Breaking: explosion at the Marcoule French Nuclear plant

Originally posted by Sphota
I happened to stop at Fox this afternoon when the anchor says, "We have to tell you about a deadly nuclear explosion, more after the break..."

WHAT??? Nuclear explosion? So, I waited through the break to find out that a person was killed by some sort of explosion at a nuclear waste processing plant, which is hardly a Nuclear Explosion. I know it's not really on topic, but I just wanted to share how the story could be skewed so easily.

I'm shocked they process nuclear waste next to such an important tourist destination as the French Riviera. Then again, tourist destination or not, what is a good place to process nuclear waste? I mean, even if the natural landscape is not as aesthetically pleasing as a Mediterranean coastline, anywhere you go there is an importance to the make-up of the land, whether we think it has visual or literal value or not.

One of the things I appreciate being out of the US is not being exposed to that eternal sensationalism.
What is being put up here has nothign to do with what they are saying here (about 40 mins. away from the plant).
They cannot put it at level one because someone died, and others injured. To call it an anamoly instead of incident would be disrespectful of that fact.


Do you guys know that you get radiation from being in sunlight? From having a barbeque? From smoking a cigarette? low level radiation is something we all live with. But none is being said to have leaked outside this facility anyway.

Originally posted by TSearchX
I think we've got to give it a good 24 hours before we will really know if there is anything that people need to worry about. If I remember correctly (and I might not) didn't Japan downplay their issues at first and then ended up realizing how bad it actually was?

Thank you for posting this OP, S&F.

Was? thats still going on its just become old news and downplayed

Originally posted by Videot

I don't believe x-ray machines contain ANY nuclear materials, actually, so the argument is pointless. X-ray machines produce x-rays electrically, they do not radiate from some nuclear materials hidden inside. Rather thet are produced when the x-ray tubes are powered on. Any cathode ray electron acceleration tube (for example, old style TV picture tubes) produces x-rays in some amount. However, there are other machines used in hospitals, for the treatment of cancer, that do contain nuclear materials.

I admit I used the terminology X-ray in a extremely vague sense, because I was including a whole host of other technologies when I mentioned that.

You are correct that many forms of "plain" X-ray source tubes do not contain radioactive materials, however some may use them as an anode.(?) There are so many different devices with different anodes I would have to research it all night to find out.

Correct me if I am wrong but don't they use radioisotopes of molybdenum-99 and or sometimes rhenium (although the isotopes of rhenium are quite stable with a extremely long half-life)?

Also, "X-ray" is extremely vague as I said before, and many radiotherapy devices utilize x-rays for treatment. link
another link


I apologize for being extremely vague by saying "X-ray machine" as you probably assumed I meant 'plain' x-rays but many many machines can be consider x-ray emitters. Even things like Synchrotrons, etc.

So yes out of the hundreds of different devices you are right, half of them do not have actual radioactive materials within them, but many others do contain them.

It was my fault for being vague, I should have been more specific I apologize. I could have said "Cesium 137 teletherapy device" or something along those lines. It utilizes X-rays as well, so in general terms it is a type of x-ray emitting device which does indeed contain a radioactive source.
more links
one more link

My bad for unnecessarily causing confusion due to my vague over-generalized terminology.

Why do we still mess with this stuff? We're going to kill ourselves off in the next century, I have no doubt about it.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Why do we still mess with this stuff? We're going to kill ourselves off in the next century, I have no doubt about it.

Well, you and I don't mess with it do we?

And aren't we trying to convince people to think twice about it? And maybe consider alternatives...

Let's rephrase that to "Why do they still mess with this stuff?".

And I bet you know the answer. $$$$$

reply to post by BIGPoJo


I actually tried to find any proof it was a test, find some results.. There was nothing except local dr records.

At one point, water was pumped from the river into the reactor and straight back into the river, intentionally. People have readings of over 7 Sv/hr at the riverbank. (700 R/hr)

The fact they do this knowingly and intentionally is beyond comprehension. If they want to test the effects of radiation on people, ask for volunteers and offer to pay their families a tidy sum.

Just a snippet from Global Security

Since 1949 the Production Association Mayak had handled the burial of spent nuclear fuel. Between 1949 and 1956 PO Mayak dumpted liquid radioactive waste directly into the Techa River, which flows into the Tobol River and Arctic Ocean. Over a seven year period a total of 2.75 million curies of waste was disposed by this means. Subsequent health concerns led to the disposal of liquid waste in nearby lakes. Lake Karachay accumulated some 120 million curies of radioactivity and over 7,000 local residents who had received from 3.5 to 170 REMs were relocated. On 29 September 1957 a chemical explosion in the radioactive waste storage site involved some 20 million curies of material. When the cooling system of a radioactive waste containment unit malfunctioned, a concrete barrier restrained most of this material. But some 2 million curies spilled across Chelyabinsk, Sverdlovsk, and Tyumen Oblasts covering a total area of 23,000 square kilometers inhabited by a quarter of a million people. Emergency measures including evacuation of the population were taken to limit serious health effects. Significant radioactive contamination covered an area of more than 800 square kilometers, and there are areas where the concentration of Cesium-137 and Strontium-90 are still hazardous to human health.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Why do we still mess with this stuff? We're going to kill ourselves off in the next century, I have no doubt about it.

I'll tell you why! Because I have a fridge, electrical lighting, washing machines, a water heater, an electric oven, a computer, etc. In my city, there are a multitude of business and commerce, all with electrical lighting, cash registers, all exchanegs and files on computers, and much more.

It is obvious now that we need to stop using nuclear power, and they are rushing to try and find a viable alternative. For the moment, the only possibility we could turn to immediately is coal- which isn't any more better for our environment. But even there, to stop the nuclear plants immediately would mean a long period of many populations livign with no electricity as the new system is put into place.

In my area (around this plant and the one up the river a bit) they are putting up wind mills as quick as they can, but there is not yet enough to power the whole area.

But the plan is to get off nuclear power. The only misperception is that we can turn them all off right now, immediately. It cannot happen overnight.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Why do we still mess with this stuff? We're going to kill ourselves off in the next century, I have no doubt about it.

The unofficial reason is were making nukes from these places.

Hmmm... so to sum up, some news agencies are reporting no risk of a nuclear incident, and others are reporting a possible risk.

Some reports do not concern themselves with the use of the area affected by the explosion, and others point out that the area is used to produce MOX which may mean that any explosion on the site could cause an amount of radiological matter to be thrown skyward, or at least to be kicked up from the ground to an extent.

I think its impossible at this stage to ascertain for ourselves what the truth of the matter is. If we wanted to know for certain what the risk level of this incident was, we would need things like a layout map of the facility, a damned good idea of what the area of the explosion was, and an honest, frank, and completely unfettered explanation from the company running the site, of exactly what activities were happening in the blast area, what chemicals, and what potentialy hazardous material was regularly in the affected area.

Without these things, finding out the reality of the situation will be between difficult and impossible. We all remember the subterfuge that surrounded the Fukushima incident. It was a long time,between the initial explosions, and an honest account of the danger being released to the public, mostly because Tepco and associated groups and organisations were a) in uproar and scrambling to respond, and b) because they were involved in an excersize to cover thier collective buttocks in the event of a serious backlash. Such prideful behaviour in that scenario is improbably foolish.

Where this particular incident is concerned, we may assume that there is a similar excersize in place, to a greater or lesser degree, dependant on the political, and financial power held by the owners of the site, and those who will be held responsible for the consequences of this explosion. Chances are , we will not know what the truth of the risk factor might be, until much later.

Well, The Straits Time, a Singapore newspaper, reported that the explosion would not cause any leakage of radioactive material. However, I'm not believing this statement until more evidence or investigation is done. Also, why are nuclear plants exploding all around the world in this year?

In my opinion it's worse than they tell us. There is one simple rule: If you don't have something to hide you show everyone what you have.

If it's just a small explosion of a chemical not causing any problems the manager of this plant could easily show us (without any protective gear) the damage or (if this would reveal sensitive data) explain exactly what happend.

Just remember that not telling it tells everything.

reply to post by Artichoke


I think its important to understand the key differences between the events that have occured. The Fukushima incident for instance, was a meltdown, melt through scenario as near as I can understand it.The reactor buildings themselves exploded , due to hydrogen pressure. Nuclear material inside the reactors was exposed to unsafe circumstances, and the quake and flooding caused a failiure of back up systems designed to prevent the outcome we are all familiar with, the leakage of radiation, and the introduction of radioactive material into the atmosphere, the surrounding land, the sea... etc etc.

The french incident, appears at face value to be the same kind of explosion you would get at a tire yard, or any other industrial complex. A barrel of incorrectly labeled chemicals are left in too high a temperature range, and explode, or someone lights a cig in the wrong place, and all of a sudden the high vis jacket and the hardhat become meaningless. This means that although the incident took place at a site dealing with radioactive material , the explosion itself was not, by the looks of things, caused as a result of a failiure of a reactor or its saftey systems, but by factors external to any such apperatus that may have been close to the incident.

The differences are important. If the French explosion had been of a similar type, to those of the Fukushima incident, then may be we could say that there is an endemic issue with reactors of a certain age, or type, or workload and so on.
But because these incidents have clearly had different causes, and are of a different type , we can only say that it is suprising and alarming that so many , apparantly unrelated incidents seem to be occuring at this time.

I work for the company in question. The e-mail we received today reads;

Industrial accident at the CENTRACO installation near Marcoule, southern France
Many people will have seen the story on the internet of an incident that occurred today, (12 September 2011), at a low level waste handling plant owned by SOCODEI, a subsidiary company of EDF group, near Marcoule, southern France.

Regrettably an employee was killed and four other people were injured, one of whom is in a serious condition, following an explosion which occurred in the metal waste furnace room.

An oven dedicated to melt low and very low radioactive metallic waste exploded inside the building. The radioactivity was contained inside the building. A fire, which started after the explosion in the furnace room, was brought under control at 13:06.

There has been no off-site release of radiological or chemical material.

An investigation will be carried out in order to determine the precise causes of this tragic accident and the thoughts of everyone within EDF are with those affected.


It is the first time that such an event of this scale has occurred on the site.

The French nuclear regulators were advised about the incident and are monitoring the situation.


SOCODEI is a subsidiary company of group EDF. Located at Codolet in the Gard, its site CENTRACO manages the treatment and the re-conditioning of low level waste, by fusion or incineration, emanating from the maintenance and decommissioning of nuclear installations, as well as hospitals and research laboratories."

Originally posted by kosmicjack
It's either highly coincidental or NOT that for 20+ years nuclear facilities ran mostly under the radar without much attention or concern (besides Chernobyl) and now - in a span of six months - we have had several huge incidents and major concerns. Funny how we were just now really pushing to get off of the oil habit with alternative energy...I have to wonder though, is it more of a result of our insatiable greed and the inevitable cost-cutting measures and human error that comes with putting profit before people?

I was just going to say the same thing...seriously wtf happened to nuclear energy in the last year? Just bad luck I guess

There's been 3-4 civilian NPP accidents every decade or so, with exception to the 80's where there were 7. We just have better reporting and higher levels of accountability nowadays.

It makes sense, look at the age of most of these plants.. The NRC license plants for 40 years, look what has changed in the last 40 years.... This will continue to happen until they scrap these old NPP's for new designs.
The industry developed for one reason, money. There is no money in decommissioning these things, not only do they patch these old clunkers up but some do stupid things like stick MOX in them, grr Fukushima. (They were advised strongly not to do it)

Unfortunately, unless you wish to SCRAM them and leave large portions of the world in the dark, figuratively and literally, then we must grin and bear it for the moment.

As a matter of interest, from the wikipedia entry on decommissioning

Cost of decommissioning In USA many utilities estimates now average $325 million per reactor all-up (1998 $). In France, decommissioning of Brennilis Nuclear Power Plant, a fairly small 70 MW power plant, already cost 480 million euros (20x the estimate costs) and is still pending after 20 years. Despite the huge investments in securing the dismantlement, radioactive elements such as Plutonium, Cesium-137 and Cobalt-60 leaked out into the surrounding lake.[66][67] In the UK, decommissioning of the Windscale Advanced Gas Cooled Reactor (WAGR), a 32 MW prototype power plant, cost 117 million euros. In Germany, decommissioning of Niederaichbach nuclear power plant, a 100 MW power plant, amounted to more than 143 million euros.

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Why do we still mess with this stuff? We're going to kill ourselves off in the next century, I have no doubt about it.

I'll tell you why! Because I have a fridge, electrical lighting, washing machines, a water heater, an electric oven, a computer, etc. In my city, there are a multitude of business and commerce, all with electrical lighting, cash registers, all exchanegs and files on computers, and much more.

It is obvious now that we need to stop using nuclear power, and they are rushing to try and find a viable alternative. For the moment, the only possibility we could turn to immediately is coal- which isn't any more better for our environment. But even there, to stop the nuclear plants immediately would mean a long period of many populations livign with no electricity as the new system is put into place.

In my area (around this plant and the one up the river a bit) they are putting up wind mills as quick as they can, but there is not yet enough to power the whole area.

But the plan is to get off nuclear power. The only misperception is that we can turn them all off right now, immediately. It cannot happen overnight.

Natural gas.

It's plentiful, cheap and burns clean.

Geothermal is also coming into it's own.

Originally posted by AGWskeptic

Originally posted by Bluesma

Originally posted by TupacShakur
Why do we still mess with this stuff? We're going to kill ourselves off in the next century, I have no doubt about it.

I'll tell you why! Because I have a fridge, electrical lighting, washing machines, a water heater, an electric oven, a computer, etc. In my city, there are a multitude of business and commerce, all with electrical lighting, cash registers, all exchanegs and files on computers, and much more.

It is obvious now that we need to stop using nuclear power, and they are rushing to try and find a viable alternative. For the moment, the only possibility we could turn to immediately is coal- which isn't any more better for our environment. But even there, to stop the nuclear plants immediately would mean a long period of many populations livign with no electricity as the new system is put into place.

In my area (around this plant and the one up the river a bit) they are putting up wind mills as quick as they can, but there is not yet enough to power the whole area.

But the plan is to get off nuclear power. The only misperception is that we can turn them all off right now, immediately. It cannot happen overnight.

Natural gas.

It's plentiful, cheap and burns clean.

Geothermal is also coming into it's own.

Those are some fo the ideas. But that doesn't rid us of the problem that it would take time to change the whole system. We cannot just shut down the nuclear plants today and wait a few years without electricity while new installations are built.

Originally posted by LilFox
There's been 3-4 civilian NPP accidents every decade or so, with exception to the 80's where there were 7. We just have better reporting and higher levels of accountability nowadays.

Hundreds of people die every year as a result of wind power and solar power, and thousands die every year as a result of fossil fuels.

It makes sense, look at the age of most of these plants.. The NRC license plants for 40 years, look what has changed in the last 40 years.... This will continue to happen until they scrap these old NPP's for new designs.
The industry developed for one reason, money. There is no money in decommissioning these things, not only do they patch these old clunkers up but some do stupid things like stick MOX in them, grr Fukushima. (They were advised strongly not to do it)

No, the industry developed because it's both safer and cleaner than any other form of power.

Coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear waste:
www.scientificamerican.com...

Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

^ And that's part of standard operation with coal, not a result of some kind of accident. Tens of thousands of people die every year as a result of fossil fuels, hundreds more die because of wind and solar power. The amount of land required to sustain the population of the world with wind and solar power would be devastating to the natural environment.

Alright guys, just listen to yourselves here. Don't you think you sound a bit hypocritical? Oh sure, it's not your family that's getting killed in coal mining accidents, it's not you that got lung cancer from breathing pollutants pumped out every day by coal plants. You can close your eyes and stick your fingers in your ears all you want, it doesn't change the fact that nuclear power has killed less people than any other power source.

Fukushima was hit with both an earthquake and a tsunami and still nobody died. One worker at Fukushima was killed in the earthquake, two in the tsunami, and one 60 year old man had a heart attack. Other than that the death toll is zero. There are precisely zero deaths attributable to the release of radiation at the plant, and on the basis of doses received zero are expected.

www.world-nuclear-news.org...

This is a 40 year old reactor, got hit by not one but two huge catastrophes, and still killed no one before they brought it under control? Yeah, nuclear power is dangerous.

Also a challenge: These are Generation III reactors we're talking about by the way, decades old technology. Modern reactors are Generation IV and the first Generation V reactors will be built soon. The challenge? Find a Generation IV reactor that has ever had an accident. (Hint: You can't, literally no one has ever been so much as injured by one, let alone killed. That's more than you can say for wind turbines).

Oh look, here's a video of what happens to a wind turbine during heavy winds:



Yeah, I think I would feel pretty safe living next to a field of those.

Edit: You just have to be careful to dodge the shrapnel in the air on your way to work whenever it's storming.

reply to post by muzzleflash


Hey, took your advice and did a little research... Wow.. I mean i knew of a few nuclear accidents, but nothing at this level. Makes you think, given most radioactive materials' half-life, how much toxic muck do you think us earthlings are exposed to?? Craziness..