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.

 

Breaking: explosion at the Marcoule French Nuclear plant

page: 6
107
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It's either highly coincidental or NOT that for 20+ years nuclear facilities ran mostly under the radar without much attention or concern (besides Chernobyl) and now - in a span of six months - we have had several huge incidents and major concerns. Funny how we were just now really pushing to get off of the oil habit with alternative energy...I have to wonder though, is it more of a result of our insatiable greed and the inevitable cost-cutting measures and human error that comes with putting profit before people?



We've had one major concern in the past year, Fukushima. One person was killed in this accident. More people than that are killed by wind turbines and solar panels every year.




posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Good news and bad news folks.

The good news is that this will never reach a level 7 emergency or worse like Fukushima, as there is simply not enough material involved to create a situation of that scale.

The bad news is that even if all they were burning in the furnace was contaminated overalls and gloves, the explosion event itself will have ejected significant amounts of contaminants all over the nearby location. What types of materials are present and in what quantity is unknown.

If this was involved in MOX fuel creation, than we can assume that the amounts of radioactive material ejected could be of higher concentrations than had it been merely burning gloves.

This is a very bad situation indeed, however it appears that the amount of contamination will be limited and due to the nature of the incident, it should be mostly contained within the facility, although there is a chance that the explosion created an opening to the outside where contaminants could escape.

This is very dangerous and very serious, but it is a limited contamination issue which now must be cleaned up. There should be no continued stream of new contaminants such as in Fukushima where the meltdowns occurred.

This is my estimate based upon EXTREMELY limited data about this incident at this time. I will keep looking and change my stance if some new critical information is discovered.

Right now I would rate this issue at LEVEL 3 SERIOUS INCIDENT.
If there is an opening for a leak to occur into the greater environment it will reach LEVEL 4. But that is the highest this type of accident could possibly reach in my estimations.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Also, accidents at nuclear facilities is not new. Just our awareness of it is.

If you are willing to conduct some research, you will discover a list of hundreds and hundreds of declassified accidents over the last century. In fact, the evidence shows we have less accidents now than we did in the past since our technology and methodology has improved drastically over time.

Did you know about the nuclear reactor meltdown in Switzerland in 1969?


In 1962 the construction of a Swiss-designed pilot nuclear power plant began. The heavy-water moderated, carbon dioxide gas-cooled, reactor was built in an underground cavern



It was intended to operate until the end of 1969, but during a startup on January 21, 1969, it suffered a loss-of-coolant accident, leading to a partial core meltdown and massive radioactive contamination of the cavern, which was then sealed.


It was a meltdown folks. There is no such thing as partially melted, it either melted or it didn't melt at all.

Who knew about this?
Lucens Reactor Meltdown 1969

You can't say nuclear accidents just suddenly started happening. They have been happening as long as mankind has been attempting nuclear experiments. They were just not talked about in the media much, and you could say the severity of any incident is downplayed greatly or whitewashed, or just covered up entirely.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


Hi there,

I didn't have time to read all the posts but what i can say is that i read that :

sorry for the google translate.



Selon un porte-parole d'EDF, dont une filiale, la Socodei, exploite le centre de Centraco, "c'est un accident industriel, ce n'est pas un accident nucléaire". "Dans ce type de four, il y a deux types de déchets : des déchets métalliques (vannes, pompes, outils) et des déchets combustibles comme des gants ou des combinaisons de travail des techniciens", a-t-il précisé. "L'incendie déclenché par l'explosion a été maîtrisé", ajoute EDF. Le Centre de traitement et de conditionnement des déchets de faible activité (Centraco) est situé sur la commune de Codolet mais dépend du site nucléaire de Marcoule.


Translation :

"According to a spokesman for EDF, including a subsidiary, Socodei, Centraco operates the center, "is an industrial accident, not a nuclear accident." "In this type of furnace, there are two types of waste: waste materials (valves, pumps, tools) and waste fuels such as gloves and coveralls technicians," he said. "The fire caused by the explosion was under control," says EDF. The Center for processing and packaging of low-level waste (Centraco) is located in the town of Codolet but depends on the Marcoule nuclear site."

Source


I'm not sure that it's true but that what i read on a french website. Its odd that all the foreigns news agencies report otherwise.

Peace out.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

We've had one major concern in the past year, Fukushima. One person was killed in this accident. More people than that are killed by wind turbines and solar panels every year.


Can you just show me how can a solar panel or a wind turbine be a threat an entire population? Sure there has been accidents over the years but they only concern one or a few persons at a time. So don't bring back your "pro-nuclear" statements here please.

Peace out



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred


We've had one major concern in the past year, Fukushima. One person was killed in this accident. More people than that are killed by wind turbines and solar panels every year.


So if a wind turbine explodes does it cause an entire continent to be contaminated? How about when a solar panel explodes?

What types of radioactive materials are used within wind turbines and solar panel technology?

Do wind turbines or solar panels require 24 hour / 7 days a week cooling to prevent overheating issues?

Do you believe that ionizing radiation can cause cancer? Do you believe in radioactive particulates which can float in the atmosphere which emit ionizing radiation upon anything they come within proximity to?

I would have to say your post is completely misinformed.

You are essentially saying that Knives are more dangerous than nuclear weapons because statistically more people have died from knives than nuclear weapons. Your wise-guy comment fails to incorporate the possibility that those nuclear weapons could be used tomorrow and within one day rack up a kill count higher than every other weapon in human history combined.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:52 PM
link   
This incident is rated "level 1" for the moment, but this could evolves as it already occurred in 2009 March and was rated "level 1" at first, then "level 2" after further inspection from the ASN ("Autorité de la Sureté Nucléaire" that could be translated into "Nuclear Safety Authority")

source

A quick reminder of the existing rated levels:

Event Scale – LEVELS 1-7
INES – The international nuclear and radiological event scale:






source



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


You aren't including long term effects. from exposure to radiation., numbers will rise..



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


According to the scale of the list you provide, I have to say L 3. Possibility of L 4. Cannot go higher since the nature of the incident can only max out at L 4.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by elevenaugust
 


According to the scale of the list you provide, I have to say L 3. Possibility of L 4. Cannot go higher since the nature of the incident can only max out at L 4.


Stop your scaremongering, this was nowhere near a L 3 event. The Marcoule plant is not a nuclear power station, there are no reactors generating heat to make steam, there has been no meltdown, no threat of 'criticalities' such as when Chernobyl released radiation in the air.

This is not a "nuclear explosion" but rather an "explosion at a nuclear plant", which is a huge difference. The explosion was nowhere near the central nuclear fuel reprocessing part of the complex but was at an outlying-waste treatment area. The waste in question was not dangerous, but low-level metal waste such as tools, equipment, wiring, etc. This is nothing more than an industrial accident that could have happened at any power plant or factory.

Dozens of people are killed every year by falling off roofs while installing solar panels. Nuclear power has killed fewer people throughout the history of its usage than any other form of power.

Honestly, the stupidity of the anti-nuclear crowd these days amazes me. Rejecting science in favor of emotion, we might be living in a not-so-figurative dark ages again soon if you guys don't cut it out. Besides, haven't you embarrassed yourselves enough with the past couple "disasters" like the one at Fort Calhoun?
edit on 12-9-2011 by Nosred because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:25 PM
link   
Firstly, sorry if this has already been posted.

I just spotted this on the RSOE EDIS website: hisz.rsoe.hu...


There is a risk of a radioactive leak after a blast at the southern French nuclear plant of Marcoule, media reports say. One person was killed and three were injured in the explosion, following a fire in a storage site for radioactive waste, Le Figaro newspaper said. The plant is in the Gard region. It is a major site involved with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, and operates a pressurised water reactor used to produce tritium.


If there is a massive leak, i guess its good to be knowledgable about health risks involved:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Than why is it a nuclear accident when a X-ray machines containment is compromised?

Last I checked medical machines are not nuclear reactors either, but for SOME reason the nuclear regulatory organizations classify it as a nuclear accident. (Compromised containment of radioactive material)

Perhaps a little less insults from you and a little more intellectual substance would be in order sir.
Enough with the ad hominem.

This event is a nuclear accident, a machine containing radioactive materials exploded, thus the odds of contamination within the local site are high.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Again, ignoring the facts. The radioactive material that was at the waste treatment facility where the explosion occurred was not dangerous, you could have sat in a room full of the stuff and been fine. 99% of nuclear waste is not harmful to humans.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

Dozens of people are killed every year by falling off roofs while installing solar panels. Nuclear power has killed fewer people throughout the history of its usage than any other form of power.


So since people falling off roofs kills more people than nuclear power, statistically, than nuclear power is safer.

Since Knives have killed more people historically and statistically than nuclear bombs, than nukes must be safer than knives.

Your logic is faulty sir.

Address this point.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred
reply to post by InsideYourMind
 


Again, ignoring the facts. The radioactive material that was at the waste treatment facility where the explosion occurred was not dangerous, you could have sat in a room full of the stuff and been fine. 99% of nuclear waste is not harmful to humans.


You are lying. You don't have ANY proof of that claim.

In fact with a tiny bit of research I could disprove your claim.


Radioactive waste is hazardous to human health and the environment, and is regulated by government agencies in order to protect human health and the environment.


Wiki - Radioactive Waste

Proven as twisting the truth.

edit on 12-9-2011 by muzzleflash because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
reply to post by Nosred
 


Than why is it a nuclear accident when a X-ray machines containment is compromised?

Last I checked medical machines are not nuclear reactors either, but for SOME reason the nuclear regulatory organizations classify it as a nuclear accident. (Compromised containment of radioactive material)


These were not X-ray machines, and the waste housed at the facility was not dangerous. This is an industrial accident, not a nuclear one.


Perhaps a little less insults from you and a little more intellectual substance would be in order sir.
Enough with the ad hominem.


You are the ones who are letting your emotions get in the way of reason and facts. One person was killed, there is no chance of radiation being released, you're overreacting.


This event is a nuclear accident, a machine containing radioactive materials exploded, thus the odds of contamination within the local site are high.


The materials that were being contained were hardly dangerous, as I've said before. They were objects such as tools, wiring, etc.

You could have sat in a room full of the stuff and been fine. 99% of nuclear waste is not harmful, contrary to what the scaremongerers would have you believe. Fewer people were killed in this industrial accident than are killed every year by solar and wind technology.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


More proof you just make up stuff.

Jefferson Lab - Biological Effects of Radiation

Read the real science.


Biological effect begins with the ionization of atoms. The mechanism by which radiation causes damage to human tissue, or any other material, is by ionization of atoms in the material. Ionizing radiation absorbed by human tissue has enough energy to remove electrons from the atoms that make up molecules of the tissue.When the electron that was shared by the two atoms to form a molecular bond is dislodged by ionizing radiation, the bond is broken and thus, the molecule falls apart. This is a basic model for understanding radiation damage.



We consider the chromosomes to be the most critical part of the cell since they contain the genetic information and instructions required for the cell to perform its function and to make copies of itself for reproduction purposes. Also, there are very effective repair mechanisms at work constantly which repair cellular damage - including chromosome damage.


There are only FOUR possible outcomes from exposure to ionizing radiation!


Cells are undamaged by the dose
Cells are damaged, repair the damage and operate normally
Cells are damaged, repair the damage and operate abnormally
Cells die as a result of the damage


Nuclear waste isn't dangerous. I cannot believe you actually said that.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nosred

These were not X-ray machines, and the waste housed at the facility was not dangerous. This is an industrial accident, not a nuclear one.


X-ray machines contain nuclear materials.

This furnace contained nuclear materials.

What do you NOT UNDERSTAND HERE?

Containment very likely could be breached, it is a nuclear accident by definition.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Nosred
 


Did you know that if a tritium EXIT sign found at airports, hospitals, etc contains radioactive tritium?

Did you know if one is stolen or breaks open, it is considered a nuclear incident by the US NRC?

Why? If there is no danger or issues, why do we need to call hazmat out?

There is no nuclear reactor but it's still a nuclear incident why?

Because any incident revolving around nuclear materials is a nuclear incident.



posted on Sep, 12 2011 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I happened to stop at Fox this afternoon when the anchor says, "We have to tell you about a deadly nuclear explosion, more after the break..."

WHAT??? Nuclear explosion? So, I waited through the break to find out that a person was killed by some sort of explosion at a nuclear waste processing plant, which is hardly a Nuclear Explosion. I know it's not really on topic, but I just wanted to share how the story could be skewed so easily.

I'm shocked they process nuclear waste next to such an important tourist destination as the French Riviera. Then again, tourist destination or not, what is a good place to process nuclear waste? I mean, even if the natural landscape is not as aesthetically pleasing as a Mediterranean coastline, anywhere you go there is an importance to the make-up of the land, whether we think it has visual or literal value or not.




top topics



 
107
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join