Suppresed Video of Japanese Reactor Sodium Leak

James Hardine writes "Following an announcement this week that the infamous Japanese Monju fast-breeder nuclear reactor would be re-opened with a new plutonium core, Wikileaks has released suppressed video footage of the disaster that led to its closure in 1995. The video shows men in silver 'space suits' exploring the reactor in which sodium compounds hang from the air ducts like icicles. Unlike conventional reactors, fast-breeder reactors, which 'breed' plutonium, use sodium rather than water as a coolant. This type of coolant creates a potentially hazardous situation as sodium is highly corrosive and reacts violently with both water and air. Government officials at first played down the extent of damage at the reactor and denied the existence of a videotape showing the sodium spill. The deputy general manager, Shigeo Nishimura, 49, jumped to his death the day after a news conference at which he and other officials revealed the extent of the cover-up. His family is currently suing the government at Japan's High Court."

Governments can suppress the videos

[Aurisor (932566)]

Governments can suppress the videos, but they will never stop the first posters.

radioactive sodium too

[wizardforce (1005805)]

sodium cooled reactors also have a tendancy to produce radioactive isotopes of sodium like Na22 or Na24 from the high levels of neutron radiation exposure, the first produced by knocking a neutron out of Na23 and the second from neutron capture. sodium reacts with water to produce sodium hydroxide [caustic soda] and hydrogen gas, both of which are very dangerous in large quantities for obvious reasons.

Re:radioactive sodium too

[Dun Malg (230075)]

sodium cooled reactors also have a tendancy to produce radioactive isotopes of sodium like Na22 or Na24

Eh. The chemical dangers are more significant. Na-22 isn't particularly radioactive, and the highly radioactive Na-24 has a half-life of only 15 hours.

Re:radioactive sodium too

[schnikies79 (788746)]

I'm a chemist, but not big into nuclear.

Na-24 beta decays into Mg-24, which is stable and not dangerous.

Re:radioactive sodium too

[causality (777677)]

The big issue here seems to be not the coolant itself - it seems to be a relatively good coolant to use - but the fact that the accident happened.

The big issue here is not that an accident happened -- accidents have a way of doing that from time to time. Things go wrong, the best plans have flaws, people make mistakes. This is true of ... well, all non-trivial human endeavors. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, especially considering that no one in their right mind is going to deny that a nuclear reactor is a complex device with a non-zero risk of something going wrong.

The big issue here is that the government lied to its people and the fact that they lied was covered up. We need more stories like this of governments around the world because it might just put a dent in the (very dangerous) "government is your friend" mentality that is especially prevalant in the USA.

Personally I wish the definition of treason were expanded to include "issuing false statements to the people with the intent to deceive when done by any government official" or something to that effect. Meaning, you can make an honest mistake and it's no big deal; deliberately lie to the people and you get removed from office and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Does that sound harsh? Perhaps, but they don't seem to think so when they "make an example" of us, as we have seen with the War on (Some) Drugs and are now seeing with copyright law. Not to mention, almost any concept I have of "harsh" goes out the window when talking of wrongdoing on the part of people who consider themselves our masters.

This isn't Athens where people were chosen for public office by lottery. These are people who seek power and have worked very hard to get it. What's wrong with giving them a reason to be cautions with how they use it?

Re:radioactive sodium too

[BlueParrot (965239)]

The halflife of Sodium-24 is around 15 hours. The primary decay route is beta emission to an excited Magnesium-24 which then emits two gamma rays at 2.75Mev and 1.37Mev. So the snow is probably pretty radioactive too.

Siiiigh, again.. The leak was in teh SECONDARY LOOP. It wasn't any radioactivity in it. Nada, zero, zip... Yes, it was a bad accident, but the only thing nuclear about it was that it occurred in a nuclear power plant. The same thing would be much less likely to occur in the radioactive primary loop, because that counts as part of the nuclear island and is hence under much stricter safety requirements.

Re:radioactive sodium too

[Rei (128717)]

Siiiigh again... sodium reacts explosively with concrete. The concrete that the entire containment structure was made out of. The concrete that had a layer of steel over it to prevent sodium, in the event of a leak, from reaching the concrete (they thought the sodium couldn't corrode it). The steel that the sodium nearly ate its way through.

What, exactly, do you think the energy of a 2,000 pound bomb going off in the middle of a reactor will do in terms of letting more sodium leak? What do you think letting more sodium leak will do in terms of further explosions? What do you think all of this will do to the primary?

This was a Very Bad Thing (TM), but could have been far worse.

Re:radioactive sodium too

[khallow (566160)]

The thing to keep in mind is that sodium is so popular as a reactor coolant precisely because it doesn't form a lot of long lived radioactive isotopes when irradiated in a nuclear reactor.

Re:radioactive sodium too

[flyingsquid (813711)]

So they put liquid sodium on the fissile material as a coolant? Man, is there anything the Japanese *won't* put soy sauce on?

Re:radioactive sodium too

[by Anonymous Coward]

Rice.

The Japanese won't put soy sauce on rice.

Mod parent up!

[by Anonymous Coward]

This is so true! I am in japan now and they go bananas every time I want to put soy sauce on my rice. In Sweden, and other parts of europe I guess, we can put soy sauce on the rice. But here in Japan it is not acceptible - sauce on rice is "dog food", very strange.. :) The most funny thing is that when I try to tell them "I like it better this way", they truly do not understand what I mean. It seems food here is not about eating in a way you like but rather eating in a way that the ancients developed thousands of years ago. Weird people.

So mod parent funny or informative! :)

Re:Mod parent up!

[iocat (572367)]

It's probably best not to think about the food culture of other countries, it will always seem weird to you, just as your food conventions seem weird to them. So, you prefer water with your plutonium, others prefer sodium. Just try and see what the other people in the contamination suits are doing and follow their lead. In a worst case scenario, pretend you're allergic.

Seriously though, compared to America, Japan really doesn't have a "we do it your way" mentality with food. I once had to endure a twenty minute back and forth between a friend, a translator, a waitress, and (presumably) a cook because my friend tried to order his pizza without squid. Frankly, ordering *anything* without squid in Japan is probably a stretch, but what was worse, was that even after our translator was like "a special order is very difficult to do in Japan," which is polite translator speak for THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN, STUPID AMERICAN, he then spectacularly failed to take the face-saving bait offered by the waitress, "Are you allergic to squid?" and said "no I just don't eat it, I'm vegetarian." Here's a hint: If a Japanese person makes a suggestion like that to you in a service situation, take it!! I don't even know how this scene ended (but I do know the chef's next comment, conveyed by the waitress, was "but vegetarians eat squid"), but I do know it took a long time to finally receive my tasty beef curry, Japan's proudest culinary achievment.

Japan doesn't have a culture -- Japanese people do

[patio11 (857072)]

You can get food your way in Japan. Really, really easily -- one way is to go into any fast food restaraunt. Hold the pickles, add more lettuce, special orders don't upset us because they're in the freaking manual. Seriously, though, there is a wide spectrum of culinary traditions in this country, from "The chef is the master, you are the student, you should be glad you were even allowed to choose to eat dinner at this restaraunt" to "Hum a few bars and I'll get you something in that general direction" to "Did you know there are 745,000 combinations of ingridients possible with this dish? We have 10 named varieties which are our most popular, or you can just pick one of the other 744,990."

There is also a wide spectrum of cooks having egos. (There is a bad habit among a certain type of Westerner to assume that any odd action taken by a Japanese person is because they are Japanese. That is one theory -- another is that the cook just can't be bothered to help you, or is excessively proud, or is just a disagreeable person. All of thsee will be right at least part of the time.) I assure you, if you visit enough hoity-toity restaraunts in NYC, you will fairly quickly find someone who would not be willing to accomodate a simple request that wasn't in their "vision" for the food. ("Where is the ketchup?" "THIS IS A FOI GRAS AND CAVIAR PATTE SERVED IN A LIGHT BALSAMIC VINAGRETTE."* "I like my foi gras with ketchup!"

(Sidenote: I do E->J and J->E translation in Japan as one of my work duties. I am not, however, a professional translator. The difference is that the folks who pay my salary pay me to *resolve* issues like "I just don't want squid" rather than just passively relaying the "Oh, we can't do that" response. I understand that the standard practice among professional translators is that you are supposed to not get in the way of the speaking parties at all -- this is why I am not a professional translator, I just translate for money.

P.S. For those of you considering a job in this general line of work, the pay is a heck of a lot better if you pitch yourself my way. Most clients do not appreciate the value of a beautifully articulated "The waitress says no" nearly as much as they do "OK, so here's what is going on here, and here is what I did to get you your squidless pizza. Aren't you glad you hired me." The same fundamental issue scales straight from "I can't give you pizza w/o squid" to "I can't approve that $1 million deal you are suggesting".)

* Sorry, I only eat at restaraunts that cost more than $15 when the client is paying, and then I'm having what he is having, so I have absolutely no clue whether this is actually a plausible French food combo or not. Bonus points: consultants get to eat at dinner, translators don't.

Re:Mod parent up!

[Loke the Dog (1054294)]

If you are unsure what to put on your plutonium when in a foreign country, it might seem like a good idea to have both water and sodium, just to be safe. But that would be considered very offensive, especially among educated people. People might even run away in horror.

Re:radioactive sodium too

[BlueParrot (965239)]

sodium cooled reactors also have a tendancy to produce radioactive isotopes of sodium like Na22 or Na24 from the high levels of neutron radiation exposure

Except that the leak was in the secondary loop, which is never in contact with the core, and hence not radioactive. Had the leak been inside the primary loop you wouldn't have been able to walk up to it with a video camera because there would have been quite a bit of radiation shield and concrete in the way.

Also

[sakdoctor (1087155)]

Wiki leaks server suffers a meltdown after 9.1 MB video gets slashdotted.

Japanese government doesn't even try to cover it up.

Re:Also

[ceejayoz (567949)]

9.1 MB video via https, mind you.

Re:Also

[Jeffrey Baker (6191)]

Oh, hell yes. The initial key exchange to start an https connection is wonderfully expensive.

Note to web "masters" everywhere: you cannot distribute huge files to millions of people using MySQL and SSL. Full stop. Upload that shit to Amazon S3 or Akamai or YouTube or _anything_ other than mediawiki. Thanks!

Youtube link

[pirodude (54707)]

Uploaded to youtube http://youtube.com/watch?v=pwWQLMmn0tM [youtube.com]

Re:Youtube link

[pirodude (54707)]

Also, english subtitled video here: http://www.dotsub.com/films/videotape/index.php?autostart=true&language_setting=en_2524 [dotsub.com]

Re:Youtube link

[Mike Morgan (9565)]

The subtitle text I saw was:

        Narrator: In A.D. 2101, war was beginning.
        Captain: What happen ?
        Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
        Operator: We get signal.
        Captain: What!
        Operator: Main screen turn on.
        Captain: It's you!!
        CATS: How are you gentlemen!!
        CATS: All your base are belong to us.
        CATS: You are on the way to destruction.
        Captain: What you say!!
        CATS: You have no chance to survive make your time.
        CATS: Ha Ha Ha Ha ....
        Operator: Captain!! *
        Captain: Take off every 'ZIG'!!
        Captain: You know what you doing.
        Captain: Move 'ZIG'.
        Captain: For great justice.

This video will drive one procedural change

[xC0000005 (715810)]

They'll be certain to address the cause of the leak - videotapes. Whether or not the sodium leak problems will be addressed I can't say, but they'll ban video evidence of problems for sure.

Safe Nukes

[Doc Ruby (173196)]

See, nuke power is safe, and we always know how bad even these contained breakdowns are.

Nothing will stop the resurgance of nuclear power

[religious freak (1005821)]

(continued title)
... except stupid people.
This SHOULD show that even a "disaster" is minimal by nuclear standards and that safety is about a billion times better than any type of plant, but who knows how this will be interpreted by those who are inclined to panic at what they don't understand.

Re:Nothing will stop the resurgance of nuclear pow

[Big Frank (921537)]

The next generation of nuclear power reactors is on the drawing boards today, and they aren't pressurized liquid sodium.

Re:

[WindBourne (631190)]

3rd gen are past drawing board. The FBR and IFR are gen 4, and are almost certainly going to happen.

Re:Safety is not the issue

[Jeffrey Baker (6191)]

Here's a hint: if something has a half-life of 4.5 /billion/ years, that substance is not dangerously radioactive.

what?

[mofag (709856)]

I watched the whole video and I didn't see anything of note. I didn't see the "small mountain of sodium" and I didn't see anyone die. What is it? can anyone explain what I was meant to see please?

Re:what?

[megaditto (982598)]

You are not supposed to actually watch that video. You are supposed to just switch to the OMG WTF NUKULAR BAD groupthink.

Face it, nuclear power is Bad, so the fact that there is a video showing a bunch of kids in hazmat suits re-enacting Blair Witch in their school basement should we all the proof you need. Any grainy image of sewage pipes is a bonus.

Re:what?

[by Anonymous Coward]

At several points in the video you can see a white substance coating things, especially on the underside. This is probably the sodium, meaning that the stuff escaped, despite assurances that this hadn't happened, contradicting earlier statements by the agency. Consequently, it means that there may have been a corrosive effect to a (much) larger part of the facility, meaning that the plant probably was damaged to a much greater extent than has been made public, but also that the consequences of another incident could be far worse.

Re:what?

[Scorillo47 (752445)]

Sodium is not white - it is a silverly soft metal - similar in consistency with frozen butter. It can melt easily, and generates sodium vapors when heated. I didn't see sodium in the picture as it probably was alreayd covered with oxyde.

In fact when heated in air in quantities more than a few grams, sodium will simply burn (with violent flames) generating that white-yellow "smoke" which is a combination of sodium oxyde (Na2O) and sodium peroxyde (Na2O2).

Note that both sodium oxyde and sodium peroxyde are highly reactive, burning in contact with water, generating sodium hydroxide. Sodium peroxide also reacts violently with flammable organic materials that can easily "give" a hydrogen or hydroxil radical, such as alcohols. In this reaction, it generates more sodium hydroxide. Sodium vaports will slowly react with the oxygen in the air, again generating white sodium oxyde.

All these compounds will cause severe burns even if you expose the human skin to less than of gram of this stuff. Concentrated sodium hydroxyde simply melts the skin, nails and bones, and sodium oxyde/peroxyde is even more dangerous. In fact - this is how soap was made for centuries - just boil some fat in concentrated sodium hydroxyde and soon you will have some soap.

It's obvious why these workers have to wear special suits.

More fun stuff about sodium - check out the famous Sodium Party that Theodore Gray had a while back (or wikipedia)

Sodium reactors and the Navy

[Scareduck (177470)]

I remember reading about some fracas with some congressman wanting to install sodium-cooled nuclear reactors on submarines and aircraft carriers. Hyman Rickover, who was running the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet at the time, got hauled in front of a congressional panel; he dropped a small chunk of metallic sodium into some water and asked, following the ensuing fire and explosion, whether there were any questions. The Navy commissioned one sub with a sodium-cooled reactor (the U.S.S. Seawolf), but it was the only one.

Re:Sodium reactors and the Navy

[BlueParrot (965239)]

Would not have made much difference to be honest. If you get several atmosphere pressure of radioactive water suddenly blowing a hole in your sub and disabling its power system, you would be fairly stuffed as well. The US navy stopped using sodium cooled reactors mainly because they wanted to standardize on one design. Sodium would have a lot of merits, even at sea. In particular, because it doesn't boil at the temperatures used you don't have any pressure in the reactor, so an explosion or leaking of primary coolant is a lot less probable ( and sodium or not, leaking of primary coolant would certainly be a show-stopper for a naval mission ).

Oh, and btw, the summary is misleading. Sodium is very corrosive to concrete and a lot of other materials, but provided it remains pure ( i.e, doesn't mix with water / air ) it is in fact very non-corrosive to steel, which is one of the reasons why it is used. It is certainly a lot less corrosive than 300 C water with boric acid in it.

Re:Sodium reactors and the Navy

[DerekLyons (302214)]

I remember reading about some fracas with some congressman wanting to install sodium-cooled nuclear reactors on submarines and aircraft carriers. Hyman Rickover, who was running the Navy's nuclear-powered fleet at the time, got hauled in front of a congressional panel; he dropped a small chunk of metallic sodium into some water and asked, following the ensuing fire and explosion, whether there were any questions.

An urban legend without a shred of truth to it. Rickover in fact was initially in favor of sodium cooled reactors - because, in theory, they would allow plants that were more compact and higher power than water cooled reactors. However, as usually happens, theory and reality failed to jibe. Sodium plants turned out to be heavier, more expensive, more complex, and far more maintenance intensive that water cooled plants.
 
Ever the pragmatic engineer, Rickover chose to stay with what worked and cancelled the sodium reactor program.

Those arn't space suits!

[BobSixtyFour (967533)]

They're top-secret nuclear-powered "Gundam" or (Generation Unsubdued Nuclear Drive Assault Module) Mobile Suits!!

Re:Video down?

[hyperherod (574576)]

An English subtitled version can be found here [dotsub.com] until that also runs out of bandwidth. Also a link to a version on YouTube [youtube.com] but this is with Japanese subtitles only.

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[$RANDOMLUSER (804576)]

How many people die yearly in coal mining accidents? How about accidents on oil drilling rigs?

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[Martz (861209)]

Instead the burning of coal slowly kills thousands of people a year through air pollution.

And as we all know, that's not news because it isn't sensational enough.

One study I found when searching indicates that 25 reactor meltdowns per year would be required to being it inline with coal pollution deaths.

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[NevermindPhreak (568683)]

So interesting, that i took the liberty of finding the source.

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm [isu.edu]

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[CrazedWalrus (901897)]

I don't know about that study, but the statement itself seems to agree with this:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste [sciam.com]

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash--a by-product from burning coal for power--contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste.

At issue is coal's content of uranium and thorium, both radioactive elements. They occur in such trace amounts in natural, or "whole," coal that they aren't a problem. But when coal is burned into fly ash, uranium and thorium are concentrated at up to 10 times their original levels.

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[Shining Celebi (853093)]

Those do not incur the risk of radioactive contamination, which has long-term consequences that are more worrying than those resulting directly from the incident (I'm not saying every nuclear incident goes the way of Chernobyl -- just pointing out there is a risk). So it's not just a matter of comparing casualties resulting from the particular explosion/meltdown/whatever.

Coal mining accidents might not incur the risk of significant radioactive contamination, but the combustion of coal does release massive amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere [ornl.gov], and people living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to more radiation than those living near nuclear power plants.

I've always found these statistics to be interesting:

For comparison, according to NCRP Reports No. 92 and No. 95, population exposure from operation of 1000-MWe nuclear and coal-fired power plants amounts to 490 person-rem/year for coal plants and 4.8 person-rem/year for nuclear plants. Thus, the population effective dose equivalent from coal plants is 100 times that from nuclear plants.

Of course, in the case of an extreme nuclear accident, as in Chernobyl, we have a very big problem to deal with right away that wouldn't be possible with coal. But I think it's worth remembering that a great deal of radioactive material is accumulating from coal-fired power plants, and that could someday be a major problem too. Nuclear power is not the only source of radiation released because of human activity.

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[Ironsides (739422)]

Of course, in the case of an extreme nuclear accident, as in Chernobyl, we have a very big problem to deal with right away that wouldn't be possible with coal. But I think it's worth remembering that a great deal of radioactive material is accumulating from coal-fired power plants, and that could someday be a major problem too. Nuclear power is not the only source of radiation released because of human activity.

There is another factor to consider in this. Chernobyl used a design whereby a lack of water caused a positive feedback loop in the reactor to cause it to get even hotter. U.S. and most other designs use a negative feedback loop so the less water/coolant there is in the reactor, the less energy is put out. A Chernobyl type accident is physically impossible in any reactor used in the U.S. 3 Mile Island is about the worst nuclear accident that can occur in a U.S. nuclear power plant and about three dozen things went wrong (including stupidity on the part of the plant operators) in order to cause it.

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[BlueParrot (965239)]

There is another factor to consider in this. Chernobyl used a design whereby a lack of water caused a positive feedback loop in the reactor to cause it to get even hotter.

Oh if that was the ONLY thing that was wrong with it...

1)The end of the control rods were made of graphite, which accelerated the reaction rather than slowing it when the operators pushed the panic button.

2)The channels that contained the control rods were far too narrow, causing the control rods to get jammed when they deformed due to the intense heat.

3)The reactor did not have a containment building, allowing the radioactive gases to escape into the atmosphere after the accident blew the roof of the reactor itself.

4)The reactor core was unusually large, containing much more nuclear fuel than other reactor designs, thus making the radioactive release worse.

5)The reactor was staffed with uneducated workers that didn't have significant experience with nuclear reactors.

6)The operators were not told about the design problems with the reactors even thou they were well known at the time.

7)The operators ran the reactor outside of safety regulations, withdrawing many more control rods than the reactor was designed to operate with ( that this was even possible is another design flaw ).

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[urcreepyneighbor (1171755)]

basically a criminally bad design being operated by nicompoops.

Communism in a nutshell.

zing!

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[c.r.o.c.o (123083)]

Have you done any reading on the status of Chernobyl lately?

Since the accident, the natural wild life has returned in full force, and the region's ecosystem is healthier than it has been for centuries. Obviously without an in depth study we cannot be certain of mutation and cancer rates in those animals. But I'll venture a guess that natural selection took its course, and the overall population is healthy, allowing it to adapt and thrive in a mildly radioactive environment.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/33784558.html [nationalgeographic.com]

So there goes your whole argument. Now read up on blue fin tuna that has such large quantities of mercury that even 6 pieces of sushi per week exceeds the safe limit. Read about the Exxon Valdez spill and countless others that directly destroyed entire ecosystems.

At this point nuclear energy is safer than any conventional other energy source. It is also the only economically viable energy source, at least for the time being. People who believe that solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources are the way to go obviously have NO idea how much electricity is consumed in industrial processes. Statements like "this windmill can power thousands of homes" are meaningless, when a single steel foundry consumes that much in a half hour.

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[Artifakt (700173)]

Nothing that involves a high concentration of energy and a low concentration can ever be completely safe. Energy is the ability to do work, and it may end up doing work you don't want it to do. Now here's the real problem: You feel you have been lied to, that somebody promised you breeder reactors are completely safe, or that other kinds of reactors are completely safe or something. Well, somebody lied to you all right, when they told you that any power generation could ever be completely safe.
        Read up on 'loss of blade' accidents for windmills, dam failures for hydro, and how coal releases radiation (lots of it) and other toxins (lots of them). Read up on what chemical compounds are used in solar cells, or just how hot a commercial sterling solar engine is at the mirror's focal point. Look at the political consequences of breeders, but also at the political consequences of the existing fuel oil demand. Look at the environmental consequences of nuclear, but also at the environmental consequences of big oil. Find out how even wave and tide, if scaled up to produce tens or hundreds of gigawatts, means thousands of small boat accidents a year, plus Manatees and probably many other species will inevitably become extinct and whole ecologies such as the everglades will likely follow. For any power source, read up on where it is to be located, and the human costs of sending the power to where it is to be used. THERE IS NO SAFE!

Quite right, and since the dawn of the human race

[Kupfernigk (1190345)]

We are descendants of a hunter gatherer species. For a long time our energy source was our own muscles, and in order to get plenty of high quality food to supply them, a relatively small primate had to learn to kill animals large and strong enough to kill it. The rewards of risk taking (i.e. hunting large ungulates) presumably outweighed the risks, because eventually we learned to domesticate them. There seems to be some evidence growing that civilisation was a step backwards caused by climate change because, even with intensive farming, humans have to work much harder to get sufficient food. Hence the pyramid system feeding the rulers and warriors, the priests that justified it, and the conflict between nomads and town dwellers.

We are also poor at judging risks outside our biological programming, which is why we deem it a reasonable trade off to have over a hundred thousand people a year across Europe and the US die in accidents, rather than have universal public transport. If a hundred thousand deaths a year is OK so we can go to the office exactly when we feel like it, why isn't it OK so we can turn on the dishwasher exactly when we feel like it? - and that's meant to be a serious question.

Re:Quite right, and since the dawn of the human ra

[sjames (1099)]

It's more of the poor risk analysis. Deaths from coal based pollution and auto accidents happen daily in a series of small dramas affecting a handful of people at a time. When a nuclear accident happens it's all over the news and millions are involved in the same drama at the same time. That skews our risk assessment so that the emotional reaction to the infrequent large event is much greater even though the many small and frequent events kill far more people.

reletive novelty also plays a role. A video of one guy being killed by a bull will get a LOT more airtime than a thousand fatal carcrash videos will.

Jaws scared a great many people out of the ocean. I would guess that many times more people have died on the way to or from the movie than due to shark attack.

Re:Nuclear Power and Global Warming

[Jesus_666 (702802)]

Actually, they partially are. Breeders can be reduced to dramatically reduce the amount of waste generated, thus eliminating one of the major issues with nuclear power. I've seen predictions from 95% to 98% less waste.

Re:why sodium?

[BlueParrot (965239)]

A number of reasons:

a) It is liquid at temperatures suitable for the reactor operation meaning you don't need any pressure in the cooling system. In contrast pressurized water reactors and gas cooled reactors need to keep the entire core under high pressure.

b) Sodium is a metal and hence conducts heat very well, this allows you to build a very compact reactor that is still capable of dissipating its heat after shutdown even if the cooling pumps were to fail.

c) Sodium doesn't absorb neutrons nearly as much as water does, and this allows you to build a reactor which produces more plutonium than it consumes, thus eliminating the need to enrich uranium.

d) Sodium atoms are heavier than hydrogen atoms, so the neutrons will not lose their energy as quickly. As a consequence the neutron spectrum is a lot harder, and capable of destroying much of the long-lived waste. The Waste from a breeder reactor would hit uranium levels of radioactivity in 300 years rather than tens of thousands of years.

e)While sodium is corrosive when mixed with air or water, pure sodium is almost completely non-corrosive to steel. This is in sharp contrast to 300 C pressurized water with boric-acid dissolved in it. A sodium cooled reactor generally experiences virtually no corrosion to the reactor core unless an accident occurs.

Basically, if it wasn't for the fire-hazard sodium would be close to an ideal reactor coolant.