7 ms·
I would argue that this is a near equivalence of nuclear war with Ukraine. A well-/mis-placed Russian artillery shell could cause a loss of reactor integrity an
by estro0182 5y ago
I would argue that this is a near equivalence of nuclear war with Ukraine. A well-/mis-placed Russian artillery shell could cause a loss of reactor integrity and meltdown, no?
EDIT: according to child comments, a meltdown is unlikely/impossible, but spread of radioactive particles due to a direct strike is possible.
- shadowgovt 5y agoProbably not. Reactors generally can't melt down the way Chernobyl did anymore. The most significant risk is a breach of the reactor chamber fragmenting the fuel rofs and spreading radioactive particles around, or a hit to the spent fuel stores doing the same. Neither are good, but they wouldn't be nearly as bad as Chernobyl or a nuclear weapon strike.
- throwanem 5y agoNobody builds RBMK-style uncontained graphite piles any longer, but that's a long way from saying meltdowns are no longer possible.
- throwawayboise 5y agoThere are 8 RBMK reactors still operating, though all are in Russia.
- estro0182 5y agoOk this is good to know, thanks for clarifying. While not nearly as bad as the two scenarios listed, spreading radioactive particles near a population center of civilians could be grounds to consider this a nuclear war, intentional or not. Not on the same scale as a deliberate nuclear attack of course.
- mdanger007 5y agonuclear scientist @CherylRofer is worried about the ongoing fighting around the administrative building. some highly trained people keep that place from melting down and now they've got bullets whizzing by their head and fires breaking out in their offices.
- nl 5y ago> Reactors generally can't melt down the way Chernobyl did anymore. a) "the way Chernobyl did" is technically correct (the VVER reactor that Zaporizhzhia is uses a difference containment strategy), but a distinction without meaning - a meltdown is a meltdown. b) "anymore" - Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant was built between 1980 and 1996. It's true that it is a safer design than Chernobyl, but yes it absolutely can still meltdown. > The most significant risk is a breach of the reactor chamber fragmenting the fuel rods and spreading radioactive particles around Note that this "spreading radioactive particles around" is probably more dangerous to health than a meltdown.
- pdpi 5y ago> Note that this "spreading radioactive particles around" is probably more dangerous to health than a meltdown. Put in different terms: We're basically talking about the equivalent of a dirty bomb.
- akiselev 5y agoA dirty bomb with as much as 30,000 kg of radioactive fuel and waste.
- marcosdumay 5y ago> a meltdown is a meltdown I'd say that how much radioactive waste gets expelled or leaked and how much energy goes into it makes all the difference in the world and each meltdown is probably unique.
- sabujp 5y agoif it can be bad as fukushima then it's bad
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- jessriedel 5y agoNo. It is many orders of magnitude less dangerous. It would potentially cause thousands of deaths, not hundreds of millions. This is true even if a melt down was caused, like Chernobyl, which others have already explained is quite improbable. Chernobyl caused between ~100 and ~16,000 deaths, depending sensitively on how one models the effects of small (sub-natural-background) radiation increases over a large population.
- andbberger 5y agoA single nuke would be more like 100k deaths, still several orders of magnitude safer. But yes, the actual danger posed by radiation is far less than what it is imagined to be
- jessriedel 5y agoSure, but this is neither a nuclear weapon (it would be, at most, a radiological weapon) nor risk-similar to one.
- andbberger 5y agoOP argued this is risk-equivalent to nuclear war. it's not even close
- csee 5y agoNuclear war can be many things. There are small nukes not designed to level cities.
- estro0182 5y agoI am using nuclear war in a literal sense, but I do see how my wording seems sensationalist given historical context.
- jessriedel 5y agoIt's not equivalent to nuclear war with Ukraine in either the sense of relative risk (for the reasons I gave) nor in the sense in which the term "nuclear weapons" is actually used. Russia intelligence agents poisoned Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium, but this was not called a nuclear attack because that's not what the term means. One could argue, at most, that this would be equivalent to a radiological weapon ("dirty bomb"). But even then it wouldn't be correct because of the important difference between purposeful radiological dispersal and radiological dispersal as a side-effect of a legitimate military action.
- throwanem 5y agoPotentially. I'd worry more about coolant and power (to run the coolant pumps if the plant has to shut down) than about direct hits on a containment structure, but it's not like that won't eventually also cause problems if they keep doing it. This is, so far as I know, the first time anyone has carried out a military attack on an operating nuclear plant. Nobody knows yet how that really plays out. But it looks like we all get to find out.
- lupire 5y agoWe know what happened in Japan when an earthquake attacked a nuclear plant.
- Gare 5y agoTechnically, it was tsunami that caused trouble.
- adastra22 5y agoIt’s not comparable because the type of damage is totally different.
- hinkley 5y agoThe type of damage at Fukushima was anticipated to be survivable as well, was it not? And yet here we are.
- throwanem 5y agoFukushima was explicitly a beyond-design-basis accident. (The design basis was insufficient, granted.) On the other hand, I don't know whether the VVER design contemplates shelling, either.
- _dain_ 5y ago>This is, so far as I know, the first time anyone has carried out a military attack on a nuclear plant The Israelis bombed an Iraqi plant in the 80s I think.
- maxerickson 5y agoA few artillery shells probably won't breach the containment. Missile shielding is part of the plant design (I don't know what level of shielding; US plants are designed to withstand a strike by an airliner). Not saying that the attack is thus acceptable, just saying that it will take a concerted effort to breach the containment.
- throwanem 5y agoHow old's the plant? To what design is it built? I feel like the CFIT design basis is already a little optimistic, but we also don't know that that was the design basis in this case.
- Zandikar 5y agocompleted in 1989, with a 6th reactor added in 1995. For what it's worth, the russian convoy is firing on the administrative building, not the power units themselves, but I don't know specifically what is in said admin bldg or what the ramifications for operation/shutdown of the power units/cooling systems works if the admin building burns down and/or gets shot up.
- andbberger 5y agoYou'd think that nuclear energy would be pretty compelling economically if other power generation methods had to be designed to withstand a strike from an airliner
- caslon 5y agoIf an unprotected solar farm gets hit by a plane, some property damage happens. If an unprotected nuclear reactor were to get hit, we all know what would happen.
- andbberger 5y agothe danger of radiation has been greatly exaggerated and pales in comparison the existential risk of climate change. even accounting for black swan events like getting hit by an airliner, coal plants emit drastically more radiation than nuclear. it's not a rational risk assessment. making nuclear energy economically unfeasible by mandating that things be drastically overbuilt has doomed us all to climate catastrophe
- photochemsyn 5y agoWell, recall that the Fukushima meltdowns were due to loss of emergency power, resulting in the inability to circulate coolant through the reactor core. Any kind of damage to the power plant that results in such power loss or damage to the coolant system could plausibly result in a meltdown / hydrogen explosion in the reactor core.
- ffhhj 5y ago> near equivalence of nuclear war If radiation escapes it would be a "dirty bomb" equivalent event, it will speed up sanctions and nations will urge Russia to allow experts to inspect the damage. A meltdown/explosion is possible if they damage safety systems/shielding. Still won't be seen serious as a "nuke detonation" event, but countries that receive fallout will be pissed off. If Russia continues causing more nuclear pollution that affects it neighbors, yes, it could mean war scalation.
- joshuajill 5y agoLoss of coolant can have effects on the reactor and/or the spent fuel pool or container if there is such in the facilities. Any of these could go critical very quickly and ignite/explode. But based on what happened in Fukushima, critical electrical/cooling systems and backups would have to be damaged in order to pose catastrophic risk. While this is unlikely I'll probably lose some hours of sleep on this. I very much doubt the Russians would do this on purpose (fallout would risk the whole operation and possibly Russian territory too) although the fighting around there is incredibly stupid.
- TheOtherHobbes 5y agoApparently current prevailing winds would spread fallout through Russian-held areas in Donbas and Crimea. Not exactly a brilliant strategy - unless you're deranged and really don't care about your people.