Reddit reviews Atomic Accidents

Read Atomic Accidents.

Study, I dunno. I like to listen to books about nuclear science, nuclear power, weapons, accidents and the like while I'm driving. I don't do many fiction books.

While it may not be studying, learning about the world around you can help expand your mind and keep it active while you're focusing on the road. I've listened to these books a few times over by now.

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6

The book Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey has a very informative chapter on Chernobyl.

It was an unstable design from the start since it was designed to produce plutonium for atomic bombs.

I mean who in their right mind would design a reactor with graphite-tipped control rods?!

An excerpt from this book Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to Fukushima...absolutely fascinating!!!

You need both in life. This isn't an either or thing. Look at Dinosaur Train or Curious George or Super Why on PBS. All of these shows are a mix of fiction and non-fiction. (Unless you believe in talking monkeys and I totally want to be your friend.)

I think they can feed off of each other. You read a news article about dolphins and you like them, so you read Flipper (not really sure if that's a book but I'm lazy). You read Mr. Popper's Penguins and you get really interested if your mom would actually let you keep a penguin in the refrigerator (the answer will most likely be no) and if not, where do they live.

Starting in elementary school I read fiction and non-fiction because that was what was presented to me. Now I'm just as comfortable reading A Man Called Ove as I am Atomic Accidents.

Definitely on topic :D

Link for the lazy http://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605986801

he was supposed to smoothly and slowly pull the control rod up and instead he tried to do a speedy clean and jerk.

thats when they gave up on building an idiot proof reactor. there is always a better idiot.

for a fantastic and funnily written book (that also goes into the science) of nuclear disasters read this: https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605986801/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=HW30YD63Q2B37G0S6DB1

Most doctors wouldn't have a clue what a radioactive source looks like. And they don't all glow. If this kinda stuff interests you here's a good book on the subject:

atomic incidents

I wouldn't say insane, I'd definitely agree to ignorant of longterm dangers and shortsighted. This was before most people outside of academic circles understood the dangers of radiation. Hell they sold radium infused water as medicine until 1928.

A great book on the history of how we learned about radiation, it's benefits, and its dangers is Atomic Accidents by James Mahaffey. It covers everything from its discovery in the 19th century to Fukishima.

That particular bit is from the book "Chernobyl Notebook" by Grigoriy Medvedev. (Amazon) Kind of dry sometimes, but horribly fascinating.

Although in the genre, "Atomic Accidents" by James Mahaffey (Amazon) is a somewhat more engaging read, though isn't quite as powerful.

Both are written by nuclear engineers and are mostly apolitical.

tl;dr: No, you do not need "power and all kinds of shit" to control the reaction. You drain the water, the reaction stops, that's the point of building a reactor with a negative void coefficient. You still have to keep the reactor cool because of decay heat, but losing coolant in a US-built reactor will never lead to superheating or explosion.

Three Mile Island, like all reactors in the US, was built with a negative void coefficient. That means that, in a total loss of coolant accident, reactivity of the reactor decreases. When Uranium fissions, it releases two neutrons and a lot of thermal energy. Those neutrons are moving far too fast to cause further fissions. In a light water reactor with a negative void coefficient, the water in the system serves to slow the neutrons down so that they can react with other Uranium nuclei, causing them to fission and release more neutrons. Without the water, the reaction stops.

Now, there's the matter of decay heat. TMI Unit 2 was still producing on the order of 150 MW^th after it was scrammed, so the loss of coolant let the core get hot enough to melt down. Radioactivity could eventually find its way into the environment if it managed to breach the containment, but the operators figured out what was going on and got water back over the fuel before this happened. The only thing that possibly could've exploded, as I said earlier, was the hydrogen released when melted Zirconium reacted with water. The lack of water level instrumentation in the core, the operators' fixation on managing the water level in the pressurizer, and a control room designed for routine not emergency operation had far more to do with the accident than the temperature you're referring to at the exit of the Pilot Operated Relief Valve (which wasn't actually a lie; the PORV had been leaking steam for months, so they were used to seeing that gauge be a little high). Misinterpreting that temp was a contributing factor, but they had so many other opportunities to recognize the LOCA earlier in the accident sequence if their training had adequately prepared them for running a large power reactor. (Source: I'm a human factors researcher. I know this accident pretty well. This is a fantastic read if you want a full account.)

The explosions at Fukushima were hydrogen explosions. The difference at Fukushima is that there was no power available to operate the plant, so there was no way for the operators to respond to the LOCA after the backup batteries ran out. They never got water over the core again after it boiled off, the fuel melted down, and hydrogen accumulated in the containment buildings. There were small explosions, but they weren't directly related to the Uranium fuel. They did contribute to the environmental release, though, because they damaged their containment buildings. All three of the reactors that melted down at Fukushima had passive cooling systems installed that could've prevented the accidents, but all three of them were disabled by operators who thought they were doing the right thing in the midst of a panicked situation.

The reason Chernobyl exploded was because it was graphite-moderated and had a high positive void coefficient (eg. reactivity increases when there's a loss of coolant). Russia wanted a reactor that could run on unenriched Uranium and was an efficient Plutonium producer for their weapons program, and this resulted in a reactor with an incredibly high positive void coefficient. The operators accidentally drove the reactor into iodine poisoning, and then tried to recover quickly so they could conduct a test they'd been assigned. To try to bring the reactor back up to power, they pulled the control rods 100% out. It responded sluggishly at first, but then power ramped quickly. By the time they tried to drop the control rods back in, the core had already warped and the rods got stuck. The water in the coolant channels boiled away, and the reactor went supercritical (e.g. a runaway chain reaction). That caused the fuel to liquefy and descend into the water below causing a steam explosion. You finally get your superheating + explosion here because of a stupid reactor design, but note it's still not the result of the nuclear fuel itself getting hot and exploding. There are no reactors outside of the former Soviet bloc capable of this kind of accident, and the few remaining RBMKs that are still in operation have been modified to have a much lower positive void coefficient.

But here's the thing. Even at the worst end of the scale, estimating in cancer from Chernobyl and Fukushima, nuclear results in approximately 90 deaths per trillion kWh. Coal, 100,000 per trillion kWh. If you count only the US, those numbers are 0.1 for nuclear and 10,000 for coal. (Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#1bc49496709b).

There's no doubt that Thorium would be safer, but fearmongering about existing nuclear power does far more harm than good (especially given the safety record in the US). Renewable is better than nuclear, but we've got a long way to go on energy storage before renewable can be a reliable base load. All tradeoffs considered, nuclear is our best bet for right now.

Despite its title and subject this fascinating book was very reassuring regarding the safety of nuclear energy.


https://www.amazon.com/Atomic-Accidents-Meltdowns-Disasters-Mountains/dp/1605986801/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1465933153&sr=1-1&keywords=nuclear+accidents