Fukushima-How bad is it?

[Broken_Erika]

No, but you can have anything that's left of my fifth arm if they find any pieces of it.

eeeeew.

 

[red_elk]

Today is 31-th anniversary of Chernobyl disaster.

Bionerd video about visiting 4-th block control room.

Crazy video from inside the sarcophagus and reactor compartment:

0:11 - "Elephant Foot", nuclear lava.
1:40 - "Scheme-E", reactor's bio-shield ripped off by the explosion
2:25 - Reactor debris, remains of graphite moderator and tubing.
3:00 (3:10 close-up) - Fuel assembly

Don't know who made the video, looks suicidal to me.
Materials taken from http://tnenergy.livejournal.com

 

[Thorgalaeg]

It is, you cant be that close to the elephant foot for more than a few seconds without risking cancer and other long run issues. Accute radiation sickness symptoms will appear with a minute long exposure. Stay more than a couple of minutes and you will become a living dead.

 

[CavLancer]

It is, you cant be that close to the elephant foot for more than a few seconds without risking cancer and other long run issues. Accute radiation sickness symptoms will appear with a minute long exposure. Stay more than a couple of minutes and you will become a living dead.

That's not so bad. Whole new career in the film industry.
The world needs to replace all those nuclear plants with clean coal.

 

[Silurian]

The UK burnt no coal, in power stations, for a day earlier this month. The first time since the worlds first public power station opened in 1882.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Today is 31-th anniversary of Chernobyl disaster.

Let us not forget

(Also Ivan is crazy ! a lot of the decontamination isnt 100% and radiation upwards of 350 are present concentrated in dust, metals inside the exclusion zone. max safe radiation for a person is 100. Radio active metal is not as dangerous at it take about 20mins to reach 100 rads, disturbing and breathing in the dust is more dangerous. Outside is relatively safe as its been mostly decontaminated for tourist having a sort visit)

 

[red_elk]

(Also Ivan is crazy ! a lot of the decontamination isnt 100% and radiation upwards of 350 are present concentrated in dust, metals inside the exclusion zone. max safe radiation for a person is 100. Radio active metal is not as dangerous at it take about 20mins to reach 100 rads, disturbing and breathing in the dust is more dangerous. Outside is relatively safe as its been mostly decontaminated for tourist having a sort visit)

Reactor compartment and the shaft weren't decontaminated a far as I know. Author of video is alive, he says the levels of radiation inside are up to 100 rem per hour (~1 Sv/Hr) in some places, but generally lower. Which is dangerous, but not deadly for a few minutes exposure.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

(Also Ivan is crazy ! a lot of the decontamination isnt 100% and radiation upwards of 350 are present concentrated in dust, metals inside the exclusion zone. max safe radiation for a person is 100. Radio active metal is not as dangerous at it take about 20mins to reach 100 rads, disturbing and breathing in the dust is more dangerous. Outside is relatively safe as its been mostly decontaminated for tourist having a sort visit)

This post exemplifies why arguing in favor of nuclear power is impossible.

"Radiation upwards of 350 are present"...upwards of 350 what, exactly?

Then "concentrated in dust, metals"...okay, so maybe you are talking about radioactive materials not radiation?

"Max safe radiation for a person is 100"...other than this number being substantially smaller than the 350 cited in the previous sentence, does it have any meaning?

"Radio active metal is not as dangerous at it take about 20mins to reach 100 rads"...oh, hey, maybe those numbers you threw out were in rads? Thanks for finally putting some sort of unit on your numbers. But wait, this sentence makes absolutely no actual sense. Radioactive metal doesn't "reach" any measure of rads. Like any source of radiation it may deliver 100 rads. Depending on the strength of the source as well as the distance from the source some particular piece of radioactive metal may deliver 100 rads in 20 minutes.

"Disturbing and breathing the dust is more dangerous"...well, more dangerous than the previous incredibly vague description of whatever you were trying to describe...perhaps. I mean, who can tell? But as a general rule, yes, breathing radioactive material is bad, because it leads to having an internal source, and when distance goes to zero certain equations for exposure that have distance in the denominator become very unmanageable. It's also not advisable to swallow lumps of radioactive metal.

Anyway, this is a good demonstration. People with no more idea what you are talking about than you apparently have, which is the vast majority of people, would be "suitably alarmed." Anyone who knows what they are talking about would really not have any good idea of where to start in such an argument, because pointing out your steady stream of incoherencies is just as offensive to the people you are convincing as it is to you.

 

[red_elk]

I didn't get his numbers too, though the main point of his message is IMO correct - Ivan (actually, Sergey) is crazy.

 

[Disgustipated]

To think I used to sleep on top of a Reactor. Okay not quite, our berthing compartment was quite a ways back in the aft of the ship. Makes you think if that thing melted down while I was on board, or even worse, on watch in the in the lab room, I would have been up *(*something creek. Nuclear reactors were my life for a while, about 8 years.Although to be honest, a steam rupture was always the most dangerous part of my job. Saturated steam (nuke ships don't use superheated steam) can melt your lungs in rapid fashion.Steam leaks have killed more sailors than nuclear reactor problems. Something to keep in context. An ammonia leak on our ship killed more people than our reactor did (which was 0). Ammonia + enclosed spaces = danger. I can't say what the ammonia was used for exactly (this is possibly classified), but it was used for chemistry purposes. It killed I believe 2 or 3 people on my ship (before I got there) I believe. I still believe in naval nuclear power. If you've ever been on a surface carrier (we currently just have helicopter carriers using traditional boilers), you'd be appalled at how much fuel they burn daily. So much nasty smoke.

I still think they have uses, just perhaps not in earthquake zones such as California and Japan. Of course having them on board a ship who can sustain damage in an attack isn't ideal either. But ideally the melted down reactor just sinks to the bottom of the sea. The real danger is if the ship is sunk in shallow water (say for example near South Korea, not that North Korea currently has the ability to locate and destroy a Nimitz class carrier). From firsthand experience, I'll just say surface nuclear ships don't have the highest level of safety mechanisms (other than SCRAM which is common on all reactors), subs at least have *censored* (on the off chance what I'm saying might be classified). That said, they are still safer than reactors in earthquake zones imho.

Nuclear power is not the cure all non polluting energy. Uranium is a limited resource, and while we can and do mine a lot, it won't last forever. Eventually the world must learn to live with less power, not more. Solar and wind can only produce a limited amount. Eventually that will be the only option. Fossil fuel burning should be reduced to 0.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

To think I used to sleep on top of a Reactor. Okay not quite, our berthing compartment was quite a ways back in the aft of the ship. Makes you think if that thing melted down while I was on board, or even worse, on watch in the in the lab room, I would have been up *(*something creek. Nuclear reactors were my life for a while, about 8 years.Although to be honest, a steam rupture was always the most dangerous part of my job. Saturated steam (nuke ships don't use superheated steam) can melt your lungs in rapid fashion.Steam leaks have killed more sailors than nuclear reactor problems. Something to keep in context. An ammonia leak on our ship killed more people than our reactor did (which was 0). Ammonia + enclosed spaces = danger. I can't say what the ammonia was used for exactly (this is possibly classified), but it was used for chemistry purposes. It killed I believe 2 or 3 people on my ship (before I got there) I believe. I still believe in naval nuclear power. If you've ever been on a surface carrier (we currently just have helicopter carriers using traditional boilers), you'd be appalled at how much fuel they burn daily. So much nasty smoke.

I still think they have uses, just perhaps not in earthquake zones such as California and Japan. Of course having them on board a ship who can sustain damage in an attack isn't ideal either. But ideally the melted down reactor just sinks to the bottom of the sea. The real danger is if the ship is sunk in shallow water (say for example near South Korea, not that North Korea currently has the ability to locate and destroy a Nimitz class carrier). From firsthand experience, I'll just say surface nuclear ships don't have the highest level of safety mechanisms (other than SCRAM which is common on all reactors), subs at least have *censored* (on the off chance what I'm saying might be classified). That said, they are still safer than reactors in earthquake zones imho.

Nuclear power is not the cure all non polluting energy. Uranium is a limited resource, and while we can and do mine a lot, it won't last forever. Eventually the world must learn to live with less power, not more. Solar and wind can only produce a limited amount. Eventually that will be the only option. Fossil fuel burning should be reduced to 0.

I am unaware of any significant differences in a submarine propulsion plant and an aircraft carrier propulsion plant in regards to safety equipment, classified or otherwise. That said, even if the ship sunk in shallow water chances of any significant environmental impact are exceedingly small.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Here is the chart and article on radiations levels in 2009
As of 2016 there are still some 200 Tons of radiactive material inside and well poking around is pretty crazy

http://chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

 

[Silurian]

To think I used to sleep on top of a Reactor.

Back in the 90s I had a couple of friends who served on RN boats. They used to spend a month or two sat on the sea bed off Croatia, then go to Naples for two weeks RR, then Croatia to listen some more, then back to Plymouth. I was working on a civil reactor in the UK at the time and I got a slightly higher does than them.

I still think they have uses, just perhaps not in earthquake zones such as California and Japan.

Earthquakes can happen anywhere. There have been studies that reactors in "non-earthquake zones" are at higher risk of earthquakes because they could not withstand a low level earthquake.