36 Years of Three Mile Island’s Lethal Lies … and Still Counting

[bananas]

http://ecowatch.com/2015/03/27/three-mile-island-36-anniversary/

36 Years of Three Mile Island’s Lethal Lies … and Still Counting

Harvey Wasserman | March 27, 2015

The lies that killed people at Three Mile Island 36 years ago on March 28, 1979 are still being told at Chernobyl, Fukushima, Diablo Canyon, Davis-Besse … and at TMI itself.

As the first major reactor accident that was made known to the public is sadly commemorated, and as the global nuclear industry collapses, let’s count just 36 tip-of-the iceberg ways the nuclear industry’s radioactive legacy continues to fester:

1. When about half of TMI’s fuel melted on March 28, 1979, the owners, industry and regulators all denied it, and continued to deny it until robotic cameras showed otherwise.

2. Early signs that such an accident could happen had already surfaced at the Davis-Besse reactor in Ohio, which was also manufactured by Babcock & Wilcox. TMI’s owners later sued Davis-Besse’s owners for not warning them about what had happened.

3. When TMI’s radiation poured into the atmosphere the industry had (and still has) no idea how much escaped, but denied it was of any significance even though stack monitors failed and dosimeters in the field indicated high releases (plant owners claimed they were “defective”). Only due to the work of the great Dr. Ernest Sternglass, recently departed, was public attention turned to the potential harm this radiation could do.

4. When animals nearby suffered mass mutations and death, the industry denied it. When the plague was confirmed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture and the Baltimore News-American, the industry denied the damage could be related to radiation.

<snip>

7. When humans nearby were born with Down’s Syndrome and other mutations, and then adults began dying, the industry denied it, then denied any connection to TMI, but then did pay at least $15 million in out-of-court settlements to affected families on condition they not speak about it in public.

<snip>

In honor of the many many victims of Three Mile Island, and of the great Dr. Sternglass and so many dedicated experts and activists, we must turn this sad litany into the action needed to shut down ALL the world’s reactors so we don’t have to experience this nightmare yet again.

The lives we save will be our own … and those of our children … and theirs …

Harvey Wasserman reported directly on TMI’s death toll from central Pennsylvania. He co-wrote KILLING OUR OWN: THE DISASTER OF AMERICA’S EXPERIENCE WITH ATOMIC RADIATION.

[Buzz Clik]

1. ^^^^^ read with great skepticism

We'll ignore that Three Mile Island suddenly morphed into Chernobyl and accept that the piece is simply an anti-nuke screed.

Many of the claims in the article (particularly the claims of mutations and massive die-offs) cannot bear the weight of even casual scrutiny.

[4Q2u2]

2. Totally different approach to Nuke power and plant design

These plants as well as American and Russian approach to Nuke power are almost opposites.
So to say that both accidents are the same is not viable.

"U.S. REACTORS versus CHERNOBYL-TYPE REACTORS1

From the foregoing discussion, we see that two of the principal options for reactor design are:

Uranium fuel enriched to 3% in U-235 surrounded by water moderator; this is the option used in all U.S. power reactors.

Natural (or slightly enriched) uranium surrounded by graphite moderator; this is the option used in Chernobyl-type reactors.


Since the heat is generated in the uranium fuel, there is still the problem of transferring this heat out of the reactor to make the steam which drives the turbine to produce electricity. This is done efficiently by circulating water as in the case of cooling an automobile engine, but on a much grander scale. Option 1 thus becomes a configuration of fuel rods in a large water-filled vessel with water being rapidly pumped through. That is what is done in all U.S. reactors. Option 2, which is used in Chernobyl-type reactors, consists of a large block of graphite with holes in it containing tubes; these tubes have fuel rods inside of them, and water flows rapidly through the tubes to remove the heat. This water provides no benefit as a moderator since the graphite takes care of that function. On the other hand, the water does capture neutrons, reducing the number of neutrons available for striking uranium atoms. The net effect of the water on the chain reaction is, therefore, negative, tending to slow it down. Materials that act in this way are called "poisons," since they tend to destroy, or poison, the chain reaction. In a Chernobyl-type reactor, the water acts as a "poison." There are some important safety advantages to option 1 which is the U.S. approach. If, due to an accident, the water should be lost, the chain reaction automatically stops — there can be no chain reaction without the moderator. However, in option 2, the Chernobyl design, the graphite moderator is still there, and loss of water means loss of a "poison." Losing a poison speeds up the chain reaction. This generates additional heat at a time when the mechanism for removing the heat — the water — is gone. This can be a very dangerous situation.


http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html