It is currently Wed Jan 17, 2018 6:23 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 4:13 am 
Offline
*

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:21 am
Posts: 36
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
I don't know much about nuclear reactors but I imagine they would pose a significant threat to any survivors of a near-extinction event.

Are there any organizations with plans & the know how to deal with this potential threat in the event these reactors are just left abandoned without being properly decommissioned?

& how long can they remain neglected before becoming critical?


Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare on TumblrShare on Google+
Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 9:11 am 
Offline
* * *
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 5:57 pm
Posts: 316
Location: Kentucky
Has thanked: 12 times
Been thanked: 2 times
I have wondered that (what would happen to the plants in the event of a Major SHTF event) myself and I think only the Department of Energy and the actual corporate owners of the plants and I suppose the manufacturers would have that information. It is highly unlikely that the US Govt would allow this info to be given to any outside agency or organization.

Edited for “clarity”

_________________
Insert clever quote here


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sun Dec 24, 2017 10:08 am 
Offline
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Posts: 15701
Location: Greater New Orleans Area
Has thanked: 869 times
Been thanked: 484 times
Honestly in terms of risk in an extinction event the few nuclear reactors would be the least of your worries. Assuming they were shut down properly they should be ok to leave alone for your lifetime.

Now chemical plants, oil refineries, trains loaded with hazmat, medical radiation devices and similar hazards are far more numerous and much less durable. They will be a significant issue in such a situation due to the volume and widespread distribution of these risks.

A single bulk storage tank in a refinery can easily hold 1 million gallons of hazardous materials.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum

ImageImageImage

Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 5:00 am 
Offline
*

Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2015 3:21 am
Posts: 36
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 1 time
raptor wrote:
Honestly in terms of risk in an extinction event the few nuclear reactors would be the least of your worries. Assuming they were shut down properly they should be ok to leave alone for your lifetime.

Now chemical plants, oil refineries, trains loaded with hazmat, medical radiation devices and similar hazards are far more numerous and much less durable. They will be a significant issue in such a situation due to the volume and widespread distribution of these risks.

A single bulk storage tank in a refinery can easily hold 1 million gallons of hazardous materials.

Like a Linear Accelerator? Can that produce radioactive fallout?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:09 am 
Offline
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Posts: 15701
Location: Greater New Orleans Area
Has thanked: 869 times
Been thanked: 484 times
No it takes a surface burst from a nuclear warhead to create fallout in any quantity.

The risk from all of these nuclear sources is a high level of radioactivity that without the proper detection devices goes in noticed.

The same is true for chemical plants and other industrial sources. They can discharge toxic materials if they are not properly securred.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum

ImageImageImage

Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Dec 25, 2017 11:57 am 
Offline
ZS Member
ZS Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 11:58 pm
Posts: 3829
Has thanked: 1598 times
Been thanked: 496 times
KillerForHire wrote:
I don't know much about nuclear reactors but I imagine they would pose a significant threat to any survivors of a near-extinction event.

Are there any organizations with plans & the know how to deal with this potential threat in the event these reactors are just left abandoned without being properly decommissioned?

& how long can they remain neglected before becoming critical?


There's lots of interesting info out there, especially at the anti-nuclear power web sites https://www.propublica.org/article/our- ... d-go-wrong

The biggest problem I see is if the fuel rods are still in the main container and loss of all power stops the circulation of cooling water. If the rods have been removed the long term worry is whenever the containment vessel finally degrades and leaks contaminated water into the local area. There are also radioactive spent rods in cooling ponds that rely on the water level being maintained. Unless a nuclear plant has been at least partially dismantled it poses a long term risk.

In a near extinction event you'll have a severe loss of the skilled workforce, tools and materials needed to dismantle a plant.

_________________
Most of my adventures are on my blog http://suntothenorth.blogspot.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
My Introduction With Pictures: http://zombiehunters.org/forum/viewtopi ... 10&t=79019" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Graduated with honors from kit porn university


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 8:19 am 
Offline
* * *
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2008 3:07 pm
Posts: 532
Location: North Carolina
Has thanked: 10 times
Been thanked: 53 times
teotwaki wrote:
KillerForHire wrote:
I don't know much about nuclear reactors but I imagine they would pose a significant threat to any survivors of a near-extinction event.

Are there any organizations with plans & the know how to deal with this potential threat in the event these reactors are just left abandoned without being properly decommissioned?

& how long can they remain neglected before becoming critical?


There's lots of interesting info out there, especially at the anti-nuclear power web sites https://www.propublica.org/article/our- ... d-go-wrong

The biggest problem I see is if the fuel rods are still in the main container and loss of all power stops the circulation of cooling water. If the rods have been removed the long term worry is whenever the containment vessel finally degrades and leaks contaminated water into the local area. There are also radioactive spent rods in cooling ponds that rely on the water level being maintained. Unless a nuclear plant has been at least partially dismantled it poses a long term risk.

In a near extinction event you'll have a severe loss of the skilled workforce, tools and materials needed to dismantle a plant.

teotwaki has it right here. Nuclear reactors are a long-term investment, and only make sense with the capability to provide ongoing maintenance of the site for decades (and protecting of the waste for millennia). Is it reckless to assume this will always be the case everywhere they are installed, to perpetuity? It's maybe a reasonable gamble, but people who try to analyze worst-case scenarios (like ZS) hate these things.

The numerous daughter products in nuclear reactors (we're talking about conventional uranium fission reactors here, not breeders, thorium, fusion, etc.) mean that even when you shut down the main uranium fission reaction, the fuel does not "cool" for a very long time. The heat and reactivity decay somewhat exponentially (with some serious wrinkles - dependent upon a complex balance of daughter half-lives and populations), but it will need active cooling for months before it would even be considered relatively "cool", and semi-passive cooling could be used for years after that point.

Once you shut it down, restarting it immediately can be dangerous, because of things like xenon poisoning. And if you don't know what that is, you should not be trying to operate (or be near) one of these things in the apocalypse. The number of people qualified to operate a given nuclear reactor in a region could be quite small, and while we'd normally expect we can ship in replacements from somewhere else, if something widespread happens to a lot of reactors, the simple task of staffing a response can become a problem real quick.

How long can modern reactors be neglected before becoming dangerous? Assuming their off-site water and electricity are cut, with no other significant on-site damage: maybe as long as a week, or as little as a couple of days. Fukushima is a good example of timeframe here.

How should we plan to deal with them in the apocalypse? Fukushima and Chernobyl are also examples here. Stay the eff away from them for a good long ways, and wait out 20,000 years before going back.

_________________
Rahul Telang wrote:
If you don’t have a plan in place, you will find different ways to screw it up

Colin Wilson wrote:
There’s no point in kicking a dead horse. If the horse is up and ready and you give it a slap on the bum, it will take off. But if it’s dead, even if you slap it, it’s not going anywhere.


Last edited by JayceSlayn on Tue Dec 26, 2017 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:28 pm 
Offline
* * * * *
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 16, 2013 3:45 pm
Posts: 2193
Has thanked: 1130 times
Been thanked: 312 times
I could be wrong. My understanding is that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are showing signs of more rapid radiation decay than expected. My understanding is Chernobyl is becoming safe at a faster rate than expected. What I have been told is that radiation is bad news, but does not seem to last the tens of thousands of years we originally thought.

But again, I could have misunderstood or been told wrong, so do your due diligence before taking a walk in the park around a destroyed reactor.

_________________
*Remember: I'm just a guy on the internet :)
*Don't go to stupid places with stupid people & do stupid things.
*Be courteous. Look normal. Be in bed by 10'clock.

“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” -Bilbo Baggins.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Dec 26, 2017 1:41 pm 
Offline
ZS Moderator
ZS Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2007 10:18 pm
Posts: 15701
Location: Greater New Orleans Area
Has thanked: 869 times
Been thanked: 484 times
JayceSlayn wrote:

How should we plan to deal with them in the apocalypse? Fukushima and Chernobyl are also examples here. Stay the eff away from them for a good long ways, and wait out 20,000 years before going back.


Quoted for truth and wisdom.

The good news is that the locations of all such sites are well documented. Draw a 50 mile radius around each one and assume that is a no go zone. If you want to be safe draw a 200 mile circle around each one and call that the caution zone.

While you are doing that, do the same thing with chemical plants and oil refineries albeit with a 20 mile radius.

_________________
Duco Ergo Sum

ImageImageImage

Hall of Fame Forum


Forum Rules Link


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group