Chernobyl had no CONTAINMENT, it was a disaster in the making from the day they decided to build it under a tin roof....American designs are way over built to protect the public. TMI was severely damaged, but the contamination did not escape to the outside, nobody had to abandon their homes and move away....No, the opposite. Because when there is a car wreck you can clean it up and there is no residual damages.
Now, if everytime there was a car wreck you had to seal the accident in a block of lead infused concrete and buried for millions of years before returning to normal, THEN I might argue...
Actually, that's a good idea... let's get nuclear powered cars on the road, there'd be less CO2 to worry about.
That's the quandary. 98% of the time, nuclear is relatively safe. But that other 2% of the time is a real bitch. (Percentages are estimates, but you get the point.)
Chernobyl had no CONTAINMENT, it was a disaster in the making from the day they decided to build it under a tin roof....American designs are way over built to protect the public. TMI was severely damaged, but the contamination did not escape to the outside, nobody had to abandon their homes and move away....
If I had to choose between the very small chance of a few dozen people have their health adversely affected by a meltdown or thousands of people dying per year, I'd go with the former. You can point to the horrific dangers of a nuclear disaster, but where are your complaints when a coal mine collapses?
BmanMcfly said:Ya, a coal mine collapses 20-40 people are stuck in a hole for a few days (hopefully less than weeks), a few people don't make it unfortunately
BmanMcfly said:Ya, a coal mine collapses 20-40 people are stuck in a hole for a few days (hopefully less than weeks), a few people don't make it unfortunately
Background radiation has already increased a lot due to all the nuclear weapons testing we did. The thing about radiation, most of it penetrates. That is how Xrays work. The depth of penetration varies, alpha radiation, for example, won't get past the skin, but if you inhale it, it becomes bad news. I don't know where you are getting your info, but you might study it a bit more. Radiation is not to be feared. It is like light, if you move away from the light, the intensity decreases by the distance squared, aka the inverse square law. Contamination is the issue, especially if you breathe it in. And to my knowledge there were no civilians harmed at TMI. Not that it matters, we aren't going to stop using the nukes we have and if we build any more, you can bet that all the lessons learned will be reflected in the way they are built...TMI DID release to the outside... but nobody was evacuated.
Here's the thing; while I'm not a doctor, I have listened to the positions of a number of doctors in the fields involving radiation. That's why I'm not 100% on the details, but the way that they determine radiation exposure is through EXTERNAL radiation. Your skin is designed to handle all but the worst of that, but you are only radiated while you are in contact and the stuff washes off.
The difference is that ALOT of the environmental pollution winds up in your lungs, from the water, etc... including that "1.4mrems" that 2 million were exposed to, but a number of those people had the misfortune of eating or inhaling a "hot particle" and that 1.4 mRems becomes 1.4 mrems per hour until your body disposes of it in whichever way it can, meanwhile your internal organs are not designed for that kind of radioactive exposure and so are more easily affected. While 2million people were potentially exposed, the reality is there may have been 10-20 000 people who didn't just get a single hot particle, but a large dose who were then put into a higher exposure range beyond the capacity of their body to repair the damage due to their exposure and 10-20-30 years down they line they get a cancer that they would NEVER EVEN ASSOCIATE as being related.
Ya, a coal mine collapses 20-40 people are stuck in a hole for a few days (hopefully less than weeks), a few people don't make it unfortunately and they continue work once the conditions are returned to a safe place.
Now, I couldn't handle that kind of work myself, short of being forced into it... but that's the kind of job where you simply have to accept the risks. Many welders, for example, have to give up their trade of 10-15 years because of the exposures they get. While it's individually unfortunate, we're all here temporarily, but life moves on.
On the other hand, if we keep pumping contaminated soil and water from Fukushima into the oceans, well, you start getting additional exposure as that radioactive debris contaminates the life cycles of the ocean and we start eating from that supply of fish.
Now, let's say there's a continuation of this recent trend of 1 disaster about every 25 years, where there's a high level of release... HOW LONG before the planet would have a background radiation of significant concern?? Once the radiation gets out into the atmosphere, like the cloud resulting from Chernobyl circled the earth for something like 4 years before the radiation was indistinguishable from the background.
And in this case, there was a radioactive cloud after chernobyl that circled the earth at least twice, and is probably still going... meanwhile, the entirety of the reactors have melted down beyond the containment and into the earth, where, with any luck will not find another water supply and contaminate some underground waterways.... I'm pretty sure it's what they call "china syndrome", or maybe that's just the movie.
To put into perspective, Fukushima was a VERY SERIOUS incident, but not earth ending, nothing to panic about, but not a trend that we should allow to continue. Since radiation takes so very long to decay.
Background radiation has already increased a lot due to all the nuclear weapons testing we did. The thing about radiation, most of it penetrates. That is how Xrays work. The depth of penetration varies, alpha radiation, for example, won't get past the skin, but if you inhale it, it becomes bad news. I don't know where you are getting your info, but you might study it a bit more. Radiation is not to be feared. It is like light, if you move away from the light, the intensity decreases by the distance squared, aka the inverse square law. Contamination is the issue, especially if you breathe it in. And to my knowledge there were no civilians harmed at TMI. Not that it matters, we aren't going to stop using the nukes we have and if we build any more, you can bet that all the lessons learned will be reflected in the way they are built...
Where are you going to get such a particle? and I mean you specifically....will you be visiting Chernobyl any time soon. There was a segment on TV a while back, return to Chernobyl or something like that. The people wore NO protection while walking around the town.I'm not living in FEAR of radiation.
And I'm not disagreeing with what you're saying. But, you missed the point... if you have a grain of sand of some isotope that you inhale, the radioactive particle continues to emit radiation, from INSIDE the body. Like you said, it penetrates the skin... but if it's in your body it's radiating your organs directly and does so until your body excretes that particle in whichever way.
Yes, 1.4 mrem is nothing, and even inhaling a particle emitting that little radiation would have no noticeable impact... HOWEVER, there are people that were probably exposed and inhaled MORE of those radioactive particles, that will 20 or so years later will push the cell damage to a point where it becomes cancerous, and you would never reasonably make the connection of the cause.
Yes, nuclear generators are built better today than 40 years ago, I don't doubt it... but until the things are absolutely fool proof, well, there is a risk, and it very well COULD be something that could make the planet uninhabitable. Though that's really not something likely.
lolwut? Thousands of miners die from mine collapses annually.
Here's an article I pulled out of my ass showing that 30,000 die from coal plant fine particle pollution annually in the United States alone.
The point is that there is not a huge detriment to the environment as a whole...
Mix old coal plants, like we used to have, and an inversion layer, and the death toll is horrendous...look up the "great smog of 1982" in London. It happened in the USA as well, in Donora, PA.Whatever the number is, but someone taking on a mining job KNOWS that it's a risky job, riskier than I had imagined, but still...
The point is that there is not a huge detriment to the environment as a whole... when it's individual injuries, not in the same way that you're talking about when you're talking about excesses of radiation that results from catastrophic problems at nuclear plants.
It's the Thresher and the Scorpion. Those were not lost to a nuclear accident. I know their history. I learned it during Navy Nuclear Power School. They are not polluting the ocean any more than a conventional sub would be because they are shut down and even have safety measures in place to cover them not being able to start up down there.
There is no "company line". I have not worked in nuclear power for anyone but the US Navy. I know exactly how safe we operate. I also know our backups and fail-safes. But, along with these things, I know the guidelines that commercial plants in the US are required to follow, who checks up on them, and what happens if they do not follow procedures. I also know that even commercial plants must have backups and show that they have plans set up if something goes wrong.
depends on oxygen content. corrosion is a lot slower at deep ocean depths...How long till the steel separating the fuel rods from the ocean corrodes away in the sunken nuclear powered ships and submraines? What happens when the fuel rods are exposed to the ocean water?
Google Search for Ocean Corrosion of steel:
"Corrosion in seawater is at approx 0,1 to 0,2 mm/year with a good access to oxygen as if the ballast water is changed out frequently. (This is also dependent on temperature).If there is a lot of dirt at the bottom and no working cathodic protection system (sacrificial anodes), it may cause microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC) then the rate can be as high as 2 mm/year!"
"...look at "Handbook of Corrosion Data" published by ASM International and that pages 679 to 706 cover seawater corrosion."
Saltwater corrosion engineering - Corrosion rate of steel in saltwater
//
depends on oxygen content. corrosion is a lot slower at deep ocean depths...
How long till the steel separating the fuel rods from the ocean corrodes away in the sunken nuclear powered ships and submraines? What happens when the fuel rods are exposed to the ocean water?
Google Search for Ocean Corrosion of steel:
"Corrosion in seawater is at approx 0,1 to 0,2 mm/year with a good access to oxygen as if the ballast water is changed out frequently. (This is also dependent on temperature).If there is a lot of dirt at the bottom and no working cathodic protection system (sacrificial anodes), it may cause microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC) then the rate can be as high as 2 mm/year!"
"...look at "Handbook of Corrosion Data" published by ASM International and that pages 679 to 706 cover seawater corrosion."
Saltwater corrosion engineering - Corrosion rate of steel in saltwater
EMP damage is not permanent, you understand that right. That concept is nothing more than a Hollywood fantasy. While it would impact the area, things could be rebuilt and electricity would be restored.
Furthermore, the range of a 1 megaton be approximately 300 mile radius from the detonation point. So one detonation over middle American w/ a 1 megaton nuke will not result in a coast to coast EMP. Also, you need a sophisticated delivery system. MAD strategy would certainly be applicable in this scenario.
This was tested with the Starfish Prime detonation prior to the prohibition of above ground nuclear testing.
By that time, it is quite likely that the vast majority of the fuel (radioactive material) would have already burned away. There are also things put into place (that I'm not sure how deep I can get into, considering it deals with the nuclear reactors of a US submarine, the specifics are classified) that help to absorb some of those particles coming out of the reactor that would cause further reactions.
It isn't possible (without severely compromising some sensitive information) to explain everything that is in place to help ensure that if an accident happens at sea with a nuclear reactor, it will not be a huge ecological issue, especially if the reactor is, itself, isn't what caused the initial problem and wasn't compromised.
By that time, it is quite likely that the vast majority of the fuel (radioactive material) would have already burned away. There are also things put into place (that I'm not sure how deep I can get into, considering it deals with the nuclear reactors of a US submarine, the specifics are classified) that help to absorb some of those particles coming out of the reactor that would cause further reactions.
It isn't possible (without severely compromising some sensitive information) to explain everything that is in place to help ensure that if an accident happens at sea with a nuclear reactor, it will not be a huge ecological issue, especially if the reactor is, itself, isn't what caused the initial problem and wasn't compromised.
The stainless might last 100 years from an optimistic point of view. The fuel rods will be hot for 250,000 years. No problem, eh? Just a nice steady exposure to marine life and your grandkids food chain. Not to worry, Global Warming ought to reduce the world population to a manageable size by then anyway.
What do you mean by "hot"? How much is hot? Please tell me since you seem to believe you are an expert on this. What kind of reactivity rate will we see coming from those nuclear reactors after 100 years, when you predict that the stainless steal will fail? It is calculable, I promise you.
How much higher will the exposure to marine life be with those 9 reactors at the bottom of the ocean above background? This, too, is calculable.
I'm not worried about small levels of radiation (that will not even be a blip on the radar when compared to the whole) because I know that there are much higher sources of radiation in our everyday lives. I was exposed to less radiation working around nuclear reactors for the Navy for 9 years than most people get in just one year from natural sources. I know what goes into our reactors and at least some of the designs to help prevent them from becoming huge ecological problems if they are left at the bottom of the ocean.
No, nothings perfect. But nuclear power is no where near the ecological disaster that fuel and other petroleum products are, especially when it comes to being in the ocean. In fact, if I were you guys, I would be much more worried about the nuclear weapons on that ocean floor than those reactors.
"Hot" refers to radioactivity, I know that the ocean water will keep the rods cool. The reactor vessels are designed to resist pressure from within, not from without. I know that the reactor vessels are usually 5 inches thick stainless and also that if they are perfectly round, they could withstand great external pressure. I do not believe that is the case. Your comment on the warheads is prescient. Since lightweight is paramount in missile design, I suspect those perhaps12 pound chunks of plutonium might already be exposed. I observe the human track record objectively and deduce that the species is not prepared for the "RESPONSIBILITY" that is demanded by nuclear technology.
I realize that "hot" is referring to radioactivity. I was asking how "hot" you believe they would be after so much time. It is calculable, I assure you. In fact, you could even make some assumptions and come up with a rough estimate.
We are just as prepared for the responsibilities of nuclear power as we are for a multitude of other technologies that we have in this world. Hell, we had nuclear weapons before we had nuclear power. Coal and gas can do major damages to our ecosystems. In fact, just building communities, especially cities, does major damage to ecosystems. We have trash building up. I would go as far as saying capitalism itself does much more damage to our planet than nuclear power ever could, considering some of the demands capitalism puts on the environment in the name of supply and demand.
The stainless might last 100 years from an optimistic point of view. The fuel rods will be hot for 250,000 years. No problem, eh? Just a nice steady exposure to marine life and your grandkids food chain. Not to worry, Global Warming ought to reduce the world population to a manageable size by then anyway.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?