Nuclear meltdown
There is no doubt that the Japanese disaster is rapidly turning into a world disaster that could kill millions of people.
Meanwhile Israel keeps saying that it wants to blow up Iran's working reactor. What do you think that would do?
But wait! There's more!
For sixty years both America and Russia have been busy building nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers.
What would happen in a real war? They would be using atomic missiles and torpedoes on each others ships.
Each ship would turn into a Fukoshema.
The reactors at Fukoshema are actually designed for use in submarines.
Never mind the actual use of atom bombs on other people's cities. What if 50 or 100 nuclear powered ships got blown up?
Are we human beings totally insane?
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
Nuclear warheads and a few nuclear reactors have been sunk in the ocean. They are well shielded in a near lifeless abyssal plain.
As for Iran, it has to be done. If it could be taken out surgically, the fallout would be a lot less than if Iran got ahold of nuclear weapons.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
Meanwhile Israel keeps saying that it wants to blow up Iran's working reactor. What do you think that would do?
But wait! There's more!
For sixty years both America and Russia have been busy building nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers.
What would happen in a real war? They would be using atomic missiles and torpedoes on each others ships.
Each ship would turn into a Fukoshema.
The reactors at Fukoshema are actually designed for use in submarines.
Never mind the actual use of atom bombs on other people's cities. What if 50 or 100 nuclear powered ships got blown up?
Are we human beings totally insane?
I've not heard of Israel wanting to blow up Iran's nuclear reactor so I can't comment on that. I doubt the nuclear issue in Japan will kill millions. It's doubtful that Chernobyl has killed millions and that was an uncontained core explosion that scattered dense nuclear fallout over heavily populated areas.
There was actually a movie about a nuclear war, and in it, Australia was spared, but the radioactive fallout was so great that everyone was dying of radiation exposure, and in the end, it killed off the human race. I don't recall the name of it and I'm not sure how many nuclear bombs or event it would take to cause such a scenario....hopefully we won't find out.
There are plenty of life forms that have the potential to survive a nuclear apocalypse though.
The film was called "On the Beach" based on a novel by Nevil Schute.
In the film Melbourne was the last city to go. Everyone else was dead but Melbourne died too.
The film was called "On the Beach" based on a novel by Nevil Schute.
In the film Melbourne was the last city to go. Everyone else was dead but Melbourne died too.
Schute exaggerated the dangers. It would take thousands of megaton yield thermonuclear weapons to produce enough fallout to kill the human races. The breakdown of a BWR or PWR even a core breach will not produce such dire effects world wide. That being said, it can get very bad in the neighborhood of such a breakdown: witness the abandonment of the city of Pripyat and Chernobyl in the Ukraine. Even so the people of Scandanavia who received a considerable amount of radioactive fallout (wind born) did not perish. The effects will be some number of additional cancers in these areas, but not an extinction level event.
ruveyn
Chernobyl happened because people were dumb in the first place. It's not the technology that's awful, it's the people can get their hands on it!
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
This clearly cannot be extended to Japan, who do use safe technologies and aren't irresponsibly messing around with it.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html
This clearly cannot be extended to Japan, who do use safe technologies and aren't irresponsibly messing around with it.
The Russians never had a safety culture. They are a stoic, tragic lot.
ruveyn
I've heard some encouraging tidbits of information in the media. Reactor number three, the MOX reactor, is getting good results in its attempt to reconnect the electricity. The bad news is, there's corrosion in reactors one and two from the sea water used to cool the cores. These two reactors are not as dangerous as number three.
I doubt they would blow it up. If they do, they might contaminate themselves with radioactive fallout. Why would they want to do something like that?
For sixty years both America and Russia have been busy building nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers.
What would happen in a real war? They would be using atomic missiles and torpedoes on each others ships.
Each ship would turn into a Fukoshema.
Let's hope war doesn't break out. There's no use in worrying about it, though. If it does, it does. But it's not right now, so why worry? No one knows for sure if a war will ever occur between US and Russia.
I haven't heard that. I did hear they were designed by GE as a less costly alternative to other nuclear power plants. The containment vessels are supposed to cost less to construct, or something like that. The plant was built in 1971 and hasn't had any serious mishaps until now, but has been previously sited as a potential concern.
Are we human beings totally insane?
Good point, nuclear power has the potential to be very destructive. We, as a species, must constantly work to keep ourselves safe in this ever increasing nuclear age.
If you guys really want to melt your brain watch this documentary film, Into Eternity, about the biggest nuclear problem. My husband, a nuclear scientist, watched it with me and says it's a pretty accurate picture. (He's actually been to the site in question too.) It's given me nightmares.
Full version on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RurTvL7N ... re=related
Let's have some perspective here.
How many people died in the vicinity of Three Mile Island? Not one.
Now, I grant you that Chernobyl was a different ball of wax, but only 237 people were identified with acute radiation sickness, of whom only 31 died from ARS. The 4,000 additional cancer cases expected never occurred--rates of solid cancer of those exposed are no higher than those in the general population. Given limitations of health care in Ukraine and Belarus it is difficult to assess the scale of ongoing health impacts from Chernobyl, but given the degree to which it is the subject of debate, we have nothing like the kind of scale that you are suggesting.
Now explosion of a nuclear device is a different beast altogether. The force of the blast and the thermal and ionizing radiation are intended to do violence and they do so effectively. But this immediately places them in a different category from civilian reactors. But if we leave aside the devastation of a deliberate nuclear detonation, what of the radioactive aftermath?
65 years after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a third of the survivors of those blasts are still alive (roughly 225,000 of 650,000 survivors). Roughly 1% of them have radiation related illnesses. What is their rate of cancer? No higher than in the rest of the industrialized world.
Meanwhile, if a seismic event were to take out a hydroelectric dam, what would the consequences be? How many watersheds would be lost?
It's all very well to demonize nuclear power generation, but if we do so, we need to examine other modes of power generation with the same critical lens.
_________________
--James
Fogman
Veteran
Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont
If these are GE Reactors, they use a boiling water technology which is generally safer than the Westinghouse design, which is similar to moder russian designs, which is a High pressure steam/heat exchange design, which was the type of reactor used at TMI. Boiling water reactors are a direct heat design, in which the water heated by the reactor is the same used to drive the steam turbines. --These are also prevailant throughout the US Navy.
Contrast this with the Chernobyl design which was essentially a giant Fermi Pile made from graphite, which has the rather nasty tendancy to catch fire.
_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
50 year nuclear battery developed |
20 Mar 2024, 2:43 am |
Meltdown or Mindstorm? |
29 Feb 2024, 10:18 am |
Building inner pressure for days feels like meltdown coming |
24 Feb 2024, 5:01 am |