this post was submitted on 05 May 2024
147 points (81.5% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26786 readers
3985 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

ok real talk. 3 mile island reportedly had no result on the environment, on account of being fully contained. Chernobyl was significant, obviously.

Fukushima as far as we can tell today, has no significant long lasting effects. Notably i've read that rates of certain cancers in areas surrounding the plant did rise, but i've also heard that it was still below the nominal expected rate. So nothing of significant concern. The local sea life near to the plant could very well be an issue, but we don't really have much data on that at the moment. Especially now that they've started releasing tritiated water into the ocean for the next 20-50 years or whatever the fuck the plan is supposed to be.

Nuclear energy fucks around sometimes.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

certain cancers in areas surrounding the plant did rise

just a note to add that if you start checking the population for something routinely like thyroid cancer... the rate that you find it goes up. This is why the detected cancer rate increasing is not considered a cause for alarm.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

yeah, but then again if you did have a significant raise, you would expect it to be outside of what is statistically nominal for the general population, and from what i understand, it was not. So even if it was a result of the radiation. It would still be lower than the average human expectancy throughout one life time. I.E. Not statistically significant to any degree of concern.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Especially now that they’ve started releasing tritiated water into the ocean for the next 20-50 years or whatever the fuck the plan is supposed to be.

the tritiated water is no-more concentrated than what other power plants around the world release. (the latter may be surprising to know) In addition, tritium has a half-life of only 12.3 years and is diluted in a literal sea, which is an extremely good radiation shield.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago (2 children)

yeah. This is all very true, but like most dilutions, things take time, and it'll be interesting to follow the dilution process as it moves forwards. From what i understand the tritiated water is also released farther out form the shore to prevent local pollution, but i believe there are still elevated levels of radiation in sea life surrounding the shore. Though i can't remember if that was significant or not. Regardless, humans consume fish, it's something to be weary of to some degree (i believe there are laws around this already though)

Also, last i heard, they were handing out bottles of this tritiated water during a press conference they gave near the plant. Definitely not in accordance with regulations and stipulations recommending how you interact with this type of radiation, but then again, flying in for that press conference is going to expose you to more radiation anyway so.

BTW, fun fact for anyone curious as to why they don't just "remove the water" It's because tritiated water is so closely related to your average water molecule, that it's basically identical from a molecular composition point of view (except for the fact that it has tritium in it) as a result, there is no way of removing it. Or, an easy way of removing it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Who is doing the control TEPCO ? So we are safe 🙈

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

i think tepco the government, and the regular suspects in the international agencies.

Japan for what it's worth has a culture that is pretty strict about these sorts of things, so i can't imagine they would blunder this one.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

The radiation near shore will also have any residual from the initial tsunami.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

The part that I'm amazed by is that no civilian seems to know about the TVA meltdown. It's the only full meltdown we ever had, and the Army Corps of Engineers lost all access to nuclear power because of that incident, as they intentionally melted it down to test China Syndrome. This was in the 50s. They did build the thing inside of a mountain to contain all the radiation, but had the physicist that came up with China Syndrome been right, that wouldn't have really mattered. They also could have just done the math to figure out that, yet again, the physicist in question understood physics just fine, but lacked in mathematics.

Chernobyl and Fukushima were chemical explosions. Three Mile Island didn't get to the meltdown stage, just got dangerously close. Seems that running nuclear power as a for profit venture isn't a good idea.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I looked up TVA meltdown, got no results about it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

It may still be classified. I learned about it in Nuclear Power School in the Navy

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

It is my understanding that the Three Mile Island incident was a meltdown, that the fuel rods got hot enough to melt themselves and pool in the bottom of the reactor vessel but did not escape containment, unlike Chernobyl whose reactor core is currently a big lump in a sub-basement.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

Chernobyl is a big lump in a sub basement, but that was still the result of a chemical explosion, not a meltdown. My point was that the only meltdown incidents have been caused by the US.

TMI is a bit of a sticky wicket, because as you say the rods did melt, but we got it back under control before anything more than some rather radioactive steam escaped containment.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

so technically, it wasn't a chemical explosion at chernobyl, it was a steam explosion, followed by a possible hydrogen explosion, though that would have been due to chemical reactions ultimately iirc.

Also technically, chernobyl is a meltdown incident, meltdown is described as "severe core damage" And considering that core no 4 no longer fucking exists, i think it's fair to call it a meltdown incident.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

You can have severe core damage without any nuclear reactions. A meltdown is severe core damage caused by a nuclear reaction that got out of control. Severe core damage here means that radioactive material or fissile material escaped the containment of the core.

There aren't "steam explosions" in physics. There are chemical reactions that cause an explosion, pressure buildups that cause an explosion, and nuclear explosions.

The steam was a pressure buildup that caused the incident resulting in an initial pressure explosion. The thing that "melted" the core of Chernobyl was the hydrogen exploding, hence a chemical explosion. Had it been a nuclear event that melted that core, neither Kiev nor Moscow would be inhabitable. The capital of Russia would be St. Petersburg, and Ukraine wouldn't exist, as well as several other Soviet Oblasts in the area.

Fucking with the literal power of atoms, in a mostly controlled environment, is the closest we've ever come to the Icarus myth. I'm fairly certain that fusion power, should it ever come out of the theoretical stage, won't be nearly as dangerous as fucking around with fission the way that we currently do.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

You can have severe core damage without any nuclear reactions.

uh actually, i disagree, because in order for the event of a meltdown to establish any amount of core damage, or damage at all, you need to inflict fission. Otherwise literally nothing will happen, because thats how they generate heat, but i'm no nuclear physicist.

There aren’t “steam explosions” in physics.

yes? there are? Have you ever looked into 19th century steam technology? Do you understand how combustion explosions work? Yes technically it results from a chemical reaction of smokeless powder decaying, but unless you confine that reaction into a space, it just goes woosh. Once you confine it, and allow it to compress itself it can explode. You are literally just pedantically claiming that steam explosions aren't a specific subset of pressure explosions, the only reason that they are is because steam explosions are so easy to create, and so incredibly dangerous, that them existing in their own field is actually useful to current safety practices.

This is why properly regulated steam boilers can be used to provide steam to a steam engine to pull freight. But the second you get a low water level slosh event, and it sloshes back, the entire thing flashes immediately, blowing up the boiler, and if not immediately killing the crew, scalding them so badly they die shortly after because their lungs no longer function. I suppose you could argue that the burning of wood or coal is a chemical reaction here, but at the end of the day, it's the heat that turns water into steam, and steam that makes the power.

The steam was a pressure buildup that caused the incident resulting in an initial pressure explosion. The thing that “melted” the core of Chernobyl was the hydrogen exploding, hence a chemical explosion.

or maybe it was just the heat from the fuel and resulting runaway fission chain that caused everything to melt into a pile of nothingness? Nuclear fuel just sitting idly by, allowed to exist as is unmoderated (in significant enough capacity) will literally eat through concrete. That's why it's called corium.

Had it been a nuclear event that melted that core

it wouldn't have been, because that's not possible, and i never said that was the likely event. I just said that it was a steam explosion, which it was, and a potential hydrogen or secondary steam explosion, of which we aren't really sure on the source of.

Fucking with the literal power of atoms, in a mostly controlled environment, is the closest we’ve ever come to the Icarus myth.

idk man, maybe fucking castle bravo at bikini atoll? The one time we weren't sure whether or not a sustained nuclear fission event would ever stop because theoretically it could process the nitrogen in the air into more fuel, causing the entire earth to turn into a nuclear wasteland (it didn't btw) Nuclear fission as used to generate power is literally the safest possible use case of it. Modern reactor designs are literally incapable of having runaway thermal events. Research reactors use a specific blend of fuel TRISO to be specific, that has a specific formulation, that makes it physically incapable of having a thermal runaway.

I’m fairly certain that fusion power, should it ever come out of the theoretical stage, won’t be nearly as dangerous as fucking around with fission the way that we currently do.

i mean, fusion is likely to be less dangerous, i'll give you that. But not even that significantly, the main benefit to fusion is that it's the even more spicy nuclear bomb technology, and therefore, easier to exploit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What do you think a "meltdown" is?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

When the melted bit, caused by an uncontrolled nuclear reaction, escapes containment.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

TVA meltdown

Ok so TMI, is actually a cumulation of three primary factors, none of which should've happened.

The first was that they had bad/broken gauges and equipment that was hard to read, meaning they didn't know the state of the reactor exactly like they should have been able to.

Second, they had the auxiliary cooling pumps shutdown for maintenance. Now normally this wouldn't be a huge problem if you're following procedure, as procedure dictates (this was also the law btw) that when your reactor core is running, the auxiliary cooling lines need to be active.

And third, the reactor core was operated under only the primary water feed lines. I.E. power generating feed water. Which as i said is not allowed.

Once they had a crew change, the new crew immediately realized everything had melted down, and called for shutdown. Only took like 8 hours or something.

Chernobyl was a little more complicated, because chernobyl wasn't designed with a PCV (primary containment vessel), technically it had a secondary containment, which would be the building around it, but obviously that didn't help. It was theorized and believed by the engineers (and the operators, ignoring a certain condition where this wouldn't be true, which nobody knew about) that it was impossible for the plant to have a meltdown, primarily due to the fact that it was such a spread out core, making it react slower to immediate changes in the power production.

However, during the day when this happened, (i wont go into all the detail because i will be here for hours otherwise.) the plant was in a xenon well, meaning that it was able to produce virtually zero fission (xenon absorbs neutrons) and the operators didn't realize it, so they pulled out nearly all of the control rods trying to bring it back up (for a loss of power test) only to then have all the xenon start decaying at about that period of time, which meant the power level started to aggressively increase, and since there were no control rods, it sort of hit a runaway condition. Leading to the entire plant fucking exploding, due to a steam explosion specifically. This one was a lot more like a steam boiler explosion in a locomotive than a nuclear explosion or even hydrogen explosion (though that could've been the second explosion that happened)

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (1 children)

i've never heard of it, i would assume it isn't out there. Technically there is one other meltdown we had though, the SL-1 reactor, killed three people. Caused a bit of a mess, wasn't super significant though.

Was that a naval/sub reactor? Or was this something else?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

That was technically an Army test reactor. The Navy has a spotless record, so far. I say technically because there may have been some minor cross service collaboration in the design of that thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

ye, i was mostly mentioning it because it is technically another true meltdown of a reactor within the US.

Naval sub reactors i know have a spotless record, across the aisle, amusingly. Ship reactors i would imagine are less of a problem, though im guessing those are just stolen from subs so equally spotless most likely.