Valve Technology

Or an instrumentation engineer?

Certainly.

I have lived within 20 miles of three facilities most my life, built for different purposes (so no common architecture) without so much as an alarm bell - or three eyed fish. (Savannah River Site, Rocky Flats, and Palo Verde) and who knows where they are in the LA basin)

But then I also spent the night at Johnston Atoll and there are permanent workers out there, with a terrific safety record.

I work next door to the second oldest research reactor in the world....Chalk River Labs.

BTW......The massive boulder, which is on the lab grounds and which everybody has their lunch on gives off more radiation in a day than a years worth of swimming in the coolant.

It's said that exposure to low radiation levels makes the exposed permanently horny.

Judging by that gem of information I surmise our reactor produces no radiation at all.

That's in large part because the media has given priority to agenda driven whackos with no relative sense for scale or reality. They have preyed upon people's ignorance and general lack of ability or motivation to think critically for themselves. In a word, sheeple.

I work down wind from and in sight of a coal fired power plant lovingly referred to as a dirt burner. There is never a day I cannot see the haze of the stack gasses. Less than five miles to the north sits an idle nuclear power plant which I'm certain produces or emits no more to the environment in this state then it did in its full power days.

I spent my formative years in the submarine service and I believe the safety record of that organization speaks for itself.

Yes absolutely

Unless you are in Chernobyl, it is all right to work in nuclear reactors.

Nuclear reactors sure emit out gases through stack that are highly radioactive and harmful but you can not see them as they are invisible and just micro-grams of these in radioactivity are more harmful than all that dark cloud you see from coal fired plants. However, point here is not what you can see and what you can see or smell but what could be harmful to health or not.

I think nuclear plants are highly sophisticated with state of the art instruments and they can easily measure the radioactivity level in air. Even the dispersing level in air and its flow direction for stack gases are monitored to maintain not more than permissible level of toxicity that may reach people. Sometime things can go wrong very badly with temperature inversion layer pushing the stack plume down and just below where people live and it can really cause serious problem due to air flow pattern changes. I think the ground level alarms may force the reactor to shut down in such condition and safety level may still be enforced if such safety level is really in place. Ignoring such safety may cause permanent effect on the population and increased number of cancer risk in the exposed population. I can not predict how bad it may become in worst case and all depends on what happened on any such condition and how much radioactivity was dumped by the reactor to the population. Some of the radioactivity is short lived so exposure may not last longer. Even cities 10km away from the reactor run the risk of such exposure. I think it may be worth living some 30km away from the nuclear reactor.

People who are workers need not be scared from working in nuclear power plants. However, knowledge of nuclear safety is essential for all. Sometime fear of snake byte kills and not the venom of the snake.

If Fusion reactor come to public than all oil and coal will become useless. Fission reactors are only for another 500 years and they will also go away unless we find lots of fissile material on moon, mars etc.

I doubt that reactors emit any radioactive gases through the cooling towers.

It's been said that any nuclear plant that released as much radiation (radon) as a coal fired power would be immediately shut down.

The worst accident ever (in a 1950's era reactor) only killed as many people as a serious bus crash, yet no one calls for the banning of buses.

All engineering involves a rational balancing of the risks and benefits.

Reactors do not emit Radon and your house may have trapped Radon gas. Reactor gases are Iodine-131, Ar-41, Tritium and other gases that are radioactive. Stacks are not cooling towers but radioactivity diluting tower with lots of height planned for mixing the radioactive gases with normal air we breathe. Ask the experts at Journal of Health Physics or American Nuclear Society or read NSRP reports and EPA reports other than WHO and IAEA reports.

Nuclear reactors put radioactivity in air, water and under the soil in huge storage areas. Nuclear scientists take lot of care but things are not 100% green. There is risk in whatever you do to get power so nuclear is not exceptional. There are guide lines for nuclear safety but many countries ignore all that. Even cancer hospitals can pollute the cities and there were many such cases.

I will like to avoid scaring people so it is better to learn all about it first and not to be scared at all. Nuclear scientists know exactly what they are doing. If you join them then you can stop them from doing wrong. This way you can help yourself much better.

Hey now! Tritium is perfectly safe! Well, as long as you are on the operator side of the sights that is.....(they use tritium in gunsights because it glows in the dark.) If you are on the opposite side, well, you had better have your life insurance paid up is all I have to say on that. =D

The half-life of Ar-41 is only a shade over 109 minutes. Iodine 131 is about 8 days, Tritium is 12.3 years, but it is also lighter than air so unless you are hanging around at the top of the stack, It is doubtful you'll be exposed to much of it.

Radioactivity dispersion in air is like ink dropped in water. Temperature inversion layer change can make the current downward. It is all fluid dynamics.

True, but you'd still have to be pretty close to the stack to get an appreciable dose. And the difference in density is pretty big. It has a lot of upward vector for the downcurrent to fight. It would disperse fairly quickly I would expect.

At stack release point the radiation dose is Kill level. Never try to go near it. It is really very high there when plant is running. All gases from containment building and also from other sources such that waste disposal / fuel reprocessing area all go to stack narrow opening with high flow rate. If one hang around there just for few minutes, then there is a chance that one has only few weeks of life left over after that. Our stack are about 350m high. Not worth being there. It is a serious matter and not to be taken as some kind of joke.

Our scientists monitor the radiation dose all around the nuclear plant in a diameter of 10km and also monitor up in the sky using direction guided balloon tied with 10km silk rope.

Shyam, please do not be offended by my remarks. I am perfectly aware of the danger. My point was that at ground level, you would have to be very close to the stack for an inversion to bring a significant Tritium dose to ground level. That is the whole reason why your stack is 350 ft in the air. Furthermore Tritium is a beta emitter, it doesn't take much shielding (even air) to absorb that. And as I stated, it is lighter than air so it has a natural tendency to rise, even with a temperature inversion. Besides, Tritium is a valuable resource with a very high resale price, surely you are taking pains to recover and sell it. It has been called the most expensive material you can legally buy.

No the true problem children are going to be Iodine and Argon.

Argon 41 is also a beta emitter, but it is quite a bit heavier than air so it would want to tend to collect at ground level. But since it has such a short half life, it doesn't have to be kept at altitude very long before the dose falls off. After about 18 hours (10 half-lives), it should be almost undetectable. Argon is a noble gas so it is not biologically active, so you won't have absorption to be concerned with. This element, while useful for things like leak detection, has such a short half-life that trying to reclaim it and then ship it to where it is needed is a logistical nightmare and probably not worth the attempt.

Iodine 131 is another animal entirely, it is heavier than air and it is both a beta emitter and a Gamma emitter. It is also biologically absorbed. This is going to be your real problem child. But this material is also very useful for medical procedures to treat overactive thyroid among others, again, it would behoove you to look at ways to capture and reclaim this element, if for no other reason than to reduce your waste stream.

I assume you are aware however that at least in the US, reprocessing is not allowed for any reason, not even for nuclear medicine. Not since Gerald Ford issued his temporary ban and Jimmy Carter made it permenant. That is why we have to get all of our Molybdenem 99 from Canada among other things.

Ground level radiation dose is expected to be permissible level. For Radiation workers dose level that are permitted are 30 times more than than that for the public. Radiation worker may also run greater risk doses that may be as high as few thousands times to permissible level. Townships where our families live are often 8-10km away from Stack release point, but we work where stack are. Air pressure in the reactor chamber/containment is kept lower than outside such that air does not leak out and some fresh air can be shucked in.

Some one still drinks that Radioactive water and some one plays with radiation source in hand, and stealing radiation sources if often a problem and radioactive waste is a serious problem. Now that you know everything, but other's don't know much about it, people are trained before they get into nuclear jobs.

Yes, theft and loss of radiation sources is a problem worldwide. A few years ago here in Houston, someone stole a Cobalt Gamma Camera used to radiograph refinery equipment pressure vessel welds. They didn't know what they took, they merely wanted the lead pig to sell for scrap. They stole it one evening from a fabrication shop, opened the camera, dumped the cobalt in a ditch in front of someone's house and left. The shop opened early the next morning, noted the break-in and there was a massive search launched for the camera because of the dangers involved. About that time the thieves turned up in the ER with severe radiation sickness, they survived long enough to tell the searchers where the cobalt had been dumped. They found and secured the cobalt before the kids that lived in the house woke up and came outside to wait on the school bus on the side of the ditch. Luckily the ditch was deep and it is thought that the dose to the residents of the house was small. I've been looking for a link to the news story of the time but I can't find it right now.

I think it is in here but i cannot op the link on my workPC

http://nuk-alert.net/lost.htm

Run! As fast as you can. One of the constituents of coal is pitchblend which is what Marie Curie first used to refine radium. That massive coal pile gives you more dose on an annual basis than 5 nuclear plants!

I have worked with Nuclear power in various guises, nuke subs to nuclear reprocessing plants etc. The real question is can we do without nuclear power and remain so reliant of fossil fuels. Nuclear power is not totally clean but is a lot cleaner than fossil fuels will ever be and certainly has less residual impact on our earth and climate conditions. Its easy to build new power stations, its the decommissioning that is painful. The problem is we do not have an inexhaustible supply of fossil fuels and will have to find replacements in the future anyway. Lets be honest with ourselves the big oils companies could if they wished develop cleaner and sustainable energy sources if they really wanted to but won't until they are either forced to or they run out of fossil fuel at source. Combine that with the reality that the earth has to sustain an ever increasing population, unless we reduce our carbon footprint drastically then mother nature will take matters into her own hands and our concerns about nuclear fuels will be rather futile. So get with the program we either have to reduce our requirement and dependency on energy consumption and as we do not have sufficient space especially in densely populated countries like the UK what practical options do we have which do not impact to much on our average life style.

Why not? It'll probably be a lot more pleasant than being a sewer inspector .

I would but not in a Japanese one as there have been several incidents regarding lax regulations.

Duckinthepond , that means that there has been something radioactive near me all my live!

I'm looking forward to seeing the monument the Japanese will erect of you.

I seem to recall that there were a couple of accidental criticalities in the fuel assembly plants there. There was one that I recall from a decade or so ago where the guy put twice the maximum uranium load in an open topped cart and everyone in the room got zapped. He apparently did it because his supervisors were demanding that the workers turn out far more fuel bundle assemblies than was safe.

There have been accidental criticalities in the US fuel assembly plants as well, and at least one, possibly intentional, plutonium contamination (Silkwood). I'm not sure exactly how the two compare to each other though.

All that said, I'd work in the Nuclear Power Industry all day long without a moment's regret.

Just think about all the heavy metals and radioactivity released by a coal fired plant.

And that's not even counting a friendly visit from this guy ......

you forgot mothra, Gamera and ultraman.

But Gojira always saves the day but usually destroys Tokyo in the process

Yes, without hesitation.

I'm just working as MOV/AOV chief engineer in the refueling outage of a NPP. And I've done it from many years ago. What's the problem?

Someone knows any human activity "perfectly safe"? One can die just falling from the bed!!!

I think the problem is not well addressed.

Kind regards

Yep, I would too. Pending the pay off-course.

I did work in a nuclear plant as radiation controller (in Antwerp, Belgium) and I can tell you that inside the building, usually there is LESS radiation than outside. This is of course when everything is working normal. There are so many checkpoints and safety regulations that it makes the nuclear plant kinda the safest place in the world. So there is no reason to avoid working in a nuclear plant because of safety.

Now, this does not mean that I agree with nuclear power. OK, it has been said here on this forum : Nuclear energy is MUCH cleaner than any other known way of fossil energy. Also, it is MUCH cheaper to make electricity then any other fossil energy.
THere are 2 serious points that make me vote against nuclear power :
1) What do we do with the nuclear waist ?
2) If a serious accident happens with a nuclear plant, the effects are really catastrophic... for years and years ... If a serious accident happens in a fossil plant, the effects are bad, but after a few years when all the debris is cleared, life can go on normal again.

But what if all the efforts, knowledge, money had been invested in "green" power ? I am sure that if the same efforts had been put in green energy than in nuclear energy, we wouldn't need nor fossil nor nuclear energy anymore, and our energy would be LOOOOTS cheaper.

So, even while I know that Nuclear Power is cleaner, cheaper, safer : I say NO to nuclear !

As an ex-navy reactor operator, I would without hesitation. Unless the ring-tailed gamma level was too high. That causes severe itching.

If you drift Milk with Salt then that will also cause skin problems. -Baba Ramdev

High Sugar level and Diabetic condition can cause Itch. Worms can cause Itch and so are many other reasons for it. Get some professional help rather making some simple looking analogy as excuse.

How high is too high for you for gamma radiation? It is better to talk to Doctor as the cause may be something else and not the Gamma radiation.

Ring tailed gammas are special type of gamma ray who's only knon appearance was at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the late 1960's. The symptoms occured most frequently to the laborers assigned to reactor support in the tunnel on the back shift.

Safe? Check

Pays well? Check

Secure? Check

Makes you stupid after a while? If you let it.

Worked in nuclear generation for many years. Because everything is proceduralized to the hilt, not any room for thinking for yourself. In fact, thinking on your own is not encouraged. Went back to fossil two years ago and still can't wipe the smile off my face. Of course, a lot dirtier and a little more hazardous, but the frustration level is way down, and satisfaction is way up! Oh yeah, my plant might be closing in a year but I'll get through that too!

Safety/health/conditions definitely not a concern at a nuclear plant.

Inside a nuclear plant is relatively safe (as long as you're not in a CANDU in Canada - both of my brothers have worked in them, and alcohol and drug use is common among the people refurbishing the old reactors).

It's far less safe on teh outside where radioactive waste leaches out (tritium from CANDU's at least) as well as the other pollutants (CANDUs let out a lot of heavy metals into water - Great Lakes supplies drinking water to tens of millions, and then goes to the Atlantic...

Nuclear is not the answer to our energy crisis.

It was just recently revealed that some days, on our electricity spot market, big users are paid to use electricity ($0.05 + per kWh), because the nuke plants can not cycle on and off to deal with load swings.

Yes, the nuclear industry has one of the best safety records around. All the hype from the left and the MSM is BS.

I do. I have been here for 23 years now and counting. In 23 years I have received 68 mr radiadion dose, yes they track it and we get a monthly report. This is about the same dose as a couple days at the beach. Nuff said?

Definitely. But my Thorium doped tungsten (wolfram) electrodes set off the sensors so all the grinding residue for my TIG electrodes will have to be dealt with just to get in.

Yep! Been there, done that. It's safer than an office job. WAY cleaner than a coal plant, where there are likely convicted felons working on the painting crew. And I worked in the drywell and 'Locked High Radiation' areas. I'll say it again: Give me a nice, safe, nuke plant any day.

Yes, definitely. They have a much better safety record than any other power plants in this country.

See the previous blog "What's All This About Buy American" for the reason I would not want to work in a nuclear plant. Valve integrity!

Not only would I work in a nuclear plant. I have for a good portion of my career. I have been in containment many times, and worked as a nuclear nomad, going from outage to outage doing NDT inspections on in containment piping.