Originally Posted by Dylan:
On April 26, 2006, the New York Times published the story.
New York Times reporter Steven Lee Meyers said, "The true number may never be known, but the lasting impacts, physical and psychological, are evident in those who came to be known as liquidators."
Over 5,000 coal miners die all over the world every year, which is high even accounting for the fact that coal power is a few times as much as nuclear power. That is ignoring all the however many tens or hundreds of thousands who die from air pollution. You've got what, a few thousand over several decades?
Nuclear power is a hell of a lot safer than coal power, we're just scared because our primitive caveman brains perceive nuclear power as confusing voodoo magic. [Reply]
I don't want to be a completely unfair nuclear homer, so I will admit that the situation in these spent fuel rod pools is a concern. They have the potential to emit far less radiation than the troubled reactors, but they are more dangerous because at least the reactors are encased in concrete. If the water in these pools burn out, then you've got still-warm and still-dangerous fuel rods completely exposed to the environment. If the area is evacuated several kilometers that still wont mean anything to anyone, but they really need to get those pools under control. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dave Lane:
Read Al North's fine post.
Eh, I agree that this is unlikely to cause widespread problems, but I wouldn't be that flippant. All of the spent fuel pools have no containment, and if they catch fire, they'll release straight into the atmosphere. There have also been questions raised about the integrity of the containment on at least one or two reactors.
Also, TEPCO just said earlier, "The possibility of recriticality is not zero," in reactor 4.
AP is reporting that workers have "suspended operations to prevent a stricken nuclear plant from melting down after a surge in radiation made it too dangerous for workers to remain at the facility."
Tokyo Electric Power Company's (Tepco's) Fukushima I unit 3 is set to become the third Japanese nuclear reactor to load mixed oxide (MOX) fuel after receiving approval from the governor of Fukushima Prefecture, Yukei Sato. The unit follows Kyushu Electric's Genkai 3, which started using MOX fuel in November 2009, and Shikoku's Ikata 3, which was loaded with some MOX fuel in March 2010. According to the Denki Shimbun, the 760 MWe boiling water reactor will be loaded with MOX fuel by 21 August and the unit will restart in late September.
Japan's Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency has so far approved the use of MOX fuel in ten reactors, but utilities must also secure approval from prefectural governments before they can go ahead and use the fuel, which contains plutonium recovered from spent nuclear fuel.
6.2.4 Accidents at MOX fabrication plants
Accidents at MOX fuel fabrication plants have occurred. In June 1991, the storage bunker of the MOX fuel fabrication plant in Hanau, Germany, was contaminated with MOX. It occurred after the rupture of a foil for container packaging in the course of an in-plant transportation process. Four workers were exposed to plutonium.29 This accident was the main reason the fabrication plant at Hanau was shut down.
In November 1992, a fuel rod was broken through a handling error, and MOX dust was released during the mounting of MOX fuel rods to fuel assemblies in the fuel fabrication facility adjoining the MOX facility in Dessel, Belgium. In the event of such accidents, if the ICRP recommendations for general public exposure were adhered to, only about one mg of plutonium may be released from a MOX facility to the environment. As a comparison, in uranium fabrication facility, 2kg (2,000,000mg) of uranium could be released in the same radiation exposure. A one mg release of plutonium can easily happen during various smaller incidents.30
Chicken Little or not... MOX could be a big problem and it's certainly worth discussion. [Reply]
My biggest concern is that they aren't necessarily being forthcoming with what's going down here. The information seems kinda muddled. They don't seem to be in control of this situation at all... and I hope we don't find out after the fact this situation was worse than they said it was. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
A few people drank slightly-radioactive water in the 40's and 50's back when the feds didn't know what the hell they were doing, and a few people may have experienced a greater risk of cancer.
Well, ignoring the fact that nuclear technology and safety has advanced over the last half century, you don't really want to compare this to the health impact of burning fossil fuels (which are the only alternative for base load power, don't even bother mentioning solar/wind). I'm not even talking about dubious global warming numbers, just simple air pollution and coal mining.
The hilarious thing about it, is for all that we freak out about it, nuclear is safer than burning coal. The only reason to burn coal is because we can do it cheaper. It is different psychologically, because we can understand the concept of burning something for power, and we can picture and accept the risk of air pollution, but nuclear reactions seem like voodoo magic to us, so its scary.
That's a whole lot of words to put into my mouth. What I was speaking of was the long term effects of prolonged exposure, even a minuscule amount over a period of time.
There was a prolonged study done of over 300,000 workers at the Hanford site that was abruptly defunded whenever the initial results of the study were published. The reason was that the stated "safe doses" were anything but, and the DOE and the subcontractors who ran the facility, namely GE, didn't want to assume culpability for it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kcpasco:
I Work at the Hanford site, everything is so regulated around here you can't even sneeze without someone taking a survey.
As you know, it's no longer a functioning plant, hasn't been for many years, and is (or was) the largest Superfund site in the nation.
Apparently, dumping nuclear waste in cardboard boxes isn't a good longterm containment strategy. Who would have known? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dylan:
AP is reporting that workers have "suspended operations to prevent a stricken nuclear plant from melting down after a surge in radiation made it too dangerous for workers to remain at the facility."
This is a disaster almost beyond comprehension.
There goes the food chain.
Japan exports greatly affected.
Those fuel rod pools aside (seriously, get some water-dropping helicopters if you have to, they aren't that hot and this shouldn't be hard), here's the likely worst-case scenario.
This one reactor melts down. The concrete container holds long enough for the nuclear fuel to be safely encased. Beyond a mile or so, the radiation is not much. After a few days, the radiation is next to nothing even when you stand right next to the facility. This company pays for an expensive cleanup operation. A few workers from the nuclear power plant get cancer and die after a few decades. The world moves on, no one is really hurt. Some silly americans continue to panic over something that isn't as dangerous as coal power. [Reply]