Win-Win Survival Communities The Kolbrin Bible Complete Danjeon Breathing System Radio Free Earth

Author Topic: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location  (Read 26319 times)

ilinda

  • Guest
Re: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2017, 03:05:27 PM »
Morning Barb,

 Thank you for inviting me into the forum here LOTS of good stuff/information that I have just started to explore.

One of the things that I have not seen here (yet) is a good discussion of the importance of considering how close a potential survival location is to nuclear power plants and the possible effects of a “grid down” EMP/solar event.

Below is a good article that goes into good detail about this and how the government refuses to spend very little money to fix this potentially catastrophic problem..

Max.

NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS: The Very Real Possibility of A Global Nuclear Catastrophe

http://www.globalresearch.ca/nuclear-power-plants-the-very-real-possibility-of-a-global-nuclear-catastrophe/29951


Hi again, MadMax - thanks for all your work here, research and posts and the great images. :)
Quite a long time ago, a couple times I had posted screen shots of nuclear plants (as part of locations discussions) but it has been a long time. Probably got lost in the many pages.
I  should re- post it and post it again, periodically...
Nuclear Power in the USA(Updated March 2017) Image at bottom of this post.

Also here is a link to an article... for all to see again...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_the_United_States
This page was last modified on 9 March 2017, at 19:15.
........................................................................................
Thanks for posting this again, as I had not realized that, although our MO nuke plant would most likely send emissions in a direction slightly away from us, those two in Arkansas look rather intimidating, especially if they are ever "out of control" and air emissions travel in a normal and usual direction.  Yikes. Thanks again.

As they say, "we all live downstream" (from something).

Yowbarb

  • Guest
Re: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location
« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2017, 08:43:20 PM »
ilinda, I feel that is likely true, all downwind or downhill from something...

Socrates

  • Members
  • Prolific Member
  • *
  • Posts: 999
  • Karma: +15/-0
  • literally, I've seen the end in a vision; DEADLY!
    • TEOMCROTE
Re: radiation threats
« Reply #17 on: March 12, 2017, 03:04:34 AM »
@ my own online database radiation and location are just about at the top of the list of topics to cover. I remember being very reticent years ago of diving into the topic of radiation as i intuited how much work that would be. In the end, though, the topic clearly could not be avoided and i put in the hours of listening to 'the experts' [often the people with their feet on the ground in Fukushima]. I learned some important things that completely go against mainstream assumptions concerning the dangers of radiation, like...

- air does not become radioactive; it is elements in the air that carry radioactive particles. Therefore a filter is enough to keep out 'radioactive air'.
- besides radioactive iodine, all radioactive particles are quite heavy and do not tend to travel significant distances. So you may be 'downwind' from a power plant, but that doesn't mean you'll be forced to deal with radioactive heavy metals.
- radioactive iodine is carried all over the world but it only gets absorbed by people already iodine-deficient. On the one hand 95+% of folks suffer from iodine deficiency, on the other hand some Lugol's and/or nascent iodine will remedy that (quite serious) condition in a matter of months for relatively little money and effort.
survival database
location, civilisation reboot, PERMACULTURE, postcataclysmic soil, Growing Soil 1.01

MadMax

  • Guest
Re: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location
« Reply #18 on: March 12, 2017, 03:28:28 AM »

Here (as Socrates has pointed out may times in his excellent posts) is why you don’t want to be anywhere near large urban areas when “TSHTF”:

(Sounds just like something right out of an old Mel Gibson movie!)

Venezuela's spiraling violence!

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/323394-venezuelas-spiraling-violence

Venezuela is once again a world leader. Unfortunately we are not a leader in oil revenues, nor do we have the most miss universe winners, nor is our soccer team surging up the world’s rankings.

As we begin 2017, Venezuela is, however, a true global leader in violence.  Shootings, stabbings, grenades, bombs, tear gas, kidnappings, gang violence, extortion; you name it, we’ve got it.

According to the Venezuelan Observatory of Violence, Venezuela is now the second most violent country in the world.  In 2016, the country suffered from 28,497 violent deaths, that is almost 100 homicides per 100,000 people.  When we think of the most dangerous cities in the world, we consider Harare, Baghdad, Fallujah and Kabul. Yet, somehow, Caracas is leading the pack as the most dangerous city (120 homicides per 100,000 people) and is joined by two other Venezuelan cities in the world’s top-ten most violent cities.

With the regime of the dictatorial socialist president, Nicolas Maduro, creating anarchy infused with dangerously rife corruption, sophisticated weaponry has turned entire areas of the country into war zones. Senior Venezuelan officials traffic drugs and weapons throughout the Americas with bedfellows Iran and Hezbollah. While at a lower level, regime cronies and corrupt law enforcement agencies serve as local arms dealers, and soldiers supplement their wages through the sale of all sorts of weaponry and military materiel.  It is therefore no surprise when criminal bands use grenades and automatic rifles to assert their authority, and exert revenge. 

And why not? They can get away with it.  Impunity is the name of the game in Venezuela. Over 90 percent of cases are never tried. And when impunity and injustice pervade throughout a quasi-anarchical society, the people inevitably take the law into their own hands.  In recent years there has been a distinct rise in street trials, public lynching, and revenge killings involving blood and guts worthy of an episode of Game of Thrones, not a modern country. There was a whopping 650 percent increase in such incidents during 2016.   

When Chavez took power in 1999, the annual figure of violent deaths was 6,000. Chavez, as was his way, did not do things by halves.  His legacy reflects that, with violent deaths since 1999 exceeding a quarter of a million (an average of 15,000 a year). As with his (mis)management of the economy and the health system, President Nicolas Maduro has only made matters worse. No less than 24 security plans have been tried.  They’ve all been complete and utter failures.

Maduro and his allies have even created pro-government militias called “colectivos”. This is neither fighting fire with fire, or water.  In fact the government is pouring gasoline on the flames, as these thugs are empowered both to “run security” in low-income communities, and at the same time “mobilize people to vote”! Opposition leaders have understandably and vocally criticized these groups as illegal paramilitary bands armed by the government to suppress legitimate protests and dissent.

In fact, the Venezuelan opposition has, quite literally, felt the full force of these ‘colectivos’.  The militias turn up heavily-armed at peaceful demonstrations, beating, and maiming.  When Venezuelans have had the opportunity to place their vote at the ballot boxes, the ‘colectivos’ intimidate opponents at voting stations, often on motorcycles, and always well-armed.   Instead of providing security for the average citizen, they serve as yet another layer of state-sponsored brutal oppression. 

And as the economy continues to collapse, inflation becomes hyperinflation, and anarchy reigns, poverty has driven the desperate into new and creative forms of violent crime.  "Express kidnappings” are now petrifyingly common.

One known example in Venezuela, missed by the international media, is of Juan Manaure, a Venezuelan basketball player whose 14 year old son was kidnapped on Dec. 23, 2016. The last time they spoke was on that day: “Dad, help me, they want to kill me”.

There have been no signs of Juan’s little boy since then, and it’s been 45 days.

According to Fermín Mármol García, a lawyer specializing in criminal affairs (the government doesn’t publish figures as part of their censorship efforts), there are over 3,000 kidnappings in Venezuela every year, and 2016 saw a 170 percent increase in kidnappings.

Kidnappers, often young and desperate, sometimes with no previous criminal record, are abducting the most vulnerable – not necessarily because they want to punish them, or to hurt them – but because they have no money, no food and no hope.

Max.

Yowbarb

  • Guest
Re: radiation threats
« Reply #19 on: March 12, 2017, 11:31:17 AM »
@ my own online database radiation and location are just about at the top of the list of topics to cover. I remember being very reticent years ago of diving into the topic of radiation as i intuited how much work that would be. In the end, though, the topic clearly could not be avoided and i put in the hours of listening to 'the experts' [often the people with their feet on the ground in Fukushima]. I learned some important things that completely go against mainstream assumptions concerning the dangers of radiation, like...

- air does not become radioactive; it is elements in the air that carry radioactive particles. Therefore a filter is enough to keep out 'radioactive air'.
- besides radioactive iodine, all radioactive particles are quite heavy and do not tend to travel significant distances. So you may be 'downwind' from a power plant, but that doesn't mean you'll be forced to deal with radioactive heavy metals.
- radioactive iodine is carried all over the world but it only gets absorbed by people already iodine-deficient. On the one hand 95+% of folks suffer from iodine deficiency, on the other hand some Lugol's and/or nascent iodine will remedy that (quite serious) condition in a matter of months for relatively little money and effort.

Interesting, somewhat reassuring post! Thanks for the reminder on dosing up with iodine.

ilinda

  • Guest
Re: radiation threats
« Reply #20 on: March 12, 2017, 04:29:43 PM »
@ my own online database radiation and location are just about at the top of the list of topics to cover. I remember being very reticent years ago of diving into the topic of radiation as i intuited how much work that would be. In the end, though, the topic clearly could not be avoided and i put in the hours of listening to 'the experts' [often the people with their feet on the ground in Fukushima]. I learned some important things that completely go against mainstream assumptions concerning the dangers of radiation, like...

- air does not become radioactive; it is elements in the air that carry radioactive particles. Therefore a filter is enough to keep out 'radioactive air'.
- besides radioactive iodine, all radioactive particles are quite heavy and do not tend to travel significant distances. So you may be 'downwind' from a power plant, but that doesn't mean you'll be forced to deal with radioactive heavy metals.
- radioactive iodine is carried all over the world but it only gets absorbed by people already iodine-deficient. On the one hand 95+% of folks suffer from iodine deficiency, on the other hand some Lugol's and/or nascent iodine will remedy that (quite serious) condition in a matter of months for relatively little money and effort.
It sounds like something I want to hear, but I'm not convinced that radioactive iodine is the only radionuclide we have to worry about becoming airborne. 

Think of how much a feather weighs.   Not a lot, but more than a microgram of Plutonium or some other heavy radionuclide.  Think of how the feather can become airborne and presumably remain aloft for hours, days or longer. 

Remember that Chernobyl was not reported to the media and continued quietly emitting, and it was the Finnish government that discovered their rad-monitors were showing radioactive emissions that should not have been there.  Now I admit I do not have a list of the radionuclides that were emitted from Chernobyl but am betting iodine was not the only thing.

Then one might want to consider the emissions will be falling onto farmland, and even if near, those farm crops will be contaminated, as will the soil.

I remember hearing Dr. Helen Caldicott talk about radioactive cesium and how it competes with potassium for binding sites in the body, so that if one inhales cesium, it then can cause heart irregularities because the heart uses cesium, thinking it has taken up potassium. 

Lots of food for thought.  In the meantime, I'm hoping to learn that I'm WRONG and that none of the radionuclides become airborne except iodine.

Socrates

  • Members
  • Prolific Member
  • *
  • Posts: 999
  • Karma: +15/-0
  • literally, I've seen the end in a vision; DEADLY!
    • TEOMCROTE
Re: heavy radioactive particles
« Reply #21 on: March 12, 2017, 07:59:28 PM »
Actually, come to think of it [it's been years since i looked into this stuff], it also turns out that when a dose of radiation is large enough, the radioactive particles tend to nullify each other's effects, reacting with  one another, as well.

As far as weight is concerned, one must realize that we're talking "heavy" particles, particles of the periodic table of the elements down from gold, i.e. heavier than gold or lead. There may be tiny particles and they may travel some, but gravity is going to effect them and pull them down asap. Anyway, the research shows they don't travel far.
Fukushima is such a great disaster because the radioactive particles are being carried far and wide by seawater and are now part of the life living in it, i.e. now fish and other lifeforms are carrying their radioactive bodies throughout the ocean. Of course eventually those creatures at the top of the food chain will die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, as well...
survival database
location, civilisation reboot, PERMACULTURE, postcataclysmic soil, Growing Soil 1.01

ilinda

  • Guest
Re: heavy radioactive particles
« Reply #22 on: March 16, 2017, 04:07:54 PM »
Actually, come to think of it [it's been years since i looked into this stuff], it also turns out that when a dose of radiation is large enough, the radioactive particles tend to nullify each other's effects, reacting with  one another, as well.

As far as weight is concerned, one must realize that we're talking "heavy" particles, particles of the periodic table of the elements down from gold, i.e. heavier than gold or lead. There may be tiny particles and they may travel some, but gravity is going to effect them and pull them down asap. Anyway, the research shows they don't travel far.
Fukushima is such a great disaster because the radioactive particles are being carried far and wide by seawater and are now part of the life living in it, i.e. now fish and other lifeforms are carrying their radioactive bodies throughout the ocean. Of course eventually those creatures at the top of the food chain will die and sink to the bottom of the ocean, as well...
The article below pertains mainly to laboratories, however some of the information is relevant to any radionuclide that becomes airborne. 

And remember that all those dioxins, furans, DDT, and other "VOC"'s (volatile organic compounds) that concentrate at the North Pole got there mainly via their volatility, and wind currents.  The molecular weight of any of those toxins (which now contaminate polar bears, seals, etc.)  greatly surpasses that of any atom of ion of radioactive elements, and the air currents had no trouble carrying these large molecules thousands of miles.

"Let the breather beware."


http://www.ehs.msu.edu/radiation/programs_guidelines/radmanual/48rm_airborne.htm
Airborne Radioactive Materials
Radioactive materials have the potential for release into the air, causing the worker to have an uptake of the material through one or more of the routes of entry into the body, particularly inhalation. Numerous situations may cause airborne release of radioactive materials.
Contamination present in a room may create airborne radioactivity by simple movement of the air over the contamination, spreading it around in the air. Most radioisotopes will be picked up by air and spread through this mechanism. This is one more good reason to keep areas free of contamination.
Use of volatile forms of radionuclides, such as 125I for iodinations or 3H-sodium borohydride may generate airborne radioactivity. Any chemical or physical form which readily volatilizes or evaporates into the air must be considered a potential airborne radioactivity risk.
Chemical reactions may generate radioactive gases or other airborne contaminants. An example is the labeling reaction for 35S methionine, which generates a methyl mercaptan reaction which liberates HCl and 35SO2 gas. Airborne radioactivity has resulted in unnecessary intakes and area contamination in laboratories where the users were unaware of this risk and have not taken precautions to trap or contain the liberated 35SO2.
Heating or incubating may cause evaporation or chemical reactions which release radioactive materials into the air. Aerosols (tiny droplets or particles) are present with all materials, and pose an increased risk when handling stock solutions or other high concentrations of radionuclides. Use chemical fume hoods or biological safety cabinets for high activity, concentrated or potentially volatile radioactive materials manipulations.
Materials which have been frozen may release substantial quantities of aerosols or gaseous radioactive material when the containers are opened. There have been numerous incidents at MSU and other institutions where this has occurred and has caused significant contamination of work areas, equipment and clothing of the worker opening the containers.
Another cause of airborne radioactivity is media or solutions containing cells, bacteria or other living organisms. The living organisms metabolize the radioactive substrates and may produce radioactive gases or vapors as a byproduct.
When hazardous chemical forms of the radionuclides are used, such as radiolabeled carcinogens or toxins, increased risks are presented by the vapors, aerosols or gases present or generated in the use. In this case, the hazard present is not only radioactive, but may also pose airborne chemical risks.
In order to prevent uptake in these increased risk situations, fume hoods, biological safety cabinets or other containment must be used to protect the worker from uptake and internal deposition. Do not use clean benches (tissue culture hoods) for use of radioactive materials, or any other hazardous material. While the product is kept sterile by these hoods, the hazardous material present in the materials used are blown into the face of the worker, and into the room. Therefore, there is no protection for the worker.
In certain rare cases, respiratory protection may be necessary for certain radioisotope uses. However, respiratory protection should only be used when other means of control and containment do not provide enough protection. Respirators must be chosen carefully to ensure the proper fit and type of cartridge, and the use must be monitored carefully. For this reason, use of respirators for radioactive materials use must be pre-approved by EHS, documented and monitored. Prior to using respirators for any reason, fit testing and medical monitoring are required.

Socrates

  • Members
  • Prolific Member
  • *
  • Posts: 999
  • Karma: +15/-0
  • literally, I've seen the end in a vision; DEADLY!
    • TEOMCROTE
Re: radioactive particles
« Reply #23 on: March 16, 2017, 07:32:17 PM »
There are always radioactive particles around and one is always subject to a certain amount of radioactivity. To some extent this is even natural. Cosmic radiation, for instance, which is quite high up at 10,000 feet or so, though pilots and stewards live through it year after year...

A nuclear power plant puts out certain kinds of radioactive particles and i was referring to how those tend to behave. I was also referring to the mainstream scare concerning said particles, i.e. ...
Oh my, oh my! We're all DOOMED! No one can survive a nuclear holocaust!
This attitude is not substantiated by the research.
survival database
location, civilisation reboot, PERMACULTURE, postcataclysmic soil, Growing Soil 1.01

ilinda

  • Guest
Re: radioactive particles
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2017, 04:49:32 PM »
There are always radioactive particles around and one is always subject to a certain amount of radioactivity. To some extent this is even natural. Cosmic radiation, for instance, which is quite high up at 10,000 feet or so, though pilots and stewards live through it year after year...

A nuclear power plant puts out certain kinds of radioactive particles and i was referring to how those tend to behave. I was also referring to the mainstream scare concerning said particles, i.e. ...
Oh my, oh my! We're all DOOMED! No one can survive a nuclear holocaust!
This attitude is not substantiated by the research.
The most worrisome, IMHO, aspect of a nuke plant going critical, is that if some cosmic event were to happen and the Earth's power grid went down for longer than the backup generators could last, all 400-some nuclear plants would go critical unless someone knows a way to keep the cooling waters flowing in, and warmed waters flowing out.  (I may have the 400 number wrong, as that's off the top of my head).

Socrates

  • Members
  • Prolific Member
  • *
  • Posts: 999
  • Karma: +15/-0
  • literally, I've seen the end in a vision; DEADLY!
    • TEOMCROTE
Re: power plant meltdowns
« Reply #25 on: March 18, 2017, 05:38:46 AM »
if some cosmic event were to happen and the Earth's power grid went down for longer than the backup generators could last, all 400-some nuclear plants would go critical
Count on it!
If you take a long hard look at coasts like those in Hawaii or the Canary islands it's clear they are regularly buffeted by megatsunamis. You can tell because these islands are millions of years old but they are not worn down, except at higher altitudes; the megatsunamis come and scour away all rock that's weather-beaten [happens at least every 13,000 years] and that's why they don't 'smooth down' but remain ragged-edged.

It's a safe bet that whatever knocked our ancestors into the Stone Age was not survived by their power plants. Megagales/-tsunamis or -quakes, take your pick.
Indeed, if radiation were really as terrible as most folks fear, Earth would probably already be some lifeless barren rock in space...
survival database
location, civilisation reboot, PERMACULTURE, postcataclysmic soil, Growing Soil 1.01

Jimfarmer

  • Guest
Re: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location
« Reply #26 on: March 18, 2017, 10:01:34 AM »
Quote
Quote from: ilinda on March 17, 2017, 07:49:32 PM

    if some cosmic event were to happen and the Earth's power grid went down for longer than the backup generators could last, all 400-some nuclear plants would go critical

I think not like that, exactly.  I have looked into some details of the design of nuclear power plants, and they do have provisions for safe total shut-down in that case.

The problem with Fukushima was the destruction of the structures, which stopped the operation of the safety procedures.  That could happen elsewhere also, of course.

ilinda

  • Guest
Re: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location
« Reply #27 on: March 18, 2017, 06:05:19 PM »
Quote
Quote from: ilinda on March 17, 2017, 07:49:32 PM

    if some cosmic event were to happen and the Earth's power grid went down for longer than the backup generators could last, all 400-some nuclear plants would go critical

I think not like that, exactly.  I have looked into some details of the design of nuclear power plants, and they do have provisions for safe total shut-down in that case.

The problem with Fukushima was the destruction of the structures, which stopped the operation of the safety procedures.  That could happen elsewhere also, of course.
This is totally new information to me.  The main question is, then, how do they keep the fuel rods cool during an extended power outage, if they have no backup power generation (because their emergency energy rations are spent)?

MadMax

  • Guest
Re: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location
« Reply #28 on: March 19, 2017, 03:15:28 AM »
The issue here is the spent fuel pools that are kept cool when the power is on (only a week or so of fuel is on site to keep them cool by diesel generators if the power goes off). These spent fuel pools would melt down after a permanent power outage and cause “Fukushima” like events at all of the 400 or so nuclear reactors..

After the EMP comes Nuclear Meltdown

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/emp-electro-magnetic-pulse/after-the-emp-comes-nuclear-meltdown/

An EMP (electro magnetic pulse), if strong enough (and regardless of the source – weaponized or solar), will potentially fry electronics and electronic systems within its invisible sphere of destruction. Many expert opinions and reports suggest that our electrical power grid could go down.

A large weaponized nuclear EMP detonation (or group thereof) high in the atmosphere will cause a wide ranging debilitating EMP.

A solar super flare (X-50+) and accompanying CME (Coronal Mass Ejection) will zap the surface of the earth with an even longer lasting EMP as it did during 1859 (the Carrington event).

The question is, What will happen to our nuclear reactors following an EMP event? Will we all be facing extermination from hundreds of simultaneous meltdowns?

The scenario:

An X-60 solar super-flare leaps off the sun with its coronal mass ejection (CME) heading straight towards earth. The CME (a slower moving cloud of charged particles than the X-ray burst), reaches the earth – and the solar particles interact with earth’s magnetic field to produce powerful electromagnetic fluctuations. It is these fluctuations that produce electrical currents in electrically ‘conductive’ things here on Earth, such as our criss-crossing power lines suspended above our streets. Electrical currents build up during the lasting event, and while some grid circuit breakers trip in an effort to save itself, many transformers and their high number of internal windings of copper wire continue to heat up and overload until they burn up as they exceed their design capacity.

 
The result:

Electricity across the land will be gone. Lights out. Communications and cell phones – down. Gas station pumps – down. Banking and commerce – down. Food distribution networks – down. Transportation grinds to a halt.

Much of the electricity may not be restored for months or even years due to the unimaginable requirements of transformer and electronic infrastructure re-manufacture and replacement.

As if that isn’t bad enough, what happens to our nuclear reactors?

Separate from the scrammed rods of the reactors, there is the issue of the spent fuel rod Storage pools of the containment facility. They too need a constant supply of water.

Backup batteries will keep pumps running for a day or so.

Diesel generators (assuming they or their electronics are hardened and not damaged from the effects of the EMP) will keep pumps running as long as there is diesel fuel on hand. A question is, do the nuclear plants have enough stored diesel fuel to keep the cooling pumps operating for months and months afterwards?

The fuel (gasoline-diesel) distribution systems will be down (or mostly), so where will the fuel come from? This will obviously be a high priority for plant managers, but will they all be able to scrounge up what they need?

In conclusion:

It is a foregone conclusion that a Carrington event will happen again. When it does, will we be ready? Will the world’s arsenal of nuclear weapons (and EMP weapons) always remain silent and unused? Will the world’s ‘leaders’ always be sane? There are risks, and this article simply exposes one or two – and presents questions for you to ponder.

Spent fuel fire on U.S. soil could dwarf impact of Fukushima

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/spent-fuel-fire-us-soil-could-dwarf-impact-fukushima

But the national academies’s report warns that spent fuel accumulating at U.S. nuclear plants is also vulnerable. After fuel is removed from a reactor core, the radioactive fission products continue to decay, generating heat. All nuclear power plants store the fuel onsite at the bottom of deep pools for at least 4 years while it slowly cools. To keep it safe, the academies report recommends that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and nuclear plant operators beef up systems for monitoring the pools and topping up water levels in case a facility is damaged. The panel also says plants should be ready to tighten security after a disaster.

At most U.S. nuclear plants, spent fuel is densely packed in pools, heightening the fire risk. NRC has estimated that a major fire at the spent fuel pool at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania would displace an estimated 3.46 million people from 31,000 square kilometers of contaminated land, an area larger than New Jersey. But Von Hippel and Schoeppner think that NRC has grossly underestimated the scale and societal costs of such a fire.

Nightmare scenarios

A simulated spent fuel fire at the Peach Bottom nuclear power plant in Pennsylvania had a devastating impact on the mid-Atlantic region. Click on the dates to see the extent of contamination, which depended on weather patterns. Courtesy of F. Von Hippel and M. Schoeppner

Max. 

Jimfarmer

  • Guest
Re: Choosing the RIGHT Survival Location
« Reply #29 on: March 19, 2017, 10:01:48 AM »
Quote
The issue here is the spent fuel pools that are kept cool when the power is on (only a week or so of fuel is on site to keep them cool by diesel generators if the power goes off).

Right.
Quote
All nuclear power plants store the fuel onsite at the bottom of deep pools for at least 4 years while it slowly cools.

1.  Gravity feed from surface water might be possible in some locations.
2.  The nuclear-fuel rods were used to boil water into steam, and so the spent fuel rods would not have the same heat-producing capacity as the operational rods.   Are the cooling pools normally boiling? I think not, but not sure.  If the spent rods were simply laid out on bare rock, they would not melt the rock (that is not a good solution, but perhaps necessary as the last option).

Quote
These spent fuel pools would melt down after a permanent power outage and cause “Fukushima” like events

Different situation.  In Fukushima, the problem was damage to the reactors.

 

Home Study System

Home Study System
Save 30%

BUY NOW

The ideal win-win survival community library reference system offers a broad range of valuable survival skills and knowledge. Ideal those in preparedness, it provides in-depth knowledge about how to form communities and operate two-way communications.

For human needs, it also includes a low-impact energy self-healing art and an essential role for seniors in survival communities.

A special note for those of you living outside the United States, we optimized this system for the lowest possible Priority Mail costs.

4 Paperbacks and 6 DVDs

Win-Win Survival Communities Signed

Radio Free Earth Color (Color Editon) Signed

Complete Danjeon Breathing System w/6 DVDs

Survival Wellness Advocacy and the BIG WIN

BUY NOW