snagglepuss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 10:11 PM
Original message |
Forgive me if this is a dumb question but in terms of radiation that could be |
|
unleashed, would it be comparable to Hiroshima or worse?
|
MannyGoldstein
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 10:24 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I think much more, but very concentrated |
|
Edited on Wed Mar-16-11 10:25 PM by MannyGoldstein
Most all will be in a blob in one spot, although some will spread.
|
snagglepuss
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. That it stays in a blob is probably the best case scenario. If the spent rods ignite the |
|
radioactivity will spread.
|
kestrel91316
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 11:05 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
4. Sounds like the blob will have a tentacle over here in SoCal. |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Mar-16-11 10:56 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Not so far though.
Unless fission restarts in a big way (and is released), it shouldn't be anywhere close.
60,000 people died of radiation poisoning in the first year alone. I've seen no reports of anyone getting a lethal dose thus far.
|
bananas
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-11 09:14 AM
Response to Original message |
|
In Hiroshima, the radiation was all released in an instant, here there is much more radiation but it will be released much more slowly. So in Hiroshima, people were vaporized leaving shadows on the walls, the heat created a huge fireball, and the explosion shockwave pulverized all buildings. That won't happen here, just a lot of radioactive particles will be spread into the air and groundwater.
|
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-11 09:26 AM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. A nuclear blast has a very different fingerprint of radiation |
|
as well as very different elements spread around.
As I posted above, while it's true that the bomb killed many many people in the blast, the radiation killed about at many. Reportedly 60,000 in the first year alone.
Hard to imagine a scenario that get's "much worse" than that.
|
Statistical
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-11 09:24 AM
Response to Original message |
6. Unlikely at this point. Even Chernobyl wasn't as bad as Hiroshima. |
FBaggins
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Mar-17-11 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #6 |
8. Aw man... you had to open that can-o-worms? |
|
You know there are people who (mistakenly, but fervently) insist that Chernobyl killed 900,000 people.
It will be interesting to watch this same group if nobody dies here from radiation and the debate boils down to estimating additional cancer rates in the "Fukushima 50".
I fervently hope that's the debate we have (rather than whether it killed 100 or 1,000).
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Wed Apr 24th 2024, 06:58 AM
Response to Original message |