eliminating a percentage of the population … thereby creating multiple nuclear accidents.
I would argue that if you suddenly lose something on the order of half your population, nuclear plant accidents are not going to be the thing you should worry about.
Besides, nuclear plants are over-engineered and have multiple automatic failsafe systems. If most of the humans stop coming, the reactors will shut down by themselves (or the remaining few humans will shut them down).
The only really big nuclear reactor accident (Chernobyl) happened because the operators deliberately disabled a whole lot of safety systems which got in the way of something they wanted to do.
The only really big nuclear reactor accident (Chernobyl)
The only? I’d agree that Three Mile Island was a minor case, but Fukushima was definitely severe. There were meltdowns and explosions (chemical, due to the hydrogen the high heat cracked off of the cooling water). It will cost billions over decades to clean it up.
Besides, nuclear plants are over-engineered and have multiple automatic failsafe systems.
Yes, I don’t expect this to be an issue in the event of a plague. Fukushima’s automated safety systems detected the earthquake and did SCRAM the reactor, but then a freaking tsunami destroyed the backup generators powering the cooling pumps before the fuel had time to cool down. Many Japanese died that day, but that was because of the water, not the uranium.
Nuclear meltdowns are disasters because they are expensive, not because they are deadly. The panic during the ensuing evacuation is probably the most dangerous part.
I would argue that if you suddenly lose something on the order of half your population, nuclear plant accidents are not going to be the thing you should worry about.
Besides, nuclear plants are over-engineered and have multiple automatic failsafe systems. If most of the humans stop coming, the reactors will shut down by themselves (or the remaining few humans will shut them down).
The only really big nuclear reactor accident (Chernobyl) happened because the operators deliberately disabled a whole lot of safety systems which got in the way of something they wanted to do.
The only? I’d agree that Three Mile Island was a minor case, but Fukushima was definitely severe. There were meltdowns and explosions (chemical, due to the hydrogen the high heat cracked off of the cooling water). It will cost billions over decades to clean it up.
Yes, I don’t expect this to be an issue in the event of a plague. Fukushima’s automated safety systems detected the earthquake and did SCRAM the reactor, but then a freaking tsunami destroyed the backup generators powering the cooling pumps before the fuel had time to cool down. Many Japanese died that day, but that was because of the water, not the uranium.
Nuclear meltdowns are disasters because they are expensive, not because they are deadly. The panic during the ensuing evacuation is probably the most dangerous part.
That was caused by the fourth strongest earthquake in the world in half a century, so it’s not something you’d expect to happen particularly often.
Once every 12 years or so..? :-)
Once every 12 years or so somewhere in the world. Near enough a nuclear reactor to cause trouble, not so often.
Once per decade per planet (i.e. 2e-10/km²/yr) is “particularly often”?
I merely quantified your “not particularly often” :-)
In terms of money, yes, but in terms of lives lost, no.