So, what exactly would happen if someone were to destroy a nuclear submarine in the ocean? Would it irradiate the ocean or do the reactors have some sort of safety shut off?
And if you must ask, yes, I am watching The Hunt for Red October.
>>29897438
well, working off of the findings from the uss thresher and the soviet sub, it bleeds radiation for a long, long time.
basically an underwater chernobyl, not fun shit.
>>29897450
>well, working off of the findings from the uss thresher and the soviet sub, it bleeds radiation for a long, long time.
>basically an underwater chernobyl, not fun shit.
this
but it doesn't really matter because the ocean is a huge place.
>>29897438
Considering 12in of water reduces bassically all radiation to about zero. It's probably not that bad.
>>29897438
>So, what exactly would happen if someone were to destroy a nuclear submarine in the ocean?
It'd look just like great Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, where a sub sunk inside the trench, imploded with such force that the material incasing the plutonium had enough force and pressure to become its own neutron bullet.
>>29897476
pretty sure thats heavy water and not normal water.
but the problem is that the radiation would do everywhere, shitting up our tuna and sharks and shit.
sure, not all that big problem if you're a scuba diver or whatever, but a real big problem if you like seafood. just look at fukushima, and that was contained.
a uncontainable reactor at the bottom of the ocean shitting radiation, along with its nuclear warheads if it has any?
not good.
>>29897483
>>29897450
This may be a stupid question
But what happens to the crew when they're encased in what's basically an underwater radiation coffin? Are there any pictures?
>>29897500
read this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin#Criticality_accident
and look up Hiroshi Ouchi, that is probably close to what would go down.
>>29897500
They are not encased. they are literally squashed between two pieces of steel, like a pancake that gets ran over by a tank.
>>29897524
this, past crush depth (aka the point where, once you pass it, you are fucked) most subs implode and are turned into fist-sized chunks of metal.
but if the reactor leaked and they scram'd it, and the sub wasn't sinking, >>29897520
this is probably a good answer.
Nothing would happen. Where nuclear subs operate, its thousands of feet deep, further down than light can go. Almost nothing can live down there.
The submarine would implode, sink to the bottom, and the radiation would be contained by the water around it.
>>29897500
I think the crew would die from asphyxiation, starvation, or dehydration, or from the sub being crushed/flooded, long before radiation was an issue. The containment vessels around those reactors are pretty burly and they're not going to start leaking that quickly in any situation where the sub is still intact enough for the crew to survive.
I've always figured that in a situation like Thresher, there's a good chance the crew would all just kill themselves once they knew they were dead anyway.
>>29897483
Wat?
>>29897438
Fun fact, we used to toss nuclear "waste" into the ocean to dispose of it until we realized it was too valuable to throw away.
>>29897438
>>29897497
Normal water is an EXCEPTIONAL shielding material, actually. In fact, the underside of the reactor on US subs is unshielded, because the water itself does the trick. Here's a good comparison: http://what-if.xkcd.com/29/. The next best thing to shield neutrons and charged particles is plastic that mimics the characteristics of water as much as possible, by which I mean it has a shitload of hydrogen atoms and a high density (HDPE).
>>29897497
Also, radiation does not, by itself, contaminate anything. Pieces of the reactor would have to escape and get picked up by sealife. Being hit with radiation does not, by itself, make something radioactive. Think in terms of having your leg x-rayed; you are not then radioactive yourself. The exception to this rule is neutron radiation, but the aforementioned regular old seawater is an exceptionally good shield for neutrons in particular.
>>29897520
>Hiroshi Ouchi
Keep in mind he was alive. His body still had metabolic processes and such. It would have a very different effect on a corpse. If I recall, it might even preserve it by killing most of the bacteria and fungi involved in decomposition. Underwater would be a totally different story though.
>>29899146
ah, neat.
what throws me off is media and other things (maybe this is true) where, once water is irradiated, its fucking insane.
case and point the fallout series. you go in water, you are fucked.
>>29899147
he was only technically alive, and that was with massive help from machines.
if someone with no help went through that, they're done.
>>29899159
>he was only technically alive, and that was with massive help from machines.
>if someone with no help went through that, they're done.
True, but his body was still somewhat functioning, which is what causes his skin to fall off and such. He was a goner, but if he had instantly died, his body would not have degenerated in that way. Radiation kills cells. A living body with dead cells attached will attempt to [unsuccessfully] repair itself and continue normal metabolic processes. This is what causes his body to degrade into that horrific mess.
>>29899159
In the context of Fallout games, you're dealing with contaminated water.
A nuclear detonation (or reactor going critical) leaves "nuclear residue" the same way a gun leaves gunpowder residue - which ends up absolutely everywhere.
Common contaminants include Iodine-129, Caesium-137 and Strontium-90.
The former is particularly nasty, as iodine is a critical nutrient, and the radioactive isotope will be readily absorbed.
>>29899159
>once water is irradiated, its fucking insane.
Well, not entirely without basis; it does do some cool shit. For example, Cherenkov Radiation, where charged particles like electrons and alphas (helium nuclei w/o electrons) exceed the speed of light in water (the speed of light in a vacuum is still the universal speed limit, but the speed of light in water is slower), causing a beautiful blue glow. Also, various contaminants in seawater can be activated by the neutron flux, but they won't make any serious contribution to the underwater exposure field.
>>29899208
>or reactor going critical
No... No...
Otherwise not too off base, but damn I cringe at that.
>>29899146
>Being hit with radiation does not, by itself, make something radioactive. Think in terms of having your leg x-rayed; you are not then radioactive yourself.
dammit anon, how am i ever going to develop mutant superhero powers then?
>>29899468
Well, there is one possible route. If you have a pet with a bad thyroid (read: any cat over a certain age) you can have them treated using a procedure called radiothyroid ablation. It uses an I-131 isotope which is readily absorbed into the thyroid, and then emits localized particle radiation, which kills all or the majority of the thyroid. The iodine lasts for about 80 days (half life of 8 days), during which time, all the cat's waste products must be controlled (as they excrete the iodine). So, if you collect all your cats "leavings" and consume them, you will yourself become radioactive.
>>29899208
>people still not understanding that being critical means it is working properly.
>>29899450 has it right
Hell, in order to increase to a desired power a nuclear reactor must be super-critical to increase the neutron population.
Geez, am I the only one on /k/ who hold a nuclear engineering degree?
>>29900597
the reason why we are confused by it is we are usually talking about weapons, not reactors.
and going critical or supercritical means shit gets fucked up.
>>29900630
While I do understand this it is still slightly disheartening that people can't make the simple distinction.
But then again, not everyone is a nuclear engineer I suppose.
>>29900630
>and going critical
But.. You want your reactor to go critical.
>>29900597
>Geez, am I the only one on /k/ who hold a nuclear engineering degree?
I highly doubt it. /k/ has an unhealthily large population of ex-navy nucs, who very often go on to get that degree.
>>29900597
I just read wikipedia old scans of 50's docs and tvtropes and I know that.
>>29900630
Critical = reactor is producing enough power to run itself, this is very good, means it can run collant pumps, computers etc. without battery backup
Super critical = more better good! All the anove with surplus power to run a city/sub/bunker/doom laser
Prompt critical = bad, means power came too fast when not expected, usually breaks something or is a resultant of other very bad shit
>>29897438
The reactors on a sub have far smaller power requirements than large commercial complexs, and far less fuel.
Basically there are automatic and manual means to scram or 'turn off' the reactor, but the small scale alone means cherbobyl underwater is as impossible as a 300 acre wildfire contained in your garden.
Then you have the fact nuclear fuel, heavy metals mostly, all it's stainless equipment and whatnot sink in water... And it's damn well contained. Some irradiation on the sea floor and I wouldn't dive there, buuuut far from anything dangerous to the surface.
