Things You Don’t Do When Dealing With Nuclear Reactors
I am obviously old enough to remember Chernobyl. My mother participated heavily in a program to help the children affected by it. I am also old enough to remember Three Mile Island, though it is far more vague in my memory.
I mention these two incidents in connection to the recent recommendation of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to extend the shutdown of the Chalk River reactor because of safety concerns after a routine maintenance period was conducted. The Commission discovered that there was no emergency power supply for the reactor’s cooling pumps, which would be vital were a natural disaster or other event to occur that could damage the reactor.
Unfortunately, the Commission’s concerns have been entirely played down by the federal government because CRNL produces one half of the world’s medical isotopes. The weeklong shut down of the facility caused a worldwide shortage of medical isotopes, used in tests for everything from cancers to bone fractures. Looking to avoid embarrassment, the federal government dismissed the concerns of the Commission and has gone to great lengths to promote the safety of the reactor. And while their assertions might be immediately true, that the reactor itself is currently safe, the Commission’s findings regarding the lack of an emergency power supply for the reactor’s cooling pumps cannot be overlooked, no matter how significant CRNL’s medical isotope production is.
When it comes to idiocy, especially political idiocy, one province in which it should not be allowed to practice is in that of the nuclear realm – and that goes for everyone, not just those we deem threatening. Be it the use of nuclear technologies for purposes of power, research, or the production of weapons, the reality of nuclear productivity is that it is not something to be taken lightly.
To this day, an 18-mile safety zone remains in place around the Chernobyl facility, with a 3-mile ‘dead zone’ in place around the immediate area itself. The Number 4 reactor is still enclosed in an immense sarcophagus consisting of 660 feet of concrete, which numerous experts believe is eroding and in need of further reinforcement. The reality is, some 95% of the contents that it is shielding remains inside – 18 million curies worth of radioactivity.
Ironically, if you can believe it, tourists can take day trips to the area, which is, to this day, home to everything from abandoned homes still filled with the possessions of those that were evacuated (336,000 people in total) to tanks, trucks, helicopters, bikes, wheelbarrows, and a host of other things – all of them, over twenty years later, still considered ‘hot’. In other words – still contaminated with radioactivity. Visitors to the site are usually only exposed to roentgen counts of upwards of 22, though are warned not to touch metal or walk in places that are deemed close to collapse.
The disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 was the worst of its kind in history. And while the official numbers claim that those affected was below 100, those that aided in the effort to clean up after the disaster, and those affected medically, many of them children, are not considered victims.
So what does this have to do with Chalk River and the government’s decision to ignore the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission? Well, in 1999, the Belarusian government jailed Yury Bandazhevsky, a Belarusian professor, after he published research regarding the clinical consequences of cesium-137 on humans. Cesium-137 was one of the leading radioactive elements released because of the Chernobyl incident. Bandazhevsky’s findings jeopardized the government’s plans to reconstitute farmland that had been contaminated by the disaster, thus he was tried by the Belarusian military on a technicality (they claimed her was a reservist), who then conjured up false allegations of bribery and produced false testimonies, and was sentenced to eight years in prison.
When one examines Bandazhevsky’s case, it’s no coincidence that the Belarusian government’s witch-hunt began immediately after Bandazhevsky’s findings were published. Politics, not reason nor conscience, dictated perceptions of safety. And that, when dealing with the nuclear realm, is an immensely dangerous precedent.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Saturday, December 22nd, 2007 at 11:53 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Matt, do you know that people still live inside the *restricted* zone outside of Chernobyl?! There is a website devoted to the people who live there.. its truly sad. I believe the town is called Pripyat.
Here is a link to those pictures.. there was a documentry done a few years ago.. by the same name I believe.
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-revisited/chapter11.html
My best friend Agnes, she was just outside the contaminated zone when the melt down happened.. and every now and then goes back! The people who live inside that area are trying to revitalize it.. She says that you can smell this stench in the air.. its not a rotting smell, but a lingering stench-almost like stale air.
And I live just 30 miles from 3 Mile Island and on some days you can actually get really close to it.. its very intense to view.
December 22nd, 2007 at 12:30 pm
The goverment is nuts for getting the reactor re-opened through the house of commons,more safety in jeopardy now then ever i think anyway,isotopes is a big demand now days,but safety is always first,
how much time would it take to make sure the plant was actually safe to run again?
not sure if that was ever mentioned
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:02 pm
I am shocked to hear the official number of those affected by Chernobyl….certainly then it doesn’t count the homes full of “Chernobyl children” with terminal illness that I drove past in 2003 in the Carpathians; it doesn’t count those who fled their homeland after being forced to do insane things like participate in government-sponsored parades just days after the disaster to prove that everything was fine (I had a teacher from Kiev who made it here safely, but left behind several friends and family members who died from strange cancers very soon after). Almost 20 years later, I (as a tourist) was warned in whispers not to eat certain foods grown in Ukraine (cranberries, mushrooms) as they were particularly susceptible to radiation absorption from soil/ground water. It’s terrible to think that countless inhabitants of the region still live with the aftermath of that disaster, and that complete information about the potential health risks they face is still covered up in the name of politicians saving face.
We think we’re better off here, but I wonder by how much. I grew up with the Pickering Nuclear Plant as part of the view at the beach near my house, and never had any idea that I lived in a potential danger zone. Until I was an adult and went travelling a bit, I thought that beaches were supposed to be covered in dead fish, and that lake water was supposed to be very, very warm. I watched Harper discussing Chalk River on the CBC the other night - interesting and scary that his whole spin was about taking care of the health of as many people as possible (which was for him about not allowing the global supply of medical isotopes to dry up, while ignoring the more local issue of plant safety).
Money, power, ego…I’m sure I’ll be long dead before we humans learn…
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:13 pm
I live in Petawawa, the area is very much effected by AECL as much as it is by the military base.
To say that the nuclear safety commission personnel are pissed would be a drastic understatement. It is something like how a mother would react if their neighbor came over to feed their children booze right in front of her despite her constant objection..
The reactor (or plural, there are several but only the one is on the news) is safe, I am not so paranoid at my place of employment to think it isn’t. There are backup systems in place, just not as many as should be. But for the government to go over the head of its own commission like it did is ridiculous. I cannot think of any reason beyond money and ego that they would do such a thing. It is a very testy situation now.. I do not expect the NSC to forget this slap in their face lightly and am oh so eager for a government that wont be so easily swayed by the all mighty dollar.
Nuclear power is far safer than a lot of people think.. but to ignore the safety requirements for money is exactly what can lead to a problem..
-Cheers
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Pretty ironic how us “civilized” countries point at Iran and tell them they can’t have nuclear reactors beacause they might use the uranium for weapons, while at home we can’t even take care of our own reactors?? I know we live in a hypocritical world but I mean c’mon, how do they expect us to think of Iran as a nuclear threat when were scared of a meltdown in our own back yards??
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“The disaster at Chernobyl in 1986 was the worst of its kind in history. And while the official numbers claim that those affected was below 100, those that aided in the effort to clean up after the disaster, and those affected medically, many of them children, are not considered victims.”
I can’t believe that none of these are considered victims. It’s really saddening to hear that when you see the orphanages with dying children and young adults who are completely aware that they are ill, incurable, and almost certainly going to be gone before their time. It seems a real catch twenty two for those who have had to come back to the restricted zones full well knowing they are resigning themselves to dangerous elements. Especially since a lot of them have no other option as to where to go.
PS…Congrats on your 1000th post!!!!
[quote comment="36177"] It’s terrible to think that countless inhabitants of the region still live with the aftermath of that disaster, and that complete information about the potential health risks they face is still covered up in the name of politicians saving face.
Money, power, ego…I’m sure I’ll be long dead before we humans learn…[/quote]
I know, what a piss off, eh?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
No 1000th Article Extravaganza ?
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
P.S. I’d be very curious to know if we send foreign aid to Eastern Europe in the form of medical isotopes. I have this gut feeling that somehow that’s not part of Harper’s concern for worldwide accessibility…
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
http://www.flickr.com/photos/stuckincustoms/377720883/in/set-72157594514491393/
from Chernobyl
I read where they are having terrible problems at the reactor in southern Washington State. Leaks of waste into the ground headed for the nearby river.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
Cesium gets incorporated in the body as an alternate to Magnesium in reference to that report no? Its a shame that the feds are taking this approach, with the oilsands already being so economically viable.
Why not take some of the money from that income and pump it into funding important safety checks on nuclear plants across the country. Oh, right, that money is going right back to the oil companies or not being collected in the first place.
Nuclear power is a perfectly clean alternative to coal or hydro and the damage they do, provided they are kept safe and not treated haphazardly. Solar, wind, tidal, or any kind of ‘green’ power sources out there are not going to provide on their own without augmentation for a while, so we need to be doing our best with what we have at the moment. Playing politics with meltdowns is not our best.
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
[quote comment="36195"]OK but, President Bush said in his press conference 3 days ago that the best idea for an alternative energy source to fossill fuels is Nuclear Energy, and he totally supports construction and or rehabilitation of nuclear facilities…..[/quote]
I’m not entirely sure if you’re being sarcastic or not, but if you’re serious:
Don’t you think it a little odd that someone can be so into Nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy and file it under ‘environmentally sound ideas to save the world’, yet in the same breath continue to slag another nation for wanting to convert to Nuclear power?
Of course he would totally support the construction and/or rehabilitation of nuclear facilities…just as long as they are on American soil.
And I’m not even going to touch the end piece of your comment.
You’re coming off as rather juvenile there.
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
Chernobyl was a human tragedy, but offers us great insight into what happens to a place devoid of people. The world’s biggest ghost town. Utterly facinating, if you like things a little morbid.
More than a cautionary lession to had from Chernobyl, I think. A glimpse into the world without us.
December 22nd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
I live in Harrisburg, PA and I was about seven when Three Mile Island had it’s big freakout. I remember that they sent us home from school early and told us to stay inside and keep all windows and doors shut. I sh!t you not.
p.s. 1,000 posts? I thought there was nothing left to say?
Happy Holidays, all!
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Vice Records shot an interesting series of videos in which two of their head staff travel to Chernobyl to check out the old reactor and hunt wild boar. It’s pretty amazing as they wander around with an isotope counter and the readings quickly goes through the roof and venture into the old buildings.
http://www.vbs.tv/player.php
search chernobyl
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Equating a Chernobyl type reactor to a CANDU is more than misleading; it’s stupid and irresponsible.
The pumps in question are not the emergency backups, nor even the second (DC) backups, useful if AC power goes kaput. Not, it’s the third and fourth backups that are seismic rated that won’t be online for a while. Misleading once again.
As for the debate between nuclear and non nuclear… well, that won’t be debated here. Particularly if you don’t have the scientific background to understand the dangers inherent in conventional power generation. Suffice it to say that people would have died as a result of med isotopes not being available.
People die from coal fired generation. Coal fired generation produces more radioactivity (by orders of magnitude) than the accidental releases of, say, Bruce or Pickering.
In the shadows of which I, too, grew up.
You are hissy fitting over perceived, and not actual risks.
December 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 pm
[quote comment="36209"][quote comment="36197"][quote comment="36195"]OK but, President Bush said in his press conference 3 days ago that the best idea for an alternative energy source to fossill fuels is Nuclear Energy, and he totally supports construction and or rehabilitation of nuclear facilities…..[/quote]
I’m not entirely sure if you’re being sarcastic or not, but if you’re serious:
Don’t you think it a little odd that someone can be so into Nuclear energy as an alternative source of energy and file it under ‘environmentally sound ideas to save the world’, yet in the same breath continue to slag another nation for wanting to convert to Nuclear power?
Of course he would totally support the construction and/or rehabilitation of nuclear facilities…just as long as they are on American soil.
And I’m not even going to touch the end piece of your comment.
You’re coming off as rather juvenile there.[/quote]
Yes I was being serious about what Pres. Bush said in his press conference. NO I wasnt serious about the God part. I dont really believe that, but I have a lot of american relatives that do. Being a dual citezen I get to hear it all - all the time. As for me being juvenile… c’mon, lighten up a bit - its the holidays![/quote]
I apologize. I didn’t mean to imply that you are juvenile…it came out wrong.
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:28 pm
[quote comment="36218"]Equating a Chernobyl type reactor to a CANDU is more than misleading; it’s stupid and irresponsible.
The pumps in question are not the emergency backups, nor even the second (DC) backups, useful if AC power goes kaput. Not, it’s the third and fourth backups that are seismic rated that won’t be online for a while. Misleading once again.
As for the debate between nuclear and non nuclear… well, that won’t be debated here. Particularly if you don’t have the scientific background to understand the dangers inherent in conventional power generation. Suffice it to say that people would have died as a result of med isotopes not being available.
People die from coal fired generation. Coal fired generation produces more radioactivity (by orders of magnitude) than the accidental releases of, say, Bruce or Pickering.
In the shadows of which I, too, grew up.
You are hissy fitting over perceived, and not actual risks.[/quote]
Who is having a hissy fit? That’s insulting, and I sure hope it’s not directed at me.
I do understand that there is a difference between our systems and those of the Soviets (on many levels), and I have no issue with nuclear power when it is maintained properly. The points of contention here are that decisions (currently and in precedent) are made by politicians which override the expertise and recommendations of scientists, and that a public misled or kept intentionally uninformed is powerless to make choices regarding situations that are potentially detrimental to its own health and safety.
December 23rd, 2007 at 7:53 am
Glad you brought this up Matt.
A couple years ago, a friend of mine and I decided to take a fishing trip to a small town along the southern shore of Lake Ontario called Port Hope. On the west side of the river you will find a large hill encapsulated in what appears to be a giant black tarp and a myriad of signs that surround the facility that read ‘Non-Radioactive contaminated soil’
(http://www.porthopehealthconcerns.com/photos/waste/IMG_0842.jpg).
Having lived in Toronto for nearly 32 years I was surprised to learn that a refinery exists less than an hour away. Since reading those very vague and somewhat haunting signs around the area, I decided to do a little research and was shocked at what I found. Firstly, approximately 3.5 million cubic meters of radioactive waste remains within the boundaries of Port Hope awaiting proper long term storage.
Recently a number of local residents held a privately funded study to assess the prevalence of radioactive traces as a direct result of refining activities at the Cameco plant in Port Hope.
“The study of 11 samples included two controls and 9 representative samples of residents and former workers, showed radioactive contaminants and anomalies in 100% of the Port Hope samples, including a child under age 14. The findings identified nuclear reactor waste, depleted uranium, and enriched uranium 234. It found former workers eliminating radioactive industrial heavy metal toxins in their urine as late as 23 years after retirement. “
While it has been proven that the Port Hope area has elevated uranium levels as a direct result of the refineries activities, local officials continue to downplay the significance of the findings. More importantly, those individuals who have been speaking out against the activities are being ostracized and labeled as ‘wackos, trouble makers and even terrorists’ for drawing attention to this pressing issue.
“Scientists and community organizers were labeled, “small, but loud, self-interest groups” They were accused of using, “terrorist tactics,” and being, “willing to do whatever they have to get attention, regardless of the cost to the community.” Even the local MP had harsh words, criticizing the groups for
To echo the comments of one individual Ballz McGee, how can we possibly chastise others when our very own track record is marred.
I would encourage you all whether you live in the area or not to visit the following site for a very interesting read.
http://www.porthopehealthconcerns.com/
December 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 am
I assure you that what I said was not insulting, nor meant to be. Just an observation.
‘Tis the season not to be insulting.
Merry Christmas.
December 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
[quote comment="36218"]Equating a Chernobyl type reactor to a CANDU is more than misleading; it’s stupid and irresponsible.
The pumps in question are not the emergency backups, nor even the second (DC) backups, useful if AC power goes kaput. Not, it’s the third and fourth backups that are seismic rated that won’t be online for a while. Misleading once again.
As for the debate between nuclear and non nuclear… well, that won’t be debated here. Particularly if you don’t have the scientific background to understand the dangers inherent in conventional power generation. Suffice it to say that people would have died as a result of med isotopes not being available.
People die from coal fired generation. Coal fired generation produces more radioactivity (by orders of magnitude) than the accidental releases of, say, Bruce or Pickering.
In the shadows of which I, too, grew up.
You are hissy fitting over perceived, and not actual risks.[/quote]
The point is, my friend, that politics once again has forgone the warnings of a federal commission that made a recommendation. If that is the case, then what is the point of such commissions? They made their findings public, made an assessment, and stood by it. It was then shot down by the Prime Minister. As for not knowing ‘what I’m talking about’, I’m going to defer to the expertise of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission regarding this issue, not yours.
And I did not equate Chernobyl to this incident. I used it as context with regards to the jailing of Yury Bandazhevsky, who was also sold down the river for the purposes of the political.