WW3 hide-aways.

[I1L2T3 10]

So you were thinking of fires, not Chernobyl like fires. You used Chernobyl for dramatic effect.

 

The water at Fukushima didn't boil off btw.

 

I was thinking in terms of the amount of contamination that could enter the environment. It doesn't really matter what type of fire causes it, but yeah at nuclear facilities reliant on active cooling that lost that active cooling the effects would be dramatic.

 

Fukushima wasn't hit by a nuclear blast and had functional emergency services to deal with it.

 

A nuclear war would be very different. The blast damage could be catastrophic and most of the emergency services dead and injured, perhaps without functioning equipment and what remained of them would be dealing with multiple overwhelming situations.

[monkey104 10]

Here we go! Only on SF can an argument be started by folk thinking they have a little knowledge gained via google.

[MamboNo5 10]

I was thinking in terms of the amount of contamination that could enter the environment. It doesn't really matter what type of fire causes it, but yeah at nuclear facilities reliant on active cooling that lost that active cooling the effects would be dramatic.

 

Fukushima wasn't hit by a nuclear blast and had functional emergency services to deal with it.

 

A nuclear war would be very different. The blast damage could be catastrophic and most of the emergency services dead and injured, perhaps without functioning equipment and what remained of them would be dealing with multiple overwhelming situations.

 

Ok, so now instead of there being a simple loss of power to the cooling system for spent fuel rods the place has been hit by a nuclear blast? That escalated quickly didn't it?

 

It does matter what type of fire you are talking about. I couldn't say a Hiroshima type bomb was dropped on Dresden could I? Just because both were bombs. So you shouldn't use Chernobyl-like fire, which resulted from an uncontrolled reaction, to equate to the issue you describe.

 

The chances of spent fuel pools going critical is minimal.

[I1L2T3 10]

Here we go! Only on SF can an argument be started by folk thinking they have a little knowledge gained via google.

 

I never started any argument

 

I read up the pools years ago, after the Fukushima disaster and found out what would happen to them in the event of nuclear war. Along with still operating plants with older reactor safety features the storage facilities are a huge issue.

[MamboNo5 10]

Here we go! Only on SF can an argument be started by folk thinking they have a little knowledge gained via google.

 

Not just from Google thanks.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2017 at 23:28 ----------

 

I never started any argument

 

I read up the pools years ago, after the Fukushima disaster and found out what would happen to them in the event of nuclear war. Along with still operating plants with older reactor safety features the storage facilities are a huge issue.

 

If you read something that equated Chernobyl with Fukushima then you were reading the wrong thing.

[I1L2T3 10]

Ok, so now instead of there being a simple loss of power to the cooling system for spent fuel rods the place has been hit by a nuclear blast? That escalated quickly didn't it?

 

It does matter what type of fire you are talking about. I couldn't say a Hiroshima type bomb was dropped on Dresden could I? Just because both were bombs. So you shouldn't use Chernobyl-like fire, which resulted from an uncontrolled reaction, to equate to the issue you describe.

 

The chances of spent fuel pools going critical is minimal.

 

You seem to be missing the point that in a nuclear war the chances of blast damage to just about every structure is immense. Loss of power is practically guaranteed. The absence of functioning emergency services to deal with the resulting issues at nuclear facilities is also practically guaranteed.

 

So it really doesn't matter what type of fire releases the contamination into the atmosphere. In the event of a nuclear war many, in fact probably most nuclear facilities would be compromised in some way either by damage, loss of power, loss of personnel etc....

[MamboNo5 10]

You seem to be missing the point that in a nuclear war the chances of blast damage to just about every structure is immense. Loss of power is practically guaranteed. The absence of functioning emergency services to deal with the resulting issues at nuclear facilities is also practically guaranteed.

 

So it really doesn't matter what type of fire releases the contamination into the atmosphere. In the event of a nuclear war many, in fact probably most nuclear facilities would be compromised in some way either by damage, loss of power, loss of personnel etc....

 

I haven't missed the point. I only replied to say your use of Chernobyl was wrong. That fire wasn't the result of loss of cooling to spent fuel pools. Your use of Chernobyl-like fires was the kind of thing I'd expect to read in a Green Party manifesto. High on rhetoric, low on fact.

 

But since you mention it, spent fuel is kept separated to reduce the risk of criticality. Hence it cannot go into meltdown either. So wouldn't result in a Chernobyl-like fire even if the water boiled off.

 

I don't care about anything else. Why would I? I'm dead from the bomb aren't I?

 

Edited April 17, 2017 by MamboNo5

[Anna B 1,417]

You seem to be missing the point that in a nuclear war the chances of blast damage to just about every structure is immense. Loss of power is practically guaranteed. The absence of functioning emergency services to deal with the resulting issues at nuclear facilities is also practically guaranteed.

 

So it really doesn't matter what type of fire releases the contamination into the atmosphere. In the event of a nuclear war many, in fact probably most nuclear facilities would be compromised in some way either by damage, loss of power, loss of personnel etc....

 

There is really no surviving a nuclear war. The trick is to avoid one.

 

We have been successfully avoiding nuclear war for 72 years, though we have come close.

 

I doubt this will end up any different, so calm down and carry on.

[I1L2T3 10]

Not just from Google thanks.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2017 at 23:28 ----------

 

 

If you read something that equated Chernobyl with Fukushima then you were reading the wrong thing.

 

I'm not equating them. I'm actually saying that in a nuclear war a situation could arise where high levels of contiminants could enter the environment through uncontrolled fires at nuclear facilities, and that those fires could happen at many locations. I used Chernobyl to illustrate what could be emitted into the environment. I used Fukushima to illustrate the quantity of fuel that can be stored a a single location.

 

I'm not equating anything to anything, just making the simple point that blast damaged nuclear facilities without power and personnel are not going to take care of themselves.

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2017 at 23:39 ----------

 

I haven't missed the point. I only replied to say your use of Chernobyl was wrong. That fire wasn't the result of loss of cooling to spent fuel pools. Your use of Chernobyl-like fries was the kind of thing I'd expect to read in a Green Party manifesto. High on rhetoric, low on fact.

 

I don't care about anything else.

 

Right so you don't want to discuss this, you just want to attack me for my politics.

 

Thanks for letting me know

[MamboNo5 10]

I'm not equating them. I'm actually saying that in a nuclear war a situation could arise where high levels of contiminants could enter the environment through uncontrolled fires at nuclear facilities, and that those fires could happen at many locations. I used Chernobyl to illustrate what could be emitted into the environment. I used Fukushima to illustrate the quantity of fuel that can be stored a a single location.

 

I'm not equating anything to anything, just making the simple point that blast damaged nuclear facilities without power and personnel are not going to take care of themselves.?

 

Then why not say contamination like after Chernobyl? Why say Chernobyl-like fire? Unless you did it specifically for rhetoric. Are you aware Chernobyl exploded which resulted in that contamination? You wouldn't get that from a fuel fire. So again, high on rhetoric, low on fact.

 

The spent fuel is kept sufficiently separated to avoid it going critical.

 

Right so you don't want to discuss this, you just want to attack me for my politics.

 

Thanks for letting me know

 

I'm not attacking you, I have no idea if you are a Green voter. I'm attacking the ignorance in your argument and making a comparison. There is nothing to discuss. Chernobyl-like fires showed lack of understanding. I was explaining why. Now you know.

 

Next time, just say fires. Unless you mean a fire resulting from an out of control nuclear reaction. Get it?

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2017 at 23:54 ----------

 

There is really no surviving a nuclear war. The trick is to avoid one.

 

We have been successfully avoiding nuclear war for 72 years, though we have come close.

 

I doubt this will end up any different, so calm down and carry on.

 

Very true.

Edited April 17, 2017 by MamboNo5

[monkey104 10]

Well according to my old army training, if you see a bright flash in the sky, hear a constant alarm or hear the clanging of mess tins you should don your respirator within nine seconds and drop face down to the floor.

At the earliest opportunity put on your NBC suit and you will survive to fight! Apparently!

[I1L2T3 10]

Then why not say contamination like after Chernobyl? Why say Chernobyl-like fire? Unless you did it specifically for rhetoric. Are you aware Chernobyl exploded which resulted in that contamination? You wouldn't get that from a fuel fire. So again, high on rhetoric, low on fact.

 

The spent fuel is kept sufficiently separated to avoid it going critical.

 

I'm not attacking you, I have no idea if you are a Green voter. I'm attacking the ignorance in your argument and making a comparison. There is nothing to discuss. Chernobyl-like fires showed lack of understanding. I was explaining why. Now you know.

 

Next time, just say fires. Unless you mean a fire resulting from an out of control nuclear reaction. Get it?

 

---------- Post added 17-04-2017 at 23:54 ----------

 

 

Very true.

 

So you are trying to argue that in the event of a nuclear war there is no chance that there could be no chance of fires at nuclear facilities resulting in contamination at Chernobyl levels. And that there is no chance of problems with reactors once they lose their active cooling. And no chance of fires in spent fuel pools once they lose their active cooling. That no plants would be compromised by damage from the explosions? That they would remain fully staffed? That the emergency services would still be fully functioning to deal with any issues? There's every chance that at multiple locations it could be worse than Chernobyl because of all that.

 

You don't know what you're talking about. You've just trying to score a cheap point by latching onto one thing in one post.