Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Question for our nuke folks...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
skids Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 04:58 PM
Original message
Question for our nuke folks...

...what's the likely result of hitting an online nuclear reactor with a nuclear warhead?

Just wondering, if BushCo is as mad as Hersh thinks, we'll know soon enough I guess.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BobRossi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. As good as..
Getting Osama with a "Daisy Cutter".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:04 PM
Response to Original message
2. The use of a nuclear weapon is bad. Always.
Is there some special reason that you expect it to be worse than the entire atmosphere of the earth collapsing?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrDonkey Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Think Much Worse
Yes, nuclear weapons are always bad. But a strike against a reactor would produce results--as far as radioactive--contamination far, FAR worse thn "just" a nuclear detonation. If you call a normal (ground burst) strike "bad," an atttack on an operating/operated reactor would be _catastrophic_.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NNadir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #5
9. Catastrophic compared to what?
Edited on Sat Apr-08-06 06:21 PM by NNadir
Worse than Chernobyl maybe?

How about worse that putting the entire nation of Bangladesh under water?

Worse than desertification of Spain and Portugal and large portions of France?

Worse than the loss of all the ice caps?

Worse than the shut down of the gulf stream?

Worse than a series of category 5 hurricanes slamming through Central America and southern North America?

Worse than the loss of every glacier in the Himalayas and all of the water supplies in it?

Worse than the collapse of grain production in the central portion of North America?

Worse than the submersion of Florida?

How is it that we have to consider every "mushroom cloud" scenario, from "Saddam's Nukes" to a direct strike on an Iranian nuclear reactor, to "dirty bombs" to "terrorist nukes in shipping containers," even though there is no evidence that we have come close to even one of these events, but can't generate even a whimper of wonder and trepidation the likely effects of what is occurring?

I, personally, am sick of hysteria, especially the frankly sick hysteria of nuclear scare mongering. In this critical emergency we have to try, as difficult as it is, to think remotely clearly. We will not survive without nuclear energy. It's clear and simple.

By the way, before you consider assertions about this catastrophe, you ought to do a little analysis of the fuel burn-up in the reactor, no? Do you know what that means? The breeching of a reactor depends sensitively on that factor. In fact, we have experience with the release of the entire inventory of a nuclear reactor at the end of its fuel cycle. That place was Chernobyl. Representations to the contrary notwithstanding, that event did not wipe out Europe. The fuel in the Chernobyl reactor had an average burn-up of 12 to 14 MW-day/ton from the fuel cycle. The reactor had been operating for 865 days and was an RBMK with continuous fuel loading capacity and a graphite core. The core burned for weeks, offering a special opportunity for the dispersal of all fission products, especially volatiles.

Photographs of structures that experienced hydrogen bomb blasts are available in Peter Goin's book Nuclear Landscapes. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0801840783/102-6657056-6860123?v=glance&n=283155

Here is a photograph from that book of a concrete bunker that withstood the testing of Operation Castle, a series of nuclear explosions on the island of Bikini, an island that frequently was the subject of some of the largest nuclear explosions in history:



You may see a larger version of this photograph by clicking on the photos here:

http://unr.edu/homepage/pgoin/nuclear_landscapes.htm

Since you are lecturing on the consequences of this psychotic attack by George Bush on this nuclear reactor, (an attack has not happened but which we must contemplate just as we contemplated - at Dick Cheney's behest - a Saddam/Al Queda nuclear attack on New York) maybe you will include a discussion of what this photograph tells us about the putative nuclear attack and it's likely consequences.

From a technical standpoint, for your analysis of the attack - which I await - I will tell you that the Bushehr I reactor is 915 MWe VVER of Russian design. It is to be built in a containment structure that was initially built by German contractors in the period before the fall of the Shah. As of today, Iran is operating no nuclear reactors, and thus are not at the end of any fuel cycle. The original Siemens reactors that were being constructed on the site were damaged in the Iran-Iraq war in 1984, but not destroyed, since they are hardened structures. The reactor has not been fueled and obviously therefore has not gone critical.

For the time being, so long as the Iranian nuclear reactor runs - if it ever does so - it will be saving lives. If a psychotic person, including the freaky resident of the White House, decides to use a nuclear weapon, it will be a criminal act, but not especially more criminal than his act in doing nothing about global climate change. When history is written, should history continue to exist - and there's no assurance it will - that will be the criminal act he will most be remembered for.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
A HERETIC I AM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
3. Extra EXTRA radioactive fallout. Thats all.
no biggie. Washes right off. Just ask the tenants of the apartments nearest Chernobyl.




Oh yeah.


They don't live there anymore.


And cant for another few hundred years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. On the other hand, Chernobyl is a flourishing nature preserve.
Evolution on steroids, I guess.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrDonkey Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
4. Question for our nuke folks...
The results of a direct hit on a fueled nuclear reactor which pierced the containment would be dire indeed. Some nasty, very highly radioactive materials with very long half-lives would be spread over a large area. Think of Three Mile Island PLUS nuclear blast, fire, and the "normal" fallout from a ground burst weapon. It was assumed that the Soviets would have been targeting our fission reactors--and we theirs--from what I've heard, the prognosis wasn't a pretty one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Massacure Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #4
7. Highly radioactive materials do not have long half lifes.
The more radioactive something is, the shorter its half life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrDonkey Donating Member (19 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-08-06 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I should have said compared to the normal fallout
from a megaton class weapon. Also, there'd be quite a bit of plutonium contamination, which would not make the surrounding area a pleasant place, either. All in all, I'd say the two weeks of shelter required after a "normal" strike would probably not be sufficient. This would be made even worse if there were considerable quantities of radioactive wasted stored on site.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 12th 2024, 01:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC