The press censors nuclear power explosion safety warnings - they just do not care about our lives. Let's fix explosion dangers at our nuclear power plants.
A Threat to Life and the Environment
Grave dangers are ignored, or censored, by the mainstream press. By definition, "censorship examines materials (such as publications or films) for objectionable matter". In this case, a challenge to nuclear safety is the objectionable material. Specifically, this work proves that the next nuclear power plant meltdown and possible explosions are expected before 2039, where 11 meltdowns of varying damages have occurred in the nuclear power industry during the past 68 years. Lives can be lost, and the environment can be rendered useless by radioactive fallout for decades and decades. An overview of the explosion issues is presented in "The Next Nuclear Power Plant Explosion Bangs at Our Doors" (R. A. Leishear, 2022) (click here).
I keep writing, the OpEd News keeps publishing, some people are reading (700 to 1,000 views per OpEd), but the articles fall off of the internet. The facts can then only be found if you use the links to the OpEd website or the OpEds themselves.
I am writing one more time to warn of this cover-up that was started in 1979 with lies from the U.S. NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission), and the dangers are still well-hidden from the public by the press. For example, the Associated Press and the American Nuclear Society refuse to respond to emails. Presented below, I have also submitted Letters to the Editors of major news outlets, and the Letters have been ignored. These newspapers also declined an OpEd on nuclear power plant explosions. Newspapers claim to print Letters to the Editor that differ in opinion, but not in this case of nuclear power explosions. Sadly, the ammunition for this article is a lack of action by the press and refusals to publish grave dangers by the press. This lack of attention to an issue that affects our lives is certainly an act of indifference to our lives.
Nuclear Power Plant Explosions - New Technology After the TMI Cover-up
Two types of nuclear plant explosions have been explained in this series of OpEds. One or more core explosions occurred early in the TMI accident, and two audible water hammer explosions occurred later in the TMI accident, where a total of three water hammer explosions detonated. Figure 1 shows the primary equipment at TMI. Also, a legend for the explosions is shown in the lower right corner of the figure, and the approximate explosion locations can be seen at the left of the figure below.
Figure 1: TMI Explosions That Were Covered Up Since 1979 (Adapted from the U.S. NRC)
Figure 1: TMI Explosions That Were Covered Up Since 1979 (Adapted from the U.S. NRC)
(Image by U.S. NRC) Details DMCA
A core explosion detonated in the reactor core, one water-hammer explosion detonated in the piping at the safety valve, and two water-hammer explosions detonated above the rupture disc on the drain tank. On a more technical note, the direction of water motion to initiate explosions is shown by arrows in the left half of the figure, and further discussion of transients is available in previous OpEds and references. Specifically, a transient for the core explosion pushed water back to the reactor core to detonate a hydrogen explosion at the melting core, and another transient moved water upwards to compress flammable gases to ignite a hydrogen explosion at the safety valve and explode into the building to detonate hydrogen and organic explosions. Due to the NRC TMI cover-up, Fukushima explosions should have been stopped, and discoveries about these explosions continue to evolve.
As a matter of fact, I understood from earlier research that core explosions occurred at both TMI (Three Mile Island) and Fukushima, and technical papers were published to support his opinion. To write these OpEds, I needed to better explain the TMI-accident progression to prove the exact sequence of events when a core explosion occurred to blow off a rupture disc on a drain tank. By doing so, I was able to determine that the core meltdown started approximately 8 minutes after the accident began, and the core explosion detonated 14 minutes after the accident started. The molten uranium dioxide core continued to affect reactor performance after the explosion.
To my knowledge, this work is the first to prove the time at which the meltdown started, where at least one estimate predicted an hour for the fuel to melt completely after the accident started. Many reports and hundreds of engineers from many countries have analyzed this accident, but for the past 43 years the NRC cover-up prevented investigators from understanding the simple fact of the time that the core melted down. Core-explosion theory is still challenged by others, but understanding core explosions was essential to determine the time for the TMI meltdown.
Nuclear Power Plant Explosions - New Developments
The information to prove that explosions detonated was in the hands of the investigators in 1979. As a new development in this research, a microphone inside the reactor system recorded vibrations and sounds during the TMI accident, where the recorder was located inside the steam generator that is shown in Figure 1. However, reports did not mention whether this recorder heard the core explosion or the water-hammer explosions. Was this an error or more of the cover-up? Extreme noise from the pumps at the start of the accident sounded like "the Gates of Hell opened". However, the pump noise subsided sufficiently within 8 minutes when water-hammers in the reactor system were heard on the recorder.
There is no further mention by the U.S. NRC of any instrument recordings at the time of core explosions at 14 minutes or at the time of the water hammer explosions at 10 hours. This conclusive data was not used by investigators, which concludes that information was deleted from investigations to further the TMI explosion cover-up. That is, investigators heard water hammers at 8 minutes after accident initiation, but did not evaluate any noise at 14 minutes when the rupture disc blew off or ten hours when two "thuds", or explosions, were heard - unbelievable.
Nuclear Power Plant Explosions - Existing Technology was Negatively Affected
Again, the NRC cover-up delayed technology for decades. Nuclear design and severe accident codes do not consider explosions at all, and the use of any available severe accident code will not provide accurate accident analyses with respect to explosions.
Severe accident computer codes like Melcor predict melting based on system water temperatures and pressures, where the Melcor code was repeatedly modified until the code results reasonably agreed with measurements; i.e., the code did not work properly until it was tweaked to make it work. Years ago, I learned this information as part of my research, when I considered whether or not to use Melcor. I was informed by a Sandia engineer that I could use Melcor, but I would not be provided the information that was needed to tweak the code to make it work. Accordingly, I will not use this code for my continuing research.
Hooray for Nuclear Power - What about Explosions?
Pro-nuclear articles in the press often read like cheerleading. In an ignored letter to the Editor of the Washington Post, I wrote:
"Nuclear Power Fear and Facts: The Washington Post question 'Who's afraid of nuclear [elemental] power' was answered by an OpeEd News article, 'We Should Be Afraid of Nuclear Power' by R. Leishear (click here). The Post stated that there was 'No health risk to humans', but cancer deaths [and deaths during evacuations of the elderly] have been directly attributed to Fukushima, and workers were killed at Chernobyl".
"The Post stated that 'Even in a war zone, these reactors pose little risk'. How can such a claim be made when Fukushima exploded? Fukushima plants were designed for 33-foot waves from tsunamis, [the Fukushima plants] experienced a 131-foot wave, and that [Japanese] coast has seen 460-foot waves. Executives were [recently fined $97 billion] for Fukushima negligence, and the explosions at Fukushima are just now being understood ('Water-Hammers Exploded the Nuclear Power Plants at Fukushima Daiichi', by R. Leishear)".
"The point is that we still do not fully understand the dangers of nuclear power, which stems from a 43-year cover-up by the U.S. NRC ('Deceit is the Core of Nuclear Power', OpEd News (click here)). In fact, after all these years the Three Mile Island meltdown and explosion are just now being understood. We can stop the next meltdown and possible explosion, which are mathematically predicted before 2039!"
The Post oddly criticized Germany for closing nuclear plants after Fukushima, since tsunamis do not flood central Europe. No mention was made of the fact that six-inch steel pipes burst in Brunsbuttel, Germany, and Hamaoka, Japan, where the cause of those explosions was unknown, misinterpreted, and misrepresented prior to this research (see Figure 2 below).The Post dismissed facts that did not cheerlead nuclear power.
Figure 2: Water-Hammer Piping Explosion at Hamaoka, Japan (Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute)
Figure 2: Water Hammer Piping Explosion at Hamaoka, Japan (Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute)
(Image by Japanese Atomic Energy Research Institute) Details DMCA
This Washington Post article also dismissed Chernobyl explosions, since Western reactors do not use that type of design. Also, in one of their publications, the European Nuclear Energy Agency also dismissed the Chernobyl explosions, since the Russians had a different safety culture. Perhaps interesting arguments, but the largest nuclear power plant explosion in history was dismissed because Russia designed a different reactor and the operators were different. I strongly disagree with such arguments that ignore history to support a pro-nuclear point of view.
The common thread that ties numerous reactor meltdowns and explosions together is a loss of control by operators. Operators lost control of Chernobyl. Chernobyl should not be ignored when considering nuclear plant-explosion dangers.
More About Nuclear Power - What About Explosions?
Discussions in the press about nuclear power overlook explosion hazards. In an ignored letter to the Editor of the New York Times, I wrote:
"Nuclear Power Explosion Danger: Although I agree that nuclear power is essential to the mix of needed energy sources, the article 'Nuclear Power Gets New Push in U.S., Winning Converts (click here)' should have noted the inherent explosion hazards of nuclear power plants. Nuclear power plant explosions at Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima scarred the industry with severe nuclear accidents, where the latter two of these accidents exploded radioactive dust into the air and across multiple countries".
"Research publications document the scope of this ongoing disaster. For example, 'Water-Hammers Exploded the Nuclear Power Plants at Fukushima Daiichi' was published by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers' Journal of Nuclear Engineering and Radiation Science, and this paper describes explosion hazards in significant technical detail (click here)".
"Based on this publication, and numerous other technical publications, recent OpEds discussed 'Blasting into Our Lives - The Three Mile Island Explosion Cover-Up: TV, Myth, and Reality (click here)' and 'Deceit is the Core of Nuclear Power Explosion Safety (click here)'. These articles conclude that 'we should prevent the next explosion! Should we accept nuclear power plant explosion dangers?'"
This NY Times article presents both pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear opinions, but overlooks explosion dangers. To be clear, I advocate the use of nuclear energy for an ever-increasing world population, but safety will be remarkably improved if we stop explosions. Representing technical research, my position is somewhere between pro-nuclear and anti-nuclear. I just want to stop the explosions.
A Downside of Nuclear Power - Explosions are Important
Those responsible for explosions are now being held accountable for neglect. In an ignored letter to the Editor of the Wall Street Journal, I wrote:
"Fukushima Could Have Been Stopped But for an NRC Cover-up: A 'Tokyo court orders executives to pay $97 billion over Fukushima nuclear meltdowns (click here)' (WSJ), but a U.S NRC cover-up of Three Mile Island explosions could have stopped Fukushima explosions before they ever detonated. The NRC cover-up started in 1979 as documented in an OpEd News article, titled 'Deceit is the Core of Nuclear Power Explosion Safety (click here)', by R. A. Leishear. This OpEd was based on a Journal paper, titled 'Water-Hammers Exploded the Nuclear Power Plants at Fukushima Daiichi' by R. A. Leishear".
"I have personally spent $249,000 over six years of full-time volunteer research to fight against the NRC, the Tokyo Electric Power Company, and other nuclear regulatory agencies to stop this dangerous cover-up of nuclear plant-explosion hazards that affects our lives. In fact, statistics show that the next nuclear plant meltdown is expected before 2039, a power plant explosion will occur at that time, and that explosion may shoot radioactive fallout into the air to cause mass evacuations and cancers. If such an accident occurred in the northern U.S. or central Europe, the consequences would be unimaginable".
Will the NRC be held accountable for such an explosion? Should such actions be criminal?
Recently, I also wrote another article, "Potential Explosions at Ukraine Nuclear Reactors Can Be Stopped (click here)". Some people think that there are no such dangers, but nobody really knows the risks to nuclear reactors during time of war. Therefore, I provided precautions and safety actions in case there is a nuclear plant explosion due to an act of war.
Change Costs Money - Aye, There's the Rub
An admission of guilt by the NRC to a dangerous and irresponsible cover-up that was based on an extraordinary lie is the foremost obstacle to stop nuclear plant explosions, but costs are another major obstacle that influences opinions to resist explosive facts. Nuclear plants have been estimated to cost 5 or 6 billion dollars apiece, but two Plant Vogtle, Georgia nuclear plants are now estimated to cost $15 billion apiece to complete. Insurance to guard against bankruptcy from a nuclear disaster costs $1 million per year per plant, and insurance companies band together so that they can divide the liabilities among themselves to prevent insurance company bankruptcy in the event of a nuclear power plant disaster. Insurance costs are absorbed into the daily profits of $1 million a day for each commercial power plant nuclear reactor. To change a nuclear power plant, the modifications to the Safety Analyses alone cost $1 million per plant. These cost estimates were learned in an International Nuclear Law course taught by the Nuclear Energy Agency in Singapore, where nuclear law, insurance, and engineering experts from around the world came to speak. Costs to change procedures and change plants to ensure explosion safety may be another $1 million.
In other words, costs may approximate $800 million dollars, or approximately two days' profit from each plant, to fix the more than 400 reactor plants in the world-wide fleet for explosion prevention. Modifications include installing hydrogen and oxygen analyzers in reactor systems to monitor explosion conditions during severe accidents and normal operations. Procedure changes are required to vent flammable gases from the core and piping in the event of a severe accident to prevent water-hammer explosions. Nitrogen addition equipment to reactor cores is required to facilitate venting.
Also, flow rates need to be specified for adding water to prevent core explosions, where I have provided estimated maximum-flow rates for pumps during meltdown cooling. Those flow-rate estimates were rather crude, but a rough estimate is better than no estimate until further research is completed; i.e., another cost to the industry. Should money be spent to stop the next nuclear power plant explosion, which may rival or exceed Fukushima damages?
Opinions Are Just That - Opinions, But the Stakes are High - Lives are at Stake
Advancing explosions can be stopped to save lives. Publications are usually slanted to the opinions of the writers, but the primary issues are to determine the importance and validity of those opinions. The sentiment of this series of OpEds is expressed by the title of the first article in the series, "Preventable Disasters - The Fight for New Ideas, Never Give an Inch (click here)".
At the end of most of my OpEds or technical papers, I end with the same opinion, in one form or another. "We can stop the next nuclear power plant explosion!" Do you think that we should let the next explosion happen?
Addendum 7/20/2022:
The American Nuclear Society has responded to emails about this series of OpEds, and the ANS offered to consider reprinting an OpEd. Other news outlets have not responded.
(Article changed on Jul 16, 2022 at 10:06 PM EDT)
(Article changed on Jul 16, 2022 at 10:29 PM EDT)
(Article changed on Jul 16, 2022 at 11:07 PM EDT)
(Article changed on Jul 16, 2022 at 11:17 PM EDT)
(Article changed on Jul 16, 2022 at 11:29 PM EDT)
(Article changed on Jul 17, 2022 at 12:07 AM EDT)
(Article changed on Jul 17, 2022 at 12:39 AM EDT)
(Article changed on Jul 20, 2022 at 12:29 PM EDT)
