Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

258

I know a lot of toxic poison got out from the "'accident"' and they say it only effected something like a ten mile radius. I think that's bullshit, at a minimum I bet it's about 100 miles before it starts not being a serious hazard.

Do y'all think about 300 miles from the site would be safe

I know a lot of toxic poison got out from the "'accident"' and they say it only effected something like a ten mile radius. I think that's bullshit, at a minimum I bet it's about 100 miles before it starts not being a serious hazard. Do y'all think about 300 miles from the site would be safe

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (43).
[–] • 0 pt

Find out the best estimate you can get of the total volume of hazardous materials released in the accident. Convert that volume to molar mass using the recorded density values of the materials for the given volume. Select a radius you want to test out. Get the area of circle of the radius. Divide the molar mass by that area to get molecule count per unit area. Decide how many molecules per unit area is scary to you and try other radii if you thinks it's too scary or not scary enough. Rinse and repeat.

How many molecules of vinyl chloride per square foot is scary to you?

[–] • 0 pt

You are assuming fallout has perfectly uniform distribution. It doesn't. Rain at the wrong time, prevailing winds, all of this shit is a factor. You have to test the specific area.

[–] • -1 pt

You are assuming fallout has perfectly uniform distribution. It doesn't. Rain at the wrong time, prevailing winds, all of this shit is a factor. You have to test the specific area.

OP is assuming the same thing. I'm making it uniform to prove a point. That point is the larger the area, the lower the concentration. There was not enough material released to warrant a 300-mile radius fear as OP implied. Also, the materials burned which changed them chemically and made other compounds. Much of the new compounds were not hazardous (CO2 and water and such). The hypothetical scenario needs only answered by a hypothetical answer. I did that to show the absurdity of being overly fearful here.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

The hypothetical scenario needs only answered by a hypothetical answer. I did that to show the absurdity of being overly fearful here.

I am being fearful out of ignorance, my fear is not unrealistic until i have evidence that I shouldn't worry about it. My life, family and health means alot more to me than it does to you and i'm acting according to what I currently know about the poison and its impact on the environment that may effect our health. I really wouldnt mind going around testing everything, though it seems like you suggested it to state how absurd the question at hand is. Whether the air or ground is poisoned and livable in the long term is not a hypothetical concern, and it does need a real answer, preferably not provided by you. Why are you even commenting on this post if you dont respect the question or the answer? Dont answer that, it's a rhetorical question.