Yuli Andreyev is a former head of the Soviet nuclear securit including the management the nuclear power plant at Chernobyl crisis.
From Rafael Poch, Berlin Correspondent 17/03/2011
Andreyev: “In the nuclear industry there are no independent bodies” “The most dangerous reactor in Fukushima is 3, because it uses a fuel of uranium and plutonium,” said Yuli
He spent five years at Chernobyl. At Spetsatom he was deputy director of the anti-Soviet body nuclear accidents and knows very well how the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) works.
Yuri Andreyev (1938) is one of the most knowledgeable in this area. To Fukushima includes four scenarios of varying severity, from mild to very severe.
“In Fukushima, the most dangerous reactor is three, because it uses MOX fuel more plutonium uranium that France is being used experimentally in two Japanese plants,” says this expert.
In 1991 everything fell apart in Moscow. The salary of deputy minister of atomic energy, the position he was offered Andreyev, not enough for anything. The Academy of Sciences of Austria was invited to lecture and eventually settled in Vienna as adviser to the minister of environment, universities and the IAEA itself.
Chernoby is still surrounded by lies, says. The accident was not the responsibility of plant operators, as stated, but a clear design flaw in the RBMK reactors result of cost savings. Proper design of those Soviet reactors required a large amount of zirconium, a rare metal, and a maze of pipes, special techniques for welding of zirconium, stainless steel and huge amounts of concrete. It was a fortune, so they decided to save money, said Andreyev.
One of the resources of savings was to feed the reactor with relatively low enriched uranium, since uranium enrichment is a complicated and expensive. This increased the risks and was contrary to the rules of safety, but supervision in the USSR nuclear part of the Ministry of Atomic Energy. Something similar is happening today with the IAEA, as the UN agency “depends on the nuclear industry,” said Andreyev, under which lies and secrets of Chernobyl are now fully present in Fukushima.
Security, money, irresponsibility
“Those who design nuclear power plants are pending on two things: safety and cost. The problem is that security costs money. If you spend too much on nuclear power plant it is not competitive. The accident at Three Mile Island is the perfect example. After the accident was to improve security in a convincing way to avoid repetition of the accident both plants more expensive, they lost all meaning. For thirty years in America was not built a single reactor. Chernobyl was all very complicated but also had to do with economics. Academician Rumyantsev showed that we had to close all RBMK reactors. Simply ignored. There are always people interested in hiding something … ”
What are they hiding?
They lend themselves to compromise on security in exchange for selfish considerations. In the USSR for the cost of uranium enrichment in Japan simply for money. The location of central Japan, near the sea is the cheapest. Emergency generators are not buried and, of course, were flooded instantly …. Behind all this there is corruption. I have no proof, but will not take long to appear. How can I design a nuclear power plant in an area of ââhigh seismic risk, near the ocean, with emergency generators at the surface?. Wave arrived and everything was out of service. There is no error, this is a crime.
What problems do you see with the pools of spent fuel?
The designers tried to make savings with them. The over-filled, increasing the possibility of accidents.
Is this the only problem?
No, there are many more. When a driver has an accident he is solely responsible for having drunk too much. In the nuclear industry there is nothing to comply with a single motive. Overloading of the pools is one aspect. Another is that the earthquake the water drained. Should have such a possibility …
“The IAEA does not know anything”
What happens when the fuel stored in pools run out of water? It builds up heat. If not chilled, water or air, can produce the most critical situations. We have very little information. Japan does not give the protection. Know the most basic: what damage the earthquake has occurred at the plants, which caused the tsunami damage, what happened …
But the IAEA should have this information … Absolutely. He knows nothing. All is quiet. I remember the situation with Chernobyl. The first report of Academician Valeri Legasov, vice director of the Kurchatov Institute, responsible for the designs, the Politburo and the IAEA, was all a lie the more rough character. The IAEA believed it all at once, because the interests are the mismos.Lo same is happening now in Japan. If neglect report would be evident.
A common problem of capitalism and communism, right?
It is the lack of independent oversight bodies. It is a pillar of Roman law: no one can be judge and jury. It’s that basic. In the nuclear industry all goes in one basket. The judge was Legasov Chernobyl. Blamed plant operators, who were imprisoned, while he went free, and even claimed that she decorated. A year after the accident, committed suicide by hanging himself … In the nuclear industry there is no independent bodies. The IAEA mission is to contribute to the expansion of nuclear energy and all that goes against it is not going to disclose. There is a conspiracy, but the default behavior to be expected when you put the goat a gardener.
A lack of information, four hypotheses
What will happen in Fukushima? Could we reach a stage of serious radiation that reaches Tokyo? In the absence of information, we handle hypothesis. I have four. First, if the reactor is cooled, then the radiation will cease soon. Second, if there is no properly cool the reactor and is as present, then the emissions, although not very strong, will continue for weeks. Third, if nuclear fuel is melted and damaged the reactor casing, emissions would be produced in series, which is quite serious but it would be the worst. That brings us to the Fourth, and most catastrophic, ie, if the fuel is precipitated to the bottom and acquires critical mass, then initiate an uncontrolled chain reaction, ie an explosion. In this case, the contamination would be very serious. From this point of view, the worst is the third reactor, because it uses MOX more plutonium-uranium fuel, that France is being used experimentally in two nuclear plants in Japan.
It is understandable why France, full of nuclear critics are so hard to Japan these days.
Yes, but there is more than one reason. The reactors are not French but American General Electric. France depends critically on nuclear energy. If you boot a strong anti-nuclear movement in France, the government will be in a very delicate position. So strongly criticized Japan, to give the impression that something like that is unthinkable in France.