Designers try to establish the probability of such an event at less than 10-6 per annum, ie for any one reactor only one such event in 1 million years of operation. However this clearly depends on being able to predict failure rates of critical components such as the pressure vessel. We have an example of a catastrophic failure in the Chernobyl case, and there it is obvious that the designers had not anticipated all the ways that the plant could fail, and the failure rate for that design is too high. It is not being built any more, and in fact that design has not been built anywhere except in the former Soviet bloc.
It is currently impossible to blow up the Earth using nuclear weapons as the planet is too large and the energy required would be immense. Additionally, detonating a large number of nuclear weapons on Earth could have catastrophic consequences for all life on the planet.
Say Blow by Blow Backwards was created in 1979.
"Blow by Blow" is a music album by guitarist Jeff Beck that was released on March 29, 1975.
It is impossible to accurately estimate the number of nuclear bombs it would take to completely destroy Earth as the amount would be so vast that it is beyond comprehension. Using nuclear bombs to destroy Earth would also have catastrophic consequences for all life on the planet.
The wind began to blow The wind is the subject began to blow is the predicate
1986
31st February :-)
Japan (Fukashima Plant I). Four Reactors blow and melt down. Radiation spread throughout all of Japan.
No, a nuclear weapon needs a specific geometry to detonate, and it has to be held in this position by very high explosives to keep it in this shape. In a nuclear reactor, if the reactor core goes critical then the force of the expanding coolant will blow the reactor apart, preventing a nuclear blast.
No. Define "blow up". Power plants have malfunctions that can kill people, unrelated to nuclear fuel. Nuclear elements can be arranged to blow up but you have to get everything exactly right. More danger exists from exposure to the fuel, if it has been activated.
No.. Entirely impossible. There've been a couple meltdowns such as Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, A few scattered partial meltdowns, and a bunch of Russian Submarines. But the reactor is in no way designed to explode. They have to MAKE it explode for atomic bombs. You can't just pick up some uranium and set it on fire and hope it blows up. Explosions can happen and kick radioactive material around, but there won't be some huge mushroom cloud a mile wide. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_meltdown for more information.
Because you can blow people with the nuclear powers
No, a single nuclear weapon is not powerful enough to blow up an entire continent. The destructive power of a nuclear weapon is concentrated in a relatively small area known as the blast radius. The impact would be devastating locally, but the effect would not extend to an entire continent.
Yes, the tsunami was much higher than the protective walls. Emergency generators to run rhe cooling equipment became flooded. Reactors 4, 5 and 6 were already shut down, but Reactors 1, 2 and 3 went into meltdown.
For one, the coal power station might blow up if it gets too hot, obviously causing an accident. Basically, a coal power station worker's biggest worry is if it will blow up. GO NUCLEAR ENERGY AND BARACK OBAMA
Current day Ukraine. But in 1986 when it happened it was considered the Soviet Union
No, that is not correct.The correct spelling is explode.For example:They watched the bomb explode from a distance.The nuclear plant was about to explode.