A.V. Turchin.

The worst scenario for nuclear power plant disaster and the risk of human extinction (Ines 8 = human extinction) Version 0.802 (translation from Russian) Disclaimer: This is a very preliminary version of the text, written in hot pursuit in March 2011 after the accident at Fukushima. The text does contain many errors and very quick conclusions, and published only for the subsequent discussion, but not as a final conclusion. I am not a nuclear physicist, and I use estimates from open sources. I am not associated in any way with the nuclear industry. I am not an activist of Greenpeace and do not call for complete abandonment of nuclear energy. The purpose of this article is to consider whether the accident at a nuclear power could lead to the existential risk (see N.Bostrom article “Existential risks”) – that is, to the extinction of mankind, or substantial damage to its building. In the article will be considered "extremely worst" options. That is, in all cases where there is uncertainty of our knowledge, will be taken the worst score. Maximum worst-case scenario is certainly worse than any real catastrophe that may occur. The study of these scenarios gives an upper bound for disaster. If you find that the maximum worst-case scenario in some object does not lead to global catastrophe, then this system can be called "inherently safe" in respect of global catastrophes. Note that there are frequent disasters which are worse than the worst imaginable case. For example in 2001, terrorists seized and sent into the buildings 4 aircraft, while the worst case was considered a seizure of the one aircraft. In 2011 Fukusime suffered an accident with 4 reactors (7 objects more precisely, if we assume that spent fuel ponds, and possibly more, given the problems at other reactors), while the worst-case scenario was considered an accident with one reactor. In the article are considered only possible accidents with nuclear plants, and it does not address other risks that may be related to nuclear weapons: uncontrolled nuclear proliferation, the Doomsday Machine in the form of a cobalt bomb, nuclear winter/summer, giant planets detonation, artificial supervolcano explosions and so on. About them, see my book "Structure of global catastrophe". Hypothetical scenarios of disasters that could have global implications I list all possible scenarios that could have global consequences, and then assess which of them may actually lead to global catastrophe and with what probability. 1) A nuclear attack on the nuclear power plant with missiles with nuclear warheads.

2) The explosion of a small nuke inside the station, brought by a terrorist. 3) "Devil's pipe" - a continuous separation of isotopes as a result of accidental chain reaction in the ruins of a reactor. 4) Penetration to the Earth core by melted reactor core - corium ("China Syndrome"). 5) The explosion of hydrogen and combustion of spent nuclear fuel in spent fuel storage. Global contamination of food chain by cesium-137 6) The collapse of technological civilization, as a result of a systemic crisis, associated with not developing new technologies, radiophobia, economic crisis, the evacuation of the population, rise in price of food, lack of energy. 7) An explosive release of all nuclear energy, located at the station, as well as thermonuclear reactions in heavy water (deuterium) in the heavy water reactor. 8) The destruction of several large nuclear power plant under a water dam, or other natural disasters, leading to massive destruction of nuclear plants. For example, the explosion of a supervolcano, supereartquake, tsunami (as in Japan in 2011 but worse), the fall of an asteroid into the ocean. 9) Radicals who want to create a nuclear Doomsday weapon come to power in a country with nuclear plants. Alteration of nuclear power plants for producing large quantities of dangerous isotopes and then explosion of it. 10) Turn off electricity across the earth as a result of a certain global cataclysm, which leads to a loss of cooling at all nuclear power plants. For example, super-flash on the sun can lead to global disruptions of the electricity. Or a world war, or the effects of medium-sized asteroid (1 km). 11) The underestimation of long-term effects of radiation on humans and the biosphere. 12) Distribution of nuclear power plants around the world leads to a sharp increase in the spread of nuclear weapons, primarily due to the fact that reactorgrade plutonium could come how be use for military purposes, as well as by the general spread of nuclear technology, which then leads to an increase in other nuclear risks. For disaster risk assessment, we need to know two parameters: the total content of nucleotides in nuclear power plants, and the magnitude of contamination, which can lead to global consequences. We take two main sources of information: “Importance of severe accidents radiological releases and definition of large damage”. http://ompldr.org/vN3d4YQ International Journal of nuclear power, Jule 2005. Next - st.2005 And «Spent Nuclear Fuel Inventories at Commercial US Nuclear Plants». Next st. 1994. http://www.davistownmuseum.org/cbm/RadxIntegratedDatabase.html Source st2005 shows that the expected number of casualties after complete destruction of a modern reactor is about 200 000 people, divided into three groups: the direct victims of irradiation (540 people) and cancer victim from fast living

isotopes and long-lived isotopes. But this numbers are subject to the evacuation from areas of infection. The main difference between this and the global catastrophe is that in case of global catastrophe mass evacuation is not possible. St2005 argues that the 1.7 * 10 ** 20 is a total number of decays in the reactor one hour after the stop or approximately 2 billion curies. (And Chernobyl release was only about 50 million curies). Radiation can lead to the extinction of humans in several ways, in order of decreasing doses: 1) Death from acute radiation sickness (1000 rem per week) 2) Death due to prolonged exposure (10 years), high doses of radiation (100 rem/year), the consumption of contaminated foods. The internal effects of radiation are 10 times stronger than external training, and beta emitters are dangerous only when eaten. Causes: cancer, weakened immunity and premature aging. 3) Sterility. 4) The increased level of mutations leading to the total genetic degradation over several generations. 5) The crop failure, hunger. Banned food production (10 curies per square km.) 6) The emergence of dangerous "mutants" in nature - predators, bacteria and viruses - this story came from science fiction. This should take account of the isotopes, which have the greatest ability to accumulate in the human body. Unfortunately, the main reactor isotopes have the ability to linger in the body. This is iodine, cesium, strontium and plutonium. The main threat in case of any global catastrophe, as I showed in "Structure of global catastrophe" is not the source of death, but means to transport it to all people on Earth. In the case of radioactive contamination in such vehicles is the Earth's atmosphere. Earth's atmosphere is stirred for about 20 days, at least in the northern hemisphere. The worst case scenario involves the formation of particulate matter, which falls from the air evenly across the surface of the Earth. To do this, such a suspension should get into the stratosphere, which moves faster, and longer holding particles (like soot in a "nuclear winter"). To this end, the contents of the reactor should evaporate up. Ideally suited for this is nuclear explosion (but also firestorm, falling asteroid). EVALUATION OF SCENARIOS 1. Nuclear attack by missiles The worst possible scenario: During the war, ballistic and cruise missiles used on all nuclear facilities (reactors and spent fuel storage facility) in all countries. Reactors in time of the attack are operating.

Attack by the missiles will lead to a full nuclear fuel spray and spread it over long distances in the atmosphere. Flux of neutrons in a nuclear explosion can cause nuclear reactions in the reactor core. The total activity of spent fuel in the U.S. in 1994, according to st1994, was about 7 billion curies, and most of this activity was in the strontium-90, cesium137 and plutonium-241 with the time decay of about 30 years. World Total SNF in the year 2011 may be 5 times more, ie 35 billion curies. "According to the IAEA, by 2006 from nuclear power reactors (and their world more than 400) were unloaded around 260 000 tonnes of spent nuclear fuel containing more than 150 billion Curie of radioactivity" [Karpai 2006]. With a uniform spray 150 billion curies we get 300 curies / sq km land surface. This is far beyond the norms of alienation and a ban on farming practices on Chernobyl. Rough equivalent of (empirical formula - 1 curie per square meter. gives 10 roentgen per hour, 1 curiу per square km. - 10 mkr. / h) is a breed of activity of 3 milliroentgen per hour. This is not enough for instant death, as is only about 2 rem in a month, and the maximum safe dose of 25 X-rays will be typed only for the year. However, such an area for a long time (in the SNF many longlived elements, including plutonium) become unfit for agriculture, as these substances accumulate in vegetation and in animals, and the subsequent use of the meet lead to strong impact on the human body. In other words, the survivors will not be able to farm and will be doomed to gradual deterioration of the diseases. Still it will not be “guaranteed human extinction” because people are very adaptive and tenacious, if, of course, do not intervene there any other factors. Based on the st2005 - 30 million curies of cesium give 45,000 cases of cancer (but including resettlement). Simple proportion here gives 200 million expected cases fatal cancer from 150 billion curies. In addition, 400 reactors on Earth will be located approximately 2 billion curies of activity on each. That is 800 billion, most of which will fall on a shortlived isotopes. Explosions quickly will lay the short-lived isotopes over a large area, so that they will have time to act. Plus activity themselves explosions. The most difficult to estimate the burst of reactivity in reactors at the time of the explosion (see more in 2 chapter). If we assume that the total activity released into the 1 trillion Curie, the infection is 2000 curies per square kilometer. km in the middle of the Earth, or 20 miles roentgen per hour, or about 200 roentgen per year. Although much of this will wash into the ocean or decay, etc, it is necessary to compensate for the ability of the particles to remain in the human body and to make 10 times greater harm by internal radiation. This estimate is valid up to order of magnitude, that is the real value lies from 20 to 2000 p / person. However, if the lower value is guaranteed safe, then the top is guaranteed fatal. As a result, it is impossible to make an unambiguous conclusion about whether this will result in human extinction, or only to a local pollution. SNF amount should increase from 260 tons to 600 tons, from 2006 to 2020, and also is growing number of reactors. That is, the consequences of a possible

catastrophe grows with time. The number of nuclear states also icreases as well as accuracy of missiles. In addition, people will survive in residential shelters or by continuous use of personal protection without consuming water, air and food outside. Ways to prevent this catastrophe: • Global disarmament and reduction of risk of war. • Creation of the world reserves of food and clean water for 1 year • Stockpiling of tablets with potassium and iodine. • Construction of shelters and cleaning agents, dosimeters, costumes and so on. • A vaccine against radiation? (It was a message about it) Development of radiomeditsiny. • Putting upper limit on total amount of radioactivity which could be stored on the Earth. Like less than 1 trillion curie. The main problem of the above estimates - this is how you can trust estimate of 200 000 deaths of prisoners in a reactor. The uncertainty in estimates of radiation risk is very high. Estimates of the number of Chernobyl victims ranged from 50 people. proponents of the development of nuclear energy to 64 million people in the radical environmentalists. Estimates of the number of victims of radiation is even more politicized than the estimates of the number of victims of Stalinist repression. And although it seems logical to reject the extreme figures as distorted and choose a weighted average of the estimate, it could lead to an underestimation of risk. And what right those who say about 8 or 64 million cases of cancer? 2. The explosion of a small nuclear bomb inside a station Suppose a terrorist is an employee of the station and he brink (or assemble from readily available materials such as spent nuclear fuel), a small nuclear device (a few kilotons) inside the station. Assume the worst scenario. The bomb is put beneath working reactor. At the time of explosion of the reactor is in critical condition, that is, it has chain reaction. In the moment of explosion, the compression wave is formed, which is moving through the reactor from the bottom up, clutching uranium. This will cause parts of the reactor which are in a compression wave (in microseconds) to turn in the supercritical condition, and the chain reaction in them dramatically increase. (In the compression zone occurs prompt criticality needed for the occurrence of an explosive process, in the same reactor is used delayed criticality associated with the fact that part of the isotope decays after a few seconds.) The possibility of this depends on the specific reactor design, for example, the orientation of the fuel rods in relation to the compression wave – it must be longitudinal, so that the rods had time to shrink along the longitudinal axis, not

expanding to sides. It also depends on the braking system of neutrons in the reactor. Yet we cannot know the consequences of a nuclear explosion at the reactor without carrying out computer simulation. But the terrorist could use such simulation, and chose the most vulnerable type of reactor and place for the bomb. That is, he placed the bomb so as to cause maximum enhancement of the explosion. I think that the location of the bomb at the reactor would lead to longitudinal compression of the fuel rods and release the entire mass of the reactor up. In addition, the first atomic bomb would create a neutron flux, which is spread inside the reactor and dramatically enhance all the nuclear reactions in it. Compression area with an explosive reaction will serve as a source of neutrons, and additional compression to the upper parts of a reactor. Due to the enormous physical dimensions of the reactor retention time of uranium in the critical region would be larger than the atomic bomb, and it will lead to more complete combustion of uranium. Modern reactor has a thermal capacity of 4 GW, the stock of fuel for a year and spends while only 5 percent of the fuel (or rather, does not spend, since his work enough plutonium partly able to participate in a nuclear explosion). 20 * 35 million seconds * 10.4 ** 9dzh = 2.8 * 10 ** 18dzh = roughly 750 megatons. This energy is the upper limit, and any real explosion will be weaker. In addition, there may be an exploding thermonuclear reactions inside the reactor, for example, by deuterium in water in the cooling circuits. This water is enriched in deuterium by neutron capture during the last operation of the reactor or during the explosion (?), Especially if the cooling is used heavy water as in some types of reactors. 4 such CANDO reactor located in South Korea. In such a reactor, probably has about 100 tons of heavy water in the core, or 20 tons of deuterium. 1 kg of deuterium and tritium yields an energy of 80 kilotonnes per kg, http://www.rhbz.ru/nuclear-weapon/phisical-base-of-nuclearweapon.html of deuterium is less than, say, 50. In any case, it will be 1 gigatons of fusion energy in a reactor. Fusion energy will be very actively divide uranium 238 (available in large quantities in the fuel) by neutrons, which will (at least) doubling the force of the explosion, and the manifold increase contamination. If we are talking about the explosion, for example, in Japan at the Kashiwazaki station (written before Fukusima), there are six reactors next to each other and the explosion of one of them (100 megatons) would destroy the others, and may even lead to their compression and explosion. Then the total explosion of 600 megatons, plus the reaction of the spent nuclear fuel. Such an explosion can lead to destruction and its neighboring nuclear power plant. For example, Fukushima-1 spaced at 10 km from the Fukushima-2. Yet the density of the reactor is not large enough on the planet to go to "chain reaction" - an explosion of one of the reactor leads to an explosion of another, and so on. Such an explosion would lead to complete destruction within a radius of about 100 km.

But the greatest damage will be from the radiation release. It manifold surpasses Chornobyl for several reasons: A) The reactor will be completely vaporized and the steam gets going far beyond the blast. In Chernobyl the most part of fragments of the reactor was folded back into the sarcophagus, or had settled in the form of dust on the surrounding area. As a result of contamination of plutonium and cesium 137 would be ten times more. B) The Chernobyl had released mostly relatively long-lived isotopes, since the short-lived - in a few days half-life - mostly disbanded before the explosion of the Rector - that is, they constantly are generated during operation of the reactor and it also fell apart. In our case, all the short-lived isotopes occur at the time of the explosion. In other words, all the iodine-131 with a decay period of 8 days, thrown in Chernobyl, had accumulated over the last 2 weeks before the accident, as more previously accumulated iodine have time to decay. That is, the release of radioactive iodine will be 100-1000 times higher than in Chernobyl. B) spent fuel pools will evaporate from the next to nuclear reactor and radioactive reactor construction too. A large number of isotopes will be produced by neutrons during the explosion in the reactor design. Due to this release of radiation will be greater than a nuclear explosion of equal power. This will worsen the situation further by 10-100 times. As a result, the total emission of radiation will be approximately 10,000 times higher than in Chernobyl, particularly short-lived isotopes. As a result of that large populated areas will be subjected to radiation (of the order throughout the territory of South Korea and Japan), and evacuation would be impossible. In Chernobyl survived inhabitants of Pripyat, the liquidators, the staff of the plant, but due to their rapid evacuation. A man who spent a day sunbathing on the roof of a house in Pripyat in a few days after the accident, has died. One can argue that from a short-lived radiation would kill humans within a few kilometers from Chernobyl, say an area of 10 square meters. km., if there were no evacuations. In our case, it would be an area of hundreds of thousands of square kilometers. Although the majority of the population managed to evacuate or to hide, about half have died - from a short-lived (up to 10 days) radiation. The worst scenario would be if at the same time in such a way would have been blown hundreds of reactors. This is possible if it is proved that nuclear missile attack could lead to a nuclear reactor nuclear explosion (not just evaporating as we discussed in the 1 chapter) at the exact contact with the reactor building. This is only possible when using cruise missiles with high accuracy. In the world there are three areas with a high concentration of nuclear reactors - Japan + South Korea, west Europe and the U.S. East coast. In each region there are about a hundred reactors. In the case of rebellion on nuclear submarines with cruise missiles, is one such boat could have hit a hundred reactors. The probability of such a rebellion could not be considered zero, and some types of boats stored codes of launch on

the board. The threat of strike on the reactor can be an instrument of global blackmail. But in order to kick brought an explosion of reactors, it is necessary that they were not plugged, it is needed the element of surprise. In this case, a one-time release of radiation would be about 1 million of Chernobyl, or 50 trillion curies. Which is approximately equivalent to 10 thousand x-rays per person per year. This is guaranteed to lethal dose for most of humanity, even though much of it will have on the short-lived isotopes, namely, iodine, and certain groups of people can sit out of its sealed shelters. But the biosphere will be destroyed, agriculture destroyed, and it is probable that these survivors are a group of people will be doomed to further extinction. 3. Devil's Tube One can also imagine another course of radioactive contamination - the spontaneous formation of "tubes devil" - that is, the resumption of a nuclear chain reaction in molten nuclear fuel, which was formed after nuclear accident. (This could happen or already happened in Fikusima -7 April 2011) That's lile the latest generation of reactors - molten salt reactors. If such a reaction starts, it will take the form of a beginning, then fading boil. Japanese a few years ago already "achieved" that, when one barrel was filled with too much uranium solution, and 20 hours, it was it criticality. The main danger of such boiling is the continuous generation and release into the atmosphere is very volatile short-lived isotopes, especially iodine-131, with a decay period of 8 days. This will lead to a very strong background radiation at a distance of hundred kilometers from the reactor, the envy of the wind rose. If boiling water reactor will not be on the surface, but somewhere in the bowels of the block, inside ruines, pour it from the top will be difficult. The water can both enhance and diminish the reactivity. In 8 days air can pass half the globe. Iodine is actively absorbed by the thyroid gland. The only way to get rid of such a "smoker" is to blow up the reactor, but it will lead to the dissipation of other isotopes across the globe. The probability of a smokehouse can be suppressed by putting inside the reactor building the bags of boron compounds - they stop the reaction. But it requires work of kamikaze, and it is not clear whether they will have time to run back to the bag to the innards of the reactor building.

4. "China Syndrome" - penetration of the crust That is, the formation of a large drop of very heavy liquid fuel, which is on its way to melt all - concrete, gravel, rock.

A similar project is discussed in an article in “Nature” to create a probe that could reach the Earth's core. This so-called Stevenson probe, which consists of 1 million tons of molten iron and burns its way down. As shown by Milan Cirkovic in his article "Geo-engineering that went awry" http://www.proza.ru/2007/11/10/290 penetrating Earth curst with huge drop of molten metal (Stevenson probe) can lead to the formation of the channel to the molten core of the Earth up to the surface on which the top begins to break out of magma and gases. This will lead to degassing of the nucleus in the form of a giant volcanic eruption that will completely change the composition of the atmosphere and destroy all life on Earth. It was shown that even a small drop of fuel - 10 kg - will dive at a speed of 2.5 meters / day. A drop of several hundred tons can dive to a few tens of meters per day, I think. Or 10 km per year, for instance. Under Japan are large volcanic reservoirs that feed the Fuji and other volcanoes, the distance to them is around a few tens of kilometers down. It is unknown whether there are magma tanks directly under the Fukusima station. In the mantle of the movement will drop even faster as mantia is hot and plastic. Time to reach these volcanic reservoirs may be about 10 years. It is possible that the channel behind the fuel droplet is completely closed, but it is possible that he will remain softer due to residual fuel on its walls. Then this channel will extrude up, like toothpaste from a tube. And well, if this shallow reservoir, which simply spit out the fuel and lead to the emergence of a new volcano. Worse, if the drop reach a deep reservoir at a depth of hundreds of kilometers, or to the very earth core, which will mentioned above degassing of the core (which is probably long overdue, and already partly taken place on Venus). This immersion of the drop can take dozens of years, in the course of which nothing much will be observed. Or maybe less. According to personal communication of a Russian scientist, they performed studies on the establishment of a nuclear reactor, glorifying its way inside the earth to deliver a research probe to the core, and the term of his dives are much smaller. 5. Combustion of spent nuclear fuel in bulk storage This problem is reduced to the point 1, but the scale will be at least 100 times less pollution will not be short-lived isotopes.

6. The collapse of technological civilization, as a result of a systemic crisis, associated with not developing new technologies, radiophobia, economic crisis, the evacuation of the population, rise in price of food, lack of energy

Mainly affects the factor of radiation - it's panic. When an accident source of cesium in the Brazilian city of Guyana, 4 people were killed, but the GDP of this region fell in the next year by 30 percent due to the exodus of businesses. Good example of such consequence is the fall of USSR after Chernobyl. The more complex the system, the major role in her behavior plays an informational component. In other words, it can be destroyed due to incorrect commands. A person can die from fear, but a tree can’t. Remote effects of radiation is difficult to measure but radiophobia is real as an idea that took over the masses. Just as the mines in a minefield not kill many soldiers, but paralyze the activity of the infantry, this is their primary role. As such a crisis, we can consider the possible consequences of the accident at the Fukushima (written March 26, 2011 d). One of the possible worst-case scenarios. Contamination of the sea and food, as well as fear of infection will lead to higher prices for products in the world. At the same time increase the need for fossil fuel, to plug holes in the power systems. This is a bio-fuel and fertilizer, also hit prices, a threat of famine. People begin to stockpile. Intense unrest, such as Arabic, 2011, can also capture India, Saudi Arabia, Algeria and China. There will be a further rise in oil prices, global recession, the collapse of the financial system. There will be a movement of Luddites, destroying technology. Spread of illness associated with consumption of radioactive food. The world will be in the depths of the all-out civil war, many "tribes". The world economy will collapse. Will there be local nuclear war. Other nuclear power plants explode. Spread the virus and drug-resistant TB, exacerbated by global warming. The planet's population will be reduced several times. Further extension of global catastrophe is possible, the increase of degradation and extinction, or the gradual restoration of civilization. Another scenario involves a systemic crisis, and after a period of degradation beginning of increased competition of superpowers, a new arms race, creating new dangerous weapons (cobalt bomb, nanotech, viruses) and then a global catastrophe with their application.

7. Explosive release of all nuclear energy, located at the station, as well as thermonuclear reactions in heavy water (deuterium) in the heavy water reactor. The worst possible scenario - nuclear explosion - assumes an instantaneous release of all nuclear energy, which is located at the station. It was repeatedly stated that this can never happen, because the plant is specifically designed to avoid explosion.

However, there are two things. First, the larger the critical area, the longer it will fly apart in the event of uncontrollable chain reaction. A reactor core is much greater than the core of the atomic bomb - a few meters compared to 10 cm However, the reactor continued to be critical even at the beginning of the expansion of the core, has a large stock of household criticality. That is, with control rods going to happen something extraordinary - for example, the very strength of their throws beginning of the explosion of a reactor. Second, own modern reactors are boiling water in high-strength housing, which can provide a temporary retention of flying debris, and thereby strengthen the force of the explosion. A further scenario is similar to what we discussed in the paragraph on nuclear terrorists from nuclear power. 8. The destruction of several large nuclear power plant at the break of the dam, or other natural disasters, leading to massive destruction of nuclear For example, the explosion of a supervolcano, super earthquake, tsunami (as in Japan in 2011 but worse), impact of an asteroid into the ocean. The consequences of such a catastrophe would be less than when the nuclear attack on a nuclear power plant, but otherwise comparable. Such initial catastrophe can only cover a large area - otherwise it will itself be a global and lead to the destruction of humanity before it dies from radiation. 9. The coming to power in a country with nuclear power of the radicals who want to create Doomsday nuclear weapon. Alteration of nuclear power plants for producing large quantities of dangerous isotope and then bombing it. In several years in a nuclear power plants can be created several tons of hazardous isotopes (maximum), if rods of special elements put in neutron flux. The spectrum of the isotopes in "natural" nuclear explosion itself is quite dangerous because it involves a lot of isotopes has an affinity for the human body. This iodine, cesium and strontium. But in the reactor at any one time has not a lot of these isotopes - about 1 kg or less, since they are not the main reaction product. When the conscious creating of such isotopes can hypothetically earn a thousand times more. Estimates for the creation of a Doomsday cobalt bomb talk about its weight of about 100 000 tons, which is much larger than the mass of a typical reactor. Amount of cobalt-60 in the explosion must reach thousands of tons of it to become a global threat. Thus, the occupants of one reactor will be able to do in the worst case emissions in 1000 of Chernobyl, or 50 billion curies, but less than 1 trillion threshold at which to begin the risk of extinction. We can assume that they can catch a few nuclear stations, but in this case in their hands will be a whole

industrialized country, and they may already be trying to build a Doomsday Machine from scratch. They can achieve even more if they use nuclear power to produce materials for nuclear bomb, and then reequipping this plant so that it accurately all detonated at undermining this charge and that the neutrons generated by this explosion irradiated a large number of the most dangerous in the long run substances, such as , with the release of cobalt-60. This may increase the risk 10 times up to 500 billion curie and is close to human extinction threshold of 1 trillion. 10. Power outages across the earth as a result of a certain global cataclysm, which leads to a loss of cooling at all nuclear power plants. For example, superflash the Sun can lead to global disruptions to electricity. Or a world war, or the effects of medium-sized asteroid (1 km). This is the worst case lead to the fact that each of the 400 reactors events unfold, as the Fukushima-1. As a result of significant contamination occurs industrial areas, which coupled with the shutdown of electricity would make problematic a rapid recovery of an industrial civilization. That is, there are probability of transition to the spiral of a systemic crisis that could lead to the extinction of mankind. Note that the very nature of self-sustaining system crisis is not very dependent on the cause, which started it, and it will develop on its own laws, and the likelihood will it to extinction or not depends on its intrinsic properties, which are still difficult to assess. 11. Underestimation of long-term effects of radiation on man and biosphere "Small doses of radiation are dangerous for its long-term consequences. Russian scientists have found that the experimental mice that received low doses of radiation, finished his race for the sixth generation: from generation to generation of the mutated chromosome set, which eventually led to complete infertility. http://www.utro.ru/articles/2011/03/30/965663.shtml Marine Pollution nucleotides is considered to be the lesser evil, as in sea water contains 4.6 billion tons of uranium, and therefore large amounts of decay products of its 235 isotope. (Eg, 200 kg of polonium in every moment). 12) Distribution of nuclear power plants around the world leads to a sharp increase in the spread of nuclear weapons, primarily due to the fact that reactor-grade plutonium learn to use for military purposes, as well as by the general spread of nuclear technology, which then leads to an increase in other nuclear risks

Risk rise as square of a number of rectors in the world, because 1) the more rectors we have, the more chance for proliferation 2) the more reactors we have, the more radiation they will release in case in mass bombing. Conclusion Surely this list is not complete, as to come up with these scenarios was simple, and some may be much harder. Only the following scenarios could lead to a complete human extinction: • Strike by nuclear missiles on the majority of reactors on Earth, which leads to a nuclear explosion of each reactor. The probability of it depends both on the strike itself (it can safely be estimated as less than 1 percent for 21) and on the likelihood that a nuclear strike on the reactor will cause it to explode (also less than 1 percent), totaling 0.01 percent maximum. (It probably has not seen as a measure of frequency of an event, but as a measure of the rate that we should do at this event, see "The structure of global catastrophe"). • Penetration of corium to the Earth's core with subsequent degassing. This scenario is also unlikely - it can be estimated as equal to the probability of the previous one. • System crisis of colossal catastrophe in nuclear power plants. This crisis is starting a chain of irreversible degradation. Thus, the plant could lead to humanity died with a probability of 0.03% in the 21 century, which is significantly greater than the risk of catastrophe at the collider, but less risk of AI, nanotech and biological weapons. Currently, nuclear power plants provide about 6 percent of world energy production, on a par with the burning of biomass (ie wood and dung - 4%). That is, nuclear power can not save humanity from the energy crisis in the current number. If the middle of the 21 st century it will be the main producer of energy, which in principle can be achieved using reactors and thorium breeders, their number should increase by about 50 times (up to 20 000 reactors). Number of long-lived wastes will increase even more, because life will increase. In this case, global catastrophe with all the nuclear power plant will release 50 times more radiation, and the likelihood that it will lead to the extinction of humanity increase. Availability of nuclear weapons by the middle of the 21 st century will also rise, as due to the spread of nuclear power plants themselves, and because of cheaper production technologies of anything (nanotech). The accuracy of missiles also will grow. As a result of nuclear attack on the plant becomes more likely. STRUCTURE OF THE GLOBAL CATASTROPHE Risks of human extinction in the XXI century http://www.scribd.com/doc/6250354/STRUCTURE-OF-THE-GLOBALCATASTROPHE-Risks-of-human-extinction-in-the-XXI-centuryhttp://avturchin.narod.ru/sgkengl3.doc

P.D. Smith. Cobalt bomb. (from the book “Doomsday men”) http://www.proza.ru/texts/2008/02/12/83.html

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful