Japan Nuclear Crisis: What About The Plutonium MOX?

[nadinbrzezinski]

The media tells us that things are looking much better now in regard to the Japan nuclear crisis and we should all relax about the damaged nuclear reactors in Fukushima.
Yet, there is something bothering us in London which makes it difficult for us to relax completely:

1. What does the smoke and vapour being emitted from the various nuclear reactors at the plant actually contain?
2. What if one of the elements being discharged is plutonium -- the deadliest substance known to man -- which is extremely difficult to detect?


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/japan-nuclear-crisis-what-about-the-plutonium-mox-2011-3#ixzz1HHGct9pg

I will not bother with GD any longer, not worth it. At least not on a serious subject.

[NNadir]

1. Um, you do realize that the so called "deadliest substance known to man" in your words, not those of

any reputable nuclear scientist was vaporized completely in ten metric ton quantities in the 1950's and 1960's.

The answer to your other question, which makes assumptions about the "smoke" that paranoids are continually carrying on about, even though they have no interest in the toxic carcinogenic clouds of smoke that issued from all of the failed refineries in Japan, depends largely on fuel composition.

Only one known plutonium compound has appreciable vapor pressures, the hexafluoride, although this compound is considered metastable even in a gas stream of pure elemental fluorine, which, um doesn't exist anywhere in Japan right now, except possibly in leaks at semiconductor plants.

Fluorine is one of the most toxic gases known. Its discover, Moisson, died a very young man.

The discoverer of plutonium, Glenn Seaborg, who actually held pieces of plutonium in his gloved hand to feel its warmth, lived to be 87 years old and died of a stroke.

The designation of plutonium as "the most toxic substance in the world" came from none other than Ralph Nader and has never been repeated in a reputable scientific journal. It was popularized by the stupidos at the New York Times, who know exactly as much as Ralph Nader about science, um, nothing.

[PoliticAverse]

14. If one is looking for the "most toxic substance known to man"...

Botulism is a good candidate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin

And they're injecting that into people to treat wrinkles.

Plutonium's toxicity is apparently much overrated due to Nader's hyperbole.

For more info start with the Toxicity section of the Wikipedia article on Plutonium:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Botulinum_toxin

See also 'Plutonium and Public Health':
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp143-c2.pdf

[kristopher]

18. Plutonium is only called that when it is in a "dirty bomb" and being talked about as...

...a national security issue.

When it is oxidized fallout from burning and melting fuels rods, it's no worse than bunny rabbits and kittens.

I would like anyone who makes that kind of claim to be required to snort precisely 4 sand-grain size particles voluntarily - I'll even buy them one of those little silver coke spoons to do it with. Then and only then will I give a rat's behind about that kind of opinion.

[Turbineguy]

2. There is also this possility

Electrical equipment (shorted by the water spray operation) that caught fire when power was restored. There is time to start a fire before the circuit breaker pops due to overload. I have experienced electrical fires and there is often a lot of smoke because coils will heat up and the insulation burns off slowly.

[kristopher]

11. Power has not been connected to #3. Try again...

[DCKit]

3. And the ones not covering GD are here in EE.

As I said earlier, hardly worth the effort.

[nadinbrzezinski]

4. Nope, I suspect this place is losing it's use

I sugest the Reuters blog for this disaster though... they have been SUPERB

[DCKit]

8. Geez Nadine, I'm not saying get out!

I'm just saying "don't take it so seriously, and recognize the games for what they are."

#1 - Don't waste your time with the stupid, endless arguments. They'll say any crazy shit, then you have to run off to get a PhD in Nnewcuelur (or any other subject where this type shows up) to prove your point is correct. These folks can go on for days, off on tangents that have nothing to do with the original argument and they'll even argue syntax and phrasing when they have nothing else. They thrive on argument for argument's sake. Just don't fall for it.

Ignore those with unreasonable arguments, discuss the pertinent issues with reasonable people.

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. I am...

I need the time...

[flamingdem]

5. MOX concerns popping up around the web - get to know ARJUN MAKHIJANI smart nuke scientist

“MOX is arguably too unstable to use in a nuclear reactor in any case.“This sort of plutonium fuel is more difficult to control than uranium fuel,” said Arjun Makhijani, a nuclear scientist and the president of the Institute for Energy and Environmen­tal Research.”
http://chr­onicle.aug­usta.com/n­ews/metro/­2011-03-15­/mox-conce­rn-japan-r­eactor?bcs­i-ac-DF4CE­B9F957C907­7=1BFA2FE8­00000503RJ­tZN+Da+Gxu­6bRUbzkfwq­QDgy2bCgAA­AwUAANUlnw­AIBwAAkQAA­AOsTEgA=

It has a lower melting temperatur­e than convention­al fuels (which makes the instabilit­y problem worse) and it’s more toxic. And the MOX process includes grinding up the plutonium and inserting the dust into the fuel rods, thus making it aspirable in an explosion.

http://new­s.cnet.com­/8301-1138­6_3-200428­52-76.html

The push to use MOX in reactors is driven by a desire to find a way—any way—to get rid of old fuel. But putting MOX into 40 year old plants that weren’t designed for it is a horrible idea. And the TVA is trying to do the same thing in the US.

http://dcb­ureau.org/­2011031513­04/Natural­-Resources­-News-Serv­ice/is-air­borne-plut­onium-a-th­reat-from-­reactor-nu­mber-three­.html#”

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Except the US... and I wonder why?

yes in blogs yes. but I have to see this popping on an MSM paper here. Then again we are always behind everybody else, Paternalistic, to quote the guy on NPR this morning.

[flamingdem]

7. The shills are active but there are some good ones on CNN and MSNBC

Robert Alvarez and especially Gundersen have been able to state things unkind to nuke lovers.

Today Bill Ny the Science Guy was highly critical and said no more nukes. I couldn't believe it, good for him.

[PA Democrat]

10. NYT says there are 32 MOX fuel rods in the spent fuel pool at Reactor3

One big worry for Japanese officials is that Reactor No. 3, the main target of the helicopters and water cannons on Thursday, uses a new and different fuel. It uses mixed oxides, or mox, which contains a mixture of uranium and plutonium, and can produce a more dangerous radioactive plume if scattered by fire or explosions. According to Tokyo Electric, 32 of the 514 fuel rod assemblies in the storage pond at Reactor No. 3 contain mox.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/asia/18spent.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[kristopher]

12. That is the first time I've heard the details. Thank you very much. nt

[FBaggins]

13. When did plutonium become "extremely difficult to detect"???

And, of course, there really is no MOX to speak of in the fuel pool. It's in the reactor core.

[PA Democrat]

15. So the NYT is wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/18/world/asia/18spent.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

One big worry for Japanese officials is that Reactor No. 3, the main target of the helicopters and water cannons on Thursday, uses a new and different fuel. It uses mixed oxides, or mox, which contains a mixture of uranium and plutonium, and can produce a more dangerous radioactive plume if scattered by fire or explosions. According to Tokyo Electric, 32 of the 514 fuel rod assemblies in the storage pond at Reactor No. 3 contain mox.

[Statistical]

16. Mox is 7% plutonium. Spent MOX is 2% plutonium. Spent uranium (conventional) fuel is 1% plutonium.

The NYT isn't "wrong" just incomplete and that leads to people jumping to conclusions. As you indicated MOX makes up 32 of 512 fuel assemblies. Conventional fuel would be 1% plutonium. Spent MOX is about 2% plutonium. It only makes up 32 of 512 asssemblies thus the spent fuel pond is about 1.06% plutonium.

Plutonium isn't hard to detect. It has a very distinct nuclear signature.

Even in the reactor itself spent MOX makes up a minority of the fuel thus in aggregate there is not a substantial increase in plutonium. Fresh MOX is about 7% plutonium BUT Gen II reactors can only use 33% MOX. 50% MOX requires extensive and expensive modification, 100% MOX requires new reactor designs built from ground up for 100% MOX.

So while MOX is 7% plutonium (in fresh fuel) only 1/3 of the reactor is MOX, 2/3 is conventional fuel making the overall loadout about 2.33% plutonium. The MOX fuel quickly burns up plutonium while uranium fuel produces plutonium.

[Nihil]

19. There you go again with the numbers ...

... confusing people with facts just after they've latched onto the latest
buzzphrase to panic about ... now they'll have to go on and look for an
even scarier "sciency-sounding thang" that will allow them to avoid having
to face the real problems being caused by the earthquake & tsunami ...

:shrug:

[FBaggins]

17. I don't know enough about the MOX fuel cycle, but something doesn't fit.

The unit was shut down in June in preparation for the switch to the new fuel. They started it back up again last September.

That's only about six months ago. I don't see how there would BE any spent fuel yet. I see the NYTimes saying that there is a small amount of it there (and I see that they're citing TEPCO as the source), but I don't understand how/why.

[Statistical]

20. Spent fuel pond can be used for new fuel load also.

Newer reactor have separate fuel handling building with more space for storing both spent and new fuel. It is possible some of the fuel in spent fuel pond is new fuel. Looking at the diagrams which albeit are very limited there doesn't appear to be any separate storage area for new fuel.

What is also strange is the small number of fuel assemblies. Reactors 2,3,4,and 5 use 548 assemblies in the core. One third of the core is refueled every 18 months ~ 182 assemblies. Not sure why they would have 32 assemblies of either new or spent MOX.

[flamingdem]

21. Tepco is reported to have taken waste from plants around the world nt

[FBaggins]

22. That's where MOX comes from.

It's recycling waste fuel.

Or are you saying that it's MOX from some OTHER reactor?

This is one of the first in the world to use the stuff. And it isn't like you could fly it around prior to the point it had cooled somewhere for awhile.

Frankly, I can't think what the mechanism would be for used MOX to end up in a reactor on the other side of the world.

[TNLib]

23. My understanding was Unit 3 was decommissioned along with 1 and 2

The spent fuel rods my guess have just been sitting there for a long time.

[Statistical]

24. No that is 4,5, & 6.

4-6 were shutdown for maintenance at the time of the quake.
Reactors 1-3 were actively producing power at the time of the quake.