Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

30 down, 3,000 more to go! What could possibly go wrong?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 30 down, 3,000 more to go! What could possibly go wrong?

    Hell, every city needs one of these thing waiting to melt off...

    PRIPYAT, Ukraine — Before the fire, the vomiting, the deaths and the vanishing home, it was the promise of bumper cars that captured the imagination of the boys.

    It will be 30 years ago Tuesday that Pripyat and the nearby Chernobyl power plant became synonymous with nuclear disaster, that the word Chernobyl came to mean more than just a little village in rural Ukraine and that this place became more than just another spot in the shadowy Soviet Union.


    Even 30 years later — 25 years after the country that built it ceased to exist — the full damage of that day is still argued.
    Death-toll estimates run from hundreds to millions. The area near the reactor is both a teeming wildlife refuge and an irradiated ghost-scape. Much of eastern and central Europe continues to deal with fallout aftermath. The infamous Reactor Number 4 remains a problem that is neither solved nor solvable.

    False sense of control
    They had begun the tests full of confidence. “We knew, with certainty, with arrogant certainty, that we were in control of the power we were playing with,” recalls Sergiy Parashyn, who had been an engineer at the plant since 1977 and was summoned within an hour of the beginning of the disaster. “We could make the forces of nature bend to our will. There was nothing we could not do.”
    http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-w...or-3000-years/
    Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

  • #2
    The rest of Russia's reactors, built to the same faulty specifications.

    However, I believe this belongs in the Russia section, not in the American section.

    Comment


    • #3
      Chernobyl was an outdated badly managed graphite reactor. Modern reactors have shutdown capabilities and are built to handle earthquakes and tornadoes. Fukushima required an earthquake AND a tsunami (it handled the earthquake just fine) to get a partial meltdown.

      Truth is every schoolkid needs to be educated on how nuclear reactors work. The basic mechanics aren't hard to learn and when you see just how easy it is to scram these things and just how hard it is to cause a meltdown they get far less scary. The truth is modern nuclear reactors are less a barely contained genie of destruction and more a lethargic giant that has to be beaten into anger.
      A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
        Chernobyl was an outdated badly managed graphite reactor. Modern reactors have shutdown capabilities and are built to handle earthquakes and tornadoes. Fukushima required an earthquake AND a tsunami (it handled the earthquake just fine) to get a partial meltdown.

        Truth is every schoolkid needs to be educated on how nuclear reactors work. The basic mechanics aren't hard to learn and when you see just how easy it is to scram these things and just how hard it is to cause a meltdown they get far less scary. The truth is modern nuclear reactors are less a barely contained genie of destruction and more a lethargic giant that has to be beaten into anger.
        That is what is scary, that we naively believe that because we can understand the functionality of nuclear reactors and easily explain it in detail to school kids, we have it all figured out, nothing to worry about, a trained monkey can run one.
        The problem is we can not predict next weeks weather with anything better than an educated guess, yet we are building facilities that will need management for the next 3,000 years.
        We can't even maintain our aging water and sewage system which are crumbling after 80 years.
        Frankly I don't trust mankind that much.
        Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
          That is what is scary, that we naively believe that because we can understand the functionality of nuclear reactors and easily explain it in detail to school kids, we have it all figured out, nothing to worry about, a trained monkey can run one.
          The problem is we can not predict next weeks weather with anything better than an educated guess, yet we are building facilities that will need management for the next 3,000 years.
          We can't even maintain our aging water and sewage system which are crumbling after 80 years.
          Frankly I don't trust mankind that much.
          You don't need to predict next week's weather when you have a system that can't be threatened by it. Reactors can be made tornado and earthquake safe. To avoid the earthquake/tsunami double tap simply build inland. And nuclear waste is easier to manage than non nuclear waste. Coal plants generate coal ash that gets pumped into the atmosphere where it can screw with everyone's respiratory system and drift all over the place. You can contain all of a nuclear rod's "pollution" with a swimming pool.
          A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
            You don't need to predict next week's weather when you have a system that can't be threatened by it. Reactors can be made tornado and earthquake safe. To avoid the earthquake/tsunami double tap simply build inland. And nuclear waste is easier to manage than non nuclear waste. Coal plants generate coal ash that gets pumped into the atmosphere where it can screw with everyone's respiratory system and drift all over the place. You can contain all of a nuclear rod's "pollution" with a swimming pool.
            Yeah, but people aren't frightened by a small but consistent threat, they're scared by the random, very unlikely but extreme disasters.

            Look at Americans and their fear over terrorism (laughable) versus car accidents (terrifying).

            Comment


            • #7
              Wasn't the reason for the Fukushima disaster was they had their backup generators at ground level?

              No nuke expert here, but from what I understand, if the backup gens were at a higher level it wouldn't have happened.

              Besides aren't these reactors supposed to be designed to go into safety mode when power is cut off?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by rkohut View Post
                Wasn't the reason for the Fukushima disaster was they had their backup generators at ground level?

                No nuke expert here, but from what I understand, if the backup gens were at a higher level it wouldn't have happened.

                Besides aren't these reactors supposed to be designed to go into safety mode when power is cut off?
                Yes and yes.
                A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                  Yeah, but people aren't frightened by a small but consistent threat, they're scared by the random, very unlikely but extreme disasters.

                  Look at Americans and their fear over terrorism (laughable) versus car accidents (terrifying).
                  Actually I am mortally terrified of car accidents. I don't drive out of town unless I have no choice and would gladly up drivers license standards and penalties.

                  Guess my priorities are in order.
                  A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by rkohut View Post
                    Wasn't the reason for the Fukushima disaster was they had their backup generators at ground level?

                    No nuke expert here, but from what I understand, if the backup gens were at a higher level it wouldn't have happened.

                    Besides aren't these reactors supposed to be designed to go into safety mode when power is cut off?
                    Yes and sort of.

                    Once the diesel generators were flooded and other power sources cut off, the cooling pumps could not operate. So, even though the reactors were shut down, the cooling system couldn't work. Some manner of heat/steam damage was inevitable in this case. However, a Chernobyl-scale meltdown was never a possibility.

                    The Fukushima disaster was caused by a tsunami, resulting from one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded. The failure had nothing to do with nuclear power or reactor design. It was due to the failure of diesel-powered generators after they were flooded.

                    Thus far, the fatalities from the Fukushima reactor incident have totalled approximately zero.
                    Last edited by The Doctor; 24 Apr 16, 19:12.
                    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      Yeah, but people aren't frightened by a small but consistent threat, they're scared by the random, very unlikely but extreme disasters.

                      Look at Americans and their fear over terrorism (laughable) versus car accidents (terrifying).
                      I'm scared schistless of sharks... Especially land sharks.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        The direct loss of life in all non-military nuclear accidents since 1945 totals less than 200 people. Most of the deaths, apart from Chernobyl, were the result of radiotherapy and radiography mishaps.

                        The verifiable death toll from Chernobyl was less than 30 people, most of whom were fighting the fires...
                        Mortality

                        According to UNSCEAR (2000), 134 liquidators received radiation doses high enough to be diagnosed with acute radiation sickness (ARS). Among them, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS. Other liquidators have since died but their deaths could not necessarily be attributed to radiation exposure.

                        An increased number of cancer deaths can be expected during the lifetime of persons exposed to radiation from the accident. Since it is currently impossible to determine which individual cancers were caused by radiation, the number of such deaths can only be estimated statistically using information and projections from the studies of atomic bomb survivors and other highly exposed populations. It should be noted that the atomic bomb survivors received high radiation doses in a short time period, while Chernobyl caused low doses over a long time. This and other factors, such as trying to estimate doses people received some time after the accident, as well as differences in lifestyle and nutrition, cause very large uncertainties when making projections about future cancer deaths. In addition, a significant non-radiation related reduction in the average lifespan in the three countries over the past 15 years caused by overuse of alcohol and tobacco, and reduced health care, have significantly increased the difficulties in detecting any effect of radiation on cancer mortality.

                        Although there is controversy about the magnitude of the cancer risk from exposure to low doses of radiation, the US National Academy of Sciences BEIR VII Committee, published in 2006, a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence, and concluded that the risk seems to continue in a linear fashion at lower doses without a threshold (this is called the “linear no-threshold” or LNT model). However, there are uncertainties concerning the magnitude of the effect, particularly at doses much lower than about 100 mSv.

                        The Expert Group concluded that there may be up to 4 000 additional cancer deaths among the three highest exposed groups over their lifetime (240 000 liquidators; 116 000 evacuees and the 270 000 residents of the SCZs). Since more than 120 000 people in these three groups may eventually die of cancer, the additional cancer deaths from radiation exposure correspond to 3-4% above the normal incidence of cancers from all causes.

                        [...]

                        WHO

                        The worst non-military nuclear accident in history killed 28 people.

                        It possibly caused an additional 5,000 cancer deaths out of a population of 5 million people - This is also impossible to verify. It's almost too small to even measure. It would only represent a 0.6% incremental increase over the expected cancer death rate for that population over the period from 1986-2000.


                        The death rate from cancer (neoplasms) was rising in Russia, the Ukraine and Belarus before Chernobyl and continued to rise until 1993...

                        How Many People Have Really Been Killed by Chernobyl?
                        Why estimates differ by tens of thousands of deaths.

                        By Mary Mycio|Posted Friday, April 26, 2013

                        When the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded in 1986, experts predicted as many as 40,000 extra cancer deaths from the radiation spewed onto parts of what was then the Soviet Union. Friday is the 27th anniversary of the disaster. How many people has Chernobyl killed so far?

                        We’ll probably never know. That’s partly because even 40,000 cancer deaths are less than 1 percent of the cancer mortality expected in the affected population. Statistically, the deaths are undetectable. Even if they weren’t, science usually can’t say that a particular cancer was induced by radiation rather than something else.

                        One exception is thyroid cancer, a very rare disease in children that skyrocketed to nearly 7,000 cases in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine by 2005. There is no doubt that radioactivity from Chernobyl caused them, including about a dozen fatalities. We also know that two people died in the explosion and more than 100 people, mostly firefighters ignorant of the dangers, received doses high enough to cause acute radiation syndrome. Of them, 29 died within a few months, followed by 18 more deaths over the years. The group seems to be at higher risk for blood cancers.

                        [...]

                        Slate



                        There was no significant change in the slope of the function after Chernobyl.

                        While, there is little doubt that Chernobyl did cause some cancer deaths, the impact is stastistically undetectable.

                        Chernobyl was a really bad accident caused by a fatally flawed reactor design and grossly incompetent operating procedures.

                        Fukushima was the next worst accident in nuclear power history. It was caused by a tsunami generated by one of the most powerful earthquakes ever recorded. Its death toll stands at zero-point-zero.
                        Last edited by The Doctor; 24 Apr 16, 19:18.
                        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                          You don't need to predict next week's weather when you have a system that can't be threatened by it. Reactors can be made tornado and earthquake safe. To avoid the earthquake/tsunami double tap simply build inland. And nuclear waste is easier to manage than non nuclear waste. Coal plants generate coal ash that gets pumped into the atmosphere where it can screw with everyone's respiratory system and drift all over the place. You can contain all of a nuclear rod's "pollution" with a swimming pool.
                          I think you missed my point about weather, it had nothing to do with the threat tornadoes pose to nuclear reactors. Or earthquakes, for that matter.
                          Yes coal plants polluted, gas plants do also. But, we can shut them down and walk away, ten thousand years from now it still won't need a human to manage its waste.
                          More to the point,bwe do not have a very good track record of maintaining infrastructure, in the case of nuclear reactors if you don't take good care of them real bad things can happen.
                          I'm sure it's nice to heat your swimming pool with spent rods, but I wouldn't be investing in that idea.
                          Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Urban hermit View Post
                            I think you missed my point about weather, it had nothing to do with the threat tornadoes pose to nuclear reactors. Or earthquakes, for that matter.
                            Yes coal plants polluted, gas plants do also. But, we can shut them down and walk away, ten thousand years from now it still won't need a human to manage its waste.
                            More to the point,bwe do not have a very good track record of maintaining infrastructure, in the case of nuclear reactors if you don't take good care of them real bad things can happen.
                            I'm sure it's nice to heat your swimming pool with spent rods, but I wouldn't be investing in that idea.
                            There's no "we" invloved.

                            The owner/operator of US nuclear power plants is responsible for the maintenance of nuclear power plants. The infrastructure is maintained far better than any other type of power plant operating in the US.
                            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                              There's no "we" invloved.

                              The owner/operator of US nuclear power plants is responsible for the maintenance of nuclear power plants. The infrastructure is maintained far better than any other type of power plant operating in the US.
                              So you have the US covered, what about all the rest of them?
                              Industrial accidents happen, they are called, accidents, usually they do not require a area the size of a small state to be evacuated for 30,000 years.
                              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X