Europe's largest nuclear power plant is in danger of being hit by artillery fire.

[another_liberal]

The environmental activists at Greenpeace are reporting fears a nuclear power plant near the fighting in southeastern Ukraine may be damaged by shelling. The six-reactor Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant (fifth largest in the World) is still outside artillery range at present, but the fighting is getting closer. Maybe some ceasefire negotiations might be in order?

The Zaporozhye nuclear power plant.





Ukrainian nuclear plant vulnerable to Kiev’s artillery strikes – Greenpeace expert.

Europe’s largest nuclear power plant is vulnerable to ‘direct bombardment’ in Ukraine if caught in the conflict, a Greenpeace nuclear energy expert told a German newspaper, claiming that its nuclear reactors are not protected from armor-piercing weapons.

Greenpeace nuclear expert Tobias Münchmeyer revealed his concerns over the six-reactor Zaporizhia Nuclear Power Plant in eastern Ukraine to Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. He said the plant was insufficiently protected against a direct bombardment and that 1.2-meter thick reinforced concrete shells surrounding each reactor are strong enough to withstand only a small aircraft crash.

"There are many armor-piercing weapons in the region, which could penetrate these protective covers," Münchmeyer said, as cited by Deutsche Welle on Saturday. The Soviet design reactors at Zaporizhia are largely dependent on Russian expertise and spare parts, the expert also said.

Zaporizhia is the largest nuclear power plant (NPP) not only in Ukraine, but also in Europe and also the fifth largest NPP in the world. It is situated on the bank of the Kakhovka water reservoir on the Dnieper River. This is some 200 kilometers from the warzone in Donetsk region.

(snip)

Read more at: http://rt.com/news/184004-greenpeace-zaporizhia-npp-danger/

[valerief]

1. At least it's not a solar plant or wind farm. If they were hit, it'd be...

Um, dark.

Nuclear is safe like giving children guns is safe.

[Unicorn_Actual]

4. Well, actually it is the safest and cleanest way of producing power.

Modern nuclear power plants are designed to withstand a direct impact from a fully loaded and fueled jet liner. I'm not sure about artillery.

[Octafish]

5. Modern nuclear plants can withstand earthquakes and tidal waves, too.

Or, so I've read.

[Unicorn_Actual]

6. Actually they can.

Fukushima wasn't exactly up to snuff.

[Octafish]

8. Really? That must explain why TEPCO ignored the experts and built it anyway.

TEPCO was warned and took the cheapskate's way out.

[Unicorn_Actual]

10. That is what I just said.

"Fukushima wasn't exactly up to snuff."

[Octafish]

17. No. You said nuclear ''is the the safest and cleanest way of producing power.''

Which is not what I said at all.

[Unicorn_Actual]

19. You need to go back and re-read the post order.

First you said (sarcastically) that nuclear power plants can survive earthquakes and tsunamis (which properly constructed and engineered plants actually are capable of doing, they can even survive a direct hit from an airliner with full fuel tanks).

Then I replied to that, saying that they can indeed survive such events, and that Fukushima was not properly constructed or engineered and that is why it failed.

Then, for reasons I'm not sure about, you said "really?" posted a link confirming what I just said.

Me saying that nuclear power is the cleanest and safest way of producing power wasn't in reply to you, although that too is correct. It is far cleaner than coal, fuel oil, and solar. Probably about equal (in terms of environmental impact) to wind and hydroelectric, but far more efficient than any other method we have. You have to keep in mind the environmental impact and the efficiency. Nuclear waste isn't an issue, the few incidents involving it we have learned from, there are very few incidents of nuclear waste actually leaking. The benefits of nuclear power (done right) far outweigh the risks.

[Octafish]

21. Sorry about any confusion. Simplified: You side with TEPCO and nuclear power. I don't.

Here's why I usually try to keep my mouth shut in hopes I don't swallow a hot particle:

The Fukushima Crisis Demonstrates how Lowly the Global Elites Hold the Common People

[Unicorn_Actual]

22. I do side with nuclear power (because I understand it and haven't bought into propaganda).

I don't side with tepco, though. They dropped the ball from the start and should be held criminally liable.

[Octafish]

25. So you don't side with TEPCO? Thanks for straightening me out.

For a while there, I thought you believed the General Electric designs at Fukushima were safe.

U.S. Nuclear Agency Hid Concerns, Hailed Safety Record as Fukushima Melted

[malaise]

33. So what happened at Fukushima?

[Octafish]

34. The weirdest thing.

Unfortunately, it's in the worst way possible.



DOE-STD-1128-98

Guide of Good Practices for Occupational Radiological Protection in Plutonium Facilities

EXCERPT...

4.2.3 Characteristics of Plutonium Contamination

There are few characteristics of plutonium contamination that are unique. Plutonium
contamination may be in many physical and chemical forms. (See Section 2.0 for the many potential sources of plutonium contamination from combustion products of a plutonium fire to radiolytic products from long-term storage.) [font color="purple"]The one characteristic that many believe is unique to plutonium is its ability to migrate with no apparent motive force. Whether from alpha recoil or some other mechanism, plutonium contamination, if not contained or removed, will spread relatively rapidly throughout an area. [/font color]

UPDATED SOURCE (PDF file format): http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2013/10/f3/DOE-STD-1128-2013.pdf

Something else that gets near-zero in the way of coverage in the great democratic institutions of our free homeland:

Fukushima, Plutonium, CIA, and the BFEE: Deep Doo-Doo Four Ways to Doomsday

Even includes John J. McCloy laughing at Skull and Bones.

[malaise]

35. I love your posts Octafish

Peeps across the globe should read them

[Octafish]

38. And I yours, malaise!

Ours is a wonderful universe layer.

Hey! Did you see this? Very much worth reading:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025468362#post13

And check out Satchmo's number. I seldom cry over something from the television...

[malaise]

39. I read it and like you was so upset

I didn't even respond.

It was profound - had never ever thought of that perspective.

[Aerows]

56. Absolutely amazing. n/t

[Aerows]

42. Octafish rocks

He makes some of the most informative posts on DU.

Octafish

[malaise]

51. So do you

[Aerows]

52. I stand beneath tall shade.

[malaise]

53. Well next to Octafish

I'm the little weed next to the tree's root

[Aerows]

55. I just grow here

hoping I can produce fruit .

[NuclearDem]

45. It wasn't built properly.

As has been stated several times already.

If built correctly, they are designed to withstand earthquakes.

[valerief]

7. Nuclear is safer than solar or wind? Uh, toxic waste. You've earned an Ignore from me. nt

[Trillo]

9. OMG, I just about choked on my coffee!

Nuclear power is "the safest"?!

[Unicorn_Actual]

23. Yes, it really is the safest way of producing electricity.

Nuclear power is less damaging to human health than making electricity from coal, oil or even clean-burning natural gas. That’s even more true if the predicted effects of climate change are thrown in. Compared with nuclear power, coal is responsible for five times as many worker deaths from accidents, 470 times as many deaths due to air pollution, and more than 1,000 times as many cases of serious illness. There have been less than 300 deaths directly attributed to nuclear power in its entire history. That might seem like a lot, but it pales in comparison to the deaths caused by literally every other form of power generation. Not to mention the environmental effects. Even supposedly 'clean' means of power generation is far worse for the environment than nuclear. Particularly in the case of solar power. Once solar plants and photovoltaic cells are produced, they're clean, sure, but making them is another story. Not to mention they're incredibly inefficient compared to nuclear.

[Trillo]

31. A rudimentary search indicates your "300 deaths" for all nuclear industry is fiction.

Low dose radiation at one nuclear plant alone was correlated with 300+ excess deaths. However, these deaths are not officially attributed to radiation, but instead diseases like cancer which occur some years later.
http://www.cerrie.org/committee_papers/INFO_12-P.pdf
See Table 5.

That's just ONE nuclear plant.

If you're dealing with something that is going to be persistent in the environment over many thousands of years, deaths officially attributed to it can't even be evaluated, because they haven't yet all occurred.

[Spider Jerusalem]

27. Yep

number of deaths per trillion KWh from nuclear power generation is far lower than for any other energy source.

A 2002 review by the IAE put together existing studies to compare fatalities per unit of power produced for several leading energy sources. The agency examined the life cycle of each fuel from extraction to post-use and included deaths from accidents as well as long-term exposure to emissions or radiation. Nuclear came out best, and coal was the deadliest energy source.

The explanation lies in the large number of deaths caused by pollution. "It's the whole life cycle that leads to a trail of injuries, illness and death," says Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School. Fine particles from coal power plants kill an estimated 13,200 people each year in the US alone, according to the Boston-based Clean Air Task Force (The Toll from Coal, 2010). Additional fatalities come from mining and transporting coal, and other forms of pollution associated with coal. In contrast, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the UN estimate that the death toll from cancer following the 1986 meltdown at Chernobyl will reach around 9000.

In fact, the numbers show that catastrophic events are not the leading cause of deaths associated with nuclear power. More than half of all deaths stem from uranium mining, says the IEA. But even when this is included, the overall toll remains significantly lower than for all other fuel sources.

So why do people fixate on nuclear power? "From coal we have a steady progression of deaths year after year that are invisible to us, things like heart attacks, whereas a large-scale nuclear release is a catastrophic event that we are rightly scared about," says James Hammitt of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis in Boston.

Yet again, popular perceptions are wrong. When, in 1975, about 30 dams in central China failed in short succession due to severe flooding, an estimated 230,000 people died. Include the toll from this single event, and fatalities from hydropower far exceed the number of deaths from all other energy sources.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20928053.600-fossil-fuels-are-far-deadlier-than-nuclear-power.html#.VANj0VcxIRY

Prevented Mortality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Historical and Projected Nuclear Power

Pushker A. Kharecha and James E. Hansen

NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University Earth Institute, 2880 Broadway, New York, New York 10025, United States

ABSTRACT: In the aftermath of the March 2011 accident at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant, the future contribution of nuclear power to the global energy supply has become somewhat uncertain. Because nuclear power is an abundant, low-carbon source of base-load power, it could make a large contribution to mitigation of global climate change and air pollution. Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO₂-equivalent (GtCO₂-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000−7.04 million deaths and 80−240 GtCO₂-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2013/2013_Kharecha_Hansen_1.pdf

[MH1]

36. How is it safer and cleaner than solar?

The only thing I know that could be "dirty" about solar would be related to materials and manufacturing. Once installed, how are they "dirty"? How is solar unsafe?

(I realize that solar doesn't provide power around the clock, but that isn't one of the parameters you referenced)

[Aerows]

43. I guess compared to people

immolating themselves by burning gasoline to keep warm it is probably safer.

"We are safer than setting yourself on fire!" isn't exactly a great slogan, though.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. The responsible thing then would be for the Russian imperialists to lay down their arms and cease

their aggression against Ukrainian sovereignty.

[another_liberal]

3. That's one point of view . . .

Though I would be happier with a workable solution.

The risk of a double or triple Chernobyl should make everyone involved dial it back considerably.

Since when do we reject negotiation and demand everyone must surrender uncontionally? Kiev isn't in a strong enough position to make that kind of a demand anyway.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

30. How long have you held this might-makes-right ethos?

[SidDithers]

11. It's more likely to be attacked by poorly trained rebels, with sophisticated Russian weapons...

Like MH17 was.

Sid

[another_liberal]

13. You think they would intentionally irradiate their own homes?

Anyway, it's the Ukrainian gunners who have proven time and again they can't hit what they're shooting at, or they just don't give a damn what hospital, school or church they do hit.

[SidDithers]

14. No, I don't think Ukrainian forces would irradiate their own homes...nt

Sid

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. It's in Zaporizhia Oblast, not one of the ones rebelling

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaporizhia_Oblast

which has a majority of Ukrainian speakers, and people who consider themselves ethnically Ukrainian. It is, as noted, about 200km away from the fighting. The people whose homes would be in danger are pro-Kiev.

RT lied when it said "vulnerable to Kiev’s artillery strikes – Greenpeace expert" - he did not specify whose artillery.

http://www.derwesten.de/politik/kaempfe-im-umfeld-von-atomanlagen-sind-voellig-neues-bedrohungs-szenario-page2-id9759365.html

Since the plant has been under Kiev's control all this time, the danger comes from a Russian advance.

[Boreal]

41. Not accurate

There is a resistance movement in Zaporozhye. Just because people are ethnically Ukrainian doesn't mean they support the fascists in Kiev. It remains to be seen what develops there but Kiev has written the area off and it is under the control of Kolomoisky, the oligarch who paid bounties for demonstrators killed in the Odessa massacre and financier of some of the neo nazi battalions. Obviously, the resistance would never target a nuclear plant and poison their own land and ethnically cleanse themsleves but I wouldn't put it past Kolomoisky. There's already concern that he will blow up a dam:

http://translate.yandex.net/tr-url/ru-en.en/dnr-news.com/dnr/2908-kolomoyskiy-mozhet-vzorvat-dneproges-esli-opolchenie-zaymet-zaporozhe.html


During the Maidan coup, Right Sector commandeered a nuclear plant. What they thought they could do with it I have no clue but it was concerning, nevertheless. Then we have Tymoshenko who suggested nuking east Ukraine and the other politician she said that to didn't even express any objections. It was all about how to get rid of the Russian speaking population. So, there's a lot of insanity at work among the regime. They've already show they're willing to commit mass murder so shelling a nuclear facility doesn't seem outside of what they're capable of.

[another_liberal]

50. Thanks for the link . . .

And for the quoted information also.

[Comrade Grumpy]

12. This is alarmist stuff. Nobody is attacking the nuclear power plant.

And it doesn't even appear close to any fighting.

[SidDithers]

15. It's what RT does...nt

Sid

[another_liberal]

16. Isn't that great!

I'm very happy it is currently safe, though waiting until shells are dropping next door before one takes the threat seriously might not be advisable either.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

20. Well, it's never too late to learn something new

Didn't we design a war map with the plants?

[LeftyMom]

24. Russian media via Greenpeace? Am I the only one who remembers Russia capturing Greenpeace members

recently? And charging them with piracy? Holding them for months? Keeping their ship for over a year? No?

I have a sneaking suspicion they're not calling the Russian government up and chatting about their concerns.

As usual RT is full of shit.

[another_liberal]

26. It was a press release by Greenpeace . . .

There's no need to indulge in name-calling. It's just a news story.

Anyway, who cares if the fifth largest nuclear power plant in the World (which does exist, it's not fiction) is within a hundred miles of the fast-moving front line in a savage civil war (also undeniably real, not fiction either). RT News reported it so who cares, right?

[LeftyMom]

28. As has been covered in this thread, every last detail of your narrative is wrong.

But if Russia is concerned they can get the fuck out of Ukraine already.

[LeftyMom]

29. Nope, no press release on their website. None on their twitter press feed either.

[another_liberal]

47. The man who gave the interview to the German newspaper quoted . . .

Is an expert on nuclear power and works for Greenpeace. Perhaps "Greenpeace News Release" is not the proper terminology, but he is who he is.

[LeftyMom]

48. I checked the newspaper's website. I didn't find it there either.

Admittedly my German isn't fantastic, but I'd love to see a link because it's eluding me.

[another_liberal]

49. Look at reply #37 on this string . . .

Thanks.

[LeftyMom]

58. Deutsche Welle is reporting that the other paper reported it. Where's the original reporting?

I looked all over their website. Like I said, my German isn't all that good, but it's good enough to get a sense of what an article is about, and I didn't see it.

[another_liberal]

59. Perhaps that web site hasn't been updated . . .

I suggest you continue checking for awhile. Deutsche Welle is a broadcast service, this was an interview on radio, and perhaps TV. They may be somewhat slow in providing text versions of their shows.

[LeftyMom]

60. RT and Deutsche Welle both cited Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung. It's not on their website.

I looked. Go find it. I'll wait.

[another_liberal]

61. I don't work for you, my friend . . .

If you want to reject the obviously true, please feel free. CNN will cover the story for you eventually.

[LeftyMom]

62. Your non-credible source is citing an interview that does not appear to exist.

The details of the story are all contrary to what RT is posting. As usual RT is full of shit.

[another_liberal]

63. Your opinion . . .

And you are welcome to it, if it pleases you.

I still have to disagree. I'm sure this interview with this person did take place much as reported, and I imagine that fact will dawn on you too before very long.

Enjoy your evening.

[LeftyMom]

64. If you want to convince anybody you should go find it. I looked, it doesn't appear to exist. nt

[another_liberal]

65. Not on a web site yet, perhaps . . .

Get back to me in a couple of days; after all, aren't you expecting a bit much, this is a Sunday (even for web masters).

[LeftyMom]

66. A credible source would get the benefit of the doubt. RT is full of it until proven otherwise. nt

[another_liberal]

67. Seriously, friend, do get back to me. But for tonight . . .

Lets give it a rest. OK?

[NuclearDem]

32. Oh my, a Ukraine and nuclear thread all at once?

Oh, this going to be fun!

[Aerows]

44. If only someone could bring Olive Garden

and breast-feeding pit bulls into it, we'd have a multifecta.

[bananas]

37. Deutsche Welle is reporting this also

http://www.dw.de/calls-grow-loud-for-more-sanctions-on-russia/a-17890197

Calls grow loud for more sanctions on Russia

<snip>

Nuclear fears

Meanwhile, nuclear energy experts in Germany have expressed concern about the risk of nuclear power plants being caught up in the eastern Ukraine conflict. The largest nuclear power facility in Europe is situated at Zaporizhia, about 200 kilometers (125 miles) away from where fighting is underway.

In remarks published Saturday, Greenpeace nuclear expert Tobias Münchmeyer told the Essen-based newspaper the "Westdeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung" he was concerned the station's six reactors were not well-protected enough to withstand a direct bombardment. At 1.20 meters (4 feet) thick, the concrete shells surrounding them were strong enough to withstand only the crash of a small aircraft, he said.

"In the region there are many armor-piercing weapons which could penetrate these protective covers," Münchmeyer said, adding that the reactors were also of Russian design, largely dependent on Russian expertise and spare parts.

<snip>

tj/nm (dpa, Reuters, AP)

<snip>

Date 30.08.2014

[another_liberal]

46. Thanks for noting that . . .

I'm afraid some people just can't see past their fear of, or bias against, the Russian people. In their view of the World, anything reported by a Russian news service has to be rejected as a matter of course.

Now that a Western source is quoted on the story, at least some may begin to take this quite real threat seriously.

[PeoViejo]

54. Don't piss into the Wind

The prevailing winds would take most of the fallout into Russia.

[another_liberal]

57. Nuclear fallout on that scale . . .

That's something you think they would deserve?

I have news for you, nuclear fallout on that scale won't just impact Russia anyway. It would impact the whole World, especially the Northern Hemisphere.