Hartlepool Meltdown.

[asnys]

There was NO radioactivity released in the Three Mile Island accident...

I'm a huge advocate of nuclear power - see my sig - but that is simply not true. TMI released about 15 curies of radio-iodine and about 2.5 megacuries of radioactive noble gases.

Now, these releases are too small to cause a detectable increase in the number of cancers - the nobles, in particular, should dissipate harmlessly. But it's not true that there was no radiation released.

 

[Dunois]

I'm a huge advocate of nuclear power - see my sig - but that is simply not true. TMI released about 15 curies of radio-iodine and about 2.5 megacuries of radioactive noble gases.

Now, these releases are too small to cause a detectable increase in the number of cancers - the nobles, in particular, should dissipate harmlessly. But it's not true that there was no radiation released.

Said releases did not happen as part of the accident per se. If I recall things correctly what happened is that some of the gases stuck inside the reactor vessel where safely vented out after some time in order to reduce the pressure inside the vessel. Compared to Chernobyl and Fukushima 2.5Mcuries is also quite small.

 

[Osakadave]

And criminal irresponsibility by Westinghouse and the operator, TEPCO. W'house made the critical systems dependent on backup power.. and then TEPCO failed to maintain the backup power systems.

Corruption and lax regulation didn't help any either. Note that TEPCO has deep connections with the Yakuza (as do many other Japanese busineses).

The US has had quite a few near misses due to, among other things, the NRC's turning a blind eye to maintanance problems, especially at older plants.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

The UK has very strong regulation and safety standards, perhaps a legacy of BNFL being publicly owned.

 

[Osakadave]

The UK has very strong regulation and safety standards, perhaps a legacy of BNFL being publicly owned.

Note that TEPCO was also a public company until 1951.

And the strongest regulation and safety standards won't help if they aren't enforced because the watchdogs are in bed with those they are watching. The US is fairly bad about that and Japan is downright criminal.

 

[amphibulous]

Note that TEPCO was also a public company until 1951.

And the strongest regulation and safety standards won't help if they aren't enforced because the watchdogs are in bed with those they are watching. The US is fairly bad about that and Japan is downright criminal.

These things are true. Japan was an effective one-party for, what, 50 years after WW2?

What people don't get that is that poor regulation has worse consequences with some other things than with reactors. Chemical plants are especially scary, but there's also coal mining (black lung), frakking, and food production.

 

[Osakadave]

These things are true. Japan was an effective one-party for, what, 50 years after WW2?

What people don't get that is that poor regulation has worse consequences with some other things than with reactors. Chemical plants are especially scary, but there's also coal mining (black lung), frakking, and food production.

Indeed, indeed. Peter Hadfield, a British geologist and journalist with 14+ years in Japan, had a great book back in '92 called The Coming Tokyo Earthquake - Sixty Seconds That Will Change the World. In it he covered in detail what was likely to happen when the next really big quake hit's Tokyo. (Even if he's well short of what actually happens, it'll make 1923's quake seem mild...)

 

[TxCoatl1970]

Something that's probably off-topic, but do you think that insistence on perfect safety of reactor designs built in the US has severely retarded progress away from LWR design in the US?

 

[amphibulous]

Something that's probably off-topic, but do you think that insistence on perfect safety of reactor designs built in the US has severely retarded progress away from LWR design in the US?

No. If anything - as people have already said - US regulatory standards are probably too low.

Construction of power plants in the US is high because of factors like the huge overhead of medical insurance (the biggest cost in making a car in the US is medical insurance!) and the high cost of capital. (Capital is available for industrial investment in, say, Germany at much lower costs.) Safe nuclear power plants are expensive in the US basically because of its political failures.

 

[amphibulous]

Indeed, indeed. Peter Hadfield, a British geologist and journalist with 14+ years in Japan, had a great book back in '92 called The Coming Tokyo Earthquake - Sixty Seconds That Will Change the World. In it he covered in detail what was likely to happen when the next really big quake hit's Tokyo. (Even if he's well short of what actually happens, it'll make 1923's quake seem mild...)

Yes, building standards in earthquake zones are another good example.

 

[Gunnarnz]

Mind you if it had gone bang it would have devasted Hartlepool causing an estimated £ 25 -30 pounds of damage. (Hartlepool was not a very nice place in the mid 80's !!)

£25 -30 of damage?!? That's... that's... that's almost $100!
OH GOD THE HUMANITY!!11!1!ONE!ELEVEN!!ELEVENTY-ONE!!

 

[Dunois]

Something that's probably off-topic, but do you think that insistence on perfect safety of reactor designs built in the US has severely retarded progress away from LWR design in the US?

The reason why Thorium based reactors have not been successful probably has a lot to do with the Uranium enrichment business.

 

[amphibulous]

£25 -30 of damage?!? That's... that's... that's almost $100!
OH GOD THE HUMANITY!!11!1!ONE!ELEVEN!!ELEVENTY-ONE!!

No, its more like $40 at current exchange rates. Which makes much more sense if you've ever seen Hartlepool...

 

[asnys]

The reason why Thorium based reactors have not been successful probably has a lot to do with the Uranium enrichment business.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that had more to do with the technical complexity of breeder blankets and reprocessing, the cost of getting licensing for new reactor designs, and competition for research dollars from plutonium fast-breeders?

 

[Anderman]

Thorium itself doesn´t make a reactor saver. The concept of using liquid salts like fluoride which have a high boiling so that is doesn´t need put under pressure like water to have high temperature. And the fact the expansion of the fluid shut the reactor etc makes this reactor saver.

And the chemical processing is much cheaper then the purex method.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Note that TEPCO was also a public company until 1951.

And the strongest regulation and safety standards won't help if they aren't enforced because the watchdogs are in bed with those they are watching. The US is fairly bad about that and Japan is downright criminal.

BNFL was public well into the '90s and the older reactors are still the responsibility of the Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, an NDPB. Our regulatory body, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, is certainly not 'in bed' with British Energy, the private sucessor to BNFL.

 

[Osakadave]

BNFL was public well into the '90s and the older reactors are still the responsibility of the Nuclear Decomissioning Authority, an NDPB. Our regulatory body, the Office for Nuclear Regulation, is certainly not 'in bed' with British Energy, the private sucessor to BNFL.

My post wasn't meant to imply anything contrary to that, but rather noting that a legacy of having been publicly owned does not automatically translate to having very strong regulation and safety standards.

The Japanese nuclear industry has a terrible safety record: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2859-japans-nuclear-safety-dangerously-weak.html

Fukushima (or any of a number of other incidents in Japan, for that matter) would make much likely nuclear disasters TLs, IMHO, than Hartlepool.

(I might take a stab at this eventually, a la http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...n-plan-for-tokyo-after-fukushima-6295353.html)