Concerns grow over Russian nuclear plant safety

[bananas]

http://yle.fi/uutiset/concerns_grow_over_russian_nuclear_plant_safety/6529717

News 8.3.2013 11:46 | updated 8.3.2013 15:28

Concerns grow over Russian nuclear plant safety

Reports of serious operational damage at a Russian nuclear plant near the Finnish border are causing concern among Finnish nuclear safety officials and environmental activists. Getting Russia to close its old Chernobyl-type plants would likely require international pressure and international funding.

According to reports, swelling and cracking of the reactor's graphite moderator have been observed in the Sosnovy Bor plant, about 200 kilometres from the Finnish border. Nuclear safety experts in Finland see this as a potentially dangerous development.

Although calls are being heard within Russia itself to close down the country's Chernobyl-type plants, the Rosatom power company is trying to repair its old plants in order to maintain electricity output.

Serious problems affect the reactors in plants not far from Finland's borders, at Sosnovy Bor, Smolensk and Kursk. While Finnish radiation safety officials have repeatedly expressed concerns, environmental activists think it is unlikely that even these officials fully know in detail what level of danger they pose.

<snip>

[RobertEarl]

1. The grim Reaper abides

There are over 400 nuclear power plants on this little blue ball.

One by one, unless there is a concerted effort to safely dispose of the reactors and the waste, they will end life as we know it.

Following s a report about another Russian reactor problem.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/01/fukushima-chernobyl-risks-radiation

Nuclear's green cheerleaders forget Chernobyl at our peril

Every day there are more setbacks to solving the Japanese nuclear crisis and it's pretty clear that the industry and governments are telling us little; have no idea how long it will take to control; or what the real risk of cumulative contamination may be.

The authorities reassure us by saying there is no immediate danger and a few absolutist environmentalists obsessed with nuclear power because of the urgency to limit emissions repeat the industry mantra that only a few people died at Chernobyl – the worst nuclear accident in history. Those who disagree are smeared and put in the same camp as climate change deniers.

I prefer the words of Alexey Yablokov, member of the Russian academy of sciences, and adviser to President Gorbachev at the time of Chernobyl: "When you hear 'no immediate danger' [from nuclear radiation] then you should run away as far and as fast as you can."

Five years ago I visited the still highly contaminated areas of Ukraine and the Belarus border where much of the radioactive plume from Chernobyl descended on 26 April 1986. I challenge chief scientist John Beddington and environmentalists like George Monbiot or any of the pundits now downplaying the risks of radiation to talk to the doctors, the scientists, the mothers, children and villagers who have been left with the consequences of a major nuclear accident.

[WCGreen]

2. Nuclear Energy in a dysfunctional state...

What could go wrong...

[Archaic]

3. Safe power requires a lot of investment.

Well trained engineers, strong monitoring systems, outside audits, etc.

If there's an accident at a nuclear plant, it could be catastrophic.

If there's an accident at a coal plant, dozens could die in the explosion.

If there's a solar spill, we all get a tan.

But to your point, the less incentive and support for safety, the higher potential of disaster.

[enough]

4. k&r (nt)