Wow, 20 years after Chernobly

[Tiamat]

Yeah, very tragic indeed. Additionally, think about what happened to the men who saved that area from total annihilation. A team of men were sent in with only wetsuits to wade through the radioactive water to open the valves to let the water flow out so that it didnt leach into the ground table. These men most likely died as they openned the valve.

None of the Firemen were told of the danger associated with radiation. They all suffered/died.

 

[lytalbayre]

I read some interesting articles about new types of plants being developed for China. They are small plants that have the ability to be linked together to provide higher out-put. The sweet think about them, however, was that in the event of a serious problem, they won't melt-down. They never reach a critical point and cool on their own (i forget why, but it sounded good).

 

[GTaudiophile]

Another good article on the disaster:

Many people think that what happened at Chernobyl was a worst case scenario but this is not the case. Weeks after the explosion the reactor was still burning ferociously. The Scientists and engineers desperately trying to solve this appalling situation were petrified that the reactor could burn a hole in its concrete foundations and come into contact with the water in the suppression pools and the water table. The result would have been a hydrogen bomb making life in most of Europe and the western part of the Soviet Union unliveable. Military divers and miners were rushed in to pump the water out and then pump concrete under the burning reactor. Virtually all of the miners, divers and those soldiers who went out onto the roof died long ago, most of them were relatively young.

:Q

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Shawn
What year were these pictures taken. Were these childern born after the incident? Are these the childern of the people who were exposed? I am confused.

The photos where taken this year...hence the 20 years after part. Considering the ages of some of the children, they were born after the incident.

This (the pictures and commentary) is crap. Those kids are too young to have been harmed by the accident.

You have to be careful what you read about Chernobyl because it's kind of the Soviet equivalent of the Gulf War Syndrome. ie everyone blames it for all their health problems even though most scientists agree they are unrelated.


Groups opposed to nuclear power make the accident out to be a lot worse than it was. In reality it is estimed that only around 50 people died in the immediate aftermath and maybe a few thousand more from cancer over the last twenty years.

Still some scary ****** though..


edit: Wikipedia has some more accurate info.

Are you retarded? You don't have any clue do you.

 

[TitanDiddly]

OMG LEFT WING LIBERAL ATTACK!
NUKE POWER KILLS! JIHAD ON CLEAN ENERGY!

 

[GalvanizedYankee]

Thank you OP. For those that still survive

Link on the right, shows in pics how/why the melt down happened.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/4946456.stm

halik, you crazy car guy, I had polio at age 5 and doctors had a bit of concern about late life reoccurance. I bet they take a hard look at you every examination you have. Strange how they use past personal History in thier work. After awhile, I stopped telling them about my past polio. Pick, pick, pick=KRIPES! Leave me alone

Built, run and maintained properly, nuclear is a good answer to our energy needs. The question is, what to do with the waste.?


...Galvanized

 

[skyking]

The key is to reduce the gross consumption of energy. That will make many other forms more viable in the future.
RIP to those who died so that we may live

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: lytalbayre
I read some interesting articles about new types of plants being developed for China. They are small plants that have the ability to be linked together to provide higher out-put. The sweet think about them, however, was that in the event of a serious problem, they won't melt-down. They never reach a critical point and cool on their own (i forget why, but it sounded good).

Our current reactors are like that. It is, in a sentence, impossible to melt them down.

 

[kmrivers]

404 Spell Check Not Found

EDIT: Wow this happenend on my 2nd Birthday... I had no idea..

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: lytalbayre
I read some interesting articles about new types of plants being developed for China. They are small plants that have the ability to be linked together to provide higher out-put. The sweet think about them, however, was that in the event of a serious problem, they won't melt-down. They never reach a critical point and cool on their own (i forget why, but it sounded good).

Pebble bed reactors. Impossible to meltdown because thermodynamics wont allow it.

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: lytalbayre

Originally posted by: ATLien247

Originally posted by: CitizenDoug

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Shawn
What year were these pictures taken. Were these childern born after the incident? Are these the childern of the people who were exposed? I am confused.

The photos where taken this year...hence the 20 years after part. Considering the ages of some of the children, they were born after the incident.

This (the pictures and commentary) is crap. Those kids are too young to have been harmed by the accident.

So tell me, what are the half lives of the radioactive isotopes released at Chernobyl? Twenty years is nothing!

Maybe you should learn some more about radioactive properties of cesium (half-lifes, etc.) before you make an ignorant comment. This will be effecting their environment and them for a long time, and I think it's very insensitive for you to try to quantify their plight.

I assume you meant to direct your reply to CitizenDoug and not me...

 

[ATLien247]

Originally posted by: skyking
The key is to reduce the gross consumption of energy. That will make many other forms more viable in the future.
RIP to those who died so that we may live

Fat chance at that. The world (the U.S. especially) is ever hungry for more power. Perhaps by using energy more efficiently we could reduce consumption. But any other means of reduction would have a detrimetnal effect on productivity and the economy.

For those of you touting nuclear fuel as "clean", you are failing to include nuclear waste in the equation. Until we have a viable long-term solution for nuclear waste, I think that using nuclear fuel to produce power for the masses is a bad idea.

Granted, in the context of airborne pollutants, nuclear fuel is "cleaner" than fossil fuels. However, I would much rather see more resources devoted to alternative energy sources. Solar and geothermal seem to be the most promising, someone just needs to take ownership of the energy crisis and start setting an example for the world.

 

[MrsBugi]

Chernobyl was a tragic and unfortunate instance, but such a freak accident should not prevent people from being open to the very benefitial option of nuclear power. If done right, it has enormous benefits for society and the environment.

Chernobyl = :thumbsdown:

Nuclear power = :thumbsup:

 

[Hyperion042]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Many people think that what happened at Chernobyl was a worst case scenario but this is not the case. Weeks after the explosion the reactor was still burning ferociously. The Scientists and engineers desperately trying to solve this appalling situation were petrified that the reactor could burn a hole in its concrete foundations and come into contact with the water in the suppression pools and the water table. The result would have been a hydrogen bomb making life in most of Europe and the western part of the Soviet Union unliveable. Military divers and miners were rushed in to pump the water out and then pump concrete under the burning reactor. Virtually all of the miners, divers and those soldiers who went out onto the roof died long ago, most of them were relatively young.

This is a terrible article and an outright lie.

Chernobyl gets hyped up a lot, but I think it really demonstrates the extreme ~safety~ of nuclear power. When the worst case scenario kills fewer people over twenty years than a comparative coal system kills in maybe two or three years, that's exceptional. When the 'unliveable aftermath' of the meltdown results in an area with lower levels of background radiation than certain other places in the world (where people live without any apparent increase in cancer rates), that's even better. When this was using archaic technology with all its safeties turned off, that's fan-freakin-tastic.

This isn't to say that the disaster was a good thing - it's a tragedy, but the fact remains that if every power system was upconverted to Nuclear power and Chernobyl happened once per 20 years, we'd still have grossly lower death tolls than what coal is causing. All this bloody rabble about Chernobyl is driven by irrational fears and an out-of-control media with no accountability.

 

[shortspanishguy]

I have a 2 friends that were born in Belarus in 1988. They are both 6'6'' and have wierd body types.

They are apparently pretty healthy but something just does not seem right.

 

[Shawn]

I don't think we should be messing with nuclear power until we know how to safely dispose of the radioactive materials.

 

[Molondo]

Originally posted by: Hyperion042

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Many people think that what happened at Chernobyl was a worst case scenario but this is not the case. Weeks after the explosion the reactor was still burning ferociously. The Scientists and engineers desperately trying to solve this appalling situation were petrified that the reactor could burn a hole in its concrete foundations and come into contact with the water in the suppression pools and the water table. The result would have been a hydrogen bomb making life in most of Europe and the western part of the Soviet Union unliveable. Military divers and miners were rushed in to pump the water out and then pump concrete under the burning reactor. Virtually all of the miners, divers and those soldiers who went out onto the roof died long ago, most of them were relatively young.

This is a terrible article and an outright lie.

Chernobyl gets hyped up a lot, but I think it really demonstrates the extreme ~safety~ of nuclear power. When the worst case scenario kills fewer people over twenty years than a comparative coal system kills in maybe two or three years, that's exceptional. When the 'unliveable aftermath' of the meltdown results in an area with lower levels of background radiation than certain other places in the world (where people live without any apparent increase in cancer rates), that's even better. When this was using archaic technology with all its safeties turned off, that's fan-freakin-tastic.

This isn't to say that the disaster was a good thing - it's a tragedy, but the fact remains that if every power system was upconverted to Nuclear power and Chernobyl happened once per 20 years, we'd still have grossly lower death tolls than what coal is causing. All this bloody rabble about Chernobyl is driven by irrational fears and an out-of-control media with no accountability.

Why don't you go visit the plant and settle in the are for couple years.

 

[kevman]

marked for later

 

[Sentinel]

That is incredibly sad.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Pandora?s Box will never be sealed, until we manage some magical process to get rid of radioactive material.

Then if we manage the intellect to outlaw the entire nuclear technology.

You understand that new reactors cant explode like this right?

 

[Patt]

Great photo documentary though sad ... thanks for the link

 

[Fenixgoon]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Another good article on the disaster:

Many people think that what happened at Chernobyl was a worst case scenario but this is not the case. Weeks after the explosion the reactor was still burning ferociously. The Scientists and engineers desperately trying to solve this appalling situation were petrified that the reactor could burn a hole in its concrete foundations and come into contact with the water in the suppression pools and the water table. The result would have been a hydrogen bomb making life in most of Europe and the western part of the Soviet Union unliveable. Military divers and miners were rushed in to pump the water out and then pump concrete under the burning reactor. Virtually all of the miners, divers and those soldiers who went out onto the roof died long ago, most of them were relatively young.

:Q

how exactly would that create an H-bomb? the water would vaporize, and probably decompose into H and O.. but H-bombs use deuterium and tritium... someone care to explain?

 

[Tiamat]

Originally posted by: Shawn
I don't think we should be messing with nuclear power until we know how to safely dispose of the radioactive materials.

what is your definition of safely dispose?

After June 1st I might be able to share my thoughts on the matter.

 

[Mark R]

Originally posted by: ATLien247

So tell me, what are the half lives of the radioactive isotopes released at Chernobyl? Twenty years is nothing!

In terms of the total radioactivity released:

approx 98.2% of the radioactivity released was from isotopes with half-lives of less than 1 year. Of the rest, the single greatest contributor (at about 0.6%) is Caesium - with a half life of about 30 years. About 0.0002% comes from plutonium and other actinides with very long half lives (>100 years).

In terms of the amount of radioactive material (moles):

The vast majority (about 67%) is Caesium isotopes. About 10% consists of very long lived isotopes.

In fact, it's not even as simple as that. The very long lived isotopes are highly refractory - which means that they don't vaporise or burn. Virtually none of these materials were distributed outside of about 2-3 miles from the reactor.

In terms of overall health effects, the most dangerous isotope was probably Iodine 131 - with a half-life of 8 days. This had very high activity is highly volatile and was spread over a wide area. This isotope has been responsible for hundreds of cases of thyroid cancer in the nearby population. However, after about 3 months, the residual contribution of this isotope was neligable.

For the environment in general - Caesium isotopes are probably the most significant. Widely distributed and with a long half life - they are likely to continue contributing to the overall population dose for a considerable period of time. It's goin to be difficult (if not impossible) to truely predict just how much effect this will have. Thankfully, in many areas, the effective ecological half-life has proven to be considerably less than the radiological half life (the isotopes have either leached deeply into the ground, out of reach of biological organisms, or has leached into rivers and been washed out to sea).

Nevertheless, within the exclusion zone, there are likely to be significant levels of activity from Caesium for 100 years or more.

 

[GTaudiophile]

You had to admit the guys in charge that day were simply arrogant dumbasses. They turned off every built-in safety measure and ignored all warnings about the RBMK design flaws.

It's like the Titanic crashing into the iceberg in broad daylight at full speed ahead.