Posted on 02/01/2012 1:42:33 PM PST by ransomnote
From UC Davis News and Information (1/26/2012; emphasis is mine):
Japan used seawater to cool nuclear fuel at the stricken Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant after the tsunami in March 2011 -- and that was probably the best action to take at the time, says Professor Alexandra Navrotsky of the University of California, Davis.
But Navrotsky and others have since discovered a new way in which seawater can corrode nuclear fuel, forming uranium compounds that could potentially travel long distances, either in solution or as very small particles. The research team published its work Jan. 23 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
“This is a phenomenon that has not been considered before,” said Alexandra Navrotsky, distinguished professor of ceramic, earth and environmental materials chemistry. “We don’t know how much this will increase the rate of corrosion, but it is something that will have to be considered in future.”
SNIP
Uranium in nuclear fuel rods is in a chemical form that is “pretty insoluble” in water, Navrotsky said, unless the uranium is oxidized to uranium-VI — a process that can be facilitated when radiation converts water into peroxide, a powerful oxidizing agent.
Peter Burns, professor of civil engineering and geological sciences at the University of Notre Dame and a co-author of the new paper, had previously made spherical uranium peroxide clusters, rather like carbon “buckyballs,” that can dissolve or exist as solids.
In the new paper, the researchers show that in the presence of alkali metal ions such as sodium — for example, in seawater — these clusters are stable enough to persist in solution or as small particles even when the oxidizing agent is removed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ex-skf.blogspot.com ...
>>“This is a phenomenon that has not been considered before,”
Well, the cores from the Thresher, Scorpion, and several Soviet subs have sat on the ocean floor for as many as 50 years and no one ever thought of this before? Or was it considered and determined to be implausible by scientists without a political agenda?
Let us know when sea water does NOT corrode something.
The relevant point is how fast does this process occur? My guess is pretty slow which would affect mainly those reactors at the bottom of the sea such as a few subs we know of (who knows how many we don’t?).
Perhaps.
Perhaps it was considered and determined to be implausible by scientists with a political agenda?
Who cares?
Uranium, in aqueous form, is a low-hazard material (inhaled uranium dust is another matter). Its chemical toxicity is of more concern than its low radioactivity. But even that is aof low concern...the human body has no affinity for uranium and will move any ingested uranium out of the body in the same way that it eliminates other wastes.
Nobody knows. It’s just a giant experiment on essential resources with no known outcome and yet we are repeatedly assured that ‘everything’s fine’ and there’s no risk. It’s like Chernobyl’s water table gambit - Soviet scientists reasoned that the radioactive corium could reach the water table and contaminate...well most of Europe and the USSR water supply. So they threw human lives into the effort to block that from happening. In Japan - the Japanese are willing to bet nothing bad will happen so the corium continues to sink beneath the reactors unrestricted - apparently heading for the water table and no one knows what might happen (some theories about explosions ejecting corium up etc.) but again it’s pronounced ‘safe’ and even ‘cold shutdown’. No data, no proof, just a great big happy feeling that it’s all gonna work out just fine. So that is what puzzles me about the disinterest in oceanic radioactive waste - an open ended experiment of massive scale is of little interest or is pronounced safe when in fact it’s never been done before. Your ‘guess’ is that it occurs slowly. Mine is that there are unintended consequences that we would do well to pay attention to.
So scientists protecting the interests of nuke sub industry could not have an agenda. Could it be that we have a hard time studying the ocean floor and that so much more radioactive waste is in play here -much of it blown out into comparably shallower water. Oh, we shouldn’t study or wonder - we should just assume everything’s fine. Even though the Soviets had extremely bad results (the understatement of the ages) from dumping radioactive waste into their lakes and streams (their cooling system was not separated - coolant went right out into the river) I am sure nothing bad could happen in the ocean./sarc
Who cares?
Uranium, in aqueous form, is a low-hazard material (inhaled uranium dust is another matter). Its chemical toxicity is of more concern than its low radioactivity. But even that is aof low concern...the human body has no affinity for uranium and will move any ingested uranium out of the body in the same way that it eliminates other wastes.
____________________________________________________
I care. Humans dependent on ocean resources should care. Uranium and other radioactive compounds irradiate the body tissues directly as they make their way through the body - it’s damaging. Drinking water with 2 beq’s of radiation per liter has been shown to cause bladder cancer but who cares? And where is this radioactive waste excreted? Oh that’s right we live with it in the form of water treatment plants and sludge.
Does ocean water ever strike the side of ships and dry to leave dust containing salt and ..ah...other minerals? How about shorelines....do they have a build up of dried salt and other minerals? Wouldn’t it be great to stand in shoreline sand dunes being pelted by radioactive dust?
It’s astonishing how those in support of nuke power really want to establish among the citizenry a comfort level; without knowledge or prior experience, we can happily load vast quantities of radioactive waste into our environment with complete confidence even though actual lab experiments and medical studies dating back to the 50’s tell us the exact opposite. Hence those little yellow signs that signify radiation hazard. I guess we should put yellow smiley faces on those just above the atomic emblem.
LOL.
Lets go with this: “Drinking water with 2 beq’s of radiation per liter has been shown to cause bladder cancer”, ignoring the fact that uranium is a heavy element that will sink to the bottom of the ocean, ignoring the fact that uranium is not retained in the bladder by any measurable amount, and that you intend to drink seawater.
U-235 is the most radioactive of the long-lived isotopes of Uranium at 80,000 Beq/g. The Pacific Ocean contains 6x10^14 liters of water. To get to 2 Beq/liter, you would need 17,000 tons of uranium to be released from Fukishima into the Pacific, which is a cube of uranium 30 feet on each side. There isn’t that much uranium at Fukishima and I doubt there’s that much uranium on the entire island of Japan.
You should be more afraid of drinking seawater.
You are failing basic science, again. Or you are being deceptive. Nuke pimps often talk about radiation contamination by ‘averaging’ and you are doing it by suggesting that the contamination will be evenly distributed throughout the entire ocean from the very top of the water column to the bottom etc. A Russian scientist noted the habit of the nuke industry to average data (Hey nuclear power has only raised background radiation by .x amount! When Chernobyl continues to cripple and kill because it is a concentration center) by saying averaging contamination is about as useful as averaging all the temperatures of patients in a hospital.
You missed the part where I used 2 beq’s per liter to demonstrate that radiation in low amounts is harmful and you insist I was suggesting that people would drink seawater etc. Ah wishful thinking on your part - along with your preposterous assertion that uranium will evenly disperse.
Using the Soviets for any yardstick about nuclear safety (or safety of any kind) is ludicrous on its face. They throw human lives at every problem and probably have done so from their first emergence in Western history. The human destruction of their governmental structure and philosophy for most of the twentieth century is of a staggeringly high level. Almost impossible for us to comprehend. Just as high as or higher than Hitler’s.
Among the worst of their programs were the nuclear ones. Do we even know how much contamination has been released into the seas around their nuclear sub bases, or how much land is contaminated from their tests or how many sailors were killed from service on their nuclear submarines?
As for a lack of concern and happy faces all around, I don’t believe that is the case. No one is satisfied that everything will work out fine. Now if you are expecting a supine media to look at a real problem and be rational about it I suggest you have not been paying attention to what is actually on the ground around us. This is not a media which is even capable of asking and answering serious questions. And politics has been so poisoned by the democrat/leftist ideology that no issue can be addressed head on or even recognized as an issue unless it is couched in hysterical tones.
We have been catastrophed out with phony crisis after phony crisis so a real one won’t be dealt with until people are actually dying in the streets. At which time the Republicans will be blamed.
Using the Soviets for any yardstick about nuclear safety (or safety of any kind) is ludicrous on its face. They throw human lives at every problem and probably have done so from their first emergence in Western history. The human destruction of their governmental structure and philosophy for most of the twentieth century is of a staggeringly high level. Almost impossible for us to comprehend. Just as high as or higher than Hitler’s.
_______________________________________________________
I have worked with the Soviets and spent some time studying them when I returned to the US. They (powerful elite) shovel human lives of their social lessers on trouble spots without hesitation and I was loud and verbose in my criticism of their handling of Chernobyl. But they are not, unfortunately, a poor comparison in regards to nuclear safety. Chernobyl was less about reactor design and much more about bad management. I’m watching TEPCO make one lousy management decision after another. Read up on John Gofman and his interaction with our budding NRC and you’ll see epic bad management and deception.
The Soviets ‘used’ 10,000 men (est.) to dig under the corium blob (without any protective gear or cautioning) and install a slab to halt the flow of corium to the water table. According to the NOVA documentary I watched, it’s estimated that 25% of the men used on that task died within a few years and many others suffer horrible debilitating illnesses or died early deaths - some of which could have been avoided with simple cautions (no drinking out of open water containers while in the tunnel etc.) The used ‘human robots’ to carry in gloved hands pieces of radioactive core structure. I hated all of it and decried the lack of humanity. But along with the customary use of simple citizens as chattel, the Soviets were trying to protect the rest of the population - including Europe. They couldn’t say for sure what would happen if the corium met the Soviet/European water table but they suspected contamination and possible explosion. So they burned through lives to save more lives across the entire continent. The Japanese don’t know what will happen when the corium blobs reach their water table but they have announced ‘cold shutdown’ and are not going to try to prevent it. They are assuring everyone that all is well despite international concern - they just aren’t willing to admit that they need to risk some lives to protect the water table serving all of Japan. International scientists worry that an explosion is possible, ejecting corium up out of the ground - Japan doesn’t want to hear about it. These are management decisions - this is the commonality among the nuclear industries of the various countries. The Soviets didn’t warn people because they didn’t want to cause a panic. The Japanese gov and TEPCO didn’t warn people because they didn’t want to cause a panic. So protective measures (evacuation or staying indoors) are simply not implemented.
______________________________________________________
Among the worst of their programs were the nuclear ones. Do we even know how much contamination has been released into the seas around their nuclear sub bases, or how much land is contaminated from their tests or how many sailors were killed from service on their nuclear submarines?
____________________________________________________
That’s not unique to the USSR. The US has a policy of denying claims of harm done by radiation releases because the US is the insurer for the nuke industry (no legitimate insurer would insure a nuke plant because of the cost) and their approach is ‘lie and deny’. Just ask the ‘Downwinders’ from the above ground testing era or those who were subject to TMI. And yes their are other hot spots but the US won’t admit to them. You think the US would announce sub losses? Admit to radiation releases? Guess who has done a spectacular job of suppressing (stripping) research on nuke related illnesses (breast cancer and others)? For more on that, John Gofman is again a great read - details about how the NRC and supporting government officials methodically destroy the professional reputations of those medical people who say radiation causes diseases, can’t be adequately contained etc.
The IAEA coordinates suppression of information and the governments of countries with nukes throw their weight behind them and lately, the US has raised the ‘safe’ limit of radiation exposure during emergencies to something like 1200 beq/kilo. Oh our coutnry isn’t the only one - as more and more radiation is spread around and ‘lost control’ of, just raise the ‘safe’ levels despite what the latest NAS BEIR research says (no safe dose of radiation - all exposure entails some increased risk).
When Japan announced ‘cold shutdown’ had been achieved with unseen, unmeasured corium blobs residing ‘somewhere’ below the basement of the reactors - did the US Nuclear industry raise any objection to the blatant lies and deception? Nope. Crickets. One hand washing the other. Our media is suppine and amoral - but it’s our government’s (and that of the other countries of the world) nuke policy to ignore and deny the will of the people and do what they wish under cover of ‘national security.’ Regardless, yes republicans will be blamed.
The information you provided actually supports my point about the Soviets. We have had nothing even close to their disaster. Our worst, TMI, Hansford etc. would be a wished for case for the USSR.
It would be impossible to keep a sub sinking secret in the US. And the lives lost (to be lost) in Japan due to the catastrophe there would be a result of people volunteering when they knew the consequences and we heard a lot about them when actions were being performed.
Guess we have to agree to disagree
I am not sure that we disagree that much.
Neither of us is for hiding information or distorting the truth by either governments or private concerns. Neither of us believes nuclear power is without consequences. And both believe that it has to be very carefully superintended. We both believe that the Japanese disaster is extremely serious and will be so for some time as its ramifications are revealed. While you are more knowledgeable in these areas I can’t say that enough information is public to say what those ramifications are.
It is ironic that the whole disaster could have been avoided had the designers considered plate tectonics and the possibility of a drop in the ground compromising the wall protecting the plant from a tidal wave.
Japan built the largest nuke plant in the world atop a seismic fault it didn’t know about, until an earthquake knocked the plant offline. I wonder if they really didn’t know about the seismic risk there. TEPCO et. al. did know that the Fukushima plants were on seismically active locations and ignored warnings from a researcher regarding massive (large scale) tsunami risk due to prior history.
Prior to March, we would agree that nuke power must be carefully superintended. But now, based on all the research I did as a response to Fukushima, I believe there is significant managerial rot entrenched in the industry - I believe this rot would have occurred in any industry that was protected and subsidized as this one is. There are incentives (e.g., not to comply with safety regulations; a worker helped TEPCO conceal damage to a containment vessel being manufactured so he became the company hero) and the capacity to restrict access to information that allow managerial issues to simply fester and replicate. THen there are the stakes - no insurer can afford to insure a plant; managers take a look at the bottom line and stretch decision making beyond acceptable limits. So governments insure the plants and end up with ‘hothouse’ type managerial policies that would have been healthier had they been subject to the viscitudes of the open market (profits, losses, open scandals, ENRON type hearings etc.) The combination of high stakes and protection has atrophied the industry’s professional capacity - IMHO. So now I read ‘must be carefully superintended’ and I raise a brow and sigh - how can it be carefully superintended in a protected hothouse absent the toughening, strengthening forces that built healthy organizations?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.