3 ms·

No, the numbers are realistic... after a few centuries of a Chernobyl every ten years... significant areas within nuclear countries uninhabitable... affecting f

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.)

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.)