Dr. Stone [Discussion + Spoilers]

[tp4tissue]

Just started the anim,  pretty gud' show. But the science is pretty off.


Realistically, Earth after 3700 years where all current residents are cast in stone would be incredibly inhospitable.

Especially in the case of Jpn. They're on a small island right next to all them reactors. Nooqlear fuel would be EX-dangerous even after 100,000 years.

So if this actually happened, and they woke up after 3700, They would probably die instantly from the radiation that has spilled out over the years.

The majority of the northern hemisphere would be a radioactive wasteland where only bugs/ small animals can survive, but only because their replication rate is quick enough to beat radiation death..

The vibrant grass fields, large arbor and pristine water where the characters are happily eating fish and wild animals from is complete fantasy.

The majority of China's and Jpn's reactors are along the coast.  The entire pacific would be contaminated, and it's unlikely large sea-life would've thrived.

That bullcrap article about chernobyl's wildlife returning and thriving was fake-news churned up by the nooqular industry. In reality, Independent scientists who chart the biosphere of the area noted that only 1/2 of the species which would naturally occur in the area remain. The ones that are still alive have significant radiation induced genetic damage, and THIS is with ACTIVE Human effort put into containment of the chernobyl breach.

WITHOUT any effort in containment, and all the world's reactors going up @ once.  It's game over for the northern hemisphere.

[tp4tissue]

Hrrrrmm....

They're not using the revival fluid correctly.

It's a PITA and dangerous to reproduce humans from scratch in a turbulent jungle with no survival infrastructure.

They're better off slowly reviving adults As-Needed well into the future of base construction, instead of having children naturally, or reviving any young people.

It's like having a supply of pre-trained, highly intelligent modern labor.   Whereas it'd take at least 12-15 yrs to construct humans from scratch, and they wouldn't be remotely as well trained given the lack of education time

[tp4tissue]

Baahhh.. Hunting for meat.. Also ridiculous.. Success rate is far too low with stone age tools which they're using.

It would be more Calorie-Efficient to forage.   Currently Existing forest people only typically hunt when their base crop (Tubers) are plentiful.

[tp4tissue]

whaaaa.... They don' have to do all that to make penicillin. They can't do experimentation on humans, but they could easily experiment on animals..  (Unethical), but this is Stone-world after all.

[yui]

Just started the anim,  pretty gud' show. But the science is pretty off.


Realistically, Earth after 3700 years where all current residents are cast in stone would be incredibly inhospitable.

Especially in the case of Jpn. They're on a small island right next to all them reactors. Nooqlear fuel would be EX-dangerous even after 100,000 years.

So if this actually happened, and they woke up after 3700, They would probably die instantly from the radiation that has spilled out over the years.

The majority of the northern hemisphere would be a radioactive wasteland where only bugs/ small animals can survive, but only because their replication rate is quick enough to beat radiation death..

The vibrant grass fields, large arbor and pristine water where the characters are happily eating fish and wild animals from is complete fantasy.

The majority of China's and Jpn's reactors are along the coast.  The entire pacific would be contaminated, and it's unlikely large sea-life would've thrived.

That bullcrap article about chernobyl's wildlife returning and thriving was fake-news churned up by the nooqular industry. In reality, Independent scientists who chart the biosphere of the area noted that only 1/2 of the species which would naturally occur in the area remain. The ones that are still alive have significant radiation induced genetic damage, and THIS is with ACTIVE Human effort put into containment of the chernobyl breach.

WITHOUT any effort in containment, and all the world's reactors going up @ once.  It's game over for the northern hemisphere.

Show Image

I would not think that most reactors would go up in that time, most of them have security features to prevent meltdowns (you know after one famous that did) so even with no humans it would most likely shut themselves down. true radiation will leak out after 3kyears of not being maintained but i do not think it would be as bad as you describe (and seas communicate so if the pacific ocean is contaminated all of them are).
Also some plants do a really good job at absorbing radioactive material so yeah most likely do not want to go near reactors anymore but the leakage will get, at least partly, trapped by natural causes near them.
It would most definitely be a wasteland but not that radioactive (or at least not much more than today).
edit:btw i have not seen the show, just think you are a bit pessimistic.

[tp4tissue]

I would not think that most reactors would go up in that time, most of them have security features to prevent meltdowns (you know after one famous that did) so even with no humans it would most likely shut themselves down. true radiation will leak out after 3kyears of not being maintained but i do not think it would be as bad as you describe (and seas communicate so if the pacific ocean is contaminated all of them are).
Also some plants do a really good job at absorbing radioactive material so yeah most likely do not want to go near reactors anymore but the leakage will get, at least partly, trapped by natural causes near them.
It would most definitely be a wasteland but not that radioactive (or at least not much more than today).
edit:btw i have not seen the show, just think you are a bit pessimistic.

Yui,  TP4 know u is a gud' Egg,  your outlook is indeed  the opposite.

However, Nooqular fuel (in) working reactors are fundamentally ON FIRE, and they burn for Hundreds of years < technically thousands >.

Even spent fuel has to be kept in above ground pools with active cooling for YEARS.

Even in the case of full control-rod insertion for Shutdown, the reactor must be powered by diesel engines and actively cooled .  IF NOT, The fuel would melt through containment extremely quickly.

Remember containment is only just a few inches of steel and concrete beneath. A reactor is fundamentally nothing more than a big boiler vessel.

If you took all humans out in an instant, EVERY working reactor in the world would Explode.

The Subsequent radiation cloud created would likely kill the majority of life on the surface, and leave the remaining lifeforms extremely sick, (including plant life).

They certainly can not recover in 3700 years like in the show, it will take on the order of Millions of years for the original biosphere to recover, assuming the radiation does not sterilize life altogether.

You're probably thinking, well 'Murica blew up all them b00m b00ms on its own soil in the 1950s throughout the 80s, what's the big deal.

Reactors are Much More dangerous than boom booms. A weapon is only using 10s to 100s of pounds of material,   While reactors have generated MILLIONS of pounds of high lvl waste.

[tp4tissue]

Don' quite make sense that ALL refined metal materials have disappeared..

I guess if they go with major tectonic movements which swallowed up the place, buh other areas outside of Jpn wouldn've had that much burying.

Then there's the case of population.   It's inconceivable that they have a village of 40 people after 3700 years.

Even @ 1% growth rate per year with the original 6 surviving astronauts, they'd be back up to 7 billion people in only 2098 years.

could be wrong, idon'really remember how xponents wurk. 

But the only conceivable reason that their population is 40 people is if something actively killed them rapidly, LIKE Radiation

[yui]

However, Nooqular fuel (in) working reactors are fundamentally ON FIRE, and they burn for Hundreds of years < technically thousands >.

Even spent fuel has to be kept in above ground pools with active cooling for YEARS.

yes they do eat up for a long time, but for that they need to be in a critical mass
this is where the water in the pools and the graphite rods in the reactor comes in, they stop the rods from interacting with one an other and reach that critical mass (graphite is much better at it but for spent fuel storage it is not pratical)

Even in the case of full control-rod insertion for Shutdown, the reactor must be powered by diesel engines and actively cooled .  IF NOT, The fuel would melt through containment extremely quickly.

we are no longer using Chernobyl tech reactors (for good reasons) nowadays rods can pretty much render a reactor dead (if you have control over them that is) and it should not produce any real heat

Remember containment is only just a few inches of steel and concrete beneath. A reactor is fundamentally nothing more than a big boiler vessel.

If you took all humans out in an instant, EVERY working reactor in the world would Explode.

Reactors are Much More dangerous than boom booms. A weapon is only using 10s to 100s of pounds of material,   While reactors have generated MILLIONS of pounds of high lvl waste.

ok reactors contain much more fuel, but are designed to fail "safe", aka not explode and definitely if they do disperse as little fuel as possible, bombs are made in a completely opposite way, aka explode and disperse all of what you've got, so much more deadly for much less fuel, reactor fuel will go down in the ground in cases of meltdown making it dangerous but not too far, bombs are an entirely different kind of thing.

[tp4tissue]

Reactors are inherently unsafe.  And our reactors today are not much better.

The Mark 1 reactors (fukushima) were all designed / made in murica, and yet come fukushima, ALL safety measures failed, and 3 exploded.

There are still ~35 of these in operation,  23 in 'Murica alone.

The Designers themselves quit because they realized the design was not safe, but GE kept them into production+service anyway.  Under American management GE nooq and Westinghouse nooq went bankrupt, now owned by Hitachi/ Toshiba.

Under toshiba, they're filing chapter 11 again on Westinghouse.

At the time of their conception, we did not even understand the hydrodynamics involved in the containment, which is why 3 of them went boom during fukushima.

Left unpowered, they go boom.

ALL MACHINES fail, for any number of reasons.  When a coal plant goes poof, no biggie, When a nooq plant goes,  you have 300-1000 years worth of serious contamination, elevated cancer rate, and mass depression of local population. Main areas of Fukushima contamination is experiencing 30,000% the rate of thyroid cancer.

The more complicated the machine, the higher the probability of failure.

We've already had hundreds of accidents. only 3-5 big ones that we know of.

Even currently waste management is an impossible task and heavy contamination is ongoing in washington state's disposal sites.

And the way n00q waste works is, for 100,000 years. you have to watch the damn thing.

Take whatever power you can generate in the 50 yrs of plant operation,  NO amount of benefit can offset the task of dealing with the waste for 100,000 years. 

There were ZERO plans in place to deal with waste during the conception of nooqular power, and as is the case today, we have no clue how to deal with it.

[yui]

We still have 0 plan to deal with coal waste either (you know the co2) and the tech is much older, at least spent nuclear fuel is not a gas, and there are options to deal with it, just no one want to pay for it (except plutonium, that quite a few are willing to extract it).
At fukushima from what i understand the plant got damaged and so the failsafes, well failed, but in cases of no user it should not fail like in cherno (there it was user error). Sure if there is other huge flood and seismic activities they are going to fail, human here or not.
Right now, until we find a good way to store energy for the night nuclear is probably our best option(never said it was good but we don't have many way to spin rust during the night (main advantage of nuclear/coal, huge inertia in their turbines), no wind and no sun and water currents are not everywhere).
And yeah the GE reactors are not great and were not designed for japan at all, never planed to be placed in a siesmic active place, actually none are i think. the 23 in murica should actually be pretty safe (relative) as they should not get to many shakes, nuclear submarine in the other hand, and all the nuclear arsenal may actually be the sources of radiation that could be of real issue if humanity hit the snooze button for a few millennias.
and then what do you expect from flooded and crushed computer, they can't control anything anymore.
(and yeah i do agree nuclear fission is inherently unsafe, we make bomb out of it easier than power)
(and you forgot a few zeros when talking life of the spent fuel, it may outlive the sun before being really safe)

[tp4tissue]

Right now, until we find a good way to store energy for the night nuclear is probably our best option(never said it was good but we don't have many way to spin rust during the night (main advantage of nuclear/coal, huge inertia in their turbines), no wind and no sun and water currents are not everywhere).

I can understand why you'd think that. But it is not how our electrical grid is designed/ works.

For over a Century, Our grid has been a distributed system.  THERE ARE no 24hour power plants, they all break for months at a time.

The system is designed to back up down plants with working plants.

Forecasting of output accuracy is far higher than Demand. Built correctly, the system is far more resilient with distributed wind + solar than with big nooqs.


In practice, Germany is a net exporter of electricity to France which also has an economically bankrupt nooq industry. After turning off all the nooqs in Germany, 3/5 of the lost capacity was replaced with renewables and all lost capacity replaced within 2 years.

[yui]

I can understand why you'd think that. But it is not how our electrical grid is designed/ works.

For over a Century, Our grid has been a distributed system.  THERE ARE no 24hour power plants, they all break for months at a time.

The system is designed to back up down plants with working plants.

that is what i was talking about with spinning rust, nothing is instantaneous so for the reaction time the inertia of those huge spinning turbines are the thing keeping the grid up.

Forecasting of output accuracy is far higher than Demand. Built correctly, the system is far more resilient with distributed wind + solar than with big nooqs.

the problem right now with solar and wind is that it is only available during the day, we could spin turbine with solar otherwise, util we find a good way to store that energy the only renewable sources during night are hydroelectric dams.

In practice, Germany is a net exporter of electricity to France which also has an economically bankrupt nooq industry. After turning off all the nooqs in Germany, 3/5 of the lost capacity was replaced with renewables and all lost capacity replaced within 2 years.

well that is a strange thing cause France do have too much energy, and is exporting it as well just that our providers sell more renewable that what we produce, so we export nuclear electricity and import solar basically.
so nuclear is not the future, but neither are huge warehouses full of lithium batteries ready to blow up, and right now the solution they use is to use electric motors to spin up huge heavy wheels to store power in inertia, old school and very inefficient.

[tp4tissue]

Wind works Night and Day.

In distributed situations, it's far more reliable than ANY singular power plant.

With wind it's always blowing somewhere, 1 turbine breaks, NP,   with downtime on regular plants, you lose 1000MW for months.

The current central station scenario is far less reliable.

As for warehouses full of batteries,  Again,  Safer than coal plants, and Everything is safer than nooq.

[yui]

Wind works Night and Day.

In distributed situations, it's far more reliable than ANY singular power plant.

With wind it's always blowing somewhere, 1 turbine breaks, NP,   with downtime on regular plants, you lose 1000MW for months.

The current central station scenario is far less reliable.

As for warehouses full of batteries,  Again,  Safer than coal plants, and Everything is safer than nooq.

At least in France we already use a distributed and completely overbuilt system (we have a problem that we produce way too much and so our wind farms stay off most of the time) so if one central need to go down the other can keep up no problem (and we may use a bit of wind, yay).

And wind blows because of differential heating of the atmosphere from the sun, so yeah there is a tiny bit of wind at night because of the leftover energy in the ground, but it is nowhere near the same wind as what the sun produces. And it is always day somewhere, but electricity is not efficient to transport, else we already would have the orbital solar arrays that are in development since the the dawn of time (maybe not that far) and we would use those huge deserts as solar farms (either CSP or photovoltaic).

For batteries, one is not dangerous by itself but then a small landmine will not level a city, it is a story of scale, such large battery installation would be incredibly dangerous (it only take one samsung battery and all goes up in flames, releasing tons of dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere), and incredibly inefficient (from Wikipedia we would lose 10 to 20 percent of the energy)

and anyway the sun is a big ass nuke high in the sky so everything is nuclear anyway.

[Leslieann]

ok reactors contain much more fuel, but are designed to fail "safe", aka not explode and definitely if they do disperse as little fuel as possible

Failsafes are like backups, you never know how good they are until you actually need them and by then it may be too late.

[tp4tissue]

At least in France we already use a distributed and completely overbuilt system (we have a problem that we produce way too much and so our wind farms stay off most of the time) so if one central need to go down the other can keep up no problem (and we may use a bit of wind, yay).

And wind blows because of differential heating of the atmosphere from the sun, so yeah there is a tiny bit of wind at night because of the leftover energy in the ground, but it is nowhere near the same wind as what the sun produces. And it is always day somewhere, but electricity is not efficient to transport, else we already would have the orbital solar arrays that are in development since the the dawn of time (maybe not that far) and we would use those huge deserts as solar farms (either CSP or photovoltaic).

For batteries, one is not dangerous by itself but then a small landmine will not level a city, it is a story of scale, such large battery installation would be incredibly dangerous (it only take one samsung battery and all goes up in flames, releasing tons of dangerous chemicals in the atmosphere), and incredibly inefficient (from Wikipedia we would lose 10 to 20 percent of the energy)

and anyway the sun is a big ass nuke high in the sky so everything is nuclear anyway.

NONE of that can be used to justify the inefficiency of nooq stations.

Again, waste has to be watched for 100,000 years.  Whatever electricity it generates now, will not offset the capital required to manage the waste, EVER..

ALL stations produce is Debt for future thousands of generations.

Batteries can blow up, so can coal plants,  but when Chernobyl went, We threw 1 million people at it,  they're all either dead or sick,  their children inherit genetic defects,  It's IMPOSSIBLE to fully clean up the site, Over 1 million cancers resultant after the fact.

That's from 1 station. The risk difference is astronomical.

A big battery station blows, Very sad, Maybe hundreds of people die. Sad, but OK 100s.

Nooq goes up, MILLIONS of people die.

[yui]

i never said nuclear plants were even safer (kinda are if not built on a fault line, looking at Japan, or operated by overzealous patriots, looking at Chernobyl) and 100000 years are very low estimates, those will outlast humanity, 4.2billions years half life, but though we can't destroy it we can dig plenty deep enough and put it back were we found it. But at least do not shut them down with good fuel still in, that would be wasteful to an other extreme.
And coal plants do not produce highly toxic chemicals when they blow up, and contain far less energy than a battery farm would (more energy = bigger boom) and pollution from production and recycling (batteries only last about 2000 cycles so 10 years max life) may actually make them in the best case worse than a nuclear meltdown for human health and the environment. so yeah.
what i am saying is not to panic rush and see that we forgot to calculate some stuff (like nuclear waste).