[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
FW: BBC apology on Japanese criticality accident - NO EXPLOSION !!
FYI,
> ----------
> From: NewsOnline[SMTP:newsonline@bbc.co.uk]
> Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 11:12 AM
> To: 'Franta, Jaroslav'
> Subject: RE: Japanese criticality accident - NO EXPLOSION !!
>
> Dear Mr Franta
>
> Thank you very much for your e-mail.
>
> I have investigated the issues you have raised, and discovered that our
> initial reporting of what happened at the Tokaimura nuclear plant was
> factually incorrect.
>
> Both the television report, which we featured in realvideo, and the text
> of
> the early versions of our stories wrongly reported that there had been an
> explosion at the plant, which punched a hole in the plant's roof.
>
> As it turns out, there was a "criticality flash", but neither an explosion
> nor a hole in the roof.
>
> However, this was not a deliberate deception.
>
> Our early reports were based on video footage that we received from a
> reputed news agency. The television feed was flagged as showing pictures
> taken in the immediate aftermath of last month's nuclear accident at
> Tokaimura.
>
> We used this material in good faith, and we will take up the issue with
> the
> agency supplying the pictures.
>
> I have now corrected all the relevant stories in our archive, and would
> like
> to apologise that we got it wrong.
>
> Yours sincerely
>
>
> Tim Weber
> Acting World Editor
> BBC News Online - http://news.bbc.co.uk/
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Franta, Jaroslav [SMTP:frantaj@aecl.ca]
> > Sent: 06 October 1999 16:17
> > To: 'BBC News On Line'
> > Subject: FW: Japanese criticality accident - NO EXPLOSION !!
> > Importance: High
> >
> >
> > > Sir, Madam,
> > >
> > > I am absolutely amazed at the brazen deception of television/web
> viewers
> > > by the BBC, on the Japanese criticality incident:
> > >
> > > On several occasions, the BBC has reported that the criticality
> accident
> > > involved an explosion that tore a hole in the roof of the uranium fuel
> > > processing building in Tokaimura, and showed pictures & video footage
> of
> > > what it claimed was the site of the accident, when in fact it was old
> > file
> > > footage from a different plant that had nothing to do with last week's
> > > event.
> > >
> > > For instance, the BBC video is accessible at the web site
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/460000/video/_461668_ghosh1300_vi.ram
> > > and it was replayed on television news reports around the world.
> > > From the BBC pictures and video, it appeared that a corner of a roof
> of
> > > one building had been blown open. The BBC commentator called for more
> > > stringent building standards for other uranium processing plants so
> that
> > > they can withstand small "nuclear explosions."
> > > Further examples of this deception were posted on BBC's web site:
> > >
> > > example #1:
> > >
> >
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_463000/463334.s
> > > tm
> > > Saturday, October 2, 1999 Published at 12:32 GMT 13:32 UK
> > > BBC World: Asia-Pacific
> > > <<...>> Nuclear accident inquiry begins
> > > <snip>
> > > The accident occurred after workers at the plant poured too much
> uranium
> > > solution into a tank, setting off an explosion which pushed radiation
> in
> > > the area to 15,000 times above normal.
> > > One of the workers reportedly told an official that he had used about
> > 16kg
> > > of uranium - nearly eight times the normal amount - during the process
> > > just before the accident.
> > > The resulting explosion pushed radiation in the area to 15,000 times
> the
> > > normal level.
> > > <snip>
> > > <end quote>
> > >
> > > example #2:
> > >
> >
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_462000/462366.s
> > > tm
> > > Thursday, September 30, 1999 Published at 22:25 GMT 23:25 UK
> > > BBC World: Asia-Pacific
> > > <<...>> Can the accident happen elsewhere?
> > > By independent nuclear expert Dr John Large
> > > Details of the Japanese plant accident are sparse and, at the best,
> > > sketchy but a few facts have been established.
> > > <snip>
> > > Second, the accident resulted in:
> > > * what witnesses described as a violent blue flash
> > > * a small explosion sufficient to burst a hole in the building's roof
> > > * a radioactive release that reportedly resulted in initial radiation
> > > levels in the local area exceeding 15,000 times background or natural
> > > radiation levels.
> > > <snip>
> > > <end quote>
> > >
> > > IN FACT OF COURSE, THERE WAS NO EXPLOSION, as confirmed in subsequent
> > > reports like this one:
> > >
> > > http://www.uic.com.au/wns1001.htm
> > > Serious criticality accident at Japanese conversion plant. Several
> > workers
> > > have been exposed to high radiation levels in an accident at the Japan
> > > Nuclear Fuel Conversion Co. (JCO) test facility at Tokai-mura
> > (Tokaimura).
> > > Two received about 8000 millisieverts, which is probably fatal.
> Several
> > > nearby residents appear to have received low radiation doses, and 0.84
> > > mSv/hr was recorded at a plant boundary soon after the accident,
> causing
> > > people within 350 metres to be evacuated. High radiation levels at the
> > > plant boundary apparently continued for some time, suggesting
> continuing
> > > or renewed criticality. An excessive quantity of uranyl nitrate
> > solution,
> > > enriched to about 18% U-235, had been poured into a single tank,
> > > triggering the flash criticality (nuclear chain reaction) and
> consequent
> > > neutron radiation.
> > > There was no explosion, <<<<<<<<<<<
> > > though a brief but unquantified release of radiation to the atmosphere
> > > occurred.
> > > Update (4/10) on Tokai criticality accident. The accident at Tokai
> fuel
> > > processing plant has been provisionally rated 4 on the INES scale by
> the
> > > Japanese Government. This means that it was more than an "incident",
> > > causing "acute health effects to workers" as well as some public
> > radiation
> > > exposure at about prescribed limits, but "without significant off-site
> > > risk". This puts it behind Three Mile Island (1979) in severity,
> though
> > > that accident was less significant in its actual radiation effects (ie
> > the
> > > problem area was shielded from staff and others).
> > > For reasons not yet clear, the Tokai criticality continued for about
> 17
> > > hours, until cooling water surrounding the sedimentation tank was
> > drained.
> > >
> > > The radiation (neutron and gamma) emanated from the tank, not from any
> > > dispersed materials, <<<<<<<<<<<<<
> > > and no off-site contamination has been reported. Some 39 workers,
> three
> > > fireman and seven members of the public appear to have received
> elevated
> > > doses, with three workers hospitalised, two in a critical condition.
> > Peak
> > > radiation levels at the nearest site boundary were 0.84 mSv/hr of
> gamma
> > > and 4.5 mSv/hr neutron.
> > > - - - - - - - - - -
> > >
> > > Even before the BBC deception became evident from other reports, it
> was
> > > possible to surmise the unlikelyhood of an explosion from nuclear
> > reactor
> > > physics considerations:
> > > The excess reactivity of the uranium-containing bucket was estimated
> to
> > be
> > > at most 1.044 - it wouldn't have taken much of an expulsion of
> material
> > > from the tank to reduce this to less than one and kill the fission
> > > process. Nor could the criticality excursion described cause a corner
> of
> > > the building roof to blow off and still have enough left in the tank
> to
> > go
> > > critical again, as it in fact did for the subsequent 17 hours.
> > >
> > > Finally, the BBC deception was cleared up by a colleague who pointed
> out
> > > that there is a separate, nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in
> Tokaimura.
> > > It apparently was shutdown after a 1997 fire/explosion accident. That
> > was
> > > a chemical or industrial accident but it released some radioactive
> > > material. The BBC video of a building with a hole in its roof is
> > actually
> > > file footage of this other plant, totally unrelated to last week's
> > > accident, taken during or after that earlier accident.
> > >
> > > Whoever at BBC is responsible for initiating this world-wide media
> > > deception should be fired for gratuitous fear mongering.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Jaro Franta
> > >
> > > Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this communication reflect only
> > > those of the author and do not represent those of his employer, AECL,
> or
> > > anyone else.
> > >
> > > Jaro Franta, eng.
> > > AECL Design & Engineering Services
> > > Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
> > > *(905) 823-9060 x 4585
> > > Fax: (905) 823-0108
> > > Sheridan Park - SP2-F4
> > > 2251 Speakman Drive,
> > > Mississauga, Ontario,
> > > Canada L5K 1B2
> > > * frantaj@aecl.ca
>
************************************************************************
The RADSAFE Frequently Asked Questions list, archives and subscription
information can be accessed at http://www.ehs.uiuc.edu/~rad/radsafe.html