6 ms·

As a potential solution, has anyone considered sprinkling the area with graphite, massive amounts of graphite flakes? It's quite difficult to burn nuclear grade

As a potential solution, has anyone considered sprinkling the area with graphite, massive amounts of graphite flakes? It's quite difficult to burn nuclear grade graphite, and it might actually act as a moderator for the fallout and help to control what's happening randomly. Maybe the solution is to dump a moderator over the area and seed it with organisms and see if something takes hold? Either way, this doesn't seem to be an intractable problem if one is a bit lax in terms of long term uncertainty. (this would throw off the projections of how this is going to play out 500 years from now)

cinquemb 13y ago
From looking at the wiki on neutron moderators[0], it seems like light water is used in more reactors globally, so would that be cheaper to use? And maybe for deployment you'd have quadcopters drop biodegradable ballons filled with it. Would be really interesting to read a feasibility study around this. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator
- guscost 13y ago
  Artificial rain?
  - Mchl 13y ago
    Exactly. Almost 30 years of natural light water showers didn't achieve much. Can't see how dumping water from drones would help ;)
    - cinquemb 13y ago
      Maybe it can help by being a jobs program to stimulate the global economy through secondary effects and have another place capital can seek returns on besides sexting apps ;)
      - Mchl 13y ago
        Sorry for being overly sarcastic, but you could just as well pay people to ride bikes around town and hope that stimulates industry. Still there would be no effect on nature around Chernobyl power plant.
        cinquemb 13y ago
        Yup, grey413 pointed that out but thanks for reiterating. I was only looking at the cost when I made my comment since graphite stood out to me as being overly expensive.
grey413 13y ago
To the best of my understanding, graphite in reactors serves the purpose of moderating nuclear chain reactions. The radioactive materials in the forest are almost certainly not dense enough to undergo a chain reaction, so adding a moderator would be pointless. The issue isn't the environmental radiation (like you might worry about standing next to an exposed nuclear core), it's the prospect that radioactive materials might be absorbed by people (like you might worry about if a nuclear core was on fire in the same city as you). Spreading moderators around would do nothing to help about bioaccumulation.
- dctoedt 13y ago
  > The radioactive materials in the forest are almost certainly not dense enough to undergo a chain reaction, so adding a moderator would be pointless. ... Spreading moderators around would do nothing to help about bioaccumulation. That's basically correct. There won't be a fission chain reaction because essentially no neutrons are released by the radioactive decay of the isotopes in the fallout. Consequently, deploying neutron moderators would have essentially no effect. (It'd be like, say, taking a life jacket with you on a hike through the Sahara.) The relevant radioactive isotopes are mainly caesium 137, iodine 131, and strontium 90 [1]. When they decay into other elements, they release beta- and gamma radiation, which can damage nearby cells if ingested into the body. But none of them fissions to release neutrons that would be absorbed by graphite or boron. The danger posed by these isotopes is that if you inhale or swallow them, they can stick around in your body tissues, zapping nearby cells, for a long time. For example, caesium 137 has an estimated biological half life of 70 days [2], while strontium 90, which is taken into bone much like calcium, has an estimated biological half life of 18 years [3]. A major forest fire in the Chernobyl area would turn contaminated trees into contaminated smoke. Who knows where the wind would blow the smoke. The resulting fallout could be inhaled and/or swallowed by people and other animals. It also might fall on farmland, where it could be up-taken by crops that would eventually be swallowed. All in all, not good news. (Source: I used to be a Navy nuclear engineering officer.) [1] http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137#Health_risk_of_radioactive_caesium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137#Health_risk_of_radi... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90
omegant 13y ago
Maybe it's more useful to sprinkle massive amounts of bacteria and such... maybe develop some that have some kind of resistance to the radiation. They´ll die eventually but you can keep the planes at it.

cinquemb 13y ago

From looking at the wiki on neutron moderators[0], it seems like light water is used in more reactors globally, so would that be cheaper to use? And maybe for deployment you'd have quadcopters drop biodegradable ballons filled with it. Would be really interesting to read a feasibility study around this. [0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator

guscost 13y ago
Artificial rain?
- Mchl 13y ago
  Exactly. Almost 30 years of natural light water showers didn't achieve much. Can't see how dumping water from drones would help ;)
  - cinquemb 13y ago
    Maybe it can help by being a jobs program to stimulate the global economy through secondary effects and have another place capital can seek returns on besides sexting apps ;)
    - Mchl 13y ago
      Sorry for being overly sarcastic, but you could just as well pay people to ride bikes around town and hope that stimulates industry. Still there would be no effect on nature around Chernobyl power plant.
      - cinquemb 13y ago
        Yup, grey413 pointed that out but thanks for reiterating. I was only looking at the cost when I made my comment since graphite stood out to me as being overly expensive.

grey413 13y ago

To the best of my understanding, graphite in reactors serves the purpose of moderating nuclear chain reactions. The radioactive materials in the forest are almost certainly not dense enough to undergo a chain reaction, so adding a moderator would be pointless. The issue isn't the environmental radiation (like you might worry about standing next to an exposed nuclear core), it's the prospect that radioactive materials might be absorbed by people (like you might worry about if a nuclear core was on fire in the same city as you). Spreading moderators around would do nothing to help about bioaccumulation.

dctoedt 13y ago
> The radioactive materials in the forest are almost certainly not dense enough to undergo a chain reaction, so adding a moderator would be pointless. ... Spreading moderators around would do nothing to help about bioaccumulation. That's basically correct. There won't be a fission chain reaction because essentially no neutrons are released by the radioactive decay of the isotopes in the fallout. Consequently, deploying neutron moderators would have essentially no effect. (It'd be like, say, taking a life jacket with you on a hike through the Sahara.) The relevant radioactive isotopes are mainly caesium 137, iodine 131, and strontium 90 [1]. When they decay into other elements, they release beta- and gamma radiation, which can damage nearby cells if ingested into the body. But none of them fissions to release neutrons that would be absorbed by graphite or boron. The danger posed by these isotopes is that if you inhale or swallow them, they can stick around in your body tissues, zapping nearby cells, for a long time. For example, caesium 137 has an estimated biological half life of 70 days [2], while strontium 90, which is taken into bone much like calcium, has an estimated biological half life of 18 years [3]. A major forest fire in the Chernobyl area would turn contaminated trees into contaminated smoke. Who knows where the wind would blow the smoke. The resulting fallout could be inhaled and/or swallowed by people and other animals. It also might fall on farmland, where it could be up-taken by crops that would eventually be swallowed. All in all, not good news. (Source: I used to be a Navy nuclear engineering officer.) [1] http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/ http://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137#Health_risk_of_radioactive_caesium http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-137#Health_risk_of_radi... [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strontium-90

omegant 13y ago

Maybe it's more useful to sprinkle massive amounts of bacteria and such... maybe develop some that have some kind of resistance to the radiation. They´ll die eventually but you can keep the planes at it.