Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear 'Asteroids' Due In A Few Hundred Years
easyCoder writes "In this space.com article, it mentions a RORSAT satellite that has been leaking radioactive coolant, leaving little droplets of it in orbit around our planet. However, further down, it also mentions this, quoted here for maximum impact: 'After a RORSATs tour-of-duty was over, the reactor's fuel core was shot high above Earth into a "disposal orbit." Once at that altitude the power supply unit would take several hundred years before it reentered the Earth's atmosphere.' Wow. So ... our great-grandchildren can expect a lovely day, partly cloudy with the occasional nuclear reactor plummeting down from outer space."
....in a couple of hundred years, I'd be most depressed if they can't deal with a small nuclear reactor falling back to earth.
I mean we're meant to be progressing in our knowledge and abilities, no?
tom-george.comBecause geeks rate higher t
Asteroids != meteors. This is about them entering the Earth's atmosphere eventually, right? So, shouldn't we be expecting nuclear 'meteors'?
A little radiation won't kill anyone. Sheesh. The amount of radiation released by the NaK coolant drops (especially after being vaporized on hitting the atmosphere) will be negligible.
Once again, the media makes a big deal out of a little thing.
(Note that this doesn't excuse the Soviets' lack of foresight on the reactor. Then again, they did manage Chernobyl...)
I had but a simple dream, to destroy all humans.
Yea, because the only thing that comes out of the current Solid Rockets we use is rainbows and perfume...
"Once at that altitude the power supply unit would take several hundred years before it reentered the Earth's atmosphere.' Wow. So ... our great-grandchildren can expect a lovely day, partly cloudy with the occasional nuclear reactor plummeting down from outer space.
Well here's a clue for the terminally short-sighted: Do you think maybe- just maybe -we'll have a better way to deal with it in several hundred years??? I mean for cryin' out loud, the damn things safe in parking orbit. It's not going anywhere for the next few centuries! Could the submitter be anymore of an alarmist if he tried? Heads up, Chicken Little, the sky is falling!
Sigh.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
I dont know that exact satelite, but most of those "reactors" are in fact thermoelectic, powered by decay death.
Those things use isotopes with a half life in a low 2 digit year range, because they NEED a HIGH decay rate to create heat. So in a few hundered years there wont be too much left to make our great - great children 3 eyed...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
We do not inherit the world from our parents; we borrow it from our children
- American Indian Proverb
Even if all of the Soviet reactors reentered the atmosphere tomorrow, it would be insignificant compared to the many tons of radioactive material that was released into the atmosphere by above-ground testing of nuclear weapons.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
The linked article notes that "16 of a total of 31 RORSAT nuclear reactors orbited lost coolant following core ejection into disposal orbits."
The biggest short term problem seems to be the loss of NaK coolant, with the number of these drops "estimated to be 110,000 to over 115,000." Wih the possibility for more of them to leak if other space junk punctures the radiators of the satellites. In the most immediate future these droplets are mostly just navigation hazards, but the amount of radiation that might remain in them is unknown, and it's not known if they're further contaminated. I'm guessing the radioactive argon in the droplets, of which there is a presently unknown quantity, is a relatively small hazard...but please correct me if this suspicion is wrong.
I'm not sure how radioactive the reactors themselves might be; the article didn't give much information on this side of the problem. If anyone is familiar with Soviet spaceborne reactor design, please speak up! My strong suspicion is, however, that even in the likelihood they are thermoelectric reactors with short-lived isotopes, there would still be enough residual radiation to make them unpleasant devices to have land on you patio. And since there are so many of them, it seems a little too optimistic that they'll all land in the ocean.
Finally, I found it interesting that the article notes "we are on the threshold, if we have not already exceeded it, of reaching a critical density' of objects in low Earth orbit, where collisional fragmentation will cause the debris environment to slowly grow even if all other sources are eliminated." How will we respond if low Earth orbit becomes too dangerous for reliable operation of satellites or manned spaceflight? How dangerous is it right now, or does anyone know how many satellites are believed to have been lost due to space collisions?
The posting of this article to Slashdot is FUD, pure and simple, as is most anti-nuclear propaganda. Radioactive material, like all other toxins, requires a certain concentration to be lethal. The danger is only to spacecraft, and that from collisions.
Sigmentation fault - core dumped
Not only that, but it is a fallacy that the earth will ever "run out" of oil. What we will run out of is easily obtainable oil. Oil that requires refining out of oil sands deposits are going to be far more expensive to produce than a nice oil well, but is in far, FAR greater supply on this earth. Where oil will continue to be needed (where an alternate fuel or source is not practical), oil will always be there.
Look at the tomato! Isn't it sad? He can't dance! Poor tomato!
If things like this are being handled so sloppily now, what else is being irresponsibly handled?
If it was nuclear and built by the Soviets, it was probably handled irresponsibly. NASA has *never* flown an automated reactor in orbit, and the deep space probes with RTGs (a passive power generation system that works by converting the heat generated by Plutonium into electricity) have nearly all had the RTG packaged in an indestructable black-box.
What's that? You were trying to blame the Americans for this? You didn't read the article? Oh. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Orbital mechanics is a bit more reliable than crossing our fingers and hoping that the shuttle never hits anything with its wings. Given a few radar fixes after the reactor core's acceleration quit, its fate is predictable to within quite reasonable limits. Or, more succinctly, we have a darned good notion of when this thing will come back to haunt us.
But it probably doesn't matter anyway, because we're going to have to pick up all of our junk sometime in the next hundred years if we want to make significant use of near space -- and there are plenty of people who do and who are arranging the wherewithal to use it. Time wasted on worrying that, "OMG, there's *RADIOACTIVE STUFF* in the universe!" would be better spent starting up the debate at the U.N. *now* over who is going to pay for the cleanup.
That's probably one of the most moronic things I've ever heard.
Since you're so quick to deem it moronic, perhaps you could enlighten us all by telling everyone what you would've done differently. After all, anyone can complain about a bad plan, but an intelligent person will complain and have a better plan ready to present.
Of course, whatever you elect to do must be practical (no "it should be launched into the Sun" or "the Shuttle should go up and retrieve it" plans) and cost-effective.
Now, given those limitations, please, tell everyone how much better your plan is, since I'm sure you have one. This isn't flamebait; I'm honestly challenging you to actually think about the problem instead of just criticizing it. Maybe you can come up with something that the best rocket scientists on the planet couldn't come up with.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
It's not like it's cleaner than coal in collection, energy production, or cleanup.
Take a Geiger Counter outside of a nuclear plant. Now take one outside of a coal plant. Hmmm... Much higher readings outside of the coal plant. What? Coal ore contains radioactive isotopes? Those isotopes don't burn up like the coal around them? Coal ash has concentrated radioactive material? The coal industry isn't as highly regulated as the nuclear industry?
Health problems? Do a google search for black lung disease. Hell, do some research on the total number of deaths from nuclear power generation and coal/natural gas since nuclear power was introduced. Nuclear engineers will normally receive more radiation from a single round of CAT scans than from their entire career at the nuclear plant.
Chernobyl? You mean the substandard plant where operators intentionally ignored warnings and pushed the envelope of safety much too far? The final death count was less than four hundred. Yes, the town of 75,000 had to be abandoned. This is an argument for not intentionally doing stupid things with your power plant.
The worst U.S. nuclear disaster? 3-Mile Island? Go back and check your history books. Look up the number of deaths. Zero. Look up the number of injured. None.
As it stands, U.S. nuclear power technology has fallen behind. Take a look at some of the French or, even better, German designs. I find it hard to believe that anything even approaches their level of safety or efficiency.
Terrorist attacks? Personally I'd be more worried about an exposed warehouse of natural gas where someone dropped a match. How about an oil refinery? Yeah, that'll be easy to clean up...
Nuclear waste? How about the euphemism (according to rabid environmental groups) "spent fuel"? Know why they call it a euphemism? Because all spent fuel in the U.S. is waste. Know why? Because in a bid to stop nuclear proliferation in the seventies, Jimmy Carter banned nuclear enrichment in power generation. No breeders for the U.S. Unfortunately for Carter, Europe gave him the finger and continued using nuclear -- including breeded reactors. Who listened? Japan. However Japan just sends its spent fuel to Europe for re-enrichment and buys it back for further processing.
What's the big deal. Let's take Diablo Canyon on the California coast. Only two turbines. 1/5 of the power production in the region. 20%!!! If anyone is curious, take a look at the number of >0.1MW powerplants in California. Diablo Canyon is on the coast about 2/3 of the way down from the top of the state. Look at all of those dams. Imagine all of the trucks, materials, and associated air/water pollution necessary for bringing the fuel to the plant.
Folks in California wouldn't even sell Diablo Canyon the water they needed even though the water/steam used to turn the turbines doesn't ever come into contact with the reactor; It isn't radioactive. So in addition to providing power, they had to set up a reverse osmosis water desalinization plant to get the water from the ocean. And it still gives 20% of the power for the region.
For all of the people whining about the number of birds killed by power poles and cell phone towers, I encourage you to take a look at the number of birds killed by power-generating windmills.
Solar? Anyone want to do the math on the number of panels necessary for even half of the national electricity usage? What about the power and materials required for their inital production?
Tidal? Will someone explain to me how land-locked regions would be able to take advantage of tidal power?
Fuel from soybeans? That would be a nice supplementary energy source. However, let's stop making food. Let's dedicate the nation's farmland to soybeans or other similar fuel generation crops. Reduce that number by the fuel necessary to s
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Do you want to live next to a nuclear reactor -- ive got an offer, NO ONE HAS TO live next to a nuclear reactor if we get smart about our consumption -- and I mean quick. Western suburbanites need to wake the fuck up.
... Pro Reality.
If you want to build a nuclear power plant right next door to me, I'd be all for it. Not only would I rather have a nuclear plant right next door than have a coal plant 100 miles away, why should I be expected to lower my standard of living, and why should other people be denied the opportunity of achieving whatever standard of living we're capable of providing just because you're afraid of some technology that you think you understand but don't.
I want to be able to heat my house without burning oil, wood, or coal (it doesn't have to be a 3000 square foot house either. I live in 800 square feet right now). I want to drive to work without burining gasoline (and I don't have an SUV), or be able to take a train without it burning diesel (to generate electricity no less!). I want the population of the planet to have all the luxuries I have without having to cull about 4 billion people for it to be sustainable. The only technology we're currently capable of that can provide these things is nuclear. If we're going to maintain our current sociatal situation, or if we're going to regress, then what's the point?
Oh, then there's this:
This can best be summed up by my saying I am
Let me give you a healthy dose of reality. People don't like to change. Hell, people don't like other people to change. THere's tons of bullshit out there about preserving cultures to the point that we have cities full of old worthless buildings we can't knock down for historical reasons and people who try to revivie dead languages. People go to war over cultural differences, yet we even try to preserve the cultural differences that cause war. Changing the behavior of people enough to gain the "efficiency" and "responsiblilty" nescicary to stop burning carbon fuels *and* not have nuclear power is not just as close as you can get to impossible without going over, it's also far more dangerous to our society than the worst nuclear power accident we're capable of.