[ 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

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."