|
|
|
| Oklo: Natural Nuclear Reactors |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
 |
Eh, in 5000 years the radioactive waste we produce today will be basically harmless. Unless you eat it. -- |
|
Kauhiz
Member #4,798
July 2004
|
Mmm, nuclear waste... drools --- |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
 |
Quote: You never know, maybe someone leaned on the big red "bypass safety" button by mistake. Or they unplugged someone's workstation to get the coffee maker/jukebox/pinball machine to work. I used to work in a factory that had a press cutter, which is basically a machine with two horizontal plates with blades mounted into the top plate. It has a handle similar to a mountain bike handle bars, but with a button on each end. When both buttons are pressed simultaneously, the plates slam together. The guy who operated it decide he could get more work done if he didn't have to use both hands to push the buttons, so he taped one of the buttons in and used his now-free hand to put in/take out the foam rubber it cut. All went well until someone distracted him while he was working, and he pressed the button while his hand was still between the plates. He now has no fingers and only half a palm. edit: Quote: How can anyone argue against nuclear power?
I've been wondering that for years. New Zealand's anti-nuclear stance really annoys me, because most people just agree with it on principle without ever thinking about the issue. The same people also complain when lack of water in the lakes that feed the hydro stations cause power shortages.
|
|
Johan Halmén
Member #1,550
September 2001
|
Quote: How can anyone argue against nuclear power? Fossile fuels harm us and next generations, because the shit blows up in the atmosphere and in our environment. Nuclear waste harm us and the next generations, because that shit doesn't do that. The stuff is concentrated in some deposit areas, where it is dangerous. Actually it should be poured into the sea or in the atmosphere during a long time. But still during that time the stuff would be dangerous. In any way it would cost to those generations that never benefitted from the stuff in the first place. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Years of thorough research have revealed that what people find beautiful about the Mandelbrot set is not the set itself, but all the rest. |
|
Kauhiz
Member #4,798
July 2004
|
Quote: so he taped one of the buttons in and used his now-free hand to put in/take out the foam rubber it cut. See, you always hear stories like this, and you always know it's a horrible idea, and you can pretty much guess how the story will end. So how does anyone ever actually do stuff like this!? Quote: In any way it would cost to those generations that never benefitted from the stuff in the first place. Well, you can't just slide it under the carpet. But nuclear waste can be disposed of quite safely. The thing is, if you oppose nuclear power, you pretty much oppose all power, since that's the best we've got (for now). Even if you don't like nuclear power, it's still the lesser evil. --- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
 |
Yes, obviously the better option would be to limit our energy demand, or get viable alternative energy sources (eg, nuclear fusion - it's in development, but it'll be a couple of years/decades yet). In today's practice, saying "no" to a nuclear reactor means you get a coal plant instead - which is considerably worse. Waste from a nuclear reactor can be a problem a thousand years from now. Waste from a coal plant is a problem long before then. Don't think of a fission reactor as a long-term solution, but as a short-term way to cut back on the damage from burning fossil fuel. Regarding the damage done by Chernobyl, I heard (but informally, so it's no better than heresay) that the measured radiation damage is actually less than what was expected/feared. Not saying it doesn't matter (of course), but it seems to matter less than it's sometimes made out to be. |
|
ImLeftFooted
Member #3,935
October 2003
 |
What happens if someone bombs a nuclear reactor? |
|
Kauhiz
Member #4,798
July 2004
|
Quote: What happens if someone bombs a nuclear reactor? They go to prison for a long time. --- |
|
Billybob
Member #3,136
January 2003
|
Quote: What happens if someone bombs a nuclear reactor? Well it depends on the kind of bomb. Nuclear reactors are not wimps, they're solid concrete upon more solid concrete, and plenty of lead to boot. The bomb may just cause structural damage. If on the outside, there's still the core itself which won't leak. If it breaks the core, you've got the outer shell. If, in the worst possible case, both are destroyed and the nuclear material itself with sent flying it isn't likely to go far. The plant may be contaminated but I can't imagine anything else being harmed. All this public fear about nuclear reactors is unfounded. If we can easily name the dangers, so can the engineers, and thus the problems are and have been dealt with.
|
|
ImLeftFooted
Member #3,935
October 2003
|
How about a couple bunker busters right on top of the reactor? I'm just saying if something did get through would it start a chain reaction and turn the whole place into a nuclear waste zone killing everyone for miles around? |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Dustin Dettmer said: What happens if someone bombs a nuclear reactor? Let me correct that for you: Quote: What happens if someone bewitches a nuclear reactor?
[EDIT] Dustin Dettmer said: I'm just saying if something did get through would it start a chain reaction and turn the whole place into a nuclear waste zone killing everyone for miles around?
... Is the state of education really that bad nowadays? -- |
|
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
 |
It would probably take a nuke exploding inside the modern reactor to seriously contaminate environment with radioactive stuff from a nuclear plant. Regular bombs will just scatter the stuff around a few hundred meters and that's it. In Chernobyl the problem was that they used water to cool the stuff down. When lots of radioactive mixed with that water and it started to boil it went straight to atmosphere where it could spread long distances. From what I know that kind of thing can't happen with new reactor designs. __________ |
|
ImLeftFooted
Member #3,935
October 2003
|
You don't have to get all condescending. If you don't know then don't make a post. |
|
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
|
I forgot to mention that other reason why Chernobyl was that bad was because they used grphite rods. Graphite burns extremely well and it was the second source of radiation that went to the atmosphere, first one being the water vapour. Also Chernobyl had about a years supply of fuel inside the reactor at all times whereas modern ones could have as little as couple of days. With pebblebed reactor it was even less (==less radioactive stuff at one place). [edit] Also there was no chain reaction in Chernobyl, it just overheated and boiling water casued the reactor top to blow off. After the water was gone it continued to be rather hot. Even today there should be magma-like stuff somewhere under the lead and sand somewhere, "burning" at few thousand degrees. Quite similarly to that natural reactor talked about in the OP. __________ |
|
mEmO
Member #1,124
March 2001
 |
Quote: In Chernobyl the problem was that they used water to cool the stuff down This is downright wrong. The reason Chernobyl was such a disaster was that they used graphite to slow the neutrons. When the core over heated, the coal ignited and sent the radioactive particles into the atmosphere. [edit] Darnit, I'm too slow. --------------------------------------------- |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
 |
I thought the REAL problem was the insane head of operations deciding to run a "test" that he was told in no uncertain terms would cause a melt down. Yes, lets turn off all the safeties, and cooling tank and see what happens, yeah, good idea. If Chernobyl was still in operation today, would it produce MORE or LESS waste/polution than a regular coal plant? -- |
|
nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
 |
Quote: If Chernobyl was still in operation today, would it produce MORE or LESS waste/polution than a regular coal plant? Response: Quote:
Boy who's parents lived near Chernobyl: There you go. |
|
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
|
Seriously this time, if it didn't blow up and spew all that radiation into the atmosphere, and was still running normally today, would it be better or worse than a coal plant? (we have a couple coal plants near by, yay!) -- |
|
gnolam
Member #2,030
March 2002
|
Quote: You don't have to get all condescending.
Actually, I did, since you should have been able to answer your own question through either -- |
|
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Quote: I'm just saying if something did get through would it start a chain reaction and turn the whole place into a nuclear waste zone killing everyone for miles around? How would it start a chain reaction? |
|
Ariesnl
Member #2,902
November 2002
 |
at the moment living in chernobyl is more dangerous than living in hiroshima and provided everything goes right, you still have nuclear waste products that stay dangerous for many years. and I'm not talking about 25 years or so.. Quote: After 10,000 years of radioactive decay, according to United States Environmental Protection Agency standards, the spent nuclear fuel will no longer pose a threat to public health and safety. are you 100% sure a container will be reliable that long ?? Perhaps one day we will find that the human factor is more complicated than space and time (Jean luc Picard) |
|
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
|
Quote: at the moment living in chernobyl is more dangerous than living in hiroshima That is probably because in Hiroshima there were less radioactive stuff and there was chain reaction that used up some of it. In Chernobyl there were lots of radioactive stuff, no chain reaction and it was blown to the skies. Modern reactors have much less radioactive fuel in them and they won't burn up when something goes wrong, though it would be near impossible for anything to go wrong anyways. Quote: and provided everything goes right, you still have nuclear waste products that stay dangerous for many years. As said before you'll have quite a bit of radioactive stuff when you burn coal too, only it isn't concentrated in one spot but dumped straight to the atmosphere. I personally would choose concentrating it in once space __________ |
|
miran
Member #2,407
June 2002
|
Quote: though it would be near impossible for anything to go wrong anyways
Oooh, a challenge. -- |
|
LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
|
Quote: Oooh, a challenge
Coming from you, that's worrying. At least I'm fairly sure I'll be safe from the fallout.
|
|
miran
Member #2,407
June 2002
|
Don't worry, I don't have high enough security clearance... Yet. -- |
|
|
|
