#Login Register


  • 3 Vote(s) - 5 Average
Home 


What happens to nuclear reactors when the next Carrington event happens?
03-07-2017, 12:37 PM #16
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,824 Threads:44 Joined:Mar 2011
As a reminder:

A Carrington Event would INSTANTLY render all electronics DEAD.

All shut down procedures (manual or auto) rely on devices that have integrated circuits.

I believe it's safe to say that only a minority of the hundreds of nuclear stations in operation have the quantity and quality of shielded electronics that would make and retain/perpetuate a safe shut-down.

Octo has brought up a serious as death scenario. Fish caught in the northern Pacific are not edible for the health conscious. What? Another 5 years for the southern Pacific to be a similar wasteland? Another 5 for the contamination to spread to the other oceans? It will NOT stop.

This is a slow death, but death none the less. Fukushima is not and will not get better on its own and we do not have the capacity to "fix" it. Suck that shït my pro-nuke debaters.

A Carrington Event will make most of the planet uninhabitable.
03-07-2017, 05:03 PM #17
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,585 Threads:408 Joined:Jun 2012
I was listening to some experts chiming in on a nuclear EMP blast from a satellite (North Korean satellites to be exact) and they both agreed on using this adjective 'apocalyptic'. They said the blast would disable electrical/electronic grids which are connected to water (clean, fresh) and food (and everything else most likely)...enough said, I think.
03-07-2017, 06:58 PM #18
dclements Member
Posts:175 Threads:15 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-06-2017, 08:42 PM)Octo Wrote:  Thanks for responding. The comments at your link weren't as optimistic as the article. Also the link at the bottom of the page had some terrifying info and it does lok like we're completely fkd if we're hit with a massive solar storm.

Quote:AMERICA IS FACING THE EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT OF 124 SIMULTANEOUS FUKUSHIMA MELTDOWNS

According to Judy Haar, a recognized expert in nuclear plant failure analyses, when a nuclear power plant loses access to off-grid electricity, the event is referred to as a “station blackout”. Haar states that all of the US nuclear power plants are built to withstand electrical outages without experiencing any core damage, through the activation of an automatic start up of emergency generators powered by diesel. Further, when emergency power kicks in, an automatic shutdown of the nuclear power plant commences. The dangerous control rods are dropped into the core, while water is pumped by the diesel power generators into the reactor to reduce the heat and thus, prevent a meltdown. Here is the catch in this process, the spent fuel rods are encased in both a primary and secondary containment structure which is designed to withstand a core meltdown. However, should the pumps stop because either the generators fail or diesel fuel is not available, the fuel rods are subsequently uncovered and a Fukushima type of core meltdown commences immediately.

http://www.thecommonsenseshow.com/2014/0...meltdowns/
Your welcome. soapbox.gif

I won't lie and say that many if not most plants would have some kind of core melt down if the operators are unable to initiate shut down procedures or if those shut down procedures are unable to complete. Nuclear reactors have secondary cooling systems when their main system goes off line (whether it is for maintenance or an emergency) and without it's main or alternative system it is given it will overheat and do what some people describe as 'melt'. However even if a US reactor does 'melt' the containment dome (as well as the rest of the building) is designed to hold the majority of radiation and other hazards from escaping to the outside.

'Fukushima' was a type 50's-60's era reactor that was on it's last leg before getting shut down and replaced with another power plant. Believe it or not the people that designed where well AWARE of what their were and where not capable of handling and for them the problems at TMI and Fukushima where plausible problems (even though both of them had problems that were beyond the scope of their operating and safety capacity) however at the time of their design the release of some nonlethal radiation under the WORSE conditions wasn't as big of a concern as it is today; or even after the TMI incident for that matter.

Put it to you this way, plenty of people where exposed to radiation when they were testing nuclear bombs back in the 40's-60's and although some (or perhaps many) had health issues because of it, it wasn't what someone would call a 'EXTINCTION LEVEL EVENT'. Nuclear bombs are very messy, they don't contain their radiation like the containment domes at power plants do, and even if you are not near one when they go off, they CAN spread their radiation to areas where people are living so they can be bothered by it. This is the reason (or at least I believe is the reason) there is a ban on nuclear weapon testing programs.

Also if your afraid of something going wrong at a nuclear reactor you should bear in mind that there are plenty of other ways you could be off by NBC or other types of warfare. For example if someone got hold of radioactive cobalt (used in research, agriculture, medicine, etc), modified it into aerosol form, and then sprayed it in a populated area, they would have effectively created a dirty bomb which would be difficult to detect without a radiation detector. Also when there is Ebola outbreaks with particularly lethal strains, all you need is a wealthy benefactor, a simple lab and a few supplies, some semi-trained crazies willing to carry the virus to populated areas in the developed world, a clever enough plan in order to avoid detection from the authorities while carrying it out, and you have a master plan to create a world wide epidemic . Which is why I believe the US military decided to 'help' when the problem got as big as it did.

There are many other things that a rogue state, or person with LOTS of money and the desire for revenge can do but I think you get the picture. Unfortunately there is only so many resources available to prevent bad things from happening and sometimes you have to either be blind to the real threats or accept there is a certain level of 'acceptable risk' to everything in life.

The people with money and power only do enough to make sure it is unlikely that EVERYTHING will get destroyed and/or our way of life (including the existing status quo) will really change that much. However even with the resources and power that we have there is only so much that can be done. While it is not much of any consolation, the pros and cons of nuclear power and technology are taken into this equation and existing nuclear technology within power plants are designed to handle ALL possible threats within reason. I know that trusting the egg heads that design and run power plants is asking a lot, but it really isn't that different than trusting other egg heads you trust with your life when you do things such as step into a plane or drive a new car.
03-09-2017, 06:46 PM #19
dclements Member
Posts:175 Threads:15 Joined:Jan 2017
I haven't got a reply from the professor nor have I heard anything from the guy who does xkcd who I also sent an email to. I have however found this other articles relating to the matter of what the nuclear power industry has done in considering what might happen during a solar event and/or nuclear EMP:

https://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov/2011...er-pulses/
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/...tric-grid/

Here is some of what I found on the first link:

"The NRC requires U.S. nuclear power plants to be able to shut down safely in the face of many extreme events – tornados, hurricanes and earthquakes. But the NRC also takes into account far more unusual events, like solar flares and electromagnetic pulse (EMP) caused by a certain type of nuclear weapon. Both can affect generators, transformers and other parts of the electric grid – which in turn could affect nuclear power plants.

The NRC has been examining these issues for more than 30 years, starting in the late 1970s when the agency studied how EMP could affect nuclear power plant safe-shutdown systems. In February 1983 the NRC issued the study’s conclusion: nuclear power plants’ safety systems can do their jobs after an EMP event. The agency revisited the issue in 2007 to account for the increasing use of digital computer systems in nuclear plants, which potentially could be more susceptible to EMP. The agency continued to conclude as recently as two years ago that nuclear power plants can safely shut down following an EMP event.

The NRC has also examined potential “solar storms” and their potential to damage the electric grid. A strong geomagnetic storm on March 13, 1989, for example, severely disrupted electrical power equipment in Canada, Scandinavia, and the United States. After studying the event the NRC issued an Information Notice in June 1990, to ensure nuclear power plants understood how severe solar activity could affect transmission systems and other components of the power grid. Additional research in 2010 analyzed and compared solar or geomagnetically-induced current events to those of the EMP events previously analyzed. This work led to the same conclusion as the EMP studies – U.S. nuclear power plants can safely shut down if a solar storm disrupts the grid.

The edge of the NRC’s authority lies in a nuclear power plant’s electric switchyard, where our rules mesh with those of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which oversees the nation’s electric grids. Another body, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) develops and enforces grid reliability standards. The NRC works closely with FERC and NERC on grid reliability issues, including the effects of solar or geomagnetic storms and EMP.

Earlier this year a citizen petitioned the NRC to revisit the issue of grid disruption, this time focusing on the spent fuel pools at U.S. nuclear power plants. The petition calls for a new rule that would require nuclear power plant spent fuel pools to have emergency systems capable of functioning for two years in the absence of an operating electric grid. The NRC is currently analyzing dozens of public comments on the petition, and the agency expects to issue a decision on the petition in the middle of next year."

While I haven't looked into this matter to be certain whether or not ALL nuclear plants would be safe from a nuclear EMP pulse and/or solar flare this article leads me to believe that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the guys in charge of enforcing all regulations on the nuclear industry) are aware of the issue and are taking steps to insure that all nuclear plants they inspect have the capacity to deal with such problems if they ever happen.

I don't know if knowing that the NRC is aware of the issue, that there are regulations in place for nuclear plants to deal with such issues and protect the pubic during such an event, and that such regulations are enforced is enough to satisfy anyone concern about the problem (as it has been shown that nuclear power plants can still fail during what is considered by some to be a very unlikely event), I hope this satisfies the argument I made early where I said that the nuclear industry as well as the NRC are aware of the issue and have taken some measures to protect against it; even though I couldn't prove it at the time I said it.
03-09-2017, 09:33 PM #20
DaJavoo If looks could kilt
Posts:1,824 Threads:44 Joined:Mar 2011
NIce sumbuddy has given a thought, but hey? Who ya' gonna' call if things go south and the cooling pools go tits up during the next Carrington event?

You can betcher ass nobuddy is gonna' answer the phone.
03-09-2017, 11:22 PM #21
dclements Member
Posts:175 Threads:15 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-09-2017, 09:33 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  NIce sumbuddy has given a thought, but hey? Who ya' gonna' call if things go south and the cooling pools go tits up during the next Carrington event?

You can betcher ass nobuddy is gonna' answer the phone.
To be honest I have no answer for that since there are always a number of issues that can happen even when a Carrington event doesn't take place, and it takes a certain amount of knowledge and 'faith' in the eggheads that design and build the things to not worry about it too much. As I told Adde in a recent PM, nuclear power is the closest thing we have today to real life alchemy (since it ACTUALLY CAN turn LEAD INTO GOLD even if doing it is too expensive) and it is almost a given that some people will look at it as an abomination; just as they did with medieval alchemy and/or the proton collider when someone mentioned it might create mico-black holes (which 'theoretically' just evaporate as soon as they come into existence) .

Since it is IMHO that knowing about and utilizing nuclear power to it's greatest is in our best interest (even if the way we are doing could be improved a bit), I'm still pro nuclear but I can understand the how and why others do not share my opinion, nor do I think anything I can say can help them with their phobia of it; including me mentioning of the nearly infinite number of things that are more dangerous than it .

Part of this is because nuclear power is a 'perfect storm' of things to be afraid of (fear of the unknown, fear of something unknowable, fear of something unsee-able, and on top of all that the fear of something that can potentially kill you). But if someone knows enough about it and overcome some of 'angst' in realizing it can sometimes be over their heads, then it is not so troubling. Or perhaps not any more troubling than the other dangers that we have to deal with on a day to day basis.
03-13-2017, 04:02 PM #22
UniqueStranger Art in my heart
Posts:14,585 Threads:408 Joined:Jun 2012
(03-09-2017, 11:22 PM)dclements Wrote:  
(03-09-2017, 09:33 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  NIce sumbuddy has given a thought, but hey? Who ya' gonna' call if things go south and the cooling pools go tits up during the next Carrington event?

You can betcher ass nobuddy is gonna' answer the phone.
To be honest I have no answer for that since there are always a number of issues that can happen even when a Carrington event doesn't take place, and it takes a certain amount of knowledge and 'faith' in the eggheads that design and build the things to not worry about it too much. As I told Adde in a recent PM, nuclear power is the closest thing we have today to real life alchemy (since it ACTUALLY CAN turn LEAD INTO GOLD even if doing it is too expensive) and it is almost a given that some people will look at it as an abomination; just as they did with medieval alchemy and/or the proton collider when someone mentioned it might create mico-black holes (which 'theoretically' just evaporate as soon as they come into existence) .

Since it is IMHO that knowing about and utilizing nuclear power to it's greatest is in our best interest (even if the way we are doing could be improved a bit), I'm still pro nuclear but I can understand the how and why others do not share my opinion, nor do I think anything I can say can help them with their phobia of it; including me mentioning of the nearly infinite number of things that are more dangerous than it .

Part of this is because nuclear power is a 'perfect storm' of things to be afraid of (fear of the unknown, fear of something unknowable, fear of something unsee-able, and on top of all that the fear of something that can potentially kill you). But if someone knows enough about it and overcome some of 'angst' in realizing it can sometimes be over their heads, then it is not so troubling. Or perhaps not any more troubling than the other dangers that we have to deal with on a day to day basis.

We had an almost tits' up scenario at Fukushima recently...

Quote:If the water in the spent fuel pools had boiled off and exposed the rods, thousands of nuclear fuel assemblies would have been severely damaged, releasing massive amounts of radioactive materials into the environment.

Tepco guidelines state that the pools’ surface temperature must not exceed 65 degrees. If cooling functionality was completely lost, the surface temperature would likely rise to the limit in about seven days, according to Tepco. In the wake of the 2011 meltdown crisis at Fukushima No. 1, all 48 commercial reactors in Japan were eventually taken offline. Since then, four have been reactivated after passing stringent new safety rules set by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.

Thank goodness there is a seven day window to save our asses.

And I also had a chance to ask my nuclear engineer nephew who is a now a nuclear plant construction consultant and he, as always, just smerks at my doomsday questions and reiterated what I have been reading about a Carrington event or an EMF from a nuclear blast from above...our food and water is on the grid and that it what will go tits' up and fast, and we will need more than seven days to fix it.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11...MaW-mcpqSo
03-13-2017, 07:51 PM #23
dclements Member
Posts:175 Threads:15 Joined:Jan 2017
(03-13-2017, 04:02 PM)UniqueStranger Wrote:  
(03-09-2017, 11:22 PM)dclements Wrote:  
(03-09-2017, 09:33 PM)DaJavoo Wrote:  NIce sumbuddy has given a thought, but hey? Who ya' gonna' call if things go south and the cooling pools go tits up during the next Carrington event?

You can betcher ass nobuddy is gonna' answer the phone.
To be honest I have no answer for that since there are always a number of issues that can happen even when a Carrington event doesn't take place, and it takes a certain amount of knowledge and 'faith' in the eggheads that design and build the things to not worry about it too much. As I told Adde in a recent PM, nuclear power is the closest thing we have today to real life alchemy (since it ACTUALLY CAN turn LEAD INTO GOLD even if doing it is too expensive) and it is almost a given that some people will look at it as an abomination; just as they did with medieval alchemy and/or the proton collider when someone mentioned it might create mico-black holes (which 'theoretically' just evaporate as soon as they come into existence) .

Since it is IMHO that knowing about and utilizing nuclear power to it's greatest is in our best interest (even if the way we are doing could be improved a bit), I'm still pro nuclear but I can understand the how and why others do not share my opinion, nor do I think anything I can say can help them with their phobia of it; including me mentioning of the nearly infinite number of things that are more dangerous than it .

Part of this is because nuclear power is a 'perfect storm' of things to be afraid of (fear of the unknown, fear of something unknowable, fear of something unsee-able, and on top of all that the fear of something that can potentially kill you). But if someone knows enough about it and overcome some of 'angst' in realizing it can sometimes be over their heads, then it is not so troubling. Or perhaps not any more troubling than the other dangers that we have to deal with on a day to day basis.

We had an almost tits' up scenario at Fukushima recently...

Quote:If the water in the spent fuel pools had boiled off and exposed the rods, thousands of nuclear fuel assemblies would have been severely damaged, releasing massive amounts of radioactive materials into the environment.

Tepco guidelines state that the pools’ surface temperature must not exceed 65 degrees. If cooling functionality was completely lost, the surface temperature would likely rise to the limit in about seven days, according to Tepco. In the wake of the 2011 meltdown crisis at Fukushima No. 1, all 48 commercial reactors in Japan were eventually taken offline. Since then, four have been reactivated after passing stringent new safety rules set by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.

Thank goodness there is a seven day window to save our asses.

And I also had a chance to ask my nuclear engineer nephew who is a now a nuclear plant construction consultant and he, as always, just smerks at my doomsday questions and reiterated what I have been reading about a Carrington event or an EMF from a nuclear blast from above...our food and water is on the grid and that it what will go tits' up and fast, and we will need more than seven days to fix it.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/11...MaW-mcpqSo
As I said before your fear is more of a knee-jerk reaction to the unknown than a thoughtful analysis to pointing out a real and present danger. There are nearly ENDLESS sources of natural and cosmic radiation around you and you only have to worry when those levels (or those levels plus the levels from man made radiation) go to or above the level which can case radiation sickness or increase your rate of cancer. I'm pretty sure the danger from Fukushima even if the rods are exposed (which is unlikely since it didn't happen even during the accident) is nothing worse than what we have to deal with after a nuclear bomb was tested above ground; or anywhere close to it for that matter.

I think Greenpeace and a few other groups use to try to use statistical studies to help back their positions against nuclear power until they realized NONE of the studies done by the NRC, US government, Cancer Society of America, or their own studies showed any real threat to the US population from nuclear power plants. Every time you hear about X number of people died from radiation from this accident or incident (if the number is any more than 10) the number is pulled out of thin air.

During Chernobyl the causality rate was over 100 when you count the employees that died during the explosion and fire fighters that got killed during the aftermath (as well as the helicopter crew that crashed while flying too close and trying to check out the exposed core). It is unknown how many of them died because of radiation sickness or because of something else, but it is believed that less than half of those that died did so because of radiation sickness itself because usually when you are in an area where you CAN get a lethal dose of radiation from an accident you first are killed by either the initial explosion or fire afterwords; or crushed in collapsing structures, falls, and what not. In other words even if your job involves potentially dealing with radioactive sources, your much much more likely to be killed by the many other dangers that people have to deal while working at any industrial type occupation. As to the number of liquidators (ie. conscripts and contracts hired or forced to clean up afterwords) that died of cancer, none of the studies showed any statistical increase in cancer related death than what was to be expected. Although that doesn't mean that it is impossible that there were any, it just means that there wasn't any additional deaths than what would be expected from a statistical stand point.

The only thing that did turn up was that there was an additional 4,000 teen, adults, etc. who developed thyroid cancer who normally shouldn't have developed at that time. The thyroid gland is HIGHLY susceptible to radiation and unless you take something like potassium pills after and or before getting exposed to radiation, the radioactive potassium in the food you eat and rest of the environment around you can easily cause you to get thyroid cancer which it did in those 4,000 cases. However thyroid cancer is treatable (and/or at least easier to treat than other cancers) and of those 4,000 case only around 4 died (of course there where more cases than 4,000 of thyroid and 4 deaths but those are the numbers of people that got it and died that where ABOVE the statistical average and I believe the number is somewhere above double or triple when you count the gross number but I can't really remember). All other studies couldn't show an increase of cancer above the statistical average.

Also it is worth noting that such statistical studies could have there numbers screwed up if there is any truth to the idea that peoples immune system reacts FAVORABLY to radiation from time to time. While this may sound crazy, it is show that the human body will sometimes have it's immune system kicked into high gear when given low/non-threatening doses of toxins such as caffeine, snake poison, etc. and when any toxin does this it potentially screws up any study which CAN NOT take into account how many people are helped by being exposed to a toxin when determining how many where harmed by it. This is no different than if a medication was given to certain patients who had a potentially fatal disease and if the number of people it saved was equal to the number it killed, a statistical study might determine that it had NO EFFECT for the patient that took it. I'm not trying to say that getting exposed to radiation is a 'good' thing, I'm just saying that since or body's immune system is designed to handle it and other toxins and sometimes when dealing with one problem it is ready to deal with other threats (it might have know of), and such events have the potential of screwing up studies that are unable to take this into account.

My advice is if your REALLY worried about it, read up a little on how radiation works so you better understand any threat around you and also have potassium pills readily available because they ACTUALLY do work in helping to prevent thyroid cancer if you are exposed to any amount that is below acute radiation sickness. If you happen to get a dose that can cause acute radiation sickness (to the whole body or head that is) they will have to pump out your bodily fluids and replace it with non containment fluids and stuff like that so you can't do much to protect yourself from that other than reading up on radiation so that you know how to protect yourself int he first place. In reality your more likely to die by slipping in the shower, getting struck by lighting, killed in a car or motorcycle crash, bitten by a dog who has rabies, have your organs harvested by someone you met at a bar and sold on the marketable, etc, etc, etc.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com