Worst-case scenario after nuclear reactor meltdown revealed – from failed water systems to bombed nuclear sites

NUCLEAR meltdowns have resulted in evacuated cities, massive environmental damage, and exposed citizens to deadly radiation.

While a reactor failure is rare, the outcome can be catastrophic and the risks come from both inside and outside forces.

5

5

The China Syndrome is a colloquialism for the worst imaginable nuclear meltdown, in which nuclear and radioactive matter penetrate the ground and go through the Earth and “to China”.

Nuclear reactors are equipped with overlapping emergency procedures but they still are still vulnerable to human error, natural disasters, and destruction by terrorism or war.

Nuclear reactors also cut deep into the human psyche because of their shared properties with nuclear weapons.

The worst nuclear reactor disasters in world history vary in their causes, but the next disaster could be mankind’s last.

Internal risks

Richard Muller’s book Physics for Future Presidents unpacks the ultimate worst-case-scenario reactor meltdown.

In Muller’s explanation, the water cooling the nuclear fuel escapes, and is not replaced because of failed emergency systems.

The nuclear fuel gets hot enough to melt the reactor’s chambers, radioactive materials breach the containment vessel and expose the exterior to radiation.

“The radioactivity in a nuclear power plant is huge, enough to kill 50million people if they ate it,” Muller writes. “Even a small amount leaked into the atmosphere can do great damage.”

A byproduct of nuclear reactors is nuclear waste, which presents environmental and storage problems because its radioactivity lasts for tens of thousands of years.

The US has proposed a tunnel system under the Yucca Mountains in Nevada to one day store 77,000 metric tons of nuclear waste.

The surrounding area, which is subject to earthquakes and natural disasters, has contributed directly to one of nuclear energy’s most severe meltdowns.

External risks

The largest earthquake registered in Japan triggered a tsunami that ravaged the Fukushima power plant in 2011.

The World Nuclear Organization estimates that 20% of the world’s nuclear reactors are in “areas of significant seismic activity”.

There is also cause for concern that terrorist plots and military conflicts could put nuclear reactors at risk.

In 1993, a man who had spent time in a mental ward stormed the gates at the Three Mile Island nuclear plant and evaded authorities for four hours.

While the man was unarmed, the concern that a terrorist would deploy a “dirty bomb” – a conventional explosive used to spread radioactive material – at a reactor is very real.

The Council on Foreign Relations revealed that an al-Qaeda training cites nuclear power plants “as among the best targets for spreading fear in the United States.”

Meanwhile, reactors are supposedly protected from military targeting by the International Atomic Energy Agency, but that has not stopped nations from bombing reactor sites.

During the Gulf War in the early 1990s, the US bombed an operational reactor site in Iraq – fortunately, there was just a small amount of radioactive leakage.

Recently, in southern Ukraine, the largest nuclear reactor in Europe came under fire during the continuing conflict with Russia.

Will disaster strike again?

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima are the most well-known nuclear accidents in history.

Each nuclear disaster leaves a different lesson for avoiding crises in the future.

The Chernobyl plant was not said to be designed with the caution and restrictions that power plants in the US are.

The Chernobyl plant did not have a containment vessel and Soviet operators were able to disable emergency systems where American workers are not.

The accident at Chernobyl was greatly worsened by the Soviet Union’s dysfunctional response and attempt to keep the disaster under wraps.

The features of the world’s worst nuclear disaster would likely not be replicated in the United States.

Reactors around the world have billions of hours of collective run time, but these accidents and the fear of another one normally transcend nuclear power’s history of productivity.

5

5

5