Published: February 13th, 2013 at 6:06 pm ET
|
Title: Chernobyl radiation unaffected after heavy snow causes partial roof collapse, Ukrainian officials say
Source: AP
Date: February 13, 2013
[...] Chernobyl plant spokeswoman Maya Rudenko [...] said the affected area is about 50 meters (165 feet) away from the “sarcophagus,” a shelter built shortly after the 1986 disaster to contain radiation emanating from the exploded reactor. Rudenko said the radiation levels were normal and there was no danger to the public. [...]
“Even if the radiation level has not changed, it’s still an alarming signal,” Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy program at Greenpeace Russia, said, according to the Interfax news agency. “If the panels in the turbine hall have collapsed, then in principle there is no guarantee that the sarcophagus, built in 1986, will not start falling apart in the near future.” [...]
Title: Vinci, Bouygues Evacuate Chernobyl Crew After Roof Collapse
Source: Dow Jones Newswires
Author: Inti Landauro
Date: February 13, 2013
French construction companies Vinci SA (DG.FR) and Bouygues SA (EN.FR) evacuated 80 workers from the site of the defunct Chernobyl nuclear plant as a precaution after a section of roof collapsed under the weight of snow. [...]
The workers were tested for exposure to radiation, Bouygues said. “The company is also measuring contamination on surfaces and so far these are within allowed limits.”
The Ukrainian utility in charge of the plant is checking the rest of the structure to see if it is sound before authorizing work to resume. [...]
See the latest photos here
Published: February 13th, 2013 at 6:06 pm ET
|
sending...
"radiation levels were normal and there was no danger to the public." and "within allowed limits"…hmmm…That sounds strangely familiar.
Report Comment
Yep. It's a quote from a few years back:
1979 Three Mile island.
During the immediate weeks following 3/11 I was searching for background info on google and up popped a link at the bottom of the page to google library of scanned newspapers. It had full scans of the papers from Harrisberg during the meltdown. It was the same unit-confusion gobbledygook with assurances of "no immediate" risks.
I can't seem to find how to get back to the google newspaper archives. The papers were great, old ads, cars, really bad hair
Report Comment
Ha! Google killed the project. Can't have free, searchable news archives. Too many skeletons there.
BUT you can access what exists here:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=60xSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SXwDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4331,4735830&dq=three+mile+island&hl=en
Odd the link didn't come from google.
Report Comment
And even better detailed search here:
http://news.google.com/news/advanced_news_search?as_drrb=a
Report Comment
Speaking of "strangely familiar"… http://www.rtve.es/imagenes/chernobil-tras-desastre/1300445268400.jpg Hm… where have I seen that before? Or, 25 years later as the case turns out…
And it's true the language they use to communicate about these things is always the same.
While I'm posting images, this is one of the more surreal images I've seen: http://photos.denverpost.com/2011/03/15/a-look-at-chernobyl-the-worlds-worst-nuclear-accident/#33
Report Comment
The effects of Chernobyl will last a thousand years. And even longer for Fukushima. Man's hugest mistake, ever.
Report Comment
From another news report: Chernobyl roof collapses under snow
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10865344
Report Comment
"Even if the radiation level has not changed…"
(That tells me, it has changed.)
"The workers were tested for exposure to radiation", Bouygues said.
(That tells me, they were exposed. However, he did not say 'exactly' what the exposure level was. I wonder why they never seem to give the details so we can judge for ourselves.)
Report Comment
While I agree with the general translation, please note the "Even if the radiation…" comment is from Greenpeace spokesman, who is decidedly anti-nuclear. As such that changes the meaning siginificantly; however, in this case he's just repeating the the official announcement.
He's got a foot in mouth otherwise too, though; the warranty on that shelter with its brand new object shelter smell ran out in 2001, so his "in principle there is no guarantee" has been true for 12 years.
Though admittedly there's some differing opinions on the warranty… Lets have it from IAEA:
"The possible instability of the sarcophagus is a significant problem. The concern is mostly related to the fact that essential supports of the main construction had to be built by remote control without fixings such as welding and bolt connections. As a consequence, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the resistance to potential internal and external impacts. This relates above all to the withstanding of loads due to external burden or impact, such as loads due to wind, <em>snow</em>, or earthquake, for example. There is broad agreement that the risk of a partial or total collapse during the initially projected design lifetime of the sarcophagus of about 30 years is not negligible if no countermeasures are taken."
However, scientists have determined that since the reactor knows the extent of the current evacuation zone, it will know now know not to spread emissions outside it.
Report Comment
Guezilla
Being anti-nuclear does not mean that someone lacks scientific data.
Indeed, I would regard as MORE SUSPECT any assertion made by someone whose living is directly tied to the nuclear industry.
Report Comment
On a related note, the Chernobyl NPP web-site http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/ page is little bizarre with its broken english, but it says:
"As a result of accident in 1986, a part of structures of reactor unit, deaerator stack, turbine hall and others had been destroyed. In the western area, the wall has a deflection in the western direction up to 50 cm, breaks are fixed in some its places. In case of earthquake of 4.3 under Richter scale, such condition can lead to partial "sarcophagus" roof collapse. In the southern area above the level 24.3 m, deaerator stack frame supporting significant amount of fragments and constructional materials is deflected from vertical for 1.5 m, approximately. And though during sarcophagus construction this place was reinforced by metal supports, calculations show that in case of earthquake there is a risk of their collapse aside turbine hall, resulting radioactive dust release into environment through formed break. The scientists calculated that value of probability risk of such event per 1 year makes 0.24, that considerably exceeds the normative value recommended by IAEA for nuclear energy facilities."
It's anybody's guess what THAT means…
Their NEWS page gives the best coverage & images of the collapse though.
Report Comment
The "elephants foot" did travel some distance horizontally, I wonder if it traveled closer to the collapse or away from it?
Worth researching
Report Comment
Chernobyl's melted fuel traveled all over the place and at least 3 floors down as it burn for 10 days. I saw a drawing of the locations they found the melted fuel in a Chernobyl documentary but haven't seen an article with a drawing yet.
http://enenews.com/pbs-melted-chernobyl-fuel-has-turned-into-solidified-uranium-far-more-dangerous-than-ordinary-nuclear-lava-video
Chernobyl didn't have a conventional containment just a kettle for the fuel to boil water in but did have sand stored in surrounding walls as a heat barrier. When the explosion took place the sand got loose and mixed with some of the melting fuel helping to glassify it but they are learning over time that radiation even breaks down the glassification process.
Report Comment
Illustration of the area where the collapse happened: http://bc03.rp-online.de/polopoly_fs/a-handout-photo-provided-on-february-1.3192277.1360765731!/httpImage/4045586000.jpg_gen/derivatives/rpoPanorama_786/4045586000.jpg
I feel "50 meters from sarcophagus" as quoted somewhere is quite bit disingenious.
Closeup of the collapse – from inside – so you can tell the radiation isn't too high: http://www.nettavisen.no/imagecache/parameter/?upsizable=true&action=resize&width=980&height=-1&url=http://www.nettavisen.no/multimedia/na/archive/01191/tsjernobyl_768_119136216x9.jpg
Report Comment
Thanks for the helpful image. It looks REALLY close to the sarcophagus.
The roof that fell in doesn't look like it was at all sturdy to begin with. I'm not sure if that's reassuring or not.
Report Comment
Actually the link on this article already had those two images I linked for the location & inside view, oops. At least I guess my links may be higher resolution
Somewhere like http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/roof-collapses-at-chernobyl-nuclear-plant-130213.htm it is said "The roof was constructed after the 1986 disaster but is not part of the sarcophagus structure covering the reactor, it said." and "partial failure of the wall slabs and light roof of the Unit 4 Turbine Hall."
Seems bit confusing, as the "strangely familiar" link I posted above shows, this is just part of the turbine hall roof, and from inside view we can see that it's the only roof. They apparently really tore down the old roof and built a new one when constructing the sarcophagus, because the molten corium had flown through the coolant pass-troughs under the turbine hall. So "not part of the sarcophagus" is semantic wrangling.
Also looking at the "strangely familiar" image-link, this is right next to the reinforced part of the turbine hall where presumably parts of the core & reactor structures can be seen as having fallen through the turbine hall roof. It's not likely they would have managed to clean up the radioactive debris there. According to Wikipedia, ground level turbine hall measured as high as 150Sv/h after the accident.
Report Comment
got a few links here
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/02/14/he-chernobyl-sarcophagus-project-of-the-french-german-initiative/
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/02/14/radiological-hazards-at-the-chernobyl-shelter-site/
reenpeace expresses concern about a meltdown in Chernobyl
“Even if they have not increased the levels of radiation it is very worrying,” said Churov, who warned of the danger that represents the radioactive dust caused by the collapse.
http://nuclear-news.net/2013/02/14/greenpeace-expresses-concern-about-a-meltdown-in-chernobyl/
most of the MSM reports seem to NOT mention structual issues… there are some links aboveto likely biased but relevant information and diagrams,,
also google is filtering chernobyl terms in a strange manner.. i used metacrwler
gotta crash now!!
Report Comment
Chernobyl Heart Movie; How Children Are Affected; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/chernobyl-heart-movie-how-children-are.html
Gorbachev; Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Was Real Cause Of The Collapse of Soviet Union; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/gorbachev-chernobyl-nuclear-accident.html
Report Comment