Talk:Windscale fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fire Portal

Windscale fire is part of WikiProject Fire Service, which collaborates on fire service-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Assessment comments

[edit] Tuohy

He recently died in Australia where he had emigrated - see reference 3 to The Independent's recent obituary. Government probabaly waited till he was out of the way before they sanctioned release of the docs.

Although "The Government" might well have had such devious motives, Tuohy had never been an establishment figure and thus never posed a serious threat or embarrassment. He died (in Newcastle, New South Wales), however, not until 12 March 2008, while the release of the official documents had aleady been timed to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the fire in October 2007. I'm not sure that any amount of official publication would have made much difference to Tuohy himself, who always knew what really happended and who had never made any fuss over being such an unsung hero. Martinevans123 (talk)

[edit] Official Report

The official transcripts and report into the disaster have just been declassified and published to mark the 50th anniversary of the incident. Link: [1] . The main thing from a quick skim is that the official explanation of human error is now shown to be a falsehood by Macmillan's government to avoid scuppering a major nuclear treaty with the Yanks. Can someone work this all into the article?

I can't find a source for this but I also distinctly remember reading that the man with the worst radiation exposure, the site manager Tom Tuohy, is alive and well at the age of 90 or so with no sign of cancer or suchlike, as are several of the other workers actually on the roof of the reactor that day. 91.84.13.71 09:45, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference Needed

The subsection "The fire" under "The accident" heading has the following passage:

"'An inspection plug was taken out,' said Tom Hughes in a later interview, 'and we saw, to our complete horror, four channels of fuel glowing bright cherry red.'"

This is a direct, attributed quote, the source really needs to be listed. Does anyone know where this came from? If it can't be found, the text should be removed, or at least paraphrased. Jamesfett 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

When the wind blows (CSRF) contains many paragraphs identical to those in the Wikipedia article. However, certain dates mentioned in the CSRF article suggest it was written in early 2007. The similar passages existed in the Wikipedia article in 2005. So the CSRF article is not a good source, although it looks like one at first glance. —Ryan 21:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still hot

I did not in fact make up the idea that it could still be hot. From [2]:

Yet even today as the fateful chimneys are slowly taken down by shielded robots the centre of the fire crippled reactor of Pile one still contains molten uranium and still gives off a gentle heat. There is still unreleased Wigner energy in the graphite and water hoses are still left connected to the charge face as a final safety precaution.

How hot, I have no idea. But the fuel feeding system certainly didn't survive, so there's no way to get anything out, so the core is still there... --Andrew 05:51, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Good article, but certainly there are no "continuing chain reactions". Molten is ambiguous but implies that the uranium is still liquid. I changed it to melted. pstudier 06:15, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

You're probably right about the continuing chain reactions (except in the trivial sense that there will always be a few chain reactions even in a subcritical mass) but I'm not sur why you disagree with the article on whether the uranium is still liquid. Do you have a reference? We could use some more good ones. --Andrew 18:36, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Typical LWR fuel is stored underwater for a minimum of about 5 years. It then can placed in dry storage, where the fuel is sealed in a metal can a couple inches thick. This is then cooled by air convection, and if I recall correctly, maximum temperatures are a couple hundred degrees C. The Windscale reactor used unenriched uranium, so it was more dilute, and was not cooked as long in order to have higher quality plutonium. Therefore, the fuel is less hot than typical LWR fuel. It is not credible to me that there is enough heat to keep it molten at over 1000 C. Even if it was, it would probably would dissolve the ground underneath it until it was dilute enough to solidify.

The Canadian Nuclear FAQ discusses CANDU waste. The fuel bundles weigh 20Kg, and it states "The average heat generation of a fuel bundle at this point (one year) is about 100 W". This is also unenriched fuel, but it is cooked longer than for a plutonium reactor. It is also 1 year old instead of 48 years old. It is not credible that the uranium is still liquid.

To beat a dead horse into hamburger, I sure would not want to share a hot tub with anyone who described molten uranium as "still gives off a gentle heat". :-) pstudier 20:14, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

You're probably right that it's not too hot, but figures about spent fuel are not terribly convincing, since they're separated pieces, each well below critical. In the core of the Windscale reactor, there's a mass of fuel, a moderator, and possibly still enough for criticality. I doubt, as you do, that it's still critical (uncontrolled, you'd almost certainly get exponential growth, which would be, well, noticeable) but fission cascades can still occur and so it might produce more heat than carefully isolated spent fuel rods. Moreover, if the waste canisters hit a temperature of several hundred degrees in dry storage, then it's not outrageous (but unlikely) that a large pile of uranium and graphite, designed to lose heat by forced-air cooling but shut off from the atmosphere, could get as hot as 1000C somewhere deep in the center. The graphite (or concrete) could keep it from melting out the bottom.

Anyway, further reading (all I have time for tonight) fails to clear up the state of the reactor core, but I added a bunch to the description of the accident itself. --Andrew 06:12, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and the UKAEA is worried enough about the pile bursting into flame to want to put an argon atmosphere over it while decommissioning it. I don't know how hot it'd have to be for that to happen, but presumably hotter than the pile's design temperature... --Andrew 06:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Meltdown

Was there a core meltdown during the Windscale fire? Should it be listed in the nuclear meltdown page?

I think the answer is yes to both, but the question was raised at Talk:nuclear meltdown, and I realize this article doesn't say one way or the other.

It's certainly the case that whether the core melted is not very relevant; the problem was the fire. --Andrew 22:37, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The following page may be useful (it claims there was a partial meltdown): Partial Fuel Meltdown Events --Andrew 22:42, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Worst

"The event, known as the Windscale fire, was considered the world's worst nuclear accident until Three Mile Island in 1979." However, at Sellafield#The_Windscale_fire it states that the fire released significant greater amounts of radiation then the incident at TMI. --137.120.5.178 15:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Windscale fire states that a total of 20,000 curies, most of which was iodine-131 was released. Three Mile Island released 13 million curies, although most of it was radioactive noble gasses. Releasing nearly 1,000 times the quantity of radiation, despite the form, could only in my opinion by superceded if the more hazardous radiation lead to injury or death, but there were no deaths and no injuries at either site, so that's a non issue. In terms of economic loss, windscale was a very small reactor and compartively cheap to Three Mile Island. In addition to the loss of the reactor, the cost of the cleanup with highly disproportionate, although windscale may be further cleaned up, thus far it has simply been covered in concrete, although the article doesn't have a price figure, I'd estimate $20,000 for the cleanup; Three Mile Island's cleanup was $975 Million. As for the social impact, there was very little fear at the Windscale fire, and a great deal of fear at Three Mile Island, this can also be evidenced by the reactions to nuclear energy, since Three Mile Island not a single nuclear reactor has been built (that wasn't already under construction) to this day. Britain on the other hand didn't even pause their nuclear program. So to summarize, the health impact was potentially worse at Windscale, however there was no health impact, and in all other criteria, (quanitity of radiation, financial loss, social impact) Three Mile Island was worse. Vicarious 23:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

at the time of the fire, there was hardly any public awarness of the potential risks of radiation, so thats not a fair comparison to make. In "Rationality and ritual: The windscale inquiry and Nucleair decisions in Britain", Brian Wynne (1982) says The fire's continuing practical political relevance can be gauged from the comment at the Windscale Inquiry that more had been heard of the fire in 1977 than in 1957, and in 1980 the US union of concerned Scientists commisioned research into the health effects of the fire's radioactive release thousands of times greater than that at Three Mile Island. (p. 20). So they ignore the exact amount of radiation, but focusd instead on the health impact of the incident. And ofcourse, its is not clear how many people got pancreas cancer from the Windscale fire, but to say that there were no victims due to the event seems also hard to maintain. --137.120.5.178 11:46, 16 March 2006 (+0100)

I'm immediately a bit dubious about the quote for the simple fact that "thousands" is an exageration, although an admittedly small exageration. First off, we're to assume that they're neglecting all radiation aside from iodine, and secondly TMI is 15 and WS 20,000; thousands in my opinion mandates at least 30,000; but perhaps I'm being picky. As for the health impacts, if the book you're reading mentions any statistics on the rise in cancer I'd love to have them in the article; however I think it's unfair to assume the worst, especially because I think some newspapers would have been jumped on a scandalous story such as fatalities, even if indirect. You seem to think we should assume fatalities, and I think we shouldn't, so in the absence of evidence either way I'd prefer to discount that criteria entirely from the issue of which was worse, and again, in all other aspects TMI is worse. Vicarious 11:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The book isnt about the aftermath of the Windscale fire, so I wont find any details about victims there. I just think its a bold statement to say TMI was worse then Windscale. But I believe we do agree both inicdents were dwarfed by Chernobyl. In 1957 there was no public debate whatsoever about (the risks of) nuclear technology. After a very small inquiry, on november 9th, 1957 The Daily Mail reported "ATOMIC BRITAIN is SAFE". The public seeked reassurance, and that is what they got. But today, in retrospect, we should be a bit more critical about the (failures in the) early days of British nuclear technologies, and its impact. 137.120.5.178 14:16, 17 March 2006 (+0100)

This article says that the coverage was hyperbolic, and that while some papers did defend nuclear energy, others were much harsher. As for being critical, the very nature of NPOV prohibits it. We should present all of the facts, and pull no punches, but not say "nuclear energy is bad and dangerous". Also, I don't think comparing WS to TMI makes WS seem better, but rather TMI seem worse. One statement I do agree with, that you might want to put in the article if you still have issue with the current statement is, WS was a worse meltdown, but at a much smaller reactor and in a less populated area so it had less impact than TMI. Vicarious 07:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to voice my concerns on this statement too. You two have hit on this already, but I certainly don't think that economic damage and change in public perception due to the accident should be included in reasons for saying one accident is worse than another. Why? Because people have a problem with nuclear power because of the human cost of it. The human cost is arguably low, but there have been MOUNTAINS of discourse on the issue. And this is what I'm getting from what I've read so far:

Predicted additional fatal cancers due to

TMI: 1

Windscale: 22

If you ask me, this should be the sole measuring tape for ranking the severity of nuclear accidents. Chernobyl had a number of 4,000 by the most recent releases btw. You could make other statements such as the Windscale fire was considered the worst accident for the industry until TMI. Even saying that TMI was of greater economic cost would be correct. But to say that TMI was worse than Windscale period, I don't think that is fair, particularly to the U.S. nuclear industry, because TMI did not pose a greater cost to the public, simple as that. theanphibian 16:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm left wondering whether the amount of radioactive contamination to milk supplies was properly recorded or appreciated at the time. My father, now deceased, was working at Barrow Dairy at the time. Many years after the accident, he told me of a visit to the dairy by the army in 1957, where they had tested the milk coming in to the Dairy for radioactivity (I suppose it would not be made more explicit than that): he told me, and I have no reason to doubt it, that however far afield the incoming milk came from, it had to be thrown away, and that eventually, they "just gave up testing" and left, leaving the dairy employees in no doubt that they had to keep their mouths shut about the incident. The area supplying milk to that dairy was well beyond that discussed in the article. Since this is now 50 years ago, I suppose that it is unlikely to be corroborated,or made more precise, but I wonder if anyone has any further information about this or similar incidents in the vicinity. Or perhaps someone with knowledge of the clinical data collected at the time about thyroid uptake of Iodine 131 in local populations could comment (if, indeed, the inhabitants from a large enough area were checked). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Messagetolove (talk • contribs) 15:40:50, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Graphite is not flammable!

I'm not sure how to do this without being very blunt, but graphite simply isn't flammable. It's used in fire extinguishers as a primary smothering medium!

From the article on graphite "graphite is an extremely strong, heat-resistant (to 3000°C) material, used in reentry shields for missile nosecones, solid rocket engines, pebble bed reactors, brake shoes, electric motor brushes and as electrodes in EDM electrical discharge machines."

It's one of the most refractory common materials known to man, in other words!

Yes, it'll burn if you get it hot enough, but so will nearly anything. I'm making some edits to the article to reflect this. Gigs 23:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Nuclear Graphite, but I think it is regarded as flammable in the context of a nuclear reactor. e.g this Nuclear Decommissioning Authority Engineering Directorate report states on page 30 "Both graphite and magnox are flammable" [3], or see "The graphite fire" section in [4], or these Nuclear Power lecture notes[5]. Rwendland 02:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

It's about as flammable as diamond. The nearest I can tell (most sources consider graphite completely non-flammable, hard to find actual data on combustion of graphite) is that very finely divided graphite can oxidize in air around 900K. I found one story about carbon nanotubes catching fire from bright flashes of light (http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/6/4/20). I found a russian report about graphite possibly burning as low as 800C, and also one MSDS that claimed "sub-micron graphite can spontaneously combust in air".. Of course a sub-micron powder isn't a common thing! Anyway, I'm not saying it can't burn, I'm just saying it does a disservice to those people that designed these reactors to call it "flammable". It makes them look much stupider than they were, considering that graphite is often used as a refractory substance for coating and forming things that must withstand such things as plasma arcs, and rocket nozzles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gigs (talk • contribs) 02:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

there's also this "GRAPHITE is non-flammable in bulk form, but combustible. A reducing agent. Mixtures of graphite dust and air are explosive when ignited.Reacts violently with very strong oxidizing agents such as fluorine, chlorine dioxide, and potassium peroxide. Almost inert chemically when in bulk form. Keep away from ignition sources and oxidizing agents"[6].Put me down as another vote against saying graphite is flammable in this article, well it is but only under the right conditions. Sukisuki (talk) 05:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison with other accidents

Would it perhaps be comparable, the first meltdown of a power-producing reactor in the United States, the 1959 Santa Susana Field Laboratory meltdown, which led to no immediate deaths, but is suspected of having released (and perhaps continuing to release) radiation into a major urban center (northern Los Angeles) ? - Eric 05:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

And what about the 1957 accident at Mayak: 20 MCi (20 million Curies), 200 reported deaths, 10,000 evacuees (many people were not evacuated), and 470,000 people exposed to radiation. Although this incident was only vaguely known till 1990, there could at least be a reference to it I suspect. --Hardscarf 08:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diagram

Has anyone noticed that the diagram in this article shows the filter(s) at ground level, while the text of the article (correctly) places them in a gallery at the top of the chimney? Scott Johnson 15:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The image contributor User:Jacj fixed this. Thanks! Scott Johnson 10:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Theres some good diagrams here if anyone wants to copy them [7] John 21:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New data

I have added new data on the release and three 2007 scientific references to the German version of the article -- maybe someone wants to integrate this material here? PSeibert (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Background

Reading up on the background section, it's really shaky on what sort of point it's trying to send across, especially mentioning an arms race and an atomic bomb. This wasn't a bomb, it was a nuclear plant. Can somebody fix this up, or I will? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVaultDweller (talk • contribs) 02:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

But this was a nuclear plant built to produce weapons grade plutonium. Electricity generation was seen as a useful though largely irrelevant by-product. If the USA had been more forthcoming with the UK about nuclear technology in the 1950s, the UK's power generation network might have turned out very differently. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Fair enough. You've got me convinced. I never really bothered looking at it through that viewpoint. Thanks, Martin. TheVaultDweller (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wind Direction

I would question this "There is evidence to suggest, however, that the official Meteorological records may have been altered in an attempt to cover up the fact that, throughout the radiation leak, the wind was blowing from the North East, significantly increasing the risk of contamination dose to Ireland and the Isle of Man." The cited link is to a web site that displays a synoptic chart showing a light SW wind over the site and a NW wind over Ireland. The site misreads the chart as a NE wind over the windscale site. 193.200.155.84 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I understood it. that site presents the Air Ministry synoptic chart as evidence of the actual weather at the time, not the spurious Met Office version, arguing that winds would have been blowing toward the weather front, from both sides, both immediately prior to and during the accident. How does one explain the record tampering and the mysterious "MAST DISMANTLED" report? Is the IOM/ Eire epidemological data purely coincidental? I have no LLR axe to grind, I just thought this website was relevant to any discussion.Martinevans123 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reading that site again I see that there is in fact no mention on any NE wind, only of a "cold front lying NE to SW". So I have amended the article to "the wind was blowing out to sea", which I think is the jist of the LLR argument. The other evidence, all secondary it seems, is still perplexing. It would have been useful to see the synoptics for the whole period from 10th October onwards to see how the front developed, but given its position already at 00:00 hrs on 11th it would seem that the fallout risk would have been far greater for the Isle of Man than for Eire. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)