- #1
gilakmesum
- 14
- 1
how do we cope with leakage of nuclear reactors as happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima plan
FactChecker said:I am not an expert, but here is my three cents (corrections or clarifications are welcome):
The initial air contamination could not be contained. Contaminated soil from fallout can be removed in a very small area around the reactors, but Chernobyl will have a large area that will be uninhabitable for hundreds of years. How long depends on the half-life of the material that escaped. A very large region of Eastern Europe suffered significant, but less, contamination. I think that most of it has returned to normal. Apparently, Fukushima air fallout was not as bad.
In both cases, they are still discovering what to do about the reactor ground contamination. Chernobyl was just buried and they recently moved a giant dome over it because the original cover was deteriorating. I guess they will just have to let things leak out below and suffer the consequences. They may not be very publicly open about the true situation.
Fukushima is so radioactive that it recently damaged a robot that was sent into investigate. So the cleanup will be a process of many decades. They keep putting water in it to keep it cool, and try to capture the water that drains away.
gilakmesum said:how do we cope with leakage of nuclear reactors as happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima plan
What does that mean? Every place on Earth has been slightly radioactive as long as Earth existed. You cannot "completely eliminate the radiation in the area", not even without a nuclear reactor. You can just make sure the level is not significantly higher than natural.FactChecker said:Estimates are that "it will take hundreds and thousands of years to completely eliminate the radiation in the area."
It's a quote. I can't change it.mfb said:What does that mean? Every place on Earth has been slightly radioactive as long as Earth existed. You cannot "completely eliminate the radiation in the area", not even without a nuclear reactor. You can just make sure the level is not significantly higher than natural.
We can measure background levels of radiation anywhere in the world. There are natural levels that vary according to location and altitude. As one ascends through the atmosphere, one experiences more cosmic radiation, which is quite natural.FactChecker said:It's a quote. I can't change it.
My guess is that he means it will take hundreds or thousands of years before we are unable to determine that the radioactive levels of the area are statistically significantly greater than the natural source radioactivity of that area.
For gamma and beta, sure. For alpha: not really. Most detectors will absorb them before they reach the sensitive parts, and even if they are designed to detect it, you have to be directly at the source (easy for air, not easy for everything else), and you have to estimate how much of those particles a human will absorb.David Reeves said:It's not hard to monitor the environment using a radiation detector.
mfb said:For gamma and beta, sure. For alpha: not really.
That depends on the priorities. Most cases the 'leakage' is some minor stuff, which can (and: will) be cleaned up fast, without any real impact.gilakmesum said:how do we cope with leakage of nuclear reactors as happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima plan
That source is so thoroughly crap, that... OMG. Is there even just one sentence there which is right?FactChecker said:Fukushima update: Apparently they have found a hole in the floor of one reactor where the nuclear material melted through. Estimates are that "it will take hundreds and thousands of years to completely eliminate the radiation in the area." (see http://www.dinosmarkfactual.com/2017/02/japan-declares-state-emergency-reactor-leaks-ocean-v8.html)
More than elsewhere? Reference?David Reeves said:and there have been numerous mutations reported among the wildlife
gilakmesum said:so if all can be contaminated,, why they still built a giant dome to cover it.
nikkkom said:Europeans are scared about a possibility of current "Sarcofagus" collapsing. This was a perfect opportunity for European businesses and Ukrainian bureau-klepto-crats to make them shell out lots of money for any project which promised to prevent it. Of course, the bigger the project, the more it costs, the better. Thus, the option of reinforcing current "Sarcofagus" had no hope of being chosen instead.
gilakmesum said:could it be a some kind sabotage to Chernobyl so that the "huge" business can come into? Just guess...
etudiant said:Think the initial accident was just that, a failed test run at 3 am, when demand and also operator effectiveness are at their nadir.
Since then, a free for all.
Oddly enough, the communists who installed the sarcophagus were less corrupt than their successors, who even sold the contaminated vehicles from the cleanup graveyard. The expensive new cover is a visible symbol for the governments of Europe to demonstrate to their people that the problem is contained for 100 years by their combined efforts. Plus a fat source of fees and kickbacks all up and down the line.
Still, it is a nice piece of engineering and took a lot of dedicated work to come into being.
It's not just that. To reinforce that building would have meant to dismantle at least some part of it -> the remnants of the core exposed to the free air, even if just temporally.nikkkom said:Europeans are scared about a possibility of current "Sarcofagus" collapsing. This was a perfect opportunity for European businesses and Ukrainian bureau-klepto-crats to make them shell out lots of money for any project which promised to prevent it. Of course, the bigger the project, the more it costs, the better. Thus, the option of reinforcing current "Sarcofagus" had no hope of being chosen instead.
You believe Chernobyl was sabotage and not, say, incompetence laced with arrogance?etudiant said:Think the initial accident was just tha
Rive said:It's not just that. To reinforce that building would have meant to dismantle at least some part of it -> the remnants of the core exposed to the free air, even if just temporally.
What matters most these days is that it is still sight-tight.nikkkom said:Sarcophagus is not airtight. It is even not watertight and not bird-tight...
Rive said:What matters most these days is that it is still sight-tight.
Mostly, at least.
Do you suggest you know it better than the experts working on it?nikkkom said:Instead of making existing structures impenetrable to rainwater, air drafts and birds, which is neither difficult nor particularly expensive, people in charge of the operation are building gargantuan and astoundingly costly structures. This continues for years, no, now decades, on end.
mfb said:Do you suggest you know it better than the experts working on it?
But it is. Even the construction of the new steel thing started with digging up the whole construction area for any nasty stuff and replace the soil partially, otherwise there was no chance to met the requirements for working conditions.nikkkom said:Instead of making existing structures impenetrable to rainwater, air drafts and birds, which is neither difficult nor particularly expensive
Rive said:I cannot see how could those requirements met up in the air around the (old and during the process: partially dismantled) sarcophagus.
gilakmesum said:so if all can be contaminated,, why they still built a giant dome to cover it.
Bigjoemonger said:But concrete directly exposed to radiation breaks down over time.