government, FWIW. http://www.nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/waste/index.cfm#Oversight

Toronto finally added capacity after years of vocal complaints from Michigan. It was due to a corrupt deal concerning privatization of municipal services. The reference to the plant security has nothing to do with ground water--putting the security in the hands of the local municipality was a response to concerns about terrorism. People have been found wandering around the place on occasion.

Paul Pless
05-22-2014, 08:18 AM
and pretty minor events, all things considered.minor, compared to say fukushima :D

Flying Orca
05-22-2014, 08:57 AM
There may have been some planning or maybe not.

Dude, if you're seriously suggesting that AEC went forty years without thinking about nuclear waste or formulating some policies about it, I'm seriously suggesting that you're out to lunch. The documents you've been looking at are the result of a specific Act of Parliament to create a new body to deal with nuclear waste, but to suggest that there was no policy at all before the new body was created is ridiculous.


The reference to the plant security has nothing to do with ground water--putting the security in the hands of the local municipality was a response to concerns about terrorism. People have been found wandering around the place on occasion.

ZOMG, terrorists! What do you think they are going to do with low-level nuclear waste? Fling it at people?

Flying Orca
05-22-2014, 08:59 AM
minor, compared to say fukushima :D

Well, risk has to be seen in context. The WHO estimates that coal-fired power plants kill two million people a year. Even taking the most extreme events like Chernobyl into account, the nuclear power industry has a better safety record by several orders of magnitude.

Ron Williamson
05-22-2014, 12:35 PM
...... The reference to the plant security has nothing to do with ground water--putting the security in the hands of the local municipality was a response to concerns about terrorism. People have been found wandering around the place on occasion.

I'm almost certain that security is in the hands of Bruce Power.Possibly a contractor,but definitely not the municipality.
A disposal site would be the same.
These days, it would be quite rare for anyone to be wandering around unauthorized.

This might be fun to drive.
http://www.brucepower.com/8452/news/bruce-power-purchases-new-ontario-made-armoured-vehicles/


R

Dan McCosh
05-23-2014, 08:39 AM
Well, risk has to be seen in context. The WHO estimates that coal-fired power plants kill two million people a year. Even taking the most extreme events like Chernobyl into account, the nuclear power industry has a better safety record by several orders of magnitude. So there are far more people killed in coal-fired power plant accidents than all the traffic accidents combined? That sounds a bit odd.

Flying Orca
05-23-2014, 08:59 AM
So there are far more people killed in coal-fired power plant accidents than all the traffic accidents combined? That sounds a bit odd.

No, we're not even counting accidents. The two million deaths from coal-fired power plants are just from the environmental effects.

As I noted earlier, it's good to consider risk in context.

Dan McCosh
05-23-2014, 12:08 PM
No, we're not even counting accidents. The two million deaths from coal-fired power plants are just from the environmental effects.

As I noted earlier, it's good to consider risk in context. How does that compare to lawn mowers?

Flying Orca
05-23-2014, 03:34 PM
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the answer has something to do with goats, calculus, and macrame.

Dan McCosh
05-23-2014, 03:59 PM
I don't know, but I'm pretty sure the answer has something to do with goats, calculus, and macrame. The contribution to air pollution from lawn mowers would kill about 2,000 people annually in the U.S. alone, following up on the environmental death logic.

Flying Orca
05-23-2014, 04:09 PM
The contribution to air pollution from lawn mowers would kill about 2,000 people annually in the U.S. alone, following up on the environmental death logic.

I fail to see how this is relevant to a discussion of the safety of nuclear power generation and the safe storage of the fuel used therein. Comparison to other power generation methods provides context; comparison to lawnmowers does not make a coherent connection as far as I can tell.

Todd D
05-23-2014, 05:38 PM
Canada has definitely had a program looking at nuclear waste disposal for for than 10 years. I know a bit about it because in the mid-80s I worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) in their research center at Whiteshell, Manitoba. I was a research chemist working directly on nuclear fuel waste disposal. AECL is a federal crown corporation solely owned by the government of Canada.

Flying Orca
05-23-2014, 08:55 PM
Canada has definitely had a program looking at nuclear waste disposal for for than 10 years. I know a bit about it because in the mid-80s I worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) in their research center at Whiteshell, Manitoba. I was a research chemist working directly on nuclear fuel waste disposal. AECL is a federal crown corporation solely owned by the government of Canada.

Did you happen to know Dr Weeks or any of his family?

Todd D
05-23-2014, 09:11 PM
Did you happen to know Dr Weeks or any of his family?

I may have, but the name doesn't ring a bell. I was only there for a bit over a year before moving on the the U of New Brunswick. Do you know which branch he was in? I was in research chemistry. Did they live in Pinawa?

Flying Orca
05-24-2014, 09:33 AM
I may have, but the name doesn't ring a bell. I was only there for a bit over a year before moving on the the U of New Brunswick. Do you know which branch he was in? I was in research chemistry. Did they live in Pinawa?

He was the company (and town) doctor. His youngest son Bjorn is a very good friend of mine, and the whole family are good people.

Todd D
05-24-2014, 10:04 AM
I didn't know him, but I am sure my wife did because she broke her leg while we lived there and saw the doctor quite a lot.

Dan McCosh
05-24-2014, 10:07 AM
I fail to see how this is relevant to a discussion of the safety of nuclear power generation and the safe storage of the fuel used therein. Comparison to other power generation methods provides context; comparison to lawnmowers does not make a coherent connection as far as I can tell. You are citing deaths attributable to the air pollution caused by coal-fired power plants. Lawnmowers also contribute significantly to air pollution, hence could well be linked to similar deaths. Neither has anything to do with the safety of handling nuclear waste. The main issue with nuclear waste is its longevity, which makes an "accident" a statistical certainty. No industrial process has ever been free from unwanted problems, and nuclear waste storage will have problems. Locating these in the Great Lakes basin seem like a bad idea.

Dan McCosh
05-24-2014, 10:10 AM
Canada has definitely had a program looking at nuclear waste disposal for for than 10 years. I know a bit about it because in the mid-80s I worked for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) in their research center at Whiteshell, Manitoba. I was a research chemist working directly on nuclear fuel waste disposal. AECL is a federal crown corporation solely owned by the government of Canada. Apparently research on the waste problem began shortly after the original Douglas Pointe reactor was commissioned, in the early 1960s. The '80s would have been 20 years later. Canada was a principal in the Manhattan Project, FWIW.

Flying Orca
05-24-2014, 12:14 PM
You are citing deaths attributable to the air pollution caused by coal-fired power plants.

Yes, by way of comparing the relative risks of coal-fired and nuclear electricity generation. Many people seem to expect nuclear power to operate without any risk whatsoever, ignoring its remarkable safety record compared to other power generation methods.


Lawnmowers also contribute significantly to air pollution, hence could well be linked to similar deaths.

Certainly, but they don't figure into the context of electricity generation safety.


Neither has anything to do with the safety of handling nuclear waste.

I must disagree. The safety of handling nuclear waste must be considered in the context of the safety of other kinds of electricity-generation waste, including the coal-fire waste that kills two million people a year. It is ridiculous and illogical to accept the latter but insist that the former must be risk-free.


The main issue with nuclear waste is its longevity, which makes an "accident" a statistical certainty.

I don't believe the experts agree with your second clause, and I don't believe that nuclear waste storage has to be "accident" free in order to be much safer than, say, coal-fired power generation.


No industrial process has ever been free from unwanted problems, and nuclear waste storage will have problems. Locating these in the Great Lakes basin seem like a bad idea.

Sure, nuclear waste storage may have "problems". That doesn't mean it can't be done in a way that involves much less risk than that we accept from other power generation methods. I know you think it "seems like a bad idea" to locate waste storage near the Great Lakes, but unless you're a nuclear engineer (and I seem to recall your expertise is more along automotive lines...?), I'm not likely to believe your opinion over those of experts in the field.

Dan McCosh
05-27-2014, 09:04 AM
I think the problem could be put in this perspective: the catastrophic failure of a single coal-fired power plant could mean opening the windows on a hot day. A catastrophic failure of the Bruce Power nuclear plant would destroy the country of Canada. What you have to ask yourself is: Do you feel lucky?

Flying Orca
05-27-2014, 09:17 AM
I think the problem could be put in this perspective: the catastrophic failure of a single coal-fired power plant could mean opening the windows on a hot day. A catastrophic failure of the Bruce Power nuclear plant would destroy the country of Canada.

I have no doubt that you think the problem could be put in that perspective; you don't appear to think clearly on the subject. A more accurate way of putting this would be to say that business as usual for coal plants - never mind failure, just plain old business as usual - kills twice as many people every year as the highest estimates (disputed) of deaths due to the worst nuclear accident in history. (And five hundred times as many people each year as the World Health Organization's estimate.)

A catastrophic failure of the Bruce nuclear plant would not "destroy the country of Canada" any more than Fukushima destroyed the country of Japan. Such ridiculous hyperbole is nothing more than unfounded scaremongering.

Dan McCosh
05-27-2014, 10:55 AM
Your deaths due to the coal power production are bogus. It is a very dangerous industry, particularly mining, but still not on the scale of roofing, for example. The Bruce plant is twice the size of Fukishima, in a country one forth the population of Japan. It produces about half the power in Ontario, which is half the economy of Canada. The country is unusually dependent on this one plant--I think that is unique in the world today.

Captain Intrepid
05-27-2014, 11:51 AM
Most people who die from coal power die of respiratory diseases, and very few of them actually work in the industry.

Flying Orca
05-27-2014, 12:42 PM
Your deaths due to the coal power production are bogus. It is a very dangerous industry, particularly mining, but still not on the scale of roofing, for example.

Feel free to dispute the numbers with the World Health Organization, but I suspect they know a lot more about it than you do.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not even counting the occupational deaths associated with coal power, just the excess deaths due to coal power waste... but I'll bet occupational deaths associated with coal power are a couple of orders of magnitude higher than those associated with nuclear power, too.

Flying Orca
05-27-2014, 12:52 PM
The Bruce plant (...) produces about half the power in Ontario, which is half the economy of Canada.

Ontario consumes about 30% of Canada's energy use, not 50%, and the entire nuclear sector (three plants, not just Bruce) produces 50% of Ontario's electricity from what I've read. I don't doubt the total loss of the Bruce plant would produce some problems for Ontario - they'd probably have to become a net importer from the US and Quebec, at least for a while - but I don't think it would "destroy the country of Canada", figuratively or literally.

Dan McCosh
05-27-2014, 03:59 PM
Feel free to dispute the numbers with the World Health Organization, but I suspect they know a lot more about it than you do.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not even counting the occupational deaths associated with coal power, just the excess deaths due to coal power waste... but I'll bet occupational deaths associated with coal power are a couple of orders of magnitude higher than those associated with nuclear power, too. The WHO numbers you cite are an attempt to associate "premature deaths" with the estimated air pollution from coal-fired plants. This is much like associating the deaths from asthma with the existence of dogs and cats. If you are an asthmatic, this is quite a serious matter, but it's not exactly what most people would think is a death due to dogs and cats. As for occupational deaths, working around heavy machinery is dangerous regardless of its purpose. I did witness a power plant explosion myself once, but I have not heard of a death in the past 50 years from anything similar in this state. There has been one partial nuclear meltdown at a nuclear plant. That plant is still in the process of being dismantled, an activity that has lasted for 35 years now. Since it operated for about 15 years, you can see one of the issues unique to nuclear power is the longevity of handling waste disposal.

Dan McCosh
05-27-2014, 04:10 PM
Most people who die from coal power die of respiratory diseases, and very few of them actually work in the industry. Respiratory disease is the number one cause of death.

skuthorp
05-27-2014, 05:02 PM
Pneumonia was once known as 'the old man's friend'. we live much longer now and figures on specific causes of death can be misleading. We all die, in most cases the natural progression is medically altered and we then die of something else.
At 94 my father was diagnosed with prostate cancer and offered treatment. He laughed and said "I'll kill it before it kills me", and he was right.
If we want to preserve our lifestyles, and developing countries continue to improve theirs we'll have to accept the collateral damage and the risks involved with central power generation, or localise it with renewables and solar and accept some diminution of supply..

Flying Orca
05-27-2014, 05:16 PM
The WHO numbers you cite are an attempt to associate "premature deaths" with the estimated air pollution from coal-fired plants. This is much like associating the deaths from asthma with the existence of dogs and cats. If you are an asthmatic, this is quite a serious matter, but it's not exactly what most people would think is a death due to dogs and cats.

Do you have some kind of point here, other than the ignorance of most people?


Since it operated for about 15 years, you can see one of the issues unique to nuclear power is the longevity of handling waste disposal.

Really. Tell me, how long do you expect the carbon waste from fossil fuel use to stick around in the carbon cycle?

Dan McCosh
05-28-2014, 08:20 AM
Do you have some kind of point here, other than the ignorance of most people?



Really. Tell me, how long do you expect the carbon waste from fossil fuel use to stick around in the carbon cycle?

I think most people know the difference between a contributing cause of death and a cause of death. If you are hit by a car and die, the car is the cause of death. If you drive a car instead of riding a bicycle, get out of shape, and have a heart attack, it is a contributing factor. You are quoting a statistic about coal-power deaths that is a contributing factor, but are calling it a cause of death.

Carbon waste from fossil fuel use sticks around in the carbon cycle as long as all the rest of the carbon in the carbon cycle. It goes into the atmosphere and comes out. That's why it is called a cycle.

Flying Orca
05-28-2014, 08:57 AM
I think most people know the difference between a contributing cause of death and a cause of death. If you are hit by a car and die, the car is the cause of death. If you drive a car instead of riding a bicycle, get out of shape, and have a heart attack, it is a contributing factor. You are quoting a statistic about coal-power deaths that is a contributing factor, but are calling it a cause of death.

I'm using the language that was quoted in the source. No matter how you slice it, coal-fired electricity generation causes at least an order of magnitude more deaths than nuclear power generation (http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html#more).



Carbon waste from fossil fuel use sticks around in the carbon cycle as long as all the rest of the carbon in the carbon cycle. It goes into the atmosphere and comes out. That's why it is called a cycle.

I think you misunderstand the question. How long will the waste carbon we have added to the carbon cycle remain in the carbon cycle before it is sequestered again?

Dan McCosh
05-28-2014, 12:40 PM
FWIW, the EPA just issued a release saying the WHO says that four million people die annually from inhaling cook stove smoke.

Flying Orca
05-28-2014, 03:44 PM
FWIW, the EPA just issued a release saying the WHO says that four million people die annually from inhaling cook stove smoke.

Yep. Dung and wood are a lot dirtier than nuclear power, too.

Dan McCosh
05-28-2014, 06:08 PM
FWIW, nuclear plants have currently rendered an average of one quarter of a square mile of land apiece uninhabitable for human habitation, due to radiation stemming from catastrophic failures. There have only been two, but each has affected land for a 20-mile radius from the plant site.

Flying Orca
05-28-2014, 07:04 PM
FWIW, nuclear plants have currently rendered an average of one quarter of a square mile of land apiece uninhabitable for human habitation, due to radiation stemming from catastrophic failures. There have only been two, but each has affected land for a 20-mile radius from the plant site.

The Fukushima exclusion zone is nowhere near that big anymore. How much land area has hydrocarbon extraction rendered uninhabitable?