Sellafield partly closed after 'above normal' radiation

AI Thread Summary
Sellafield experienced "above normal levels" of radiation detected by a perimeter monitor, leading to the temporary closure of the site and the instruction for non-essential staff to stay home. Officials stated that the elevated radiation levels were due to naturally occurring background radon and not linked to any operational issues. Concerns were raised about the potential implications of sending workers home, suggesting a possible risk despite reassurances of safety. Some participants questioned the plausibility of such radon levels occurring for the first time after decades of monitoring. Overall, the situation highlights ongoing concerns about radiation safety and communication transparency at nuclear facilities.
Bandit127
Gold Member
Messages
278
Reaction score
35
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-25975785

They have/had "above normal levels" at a perimeter detector. As far as I know this would detect airborne radiation. And presumably at far lower levels than the source.

"A spokesman stressed there was no risk to the public or workforce." Really? So they tell all non essential people to stay home on a whim? That is not a reaction to no risk. It is a reaction to some risk.

Am I adding two twos and getting five to think that there is a significant leak somewhere within the plant. (By significant I mean a release that is a result of a failure of three safety systems - defense in depth usually means three layers of safety systems).

Perhaps I am just bitching about a spokesman who thinks we are stupid and doesn't mind stretching the truth.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Did you even read the second sentence of the article?

"The company later said it was naturally occurring background radiation and not attributable to any issue or problem with any operation on site."

"Rory O'Neill, director of stakeholder relations, said: "One of the 20-odd site perimeter monitors that we have is registering above normal levels of radiation."

"Overnight the monitoring system initially indicated elevated levels of activity. Following investigation and analysis, we can now confirm these levels to be naturally occurring background radon."

"Day personnel, agency staff and contractors have been told to stay at home until Monday."

I presume the reason why day workers were sent home today (a Friday) and told not to report back until Monday was because... it's the weekend.

The article borders on the absurd in terms of trying to cause panic over absolutely nothing.
 
I read the whole article in detail at about 10:00 this morning and they hadn't attributed it to naturally occurring radiation at the time. It has been updated since - I should have checked before I posted the link.

Thanks.
 
One thing I have a question on, is what percentage of workers called off had rad-worker type qualifications?

If there is an indication of an issue on-site, all non-qualified rad-workers are not allowed to show up. So if they did the call off, and it was mostly non-rad-workers, that would make a LOT of sense.
 
A belated comment.
Does it not surprise that 'naturally occurring background radon' would manifest for the first time at one site after more than 60 years of monitoring? Seems implausible to me.
 
etudiant said:
A belated comment.
Does it not surprise that 'naturally occurring background radon' would manifest for the first time at one site after more than 60 years of monitoring? Seems implausible to me.

I don't think it's the first time, it's probably just the first time we've heard about it.

The plant's I've worked in get radon spikes from time to time. It's particularly bad if you have a combination of ventilation issues combined with very cold/dry temperatures. Normally equipment can discriminate radon by looking at the energies and/or the alpha-beta ratio, however with enough radon concentration many radiation detectors will disable their radon disciminator function. I've lost clothing before to false radon alarms because I had too high of a concentration on me (had to go get them a day later when enough decayed).

Just my thoughts.
 
Hello everyone, I am currently working on a burnup calculation for a fuel assembly with repeated geometric structures using MCNP6. I have defined two materials (Material 1 and Material 2) which are actually the same material but located in different positions. However, after running the calculation with the BURN card, I am encountering an issue where all burnup information(power fraction(Initial input is 1,but output file is 0), burnup, mass, etc.) for Material 2 is zero, while Material 1...

Similar threads

Back
Top