Talk:Windscale fire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster Management.

[edit] Still hot

I did not in fact make up the idea that it could still be hot. From [1]:

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)