[ SECRET POST #5066 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5066 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.



__________________________________________________



10.













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #725.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

09. https://i.imgur.com/wH5ssjj.png

[(Anonymous)]

Counterpoint, but wouldn't the techs be actively shutting them down once they realized shit had gone down?

Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe they didn't have time?

[(Anonymous)]

Sorry, am I interpreting this correctly, you're saying that nuclear power plants literally explode after a week of no maintenance?

Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

Maybe not "explode," but I can see "melt down after a short time without maintenance."

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

But isn't the distinction between meltdown and explosion pretty significant

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

DA

I think both would still release a large amount of radiation which is still incredible deadly to all life in the area. It's take years to dissipate and make the area unliveable for a significant time. /not a professional

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

But wouldn't an explosion dissipate material much more widely? I mean IDK really but it kinda seems that way to me

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

DA

It would release less than desirable radioactive isotopes into the atmosphere, but the immediate effect on the global environment is going to be minimal, comparatively. The "too hot to touch" areas would be localized. In the apocalypse, it seems like an increased likelihood of getting cancer in ~10,20 years is probably a concern that's far down on the list compared to the rest of your problems.

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

Hmm, that's a good question. I got curious and found this:


"A nuclear explosion is when nuclear fuel of the required enrichment is placed into an optimized prompt critical state such that it's power output doubles as fast as possible, generally well over 30 doublings per second.
A meltdown is anytime the fuel melts. In general, melting is not caused by fission. In the three major cases where a meltdown has occurred, (Chernobyl, tmi, fukushima) the fission process was stopped. The radioactive waste products in the fuel continue to release immense amounts of radiation even after the core is shut down. This radiation is so intense it basically becomes heat. We call this "decay heat". After a reactor is shut down, you need to keep removing this heat, otherwise the fuel will heat up until it melts.
Put simply a nuclear explosion is an an optimized reactor core placed in the best condition to release as much energy as possible to create an explosion.
A melt down is radioactive waste products releasing small amounts of heat until the fuel has melted and does not directly involve an explosion."

So, (while I actually don't understand most of what I read) the most damaging part of a nuclear apocalypse is the residual waste contaminating the earth and water supply. I can't find the exact comparison but (I think) the explosion ignites the power the plant creates, and while it might cause some of the waste to spread (I have no idea what I'm talking about) it's the resulting nuclear waste that is no longer being contained that causes the lasting damages. (I am very confused right now, tbh)

idk I also read this?
https://www.fastcompany.com/3028063/how-far-do-you-live-from-a-nuclear-power-plant

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

To my knowledge the explosive criticality accidents (Chernobyl, sl-1, selafield) were secondary chemical and/or steam explosions. The run away reaction boiled away the water or ignited other materials. Even running in excess of full power, they didn't explode on the scale of Hiroshima, and a meltdown makes the fuel less efficient.

Re: Not OP

[(Anonymous)]

ayrt

I think you're absolutely right from what I understand from my first (not so) quick research attempt. Chernobyl was indeed a steam explosion, where the cooling system failed which set off a myriad of events, which resulted in a major nuclear meltdown- the nuclear materials(? waste?) were left to naturally fission. The result of which produces the lasting and deadly form of radiation. Which is why it's still uninhabitable.
Fukushima had a better result if only due to the fact that the nuclear isotopes(? ?materials? ?waste?) managed to remains contained despite the intensity of the disaster. And thus could not cause fission and create radiation.
So while an evacuation was still needed the land wasn't contaminated/irradiated to the point of being unliveable.

Back to the OP's point, is it fair to say that the meltdown is major the danger regardless of an explosion of any type? (which I am now realizing they might have meant more towards a steam/chemical explosion and not the mushroom cloud variety, I first assumed... probably.) The true damage relies on how severe the meltdown is, if the core is breached, and at what rate the risk of irradiation spreads? (I'm fairly certain I am way too curious for my own good...)

Random info source:
"Only one reactor exploded at Chernobyl, while three reactors experienced meltdowns at Fukushima. Yet the accident at Chernobyl was far more dangerous, as damage to the reactor core unspooled very rapidly and violently, said Edwin Lyman, a senior scientist and acting director for the Union of Concerned Scientists Nuclear Safety Project.""As a result, more fission products were released from the single Chernobyl core," Lyman told Live Science. "At Fukushima the cores overheated and melted but did not experience violent dispersal, so a much smaller amount of plutonium was released."

[(Anonymous)]

I get what you mean, I really do - that's the sort of thing I think of a lot, along with the thought that if half the population vanished or something I'd be spending a lot of time just smashing open doors to reduce the odds of pets dying shut up alone... what was my point? Oh yeah!
I'm Australian, and we only have one nuclear reactor, and that's a research plant and it's like... about a thousand kilometres from me?

Also on a more pragmatic story-writing level, once you introduce nuclear fallout as a problem in a story, things are a bit un-fuck-able. I mean, that shit doesn't go away in a hurry.

[(Anonymous)]

The only post-apocalypse type of media I can think of right now are the ones with nuclear winters. Do zombies-apocalypses count? In that case I think there would be time enough to set precautions or realize when they need to shut things down. idk though.

[tabaqui]

That isn't exactly what would happen, though. Quite a few would simply shut down, without doing any damage to the planet other than the fact that the rods, etc. will be radioactive for millennia.

https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sbuqs/eli5_what_would_happen_to_nuclear_power_plants/


https://worldbuilding.stackexchange.com/questions/38018/will-unattended-nuclear-power-plants-actually-cause-damage-to-their-surroundings

[(Anonymous)]

Oh, thanks for posting that. I'm a long way from any nuclear reactors, but this is still something I worry about on occasion.

[tabaqui]

No worries.
There was a show called 'Life After People' that detailed what would happen around the world if every human just vanished; one of the things they talked about were dams and nuclear reactors. It was pretty interesting! Definitely an awesome resource for an apocalypse fic.

[silverr]

oh, that you for that!

(I have a post-apoc story that does at least briefly lampshade this issue, but I'm always down to shore things up with facts.)

[tabaqui]

No worries!
You can watch here if you have a tv provider: https://www.history.com/shows/life-after-people (I don't), and on Hulu Live TV if you have that (I don't have that, either).

I shall be checking torrents. Now that I'm thinking about it, I want to watch again. :D

[silverr]

oh excellent! I'll be jumping on this in December for sure.

Geez, I don't know that that would happen.

[(Anonymous)]

In the case of really fast global disasters, it's possible, I guess. Though, unless there was direct damage to certain parts of the plant, within a week doesn't seem realistic for all plants everywhere. And even in the event of a really fast disaster, there are a lot of emergency shut down procedures that could postpone core meltdowns (not explosions, because it actually takes precision detonating power to make the fuel go supercritical). I can think of quite a few apocalyptic scenarios that took weeks or months to develop (a few zombie ones, some pandemics, some asteroid/meteor strikes, etc.) and in those cases it seems reasonable to assume that someone could get them to some SAFSTOR stage or entomb them.

[starfleetbrat]

I'd like to hope that in this day and age most Nuclear facilities have auto shutdown systems to prevent that kind of thing from happening.

[(Anonymous)]

Most nuclear plants have old technology that is easily to operate manually - this is good on two fronts (easy to shut down in case of disaster and impossible to hack) but you also don't have much automatic anything. But it doesn't take much to get the shutdown going. Unless people all vanish suddenly not much is going to happen and even then you're more likely to have Fukushima-level local pollution rather than massive nuclear explosions.

[(Anonymous)]

My favorite Post-Apocalypses property absolutely has radioactivity everywhere which leads to everything mutating and being generally awful and messy but gives even the simplest survivor 3 generations later basically superpowers. It's usually believed to be from bombs, but this works just as well.

But in real life I'm pretty sure they're built specifically not to do this, so at worst you'd have a small area of no-go around an old plant, and even then you might not notice because people would be dying of everything else before dying of cancer.

[(Anonymous)]

All I want is modern (ie, not going far past their intended usage) nuclear reactors built with 21st century technology ... because modern ones are designed so that they literally cannot melt down or explode. Instead we just keep using the old ones and then are shocked, SHOCKED when a 50 year old piece of tech breaks down.