End of the world (ish) scenario 99% mortality
- Thread starter moon man
- Start date
With no one managing all the nuclear plants they would go in to meltdown and we'd be ****** eventually
Lol good point. I must admit I did enjoy lockdown 1, no traffic noise, no aircraft. Other than being much harder work I think I could soon get used to a depopulated world.
Not sure... 1% still a lot of people alive, around 78 million people.
We would probably still have mobile phones, internet etc working, so would try to contact people.
Would have to organize what to do and where to move the dead bodies, otherwise it would become a big mess.
Nuclear power plants must have some kind of security and auto shutdown systems in place.
We would probably still have mobile phones, internet etc working, so would try to contact people.
Would have to organize what to do and where to move the dead bodies, otherwise it would become a big mess.
With no one managing all the nuclear plants they would go in to meltdown and we'd be ****** eventually
Nuclear power plants must have some kind of security and auto shutdown systems in place.
Permabanned
Yes, we saw them in action in Chernobyl and Fukushima, they work well...
Associate
I don't know about that - wouldn't the electricity supply die pretty quickly? Power stations don't run themselves.
Well they were a little different they chernobyl was deliberately put in an unusual state till it broke the safeties and fukushima had its desil generators washed away.
But no one got killed by radiation from fukushima so it would still be safe in this scenario
That's because the entire area legged it as soon as it happened. It's still dangerous to go back.
Permabanned
Grief, 18,500 people died as a result of Fukushima, and over 37,000 people are still living as evacuees, contaminated soil as high as a mountain, unknown long term damage to ocean and wildlife. Financially it was and is a mega expensive ongoing disaster. What do you rate as a "real" nuclear accident then
? This hypothetical global disaster mustn't include tsunamis then, they aren't fair?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 7,748
History says that cities become depopulated after the collapse of complex societies and people return to what will will sustain them and their needs - subsistance farming. Cities fall into decay until reestablished at a later time but that requires more organisation and political stability. There will typically be a period of anarchy with petty warlords claiming overlordship and even conflict but eventually these will coalesce into larger units until ultimately the country is unified under a new order as one fiefdom, kingdom if you will, rises to the top and dominates the others. This may take centuries.
Paleolithic society didn't exist in a meaningful sense just groups of extended families of hunter gatherers living off the land but that can only sustain a low population density as there simply isn't enough food to sustain large numbers of people or complex societies, this changes with agriculture. The first agricultural communities are largely peaceable largely due to hard and short lives but groups will compete for resources which in turn leads to people who specialise in warfare and so a warrior class develops. And so on. History is a movement from simple small numbers of scattered population to large complex societies which can be very complex but are not immune to collapsing into simpler forms. Like that which saw the end of Roman rule in western europe saw society revert to a simple form, arabs living in wealthy sophisticated Baghdad thought of western europeans of the time on the same cultural level as somalis which probably wasn't far wrong.
Isaac Asimov's Foundation books is an analogy of the end of the roman empire, how to preserve knowledge through the coming centuries of darkness to found or rather refound the brave new world that will follow but set in the far future, the idea being that history is cyclical.
"The more things changed, the more they stayed the same."
Grief, 18,500 people died as a result of Fukushima, and over 37,000 people are still living as evacuees, contaminated soil as high as a mountain, unknown long term damage to ocean and wildlife. Financially it was and is a mega expensive ongoing disaster. What do you rate as a "real" nuclear accident then
Uhhhh, wut?
Grief, 18,500 people died as a result of Fukushima, and over 37,000 people are still living as evacuees, contaminated soil as high as a mountain, unknown long term damage to ocean and wildlife. Financially it was and is a mega expensive ongoing disaster. What do you rate as a "real" nuclear accident then
Are you mistakenly counting the people that died in the earthquake/tsunami as no-one has died from the nuclear accident?
But again in this disaster scenario you're pretty OK from the threat of Japanese nuclear reactors in the uk
Edit yes 18500 is the figure for the tsunami deaths not the nuclear powerplant winkyface
Permabanned
The tsunami and the failure of the nuclear plant caused that many deaths, and at least that many displacements. Even the Guardian agrees:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...ars-since-triple-disaster-killed-18500-people
Nuclear power is on the bleeding edge of global safety risks, IMO and the more plants that get built the higher the risk of more disasters, maybe on a much much greater scale. Just get the population down and nail down migration meanwhile.
Wrong, again. Is everything you post wrong?
Soldato
Head for London, plenty of good places to live and plenty of food. Unless it was a zombie outbreak or some other contagion then it would be the countryside.
Do the maths. 99% dead still leaves 700k people in the UK.That's a lot of people - the population UK in the Dark Ages. Except this time we have plenty of books, tinned food, etc to assist recovery. Go to your nearest church and ring the bell and wait for people to turn up. Then go to the nearest city and ring another church bell. Unless it's a zombie apocalypse, of course. Once a community has been gathered you can together figure out what to do next. Winter is almost here so people will probably want to move to SE or SW England. Humans being humans we'll breed like rabbits and the population will recover within several generations.
With no one managing all the nuclear plants they would go in to meltdown and we'd be ****** eventually
Most would gracefully shutdown as they exceed maintenance windows, in the longer run there might be breakdown of containment and localised contamination.
There might be some which don't but a scenario like Chernobyl is an exception not the rule.
Man of Honour
I have to be pushed around in a wheelchair and I have to take 14 tablets a day - I wouldn't last long on my own.
99% mortality isn't an apocalypse (though it might seem so). You need a few more 9s. Even 99.99% mortality leaves 7,000 people in the UK, more than enough for a town and surrounding villages. 99.999% and it starts to get a little iffy with only 700 people. 99.9999% - 70 people - is definitely squeaky bum time.