It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nuclear safety in North America WSHTF

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Hello I have a question I was hoping some of you might be able to help me with. In a senario where poulation is greatly diminished -where in America would be a safe place from the fallout of unmanned nuclear stations when they go critical? I've seen this map of nuclear stations here - www.insc.anl.gov... but I was hoping someone could shed some light were would be safe taking in account of natural weather patterns, wind currents, as well as water drainage. This has bothered me for some time so it would be great to get some feedback. Thanks!




posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by CleverName
Hello I have a question I was hoping some of you might be able to help me with. In a scenario where population is greatly diminished -where in America would be a safe place from the fallout of unmanned nuclear stations when they go critical? I've seen this map of nuclear stations here - www.insc.anl.gov... but I was hoping someone could shed some light were would be safe taking in account of natural weather patterns, wind currents, as well as water drainage. This has bothered me for some time so it would be great to get some feedback. Thanks!



Clever Name,
Interesting concept but I should let you know your list is incomplete.

There are several sites of reactors and radioactive material storage facilities not on your map.

The US Government maintains several prototype reactors in New York, South Carolina , and up in Idaho. Notice that land based reactors are not shown on your map in the state of Idaho.

These are prototype reactors....working mockups of reactors found on ships. They are where the government trains for military nuclear programs. These too would be greatly diminished.

Would also suggest that you find out where the nuclear/radioactive storage facilities are located.. I know of one in South Carolina and am not sure if they ever opened up the one planned for Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
These are places where they store all the byproducts of nuclear power to which they don't want the public exposed. You don't want to be visiting or traveling close to one of these areas.

Another facet not shown on your map....the locations of navy bases where nuclear powered ships are located. Most peoples never think of how many nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines are around with operating nuclear power plants on them. These too would be a consideration as these require manning 24/7. In your scenario these too would be affected by a severe population drop as this type of training is long and arduous..very detailed and not many are up to the task....both commercial or military. Many of the commercial people in the business were at one time in the military in the business.
You want to be able to factor in where these bases are located and keep away from these places as well.

Suggest also if you have such concerns..that you look into purchasing a portable radiac or such type equipment. Radiation/contamination monitoring equipment. Geiger Counters and such. Note ..good equipment of this type is expensive..so do your homework and choose wisely. Take care of this equipment. Keep it away from people who do not know what it is and are tending to be very careless with such. They don't even need to know you have it.

Also suggest that you learn something about decontamination proceedures and dealing with radiation. Do your homework here. The informations is out there if you are interested.

Hope this helps.
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   
Or maybe some of us need to learn how to keep some of the power stations gowing. I am not sure if there is any way possible for anyone to even learn how to do that. But it is a plan. Of course if the power grids all go in 2012 will that effect the Nuclear plants?



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Baring someone bombing a reactor or storage site there is no danger out side of the site in the US(i don't know the safety system in other countries)

In the US reactors will shut themselves down in a SHTF.
reactors in the US are computer controlled.
the control rod and systems are HELD OPEN by the computer system.

If you lose the computer the control rod will drop.
if a critical system goes into alarm and the operator does not respond the control rods will drop.

US reactors are on a fail-safe system if any system fails the reactor will shut down to a safe mode.

They will set there in that safe shutdown mode till or unless a outside action is taken to change it.


Storage site have the spacing of the fuel bundles a safe non reacting distance apart so that there is no nuclear reaction.

The water in the storage ponds is to shield the workers at the storage site from the radioactivity of the spent fuel rods.
If the water was removed nothing would happen out side of the site but you would not want to enter the site without protection.
You would not want to climb over the fence and go up to look at the dry fuel rod bundles. without the shielding of the water you would get a large dose of radioactivity
But even dry the radioactivity would NOT be blowing in the wind.
and someone climbing over the fence and stealing part of a fuel rod would not get far.

This leaves someone blowing up a reactor or storage site and for that all bets are off as to what would happen.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I saw some show on the Discovery or Science channel called Population Zero, I believe, and apparently the nuclear reactors would all go into melt-down without human supervision.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Almost all Nuclear facilities have an automated shut down cycle if there is a meltdown of any type.



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   
It was actually on the National Geographic Channel. Here's the vid-
vid



posted on Mar, 2 2009 @ 11:49 PM
link   
ANNED


Storage site have the spacing of the fuel bundles a safe non reacting distance apart so that there is no nuclear reaction.


This has to do with increasing the shut down margins and keeping the fuel in a non reactive state..by geometry, reflection etc. They are often also in water ...which adds to cooling by a type of circulation...removing the decay heat over time.


The water in the storage ponds is to shield the workers at the storage site from the radioactivity of the spent fuel rods.
If the water was removed nothing would happen out side of the site but you would not want to enter the site without protection.
You would not want to climb over the fence and go up to look at the dry fuel rod bundles. without the shielding of the water you would get a large dose of radioactivity
But even dry the radioactivity would NOT be blowing in the wind.
and someone climbing over the fence and stealing part of a fuel rod would not get far.


Radioactivity and contamination are not the same in practical terms. Yes the radioactivity would be high close up and you would definitely not want to be close to these spent rods outside of containment or without them being in the water shielding.

Contamination being the small bits of radioative material which can become airborne if subjected to winds outside of a water enviornment.
CRUD is a type of contaminant with a high radioactive count.
Nonetheless you are quite right ..you would not want to get close to a pond like this if the water got gone.


This leaves someone blowing up a reactor or storage site and for that all bets are off as to what would happen.


It would not be a nuclear explosion as in an atomic or thermonuclear weapon but more high radiation and contamination. Bad news however..bad. A big dirty bomb.

CleverName,
I was trying to remember the site where they sold radiac equipment. There are several but this one comes to mind initially. YOu can look others up on the web for meters and something called pocket dosimetry.

This equipment is expensive and delicate..so be aware of this and also it must be maintained.
Here is one site though there are many others.

www.ki4u.com...

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Thank you very much everyone for the great and informative replies. I will do more research on this - Thanks again!



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 

thanks for the info, I live about 1 mile from a plant



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 05:27 PM
link   
The automatic shut is one thing but backup is only good for 30 days. No power in 30 days GOOD BYE. So if things go really bad don't be downwind next month. Cooling is backed up by diesel and they only have a 30 day supply onsite.

mikell



posted on Mar, 3 2009 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
In the US reactors will shut themselves down in a SHTF.
reactors in the US are computer controlled.
the control rod and systems are HELD OPEN by the computer system.


Do you know if that includes being hardened from an EMP attack? IF a SHTF scenario includes EMP, computers may not be able to do their fail safe procedures. Also, can these fail-safes be conducted manually as a backup?



posted on Mar, 4 2009 @ 01:47 AM
link   
The fail safe includes the loss if the whole electronics system.

The control rod are HELD UP by the computer.
Lose the signal from the computer because of a EMP pulse and nothing is holding the control rod up.
They drop.

that is why its called a FAIL SAFE



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join