# Nuclear reactions at Chernobyl



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Well this is great.



> Scientists monitoring the ruins of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine have seen a surge in fission reactions in an inaccessible chamber within the complex. They are now investigating whether the problem will stabilise or require a dangerous and difficult intervention to prevent a *runaway nuclear reaction*.
> . . .
> Neil Hyatt at the University of Sheffield, UK, who studies nuclear waste disposal, likens the situation to “embers in a barbecue pit” and says “it’s a reminder to us that it’s not a problem solved, it’s a problem stabilised”.


----------



## Money172375 (Jun 29, 2018)

The mini-series was great…..sounds like a sequel might be needed.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Money172375 said:


> The mini-series was great…..sounds like a sequel might be needed.


It's worth noting that the HBO miniseries was entertaining but very inaccurate scientifically. 

Nuclear power is and has been the safest source of power with the lowest deaths per TWh produced.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Nuclear power is and has been the safest source of power with the lowest deaths per TWh produced.


I don't think that accurately counts the problem of nuclear waste. This becomes a "hidden cost" or burden that we just try to hide under rocks, and hope to forget about.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I don't think that accurately counts the problem of nuclear waste. This becomes a "hidden cost" or burden that we just try to hide under rocks, and hope to forget about.


This is mostly theoretical (after the fall of current human civilization and next stone age civilization discovering it in 20,000 years).


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

And the Japanese are still dumping radioactive water from Fukishima into the ocean.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> It's worth noting that the HBO miniseries was entertaining but very inaccurate scientifically.
> 
> Nuclear power is and has been the safest source of power with the lowest deaths per TWh produced.


That's because no one can prove anyone was killed by nuclear power unless they were standing beside an atom bomb, or a runaway power plant meltdown when it went off. The fact that cancer has gone from affecting 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 persons 100 years ago, to being the leading cause of death responsible for 30% of all deaths is merely a coincidence and any connection to radioactive fallout, strontium 90, nuclear waste or atomic energy cannot be proven.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

sags said:


> And the Japanese are still dumping radioactive water from Fukishima into the ocean.


Harming absolutely no one. Every banana you eat is radioactive.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> That's because no one can prove anyone was killed by nuclear power unless they were standing beside an atom bomb, or a runaway power plant meltdown when it went off. The fact that cancer has gone from affecting 1 in 50 or 1 in 100 persons 100 years ago, to being the leading cause of death responsible for 30% of all deaths is merely a coincidence and any connection to radioactive fallout, strontium 90, nuclear waste or atomic energy cannot be proven.


Are you suggesting it is unknowable?

Cancer is multivariate. Cancer is the cause of death more often because people live longer, have more risk factors such as obesity, are exposed to more carcinogenic chemical compounds, etc. Radioactivity is measurable. There is no magic undetectable radioactive fallout coating the globe that has significantly increased radiation exposure.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> This is mostly theoretical (after the fall of current human civilization and next stone age civilization discovering it in 20,000 years).


I don't see what's theoretical about it. The waste remains hazardous for thousands of years AND requires maintenance as well.

Whatever nuclear waste you disposed of during your lifetime is a problem for your children and grandchildren.

They need active maintenance. Some types of stored waste is entirely temporary in nature and hasn't been handled permanently. Other types of waste can leak from containers. This isn't something you can just bury and forget about, walk away from.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> Are you suggesting it is unknowable?
> 
> Cancer is multivariate. Cancer is the cause of death more often because people live longer, have more risk factors such as obesity, are exposed to more carcinogenic chemical compounds, etc. Radioactivity is measurable. There is no magic undetectable radioactive fallout coating the globe that has significantly increased radiation exposure.


I'm suggesting that radioactivity and nuclear fallout have contributed to higher cancer rates but that apologists for nuclear energy insist that unless you can prove a direct cause of each individual case, no connection exists.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

james4beach said:


> I don't see what's theoretical about it. The waste remains hazardous for thousands of years AND requires maintenance as well.
> 
> Whatever nuclear waste you disposed of during your lifetime is a problem for your children and grandchildren.
> 
> They need active maintenance. Some types of stored waste is entirely temporary in nature and hasn't been handled permanently. Other types of waste can leak from containers. This isn't something you can just bury and forget about, walk away from.


This will only become a problem is civilization collapses. And lots of people will die anyway if that's the case.



Rusty O'Toole said:


> I'm suggesting that radioactivity and nuclear fallout have contributed to higher cancer rates but that apologists for nuclear energy insist that unless you can prove a direct cause of each individual case, no connection exists.


But wouldn't there need to be some measurable radioactivity higher than background to support that?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

andrewf said:


> But wouldn't there need to be some measurable radioactivity higher than background to support that?


That's why they keep raising the standard of background radiation. Did you know that for some purposes users will pay a premium for iron and steel salvaged from pre WW2 shipwrecks because it is the only steel not contaminated by radioactivity?
I'm not enough of a technical expert to criticize such matters. I find it funny that secondhand smoke from someone driving past a fast food drive through in a car is a health hazard but dumping thousands of tons of radioactive waste is not. Have read that Fukushima dumps the equivalent of a Hiroshima bomb of radioactivity every 8 hours and has been doing so since 2011. But this has no effect on the Pacific ocean, the die off and sickness of marine life is merely a coincidence. No one can prove a direct connection.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

A banana is more radioactive.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Chernobyl may be getting ready to blow again.









Nuclear reactions at Chernobyl are spiking in an inaccessible chamber


Subreactor room 305/2, which has been inaccessible since the Chernobyl meltdown 35 years ago, is emitting neutrons that point to a growing nuclear fission reaction




www.newscientist.com


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I'm suggesting that radioactivity and nuclear fallout have contributed to higher cancer rates but that apologists for nuclear energy insist that unless you can prove a direct cause of each individual case, no connection exists.


Maybe ... but then again, my uncle commented that when he was young, one went to the hospital to die and he figured making age forty was doing exceptionally well (he lived to age seventy five).

How much of the increase is that hosts are living a lot longer?
How much is from dumps like Love Canal?


Cheers


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Anyone concerned about nuclear should be completely aghast at the mountains of bodies produced by burning hydrocarbons.








Mortality rate globally by energy source 2012 | Statista


The death rate from coal energy was one of the highest in the world at an estimated 100,000 deaths per terawatt hour, in terms of human and environmental costs.




www.statista.com


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

People get more radiation from flying around the globe, living in high altitude locations, naturally occurring radon, in proximity to coal ash from incineration, radiology and eating irradiated food than they will ever experience from living in proximity to nuclear plants. There is a paranoia being expressed in this thread that is irrational and unfounded. While I agree management of nuclear waste, actually much of can be re-processed into new nuclear fuel, is a long term sequestration issue, it is manageable in the quantities being produced. It would be better to educate oneself about the wide ranging sources of radiation before coming to profound conclusions.

Chernobyl is indeed a significant problem and one can blame the Russians for cutting corners, e.g. lack of containment, in their early reactors, just like China doesn't control the re-entry of their junk rockets today, but it is irrational to condemn the industry for the lack of oversight and public discourse that was apparent in Soviet Russia at the time. I suspect the lesson has been learned. 

FWIW, I enjoyed the mini-series too. The major facts, as I understand it, are correct based on my 10 years in the industry in the 1970s. One just has to overlook the dramatization aspect to get people to watch it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

More on the HBO Chernobyl series specifically:


----------



## Ukrainiandude (Aug 25, 2020)

AltaRed said:


> but it is irrational to condemn the industry


I agree. Nevertheless Germany and many European countries are phasing out the nuclear and replacing them with natural gas from Siberia.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

There have been two major nuclear plant disasters in recent history that remain unresolved with no solutions to deal with them.

Most deadly toxic nuclear waste by product is stored on-site as it was in Fukishima. That IS a big part of the problem.

The government wants to develop a nuclear waste storage site near us and near Lake Huron, which supplies fresh water to millions of people.

The same Lake Huron under which Enbridge's line 5 runs and Michigan wants to get rid of.

The Deepwater Horizon disaster created dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. All that oil didn't magically vanish. It settled on the bottom of the Gulf.

Just like thousands of abandoned oil wells all over the world and continual leaks, accidents and spills continue to happen.

The energy industry is undeserving of ANY trust by the citizens.

They come in and earn the profits and then leave all the crap for someone else to deal with.

There are abandoned oil sites all over Europe that have never been cleaned up.

They left thousands of abandoned wells in western Canada for the taxpayers to clean up.

None of that includes the damage to the environment and climate that fossil fuels and nuclear energy have produced.

There is no way to "fix" that.

The sooner we can rid the world of the dirty energy producers......the better.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

andrewf said:


> This will only become a problem is civilization collapses. And lots of people will die anyway if that's the case.


As long as governments can continue to track and maintain the waste, it's doable. But someone has to do that work, and someone has to eat those costs.

Do cost-benefit analyses of nuclear energy take into account the ongoing long term maintenance cost? My concern is that they might externalize these costs by saying it's not their problem -- let another generation handle it.

The other thing that's clear, given the history of nuclear energy in both Canada & US (and Ontario comes to mind specifically), these maintenance costs are always *understated*. Actual maintenance both of the plants, and waste, runs much higher than initial estimates. What is initially pitched as relatively low cost, ends up being far more expensive over the long term. The same thing happens with waste management.

My concern is that we are being sold on nuclear energy by a bunch of people who are understating the waste management cost, or worse, hand-waving it away and saying let the children deal with it.

If you do the analysis more carefully, taking into account more realistic long term costs, it may turn out that nuclear power is not as great as it seems. It may be far better to pursue hydroelectric & solar & wind, and direct government efforts at reducing energy consumption.


----------



## Fain (Oct 11, 2009)

The economics of nuclear are condemning it anyway. It's not a growth industry and retirements are outpacing new construction starts. 

Too many projects take go over budget and face massive delays.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Cost/benefit is a different question. The point is that nuclear is very safe.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

Fain said:


> The economics of nuclear are condemning it anyway. It's not a growth industry and retirements are outpacing new construction starts.
> 
> Too many projects take go over budget and face massive delays.


Next generation/small modular reactors are seeing a lot of development and have promising economics.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

james4beach said:


> Do cost-benefit analyses of nuclear energy take into account the ongoing long term maintenance cost? My concern is that they might externalize these costs by saying it's not their problem -- let another generation handle it.


Long term maintenance costs may be the price of zero emissions. You didn't expect it would be free did you?

My research shows that Nuclear reactors do not produce air pollution or carbon dioxide (CO2) and are quite safe today. In fact, everything I read says nuclear is the safest source of electricity at this time. 

I've always been confused why the environmentalists who say they care so much about the climate don't embrace nuclear power - but it's quite the opposite it seems.

If I look at how Ontario with its 67% nuclear and 27% Hydro (both with zero CO2 emissions), it's a beacon of hope for zero emissions. But the environmentalists don't seem to like it. 

The nuclear waste problem doesn't seem to be as big as you say. Many articles I read back this up.

ltr


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

james4beach said:


> If you do the analysis more carefully, taking into account more realistic long term costs, it may turn out that nuclear power is not as great as it seems. It may be far better to pursue hydroelectric & solar & wind, and direct government efforts at reducing energy consumption. BC's latest Site C dam is a horror in the making.


The trouble is there are simply negligible viable hydro-electric projects left (without huge environmental issues of their own), and solar/wind (with their own environmental issues) will never form more than a 'sizeable' minority of electrical needs long term.

Hydro-electric projects completely savage eco-systems downstream of dams, gobble up large swaths of land upstream and eventually lose capacity due to silt build up. And we already know the damage both wind and solar do to wildlife and footprint (land usage). None of them come without substantial cost on a long term basis.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

like_to_retire said:


> Long term maintenance costs may be the price of zero emissions. You didn't expect it would be free did you?


That's possible, but we have far better renewable energy options today than 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. There have been massive improvements.



like_to_retire said:


> I've always been confused why the environmentalists who say they care so much about the climate don't embrace nuclear power - but it's quite the opposite it seems.


I'm sure that the horrendous problems of waste disposable and management factor into it. Especially because whenever the industry *pitches* nuclear, they dramatically under-state the waste & management problem.

This leads to a very justified distrust of those pushing nuclear. As those crumbling plants in Ontario demonstrate, it always looks great on paper, but aint so great once it's up and running... and needs constant maintenance.

In the US, nuclear waste keeps piling up and they don't even know what to do with it. They haven't yet processed it or even stored it permanently. It just never gets solved, and that's despite the Department of Energy and its massive budget, and lots of capable people.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

The operators don't even maintain the nuclear plants properly, let alone maintain waste products for thousands of years.

Ontario has aging nuclear plants that should have been refurbished or shut down in 2015, but every year they push for another year of operation.

The critical pressure tubes in the reactors are well past their safe use date but that is ignored. There is the possibility of an accident and meltdown.

The attitude is there has never been a catastrophic accident therefore there never will be.......is lacking in appeal.

_Frank Greening is a research scientist who worked for OPG for 23 years. During that period, he estimates he spent half the time researching pressure tubes.
Greening says the benchmark for operating performance for CANDU reactors is roughly 30 years at 80 per cent capacity. Pickering reached that benchmark around 2015, but since then the OPG has “kept pushing the envelope, and the limiting factor is the pressure tubes’ fitness for service.”
According to Greening, “every time you turn around, they try and squeeze a little bit more juice out of the lemon. This is a way to keep the nuclear industry gainfully employed, and stretching the lifetime of these reactors as far as they can. I think they’ve gone too far.”_









Nuclear plant at risk of 'Fukushima-type accident,' Ontario group says


The Ontario Clean Air Alliance wants an interim moratorium on the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station’s operation, citing the potential for a nuclear meltdown.




www.nationalobserver.com


----------

