Ronin of the Spirit

Because reality is beautiful.

Nuclear Power III

The following is comment by http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/ that I have edited for clarity and made into an entire post.

To my statement that Chernobyl was steam explosion he responded:

Prof. Juli Andrejev (University, Vienna), one of the first liquidators on block IV in 1986 said, that the fuel assembly was destroyed from the inside. this could haver happened through boiler or steam explosion

Prof Juli Andrejev is physicist, not a nuclear engineer, or a destructive annalist, or a fire investigator. He said that he knew it was nuclear explosion because the fuel tubes had blown from the inside out. Politely, that is absurd. A nuclear reaction would not turn a tube inside out, it would vaporize it. He claims to have made this conclusion while staring into the the open reactor from the destroyed edge of the roof over Reactor 4. (1.) Which is odd to say the least. The graphite in the reactor was on fire for 9 days after the explosion, and when it went out the reactor was covered in 4450 tons of sand. (2.) How did he see into a reactor that was either engulfed in an inferno or covered in 4450 tons of sand?

There is also a British study from 1996 that states, that Chernobyl indeed was an atomic explosion with a yield from 0.2 – 0.3 kilotons. There are atomic bombs which have a lower yield. After much searching I find no evidence of this study. However, Wikipeidia, The Associated Press, The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, The UN, The WHO, The International Atomic Energy Agency, PBS, The BBC, and the TORCH report undertaken by the European Green Party, says that it wasn’t nuclear. I maintain an open mind and would enjoy reading the study. Peer review, however, is clearly NOT supportive of this stance.

400 times more than Hiroshima to be exactly.

I made the point in Nuclear Power II that this is not something that can be expressed exactly, however, again I find no documentation of this “400” number. I am guessing this is interpolated from the TORCH report, and is not a measure of volume of fallout, but total radioactivity of total emissions. That a burning nuclear source would provide more airborne radioactive matter than a complete nuclear reaction is hardly surprising. Between the steam explosion and the fire, over 2000 tons of material was released. The radioactive gases decayed out in seconds. To quote the TORCH report “Of the cocktail of radionuclides that were released, the fission products iodine-131, caesium-134 and caesium-137 have the most radiological significance. Iodine-131 with its short radioactive half-life 2 of eight days had great radiological impact in the short term because of its doses to the thyroid. Caesium-134 (half-life of 2 years) and caesium-137 (half-life of 30 years) have the greater radiological impacts in the medium and long terms. Relatively small amounts of caesium-134 now remain, but for the first two decades after 1986, it was an important contributor to doses.” Remember that of all the information available the TORCH report is both the most generous and the least peer reviewed.

Some of the material was Pu241 which decays to Americum 5 – over 400 years halflife.

True. And what volume of this was released over what area?

In response to my statement that 3 Mile Island was a non-incedent, he says

Ask the American families, who were fighting for their (health) right at the court and lost, because of the IAEA, who said the same thing you have written.

May I be frank and admit that bureaucratic agencies who are funded to simultaneously police and encourage the same groups concern me deeply. The FDA also shares this impossible job description. I am not saying 3 Mile Island was not frightening for the residents, I am saying that their fright was far more significant a negative health factor than the minuscule amount of radiation released.

A reactor containment dome will support 28,000 kg the weight of a September 11th plane (American Airlines Flight 11 – Boeing
767-223 ER): 82,377 kg – 179,169 kg (max.)

Ah….no. True, the reactor containment is steel shell made to withstand only 200 psi. The missile shield which surrounds it is somewhat heavier, as it is made to resist a direct hit from a missile. Or a plane.

In response to my statement that the nuclear plants which make electricity best are the ones that cannot make anything else he said

5.2 Kg of Plutonium are enough.

I’m not quite sure what that is in reference to. I am assuming he as access to some source of average Plutonium production per reactor, a source I am unable to find. Regardless, plutonium is not “bad”; no chemical is bad. Frank Zappa once said “A drug is neither moral nor immoral…” What people do with them can be bad. Plutonium can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor as well. Plutonium can kill. So can a lack of electricity: mighty hard to run hospitals without electricity.

I say again, a call for total abstinence is absurd. We don’t need to police nuclear knowledge, we need to wiki it. Developing nations want nuclear power for the same reason developing adults want sex: That which is forbidden is attractive. We cannot unlearn nuclear power, we cannot forget how to make plutonium. All we can do is learn to make it work for our species instead of against it.

Refrences:

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

http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php

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

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Features/Chernobyl-15/cherno15_main.shtml

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/chernobyl.html

http://www.richarddnorth.com/journalism/science_risk/chernobyl1996.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5173310.stm

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/chernobyl.html

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

Advertisements

May 13, 2008 - Posted by | Uncategorized

2 Comments »

  1. I really really appreciate your effort. Although you have another (Wiki made) opinion. Your answer on the Americum 5 issue scares me, for example.
    If you are interested in further information, look here:

    http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/atomic-power-danger-sources-first-part/
    http://tekknorg.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/atomic-power-danger-sources-2nd-part/

    That Chernobyl was indeed an atomic explosion cannot be found so easily (who wonders?). But there is a scenario in the UK which explains the possibiliy of an atomic explosion in an atomic reactor:

    – Robert Green (former marine UK) – Characterization of the Chernobyl accident from independent view; Consequences for the philopsophy of Safety in western reactors.

    and:

    – a part in the book of British Nuclear History by Margaret Gowing – title “Britain and Atomic Energy 1945 – 1952”. Page 382 and page 385.

    be sure to get them somehow.

    The interesting thing is, that also the atomic industry is well aware of this. Learing from humans is very hard, isn’t it?

    Your blog is very interesting.

    more to come.

    regards,

    Comment by Tekknorg | May 13, 2008 | Reply

  2. Im sorry, I’ve overseen the part with prof. July Andrejev.

    He IS a Phisicist and Liquidator. He has seen the fuel assembly from the roof top of reactor IV. They were burst from the inside. There is no other type of explosion that can do this. Simple common sense. Every other explanation is a kind of euphemism.

    I also want to add something to the atomic explosion inside of atomic reactors:

    There is at least one scenario for an atomic explosion in a gas cooled reactor (AGR), in a presswater reactor (DW) and of the breeding reactor of Dounreay.

    According to the British Authority for Nuclear Safety (see Condition 152) reactors have to be shut down.

    regards,

    Comment by Tekknorg | May 13, 2008 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: