|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 05/15/2011 : 22:38:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Being more specific about my fear of the difference between a bombs pollution and a reactor accident pollution, if I am correct, is with a bomb the nuclear material is nearly completely consumed and other shorter lived radio active material is created. Compared to a reactor accident, actual plutonium matter can be released. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
|
In a nuclear chain reaction, only parts per million of the plutonium, rather than percent, is converted to energy. The reaction that produce energy from a bomb and from a nuclear reactor are basically the same. The biggest difference is that in a reactor, the fuel rods are in place for a long time, which means that daughter products with very short half-lifes "burn" themselves out before the rods are removed from the reactor.
In a melt down, most of the material says in one place: the breach, the half-melting blob.
In a bomb, all this material is dispersed by the explosion.
Fissible uranium and plutonium have long half-lives, and usually emits alpha-radiation, and thus make low radiological damage. The real danger comes from daughter products like Iodine, Cesium, Strontium and similar which chemically mimics important minerals which are important to our biological processes, and are hot. These elements are also much more dispersed by bombs.
|
Well if you have a better grasp of the facts, than I do (quite possible), maybe you could explain to me why "Ten years after the end of the war Hiroshima was recovering rapidly". While 25 years after Chernobyl the city is still a ghost town. I would love to be educated if I'm being overly concerned about how a reactor melt down is more severe than any bomb. Not that either is good for all life effected. SS |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 05:04:12 [Permalink]
|
Hiroshima killed a lot more people in minutes, but a zillion sources around the Web say that Chernobyl released 400 times more fallout over ten days of shifting winds.
It'd be interesting to learn what isotopes were in the Hiroshima fallout, and how they differed - half-life-wise - from Chernobyl's. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
 Posted - 05/16/2011 : 09:34:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Well if you have a better grasp of the facts, than I do (quite possible), maybe you could explain to me why "Ten years after the end of the war Hiroshima was recovering rapidly". While 25 years after Chernobyl the city is still a ghost town. I would love to be educated if I'm being overly concerned about how a reactor melt down is more severe than any bomb. Not that either is good for all life effected. SS
|
There are two important aspects to consider.
One, the mass of the nuclear material. The bomb dropped over Hiroshima contained 64 kg of uranuim, of which more than 95% of it vaporised without undergoing fission. In nuclear reactors, the amount of fissible material must be higher as the mass is dispersed over a larger volume in order to make room for control-rods and cooling media. In Chernobyl, 400 kg of radioactive iodine (from the nuclear fission) alone was released... And that's only ~half of the fission products from the uranium/plutonium that produced it. One metric ton of fission products would be a very conservative estimation.
Second, the dispersion of the material. Chernobyl happened at ground level with a moderate temperature initial explosion, and slow burning, with large dust particles billowing out with the smoke during many days as Dave mentioned before. The Hiroshima bomb detonated in the air (alt=~600 m) instantly vaporising the uranium (creating smaller particles) and sending it up in the stratosphere where it could disperse over the entire planet.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 12:13:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Originally posted by sailingsoul
Being more specific about my fear of the difference between a bombs pollution and a reactor accident pollution, if I am correct, is with a bomb the nuclear material is nearly completely consumed and other shorter lived radio active material is created. Compared to a reactor accident, actual plutonium matter can be released. It's like comparing apples and oranges.
|
In a nuclear chain reaction, only parts per million of the plutonium, rather than percent, is converted to energy. The reaction that produce energy from a bomb and from a nuclear reactor are basically the same. The biggest difference is that in a reactor, the fuel rods are in place for a long time, which means that daughter products with very short half-lifes "burn" themselves out before the rods are removed from the reactor.
In a melt down, most of the material says in one place: the breach, the half-melting blob.
In a bomb, all this material is dispersed by the explosion.
Fissible uranium and plutonium have long half-lives, and usually emits alpha-radiation, and thus make low radiological damage. The real danger comes from daughter products like Iodine, Cesium, Strontium and similar which chemically mimics important minerals which are important to our biological processes, and are hot. These elements are also much more dispersed by bombs.
|
Well if you have a better grasp of the facts, than I do (quite possible), maybe you could explain to me why "Ten years after the end of the war Hiroshima was recovering rapidly". While 25 years after Chernobyl the city is still a ghost town. I would love to be educated if I'm being overly concerned about how a reactor melt down is more severe than any bomb. Not that either is good for all life effected. SS
|
Might have something to do with the fact that Chernobyl is still kicking out radioactivity? Its not like they actually went in there and cleaned it up. They let it burn and then dumped a assload of concrete on top of it, then put up a fence 25miles out.
Hiroshima, by comparison, lasted only a couple of minutes. Boom, prompt radiation, fireball, dustcloud + fallout, then done.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 05/16/2011 : 12:22:03 [Permalink]
|
And, as Dave_W said earlier, a bomb that is comparable in terms of Chernobyl would be a much bigger bomb than any we have ever set off.
Also, SS, weren't the about to close down that old nuke plant in Japan (the one that melted down) this year? I'm pretty sure I read something about it being scheduled for decomissioning.
The new gen of nuke plants are safer, that one was old. Pebble bed style reactors can't melt down. They are designed to operate hot, and with a complete lack of cooling they do not get hot enough to melt. I'm not saying that an earthquake followed by a tsunami wouldn't break one open (we can engineer to those standards if we want to though, it's just more expensive) and spill the fuel into the environment, just that it wouldn't result in a Chernobyl level disaster.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2011 : 09:36:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I'm pretty sure I read something about it being scheduled for decomissioning. |
Like there ever was a choice? I was concerned that this would end up being worse than Chernobyl being not as isolated as Chernobyl is. Many people believe that these existing reactors all over the world that we are using are safe. I beg to differ but only backed by history and not using their theories.
| The new gen of nuke plants are safer, that one was old. Pebble bed style reactors can't melt down. They are designed to operate hot, and with a complete lack of cooling they do not get hot enough to melt. I'm not saying that an earthquake followed by a tsunami wouldn't break one open (we can engineer to those standards if we want to though, it's just more expensive) and spill the fuel into the environment, just that it wouldn't result in a Chernobyl level disaster. |
The problem is Dude NO existing plant/s will be shut down decommissioned and replaced buy these "safer" designs. Only horrific "accidents" with do that. Like this one has in Germany. Even the mention of them here is a red herring as they do nothing to make existing operating plants safer. Maybe I don't understand how the mention of or development of different technology make the existing designs makes the situation any safer. Anyone care to explain how it does? Maybe I'm wrong thinking that based on the history, the reactors that are in use now are not safe when things go wrong, which they evidently do.
Here is a Video and update as of August 02, 2011 CNN about Japan's problem.
Maybe I should be like most other people and think "I don't live or own land there or by any other reactor on this planet, I have no problem". With that kind of thinking, I'll admit, they are safe enough, no matter what happens.
This is not the last accident is what I expect given the history. I know that if this happened in the US some attitudes would be different than they are now in the US. Just like they are now in Japan. There is nothing like reality when it comes to waking some people up. Japan got a rude awakening to the safety of these things and how valuable the operators assurances of their safety are. Maybe they will learn enough from it. It seems enough others won't. I suppose there is always next time that we might learn our lessons and eliminate the potential risks these safe reactors pose. SS
edit: for spelling |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
| Edited by - sailingsoul on 08/08/2011 09:58:58 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 20:24:02 [Permalink]
|
We're all okay after today's record-setting earthquake in Virginia.
Here's what I posted over at Greg Laden's Blog:
I was about 50 miles from the epicenter when the quake hit. Having never felt an earthquake before at all (even though twos aren't uncommon in the area), it was pretty intense. No damage where I was, though an ambulance at a neighboring building suggests someone had some sort of issue.
I live another 20 miles away from the epicenter, and my local supermarket had stock falling off the shelves, I was told.
My biggest worry is the Lake Anna nuke plant (perhaps 10 miles from the epicenter). If the NRC imposes a 50-mile exclusion zone around it, I won't be able to go to work.
My wife was in Tokyo last March when the big one hit there. While I can now say I've experienced an earthquake, she had to cope with dozens of aftershocks and massive public transportation disruptions, so she's still the big "winner" when it comes to living through this sort of thing. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 22:31:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
We're all okay after today's record-setting earthquake in Virginia.
Here's what I posted over at Greg Laden's Blog:
I was about 50 miles from the epicenter when the quake hit. Having never felt an earthquake before at all (even though twos aren't uncommon in the area), it was pretty intense. No damage where I was, though an ambulance at a neighboring building suggests someone had some sort of issue.
I live another 20 miles away from the epicenter, and my local supermarket had stock falling off the shelves, I was told.
My biggest worry is the Lake Anna nuke plant (perhaps 10 miles from the epicenter). If the NRC imposes a 50-mile exclusion zone around it, I won't be able to go to work.
My wife was in Tokyo last March when the big one hit there. While I can now say I've experienced an earthquake, she had to cope with dozens of aftershocks and massive public transportation disruptions, so she's still the big "winner" when it comes to living through this sort of thing.
|
Welcome to my world. Thing is, unless it's really big, I have learned to enjoy them in a way. If I'm not panicked, and it has to be pretty big for that, I try to focus on what's actually happening. The sound the ground makes and whether it's like a series of waves or more like a pile driver. (Those are the worst.) |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/23/2011 : 22:55:51 [Permalink]
|
I have experienced several minor quakes now and usually I'm pretty good about immediately recognizing them for what they are. But this one was by far the strongest yet. My apartment in Queens bounced for about 10-15 seconds, which is way longer than the quick shakes I had felt previously. I have to admit I did wonder if some sort of bomb had gone off in the city and I was half waiting to hear some kind of boom. I definitely thought it was local and was shocked to learn it was actually centered miles from where I used to live in VA. Dave, glad to hear all is good with you.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/24/2011 09:44:22 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 05:37:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
I have experienced several minor quakes now and usually I'm pretty good about immediately recognizing them for what they are. But this one was by the far the strongest yet. My apartment in Queens bounced for about 10-15 seconds, which is way longer than the quick shakes I had felt previously. I have to admit I did wonder if some sort of bomb had gone off in the city and I was half waiting to hear some kind of boom. I definitely thought it was local and was shocked to learn it was actually centered miles from where I used to live in VA. Dave, glad to hear all is good with you.
|
I've been through several quakes here in Illinois. The strongest that I've felt was last year when a 2.8 hit Sycamore, IL which is about 20 miles from me. The 5.6 downstate quake in the 1980's shook the house for about 30 seconds but that epicenter was about 200 miles away.
The one thing that you can feel better about, Dave is that it isn't likely that Lake Anna will have an exclusion zone. The Japanese reactor had an issue of cutting corners on construction and a tsunami. The local nuke plants out here have weathered worse without issue.
Best comment I've seen on FB about the quake was that its epicenter was a cemetary where many founding fathers were buried and was caused by them rolling over in their graves.
The quake in Colorado is a bit interesting if its followed up. Might have to check the Yellowstone hot spot for signs of stress. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 07:07:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The one thing that you can feel better about, Dave is that it isn't likely that Lake Anna will have an exclusion zone. The Japanese reactor had an issue of cutting corners on construction and a tsunami. The local nuke plants out here have weathered worse without issue. |
Well, the reactors are still offline. At least external power is now keeping the safety systems running, instead of the diesel generators. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 07:09:10 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The devastation here has been horrible, I'm not sure I can cope:
H/T: FamousDC and The Daily What.
|
 |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 08/24/2011 : 10:19:01 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
The devastation here has been horrible, I'm not sure I can cope:
H/T: FamousDC and The Daily What.
|
A friend just showed me the same picture with the date and the words "Always Remember" included. I had to ask what it meant.
In Columbia, SC I actually felt the quake. My initial reaction was, "What the hell was the person on the other side of the cube wall doing to make my table shake." |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/06/2013 : 08:13:40 [Permalink]
|
It sure is nice there hasn't been any other reported mishaps with any of the 438 reactors world wide, yet. Not that it would change anything if there had been. Especially seeing how this one is yet to be contained and is still leaking radioactivity into the ocean two years after the event. Get that? STILL! However People will still insist these thing are safe till the cows come home.
I thought I would post this recent (10 hours ago) Reuter's article on how well the safety systems are working with keeping all that radiation, that others here have claimed to be so short lived, in check. Apparently 2 years hasn't done that much to reduce the radioactive levels that, if I read right, should be all but gone by now. Hummm (scratching head).
Comments like this below shows that anyone's ability to control what is going on is pretty limited and unfortunately pathetic. This is exactly why I believe these are time bombs are not worth the real dangers they can and have turned into. Would anyone care to suggest that the electrical power these plants produced way worth what they got now? And it even close to being over "Work to decommission the plant is projected to take decades to complete". Germany may very well have shown some real understanding of the potential risks and decided to stop playing Russian Roulette in their country by opting to shut theirs down. Which is no protection from all the other reactor all around them and there are quite a few.
| The power company said on Friday said it lost the ability to cool radioactive fuel rods in one of the plant's reactors for about three hours. It was the second failure of the system to circulate seawater to cool spent fuel rods at the plant in the past three weeks. |
Yep! they got it under control all right.
What is never mentioned is how much, because they don't know, radiation is going into the ocean even now. No doubt there will always be people who will disagree and insist these thing are just fine and very safe. Oh well. They're doing the best they can, that's gotta count for something for some.
A video on the two year anniversary tells where it stands now. That was March 2013.
Anyone up for some pacific sea food? |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Japan
