This kinda sucks....
- Thread starter Dirtymaxx03
- Start date
And where do you think we build our nuclear power plants in the US? I guess by your nuclear-engineering logic you think americans are "mentally ill" too.
Ever been to San Onofre? Or Seal Beach? That's just two less than 50 miles from each other. So how many powerplants have you seen that weren't near the ocean or a river/estuary? I'll answer that....none.
lmaoo:roflmao: but it sounds like just the normal idiots that have their "theories" on how the world will end...
I wonder what Al Gore has to say about this radiation. I bet he invented it :roflmao:
Chernobyl is by a sort of lake, thats not a river or ocean
You're right Chernobyl is on a big area of cold water......duh. It's also Russian and they screw up everything.
Last edited:
The leaking water from Fukushima is a problem, no doubt. Hard facts are hard to come by though on how much radioactive material is actually being released into the surrounding water. What contaminates are leaking out is even more important. Some are nastier than others. But that information is in technical briefs that I don't think most of you would get anything out of.
The machinery for pumping out the water and decontaminating it is already being built at the plant. But like all things, it takes real time to do. Seems I saw a timeline someplace calling for processing of the water to start early next year. The processing will continue for the entire decommissioning effort at the site. Some 20 years or more.
There is some talk of freezing the ground to reduce or stop the water flow till they can process the water. The press makes fun of it, but it has actually been done before at other hazardous cleanups.
The red flag for bullshit with these pieces is when the author doesn't know the difference between radioactive contamination and radiation. Sadly, neither does the public. FWIW, contamination is what you worry about. It's the stuff that follows you around.
Rancho Murieta in nor cal was by a small lake. Its been closed for a long time now.
Nukes need water, and a lot of it. There are very very few not near a major water source. The one that comes to mind is Palo Verde in the middle of the Arizona desert. It too uses a lot of water and sucks all the sewage from Phoenix to make up the water it needs. I guess in desert terms, a sewer line is a major water source.
Just to put my two cents in on this one, if I recall correctly, they actually put the spent rector rods in a giant pool until they become less radioactive and safer for transport. IIRC, water actually can serve as radiation shielding. Seeing as how the uranium/plutonium/radioactive fuel of choice is heavier than water, most of the stuff would sink and be shielded. Its the seafood to be wary of and that's closely monitored anyways. No real concerns even if there was truth to the article.
Time distance shielding. all 3 help with radiation. You need to keep it contained until it decays enough to not be harmful. and yes, Z3R0 you are correct with it wants to settle to the bottom. Until something stirs the dirt up.
Funny, the nukes I know don't need any water
:happy2:
Funny, the nukes I know don't need any water
:happy2:
Major difference between boom nukes and power nukes.
I would say mine are more fun-but being one of the most heavy over watched/ managed programs in the world really isn't.
Yes, they are stored in water, and no the not all the byproducts settle out. There are many many byproducts from the fission process. Many dissolve into the water and are then available to be ingested into organisms if they are exposed to them. Some are rather nasty. Cesium for one. But you have a whole boatload of contaminates to choose from.
It IS a concern, the question is how much.
No problem. Its something I idly read on from time to time. Live and learn. Or if sh1t his the fan, don't live and learn. Lol
Fingers, some people have the title Duramax Scientist under their name you need to have plain scientist under yours. What are you a walking encyclopedia?!