Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Tritium Leak

mdsolar writes "The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois (Braidwood, Byron and Dresden), Arizona (Palo Verde), and New York (Indian Point). Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France. Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3. What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"

Comments

WTF is up with the summary?

[HornWumpus]

Is this the fucking Greenpeace sight?

Can't we keep the Luddites from being /. editors?

Re:WTF is up with the summary?

[SpeedyDX]

I don't think Greenpeace supporters are luddites, their views are just lean a little too far over.

My problem with Greenpeace is in their ridiculous stunts that not only endanger themselves, but others around them. Oh, also that they blatantly misinform the public to push their agenda, but that's par for the course for many political groups.

Re:WTF is up with the summary?

[ductonius]

I tried to find any anti-nuclear spin (no pun intended) there, but couldn't find any.

The fact that your spin-detector can't sense anything from the summary is indicative of greater problems.

But I digress. Let's begin with the title.

Another Crumbling Reactor Springs a Tritium Leak

Of the seven words in that title, three are designed to create a perception of the situation that is far worse than reality.

"Another": indicating more than one, or the latest in a series, or a connection to a greater ongoing situation. This is a spin word because it gives the impression that tritium leaks are special events that deserve special attention. This is not true. Reactors have been known for a very long time to create tritium and leak it, sometimes deliberately. CANDU reactors release tritium into the surrounding environment as a consequence of their design. They are allowed to do this because such leaks are not dangerous.

"Crumbling": indicating an advanced state of disrepair and decrepitude, a state of 'going to pieces', extreme unsoundness in structure or the inability to support it's own weight. This is a spin word because only a technical, literal definition of "crumbling" can apply to the reactor in question, the same definition that can be applied to anything, because everything not being created is in a state of entropic decay.

"Springs": indicating a sudden or forceful event. This is a spin word because it gives a false picture of what is plausibly taking place. Many reactors leak tritium as it diffuses through concrete and steel or in their cooling water. Any sudden or forceful leak of tritium would most likely be accompanied by a sudden and forceful leak of super-heated steam, which obviously hasn't happened.

Onto the summary.

"The decrepit nuclear reactor Vermont Yankee has sprung a radioactive leak similar to those at other poorly run reactors in Illinois (Braidwood, Byron and Dresden), Arizona (Palo Verde), and New York (Indian Point).

"Decrepit", "sprung" and "poorly run" are all loaded words. They make unsupported judgments about the reactor in question. The supposed problem is then also attributed to a number of other reactors the reader may or may not know about. This sentence assumes a problem and is constructed to make it appear to be widespread.

The use of the words "radioactive leak" is also spin, since anything radioactive escaping from anywhere can be counted. Dropping an ionizing smoke detector on the ground could be described as a "radioactive leak".

Greenpeace noted 3 years ago that radioactive tritium leaks even threaten Champagne from France.

This is spin, but it relies on the reader taking Greenpeace to be in a position of authority to make such judgments.

Tritium and its decay product helium 3 are incredibly valuable and there is currently a shortage of helium 3.

This is the only non-spin sentence in the summary. It may or may not be factually correct, I don't know, but it's stated as a fact and does not contain any loaded language I can see.

What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"

The spin here is the loaded question which implies that the current release of tritium into the environment is a problem worthy of attention and further control.

So, yeah, there's the anti-nuclear spin. Lots of loaded words, ill-defined terms, misleading wording and an appeal to authority thrown in to boot.

Re:WTF is up with the summary?

[ductonius]

radioactive materials are notoriously corrosive

No they aren't. The earth's atmosphere is notoriously corrosive. Most radioactive materials are just, well, radioactive.

Is it that little fact that radiation causes cancer? Because that is true you know.

Sure, but most radiation induced cancers probably come from sunlight and radon gas, not a tritium leak virtually nobody is exposed to in any meaningful dose.

Re:WTF is up with the summary?

[paeanblack]

Other than the fact that it passingly mentions Greenpeace at all, what do you find wrong with the summary?

The fact that tritium is one of the worlds most expensive manufactured materials and sells for somewhere on the order of $50,000 / gram

The fact that tritium is relatively harmless; it is used for glow-in-the-dark effects on watch dials, exit signs, etc, cost permitting.

Are we to believe that a for-profit company that is already in the business of selling tritium runs a reactor that "sprung" a tritium "leak", and they have no incentive to do anything about it?

Re:WTF is up with the summary?

[dbIII]

It sums up many industries in general and goes in cycles. When Three Mile Island was designed great care was taken and the containment building was designed to withstand the impact of a fully fueled large aircraft from the nearby airport. By the time of the accident complacency had set in and the control systems were inferior to just about every industrial plant in the USA - it took many days to get a clue as to what was going on. The care taken early on turned it into the best type of accident, nobody died and preventative work was done to avoid accidents in places without the benefit of such good containment. After that things improved dramaticly.
By the time things got slack again Chenobyl reminded everyone to stop taking stupid shortcuts. Now we've got to a point where it's just written off as dumb Russians and the superior people in the USA can never make mistakes even if they are taking stupid shortcuts - you'll see that attitude very strongly exhibited every time Chenobyl here. Patriotic fervour is not going to save anyone doing stupid stuff from the consequences of their actions - Russian stupidity, American stupidity - it's all stuipid. It's a matter of putting things under competant adult supervision instead of the usual horse judges or waiting for something that will scare the horse judges into action and hope it's a TMI and not a Chenobyl. That is what regulatory agencies are for but if someone is stupid enough to hide things from them for commericial advantage everyone loses.
New designs small enough that they can never fail as dramaticly as either accident are an option but the old US nuclear lobby is pushing 1970s crap with a coat of green paint. New stuff requires R&D which is something the nuclear lobby hasn't really done in thirty years. South Africa and Australia are way ahead in some areas on tiny as distinct from zero budgets. If the nuclear lobby had actually tried to do more than collect welfare then civilian nuclear power may have actually become a commercial proposition by now.

Re:What could be done?

[geekmux]

Build new nuclear reactors, specifically of the design that, either, doesn't use tritium or is melt down proof. Why are the same people that bitch about the safety of nuclear reactors all at once the people whole also hold it back from being a, somewhat, excellent energy source? Uncool green peace, uncool.

Exactly. We should be embracing the technology and improving it with newer installations and better designs. But instead, I'm sure we'll hear from every anti-group in the world about how this leak is the sign of the apocalypse or some nonsense.

We seem to have done a pretty damn good job with the automobile over the last 50 years of improvements. Why we can't seem to do the same thing with this energy source is beyond me.

Re:Carbon taxes

[Shatrat]

...or you could bring the cost of nuclear down through cutting red tape for building new ones and funding research into more efficient ones and not punish the consumers who will be stuck with coal in the meantime.
I guess that doesn't fatten the right purses though, does it?

Self-inflicted

[OverlordQ]

What, besides shutting down leaky old nuclear plants, could be done to better control release of tritium into the environment?"

Well maybe if somebody, HINT HINT, would let us build new, safer, and more efficient ones, instead of having to rely on the older ones.

Re:What could be done?

[PsychoSlashDot]

Aside from cost, public opinion is the real factor holding back exactly what you describe. It's a total case of NIMBY. Not in my back yard. "Nobody" wants a nuclear anything anywhere near them. Nuclear bad. Radiation bad. Eeeeevil.

So. All you need to do is convince everyone you meet to stop being afraid of nuclear energy. While you're at it, please do the same for fears of the boogeyman, terrorists, cloning, cancer, and people with different coloured skin.

Re:Lame

[Nimey]

kdawson's the posting editor. 'Nuff said.

I need to know how fast the sky is falling!

[Quadraginta]

You've got to love the innumeracy of the reporter on this article:

by Wednesday, the contamination had jumped to 17,000 parts per liter.

Ah yes, parts per liter. One of those quaint old-fashioned units of concentration, I guess, like horsepower per cubit. I wish someone could remind me how we convert to a more familiar unit like grams per liter, moles per liter, parts per million.

Re:What could be done?

[cheesybagel]

Any nuclear fission reactor generates neutrons. If water is used in the reactor (e.g. for cooling), some of the hydrogen in the water will absorb neutrons and become deuterium or tritium. If the reactor uses heavy water (e.g. CANDU reactor, which is not the case here) tritium production is maximized, since you need to absorb less neutrons to produce the same amount of tritium. Tritium is a weak beta emitter, so it is only dangerous if you ingest it in sufficient amounts. It decays into stable Helium-3. Even natural water has some trace amounts of tritium in it. FWIW the maximum permissible level of Tritium in Canada is way, way larger than in the USA. Guess where the 'C' in CANDU comes from...

FWIW Tritium is not the thing I am most concerned about in terms of nuclear waste. Iodine-131 or Strontium-90, now those are nasty.