backtop

Print 45 comment(s) - last by Steve1981.. on Aug 6 at 1:10 PM
Some experts say restarting the reactor may lead to disaester

This month South Korea will flip the switch on a very aged nuclear reactor.  South Korean officials say their hands are tied and that the reactor must be brought back online.  But some experts wonder whether South Korea is flipping the switch on a stable reactor or on a ticking time bomb.

I. Déjà vu? Aged Reactor's Backup Generator Fails 

Nuclear power is incredibly vital to the economy of South Korea, the world's fifteenth largest economy.  Overall, 29.2 percent of Korea's power generation capacity and 45 percent of its total electrical consumption are provided from nuclear sources.  That puts the nation in the company of only a handful of other countries, like France, which draw such a large part of their electrical load from splitting the atom.

Much of South Korea's reliance on the alternative power technology is bred out of necessity.  South Korea's has virtually no fossil fuel resources and thus is forced to import from foreign regions at a high cost.

South Korea is known for pushing the boundaries of modern reactor design with very-safe next generation designs, such as high temperature reactors that co-generate hydrogen, small modular reactors, and even a liquid-metal fast-breeder reactor.  The Kori-1 reactor is not one of those modern designs.

Located near South Korea's southeastern coast, the reactor first achieved criticality in 1978 and has been generating power ever since.

Busan location
The nuclear reactor near Busan is locate approximately 140 miles from Hiroshima, Japan.
[Image Source: Google Maps]

The reactor, situated near the city of Busan, came under substantial scrutiny in March. It was revealed that a routine maintenance operation in February had led to a loss of power of both the reactor and the emergency reactor, leading to a rise in pressured water coolant's temperatures.

The outage lasted only 12 minutes, but coupled with the failure of the backup diesel generator it was enough to prompt Korea’s Nuclear Safety and Security Commission (NSSC)  to order the operator -- Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power (KHNP) -- to shutter the reactor pending a full safety review.

That review was accompanied by an international review by experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).  The IAEA's senior engineering panel in June said it was safe to restart the reactor, but scolded KHNP for neglecting to improve safety after the incident (namely, KHNP failed to replace the faulty backup generator).  On July 4 the reactor restart was approved by Korea's NSSC.

II. Foreign Expert, Locals Fight the Reactor Restart

Local residents and activists took the news very badly.

But their cries of protest led only to a delay of the restart.  At a July 26 press conference, Sukwoo Hong, the minister of knowledge economy, announced, "We keep talking with residents but reaching a consensus is expected to take time. There is no choice but to restart the operation of the Kori-1 reactor on 3 August at the latest."

The restart marks the latest extension for a reactor that was expected to be closed in 2007, when it finished its 30th year in operation.  Its life was previously extended by a 2008 IAEA review, which allowed it to continue to operate for another 10 years.

Kori-1
The Kori-1 reactor has been approved to restart, but some fear it could fail again.
[Image Source: World Nuclear News]

On the eve of the restart South Korea is receiving a stern warning from a neighbor which is one of its few international equals in terms of nuclear power use -- Japan.  Hiromitsu Ino, an emeritus professor of materials science at the University of Tokyo, has made waves claiming the weld material in the pressure vessel has been compromised.  He warns, "Any 50 nuclear power plants in Japan are much better than Kori-1."

Professor Hiromitsu fears that Kori-1 could become the site of only the third major nuclear disaster in history, etched in the culture space as the name of a reactor in his homeland has been -- Fukushima.

III. There's Nothing to Fear, Say Korean Officials

Indeed, the reports of operator negligence and the failure of the backup generator at Kori-1 is eerily familiar to the failure that allowed the meltdown at Fukushima.  But Korean regulators and the KHNP claim that the reactor is perfectly safe.

Il Soon Hwang, a nuclear scientist at Seoul National University, argues that the only real issue is that the government hasn't been properly communicating with citizens what has occurred.  He rebuts Professor Hiromitsu's analysis, saying the welds on the reactor are safe.  He comments, "The most serious issue is that staff in the control room decided not to report the more than ten minutes of blackout and tried to hide this accident."

Containment vessel Fukushima
South Korea insists that the reactor welds were not compromised by February's overheating.
(CORRECTION: as a reader noted, the original picture was from a BWR, not a PWR, this was an error.)
[Image Source: Wikimedia Commons]

The restart is a tricky gamble.  On the one hand, the power the reactor produces is vital to the economy and failure to restart could surrender ground to anti-nuclear advocates who baffingly want to shut down far safer and cleaner designs as well.  

Conversely, restarting could mean flirting with disaster a scenario which could greatly damage the reputation of nuclear power in South Korea as the Fukushima did in Professor Hiromitsu's home country.

The controversy comes as South Korea's hostile northern neighbor contemplates a nuclear future of its own, despite internation condemnation.

Source: Nature


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
yawn.
By chromal on 8/3/2012 2:12:23 AM , Rating: 2
I'm pretty sure that the last photo in this article is from a far worse incident than the one this reactor underwent. There's a reason that these reactors are designed with massive engineering margins: so that a 12-minute long temperature or pressure excursion isn't a catastrophe. The concern is over the management failure that allowed them to come into play, and underscores the need for more effective regulatory responsibility. Hopefully someday soon these older Gen-II designs can be replaced with Gen-IV systems featuring passive safety.




RE: yawn.
By chromal on 8/3/2012 2:20:03 AM , Rating: 3
In fact, yes, that final photo appears to be a BWR-type from Fukushima Daiichi. (Kori-1 is a significantly smaller and newer PWR-type). I find the way this article superimposes these two events betrays and bias and possibly an ignorance that defies credibility.


RE: yawn.
By Solandri on 8/3/2012 2:38:10 AM , Rating: 3
Normally I'd agree, but pre-1978 was when Korea was in the middle of turning from a developing nation to a first world nation. There was a lot of corruption and government bribery going on at the time, which (mostly) didn't stop until a spate of building and bridge collapses in the 1990s.

The little digging I was able to do says Kori-1 was constructed by Westinghouse and Hyundai. Depending on who did the actual welding work, I would not assume the construction quality is up to first world standards. There is legitimate room for concern here.


The irrational defense of nuclear power
By johnsmith9875 on 8/6/2012 12:05:14 PM , Rating: 1
This is a very human thing. Did you know in parts of Africa, people STILL use wood for cooking, and have depleted forests and vital scrub bushes? They know about solar cookers, they can get propane cylinders.

So what keeps africans using wood? Well, a combination of general ignorance, and the very human idealogy of "we have always done it this way".

I see the same mentality concerning nuclear power among many people. Nuclear is expensive, accidents tend to become disasters, we still don't know what to do with all the tens of thousands of spent fuel cores, much less the millions of tons lof low level radioactive waste.

Yet, here we are again. The Luddites are out in force, defending their version of wood cooking. Did these people simply continue to invest in buggy whip sales when horse drawn carriages fell out of fashion?




By Steve1981 on 8/6/2012 1:10:28 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Nuclear is expensive


Up front, yes. By kWh generated, no. Of course, up front costs are exacerbated by people holding up plant construction for years at a time, and can be reduced via simple methods such as standardized design.

quote:
accidents tend to become disasters


There have been two disasters to speak of. The first was at a plant with practically nothing in the way of safety precautions (Chernobyl) using a design known to have risks (RBMK). The second was at a plant that suffered two massive natural disasters in the way of an earthquake and a tsunami, and of course happened to be first commissioned in 1971. To think that we can't and have not improved on nuclear power plant design and safety in the last 40 years, or that nobody will learn the lessons of those disasters seems dubious at best.

quote:
we still don't know what to do with all the tens of thousands of spent fuel cores


It's called reprocessing.

quote:
much less the millions of tons lof low level radioactive waste.


It is my understanding that some of the newest designs can even help with this, ie the fully contained and largely automated modular designs which are made to be buried 100' underground. Presumably this makes such plants less susceptible to terrorist attacks that you are concerned about in another post.

quote:
The Luddites are out in force


Ironic given that nuclear is a rather young technology in the grand scheme of things.


spelling
By sgtaylor5 on 8/3/2012 5:46:57 PM , Rating: 2
in subheader at top of page:

disaester => disaster




4th
By isotopedope on 8/3/12, Rating: 0
Third major accident?
By inperfectdarkness on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Third major accident?
By wired00 on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Third major accident?
By MadMan007 on 8/3/2012 2:15:35 AM , Rating: 2
Who considers Castle Bravo to be an 'accident'?


RE: Third major accident?
By wired00 on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Third major accident?
By othercents on 8/3/2012 8:47:38 AM , Rating: 2
Wasn't an accident. It was intentional to see what the effects of radiation would be.

3 mile island was contained, so wasn't considered a nuclear accident.


RE: Third major accident?
By Solandri on 8/3/2012 2:30:01 AM , Rating: 5
By the IAEA definition, TMI wasn't a "major accident". The top of the scale is a 7. TMI was a 5.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear...

In terms of real-world effects, TMI was almost a non-incident. It resulted in slightly elevated radiation levels in the local area for a few months, with monitoring being needed for a few years. The reason it was a big deal and treated with an excess of caution was because they weren't sure if a hydrogen bubble had formed inside, which could have potentially blown the pressure vessel and containment dome apart. As it turned out, the passive safety systems worked as designed and contained the accident.

Normally I'd leave it at that, but since it seems the first two posts have a strong anti-nuclear bias, I'll mention:

- Goiania (google it) was worse than TMI, and it resulted from salvagers opening up the radiation source from abandoned medical equipment. Should we ban all radioactive medical equipment too?

- Even with Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear power is the safest power generation source man has invented in terms of deaths per TWh generated. Wind is about 4x more dangerous (mostly due to workers falling from towers). Solar about 10x (deaths from rooftop falls during installation). Hydro about 35x more dangerous (2.5x if you exclude Banqiao). And coal about 1500x more dangerous. If you want to save lives, you should be advocating shutting down all these more dangerous power sources and replacing them with nuclear.

- The worst power generation accident in history was the failure of a series of hydroelectric dams (Banqiao). Estimated 150,000-230,000 dead, 11 million refugees, 6 million buildings destroyed. Do you consider that to be a reason to dismantle all hydroelectric dams? If not, then why the double-standard with nuclear?


RE: Third major accident?
By Amiga500 on 8/3/2012 3:52:01 AM , Rating: 2
Great post. Particularly on the reality of safety.


RE: Third major accident?
By hankw on 8/3/12, Rating: -1
RE: Third major accident?
By Strunf on 8/3/2012 7:41:37 AM , Rating: 2
In that case then we shouldn't take into account the nuclear accidents due to a human error either... in a perfect world every source of energy would be 100% safe but since we don't live in a perfect world everything should be taken into account including the risk people may die when installing or maintaining the energy "sources".


RE: Third major accident?
By hankw on 8/3/2012 12:26:31 PM , Rating: 1
No there's a big difference here. Something like falling deaths are easily preventable if the workers followed strict guidelines. Even if there are slip ups once in a while, it's a casualty of one person. In the case of nuclear power however a minor slip up can mean larger consequences. These are only the human preventable problems. What about ones beyond someone's control like natural disasters, malfunction equipment that was hard to detect, etc. In these cases the danger of nuclear far exceeds wind and solar.
I'm not arguing that nuclear is too dangerous for us to use, but to say that it's "less dangerous" than wind and solar because of falling accidents is just silly.


RE: Third major accident?
By Amiga500 on 8/3/2012 1:02:19 PM , Rating: 2
So basically it only counts if it helps your argument.

Nice.


RE: Third major accident?
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2012 1:47:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Something like falling deaths are easily preventable if the workers followed strict guidelines.


That's really not a valid argument.

Driving accidents are easily preventable if people pay attention and properly maintain their cars.

Choking accidents are easily preventable if people adequately chew their food.

Drowning accidents are easily preventable if people take time to teach their children and themselves how to swim.

Dying is easily preventable if people just don't reproduce.

Constipation is easily preventable if people take time out of their day to eat fiber.

Are you seeing a pattern here? You can't possibly protect people from themselves! Everything is easily preventable if you just follow certain steps! Well, can be made to SEEM preventable. The problem is--things are overlooked even by the most strict rule-abiders. As smart as humans are capable of being, we will make mistakes as we don't understand everything in the Universe yet. There are always random variables that you can inject into a scenario--and even when engineering something, you still hit a wall when it comes to money and the cost of raising the safety bar. At some point, you have to weigh risk/reward.

Is the risk worth the reward? You have to look at the results and weigh them with the possible consequences. You have to total the total benefit to society or whomever.

quote:
What about ones beyond someone's control like natural disasters, malfunction equipment that was hard to detect, etc. In these cases the danger of nuclear far exceeds wind and solar.


Tell that to all the birds massacred by windmills. :)

The truth is we've always realized there are dangers with nuclear power. The benefit is enormous compared to the risks--which we can more than adequately manage. The proof is in all the nuclear power plants in operation around the world--right now. They operate every single day without any catastrophic incident. And as each year passes, we come up with better, safer ways to provide this power and will continue to do so.

You can easily sit in your chair and say--oh, but solar power is so clean and safe for the environment! Well, I've got something to tell you: Just wait until someone tries to approve a massive solar farm the size of a state and see how the environmentalists react to wildlife being displaced from their habitat. It will happen. The only way I ever see solar power being feasible is with space-based power and we're quite a ways away from doing that. It won't happen until we overcome our dependence on chemical rockets which are absurdly inefficient at delivering payloads into space.

As for nuclear, I've said it before and I'll say it again: The future of nuclear is with in-ground micro-reactors that serve small communities of twenty to twenty five thousand people. It will eliminate the loss of power over high-tension lines, increase efficiency and lower risk by keeping the core below the ground giving many advantages that I'd rather not saturate an already lengthy post with. This is a technology that is nearly ready now--unlike solar which is quite a ways off and far less annoying and intrusive as wind power can be.


RE: Third major accident?
By sigmatau on 8/3/2012 9:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
"No there's a big difference here. Something like falling deaths are easily preventable if the workers followed strict guidelines."

Um, you can say the same exact thing about deaths caused by nuclear power plants. If the Japanese had followed even THEIR guidelines, they would have prevented this disaster.


RE: Third major accident?
By TSS on 8/3/2012 8:25:10 AM , Rating: 2
You do realise windturbines have to maintained so people have to climb back up there? And from what i gathered from dirty jobs, very frequently as well.

Solar panels i don't know about maintenance. I'd figure somebody has to climb up there eventually for a cleaning otherwise efficiency will go down. But it's not like the turbines.

But how about the unknown deaths? From nuclear, we know what happens when things go wrong, since things have gone wrong. But solar and wind haven't been implemented on a large scale yet (total wind capacity in the US = 3,17% of total power generation, nuclear ~19%). We have no idea about potential negative effects resulting in deaths.

I can remember a story here on DT about a valley in california that was experiencing droughts ever since wind turbines had been placed at the entrance of the valley. Up to that point i hadn't even thought of it but yet, if you take power from the wind the wind has less power to carry stuff like clouds with rain. I don't think anybody died from that specifically, only food prices will have gone up. But now imagine that on a larger scale and people are sure to die.

We haven't got a clue what solar would do yet. We're taking power from the sun. That means that power no longer strikes the earth and does what it normally would do - heat up the ground, vaporize water, provide energy for photosynthesis. Currently the only effect i can think of is "good luck growing anything below a solar cell", but that doesn't come into play when placing it onto rooftops and all that.

Still there is no such thing as free energy. If the deaths aren't coming from the use, then they are coming from manufacturing. Considering the amount of solar panels we'd need to make solar any significant a source of power, those deaths will skyrocket.

Just because those happen in china doesn't make it safer.


RE: Third major accident?
By hankw on 8/3/2012 12:38:01 PM , Rating: 2
Let me put it this way. If windmills and solar panels never existed, people would still be falling to their deaths. Buildings and towers of various sorts go up around the world daily. I'm pretty sure the contributions of a few wind turbines and solar panels are insignificant. The problem here isn't the windmills, it's the safety protocols, or lack there of.

Now if we talk about nuclear accidents, it's a bit different. If nuclear power never existed, then neither would nuclear meltdowns, nuclear waste, contamination, etc. Even if you remove all human errors, there are still other issues like natural disasters and faulty or malfunctioning equipment.

As for your arguments on "unknown" consequences, well since they are unknown, there's really nothing to argue. But do you seriously think a few windmills and solar panels are going to amount to anything? We have buildings and cities everywhere already blocking the wind and absorbing sunlight.


RE: Third major accident?
By Amiga500 on 8/3/2012 1:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Let me put it this way.

If you want electricity - you are going to have risks.

Nuclear power has been demonstrably safer than all alternatives.


RE: Third major accident?
By hankw on 8/3/2012 1:53:46 PM , Rating: 1
And what exactly is my agenda? I'm not even against nuclear. I'm just saying using fall victims as examples of why wind mills and solar panels are bad is a terrible argument.

People falling has nothing to do with wind mills. These are issues to due with workplace safety, the same with any other construction site.
If shoddy workers built a house that fell over, would you say that houses are inherantly dangerous? No, you'd blame it on the workers doing a crap job. You might say construction in general can be dangerous, but it has little to do with what they are working on.

On the other hand, nuclear meltdowns, contamination, waste, etc is 100% due to the existence nuclear plants.


RE: Third major accident?
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2012 2:01:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If nuclear power never existed, then neither would nuclear meltdowns, nuclear waste, contamination, etc.


Well heck, we better outlaw stars then! They're dangerous! They have gigantic fusion reactors inside of them that emit all sorts of harmful radiation across the entire electromagnetic spectrum! They could kill everything if we allow them to continue to operate!

If stars didn't exist--along with their nuclear power, WE wouldn't exist. All life in a given starsystem are a direct result of their host star and material left over from a previous star--all centered around nuclear power.

quote:
there are still other issues like natural disasters


Yes, there are. Things like volcanoes and asteroids. Things like gamma-ray bursts that could wipe out our entire civilization in an instant from a neighboring star going supernova.

Why don't you just argue we go live in a hole. The only problem is, if we did, the hole could cave-in and then what would we do?

Nothing is perfectly safe. Even picking your nose isn't perfectly safe. What if you sneeze and jam your finger in too far? What are you going to do then, outlaw nosepicking?


RE: Third major accident?
By Steve1981 on 8/3/2012 2:06:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If windmills and solar panels never existed, people would still be falling to their deaths.


Sorry, but this argument fails. The fact is, if we erect the hundreds of thousands of wind turbines it would take to effectively supplant nuclear power in the US, MORE people would fall to their deaths than if we replaced nuclear power with clean, 100% safe unicorn power.


RE: Third major accident?
By MrBlastman on 8/3/2012 2:20:48 PM , Rating: 2
Wait, both of you... think...

If gravity never existed, nobody would fall to their deaths! We must outlaw gravity, asap! It's evil!

It is almost as evil and deadly di-hydrogen monoxide, which kills people every day. It is a nasty, vile solvent that hosts multitudes of illneses, poisons and other putrid substances. The biggest problem is, it is everywhere! You can't hide from it!

O_O


RE: Third major accident?
By OutOfTouch on 8/3/2012 7:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
This is why America is failing.


RE: Third major accident?
By johnsmith9875 on 8/6/2012 11:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
I can see wind power as a national security issue. Terrorists can easily target a nuclear reactor, take control of it and make it go critical, causing death,destruction and mass evacuations.

What can a terrorist do with 100,000 windmills scattered just off the USA coast? Well, not a lot really, maybe blow one up, big deal, who cares, the US Navy would come by and pound their little speedboat with bullets.


RE: Third major accident?
By Steve1981 on 8/6/2012 12:28:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Terrorists can easily target a nuclear reactor, take control of it and make it go critical, causing death,destruction and mass evacuations.


Given that it is apparently childs play, perhaps you can detail the defenses and plans of a US nuclear reactor and explain how you would proceed to breech said defenses and make the reactor go critical?


RE: Third major accident?
By johnsmith9875 on 8/6/2012 11:59:59 AM , Rating: 2
Are there any known statistics on these falling deaths you claim exist due to windmills?

There are thousands of them in operation worldwide. I've yet to hear of any investigative journalism calling for a halt due to falling deaths.


RE: Third major accident?
By Sazabi19 on 8/3/2012 8:19:39 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, I love your post Solindra, well done. I've been fascinated with Chernobyl since I was 13 and I am tired of people trying to bring up TMI, it wasn't a disaster. As for Chernobyl, it was human error. The USSR was conducting tests on the reactor and manually shut down the safeties (yes, there are multiple). It was just a little bit into the test when they realized they needed to try to cool the reactor down, but it was too late. The reactor started to run away and the control rods couldn't do anything to help. If I remember correctly the coolant started to steam off and the control rods melted, either way it was human error. I would look at some of the conspiracy theories on it (Ruskies wanting to see effects of a nuclear device near a city, and a few others) they are an interesting read. As for the Fukushima plant, it was never designed to be hit head on with a wave that large. Had it of been designed for that I'm sure it would have held just fine, but it wasn't. It wasn't something that was expected. All of these things were out of the control of the reactors, their designs, and their safeties. That's like someone blowing up a nuclear reactor here in the states and we get public backlash because they aren't bomb proof.


RE: Third major accident?
By Sazabi19 on 8/3/2012 8:20:09 AM , Rating: 2
Solindra* Sorry about that.


RE: Third major accident?
By Sazabi19 on 8/3/2012 8:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
I did it again...

Solandri** <-- copied and pasted
I'm sorry I'm tired!!!!

Solandri
Solandri
Solandri
Solandri
Solandri
Solandri
Solandri
Solandri
Solandri
Solandri

Think I got it now.

You are not a failed presidential handout.


RE: Third major accident?
By Solandri on 8/3/2012 4:47:42 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Third major accident?
By Digimonkey on 8/3/2012 10:34:33 AM , Rating: 2
In Fukushima's case the reactor was fine, the containment building withstood the force of the wave impact. The problem was the backup generators that were put in later where housed outside were not well protected. In Chernobyl's case there was a lot that went wrong to cause the incident. It was mostly caused by human error however.

The problem in both cases is the fact you are always trying to control a runaway reaction and if you don't you have major problems. There are new designs for reactors that use Thorium, which are self regulating. You have to constantly feed the reaction or it stops. This would solve most of the worries over Nuclear reactors, then it's just a matter of dealing with the waste. Using Thorium there would also be less waste as well, so the benefits are two fold.


RE: Third major accident?
By Chernobyl68 on 8/3/2012 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
One of the major design problems of Chernobyl was the control rods. The insertion of the control rods (to shut down the reactor) actually increased reactivity briefly.

From what I've read about Fukushima, the main cause was the loss of power? if the backup diesel generators had not been rendered inoperable by the flooding, nothing major would have happened. Neither the earthquake nor the tsunami actually damaged the reactor building or apparatus. They were scrammed as a precaution intentionally, but then the widespread loss of power (and the diesels) left them unable to remove the decay heat of the reactor. The on site store of fuel should have lasted long enough to put it into a cold shutdown state.


RE: Third major accident?
By johnsmith9875 on 8/6/2012 11:54:14 AM , Rating: 2
Untrue. Early on TEPCO realized that radiation levels continued to rise even after they were running smaller emergency generators, and had suspected early on a crack in one or more of the reactor vessels. they also encountered highly radioactive water at the lower level of the facility.

Of course TEPCO didn't relay this information to the public until months afterwards, as is typical of the secretive and powerful japanese corporations. They learn a lot from us.

If you wonder WHY they hurriedly began dropping seawater into the plant, knowing it would destroy the reactor, well now you know why. They knew of active breaches, and they also knew the fuel cores stored above the reactor were exposed and burning.


RE: Third major accident?
By amosbatto on 8/3/2012 10:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
- The worst power generation accident in history was the failure of a series of hydroelectric dams (Banqiao). Estimated 150,000-230,000 dead, 11 million refugees, 6 million buildings destroyed. Do you consider that to be a reason to dismantle all hydroelectric dams? If not, then why the double-standard with nuclear?

You have been reading too much propaganda from the IAEA, an organization created with the goal of promoting the use of nuclear power. The IAEA has consistently downplayed the risks of nuclear power since the organization was created.

A 2007 study (which was republished in English by the New York Academy of Sciences) analyzed medical records from 1986-2004 and calculated that 985,000 people died premature deaths due to radiation from Chernobyl. The death toll continues to mount and the region will be unsafe for thousands of years in the future. See: http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.asp...

Some experts are already predicting that Fukushima will cause more deaths than Chernobyl. The problem with radiation is its effects are often long term and hard to detect, so we often don't know its full impact until decades and even centuries later. It will take thousands of years to decontaminate Chernobyl and Fukushima, which is very different from hydroelectric dams, whose accidents are dramatic but quickly resolved.


RE: Third major accident?
By Steve1981 on 8/3/2012 2:44:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
A 2007 study (which was republished in English by the New York Academy of Sciences) analyzed medical records from 1986-2004 and calculated that 985,000 people died premature deaths due to radiation from Chernobyl. The death toll continues to mount and the region will be unsafe for thousands of years in the future. See: http://www.nyas.org/publications/annals/Detail.asp...


Did you bother following the link for "Review of Volume 1181 by M. I. BALONOV.pdf" which effectively refutes the efficacy of the linked study?

Some snippets

quote:
In the opinion of this reviewer, the authors unfortunately did not appropriately analyze the content of the Russian-language publications, for example, to separate them into those that contain scientific evidence and those based on hasty impressions and ignorant conclusions. Therefore, the main conclusions of Yablokov, Nesterenko, and Nesterenko are the odd mixture of facts (e.g., increased thyroid cancer in children in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) and uncorroborated statements of mass mortality in emergency and recovery workers caused by radiation, abnormalities in newborns, etc.


quote:
The list of cited references in the translation (Yablokov et al. 2009) indicates that the authors avoided the most respectable papers of Russian-language authors, which received serious international peer review and were published in respected journals. These hundreds of journal articles by authors from Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine were analyzed in detail by teams of independent international experts and became the basis for generalizations of the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR 1988, 2000, 2008) and the UN Chernobyl Forum (IAEA 2006, WHO 2006, UNDP 2002, Forum 2006). Careful analysis of already peer-reviewed publications with the final separation of “grain from the chaff” is the key to the objectivity of the findings of these international bodies. It is no wonder that the UNSCEAR reports are the most authoritative source of modern knowledge––in its own way, "the bible of radiation medicine."


RE: Third major accident?
By Ringold on 8/3/2012 10:02:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some experts are already predicting that Fukushima will cause more deaths than Chernobyl.


If you think about that, using your brain, that's not physically possible. Radiation release much smaller, and done next to a vast ocean almost completely devoid of humans..


RE: Third major accident?
By johnsmith9875 on 8/6/2012 11:49:09 AM , Rating: 2
Just because radiation goes into the ocean doesn't mean it disappears. It ends up in the ecosystem and in the marine life, which is part of our food chain.
Fukushima isn't even over yet, they have been unable to get close enough to the reactors to defuel them. One good earthquake and we may very well end up to have a radiation release that is unprecedented....well at least compared to whats being released now which is a lot, as the fuel cores are exposed to the sky, rain, wind, etc.

Some nuclear experts believe two fo the 3 explosions were not a hydrogen explosions but actual runaway reactions, as pieces of fuel were found up to a kilometer away from the facility. A hydrogen explosion would not have done this.


RE: Third major accident?
By kattanna on 8/3/2012 10:55:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In terms of real-world effects, TMI was almost a non-incident.


and it would have been a non issue if it wasnt for the fact that 12 days earlier you had the china syndrome movie launch

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078966/

so you already had a gullible public ready to believe a coverup at a nuclear power plant


RE: Third major accident?
By Samus on 8/3/2012 11:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
Solandri's post should be rated Fukushima (7) because even 6 is hard to get.


RE: Third major accident?
By V-Money on 8/4/2012 10:23:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm glad that you are defending nuclear power against random people who have no idea what they are talking about. As a nuclear electrician it is very near and dear to me, but I stopped arguing when I moved back to Cali and started having discussions with people who flat out have no concept of what nuclear power is. Its really aggravating when people start making things up, offer unrealistic alternatives, or just refuse to listen because someone else who doesn't understand it told them it was bad.

As for the accidents, I have always liked the SL-1 the best, it always cracked me up. I really wish that I could chime in about the disasters but I was able to read the confidential in depth analysis reports and I am not sure what is and what isn't classified. The short of it is that nuclear power is very safe, and the few accidents we have are due solely from human error or outdated designs, none of which would be a problem if we were able to build newer, safer reactors and kept people like the first 2 posters from working there.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki