Slashdot Mirror


London Nuke Plant Loses 30 Kilos of Plutonium

solafide writes "The Globe and Mail reports 'A British nuclear-reprocessing plant [at Sellafield] cannot account for nearly 30 kilograms of plutonium, but authorities believe it is an accounting issue rather than a loss of potential bomb-making material, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority said.' Although it says later plutonium is only 1% of what they deal with there. The Times Online has more details."

19 of 613 comments (clear)

  1. 88 mph by froggero1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    sweet, I'll finally have fuel for my flux capacitor so I can get back to the 80's!

    --
    ~/.sig: No such file or directory
  2. Nothing to worry about by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Funny

    Kim Jong Il is taking good care of it. He says so regularly!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  3. In other news... by Your_Mom · · Score: 5, Funny

    A small boy with a oval shaped head was seen today in Leicestershire(sp?) saying "VICTORY IS MINE!"

    --
    Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
  4. London is nowhere near Sellafield. by Rexz · · Score: 5, Informative

    I don't say that Boston is the same as New York. Please don't do this to my country.

    1. Re:London is nowhere near Sellafield. by fm6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I got news for you: most Americans think that Boston is the same as New York!

    2. Re:London is nowhere near Sellafield. by Peter+Cooper · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmm, Sellafield is not a city. It's a village 300 miles from London in the middle of nowhere known only for having a nuclear power plant.

      When you take scale into account, saying Sellafield is in London is totally like saying the Grand Canyon is in Washington D.C.

      And what are you on about? The UK has a lot of open land. It's nothing like the US, but more of the UK is fields or moor than anything else.

  5. Re:Bomb em! by amliebsch · · Score: 5, Informative

    To pre-empt the tin-foil hatters: it is not possible to construct a nuclear weapon from power-grade plutonium, and terrorists do not have the technology to refine it into weapons-grade plutonium. However, it would make a nasty dirty bomb.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  6. Uranium regeneration is a good thing though by grqb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Uranium regeneration is a good thing. A nuclear reactor only uses about 4% of the uranium until it has to be either discarded or regenerated (because of reduced efficiency issues) but the regeneration process makes plutonium, which can then be used in a bomb. Most of the time, the plutonium is actually mixed with uranium and it can then be used as a fuel.

    Hopefully fusion will come along sometime soon...

  7. Jokes by Bonhamme+Richard · · Score: 5, Informative
    You all joke, but a nuclear submarine goes around the world on a lump the size of a golf ball.

    A nuclear weapon only uses about a grapefruit sized piece of fissionable material.

    And only about 8 grams of matter were actually converted to enegery by the original nukes used against Japan.

    30 kg missing seems like a big deal to me. I'd like to know for sure whether its an accounting issue or someone else has it.

    1. Re:Jokes by khrtt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A nuclear weapon only uses about a grapefruit sized piece of fissionable material.

      True. Now try to guess how much a grapefruit-sized piece of plutonium would weigh.

    2. Re:Jokes by Powertrip · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's see, if the grapefruit I ate this morning was about 12cm in diameter the total approx. volume would be about 864cm^3. Plutonium has a typical denisty of 19.84g per cm^3, giving us a total weight of 17.062Kg.... Thats a darn heavy grapefruit! Brad

  8. For any Americans who are reading... by BovineSpirit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sellafield is right up in the north west of england. London is in the south east. The people who decided where to put Sellafield(then Windscale) are, however, based in London. Strangely they decided the best place for it was as far away as possible.

  9. Trigger-happy reporting? Not on /. ! by toby · · Score: 5, Informative
    As usual, a quick cross-check would have revealed that this story has been subsequently qualified in the UK press as somewhat less of the sensation initially implied:
    British Nuclear Fuels, which runs the Sellafield nuclear complex in Cumbria, claimed yesterday that no nuclear material had gone missing from the site ... a spokesman for BNFL said similar discrepancies have been recorded in audits since 1977, and do not represent real losses of radioactive material ... it is impossible to know precisely how much plutonium is at a nuclear site. Plutonium is created inside nuclear fuel rods while reactors are running, so scientists can only estimate how much plutonium is in them. Only when spent fuel rods are reprocessed, by dissolving them in acid to separate out the plutonium, uranium and other materials, can the true quantities be measured...
    --UK Guardian, 18 Feb 2005.
    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:Trigger-happy reporting? Not on /. ! by p.gogarty · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I watched this news article on BBC world last night (am British living in forign country). The BBC world account of this story did highlight a couple of points that take the wind out of this sensationalist post.

      1. The missing 30Kg is discrepancy between the estimated amount of reclaimed fuel and the actual amount for a whole yeare (See previous post). As any engineer involved with nuclear reclamation will tell you there is no precise method of calculating the amount of fuel that will be reclaimed from nuclear waste until after it has been reclaimed.

      2. On several occasions (years) Sellafield has reclaimed more fuel than estimated.

      --
      Paul Gogarty
  10. Re:Bomb em! by cameldrv · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's not exactly true. Several governments have investigated the possiblity of making bombs from mixed-isotope Pu. It is possible. However even the best designs have a chance of a fizzle due to premature fission when the critical mass is being compressed. Making a bomb from power grade Pu is definitely quite a bit harder than making one out of pure Pu-239, which is harder than making one out of Uranium.

  11. Re:Bomb em! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
    The first article linked doesn't say what grade of plutonium it is, and the second article seems to be playing silly buggers right now. But to expand on this: "weapons grade plutonium" is 93% pure Pu-239. If there's more than 7% Pu-240 in the mix, the chances are that the Pu-240 will spontaneously fission, making it next to impossible to assemble a critical mass that is necessary for the nuclear explosion.

    Power grade plutonium doesn't have that problem to the same extent, because the reaction doesn't have to happen at a precisely controlled moment.

    Separating out Pu-239 from Pu-240 is a similar problem to separating U-235 from U-238: slow, tedious, and lots of centrifuges and similar. Because the relative weights are so close together, it's a significantly harder problem. This is why the production of weapons grade plutonium requires very regular reprocessing of fuel from the reactor core; otherwise, you'll get too much Pu-240, and it becomes too hard.

  12. Reminds me of Good Omens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "And precisely how much nuclear material has escaped?" said the interviewer.

    There was a pause. "We wouldn't say escaped," said the spokesman. "Not escaped. Temporarily mislaid."

    "You mean it is still on the premises?"

    "We certainly cannot see how it could have been removed from them," said the spokesman.

    "Surely you have considered terrorist activity?"

    There was another pause. Then the spokesman said, in the quiet tones of someone who has had enough and is going to quit after this and raise chickens somewhere, "Yes, I suppose we must. All we need to do is find some terrorists who are capable of taking an entire nuclear reactor out of its can while it's running and without anyone noticing. It weighs about a thousand tons and is forty feet high. So they'll be quite strong terrorists. Perhaps you'd like to ring them up, sir, and ask them questions in that supercilious, accusatory way of yours."

    "But you said the power station is still producing electricity," gasped the interviewer.

    "It is."

    "How can it still be doing that if it hasn't got any reactors?"

    "We don't know," he said. "We were hoping you clever buggers at the BBC would have an idea."

  13. Oxidation states by orzetto · · Score: 5, Informative

    You're right, I'd like to point out also that the same atom can have different toxicity depending on its oxidation state. If you have seen Erin Brockovich, where the whole case was Cr(VII) being measured with the emission limit of Cr(III), causing poisoning among the population, well that's the same thing.

    U and Pu are actinides, and that means they can have many different oxidation states, each with its own chemistry.

    This is also why lead in gasoline and paint is carcinogen, while veterans have lived with lead bullets in their body for decades.

    --
    Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
  14. Re:Bomb em! by arivanov · · Score: 5, Informative

    Depleted uranium has the problem of "Journalist Blame" attached to it. It was heavily used in Gulf War 1 and the Serbian Bombings and the areas where it was used are suffering cancer rates between 10 and 50 times above the world average. This was erroneously blamed on it.

    The reaility is that the cancer rates around Basra, parts of ex-Ugo, Western Bulgaria, Western Romania and so on are caused by the choice of targets for "shock and awe" campaigns.

    The shock and awe campaigns blanket bombed into oblivion the industrial potential of the target countries - Iraq and Serbia. This industrial potential was mostly built in the late sixties and early seventies using enormous quantities of Asbestous and plastics that emit carcinogenous chemicals when burning. All this got released when they were bombed back into the stone age.

    Which in turn resulted in tens of thousands of people to die, dieing or who shall die of cancer in the targeted areas and the areas downwind from it (Bulgaria and Romania on the Balkans and Iran in the Gulf).

    This has been blamed by various shallow journalistic research on depleted uranium. It may have a role, but it is minor. The major reason is the war crime idea of "Shock and Awe" in first place.

    --
    Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
    http://www.sigsegv.cx/