I think its easy to distinguish someone who disagrees with Tepco's latest lie, and a man who claims mutated vampire raccoon dogs are running around Japan.
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-10-2011).]
IP: Logged
11:02 PM
Dec 10th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Advanced Radioactive water leaked at second Japan plant
Published Saturday, December 10, 2011
An Japanese nuclear plant leaked 1.8 tonnes of radioactive water from its cooling system, the government said, heightening worries over nuclear safety as an atomic crisis continues at another plant.
The leak, discovered Friday, caused no enviornmental impact as it was contained within an idled reactor at the Genkai nuclear plant in Saga prefecture in the southern Kyushu region, officials said.
Workers are still scrambling to contain an ongoing crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant, triggered by the March earthquake and tsunami that hit northeastern Japan.
The operator of the Genkai plant, Kyushu Electric Power, said Friday that one of the water pumps connected to its number three reactor was taken offline after it sounded an alarm for increasing temperature.
But the utility did not announce leaked water at that time. The water kept around the pump and was later collected, said an official with the Nuclear and Industry Safety Agency.
The utility was not legally required to report the water leak, but the mayor of the small Genkai town hosting the plant voiced concerns.
"It should have reported properly" to the Genkai town and Saga prefecture, mayor Hideo Kishimoto told local media, according to Kyodo News.
Officials with the utility could not immediately be reached.
The utility's officials told newspaper the Mainichi Shimbun that water leaks can take place even in a safe operating environment.
But public concerns about nuclear safety came to the fore after the Fukushima crisis forced evacuations of tens of thousands of residents and left large areas of land uninhabitable.
The March disaster knocked out the Fukushima plant's cooling system and sent some of its reactors into meltdown, spewing radiation into the air, sea and food chain in the worst nuclear accident since the 1986 Chernobyl disaster.
Top nuke regulators tell White House of ‘grave concerns’ with NRC chairman By Andrew Restuccia and Ben Geman - 12/09/11 07:58 PM ET
Members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission have told the White House that NRC Chairman Gregory Jaczko is causing “serious damage†to the agency that could harm the body’s ability to protect health and safety.
An Oct. 13 letter from Jaczko’s four NRC colleagues to White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley is a powerful, unified rebuke of the agency’s leader by his fellow commissioners, who cite “grave concerns†about his conduct and allege it’s increasingly “erratic.â€
“We believe that his actions and behavior are causing serious damage to this institution and are creating a chilled work environment at the NRC,†states the letter to Daley from NRC commissioners Kristine L. Svinicki, George Apostolakis, William D. Magwood, IV, and William C. Ostendorff.
“We are concerned that this will adversely affect the NRC’s central mission to protect the health, safety and security of the American people,†the letter adds.
Svinicki and Ostendorff are Republicans, the other three NRC commissioners, including Jaczko, are Democrats.
The four NRC members laid out their concerns to Jaczko directly in an Oct. 13 memo that mirrors the complaints in their letter to Daley. The memo tells Jaczko of the letter to Daley and acknowledges it is an “extraordinary step,†while adding that Jaczko has left them without “viable alternatives.â€
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the letter to Daley Friday evening.
The NRC is the independent agency that regulates the country’s 104 nuclear power reactors.
The letter comes at a time when the NRC is grappling with issues including safety upgrades in the wake of the disaster at Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant and weighing industry applications to build the first new U.S. reactors in decades.
The four commissioners say Jaczko, a former aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has “intimidated and bullied†senior staff; ordered staff to withhold information meant for NRC members; and tried to “intimidate†an independent NRC committee from reviewing aspects of the NRC’s analysis of the accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant.
The letter also alleges that Jaczko has “ignored the will†of the majority of the commission and treated his fellow commissioners with such “intemperance and disrespect†that the commission no longer functions as effectively as it should.
The letter was released Friday by House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who has scheduled a Dec. 14 hearing on NRC leadership.
Jaczko defended his leadership on the commission in a Dec. 7 letter to Daley released Friday by the NRC.
He acknowledged that there are often major policy disagreements on the commission, adding that he believes the commission “has taken an approach that is not as protective of public health and safety as I believe is necessary.†But he said he respects their right to disagree.
“I follow the law, I respect the policy duly established by the Commission even if I disagree with it, and I faithfully executive Commission policy as I oversee the staff of the agency,†he said.
Jaczko argued that the commissioners have a “lack of understanding†of their statutory responsibilities. They are responsible for “policymaking, rulemaking and adjudications,†while the chairman is in charge of “all other functions.â€
The commissioners are raising concerns about management decisions that are in the chairman’s purview, Jaczko said in the letter.
“I seek to consult with my colleagues on a great number of the decisions I make whether they are policy or management related,†he said. “I do not always agree with their suggestions and advice, however, and that has led to a circular claim that if I exercise my statutory authority I am somehow abusing them.â€
Jaczko apologized to Daley for “any distractions†the disagreements on the commission may have caused and said he takes “responsibility for improving the level of our dialogue.â€
The letter comes amid simmering tensions on the commission.


NRC Inspector General Hubert Bell released a report in June that alleged Jaczko “controls information†provided to the other NRC commissioners by designating issues as administrative matters, which he has control over, rather than policy matters.


“Because he acts as the gatekeeper to determine what is a policy matter versus what is an administrative matter and controls information available to the other commissioners, they are uncertain as to whether they are adequately informed of policy matters that should be brought to their attention,†the report, which was requested by House Republicans, says.


The report also raised questions about Jaczko’s handling of the decision to stop work on a multi-part evaluation of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in light of the Obama administration’s decision to abandon the long-delayed project.


Additionally, the commission has disagreed in recent months over how to deal with the recommendations of a task force assigned to reevaluate the country’s nuclear safety regulations in light of the disaster at the Fukushima Daiichi plant in Japan.


The report called on the commission to make sweeping improvements to NRC’s “existing patchwork of regulatory requirements and other safety initiatives.â€â€¨â€¨
Jaczko called on the commission to quickly evaluate the report and implement the necessary recommendations. But the commissioners initially resisted Jaczko’s call for swift action. Ultimately, they agreed to move forward quickly on the recommendations identified by staff as the highest priority.
All five NRC members are slated to testify at the House hearing next week, according to Issa’s office.
Issa, in a letter to Daley Friday, asks the White House to designate a witness for the hearing.
“The White House has now been aware of the Commissioners concerns for nearly two months, and the public deserves to understand what actions have been taken and whether the President still believes that Chairman Jaczko is capable of leading the NRC,†Issa writes.
Meanwhile, a panel of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will examine the post-Fukushima task force’s recommendations at a hearing Thursday.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the committee’s top Republican, said in a statement Friday evening that he’s taking the NRC commissioners concerns very seriously, and commends their “courage†for coming forward.
But amid the newly revealed attacks on Jaczko, Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a senior Democrat and longtime critic of nuclear power, issued a report Friday that blames the other four NRC commissioners for stymieing NRC efforts to boost safety after the Fukushima disaster.
Markey accuses Jaczko’s four NRC colleagues of attempting a “coup.â€
“The actions of these four Commissioners since the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused a regulatory meltdown that has left America’s nuclear fleet and the general public at risk,†Markey said in a statement.
“Instead of doing what they have been sworn to do, these four Commissioners have attempted a coup on the Chairman and have abdicated their responsibility to the American public to assure the safety of America’s nuclear industry. I call on these four Commissioners to stop the obstruction, do their jobs and quickly move to fully implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster,†he said.
Dec. 9, 2011: New Report Details Conspiracy to Delay, Weaken US Nuclear Safety in Wake of Fukushima
“Regulatory Meltdown†Reveals Efforts to Improve Nuclear Safety Undermined by Four NRC Commissioners
WASHINGTON, D.C. – As part of his ongoing investigation into U.S. nuclear safety since the Fukushima meltdowns, today Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Congress’s leading voice for nuclear safety, released a blockbuster new report that details how four Commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) colluded to prevent and then delay the work of the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima, the entity tasked with making recommendations for improvement to NRC regulations and processes after the Fukushima meltdowns, the worst nuclear disaster in history. The Near-Term Task Force members comprise more than 135 years of collective experience at the NRC, and with full access to expert NRC staff completed a methodical and comprehensive review of NRC’s regulatory system.
Rep. Markey’s office reviewed thousands of pages of documents, including emails, correspondence, meeting minutes and voting records, and found a concerted effort by Commissioners William Magwood, Kristine Svinicki, William Ostendorff and George Apostolakis to undermine the efforts of the Fukushima Task Force with request for endless additional study in an effort to delay the release and implementation of the task force’s final recommendations. Documents also show open hostility on the part of the four Commissioners toward efforts of NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko to fully and quickly implement the recommendations of the Task Force, despite efforts on the part of the Chairman to keep the other four NRC Commissioners fully informed regarding the Japanese emergency.
“The actions of these four Commissioners since the Fukushima nuclear disaster has caused a regulatory meltdown that has left America’s nuclear fleet and the general public at risk,†said Rep. Markey. “Instead of doing what they have been sworn to do, these four Commissioners have attempted a coup on the Chairman and have abdicated their responsibility to the American public to assure the safety of America’s nuclear industry. I call on these four Commissioners to stop the obstruction, do their jobs and quickly move to fully implement the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster.â€
A copy of the report “Regulatory Meltdown: How Four Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners Conspired to Delay and Weaken Nuclear Reactor Safety in the Wake of Fukushima†can be found HERE.
Major findings in the new report include:
* Four NRC Commissioners attempted to delay and otherwise impede the creation of the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima; * Four NRC Commissioners conspired, with each other and with senior NRC staff, to delay the release of and alter the NRC Near-Term Task Force report on Fukushima; * The other NRC Commissioners attempted to slow down or otherwise impede the adoption of the safety recommendations made by the NRC Near-Term Task Force on Fukushima; * NRC Chairman Greg Jaczko kept the other four NRC Commissioners fully informed regarding the Japanese emergency, despite claims to the contrary made by these Commissioners; and * The consideration of the Fukushima safety upgrades is not the only safety-related issue that the other NRC Commissioners have opposed.
After the Near Term Task Force released its report in July, Rep. Markey called for the rapid adoption of all recommendations, and sent letters criticizing the proposals to delay even their consideration that were put forward by Commissioners Svinicki, Magwood and Ostendorff.
Rep. Markey also introduced legislation to overhaul nuclear safety. The Nuclear Power Plant Safety Act of 2011 will impose a moratorium on all new nuclear reactor licenses or license extensions until new safety requirements are in place that reflect the lessons learned from the Fukushima disaster.
Rep. Markey’s office also released the report, “Fukushima Fallout: Regulator Loopholes at U.S. Nuclear Plants â€, detailing several concerns about NRC safety regulations following the Fukushima crisis.
Press Release 11-258 Scientists Assess Radioactivity in the Ocean from Japan Nuclear Power Facility
New study analyzes radioactivity from facility in first months after accident Map showing 30 km area around Fukushima reactor site affected by released radioactivity.
A new study analyzes levels of radioactivity released to the ocean in the Japan accident. Credit and Larger Version
December 9, 2011
With current news of additional radioactive leaks from the Fukushima nuclear power plants, the impact on the ocean of releases of radioactivity from the plants remains unclear.
But a new study by U.S. and Japanese researchers analyzes the levels of radioactivity discharged in the first four months after the accident.
It draws some basic conclusions about the history of contaminant releases to the ocean.
The study was conducted by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution chemist Ken Buesseler and two colleagues based in Japan, Michio Aoyama of the Meteorological Research Institute and Masao Fukasawa of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology.
They report that discharges from the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plants peaked one month after the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that precipitated the nuclear accident, and continued through at least July.
Their study finds that the levels of radioactivity, while high, are not a direct threat to humans or marine life, but cautions that the effect of accumulated radionuclides in marine sediments is poorly known.
The release of radioactivity from Fukushima--both as atmospheric fallout and direct discharges to the ocean--represents the largest accidental release of radiation to the ocean in history.
Concentrations of cesium-137, a radioactive isotope with a 30-year half-life, at the plants' discharge points to the ocean peaked at more than 50 million times normal/previous levels.
Concentrations 18 miles offshore were higher than those measured in the ocean after the Chernobyl accident 25 years ago.
This is largely related to the fact, says Buesseler, that the Fukushima nuclear power plants are located along the coast, whereas Chernobyl was several hundred miles from the nearest salt water basins, the Baltic and Black Seas.
However, due to ocean mixing processes, the levels are rapidly diluted off the northwest coast of Japan.
The study used data on the concentrations of cesium-137, cesium-134 and iodine-131 as a basis to compare the levels of radionuclides released into the ocean with known levels in the sea surrounding Japan prior to the accident.
The resulting paper, Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plants on Marine Radioactivity, is published in the current issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.
Buesseler was awarded a rapid-response grant from the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Ocean Sciences to establish baseline concentrations of radionuclides in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
"Understanding and management of the long-term geochemical fate and ecological consequences of radiochemical contamination of the sea is dependent on our knowledge of the initial conditions," says Don Rice, director of NSF's Chemical Oceanography Program. "Acquiring that knowledge depends on our ability to deploy experts to the scene with minimal delay."
The investigators compiled and analyzed data on concentrations of cesium and iodine in ocean water near the plants' discharge points.
The data were made public by TEPCO, the electric utility that owns the plants, and the Japanese Ministry of Culture, Sports, Science and Technology.
The team found that releases to the ocean peaked in April, a fact they attribute to "the complicated pattern of discharge of seawater and freshwater used to cool the reactors and spent fuel rods, interactions with groundwater, and intentional and unintentional releases of mixed radioactive material from the reactor facility."
The scientists also found that the releases decreased in May by a factor of 1,000, "a consequence of ocean mixing and a primary radionuclide source that had dramatically abated," they report.
While concentrations of some radionuclides continued to decrease, by July they were still 10,000 times higher than levels measured in 2010 off the coast of Japan.
This indicates that the plants "remain a significant source of contamination to the coastal waters off Japan," the researchers report.
"There is currently no data that allow us to distinguish between several possible sources of continued releases," says Buesseler.
"These most likely include some combination of direct releases from the reactors, or storage tanks or indirect releases from groundwater beneath the reactors or coastal sediments, both of which are likely contaminated from the period of maximum releases."
Buesseler says that at levels indicated by these data, the releases are not likely to be a direct threat to humans or marine biota in the surrounding ocean waters.
There could be an issue, however, if the source remains high and radiation accumulates in marine sediments.
"We don't know how this might affect benthic marine life, and with a half-life of 30 years, any cesium-137 accumulating in sediments or groundwater could be a concern for decades to come," he says.
While international collaborations for comprehensive field measurements to determine the full range of radioactive isotopes released are underway, says Buesseler, it will take some time before results are available to fully evaluate the impacts of this accident on the ocean.
The Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation also funded the research.
Read Full Story Here Home > Perspectives > Japan Political Pulse > Full Story Japan Political Pulse Plutonium brings no real chance of prosperity
Some readers appear to wonder why I recently write only about nuclear power generation in this column. I do so because I believe that it is a crucial issue that will determine the fate of Japan as well as the whole world.
There have recently been various news reports that offer valuable insight into the future of nuclear power generation. The Dec. 2 morning edition of the Mainichi Shimbun ran an article reporting that in 2002, the then administrative vice minister of economy, trade and industry and the chairman and president of Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) were nearing an agreement to withdraw from a nuclear fuel recycling project.
Nuclear fuel recycling refers to a process of treating spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power stations with chemicals and extracting reusable uranium and plutonium from it. This project has so far been unsuccessful and there are no prospects that the project will work. It was only natural that the government regulator and the power supplier were negotiating a withdrawal from the project.
The negotiations came to nothing after top executives of TEPCO were forced to resign over the utility's cover-up of a series of technical problems. Nevertheless, the Mainichi report indicates that a change in Japan's nuclear power policy is not a pipe dream.
Furthermore, the Mainichi evening edition of the same day (the morning edition the following day in some areas) reported that the United Kingdom is planning to dispose of some of its surplus plutonium, which it had accumulated as a result of nuclear fuel reprocessing, in an underground repository. This news is of greater significance.
Plutonium is generated as a result of burning uranium in nuclear reactors. One gram of the substance has energy equal to that in 1 kiloliter of oil. It can be used as a material for both atomic bombs and fuel for nuclear reactors. The U.K. has steadily accumulated plutonium, but failed to develop fast-breeder nuclear reactors, which had been viewed as the core of the peaceful use of such a substance.
The U.K. then attempted to develop technology for the use of plutonium-uranium MOX fuel in thermal reactors at nuclear power stations, a project known in Japan as "pluthermal." However, the country has been unsuccessful in producing such fuel. The same is true with Japan. Areva SA, a nuclear technology company in France, is now manufacturing plutonium-uranium MOX fuel, but questions remain as to its quality. The U.K. ended up being the world's largest holder of surplus plutonium.
The U.K. faced a major challenge in dealing with a massive amount of plutonium, which needs to be stored safely. The storage of plutonium costs a huge amount of money, but the U.K. can no longer afford to pay for this. The U.K. needs to prevent such a substance from falling into the hands of terrorists. The country has consequently decided to bury part of its plutonium in an underground repository that is scheduled to begin operations in 2040.
Even if the U.K. says it will bury only "part" of its surplus plutonium, its amount is enough to produce hundreds of atomic bombs. The amount of surplus plutonium that needs to be buried could increase as there is no prospect that the U.K. will be successful in developing technology to use plutonium-uranium MOX fuel in thermal reactors.
Moreover, the U.K. will abandon its project to reprocess spent nuclear fuel over the next decade. Behind the decision is the growing awareness that plutonium offers no positives, while also being a terrible nuisance. This is the essence of the story written by Haruyuki Aikawa, a Mainichi correspondent in London. In this undated photo released Wednesday, April 13, 2011 by Tokyo Electric Power Co., a standing man is partially seen above an example of the truck used to move spent fuel rods in the pools. Nothing is decided yet but TEPCO told the press at its Tokyo headquarters Wednesday morning that this is one option TEPCO officials are considering to use at the tsunami-stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town in Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/Tokyo Electric Power Co.) In this undated photo released Wednesday, April 13, 2011 by Tokyo Electric Power Co., a standing man is partially seen above an example of the truck used to move spent fuel rods in the pools. Nothing is decided yet but TEPCO told the press at its Tokyo headquarters Wednesday morning that this is one option TEPCO officials are considering to use at the tsunami-stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Okuma town in Fukushima Prefecture, northeastern Japan. (AP Photo/Tokyo Electric Power Co.)
The U.K. has already abandoned developing fast-breeder nuclear reactors, and is set to give up nuclear fuel reprocessing as well. Moreover, its planned construction of a facility to dispose of radioactive waste including plutonium is likely to materialize even though it is still at a planning phase.
In contrast, there are no prospects that Japan can build a disposal facility. However, for Japan to call for operations at the Monju prototype fast-breeder nuclear reactor in Fukui Prefecture and the nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in the Aomori Prefecture village of Rokkasho to be carried out as planned, would be like putting the cart before the horse as it appears the country is incapable of building a disposal facility.
Plutonium is directly related to security issues. The U.K. possesses nuclear weapons but Japan does not. One may wonder whether Japan's independence will be threatened if it abandons nuclear fuel recycling and loses its ability to produce plutonium. Even though it is an important point of contention the issue should not be used as a reason to underestimate the harm of plutonium.
Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Yukio Edano who is in charge of energy policy, Goshi Hosono, state minister for handling the nuclear crisis, and Yoshito Sengoku, second-in-command in the ruling Democratic Party of Japan's Policy Research Committee, have been hearing the views of experts on the issue.
It is not enough for the government to talk only about the dream of "prosperity" built on dependence on nuclear power. Japan's ability to overcome the mess that follows such prosperity is now being tested. (By Takao Yamada, Expert Senior Writer)
Mixed oxide (MOX) fuel provides about 2% of the new nuclear fuel used today.
MOX fuel is manufactured from plutonium recovered from used reactor fuel.
(Updated August 2011)
MOX fuel also provides a means of burning weapons-grade plutonium (from military sources) to produce electricity. In every nuclear reactor there is both fission of isotopes such as uranium-235, and the formation of new, heavier isotopes due to neutron capture, primarily by U-238. Most of the fuel mass in a reactor is U-238. This can become plutonium-239 and by successive neutron capture Pu-240, Pu-241 and Pu-242 as well as other transuranic isotopes (see page on Plutonium). Pu-239 and Pu-241 are fissile, like U-235. (Very small quantities of Pu-236 and Pu-238 are formed similarly from U-235.)
Normally, with the fuel being changed every three years or so, about half of the Pu-239 is 'burned' in the reactor, providing about one third of the total energy. It behaves like U-235 and its fission releases a similar amount of energy. The higher the burn-up, the less fissile plutonium remains in the used fuel. Typically about one percent of the used fuel discharged from a reactor is plutonium, and some two thirds of this is fissile (c. 50% Pu-239, 15% Pu-241). Worldwide, some 70 tonnes of plutonium contained in used fuel is removed when refuelling reactors each year.
The plutonium (and uranium) in used fuel can be recovered through reprocessing. The plutonium could then be used in the manufacture mixed oxide (MOX) nuclear fuel, to provide energy through electricity generation. A single recycle of plutonium in the form of MOX fuel increases the energy derived from the original uranium by some 12%, and if the uranium is also recycled this becomes about 22% (based on light water reactor fuel with burn-up of 45 GWd/tU).
Today there is a significant amount of separated uranium and plutonium which may be recycled, including from ex-military sources. It is equivalent to about three years' supply of natural uranium from world mines.
Inventory of separated recyclable materials
Quantity (tonnes) Natural U equivalent (tonnes) Plutonium from reprocessed fuel 320 60,000 Uranium from reprocessed fuel 45,000 50,000 Ex-military plutonium 70 15,000 Ex-military high-enriched uranium 230 70,000
In addition, there is about 1.6 million tonnes of enrichment tails, with recoverable fissile uranium.
MOX use
MOX fuel was first used in a thermal reactor in 1963, but did not come into commercial use until the 1980s. So far about 2000 tonnes of MOX fuel has been fabricated and loaded into power reactors. In 2006 about 180 tonnes of MOX fuel was loaded into over 30 reactors (mostly PWR) in Europe.
Today MOX is widely used in Europe and in Japan. Currently about 40 reactors in Europe (Belgium, Switzerland, Germany and France) are licensed to use MOX, and over 30 are doing so. In Japan about ten reactors are licensed to use it and several do so. These reactors generally use MOX fuel as about one third of their core, but some will accept up to 50% MOX assemblies. France aims to have all its 900 MWe series of reactors running with at least one third MOX. Japan also plans to use MOX in one third of its reactors in the near future and expects to start up a 1383 MWe (gross) reactor with a complete fuel loading of MOX at the Ohma plant in late 2014.2 Other advanced light water reactors such as the EPR or AP1000 will be able to accept complete fuel loadings of MOX if required.
The use of up to 50% of MOX does not change the operating characteristics of a reactor, though the plant must be designed or adapted slightly to take it. More control rods are needed. For more than 50% MOX loading, significant changes are necessary and a reactor needs to be designed accordingly.
An advantage of MOX is that the fissile concentration of the fuel can be increased easily by adding a bit more plutonium, whereas enriching uranium to higher levels of U-235 is relatively expensive. As reactor operators seek to burn fuel harder and longer, increasing burnup from around 30,000 MW days per tonne a few years ago to over 50,000 MWd/t now, MOX use becomes more attractive.
Reprocessing to separate plutonium for recycle as MOX becomes more economic as uranium prices rise. MOX use also becomes more attractive as the need to reduce the volume of spent fuel increase. Seven UO2 fuel assemblies give rise to one MOX assembly plus some vitrified high-level waste, resulting in only about 35% of the volume, mass and cost of disposal.
Recycling used fuel
If used fuel is to be recycled, the first step is separating the plutonium and the remaining uranium (about 96% of the spent fuel) from the fission products with other wastes (together about 3%). The plutonium then needs to be separated from most or all of the uranium. All this is undertaken at a reprocessing plant (see information page on Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel).
The plutonium, as an oxide, is then mixed with depleted uranium left over from an enrichment plant to form fresh mixed oxide fuel (MOX, which is UO2+PuO2). MOX fuel, consisting of about 7% plutonium mixed with depleted uranium, is equivalent to uranium oxide fuel enriched to about 4.5% U-235, assuming that the plutonium has about two thirds fissile isotopes. If weapons plutonium is used (>90% Pu-239), only about 5% plutonium is needed in the mix. Areva has stated that the plutonium content of commercial MOX fuel varies between 3 and 10% depending on the design of the fuel.
Plutonium from reprocessed fuel is usually fabricated into MOX as soon as possible to avoid problems with the decay of short-lived plutonium isotopes. In particular, Pu-241 (half-life 14 years) decays to Am-241 which is a strong gamma emitter, giving rise to a potential occupational health hazard if separated plutonium over five years old is used in a normal MOX plant. The Am-241 level in stored plutonium increases about 0.5% per year, with corresponding decrease in fissile value of the plutonium. Pu-238 (half-life 88 years), a strong alpha emitter and a source of spontaneous neutrons, is increased in high-burnup fuel. Pu-239, Pu-240 and Pu-242 are long-lived and hence little changed with prolonged storage. (See also information page on Plutonium).
Fast neutron reactors allow multiple recycling of plutonium, since all transuranic isotopes there are fissionable, but in thermal reactors isotopic degradation limits the plutonium recycle potential and most spent MOX fuel is stored pending the greater deployment of fast reactors. (The plutonium isotopic composition of used MOX fuel at 45 GWd/tU burnup is about 37% Pu-239, 32% Pu-240, 16% Pu-241, 12% Pu-242 and 4% Pu-238.)
Recovered uranium from a reprocessing plant may be re-enriched on its own for use as fresh fuel. Because it contains some neutron-absorbing U-234 and U-236, reprocessed uranium must be enriched significantly (e.g. one-tenth) more than is required for natural uranium. Thus reprocessed uranium from low-burn-up fuel is more likely to be suitable for re-enrichment, while that from high burn-up fuel is best used for blending or MOX fabrication.
Reprocessing of 850 tonnes of French used fuel per year (about 15 years after discharge) produces 8.5 tonnes of plutonium (immediately recycled as 100 tonnes of MOX) and 810 tonnes of reprocessed uranium (RepU). Of this about two-thirds is converted into stable oxide form for storage. One-third of the RepU is re-enriched and EdF has demonstrated its use in 900 MWe power reactors.
MOX production
Two plants currently produce commercial quantities of MOX fuel – in France and UK. In 2006 a 40 t/yr Belgian plant closed3 and in April 2007 the French Melox plant was licensed for an increase in production from 145 to 195 t/yr. Also the Sellafield MOX Plant in UK was downrated from 128 to 40 t/yr, and in August 2011 the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority announced that it had reassessed the plant's prospects and would close it.
Japan is planning to start up a 130 t/yr J-MOX plant at Rokkasho in 2015. Meanwhile, construction on a MOX fabrication facility at the Savannah River Site in the USA is underway for 2016 start-up – see section below on MOX and disposition of weapons plutonium. World mixed oxide fuel fabrication capacities (t/yr)
MOX is also used in fast neutron reactors in several countries, particularly France and Russia. It was first developed for this purpose, with experimental work being done in USA, Russia, UK, France, Germany, Belgium and Japan. Today, Russia leads the way in fast reactor development and has long-term plans to build a new generation of fast reactors fuelled by MOX. The world's largest fast reactor – the 800 MWe BN-800 – is currently under construction at Beloyarsk in the Urals and due to start up in 2012.
At present the output of reprocessing plants exceeds the rate of plutonium usage in MOX, resulting in inventories of (civil) plutonium in several countries. These stocks are expected to exceed 250 tonnes before they start to decline after 2010 as MOX use increases, with MOX then expected to supply about 5% of world reactor fuel requirements.
MOX and disposition of weapons plutonium
Under the Plutonium Management and Disposition Agreement, Russia and the USA agreed in 2000 to each dispose of (or immobilise) 34 tonnes of weapons-grade plutonium deemed surplus to requirements (see page on Military Warheads as a Source of Nuclear Fuel). The Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) at the Savannah River Site in the US state of South Carolina began construction in August 2007 and will convert the US plutonium to MOX fuel. Expected to begin operations in 2016, the MFFF is designed to turn 3.5 t/yr of weapons-grade plutonium into MOX fuel assemblies, which will be loaded at Duke Energy's Catawba and McGuire plants. The contract to design, build and operate the MFFF was awarded to the Shaw AREVA MOX Services consortium in 1999, with the $2.7 billion construction option being exercised in May 2008.4 Four MOX fuel lead test assemblies manufactured from US weapons plutonium and fabricated at the Melox plant in France were successfully burned on a trial basis at the Catawba plant.
Meanwhile, following several years of dispute, in November 2007 the USA and Russia agreed that Russia would dispose of its 34 t of weapons-grade plutonium by conversion to MOX fuel, which would be burned in the BN-600 reactor at the Beloyarsk nuclear plant, and in the BN-800 under construction at the same site.5 Under this plan, Russia would begin disposition in the BN-600 reactor in the 2012 timeframe. Disposition in the BN-800 would follow soon thereafter. Once disposition begins, the two reactors could dispose of approximately 1.5 t of Russian weapons plutonium per year. The USA agreed to contribute $400 million to the project. The MOX fuel will be manufactured at a plant that is planned to be built at Seversk, Siberia – though no firm plans for its construction currently exist. However, a 60 t/yr commercial MOX Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) is scheduled to start up at Zheleznogorsk by 2014, operated by the Mining & Chemical Combine (MCC). It will make MOX granules and 400 pelletised MOX fuel assemblies per year for the BN-800 and future fast reactors. The capacity is designed to supply five BN-800 units. This is likely to use ex-weapons plutonium.
MOX reprocessing and further use
Used MOX fuel reprocessing has been demonstrated since 1992 in France, at the La Hague plant. In 2004 the first reprocessing of used MOX fuel was undertaken on a larger scale with continuous process. Ten tonnes of MOX irradiated to about 35,000 MWd/t and with Pu content of about 4% was involved. The main problem of fully dissolving PuO2 was overcome.
However, at present the general policy is not to reprocess used MOX fuel, but to store it and await the advent of fuel cycle developments related to Generation IV fast neutron reactor designs. Plutonium-thorium fuel
Since the early 1990s Russia has had a programme to develop a thorium-uranium fuel, which more recently has moved to have a particular emphasis on utilisation of weapons-grade plutonium in a thorium-plutonium fuel. The programme is described in the information page on Thorium. With an estimated 150 tonnes of surplus weapons plutonium in Russia, the thorium-plutonium project would not necessarily cut across existing plans to make MOX fuel.
(Reuters) - The government wants to burn the country's huge stockpile of waste plutonium into mixed-oxide fuel (MOX) as part of a long-term nuclear strategy, it said on Thursday following a consultation that rejected other options.
A car passes the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing site near Seascale in Cumbria in this April 12, 2011 file photograph.
The world's largest civilian stockpile of used plutonium -- stored at the Sellafield nuclear site in Cumbria -- would be converted into MOX fuel for possible use in a new generation of thermal light water reactors, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) said.
But ministers stopped short of recommending that a new MOX plant be built to convert the radioactive elements.
"Only when the government is confident that its preferred option could be implemented safely and securely, that is affordable, deliverable, and offers value for money, will it be in a position to proceed with a new MOX plant," energy minister Charles Hendry told parliament.
As a next step the government will examine the commercial feasibility of building a plant, Hendry said.
The recommendation to use MOX comes a few months after the government-owned Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)announced it would close Britain's only MOX plant at Sellafield.
Loss of Japanese business following the Fukushima nuclear disaster made the plant commercially impractical.
In an apparent about-face, Hendry also set out plans to convert foreign-owned plutonium stockpiles stored in the UK at a new MOX plant, subject to commercial discussions.
France already uses MOX fuel in most of its 900 megawatt nuclear reactors, which make up around half of its 58-reactor total.
According to a Royal Society report in October, the stockpile costs 2 billion pounds to manage each year, undermines Britain's credibility in non-proliferation debates and poses a security risk.
Sunday, December 11, 2011 Moment of Truth for the No.3 Official at the Ministry of the Environment: "No One Trusts the Radiation Measurement by the National Government"
41-year-old Satoshi Takayama is the No.3 official at the Ministry of the Environment below the Minister (Goshi Hosono) and the Vice Minister (Katsuhiko Yokomitsu, former TV/movie actor). In a rare moment of truth, in a press conference in Shizuoka, Takayama blurted out, "No one trusts the measurement by the national government".
The occasion in Shizuoka was to persuade the local municipalities in Shizuoka (there are 35 of them) to accept the disaster/radioactive debris from towns in Iwate Prefectures.
Parliamentary Secretary for the Ministry of the Environment Satoshi Takayama held a press conference on December 10 in Shizuoka City [in Shizuoka Prefecture] and said about the radiation measurement of the debris from the March 11 earthquake/tsunami, "No one trusts the measurement by the national government. We are measuring, but we would like the local municipalities to measure it also."
Vice Governor of Shizuoka Shinichi Omura, who was with Takayama in the press conference, was visibly annoyed when Mainichi Shinbun asked him about the Secretary's remark after the press conference. "To say 'No one trusts the government's measurement' is to shake the very foundation of the safety standard."
The national government has been pressing the municipalities throughout Japan to accept the disaster debris if proven safe. [Shizuoka] Prefecture has already decided to conduct its own radiation survey when it accepts the debris to make sure it is safe.
On December 10 before the press conference, the Shizuoka prefectural government held a meeting with officials from the municipalities and explained the prefectural government's policy. Parliamentary Secretary Takayama was asked about the national government stance during the press conference.
Shaking the very foundation of the national safety standard, says the vice governor. Oh was there a foundation?
Quickly checking the vice governor's resume on the Shizuoka prefecture website, he is a career bureaucrat of the national government sent to local municipalities to assist the local government. He has been to Hokkaido, Gifu, Kitakyushu City, Shizuoka, and in between the assignment he comes back to the ministries in the national government for a few years and advances his career. The other vice governor of Shizuoka is a local bureaucrat who has worked in the prefectural government all his career.
This is the prefecture whose governor, Oxford grad Heita Kawakatsu, went crazy over the radioactive teas, accusing everyone of spreading "baseless rumors" about his teas.
On November 10, after Governor Kawakatsu expressed his strong desire to be one with the disaster-affected areas and to accept the debris, mayors of Shizuoka's 35 municipalities issued the declaration that said they would do their best to make the governor's desire come true. http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/...no3-official-at.html
IP: Logged
10:39 PM
Dec 12th, 2011
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
The devastating March earthquake and tsunami in Japan, and the ensuing scrutiny of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant accident have raised questions about the safe operation of America’s nuclear energy facilities. The U.S. nuclear industry, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and government policymakers are in agreement on the need to apply relevant lessons learned from recent events in Japan to enhance safety at U.S. nuclear plants.
A September national poll found that 82 percent of Americans believe that we should learn the lessons from the Japanese accident and continue to develop advanced nuclear energy facilities to meet America’s growing electricity demand. As we work through the appropriate response, the industry and our independent regulator, the NRC, are in agreement on three key points:
America’s nuclear plants are safe. There are no threats to public safety. The focus is not about how to make U.S. nuclear energy facilities safe, it is about how to make them even safer.
Applying the lessons learned from Fukushima should not divert attention from our daily focus on safe operation. Specifically, federal regulators and the industry should continue to focus on implementing the NRC’s updated emergency preparedness requirements, resolving seismic issues, implementing new fire protection guidelines, and licensing activities for existing and new reactors.
We must prioritize our response to Fukushima. Some issues call for a rapid response; others require further study and careful consideration. And because the Fukushima recovery effort is still under way, we have not yet learned everything we need to know from the events in Japan.
The nuclear energy industry is generally aligned with the NRC on steps that should be taken at America’s reactors, but we are not waiting for the agency to act. Parallel with the NRC’s effort, a special industry committee is already proactively applying lessons from Fukushima. In fact, the U.S. industry did not wait for an order from the NRC to launch intensive inspections of seismic and flooding preparedness at every U.S. nuclear energy facility — they developed an integrated approach and initiated inspection-related activities within one week of the March accident. Industry experts are articulating early lessons learned and actions are being taken. Nuclear energy operators and regulators are taking a fresh look at reactor safety and emergency response equipment, personnel and procedures.
Work is ongoing to verify each facility’s capability to respond to major challenges, such as losses of key systems due to natural events, fires or explosions. Specific actions include testing and inspecting equipment required to mitigate these events, and verifying that qualifications of operators and support staff required to implement them are current.
We are enhancing our ability to manage a loss of off-site power, verifying our capability to mitigate flooding and the impact of floods, and performing thorough inspections of important equipment needed to respond successfully to extreme events like fires and floods. The industry also supports the NRC’s call for backup monitoring to track water levels and temperatures in used fuel storage pools. Adding diverse and redundant monitoring capability is in keeping with our overall “defense-in-depth†approach of relying on layer upon layer of safety protections.
It is extremely unlikely that any U.S. nuclear energy facility would ever suffer the devastating impact of a combined massive earthquake and tsunami, but Fukushima has rightfully triggered another hard look at the safety and security of America’s reactors. In accordance with our commitment to continuous improvement, we welcome that scrutiny.
While the American nuclear industry has amassed an excellent safety record, we can always do more to further enhance safety, and we will. Working in a proactive, open-minded way will ensure that the tragic events in Japan lead to lasting and meaningful safety improvements at all of the nation’s nuclear energy facilities. Marvin Fertel is president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. nuclear energy industry’s policy organization.
Several news articles late this week have reported that Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant may be in “cold shutdown†by mid-December. Although the reports are mostly accurate, there is a difference between the traditional “cold shutdown†of a nuclear plant and what is happening at Fukushima.
First, what is cold shutdown? The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission defines it as:
The term used to define a reactor coolant system at atmospheric pressure and at a temperature below 200 degrees Fahrenheit following a reactor cooldown.
In non-nuclear speak, it basically means the conditions within the nuclear reactor are such that it would be impossible for a chain reaction to occur. This term usually comes into play whenever a reactor is shut down periodically for refueling or for the final time prior to the long-term before it is decommissioned. When a reactor is in cold shutdown, the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) can be safely opened with great care and additional water is added to the cavity above the vessel for shielding to permit safe handling of the fuel for refueling (replacing depleted fuel elements) or defueling (removing the entire core).
In Fukushima Daiichi’s case, achieving the strict definition of “cold shutdown†is not possible because the RPVs have been breached. This means that the RPVs will not hold water (currently the cooling water is flowing through them) and some of the melted fuel may not be in the vessel, but rather on the floor below, which is still within the primary containment. To clean up the plant, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO), the plant’s owner and operator, will work with the Japanese government and other parties to develop a long-term plan that will include removing the damaged fuel.
TEPCO understood this important nuance to achieving “cold shutdown†early on this year when it developed its initial recovery plans and developed a new term, “cold shutdown condition,†which applies to how they are bringing the reactors to stable condition. Their definition is as follows:
Temperature of RPV bottom is, in general, below 100 degrees Celsius.
Release of radioactive materials from PCV is under control and public radiation exposure by additional release is being significantly held down. (Not exceed 1 mSv/y at the site boundary as a target.)
By their definition, the Fukushima Daiichi reactors will reach “cold shutdown condition†once they are below boiling point and are no longer releasing significant amounts of radiation into the atmosphere. This new definition, thus, has an important distinction between the more commonly used “cold shutdown,†which typically takes place at a nuclear plant under normal conditions.
Reaching “cold shutdown conditions†at Fukushima Daiichi, however, has been an extremely difficult task for TEPCO workers given the conditions at the site and is a very significant milestone in their recovery efforts. TEPCO expects to reach this condition in just a few weeks by the end of 2011.
America’s nuclear plants are safe. There are no threats to public safety. The focus is not about how to make U.S. nuclear energy facilities safe, it is about how to make them even safer. http://blog.syracuse.com/op..._look_at_safety.html
Funny seeing as Fukushima uses the same design as SOME U.S. nuclear power plants.
IP: Logged
01:23 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Breaking news ; Possibility of recriticality again Posted by Mochizuki on December 11th, 2011 · No Comments
Radioactive Iodine was measured in Gunma and Tokyo again. Officials announce the reason is unknown.
In Gunma , 4~10 Bq/kg of radioactive Iodine were measured at 3 sewage-treatment plants. The samples were taken from 11/21~12/1/2011. The sewage-treatment plants are in Tamamura cho ,Kiryu ,and Hiratsuka. 29~68 Bq/kg of Cesium were also measured at 5 sewage-treatment plants in Gunma.
Also ,Iodine 131 were measured from incineration ash of garbage disposal facilities in Tokyo.
shokyakubai-231111
350 Bq/kg from Kita garbage disposal facility (11/9/2011)
28 Bq/kg from Suginami garbage disposal facilities (11/7/2011)
15 Bq/kg from Shin koto garbage disposal facilities (11/11/2011)
None of the official announcement has been published as always.
------------------------------------- Before you start the "decay" argument again, consider the following.
WHERE DOES IODINE-131 COME FROM AND WHERE IS IT FOUND? Iodine-131 is an artificially produced fission by-product resulting from nuclear weapons, above-ground nuclear testing, and nuclear reactor operations. Iodine-131 is found in the gaseous and liquid waste streams of nuclear power plants, but is not released to the environment during normal reactor operations. http://www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/r...ets-pdf/fs33i131.pdf
[This message has been edited by dennis_6 (edited 12-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:48 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Monday, December 12, 2011 (UPDATED) Confirmed: A Decon Worker in Date City, Fukushima Found Dead in a Company Car at the Site
(UPDATE) Information from the TEPCO/government joint press conference online right now.
A 60-year-old worker doing the decontamination experiment in Shimo-Oguni District of Date City, Fukushima Prefecture was found dead by his co-workers inside the company car at 1:00PM on December 12. An ambulance was called, but he was confirmed dead at 2PM.
The decon work was the first in Shimo-Oguni District in Date City that was planned by the Cabinet Office and was being carried out by the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The government spokesman didn't know the details of the worker, or the details of the decon work being done, or how long the worker had worked before he was found dead. Citizen volunteers were not involved in this decon project, as far as the spokesman knew.
No information about where the worker was from, or whether he had a pre-existing condition. The spokesman did say the government knows the cause of the death, but is talking to the family of the deceased as to whether it is appropriate to disclose the cause.
The spokesman was extremely uncomfortable when he tried to answer the question of the cause of the death. He managed to say the death was not during the decon work.
===================================== The information was apparently disclosed by none other than Yasuhiro Sonoda, Cabinet Office official who drank Fuku-I water.
If a person died suddenly as he/she was doing the decontamination work in the area that produced rice with cesium far exceeding the national provisional safety limit, it has to be either the psychological stress in general and/or the pre-existing illness. Right? Right. http://ex-skf.blogspot.com/...on-volunteer-in.html
---------------------------------------------------- Hey phonedawgz, how many deaths can you sweep under the rug as natural non related causes before people call bs?
IP: Logged
10:51 AM
PFF
System Bot
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
A fire broke out at the site of the Tsuruga nuclear power plant in Fukui Prefecture on Monday evening. Workers at the plant have brought it under control.
The Plant operator, Japan Atomic Power Company, says the fire began at 7:50 PM in a makeshift electric device installed at a facility to process radioactive waste. No injuries have been reported.
It also says no radioactive materials have been leaked to surrounding areas.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency says the fire was ignited when workers turned a switch on a makeshift power board.
Reactor 4 is falling apart Posted by Mochizuki on December 12th, 20
The wall of the south side is falling apart at reactor 4. Reactor 4 is in the most serious situation. It is assumed that if another aftershock hits it to drop the spent fuel pool hung in the building, the entire area in eastern Japan would be too contaminated to be inhabitable.
On 12/2/2011 (JST), something like “fire†was observed beside reactor 4. Since then, a strong light has been set toward Fukuichi camera as if it was hiding something by white out.
However, thanks to JNN Fukushima live camera, it was confirmed that the wall of reactor 4 was lost on the south side. At least since 12/5/2011, the wall is missing.
Breaking News: Programmer of Fukushima confesses “Fukushima had a cyber attack†Posted by Mochizuki on December 5th, 2011 · 13 Comments
A computer engineer found out operating system of Fukushima plants have been attacked and those attacks were mostly from / via Russia.　This engineer is counted as one of the members of Fukushima 50.
They installed the system about 6 years ago. It means: someone / some organizations have been attacking the system since 6 years ago.
The engineer was called by JP government on 3/14/2011. He was the developer of the system in Fukushima. He was in Tokyo but taken to Fukushima plants by the helicopter of Japan Ground Self-Defense Force. His mission was to reboot the auto operating system and re-start it as manual mode.
Because the system was shut down after black out they could not operate the systems to control the pressure, water injecting, radiation shield etc. and that had to be done by him.
He managed to reboot the system and restart it in manual mode but he encountered series of troubles such as password entry screen did not come out or his password entering was disturbed by compute bug. He sorted it out by formatting the system but it was obvious that someone sent virus to the system.
He tried to send virus backward and it reached to Russia. Someone sent virus from or via Russia.
He asked to staff from JP government about what is going on but they did not tell him anything in the name of “confidentialâ€.
4% of Fukushima babies may be severely intellectually disabled Posted by Mochizuki on December 9th, 2011 · 16 Comments
Fukushima local government collected dosimeters from 25,000 children.
The average monthly dose was 120 microSv/h, but the max was 450 microSv/h.
Because even people who did not submit the dosimeter received “a result†for some reason, it’s highly likely to be manipulated as well.
450 microSv/m is known to cause severe damage to unborn babies.
According to the research of Radiation Effects Research Foundation, 0.005 Gy of total exposure increases severely intellectual disabled people by 4.4%.
(450 microSv/m = 0.005 Gy/y)
Because this is about external exposure, the actual ratio may be much more than 4.4% if they take into consideration internal exposure.
The funniest line of the latest dredgings. Sounds like something right from some B rated sci-fi TV show. Who makes this stuff up?
So you never translated anything by google before? I am sure the author would appreciate if you would provide a better translation. Web based translation does not discredit a source. Nice try.
IP: Logged
12:25 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Your stories discredit themselves. Again - you would be more believable if you vetted your stories and didn't print every piece of **** you dredged up from the bottom of the internet.
IP: Logged
12:54 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Your stories discredit themselves. Again - you would be more believable if you vetted your stories and didn't print every piece of **** you dredged up from the bottom of the internet.
The original source was yahoo japan. Hardly fringe.
IP: Logged
01:19 PM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
You seriously think the people who designed the operation of the Fukushima plant didn't see Jurassic Park?
You seriously think they have some computer that runs everything and for them to be able to override that computer, that computer needs to be running?
You seriously think that such a system critical computer would be attached to the internet so the Russians can infect it with a virus?
You seriously think they wouldn't have any hot standby back up computer for such a mission critical computer?
You seriously think such a system critical computer would not be on it's own uninterruptible power supply?
You seriously think they would have such a computer but not have anyone that could repair it onsite?
You seriously think all the valves and pumps are set up so they are only computer controlled?
You seriously think there is some "radiation shield "ing that is also computer controlled?
You seriously think they have a password on this imaginary computer so if they needed to reboot it, they would have to have to fly someone in from Tokyo by helicopter to type it in?
You seriously think they can "send virus backward"?
You seriously think if this were all true, the person who designs these systems for this and assumably other plants would have told "JP government about what is going on but they did not tell him anything in the name of “confidentialâ€"
Seriously Dennis? -------
YOU might be an idiot. The people who design and run nuclear power plants are not.
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-12-2011).]
IP: Logged
04:56 PM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
You seriously think the people who designed the operation of the Fukushima plant didn't see Jurassic Park?
You seriously think they have some computer that runs everything and for them to be able to override that computer, that computer needs to be running?
You seriously think that such a system critical computer would be attached to the internet so the Russians can infect it with a virus?
You seriously think they wouldn't have any hot standby back up computer for such a mission critical computer?
You seriously think such a system critical computer would not be on it's own uninterruptible power supply?
You seriously think they would have such a computer but not have anyone that could repair it onsite?
You seriously think all the valves and pumps are set up so they are only computer controlled?
You seriously think there is some "radiation shield "ing that is also computer controlled?
You seriously think they have a password on this imaginary computer so if they needed to reboot it, they would have to have to fly someone in from Tokyo by helicopter to type it in?
You seriously think they can "send virus backward"?
You seriously think if this were all true, the person who designs these systems for this and assumably other plants would have told "JP government about what is going on but they did not tell him anything in the name of “confidentialâ€"
Seriously Dennis? -------
YOU might be an idiot. The people who design and run nuclear power plants are not.
Down to name calling again. Nobody said the system was shut down by Russia. The article suggested it was compromised, not that the Russians destroyed the plant. I imagine it is possible to trace the IP a trojan is communicating with, at least to the host ISP. If there is no network connection to machines that have Internet connectivity, then a USB stick might suffice. Its also possible to look at the code of a virus and backtrack that to known exploits. Knowing that its a poor translation, you still want to try and discredit a story because of the broken English. Yahoo Japan is not a tabloid, so I believe that source more than your if its not pro nuclear industry, then its wacko dogma.
I do believe that a virus was found on the control computer, google stuxnet sometime. Virus do make their way to the control computers time to time. Yes, I know stuxnet didn't affect a reactor, but rather centrifuges. However, all your arguments could be applied to the computers that control the centrifuges. Surely they wouldn't be connected to the internet, right? Stuxnet was believed to be spread by USB stick. UPS backups only work for so long, we both know that. As far as valves, and radiation shields, you think maybe some of the valves might have been made unreachable, due to earthquake damage? Radiation shield might just be steel doors and vents that are remotely controlled? I am questioning Tepco's competence, a virus on a control computer in a nuclear power plant, sounds pretty incompetent to me. Not that Tepco's decontamination and damage control has exactly been competent. Remember the tents? All Tepco has been proficient at to any degree is misinformation. Just like you.
I also notice how you rather argue about a virus, then comment on the south wall of the reactor building missing, or the dead decontamination worker. More of your diverting attention to hide the true scale of the accident.
From Fox news.... Just as the computers that ran Iran’s nuclear program were sabotaged and crippled by a cyber “super worm†virus, the software used to run much of America’s industrial, transportation and power infrastructure -- including nuclear power plants and major airports -- is vulnerable to cyber attack, and two software companies have revealed dozens of successful hacks to prove it.
The issue lies in specialized software systems sold by Siemens, Iconics, 7-Technologies and others to power plants and other infrastructure. Called "supervisory control and data acquisition" systems, or SCADA, they run software solely for industrial use.
"Regarding the article of Weekly Post December 9 Issue (p153-154) "Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant was cyber-attacked"
December 8, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power Company The December 9 Issue of Weekly Post reported that the control system at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station was cyber-attacked. However, such facts have not been confirmed. The control system owned by TEPCO is not configured to have cyber attacks."
Yeah I know dennis you are going to have a huge problem with this one. A system that is not connected to the internet would be 'not configured to have cyber attacks."
Also I know you will ignore what the operators of the plant state but will believe your dredged POS story that doesn't even have the name of the person who it is supposedly about.
IP: Logged
07:01 PM
Dec 13th, 2011
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
"Regarding the article of Weekly Post December 9 Issue (p153-154) "Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Plant was cyber-attacked"
December 8, 2011 Tokyo Electric Power Company The December 9 Issue of Weekly Post reported that the control system at Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station was cyber-attacked. However, such facts have not been confirmed. The control system owned by TEPCO is not configured to have cyber attacks."
Yeah I know dennis you are going to have a huge problem with this one. A system that is not connected to the internet would be 'not configured to have cyber attacks."
Also I know you will ignore what the operators of the plant state but will believe your dredged POS story that doesn't even have the name of the person who it is supposedly about.
Funny, Tepco ignores plenty of topics, yet feels the need to address this one. As far as liberal, my view on Tepco BS does not make me liberal, thanks.
IP: Logged
12:16 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Do you think there would be any possibility that any sane person or persons would run a nuclear power plant, on a single computer, that if not working would lock them out from controlling the valves and turning on the feed water pumps that cool the core of the reactor?
IP: Logged
12:45 AM
Raydar Member
Posts: 40728 From: Carrollton GA. Out in the... country. Registered: Oct 1999
Do you think there would be any possibility that any sane person or persons would run a nuclear power plant, on a single computer, that if not working would lock them out from controlling the valves and turning on the feed water pumps that cool the core of the reactor?
I'll answer that.
It didn't happen. Domestic power companies use multiple independent systems just to control electrical "traffic" on the grid. I have to believe that the Japanese system was designed similarly. No way in hell that a single system would be all that controlled a nuke plant.
Having said that... I've been reading this garbage for months. Factual or not, Dennis comes off looking like a scare monger. I wonder if he even reads these pages upon pages of "data" that he posts here. I'm thinking not.
Just an observation. Please carry on, guys.
IP: Logged
08:33 AM
phonedawgz Member
Posts: 17091 From: Green Bay, WI USA Registered: Dec 2009
Much of the posts are barely readable. I know translations (either computer or by a person) can distort the intended meaning. Some of the posts however are just impossible to decipher the intended meaning (wacko or non-wacko).
[This message has been edited by phonedawgz (edited 12-13-2011).]
IP: Logged
10:06 AM
dennis_6 Member
Posts: 7196 From: between here and there Registered: Aug 2001
Already addressed this, the article did NOT state the computer was the only way to control the plant. I already addressed the possibility that valves may have been unreachable physically due to damage.
Funny, Tepco ignores plenty of topics, yet feels the need to address this one.
