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.

28 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 Yvan256 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's when you drink too much Brawndo.

    7. 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.

    8. 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)

    9. 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

    10. 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.
  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. 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: 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
    4. 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
  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. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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.
  10. 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.