Policy ForumNuclear Energy

China-U.S. cooperation to advance nuclear power

See allHide authors and affiliations

Science  05 Aug 2016:
Vol. 353, Issue 6299, pp. 547-548
DOI: 10.1126/science.aaf7131

eLetters is an online forum for ongoing peer review. Submission of eLetters are open to all. eLetters are not edited, proofread, or indexed.  Please read our Terms of Service before submitting your own eLetter.

Compose eLetter

Plain text

  • Plain text
    No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests
CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

Vertical Tabs

  • RE: nuclear power on floating platforms, Science Vol.353

    The advance of nuclear power needs a better evaluation of its risks in more thoughtful ways.
    I. ) page548: large deep-water platforms are no good ships. They may tumble or tip-over, completely upside-down. Think of Tscheljabinsk, or Tunguska. Consider the asteroid-impact, that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs or a direct hit or tsunami-waves. Generally: Risks of damage from impact-events is increased if many or large Fission-Reacors are installed! Only Fusion would be less burdened with this risk.
    II.) Nuclear reactors of all types emit Neutrinos and more or less Tritium.
    Large reactors only 20km from shores would be too close. The minimum distance that I propose is 100km. Reason: Coastlines are usually densely populated, with many small children and pregnant women. They are especially threatened by theese emissions. It may be difficult to scientifically prove this concerns (cancer, leukemia, genetic ), but the opposite proove is also quite impropable.
    III.) Does the demise of Kelp in the coastal regions of California and other parts of the Pacific indicate a causal connection with Tritium, Caesium, Strontium etc. emissions from Fukushima? Is there increased Tritium in the atmosphere now?
    The accident in Fukushima Daichi is to be blamed, not only to insufficient regulations or knowledge but also to a lack of phantasy.

    Kind Regards
    01.09.2016 Konrad

    Competing Interests: None declared.

Navigate This Article