Nuclear Power has surged into the news, as the unfortunate consequence of an industry that was literally buffeted and swamped with both seawater and attention due to the tsunami in Japan. Partial to total meltdowns are underway in some rectors affected. It’s not safe to be within at least 30km of the Fukushima power plant, and it’s looking iffy that Japan will be able to get the reaction under control before it does so naturally after a total meltdown in some reactors.
So let me “assange” your fears. The nuclear industry cannot be trusted, not even in the highly respected industrial country of Japan.
(Yes, the real expression is “assuage” your fears, or to make them calmer and less intense. But the truth is not good, and Julian Assange’s name lends itself to this fantastic pun that I simply must use, and use again soon.)
ADDED: Take action in light of Japan’s disaster: Prepare your 72 hour emergency preparedness kit NOW! If you already have one, check and update it with fresher food, water, currency, and medicine.
Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff 
Colour me unsurprised. The nuclear industry placing profit above safety?
It’s as Terry Pratchett says, The Simpsons ain’t a comedy, it’s a documentary.
Tell me — what is the worst-case scenario you know of for the Japanese reactors? What does “total meltdown” mean?
Pingback: Assange Your Fears – Part 2 « Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff
Much higher level of radiation released over a larger area, and a much more costly cleanup and containment in the future. No explosion like a bomb is possible.
And instead of a partial meltdown, where some parts of the fuel rods react in the air, the reaction will run away completely, melting all of the fuel and everything touching them.
So you see this as a worst-case possibility for Canadian reactors?
Do you know what they use for fuel?
This incident doesn’t create a worst-case possibility for Canadian reactors, no. Our safety procedures and expectations must be reviewed now in light of this latest disaster, however. With CANDU reactors, my understanding of them is that if they have control rods that drop into a reactor in the event of a problem, and they can drain the moderating material/fluid, then the reaction shuts down much faster than the fuel in Japan’s reactors is ‘cooling’. Therefore the risk to Canadian reactors would be events that prevent the dropping of the rods, and draining of the moderating heavy water.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor
The fuel in Canadian reactors is mostly U(238). Unfortunately the reactor design produces waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years, and given a miraculous safe transport across the country is possibly destined for a northern Sask. mine shaft where it will remain a credible threat to all life for the foreseeable future of human life on earth.
Pingback: Gormley Hypothetically Off The Mark « Saskboy's Abandoned Stuff
“where it will remain a credible threat to all life for the foreseeable future of human life on earth.”
Unless we use it for fuel, which we’re going to realize sooner or later is the right thing to do.
The uranium in CANDU reactors is unenriched (i.e. natural) uranium, so it is almost all U238, and a small amount of U235. Granted, if it were left in the ground, it would probably do the least damage to humans. But the idea that if it were trucked across the country some massive disaster could happen is pretty much impossible. No, you don’t want it on your breakfast cereal, but it shouldn’t keep anyone up at night.
As for the CANDU reactors, the danger is that steam or water from inside the reactor could escape and spread radiation in the local area. It doesn’t have fissile material so it can’t melt down, any more than uranium could melt down in nature. If a lot of steam escaped, significant radiation could be spread around, though whether it would be enough to cause acute damage, except maybe for workers on the reactor site itself, seems unlikely as far as I’ve seen.
But so far, all of the nuclear waste yet created in CANDU reactors in Canada has been kept in heavy water pools on-site — that is, they don’t create enough waste to need some master plan to take care of it all. It would be better to re-use the fuel, and centrally store and control what can’t be re-used, but in the meantime it’s not like we’re at some critical, unmanageable level of waste.