|
Post by eclipse on Sept 9, 2012 21:18:45 GMT 9.5
Hi all, I remember a discussion on risk over on the BNC blog, and wanted to follow this up a year-or-so later. Far-out risks were being discussed. Really far out! As in, rolling 6 on the dice a million times over. But if that meteorite or nuclear bomb strike DID happen on a large nuclear facility (say an energy park), and the whole things was atomised and ejected up into the jet stream... how bad would the plutonium fallout be? I gather it wouldn't be the end of life on earth, because the plutonium particles would be dispersed over a good percentage of the globe. At lot of it would fall into the oceans, and a lot across deserts and wildernesses. Of course some of it would end up in our population centres.
Has anyone seen a scenario like this modelled? Would the radiactive mass being vaporised be significantly more than a small-scale nuclear war, say between Pakistan and India? Or would it be more?
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 10, 2012 10:48:48 GMT 9.5
eclipse --- The small particles (not atomized) would be dispersed and eventually wash out in the precipitation. It would add a small amount to background radiation.
A nuclear war between, say, India and Pakistan would likely be enough to produce so-called nuclear winter. Your suggested scenario would not.
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Sept 10, 2012 19:58:32 GMT 9.5
Hi David, that's what I felt in my gut; I just wanted someone more knowledgeable with the numbers to confirm it. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Sept 12, 2012 8:44:51 GMT 9.5
eclipse -- It might be interesting to learn how much radon is released when burning coal.
|
|
|
Post by sod on Sept 13, 2012 6:13:05 GMT 9.5
might be a double post:
Why are you using such an extreme scenario?
the main danger from nuclear power is not a big accident, that destroys the world.
A smaller accident ruining a country (or several small countries) would be enough.
so take Fukushima. Tepco abandons the plant, all 6 reactors go into full meltdown, the used fuel ends up burning.
wind direction is towards land and the majority of nuclear material released ends up in the greater Tokyo area.
|
|
|
Post by anonposter on Sept 13, 2012 17:21:15 GMT 9.5
sod: That would be no worse than if a coal power plant were allowed to operate normally.
|
|
|
Post by Cyril R on Nov 18, 2012 2:30:44 GMT 9.5
According to this Wiki entry, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium_in_the_environment...about 3.5 tons of plutonium have been released into the environment due to nuclear weapons testing around the world. This is a similar amount to the plutonium inventory of a 600 MWe IFR. Since that amount has been released into the air already, clearly it can't be as catastrophic as you'd think. An asteroid hitting the center of a major city would be far more deadly, obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Luke Weston on Dec 13, 2012 23:26:43 GMT 9.5
This reminds me of that scene in one of those great works of fiction... Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash.
"Is it true they have nuke stuff inside of them?"
"Radiothermal isotopes."
"What happens if one gets busted open? Everyone gets all mutated?"
"If you ever find yourself in the presence of a destructive force powerful enough to decapsulate those isotopes," Ng says, "radiation sickness will be the least of your worries".
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Dec 14, 2012 5:12:09 GMT 9.5
Ha ha, great book!
|
|