There is no SURVIVAL...

reply to post by spooky24

The flow of water from the river could cool the containment vessel for over 30 years.

What's thirty years compared to 159,000?

That's only what, a generation or two? So basically you're saying the reactors would be fine for a while then they would meltdown.

I fail to see how that is much better than an immediate meltdown.

As long as the reactor does not vent Hydrogen gas, which is what explodes, the reactor will melt its way down to the magma, the magma will rise up the 'tube' and plug it, so long of course, the reactor is not on a fault line......

Say that to SURVIVORS of katrina, the japanese tsunami, or the phillipines recent cat 5

I'm always amazed in regards to survivalists...why would you tell people what your going to do? when the SHTF, the least amount of people that know what I'm going to do, or where I'm going to go, the better. if I have a survival technique, I'm sure as hell not going to share it with anyone. the first thing about survival?...keep your mouth shut

spooky24

) then it would take very little time before the nuclear reactors start to have meltdowns. Reactors need to keep constant power to cool them

Obliviously you know nothing about Nuclear Plants here in America in general and in the TVA specifically.

Plants like Browns Ferry don't need any kind of electricity to shut down the reactor. They are designed that way as gravity would release water from the Tennessee River into the reactor core. This same gravity-the force of water-would begin the containment process of removing the fuel rods. The flow of water from the river could cool the containment vessel for over 30 years.

If you don't know anything about Nuclear power then stop acting like you do.

There is not a single Nuclear plant in America that loss of power would cause a scramble in the reactor core. They would all shut themselves down with no containment issues.

Sorry I disagree. Type "what would happen if a nuclear power plant lost power" in Google and read the responses. Most Nuclear Plants have a few days max of backup power before things get critical.

DGenR8
Well I suppose this is going to come as a bit of a downer to a lot of the 'Survivalists' among us.
I have come to the conclusion that no matter how much you prep, it's probably a lost cause, here's why.
In any of the hundreds of possible apocalyptic scenarios that may happen, we as a species have at best a few years to live. The reason I say this is that should an event happen that causes a mass disruption to either a) the power grid (EMP, Asteroid, terrorist acts etc. etc.) or b) the workforce (zombies, plague, natural disaster) then it would take very little time before the nuclear reactors start to have meltdowns. Reactors need to keep constant power to cool them. Even when they say they are 'shutting down' a reactor for maintenance, the cooling process must remain. When the cooling stops, the heat starts and meltdown follows. So given the number of reactors worldwide, even if the catastrophic event only happened in one continent or even in some cases one country, the Global effect would be devastating in a relatively short time.

There are currently 112 reactors in the USA with 104 operational. There are 435 reactors worldwide with another 74 under construction. Spent fuel rods from nuclear power plants have a half life of 159,200 years. I hope you have a lot of cans of soup in your bunker.

This is just a scenario I have thought of. My best suggestion; live for today, not tomorrow or yesterday.

Very accurate assessement, and one often not thought of by the hardcore survivalists. The damage a hundred nuclear plant meltdowns can do, to not only the USA but the rest of the world, is undescribable. Then we have the russian plants, the chinese, french, german and so on...

You cannot escape giant clouds of the release of 85Kr, 106Ru and 137Cs, plutonium or strontium (depending on reactor type) from uranium when air is present will be devestating and kill anything even hiding in caves. All water will be poisoned and undrinkable for thousand of years...just to begin with. Then you have no crops because the earth will be dead EVERYWHERE on the planet.

Do you want me to go on..I don´t think so. Humanity has madness within their genome, but if they go all the way in this matter, no one will be left to talk about it.

Cancerwarrior
As to your comment about prepping being useless OP, I don't think so. Not at all. There are alot of SHTF scenarios where the power stays on. Anything can happen. Having extra food and fuel onhand can really help when an icestorm or something come through and you are without power for several days or weeks. Having food onhand can help you if you live paycheck to paycheck and suddenly you are out of work.

There are alot of SHTF scenarios and they don't all need a meteor or an EMP blast. When I was diagnosed with cancer it was a very real SHTF moment. So I say learn what you can skillwise and keep a years worth of food onhand just in case.

I agree with you here, and I do have stuff prepped (food, water, munitions, gear). I'm just saying in a really nasty event, we're probably not gonna do too well.

Will I live if I wear my suit made of twinkies and cockroaches?

Containment of radiation isn't near as troubling to me as the biological and chemical weapons stored; they will eventually be released into the atmosphere and be carried on the jet stream to become a global problem.

Even ordinary diseases will become epidemic. More people will die from dysentery than zombies.

We used to have similar discussions back in the 70's in my Govt. classes of all things. I was amazed at the thinking of alot of the other students who in the case of a Nuk or chemical attack ect. would want to be killed outright at the beginning.

Their logic was who would want to try and live in a world like that not knowing day to day if you were going to make it to the next. watching others die of illness and injuries that we take for granted today and if you did live long enough how do you prepare for the long term.

Ive alwas prepped for natural disasters most of which are short term. in my area blizzards, Ice storms, maybe localized flooding, forest fires. Earthquake ect. barring a Cauldera explosion most natural disasters are very survivable if you are prepared. A Nuclear attack, Comet, Cauldera, chemical ect there are a lot of unknowns. IF you survive the initial instance then having the skills to continue survival are critical.

The US may have 112 reactors making electricity but you left out all the navy reactors. A dozen carriers and a bunch of subs are humming right along.

More and more I come to the conclusion that spending energy on prepping for the worst of humanity instead of working toward the best of humanity just ensures that destruction will surely come. And that seems to be exactly what the PTB wants, disaster capitalism...scarcity of resources makes them money.

So, yeah, maybe just the rich will survive but then, as you say, what kind of barren wasteland will be left and who would want to live in it?

DGenR8

spooky24

) then it would take very little time before the nuclear reactors start to have meltdowns. Reactors need to keep constant power to cool them

Obliviously you know nothing about Nuclear Plants here in America in general and in the TVA specifically.

Plants like Browns Ferry don't need any kind of electricity to shut down the reactor. They are designed that way as gravity would release water from the Tennessee River into the reactor core. This same gravity-the force of water-would begin the containment process of removing the fuel rods. The flow of water from the river could cool the containment vessel for over 30 years.

If you don't know anything about Nuclear power then stop acting like you do.

There is not a single Nuclear plant in America that loss of power would cause a scramble in the reactor core. They would all shut themselves down with no containment issues.

Sorry I disagree. Type "what would happen if a nuclear power plant lost power" in Google and read the responses. Most Nuclear Plants have a few days max of backup power before things get critical.

Well, I guess you could pick and choose what doomsday link you click on when you google such an event.

I am no way at all claiming to be an "expert" here but I just spent a little while educating myself on such scenarios.

I think that engineers have spent a little bit of time working on improving procedures and designs of older and newer reactors.

I just read a whole lot of info on "procedures" and plans for public safety.

www.world-nuclear.org...


It seems that the engineers could possibly be a little more educated, prepared, and willing to learn from past mistakes than your average "doom porn junkie".

Now i'm not in no way saying that I feel entirely safe, but I think that the doom is over stated.

Preparation and procedures go along way.

I agree OP - live for today. It's good to prep for the short term but no one can truly prepare for the unknown. Knowing how to fish, hunt, stay warm, filter water, and defend yourself is all a person really needs. Think about it -

Disease outbreak (what kind...are we prepped for that)? All the food, weapons, and supplies can't save a person from this. You either don't get sick or you don't.

Explosions, asteroids, earthquakes, or as someone said "zombies" - the short term and some skills would see you through. Maybe a super volcano or economic melt down would be a good reason to stock up but little else calls for overdoing it.

Nuclear power - we're already on the road to extinction with plastic foods, medicines that take a tops down approach, a stress filled world, population growth, etc. what are a few more toxins going to do? Just get as far away from these places as possible. If it came down to no one being able to run them - we would all be on the move to do just that - put distance between us and the dangers.

Spookybelle
reply to post by DGenR8

 

Don't underestimate the Earths ability to heal itself quickly. Within a relatively short period, life had returned to Chernobyl and although there were negative effects, it didn't wipe out all life.

Look at the BP oil spill, the damage was intense but everyone was surprised that the devastation did not live up to what many expected it to.

Most life may die but there will probably be pockets of survivors.

Glad to hear that!

It has cheered me immensely knowing that we're not facing complete doom, perhaps just 99.99% doom.

reply to post by cathar


was just gonna write new zealand and saw your post....I had considered migrating there...you basically cant in the country unless you can contribute something good to them...money, education, work experience...and they have no nuclear anything there....man youre making me want to move there again...any single new zealand ladies here? haha

reply to post by DGenR8

Just another pushable button for the elite.

reply to post by DGenR8


You make a good point, but an event required to destroy the majority of the world's reactors would be an event capable of destroying the Earth as we know it regardless. As for specific areas, then yeah it could get really bad.

Radiation-free nuclear energy is possible. It has been done to an extent with protons and boron-11. When need to realistically accelerate the progression of that and accelerate the decommissioning of old reactors. It will pose a threat for the next however many years.

But we continue to put money and political incentives above the safety and well-being of the human race. Our current reactors should already be safe to a degree where their whole construction should be considered deep underground or with a huge amount of back-up systems and safety mechanisms. These projects should have unlimited funds attached - and not put into commissioning until the total reliability of the system is no less than 99.999%. That is easily achievable with unlimited funds as well, as by providing containment systems in case of that mathematical miracle happening - you should ensure virtually no danger.

We'll learn.

I have to agree. We see the barest tip of the iceberg of human rottenness every black friday. Now imagine instead of TVs this was food and water. Every bad movie that has roving bands of evil -raping, murdering and pillaging- wouldn't be as bad as reality. Humanity is capable of great good, but also unspeakable evil as well. And when it is survival at stake, we see the true color of people's souls. I pray never to see anything like this as long as I live.

I've always thought that nuclear power was a bad idea, so I don't doubt the OP's thesis here. I would agree.

Although I do believe in stocking up for survival and I do as much prep as I can afford, not only could we all become extinct due to meltdowns, but if the world as we know it ceases to exist (like, if a CME takes the power grid completely out for years), there is a stark reality for survivalists to contend with.

In my opinion, most preppers have not fully prepared for hygiene issues. When toilets don't work and there is no working sewer system, there will be a filth problem everywhere which always causes multiple diseases. Compounding this problem will be dead bodies everywhere.

Vermin will be rampant. Rats will proliferate. Roaches and flies are Earth's greatest survivalists.

I live in a large city. It isn't very practical for me to 'bug out.' Streets and highways choke with traffic jams on a normal day. Trying to get out with little warning would be futile. Better to shelter in place, at least at first.

Then, there is the problem of self-defense. In my city, even if all the "haves" band together and set up perimeters, I doubt if we could out gun the "have nots." A lot of people of low incomes probably don't have food and water stocked up, but many of them do have firearms and ammo. So, anarchy would mean that the desperate poor could gang up on preppers who are just trying to survive. There could be fire fights (battle, combat) just over clean water, food, and prepper supplies.

For a firearm choice, I would recommend being capable of stopping an attack of a wild pack of 5 - 10 hungry Dobermans or pit bulls, but how are you going to defend against 5 starving guys when 2 have AR-15s or AK-47s and the other 3 have Glocks? Can you really defend yourself against that? My point is, you will have to quickly band with other armed "good guys" to have a chance against the "bad guys." If you don't have a prearranged apartment block plan or subdivision neighborhood plan, you are likely to get run over by desperate gangs with firepower faster than you can organize a defense. Even if you have an AR-15 and a thousand rounds, you might face forces that would overpower you.

I'm an eternal optimist, but the realities of survival would be extremely dire. Your environment would suddenly become polluted and toxic and extremely dangerous. Those in bunkers would be O.K. for awhile, but they would eventually face their own freaky challenges down there.