JUPITERASC
Well-known member
.
Cs-137 does NOT have a half life of 20 years. The correct value is 30 years.
There are other equally dangerous radioactive isotopes in the fallout for a nuclear plant disaster.
Of equal significance is Sr-90 with a half life of 30 years.
Both Cs-137 and Sr-90 are major sources for heath problems years after exposure
as both can be taken up in plants, and hence food stuffs.
assume that Russia knows precisely where each of these reactors is situated
and unless they wish to blow one up on purpose, it would be an unlikely '...accident...'
On the other hand I could imagine a scenario
where either Ukraine or some other malignant entity would destroy a reactor
in order to gain some type of leverage. In any case it's a very dangerous situation
and yet another reason why nuclear fission should not be a long term solution to our energy needs
As efficient and cheap as atomic energy can be, our species, our humanity in the World society
is not evolved enough to use it in a responsible way.
Accidents can always happen and the fact we still resort to war
make having nuclear power stations a poor choice anywhere
This is completely overblown
Not only is there virtually no danger of a radioactive leak from EITHER the reactors
OR the spent fuel casks being cracked, but even if they were
there’s literally no way it would be even 1% of the Chernobyl disaster.
They would literally have to destroy the containment domes, THEN intentionally overload the reactors.
These things are designed
to handle impacts from freight trains and not release a single Sivert of radiation
.
Cs-137 does NOT have a half life of 20 years. The correct value is 30 years.
There are other equally dangerous radioactive isotopes in the fallout for a nuclear plant disaster.
Of equal significance is Sr-90 with a half life of 30 years.
Both Cs-137 and Sr-90 are major sources for heath problems years after exposure
as both can be taken up in plants, and hence food stuffs.
assume that Russia knows precisely where each of these reactors is situated
and unless they wish to blow one up on purpose, it would be an unlikely '...accident...'
On the other hand I could imagine a scenario
where either Ukraine or some other malignant entity would destroy a reactor
in order to gain some type of leverage. In any case it's a very dangerous situation
and yet another reason why nuclear fission should not be a long term solution to our energy needs
As efficient and cheap as atomic energy can be, our species, our humanity in the World society
is not evolved enough to use it in a responsible way.
Accidents can always happen and the fact we still resort to war
make having nuclear power stations a poor choice anywhere
This is completely overblown
Not only is there virtually no danger of a radioactive leak from EITHER the reactors
OR the spent fuel casks being cracked, but even if they were
there’s literally no way it would be even 1% of the Chernobyl disaster.
They would literally have to destroy the containment domes, THEN intentionally overload the reactors.
These things are designed
to handle impacts from freight trains and not release a single Sivert of radiation
.
