Nuclear Plant Has Flaw Undetected for 19 Years

[itsbob]

28 people died within four months from radiation or thermal burns, 19 have subsequently died, and there have been around nine deaths from thyroid cancer apparently due to the accident: total 56 fatalities as of 2004.

I found the number hard to believe myself... but only 56.. WOW.. I would have thought Thousands!!

 

[kwillia]

Interesting link, Ken...

"The 600-page report says that people in the area have suffered a paralysing fatalism due to myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation, which has contributed to a culture of chronic dependency. Some "took on the role of invalids." Mental health coupled with smoking and alcohol abuse is a very much greater problem than radiation, but worst of all at the time was the underlying level of health and nutrition. Apart from the initial 116,000, relocations of people were very traumatic and did little to reduce radiation exposure, which was low anyway. Psycho-social effects among those affected by the accident are similar to those arising from other major disasters such as earthquakes, floods and fires.

The 2005 Chernobyl Forum study involved over 100 scientists from eight specialist UN agencies and the governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. Its conclusions are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR* 2000 Report which said that "apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure." As yet there is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. However, these workers remain at increased risk of cancer in the long term."


This is key information to keep in the back of one's mind should there be a successful terrorist nuclear attack. We must not allow ourselves to be overcome by such an event. There is life after a dirty bomb... let's get back to our regularly scheduled program.

 

[Carmalita]

That would depend on where the plane crashes. Into a city and you could have a hell of a lot more deaths, even thousands. I think that Chernobyl only had about 40 some deaths related to the radiation release. As to worse case scenario we had that at TMI back in the late 70s and the reactor designs were such that the melted core never got out of the vessel.

But was there not a possibility that it could have got out of the vessel?

 

[Ken King]

But was there not a possibility that it could have got out of the vessel?

As I said earlier I know very little about nuclear power plants, but beyond the vessel is the containment structure of dense concrete. I guess anything is possible like the two intentional plane crashes that killed a couple thousand people on 9/11.

 

[Carmalita]

Whats the worst case? And how do we come to the figure of "hundreds of thousands will die".. that sounds like a Clamshell Alliance statistic..

I cannot say certainly that hundreds of thousands of people would die. I know that there are such reactors that have hundreds of thousands of people living relatively near them.

I would say Chernobyl was a worst case for THEIR designed nuke plant... I don't think that will happen here, but if it did the design of our systems would prevent a Chernobyl like calamity from happening.. it will be much more contained.

I am under the impression that, at some point, a large explosion could occur which would disperse radiation over a very wide area. If the explosion was large enough to destroy the container, could this not happen?

 

[AK-74me]

I cannot say certainly that hundreds of thousands of people would die. I know that there are such reactors that have hundreds of thousands of people living relatively near them.



I am under the impression that, at some point, a large explosion could occur which would disperse radiation over a very wide area. If the explosion was large enough to destroy the container, could this not happen?

No, I don't think you understand the difference in the Uranium that is used for nuclear power vs. nuclear bombs. The Uranium used to power nuclear power plants is barely a fraction the efficiency of the Uranium that is used to make nuclear bombs. It will never, and I mean never explode the way a nuke bomb does.

One of the worst things that could happend at nuclear power plants would be a radiological fire in the spent fuel pool. Most spent fuel pools are not contained the way the reactor is. Never the less nuclear power is the safest, cleanest most efficient way to produce power that we have today.

 

[Carmalita]

No, I don't think you understand the difference in the Uranium that is used for nuclear power vs. nuclear bombs. The Uranium used to power nuclear power plants is barely a fraction the efficiency of the Uranium that is used to make nuclear bombs. It will never, and I mean never explode the way a nuke bomb does.

One of the worst things that could happend at nuclear power plants would be a radiological fire in the spent fuel pool. Most spent fuel pools are not contained the way the reactor is. Never the less nuclear power is the safest, cleanest most efficient way to produce power that we have today.

Does this mean that an explosion is not possible? Could there be an explosion caused by another (non nuclear) source that could be strong enough to rupture the container and release a lot of radiation? For example, do the reactors not use steam; at least some of them? I know that steam can cause and explosion, though I do not know how powerful it can be.

 

[Ken King]

Does this mean that an explosion is not possible? Could there be an explosion caused by another (non nuclear) source that could be strong enough to rupture the container and release a lot of radiation? For example, do the reactors not use steam; at least some of them? I know that steam can cause and explosion, though I do not know how powerful it can be.

Chernobyl was a steam explosion. Check the linked source in my post above.

 

[Carmalita]

Chernobyl was a steam explosion. Check the linked source in my post above.

According to the site, the radition that is there is rather low. I had the impression that it was almost uninhabitable.

 

[AK-74me]

Chernobyl was a steam explosion. Check the linked source in my post above.

No explosion that would possibly occur in a reactor could, to my knowledge, cause a breech in the thick concrete walls of todays containment buildings. Chernobyl on the otehr hand was just a disater waiting to happend.

 

[Bonehead]

Chernobyls reactor went what is called prompt critical and went from about 3% power or so to 1000 times that value in a fraction of a second. I can get into the reactor physics of the situation if anyone is really interested. The resultant energy release did cause a steam explosion that tore the reactor physically apart and started the graphite moderator on fire. The burning graphite is what transported most of the activity to the surrounding area and essentially the world. It was not a nuclear detonation or anything like that. Power reactors are enriched to about 4% uranium a nuclear device is in the 90-99 % range. The US uses two different types of Reactors Pressurized Water and Boiling Water. Both types are contained within a Containment structure that is up to 10 feet thick (base mat) and is steel reinforced with multiple layers of rebar as thick as your forearm then the entire structure is further reinforced by steel tendons that wrap all the way around it. Our Containments are designed to hold 50 PSI pressure and are tested routinely.

 

[sleuth]

According to the site, the radition that is there is rather low. I had the impression that it was almost uninhabitable.

Now, I may be wrong about this, but I think I read somewhere that if we could figure out how to use fusion to create energy (current nuke plants use fission), then the chance for an explosion would go up...

As of yet, we haven't figured out how to do it yet. At least not efficiently.

 

[Larry Gude]

Are you crazy?

Good, I am glad they fixed it. Now they can build 150 more plants.

How about 1,500?

Or 15,000?

I'd LOVE to have one to run the greenhouses!

No more oil. No more coal fired electricity.

 

[Larry Gude]

Bone...

...you sure about that?

Our Containments are designed to hold 50 PSI pressure and are tested routinely.

Sounds a bit low seeings how my Michelins can hold that much.

 

[itsbob]

...you sure about that?



Sounds a bit low seeings how my Michelins can hold that much.

Using tires as an analogy...

What PSI goes into a SMALL tire, say like a 10 speed bike?? Isn't it close to 100PSI, then you get to bigger bicycle tire, like a BMX bike and the pressure is like 50 PSI, a car tire is around 35.. can you tell the difference in how hard they are?

I think a building the size of a Nuclear Reactor, 50 PSI is astronomical..

 

[2ndAmendment]

Man, it's hard to believe that Chernobyl is coming up on its 20th anniversary already (accident was in April 1986). I think the detected design flaw in this story is a little different then what happened at Chernobyl. The Ukraine exlposion came about while they were doing a test at the plant and the automatic shutdown mechanisms had been intentionally (and mistakenly) disabled which halted the cooling flow at a critical moment. From what I remember reading it was more operator error then anything else, though the unit design has always been considered unstable under certain operating conditions.

Chernobyl was also a very old design.

The Soviet-designed RBMK-type reactor unit of 925 MWe such as at Chernobyl uses a large mass of graphite to moderate the reaction and water flowing through channels holding the fuel elements to cool it. There is no containment structure on this kind of reactor.

As far as I am aware, all our reactors have containment structures.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

Using tires as an analogy...

What PSI goes into a SMALL tire, say like a 10 speed bike?? Isn't it close to 100PSI, then you get to bigger bicycle tire, like a BMX bike and the pressure is like 50 PSI, a car tire is around 35.. can you tell the difference in how hard they are?

I think a building the size of a Nuclear Reactor, 50 PSI is astronomical..

...not me.

Consider: A submarine at 100 feet is withstanding just shy of 50 PSI.

Concrete slabs in buildings call for a PSI of 4,000.

 

[SamSpade]

Now, I may be wrong about this, but I think I read somewhere that if we could figure out how to use fusion to create energy (current nuke plants use fission), then the chance for an explosion would go up...

As of yet, we haven't figured out how to do it yet. At least not efficiently.

When I was in college, I worked with a professor who was researching a small part of the search for fusion energy. His focus was on optimizing containment time and the magnetic fields involved.

It was his own opinion at that time - 25 years ago - that commercially viable fusion reactors would *never* occur - not in his lifetime, or anyone else's. His comments were that we'd never be able to achieve break-even values in sufficient quantities to ever bother trying to use it to power our cities - at best, you might be able to study it in a lab somewhere.

From what I've seen since that time, I'm inclined to believe him - there's little evidence to believe any serious progress has been made to achieve it. A shame, because we have a virtually limitless source of fuel in the ocean.

 

[Larry Gude]

Further...

In the last 15 years, concretes of very high strength have entered the field of construction of high-rise buildings and bridges, i.e., concretes with strengths of 90, 100 and 110 MPa (13,000, 14,500 and 16,000 psi), with an occasional 120 MPa (17,000 psi).

http://www.tfhrc.gov/structur/concrete/conc93.htm


50 PSI is virtually nothing.

 

[sleuth]

When I was in college, I worked with a professor who was researching a small part of the search for fusion energy. His focus was on optimizing containment time and the magnetic fields involved.

It was his own opinion at that time - 25 years ago - that commercially viable fusion reactors would *never* occur - not in his lifetime, or anyone else's. His comments were that we'd never be able to achieve break-even values in sufficient quantities to ever bother trying to use it to power our cities - at best, you might be able to study it in a lab somewhere.

From what I've seen since that time, I'm inclined to believe him - there's little evidence to believe any serious progress has been made to achieve it. A shame, because we have a virtually limitless source of fuel in the ocean.

At least for now, our only commercially viable fusion reactor is called Sol.
Maybe one day, that movie about the cold fusion hoax will become true.

But really, we haven't even mastered fission yet. Fusion will come in time, one day, maybe centuries from now. Maybe not until we have to start travelling at a planetary level.

On another note, we have a virtually endless supply of Helium-3 on the moon's surface, deposited there by solar winds. If we could find a way to economically bring some of that back to Earth, we could split the atom to produce helium-2 and hydrogen, and then we'd really be talking clean energy.