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.
Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by FyreByrd
These are stone structures and again not bombarded by radiation on a daily basis.
Radiation does not damage the structural integrity of anorganic materials in a way that would endanger them.
The effects of low doses, 1020 neutron/cm2 or >1010 rads of gamma,
concrete has been reported to exhibit reduction in compressive and tensile
strength and a marked increase in volume.
The effects of long-term exposure of concrete to elevated temperatures are
a loss of water in the concrete leading to a decrease in compressive strength,
changes in the modulus of elasticity, creep resistance, conductivity, and
diffusivity. Generally speaking, the threshold of degradation is 95C, and the
effects increase with increasing temperature and time exposure.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by openminded2011
Well you're sort of wrong on virtually all accords.
Modern reactor designs cannot meltdown. And they cannot cause the scale of disaster you are talking about.
First up is the fact that the Japanese reactor was a poorly built, poorly maintained 50 year old reactor. Would you ban all cars just because a Ford model T killed some people in an explosion?
Your logic really is no different.
Secondly is the fact that a melt down does not create thousands of years of poisoned Earth. It's deathly toxic for a decade or two, then natural processes pull the radiation down and sink the material into the Earth. You have a few higher levels of cancer and defects for a few decades, then nature takes its course and you're pretty ok.
For example, Chernobyl is not a death trap today. Today it has a thriving ecosystem that is reestablishing itself.
And in the past 30 years there have been uncountable deaths in coal and oil extractions that you probably haven't even heard from. Not to mention the calamity of ecological disaster that has come from large scale oil extraction.
I'm sorry, but if Deep Horizon had been an underwater nuclear reactor, it would already have contained itself from the water pressure and cooling effects.
Your choices are simple. Solar and wind, Fossil Fuel, or Nuclear. Bare in mind, again, that solar power enables fossil fuels to become renewable. And wind is not 100% reliable unless you do it widespread across the entire American south.edit on 17-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
You have a very narrow scope for your vision and understanding. Chernobyl is still a death trap and will be for thousands of years - even with fair containment. What if there were an earthquake that broke the containment (and remember the Soviets dug UNDER the reactor to contain as well) and let the still radioactive and chemical poisons into the environment again.
Where do you get these ideas - even the most ardent supporters of the Nuclear Cycle are cognizant of these dangers. This is in the category of 'intelligent design' anti-science fundamentals.
Tepco, l'opérateur du site, a mesuré dans ce poisson une quantité de césium radioactif égale à 254.000 becquerels par kilogramme alors que la limite définie pour les produits de la mer par le gouvernement est de de 100 becquerels/kg.
Pour éviter que les poissons hautement contaminés ne partent trop loin au risque d'être consommés par d'autres espèces ou pêchés, Tepco va installer de nouveaux filets.
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aircooled
You're argument kind of falls short because all nuclear reactors require power to operate. Usually quite the bit.
You don't need a nuclear reactor to power a thorium one. You need power. That can come from anywhere. And then once it begins, you just build more thorium reactors to expand.
And while we haven't invented concrete that lasts 100,000 years, I was in a lab-like setting last year. I can tell you that even I've fabricated some interesting formulas of bio-enhanced plaster of my own flavor. It is possible to create some very very impressive materials with ash and animal bones. Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand.
Also for your lake, you do realize that there's no reason to assume cesium has anything to do with it? Aside from the fact that it would indicate that the entire region would have to be incredibly radiated, not just one lake. And considering that the entire region is not radiated, then it probably is that lake.
Also you can fake a reading. There's radiation in your fire detector.edit on 18-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Philippines
Most nuclear reactors are old designs from the 60s and 70s.
I wouldn't want to live near them anymore than I'd want to drive a Ford Pinto or live in the polluted cities of the era.
Look up molten salt reactors. I would have no problem living withing 50 miles of them. The most advanced designs have no fuel rods, no risk to meltdown(Because they're in a meltdown state to work), and effectively are the most efficient designs I know of short of orbital solar arrays within today's reach of technology.edit on 18-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Philippines
I wouldn't have built a reactor on a fault line with the backup generators bellow the water line in both a flood zone and coastal area.
Someone was retarded. To be honest, I don't have a great deal of pity for what happened. They got what they paid for.
Forgive my borderline sociopaths response for it. I just really really really disdain bad designs that are so obvious a middle school child could have done better.
As for the Molten reactor, many many designs that we are considering for the future come from the past. Everything from NASA's SLS to phaser guns.
When I insulted the age of the design of reactors like fukushima, it's because the difference is in concept vs practicality and functionality. We did not have the technology to make such reactor designs work on a practical level. Now we do.
For similar technologies that were not practical when conceived, and now are, enjoy this video:
edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)edit on 19-1-2013 by Gorman91 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Philippines
I wouldn't have built a reactor on a fault line with the backup generators bellow the water line in both a flood zone and coastal area.
Someone was retarded. To be honest, I don't have a great deal of pity for what happened. They got what they paid for.
Forgive my borderline sociopaths response for it. I just really really really disdain bad designs that are so obvious a middle school child could have done better.