[Newbie Wants Info]

That is very interesting and relieving, if true. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[socrates1fan]

This is something that really terrified me at one point so I studied it (a lot). I emailed a few nuclear plants, some retired employees and even a few nuclear physicists at a local university. What I got was that the answer was neither horrifying or comforting, it was complex. The internet has a very poor amount of information on the topic.

First, nuclear waste loses its danger pretty quickly. The most radio-active elements decay the fastest. After only a few years (5 is usually the max) of cooling they can't meltdown. They just sort of sit there (usually stored in dry casks)... A lot of the fear over spent fuel rods is often unfounded (though, spent fuel rods aren't completely safe either). Don't get me wrong, cooled fuel rods are still radio-active, but unless you go directly up to them you really aren't at risk. Even then, we aren't completely sure what the actual impacts of radiation on human health are (sources often exaggerate a great deal).

On top of that, if radiation was released it would have to make it out of the containment chamber and plant and then would be greatly dispersed across the land IF there is a strong wind (as stated before) so it is very difficult to predict what would happen.

A collapse over a a handful of weeks is unlikely. I honestly picture a slow decline (one we are ALREADY in and the slowness of it doesn't make it any less severe) that gets continuously worse with time. By the time it got to that point, most nuclear plants will be shuttered and their nuclear fuel cooled for long enough so that artificial cooling would no longer be necessary (same with a lot of chemical plants).

If we were exposed to nuclear radiation (dispersed) I am curious how much more cancerous we would become. A LOT of what we eat, use, and are exposed to is cancerous. In the post-peak world you'll likely be eating mostly locally grown foods and your exposure to a great deal of carcinogens will have been reduced. Would the cancer rates remain the same?

On top of that, nuclear power is facing its own problems. Uranium is becoming increasingly sparse (it is a limited resource like oil) and the US got most of its fuel from old Russian bombs (the deal is now over and I've yet to hear the state of our supply). Most people able to run nuclear plants are getting older and with virtually no interest amongst younger college students there is already an employment crunch. Nuclear plants are unbelievably expensive to build and a number of countries are completely getting rid of nuclear (Germany for example, and likely Japan as well). Most new nuclear plants (mainly being built in places like China and India) are new generation reactors that are meltdown proof.

Don't waste your time worrying about it. There's nothing you can do about it in the worst case scenario, but you also can't do anything if an asteroid hits earth so? If you spend your time worrying about meltdowns in the decline of our civilization you'll end up wasting your time, and if there is no meltdown? Then you've wasted time you could have used preparing and becoming more self-sustaining.

[ROCKMAN]

In case anyone wonders what they should really be worried about:

Cause of Death Lifetime Odds

Heart Disease 1-in-5
Cancer 1-in-7
Stroke 1-in-23
Accidental Injury 1-in-36
Motor Vehicle Accident 1-in-100
Intentional Self-harm (suicide) 1-in-121
Falling Down 1-in-246
Assault by Firearm 1-in-325
Fire or Smoke 1-in-1,116
Natural Forces 1-in-3,357
Electrocution 1-in-5,000
Drowning 1-in-8,942
Air Travel Accident 1-in-20,000
Flood 1-in-30,000
Legal Execution 1-in-58,618
Tornado 1-in-60,000
Lightning Strike 1-in-83,930
Snake, Bee or other Venomous Bite or Sting 1-in-100,000
Earthquake 1-in-131,890
Dog Attack 1-in-147,717
Asteroid Impact 1-in-200,000
Tsunami 1-in-500,000
Fireworks Discharge 1-in-615,488

Somehow I have a hard time believing there is a greatly likelihood of being killed by an asteroid than by fireworks.

And to think how many folks bet on the big lottery win even though those odds are much worse than getting killed by fire crackers.

[Newbie Wants Info]

Socrates1Fan: Thank you very much for the informative reply. As you stated, there is very little information about this on the internet, much to my surprise since it is obviously a big issue. The fact that another ordinary person out there was thinking about this is relieving and I'm happy to learn you got the information that you (and I) wanted.

It seems as though there could be time in the future to "safely" store the radioactive material. I'm not sure if I consider the power plants themselves to be safe. They're above ground, made out of materials that lose integrity with time, especially in hot, humid environments. Could power plants in Japan not be weakened and eroded by the elements and by green lifeforms and then destroyed by earthquake? Tsunami waves could carry radiation like wind. I sincerely hope that the system does not break down before every power plant in the world can be turned off and the material buried far underground where it can't reach the water.

ROCKMAN: Thanks for the information. That info seems to judge the safety of fully functioning power plans. I agree, as long as civilization is up and running, nuclear power is generally safe compared to other threats. But if civilization collapses nuclear material could become extremely dangerous.

[socrates1fan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newbie Wants Info', 'S')ocrates1Fan: Thank you very much for the informative reply. As you stated, there is very little information about this on the internet, much to my surprise since it is obviously a big issue. The fact that another ordinary person out there was thinking about this is relieving and I'm happy to learn you got the information that you (and I) wanted.

[C8]

[quote="Newbie Wants Info)
I agree, the risk of Chinese-constructed nuclear reactors is great. I don't think that blaming capitalism or "greed" is a good idea, though.

[/quote][/quote]

Please reread my post, I think you may not have fully understood the casual links.

[lper100km]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Spent nuclear fuel, i.e. the stuff in cooling ponds and dry cask storage, decays down to near background levels in 300 years.

[socrates1fan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Spent nuclear fuel, i.e. the stuff in cooling ponds and dry cask storage, decays down to near background levels in 300 years.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')Spent nuclear fuel, i.e. the stuff in cooling ponds and dry cask storage, decays down to near background levels in 300 years.

[lper100km]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('socrates1fan', '
')
The spent fuel will be radioactive for a very long time, however it won't be catastrophically radioactive for very long. After a certain point the radioactivity of the spent fuel becomes irrelevant to people (unless people come into direct contact with it).

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he dust in Iraq rolls down the long roads that are the desert’s fingers. It gets in your eyes and nose and throat; it swirls in markets and school playgrounds, consuming children kicking a ball; and it carries, according to Dr. Jawad Al-Ali, “the seeds of our death”. An internationally respected cancer specialist at the Sadr Teaching Hospital in Basra, Dr. Ali told me that in 1999, and today his warning is irrefutable. “Before the Gulf war,” he said, “we had two or three cancer patients a month. Now we have 30 to 35 dying every month. Our studies indicate that 40 to 48 per cent of the population in this area will get cancer: in five years’ time to begin with, then long after. That’s almost half the population. Most of my own family have it, and we have no history of the disease. It is like Chernobyl here; the genetic effects are new to us; the mushrooms grow huge; even the grapes in my garden have mutated and can’t be eaten.”

Along the corridor, Dr. Ginan Ghalib Hassen, a paediatrician, kept a photo album of the children she was trying to save. Many had neuroplastoma. “Before the war, we saw only one case of this unusual tumour in two years,” she said. “Now we have many cases, mostly with no family history. I have studied what happened in Hiroshima. The sudden increase of such congenital malformations is the same.”

Among the doctors I interviewed, there was little doubt that depleted uranium shells used by the Americans and British in the Gulf War were the cause. A US military physicist assigned to clean up the Gulf War battlefield across the border in Kuwait said, “Each round fired by an A-10 Warhog attack aircraft carried solid uranium. Well over 300 tons of DU was used. It was a form of nuclear warfare.”

[lper100km]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '
')
First of all I never said it would become harmless, I said it will become no more harmful than Uranium ore mined out of the ground.

[socrates1fan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('socrates1fan', '
')
The spent fuel will be radioactive for a very long time, however it won't be catastrophically radioactive for very long. After a certain point the radioactivity of the spent fuel becomes irrelevant to people (unless people come into direct contact with it).

[lper100km]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('socrates1fan', '
')I don't think you understood what I said. The stuff remains toxic for a very long time but it doesn't "meltdown" after a couple of years of cooling (it can't at that point, which is the primary concern for many in a post-oil world in regards to nuclear plants). It becomes a highly isolated toxic material (though you are correct in that it remains toxic for a very long time). Hardly the apocalypse.

When I asked a nuclear physicist about specifically a post-industrial world, they told me that unless a group of people deliberately went to cooling pools (which by that time would have dried out) and dry casks, pulled the spent fuel rods out and broke them open they would not pose any real threat to future populations.

[socrates1fan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('lper100km', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('socrates1fan', '
')I don't think you understood what I said. The stuff remains toxic for a very long time but it doesn't "meltdown" after a couple of years of cooling (it can't at that point, which is the primary concern for many in a post-oil world in regards to nuclear plants). It becomes a highly isolated toxic material (though you are correct in that it remains toxic for a very long time). Hardly the apocalypse.

When I asked a nuclear physicist about specifically a post-industrial world, they told me that unless a group of people deliberately went to cooling pools (which by that time would have dried out) and dry casks, pulled the spent fuel rods out and broke them open they would not pose any real threat to future populations.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('socrates1fan', '
')Considering that many countries are already phasing out nuclear power completely, it seems to becoming less and less of a concern. I don't see an overnight collapse but rather gradual change (change we have been in since the early 2000's).

[socrates1fan]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('socrates1fan', '
')Considering that many countries are already phasing out nuclear power completely, it seems to becoming less and less of a concern. I don't see an overnight collapse but rather gradual change (change we have been in since the early 2000's).

[Plantagenet]

I hope you aren't taking the facts and data and numbers on new nuclear power plants as attacks and hostility.

Facts are neither friendly nor hostile---they are simply the facts.

[C8]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', 'I') hope you aren't taking the facts and data and numbers on new nuclear power plants as attacks and hostility.

Facts are neither friendly nor hostile---they are simply the facts.