[ 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

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."