DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - chernobyl: steam explosion or self contained nuclear explosion?

**Wachearex** · 04-13-2010, 12:42 AM

the sourse(s) i had were from a number of years ago - they simply said that (when translated from russian) the explosion was nuclear in nature , and it was the americans who were saying it was a steam explosion - the conditions within the core caused the overheat and poorly regulated nuclear reaction `ran away` causing a lowl level nuclear explosion.

Define "nuclear explosion" - one could argue that regards of the nature of the explosion it was nuclear-sourced, given that the heat generated was done through fission, but the typical definition is a fully uncontrolled thermonuclear detonation, which did not take place.

"Critical mass" implies 100% purity. In a chain reaction, the density of the fissile material greatly influences the actual mass needed. If you could compress the 235U with enough force from a conventional explosion, to reduce the volume in half, you'd need less than 1/2 the mass.

The relative abundance of fissile material 235U/238U in nuclear reactors precludes a nuclear explosion from occuring. It's not physically possible.

He said "criticality", not critical mass (and even then I don't think he implied 100% enrichment of U-235) but the point you raise about the amount of U-235 present is only part of the reason why reactor cores cannot undergo a nuclear explosion (it's also worth noting that at the end of the fuel cycle there are higher portions of fissile elements than U-235 present in the rods that also have much lower critical mass per unit area values). It's your other point on density that's a larger factor (reactor cores densities with respect to the mean free path of the neutrons is very low compared to the thermonuclear weapons) and there's also temperature to consider: as cores get very hot the amount of fission taking place begins to decrease because the mean neutron temperature falls more into the resonance region, even after moderation.

Are you actually saying that the total death toll was 30? That's not even funny. I said "the total death toll after several weeks was around 30" - after several years it was considerably higher and although we will almost certainly never know the true death toll from the accident to date, it must be well over several hundred.

04-13-2010, 12:42 AM	#31
Wachearex Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 426 Senior Member	the sourse(s) i had were from a number of years ago - they simply said that (when translated from russian) the explosion was nuclear in nature , and it was the americans who were saying it was a steam explosion - the conditions within the core caused the overheat and poorly regulated nuclear reaction `ran away` causing a lowl level nuclear explosion. Define "nuclear explosion" - one could argue that regards of the nature of the explosion it was nuclear-sourced, given that the heat generated was done through fission, but the typical definition is a fully uncontrolled thermonuclear detonation, which did not take place. "Critical mass" implies 100% purity. In a chain reaction, the density of the fissile material greatly influences the actual mass needed. If you could compress the 235U with enough force from a conventional explosion, to reduce the volume in half, you'd need less than 1/2 the mass. The relative abundance of fissile material 235U/238U in nuclear reactors precludes a nuclear explosion from occuring. It's not physically possible. He said "criticality", not critical mass (and even then I don't think he implied 100% enrichment of U-235) but the point you raise about the amount of U-235 present is only part of the reason why reactor cores cannot undergo a nuclear explosion (it's also worth noting that at the end of the fuel cycle there are higher portions of fissile elements than U-235 present in the rods that also have much lower critical mass per unit area values). It's your other point on density that's a larger factor (reactor cores densities with respect to the mean free path of the neutrons is very low compared to the thermonuclear weapons) and there's also temperature to consider: as cores get very hot the amount of fission taking place begins to decrease because the mean neutron temperature falls more into the resonance region, even after moderation. Are you actually saying that the total death toll was 30? That's not even funny. I said "the total death toll after several weeks was around 30" - after several years it was considerably higher and although we will almost certainly never know the true death toll from the accident to date, it must be well over several hundred.
	Quote