[008]
HiddenWindshield
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.) End result: a pool of molten uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Not to mention that control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or they can use hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
There\\\'s also no \\\"ticking time bomb\\\" effect. Nuclear reactors require some form of neutron moderator in order to sustain the reaction. Most use water, because it\\\'s a good moderator in itself, and it can also function as a coolant, and as a safety feature (if the water level falls, the reaction rate also falls due to being undermoderated). That water will slowly leak out or evaporate, making it extremely difficult to generate enough heat to trigger a meltdown.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Not to mention that control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or they can use hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
There\\\'s also no \\\"ticking time bomb\\\" effect. Nuclear reactors require some form of neutron moderator in order to sustain the reaction. Most use water, because it\\\'s a good moderator in itself, and it can also function as a coolant, and as a safety feature (if the water level falls, the reaction rate also falls due to being undermoderated). That water will slowly leak out or evaporate, making it extremely difficult to generate enough heat to trigger a meltdown.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.) End result: a pool of molten uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Not to mention that control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or they can use hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Not to mention that control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or they can use hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.) End result: a pool of molten uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Not to mention that control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Not to mention that control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.) End result: a pool of molten uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every single one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.) End result: a pool of molten uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat.[[note]](Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat. (Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.) End result: a pool of molten Uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you only have to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat.[[note]](Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you have only to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat.[[note]](Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.)[[/note]] End result: a pool of molten Uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
(Edit: Holy \\\'\\\'\\\'crap\\\'\\\'\\\' does the discussion page mess with links and formatting and such. That\\\'s pretty bad.)
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
I don\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\'ve been reading, but you only have to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat.[[note]](Which reminds me, I\'m curious about your definition of \
to:
I don\\\'t know what kind of [[YouCanPanicNow fear-mongering]] anti-nuclear [[PropagandaPiece propaganda]] articles you\\\'ve been reading, but you only have to look at the [[https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/three-mile-island-accident.aspx Three Mile Island Accident]] to get a better picture of what would happen. Long story short, the workers mishandled maintenance of reactor #2, causing a reactor scram. A faulty indicator on the board made the operators think there was too much water in the reactor, so they drained some off, allowing the level to fall enough to expose the top of the core, which resulted in a partial meltdown due to decay heat.[[note]](Which reminds me, I\\\'m curious about your definition of \\\"meltdown\\\". You rejected my definition of \\\"When the core melts down\\\", but never provided your own.)[[/note]] End result: a pool of molten Uranium in the bottom of the pressure vessel, and the only radiation leak was several days later due to workers panicking over a harmless hydrogen bubble (to be fair to the workers, even the NRC people didn\\\'t realize it was harmless at the time, due to the fact that they didn\\\'t know nearly as much about nuclear power as we do today).
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
Not going to lie, I actually, [[SincerityMode honestly]] Laughed Out Loud when I read the part about how an emergency shutdown \\\"relies too much on happenstance and every little cog\\\" and \\\"assuming that all nuclear power plants are in a state were they can be shutdown\\\". Shutting down a nuclear reactor involves inserting control rods into the core. That\\\'s it. That\\\'s all there is to it. Most of the complexity involved in a normal shutdown comes from the fact that operators want to minimize thermal stresses, which can shorten a reactor\\\'s useful life, so they shut down slowly. Also, if the reactor shuts off immediately, then other power plants on the grid have to suddenly take up the slack, putting pressure on \\\'\\\'them\\\'\\\' as well. Also, a bunch of other things that come from a standpoint of practicality rather than one of safety.
Also, control rods can be moved by gravity just as easy as they can by machines. So, a simple safety system is to attach the rods to their lifting mechanisms by electromagnets (or hydraulics, but it\\\'s usually magnets). If external power is lost, the magnets de-energize (or hydraulics de-pressurize), and the rods fall into the core. Now, I don\\\'t know for sure that \\\'\\\'all\\\'\\\' nuclear plants in Japan have this feature -- there\\\'s a limit to how much research I\\\'m willing to do for the sake of an internet debate -- but, given how long that\\\'s been a standard part of commercial reactor design, I\\\'d be willing to bet that they do.
Then, you look at what happened to the environment after the Chernobyl accident. Due to the removal of human activity in the exclusion zone, wildlife is flourishing. Many rare and endangered species are making a comeback in the area. Sure, the high background count is causing a much higher rate of birth defects and physical abnormalities than normal, but they still only affect a small portion of animals, and natural selection ensures the mutations aren\\\'t passed down to the next generation.
TL;DR:
1) The odds of even one reactor meltdown is relatively low.
2) Even a reactor did melt down, the odds that it would turn into a Chernobyl-scale disaster are vanishingly small.
3) Even if every one of Japan\\\'s 17 operable nuclear power plants became another Chernobyl, it would only contaminate less than 1/5th of Japan\\\'s land area (and that\\\'s assuming there\\\'s no overlap), and that area would still be teeming with life.
4) I didn\\\'t mention this above, but the background count around Chernobyl is already measurably falling. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a nuclear accident in that area without some \\\'\\\'very\\\'\\\' sensitive instruments.
As far as chemical plants go, yes, there will be a major ecological disaster in the area when they leak. Massive die-offs of plants and animals, some endangered species might go extinct, water poisoned for hundreds of miles around, etc. But the Earth is a pretty big place, and these disasters will be tiny in comparison. As the pollutants disperse, they also become more dilute, reducing their effects. In 3,700 years, you would never know that there was a chemical spill in the area, even \\\'\\\'with\\\'\\\' the most sensitive detector you can get.
