Talk:Doel Nuclear Power Station

Article overhaul

Based on a discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia the Dutch article was rewritten with more official sourcing like the stress test reports and official communication of the FANC. I have taken to liberty to translate that article and mix it with this original English article on my personal page. Suggestions and corrections are welcome before I will consider merging. MCvarial (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Can I have some feedback SDeSchep, John beta, J.T.W.A.Cornelisse? If not I'll just merge based on the feedback from the Dutch Wikipedia.

MCvarial (talk) 15:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The explanation on the turbopump is not clear for readers unfamiliar with the design of the plant. You have to go to the feedwater system page and read the explanation there. Mention that every plant has one steam driven pump to secure the water flow towards the steam generators that cool the primary water.

I find the wording to be a somewhat understated. For example the INES-2 incident. Even though the article you reference says Electrabel reported the issue "a little bit late", there is no such thing as a little too late in the strict sense of the operator requirements. They either report it in time or too late. FANC does not accept "a little late". Having this in the article might suggest they sometimes do.

It is also useful to separate the incident from the numbers of the INES scale and to find out which plant it was. It is confusing to the reader and causes a subjective feeling of danger when all incidents regardless of what reactor are piled on to one another.

I might have some further remarks down the road, but I only have time to skim through the article for now. I would prefer more FANC references, or ideally both FANC and Electrabel, to ensure the reader some neutrality as J.T.W.A.Cornelisse correctly pointed out has to be the case for all Wikipedia entries. Thanks for your efforts. Best regards. SDeSchep (talk) 08:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback talk, I've made some adaptions based on your feedback. The "a little bit" part was somewhat of a direct translation from the source article: "Dat was op zich geen ernstig incident, maar het werd zwaarder geklasseerd op de INES-schaal omdat het Federaal Agentschap voor Nucleaire Controle vond dat Electrabel iets te lang wachtte om het incident te melden." which does suggest there's room for enterpretation. Anyways we don't know without access to the technical specifications so I left it out.

I've mainly used the FANC as a source as the operator itself may not be entirely neutral which could taint the article in itself. But perhaps you could give me pointers on where I could use more sourcing?

A INES table per unit could be nice, but the older FANC reports sometimes lack details. And I don't have detailed pre 2002 data at all.

MCvarial (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

vandalism

whenever somebody wants to erase a significant part of the wiki,

this should never be done without any substantial reflection on this talk-page.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight, however the part about no relief filters is simply incorrect. The reactors at Doel have a double containment which makes the filtering strategy different from other nuclear powerplants. In most plants the containment is vented directly to the atmosphere, if there are filters in this line this is called a filter containment vent. However in Doel the containment is vented to the secondary containment in an annihilus space. This space is filter via HEPA, iodine and absolute filters which are active filters. After Fukushima it was decided to add passive filters which can directly vent the primary containment even without AC power. So the no filter part is complete nonsense.

As for the steam incident, this was a simple load reject due to a grid operator error. Steam was vented via atmospheric releases which is standard procedure. Someone near the vents was burned due to unfortunate wind conditions. This has nothing to do with the nuclear nature of the plant.

MCvarial (talk) 20:58, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

There are already that long doubts about the safety culture of this plant...

That is also a reason to mention these facts. Here a man working for a subcontractor was injured, because he was working there in rather unsafe conditions. I've never been able to find a lot of details about this incident. The steam was there because of an "irregularity" (onregelmatigheid in Dutch). A rather cryptic description don't you think ? Why are we not allowed to know the real circumstances ?

That man should not have been there at first. The place was possibly (I think: probably) quite confined. Than there should have been an extra man as a safety watch. Who took the injured man from the steamed place ? Was he still conscious ?

But the plant is not quite open in their reports.... When this kind of troubles repeats that often, there are reasons enough for the people living around these plants to ask questions about what is going on.

Relief valves... this information came from the German government, and based on info supplied by the Belgium authorities. They are not in line with the way Germany would like. The fact that these plants can cause so much harm for the people living near them... That is the reason why the German Government published this.

One of the reasons why the Germans stopped with nuclear energy was the fact that the present First Minister Merkel has a degree in Physics. She knows the dangers from within.

Also the fact that these reactors were designed to be taken out of service, and for economical reasons -- it would be so expensive to built a new reactor -- they are allowed to be used years longer. That will mean also that after these plants will be taken out of service, it will be a lot more difficult to take them apart. If it would be possible at all in a lifetime.

Do you know how much money is reserved for this kind of work ? Would that ever be enough ?

greetings J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

For the rest, in the wiki I do not find any source where we can control the way Doel would filter the contaminated air from the first, and the second containment.

In fact, there's even no mention of that second containment, except your words here above.

without proper sources, there is no proof for it.

Whatever reason could there be for the German authorities to question the safety of all the Belgium reactors ?

Best wishes J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right about the poor communication, the plant has signed a charted to always notify the authorities and press about any incident, even non nuclear. The press however is :::very uninformed (or sensationalist) about nuclear power and always fails to give context of how the plants works. This results in a lot of fearmongering. More objective :::information is available on the site of the nuclear safety watchdog FANC.

The steam incident is clarified here: http://fanc.fgov.be/nl/news/incident-in-de-kerncentrale-van-doel-4-geklasseerd-op-ines-niveau-0/864.aspx

The grid operator (Elia) accidentally disconnected the plant from the grid resulting in an automatic stop. During such a stop excess steam is vented to the atmosphere. Due to poor :::wind conditions and the vents of the turbine hall being open steam got inside. A man working on the vents (thats why they were open) got burns on his hands.

As for the filters and double containment, the design of the plant is available in the stress test report: http://fanc.fgov.be/GED/00000000/2900/2954.pdf De active filters are :::mentioned in 1.3.3. passive filters are discussed in 6.2.2.

I'm planning to give this article and the dutch article an overhaul to contain more objective information based on the stress test report. The report is very transparant and :::objective and has been check by the national and european safety watchdog. In contains a lot of interesting information about the design base and safety systems. Much better than :::some subjective news articles that are mainly the result of german politics. Anti nuclear opinions simply score votes in germany. The safety reports about the hydrogen flakes are :::also available on the site of the FANC. So you really can't complain about transparency of the plant.

MCvarial (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

When I read well in 6.2.2.1:

6.2.2.1 Beheer van waterstofconcentraties in en rond het containment de verschillende compartimenten binnen de containmenten van Doel 1&2 en Doel 3&4 zijn uitgerust met volledig passieve autokatalytische recombinatoren (PAR's) dit moet voorkomen dat het reactorgebouw het begeeft als gevolg van een waterstofexplosie, Het is een feit dat de PAR's de gemiddelde waterstofconcentratie in het reactorgebouw tot 5 vol % beperken.

Bij het ontwerp werd de totale autokatalytische oppervlakte overgedimensioneerd en wel met een marge van 20%. PAR's zijn daarenboven doeltreffend bij de recombinatie van koolmonoxide. De ventilatoren zorgen op hun beurt voor een gelijkmatisge verspreiding in het RGB; de sproeipompen en de ventilatiekoelbatterijen staan in voor het inert maken van de atmosfeer in het RBG.

De niet gefilterde containment venting wordt bij Doel 1&2 uitgevoerd in de tussenruimte, bij Doel 3&4 in het genouw voor Nucleaire Hulpdiensten (GNB) In beide gevallen kan accumulatie van waterstof normaliter uitgesloten worden.

- De niet-gefilterde containment venting wordt overwogen indien de druk in het reactor....

Fanc could do some experiments with steel of the same manufactorer. They did not like the result, and they just declared the steel of the containment safe... Could we call this "objective" ? There are many question about FANC already.

BUT... 6.2.2.1: Here is no mention at all of a double containnment. It just looks more and more that that info the German Government gave, is more than correct.

And I just suspect you to be a person instructed to take away all unwanted info about these Belgium reactors.

This is vandalism in a way I did not encounter at all.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually its in the text you quoted "tussenruimte" is the area between both containments, most nuclear reactors in the world don't have this. Its explicitly explained in 0.3.1.1.4

The fact that u think the steel was in the containment shows you have no clue what you're talking about. The restart of the units was only allowed after the Belgian and American expert gave their fiat: http://fanc.fgov.be/nl/news/fanc-geeft-toelating-voor-de-heropstart-van-de-reactoren-van-doel-3-en-tihange-2/791.aspx Pieces of steel have been irradiated in the BR2 reactor at a much higher flux to similate the rest of the reactor's life and those tests confirmed the findings of the experts. Furthermore the flakes are checked each revision and have not grown at all: http://fanc.fgov.be/nl/news/geen-toename-van-waterstofvlokken-in-doel-3/859.aspx

I'm just trying to provide objective information here and removing blatantly incorrect information that can easily be fact checked.

MCvarial (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Wat zou toch dat "gebouw voor Nucleaire Hulpdiensten (GNB)bij Doel 3&4" zijn ? Ook een containment ?

What would that "building for Nuclear Services (GNB) at Doel 3&4" be ? Also a containment ?

You are hiding yourself behind an anonymous alias, but are just busy to remove all unwanted information. There's nothing objective here in your actions.

Please stop. This needs to be reported soon.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 16:26, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I have provided objective evidence about the design of the containment. If you take the time to read the document you'll understand that the RGB (reactorgebouw) made out of pre-tensioned concrete in D34 and steel in D12 is inside an reinforced concrete building which you see on the outside (see figure 15: http://fanc.fgov.be/GED/00000000/2900/2954.pdf). The space between both containments is called the TUR (tussenruimte).

In case of a containment vent the gas ends up in the TUR for D12 which in term is filtered by a system called VI. The fans, motors and filters of this system are inside the GNH (nucleaire hulpdiensten). For D34 the vent is performed directly to the VI inside the GNH bypassing the TUR.

So this blatantly incorrect information on the page has to be removed or at the very least be modified to reflect the truth. All of this information is really easy to fact check if you read the stresstest report. I have no idea wether the German minister lied or the article has provided incorrect or partial information. But the fact remains that the information provided is incorrect.

MCvarial (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the German Government is concerned, should stay in the wiki. I still do suspect you to be involved with the plant. The fact that there was an incident with an "irregularity", and that a man working for a subcontractor was injured should stay also. There are serious doubts bout the safety culture in this plant.

those filters reduce the amount of hydrogen, in order to prevent an explosion, but not particular the radioactivity that comes with the steam too.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 23:23, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Wat would you answer at the next link to standaard.be ? http://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20161125_02593073 ???

Kunt u het lezen ? of moet ik het vertalen ?

There's something rather wrong about these nuclear reactors... once in every 10 years a chance of a melltdown....

There is more to be found at that site, cannot you show how rotten this all is ?

Gassie J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 18:11, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

You simply have no idea what you're talking about, you don't even know the different between a PAR and FCVS. A PAR is a passive autocatalytic recombiner. These are devices that hang inside the reactor building (RGB) to recombine hydrogen back to water in the case of a hydrogen release. They have nothing to do with containment venting. I'm not against keeping those incidents on the wiki but it should be clarified the statement of the German government is wrong. The fire safety study is a flawed study which is the reason why the FANC demanded a new study fromhe Electrabel. Think about it there is a total of over 250 reactor years of experience with these reactors, there would have been atleast 25 meltdowns so far if the study was correct. I've been following the news on these plants very closely and I've actually read the reports about the hydrogen flakes and stresstests. The only thing rotten about this whole situation is the press coverage on the issues. Plants in foreign countries where flakes were found have never been shut down for investigation and the number of automatic stops these plants have is very, very average (1 per reactor per year). I see no reason for concern, neither does the FANC, Bel V, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, WENRA, ANVS and the IAEA. With your permission I'm happy to change the article and clarify the issues with sourced information.

MCvarial (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

No Idea ??

No idea ? How would you know, what I have done in my life ? What I did study, and where I was involved with research ?

I do not feel the need for your proposals, when there is so much other things wrong with these reactors. They are old, out of date, and should have been closed already. The only reason that they are still open, is because it would cost a lot to built a new (and safe?) reactor.

The way the board of Electrabel handled and ignored the problems with safety culture shows that there is reason enough for the people living around these reactors to worry about what could happen.

Those would be more meltdowns that there are Belgium reactors. But I guess this was the estimation of Electrabel in the near future. Regarding the rotten safety culture presently. What other wise can we think ?

I do suspect you to be a member of Electrabel, that wants to remove all negative information. The way you speak about all of this... You are involved in this al lot more than you would ever be willing to share with us.

When a government of an European country is not well informed who of us would be informed better. The Germans bought a massive amount of iodine pills to pretect their population. Why should they do this, when Electrabel is telling us, taht there is nothing to worry about?

In Fukushima only the people working in hospitals took iodine to protect themselves, all people near the emitting reactors ? they were not informed, it could have caused som panic....

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

You have made multiple completely incorrect statements about the design which I have corrected with sourced information in the stresstest report. Thats more than enough information for me to know you haven't even bothered to read the report and as as result you have no clue what you're talking about. No, I'm not a shill, no I don't care wether you're one. But Wikipedia is no place for fearmongering so I recommend you stay far, far away from any nuclear related articles. The plant has received approval of FANC, ANVS, WENRA, Euratom and IAEA to operate, I consider those organisations more informed than you or me or a random German politician for that matter.

--MCvarial (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I did not make any statement about the design. What so ever.

I only follow the news about this reactors. The reason why, it might be obvious, I live within 30 kilometers from Doel, and the way these reactors are operated, with people sabotaging the turbines, subcontractors injured, a directory finding a chance of a meltdown possible every 10 years quite normal...

Than you come and deleting all you do not like... without any discussion... That is pure vandalism. Who are you ? At this moment you are just anonymous.

By the way, it was not a random German Politician, it was a message of the German Government to the Bundestag, the German parliament.

Verder maar in het Nederlands: Ik vind het knap onbeschoft, zoals jij me neerbuigend probeert weg te zetten.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You have made multiple completely incorrect statements about the design which I have corrected ???

de hierboven geciteerde bewering laat duidelijk zien, dat je geheel geen ervaring hebt op wikipedia. Deze wiki is gemaakt door vele verschillende mensen, in heel wat edits, waaraan ondergetekende heel vaak geen enkel deel heeft gehad.

The citation above, shows clearly that you have not much experience on wikipedia. This wiki is made in lots of edits, edits made by many different people, in which I had no part at all.

Your trust in all those officials... I think it is misplaced. That Japanese government was informed too, still that disaster in Fukushima happened. And every 10 years Electrabel expects a meltdown too. Should we trust Electrabel ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 08:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion is in no way relevent to the article anymore. The reason why I removed the content was because it was blatantly incorrect, the plants do have filters, just not the same kind as in Germany. I have proven that using the stresstest report and I will rectify this incorrect information on the Wiki when I have time. I live 10km away from the plant and while I don't necesarily trust the information given by the owner, I do trust the information given by safety watchdogs like FANC, WENRA, Euratom, IAEA etc. I have a reasonable technical knowledge about the plant thanks to the stresstest reports etc. I'm willing to help you understand how these plants work via other channels but this talk page is not the place for that.

[User:MCvarial|MCvarial]] (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The German Government asked for more and safer filters, the way you described it, only the hydrogen was filtered, not the radioactivity.

The other thing is, that you were firstly only interested in taking away information, not adding. This cannot be the case.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Wat te denken van: http://www.ad.nl/buitenland/veiligheid-kerncentrale-doel-kan-beter~a6378412/ ???

Is de veiligheid dan geheel op orde ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There are some filters - you said - but these are for sure not the filters the German Government ask for... I guess the German filters were much too expensive for Electrabel. Is it not ? The only filters you talked about these limit the content of Hydrogen. To limit the possibility of an Hydrogen explosion.

If this is the fact, please let us know.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, incorrect. Hydrogen recombiners (known as PARs) are not filters, they remove hydrogen from the containment during extreme accidents like TMI. The filters to vent the containment are 3 filters in series which are redundant in 3 trains in parallel. Each filter is an absolute filter removing particles, followed by an iodine filter, followed by another absolute filter. These filters are part of the ventilation of the TUR which is a space between both containments. Plants in Germany lack such a space which means they have to directly vent the containment to the atmosphere with a buffer. After Chernobyl they also added the capability to filter the releases using FCVS (filtered containmen venting system). The Belgian plants didn't implement such a filter as they have the TUR to vent to and thus don't need to filter the releases on the fly. After Fukushima the focus moved to station blackouts, what if there's no electricity? During the initial design this wasn't taken into account as there are 7 safety diesels per unit and its extremely unlikely they would all fail. Nevertheless after Fukushima it was decided to also add FCVSs to the plants in Belgium this was if the containment would have to be vented during a station blackout this could be done directly via the FCVS. If power is available however the path via the TUR is still prefered.

MCvarial (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is the German Government complaining ? Can you explain that ? What kind of filters they asked for ? And what did the Belgiums decide to do otherwise.

In fukushina all the diesels were out of order, because the cooling of the diesels went out, the pumps for this were taken apart bij the tsunami... In fukushima the powerlines to the plant were destroyed too, and there was no way to get enough electricity to the plant, whenever they would have tried this at all.

In Borssele there was once an almost meltdown, because at some time the diesels could not start either, and it could be prevented, because the old powerstation next to the reactor could generate enough power to keep it safe.

What about the storage of radioactive materials at the plants, why is Electrabel not allowed to treat this materials anymore ? I'm sure you know more about this subject, more than you would like to tell here.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

The German government asked for a FCVS, it seems they aren't aware of the fact that Doel has double containment and can filter the releases already. It also seems they aren't aware of the fact a FCVS is currently being built. The comment was made by politicians who usually don't have any idea how a nuclear plant works.

In Fukushima multiple diesels were available and working, the switchboard of the reactors themself however were flooded. These were in the basement to protect them from earthquakes, which also made them prone to flooding.

I'm not aware of such an accident ever happened, in fact the worst accident was an INES-2 due to the contaiment being bypassed by a few open valves. A failure of the diesel generators would imply all safety trains being unavailable which results in an INES-3 incident.

As for the nuclear waste, this issue is quite old in 2013 Belgoprocess discovered barrels with conditioned nuclear waste (in concrete) that had some kind of gel on it. At which point they stopped accepting any such waste from anyone. This included all the nuclear reactors, hospitals, industry etc. This turned out to be a so called Alkali-silica reaction which only happened with a few barrels from Doel. So Doel stopped the treatment of the waste but they had enough storage space to last until 2019. In the meantime they have already received a new license to use the same treatment process like in Tihange. The only waste they can't treat at the moment is the resins because they compress these into barrels in Tihange while Doel just used to cast them in concrete. So currently Doel might also have to buy such a press or continue transporting the waste to Tihange for treatment there. More information on page 15: http://corporate.engie-electrabel.be/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/doelbewust_86.pdf and for Tihange: http://www.wmsym.org/archives/2012/papers/12200.pdf

--MCvarial (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The pumps needed for cooling the diesels in Fukushima stood at the banks of sea. These were damaged too. When a motor cannot be cooled, the motor cannot work very long.

That is a lot of inside information... Who are you ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 15:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Fukushima had multiple air-cooled diesels that were still operating: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41694.pdf

A liquid cooled diesel wouldn't use the ocean as a water source by the way, it would have to use a safety grade water source like an artificial basin, pond, storage tank or compound cooling tower.

Clearly non of the information I've given is insider information, I provided the sources linking to publically accessible data. With a little bit of effort and 30 seconds of Googling you can know just as much as I do.

--MCvarial (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Heeft u nu geheel geen respekt voor andere gebruikers ?

De schaamteloze manier waarop u denkt uw superioriteit en kennis ten toon te sppreiden, die begint me de keel it te hangen.

ik vind het knap onbeschoft/

Als de duitse regering meldt, dat de door haar gewenste filters er niet zijn, dan waren ze er ook niet - op dat moment -

Dat jaren later die wel zouden zijn aangebracht... daar heb ik geen bericht van ooit gezien. Wanneer die dan zijn aangebracht ? Dat zal u wel weten misschien. Ik heb er geen bron van.

het feit dat jarenlang die filters er niet waren, daarmee heeft Belgie zichzelf en haar buren danig gevaar laten lopen.

alleen dat feit al. Hoe durven die domme belgen ? En mogen we dat nu niet meer melden ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

nothing rude ??

There's nothing rude about correcting false information spread on a platform meant to inform people accurately. The filters are part of the original concept and have been installed before the opening of the reactors in 1974, 1975, 1982 and 1985 respectively. They also filter out iodine unlike the filters installed in Germany and Holland in the 80s and 90s. So in that sense Belgium is behaving more responsibly than other countries. The new FCVS acts as a backup for this "old" system and will be able to filter out iodine unlike the foreign systems. source: http://www.sar-net.eu/sites/default/files/ERMSAR_2015/Papers/Source_Term_Issues/036_Dejardin_final.pdf the new filters will become operational this year for all units except Doel 1 & 2. These units were suppose to be closed in 2015 so the design phase only started then, the deadline for them is 2019. source: http://fanc.fgov.be/GED/00000000/4200/4218.pdf

--MCvarial (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

The thing you did was: only removing. plain simple removing, without any explanation, without adding a source. That is vandalism pure vandalism.

That was your start, in the first place.

At what date were those FCVS-filters installed, the German Government asked for? At the time the answers were given to the German Parliament, at that time that information was not false at all. Maybe unwelcome for Electrabel, but just true.

In fact Belgium ignored the risk for some time. The fact that this risk was there, are we not allowed to know this ?

Please will you add the date of installment ? with a link to it ? I'm not going to do this, but only removing I will not accept.

And please add a wiki for those FCVS-filters, what do these F C V S character actually mean ?

Even presently there is a wide program in Doel and Tihange "to improve the safety culture"... with a new director imported from France. Would this have been needed, when there was nothing to worry about ? Than that study "once in every 10 years a meltdown at the 7 reactors in Belgium".... Would we be happy with that ?

When a worker of a subcontractor is placed in a hostel environment, where he can be exposed to overheated steam... after an "onregematigheid"... When the reactor is suddenly taken off the grid... Was this a safe place to work ? How is this man coping this moment ? Can he use his hands again ? (You can surely inform us about this all.)

When a turbine can be sabotaged, and that worker cannot be identified... would he or she still work there ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 07:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

removing unwanted information

Removing unwanted information, that's where you started. Without any discussion....

This makes it quite obvious what your wishes are, the knowledge you appear to have... I am rather sure you studied in this field, and you might even be a dedicated employer of this plant (or maybe a subcontractor) ?

There have been lots of troubles with this plant in the past, the way these - already very old - plants were given permission to go on for 10 years more... Will it be ever possible to take them apart ? (in a safe way) Is there in the world already a commercial nuclear plant taken apart... safely

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken the effort to compile all the information given in the Dutch, German, French and English Wikipedia article and to fact check it with official sources. https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gebruiker:MCvarial Feedback is welcome. I'll translate and merge the article with this one. I was unable to find official sources on the filter part which suggests I'm right and there's indeed no issue. If you find official sources of this I'm willing to write a text about it. The safety culture part is about Tihange and Brussels: http://fanc.fgov.be/nl/news/de-veiligheid-en-beveiliging-van-de-belgische-kerncentrales-het-fanc-preciseert-de-recente-berichtgeving/858.aspx

MCvarial (talk) 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It is obvious, you are not interested in a real discussion. Belgium did it so good, and far better than the countries around it ???... as I read here above.

There have been lots of doubts and troubles around the Belgium reactors, this information should not be lost.

The way you do it now, your "new" wiki is placed in your own domain, we cannot edit there. Now this is outside all conventions of wikipedia. It this a "shared responsibility" ?

I cannot comment on your personal page, because of this.

The way you talk about it all, does give me the idea, that you are more involved with this enterprise than you will ever dear to admit.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

removing unwanted information, II

MCvarial, J.Cornelisse is right, you want to hide things about Doel. The plant ist located 15 km from Antwerp, hence in the province of Antwerp)--2A02:1205:5026:8980:6580:9FE1:2E12:40C7 (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Both you and J.Cornelisse need to research and fact check your information before making changes to the Wiki. Doel is located in East Flanders: https://nl.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doel_(plaats)

MCvarial (talk) 05:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I did not wonna hide anything, the problem is, that I suspect MCvarial to be an officer working at this plant or otherwise involved, the Belgium authorities do not like the protests from Holland and Germany. They want to remove their "unwanted" info. Is there any independence in his edits? The Belgium authorities were far better than everywhere in Europe ? In fact onlky 10 kilometer safety corridor around the plants, not 50 like elsewhere...

The name of the province is East-Flanders anyway. About this is user 2A02:1205:5026:8980:6580:9FE1:2E12:40C7 quite wrong .... (talk) J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

All of the information I have provided has been sourced with public sources, yet for some reason you keep acting like I have some kind of inside information. Yes German, Dutch and even Belgian media is casting doubt over the safety of the plants. However everytime we fact check the information with official sources like FANC, Bel V, IAEA, etc it turns out the information is downright misleading. This is why I find it extremely annoying you just copy paste an newspaper article into Wikipedia which is suppose to be based on neutral, cross checked sources and not gutter press. There have been actual problems and I have done nothing to hide them, see hydrogen flakes and the turbine sabotage. But the downright incorrect information about filters or nuclear waste issues I cannot accept. By the way the safety zone around Belgian sites is variable, but its 20km for iodine distribution for nuclear plants and 10km for evacuations: http://centredecrise.be/sites/default/files/faqagri_web_nl.pdf In the case of Borssele the evacuation radius is 5km and iodine 10km: http://www.risicokaart.nl/informatie_over_risicos/ongeval_met_gevaarlijke_stoffen/nucleair/ So Belgium literally has doubled those numbers while having double containments which lead to smallers radiological impacts. So yet again try to research stuff before you spout more nonsense which can easily be disproven.

MCvarial (talk) 15:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Your start was just plain taking away the refs about the questions the German Government had about these reactors in the past. You claim that these questions were false, or have been solved in the time pased, but you cannot give us any insight what date the extra filters have been placed... Than I have seen from you lots of "ref's" that are just advertisements "look how good we are"... There are just lots of questions from milieu-groups. There have been lots of troubles, a wounded man after overheated steam... a few weeks ago... but... this was just an "irregularity" ??? That is the way Belgium tries to play it down.

I am not pleased at all with how Dutch authorities are planning this all, Dutch Iodine-pills are stored in Zoetermeer. Near the Dutch capital and the King ? Whenever there would be need to distribute those pills, it will take some time to bring them where they are needed. Those refs you mention.... grote kul, en zeker geen ding om je aan te spiegelen.

In Japan the only people taking iodine after the tsunami, were the people working in hospitals, distributing those pills, that might alarm the people ! So it was not done at all. Would that be different here ? I do not know, but it might be too.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 20:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

The active filters are part of the original design and have been there since 1975, 82 and 85 respectively, see the stresstest rapport. The active filters will go into service in 2017 for all units except Doel 1 & 2. As they only received permission to keep operating in 2015 their deadline in 2019: http://fanc.fgov.be/GED/00000000/4300/4351.pdf

Doel has 1000 fulltime employees so statistically you'd expect 8,64 heavily wounded people per year: http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2013/04/24/arbeidsongevallen-de-jaarlijkse-stille-massamoord the fact that there are also 3000 contractors that work there and they only had 1 accident is impressive rather than worrying: http://www.dewereldmorgen.be/artikels/2013/04/24/arbeidsongevallen-de-jaarlijkse-stille-massamoord

In Belgium you can pick up the pills at the shop for free, they aren't distributed during the disasters, thats too late. From this year every Belgian citizen can collect them as the radius has been increased from 20km to 100km.

MCvarial (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I asked my GP whether he had iodine in stock, he also has a pharmacy to home. But he became very angry... That's the way professionals behave... I was not allowed to ask questions, that involves his dedication.

De manier waarop u het doet voorkomen, dat er maar een ongeluk in het betrokken jaar is voorgekomen, is tekenend voor de manier waarop u zich opstelt: vooringenomen in het kwadraat

The way you suggest, that there was only one accident, proofs you are totally biased, and dedicated to the nuclear industry

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:25, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Well I cant vouch for what happens in Holland, but in Belgium the nuclear industry is clearly very open. I've been able to research all your claims and I've found official sources for everything disproving your theories. This clearly shows the nuclear industry in Belgium is transparent, perhaps too transparent. Considering every single little issue gets smeared out in the press like its a big deal. This openess may also be the cause why our neighbouring countries think our plants are unsafe. The thing is the operators reports on every single incident here, this is not the case in our neighbouring countries. As a result these plants which are statisically safer than foreign plants have the reputation of being unsafe or unreliable. Everyone is biased in some way, thats why I use official, neutral, cross-checked sources to write content on the Wiki. Thats why I also ask peers on the talk page to check my work. You on the other hand take biased, sewer press sources and copy paste it into the Wiki without any verification whatsoever.

MCvarial (talk) 16:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I've seen your "official, neutral cross-checked sources", sometimes they are just plain propaganda material of the owner of the reactors. As far as I can remember there were some hydrogen-bubbles inside the wall of the containment. Discovered after a change to more modern and precise measuring instruments. The first proposition done was: to go back to the old measuring machines. They did not "see" it... Later a sample piece of steel was tested... the results were ignored, why ? They were unwelcome ?

Actually this hydrogen in the walls is ignored afterwards...

Without a free press, companies and governments can do what they want and think best for themselves. In our society a free press is big need.

What you do, is declaring all news in newspapers to fake-news. Are you a Trump-believer ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Show me the sources I've used on the Dutch article that are "plain propaganda". The containments are made out of pre-stressed and reinforced concrete, there's no hydrogen in them. The Doel 3 reactor vessel does have hydrogen flaking. This was discovered during refueling and the reactor wasn't restarted. After 2 independent studies of Belgian & American authorities permission was granted to restart. FANC asked extra tests on French test samples with hydrogen flakes in the BR2 reactor which can simulate the rest of the life of the reactor in weeks. After unexpected results from that test Doel 3 was stopped again. Turns out the material used was susceptible to embrittlement than the actual reactor vessel. New tests were run with German purpose made material with flakes thats identical to the vessel material. The result of both the American and Belgian studies was confirmed and the reactors were restarted. And no using older inspection techniques was never suggested, in fact the inspection program is now more rigorous with yearly inspections rather than every 10 years like in the past. There's nothing wrong with free press, there's a lot wrong with garbage press like the sources you've used.

MCvarial (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have to show you anything, you should reveal your true identity. You do treat others here like slaves.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

There is another thing here:

New nuclear plants are very expensive, so it is a lot cheaper to enhance the lifespan of old existing reactors, and these were built 40-50 years ago with outdated designs. The years extra operation will be result in many more radioactive materials, and this will cause a lot more expenses when the reactors need to be taken down. The money already reserved for this, will that ever be enough ? These materials need to be taken to a save place, where they will not pollute the environment. Our written history is somewhere 3-8 thousand years old, this need to betaken care for a lot longer... Future generations will pay for this for many thousands of years. There is no profit in nuclear power at all. These people are steeling from the future.

Fukushima and Tsernobyl have shown the real dangers involved.

Is it questionable that newspapers here in Belgium and Holland have a very open eye for these plants ? When you think they are not well informed, than there should be a task for the owner of the plant and the authorities that keep control.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 13:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Your arguments are merely based on emotions which have no place in a scientific journal like Wikipedia. In reality Belgium has already built the underground lab for permanent disposal and all studies so far have shown waste storage is no issue. The plants in Belgium are between 31 and 42 years old and are expected to operate for atleast 60 years with increasing levels of safety due to TJH reviews. The extra volume of fuel and resin wastes is neglible compared to the waste of hospitals, industry, research and demolition hence maximizing the life of the plants makes economic sense and environmental sense. Telling future generations not to dig up the waste unless they know what they're doing is indeed challenging, but its an issue we'll have regardless of the existance of nuclear plants, think of medical waste. Chernobyl is physically impossible with PWR plants and Fukushima is extremely unlikely, regardless Belgium is prepared for it with the BEST program. Even if it happens 0 people died due to Fukushima, 20.000 due to the tsunami, its a risk worth taking. Especially since the alternatives are more dangerous.

MCvarial (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

the way you describe nuclear power is without any restriction, that is just over the top.

I have worked with isotopes, in a laboratory, did for years research on a university in Holland, studied medicine, I've seen a lot, and I'm sure not alone in these questions.

About the health damage due to Fukushima... the authorities are just not willing to admit there is damage to health. What about the node in the thyroid-glands of the people there, and the extra thyroid-cancers ? Or are there more nodes because there are more studies about this ?

Now people are forced to go back, the radiation levels are 30 times higher... is that safe ? The only reason iis, that the Japan government would like to save some money...

but besides this... still you did not reveal your true identity. Who are you ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

nowhere safer reactors ?

I'm fed up with the "discussion" above.

how in anybody's name can you claim with dry eyes, that there is nothing wrong going on. That all those nuclear power stations as safe?

• After five years of study the management found one possible meltdown once every ten years quite acceptable,
• A turbine was sabotaged, and the man/woman who did this is still free, and might still be working there
• At another nuclear power station a Frenchman is appointed as director, and he has an extensive program to improve the safety culture.
• And this is all in a country, that has endured all the positive things that Islam has brought to it....

whenever you do not reveal your true identity....

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

There is no obligation for most users to reveal their identity. 331dot (talk) 11:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you mean ?

The above edit was placed after a discussion with MCvarial... this man or woman accused me of a lot, including anti-moslim feelings...

your name here 331dot is an alias, what do you think about my full name and initials ? Could this not be near a true identity ?

It might be not forbidden to hide behind an alias, but when such a clear view in favour of nuclear power is shown, than this question is very legal, in my eyes

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

You can certainly choose to use your own name if you wish, but no one is required to do so. Note that outing another user against their will is not permitted. If you ask someone to reveal themselves and they decline, you should let the matter drop. If you want to accuse someone of a conflict of interest, you should do so at the COI noticeboard. 331dot (talk) 13:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Here there's is something different: a promotor of nuclear energy, maybe somebody working at the plant, at least it was admitted, that he/she lived within 10 kilometer of the Doel-plant. And here all is safer, never found a safer plant in the world ??

That is different cook.

This alias stopped its contributions. And erased all his efforts. Better so. In the mean time I was regarded as an "islamo-fobe". I find religion like Islam at the moment as it present itself today a big threat for our society, with big lorries used to kill innocent people in shopping malls... I'm not an advocate of religion. But this kind of accusations why did he need them ?

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I haven't erased any of my contributions, I did forget about updating this article though, thanks for the reminder. Also thank you for confirming my previous statement of you being islamophobic. And for the record I never said they were the safest plants in the world, its an argument that cannot be made for any plant as there's no global ranking system that publically available. I did say they were amongst the safest due to their extended design base that deals with external accidents too, completely seperate bunkered safety systems and a double containment. As an engineer and neighbouring resident of the plant I use public sources to write objective content to improve my personal knowledge and that of all Wikipedia users.

MCvarial (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

editing with a pro=nuclear point of view ??

In the wiki was mentioned that the nuclear waste is piling up the site, whether this is outside in the open air, or in a special building, this is still the case. And the references you give, those could be a lot more specific. Now I need to spent some hours to read it all, and 99,9% is not connected to the things you like to add.

This wiki has a few people, that would like to rewrite it all, for pro-nuclear reasons. That has nothing to do with the neutral position of Wikipedia.

Your accusations, they do not have any meaning or value.

I do not read only media and anti-nuclear propaganda, but here there are a few people who like it the other way. I even worked as a scientist with isotopes. I have more knowledge than you ever can know.

Whenever the wanted valves are installed, you will be able to mention it, it present the valve are not there, and the installation ? When will it be there ? These are quite expensive valves, the very reason why they are still not there.

Actually there is more waste at these plants than only the used nuclear fuel bars. There is a lot more, small stuff, and those were treated, chemical reactions occurred in the barrels, and the content was spilled. This was the reason why deMorgen had this item.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 11:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

'Small nuclear waste', 'fuel bars' and 'expensive valves' mean nothing, please refrain from vandalising the article.

MCvarial (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between the nuclear fuel, that has been stored all the lifetime of the reactors, and the other radioactive waste, that was processed and stored in iron tanks.

For this there was a license to permit this. But because of all kind of chemical reactions inside the stored waste, those iron tanks sometimes broke open, deposing the environment to the radiation.

This was the reason for taking that license away,

+But what do you wonna suggest ? That this processing was never done ?

I do not like this edit war. And I will sure complain about it.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 14:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong yet again, the waste we're talking about are "concentraten" radioactive water is distilled to seperate the contamination from the water. This leaves a chalk like substance similar to when u boil an egg. This substance is mixed with sand and cement to make concrete. This concrete is cast into stainless steel barrels to be disposed in Dessel. Certain mixtures can lead to Alkali–silica reactions and has caused the formation of foam on some of the barrels. No barrels have been "broken open". Let alone that something escaped into the environment. These barrels are packed in bunkers and these bunkers are packed in storage buildings or underground.

But I've explained this to you before and provided sources for you to read but you simply can't be bothered and keep spouting complete nonsense. This isn't an edit war, this is an action to stop the spread of incorrect information which only exists in your mind.

MCvarial (talk) 15:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC)