It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Interesting information about the MOX plutonium fuel used in Fukushima 3

page: 1
24

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:30 PM
link   
The following articles are from the Japanese CNIC, the Citizen's Nuclear Information Center.

Reprocessed plutonium from nuclear weapons has only been used in Japanese reactors since 2009. Now there's 1,345 kg of plutonium being used throughout Japan.


Fukushima 1-3 Begins Operating with MOX Fuel

On September 18, 2010 Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) started up its Fukushima I-3 Nuclear Power Plant (BWR, 784MW) using MOX fuel. It loaded MOX fuel into the reactor on August 21 and plans to begin generating electricity on the 23rd.

Over 10 years had passed since this fuel was fabricated. It was fabricated between 1997 and 1998 and arrived at the nuclear power station in 1999, but it was never loaded. Falsification of fuel quality control data for MOX fuel for Kansai Electric Power Company's Takahama-3&4 nuclear power plants was discovered and troubles and cover-ups were discovered at TEPCO nuclear power plants. In response, the prefectural government revoked its agreement with TEPCO. On January 20 2010, TEPCO applied again for permission to use MOX fuel and on August 6 the governor gave his consent.

cnic.jp...


The Impact of a Possible MOX Fuel Accident at Fukushima I-3

The legal case against TEPCO's use of MOX

On 9 August 2000, over 850 plaintiffs from across the country, including 138 from Fukushima Prefecture, took Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) to the Fukushima District Court asking for a suspension of the use of MOX fuel at Fukushima I. The first hearing was held on the next day, when the plaintiffs explained their case to the court. Their main argument is that there is a strong possibility of falsification of the quality-control data for the 32 MOX fuel assemblies already on site at Fukushima I-3.

The danger of using MOX Fuel with dubious data

When MOX fuel is burned in nuclear plants designed for burning uranium fuel, many safety problems arise. For example, the control rods worth are reduced, the emission of radioactive gasses increase, and difficulties arise due to the lower delayed neutron ratio. (See International MOX Assessment report published by CNIC.) Using MOX fuel which is of a low quality, or which exceeds the reactor's design criteria, further increases the likelihood of accidents. Damage to fuel rods and malfunctions in the cooling system are particularly likely in such circumstances. Large amounts of radioactivity may be released and diffused due to the functional failure of reactor vessels and filters.


If there is an accident at Fukushima I-3

Exposure doses for residents resulting from a diffusion of radioactivity caused by a severe accident at Fukushima I-3 were calculated by applying the same method used in the disaster assessment in 'WASH-1400', an accident analysis report produced by the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

The plan to burn MOX fuel in light water reactors is called the pluthermal program in Japan. In the core of a pluthermal reactor, there are ten times more actinides such as plutonium, americium, and curium than the core of a uranium reactor. Actinides cause serious internal exposure in human bodies and thus pose a very serious threat to human health.

In short, exposure doses resulting from an accident at a pluthermal reactor would be twice those produced by an accident at a uranium reactor. A given exposure dose would be received by residents over twice the distance. The overall affected area would be four times larger. When fatalities by cancer from an accident at a pluthermal reactor is calculated with an assumption that Tokyo was downwind, the number of cancer fatalities would increase from 0.4 million in the case of an accident at a uranium reactor to 10.6 million. In view of such risks, MOX utilization is simply too dangerous.


By Chihiro Kamisawa

cnic.jp...


Japanese Inventory of Separated Plutonium (2009)

Japan's inventory of separated plutonium at the end of 2009 was published on September 7, 2010 by the Japan Atomic Energy Commission. The end of year inventory has been published for each year since 1993. A shipment from France of 1,508 kgHM of plutonium oxide arrived in Japan in January 1993. The shipment caused an international uproar. Japan responded by publishing its plutonium inventory in an attempt to increase transparency. The figures published were for "total plutonium", but since 2006 the figures for Japanese plutonium held in France and the UK have only been published for "fissile plutonium", making precise calculation of Japan's total plutonium holdings difficult.

Japan's pluthermal program (using MOX fuel) began in 2009, ten years later than planned. Plutonium shipped and loaded into reactors is reflected in the figures in these tables. The 1,458 tons of plutonium held as "Unirradiated new fuel at reactor sites etc." includes 210 kg at Fukushima I-3 (TEPCO), 205 kg at Kashiwazaki-Kariwa-3 (TEPCO), 213 kg at Hamaoka-4 (Chubu) and 831 kg at Ikata-3 (Shikoku). (The figures don't add up due to rounding.) The plutonium held at Tokyo Electric Power Company's (TEPCO) reactors was shipped there in MOX fuel over ten years ago. The plutonium held at Chubu Electric's and Shikoku Electric's reactors arrived in MOX fuel from France in May 2009. MOX fuel for Kyushu Electric's Genkai-3 plant (677 kg) also arrived in May 2009, but it was loaded in the same year, so it is included in "Plutonium loaded in nuclear reactors" under "Separated Plutonium in Use". The remaining 669 kg of the total 1,345 kg plutonium loaded in nuclear reactors was loaded in Monju last year. (Monju started up in May this year.)

Hideyuki Ban (CNIC Co-Director)

cnic.jp...




edit on 3/17/2011 by GoldenFleece because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Wow, I can't believe that with twice the exposure rates of uranium and 4. Wow 4 times the effected area! Unbelievable that they would even allow this type of fuel, given the catastrophic dangers of uranium. IMO Simply absurd.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 07:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Techata
 

My thoughts exactly.

Not to mention this:


In the core of a pluthermal reactor, there are ten times more actinides such as plutonium, americium, and curium than the core of a uranium reactor. Actinides cause serious internal exposure in human bodies and thus pose a very serious threat to human health.

Just like putting toxic waste fluoride from fertilizer plant pollution scrubbers in water, this was seen as a way to utilize the huge quantities of plutonium instead of having to ship and store it.



posted on Mar, 17 2011 @ 08:27 PM
link   
For some reason, Fukushima 3 was the ONLY refurbished reactor in Japan to receive MOX fuel.

Did anyone think about the potential consequences of putting the deadliest substance on the planet into a 35-year old nuclear reactor that was nearing retirement and that wasn't even designed to burn plutonium fuel?



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
This thread hasn't gotten much attention, which normally wouldn't bother me, but since the government and media have universally ignored the MOX plutonium fuel aspect of the disaster, it's important that people understand what they're dealing with.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Mox fuel has been discussed in other threads, but this does provide new information in regards to it's use and dangers.

Reactor #3 is also the one steaming and could also have breached the containment vessel leaking plutonium into the area. Scary.

My concern is if this one blows up in another explosion. What a mess that would make.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Thanks for the post. I had been wondering about the MOX Fuel for days in regards
to whether the system had been upgraded to burn it or not...& also pondered the possibility
of them using it in the unconverted ones...I don't know if that's possible...

Ektar



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 07:34 AM
link   
reply to post by GoldenFleece
 


Im starting to have a real hard time holding my head up over this. I am constantly bowing and shaking my head.
Unbelievable.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Techata
 

Yes, it truly is unbelievable that a political decision was made that could lead to an additional 10 million deaths in Tokyo alone.

It should come as no surprise that nuclear plant operators are paid to accept MOX plutonium fuel.

Despite this compensation, reprocessed weapons-grade plutonium from the Savannah River Site has gotten a very cool reception in the U.S. But as far as I know, the DOE is continuing this program.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I have been finding it interesting that not one of the news media have even mentioned the MOX fuel. It is convenient, too , that the reactor with the most deadliest of fuels should be the one hurt in the earthquake.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   
woohoo, someone who knows more than me that i can ask questions..

1.) does the mox dissapate differently?
a. rate of degradation over distances as compared to non-mox.
b. as it spreads, how long does it take to "burn out" to a non-harmful level
c. will it linger longer than non-mox
d. as it speads, what percentage of strength does it lose over its distance.

i appreciate your efforts to contribute for us all.

best wishes and thank you.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 11:36 AM
link   
reply to post by rebeldog
 


I know the half life of plutonium is 80.8 million years.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by rebeldog
 

I wish I could answer your questions, but everything I learned about MOX is from the Japanese Citizens Nuclear Information Center, whose website and articles are linked at the top.

CNIC has been at this for years and they know as much as the Japanese nuclear industry. Actually, they know more than the nuclear industry because among other things, they wouldn't have been foolish enough to load a 35-year old nuclear reactor that's situated on the Pacific Ring of Fire with reprocessed weapons-grade plutonium.



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
My jaw just permanently dropped to the floor... WTB potassium iodine pills, PST



posted on Mar, 18 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
I knew i had a bad feeling about this disaster early on, just grim, if i was japanese pm would tell tepco and the us iaea to commit Seppuku and then i would do the other method myself (samurai sword in tree and run fast lol)



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
Has anyone read about cesium1-37? That stuff just has doom written all over it. I was reading that breathing in one particle can kill a person in SECONDS.
So, who thinks we are going to just all start dropping like flies within seconds? Any bets on a mass death cover up?



posted on Mar, 19 2011 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
reply to post by rebeldog
 

I wish I could answer your questions, but everything I learned about MOX is from the Japanese Citizens Nuclear Information Center, whose website and articles are linked at the top.

CNIC has been at this for years and they know as much as the Japanese nuclear industry. Actually, they know more than the nuclear industry because among other things, they wouldn't have been foolish enough to load a 35-year old nuclear reactor that's situated on the Pacific Ring of Fire with reprocessed weapons-grade plutonium.


Putting MOX in a 35 year old reactor was like putting jet fuel in a T Model Ford!!! What were they thinking?



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I use to live but maybe 100 miles from Savannah River Site,
where they made MOX.
Before that they made the plutonium for weapons.
I just remember being big controveries over that plant.
As far as I know,they still store quite abit of that stuff there.

Anyways,after the 1811-12 New Mandrid quake,
Charleston SC had a 7.3 quake in 1886,
which is about 100 miles north of there.



posted on Mar, 28 2011 @ 10:12 PM
link   
reply to post by matrixportal
 


if that were true, wouldn't that make even traces amounts lethal...and as such shouldn't we all on the west coast then be dead by now?




top topics



 
24

log in

join