Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Japanese Company Admits To Nuclear Cover Up

Posted by Zonk on from the we-haven't-used-buckets-for-that-since-the-50s dept.

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."

41 of 295 comments (clear)

  1. New race of mutants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The real reason they covered it up was that some of the employees mutated into evil transcendental beings of superior intelligence who afterwards went to hibernate in a secret facility reportedly located in the 23rd underground level of Satori III naval cybernetics base.

  2. This is a well known nuclear power plant by vivaoporto · · Score: 2, Funny

    A pair of workers were killed after using buckets to mix nuclear fuel in a lab

    We all know what power plant is that. The Sector 7-G Safety Inspector Homer J. Simpson refused to make any statement, but was heard shouting "D'oh!" right after the incident.

    1. Re:This is a well known nuclear power plant by Pyrowolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?!?

    2. Re:This is a well known nuclear power plant by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.
  3. Let the flamewares begin! by Whiney+Mac+Fanboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by apathy+maybe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IF we have to have nuclear power (and I fail to see any good arguments for it, and I'm not going to argue this point so don't even bother), I would not be adverse to simply putting it in rockets and shooting towards the nearest star.

      We could build them cheaply (they don't have to re-enter the atmosphere) and I think safely enough (lots of experience building rockets that don't fall apart when *leaving* Earth) not to have to worry.

      But, I'm an intelligent environmentalist, there are lots of crazies out there who wouldn't support such a solution, and they tend to be louder then me. Shit happens.

      --
      I wank in the shower.
    2. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by KDR_11k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We can build pretty safe rockets but not perfectly safe ones, there's always the risk of an accident causing an explosion in the atmosphere. Also expect the number of rocket explosions to increase as commercial interest in cheaper launches increases.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    3. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by soccerisgod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's a crazy novel idea for you: Why just not stop wasting so much energy in the first place? If you need less energy, you need not worry as much about where you will get it from. Let's be honest, a lot of the energy used today is senselessly wasted on matters of pure convenience. We have standby circuits in many electronics products that needlessly waste energy, we leave our computers running all the time even if we're not around, same for light; we waste gigantic amounts of energy to produce things like tin foil, and the list goes on and on. Surely, at least in a few of those areas, we could do with less wasting?

      Coming back to the topic, this incident just proves again that no matter how glorious and good your technology is, there's always a (big) risk as long as humans are involved. I'm not sure if you've heard of it, but there was a long string of accidents and problems in Sweden's NPPs too, one as critical as the one that was covered up in Japan: they got within 15 minutes of meltdown, and it was only by pure luck they managed to stop it. In the long run, the only alternative is to use 'alternative' energy sources that don't destroy the planet, and at the same time stop to waste so much energy.

      --
      If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
    4. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by sphealey · · Score: 4, Informative

      > ut I haven't yet seen a (proven) solution for
      > the latter*[nuclear waste]
      > Until we're there, nuclear just doesn't seem
      > as viable as coal (sad tho' that may be)

      Of course, coal burning generates radioactive waste as well. The concentration is small but the volumes are very large.

      sPh

    5. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by mblase · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a myth that we waste energy.

      Actually, it's a law.

    6. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by DaleGlass · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Besides incredibly trivial things like replacing our light bulbs with CFDs and turning off our power when we go outside, which is a *trivial* amount of savings, there's not much humans can do to save power.


      You're kidding, right? There are many places where power can be saved. Example:
      • My laptop uses about 25W, while my desktop uses probably more than 200. Benchmarks say that the Pentium M 1600 was roughtly equivalent to one CPU in my dual Athlon MP 2000+, while the whole laptop uses less power than one CPU in the desktop.
      • CFD bulbs use less than half the power of incandescents
      • LCD monitors use much less power than CRTs. OLEDs seem to be an even further improvement
      • Improving insulation in the home can easily cut the heating bill in half

      No alternative energy source is capable of cheaply producing mass amount of energy, and even most of these run into problems with environmentalists as well (damns stop fish from migrating, windmills chop up endangered birds, etc.)

      Sure it is, after all the whole planet is solar powered.

      Also, I don't get what's the deal with "windmills chop birds". Yes, they do sometimes. But birds fly into skyscrapers quite often too, and for some reason that doesn't seem to stop anybody from building them. There are also types of windmills that rotate slower, and are less dangerous to birds.

      Now, I have absolutely nothing against nuclear power, if well done, but what you say simply isn't true. Other viable alternatives exist as well, and nuclear isn't the only option.
    7. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No alternative energy source is capable of cheaply producing mass amount of energy

      There are many things you can do in the right location and improved distribution makes a lot of things viable. There's even a very large tidal power station in France that is around fifty years old - it's a far more mature technology than nuclear power.

      In all honestly, nuclear power is the correct solution to our energy needs.

      Firstly I'll provide my opinion that anyone that pushes a single energy source no matter what it is for all purposes either has spent no more than a couple of minute considering the issue or is selling something.

      Second, economic grounds still rule out nuclear power for civilian purposes due to a lot of factors - such as the expense of safety systems and the use of exotic materials to withstand high levels of radiation and factors such as each new plant built at this point would be a prototype in an attempt to get something a bit more viable.

      Third, the limited availability of high grade fuel to make processing as cheap as possible means new designs are necessary with alternative fuels - and this is occuring but it will take time and actual research money instead of just lobbying and advertising. Fast breeders such as Superphoenix are not the answer until we can work out how to easily handle the fuel produced - as it was it had the dubious honor of falling behind even the purely small scale solution of low grade 1980s photovotaics in terms of dollars per kilowatt at the full scale with no clear way to cut costs.

      Fourth, nuclear power generation in nearly every case is a dual use system so new plants will only be seen as acceptable in countries where nuclear weapons proliferation is acceptable - hence the fuss about Iran, Nth Korea, and the large amount of fear about Iraq in years past even after it had been bombed back into the third world. In the USA it is not such an issue becuase new nuclear weapons are being developed now anyway - but no-one wants to see Myanmar with the bomb.

      I haven't even got onto safety and waste disposal due to the many stupid claims of perfection and silly comparisons to cleanliness for a mining and minerals processing operation. I'm no luddite, I've carted radioactive materials around for industrial radiography, worked with people from nuclear installations in three countries and listened to people who have come close to minimising the waste problem after thirty years of poorly funded work.

      We don't have our flying cars and we don't have our 1950's atomic dream. Nuclear materials have a lot of uses but it is a horribly complex and expensive way to boil water.

    8. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by evilviper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We have standby circuits in many electronics products that needlessly waste energy, we leave our computers running all the time even if we're not around, same for light; we waste gigantic amounts of energy to produce things like tin foil, and the list goes on and on. Surely, at least in a few of those areas, we could do with less wasting?

      No, I don't think we could.

      To reduce the no-load power requirements of transformers, you're going to have to drastically increase the price of each unit.

      I certainly don't leave my computers running all the time unless necessary, and for those that do, CPU power-saving features have trickled down to desktops now, so computers are more efficient when idle than ever before.

      Tin foil takes energy to manufacture, but cleaning and reusing takes time, money, and energy too.

      And if you don't think the above points are important, I suggest you consider that people working to pay for their vastly more expensive gadgets will waste lots more energy than any of those could possibly save in return. Remember, only about 1/4th of the electricity in the US is used for residential purposes. The other 3/4ths is used by companies... The company where you work to get the money to buy things. The factory that assembles the brand-new (energy efficient) products you buy. etc.

      There's little sadder than watching a rabid environmentalist throw away perfectly good, working equipment. Often, spending lots of money to buy a new "green" item gets you a product that is only marginally more efficient than the old one.

      If you want to actually save a non-trivial amount of energy, the solutions aren't easy or glamorous. Better home insulation will make a huge difference. Turn down your heater, so your refrigerator doesn't have to work as hard. Dry your clothes on a line. Compost all your own garbage. Get the entire world to drive mopeds to work (hopefully with 4-stroke engines). etc. Hell, in warmer climates, you'll probably save hundreds of dollars each years on air conditioning if you spend a few minutes, and $20 to duct the hot exhaust from your refrigerator, directly outdoors.

      If you consider things like indoor plumbing a convenience, then yes, lots of energy is wasted on modern conveniences. If you instead consider that a necessity, then no, relatively very little energy is wasted on conveniences.

      And even if you cut out all completely non-essential human activity, we'll have the same issues with power that we have now. Even when you're burning less of it, coal is still toxic, oil is still expensive, etc.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    9. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by KonoWatakushi · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      Actually, it is not a problem in the slightest, if we use modern designs like the Integral Fast Reactor. Current reactors only extract a few percent of the energy from the Uranium, and throw out the rest. Merely by recycling this "waste", any new Uranium mining can be delayed for certuries.

      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*

      Using the aforementioned technology renders the waste problem inconsequential. More than that, it is likely to actually improve the waste situation; these reactors burn away all of the really nasty elements, and the little remaining waste is much safer and (relatively) very short lived.

      Furthermore, the design is passively safe, and meltdowns are impossible.

      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.

      The search is over. Of course we should continue to investigate other technologies, but we have a perfectly workable and very nearly ideal one staring us in the face. For the foreseeable future, this is the silver bullet.

      In any case, holding out for something like the Tokamak is a waste of time. While a Fusion machine, in the end, it is hardly radiation free; the neutronic fusion reactions will slowly irradiate the hundreds of tons of reactor, which will eventually need to be disposed of and replaced.

      Much more interesting and promising in my opinion is the Polywell, conceived of by Dr. Robert Bussard. The device seems like it may be perfectly feasible in the short term, and would have so many advantages, that it is madness not to make the minimal investment. I'm not going to discount Tokamak research, but we should really be investigating the alternatives as well. Anyway, here is Dr. Bussard's Google talk as well, for those who missed it: Should Google Go Nuclear?
    10. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, environmental groups are suing wind generator operators.

      http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-04-win dmills-usat_x.htm

      There's a similar story down in Arkansas.

    11. Re:Let the flamewares begin! by Abcd1234 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I doubt that many run into skyscrapers.

      You might wanna do a little research before making claims like this. For example, ignoring the clear sensationalism (it's MSNBC, after all), I have here an article where a researcher claims to have studied skyscrapes which kill 200 birds per day .

  4. Ugh, too bad by BrainInAJar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  5. People are not safe by bl8n8r · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They find the quickest way to make money for the least amount of work. Whether it's building a reactor, managing it, or turning the little knobs, people eventually go for the Easy Button. That kind of mentality does not historically* mix well with nuclear power. Another problem is accountability. Nobody (sans the religeous nutjobs) wants to get blamed for contaminating the globe so problems like these will always be minimzed and covered up; if even made public at all.

    [*]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_mile_island
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Nuclear_Pow er_Plant#Accidents

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
  6. Statute of limitations by tokyopimpdaddy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Sadly, the only reason we're even getting this news is because they're safely outside the three year statute of limitations (or local equivalent) so these morons can't be sent to court and buried with some control rods in a pit somewhere.

    I admit I take things like this kind of personally because my family and I live within striking distance of these incidents.

    This is the sad side of a culture which doesn't question or criticize. If people want to hide their dirty laundry in an accounting or business situation, fine, but let's not hide whether or not Suzuki-san was watching the dial...

    I hope they go over these folks as rabidly as they went after Horie...

    --
    Zenwalk 4 - GNU/Linux Athlon XP2500+
    Mac OS X 10.4.x MacBook Core Duo 2GHz
    WinXP Athlon64 3700+ DFI/Nvidia6800
  7. Re:SELL it to them, for oil! by soccerisgod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Oh, and how is that going to work? Unlike oil pipelines, you can't just have a power cable running around the earth for 1000s of miles. If it was that easy, we could just plaster all the deserts with solar power cells and never think about charcoal or uranium ever again.

    --
    If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
  8. I never thought I'd say this... by WgT2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I never thought I'd refer to France as exemplary... So, here it goes:

    Has France ever had this problem?
  9. I just love it when people hate nuclear power by watomb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

  10. That makes two accidents in 1999 by mdsolar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The one with fatalities is listed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nucl ear_accidents here. This raises a very serious issue. How complete is the list of accidents? The one in 2006 in Sweden suggests that modern plants can't be operated safely but that the risk of a very large accident is one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. If the list is very incomplete, as this cover up might urge us to consider, then the risk of large accidents could be much higher than one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. In that case, increasing our reliance on nuclear power seems foolhardy and decommisioning existing plants on an accelerated schedule would be a good policy to adopt.
    --
    Fusion power today: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

    1. Re:That makes two accidents in 1999 by kad77 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In your mind, an ever running public wiki of the names, date of birth and location of every human ever involved in a nuclear accident may sound important. It is not. Organizations that matter are aware of the risks, benefits.

      Unfortunately, too many 'flat earth' types are hindering scientific and technological progress with their foolish FUD campaigns and political action committees-- hindering third world countries efforts to build fossil fuel burning stations to provide basic services to their impoverished citizens. The same over-reactionary fear mongers (Rory Kennedy comes to mind) are hampering the US from even catching up with China in developing nuclear power stations.

      These anti-thought efforts keeps the country stuck burning fossil fuel. The 'alternatives' are highly impractical on a mass scale. We can't produce nearly enough biofuel to run 50% of our energy use, especially without driving food prices high worldwide. Who does that effect? THE POOR. Yeah, less manufacture a million+ tons of chemical batteries to run our cars on. THATS A GOOD IDEA.

      Fine, build a windmill in your backyard. But stop telling me that we can't develop pebble bed reactors because you are running scared of nuclear fission technology. Your feel good politics are bringing down the worlds quality of life. Please, think critically.

    2. Re:That makes two accidents in 1999 by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      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/photosynthesis .html. But, wind and solar are not limited in this way so you seem to be selecting you example rather poorly.

    3. Re:That makes two accidents in 1999 by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Conservatively 4000 to 9000 deaths. Most likely the 5000 deaths of newborns is a solid number and you may scale this report as you like http://www.ippnw-students.org/chernobyl/research.h tml but clearly the large number of birth defects is not and illusion. The UN figures are given here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Th e_Chernobyl_Forum_report.

    4. Re:That makes two accidents in 1999 by Aglassis · · Score: 2, Informative

      The one in 2006 in Sweden suggests that modern plants can't be operated safely but that the risk of a very large accident is one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. If the list is very incomplete, as this cover up might urge us to consider, then the risk of large accidents could be much higher than one in forty years at the present level of reliance on nuclear power. In that case, increasing our reliance on nuclear power seems foolhardy and decommisioning existing plants on an accelerated schedule would be a good policy to adopt. You do not have a clue about nuclear safety. As someone who was personally responsible for the safety of a nuclear reactor I can tell you are just fear-mongering. You have cited some abstract fear (that accidents aren't reported) that you somehow use to rubberstamp fear about every design of nuclear reactor, including in a latter post the pebble bed reactor. Do you have justification that the US industry is not safe and not reporting its issues? You damn well better because you are claiming that the US nuclear industry, along with that of France, Canada, the UK, etc., are operating unsafely because of failures in Japan and Sweden. Oh and before you decide to cite your little list, you had better be damn sure that your 'accidents' affect reactor safety, not just vent a little radioactive gas into the atmosphere or spill a little radioactive water (which compromises >90%) of your list.

      But before we continue, the only question that I really need you to answer is what is your history of analyzing the safety of *any* industrial system? Or do you assume that any Joe off the street can analyze industrial systems (and in particular, nuclear systems) without detailed knowledge of their theory of operation, design requirements, QA system, formal procedures, operator training, monitoring systems (what you might call a meta-operator system), or regulatory requirements? Have you performed any operational risk analysis studies? Reactor protection analysis studies? Do you even know what 'QA' stands for? Can you tell me why switching off the cooling pumps during the TMI accident increased the severity of the casualty? Or what type of experiment were the operators at Chernobyl performing? What I'm asking is for a little credibility before you damn the entire world nuclear industry. You are asking the nuclear industry to prove a negative result so I am curious to how you have analyzed the problem that will affect things from jobs to global warming to the number of people who die due to pollution from coal plants.
      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    5. Re:That makes two accidents in 1999 by mdsolar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

  11. Nuclear cycle by iwein · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is always bugging me a bit. But I'll give it a shot again:

    1. Mining.
    This is the same as any other kind of mining, just that what you dig up is a bit more dangerous, so you'll have to be carefull. No fundamental problems here.

    2. Reaction
    No fundamental problems here, just handling dangerous materials, have to be careful. The good thing is that you'll actually reduce the amount of radioactive material in the reactor.

    3. Waste
    Well now you just put the material that remains back were it came from. End result: less radioactive stuff in the globe. No fundamental problem here. You could even put it in one of those trenches on the bottom of the ocean. Then it would naturally transported to the earts core, mixed through the magma and only resurface in a few milion years or so...

    The story is a little bit more complicated and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel/ is of course nasty, but in the end there is less plutonium and less uranium 238 and those are by far the most dangerous, right?

    --
    Show a man some news, distract him for an hour. Show a man some mod points, distract him for the rest of his life.
    1. Re:Nuclear cycle by GooberToo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rule #1 when discussing anything nuclear. 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. The second rule of debating nuclear power, never mention Chernobyl.

      Here are the Chernobyl facts:
      o Chernobyl only has a single containment shell which is thinner what anyone considers safe for a single layer of a double layer containment design. In other words, any non-Russia design has two containment shells, both single layers are thicker than what Chernobly provided with its single shell. Why? Because its dangerously stupid to do it that way.

      o Chernobyl has fewer safety mechanisms that is considered safe by the world, even as far back at the 1950s. Basically, all non-Russia designers have deemed Chernobyl a worst case accident waiting to happen and unfit to be built. Only in technologically inferior Russia could such a design be approved. Even by Three Mile Island standards, where some monitoring equipment was not installed, Chernobol is third world sub standard. This is important because by the time Three Mile island went online, even its monitoring equipment was considered sub standard by its opponents.

      o What little was installed for Chernobyl's auxilary cooling systems were non-functional and in need of repair. They were offline. Ignoring all non-Russian operated reactors, the reactor would have been taken offline as a matter of safety protocol.

      o But small penis Russia had something to prove, so they DISABLED their remaining safeties! Followed by a mandate from the Russian government that they begin a series of very dangerous tests. These tests would be considered dangerous for any fully operational, non-Russian reactor. In otherwords, basic protocols say you NEVER do these types of tests on a full scale reactor unless the reactor is specifically designed for these types of tests.

      o And oh, let's make sure they do these tests while the reactor has a skeleton crew. Basically, they had so few people, they could never hope to react to any real emergency.

      So in a nut shell, we have a design that is so flawed, it could NEVER contain any type of serious accident and by worldly comparison, is considered ufit and should never have been built. Most of its backup systems were never installed and what few were installed, were not operative and in need of repair. Both common sense and basic safety protocols were already violated yet they contained to run. What few safetys remain were purposely disabled by the skeleton crew to allow for a series of very dangerous tests. The tests caused a run away which any other non-Russian design would have safely handled. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume a non-Russian reactor would of failed...but all non-Russian containment shells would have properly contained the situation causing only a minimum of radioactive venting. And that's still assuming a 1960 - 1970s reactor design. Modern designs would simply melt into a slag, shutting down the runaway, preventing any and all containment loss.

      Long story short, anyone that thinks Chernobyl is in any way, shape, or form an example of how dangerous nuclear power is is ignorant of the subject, and unworthy to debate it. Pointing to Chernobyl as a posterboy makes as much sense as pointing at a standard bomb and declaring nuclear is dangerous. Chernobly is a posterboy of how small Russia's penis is and nothing more. In otherwords, if one wanted to spread radioactive contamination over a huge area, you do it, by design, EXACTLY how Russia did it. Chernobyl is a posterboy of how to build a bomb while calling it a power plant.

      If anything, it proves that we don't want Russia building nuclear power plants. If anything, it proves that Russia is technologically incompetent. If anything, it proves that the Russian government is unethical and immorale. If

    2. Re:Nuclear cycle by TuballoyThunder · · Score: 3, Interesting
      The key point about Cheynobyl is that the RBMK reactor uses graphite as a moderator, which has a positive temperature coefficient in reactivity. A water moderated reactor (the type used by almost all other reactors) has a negative temperature coefficient. As temperature increases, a graphite moderated reactor will have an increase in reactivity. Thus, the safety issues with graphite-moderated reactors goes beyond a design shortcut and straight to the underlying physics.

      The turbine spin-down test that the Soviets were attempting to do was not particularly dangerous and was a reasonable test. The Soviets wanted to determine how long the generators would be turned by the turbines if the site lost power from the electrical grid and steam production was lost (low reactor power, ruptured steam line, etc). The turbine spin-down time would provide information on how long they had to bring the diesel-powered generators online.

      The problem was in the design of the test protocol and the lack of oversight by nuclear engineers. The test required that the power levels of the reactor be decreased. About 13 hours after the reactor was brought down to 50% power (1600 MWt), the reactor was ordered by the electric-grid dispatcher to resume full power in order to meet demand. At that point, if a nuclear engineer was in charge, would have postponed the test for several days because of Xe-135 production, which has a huge neutron absorption cross-section (it eats neutrons).

      Instead of terminating the test, the test director resumes the test and orders the reactor power to be decreased. The operators fail to program the computer to maintain power at the 700 MWt to 1000 MWt. The excess of Xe-135 causes the power to fall to 30 MWt, so the operators withdrew the majority of the control rods in order to maintain power. Soon after, all eight coolant pumps were activated in order to keep the reactor cool after the test. The fact that the high-flow rate was part of the test protocol is unusual because it violated the operating rules, however, the automatic-scram was bypassed for the test. If a nuclear engineer was in charge, the test should have been terminated before this step (not because of the high-flow rate, though). The increased flow rate decreased the reactivity (remember graphite has a positive temperature coefficient), which require additional control rod withdrawl to maintain reactor power level. These control rod withdrawls was in violation of the operating procedures for the reactor. The fact that the operators were having difficulty in maintaining power was a big warning that there was a lot factors contributing negative reactivity to the system (Xe-135 poisoning, excessive heat removal).

      At this point, the reactor is too difficult to control automatically, so the operators assumed manual control and turned off more of the emergency shutdown signals. One minute before the accident, the computer indicated excess reactivity was present and the operators blocked the emergency shutdown. Power started to increase rapidly (through the magic of a positive temperature coefficient) and the reactor operators began insertion of the control rods. This step had the opposite effect because the control rods had graphite leaders on them (in order to maintain symmetry when fully inserted). The graphite leaders introduced additional positive reactivity and displaced water (thus removing a source of negative reactivity). The power increased further because of this step. The reactor had several pules in power in the 100 - 500 time normal power range for about 4 seconds.

      The operators at Chernobyl were some of the best in the Soviet Union, but were not adequately trained. The test director did not fully understand the safety requirements and was under pressure to complete the test before the May Day holiday. In addition, the next scheduled down time for the reactor would the next year. There was also a poor chain-of-command (too many "bosses") and the test planning process did not involve the desig

    3. Re:Nuclear cycle by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    4. Re:Nuclear cycle by clambake · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  12. Critical State? by markass530 · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's been a few years (and a lot of beer) since I went through the navy's nuclear power program, so I can no long speak about it like an expert, but this i know a "Critical State" is just what happens when a nuclear reactor is producing power. It's fucking annoying to hear it announced like it's a bad thing. If it inadvertently entered this state, it could be bad a suppose, but as long as the hafnium rods where avaialable to be shoved back down in there to stem the reaction this wouldn't be a problem?

    1. Re:Critical State? by NewbieProgrammerMan · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's fucking annoying to hear it announced like it's a bad thing. If it inadvertently entered this state, it could be bad a suppose, but as long as the hafnium rods where avaialable to be shoved back down in there to stem the reaction this wouldn't be a problem?

      I know what you mean about the misuse of the term "critical," but I think in this case it is the proper term to describe a bad thing. In the first situation a reactor (presumably shut down for maintenance, probably with no systems to come to the rescue with lots of negative reactivity) becomes critical without anybody knowing about it for 15 minutes. Remember that there's not a lot of margin between critical and prompt critical (which I'm sure you probably remember as very bad), and sometimes it might not be hard to go from one to the other. Ask the guy that got pinned to the ceiling at SL-1 if having a reactor enter a critical state while you're not looking can be bad.

      In the second situation some poor schlub is pouring a solution containing some fissile material into a bucket and it goes critical on him. Personally, I'd find an up-close-and-personal dose of neutrons from a bucket at arm's length to be a bad start to the day.

      IMHO a critical assembly is nothing to worry about as long as (1) it's got instruments (and alert people) watching it that can trigger some rapid negative reactivity and (2) there's lots of shielding between me and and the assembly.

      --
      [b.belong('us') for b in bases if b.owner() == 'you']
  13. Don't let the sin... by Ngarrang · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...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
  14. Nuclear Plants a danger? by Herkum01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  15. Reference? by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Besides incredibly trivial things like replacing our light bulbs with CFDs and turning off our power when we go outside, which is a *trivial* amount of savings, there's not much humans can do to save power.
    Do you have a reference? I do not think that statement is true.

    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.
  16. We can handle nuke power just fine. by gaijin99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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
  17. Re:False choice by ShakaUVM · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In terms of safety, reliability, prudence and, now, price the renewable resources win.

    No, Nuclear is much, much cheaper than any "alternative" energy sources.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_controv ersy#Economics

    Safety? Reliability?

    Compare
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disa sters_by_death_toll#Flood_disasters
    and
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disa sters_by_death_toll#Coal_mine_disasters
    with
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_disa sters_by_death_toll#Nuclear_accidents

    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.

  18. The small-uranium-reserves fallacy by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Informative

    I keep seeing this point labored again and again, yet it's simply not true. The assumption of having only 80 years of uranium only applies if 1) you consider only the reserves available at current market prices, a minuscule fraction of the world's total known reserves, and 2) don't consider the use of breeder reactors, which process fuel ~100 times more efficiently than conventional light water reactors do.

    Plus, there's thorium, which is three times as common as uranium and also fissile.

    Sources:
    http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionG.htm#uranium_ supply
    http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen. html
    http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html