|
How many people in Fukushima do you think are agreeing with you right now? Are their anecdotes about their experience any less valid that yours? There is so much that surrounds us everywhere that could kill us that we might as well go live in a plastic bubble in the middle of an abandoned field. If you can't see any positions between those two than I don't know what to say. There's room between embracing that which can kill us and living in a bubble out of fear of that which can kill us. I know thousands of people a year die in car accidents, but that doesn't mean that I have to drive with a couple of eye patches on either. But when something goes wrong driving the damage is confined, in general, to a relatively small number of people. When a nuclear accident does happen, rare as it is, it affects a huge number of people over numerous countries, health wise, economically, etc. Reasonable precautions can be taken, but there will always be cases where that isn't enough. Accidents happen, man made or nature made. Would those plants in Japan been falliable had they been built somewhere other than on top of a major earthquake faultline? Well, we sure talked about TMI for quite awhile when that happened. Was that triggered by an earthquake or tsunami? You seem locked onto to the idea that only Mother Nature can cause something to go wrong. I know this a long list, but take a look at it, and see how many mistakes are simple human error. Mother Nature is the least of my worries. Humans are idiots. 1950s * December 12, 1952 — INES Level 5 - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Reactor core damaged
o A reactor shutoff rod failure, combined with several operator errors, led to a major power excursion of more than double the reactor's rated output at AECL's NRX reactor. The operators purged the reactor's heavy water moderator, and the reaction stopped in under 30 seconds. A cover gas system failure led to hydrogen explosions, which severely damaged the reactor core. The fission products from approximately 30 kg of uranium were released through the reactor stack. Irradiated light-water coolant leaked from the damaged coolant circuit into the reactor building; some 4,000 cubic meters were pumped via pipeline to a disposal area to avoid contamination of the Ottawa River. Subsequent monitoring of surrounding water sources revealed no contamination. No immediate fatalities or injuries resulted from the incident; a 1982 followup study of exposed workers showed no long-term health effects. Future U.S. President Jimmy Carter, then a Lieutenant in the US Navy, was among the cleanup crew.<1><2>
* October 10, 1957 - INES Level 5 - Windscale, Cumbria, Great Britain - Core fire
o The graphite core of a British nuclear reactor at Windscale, Cumberland (now Sellafield, Cumbria) caught fire, releasing substantial amounts of radioactive contamination into the surrounding area. The event, known as the Windscale fire, was the worst nuclear accident in Great Britain.
* May 24, 1958 — INES Level needed - Chalk River, Ontario, Canada - Fuel damaged
o Due to inadequate cooling a damaged uranium fuel rod caught fire and was torn in two as it was being removed from the core at the NRU reactor. The fire was extinguished, but not before radioactive combustion products contaminated the interior of the reactor building and, to a lesser degree, an area surrounding the laboratory site. Over 600 people were employed in the clean-up.<3><4>
* October 25, 1958 - INES Level needed - Vinča, Yugoslavia - Criticality excursion, irradiation of personnel
o During a subcritical counting experiment a power buildup went undetected at the Vinca Nuclear Institute's zero-power natural uranium heavy water moderated research reactor.<5> Saturation of radiation detection chambers gave the researchers false readings and the level of moderator in the reactor tank was raised triggering a criticality excursion which a researcher detected from the smell of ozone.<6> Six scientists received radiation doses of 2—4 Sv (200—400 rems) <7> (p. 96). An experimental bone marrow transplant treatment was performed on all of them in France and five survived, despite the ultimate rejection of the marrow in all cases. A single woman among them later had a child without apparent complications. This was one of the first nuclear incidents investigated by then newly-formed IAEA.<8>
* July 26, 1959 — INES Level needed - Santa Susana Field Laboratory, California, United States - Partial meltdown
o A partial core meltdown may have taken place when the Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE) experienced a power excursion that caused severe overheating of the reactor core, resulting in the melting of one-third of the nuclear fuel and significant releases of radioactive gases. <9>
1960s
* July 24, 1964 - INES Level needed - Charlestown, Rhode Island, United States - Criticality Accident
* An error by a worker at a United Nuclear Corporation fuel facility led to an accidental criticality. Robert Peabody, believing he was using a diluted uranium solution, accidentally put concentrated solution into an agitation tank containing sodium carbonate. Peabody was exposed to 10,000rad (100Gy) of radiation and died two days later. Ninety minutes after the criticality, a plant manager and another administrator returned to the building and were exposed to 100rad (1Gy), but suffered no ill effects.<10><11>
* October 5, 1966 — INES Level needed - Monroe, Michigan, United States - Partial meltdown
* A sodium cooling system malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Enrico Fermi demonstration nuclear breeder reactor (Enrico Fermi-1 fast breeder reactor). The accident was attributed to a zirconium fragment that obstructed a flow-guide in the sodium cooling system. Two of the 105 fuel assemblies melted during the incident, but no contamination was recorded outside the containment vessel.<12>
* Winter 1966-1967 (date unknown) – INES Level needed – location unknown – loss of coolant accident
o The Soviet icebreaker Lenin, the USSR’s first nuclear-powered surface ship, suffered a major accident (possibly a meltdown — exactly what happened remains a matter of controversy in the West) in one of its three reactors. To find the leak the crew broke through the concrete and steel radiation shield with sledgehammers, causing irreparable damage. It was rumored that around 30 of the crew were killed. The ship was abandoned for a year to allow radiation levels to drop before the three reactors were removed, to be dumped into the Tsivolko Fjord on the Kara Sea, along with 60% of the fuel elements packed in a separate container. The reactors were replaced with two new ones, and the ship re-entered service in 1970, serving until 1989.
* May 1967 — INES Level needed - Dumfries and Galloway, Scotland, United Kingdom - Partial meltdown
* Graphite debris partially blocked a fuel channel causing a fuel element to melt and catch fire at the Chapelcross nuclear power station. Contamination was confined to the reactor core. The core was repaired and restarted in 1969, operating until the plant's shutdown in 2004.<13><14>
* January 21, 1969 — INES Level needed - Lucens, Canton of Vaud, Switzerland - Explosion
* A total loss of coolant led to a power excursion and explosion of an experimental nuclear reactor in a large cave at Lucens. The underground location of this reactor acted like a containment building and prevented any outside contamination. The cavern was heavily contaminated and was sealed. No injuries or fatalities resulted.<15><16>
1970s
* December 07, 1975 — INES Level 3 - Greifswald, Germany (then East Germany) - Partly damaged
* Operators disabled three of six cooling pumps electrical supply circuts to test emergency shutoffs. Instead of the expected automatic shutdown a fourth pump failed causing excessive heating which damaged ten fuel rods. The accident was attributed to sticky relay contacts and generally poor construction in the Soviet-built reactor.<17>
* February 22, 1977 — INES Level 4 - Jaslovské Bohunice, Czechoslovakia - Fuel damaged
* Operators neglected to remove moisture absorbing materials from a fuel rod assembly before loading it into the KS 150 reactor at power plant A-1. The accident resulted in damaged fuel integrity, extensive corrosion damage of fuel cladding and release of radioactivity into the plant area. The affected reactor was decommissioned following this accident.<18>
* March 28, 1979 — INES Level 5 - Middletown, Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States - Partial meltdown
* Equipment failures and worker mistakes contributed to a loss of coolant and a partial core meltdown at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station 15 km (9 miles) southeast of Harrisburg. While the reactor was extensively damaged on-site radiation exposure was under 100 millirems (less than annual exposure due to natural sources). Area residents received a smaller exposure of 1 millirem (10 µSv), or about 1/3 the dose from eating a banana per day for one year. There were no fatalities. Follow up radiological studies predict between zero and one long-term cancer fatality.<19><20><21>
See also: Three Mile Island accident
1980s
* March 13, 1980 - INES Level 4 - Orléans, France - Nuclear materials leak
* A brief power excursion in Reactor A2 led to a rupture of fuel bundles and a minor release (8 x 1010 Bq) of nuclear materials at the Saint-Laurent Nuclear Power Plant. The reactor was repaired and continued operation until its decommissioning in 1992.<22>
* March, 1981 — INES Level 2 - Tsuruga, Japan - Overexposure of workers
* More than 100 workers were exposed to doses of up to 155 millirem per day radiation during repairs of a nuclear power plant, violating the company's limit of 100 millirems (1 mSv) per day.<23>
* September 23, 1983 — INES Level 4 - Buenos Aires, Argentina - Accidental criticality
* An operator error during a fuel plate reconfiguration in an experimental test reactor led to an excursion of 3×1017 fissions at the RA-2 facility. The operator absorbed 2000 rad (20 Gy) of gamma and 1700 rad (17 Gy) of neutron radiation which killed him two days later. Another 17 people outside of the reactor room absorbed doses ranging from 35 rad (0.35 Gy) to less than 1 rad (0.01 Gy).<24> pg103<25>
* April 26, 1986 — INES Level 7 - Prypiat, Ukraine (then USSR) - Power excursion, explosion, complete meltdown
* An inadequate reactor safety system<26> led to an uncontrolled power excursion, causing a severe steam explosion, meltdown and release of radioactive material at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant located approximately 100 kilometers north-northwest of Kiev. Approximately fifty fatalities (mostly cleanup personnel) resulted from the accident and the immediate aftermath. An additional nine fatal cases of thyroid cancer in children in the Chernobyl area have been attributed to the accident. The explosion and combustion of the graphite reactor core spread radioactive material over much of Europe. 100,000 people were evacuated from the areas immediately surrounding Chernobyl in addition to 300,000 from the areas of heavy fallout in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. An "Exclusion Zone" was created surrounding the site encompassing approximately 1,000 mi² (3,000 km²) and deemed off-limits for human habitation for an indefinite period. Several studies by governments, UN agencies and environmental groups have estimated the consequences and eventual number of casualties. Their findings are subject to controversy.
See also: Chernobyl disaster
* May 4, 1986 – INES Level needed - Hamm-Uentrop, Germany (then West Germany) - Fuel damaged
* A spherical fuel pebble became lodged in the pipe used to deliver fuel elements to the reactor at an experimental 300-megawatt THTR-300 HTGR. Attempts by an operator to dislodge the fuel pebble damaged its cladding, releasing radiation detectable up to two kilometers from the reactor.<27>
* October 19, 1989 – INES Level 3 - Vandellos Nuclear Power Plant, Spain -fire in one of its two turbogenerators
* After the fire in the turbogenerators the Spanish comission determined a large list of issues in the plant that was closed by the owners due to economical unviability.
1990s
* April 6, 1993 — INES Level 4 - Tomsk, Russia - Explosion
* A pressure buildup led to an explosive mechanical failure in a 34 cubic meter stainless steel reaction vessel buried in a concrete bunker under building 201 of the radiochemical works at the Tomsk-7 Siberian Chemical Enterprise plutonium reprocessing facility. The vessel contained a mixture of concentrated nitric acid, uranium (8757 kg), plutonium (449 g) along with a mixture of radioactive and organic waste from a prior extraction cycle. The explosion dislodged the concrete lid of the bunker and blew a large hole in the roof of the building, releasing approximately 6 GBq of Pu 239 and 30 TBq of various other radionuclides into the environment. The contamination plume extended 28 km NE of building 201, 20 km beyond the facility property. The small village of Georgievka (pop. 200) was at the end of the fallout plume, but no fatalities, illnesses or injuries were reported. The accident exposed 160 on-site workers and almost two thousand cleanup workers to total doses of up to 50 mSv (the threshold limit for radiation workers is 100 mSv per 5 years).<28><29><30>
* June, 1999 — INES Level 2<31> - Ishikawa Prefecture, Japan - Control rod malfunction
* Operators attempting to insert one control rod during an inspection neglected procedure and instead withdrew three causing a 15 minute uncontrolled sustained reaction at the number 1 reactor of Shika Nuclear Power Plant. The Hokuriku Electric Company who owned the reactor did not report this incident and falsified records, covering it up until March, 2007.<32>
* September 30, 1999 — INES Level 4 - Ibaraki Prefecture, Japan - Accidental criticality
* Workers put uranyl nitrate solution containing about 16.6 kg of uranium, which exceeded the critical mass, into a precipitation tank at a uranium reprocessing facility in Tokai-mura northeast of Tokyo, Japan. The tank was not designed to dissolve this type of solution and was not configured to prevent eventual criticality. Three workers were exposed to (neutron) radiation doses in excess of allowable limits. Two of these workers died. 116 other workers received lesser doses of 1 mSv or greater though not in excess of the allowable limit.<33><34><35><36>
See also: Tokaimura nuclear accident
2000s
* April 10, 2003 — INES Level 3 - Paks, Hungary - Fuel damaged
* Partially spent fuel rods undergoing cleaning in a tank of heavy water ruptured and spilled fuel pellets at Paks Nuclear Power Plant. It is suspected that inadequate cooling of the rods during the cleaning process combined with a sudden influx of cold water thermally shocked fuel rods causing them to split. Boric acid was added to the tank to prevent the loose fuel pellets from achieving criticality. Ammonia and hydrazine were also added to absorb iodine-131.<37>
* April 19, 2005 — INES Level 3 - Sellafield, England, United Kingdom - Nuclear material leak
* 20 metric tons of uranium and 160 kilograms of plutonium dissolved in 83,000 litres of nitric acid leaked over several months from a cracked pipe into a stainless steel sump chamber at the Thorp nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. The partially processed spent fuel was drained into holding tanks outside the plant.<38><39>
* November 2005 — INES Level needed - Braidwood, Illinois, United States - Nuclear material leak
* Tritium contamination of groundwater was discovered at Exelon's Braidwood station. Groundwater off site remains within safe drinking standards though the NRC is requiring the plant to correct any problems related to the release.<40>
* March 6, 2006 — INES Level 2<41> - Erwin, Tennessee, United States - Nuclear material leak
* Thirty-five litres of a highly enriched uranium solution leaked during transfer into a lab at Nuclear Fuel Services Erwin Plant. The incident caused a seven-month shutdown. A required public hearing on the licensing of the plant was not held due to the absence of public notification.<42><43><44><45>
2010s
See also: Timeline of the Fukushima nuclear accidents
* March 11-13, 2011 - INES Level 4<46> or higher (6<47><48><49> as of March 15 according to Andre-Claude Lacoste, president of France's nuclear safety authority. It is not an official rating<50>)
Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - Overheating, explosions, fire, radioactivity emergency
Main article: Fukushima I nuclear accidents
* After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the emergency power supply of the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant failed. This was followed by deliberate releases of radioactive gas from reactors 1 and 2 to relieve pressure. On March 12, triggered by falling water levels, a hydrogen explosion occurred at reactor 1, resulting in the collapse of the concrete outer structure.<51><52><53><54><55> Although the reactor containment itself was confirmed to be intact,<56><57><58> the hourly radiation from the plant reached 1,015 microsievert (0.1015 rem) - an amount equivalent to that allowable for ordinary people in one year."<59><60> Residents of the Fukushima area were advised to stay inside, close doors and windows, turn off air conditioning, and to cover their mouths with masks, towels or handkerchiefs as well as not to drink tap water.<61> By the evening of March 12, the exclusion zone had been extended to 20 kilometres (12 mi) around the plant<62> and 70,000 to 80,000 people had been evacuated from homes in northern Japan.<63> A second, nearly identical hydrogen explosion occured in the reactor building for Unit 3 on March 14, with similar effects.<64> A third explosion in the “pressure suppression room” of Unit 2<65> initially was said not to have breached the reactor’s inner steel containment vessel,<66> but later reports indicated that the explosion damaged the steel containment structure of Unit 2 and much larger releases of radiation were expected than previously.<65>
* Disposed rods of reactor Unit 4 were stored outside the reactor in a separate pool which ran dry, yielding fire and risk of serious contamination.<67>
* Staff was brought down from 800 to 50.<67> Events are still developing.
* March 11-13, 2011 - INES Level needed, Fukushima II Nuclear Power Plant, Japan - Overheating, possible radioactivity emergency
* After the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami of March 11, the cooling systems for three reactors (numbers 1, 2 and 4) of the Fukushima-Daini nuclear power plant were compromised due to damage from the tsunami.<68> Nuclear Engineering International reported that all four units were successfully automatically shut down, but emergency diesel generators at the site were out of order.<69> People were evacuated around 10 kilometres (6.2 mi) from the plant. An evacuation order was issued, because of possible radioactive contamination.<70><71> Events are still developing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents
Speak for yourself and your own disinterest. This issue is why I got into politics in 1981 at age 14. And, as shown above, a lot more can go wrong than an earthquake or tsunami. What's embarassing is you blaming the Nuclear Energy when those plants would still be running status quo had nothing ever happened in Japan. What's embarrassing is that line. Something did happen, didn't it? What good is bragging about how awesome nuclear energy is when things are status quo when the status quo isn't consistent? The people in Fukushima will be relieved to know that, had the status quo only maintained itself, they'd be fine right now. Scientists have the term The Law of Unintended Consequences, but most people just use the shorthand version, "shit happens." Of course things would be still be status quo if nothing happened. Unfortunately it did so we deal with it but that doesn't mean we go shutting down every single nuclear power plant in a panic. I've never made that argument. Nor am I panicked in the slightest. We should be rapidly working on developing wind and solar, while slowly decommissioning these plants over time, starting with the riskiest ones first. This is something we could easily do if we didn't spend all our money and brainpower on killing people in war. How many people in the United States have died because of Nuclear Power? About 15 that I know of as a result of accidents, not a lot at all. Of course, Americans aren't the only humans on the planets. How many of the Fukishima workers, especially the 50 still there, do you think will be alive ten years from now. CNN reported that they asked for older men to do the job. Why do you think that is? A quarter of a million people were displaced from Chernobyl, never to return. I have no idea how soon people will be coming back to Fukushima, but I'm betting it'll be a while. That seems an awful high price to pay for energy. Yes, hurricanes can affect more, but so far we don't have a choice in that matter. In this one we do. Nuclear power is extremely safe, except when it isn't. At a time when climate change is making our weather more unpredictable, when we seem to having more and more "once a century" type events, it seems silly to rest our energy and environmental future with something that presents such enormous difficulties when there are safer and smarter alternatives. The only thing holding back serious wind and solar development is Big energy, oil and nuclear. Both have a vested interest in not seeing these other energy forms developed fully too quickly. The people involved in oil and nuclear are some of the biggest money and power brokers on the planet. Green energy isn't high on their agenda, let's face it. And we haven't even touched on the nuclear waste issue, which lasts tens of thousands of years. Right now were just saving it for future generations to worry about. Why would we do this to them, and ourselves, when we could follow a different path? Instead of "shutting them all down in a panic", I would decommission them over a span of 25 years, while rapidly increasing the development of solar and wind, and investing more in other green tech offshoots for those, as need will drive the demand. I would not be building more nuclear plants. If nuclear didn't have such a steep price when there was an accident it would be great, but right now there's too many things that can happen that we haven't planned for, or if we have, we've under planned for (see the reactor/s in California built to only withstand a 7.0 quake). Most things in life offer a risk/reward type of dynamic. In this case, I think the risk is too high, and the reward can be gained by other means anyways. |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
