Only skim-read it but a very good article from what l did read. Good pictures too. Admiral Yi is a legend in Korea, will share my pics of Yi with you sometime.
Korean history is very under investigated in DR circles sadly. I have a special interest in Jang Bogo and the late medieval decline and resurgence circa 600ad-800ad
On a more serious note, yes you're right beyond low level takes like 'homogeneous so based'. I want to read the book 'The Secret History of the Korean War' and read more into the militant labour movements that helped bring an end to the dictatorships in the late 80s and 90s.
No, 10^17 Joules is the same order of magnitude of the amount of solar energy irradiated onto 1,000 acres of land for one year. You cant just show that two things have the same amount of energy in them and proclaim them equally deadly. Reactors dont go off like bombs when they meltdown. There may be an explosion from a boiler or something similar, but there's not going to be a mushroom cloud. "For reference, it would only take 10 Tsar Bombs to wipe out most major metropolitan areas of the United States." That's quite dependent on your definition of major metropolitan area. If you dont count Chicago or anything below that, sure. Again, fallout doesn't render an area unhabitable "centuries to come." Hiroshima has a million people living in it right now.
A nuke lasts a split second, the sun has a whole year.
It's a very rookie mistake to confuse a nuclear bomb with a radiation leak. That's why Hiroshima is inhabited but Chernobyl is not. It is possible to make a bomb as dirty as a leak, but this is considered not useful.
10 Tsar Bombs can knock out multiple targets due to its size. It's blast radius is 150mi, and NY and Philly are only 100mi apart.
I'm sorry dude but you're just wrong on every point you're making.
1. That's my point, two things dont become equally hazardous just because they have the same total energy. The destruction of a power plant would not be the "equivalent of 1,000 Tsar Bombs," just because the number of Joules is the same.
2. People do live in the Exclusion Zone, just not children. Even though the biological half-life of Cesium seems to be longer than it's physical half-life from data from the Exclusion Zone, "unhabitable for centuries," is an overstatement. Centuries would be many, many half-lifes of Cesium.
3. You can destroy part of New York and Philadelphia with same Tsar bomb if you make Trenton, NJ your ground zero, but that would leave parts of Queens and JFK airport outside the radius for burning people. You cant put the airports of both cities inside the radius for people getting 3rd degree burns, much less the 5 PSI overpressure required to knock down most structures.
Equal energy =/= equal danger. A few years of energy on a lawn can have the same energy as a nuke. All that energy at once is dangerous.
You are smart enough to know the risks of living by Chernobyl are far worse than Hiroshima. And I never said those two were equal. Chernobyl was about 400x more radioactivity than Hiroshima.
Arguing about what degree of total destruction between cities doesn't really alter the reality of the destruction.
The Zaporizhzhia NPP has a strong steel-reinforced concrete containment vessel for the reactors, unlike the RMBK reactors in Chernobyl, which had no containment. The reactor core itself is housed in a steel pressure vessel with 8-inch thick walls.
Zaporizhzhia uses light water reactors, unlike the Chernobyl RMBK, which used graphite as a moderator. This was the critical element in maintaining the fire after the steam explosion, which blew a hole in the roof and scattered radioactive elements all over Europe. The Zaporizhzhia NPP cannot explode. At worst, the remaining "hot" reactor (the other five are in cold shutdown) could lose cooling capacity, potentially causing a meltdown which would wreck the reactor, but still be contained. And then if all safety systems failed, you might see some local release of radioactive elements, as with Fukushima.
If you're going to worry about anything at Zaporizhzhia, it should be the spent fuel, about 60% of which is in dry storage. This, plus the more recent spent fuel in cooling pools, seems to be where you get your 2,200 tons from. The spent fuel in dry storage has already cooled sufficiently to sit in a concrete cask above ground, so is not likely to experience a runaway exothermic reaction.
That leaves ~900 tons of spent fuel in the cooling pools. If these were drained, and the heat generated by the spent fuel exceeded the 1,300 °C ignition temperature of the zirconium cladding, and if no fire-prevention measures were taken, you might get some release of radioactive material. But the spent fuel itself doesn't really burn. Whatever would be released (if absolutely everything went wrong) would likely be far lower in magnitude than Chernobyl.
And even Chernobyl was more hype than reality. A few dozen people died directly from the accident (whether from the explosion or radiation exposure), there was a large increase in mostly non-fatal thyroid cancer among local children due to I-141 uptake (itself a result of iodine-deficient diets), and ... well, that's more or less it. (https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html)
Is there an error in the arithmetic? If Chernobyl has 200tonnes and Zaporizhia 2,200, that’s not 100 times greater, rather 11x.
Yea seems like
Only skim-read it but a very good article from what l did read. Good pictures too. Admiral Yi is a legend in Korea, will share my pics of Yi with you sometime.
Korean history is very under investigated in DR circles sadly. I have a special interest in Jang Bogo and the late medieval decline and resurgence circa 600ad-800ad
Nice! Kpop is my Seoul, get it, Seoul!!
On a more serious note, yes you're right beyond low level takes like 'homogeneous so based'. I want to read the book 'The Secret History of the Korean War' and read more into the militant labour movements that helped bring an end to the dictatorships in the late 80s and 90s.
That's not how radiation works in the slightest, sir. People live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki now. 1,000 Tsar Bombs is absurd hyperbole.
I'm afraid you're incorrect.
No, 10^17 Joules is the same order of magnitude of the amount of solar energy irradiated onto 1,000 acres of land for one year. You cant just show that two things have the same amount of energy in them and proclaim them equally deadly. Reactors dont go off like bombs when they meltdown. There may be an explosion from a boiler or something similar, but there's not going to be a mushroom cloud. "For reference, it would only take 10 Tsar Bombs to wipe out most major metropolitan areas of the United States." That's quite dependent on your definition of major metropolitan area. If you dont count Chicago or anything below that, sure. Again, fallout doesn't render an area unhabitable "centuries to come." Hiroshima has a million people living in it right now.
A nuke lasts a split second, the sun has a whole year.
It's a very rookie mistake to confuse a nuclear bomb with a radiation leak. That's why Hiroshima is inhabited but Chernobyl is not. It is possible to make a bomb as dirty as a leak, but this is considered not useful.
10 Tsar Bombs can knock out multiple targets due to its size. It's blast radius is 150mi, and NY and Philly are only 100mi apart.
I'm sorry dude but you're just wrong on every point you're making.
1. That's my point, two things dont become equally hazardous just because they have the same total energy. The destruction of a power plant would not be the "equivalent of 1,000 Tsar Bombs," just because the number of Joules is the same.
2. People do live in the Exclusion Zone, just not children. Even though the biological half-life of Cesium seems to be longer than it's physical half-life from data from the Exclusion Zone, "unhabitable for centuries," is an overstatement. Centuries would be many, many half-lifes of Cesium.
3. You can destroy part of New York and Philadelphia with same Tsar bomb if you make Trenton, NJ your ground zero, but that would leave parts of Queens and JFK airport outside the radius for burning people. You cant put the airports of both cities inside the radius for people getting 3rd degree burns, much less the 5 PSI overpressure required to knock down most structures.
4. No u
Equal energy =/= equal danger. A few years of energy on a lawn can have the same energy as a nuke. All that energy at once is dangerous.
You are smart enough to know the risks of living by Chernobyl are far worse than Hiroshima. And I never said those two were equal. Chernobyl was about 400x more radioactivity than Hiroshima.
Arguing about what degree of total destruction between cities doesn't really alter the reality of the destruction.
You claimed they were "equivalent."
I think this is buying into too much hype.
The Zaporizhzhia NPP has a strong steel-reinforced concrete containment vessel for the reactors, unlike the RMBK reactors in Chernobyl, which had no containment. The reactor core itself is housed in a steel pressure vessel with 8-inch thick walls.
Zaporizhzhia uses light water reactors, unlike the Chernobyl RMBK, which used graphite as a moderator. This was the critical element in maintaining the fire after the steam explosion, which blew a hole in the roof and scattered radioactive elements all over Europe. The Zaporizhzhia NPP cannot explode. At worst, the remaining "hot" reactor (the other five are in cold shutdown) could lose cooling capacity, potentially causing a meltdown which would wreck the reactor, but still be contained. And then if all safety systems failed, you might see some local release of radioactive elements, as with Fukushima.
If you're going to worry about anything at Zaporizhzhia, it should be the spent fuel, about 60% of which is in dry storage. This, plus the more recent spent fuel in cooling pools, seems to be where you get your 2,200 tons from. The spent fuel in dry storage has already cooled sufficiently to sit in a concrete cask above ground, so is not likely to experience a runaway exothermic reaction.
That leaves ~900 tons of spent fuel in the cooling pools. If these were drained, and the heat generated by the spent fuel exceeded the 1,300 °C ignition temperature of the zirconium cladding, and if no fire-prevention measures were taken, you might get some release of radioactive material. But the spent fuel itself doesn't really burn. Whatever would be released (if absolutely everything went wrong) would likely be far lower in magnitude than Chernobyl.
And even Chernobyl was more hype than reality. A few dozen people died directly from the accident (whether from the explosion or radiation exposure), there was a large increase in mostly non-fatal thyroid cancer among local children due to I-141 uptake (itself a result of iodine-deficient diets), and ... well, that's more or less it. (https://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/areas-of-work/chernobyl.html)