Sea Water Could Cause Uranium Pollution From Nuclear Fuel Rods 97
New submitter Required Snark writes "UC Davis researchers have found a mechanism where the sodium in sea water can cause uranium nano-particles to be released from nuclear reactor fuel rods. Normally the uranium oxide compounds composing the rods are very resistant to leaching into water. This could have serious consequences for the Fukushima disaster, since sea water was used for emergency cooling."
Re:Haha "This could have serious consequences" wow (Score:2, Insightful)
It's gradually diluting itself to harmless concentrations as it spreads over the rest of the world.
Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)
This could actually be a potential problem for the spread of contamination. Haven't seen Burn's paper yet, but the general theory seems sound.
Water radiolysis yield these common products
H2O ---> e-(aq), H*, H2, *OH, H2O2, HO2, H+
with it's primary products being the H* and *OH radicals which then react with each other to form H2 and H2O2. So peroxide is easily produced.
In the Fukishima accident, they were concerned with spent fuel rods (extremely radioactive with several trans-uranic elements) in the uncovered spent fuel bays.It's known the cladding (Zirc-4 I believe) melted exposing the fuel to the sea water itself. With no roof on the pools, it's entirely conceivable that spread of nano-radioactive particles is possible.
You mean in addition to the 4.5bn tons of Uranium (Score:4, Insightful)
Lack of scientific literacy? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, uranium could leach into the ocean. But at what concentration? And at what expected half life?
Uranium has a long half life, so the risk is tolerable. Estimates have been that more uranium is in sea water than will ever be mined. Good reason for some people to stay put of the water, More space for the rest of us to play, I guess.
I'm always surprised at the number of people who think that long lived isotopes are more dangerous than short lived ones.
Re:Haha "This could have serious consequences" wow (Score:4, Insightful)
The poison in this case would be completely benign (as in "less radioactive than background radiation from the sky") less than 6 hours after introduction to the Pacific. Any claims to the contrary are absolute media lunacy run amok for the sake of advertising dollars. In effect, yes, the poison is becoming less poisonous, but the rate at which it is doing so is not only measurable, but has already been measured. If you want citations, you'll have to go to the trouble of looking them up yourself. This should prove a useful exercise for someone who couldn't bother to do such research before posting.
Re:Haha "This could have serious consequences" wow (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you honestly have any fucking idea how big the Pacific is, or how big the planet as a whole is? Not trolling here, just honest questions. Do you know anything at all about ocean currents or dilution rates expressed not in parts per million, but parts per quintillion over time spans measured not in years or even months, but in days? How about decay rates? How about statistically significant exposure thresholds for even remote potential for damage to cellular structures? For fuck's sake, do you have any idea whatsoever about anything you're commenting on, or was your post just for "the lulz?" You are part of the problem, and congratulations on feeding Yet Another Media Earnings Frenzy Over Absolutely Nothing At All. Yes I know what I'm talking about, and no I don't give a flying fuck about being modded down here. Take it or leave it. My advice to you is simply this: find something else to do with your spare time aside from feeding the beast of rampant stupidity. I recommend a formal education beyond the community college level on the aforementioned topics for starters. Have a nice day.
Re:Meh.... (Score:4, Insightful)
The not-so-obvious design flaw was that the generators were all in the same location. So although they had multiple generators for redundancy in case some failed, that redundancy was made useless by a common failure mode. You want them in different locations, different makes, with different parts and connectors, and running off of different fuel tanks.
Re:Haha "This could have serious consequences" wow (Score:4, Insightful)
All that's true, but occasionally we (I was a submariner back in the late 1980s-early 1990s) will intentionally discharge a small amount of primary coolant into the ocean, e.g. to correct a chemistry imbalance.
It does not contain fuel or fission products, but it is somewhat radioactive (e.g. activated corrosion products), and some of the radioactivity is moderately long-lived (e.g. Co-60, half-life=5.27 yrs.)
Again, even a small part of the ocean is really big compared to amount of stuff discharged.