U.S. secretly asked Japan to help dump nuclear reactors

[kristopher]

U.S. secretly asked Japan to help dump nuclear reactors
BY TAKUYA SUZUKI STAFF WRITER
2011/09/27


A Russian Navy vessel dumps liquid radioactive waste into waters near Japan in October 1993. (Asahi Shimbun file photo)

The United States secretly sought Japan's support in 1972 to enable it to dump decommissioned nuclear reactors into the world's oceans under the London Convention, an international treaty being drawn up at the time.

Countries working on the wording of the pact wanted to specifically prohibit the dumping of radioactive waste at sea.

But Washington wanted to incorporate an exceptional clause in the case of decommissioned nuclear reactors.

These facts came to light in diplomatic records held by the Foreign Ministry in Tokyo and released at the request of The Asahi Shimbun.

Japan did not ...

http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201109260363.html

[Poll_Blind]

1. Damn. I read that whole article.

Damn.

Just when you think you've seen it all...

PB

[madokie]

2. As I've said from day one here at this board

You can't trust the nuclear power industry. Obfuscate, mislead, then when all else fails, outright lie is their MO
I'm sure the aquatic life has a better handle on how to deal with the nuclear waste than any human could, thats bullshit and they fucking know it

[kristopher]

3. A lot of interesting information about the US-Japan nuclear relationship

...is starting to emerge since Fukushima.

For example: "Two 'systematic' acts of brutality and coverup"
http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/eo20110926hs.html

[Kolesar]

4. Davis Besse, Rocky Flats, Chernobyl were all intentional f-ups eom

[kristopher]

5. That is a pretty provocative statement.

Care to elaborate?

[Kolesar]

6. First Energy engineers created fake backdated records of inspections that never happened

Rockwell International was fined by the federal government for waste violations at Rocky Flats. Then Rockwell sold the business.

Operators of Chernobyl were doing an unauthorized experiment while shutting down the reactor when it got out of control and then melted down.

Both of those companies and the Chernobyl operators knew they were violating rules or laws when they screwed up.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. Your history of the sequence of events at Chernobyl is faulty.

For starters, it failed when they started it back up to full power, after a partial shutdown to test the emergency generators for coolant. The operators did not wish to bring it back up that way, because they didn't know for sure what would happen. They were ordered to by people who could have them shot if they did not.

The prompt critical excursion would not have occurred if they had shut it down completely, per procedure. But it was cold, and the government wanted that power available for homes.

[Kolesar]

13. So how was that not an "intentional f-up" by the Chernobyl authorities? eom

[AtheistCrusader]

16. The order was given by people who did not know

what might happen. No nuclear power expertise whatsoever. A civilian authority that just wanted the power back on, OR ELSE.

Nobody threw any switches or gave any orders with the intention of it blowing up. None of them even knew why the hell it happened at the time.

[Kolesar]

17. So how does that prove that nuclear management does not "intentionally f-up"?

...which was my assertion.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. You have failed to cite any evidence that Chernobyl was an intentional fuckup.

It remains a human-error accident, coupled with poor design/no containment.

[Kolesar]

22. "would not have occurred if they had shut it down completely, per procedure."

How is not following procedure not an intentional fuckup?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=312141&mesg_id=312281

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Intentional. Adjective. Done with intent or purpose.

in·ten·tion·al
    Show IPA

adjective
1.
done with intention or on purpose; intended: an intentional insult.
2.
of or pertaining to intention or purpose.

3.
Metaphysics .
a.
pertaining to an appearance, phenomenon, or representation in the mind; phenomenal; representational.
b.
pertaining to the capacity of the mind to refer to an existent or nonexistent object.
c.
pointing beyond itself, as consciousness or a sign.

They INTENDED for the reactor to simply come back online. They did not know, as no one had apparently tried it before, that it would blow up. If they had known it would blow up and did it anyway, then yes, intentional fuckup.

The connotation of that word is, they intended to blow it up. Like a false-flag or insurance fraud thing or something. They didn't.

[kristopher]

23. I think the claim was supported.

If we accept that by "intentional" we mean an act that knowingly violates known and established safety protocols or procedures, then both the order by management and the failure to decline to follow the order by the operator fit.

I'd also like to see documentation of your claims regarding what happened. I haven't looked at it in a while, but your account differs from what I recall reading.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Pretty simple stuff.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl#Conditions_prior_to_the_accident

The reactor was run in a highly unstable low power condition. They tried to increase power, something wierd happened. They tried to SCRAM it, something disasterous happened.

One of those 'hindsight is 20/20' things, though I would bet money, the designers were aware of at least some risks inherent in the design that made this result or a similar result they were aware of, likely, and it was suppressed or ignored.

Edit: we might disagree on the sequence of the explosion? I tend to accept the theory of two distinct events, a steam explosion, and then a prompt critical excursion. I realize there are some competing theories on that.

[PamW]

38. Correct

It remains a human-error accident, coupled with poor design/no containment.
===========================

You have the most correct statement here.. There is one more detail that needs to be added.

When the Chernobyl operators were going to begin their experiment, the load controller in Kiev called and asked that the plant remain online at reduced power.
Chernobyl Unit 4 therefore remained online at reduced power for another ~12 hours.

When you shutdown or reduce power on a nuclear reactor, it goes through something called a "Xenon transient"; there is a temporarty buildup of the most powerful neutron poison, Xe-135.
This buildup makes the reactor unstable. It's something that the Chernobyl operators didn't understand. It's like requiring the pilot of an aircraft to know the details of the
aerodynamic design of the aircraft. When you get your pilots license, you don't have to be an expert in aerodynamic engineering. Likewise, reactor operators are not nuclear
engineers and didn't know the implications of the delay caused by the load controller in Kiev.

Chernobyl was certainly not intentional. It was caused by operators not being expert enough to realize that with the delay, the experiment should have been cancelled instead of
pressing on in an unplanned for situation. The other big problem was the poor design of the reactor, that left it vulnerable to operational screw-ups, as well as the lack of
the containment, which is a backstop for all unplanned events.

PamW

[PamW]

37. Sold WHAT???

Rockwell International was fined by the federal government for waste violations at Rocky Flats. Then Rockwell sold the business.
==============================

Rocky Flats was a Government Owned production facility. Rockwell was the contractor. It's called a GOCO - Government Owned Contractor Operated.

At about the same time, the US Government ceased the building of new nuclear warheads and decided to close the facility rather than seek another
contractor to operate the facility. At present, the USA doesn't have a facility for making the "cores" for nuclear weapons. There is a facility
at Los Alamos that can make them, but it is not a production plant.

But Rockwell didn't "sell" anything.

PamW

[Kolesar]

39. Rocky Flats was an intentional fuck up

You can't trust nuclear management.

[PamW]

7. Wasn't "nuclear industry"

You can't trust the nuclear power industry.
==========================================

It wasn't the nuclear power industry. This was in 1972, and the first commercial reactors were still in operation.

No - this wasn't the "nuclear power industry".

This was the US Government. The reactors were test reactors from national labs, the US nuclear weapons program and the
early US Naval reactor prototypes.

PamW

[madokie]

8. Irregardless my statement still stands

The nuclear power industry is not to be trusted

[PamW]

12. Sure..fine...

my statement still stands
===========================

Sure..fine. If you want to make statements with nothing to
back them up; that's your business.

However, don't expect people to extend any credibility to
anything you say.

Of course, your track record for accuracy is in the basement
anyway; why start trying to be credible now.

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Irregardless isn't a word.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Exactly. This was purely weapons production.

And some reactors went in, by both the United States, and Russia. 3 and 6, IIRC. The USS Thresher and others.

[PamW]

11. Naval loses

The US Navy has lost 2 nuclear submarines; the USS Thresher (SSN-593)
and the USS Scorpion (SSN-589).

The Thresher had problem with the ballast system, and couldn't blow
ballast to surface, and sank.

the Scorpion had problem with a malfunctioning torpedo.

The Russians lost submarine K-19, as well as K-141 (Kursk)

PamW

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Yep.

And some of these vessles represent multiple reactors.

The Russians also lost some nuclear torpedoes, and both sides have lost ICBM's at sea. Hundreds of warheads, total.

[TheWraith]

21. Not hundreds, but quite a few. The US has lost 11, the Russians around 43.

Most of the ones the Russians lost were on one boat, the K-219, which had 34 nuclear warheads on board when it went down. All their other sub losses have taken just two or three.

Most US nuclear warhead losses, on the other hand, have been from aircraft either crashing into the ocean, or encountering an emergency and being forced to dump their payload.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. They had a lot more than that.

At the least, I think you are forgetting the Kursk.

[PamW]

36. I think you're forgetting..

At the least, I think you are forgetting the Kursk.
========================================

I think you're forgetting that the Kursk was a guided missile
submarine, NOT a ballistic missile submarine.

The nuclear warheads are on the ballistic missiles which are
carried by the Russian "Typhoon" class of submarine.

The cruise missiles carried by the Kursk, like the USA's
Tomahawk cruise missiles, carry conventional warheads,
not nuclear. ( US TLAM-N was retired by SALT )

PamW

[PamW]

30. WRONG WRONG - ERROR, ERROR, ERROR!!!!

Most US nuclear warhead losses, on the other hand, have been from aircraft either crashing into the ocean, or encountering an emergency and being forced to dump their payload.
==============================================

The USA has NEVER lost a complete warhead. The USA has had some accidents involving nuclear warheads.
In a couple of those accidents, involved losing the chemical explosive implosion system. However, at that
time, the USA's safety mechanisms involved having a removable nuclear core. Therefore, the USA did not
lose the nuclear part of the warhead.

There was also the crash of the B-52 off Palamores, Spain in 1966. The B-52 carried 4 hydrogen bombs, and 3 of the warheads fell on land, and the conventional explosive in 2 of them detonated and destroyed the warheads. There was no nuclear explosion. The fourth warhead fell into the ocean, and was recovered by the research submarine, Alvin.

The US Navy has never lost a missile carrying nuclear submarine.

PamW

[PamW]

31. WRONG!!!!

The Russians also lost some nuclear torpedoes, and both sides have lost ICBM's at sea.
============================

The USA has NEVER lost an ICBM at sea. Why are you lying and fabricating?

The USA has lost 2 nuclear submarines, the Thresher( SSN-593 ) and USS Scorpion ( SSN-589 ).

Both of those submarines were attack subs, not missile subs. You can tell by their hull
numbers, which are both SSN. SSN is the designation for a nuclear powered attack sub.

The fleet ballistic missile subs have hull numbers which begin with SSBN.

The claim was made that the USA has lost 11 nuclear weapon. However if you read the
reports on those - they say "without fissile cores". That means that the nuclear part of
the nuclear weapon was not installed and hence was not lost.

There are ZERO complete nuclear weapons that are "lost". A couple were destroyed,
but there's nothing "out there" with a US warhead.

PamW

[PamW]

32. List of lost subs

The following shows the list of lost nuclear subs:

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

One can see that the USA has lost 2 subs, both of which were SSN
attack subs, and did not have nuclear warheads and missiles.

Attack Submarines - SSN:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=100&ct=4

Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarines - SSBN:

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4100&tid=200&ct=4

PamW

[Kolesar]

14. You can't trust the nuclear government

Ok ?

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Better.

[kristopher]

24. Nuclear is part of the military industrial complex.

Distinctions as to whether it was the military or the industrial arm are meaningless on this point.

[AtheistCrusader]

28. Now, perhaps. At that time, the distinction is clear.

Edit: I may be misunderstanding your transition from subject to body. Did you mean MIC in that last part? Or just regular commercial industry?

[PamW]

29. Wrong, as always.

Distinctions as to whether it was the military or the industrial arm are meaningless on this point.
=====================================

WRONG, as always. Someone made the decision to dump this waste into the oceans, and that
person was an employee of the US Government.

The decision was NOT made by someone employed by a power company. The decision was NOT
made by someone employed by a company that makes reactors. The decision was NOT made
by someone employed as a regulator of the nuclear industry....

So why would you not distinguish between the military and industry.

The decision was made by someone in the US Navy. So the responsibility resides with
the US Navy for this decision.

There is clearly a distinction in responsibility here, and failing to make that decision
is just plain fuzzy thinking. You can't ( although you do ) say that everything or everyone
that has the adjective "nuclear" associated with them, are all one and the same.

That's one of the reasons you are so frequently wrong.

PamW

[Kolesar]

33. You can't trust the nuclear government

You can't trust the nuclear industry.
You can't trust the nuclear academia.

[NickB79]

34. So I shouldn't trust the radioisotopes they're using to treat a family member with cancer?

Since they're generated by the nuclear industry and nuclear academia? :shrug:

[Kolesar]

35. That was imaginitive...eom