No, that estimate is don with taking into account the 10000 reactors.
As for modern reactors, Chernobyl is actually no longer possible due to the build of nuclear plants. As the matter of fact, nowadays they are so safe. That standing next to one, actully renders you about a thousand times less harmfull radiation, than standing in front of a TV screen…
So don’t worrt.
Oh.I guess I should have said are we waiting for another
3 mile Island. It was almost another Chernobyl.
plus, the reactors that are still left have waaaaay updated security. modern technology counts for a lot. even if a train carrying the nuclear waste was hit by a car, the containers holding the icky stuff are like, unbreakable. they have done simulations. we have learned from our mistakes… hopefully we keep learning
Also did you know that no insurance company will insure a nuclear reactor in the U.S. This is because the risk calculations say loud and clear “Build no more nuclear power reactors.”
wwwwwwweeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrreeeee aaaaaaaaaallllllllllll gggooooooooooonnnnnnnnaaaaaaaaaa ddddddddddiiiiiiiieeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This reply has been removed.
I don’t know if it’s a nuclear reactor. What? My two headed dog is barking. I think I have to feed his litter. He had two nice little ones. A walking fish and a racoon with 5 legs.
I think all nuclear reactors are exceedingly dangerous.
And should be shut down immediately. Another accident on the scale
of Chernobyl would kill perhaps hundreds of thousands of people
and give many many more people cancer.
spiratec9 wrote:
I think all nuclear reactors are exceedingly dangerous.
And should be shut down immediately. Another accident on the scale
of Chernobyl would kill perhaps hundreds of thousands of people
and give many many more people cancer.
that would be nice, but we do rely a lot on nuclear power. solar power takes too much for a small area and we haven’t perfected hydroelectric power yet. fossil fuels are nearly gone, so the options are running out. nuclear power is being controlled and refined, as the technology to control it get better, we are safe. but a new source of energy would be really nice.
California B, you are not useing proper scientific language. You use the word heat where you should have used the word temerature. No fusion reactor has started up yet and we don’t know if they will ever work. Also even if they do work we won’t know if they produce dangerous waste until we run one for a while.
lucife wrote:
No, that estimate is don with taking into account the 10000 reactors.
As for modern reactors, Chernobyl is actually no longer possible due to the build of nuclear plants. As the matter of fact, nowadays they are so safe. That standing next to one, actully renders you about a thousand times less harmfull radiation, than standing in front of a TV screen…
So don’t worrt.
Where’d you get this idea? Have all the reactors in Russia been dismantled? How about earthquakes, terrorist attacks, asteroids affecting them? How about the ol’ “human error” or “unforeseen circumstances?” (And how about nuclear waste storage?)
Nuclear = VERY BAD IDEA
Florie wrote:
lucife wrote:
No, that estimate is don with taking into account the 10000 reactors.
As for modern reactors, Chernobyl is actually no longer possible due to the build of nuclear plants. As the matter of fact, nowadays they are so safe. That standing next to one, actully renders you about a thousand times less harmfull radiation, than standing in front of a TV screen…
So don’t worrt.
Where’d you get this idea? Have all the reactors in Russia been dismantled? How about earthquakes, terrorist attacks, asteroids affecting them? How about the ol’ “human error” or “unforeseen circumstances?” (And how about nuclear waste storage?)
Nuclear = VERY BAD IDEA
I totally agree with you. Very bad idea.
Both Chernobyl and 3 mile Island were caused because of human error.
And we know it’s going to happen again it’s just a question of when.
God help you if you live anywhere near it.
And in the case of Chernobyl that means thousands of miles.
Really it means anywhere in the world. For example, depleted uranium dust is now all over the world, because of us. And Chinese coal soot blows onto the west coast of America. What goes around comes around.
There are many alternative energy sources:Wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, tidal etc.
If you google Stanford University and go to the depatment of civil and environmental engineering you will find a guy there named Jacobsen who has done excellent work on wind energy. He says there is enough wind energy in the US to suply 7 times the current needs. And that is for all types of energy needs; residential, industrial, transportation etc. Also, if you have large integrated energy grids (as we now have), the various intermitent forms of energy will tend to fill in their own gaps. Do some research folks.
Florie wrote:
Really it means anywhere in the world. For example, depleted uranium dust is now all over the world, because of us. And Chinese coal soot blows onto the west coast of America. What goes around comes around.
yes i agree I was being generous with the 1000 miles.
Check out the January 2008 issue of Scientific American magazine. (at library) There is an article titled “A Grand Plan for Solar Energy” It says that Solar energy could supply 69% of U.S. electricity by 2050. Compare the subsidies required to the cost of the Iraq war. If the money spent on the Iraq war was spent on alternative energy, we would be now well on our way to solving the energy and global warming problems.
Elect smarter people.
If you are afraid of nuclear power, you are an IDIOT.
Nuclear reactors are not and CAN NOT BE nuclear bombs.
Chernobyl was an uncapped design used exclusively in the USSR, nothing remotely like it has been used in the US.
3 Mile Island is a great example of safety systems working and preventing casualties.
Deplete Uranium (an entirely different subject, really) has a half life of 4.5 billion years. That means it is very stable and it’s energy output is exceedingly low.
And, for the record, coal power produces more radioactive pollution by orders of magnitude.
Please do everyone else a favor and educate yourselves.
Do us a favor and don’t talk down to us, okay?
I am not “an IDIOT.” Nope.
We all know that reactors are not bombs. We also know they can have melt-downs, all of them, any of them.
Depleted uranium has caused illness and deformity in those exposed to it including our servicemembers. And it will continue doing so pretty much “forever” (ie, “4.5 billion years,” that’s close enough).
I’ve never heard of coal being more radioactive than nuclear waste. Good reason not to use it.
Again, don’t talk down to us.
Question: do you live near a nuclear reactor?
Answer: yes, i live on earth.
I’m sorry, but alarmist reactions to science are, I think, the gravest threat to our species. I went overboard, I apologize.
For reference, the radioactive potassium in a banana has a higher decay rate (releasing more energy per unit of time) than DU. I’m not saying you should go eat DU dust, but its real effects are like that of any heavy metal. Standard munitions contribute far more lead dust, which is just as toxic.
I spent the first 17 years of my life in a house less than two miles from a nuclear plant with three operating reactors. I majored in physics in college, and while I did not ultimately specialize in nuclear physics I did take the classes for such a specialization. I have heard every conceivable variation on how ‘nuclear power’ was going to vaporize me. The idea that reactors are the same thing as bombs is unbelievably common, but again I apologize for assuming that was the prevalent opinion here.
Again, for general information: France derives as much as 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. Their only accident to date (just this month, actually) was classed as a Level 1 on the International Nuclear event scale, the lowest real event: “This is an anomaly beyond the authorized operating regime.” The accident amounted to a very small spill of material that had not yet been processed to fuel, analogous to a comparably sized oil spill.
(A Level 0 definition exists “a ‘below-scale event’ of no safety significance.”)
Thanks Alexaxas!
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2…
Published on Saturday, July 26, 2008 by CommonDreams.org
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says The Reactor Revival Is NOT Ready For Prime Time
by Harvey Wasserman
A devastating blow to the much-hyped revival of atomic power has been delivered by an unlikely source—the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The NRC says the “standardized” designs on which the entire premise of returning nuclear power to center stage is based have massive holes in them, and may not be ready for approval for years to come.
more …
and a one to one and a good and I’m a little
Alexaxas wrote:
I’m sorry, but alarmist reactions to science are, I think, the gravest threat to our species. I went overboard, I apologize.For reference, the radioactive potassium in a banana has a higher decay rate (releasing more energy per unit of time) than DU. I’m not saying you should go eat DU dust, but its real effects are like that of any heavy metal. Standard munitions contribute far more lead dust, which is just as toxic.I spent the first 17 years of my life in a house less than two miles from a nuclear plant with three operating reactors. I majored in physics in college, and while I did not ultimately specialize in nuclear physics I did take the classes for such a specialization. I have heard every conceivable variation on how ‘nuclear power’ was going to vaporize me. The idea that reactors are the same thing as bombs is unbelievably common, but again I apologize for assuming that was the prevalent opinion here.Again, for general information: France derives as much as 80% of its electricity from nuclear power. Their only accident to date (just this month, actually) was classed as a Level 1 on the International Nuclear event scale, the lowest real event: “This is an anomaly beyond the authorized operating regime.” The accident amounted to a very small spill of material that had not yet been processed to fuel, analogous to a comparably sized oil spill.(A Level 0 definition exists “a ‘below-scale event’ of no safety significance.”)
I concede the reactors are reasonably safe if they are running properly.
It’s when they have a meltdown is where the problem happens.
As did it almost happened at three-mile Island.
See, the problem is this: Nuclear power is our best bet to get quickly free of oil dependency.
The single greatest use of petroleum in the US is for electrical production. Its not surprising really; oil is easy to transport, easy to burn, easy to keep clean (in non mobile applications), and formerly cheap.
We could try to move to coal, we have huge reserves of it and coal liquification may be a solution. Coal can be used, though not cheaply, in a relatively clean manner.
Three-mile island is still a good example of functioning safety systems. While the reactor itself was essentially ruined, due in part to operator error, the core integrity was maintained. The environmental impact was non-existent, a dosage equivalent to a single chest x-ray in the most severe cases. And this occurred with technology now 40 years out of date.
And the nuclear waste problem …?
goodnight, all … :) maybe somehow we can stop all the madness, and reverse some of what we’ve done
i followed the 3 mile Island incident carefully.
You are correct that the containment system held.
But it was the grace of God that the hydrogen bubble inside the reactor
did not explode. If it had exploded it will probably blew the top off the reactor
unreleased much radioactive materials.
In addition, Yucca Mountain is not safe!
I’d be more likely to categorize it as the grace of thermodynamics, or good luck, but your point is taken.
Fortunately, the incident was contained, no one was hurt, and we were provided with a wealth of information to help improve reactor design. Modern design has come a long way, and some of the novel generation IV designs, like the ‘Pebble Bed’ style, show very little risk of catastrophic breakdown.
There are a large number of unfinished nuclear reactors in the US (construction halted in many places after three mile island) that could be redesigned and completed much more quickly than new, non-nuclear generators could be build.
And Florie, what makes you say Yucca mountain is not safe?
“very little” risk of catastrophic breakdown is WAY TOO MUCH
Yucca Mountain: the cannisters may corrode in the presence of water, which has welled up at the site in the past. The alloy has not been in existence long. Earthquakes a possiblity there. Etc., etc., etc.
Nuclear should never have happened.
Nothing has zero risk, the best we can do is try to minimize it. Pebble Bed reactors, assuming our understanding of thermodynamics is anywhere near as good as it appears to be, should be unable to get hot enough to melt graphite.
My geological background is essentially nill, so I have to rely on trained geologists for that data. A quick google survey seems to indicate that the Yucca mountain region has been stable for at least 80,000 years and maybe as long as several million years. I haven’t seen any data to suggest that this is likely to change, but it you have a source please let me know.
The water is an interesting issue, I do see some indication of that in the research that’s been done on the site. But unless its very unusual water, our metallurgical capacity should be up to the task. Of course, long construction time would also provide an opportunity to solve the problem from additional angles.
the bottom line for me is that the same amount of money put into
conservation would be 100 time better for all.
Check out the Wikipedia article on Yucca Mountain.
Other things that don’t have zero risk don’t have the same menacing and eternal aspect that nuclear has …
I agree Spiratec.
we simply consume far too much of everything.
I am Canadian and I am embarrassed to say that we are worse
than Americans. We have the highest per capita consumption of everything.
We create the largest tonnage of garbage per person in the world.
It’s disgusting.
Really?!! Worse than Americans??????
Sad but true. We Canadians think because we have such large amounts
of natural resources and natural beauty that we can just go ahead
and do anything we want. It’s got to stop.
The whole world thinks that! :)
on the positive side. I live in a small community of a thousand people.
We have built at a cost of about $50,000 a store which is like a thrift store
but with one nice difference. Everything in the store is free.
We call it the free store. Literally tons of things that people don’t want
go through this store and into the hands of someone else who can use it.
I have received 27 inch color TVs. VCRs by the truckload.
Computers. Fax machines ,photocopiers.
people have driven a complete cars with the keys in them and park them that the free store. The new owner has taken them away.
These free stores should be everywhere.
That’s great. Where do you live?
I’m all for conservation. But if you want to get rid of fossil fuel vehicles, a noble goal, you need to greatly increase electrical production to take up the energy slack. Other realistic alternatives, solar-thermal and geothermal sources, still have some environmental impact, and are unlikely to be able to make up, in the foreseeable future, the sheer volume nuclear power is capable of.
Your free store sounds like a nice way to recycle usable materials, but new goods and increased energy consumption are unavoidable.
My favorite is that I have got about one movie per day.
Both VHS and DVD. From the free store.
I live on a small island in between Vancouver Island and the mainland
of British Columbia.
Mmmm, the best possible place :)
Yes I feel blessed to live here.
What is the island’s name?
Everyone knows that Rolls-Royce’s last a long time.
If you took apart a Rolls-Royce and laid all the parts out in a big gymnasium
and you counted all the parts you would find it has the same number of parts
as an American vehicle.
There is no reason why we cannot mass-produce identical copies
of the Rolls-Royce at only a little bit more cost than the typical vehicle.
But the lifespan could be three times.
good thinking!
yawn … sigh … zzzzzzzzzz
I’m off! :)
My Chevy is almost 15 years old, it needs new brake pads but otherwise it’s basically perfect. My father drove his GMC Jimmy for even longer, before giving it to a man who was laid off from the yard (he had lived close enough to walk to the shipyard, while he worked there).
People in the US ditch their foreign cars just as rapidly as they do their domestics. Simple maintenance should keep any vehicle on the road three times longer than they are.
i drive a 1965 gmc truck it is now 41 years old.
I can still get new parts for it.
There you go then. I’ve got friends who think their 3 and 4 year old Hondas are too old to be useful.
You go into a store and buy a bottle of pickles made of glass.
You eat the pickles and throw the glass bottle away.
I would make the bottles somewhat heavier with a resealable design on the lids
and they would have a deposit price of two dollars each.
So you would want to take them back to the store.
Once back at the store they are sent back cleaned and refilled.
Bottles like this can be refilled hundreds of times before they break.
Why?
I can go on and on. I think if people were more conservative in every area of life
the waste could be reduced to a fraction of what is now.
Even melting glass and making new bottles is kind of stupid.
Keep using them over and over again. Then melt them.
Its a matter of overcoming the ‘ick’ factor in people. There’s really no reason that water exiting a sewage treatment plant couldn’t be routed straight back into the water system, but almost no one does it.
I have to go now. But just to wrap up this post…
I hope this will never happen but if it does this is what is going to happen.
A major nuclear accident will eventually occur and when it does
it was so severely cost so much to clean it up that regulators and insurance companies
we’ll see to it that another nuclear plant will never be built.
And all remaining plants will be shut down.
I just wished they would shut them down before the accident.
Hey, could you source your original claim of 1 major accident in 10,000 reactor years? I can’t seem to find it and I’m curious regarding the definition of ‘major accident’, among other things.
Sorry but it was from the 1960s.
I think they thought that it was a great and huge margin of safety.
One reactor running for 10,000 years before there is a major accident.
Seems good. No one thought there would be 1000 reactors operating continuously.
Assume 100 people per reactor. That’s 100,000 people. Everyone with an opportunity
to make a mistake. With reactors and mistakes can be huge.
US reactors have a primary and secondary cooling system.
If the primary system fails then they are allowed by regulation to run on the secondary system while you are repairing the primary system
It seems to me to be dangerous not to have a backup during that period.
I understand that primary failures are common.
Well, since there have been maybe 3 ‘major’ accidents in the last 50 years, I’m not sure that its accurate. If you discount Soviet reactors, the track record for nuclear power is substantially better.
Anyway, I stand by my position that your attitude is unnecessarily alarmist.
I admit that my attitude is alarmist. Because I truly believe that
the danger to humans and to all other forms of life on this planet is beyond
your imagination. It is extremely dangerous. We are running on borrowed time.
Yes I may sound alarmist but the danger is huge. It is unnecessary.
I will repeat for the last time that if the money spent on nuclear reactors
and fuel was used wisely in promoting conservation and wouldn’t need the reactors.
Alexaxas wrote:
Hey, could you source your original claim of 1 major accident in 10,000 reactor years? I can’t seem to find it and I’m curious regarding the definition of ‘major accident’, among other things.
and believe the definition of major accident would be large-scale release of radioactive materials probably more than hundreds of curies.
“The release of all radioactive gases in the 12 month period amounted to 32,283 curies; of these 11,980 curies were of tritium. The Korean Atomic Safety Research Institute investigated the environment near the nuclear power”
spiratec9 wrote:
“The release of all radioactive gases in the 12 month period amounted to 32,283 curies; of these 11,980 curies were of tritium. The Korean Atomic Safety Research Institute investigated the environment near the nuclear power”
source:
http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.ht…
imagine 32,000 curies per year from one reactor in normal operation.
32,000/365=87 curries per day.
a currie is the amount of radiation emitted by 1 gram of radium.
I hope you can understand why I’m skeptical of an interview as a primary source.
And using the International Nuclear Event Scale, only level 7 incidents are classed as ‘major’, making Chernobyl the only example. That gives a empirically derived rate much lower than yours.
And really, no one uses curies anymore. Becquerels man, becquerels.
I located a source for more accurate and modern reactors:
http://www.donaldmiller.com/Advantage…
they say the current estimates are one in 20,000 to one in 800,000 reactor years.
Pretty wide range.
Using the smaller one we should have one every 20 years.
I use curies because Madame Curie was a big promoter of radioactive materials.
And most people know Madame Curie. But I don’t have a clue what a Bequeral is?
Using the lowest figure must also assume no progress in design or control.
And and becquerel is 1 decay per second. Tts a derived SI unit.
1 Ci is equivalent to 3.7*10^10 Bq (I had to look that one up, I admit.)
When measuring radioactivity of a sample with a detector, a unit of “counts per second” (cps) or “counts per minute” (cpm) are often used. These units can be converted to the absolute activity of the sample in Bq if one applies a number of significant conversions, e.g., for the radiation background, for the detector efficiency, for the counting geometry, for self-absorption of the radiation in the sample.
you see my point. Applying the fudge factors.
Alexaxas wrote:
Using the lowest figure must also assume no progress in design or control.And and becquerel is 1 decay per second. Tts a derived SI unit.1 Ci is equivalent to 3.7*10^10 Bq (I had to look that one up, I admit.)
You are right about the progress in design and control.
However cost limitations are always real. If you want to make nuclear reactors
very safe then they become prohibitively expensive.
Also with a high degree of safety comes a high degree of complexity.
And that brings about a high degree of failure because of the complexiity.
It’s a vicious circle.
Also if a system is very safe it tends to shut itself off.
Utility companies do not like generating systems which always turn themselves off.
And they tend to override the safety systems in order to keep it running.
This is the danger.
For certain values of ‘very safe’ and ‘prohibitively expensive’.
Suffice to say that driving a car, drinking alcohol, and swimming recreationally are all unnecessarily risks with higher mortality rates.
Its past two am on this cost, my typing is slipping badly and I don’t get enough sleep as it is, I’ll look back tomorrow.
hi, i live in CNY, i live only about 20 miles from 9 Miles Point in Oswego, ny, which there is a nucluer plant there
The whole thing is, WHY TAKE A CHANCE that there will be an accident that will cause mutations and death for centuries to come? There are other ways, many other ways.
This reply has been removed.
Florie wrote:
The whole thing is, WHY TAKE A CHANCE that there will be an accident that will cause mutations and death for centuries to come? There are other ways, many other ways.
Because we need energy. We need an awful lot of it and we need it last Thursday.
Neo-luddism aside, I can’t understand why you guys believe that such a small risk should outweigh such enormous potential for benefit.
The risk is not small, it is very very very very HUGE (the possible consequences - I’m not talking statisical probabilties here). If something happens, and it most probably will, HUGE consequences for people, animals & plants, and for a very very very long time (you could just call it “forever”). Men are not gods, no matter what they think.
Anyway, dat’s wot I tink!!!
it has everything to do with assessing the damaged that radiation does.
it is not known very well by scientists that the damage of radiation to the immune system. It weakens the immune system. To the point that the general population
is being weakened. This can lead to widespread sickness of one kind or another.
In fact we are on the edge of generalized collapse of the whole ecosystem
of the world. It has been estimated that we have about 15 to 20 years
before the whole system is irreversible. We must act now. And that includes
shutting down all nuclear plants immediately. Without delay.
Alexaxas wrote:
Florie wrote:
The whole thing is, WHY TAKE A CHANCE that there will be an accident that will cause mutations and death for centuries to come? There are other ways, many other ways.
Because we need energy. We need an awful lot of it and we need it last Thursday.
Neo-luddism aside, I can’t understand why you guys believe that such a small risk should outweigh such enormous potential for benefit.
I think you should take a very critical look at your use of the word
“need”.
Florie wrote:
The risk is not small, it is very very very very HUGE (the possible consequences - I’m not talking statisical probabilties here). If something happens, and it most probably will, HUGE consequences for people, animals & plants, and for a very very very long time (you could just call it “forever”). Men are not gods, no matter what they think.
excellent way of saying it ,thanks.
‘Need’ meaning ‘can not possibly do without’. Unless you’re willing to regress to horse-drawn iron plows or you’re up to killing off 3 billion people or so.
The alternatives to nuclear (discounting fossil fuels of course) are at least 50 years away from being able to make up the gap, particularly if we actually convince people to switch to hydrogen or electric cars, and not without their own substantial environmental and aesthetic impacts.
As for your “very very very huge” consequences, you’ve been watching too many movies. Next you’re going to tell me we need to destroy all out computers because they’re going to take over the world, eventually.
All *our* computers.
Stupid fingers.
actually it will end, but not because fusion.
It will be because at this rate our nuclear fuel Uranium U235 will deplete. This energysource is not renewable!
Alexaxas wrote:
If you are afraid of nuclear power, you are an IDIOT.
Nuclear reactors are not and CAN NOT BE nuclear bombs.
Chernobyl was an uncapped design used exclusively in the USSR, nothing remotely like it has been used in the US.
3 Mile Island is a great example of safety systems working and preventing casualties.
Deplete Uranium (an entirely different subject, really) has a half life of 4.5 billion years. That means it is very stable and it’s energy output is exceedingly low.
And, for the record, coal power produces more radioactive pollution by orders of magnitude.
Please do everyone else a favor and educate yourselves.
Finally someone who knows, where he is talking about.
And moreover have you ever seen Tsjernobyl?
It is beautiful! It is the most amazing thing I have ever seen.
There has been no human activity their for decades. Survival of the fittest made sure, only the strongest of animals survive their. And there is no human interfeirence anymore. Wolf packs roam the area. Deer, wildlife, and wild trees everywhere. It isn’t a national park for nothing. Nature is resiliant. It survives. And in the end only 7500 people really died due to the accident and its radiation effects. This might seem a lot, but handguns do more yearly…
And yes, chernobyl was a stupidly designed reactor…
Yes, actually I’m always taken aback by how amazingly diverse the ecosystem is on the old Chernobyl site. Sure makes it seem like the rest of the planet is a lot hardier than we are.
Alexaxas wrote:
As for your “very very very huge” consequences, you’ve been watching too many movies. Next you’re going to tell me we need to destroy all out computers because they’re going to take over the world, eventually.
“you’ve been watching too many movies”
This is the kind of statement that makes communication deteriorate. Please don’t insult me as a means of trying to win your argument.
A snippet from today’s Common Dreams:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2…
Published on Thursday, July 31, 2008 by Inter Press Service
Accidents Make Nuclear Questions Bigger
by Julio Godoy
PARIS - The recent proliferation of accidents at nuclear power plants in France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Slovenia and elsewhere in Europe has made calls for greater reliance on nuclear energy questionable, experts say.0731 07
Several accidents were reported in mid-July at three nuclear power plants in the south of France. They came days after President Nicolas Sarkozy announced Jul. 3 that his government had decided to construct a new nuclear power plant.
In one accident at Tricastin on Jul. 7, up to 30,000 litres of a solution contaminated with more than 70 kilograms of uranium leaked into ground water. The plant is located near the medieval city Avignon, 530 km south of Paris, in a densely populated area with intensive agriculture.
The leak forced authorities to ban use of water for agricultural and domestic purposes around the plant for several days. The accident drew sharp criticism of Electricité de France, the state-owned power generation monopoly. It first concealed the leak, and reacted to it several hours after it had happened.
At the same plant, about 100 workers were contaminated with radioactive dust containing during maintenance operations Jul. 23.
Five days earlier, another uranium leak occurred at the Romans-sur-Isère plant, some 80 km north-east of Tricastin. Some reports suggested that this leak has been continuing for years.
A fourth accident occurred at the plant at Saint Alban, in the same region, 115 km north of Tricastin. Fifteen workers were exposed to radioactive dust.
Environmental groups say similar incidents occurred during July at the nuclear power plants at Nogent sur Seine, 80 km southeast of Paris, and Gravelines, near the border with Belgium.
“In less than 15 days, we have received information of the accidental contamination of 126 persons working in nuclear power plants,” says Bruno Chareyron, an engineer in nuclear physics, and director of research at the independent investigative commission on radioactivity CRIIRAD (after its French name).
Chareyron told IPS that CRIIRAD had knowledge of other leaks in Tricastin last year. “Carbone 14 and tritium were released into the atmosphere,” he said. “This time, uranium leaked for several hours before the authorities were warned and precaution measures were put in place.”
According to CRIIRAD, the Jul. 7 leak represented at least 17 times the maximum radioactivity allowed legally for a whole year.
Annie Thábaud-Mony, a physician at the French National Institute for Medical and Health Research, says contamination of workers “confronted regularly with important irradiation increases the risks of contracting diseases associated with ionising radiation, such as cancers and disorders affecting the human reproductive cycles.”
All facilities involved in the accidents are the property of AREVA, the state-owned monopoly which constructs nuclear power plants in France. AREVA is also involved in the construction of nuclear power plants abroad.
That’s exactly what we’re waiting for; good call!
Where I’m from there are no Nuclear Reactor’s nearby, sorry.
Alexaxas if the day comes when a reactor blows its top off.
Will you then take a second look?
abbey–palme wrote:
Where I’m from there are no Nuclear Reactor’s nearby, sorry.
half way around the earth is too close.
drinkincatonmil wrote:
That’s exactly what we’re waiting for; good call!
? (confused …)
as for yucca mountain …. it has the right name …..YUC.
lucif
jimreeve
littlenick
Florimouse
mjbennett0
drinkincatonmil
Molicule