[Tuike]

I watched tv news and there was something about security problems at a Swedish nuke plant. Last autumn there was made a security report of Forsmark nuclear plant in Sweden. It was kept secret until now. It reveals serious security flaws at there. The plant was upgraded last year and in the progress 20 accidents happened and nearly 70 times it was close. They were lucky there weren't any victims. They ran dangerous experiments at the plant without any safety precautions. 25 of the empoyees were tested of alcohol and three of them were sent home to clear their heads.

I found a piece in English:
Local: Swedish nuclear plant slated for poor safety

[Starvid]

It's fucking appalling. On one hand, there was never any radiation risks and none of the accidents had to do with the reactor itself. They were things like people falling from stairs or construction rigs and also nitrogen leaks from valves. Several people could have been killed several times.

But this doesn't mean that it's not very bad as it seems the safety culture of Forsmark has been constantly degraded over time, something wich was strenously mentioned in the report, which I am reading at the moment (only in Swedish).
http://svt.se/content/1/c6/74/88/61/for ... ortny2.pdf

The routines were not followed, corners were cut and there was lack of follow up on why things had gone wrong. Focus was on fixing them and getting the plant back online. That this is a really bad way of doing things is one of the main lessons learnt from the TMI accident.

Anyway, there were absolutely no risks of any kind to the public or the reactor itself, but it's a fucking humongous pr-disaster and a sign that the Swedish nuclear sector (or at least the Forsmark plant) is not as healthy as some people have thought.

And, as a final thought, don't believe what they say in the media. They will claim insane things like there was almost a meltdown or some other song and dance, like they did after the incident this summer.

Yes, this is really bad, but that's only because the nuclear industry is held to such extreme levels of safety. As they should be. But it's nothing compared to the dangers and mishandling of other energy sources. Remember that Texas refinery fire that rather recently killed a dozen or more workers? Exactly, you don't...

[Andrew_S]

I read recently from a Finnish source that they reckon Sweden's nuclear expertise is in serious decline (HS or YLE, don't have the link). I wonder what Starvid thinks of that.

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andrew_S', 'I') read recently from a Finnish source that they reckon Sweden's nuclear expertise is in serious decline (HS or YLE, don't have the link). I wonder what Starvid thinks of that.

[Starvid]

Like I said, don't trust the media.

[shakespear1]

Yes, I can relate to this problem. My first degree was in Nuclear Engineering but seeing that the industry did not look stable I backed out and went into Petroleum Engineering

Petroleum Industry also has a problem with the "Experience Gap". Lots of experienced people are retiring or about to retire. The followers are usually very inexperienced young engineers

[nemo]

As a swede still straddling the fence about the whole nuclear power issue, I find that these recent Forsmark revelations confirm some of my fears.
Relying on people not cutting corners and sticking to the book is dangerous, as I think we humans will invariably slack off as soon as nobody is looking over our shoulder. If I'm right and this behaviour is basic human nature, designing systems that rely on people going agains it is an invitation to an eventual disaster.
We need the power though...

[Starvid]

I agree with Nemo, workers will slack off without proper oversight.

I think this is an especially big problem for the nuclear sector. Work is routine, checking the same things up over and over, nothing ever happens, another day at work, and all the time you know (contrary to the paranoid public) that the plant is really safe. That it will absolutely not meltdown, and even if it did, no radiation will be released and no one will be hurt.

Knowing all these things, people will slack off. This is not much of a problem from a safety point of view. But the public doesn't understand that, something that makes it a pr issue, and pr is everything for the nuclear sector.

As the public is irrational they think nuclear energy is dangerous (how many times haven't you heard the total lie that "even while meltdowns are very rare, they are extremely dangerous when they happen?"). This means public acceptance is needed, and public acceptance is only gained if the public believe you are paranoid about safety. And the only way to make the public believe you are paranoid is to be it.

Which is why the current problems are very worrying.

[nemo]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', 'r')outine

[Starvid]

While I do agree with pretty much all of what you say, Chernobyl just isn't relevant to our reactors, not more relevant than Union Carbide at Bhopal or any other unrelated industrial accident, that is only related in that it happened in an industry. The relevant lesson is that industries have accidents and we should be ready to minimize the damage and likelihood of these.

Remember the oxygen tank that blew up and killed some people at the SSAB steel plant in Norrland last year? I have been listening intently for calls for banning oxygen and steel, but without any success.

And when the incident happened at Forsmark last summer, the operators, even though being rather green, managed to think on their feet and acted correctly under immense pressure. They got lots of praise from the regulatory agency.

They operated exactly as they were supposed to and did it fast and according to the book. And I think it was in the middle of the night too. The situation was entirely and comlpetely stabilised in 23 minutes.

Not that there was any hurry.

[nemo]

I think I get where you're coming from. Irrational fear bothers me too. My pet annoyances in this area are probably different from yours though: I have a sibling with a pretty serious case of arachnophobia, which bothers me since it could be fixed with an afternoon of therapy. It bothers me that we as a society put disproportional resources into making airline traver super safe, when these resouces could save more lives elsewhere. We also overreact to the largely irrelevant pinpricks of terrorism to a degree that boggles the mind.

Nuclear power is scary for the ignorant. I was just a child when Chernobyl blew up, but I remeber sensing the fear. Turns out the news anchors and "experts" were mostly talking out of their asses, but they were afraid, and it showed, and fear is contagious. Ticking geiger counters, Bequerels and Sieverts were scary and new. I think this scarred people, and I think it's very difficult to convince someone who's afraid to step back and be rational about it. This difficulty is the same wether the issue is nuclear power, the more extreme examples of airline safety, terrorism or the dangers of tiny non-poisonous spiders.
Your example of the exploding gas tank plays in to this line of thought quite well. Oxygen just isn't scary any more than cardiovascular disease or traffic accidents are. Fear is irrational.

[Free]

Well I was already looking forward to reading Starvids rant about current developments in the Swedish nuke industry...

I feel for you, and I understand many of your viewpoints. Like nemo I can see both sides of the arguments...

But it's simply either intentional or unintentional ignorant to compare refinery or oxygen tank explosions with a nuclear accident.

Would you go to live in Chernobyls no-man's land? I doubt it...

The fact is that a potential nuclear accident can destroy vast amounts of our most valuable resources, clean soil and water, forever (in the human time frame perspective).

You can sort of calculate a risk by multiplying P(robability) of an accident with the costs when it happens.
But how do you account for the cost of losing a region, a country, a continent for hundreds, thousands of years?
Even if P is 10 ^ -100 or whatever the risk could be still too big...

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'W')ould you go to live in Chernobyls no-man's land? I doubt it...

[Free]

Lol I can picture you now educating the public about radiation with eating plutionium like Homer Simpson - "look, look, it doesn't hurt!"

I know what you mean, yes of course the public is irrational and has no clue, you just have watch the paranoia about all kinds of radiation, from "demagnetizing water", to some weird gadgets which allegedly protect you from evil mobile phone radiation. It's the mental condition of the middle ages.

Yet nuclear radiation is very dangerous nasty stuff, and no amount of talking can do that away - it's like trying to convince yourself Maggie Thatcher is the most beautiful woman in the world...

And one of the most dangerous assumptions an engineer can make is that something can't happen, because it shouldn't happen. These assumptions have been made time and time again, only to get a nasty surprise of reality - and in hindsight it was so clear it could happen.

I bet some time ago you would have very strongly denied that such things like they happen in Sweden now are totally impossible for this reason and that reason - you probably have...

[Starvid]

Sure, engineers should not take much for granted. But the thing is, we can take some things for granted. Gravity. F=a*m. And so on. And if we do believe in these laws of physics no one can imagine how a Chernobyl can happen in a western reactor. It's like worrying about a wind turbine suffering catastrophic meltdown, "We'd better give it a containment structure, just in case!".

Radiation can be dangerous. Safety must be priority one and the safety culture must not be degraded. Still this happened. But it is also very important to understand this has not in any way presented and dangers to the public.

But I guess most people (not including you) can't get the two statements "radiation can be dangerous" and "a western nuclear power plant with a degraded safety culture poses no risk to the public" into their heads at the same time.

Which is what makes this a PR disaster, especially as we will need to build new reactors soon. I mean, think of the soundbites (as real debate is not possible in the media):

"Lax safety culture, should we really get more ot those atom bomb plants? What if they blow up?
This message was brought to you by Greenpeace, Peabody, Gazprom and ExxonMobil."

[Starvid]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Free', 'L')ol I can picture you now educating the public about radiation with eating plutionium like Homer Simpson - "look, look, it doesn't hurt!"