Chernobyl Remembered

[Otter]

I had the opportunity to visit the Hanford 'reservation'. During WWII, it was one of the three (?) places that nuclear material was produced. You can drive around and see stuff with low-level radiation 'frozen in time'. Certainly nothing remotely close to the scale of Chernobyl, but the quietness is unnerving....the only other place I have been where the quietness was even MORE surreal as Auchwitz.

There have been reports of the materials stored at Hanford leaking into the Columbia and there are containers of man-make nuclear materials (Americurium and Berkleyum I believe) that are stored in containers that have half-lives of THOUSANDS of years.....and we have no idea what to do with it.

For those out there with more knowledge of physics, please accept my apologies for minor (hopefully) inaccuracies.

 

[archman]

There have been reports of the materials stored at Hanford leaking into the Columbia and there are containers of man-make nuclear materials (Americurium and Berkleyum I believe) that are stored in containers that have half-lives of THOUSANDS of years.....and we have no idea what to do with it.

On the contrary the majority of the science and physics folks have an excellent idea of where to stick it, but the people of Nevada keep stalling it in re-negotiations. Public misperception of nuclear science defies rational belief. There are now many excellent online resources to differentiate fact from fiction. I've been keeping current on the topic for many years myself, and my field's in life sciences. We have a cute little reactor at our school I hope to tour someday.

 

[Hoppy]

that made me think this morning for sure.

I am moved by that website in a way no other site ever has.

Maybe the people here in the UK who complain about seeing windmills should read that story.

Thx for the post.

 

[diverbrian]

Remember also that we avoided a similar fate at Three Mile Island mostly by luck, and a little by a somewhat safer reactor design.

From memory, so a physicist or plant operator is free to correct me:

The moderator in most US Nuclear Plants is pressurized purified water. The loss of water adds negative reactivity to the reaction. It is necessary to slow down the neutrons and make the reaction work, so if it drains off or boils into vapor, the nuetrons are moving too fast to continue the reaction and the worst that you get is a full meltdown (which is bad enough).

The moderator on this particular reactor design was liquid graphite as I recall. The loss of the moderator here adds postitive reactivity which adds to the problem. Also, at the low power levels that the Soviets were operating at for their test, the only nuetrons available to maintain the reaction won't turn power fast enough in the event of a spike. There are strict procedures used for control rod testing and the engineers at this plant violated them in order to get it done more quickly. Start-up's are the most dangerous times for a nuclear power plant.

The reactor in Pennsylvania was actually scrammed early in the process. A steam explosion was unlikely. If the operators had understood exactly what was going on, this incident may not have been as severe as it was.