Nuke Power

You're talking apples and oranges here...

This is OT, but,

My wife took her mother to Wales in 1990. They saw many sheep with red X's painted on them. Fruit trees had all died on one side.

Fallout from Chernobyl the year before had poisoned them.

Nice blurb here on Chernobyl...There was a program on, I forget which channel, but it was about researchers studying the wolves in that area, taking radiation readings as they went about in the wooded areas, and abandoned buildings, that the wolves have taken over as shelter...really no high radiation that I can remember, the wildlife seems to have recovered...This article states that the town of Pripyat , where the workers from the plant used to reside, is about to be reclaimed....from Dec 09

http://www.ratestogo.com/blog/chernobyl/

It was PBS, I believe Nova. The return of wild life in the fenced off "Danger Zone" is at near pre-development levels. Animals that have not been seen in the area for decades have returned. It is a testiment to the vitality of nature and the power of life. Most animals tested had high radiation levels but they persisted in having offspring. I think that the natural life span of these critters is not terribly long the effect from the radiation are just not evident.

Thanks everyone for these answers. I learned a lot. And this makes a lot of sense too.

Now to push this a little further. I think it is called a neutron bomb, or something like that?

Basically if I remember right, it is a design of a nuke bomb, that explodes, does minimal damage, kills quickly by radiation, but then the residual radiation is very small so the bomb dropper can move in shortly after the dropping.

How does that one work? Where little physical damage, High radiation that kills quickly, yet does not linger round.

Here's a decent brief history and synopsis of the "Neutron Bomb".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_bomb

Like the B-58, it's a weapon whose time has come and gone.

redfred, I stumbled through a couple of different responses to your comment... I relegated them all to the rubbish bin and conclude this with the same ending as all of those deleted gibberish comments... GA vote for a good response.

What many people don't understand is for anything to 'become' radioactive itself, it has to be bombarded with Neutrons. Alpha and Beta particles and Gamma rays will do harm but they will not cause anything else to become radioactive. Of course their sources can contaminate an object which makes the object dangerous unless it is decontaminated. The sources themselves are usually extremely dangerous depending on the type and length of exposure.

Nuclear power plants develop a contamination that builds over time. Called CRUD which is an acronym for Cotton River Undetermined Deposits (another story about a nuclear power plant). CRUD is radioactive because it circulates through the reactor core (I'm talking about a water-cooled reactor) and is irradiated by the neutron flux. The source of CRUD is impurities in the water, molecules of the stainless steel primary system, bearing material in the cooling water pumps, etc. Once irradiated, it becomes a source of Alpha and Beta particles and Gamma rays.

So that is one source of contamination if it gets out into the 'world.' Probably the major concern when primary coolant gets into the outside world even if the core remains intact. That type of accidental release just caused the San Onofre plant in SoCal to be shut down because their steam generators are leaking primary coolant. Basically, very hot primary water is circulated through tubes in the steam generator and secondary water on the other side of the tubes is heated to generate steam. If a tube leaks, at the very least, the secondary side of the plant, the turbines, condensers and piping do become contaminated.

When a reactor 'melts down' that generally means that the cladding that contains the fuel and protects it from the water, melts, exposing the Uranium / Plutonium or whatever fuel and the Fission by-products to the water or atmosphere if the water is lost.

The fission byproducts are the really nasty players here. Truly bad for you and some of the byproducts have very long half-lives. Those are what make places 'dead' to human inhabitants. Unfortunately, people who move back into those areas are probably going to exhibit medical problems over the long term.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fission_product if you want to know what the byproducts are. Note the short half-life of the really bad stuff is 30 years. But contamination has to undergo at least 5 half-lives (150 years) before the ionizing radiation in the environment is possibly OK. Obviously the amount of contamination is as important as the half-life.

The capacity for a nuclear reactor to make a place uninhabitable is probably much greater than setting off a fusion bomb in the air at that location. (My guess.)

reactors tend to have MUCH more fuel.

the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were low yield. They were the first two. Detonated in the air, over an island, isnt a good model for depositing radiation on the island. Winds will carry much of it away.

The ultimate example is the Bikini Atoll. Its still mostly un-inhabited, although its not un-inhabitable.

It was blown up, over, down, through, sideways...

Comparing the H. and N. bombs to the reactor at Chernobyl is like comparing a firecracker to a really big firecracker.

Theres SO much hysteria over Fukushima-Daiichi that they have a name for the psychological disorder (panic over it)

F-D is what they get for building reactor buildings on the BEACH.

Now they say they have detected radiation in seawater in pacific ocean. If someone eat the fish in that water or drink water after RO what will happen to their health. Not a single life should be affected by nuclear radiation. Money cannot replace a life. See the webs:www.nirs.org/factsheets/nuclear disaster & nuclear power,www.greenpeace.org /nuclear power & dangerous waste,www.epa.gov/radiation risks,www.hse.gov.uk/nuclear/tolerability,www.fas.org/homesec,www.nrds.org/

nuclearplants,www.cert.la.com/FEMA

Poison is dangerous even in small quantities.

No. All poisons have a toxicity level that must be exceeded to cause damage. Many nutrients can become poisonous at higher dosage. Even vitamins have a toxicity level that makes them a poison. People can even die from water poisoning by drinking too much clean water. (No, I do not mean drowning.)

Maybe you could just list the subjects that you deem acceptable for the rest of us.

I believe his criticism has nothing to do with limiting subjects for us to discuss, simply asking that we refrain from offering and answering serious subjects from them from a position of ignorance.

But, wouldn't that disqualify at least half of us right off?

I hope, only from offering authoritative answers from a posture of ignorance. There is no reason not to ask questions, or to offer logical conclusion based on the authoritative pronouncements of others.

Asking questions brings a great benefit to all of us, especially when they are worded by one of our better posters.

yup . education better than banishment , as long as people dont get dragged into constant replies . just reply with logic and walk away

minimise the _diarrhetoric_

do you like that word boys and girls ? , i just made it up but i really think it should be included in the next oxford dictionary ;)

enough... i am walking away

I think your comment is useless. You are in total denial of the dangers of nuclear reactors, and the lack of a safe way to dispose and watch over nuclear waste for thousands of years. We have enough natural gas for a hundred years plus, and you are belittling those who disagree with you. Simple name calling does not speak highly of your intellect.

In fairness, the OP's initial question simply asks why the area around a failed reactor is termed a "dead zone" (an attention-grabbing description that it is beloved by both media fear mongers and sci-fi foil heads alike). The simple fact that the OP asked the question implies that he doubts the popular view that "dead zones" are barren wastelands where hoards of ex-WWE wrestlers battle each other over fuel to run their armor plated dune buggies on.

The question of how a dead zone is defined is technically a good topic for discussion on CR4. The fact that a couple of more impressionable members have started re-hashing the most over-blown theories ever drempt up by comic book writers should not be taken as evidence that the bulk of CR4 members are not mature enough to speak rationally on topics like this.

Media Hype. Names like this sell copy......

My late mate, an army regular at the time, drove a bulldozer in Hiroshima after the bomb. They just levelled everything and started building on top of the rubble, which would have been a good foundation. The radioactive material on top would have been mixed and partially buried, and with the rain would have been diluted and run off. He took samples at the British tests after exploding atom bombs at Maralinga. Despite the radiation suit, he was exposed, then scrubbed down with carbolic soap and laundry scrubbing brushes until pink and clean as a new-born baby. He died at age 84 of organ failure (old age?).

My cousin was an interpreter and interrogator, who visited Hiroshima 2 weeks after the bomb. He died of leukaemia 30 years later in his mid fifties. No one else in the extended family has ever had this.

Some people have the genes, some don't.

Both bombs exploded about 1000 ft above the ground, the better to increase the blast area. The debris would have spread wide at Hiroshima as it is open ground for miles. Nagasaki however is surrounded by hills, so it is in a depression. The debris would would have covered a much smaller area. However again rain might have diluted the fallout. Japan has a lot of rain.

The most accurate answer to the WWII scenario is simply ignorance, you have to remember there was only 1 official "test", trinity, july 16, 1945 i belive, the rest of the world had very little idea what we were up to, and its not like the govorment to share test data from the most classified (at the time) project in U.S. history, the didnt know what all the short term/long term side effects would be, they simlpy let the japanese, and the allied occupation forces move in and start rebuilding, the locals didnt know any better, in fact knowledge was so limited, there was serious concern that the first detination might set off a global chain reaction, not limited to the fisile material in the bomb itself lol. Basically our government didnt care about the health risks to the japanese or the occupation force, they actually studied some of the people (including survivors) to learn about the effects of radiation poisoning.

The Japanese still remember their holocausts. On one day in April each year they open a memorial building in Hiroshima. Inside there is a chest full of documents recording the names of those who died as a result of the effects of the atomic bomb. Each year they add names, clean and repair the documents, wrap them and return them to the chest, and close the building.

This event is not advertised. They are still adding names.

I have heard that as well, they should continue to remember there losses, and help keep others aware of the dangers. My grandfather was stationed there with the occupation forces, he said he loved the country and the people, and despite the circmstances, was treated kindly by the locals. He was at hiroshima once, though its something he never talks about.

There was a documentary by the British BBC a few years ago which provided documentary proof and statements from former US politicians.

It was shown that Japan offered to surrender TWICE over a two week period just prior to the atomic bombs being dropped on Japan.

America said " cant talk right now - we will get back to you "

They wanted revenge for Pearl Harbour , wanted to make an example of them so no other country would mess with the USA , wanted to test the A Bombs and have a live batch of guinea pigs to evaluate the health affects , and also show the world that they had the weapons.

On any other planet thats called a massive genocide and war crime. but dont talk about it coz the NSA or CIA would put you under surveillance , label you a terrorist , and sabotage your life with covert actions.

How many other planets have you visited?

I wished I could back up my memory with a citation but since you won't even provide us your CR4 handle, let alone the name of the BBC documentary I don't feel obligated to document my memory.

The Japanese diplomatic branch of government had tried to initiate peace talks and later conditional surrender terms at various times during the war. It was believed that these were sincere requests by people with no authority or capability to curtail the actions of the Japanese military. All credibility of the Japanese diplomatic corps was crushed with the attack of Pearl Harbor. High level diplomatic ministers of Japan (not just the ambassador and staff) were in Washington DC to negotiate trade between the US and Japan when the attack happened at Pearl Harbor. The ministers were just as surprised as the US Congress by the attack.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Hydrogen Bombs. There is fallout, but tnot the same as a Nuclear power plant. Nuclear Power plants are fission reactors that use fissionable material. Hydrogen bombs are fusion bombs that form large amounts of heavy material and Helium.
The results are very different. Fissionable material continues to decay for centuries, especially U238, U235, and U234 which are the main radioactive components in the core. Hydrogen fusion on the other hand starts with no radioactive components but creates some during the blast. But it does not create the high mass decay products that the Nuclear power plants use.
Newer bombs made after Hiroshima and Nagasaki used U235 and Plutonium to form larger fission reactions and so have very bad fallout much like a power plant.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki lost much of their radioactivity several years after the explosion because there was less high-mass radioactive decay products from the reaction. That allowed people to move back in a realatively short period of time. Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three-mile Island and the other Poer plant accidents have a legacy of high-mass decay products to contend with, for many centuries.....

Do you have any documented evidence to support your statement, "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Hydrogen Bombs"??

I've always heard "atomic".

Look it up. They were "H" bombs. They used TNT surrounding a heavy Uranium core that then compressed a Hydrogen core. The implosion in the core caused fusion to take place creating the "atomic" blast.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teller%E2%80%93Ulam_design

Later designs utilized fission only, and so required more Plutonium and therefore more fallout, much more fallout. Their size is much smaller due to the increased power of more modern high explosives used to trigger the fission reaction, and better control of the enriched Plutonium content of the cores. High yield is now possible without the use of large reaction chambers like in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Yes, but not yet.

"It is named for its two chief contributors, Edward Teller and Stanisław Ulam, who developed it in 1951 for the United States"

This is not my field, just a spectator.

LOL Now that's funny.

I provide a link to Wikipedia that describes the Teller Ulam fusion (aka Hydrogen) bomb device as evidence that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were not fusion bombs and you provide a link to the very same article claiming that they were fusion bombs. Did you read the article you cited? Did you notice this sentence in the Wikipedia article:

The first test of this principle was the "Ivy Mike" nuclear test in 1952, conducted by the United States.

Maybe you forgot that the Trinity test was July 16, 1945. Maybe you forgot that Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6 1945. I could go on but there was a nice movie with Paul Newman as General Grove that you should see called "Fat Man and Little Boy". You should see it.

<giggle>

"Little Boy" was a uranium-based atomic bomb, and (as you correctly noted) NOT a hydrogen bomb. "Fat Man" was plutonium based, and also NOT a hydrogen bomb. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat_Man.

No, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were purely fission bombs not hydrogen bombs. Hiroshima was the first Uranium 235 fission bomb. Nagasaki and the initial Trinity test bomb were Plutonium 238 fission bombs. A Teller-Ulam design fusion bomb (or Sakharov's "Third Idea" by the Soviet Union) is a two stage device. It uses a fission bomb to produce the pressure (an inexact analogy but one must start somewhere) required for fusion of the secondary material. Unlike most people's idea the secondary material is not Hydrogen but a deuterium-lithium mixture that forms tritium in the moments of the reaction. Tritium (an isotope of Hydrogen) is what fuses. It is believed that a three stage version of this technique was used in making the ludicrously powerful Tsar Bomba by the Soviet Union. To date only the USA, England, France, Soviet Union, and People's Republic of China have clearly succesfully detonated a fusion device. India claims that one of their detonations was a low yield fusion device. Regardless of the truth in India's claim, I'm certain they can build one.

As for the fallout difference of a nuclear bomb disaster versus a nuclear plant disaster, there are so many differences between these two disaster scenarios that it is really unfair to compare them. One is designed and controlled to kill people, the other is designed to help people but has gone out of control.

Uranium is, for our purposes, U235 & U238. The Plutonium we are concern with has an atomic weight of 239.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium for a bit more information.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were Hydrogen Bombs.

No, NO, NO. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were NOT hydrogen bombs. Others have been saying it, but you don't seem to believe it. The hydrogen bomb didn't come until later. In #27: TNT is just not potent enough to initiate a fusion reaction!

Do your homework, Deefburger.

1. The two bombs used on Japan were different, one made with highly enriched uranium and the other with plutonium as the primary fissile materials. Uranium comes in 14 naturally-occurring isotopes; the most common are U²³⁸ (>99%), U²³⁵ (~0.7%), and U²³⁴ (<<0.01%). The only easily fissile one is U²³⁵.

2. For the higher-yield hydrogen bombs, the initiation is by a fissile core, but the bomb is contained in a depleted uranium (DU) casing because it will help reflect the neutrons back in and thus increase the flux of neutrons to make the fusion easier to achieve. The resulting energy release contains a high-enough flux of neutrons that the DU casing then fissions. The total energy yield typically is roughly equal between fusion and fission.

3. My source--personal communications from my father, who was one of the scientists in those early years, and who later included in a college textbook (published in the early 1950's) the basic information on how a fusion bomb was capable of working. Incidentally, he became a firm opponent of nuclear weapons.

4. As a suggestion to anyone who is interested, look up an MSDS on uranium, and then tell me how "safe" you think it is. While doing this, remember that we have used millions of pounds of it in explosives during war, and continue to use it to this day.

--JMM

I believe we're actually using depleted uranium, although your point is still valid.

The United Nations has declared the use safe. Wonder who the biggest donor is ?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-04-02/news/sns-201204021102usnewsusnwr201203300329nuclearapr02_1_nuclear-reactors-fukushiRelated article.

I wonder what John Wayne would say about all this?

One has to remember that, in terms of the effects of radioactivity, we were simply stupid when Nagasaki and Hiroshima were bombed. The birth defect rate and cancer rate following the clean up and for years after were way above what could be determined as acceptable or normal rates. Now that we know as much as we do about the effects of radiation on humans we well better stay away from it if we can.

_____________________________________________________

A hand without an arm is a useless tool.

To this day men and women from Hiroshima and Nagasaki are shunned in terms of marriage prospects.

Many women today will travel great distances to give birth rather than having the birth certificate state their child was born in any of these two cities.