Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

nautil.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#11

Post by ori_b »

mrschwabe wrote: post #2

A disturbing thought is that Fukishima is an even more dire situation. The Pacific ocean will never be the same. Which of the 507 other plants will be the next go into meltdown? I wonder how many of these disasters the planet can handle before it becomes inhabitable to all life.

The pacific ocean isn't really noticing any effects. Water is great at stopping radiation. In fact, open pool reactors like this one (http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0009/45495/OPAL_...) are serviced by scuba divers.

The increase in radiation in the pacific is lost in the noise when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. There are some areas directly around Fukushima where that is not the case, and it is a big mess, but I would happily eat fish from the vast majority of the pacific.

A far bigger threat to our ocean is the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#12

Post by mrschwabe »

seccess wrote: post #7
mrschwabe wrote: post #2

A disturbing thought is that Fukishima is an even more dire situation. The Pacific ocean will never be the same. Which of the 507 other plants will be the next go into meltdown? I wonder how many of these disasters the planet can handle before it becomes inhabitable to all life.

"inhabitable - suitable to live in; habitable." [0] [0] https://www.google.com/search?q=inhabitable&oq=inhabitable&a...

Good catch, "un-inhabitable" was the term I was looking for, thanks :)

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#13

Post by sebastianavina »

ori_b wrote: post #11
mrschwabe wrote: post #2

A disturbing thought is that Fukishima is an even more dire situation. The Pacific ocean will never be the same. Which of the 507 other plants will be the next go into meltdown? I wonder how many of these disasters the planet can handle before it becomes inhabitable to all life.

The pacific ocean isn't really noticing any effects. Water is great at stopping radiation. In fact, open pool reactors like this one ( http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0009/45495/OPAL_... ) are serviced by scuba divers. The increase in radiation in the pacific is lost in the noise when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. There are some areas directly around Fukushima where that is not the…

they say the same about almost any waste... but at the end the oceans are clogged with waste.

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#14

Post by mrschwabe »

ori_b wrote: post #11
mrschwabe wrote: post #2

A disturbing thought is that Fukishima is an even more dire situation. The Pacific ocean will never be the same. Which of the 507 other plants will be the next go into meltdown? I wonder how many of these disasters the planet can handle before it becomes inhabitable to all life.

The pacific ocean isn't really noticing any effects. Water is great at stopping radiation. In fact, open pool reactors like this one ( http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0009/45495/OPAL_... ) are serviced by scuba divers. The increase in radiation in the pacific is lost in the noise when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. There are some areas directly around Fukushima where that is not the…

Enjoy your fish! I for one am taking heed of the warning signs from the thousands of dead animals washing up on the shores of the west coast - not to mention the alarming drop in the number of sea-urchins, starfish, shellfish, and other species who simply cannot be found.

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#15

Post by ori_b »

sebastianavina wrote: post #13
ori_b wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pacific ocean isn't really noticing any effects. Water is great at stopping radiation. In fact, open pool reactors like this one ( http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/image/0009/45495/OPAL_... ) are serviced by scuba divers. The increase in radiation in the pacific is lost in the noise when compared to naturally occurring background radiation. There are some areas directly around Fukushima where that is not the…

they say the same about almost any waste... but at the end the oceans are clogged with waste.

The Fukushima accident was a rare event, dumped a small amount of waste compared to ongoing industrial operations, and the most worrying part of the waste that it dumped decays on the timescale of decades, and not millenia.

I don't have stats about what gets directly into the oceans, but when we mine gold, copper, and other ores, we create entire ponds called "tailings ponds" full of arsenic, cyanide, mercury, and all sorts of other nasty substances. These ponds leak into the environment on a regular basis. Short of seeping into the environment, many of these substances NEVER GO AWAY. THIS IS A HUGE PROBLEM.

Nuclear waste comes in small quantities, in neat, easy to handle packages, and the most dangerous elements in it will decay relatively quickly. Over the entire lifetime of the nuclear industry, less than 80,000 tons of radioactive waste have been produced. Meanwhile, one mine alone produced 237,000 tons of arsenic trioxide over its lifetime. This substance is just sitting in the abandoned mine now.

The most worrying part of the nuclear waste story, to me, is that NIMBYism and fear has blocked attempts to produce permanent, safe facilities for permanent sequestration, so it's stored almost as poorly as our super toxic tailings. At least there's less of it, and efforts are made to clean it up when it gets into the environment.

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#16

Post by NamTaf »

mrschwabe wrote: post #10
cjslep wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States of America has detonated over 1,000 nuclear weapons singlehandedly. I imagine it would take much more than 507 commercial nuclear powerplants to render the entire Earth inhospitable.

That's like comparing a lit-match to a gas pipeline fire. Detonations dissipate quickly - the meltdowns are a constant flood of radioactive particles into our atmosphere. Only the fire doesn't end - because we don't have the technology to stop it, and perhaps will not ever. So no, I don't agree - likely the number is much less than 507 and uncomfortably close to the number of plants already in disaster-mode.

Hang on, do you think the fissible material from a bomb just vanishes? It is just hurled across a bigger area due to the fact that a bomb explodes.

Exactly what level of physics education do you have?

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#17

Post by cjslep »

mrschwabe wrote: post #10
cjslep wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States of America has detonated over 1,000 nuclear weapons singlehandedly. I imagine it would take much more than 507 commercial nuclear powerplants to render the entire Earth inhospitable.

That's like comparing a lit-match to a gas pipeline fire. Detonations dissipate quickly - the meltdowns are a constant flood of radioactive particles into our atmosphere. Only the fire doesn't end - because we don't have the technology to stop it, and perhaps will not ever. So no, I don't agree - likely the number is much less than 507 and uncomfortably close to the number of plants already in disaster-mode.

> That's like comparing a lit-match to a gas pipeline fire.

That's a terrible analogy. Radioactivity, a nuclear reaction, deals with totally different physics and phenomena than combustion, a chemical reaction.

A more proper analogy would be: Would you rather me shoot you with a cannonball once right now, or would you rather me split it up into a million little BB pellets and shoot one at you a day?

I'd choose the million little BB pellets a day because my body can recover from that in between. Likewise, your body constantly repairs DNA damaged by the sun or from other radiation sources.

Radiation, activity, and dosages are extremely difficult to keep straight. Especially when coming from the media. Not even units can help you (ex: Equivalent vs Effective Dose), and it is hard to keep straight (ICRP vs NRC).

> Only the fire doesn't end - because we don't have the technology to stop it, and perhaps will not ever.

I am not quite sure what you're referring to -- stick yourself in a heavily-lined lead chamber and I'm sure you will measure far less gamma radiation inside of it than outside.

> So no, I don't agree - likely the number is much less than 507 and uncomfortably close to the number of plants already in disaster-mode.

Then we can agree to disagree -- it seems you have already made your mind on how many plants are close to "disaster mode" (unsure what that really means in an engineering sense).

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#18

Post by pdkl95 »

mrschwabe wrote: post #10
cjslep wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United States of America has detonated over 1,000 nuclear weapons singlehandedly. I imagine it would take much more than 507 commercial nuclear powerplants to render the entire Earth inhospitable.

That's like comparing a lit-match to a gas pipeline fire. Detonations dissipate quickly - the meltdowns are a constant flood of radioactive particles into our atmosphere. Only the fire doesn't end - because we don't have the technology to stop it, and perhaps will not ever. So no, I don't agree - likely the number is much less than 507 and uncomfortably close to the number of plants already in disaster-mode.

A meltdown doesn't necessarily put any radioative particles into the air. If it did, that would be a very unusual event (such as Chernobyl). On the other hand, a bomb has a tendency to put an ultra-fine dust of uranium, various transuranics, and quite a few fission products into the atmosphere.

I suspect that you may be confusing a radioactive isotope (such as U235) with the particles associated with nuclear radiation (such as alpha and beta particles).

A meltdown will generally involve a lot of radioactive material. It will usually be localized and only very rarely pulverized into a dust. Chernobyl's steam explosion did this. The meltdown will probably also emit a lot of radiation, but that never "contaminates" the atmosphere, unless you consider electrons or helium "contamination".

Unfortunately, conflating radioactive isotopes with the radiation those isotopes emit when they decay is very common misunderstanding.

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#19

Post by mrschwabe »

nitrogen wrote: post #6
mrschwabe wrote: post #2

A disturbing thought is that Fukishima is an even more dire situation. The Pacific ocean will never be the same. Which of the 507 other plants will be the next go into meltdown? I wonder how many of these disasters the planet can handle before it becomes inhabitable to all life.

Are you aware that our whole planet is warmed by the decay of thorium and other heavy elements below the crust? Geothermal energy is nuclear energy. To respond to your question, Earth would get over it, and humanity would survive even 507 meltdowns. Fukushima was an exceptional case on a 40-year-old design, so we wouldn't have 507 Fukishimas (keep in mind how many people died from the giant tsunami that caused the Fu…

I'm no expert, but I suspect there's a big difference between the planet's naturally occurring radiation and the high volume of unstable particles spewing out from the Fukishima meltdown everyday.

Re: Chernobyl’s Hot Mess, “the Elephant’s Foot,” Is Still Lethal (2013)

#20

Post by erglkjahlkh »

cjslep wrote: post #4

I think this article is very well-written overall. However, there are still a point that could use clarification. > During a routine test on April 26, 1986, reactor Number 4 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant experienced a power surge that triggered an emergency shutdown. It did not work. Calling the incident a routine test greatly mischaracterizes what they were doing. This wasn't some sort of daily safety checkli…

Also, the experiment's requirement lead into the operators disabling almost every single safety mechanism. The automated systems disallowed the actions they were trying to do, so they disconnected most important security measures.

Operating like that you can make even hydroelectric power station extremely deadly, and kill a lot of people.

Post reply on HN