Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Company Admits To Nuclear Cover Up
a-charles writes "Just as power companies are considering the first expansion of nuclear power usage in the US since the 70s, Reuters reports on a disturbing anouncement from the nation of Japan. On Thursday the Japanese power company Hokuriku Electric Power admitted it had covered up a 1999 incident in which mishandling of nuclear fuel rods led to an unintended self-sustaining nuclear fission chain reaction. The mishap caused the plant, located in central Japan, to enter a 'critical state' for much of those 15 minutes. Apparently, this was in the same year that two workers were killed in a separate incident in Tokaimura, northeast of Tokyo. A pair of workers were killed after using buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a lab, a test that also created an uncontrolled chain reaction for a short time. The nuclear power industry already has a bad name for safety violations in Japan, and these revelations are unlikely to help with that public image."
The real problem with nuclear energy is not the reactors (the middle bit)), but the mining (the first bit) of the uranium and the disposal (the end bit) of the waste.
I can imagine a solution to clean up the former (although this would make nuclear fuel even more expensive), but I haven't yet seen a (proven) solution for the latter*
Until we're there, nuclear just doesn't seem as viable as coal (sad tho' that may be).
The search for a better solution to our energy need continues. (be it sequestration for coal, waste disposal for nuke, higher efficiency for wind, cleaner materials & higher efficiency for solar, better storage techniques for all the above). There is no silver bullet.
* Not to mention the fact that we won't allow some countries to develop nuclear energy, so its an energy solution that's not even on the table for many parts of the world.
There are shills on slashdot. Apparently, I'm one of them.
It's terribly unfortunate to hear stories of mismanagement of nuclear materials...
I'm very much of the opinion that more nuclear power is a good thing, It's clean, generally safe, & could serve as a solution to the global warming problem, but the public'll never agree with it if monkeys like this keep screwing it up.
I never thought I'd refer to France as exemplary... So, here it goes:
First the accident was contained the system worked! The only problem was the cover up.
Personally I think everyone that hates nuclear energy should go jump of a bridge. What's next wind power fears, I mean we don't want to kill the birds or slow the earths rotation, and destroy the view. Oh wait do you mean my solar power panels have to be replaced every 10-15 years and produce huge amounts of localized heat. Oh then we have clean coal that produces more radioactive waste then any other form energy. Ok so its just radon and its half life is ~4 days.
So if we can't have Coal or nuclear power plants and well we don't want to slow the earths rotation down because it could cause the moon to crash in the earth. An well we have to free Niagara Falls so that its all natural again. Then we have to ban the sun and eliminated all animals because they produce more carbon than all the cars&factories on the plant. We also can't have Hydrogen cars because currently all industrial Hydrogen comes from oil. An because you hate nuclear power you can't have the high temp generation of nuclear power plants that are designed to produce hydrogen.
I guess that if you think we can control the thermal properties of the earth by using carbon emissions. We should build more nuclear power plants/dams/windmills no one solution meets are current and future power requirements. Ps if you would like to stop global warming ban all living animals! Go hunting and kill every creature you see. You will help prevent global warming. Ha if you kill more than 6 large animals you can drive hummer and still have a net carbon savings at the end of the year!
Cheers,
Bill T
...of one company muddy the waters for the rest of the power companies with nuclear plants. There are far more plants that do follow safe procedures and have no accidents.
Now, to my energy rant.
Nuclear power plants provide the most efficient production of electricity. It far outstrips the ability of coal, oil, solar, wind, whatever. And, it would be foolish to think that we are going to REDUCE the amount of electricity we need. So, please, all you tree-huggers, just go home. Society is dependent on an ever-increasing amount of the stuff, so just accept it. Thus, we need a power source that gives up the most bang for the buck.
This incident, as with others, provides invaluable data that we learn from, improving the process everywhere else.
All of the electric-car fantatics should be cheering for more nuclear power plants.
Bearded Dragon
Ah yes, people died so Nuclear energy is dangerous! Talk about FUD, Lets see how safe how great COAL mining is!
Stats are here for coal mining in the US alone. You get around 30 people dying AND 2000+ injuries (or 5% of the work force) is involved in something harmful to their health EVERY YEAR.So WTF is dangerous about Nuclear power plants now?
If it were true, then people in the 15th century would have used the same amount of energy as people living today, which is obviously false. Also obvious is the fact that nobody wants to live in a dark, cold world where long-distance transportation is near impossible, as humans in the 15th century did. So, what we need to do is find a way to reap the benefits of modern technology while using a lesser amount of energy. This is not impossible either, and the results are not trivial.
Germany, for example, gets by with a per capita energy consumption of around 40% of that of the United States without a significant loss in standard of living. How is this done? People habitually turn off lights in rooms that they are not in; smaller, more fuel efficient cars are the norm; waste products are heavily mined for reusable resources; every major city has a reliable, efficient, and widely utilized public transportation networks; people tend to choose bicycles or walking to nearby locations rather than driving; individuals reuse packaging (you bring your own bags to the grocery store); products are generally packed in less packaging material. Some of these things are done by individuals, some of them require government or corporate intervention. However, millions of people choosing to do the right thing creates significant, measurable results on that country's energy footprint.
So what can you do? Light bulbs are the single biggest user of energy in most western households. Turning off lights in rooms you are not in makes a small difference. Turning the heat down a couple degrees makes a small difference. Selecting a smaller car makes a small difference. Avoiding using that car when you don't need to makes a small difference. Sorting your waste materials for recycling makes a small difference. Taken together, these measures make a huge difference in the amount of energy you as an individual consume. If most of your fellow citizens do the same thing, together you will have a huge impact on the amount of energy your country consumes.
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
The problem isn't that people can't handle atomic power, it is that for profit corporations can't handle atomic power. The US navy, to take a good example, has been dealing with atomic power plants for decades without a single failure. Why? Because they are not cutting safety corners to increase their profit margin.
I'm an advocate of atomic power in general, and I'm simultaniously completely opposed to atomic power under the control of a for profit corporation. Corporations aren't evil, but they are singleminded: they are geared to produce the maximum profit for the minimum investment. When it comes to growing and distributing apples, or manufacturing computers, and so forth they do an exellent job. But when it comes to stuff like atomic power they are absolutely the wrong tool to use.
Either put them under the control of the navy, or some other government agency, or if you are the type who gets all bothered by any suggestion of direct government control of that sort of thing, put them under the control of non-profit corporations. Take the profit motive out, and the safety will stop being a problem.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Let me get this straight. They were mixing nuclear... ahem... NUCLEAR fuel in --- BUCKETS ---! Tell me how any part of that whole idea sound any bit logical?!?
In terms of safety, reliability, prudence and, now, price the renewable resources win.
v ersy#Economics
a sters_by_death_toll#Flood_disastersa sters_by_death_toll#Coal_mine_disastersa sters_by_death_toll#Nuclear_accidents
No, Nuclear is much, much cheaper than any "alternative" energy sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_contro
Safety? Reliability?
Compare
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_dis
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_dis
with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_dis
The GP was correct, on a per-site basis, nuclear is much safer than coal, and modern reactor designs don't have the same criticality risks that old reactors had.
Something about this says "poor management choices" to me. The workers were preparing fuel for an experimental reactor, with buckets. It's not hard to imagine that the proper equipment would have put the project over budget, so they were told to make due. I know that every business cuts corners somewhere, but maybe nuclear facilities should be an exception to this.
We are all just people.
You seem not to understand that the safety record of the nuclear power industry is very poor. As it turns out, contrary to what we have been led to beleive, there is no full opportunity for the industry to learn from its mistakes because accidents are covered up. This particular accident has no record or analysis so it may well be repeated with worse consequences.
s .html. But, wind and solar are not limited in this way so you seem to be
selecting you example rather poorly.
As you point out, different technology is called for. However, it is not at all clear that pebble bed reactors can be run safely on a commercial scale. Further, it is no longer clear that problems with such new technology will be reported or addressed.
I agree with you that biofuels based on rooted plants have limited capacity as you will see here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/02/photosynthesi
Humm... It is a little discouraging that someone with responsibility for nuclear safety considers venting or spills unimportant.
I would say that your list of studies does not really pass the smell test for a system that has any chance of ever being considered reliable on the safety front. Sounds like system complexity is a bit too high.
I have not seen companies that own reactors shutting down the coal plants that they also own so are you not being a bit optimistic on the idea that nuclear power can replace coal?
What we learned today is that the list of nuclear accidents is incomplete owing to a cover up of a nuclear accident. We do not know how incomplete it is. Perhaps you can help out here. Have you personally covered up any of those little spills that you feel are so unimportant?
We'll have to agree to disagree. I'm not pretending Chernobyl does not exist. Just as I'm not trying to pretend nukes don't exist. Having said that, willful destruction of a nuke does not translate into nuclear powerplant safety in the least. Willful destruction of Chernobyl (which is what it was) does not translate into nuclear powerplant safety. Chernobyl was not an accident caused by a string of human errors. Chernobyl is a disaster of human intent and denial, compounded by neglect, third world technology, and penis envy.
A crazy driver behind the wheel of a car, who injures/kills dozens, does not mean that specific car or cars in general are too dangerous for mankind. Only a fool would attempt to argue that point. That is what is commonly called fear mongering. Yet *exactly* that point that is argued everytime Chernobyl is mentioned. Having said that, refusing to accept a crazy driver that willfully injured dozens as a general point against cars, or a specific model of car, does not mean I imagine a world without cars. Likewise, I understand Chernobyl was built. But mentioning it only serves to fearmonger. Invocation of Chernobyl is not a legetimate point/counter-point unless the intent is to fearmonger.
Most of the world use a common and proven set of designs with each adding their own set of improvements and safetys. AFAIK, excluding the designs by the likes of Russia, they are generally considered safe designs.
The long of the short, there exists plenty to debate on nuclear power plants without resorting to fearmongering. Which is exactly why, the first one to mention Chernobyl is resorting to fear and ignorance rather than facts and knowledge.
The first person to mention Chernobyl as an example as to how dangerous nuclear power can be is the loser. The reason? That person just admitted that they have absolutely no clue what they are talking about and are unfit to contribute anything to a nuclear debate.
No, they have NOTHING to contribute... The Reason? Because incompetence, shoddy, inadequate equipment and good old fashioned dumb-ass bravado are things of the past. Such things can never again happen in the future. Never.