Jump to content


8.9 Pacific Earthquake


  • You cannot reply to this topic
198 replies to this topic

#126 Ghostrider

    Duly Appointed Federal Marshal

  • Project Team
  • 991 posts
  • Projects: The Pants Party, Irradiated Inc.

Posted 22 March 2011 - 19:50

If the reactor was built underwater, though, it would be even more unlikely that there would be a meltdown, as all the surrounding water would have to become superheated (not likely). If the containment vessel stays intact, no radioactive material can escape. :D
Posted Image
AJ is responsible for this signature masterpiece... if you see him, tell him I say thanks.
Posted Image

#127 BeefJeRKy

    Formerly known as Scopejim

  • Gold Member
  • 5114 posts
  • Projects: Life

Posted 22 March 2011 - 20:49

I think underwater reactors are indeed a safer idea. However, it might be worthwhile looking into a newer reactor design that avoids Uranium that way, the weaponizing excuse can be discarded. Something Thorium based perhaps.
Posted Image

#128 Destiny

    Forum Nakadashi-er

  • Member Test
  • 3141 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 02:45

Well...how, Chyros? How do you even build a nuclear power plant underwater? The sea itself is inherently unsafe, if you understand my meaning. There are a lot of factors to factor in when trying something like that. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior, and building it in the salty seas will do a LOT of BAD stuff to the exterior of the plant, plus accessing the plant itself is going to be a pain. If there's a breach somewhere the entire plant will get flooded eventually, regardless of bulkheads, stop-the-water-from-coming-omg-measures and etc.






...plus if something really bad occurs, nuclear material being spread all over the oceans is...bad...
Posted Image

#129 BeefJeRKy

    Formerly known as Scopejim

  • Gold Member
  • 5114 posts
  • Projects: Life

Posted 23 March 2011 - 06:33

View PostDestiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 4:45, said:

Well...how, Chyros? How do you even build a nuclear power plant underwater? The sea itself is inherently unsafe, if you understand my meaning. There are a lot of factors to factor in when trying something like that. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior, and building it in the salty seas will do a LOT of BAD stuff to the exterior of the plant, plus accessing the plant itself is going to be a pain. If there's a breach somewhere the entire plant will get flooded eventually, regardless of bulkheads, stop-the-water-from-coming-omg-measures and etc.






...plus if something really bad occurs, nuclear material being spread all over the oceans is...bad...

A well built Nuclear Reactor won't suffer any problems at sea. Basically just prefabricate it and put it in some sea proof shell. If oil rigs can survive the sea and its rough erosion, I don't see how a bunker structure couldn't work. As for access, it could be robotically operated and managed. Even exchanging nuclear fuel and waste could be arranged through some docking technique. All of these problems are simple engineering questions. It's a matter of how expensive/practical is it? The advantage of a seaborn reactor is that you know longer need those massive cooling towers, as well as it being kept out of harm's way and smaller overall footprint.
Posted Image

#130 Destiny

    Forum Nakadashi-er

  • Member Test
  • 3141 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 07:03

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.
Posted Image

#131 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 08:12

View PostDestiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.
Well obviously the above-land type still has its shortcomings. It's just an idea, but it seems like a logical step forward dealing with the current ones' weaknesses, right?

The Japs are trying to make a space elevator, it's not as if they can't think of how to do an underwater reactor :pnd: .
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#132 Wizard

    [...beep...]

  • Administrator
  • 9627 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 11:01

View PostChyros, on 22 Mar 2011, 19:42, said:

View PostWizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 20:28, said:

@ Underwater reactors, that ain't ever going to happen. You all know what sort of reaction we see when the black stuff hits a shore line, there is no chance on earth that anyone will attempt to place nuclear material under the ocean. About 60 million hippies and whale huggers would simultaneously assplode.
But it would actually be considerably less harmful to the environment if you put it underwater D: .

I can't agree with that theory. Imagine the situation if an underwater reactor did go critical. How in the hell do you deal with billions billions of tons of water that are now contaminated? What if some of that gets into the gulf stream??!? Look at the trouble that one of the most technically advanced countries on the planet had of dealing with a metaphorical burst pipe 2 miles down (actually they would have had less trouble dealing with that if they didn't have a stupid law that stopped non-American ships from doing the work etc, but anyway).

#133 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 11:36

View PostWizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 13:01, said:

View PostChyros, on 22 Mar 2011, 19:42, said:

View PostWizard, on 22 Mar 2011, 20:28, said:

@ Underwater reactors, that ain't ever going to happen. You all know what sort of reaction we see when the black stuff hits a shore line, there is no chance on earth that anyone will attempt to place nuclear material under the ocean. About 60 million hippies and whale huggers would simultaneously assplode.
But it would actually be considerably less harmful to the environment if you put it underwater D: .

I can't agree with that theory. Imagine the situation if an underwater reactor did go critical. How in the hell do you deal with billions billions of tons of water that are now contaminated? What if some of that gets into the gulf stream??!? Look at the trouble that one of the most technically advanced countries on the planet had of dealing with a metaphorical burst pipe 2 miles down (actually they would have had less trouble dealing with that if they didn't have a stupid law that stopped non-American ships from doing the work etc, but anyway).
Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#134 Destiny

    Forum Nakadashi-er

  • Member Test
  • 3141 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 11:53

Japan's been a country that catches fish for many, many years. I don't think...any country would want their shore to be full of dead fishes actually.
Posted Image

#135 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3300 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:06

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

Edited by Golan, 23 March 2011 - 12:07.

Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!

#136 Wizard

    [...beep...]

  • Administrator
  • 9627 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:14

View PostGolan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.

#137 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:22

View PostWizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

View PostGolan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.
I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#138 SquigPie

    Forum Pet

  • Member Test
  • 1388 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:23

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:12, said:

View PostDestiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.
Well obviously the above-land type still has its shortcomings. It's just an idea, but it seems like a logical step forward dealing with the current ones' weaknesses, right?

The Japs are trying to make a space elevator, it's not as if they can't think of how to do an underwater reactor :pnd: .


Isn't Jap a racist term? Not that I mind, just wanted to know.

Anyway. 25 Embassies in Tokyo just closed down temporary, until the nuclear crisis is solved.

Edited by SquigPie, 23 March 2011 - 12:28.

Quote

As long as the dark foundation of our nature, grim in its all-encompassing egoism, mad in its drive to make that egoism into reality, to devour everything and to define everything by itself, as long as that foundation is visible, as long as this truly original sin exists within us, we have no business here and there is no logical answer to our existence.
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov

Posted Image

#139 Alias

    Member Title Goes Here

  • Member
  • 11705 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:33

View PostSquigPie, on 23 Mar 2011, 23:23, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:12, said:

View PostDestiny, on 23 Mar 2011, 9:03, said:

I'm not so sure myself but heh, whatever works.
Well obviously the above-land type still has its shortcomings. It's just an idea, but it seems like a logical step forward dealing with the current ones' weaknesses, right?

The Japs are trying to make a space elevator, it's not as if they can't think of how to do an underwater reactor :pnd: .


Isn't Jap a racist term? Not that I mind, just wanted to know.
Seems to differ across the world. The UK and US classify it as offensive, but the rest of the world (including Japan) doesn't.

Posted Image

#140 Destiny

    Forum Nakadashi-er

  • Member Test
  • 3141 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:38

The embassies closing are...odd.
Posted Image

#141 SquigPie

    Forum Pet

  • Member Test
  • 1388 posts

Posted 23 March 2011 - 12:41

They wanna get out before the Super-Mutants arrive perhaps.

Quote

As long as the dark foundation of our nature, grim in its all-encompassing egoism, mad in its drive to make that egoism into reality, to devour everything and to define everything by itself, as long as that foundation is visible, as long as this truly original sin exists within us, we have no business here and there is no logical answer to our existence.
Imagine a group of people who are all blind, deaf and slightly demented and suddenly someone in the crowd asks, "What are we to do?"... The only possible answer is, "Look for a cure". Until you are cured, there is nothing you can do.
And since you don't believe you are sick, there can be no cure.
- Vladimir Solovyov

Posted Image

#142 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3300 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 15:14

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

View PostWizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

View PostGolan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.
I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.

Edited by Golan, 25 March 2011 - 15:16.

Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!

#143 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 16:53

View PostGolan, on 25 Mar 2011, 17:14, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

View PostWizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

View PostGolan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.
I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.
You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#144 Sgt. Nuker

    Greenskin Inside

  • Global Moderator
  • 13457 posts
  • Projects: Shoot. Chop. Smash. Stomp.

Posted 25 March 2011 - 17:12

That way, if the reactor breaks, the contaminated water can just evaporate and then it can give new meaning to the term "heavy downpour" in another part of the country. :pnd:
Posted Image

#145 Kris

    <Custom title available>

  • Project Team
  • 3825 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 17:19

The world could really learn from the japanese:
Posted Image

Total highway repair in just 6 days after the tsunami shows how UBER efficient japanese engineers really are.







#146 Destiny

    Forum Nakadashi-er

  • Member Test
  • 3141 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 17:28

View PostChyros, on 26 Mar 2011, 0:53, said:

View PostGolan, on 25 Mar 2011, 17:14, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

View PostWizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

View PostGolan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.
I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.
You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?

Woah woah, you're insane there...water is precious, mate. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior or in the Hoover Dam.
Posted Image

#147 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 18:16

View PostSgt. Nuker, on 25 Mar 2011, 19:12, said:

That way, if the reactor breaks, the contaminated water can just evaporate and then it can give new meaning to the term "heavy downpour" in another part of the country. :xD:
Yes, the WATER will evaporate. I don't see uranium evaporating that quickly though :xD: .


View PostDestiny, on 25 Mar 2011, 19:28, said:

View PostChyros, on 26 Mar 2011, 0:53, said:

View PostGolan, on 25 Mar 2011, 17:14, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:22, said:

View PostWizard, on 23 Mar 2011, 14:14, said:

View PostGolan, on 23 Mar 2011, 12:06, said:

View PostChyros, on 23 Mar 2011, 11:36, said:

Well the useful thing about billions and billions of tons of water is that the concentration would then be extremely low, not much more than what it is now, I'd think. Besides, water is quite dense so it has the useful property of damping the radiation considerably.

The fallout from Chernobyl still proved to create a noticeable health risk in eating fungi and animals in south east germany - 1500km from ground zero.
Pollution of the seas with radioactive material carries the added risk of it concentrating in sea life, i.e. many peoples food.

That is ultimately my point. Given how crucial marine ecology is for life on earth in general it would be a terrible idea to contaminate it.
I guess that's true, though the ultimate risk of a meltdown in the first place would still be all but nil. I agree that weighing the risks and taking them into account is a must, but it's a bit like avoiding water in swimming pools because the water might take fire - water inherently all but certainly prevents the catastrophe from happening.

That comparison doesn't work. If an underwater reactor's meltdown is stopped by sea water, that means the shielding has been breached and sea water is in direct contact with the radioactive material. Cue contamination.
It's more like avoiding to put water in a swimming pool in the middle of the desert - it might cool you but there's much better use for it. Like not exposing it to contamination so you can drink it.
You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?

Woah woah, you're insane there...water is precious, mate. No one will let you build a nuclear reactor in Lake Superior or in the Hoover Dam.
How is water precious on an island? :pnd:

Besides, what would you rather have, needing to filter your water an extra time or nuclear fallout on your hands? :P
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#148 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3300 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 18:18

View PostChyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 16:53, said:

You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?
Same analogy as before. Actual swimming pool and water source combined this time.
Chernobyl could be sealed in a concrete bunker. Imagine trying to seal away an entire lake.
Besides, a nuclear power plant needs constant cooling under normal conditions as well, that's what nearby water resource are used for usually. If you use them as a 'safeguard' against a meltdown and shield them (however you'd do that), you require another source for constant cooling capacity.

View PostChyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:16, said:

View PostSgt. Nuker, on 25 Mar 2011, 19:12, said:

That way, if the reactor breaks, the contaminated water can just evaporate and then it can give new meaning to the term "heavy downpour" in another part of the country. :pnd:
Yes, the WATER will evaporate. I don't see uranium evaporating that quickly though :P .
The water would take extreme amounts of radiation with it.

Quote

How is water precious on an island? tounge.gif

Besides, what would you rather have, needing to filter your water an extra time or nuclear fallout on your hands? tounge.gif
Did you ever try drinking saltwater?

Contamination of a lake isn't a matter of filtering drinking water. For one, filtering nuclear contamination from water doesn't get rid of it, it only moves it to the filters. Two, it isn't perfect and will have long-time effects. Three, the actual lake itself would still mean millions of tons of waters lying around freely accessible by man and animal.

Edited by Golan, 25 March 2011 - 18:28.

Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!

#149 Chyros

    Forum Keymist

  • Gold Member
  • 7580 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 18:37

View PostGolan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:

View PostChyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 16:53, said:

You can have it behind a dam, or inside of a lake. That would solve the problem, right?
Same analogy as before. Actual swimming pool and water source combined this time.
Chernobyl could be sealed in a concrete bunker. Imagine trying to seal away an entire lake.
Besides, a nuclear power plant needs constant cooling under normal conditions as well, that's what nearby water resource are used for usually. If you use them as a 'safeguard' against a meltdown and shield them (however you'd do that), you require another source for constant cooling capacity.
I don't think I follow.

View PostGolan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:

Did you ever try drinking saltwater?
Humans have been able to make drinkable water pretty much since the stone age. I don't imagine doing it in this day and age will be much harder.

Quote

Contamination of a lake isn't a matter of filtering drinking water. For one, filtering nuclear contamination from water doesn't get rid of it, it only moves it to the filters. Two, it isn't perfect and will have long-time effects. Three, the actual lake itself would still mean millions of tons of waters lying around freely accessible by man and animal.
Well, at least it will still be drinkable, and once it's collected you can dispose of it safely. And you'd imagine a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be particularly motivating for people to go to such a lake.



Fact is, I'm not seeing anyone suggesting a better alternative, or even any alternative. I know building it underwater has its flaws, but I'm confident that people with an actual degree in engineering can defend my suggestion much better that I can alone. It's not as if less possible things haven't been done before.
TN



The brave hide behind technology. The stupid hide from it. The clever have technology, and hide it.
—The Book of Cataclysm


Posted ImagePosted Image

#150 Golan

    <Charcoal tiles available>

  • Member Test
  • 3300 posts

Posted 25 March 2011 - 21:24

View PostChyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

I don't think I follow.
The disadvantages outweigh the advantages by design.

View PostChyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

View PostGolan, on 25 Mar 2011, 20:18, said:

Did you ever try drinking saltwater?
Humans have been able to make drinkable water pretty much since the stone age. I don't imagine doing it in this day and age will be much harder.
I don't imagine people bothered doing it for the present-day population numbers in the stone age.

View PostChyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

Quote

Contamination of a lake isn't a matter of filtering drinking water. For one, filtering nuclear contamination from water doesn't get rid of it, it only moves it to the filters. Two, it isn't perfect and will have long-time effects. Three, the actual lake itself would still mean millions of tons of waters lying around freely accessible by man and animal.
Well, at least it will still be drinkable, and once it's collected you can dispose of it safely. And you'd imagine a nuclear meltdown wouldn't be particularly motivating for people to go to such a lake.
Drinkable, yes, healthy, not at all. Pretty much every country using nuclear power has problems getting rid of the nuclear waste, even though it's right there in manageable portions and the processes are all centralized. Imagine thousands of filters per year requiring to be disposed in time with radiation shielding in almost every process step - effectively, this wouldn't be feasible.
Most people have no friggin' idea what a meltdown actually means and what dangers radiation poses. Radioactive contamination doesn't cause water to get a nice, intimidating glow, it makes it perfectly clear x



View PostChyros, on 25 Mar 2011, 18:37, said:

Fact is, I'm not seeing anyone suggesting a better alternative, or even any alternative. I know building it underwater has its flaws, but I'm confident that people with an actual degree in engineering can defend my suggestion much better that I can alone. It's not as if less possible things haven't been done before.
The alternative is building it over water with proper safeguards. I'm quite confident that people with an actual degree in engineering won't bother with your suggestion.
Now go out and procreate. IN THE NAME OF DOOM!



2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users