Did A German Nuclear Plant Intentionally Leak Radioactive Waste? (thelocal.de) 133
mdsolar shares this report from a Berlin news site:
A former engineer at one of Germany's nuclear reactors has made an astonishing claim: that the plant intentionally pumped radioactive waste into the atmosphere in 1986. Speaking to the Westfalischer Anzeiger, 83-year-old retired engineer Hermann Schollmeyer apparently decided it was time to come clean, three decades after the incident he describes.
The official story had always been that radioactive waste was unintentionally leaked into the air at the THTR reactor in Hamm in May 1986, the western German newspaper reports. But Schollmeyer now claims that the plant used the cover of the Chernobyl -- which had released a cloud of radioactive waste over western Europe -- to pump their own waste into the atmosphere, believing no one would notice.
"It was done intentionally," Schollmeyer said. "We had problems at the plant and I was present at a few of the meetings."
The official story had always been that radioactive waste was unintentionally leaked into the air at the THTR reactor in Hamm in May 1986, the western German newspaper reports. But Schollmeyer now claims that the plant used the cover of the Chernobyl -- which had released a cloud of radioactive waste over western Europe -- to pump their own waste into the atmosphere, believing no one would notice.
"It was done intentionally," Schollmeyer said. "We had problems at the plant and I was present at a few of the meetings."
Did Americans visit the moon? (Score:2)
Asking this 30 years later and expecting a definitive answer? Seriously?
Re: (Score:2)
Asking this 30 years later and expecting a definitive answer? Seriously?
"Intentionally leaking radioactive waste" is (hopefully!) not so small in a person's memories that the passage of time will severely undermine one's ability to recall whether it occurred. Also, one would hope that nuclear reactors would be required to keep records of their activities indefinitely, so any records that existed thirty years ago should still exist...
The only issue is former employees who have since died or suffer from dementia, etc...
Re: (Score:3)
Like, maybe, this one? Is there any evidence other than his statement?
Re: Did Americans visit the moon? (Score:1)
You think people who intentionally release radioactive waste keep fucking records??
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
For fuck's sake, if you love radiation so much, go drink some polonium tea.
Re:Did Americans visit the moon? (Score:5, Funny)
See, you are showing your ignorance...
Anyone that has any education in radiology knows you dont put polonium into a tea. It's far to harsh for the delicate tea flavors. you use a black coffee or even a dark irish stout for the best flavor combination.
Re:Did Americans visit the moon? (Score:4, Informative)
You may or may not have some sort of radiology education, but your joke is left un-funny by the fact that the most famous case of intentional polonium poisoning was done using tea.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and it ruined the tea!
Re: (Score:1)
It was a british tea, hence already ruined.
Re: (Score:2)
The more of this shit the less people trust nuclear and the more plants close down. Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "you're all morons" won't change that fact. The nuclear industry has a serious PR problem and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to improve that. Just more lies, obfuscations and braindead decisions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who would purposefully releases some radioactive gas without approval should be prosecuted accordingly, and evidently it was already investigated, so this isn't even news. However, seeing that radiation risk is so highly mis-understood and inflated by Joe public, this type of headline hype deserves some measured response related to the risks.
Just curious - Is there any radiological incident that you don't approve of?
I'm pro nuc, and even I think you are so far over the top that you might be the reincarnation of Doctor Strangelove.
You make normal people think that pro nuc people are batshit crazy. Assuming you are pro nuc? You are doing more damage than good. Just sayin'. I'll wait for your insults because they give me teh lulz.
Re: (Score:2)
I have said elsewhere here that a purposeful, illegal release should be prosecuted. But I don't see the need to make a big deal about an insignificant release 30 years ago, nor to take seriously a headline that simply tries to hyperbolize a situation that was investigated long ago.
Re: (Score:3)
If even Germany can't keep its nuclear plant operators honest, then nobody can. That is a pretty big deal, actually.
Re: (Score:2)
If even Germany can't keep its nuclear plant operators honest, then nobody can.
And they can't even keep automotive engineers (or CEOs) honest... Not that anyone can, that's not the point.
Re: (Score:3)
All the means is nuclear is not the problems, private for profit corporations in charge of nuclear is the problem. That lowest tender mentality and the hunt for this quarters bonus with total disregard for the future and executives never ever being prosecuted, means corporations can simply not be trusted with nuclear power. All government owned and audited by the public, is the only sound way to go.
Re: (Score:2)
"All government owned and audited by the public, is the only sound way to go."
You do realize that the power plant at Chernobyl was government owned and operated, right?
Re:Did Americans visit the moon? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, not quite. It was built, owned and operated by organisations that were as close to private industry, as it was possible in the USSR back then.
The actual government was very unhappy with the things done at that power plant. Let me quote an interesting report by Andropov (head of KGB back then, USSR ruler later):
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because the government would never intentionally release radioactive material on an unsuspecting public as a test of the effects of fallout...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
The nuclear industry has a serious PR problem and there doesn't seem to be any attempt to improve that. Just more lies, obfuscations and braindead decisions.
Not just a PR problem. Radiation is bad for you, a nuclear chain reaction is inherently unsafe, and the nuclear waste is a irrefutable long-term problem. All of these problems amplified by the risks of terrorism, sabotage, natural disasters and more often than not, just plain old corporate greed and the desire to make cuts wherever possible.
We have much better, safe and natural means of acquiring energy these days, and they are getting better by the year.
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation is bad for you,
So, I assume you never fly, don't get x-rays, and stay completely covered when outside?
MDsolar is spreading FUD (Score:1)
That's the whole point of mdsolar [slashdot.org] posting this unsubstantiated crap and spreading the FUD. He is not just a random poster — he has a pro-solar agenda (either ideological or simply for-profit) and nuclear energy is the main competitor.
Re:MDsolar is spreading NATURAL GAS (Score:3)
That's the whole point of mdsolar [slashdot.org] posting this unsubstantiated crap and spreading the FUD. He is not just a random poster â" he has a pro-solar agenda (either ideological or simply for-profit) and nuclear energy is the main competitor.
Actually mdsolar is the de-facto might-as-well--be persona of billionaire T. Boone Pickens and several others who are driving the expansion of natural gas generation, to the utter destruction of all other reliable base load energy sources. Every solar and wind initiative is being built out with gas plants for 'support and peaking'. When the unreliables crap breaks and shuts down, when the subsidies dry up, when investors pull out, those gas plants will go on-line 24/7.
Case in point, Vermont just closed a
Re: (Score:2)
Mighty confident of your facts, there. Do you know (as opposed to believe) something that we don't? Do you know the composition of what, if any, was released? Do you know which direction the wind was blowing that day? Do you *know* anything about this alleged incident?
Your beliefs are one thing, verifiable fact is another. Don't confuse the two. Maybe verifiable facts are too thin on the ground to draw conclusions and/or take action - that doesn't make your beliefs the "end of the matter".
Re: (Score:2)
From what was described, it was a simple purge gas from a pipe section. That would be an e
Re: (Score:2)
This *was* a fuel damage accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. There were broken pebbles (and not only from this incident - this was major problem with this reactor). It is still a major problem with cleaning up the site.
Re: (Score:2)
There are still 3000 broken pebbles in the reactor... http://nuris.org/wp-content/up... [nuris.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They had a huge amount of broken pebbles during operations. Now read your own statement above about why there is no radioactivity in the coolant and whether it still makes sense in the light of the fact that pebbles broke all the time in this reactor.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is highly radioactive material in the cooliong system exactly because they had so much broken fuel pebbles (apparently caused mostly by control rods ). This was one of the major flaws with this reactor which was not anticipated. According to the spiegel (1986; 24:28-30), this specific incident the jammed pebble was not a fuel pebble but a bor-filled pebble used as moderator. During the attempt to get it free, they damaged quite a lot of (moderator) pebbles and also accidentally released cooling gas (h
Re: (Score:2)
Based on the fact it's mdsolar again, it must be a molehill.
So, do you have any knowledge that the wolf finally showed?
Re: (Score:1)
Who cares what (maybe) happened 30 years ago in another country? If you're a 40+ year old German, maybe you care. Is that a significant fraction of the audience of this site?
Re: (Score:1)
What's the answer to the question? Why should non-40-year-old-Germans care? Enlighten us.
Re: (Score:2)
All the same reasons that a person might care about things smaller than the eye can see, or that remain out of view.
By your logic, nobody should be interested in Mars unless they're an astronaut at an early stage of their career with a chance to personally make the trip. And nobody at all should care about nuclear anything in the first place, because you can't discover the technology by only caring about things that immediately benefit you. Any knowledge that doesn't immediately benefit you is bad, right? Y
Re: (Score:2)
Because historical revelations regarding distant lands aren't considered important news?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, if new discoveries regarding historical revelations were somehow not news, then nerd-dome would be dead.
Luckily though, it is just in your mind. Nerds still exist, and historical discoveries are still news. Heck, recent history is even news to some non-nerds!
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to make a fart analogy, was beaten.
Some knowledge of this might have contributed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
It only takes a very few morons, criminals or MBAs to unleash that risk.
Please, enough already with the pleonasms!
Re: (Score:2)
... to Germany's decision to abandon nuclear power generation for good. Nuclear power generation just means too much accumulation of risk potential in a small space and in the hands of few people. It only takes a very few morons, criminals or MBAs to unleash that risk.
If I remember the numbers correctly. If a nuclear powerplant releases its polution to the air, it still releases less nuclear polution than a coal plant (coal always contains trace amounts of other minerals including radioactive, and we burn A LOT of coal).
well, they were right (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong, people DID notice, but without a whistleblower to provide evidence that it was not an accident, nobody could be reliably prosecuted for it so no charges would ever be brought.
And probably, even still.
This was already known in 86 (Score:2, Informative)
Hi,
as a German, I have to say, this is not news. This was already known in 86.
At the time Chernoby happened, I was on holiday in Hungry. For the, the question was, travel back to Germany or is it safer to stay in Hungry until the radiaoctive cloud had settled.
One of my friends was working for the only nuclear reactor in Hungry, doing the external measurements outside their reactor.
So while I did not trust the offical readings, I could trust my friend with the radiation levels in aroudn the Hungry reactor an
Re: (Score:3)
I'd hope we could learn from that, but there is too much misinformation to expect the general public to figu
Re:This was already known in 86 (Score:4, Informative)
And you know why? Because we basically have stopped to collect mushrooms after Chernobyl - nowadays people don't even know anymore what mushrooms are actually edible. We also test every killed wild boar for radiation and if it exceeds allowed radiation levels the meat is disposed. In fact, there are still some wild boars that exceed allowed radiation levels.
And as for effects, you are, again, a liar. My ex gf who was originally from Belarus had to have her thyroid removed because as a kid she went outside in the rain on 27.04.1986.
You are a bloody liar and you really should go drink some polonium tea.
Re: (Score:3)
As fare as mushrooms, pigs, and cesium, yes they are taking extreme precautions but there has been no harm to those that ingested it, basically because the amounts are so small and the body does not retain cesium. There are no lies, there are facts and numbers from studies that show the real outcome was much less severe than projected, an
Re: (Score:2)
"Nobody needed to worry except those near Chernobyl or any children in the areas where significant I-131 could accumulate."
Perhaps technically true, except that due to the weather conditions at the time fucking Chernobyl dumped significant quantities of I-131 in Wales, which was over 2000 km away.
That just shows how unsafe nuclear power really is. The Welsh farming restrictions took decades to be removed.
Nuclear power is unsafe in an economic sense, and it's not really safe in a medical sense either; just b
Re: (Score:2)
Sunlight is unsafe in a medical sense, are you as scared of it? You could live in the restricted Fukushima district during and after the accident, or have feasted on Welsh farm produced food if it were produced after Chernobyl, and your risk of cancer from the sun would still be many times the increased risk from radiation. Many people refuse to believe that because they
Re: (Score:2)
You're full of shit. Iodine is just the most awkward fallout for nuclear power proponents only because it's the most obvious form of fallout in its effects. But both caesium 137 and strontium 90 are pretty bad things to absorb; they continue to decay in the body and cause cancer; and they're particularly bad for children because they're more sensitive to radionuclides and because they have longer lifespans in which to develop cancers.
And yes, the natural rate of cancer is much higher; but so what? Cancer is
guess who (Score:5, Informative)
mdsolar back with a new round of unprovable nuclear fearmongering clickbait
Re: (Score:1)
Just FYI: It was known before that there had been radioactive contamination from a German nuclear power plant at the same time as Chernobyl. The news is that it allegedly was intentional, not an accident.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they're okay with conflict minerals being used for "renewable energy" sources.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't make it right, especially when you're dealing with some of the most toxic elements on the planet. The nuclear industry is mistrusted for good historical reasons. What are they going to do about it?
Nothing happens by accident in Germany (Score:5, Informative)
Look, these are the people who set up folding chairs and meticulously recorded the names of prisoners before gassing them. Or recorded the names of deserters who were caught and executed by firing squad just before the whole army surrendered in Stalingrad. I would not be surprised if every shell fired by every one of their AA guns was individually inspected, numbered and recorded by one soldier and signed off by his officer and countersigned by the officer's officer. They are that good in record keeping.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll still buy a BMW vehicle before a GM one. They can declare they are trying to reanimate hitler using innocent babies and I'll still buy a BMW way WAY over buying any of the Crap from GM.
Re: (Score:2)
Only GM car I ever wanted they discontinued.
'86 Buick Grand National.
GM discontinued it because it regularly trashed Corvettes on the test track.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, a GN was a hot mess with a hot motor. It had all the usual GM build quality of the era, which is to say, everything but the motor was garbage. The GN would take a 'vette in a drag, but it didn't have IRS.
Today, GM is making some of the most pissed off production cars on the planet...
Re: (Score:2)
Have you sat in a 2016 corvette or a cadillac? It's an absolute embarrassment how half assed and cheaply built they are.
No, but I have heard that. But all I really care about in a corvette is the hardware, and I wouldn't buy a caddy. I have an A8.
Re: (Score:2)
A change isn't necessarily an improvement.
Polonium in tobacco (Score:2)
It’s interesting how some plants like to suck up certain minerals. Rice and arsenic. Tobacco and polonium. What others do you know about?
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence of this. Despite the wiki source.
Your Comment is an oxymoron. Much like you, albeit with the added oxy.
Score: 0/10
One of the crappiest trolls evar.
Re: (Score:2)
It’s interesting how some plants like to suck up certain minerals. Rice and arsenic. Tobacco and polonium. What others do you know about?
Mushrooms and strontium.
Many Eastern Europeans have a tradition of going into the forest to pick (some specific variety) of mushrooms. You know – food for free – a product of the Communist food-coupon days.
Oh, also, anything in the ocean near Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant, which is still leaking 90-Sr (Strontium 90) into the sea, as it dissolves into the water used to keep the melted-down cores cool (preventing them from drilling through the center of the Earth all the way to China. LOL.
Re: (Score:2)
See, I would have thought instead that it was "food for forage" and that it was a traditional human activity going back, oh, millions and millions of years before our genus even differentiated.
But then, I'm just some crazy mushroom forager from a country that was never Communist.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, dehydrated mushrooms are great to add to many dishes for flavor.
Again? (Score:1)
OMG anOTHER mdsolar anti nuc power piece. Given the preponderance of opinions on slashdot for being pro nuclear power, why does mdsolar get so much airtime?
Re: (Score:2)
Yet you're interested enough to post a comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course we're interested. We have a vested interest in keeping the site relevant and worth reading.
Don't confuse someone posting here as being "disinterested". We're just disinterested in mdsolar's bullshit "someone said the world is ending" garbage. We post here because we're interested in Slashdot's future.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the preponderance of opinions on slashdot for being pro nuclear power, why does mdsolar get so much airtime?
To give coverage to opposing views. I mean, if we didn't have some of these pieces from time to time, mdsolar would accuse us of "suppressing stories with certain viewpoints", like Facebook allegedly does. And if there's one thing we don't want, it's to be anything like Narcis--- er Facebook.
Re: (Score:2)
To give coverage to opposing views.
Opposing views would be nice. But we're not getting those. We're getting anti-science quackery and tabloid journalism. I am dead set against suppressing stories. But I wouldn't call some former employee saying something to a tabloid as a "story". More like the kind of result I get when I throw up after eating alphabet soup. It's scientific I tell you!
Germany(TM)? (Score:3)
A former engineer at one of Germanyâ(TM)s
Germany is a trademark now?
Oh, no, wait, Slashdot is just still absolutely fucking shit at Unicode and the editors aren't doing their job. My mistake!
Yeah (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The plant manager heard it would give you super powers. Sadly, it only gave them lymphoma.
Which is probably why he is coming out with it now. (That is, if it is true.)
It has the ring of a death-bed confession, but I won't pay it any mind until a source other than the "known click-bait source" reports on it.
"Wolf!"
I'm not saying it isn't true. Actually, it rings very true in comparison to what I have seen those in the board-room decide to do (or not do).
I worked at Kohler Company, a maker of cast-iron bathtubs, among other fixtures. It was well-known among the guys working the floor that, if y
Ah. Another anti-nuke post by solar. Que surpris (Score:1)
Another piece of scaremongering FUD.
How...quaint.
More mdsolar's bullshit (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're intentionally advocating ignorance of history out of the irrational fear that ignorant people will misunderstand... you're not being nearly as sciencey as you think.
Re: (Score:2)
This incident is well documented and was made public at the time. The issue here is that the plant operator said it wasn't as bad as it now appears to have been, and probably knew about it. It's not just this guy saying it, it's been long suspected but difficult to prove due to the reactor being slowly decommissioned and the lack of proper checking at the time.
The summary needs more context and links to articles about the issue, but this is actually a pretty significant admission in Germany and will hopeful
A statute of limitation? (Score:2)
FUD about new nuclear based on old tech (Score:3)
We have a report on a possible intentional release of radiation from an experimental nuclear reactor from 30 years ago. This has as much relevance to modern nuclear reactors as the safety issues of a Ford Pinto should have on deciding to purchase a brand new Chevrolet C1500. Even though this is irrelevant to modern nuclear reactors we will no doubt have people making this connection to modern nuclear power.
This is straight up fear, uncertainty, and doubt from top to bottom.
So, we have people that broke the law on intentionally releasing radioactive gasses. If this can be proven then they should be punished under the law. If this happens in the future then the people should be punished. It's quite simple really, we have laws on the handling of radioactive material and when they are broken people need to be punished. This should have no relevance to the decision on whether or not we should build more nuclear power plants than people disposing of coal waste illegally would have on deciding to build another coal plant.
The description of the incident tells me this was a pebble bed reactor, a system that was found to have problems of the pebbled fuel getting stuck in piping. This is why none are operating today and why no one proposes building another reactor like it. It was a failed experiment and we've moved on. It's unfortunate this happened but if we allow this incident to hold up investment in new nuclear power then we will continue to derive power from dirty coal, expensive solar, or unreliable wind.
With a few notable exceptions we have a very long history of safe and inexpensive nuclear power. If we use a metric such as joules of energy produced compared to the number of deaths then nuclear power wins by a very large margin. The occasional death from people falling from windmills, solar panel mounts, or coal boilers don't make the news because industrial accidents are not news. Nuclear power accidents make the news because radiation is scary and because nuclear power accidents are rare.
What didn't make the news as widely as it probably should have was a fire at a large solar power plant last week. It disabled a very large solar collector which is likely to be out of operation for a very long time. Given that the power plant has been in a very poor financial situation for a very long time it is quite likely this incident could put them out of business for good. I challenge people to even identify the power plant I'm referring to. Google it if you like but the name of this plant is not something that that many people would recognize even though Chernobyl, Fukushima, and Three Miles Island are power plants that many know.
In short, move along there's nothing to see here.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not anti-nuclear. Far from it.
But this proves that you can't have such systems under human control without massive amounts of auditing and external supervision. 30 years ago, we weren't in the dark ages of even health and safety legislation. Yet someone was still able to press a button, dump shit into the atmosphere, and get away with it - if this story is true. Not just get away with it, in fact, but never have anybody notice and have them push the blame to Russia and Chernobyl.
That's a dangerous,
Re: (Score:2)
It's relevant, because the problem with the human operators, and human nature hasn't changed much in 30 years.
Re: (Score:2)
Nuclear might be great. But not when it's in the hands of humans for profit.
How do you propose removing the profit element? The people working at a government plant will be there for their own profit as they get paid based on their performance. The supervisors will have to answer to regulators, congresscritters, and the public based on how much the plant costs to operate and how much energy it produces. This might not technically be defined as "profit" but the motivations to cut costs and increase output will always, inevitably, and inherently be there.
What privately owned power
Oh, no, you can trust those nuclear people ... (Score:2)
Why? (Score:1)
who among us has not? (Score:2)