Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Explosion At French Nuclear Site Kills One

Posted by samzenpus on from the someone-save-the-camembert dept.

syngularyx writes "An explosion took place in an oven Monday at the Marcoule nuclear site near the city of Nimes in the south of France. From the article: 'One person was killed and three were injured in the explosion, following a fire in a storage site for radioactive waste, Le Figaro newspaper said. It is a major site involved with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. emergency services said.'" Update: 09/12 16:20 GMT by S : Changed headline and summary to reflect that there seems to be no risk of a leak.

41 of 262 comments (clear)

  1. Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone and no one gives a rats ass.

    Deaths per terawatt hour (from nextbigfuture.com):

    Coal – world average: 161
    Coal – China: 278
    Coal – USA: 15
    Oil: 36
    Natural Gas: 4
    Biofuel/Biomass: 12
    Peat: 12
    Solar: 0.44
    Wind: 0.15
    Hydro: 0.10
    Nuclear: 0.04

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Rhaban · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It makes sense to compare the safety of different means for producing energy. the number of workers, or the cause of death is irrelevant: if more people die to produce the same amount of energy, then this kind of energy is more dangerous to produce.

    2. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by kent_eh · · Score: 5, Informative

      In other news:
      a petroleum pipeline explosion has killed at least 100 so far today in Kenya.
      From linked article:

      "The scene is horrific, with charred bodies all around. I cannot differentiate between men and women or boys and girls. All that is left are bones, and the only way to identify the children is from their smaller skeletons."

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    3. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.

      Depends what the discussion is about. If the discussion is at a national energy policy level, then the question is really "Given that we need X kWhr per year to do everything we want to do, what is the 'best' way to get that much power?" Then for 'best' we can decide what tradeoff we want between cheap, reliable, safe, etc. So if we're talking about the safety of various energy sources, then certainly the death rate per terawatt-hour is (one of) the right metrics.

      If a given industry can give us the same number of TW-hr with fewer injuries and deaths, then that's a good thing. (They may acheive that through fewer workers/more automation, or better safety regulations, or using an inherently less dangerous energy source, or whatever...)

      Also including solar makes not mcuh sense either, or? I mean how can you possibly die if you are involved somehow in solar energy production?

      Well that's the point, isn't it? There are fewer ways to have deaths and accidents with solar power, which makes it a safer way to generate energy. That's a point in its favor. To ignore the fact that solar is safer than many other modern energy sources does a disservice to solar, by ignoring one of its advantages.

      So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop?

      If we're having a debate about the most dangerous rooftop work, then you could go ahead and do that comparison. If we're doing a comparison of the most dangerous energy source, then comparing solar to shingling a roof is a waste of time: what matters is how solar energy compares to nuclear energy, coal energy, etc.

      On the road driving to work? Falling from a roof while installing a paneel?

      Interestingly, most injuries and deaths in the nuclear industry are from industrial accidents. None (in the US, at least) are from radiation exposure. When I took a tour of a research reactor, they told me that by far the most dangerous aspect of working in the reactor building was the crane. The radiation exposure is very low on the risk of hazards that a rad worker encounters (because shielding, monitoring, etc. are so rigorous).

    4. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by djmurdoch · · Score: 3, Informative

      The linked source claims there are 30000 deaths per year from coal, and 2000 Twh. Those are roughly consistent with your numbers.

      They aren't all coal miners, so it's also consistent with the OP.

    5. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, because Uran-miners often don't die in mining accidents. They cannot continue to work due to cancer, whose causation cannot be proven to be from the working environment.

      No, the difference is that we mine far less uranium than we do coal.

      Note that it requires about 10,000 times as much coal as natural uranium (the kind you get out of the ground and then enrich to make nuclear fuel) to produce a given amount of energy.

      If we were to replace all electricity production in the USA with nuclear plants, we'd need to mine less than one tenth the uranium to run them all than the coal required for ONE big coal-fired plant.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by urusan · · Score: 2

      Accounting for a higher number of workers per terawatt isn't that important. Even if the excess deaths were primarily driven by the number of workers, the fact that it puts so many more workers in danger is still a problem.

      Also, as you mention, solar-related deaths are probably almost all due to just plain everyday accidents. This sets a nice baseline level of danger and implies that the deaths in the bottom four entries are probably driven mostly by workers per terawatt. This makes sense because of the energy density of solar vs nuclear. In any case, in order for coal deaths to be driven by this factor alone there would have to be 366 times as many workers working in coal production per terawatt than solar (34 times as many if you restrict it to the US alone). This heavily implies that the extra deaths are due to a higher level of danger rather than simply more workers.

    7. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's when you drink too much Brawndo.

    8. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by jovius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The risk depends on where the energy is produced too, so the metric is not absolute.

      The procedures and technology can be improved. The solar/wind/hydro deaths for example are calculated from resource mining, construction and maintenance related fatalities (/resource or /profession in general population) : http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html That article precedes the one that OP referenced and provides the methodology.

      The nuclear comes out as the safest probably because of the strict safety guidelines and the fact that not anyone can maintain a nuclear power station. Should the same kind of methods be enforced to all energy related activities in society the renewables (and coal too) would appear a lot more safer.

    9. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Also, if you had a starship that could travel to Alpha Centauri killing half the passengers it would be the safest form of transport - when measured by the aircraft industry standard terms of deaths per passenger mile.


      (If you think this is off-topic - think about it some more)

    10. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Altus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      which would be reflected in the total amount of power produced by a particular source.

      --

      "In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the power, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson

    11. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Goaway · · Score: 2

      So? The relevant statistic, deaths per terawatt hour, was given.

    12. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by djmurdoch · · Score: 2

      No, T is tera. 1 TWh is 1000 GWh. 314 GW corresponds to 2750640 GWh, or 2751 TWh.

    13. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Toonol · · Score: 2

      The only reference I could find was as some sort of ridiculous alternative medical treatment. In the context the poster was using it, I can't find anything. I'm guessing the poster was subtly trolling?

    14. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by Rei · · Score: 2

      Your link is one of the most irresponsible, shoddy pieces of "reporting" I've seen in a long time. I followed back their web of references until I finally found their source. The numbers for coal cited by their source are 0.04-0.14 or 0.13-0.23 occupational deaths per TWh for coal, and 0.01-1.23, 0.65, or 0.62 public fatalities per TWh for nuclear and 0.02-0.09, 0.04, or 0.02 occupational fatalities per kWh.

      In short, their numbers cited are total BS.

      Let's look at the rest of the graph that the author *didn't* want to talk about. First, public health costs (all numbers hereon are in milli-euros per kWh):

      Coal: 0.05, 0.01-0.07, 0.01-0.64, 3-5, 4-13, 5-14, 10-50
      Nuclear: 4.9, 0.003-0.009, 0.001-0.005, 0.012, 2.4, 2.4

      From that, we can see that coal is likely worse than nuclear for public health, but different researchers can't even come *close* to agreeing on the risk. It's likely that the nuclear disparity is dependent on whether or not you include accidents or just "business as usual" operation.

      Now, occupational health costs:

      Coal: 0.08, 1-2
      Nuclear: 0.08-0.09, 0.15, 0.14

      Possibly the same, possibly safer to work in a nuclear power plant than a coal mine. And now, environmental costs (I have no idea how they quantify these):

      Coal: 0.005, 0.013-0.015, 0-0.1, 0.1, 0.2-0.8, 0.02, 0.5-2
      Nuclear: 0-0.002

      And lastly, global warming (the one case that nuclear wins hands-down):

      Coal: 0.04, 10-18, 15, 10-50
      Nuclear: 0.0012, 0.0012

      But, of course, this is A Total Red Herring, because virtually nobody is proposing to replace nuclear power plants with coal power plants. The general counterproposal is to use some combination of wind, solar (with or without thermal storage), geothermal, dam uprating for peaking, pumped hydro storage, NG peaking, and long-distance transmission for load averaging.

      --
      Musk needs a safer hobby than Twitter. Fire juggling? Cage fighting? Solo hot air balloon trips?
    15. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by gfreeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once you can drive a car to Alpha Centauri that will become a meaningful statistic.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un sig.
    16. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by dryeo · · Score: 2

      Interestingly, most injuries and deaths in the nuclear industry are from industrial accidents. None (in the US, at least) are from radiation exposure. When I took a tour of a research reactor, they told me that by far the most dangerous aspect of working in the reactor building was the crane. The radiation exposure is very low on the risk of hazards that a rad worker encounters (because shielding, monitoring, etc. are so rigorous).

      There are probably more deaths involved in uranium mining then working in a reactor. This is one problem with the pro nuclear folks, cherry picking statistics even though in this case uranium mining is probably still far safer then coal mining it doesn't look good cherry picking.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining#Health_risks_of_uranium_mining

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    17. Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      But it's got electrolytes.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  2. RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The article states that there is NO risk of a radioactive leak. Geeezuz H Me, couldn't someone vet this stuff before it gets posted?

    1. Re:RTFA! by alci63 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well... the article says the Nuclear Safety Authority _says_ there is no risk of radioactive leak. They also said the radioactive cloud from Tchernobyl stopped at the country borders :-)

    2. Re:RTFA! by Issarlk · · Score: 5, Funny

      In France, radioactive clouds stop at the country borders. And even if they were to somehow fly over the country, it wouldn't be the cause of an increase of thyroid cancers. Nuclear energy is pretty safe in France.

    3. Re:RTFA! by skyraker · · Score: 2

      No, the Russian government said that, and they said that after everyone knew about it because the cloud had already made it to another country. This explosion was in a waste furnace. It doesn't produce radiation. The only risk is very local depending on how much contamination was in the furnace at the time, which wouldn't be a whole lot. This isn't a reactor.

  3. Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Informative

    Freak, an oven exploded killing a working in the plant. There IS NO LEAK. THEY EXPECT NO LEAK. THEY DO NOT EXPECT A LEAK!
    FREAKING HECK PEOPLE!!!!!
    If this was a Lego factory no one would care.
    We had two workers die at my local power plant. They where putting giant snow flakes on the smoke stacks for Christmas! Really this is just to the point of being shameful.
    HOW BAD IS THIS TITLE!
    From the link in the story!!!!!!!!!!
    "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials."
    REALLY JUST SHUT DOWN SLASHDOT your are killing it with your abuse!

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by cultiv8 · · Score: 4, Informative
      My favorite line FTA:

      There are no nuclear reactors at the southern French site

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    2. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 3

      This is shameful. Come on I know Slashdot is like a skin mag and we don't really read it for the articles, but this is Daily Mail-quality reporting here.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Oxygen99 · · Score: 2

      Would this be the same "they" who concocted the tissue of lies and half truths regarding the damage to the Fukushima plant, or is it some other reputable "they" who always tell the truth, no matter the personal cost, when something bad happens to their employers on their watch?

      Frankly, in light of the current reputation of the nuclear industry, I think it's understandable people might be a little oversensitive to, ooh, I don't know, explosions at a nuclear waste processing site.

      Rather a healthy skepticism about the words of a tarnished industry than a collective head in the sand blindly accepting the word of PR as truth. Sheesh. You're just as bad as those who insist on claiming the sky is falling all the time.

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    4. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Oxygen99 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Heh, I know it's bad form to reply to your own post, but a quote from the Guardian story on this made me laugh.

      The papers said the body of one male worker at the plant had been "found carbonised", but it added that there was no evidence that the explosion had "caused any radioactive leak".

      A spokesman for the French atomic energy authority told journalists: "For the moment, there is nothing coming out."

      Emphasis, mine, obviously.

      --
      I had a dream, bright and carefree, but now there's doubt and gravity
    5. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by horza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. This is beyond pathetic. One of the first sentences is "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast" and later it says there are no nuclear reactors on that site. The fact somebody was killed in an industrial accident is sad, not matter how many times it happens each day, but the nuclear element is spurious.

      There is nothing quoted that even insinuates there is a remote possibility of a leak, and so I agree with lwatcdr that the whole Slashdot post is a made-up lie. This is majorly damaging to the reputation of Slashdot.

      Phillip.

      --
      Property for sale in Nice, France
    6. Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! by Anonyme+Connard · · Score: 2

      THERE IS a nuclear reactor on the site, along with a storage facility for highly radioactive wastes from others reactors, research facilities and plants producing nuclear fuel for civilian and military applications.
      The part of the site concerned is dealing with low radioactive waste, but THERE IS a risk of leak. Probably not really dangerous, nothing compared with Chernobyl or Fukushima, but hey.
      The site is known for recent radioactive leaks, of small quantities, that the authority first DENIED.

  4. From Here : by dvaldenaire · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hi there,

    I am french, and i can tell you all : there are no problem in nuclear here. Never. Go back to sleep. Thanks for your attention.

    In fact, here in France, it is almost illegal to put "problem" and "nuclear" in the same sentence without any negation...

    --
    What does it mean, "appended to the end of comments you post"
    1. Re:From Here : by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am a big supporter of nuclear Energy and I think a lot of the world has an irrational fear of nuclear energy. However to ignore and not respects the dangers of it too is just as irresponsible. Part of the reason for Nuclear Energy Safety is the fact that people do have a healthy fear of it. Preventing people from cutting corners on safety.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  5. The first line of the article disagrees... by The+Pirou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no risk of a radioactive leak according to the article referenced or several other articles referencing the incident.

  6. On the front page of the CBC by perp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Headline: French nuclear waste site blast kills at least 1
    Sidebar: At least 61 killed in Kenya pipeline explosion

    --
    There are two kinds of sysadmins: paranoids and losers. I'm both kinds.
  7. Really, Editors? Really, Syngularyx? by Lookin4Trouble · · Score: 2

    QTFA: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast..."

  8. Radioactivity figures in TFA by chocapix · · Score: 2

    TFA claims that what they burn averages nearly 10,000Bq/kg, yet the 4 tonnes in the oven accounts for 63,000Bq?

    Maybe they gave an average over their whole activity, and the explosion occured when they were burning extremely low activity waste, but phrased like that it's very confusing. Anyone has more info?

    Note that either way we're talking about a negligible amount of radiation (the average human being generates about 8,000Bq.)

  9. First Sentence of TFA by asylumx · · Score: 4, Informative

    There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast

    Slashdot, please fix the damned headline.

  10. Re:Why is this even on Slashdot? by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps they wanted you to see the headline in the sidebar about an oil pipeline fire in Kenya that killed at least 100 people. You know, so that you'll be convinced that nuclear power is far more dangerous than any other form of energy.

    --
    Palm trees and 8
  11. They're "darkies" so who cares? by Quila · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not like they're real people or anything.

    This was one white European guy, so he matters far more than they do.

    It's also not scary radioactive material, just plain old oil.

    All this together makes it not so newsworthy.

    1. Re:They're "darkies" so who cares? by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Funny

      This was one white European guy, so he matters far more than they do.

      That's racist, sir. Racist. France employs a lot of North African immigrants to do dirty, dangerous work, it's far too early to jump to conclusions about whether we should care about the corpse.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  12. Thanks for changing the subject line by tp1024 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's unfortunately a very rare thing to see such mistakes corrected, so thanks a lot for doing it.

  13. Re:Let's Rewrite that Headline Story by mspohr · · Score: 2
    I really don't think you have a clue about the economic and living conditions of these people in Nairobi. They are very poor. They do not have any choice about where to live. They are desperate to survive day to day. If some fool in their neighborhood taps into a fuel line, they can't avoid being incinerated.

    It sounds like you are trying to say that these people have a choice to live in a nicer place and instead choose to live with this danger so they can tap the fuel line. You couldn't be more wrong.

    --
    I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?