You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Down Under
Reactor accident 'handled properly'. Really.
2006-06-15
Nuclear incident 'handled properly'
Actual image probably NSFW. View at your own risk. Don't come cryin' to us if you get fired. (She's a cheeky little wench, though...)
THE nation's only nuclear reactor operator went out of its way to inform the public about an accident last week, Science Minister Julie Bishop said today Emails revealed by the Labor Party yesterday showed various gases, including krypton, escaped into the atmosphere at the Lucas Heights reactor in Sydney last Thursday. A worker was examined for radiation exposure, but was cleared. Ms Bishop said the reactor operator, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation (ANSTO), had gone above and beyond its duties to inform the public about the incident. "It was a burst pipe in a handling room some 400m from the medical research reactor," she said today.
Many rantburgers are pro-nuke as alternative power, so I post this story to remind you that though big accidents like Chernobyl are rare, small accidents including the release of radioactive material into the environment are common. Radiation causes cancer - even that from the sun - and the effects are cumulative, which means you should limit the amount you are exposed to. The less the better.
"It was not even a notifiable incident, but ANSTO did notify in any event. "They put out a press release on their website last Thursday and ABC radio ran a report of it last Thursday.
That's nice, they told us even when they didn't have to. They still released radioactive gases.
"So this is just deliberate scaremongering by Labor in relation to a medical research reactor that delivers radio-isotopes and radio pharmaceuticals for cancer patients across Australia."
we are currently having the nuke debate in Australia. It has been stated that for the cost of building 1 nuclear reactor we could build 9 cyclotrons: one in every capital city and more. These produce 98% of isotopes needed for cancer treatment, are cheaper to run, do not need decomissioning and the 2% that can't be made this way can be reliably imported.
Ms Bishop said she was not aware of any other incidents at the reactor in the past 12 months.
My memory is a little longer than Ms Bishop's and goes back more than a year. In the 1990s there were three separate incidents at Lucas Heights in which radioactive gases were released and one accident where a radioactive rod was dropped on the floor and shattered, causing staff to evacuate the area and in which three staff were exposed to radiation. This was back in the days when Helen Garnett was head of ANSTO and she was the official media apologist for them. She's now Chancellor of Charles Darwin University. Then there was another incident where radioactive waste was found dumped in barrels at the local Sutherland tip.
Posted by:Anon1

#9  
Posted by: DMFD   2006-06-15 21:50  

#8  Is Fred illustrating the reverse transvestite tuck?
Posted by: ed   2006-06-15 08:41  

#7  Just a little info for the anti-nuclear power activists: 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. For the complete nuclear fuel cycle, from mining to reactor operation to waste disposal, the radiation dose is cited as 136 person-rem/year
IIRC, most of the nuclear fuel cycle radiation release is from open air mine tailings, which can be buried.
Posted by: ed   2006-06-15 08:38  

#6  Hey, the pic is blinky, the 3-eyes fish mutated by radiations from the Simpsons... only it has evolved into an human female! That's even weirder! How did it/she do that?
Posted by: anonymous5089   2006-06-15 08:33  

#5  And how many people in the nuclear industry have died in the last year from accidents? How many in the coal industry?

There is no perfect. There are reasonable trade offs which are unfortunately undermined by infantile hysteria.
Posted by: Flons Croque2804   2006-06-15 07:57  

#4  Two words - pebbel beds

Posted by: FOTSGreg   2006-06-15 03:30  

#3  Radiation causes cancer - even that from the sun - and the effects are cumulative.

You are quite right. In addition, pretty much everything in the entire world is radioactive to some degree. Even people are radioactive from the Pottasium40 in their body.

The reality is releases like this increase radioactivity for the general population by an infintessimally small amount. Statistically the odds it will result in the death of an average Australian like me are on a par with getting hit by a meteor twice in the same day.

The reality is that nuclear power is thousands of times safer than any other conventional energy source.
Posted by: phil_b   2006-06-15 01:46  

#2  The real problem isn't the reactor plants or the reactor waste. The real problem is the uranium mine waste. The only real energy solutions are (1) use less through increased efficiency and (2) invent new technologies.
Posted by: Unavitch Unaviper3310   2006-06-15 00:25  

#1  Same debate in Ontario, Canada:
Ontario will build new, refurbish old, nuclear plants

And no, the Pickering plant next to Toronto isn't immune to incidents either. I recall something being released into Lake Ontario not too long ago. It was harmless, they claim.

Truth be told, Ontario needs power (we were importing for a day, two weeks ago), and nuke is probably the most rational way to go.
Posted by: Rafael   2006-06-15 00:17  

00:00