Russia warns of ‘Iranian Chernobyl'

[harvey007]

Source: The Telegraph

Russian nuclear officials have warned of another Chernobyl-style nuclear disaster at Iran's controversial Bushehr reactor because of the damage caused by the Stuxnet virus, according to the latest Western intelligence reports.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/8262853/Russia-warns-of-Iranian-Chernobyl.html

[sabbat hunter]

1. unless the Iranians

are using a graphite controlled reactor with no containment facility, then any potential disaster there will not be another chernobyl in Iran.

[Xipe Totec]

5. So what are they using? nt

[sabbat hunter]

6. from what I have read

they are using a water cooled/water moderated reactor.

[Xipe Totec]

7. IR-40 Reactor, it seems.

Strange, then, since that reactor design uses natural uranium, not enriched, so the centrifuges are less critical.

http://www.iranwatch.org/privateviews/First%20Watch/perspex-fwi-ir40reactor-1203.htm

[bananas]

9. No - the Bushehr reactor is a VVER-1000

and it is capable of a chernobyl-scale disaster (as are all power reactors).

[sabbat hunter]

10. actually that is completely wrong

Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor (a moderator that can burn) and had no containment facility, and no sealed reactor vessel.
Modern designs are fairly safe and cannot have a chernobyl style disaster because they have containment vessels and do not use graphite as a moderator

If you are going to be anti-nuke, at least get your facts straight please.

[bananas]

14. I have my facts straight, and so do the Russian engineers at the plant warning about this.

From the article in the OP:

However, Russian scientists working at the plant have become so concerned by Iran's apparent disregard for nuclear safety issues that they have lobbied the Kremlin directly to postpone activation until at least the end of the year, so that a proper assessment can be made of the damage caused to its computer operations by Stuxnet.

The Iranian government is bitterly opposed to any further delay, which it would regard as another blow to national pride on a project that is more than a decade behind schedule. While Western intelligence officials believe Iran's nuclear programme is aimed at producing nuclear weapons, Iran insists the project's goals are peaceful.

The Russian scientists' report to the Kremlin, a copy of which has been seen by The Daily Telegraph, concludes that, despite "performing simple, basic tests" on the Bushehr reactor, the Russian team "cannot guarantee safe activation of the reactor".

It also accuses the Iranian management team, which is under intense political pressure to stick to the deadline, of "not exhibiting the professional and moral responsibility" that is normally required. They accuse the Iranians of having "disregard for human life" and warn that Russia could find itself blamed for "another Chernobyl" if it allows Bushehr to go ahead.

This is what happened with Bhopal and Challenger - the engineers warned about it, management ignored their warnings.

[bananas]

18. Discovery.com: Could a Chernobyl-type accident happen in the United States at a nuclear power plant?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x236861

<snip>

Often times the topic of Chernobyl comes up when nuclear energy is mentioned. Could a Chernobyl-type accident happen in the United States at a nuclear power plant?

Kaufman: <snip misleading nuclear industry PR>

Lyman: The short answer is yes. An accident resulting in a large radiological release to the environment comparable to or worse than that of Chernobyl could definitely occur at a U.S. nuclear power plant. While the particular accident mechanism resulting in a catastrophic release of radioactivity would be different for a U.S. light-water reactor than for a Chernobyl-type reactor, the outcome could be similar. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has a policy that if a core-melt accident occurs (such as the one at Three Mile Island in 1979), then the probability that the event could result in a large radiological release should be less than 10 percent.

According to computer simulations, some U.S. reactors would comfortably meet this limit, while it is less clear for others. Some reactor-containment buildings could be ruptured by a hydrogen explosion, for example. In addition, when a plant is down for a refueling outage, the containment building is open to the environment, but the fuel remains hot and is still vulnerable to melting if cooling is interrupted. And finally, terrorists with the tactical skill to attack a nuclear plant would find it fairly easy to blow a hole in the containment building.

<snip>

[bananas]

19. MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Energy"

From MIT's 2003 report "The Future of Nuclear Energy":

Expert opinion using PRA considers
the best estimate of core damage frequency to
be about 1 in 10,000 reactor-years for nuclear
plants in the United States.
...
Potentially large release of radioactivity from fuel accompanies
core damage. Public health and safety depends
on the ability of the reactor containment to prevent
leakage of radioactivity to the environment. If containment
fails, there would be a large, early release (LER) and
exposure of people for some distance beyond the plant
site boundary,with the amount of exposure depending
on accident severity and weather conditions. The probability
of containment failure, given core damage, is about 0.1.

The PRA estimate is based on statistical failure rates assuming proper construction, operation, and maintenance.
Back in the 70's, they wanted to build 10,000 reactors globally.
That would have meant a TMI-scale meltdown every year,
and a Chernobyl-scale disaster every decade,
and that's assuming all those reactors were constructed, operated, and maintained properly.

[Confusious]

31. fallacy of odds

If what you say was true, I would have won the lottery by now.

[bananas]

34. Wrong. nt

[Confusious]

35. Maybe you should look up the fallacy of odds

your argument is a textbook case.

[bananas]

8. Wrong - a chernobyl-scale disaster can happen at any power reactor

including the existing ones in the US and the new reactor designs they want to build here.

[sabbat hunter]

11. if you knew anything about modern

nuclear power reactors and their design, you wouldn't say that.

[Odin2005]

13. The anti-nuclear people deal in fear, not fact.

[bananas]

15. You don't know what you're talking about. nt

[Odin2005]

16. Stomping your feet and throwing a fit doesn't make it true.

[bananas]

20. Hiding your head in the sand doesn't make the problem go away.

[madokie]

22. So why are you stomping your feet and throwing a fit

I've been here a while and I've yet to see the op make a mistake on anything nuclear period. You and many others not so much

[Odin2005]

12. wrong and ignorant.

the newest kinds cannot have a meltdown because of how they are designed.

[bananas]

17. Wrong - they can meltdown.

[sabbat hunter]

25. The meltdown is not what was the big disaster at chernobyl

But the fact that the moderating graphite core caught fire, exploded. That along with no containment vessel meant that there was a complete disaster.

If there was a containment vessel, sealed core and a nonflammable moderator used any issue would have been contained to the reactor itself. The area would still be liveable.

[Nihil]

26. FWIW, he knows that well ...

... but Odin summed it up in .13 ...

:shrug:

[bananas]

28. You sound like the managers at the Bhopal and Challenger disasters

[closeupready]

30. I know, right? LOL Don't worry, nobody here is fooled

by this game they play.

[Confusious]

32. The difference there is they had no backup systems

If the humans failed. Like a containment vessel, containment building and cooling systems that will only fail if gravity fails ( Of course, I have no doubt you will argue that, somehow, someway, someday, gravity will fail )

[Nihil]

33. Technically, you sound more like them ...

Maybe that's why you're so consumed with techno-guilt?

Too many disasters that have never been pinned down to the
responsible executives because the latter have always been
given free shelter from the law?

:shrug:

I can see where you are coming from but you shouldn't let your fear
of your beloved business systems & financial practices get the better
of your science & maths education.

:hi:

[bananas]

27. Go read posts 14,18,19. nt

[thaddeus_flowe]

2. i'm surprised we were let onto this state secret.

it sounds like the DoD was taking a victory lap.

"Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, recently declared that the Stuxnet virus had set Iran's nuclear programme back by several years."

[McCamy Taylor]

3. No, this sounds like Iran's pr. Point out that when you f**k with the safety of a nuke

there are potential foreseeable consequences. Now, if there is ever a meltdown in Iran, they will blame Israel and the west. US should have expected this.

It also gets Russia off the hook if the reactor goes bad.

[Purveyor]

4. +1

[snagglepuss]

24. The Iranian govt would be solely responsible as it is pushing for completion

despite scientific advice to the contrary. The responsible thing is for them to swallow their pride and ensure the project has not been compromised by the virus.

[Arrowhead2k1]

21. Just stop meddling for fuck sakes.

You can't win with these guys.

If there's ever a meltdown in Iran now, we're all fucked.

[aquart]

23. But not as fucked as they are.

We might have crappy PR, but we're used to that, just as the Iranians (who would die in large numbers, although it is debatable whether the numbers would be as high as those of the current executions) are used to their government blaming the US and Israel for absolutely everything. At this point, it's pretty much white noise.

[fascisthunter]

29. great.... another self-fullfilling prophecy

from the same assholes who sold us the Iraqi WMD bullshit. Now our government can claim anything for pre-emptive strikes.