General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFukushima vs Chernobyl vs Three Mile Island
http://skeptoid.com/mobile/4397With the shocking end-of-the-world-scenario headlines such as "Your Days of Eating Pacific Ocean Fish Are Over" and "28 Signs That The West Coast Is Being Absolutely Fried With Nuclear Radiation From Fukushima" either Fukushima was the worst environmental disaster ever, or some of the worst misinformation ever is being trumpeted. To find out which, we'll put it into context with the two other best known nuclear disasters: the 1986 explosion of a reactor at the Chernobyl plant in the Ukraine, and the 1979 partial meltdown of a reactor at the Three Mile Island plant in Pennsylvania.
The most important technical point to understand about various reactor kinds is the moderator. The moderator is a substance that slows down the fast neutrons being shed by the radioactive uranium fuel, converts the kinetic energy into thermal energy, and turns them into slow, thermal neutrons. A thermal neutron is much more likely to strike another uranium nucleus. This allows a chain reaction, in which the fuel produces enough heat to power a conventional steam generator. Most nuclear reactors use water as the moderator. Put uranium fuel rods into water, in the proper configuration, and you'll get a chain reaction.
Chernobyl, however, was a very different type of machine. It was what we call an atomic pile, the devices first designed during World War II to produce plutonium for atomic weapons. The atomic pile is literally a pile of graphite blocks, half a meter long and a quarter meter square, with a hole bored through the long axis. These graphite blocks were used as the moderator.
Some good comparisons between the three nuclear incidents.
Sid
Octafish
(55,745 posts)There's more to learn.
http://skeptoid.com/book.php
hobbit709
(41,694 posts)and want us all to panic.
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Chernobyl was one reactor, on dry land, and is covered up to reduce airborne emissions, and there is no offsite discharge of watery radioactivity.
Fukushima was three reactors melting down, two blowing up, is on the ocean and is being flooded with water that is flowing into the Pacific ocean for who-knows-how-long, and is not covered by anything thereby being allowed to spew airborne radioactivity.
This skeptoid site must be a nuke-lovers paradise, eh?
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)It's got that going for it.
Sid
RobertEarl
(13,685 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 3, 2014, 04:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Yeah, skepty is going all right, going down the toilet.
It's almost as if a first grader copied and pasted something found on a nuke industry website.
ENEnews.com? Now that's real. And is no shit.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
snooper2
(30,151 posts)snooper getting lonely LOL
nikto
(3,284 posts)I think we all an agree that nuclear radiation is GOOD for you,
and we ask God Himself (or Herself)
to give us lots more of it, especially for our children.
All agreed?
Good.
End of argument.