Radioactive Wolves.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Schneibster, junk DNA mutations are not included in my statement exactly for the reason that they're irrelevant. And a defect is not a mutation, a defect is a problem mutation. You're talking about all mutations, I'm talking about the ones that cause problems.

[Schneibster]

As far as exposure to nuclear material goes, comparing a nuclear weapon detonation to a reactor meltdown is comparing apples to tarantulas. The nuclear materials involved are different, the mechanisms are different, the materials potentially irradiated with neutrons are different, what vaporizes and makes it into the atmosphere is different, and the nearby physical effects are different. It's ludicrous to mention them in the same breath. Warren, if you think anything about nuclear engineering is "simple," you have nothing to say about nuclear energy that anyone needs to listen to.

[Schneibster]

Schneibster, junk DNA mutations are not included in my statement exactly for the reason that they're irrelevant. And a defect is not a mutation, a defect is a problem mutation. You're talking about all mutations, I'm talking about the ones that cause problems.

Sorry, 'zilla, wasn't you said it. My bad, an extra quote got in there somehow or other.

But meanwhile, they're not irrelevant. They show up later. But they're not even irrelevant to near-term effects; they mean life that uses DNA is somewhat protected from the near-term effects of irradiation by redundancy. And in terms of evolutionary effects, they mean that DNA as all the life we know about uses it conserves random modifications, and in fact uses so-called "junk DNA" to modulate its genetic flexibility.

[Warren Dew]

Sorry, WD, but all the estimates I've read, including the cheeriest ones, don't paint your rosy picture.

I think it's interesting that you characterize "most of the humans will die, but the wolves will be fine" as a rosy picture.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Sorry, WD, but all the estimates I've read, including the cheeriest ones, don't paint your rosy picture.

I think it's interesting that you characterize "most of the humans will die, but the wolves will be fine" as a rosy picture.

I think it's interesting that you misrepresent my position. Why is that?

[Warren Dew]

I think it's interesting that you misrepresent my position. Why is that?

I think if you reread your post as well as mine, you'll see that it wasn't me doing any misrepresentation.

[Warren Dew]

The nuclear materials involved are different, the mechanisms are different, the materials potentially irradiated with neutrons are different, what vaporizes and makes it into the atmosphere is different, and the nearby physical effects are different.

To the contrary, most of the nuclear materials are the same - U-235 and Pu-239 - and the atmospheric patterns were more different between the Hiroshima bomb and the Nagasaki bomb than between the Hiroshima bomb and Chernobyl. It's the nonnuclear burning - of buildings at Hiroshima, and of the reactor graphite at Chernobyl - that creates a plume to lift substantial amounts of radioactive particulates into the upper atmosphere where they can get broadly distributed.

[Schneibster]

The nuclear materials involved are different, the mechanisms are different, the materials potentially irradiated with neutrons are different, what vaporizes and makes it into the atmosphere is different, and the nearby physical effects are different.

To the contrary, most of the nuclear materials are the same - U-235 and Pu-239 -

There are very few if any operational reactors that use plutonium. So that's the first incorrect statement.

and the atmospheric patterns were more different between the Hiroshima bomb and the Nagasaki bomb than between the Hiroshima bomb and Chernobyl.

Modern nuclear weapons are multi-stage fission/fusion devices with yields in the megaton range. We're talking about modern history, not Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

Furthermore, Chernobyl didn't project material into the stratosphere, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. So another incorrect statement, this time two different ways.

It's the nonnuclear burning - of buildings at Hiroshima, and of the reactor graphite at Chernobyl - that creates a plume to lift substantial amounts of radioactive particulates into the upper atmosphere where they can get broadly distributed.

Radioactive particulates are produced during detonation in a nuclear explosion, and projected immediately into the stratosphere. However, in a reactor core accident, fire is the source of contamination, and projection is limited to the troposphere.

More than 400 times more material was released by Chernobyl, over a period of weeks, than was released at Hiroshima, in seconds. That alone is sufficient to prove my point.

The burning buildings at Hiroshima did not produce a great deal of contamination. Most was from direct fallout from the mushroom cloud.

You're comparing apples and tarantulas, like I said.

[MiM]

Schneib is clearly closer to the target, but here are some additional comments:

There is certainly a difference in fission products from U-235 and Pu-239, but these differences are small and definitely not large enough, so that they would significantly impact the general hazard. The one possible difference is the left over Pu itself, which certainly is a nasty nuclide. But, also U-235 ignited bombs can produce Pu-239, from neutron activation of U-238, if they have an outer shell of U-238, which is fairly normal in designs. All reactors produce (and then burn) significant amounts of Pu-239, from the same U-238 neutron activation process. So if U or Pu is used does not have a major impact on what the fallout scenario will look like.

Neither Hiroshima nor Nagasaki were powerful enough (~>100kt) for their fireballs to rise all the way to the stratosphere, so most of the fallout came down within the first days or months. Interestingly enough there is evidence that a small part (<1%) of the Chernobyl release actually reached the Stratosphere, I do not know if the same might be true for smaller air blasts like Hiroshima or Nagasaki, but that is hardly important here.

So to sum up. The big difference between reactor and bomb releases is that the reactor release does not include large amount of short lived nuclides, and only some parts of the materials get released (Fukushima released noble gases, and the volatile elements iodine, tellurium, caesium and very little else, Chernobyl released also non-volatiles and fuel material, but only in the percent range, whereas it released almost half of it's volatiles). Bombs generally produce significantly less long-lived isotopes than can be released from a reactor, but everything they produce is released. How and where is a question of bomb size and where the explosion takes place. If it's a ground blast it will vaporize soil and produce heavy particles that fall fast and produce a really bad local fallout, if it's a big (or high) airblast it will produce mostly small particles that rise to the stratosphere (from the heat of the nuclear fireball, definitely not from any fires it ignite) and the debris will stay there for years and cool of before it slowly falls down globally. Smaller air blasts like Hiroshima and Nagasaki will be somewhere between those.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think it's interesting that you misrepresent my position. Why is that?

I think if you reread your post as well as mine, you'll see that it wasn't me doing any misrepresentation.

Have fun with that then.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

How many reactors? How many bombs?

[Schneibster]

Here is a paper that estimates the height of the cloud at 50,000 feet (16 km).

The stratosphere starts at 10 km according to Wikipedia.

[JimC]

If only we could make powerful fusion bombs without having to set them off withy fission!

Wonderfully destructive weapons without that messy and annoying fallout!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

If only we could make powerful fusion bombs without having to set them off withy fission!

Wonderfully destructive weapons without that messy and annoying fallout!

I remember the faux outrage at the neutron bombs. "Destroy the people without damaging private property!" C'mon, folks, private property has a real, tangible value. People, not so much. Especially the young ones. You never know how they're going to turn out, and you can invest years in one and have it turn out to be a total failure. It's just too risky, IMHO. I'm going to put my money in something safe, sound, and secure, with a real return on my investment. I'm going to buy an iPhone.

[MiM]

Here is a paper that estimates the height of the cloud at 50,000 feet (16 km).

The stratosphere starts at 10 km according to Wikipedia.

You maybe noticed that the authors themselves say that it's in controversy to previous estimates (8 km), and that only one of their pictures yielded such a high estimate, while the others where more in line with previous estimates. Still an interesting article, though. If that result is correct, certainly parts of the debris would have gone through the tropopause.