Belgian nuclear reactor shuts down after fire

[Arthur]

Arthur, I appreciate that you are, by-and-large, in favour of nukes. But to downplay the severity of the Chernobyl disaster is playing in to the hands of the tree huggers.

Until recently I was of the same view. (And I'd always wind in my own theme of Soviet tech recklessness and the safety-be-damned RBMK design as emblematic of Soviet-era irresponsibility.)

My mind was progressively changed as I ran across more and more articles by people without a nuclear industry interest who said that the fallout is much exaggerated.

An interview with Richard Stone on TWiT (from 45:12 onwards) and then his doccie raise this issue in outline (47:45 onwards) , and one can find much more detail online. He wanders around the place with a geiger counter on camera.

At Chernobyl, Units 1-3 kept on working for years after the accident in Unit 4, and people went to work there every day, with no adverse health impact (52:00 ff). Here's the WHO press release on their report.

 

[TooFastTim]

Do you have any sources to back up your suggestion?

Anecdotal I'm afraid. A colleague was roped in to figure out who got how much dose. At the time (mid '90's) he said that one was definitely dead and possibly another two.

Arthur, one of the few positive outcomes was that we got to fill in the missing part of the graph. The same chap I refer to in the paragraph above was cock-a-hoop about the Chernobyl accident for this reason. I mean him no disrespect nor I am implying he was morbid but for the radio-biologists Chernobyl was a godsend. By filling in the gaps I mean: after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were knew the biological effects of huge doses. Chernobyl allowed us to complete the graph from zero dose up to those doses received by people at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The conclusions are startling!

That Chernobyl exploded is the issue. Reactors are not supposed to explode. Well not western reactors anyway. That the Russki design blew up put nuclear science back 30 years. It became a tainted profession. Nobody wished to be associated with it. Nobody studied nuclear engineering. The greenies had triumphed!

An interview with Richard Stone on TWiT (from 45:12 onwards) and then his doccie raise this issue in outline (47:45 onwards) , and one can find much more detail online. He wanders around the place with a geiger counter on camera.

I'll have a look.

 

[Arthur]

The TWiT interview isn't the evidence, of course, but merely a mention. There's much more in Pandora's Promise, which is interesting because it's by Greenies and Warmists and Lefties, who are now heretics for breaking with the EnviroLefty orthodoxy.

 

[TooFastTim]

The TWiT interview isn't the evidence, of course, but merely a mention. There's much more in Pandora's Promise, which is interesting because it's by Greenies and Warmists and Lefties, who are now heretics for breaking with the EnviroLefty orthodoxy.

That James Lovelock broke with the anti-nuke policy and is now an advocate of nuclear power speaks volumes.

I found these links:

http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

The former has the levels at Chernobyl in 2009. Not great but not "instant death" or even "long, lingering and painful death" by any stretch of the imagination

 

[Chris.Geerdts]

I found these links:

http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation

The former has the levels at Chernobyl in 2009. Not great but not "instant death" or even "long, lingering and painful death" by any stretch of the imagination

Thanks. I read the full article in your link on radiation at Chernobyl and it certainly does make for spine-chilling reading.

I've read some of the postings above and there's an assumption that if nuclear is safer than coal, it must be the way to go. What sort of an argument is that? The debate is much more complex.

The fact that I have (little, but) enough appreciation of physics, politics, economics and geography to be deeply suspicious of nuclear, and indeed the plans for nuclear in South Africa does not by any stretch of the imagination put me in someone's 'camp'. I certainly do believe we should be spending more time investigating energy reduction and giving alternative energy policies proper airing.

 

[TooFastTim]

I've read some of the postings above and there's an assumption that if nuclear is safer than coal, it must be the way to go. What sort of an argument is that? The debate is much more complex.

Chris the biggest argument in favour of nuclear is that reactors a much "greener" than coal fired power stations and thus, in the long term, safer for the planet.

I have arguments against conventional fission reactors but these are outside the scope of safety and this thread.

Personally, judging by the doses listed in the first link I posted, I wouldn't be happy working in or around Chernobyl (and I have been exposed to some seriously "hot" stuff) but I would have no problem taking an extended tour. But the Russians/Ukrainians have a much more relaxed approach.

 

[bekdik]

Now this story is getting interesting. This is the second Nuclear incident in Belgium in 4 months.
The first one has been ruled Sabotage.
And their plants are all ageing, some due to be shut down next year.

Please explain how the transformers used in the switchgear of a nuclear powered station differ from a coal, solar or any other power supplier?

 

[rwenzori]

At Chernobyl, Units 1-3 kept on working for years after the accident in Unit 4, and people went to work there every day, with no adverse health impact (52:00 ff).

Thank you - I have learned something. I had been under the impression the whole area had been evacuated.

 

[Space_Chief]

WHO said the issue was not a big deal although they also say:

Structural elements of the sarcophagus built to contain the damaged reactor have degraded, posing a risk of collapse and the release of radioactive dust;

But the health hazard is low.

Approximately 1000 on-site reactor staff and emergency workers were heavily exposed to high-level radiation on the first day of the accident; among the more than 200 000 emergency and recovery operation workers exposed during the period from 1986-1987, an estimated 2200 radiation-caused deaths can be expected during their lifetime.

No big deal, because Russia/Ukraine has issues of booze.

Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure.

So YES or NO, had there not been a massive evacuation effort (a few days late) would this have changed this or NOT.

So if Koeberg melts down, can we expect to continue to live say 20km from it, indefinitely, or will we be totally OK if we abandon our houses say 1-2 weeks after it happens.