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."

Comments

New race of mutants

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Let the flamewares begin!

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

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.

Re:Let the flamewares begin!

[KDR_11k]

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.

Re:Let the flamewares begin!

[sphealey]

> 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

Re:Let the flamewares begin!

[DaleGlass]

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.

Re:SELL it to them, for oil!

[soccerisgod]

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.

I just love it when people hate nuclear power

[watomb]

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

Critical State?

[markass530]

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?

Nuclear Plants a danger?

[Herkum01]

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?

Reference?

[an.echte.trilingue]

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.