3 ms·

I wonder why they even bothered to build containments for those reactors.

by Tichy 16y ago

tptacek 16y ago
Because if they didn't build containment for the reactors, the fuel itself could oxidize and ignite, dispersing massive quantities of radioactive material over one of the most populated areas on the earth with virtually no time for anybody to react and mitigate the disaster. Any other questions, I'm happy to take a crack at!
- Tichy 16y ago
  So is radioactivity harmless or not? Would it have been a problem if the containment had broken?
  - tptacek 16y ago
    Radioactivity is not harmless. You would for a variety of reasons prefer that the primary containment at the reactor not be broken.
  - Natsu 16y ago
    Small doses of radiation are very likely harmless. We assume that they're not (linear no-threashhold model) just to be overly-cautious. The evacuation was in case something unpredictable happened and things went very, very bad. The cancer risk for the firefighters is probably similar to if a cigarette factory had caught fire. The hydrogen explosions have always been the primary danger, though, both to the people and to the containment. If containment had failed explosively (i.e. if they had not deliberately allowed some hydrogen explosions via venting, causing the containment to fail in one giant kaboom instead of the slight damage they think it might have), then we would be looking at troubling amounts of contamination over a moderately sized area. We would never be in any danger in the USA, though. We just wouldn't. Also, the "kaboom" I was talking about was an ordinary explosive (hydrogen), not a nuclear one. You just can't hit criticality and get a nuclear explosion. The designers make sure it's impossible. Even back when we knew nothing and a few people died from criticality accidents (which were seriously scary in retrospect), they didn't cause a nuclear explosion. It's not that easy. You have to try pretty hard, or Iran would have managed one by now.

I wonder why they even bothered to build containments for those reactors.

by Tichy 16y ago

I wonder why they even bothered to build containments for those reactors.

Because if they didn't build containment for the reactors, the fuel itself could oxidize and ignite, dispersing massive quantities of radioactive material over one of the most populated areas on the earth with virtually no time for anybody to react and mitigate the disaster. Any other questions, I'm happy to take a crack at!

Tichy 16y ago
So is radioactivity harmless or not? Would it have been a problem if the containment had broken?
- tptacek 16y ago
  Radioactivity is not harmless. You would for a variety of reasons prefer that the primary containment at the reactor not be broken.
- Natsu 16y ago
  Small doses of radiation are very likely harmless. We assume that they're not (linear no-threashhold model) just to be overly-cautious. The evacuation was in case something unpredictable happened and things went very, very bad. The cancer risk for the firefighters is probably similar to if a cigarette factory had caught fire. The hydrogen explosions have always been the primary danger, though, both to the people and to the containment. If containment had failed explosively (i.e. if they had not deliberately allowed some hydrogen explosions via venting, causing the containment to fail in one giant kaboom instead of the slight damage they think it might have), then we would be looking at troubling amounts of contamination over a moderately sized area. We would never be in any danger in the USA, though. We just wouldn't. Also, the "kaboom" I was talking about was an ordinary explosive (hydrogen), not a nuclear one. You just can't hit criticality and get a nuclear explosion. The designers make sure it's impossible. Even back when we knew nothing and a few people died from criticality accidents (which were seriously scary in retrospect), they didn't cause a nuclear explosion. It's not that easy. You have to try pretty hard, or Iran would have managed one by now.