3 ms·

Have you ever hunted wild boar in Germany? The global impact of "one Chernobyl a decade" is enormous. Each event takes thousands of years to recover from. After

Have you ever hunted wild boar in Germany? The global impact of "one Chernobyl a decade" is enormous. Each event takes thousands of years to recover from. After a century or two, most countries would be significantly uninhabitable, with indirect consequences affecting entire continents.

Luc 10y ago
> After a century or two, most countries would be significantly uninhabitable It's bad, I know, but this seems off by a few orders of magnitude. This appears to be a general problem when reasoning about radiation.
- jorangreef 10y ago
  No, the numbers are realistic... after a few centuries of a Chernobyl every ten years... significant areas within nuclear countries uninhabitable... affecting fauna migrations and neighboring countries... they're definitely not off by a few orders of magnitude. I can understand why nuclear advocates would want to challenge basic reasoning. This appears to be a general problem when government tenders are at stake.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    > after a few centuries of a Chernobyl every ten years... significant areas within nuclear countries uninhabitable... Ater 1000 years of a Chernobyl every ten years - and a Chernobyl every 10 years is completely unrealistic, given that it took a totally obsolete generator design and ridiculous levels of human error for us to get one, 30 years ago - the uninhabitable area based on the widest Chernobyl exclusion zone, would be 0.05% about 1/2000th of the surface of the Earth. That assumes no contraction of the exclusion zones as radioactivity tapers off, which is highly unrealistic as there's already a push to start making use of parts of the Chernobyl exclusion zone (or for that matter that Chernobyl itself continued to produce electricity until 2000 before the last reactor was shut down) - the issue is less regular radioactive levels in normal conditions as risks involved in releasing sequested radioactive material (e.g. forest fires will throw radioactive material into the air for many of the same reasons why coal is so nasty). > affecting fauna migrations and neighboring countries Overall effect on fauna of Chernobyl has been positive: As it happens humans are much worse for the fauna than the radiation. Obviously there are issues, but they're dwarfed by the incursion of humans on animal habitats - the area surrounding Chernobyl has seen rapid increases in populations of a wide range of fauna as human activity ceased. There is an impact on humans from contamination of fauna that does not kill the animals but makes them unsafe for consumption in some circumstances, as I've addressed elsewhere, and that's not non-trivial but it's a far more short-lived issue than the contamination of the site itself. That is also the main effect on neighboring countries (spread of Cesium etc.)
tszymczyszyn 10y ago
What about the wild boar? People hunt them in Poland, closer to Chernobyl than Germany. How long does it take to recover from fossil fuel-based economy, including massive emission of radioactive material contained in coal?
- vidarh 10y ago
  Animals like wild boar that sometimes eat slow growing plant life that accumulate Cesium are sometimes unsafe, or at least undesirable, to eat. As I mentioned elsewhere, this affects reindeer and sheep in Norway some years, and that was a much larger scale issue as this was/is commercial level food supply. Not so much any more, but the effect varies from year to year as various animals will often prefer faster growing food (foliage, berries etc.) but may resort to other food that may be more likely to still be a reservoir of cesium or other contaminants if they are short on their preferred foods. It's still trivial compared to coal in particular.
vorotato 10y ago
What about the negative impacts that the coal ash spill has had on my state? What about the coal ash spill in the state adjacent to mine? You can go oh what's a little ash, the sludge had enough volume to fill a football stadium nearly a half-mile high. Coal has environmental impacts, but continuously. A nonstop stream of toxins just flowing right into our local water tables. Nothing compares to the continuous destruction of human lives and environment like coal does.
- brightsize 10y ago
  > A nonstop stream of toxins just flowing right into our local water tables I thought that sounded familiar. The following is about the Midnight Mine uranium mine in eastern Washington. "The exposed surfaces of rock in the ore piles, waste rock piles, and forming pit walls generate acid rock drainage in the groundwater, seeps, and surface water. The surface water from the mine's drainage basin flows to three drainages which empty into Blue Creek. Blue Creek, which flows into Lake Roosevelt, is home to several fish species of special concern that have been found to contain heavy metals that many link to the contamination from the mine. The U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey indicated that seeps, ground water and pit water at Midnite Mine are contained with heavy metals and radionuclides. In April 1998, the EPA also found elevated levels of metals and radionuclides in numerous on-site sources. Several contaminated ground water seeps were observed to be flowing into nearby surface water drainages."[1] [1] http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Midnite+uranium+mine%2C+Spokane%2C+WA http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Midnite+uranium+mine%2C+... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnite_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnite_Mine http://www.webcitation.org/6JeqbINGL http://www.webcitation.org/6JeqbINGL Edit:formatting

Luc 10y ago

> After a century or two, most countries would be significantly uninhabitable It's bad, I know, but this seems off by a few orders of magnitude. This appears to be a general problem when reasoning about radiation.

jorangreef 10y ago
No, the numbers are realistic... after a few centuries of a Chernobyl every ten years... significant areas within nuclear countries uninhabitable... affecting fauna migrations and neighboring countries... they're definitely not off by a few orders of magnitude. I can understand why nuclear advocates would want to challenge basic reasoning. This appears to be a general problem when government tenders are at stake.
- vidarh 10y ago
  > after a few centuries of a Chernobyl every ten years... significant areas within nuclear countries uninhabitable... Ater 1000 years of a Chernobyl every ten years - and a Chernobyl every 10 years is completely unrealistic, given that it took a totally obsolete generator design and ridiculous levels of human error for us to get one, 30 years ago - the uninhabitable area based on the widest Chernobyl exclusion zone, would be 0.05% about 1/2000th of the surface of the Earth. That assumes no contraction of the exclusion zones as radioactivity tapers off, which is highly unrealistic as there's already a push to start making use of parts of the Chernobyl exclusion zone (or for that matter that Chernobyl itself continued to produce electricity until 2000 before the last reactor was shut down) - the issue is less regular radioactive levels in normal conditions as risks involved in releasing sequested radioactive material (e.g. forest fires will throw radioactive material into the air for many of the same reasons why coal is so nasty). > affecting fauna migrations and neighboring countries Overall effect on fauna of Chernobyl has been positive: As it happens humans are much worse for the fauna than the radiation. Obviously there are issues, but they're dwarfed by the incursion of humans on animal habitats - the area surrounding Chernobyl has seen rapid increases in populations of a wide range of fauna as human activity ceased. There is an impact on humans from contamination of fauna that does not kill the animals but makes them unsafe for consumption in some circumstances, as I've addressed elsewhere, and that's not non-trivial but it's a far more short-lived issue than the contamination of the site itself. That is also the main effect on neighboring countries (spread of Cesium etc.)

tszymczyszyn 10y ago

What about the wild boar? People hunt them in Poland, closer to Chernobyl than Germany. How long does it take to recover from fossil fuel-based economy, including massive emission of radioactive material contained in coal?

vidarh 10y ago
Animals like wild boar that sometimes eat slow growing plant life that accumulate Cesium are sometimes unsafe, or at least undesirable, to eat. As I mentioned elsewhere, this affects reindeer and sheep in Norway some years, and that was a much larger scale issue as this was/is commercial level food supply. Not so much any more, but the effect varies from year to year as various animals will often prefer faster growing food (foliage, berries etc.) but may resort to other food that may be more likely to still be a reservoir of cesium or other contaminants if they are short on their preferred foods. It's still trivial compared to coal in particular.

vorotato 10y ago

What about the negative impacts that the coal ash spill has had on my state? What about the coal ash spill in the state adjacent to mine? You can go oh what's a little ash, the sludge had enough volume to fill a football stadium nearly a half-mile high. Coal has environmental impacts, but continuously. A nonstop stream of toxins just flowing right into our local water tables. Nothing compares to the continuous destruction of human lives and environment like coal does.

brightsize 10y ago
> A nonstop stream of toxins just flowing right into our local water tables I thought that sounded familiar. The following is about the Midnight Mine uranium mine in eastern Washington. "The exposed surfaces of rock in the ore piles, waste rock piles, and forming pit walls generate acid rock drainage in the groundwater, seeps, and surface water. The surface water from the mine's drainage basin flows to three drainages which empty into Blue Creek. Blue Creek, which flows into Lake Roosevelt, is home to several fish species of special concern that have been found to contain heavy metals that many link to the contamination from the mine. The U.S. Bureau of Mines and the U.S. Geological Survey indicated that seeps, ground water and pit water at Midnite Mine are contained with heavy metals and radionuclides. In April 1998, the EPA also found elevated levels of metals and radionuclides in numerous on-site sources. Several contaminated ground water seeps were observed to be flowing into nearby surface water drainages."[1] [1] http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Midnite+uranium+mine%2C+Spokane%2C+WA http://toxipedia.org/display/wanmec/Midnite+uranium+mine%2C+... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnite_Mine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnite_Mine http://www.webcitation.org/6JeqbINGL http://www.webcitation.org/6JeqbINGL Edit:formatting