After the Chernobyl accident somepeople feared that the molten

>>6832381
it would explode like
>BOOM
with a force of 3 megaton

I think they were worried it would melt through the concrete foundations and come into contact with ground water making lots of hydrogen when it did, then that hydrogen would cause the explosion.

>>6832381
You can`t get an atom bomb explosion (fission or thermonuclear3784) from a nuclear power plant. Explosions always come from steam pressure in sealed vessels, but three megatons sounds way too much.

>>6832381
To think that someone was actually photographing that lump of molten fuel...

>>6832395
robocamera with mirror from around a corner, iirc

>>6832391
They even started digging a tunnel to catch it before it dropped into the aquifer.
>>6832395
And there are even idiots running around collecting specs of fuel rod
youtu.be/ejZyDvtX85Y

>>6832381
>dat elephants foot

>>6832386
yes, but how would it detonate, what would trigger the explosion?

>>6832413
Its a steam/hydrogen explosion from very hot fuel hitting water.

>>6832413
The 3-5 megaton numbers were popularized by a couple of documentaries that were less interested in accuracy than hype. U-235 and P-239 concentrations under 20% can't create a nuclear explosion no matter what you do to them or how much you amass. Reactors have never used more than 5%.
The danger was that the molten fuel would cause a massive steam explosion. Water acts as a moderator for the reaction by slowing down escaping neutrons, which in turn heats the water. Current plants take advantage of this to create a negative feedback loop - the slowing of the neutrons increases the efficacy of the reaction but heats the water, as the water heats it becomes steam and traps less neutrons, decreasing the efficacy of the reaction.
Graphite rods like those used in Chernobyl exhibit the opposite behavior - as they heat they increase the efficiency of the reaction, creating a positive feedback loop. When the graphite control rods were inserted into the core too late, they fused to it, and the temperature continued to escalate even more rapidly. Had the fuel mass descended into the aquifer with water still inside, it would have essentially made a massive geyser and sent radioactive steam into the atmosphere, which could have traveled for dozens or hundreds of miles.

>>6832395
IIRC they actually shot at it with a gun to see how hard it was. I think that was several years after it happened, though.

>>6832401
>picking up a 17 Sv fuel fragment with your bare hands, all but guaranteeing cancer (1 Sv = 5.5% chance of cancer, 17 Sv = 93.5% chance of cancer)
She's so stupid her name could become a synonym for "retarded".

>>6833620
>17 Sv
mSv, actually
not particularly dangerous, though it may be in the long term idk

>>6833645
She said 17,000 mSv though, which would be 17 Sv.

>>6832401
>not even gloves
jesus fucking christ.

>>6832401
>picking up that shit without fucking gloves
i hope the bitch didnt wash her hands before she ate and died

>>6833689
Watch how she scratches her nose with the hand that touched the contaminated soil which also included a goddamn oxidized plutonium piece.

>>6832401
>1.7 rem per hour
standing next to that thing for an hour is like getting 2 and a half chest ct scans
5 rem is the anual dose limit for radiation workers btw. fucking stupid shit hippy retards

>>6833693
i think she did gamma spectroscopy on it and found it was mostly europium, which is an xray and alpha emitter, so shes getting that wholebody xray dose and hopefully injested and is getting fucked by 2 MeV alphas

>>6832401
>six microsieverts
so it's the same thing as a CT scan, big whoop

File: search.jpg (2KB, 75x93px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 75x93px

Liquid nuclear fuel, even in copious amounts, would still not really be of any danger (Other than the multiple Sieverts emitted). It will probably not explode in a nuclear blast, but (As with Chernobyl), in a confined envoronment, make the container/building/fuel core explode from pressure. It would scatter radioactive material everywhere in hundreds of miles around it (Again, Chernobyl), but no nuclear boom. And nothing close to 3 megatons. The largest fission bomb came in at about 700 kilotons, in the UK.

>>6833658
Yes, she says that. The meter says otherwise though, no? I skipped around through the video. Why is she whispering? Doesn't want to anger the fragment?

File: where are the burger.png (7KB, 638x231px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 638x231px

How do Geiger counters work?

>>6834082
there's a fill gas between an anode and cathod and radiation interacts with the gas causing ionization and excitation of electrons in the fill gas which is recorded as current between the anode and cathode and is recorded as a count. you can determine the activity by the count rate, typically counts per minute. G-M detectors dont tell you anything about what kind of radiation you're measuring or how much energy is being deposited like a scintillation detector, just the rate at which the radiation is entering the detector and causing ionization

>>6832391
according to calculations, it should have melted through the concrete and gotten out but it didn't

>>6832381
what would happen if you took than out and dropped it in the middle of time square?
what is the kill radius of that blob?

>>6834560
it was like 18 million curies so niggas would be droppin

if anyone has any questions about radiation ask away

>>6834633
how does radiation cure cancer?

>>6834689
it kills the cancer cells

>>6834689
Pretty much how any other cancer therapy works: You damage the body in a way that does more harm to the cancer than the healthy parts of the body. Radiation is one of those things.

>>6834633
why does it take so long to scram an RBMK-type reactor?

>>6834696
shitty design. when the rods come in and displace some of the water lower in the core there is a local increase in reactivity, so the rods have to come in more slowly

>>6834689
What determines if an isotope is fissile or fertile?

>>6834720
basically the binding energy of the last neutron. U-235 is fissile because it will absorb a neutron of any energy and cause fission, whilst U-238 cant undergo fission with thermal neutrons, it needs fast neutrons in order to fission. fertile materials are capable of breeding fissile material

>>6834727
so basically there is a certain excitation energy needed for fission, and if the binding energy of the last neutron is greater than that excitation energy, it's fissile, but if the excitation energy for fission is lower than the binding energy of the last neutron, the neutron need to have additional kinetic energy in order to cause fission

>>6834730
How do you control the speeds of neutrons?

>>6834743
you have a moderator, like water, which slows the neutrons down via collisions. you want thermal neutrons (.025 eV) and the average energy of neutrons born from fission is 2 MeV

>>6834633
Can radiation be used to make viruses ineffective?

>>6832401

> Byonerd
> Nerd
> Picks that shit up with bare hands

No suprises here. She's a woman to.

File: The Elephant's Foot of the Chernobyl disaster, 1986 (1).jpg (244KB, 1200x816px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x816px

>>6832396

>>6835086
lel that's clearly years later and it's hard. the heat alone would kill you, not to mention the 15-20 million curies of activity

>>6835099
true dat

>>6835086

To be honest, this seems to be a different spill to the one in OPs image.

>>6832401
you bunch of retards, that's the rate per hour. few thousands mSv/hr
If the radiation was mainly alpha particles then it will not even reach her skin, ingestion on the other hand, could be something fatal.

File: scarell3.jpg (22KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 400x300px

>>6832386

>>6833658
pretty sure she said microSieverts most of the time, so 17 000 microSieverts are 17 mSv

>>6836126
>If the radiation was mainly alpha particles
it's alpha and gamma mostly

>>6836126
either way, thats a pretty high dose rate, 1.7 rem per hour