The quotes from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s report were interesting.
moving nuclear fuel stored in pools into dry casket storage
The extent to which we can do this is limited because spent fuel must be stored for one to ten years in spent fuel pools while the shorter-lived isotopes decay before it’s ready to be moved to dry cask storage.
I did not know this. I added an edit to the post: “nuclear waste already stored in pools for 5 years”.
I don’t think an environmental radioisotope release can realistically give people across the world acute radiation syndrome.
Can you cite evidence and/or reasoning?
Considering intake of the radioactive isotopes (through skin contact, breathing, and water/food consumption) as well?
This feels like the kinda thing where modelling error can happen easily. I share some of your skepticism here, but also am an amateur in this area.
I don’t have anything to cite, but everything i’ve read about real or hypothetical major nuclear accidents affecting large areas talks about harms like increased cancer risk over the course of years. Dying within days or weeks as described in the original post requires orders of magnitude higher doses of radiation in a shorter time. I don’t think it’s possible to get those kinds of doses from the amount of radioactive material that can realistically be dispersed kilometers away from the accident. (Being concerned about loss of safely usable land for living and farming is reasonable and i’m only complaining about this point because you specifically described acute radiation syndrome.)
The quotes from the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency’s report were interesting.
I did not know this. I added an edit to the post: “nuclear waste already stored in pools for 5 years”.
Can you cite evidence and/or reasoning? Considering intake of the radioactive isotopes (through skin contact, breathing, and water/food consumption) as well? This feels like the kinda thing where modelling error can happen easily. I share some of your skepticism here, but also am an amateur in this area.
I don’t have anything to cite, but everything i’ve read about real or hypothetical major nuclear accidents affecting large areas talks about harms like increased cancer risk over the course of years. Dying within days or weeks as described in the original post requires orders of magnitude higher doses of radiation in a shorter time. I don’t think it’s possible to get those kinds of doses from the amount of radioactive material that can realistically be dispersed kilometers away from the accident. (Being concerned about loss of safely usable land for living and farming is reasonable and i’m only complaining about this point because you specifically described acute radiation syndrome.)