F1technical.net

Plutonium is an artificially man made element with the deadliest properties thinkable. It does not exist in Nature unless man releases it. It radiates practically eternally due to a half life time of 200.000 years. Plutonium spontaneously explodes to Plutonium oxide when exposed to air and forms extremely fine dust that can travel several times around the globe once it is in the atmosphere. There is no safe human tolerance to inhalation of Plutonium oxide because even microgram dust particles will incorporate in the lungs and will release hard radiation causing lung cancer very quickly.

Due to its ultra poisonous properties Plutonium engineering, handling, re processing, transporting, storing and use is inherently unsafe and cannot be made safe. Each step of the cycle is faced with risks of releasing a material that once released to the ecosphere can never be recovered. Once the plutonium cycle is started it snowballs creating more and more contaminated material that has to be safely stored away from entry into the ecosphere for eternity. It is a lie that nuclear power producers have carried all costs of research, development, risk insurance, clean up and waste storage. Usually they have paid nothing at all for these services every other power generation would have to pay in my country. Considering the risks involved at all stages the insurance costs would be so high that you probably have to own half the planet to take that kind of risk on. Just imagine the finance cost of safeguarding the deposits of dangerous materials for many millions of years. The interest snowballs even at moderate rates into dimensions unthinkable.

Germany had a complete Plutonium breeding infrastructure including a 300 MW reactor ready to go in 1985. The breeding reactors are cooled with liquid metal alloys from sodium (Na) which ignites spontaneously on contact with air and react violently with water. This adds another risk dimension to the breeder technology that is already problematic. Sodium freezes at ambient temperatures making it very difficult to service reactors that develop any malfunctions. Costs of the German technology were some 20 billion Deutschmark before insurance and safe deposit. Public democratic protest reached such levels that the state government decided not to issue the license to load the first reactor charge and start production. After the Chernobyl disaster there will never be sufficient support in Germany to go back to Plutonium breeding. The reactor and the recycling facility were dismantled.

People who argue pro plutonium use in the the power generation industry are either dumb, mentally ill or they lie.

WhiteBlue wrote:Plutonium is an artificially man made element with the deadliest properties thinkable. It does not exist in Nature unless man releases it. It radiates practically eternally due to a half life time of 200.000 years. Plutonium spontaneously explodes to Plutonium oxide when exposed to air and forms extremely fine dust that can travel several times around the globe once it is in the atmosphere. There is no safe human tolerance to inhalation of Plutonium oxide because even microgram dust particles will incorporate in the lungs and will release hard radiation causing lung cancer very quickly.

Due to its ultra poisonous properties Plutonium engineering, handling, re processing, transporting, storing and use is inherently unsafe and cannot be made safe. Each step of the cycle is faced with risks of releasing a material that once released to the ecosphere can never be recovered. Once the plutonium cycle is started it snowballs creating more and more contaminated material that has to be safely stored away from entry into the ecosphere for eternity. It is a lie that nuclear power producers have carried all costs of research, development, risk insurance, clean up and waste storage. Usually they have paid nothing at all for these services every other power generation would have to pay in my country. Considering the risks involved at all stages the insurance costs would be so high that you probably have to own half the planet to take that kind of risk on. Just imagine the finance cost of safeguarding the deposits of dangerous materials for many millions of years. The interest snowballs even at moderate rates into dimensions unthinkable.

People who argue pro plutonium use in the the power generation industry are either dumb, mentally ill or they lie.

+1 not my words but thats what I wanted to express ..now even an engineer can understand.

The above is just typical copy'n paste from somewhere, probably from the "green" windpower lobby.

Fact is that plutonium has been handled on an industrial scale for more than 60 years, with indeed a few casualties, but how many Chinese and Ukrainian coal-miners has died during the same time?
Some Plutonium isotopes can indeed be found in nature and are not man-made at all, Wiki:

"The most important isotope of plutonium is plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,100 years. Plutonium-239 and 241 are fissile, meaning the nuclei of their atoms can break apart by being bombarded by slow moving thermal neutrons, releasing energy, gamma radiation and more neutrons. It can therefore sustain a nuclear chain reaction, leading to applications in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Plutonium is the heaviest naturally-occurring or primordial element; the most stable isotope of plutonium is plutonium-244, with a half-life of about 80 million years, long enough to be found in trace quantities in nature.[3] Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88 years and emits alpha particles. It is a heat source in radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are used to power some spacecraft. Plutonium-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, raising the neutron flux of any sample it is contained in. The presence of plutonium-240 effectively limits a sample's weapon potential and determines its grade."

More reading on plutonium for nuclear reactor use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

The biggest energy hoax in history is on the other hand those hideous windmills, which unreliably delivers pathetically little energy for its investment. In Scandinavia we calculate 2.5 MEUR per installed MW, but then utilization grade is only 25% at the very best and most stocastic, why you need the same energy investment from a reliable source as back-up anyway. The new Olkiluoto EPR reactor in Finland will deliver a reliable 17 GW at more than 90% utilization. Go figure.

Sorry but most of this is bullshit. There is no commercial breeding reactor of significant size operating anywhere in the world. The EPR is a water reactor. Breeding reactors are purely research and weapons production dedicated. Plutonium did not exist in any relevant concentrations or quantities on earth to be useful for weapons and power generation prior to 1940. It is only found in trace concentrations in extremely old bedrock formations where it is well protected against distribution.

WhiteBlue wrote:Sorry but most of this is bullshit. There is no commercial breeding reactor of significant size operating anywhere in the world. The EPR is a water reactor. Breeding reactors are purely research and weapons production dedicated. Plutonium did not exist in any relevant concentrations or quantities on earth to be useful for weapons and power generation prior to 1940. It is only found in trace concentrations in extremely old bedrock formations where it is well protected against distribution.

And that was that, what do we need Wikipedia for when we have the bavarian Oracle WB, bet you didn't even have to read the Wiki-part to know it was crap? Point is that your previous copy'n paste piece from Die Grunen was just so generalistic it was embarassing.

There is no copy paste in it. Show me a source with one sentence of the information I posted. It simply is the truth. 99.9% of all the existing Plutonium in human use is artificially made. Natural Plutonium is so scarce that it is the 90th rare element in nature.

http://www.mineralienatlas.de/lexikon/i ... /Plutonium

It is also true that it is the most poisonous material man has ever manufactured. The allowable tolerance for workers in the nuclear industry is 4 nanogram. The tolerance in normal environments is zero. Read your own Wikipedia info for this.

Every known facility in Europe, Russia, America, China or Japan that has handled hazardous nuclear materials over decades had accidents or had design leaks of radioactive materials to atmosphere or the sea. Particularly Britain and France are known to have contaminated the Atlantic and the Irish sea systematically with radioactive waste from uranium/plutonium separation in Sellafield/Windscale and La Hague.

The recycling of breed plutonium is massively more risk prone than the Uranium/Plutonium processing that has been done on a commercial scale. While water cooled Uranium reactors may be relatively safe, the storage of the burned out fuel elements with their Plutonium partition or the regeneration to mixed uranium/plutonium fuel is prohibitively dangerous and expensive when all costs are considered. The pity is the costs are not considered because later generations will be burdened with those costs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield ... scale_fire Please read about the Windscale fire which concerns a British Plutonium breeder accident in 1954. It is considered as the heaviest nuclear accident pre Chernobyl.

In Russia Murmansk is considered the open radioactive waste beach of the worst extend known to scientists.

One of the most potentially dangerous regions in respect to nuclear and radiation contamination is the Murmansk region. Accumulated radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel created serious problems for population and environment of the Kola Peninsula. More than 200 reactors are under exploitation on the territory of the region today. It is necessary to dismantle more than 100 nuclear submarines. 132 nuclear explosions have taken place on the archipelago Novaya Zemlya since 1955 till 1990. In adjoining area of water (Kara and Barents seas) several reactors and nuclear submarines have been submerged, as well as hundreds of containers with solid radioactive wastes. During 40 years of exploitation of nuclear reactors more than 1018 Bq of radioactive substances contained in radioactive wastes and spent nuclear fuel have been accumulated. More than half of these are stored in ecologically dangerous condition.

http://www.nrf.is/Publications/The%20Re ... zankin.pdf

Your claim that handling the plutonium production and use in the last 60 years was safe is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Of the numerous nuclear power stations in Germany only one is in active clean up at this time. The Würgassen reactor was decomissioned in 1995 and the start up for the cleaning was 1997. The completion is planned for 2015 when all the installations and the building will be completely reduced to rubble and transferred to a deep iron ore mine "Schacht Conrad" for terminal deposition. Conrad is between 800 and 1300 m deep. The rubble will be stored in steel containers which will be cast in concrete. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schacht_Konrad The action will need 20 years to complete and will cost 2 Billion €. As far as I know most countries have no deep mines suitable for depositing reactor scrap and will have to guard their rubble for decades or hundreds of years to make sure no environmental damage occurs.

WhiteBlue wrote:Plutonium is an artificially man made element with the deadliest properties thinkable. It does not exist in Nature unless man releases it. It radiates practically eternally due to a half life time of 200.000 years. Plutonium spontaneously explodes to Plutonium oxide when exposed to air and forms extremely fine dust that can travel several times around the globe once it is in the atmosphere. There is no safe human tolerance to inhalation of Plutonium oxide because even microgram dust particles will incorporate in the lungs and will release hard radiation causing lung cancer very quickly.

Due to its ultra poisonous properties Plutonium engineering, handling, re processing, transporting, storing and use is inherently unsafe and cannot be made safe. Each step of the cycle is faced with risks of releasing a material that once released to the ecosphere can never be recovered. Once the plutonium cycle is started it snowballs creating more and more contaminated material that has to be safely stored away from entry into the ecosphere for eternity. It is a lie that nuclear power producers have carried all costs of research, development, risk insurance, clean up and waste storage. Usually they have paid nothing at all for these services every other power generation would have to pay in my country. Considering the risks involved at all stages the insurance costs would be so high that you probably have to own half the planet to take that kind of risk on. Just imagine the finance cost of safeguarding the deposits of dangerous materials for many millions of years. The interest snowballs even at moderate rates into dimensions unthinkable.

Germany had a complete Plutonium breeding infrastructure including a 300 MW reactor ready to go in 1985. The breeding reactors are cooled with liquid metal alloys from sodium (Na) which ignites spontaneously on contact with air and react violently with water. This adds another risk dimension to the breeder technology that is already problematic. Sodium freezes at ambient temperatures making it very difficult to service reactors that develop any malfunctions. Costs of the German technology were some 20 billion Deutschmark before insurance and safe deposit. Public democratic protest reached such levels that the state government decided not to issue the license to load the first reactor charge and start production. After the Chernobyl disaster there will never be sufficient support in Germany to go back to Plutonium breeding. The reactor and the recycling facility were dismantled.

People who argue pro plutonium use in the the power generation industry are either dumb, mentally ill or they lie.

So, you are a victim of the plutonium myth!

Actually, plutonium is found in nature, even though in very small quantities and then only the Pu-244 isotope (half life 80 million years). Other isotopes of plutonium have existed in nature, but due to their shorter half life they are gone today.

Secondly, plutonium have been safely handled for over 60 years. It's toxicity have been studied, so have it's radioactivity, and there is no support for the claims you make. It's not particulary more toxic than some other toxic compound we safely handle today, and it's generally poorly absorbed by the body. There are no known deaths caused by plutonium toxicity or radiation, and there are plenty of people that have been subjected to high doses.

The amounts of plutonium that would need to be handled are also quite small, and mostly in non flammable nitride, oxide or similar ceramic form. But plutonium is not the only element that is toxic but still have it's place in energy production or to improve energy efficiency. Solar cells for instance often contain toxic materials, cadmium and selenium comes to mind. Perhaps less toxic, but they will also be much more widely handled than plutonium, and might easlily end up at a waste dump somwhere and pollute the local groundwater. Does that mean solar sells are a bad thing?

Pu-239, the most common isotope, have a half life of 24,200 years, not the 200,000 years you claim, and it's an alpha emitter, so it's radioactivity is only harmful if ingested or inhaled. Due to the long halflife, the radioactivity is also quite low. It is possible to handle plutonium in metal or ceramic form unprotected without putting oneself in any particular danger, although that is probably unwise.

It's also true that nuclear power plants have lower external costs than most other electricity production methods. Meaning, most of the costs caused by nuclear power are included in the production cost. A US study also concluded that the government subsidies per produced kWh were among the lowest for nuclear power, while highest for non hydro renewables.

The costs of storing the waste isn't a problem either. Most of the radioactivity is gone already after 400 years, but if we say that we need to store the waste 250,000 years, that is more than ten half lives for plutonium, that is hardly no time at all based on the age of the bedrock that in places are 2 billion years old. That it works to store these materials in the bedrock has also been shown by the natural reactors in Oklo. But if we recycle the plutonium, there wouldn't be any need to store these long lived transuranics as they would be used as fuel and turned into fission products, mostly of them short lived. France have successfully reprocessed and recycled uranium and plutonium for decades now.

Russia have operated a sodium cooled fast reactor (BN-600) since 1980, and all incidents have only been low level on the INES scale. The japanese have also bought the drawings of this reactor design. The russians have also operated a number of lead cooled fast reactors in their Alfa class submarines which unlike sodium does not react with water, and unlike water can't cause steam explosions. Over the years, different countries have built a number of fast reactors which would be used to breed plutonium. The lead cooled, the sodium cooled and the gas cooled reactor are also the three fast reactor types that are part of the gen iv program.

Insurance costs for nuclear power plants are also quite low. When you assess risk there are two factors that you need to consider. The cost of an average incident, and how often such an incident occur. While nuclear accidents can be costly, they are extremly rare, hence the cost is low.

xpensive wrote:The biggest energy hoax in history is on the other hand those hideous windmills, which unreliably delivers pathetically little energy for its investment. In Scandinavia we calculate 2.5 MEUR per installed MW, but then utilization grade is only 25% at the very best and most stocastic, why you need the same energy investment from a reliable source as back-up anyway. The new Olkiluoto EPR reactor in Finland will deliver a reliable 17 GW at more than 90% utilization. Go figure.

In Sweden it is expected that a tenfold increase in wind power would cost some 10 billion SEK annually (about 1 billion euro) in subsidies. The Finns paid 3 billion euro for the EPR I think, which can produce electricity at market prices with a profit.

Most studies also conclude that aside from hydro, nuclear provides the cheapest electricity. Not too bad given that it also have emissions and loss of years life similar to wind.

God I get so sick of all this profit and make money greed concept, it has so little to do with the realities in the world today.
In fact Greece is now screwed following the idea.

WhiteBlue wrote:It is also true that it is the most poisonous material man has ever manufactured. The allowable tolerance for workers in the nuclear industry is 4 nanogram. The tolerance in normal environments is zero. Read your own Wikipedia info for this.

Actually, it's about as poisonous as caffine

WhiteBlue wrote:Every known facility in Europe, Russia, America, China or Japan that has handled hazardous nuclear materials over decades had accidents or had design leaks of radioactive materials to atmosphere or the see. Particularly Britain and France are known to have contaminated the Atlantic and the Irish sea systematically with radioactive waste from uranium/plutonium separation in Sellafield/Windscale and La Hague.

Emissions from La Hague are all within safe limits and decreasing, and these are radioactive krypton, iodine, carbon, tritium, strontenium, cesium, ruthenium and cobalt. Radioactivity levels in the water are within the normal range.

Reprocessing plants mainly for weapons production have had mixed results in the past, but La Hague has a good history without big spills.

WhiteBlue wrote:The pity is the costs are not considered because later generations will be burdened with those costs.

The costs are considered. All Swedish powerplants do for instance pay a certain sum per produced kWh that is saved for waste handling.

WhiteBlue wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sellafield ... scale_fire Please read about the Windscale fire which concerns a British Plutonium breeder accident in 1954. It is considered as the heaviest nuclear accident pre Chernobyl.

Not a breeder reactor. Just an aircooled graphite moderated reactor. The fuel was metal uranium and the cooling was provided by air, a bad combination.

WhiteBlue wrote:As far as I know most countries have no deep mines suitable for depositing reactor scrap and will have to guard their rubble for decades or hundreds of years to make sure no environmental damage occurs.

There will be no guarding. High level waste is stored for a period of time to cool it and to make it easier to handle. Mid level waste, such as reactor tanks are normally left on site for a few decades before they are scrapped. Some parts can be cleaned and recycled while others, like you mentioned, are cast in concrete and buried. This is normal practice for much of the waste produced during daliy production. Infact I have even been down in one of these mid level waste facilities, it really isn't such a big deal. If there isn't a big hole you can use, you can easily make one. The one I visited wasn't a mine, it was build as a rad waste facility and paid by the nuclear industry.

autogyro wrote:God I get so sick of all this profit and make money greed concept, it has so little to do with the realities in the world today.
In fact Greece is now screwed following the idea.

Greece is just an example why you shouldn't 'spend other peoples money'. They have borrowed and spent, borrowed and spent and then they tried to hide it.

In the end money is about resources, or the fact that they are limited.

Edis, your post is full of misleading propaganda. In a previous post I have already rejected the claim that breeders have been used for commercial power generation and that the reprocessing has been safe. All breeders were used for weapon material. All reprocessing factories had accidents and produce huge quantities of waste. What you call emissions is the planned leakage of radioactive materials to the biosphere. It is contamination! No level of contamination is "safe". Contamination of the seas is as criminal as contamination of soil or air. To compare the bio hazard of Plutonium oxide with caffein is ridiculous.

I know from recent reports in the German press that the German factory in Gronau produced 28.000 tons of Uranium hexaflurid. It was transported to Tomsk Sibiria in Russland where the vast majority remains in open air storage in rusting containers. Tomsk and Murmansk must be environmental disasters of unprecedented scale.

Only a miniscule percentage of the nuclear processing, operations and transports in very few countries are insured against all risks (Chernobyl definitely was not) and the safe storage of nuclear waste from the reactors, the reprocessing and the factories is not even done to 5%. All that will have to be done in the future when the companies that made the money are history.

Edis wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:It is also true that it is the most poisonous material man has ever manufactured. The allowable tolerance for workers in the nuclear industry is 4 nanogram. The tolerance in normal environments is zero. Read your own Wikipedia info for this.

Actually, it's about as poisonous as caffine

CIA report wrote:Some five years ago the Russian nuclear attack submarine Komsomolets sank in the Norwegian Sea. The event caused consternation in the Soviet Navy, high interest in NATO maritime and intelligence circles, and apprehension among environmentalists. This concern arose particularly in Norway, for the submarine's broken hull holds two nuclear reactors and at least two torpedoes with nuclear warheads containing plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to man.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... omery.html

Well Edis, your word against that of the CIA. Who do we believe?

Another US goverment agency, the atomic energy control board CCNR
http://www.ccnr.org/max_plute_aecb.html#1

CCNR wrote:Plutonium is a highly toxic material. Attempts to deny or to obscure this fact are, we feel, irresponsible.

Some spokespersons for AECL and for the Government of Canada have suggested that there is no danger involved in MOX transport worthy of anyone's serious consideration.

We feel compelled to point out that, although the probability of a severe accident that would release plutonium to the atmosphere is admittedly small, the potential health and environmental consequences of such an accident can be serious due to the extraordinary toxicity of plutonium when inhaled.

It is for this reason alone that the United States of America has made it illegal to transport plutonium by air in US territory.
.....

In principle, using AECB's regulatory limits, how many ''civilians'' can be overdosed by 100 grams of plutonium?
0.1 micrograms can overdose one civilian
0.1 grams can overdose one million civilians
1 gram can overdose ten million civilians
100 grams can overdose one billion civilians

WhiteBlue wrote:Edis, your post is full of misleading propaganda. In a previous post I have already rejected the claim that breeders have been used for commercial power generation and that the reprocessing has been safe. All breeders were used for weapon material. All reprocessing factories had accidents and produce huge quantities of waste. What you call emissions is the planned leakage of radioactive materials to the biosphere. It is contamination! No level of contamination is "safe". Contamination of the seas is as criminal as contamination of soil or air. To compare the bio hazard of Plutonium oxide with caffein is ridiculous.

I know from recent reports in the German press that the German factory in Gronau produced 28.000 tons of Uranium hexaflurid. It was transported to Tomsk Sibiria in Russland where the vast majority remains in open air storage in rusting containers. Tomsk and Murmansk must be environmental disasters of unprecedented scale.

Only a miniscule percentage of the nuclear processing, operations and transports in very few countries are insured against all risks (Chernobyl definitely was not) and the safe storage of nuclear waste from the reactors, the reprocessing and the factories is not even done to 5%. All that will have to be done in the future when the companies that made the money are history.

No, my posts are full of facts. I would say 'misleading propaganda' that better describe your posts, although it probably would be an understatement. Most of it is full of the typical greenie bs, all talk graping after straws with little real understanding.

And no, breeders are not generally used for plutonium production (as in nuclear weapons), normally these are moderated reactors that can be run on natural uranium. Such as heavy water moderated reactors, or gas cooled graphite moderated reactors.

You can say that breeders haven't been used for commerical power production how many times you want, but that won't make it more true. The fact is that BN-600, a 600 MW fast breeder, have supplied power to the grid since 1980.

No contamination is safe, well, that is just crazy talk. The emissions of small amounts of radioactive materials are insignificant, they are insignificant compared to the radiation we are subjected to daily from radiactive materials in the background, from space and other man made sources and they will have no harmful effects. Infact, the radioactivity released is far less than the radioactivity being released by for instance a coal fired powerplant and the dose recieved by people living near these plants aren't higher than what you recieve on a flight across the atlantic (time to ban that too?). By your definition you better stay at home tomorrow, since also you are radioactive and you don't want to release that!

Then you keep repeating yourself about Russia, why? So what, there are plenty of coutries that handles everything from uranium to electrical waste in a unsafe manner, that doen't change the fact that it can be done safely.

The insurance used by the nuclear industry covers transport aswell. Economic liability is covered under the Paris convention in the countries that have signed it.

http://www.nea.fr/law/nlparis_conv.html

In the U.S. it's covered under the Price-Anderson Act

WhiteBlue wrote:

Edis wrote:

WhiteBlue wrote:It is also true that it is the most poisonous material man has ever manufactured. The allowable tolerance for workers in the nuclear industry is 4 nanogram. The tolerance in normal environments is zero. Read your own Wikipedia info for this.

Actually, it's about as poisonous as caffine

CIA report wrote:Some five years ago the Russian nuclear attack submarine Komsomolets sank in the Norwegian Sea. The event caused consternation in the Soviet Navy, high interest in NATO maritime and intelligence circles, and apprehension among environmentalists. This concern arose particularly in Norway, for the submarine's broken hull holds two nuclear reactors and at least two torpedoes with nuclear warheads containing plutonium, one of the most toxic substances known to man.

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... omery.html

Well Edis, your word against that of the CIA. Who do we believe?

Popular article, not really a discussion about plutonium toxicity.

"Despite being toxic both chemically and because of its ionising radiation, plutonium is far from being "the most toxic substance on Earth" or so hazardous that "a speck can kill". On both counts there are substances in daily use that, per unit of mass, have equal or greater chemical toxicity (arsenic, cyanide, caffeine) and radiotoxicity (smoke detectors)."

See under Toxicity and health effects
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf15.html

Some additional information from CDC
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/tfacts143.html
The expoture limit is in other words 0.1 rem/year for the general public, and 0.5 rem/year for people who work with medical patients. In other words, there are no specific plutonium exposure limits, or a zero exposure limit as you stated.

xpensive wrote:But we love our eight nuclear reactors in Sweden, and we will replace them with bigger ones, produces 50% of our electric energy and we have more uranium in the ground than Norway has oil and gas. If it wasn't for the "environmentalists", we would be nuclear-sheiks all of us, but we have no illusions of using it for cars as we know them today.

10 of them I assume you mean, unless they have become fewer since last time I checked. But they were originally 12 of them, plus a few research reactors that also was used to treat cancer patients and produce radioisotopes for various uses.

The uranium is however too expensive to extracts at current uranium prices since its low grade ore.

600 MW is not a usual size for a commercial reactor. Power stations go by GW nowadays. So your Russian BN 600 is nothing but an ill advised prototype which hopefully will not see any further development.

You have not mentioned the information from the CCNR. I would not trust a source called "world-nuclear.org". Who would feed such a domain with misinformation? The people who make money with nuclear technology.

Show me a government source from a great democratic country or the WHO!

Further the kind of radiation is highly relevant. Plutonium oxide toxicity is caused by alpha radiation of the incorporated particles and their tendency to embed in the lungs, liver and bone marrow. You don't get that by being exposed to x-rays. Your propaganda attempt to throw all radiation into one pot is unsuccessful.

Edit: The Russian Bn 600 breeds no weapon grade plutonium but has a history of liquid sodium leaks which caused fires and some radiation contamination. I researched the history of fast breeders and found the British Dounreay and the French Super-Phenix reactors. The british site had a nasty accident with an explosion in an underground waste storage facility that contaminated a wider area by ground (sea) water. The French reactor at Creys-Malville had high temperature corrosion problems which caused several incidents by leaking sodium and several shut downs. The reactor was early retired due to public pressure. The safety problems and manipulations in the license process caused so much public concern that the government shut the reactor down. As I said before the German SR 300 was build but never taken into service due to massive safety concerns of the public. There is no sodium cooled fast breeder in operation in a democratic country. Perhaps that is meant to be a lesson! Only communist states (hello Chernobyl) can force their people to live with the risks of such technology.