Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Explosion At French Nuclear Site Kills One

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the someone-save-the-camembert dept.

Power 262

syngularyx writes "An explosion took place in an oven Monday at the Marcoule nuclear site near the city of Nimes in the south of France. From the article: '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. It is a major site involved with the decommissioning of nuclear facilities. emergency services said.'" Update: 09/12 16:20 GMT by S : Changed headline and summary to reflect that there seems to be no risk of a leak.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (5, Informative)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#37375986)

In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone and no one gives a rats ass.

Deaths per terawatt hour (from nextbigfuture.com [nextbigfuture.com] ):

Coal – world average: 161
Coal – China: 278
Coal – USA: 15
Oil: 36
Natural Gas: 4
Biofuel/Biomass: 12
Peat: 12
Solar: 0.44
Wind: 0.15
Hydro: 0.10
Nuclear: 0.04

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376092)

Recalculate that in deaths per square foot and I bet it goes the other way.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376158)

I fail to see your point. Just changing the numbers to show that Nuclear Energy could be more dangerous doesn't disprove that it isn't safe.

How many people die from health conditions living next to a coal burning plant? At least with Nuclear its worse case usually effects a limited range. Fossil fuels effects thousands of miles.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376354)

I believe he means because there are many more coal plants than nuclear.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376118)

Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.

Perhaps workers per terawatt is much higher in coal industries than in nuclear industries?

Also including solar makes not mcuh sense either, or? I mean how can you possibly die if you are involved somehow in solar energy production? On the road driving to work? Falling from a roof while installing a paneel? So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop? If you have so many workes in solar energy related issues dying the first thing I would do is question the security measures.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1, Troll)

paskie (539112) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376160)

Solar panel farms aren't risk-free places. High-current DC shocks can be very nasty - you get just a bolt at first, but it can start blood electrolysis and you die few days later.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

JRowe47 (2459214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376246)

What in the blazes is blood electrolysis?

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (3, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376424)

It's when you drink too much Brawndo.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (3, Insightful)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376168)

It makes sense to compare the safety of different means for producing energy. the number of workers, or the cause of death is irrelevant: if more people die to produce the same amount of energy, then this kind of energy is more dangerous to produce.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (-1)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376418)

Well,

I don't really agree, but that is not the point.

The reason why I question such numbers or the usefullness of them is pretty simple: we see nuclear energy "production" (that excludes plant explosions I assume) causes less death per terawatt hour than coal. So we conlcude e.g. in germany to replace 30 coal plants with 20 nuclear plants (just a Gedankenexperiment). What is the result on the coal mining industry now? How many coal miners get unemployed now and are saved from dying in a mining accident?
I think people who post such death toll comparisions have not much to contribute to the general discussion, except showing such strikingly numbers.
E.g. the gloabl picture is that most coal miners die in the third world or developing world. In other words the security measures are lower. Also keep in mind the coal is partly burned in the first world. So obviously you could argue that the first world people don't like to impose their own standards of safty on the sources of their coal. However they impose their own standards of safety on their own nuclear plants.
OTOH following my introduction, what happens to a coal miner who becomes unemployed because of a switch awayy from coal? And his family? Where would he work now, how long would it take to find a new job, would he need to get his children out of school and let them work, would he work in an even more dangerous job?
Sticking to the mantra nuclear is safe, and look we already had 3 big accidents (with high monetary costs) but not much was lost, and if we would switch to super safe new generation reactors we would safe all those miners, sorry, I don't buy that. After all, we don't know how many near catastrophic failures we really had. It is just to many ifs, woulds, coulds, chances, lucks ... pulling two arbitrary numbers out of the head don't help me if one of the 7 plants that I have in a 100km range around my hometown go boom. Here where I work we have about 10 plants in a 150km range. (This does not count the ones on the frensh side of the boarder)

Hm, while I think about it, perhaps we could also calculate deathes per operation hour of a facility instead of energy produced.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

fnj (64210) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376544)

Whether you "agree," or "buy that" doesn't make the slightest difference. The statistics, which you do not even contest, tell the story. They are not "arbitrary" numbers. They are an actual accounting of the comparative death tolls, apples to apples. If you are not prepared to apply rational thought to the issue, then you must not expect to be taken very seriously. If an entire nation is not prepared to apply rational thought to the issue, then that nation must not expect to be taken very seriously.

You have just made the title of this thread come true.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (3, Insightful)

jovius (974690) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376586)

The risk depends on where the energy is produced too, so the metric is not absolute.

The procedures and technology can be improved. The solar/wind/hydro deaths for example are calculated from resource mining, construction and maintenance related fatalities (/resource or /profession in general population) : http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html [nextbigfuture.com] That article precedes the one that OP referenced and provides the methodology.

The nuclear comes out as the safest probably because of the strict safety guidelines and the fact that not anyone can maintain a nuclear power station. Should the same kind of methods be enforced to all energy related activities in society the renewables (and coal too) would appear a lot more safer.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376198)

The measurement of "deaths per terawatt" is meaningful if you are an energy consumer. You have a roughly constant rate of consumption and you wish to know roughly how many people die in the production of that energy.

On the other hand, "deaths per terawatt" is nearly meaningless if you are on the production side, either a miner, a plant worker, etc. There a more meaningful measure will be "deaths per man-hour" or similar since you want to know how likely you are to die during an on the job accident.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376244)

Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.

Depends what the discussion is about. If the discussion is at a national energy policy level, then the question is really "Given that we need X kWhr per year to do everything we want to do, what is the 'best' way to get that much power?" Then for 'best' we can decide what tradeoff we want between cheap, reliable, safe, etc. So if we're talking about the safety of various energy sources, then certainly the death rate per terawatt-hour is (one of) the right metrics.

If a given industry can give us the same number of TW-hr with fewer injuries and deaths, then that's a good thing. (They may acheive that through fewer workers/more automation, or better safety regulations, or using an inherently less dangerous energy source, or whatever...)

Also including solar makes not mcuh sense either, or? I mean how can you possibly die if you are involved somehow in solar energy production?

Well that's the point, isn't it? There are fewer ways to have deaths and accidents with solar power, which makes it a safer way to generate energy. That's a point in its favor. To ignore the fact that solar is safer than many other modern energy sources does a disservice to solar, by ignoring one of its advantages.

So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop?

If we're having a debate about the most dangerous rooftop work, then you could go ahead and do that comparison. If we're doing a comparison of the most dangerous energy source, then comparing solar to shingling a roof is a waste of time: what matters is how solar energy compares to nuclear energy, coal energy, etc.

On the road driving to work? Falling from a roof while installing a paneel?

Interestingly, most injuries and deaths in the nuclear industry are from industrial accidents. None (in the US, at least) are from radiation exposure. When I took a tour of a research reactor, they told me that by far the most dangerous aspect of working in the reactor building was the crane. The radiation exposure is very low on the risk of hazards that a rad worker encounters (because shielding, monitoring, etc. are so rigorous).

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (2)

urusan (1755332) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376368)

Accounting for a higher number of workers per terawatt isn't that important. Even if the excess deaths were primarily driven by the number of workers, the fact that it puts so many more workers in danger is still a problem.

Also, as you mention, solar-related deaths are probably almost all due to just plain everyday accidents. This sets a nice baseline level of danger and implies that the deaths in the bottom four entries are probably driven mostly by workers per terawatt. This makes sense because of the energy density of solar vs nuclear. In any case, in order for coal deaths to be driven by this factor alone there would have to be 366 times as many workers working in coal production per terawatt than solar (34 times as many if you restrict it to the US alone). This heavily implies that the extra deaths are due to a higher level of danger rather than simply more workers.

I've never heard this before, but it's perfect (1)

Quila (201335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376576)

We need X energy. We want to evaluate the safety of the various means of providing X energy.

So the relevant question is: How many people will die to provide us with X energy by a means?

Deaths per terawatt-hour perfectly answers the question.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376676)

Very likely the measurement death per terawatt hour is not very meaningfull.

Why the uncertainty? Either it has meaning or not. But let me ask a couple of questions. Is it relevant to you whether someone lives or dies? All else being equal, would you pick an option that killed less people over one that killed more?

So why don't you compare it then with other industries that do work on the rooftop?

Those other industries don't generate electricity. The original poster is conducting a crude but fairly rational analysis. There's a particular outcome, generation of a unit of electricity and a cost (though not a full measure of the costs) associated with that outcome.

If you have so many workes in solar energy related issues dying the first thing I would do is question the security measures.

Safety measures. Security is a different game. Some activities are inherently dangerous so that merely questioning the safety measures doesn't measurably improve things. We've been working on roofs for ages, so I think the safety issues are probably worked out as well as they can be without some new innovation (say a cheap robotic system that provides near perfect stability for a roof worker or automated solar panel installation that doesn't require many roof workers).

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

tqk (413719) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376126)

In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone ...
---
Coal - USA: 15

You couldn't even read your own source?

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376180)

Deaths per terawatt hour: Coal - USA: 15.
And seeing how coal fired plants generate 440Twh in the Q1 2011...that comes to... 6,600 deaths.

Something ain't stirring the Kool-Aid, here...

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (3, Informative)

djmurdoch (306849) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376338)

The linked source claims there are 30000 deaths per year from coal, and 2000 Twh. Those are roughly consistent with your numbers.

They aren't all coal miners, so it's also consistent with the OP.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376620)

Coal miners are not the only people involved in production of energy from coal.

There can be a lot of people die at coal fired power plants, but not a single miner die, or the other way around.
In reality, it's a bunch of miners die, and various industrial accidents at coal fired power plants cause other deaths, and probably transporting coal to those plants causes a few deaths, too.

You're trying to compare two completely different statistics that measure two completely different things, and wondering why they don't add up.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376204)

In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone ...
---
Coal - USA: 15

You couldn't even read your own source?

30 coal miners die each year

Deaths per terawatt hour

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376208)

He can read. You can't. Notice the part that said the stats are for people killed per terawatthour? Simple maths should tell you that coal must be used to produce approx 2 TWhrs/year in the US. Understand?

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376216)

You couldn't even read the post you were mocking?

Deaths per terawatt hour and deaths per year, the list is in deaths per terawatt hour, which would not necessarally line up with deaths per year.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376228)

In other news, 30 coal miners die each year in the U.S. alone ...
---
Coal - USA: 15

You couldn't even read your own source?

I don't see an inconsistency.

The first number is deaths per year.

The second number is deaths per terawatt-hr.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376150)

Yeah, because Uran-miners often don't die in mining accidents. They cannot continue to work due to cancer, whose causation cannot be proven to be from the working environment.
   

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (3, Informative)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376342)

Yeah, because Uran-miners often don't die in mining accidents. They cannot continue to work due to cancer, whose causation cannot be proven to be from the working environment.

No, the difference is that we mine far less uranium than we do coal.

Note that it requires about 10,000 times as much coal as natural uranium (the kind you get out of the ground and then enrich to make nuclear fuel) to produce a given amount of energy.

If we were to replace all electricity production in the USA with nuclear plants, we'd need to mine less than one tenth the uranium to run them all than the coal required for ONE big coal-fired plant.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376402)

Mining uranium and mining coal is two very different things.
It is very unlikely that the leaching methods that are used for uranium mining cases the death of a miner.
The underground mining that is used for coal is far more likely to cause serious incidents.

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (5, Informative)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376212)

In other news:
a petroleum pipeline explosion has killed at least 100 [bbc.co.uk] so far today in Kenya.
From linked article:

"The scene is horrific, with charred bodies all around. I cannot differentiate between men and women or boys and girls. All that is left are bones, and the only way to identify the children is from their smaller skeletons."

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (1)

alcarinque (1534085) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376380)

And yet, nobody cares because they were poor people of a poor country...

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376564)

From linked article:

"The scene is horrific, with charred bodies all around. I cannot differentiate between men and women or boys and girls. All that is left are bones, and the only way to identify the children is from their smaller skeletons."

I can't really appreciate the horror they must be going through without pictures. Lots and lots of pictures.

They're "darkies" so who cares? (4, Insightful)

Quila (201335) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376652)

It's not like they're real people or anything.

This was one white European guy, so he matters far more than they do.

It's also not scary radioactive material, just plain old oil.

All this together makes it not so newsworthy.

On the front page of the CBC (5, Insightful)

perp (114928) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376302)

Headline: French nuclear waste site blast kills at least 1
Sidebar: At least 61 killed in Kenya pipeline explosion

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376492)

That doesn't even include the radiation induced cancer caused by coal power plants [scientificamerican.com] .

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376494)

This was not 'death by Nuclear!' - Industrial Accident - Title and posted info stated positive for leak, actual article negated the idea of a 'leak'. This is a low-level waste disposal site - NOT reactor!

Nice point, but (1)

assertation (1255714) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376664)

does it take into account that so MUCH more coal has been used and is being used than nuclear power.

How many more nuclear debacles would there be if every municipality in the US had a nuclear power plant the way there is a coal fired electrical plant now?

Would radioactive zones that people had to stay away from become a common every day occurrence?

Re:Cue more irrational nuclear panic in 3...2... (4, Interesting)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376712)

Also, if you had a starship that could travel to Alpha Centauri killing half the passengers it would be the safest form of transport - when measured by the aircraft industry standard terms of deaths per passenger mile.


(If you think this is off-topic - think about it some more)

RTFA! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376020)

The article states that there is NO risk of a radioactive leak. Geeezuz H Me, couldn't someone vet this stuff before it gets posted?

Are you for real? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376090)

Indeed. As demonstrated by recent events in Japan, the nuclear power industry has a very good track record when it comes to correctly estimating the radioactive leaks from events.

Re:RTFA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376098)

"The article states that there is NO risk of a radioactive leak."

And of course we all know that the news media would never ever lie at the behest
of a government.

Re:RTFA! (5, Funny)

Issarlk (1429361) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376268)

In France, radioactive clouds stop at the country borders. And even if they were to somehow fly over the country, it wouldn't be the cause of an increase of thyroid cancers. Nuclear energy is pretty safe in France.

Re:RTFA! (4, Informative)

alci63 (1856480) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376114)

Well... the article says the Nuclear Safety Authority _says_ there is no risk of radioactive leak. They also said the radioactive cloud from Tchernobyl stopped at the country borders :-)

Re:RTFA! (2)

skyraker (1977528) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376336)

No, the Russian government said that, and they said that after everyone knew about it because the cloud had already made it to another country. This explosion was in a waste furnace. It doesn't produce radiation. The only risk is very local depending on how much contamination was in the furnace at the time, which wouldn't be a whole lot. This isn't a reactor.

Re:RTFA! (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376300)

The article states that there is NO risk of a radioactive leak. Geeezuz H Me, couldn't someone vet this stuff before it gets posted?

LOL... You must be new here.

Re:RTFA! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376442)

The title is "Leak Risk At French Nuclear Site", not "Leak at french nuclear site". Technically it is true. There is a leak risk at all nuclear sites, there is also a leak risk under my sink, it may not be radiation, but it's true.

Not a terrorist attack, according to other media (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376040)

Not a terrorist attack, according to other media.

Which is good in a way ,but doesn't really hamper the scare for the those in the near area.

Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (3, Informative)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376056)

Freak, an oven exploded killing a working in the plant. There IS NO LEAK. THEY EXPECT NO LEAK. THEY DO NOT EXPECT A LEAK!
FREAKING HECK PEOPLE!!!!!
If this was a Lego factory no one would care.
We had two workers die at my local power plant. They where putting giant snow flakes on the smoke stacks for Christmas! Really this is just to the point of being shameful.
HOW BAD IS THIS TITLE!
From the link in the story!!!!!!!!!!
"There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast, caused by a fire near a furnace in the Centraco radioactive waste storage site, said officials."
REALLY JUST SHUT DOWN SLASHDOT your are killing it with your abuse!

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376086)

It wouldn't be so bad if it wasnt THE FIRST LINE IN THE ARTICLE!!!

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376112)

I agree when you don't even read the article and just post BS so people will click it is just shameful.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376130)

We had two workers die at my local power plant. They where putting giant snow flakes on the smoke stacks for Christmas!

You know, I wouldn't kill anybody, but it seems like those guys deserved to die. There's just something too fucking postmodern about putting giant snowflakes on top of global warming-contributing pollution emitters...

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376306)

A no they didn't and by no they don't pollute.
That power plant has not been run in probably more than a decade but it is still manned and just sits there. It is a running joke.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1)

Kentari (1265084) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376688)

Those workers probably didn't decide to put the snowflakes there. Please aim your death wishes at the people responsible.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (4, Informative)

cultiv8 (1660093) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376178)

My favorite line FTA:

There are no nuclear reactors at the southern French site

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376414)

It is, however, a radioactive waste storage site.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1)

nstlgc (945418) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376254)

u mad bro?

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376366)

Yes I am. This level of crap makes me crazy. Not to mention that Slashdot was my favorite site. While not perfect the community was actually much better behaved and reasonable than most other communities plus it was News For Nerds and did't have the crap spin that other sites had.
Samzenpus who posted this should be let go for allowing such garbage on the front page. It isn't a human error but an intentional lie that was posted on the front page of Slashdot.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376284)

Freak, an oven exploded killing a working in the plant. There IS NO LEAK. THEY EXPECT NO LEAK. THEY DO NOT EXPECT A LEAK!

I would say that panic is completely justified. You have no idea how seriously the French take their ovens.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (3)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376316)

This is shameful. Come on I know Slashdot is like a skin mag and we don't really read it for the articles, but this is Daily Mail-quality reporting here.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376358)

samzenpus = timothy = kdawson. They all post inflammatory, poorly researched bullshit.

It's almost as though they want people to leave /.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376392)

If this was a Lego factory no one would care.

I would care and I think a large number of people on this site would care. That might cause the price of Lego to go even more through the roof.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (2)

Oxygen99 (634999) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376516)

Would this be the same "they" who concocted the tissue of lies and half truths regarding the damage to the Fukushima plant, or is it some other reputable "they" who always tell the truth, no matter the personal cost, when something bad happens to their employers on their watch?

Frankly, in light of the current reputation of the nuclear industry, I think it's understandable people might be a little oversensitive to, ooh, I don't know, explosions at a nuclear waste processing site.

Rather a healthy skepticism about the words of a tarnished industry than a collective head in the sand blindly accepting the word of PR as truth. Sheesh. You're just as bad as those who insist on claiming the sky is falling all the time.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (3, Informative)

Oxygen99 (634999) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376554)

Heh, I know it's bad form to reply to your own post, but a quote from the Guardian story on this made me laugh.

The papers said the body of one male worker at the plant had been "found carbonised", but it added that there was no evidence that the explosion had "caused any radioactive leak".

A spokesman for the French atomic energy authority told journalists: "For the moment, there is nothing coming out."


Emphasis, mine, obviously.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376642)

"Rather a healthy skepticism about the words of a tarnished industry than a collective head in the sand blindly accepting the word of PR as truth. Sheesh. You're just as bad as those who insist on claiming the sky is falling all the time."

So make it up?
Really?
This is not skepticism this is out and out fabrication. No where in the linked article did it say that there was any risk of a leak. Everything said that there was no leak.
The explosion was in an oven used to burn old coveralls and their are no reactors on the site!
Sure be skeptical but do not make crap up.

Re:Slashdot the new Midnight Sun!!! (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376632)

Here's another way of putting it (with apologies to Mel Brooks):

Throw up your lunch!
Posts incorrect!
Errors? a bunch!
Front page a wreck!
You'll be surprised
You're making a French mistake.
Voila!

very misleading title... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376064)

"Leak Risk at French Nuclear Site"

Second sentence of the article: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast"

From Here : (5, Funny)

dvaldenaire (52153) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376070)

Hi there,

I am french, and i can tell you all : there are no problem in nuclear here. Never. Go back to sleep. Thanks for your attention.

In fact, here in France, it is almost illegal to put "problem" and "nuclear" in the same sentence without any negation...

Re:From Here : (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376136)

In fact, here in France, it is almost illegal to put "problem" and "nuclear" in the same sentence without any negation...

Is that one of Sarkozy's new policies, because I hear he really has issues with that "freedom" thing...?

Re:From Here : (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376140)

Lies. France is particularly transparent regarding nuclear incidents. They even invented a level 0 incident. And absolutely everything is published on the website of the ASN http://www.asn.fr/ . Now if other industries could be even half as transparent

Re:From Here : (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376274)

Lies. France is particularly transparent regarding nuclear incidents. They even invented a level 0 incident. And absolutely everything is published on the website of the ASN http://www.asn.fr/ [www.asn.fr] . Now if other industries could be even half as transparent

Hey, I worked on this website!

(it has been down several hours today... maybe I shouldn't brag about it.)

Re:From Here : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376534)

Don't get ahead of yourself here. There was a butload of cases where nuclear sites officials refused to receive Nuclear Safety Authorities inspectors, who had to "law-force" their way in.
Transparency regarding nuclear incidents, maybe. Regarding safety and site management, not so much.

Re:From Here : (3, Interesting)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376224)

I am a big supporter of nuclear Energy and I think a lot of the world has an irrational fear of nuclear energy. However to ignore and not respects the dangers of it too is just as irresponsible. Part of the reason for Nuclear Energy Safety is the fact that people do have a healthy fear of it. Preventing people from cutting corners on safety.

Re:From Here : (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376552)

Part of the reason for Nuclear Energy Safety is the fact that people do have a healthy fear of it. Preventing people from cutting corners on safety.

If only people had the same fear of coal plants then...

Golden Girls! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376088)

Thank you for being a friend
Traveled down the road and back again
Your heart is true, you're a pal and a cosmonaut.

And if you threw a party
Invited everyone you ever knew
You would see the biggest gift would be from me
And the card attached would say, thank you for being a friend.

... Confidant, not Cosmonaut, you blithering bot. (1)

JRowe47 (2459214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376278)

Betty White might have dated one, I guess, but really...

Really? (1)

yrrah (1247500) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376102)

Quote from summary: "There is a risk of a radioactive leak" Quote from linked article: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak"

RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376106)

Line one of TFA:

There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast

The first line of the article disagrees... (3, Insightful)

The Pirou (1551493) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376116)

There is no risk of a radioactive leak according to the article referenced or several other articles referencing the incident.

Re:The first line of the article disagrees... (1, Insightful)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376188)

There's never a risk of radiation leaking according to the first announcement in every case.

Re:The first line of the article disagrees... (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376384)

This is a furnace for incinerating items contaminated by exposure to nuclear fuels during regular use (clothing, tools etc). By themselves they are more than likely harmless, but if left to build up in landfill sites I'm sure they'd cause problems.

Furthermore, If a Bono isn't on stage where people can see him and isn't clicking his fingers, are children in third world countries still dying much more often than industrial workers on French nuclear waste processing sites? Yes. Yes they are.

Side by side by side (0)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376128)

We just had this story "Fukushima and Chernobyl Side-by-Side", and I stand by idea [slashdot.org] that there needs to be less state, more private enterprise involved in this, because there needs to be research approaching the entire question differently - how is energy extracted from nuclear materials?

In that thread there are so many people talking how much better State ran nuclear power plants are, though Chernobyl was State ran.

I mean, here is a guy commenting: Listen, that's nuts. You can't really talk about state-run nuclear power plants without first talking about France, where about 78% of all electricity generation is nuclear. The French safety record is excellent, and it's mostly excellent because the main electricity producer was (until 2004) owned by the government, [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org] and this [slashdot.org] .

Yes, France has lots of nuclear power plants. Yes, they are relatively safe. No, it doesn't mean they won't have a problem. No, it doesn't mean private plants must have problems.

Sure, State can spend more money on everything, every back up possible, but that's because the State forces everybody in the state to pay up or borrows the cash from others, or prints it.

Again: how about allowing private enterprise get more involved in research and design, because I really want a nuclear powered skateboard.

Re:Side by side by side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376186)

You're insane. Your incoherent ramblings have been on my radar for a while, but now you've skipped into uncharted territories of stupidity and insanity.

From the field (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376138)

I live near this nuclear site, 8km exactly. The oven that exploded is NOT on the site, there is NO leak risk at all. This oven was used to incinerate LOW activity waste sur as white suits, gloves, etc.

Just like old times (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376142)

"There is no need for panic," the French government official continued, "as we have already begun our standard national emergency response plan. In fact, our ambassador is on his way right now to delivering our articles of surrender to Berlin."

Why is this even on Slashdot? (1)

Lose (1901896) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376148)

The only part of the article that is really noteworthy is that one person died in an explosion at the plant. The rest of the article clearly states that it has not damaged the reactor's containment in any way.

Re:Why is this even on Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376482)

what reactor?

Re:Why is this even on Slashdot? (3, Funny)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376502)

Perhaps they wanted you to see the headline in the sidebar about an oil pipeline fire in Kenya that killed at least 100 people. You know, so that you'll be convinced that nuclear power is far more dangerous than any other form of energy.

Oh Ye /. of Yore (1)

cosm (1072588) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376154)

I would pine for thee if it was any better, but alas I don't think it was. But this story warms me cockles and is a gentle push in the never coming back here again direction.

Kneejerk reaction! (1, Funny)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376174)

We must immediately halt all nuclear decommissioning due to the obvious recklessness it poses! Isn't it obvious from this incident that all nuclear decommissioning activities pose an immediate, inherent, and almost guaranteed risk of catastrophe??!?!

crap sum/story/sub (1)

luckymutt (996573) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376292)

How the hell did both syngularyx and samzenpus screw this up?
First line of the linked article:
There was no risk of a radioactive leak

Seriously, did syngularyx misread it (and only read the first paragraph to hurry up and be the submitter) and samzenpus just follow the link to verify it exists, without bothering to read even the first paragraph the article?

RTFA!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376310)

risk of leak???? QUOTE: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast,"

Re:RTFA!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376444)

In these announcements there is never a risk of a leak until the leak has already happened.

New Low For Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376320)

Slashdot 2011

Slow news (on average 3 days).
Yellow journalism
Comments often contain information that debunks the topic.

L
O
W

Really, Editors? Really, Syngularyx? (2)

Lookin4Trouble (1112649) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376334)

QTFA: "There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast..."

A stitch in time saves Nimes ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376356)

and there you have it.

Radioactivity figures in TFA (2)

chocapix (1595613) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376386)

TFA claims that what they burn averages nearly 10,000Bq/kg, yet the 4 tonnes in the oven accounts for 63,000Bq?

Maybe they gave an average over their whole activity, and the explosion occured when they were burning extremely low activity waste, but phrased like that it's very confusing. Anyone has more info?

Note that either way we're talking about a negligible amount of radiation (the average human being generates about 8,000Bq.)

DEATH RATE OF LINUX LUSERS !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376390)

100%

It's a fact !!

First Sentence of TFA (4, Informative)

asylumx (881307) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376432)

There was no risk of a radioactive leak after the blast

Slashdot, please fix the damned headline.

Meanwhile 110+ dead in kenya (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376434)

But I am willing to bet that nobody will scream against oil and ask it to be banned within 10 years in germany, while this new incident will be PIMPED up by the new media.

breaking news 16h17 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37376452)

The French Press Agency (AFP) reports :
"Aucune contamination radioactive après l'accident dans le Gard : L'accident qui a fait un mort et quatre blessés lundi matin dans l'installation nucléaire Centraco, dans le Gard, "est terminé", a annoncé l'Autorité de sûreté nucléaire, qui a suspendu son organisation de crise."
which means no leak was observed by the Nuclear Safety Authorities.

Explosion near "the city of mimes"? (1)

Hsien-Ko (1090623) | more than 3 years ago | (#37376490)

While nuclear disaster is no laughing matter, I swore I read that the first time....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?