War AP: UN nuclear chief: Ukraine nuclear plant is `out of control'

UN nuclear chief: Ukraine nuclear plant is `out of control'
Associated Press (archive.ph)
By Edith M. Lederer
2022-08-03 08:49:01GMT

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. nuclear chief warned that Europe’s largest nuclear power plant in Ukraine “is completely out of control” and issued an urgent plea to Russia and Ukraine to quickly allow experts to visit the sprawling complex to stabilize the situation and avoid a nuclear accident.

Rafael Grossi, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press that the situation is getting more perilous every day at the Zaporizhzhia plant in the southeastern city of Enerhodar, which Russian troops seized in early March, soon after their Feb. 24. invasion of Ukraine.

“Every principle of nuclear safety has been violated” at the plant, he said. “What is at stake is extremely serious and extremely grave and dangerous.”

Grossi cited many violations of the plant’s safety, adding that it is “in a place where active war is ongoing,” near Russian-controlled territory.

The physical integrity of the plant hasn’t been respected, he said, citing shelling at the beginning of the war when it was taken over and continuing information from Ukraine and Russia accusing each other of attacks at Zaporizhzhia.

There is “a paradoxical situation” in which the plant is controlled by Russia, but its Ukrainian staff continues to run its nuclear operations, leading to inevitable moments of friction and alleged violence, he said. While the IAEA has some contacts with staff, they are “faulty” and “patchy,” he said.

Grossi said the supply chain of equipment and spare parts has been interrupted, “so we are not sure the plant is getting all it needs.” The IAEA also needs to perform very important inspections to ensure that nuclear material is being safeguarded, “and there is a lot of nuclear material there to be inspected,” he said.

“When you put this together, you have a catalog of things that should never be happening in any nuclear facility,” Grossi said. “And this is why I have been insisting from day one that we have to be able to go there to perform this safety and security evaluation, to do the repairs and to assist as we already did in Chernobyl.”

The Russian capture of Zaporizhzhia renewed fears that the largest of Ukraine’s 15 nuclear reactors could be damaged, setting off another emergency like the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the world’s worst nuclear disaster, which happened about 110 kilometers (65 miles) north of the capital Kyiv.

Russian forces occupied the heavily contaminated site soon after the invasion but handed control back to the Ukrainians at the end of March. Grossi visited Chernobyl on April 27 and tweeted that the level of safety was “like a `red light’ blinking.” But he said Tuesday that the IAEA set up “an assistance mission” at Chernobyl at that time “that has been very, very successful so far.”

The IAEA needs to go to Zaporizhzhia, as it did to Chernobyl, to ascertain the facts of what is actually happening there, to carry out repairs and inspections, and “to prevent a nuclear accident from happening,” Grossi said.

The IAEA chief said he and his team need protection to get to the plant and the urgent cooperation of Russia and Ukraine.

Each side wants this international mission to go from different sites, which is understandable in light of territorial integrity and political considerations, he said, but there’s something more urgent and that is getting the IAEA team to Zaporizhzhia.

“The IAEA, by its presence, will be a deterrent to any act of violence against this nuclear power plant,” Grossi said. “So I’m pleading as an international civil servant, as the head of an international organization, I’m pleading to both sides to let this mission proceed.”

Grossi was in New York to deliver a keynote speech at Monday’s opening of the long-delayed high-level meeting to review the landmark 50-year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty aimed at preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and eventually achieving a nuclear-free world.

In the interview, the IAEA chief also spoke about efforts to revive the 2015 nuclear deal between Iran and major powers that the Trump administration abandoned in 2018 and the Biden administration has been working to renew.

Grossi said there is “an ongoing effort to try to go for yet another meeting or round to explore possibilities to come to an agreement.” He said he heard the meeting “could be soon.”

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken told the NPT review conference on Monday that Iran “has either been unwilling or unable” to accept a deal to return to the 2015 agreement aimed at reining in its nuclear program.

Grossi said “there are important differences among the negotiating parties” and important verification issues related to past activities that Iran needs to address. “It’s not impossible, it’s complex,” he said.

If the nuclear agreement, known as the JCPOA, is not extended, he said some IAEA inspections will continue. But the JCPOA provides for additional transparency and inspections “which I deem as extremely important, very necessary, because of the breadth and depth of the nuclear program in Iran,” he said.

Grossi stressed that cooperating with the IAEA, answering its questions, allowing its inspectors to go wherever they need to be, is essential for Iran to build trust and confidence. “Promises and good words will not do,” he said.

On another issue, Grossi said last September’s deal in which the United States and Britain will provide Australia with nuclear reactors to power its submarines requires an agreement with the IAEA to ensure that the amount of nuclear material in the vessel when it leaves port is there when it returns.

He said Australia hasn’t decided what type of vessel it will be getting, so while there have been preparatory talks, substantive talks can’t begin.

Because it’s a military vessel, Grossi said, “there are lots of confidential and protection of information measures that need to be embedded into any such agreement, so it’s very complex technologically.”
 
So what I am hearing is that we'll get Chernobyl 2 before Stalker 2
s_t_a_l_k_e_r__bandit_meme_v2__cheeki_breeki__by_drjorus_d8p253w-414w.jpg
 
Are we sure things are really that bad or is this another "SEE!?!? THESE TRUCKS ARE PROOF SADDAM IS MAKING CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!!!!"?

Also remember last time when Hannity claimed the Russians blew a reactor and a whole bunch of articles came ou claiming "the blast" of a nuclear plant accident would annihilate Europe 🤔
To be sure - and to be completely clear - if the core of a reactor is entirely blown to bits and launched into the air the amount of radiation that will befall the area is just utterly staggering. Short lived and long lived radiation.

In Chernobyl the core was exposed - but it was never blown into the air; if it had been no crews would ever have made it to the site, they would have died rather quickly.

If a nuclear core was hit with explosives and blown apart a release would occur in the air and it would be catastrophic on a scale that would dwarf any nuclear incident that has ever happened. It would release far far much more radiation than a nuclear bomb blast.
 
The biggest issue is if the plant gets blown up, all these idiots will come out of the woodwork shouting "nuclear bad" without any notion of a better replacement. Politicians will panic and laws against new nuclear reactors will be made with no regard to actual science or engineering.

Even though modern reactors are a hundred times better and safer than that ancient Soviet technology, new nuclear reactors will cease to be funded, and we'll never be able to meet our energy needs without raping the planet for the resources to build solar and wind until it covers everything.
 
Are we sure things are really that bad or is this another "SEE!?!? THESE TRUCKS ARE PROOF SADDAM IS MAKING CHEMICAL WEAPONS!!!!!"?

Also remember last time when Hannity claimed the Russians blew a reactor and a whole bunch of articles came ou claiming "the blast" of a nuclear plant accident would annihilate Europe 🤔
Its just westerners freaking out, the situation is not ideal but its not like the Russians have no idea what to do, they built the fucking plants in the first place, the Ukranians that work there can ask the Russians for replacement equipment. The Ukrainians decided to defend the site and were firing ATGM down on approaching Russian vehicles like fucking psychopaths. The Russians popped a bunch of flares and were shooting into some of the adjacent office buildings that the UA was firing from, this promptly caught on fire and had to be dealt with by the local fire departments. The world watched this firefight be livestreamed. https://youtube.com/watch?v=fYUT36YGOh8 The video is 4 hours long but the description has timestamps of combat events.

There is just some infrastructure you immediately surrender because damaging it is just so catastrophic for everyone involved, the Ukranians being the orcs they are could not help but run the risk of irradiating half of Europe, it was actually hilarious watching all of the nuclear watch agencies freak out in real time on Twitter.
 
I saw this story earlier and have read a few articles. And I tell you, I still have the same question:

You say the plant is "out of control" but what does that mean? Because I have the sneaking suspicion that this phrasing is being used as a scare tactic to make people think that the nuclear plant is having some kind of runaway nuclear reaction and nobody is at the controls; and I am thinking that the reality is more a case where the phrase "out of control" is closer in meaning to "we don't control the plant anymore, it is out of our control."

Call me crazy. I could be wrong. But I don't think so...
 
"UN Nuclear chief"

It turns out all you need to do to make me distrust some ones technical opinion more than someone who has severe down syndrome is just put a "UN" in front of their title.
It's a double disqualification. If you cannot designate a target anywhere on the planet to glass within the hour, you inherently cannot be taken seriously in nuclear matters. Fun fact, every nuclear power plant in the US has had to store their hottest waste on site since they went online. This was never the plan when they were conceived. It's never been a problem. So much so we're still dickering over a God-knows how expensive bespoke facility for decades.

Ever since Russia's wildcat days with man portable nuclear power sources and shit like Chernobyl, things have changed from the ground up. The whole reason it is designed as it is and so many systems fail safe is precisely because you never know what's going to happen outside. Russia knows this better than anyone. Ukraine knows this. Letting them work as they have without interfering interlopers has been working so far. Blue helmets will not make this better. If anything go "Hey Frens! Russians and Ukrainians working together! Let's be like them!" otherwise shut the fuck up you busy-bodies.
 
I saw this story earlier and have read a few articles. And I tell you, I still have the same question:

You say the plant is "out of control" but what does that mean? Because I have the sneaking suspicion that this phrasing is being used as a scare tactic to make people think that the nuclear plant is having some kind of runaway nuclear reaction and nobody is at the controls; and I am thinking that the reality is more a case where the phrase "out of control" is closer in meaning to "we don't control the plant anymore, it is out of our control."

Call me crazy. I could be wrong. But I don't think so...
Remember in the distant past of Feb, or March, when the squealed about Chernobyl being under attack? It was very dangerous, please send more money.
 
Back