5 ms·
There is a lot of much deadlier chemicals in the factory near your city, only there is no Greenpeace et. al. crowd chanting how all those chemicals with long, c
by piokoch 5y ago
There is a lot of much deadlier chemicals in the factory near your city, only there is no Greenpeace et. al. crowd chanting how all those chemicals with long, complicated names are dangerous, since they spent all their efforts fighting nuclear energy (for good 50 years).
Thanks to that we are where we are.
- ajross 5y ago> There is a lot of much deadlier chemicals in the factory near your city Examples at a concentration as dangerous as a reactor melting down?
- ceejayoz 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster Hell, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Molasses_Flood killed more than the Fukushima Daiichi meltdown.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- caddywompus 5y agoFun fact, Bhopal was so egregiously horrible, that it is what led to the create of the CSB (Chemical Safety Board). A lot of their investigation videos are on youtube, and absolutely worth watching
- dodobirdlord 5y agoModern reactor designs do not melt down.
- ajross 5y agoThis is simply not true. A sustained nuclear chain reaction just needs to be physically reconfigured a bit to produce a reaction excursion. It's true that modern designs have made good progress in things like intervention-free failsafes that make such reconfigurations much less likely. It's simply not possible eliminate the possibility entirely. And in any case, this is a piece of military hardware which might plausibly be "reconfigured" be being struck by a rocket. It's not a civilian reactor inside a secure facility. Your statement is analogous to saying "charcoal grills do not start forest fires". Used correctly, they certainly shouldn't. But they sure as hell can if you kick them over on a dry summer day. Same deal here.
- Manuel_D 5y agoWhat the above poster is probably referring to are reactor designs that are passively safe. Like using lithium as a coolant and moderator. As the reactor heats up the lithium's density drops, which in turn reduces the rate of the nuclear reaction. It creates a stable equilibrium. The reaction would also stop if the lithium were drained - there would be no more moderator to sustain the nuclear reaction.
- ajross 5y ago> reactor designs that are passively safe To be glib: Not vs. fucking rockets they aren't. Those designs imagine that the fuel doesn't move and that the coolant is the medium of failure. What happens when you move the fuel?
- Smoosh 5y agoEven if a meltdown doesn't happen, if such a generator is struck by, for example, an artillery shell, who is going to clean up the mess?
- xyzzyz 5y agoHydrogen cyanide and phosgene both are extremely popular, mass produced industrial chemicals that have been used as chemical weapons.
- fuzzfactor 5y agoNot PFAS though. It was produced for the benefit of all mankind. And now that's whose bloodstream it can be found in. Mainly for two reasons, it's half-life is longer than the lifespan of living things, and people spread it around like they never should have done at all. That makes it analogous to opening Pandora's box more so than all kinds of dangerous things.