Slashdot Mirror
Chernobyl (Finally) Shuts Down
wpanderson writes "The Ukrainian nuclear power station at Chernobyl has finally been closed down by President Leonid Kuchma, according to the BBC News.
The plant has been plagued with problems - the most public and visible was the failure of Reactor 4 on 26th April 1986, although there have been more problems since. The most recent was a "malfunction" in Reactor 3 which caused a shutdown, just 9 days before the closure date.
Although the plant is now closed, and the Ukrainian government has pledged not to use the site for electricity generation again, it will "be 2008 before the fuel rods can be safely removed from the plant".
There are quite a few pictures taken inside the ill-fated Reactor 4 (cyrillic link) for the morbid!"
Yes it affects the film. When the picture is snapped, the FOCUSED light exposes the image onto the film. Random unfocused radiation exposes the film evenly, slowly turning the film black. So even if the film is 95% exposed by radiation you can enhance that remaining 5% (which still has the photo taken) back to a 100% scale and see your original picture. It'll be grainy but visible.
The photographer, though, cannot be restored.
"the radical right wing on-line think tank known as "Slash Dot""
/. is neither right nor left, despite the leanings of its "editors".
/. would be more accurately be characterised as a "Fascist Discordian hootannany".
[My spellchecker ate my bawls.]
Wait a minute, I just made a pun in the subject. Hehe:>
Wondertwin powers -- Activate! Form of a troll!
We could have given them money to finance building replacement fossil fuel plants -- then watched them like a hawk to ensure that that's where our money was spent.
Kinda like that whole thing with North Korea.
British Telecom announced today that they intend to sue the Ukrainian government over use of their patent "shutting down a nuclear power plant which outlived its lifetime years ago." They say they may also file suit on grounds of a violation of another patent, "nuclear reactor meltdown".
heh. you meant to say "less than 280 million", didn't you?
And if casualties were that damaging, why did stalin go and kill 20 million of their own?
BTW we offered Marshall plan assistance to the soviet union in exchange for pulling their troops out of Berlin. They refused. Don't make the US into villains here for refusing to fund the military expansion of an aggressive, oppressive political regime.
So, according to this argument, coal power is responsible for digging up a lot of radioactive elements, grinding them up into a fine powder (which is required for efficient combustion), and spraying them all over the atmosphere.
The scariest one to me is the photo of the pipehead with what looks like a huge wad of clay being ejected from a play-doh spaghetti factory. That's where the molten reactor core was literally pouring out through the pipes of its own cooling system, having burst the pressure-relief membranes on the ends of the pipes. The core cooled into those funky and frightening lava-like formations.
...be sure that nobody will it up as archiologics tend to....
Yes, I agree. We don't want those superhumans of the future to use their mind over matter skills to accidently kill themselves. Mind over radiation is just never going to be possible.
I am happily surprised that most of slashdot readers are intelligently pro nuclear and not a bunch of Naderites like I had thought...
A program is a device used to convert data into error messages.
sarcoghogouse is spelled sarcophagus.
It's a coffin...like the ones they would entomb people in. Historically stone, but has become more of a general term for something sealed away.
There was an article not so long ago about how many hydroelectric dams being a huge source of methane, a greenhouse gas. This particularly affects large shallow dams full of rotting vegetation from land that wasn't cleared before flooding.
"plants and animals living around the reactor are starting to move back in. "
Do you realise how badly the environment was affected? It wasn't just the Ukraine. Thousands of miles away there were bad affects. 10 years after the accident, sheep in parts of Scotland were still unfit for human consumption. Why? The radioactive cloud of Cs from Chernobyl deposited enough that far away that the grass aborbed it from the soil and concentrated it in the sheep.
10 years after in the Ukraine, horses were still being born with 8 legs, pigs with multiple heads, defects in human children, and high rates of cancer.
Wasn't it a cloud of cesium (sp?) that drifted over the Ukraine and on over the rest of Europe?
Why do people keep upholding the falacy that nuclear power is cheap? It's so untrue. Most cost estimates do not include decomissing of plants, or waste disposal. I've also heard that decomissioning can cost more than the cost of building and running the power station. How much nuclear waste is there sitting around under water in places like Sellafield, waiting for reprocessing and disposal? There's virtually nowhere on Earth that we can guarantee will be geologically stable for the 10,000 or so years that it will take for the radioactive levels to decay to something approaching safe. Stop considering the short term.
Please feel free to correct me - I'm not an expert or an environmentalist.
Fusion is much cleaner the fission.
Fusion produces helium. That's it. Helium. The same helium that they put in helium balloons. Not radioactive helium. Not some weird isotope of helium. Just helium. That is the entire waste of the fusion process.
As far as the radiation -- Pound for pound, fusion tends to produce about ten times as much energy (ie, radiation) as fission. So what do you do? You use 1/10th as much. Viola! You have the exact same everything as a fission reactor, except that there's no waste (except for the aforementioned helium).
This is, of course, assuming that the radiation is even bad. Radiation is what makes the heat that boils the water to drive the turbines. Yeah, the radiation in the core itself is hazardous to life (it is in fission plants, too) but you surround the core with water, or concrete or something and the radiation doesn't escape.
The only environmental consequences of fusion is the consuption of a very small amount of hydrogen and the production of a very small amount of helium. (And the boiling of a whole lot of water.)
If only we could get it to work.
That would be the reactor core.
DNA just wants to be free...
I dunno. Why don't you tell us? Don't forget to cite and hyperlink primary sources.
I should begin by saying that I'm for nuclear power - I think with today's designs it's much safer to humans and the environment in general than the fosil fuel plans that provide the majority (I believe - haven't looked at the stats lately) of power in the US today.
That said, I take umbridge with the comment: "There is no perfectly clean power source." What about solar? Other "clean" sources such as wind, hydroelectric or geothermal have various arguments against them mostly centering around the collective impact they may have on the environment. However, the only arguments I've ever heard against solar is that it's inefficient and unreliable (clouds). But all indications seem to be that it's perfectly clean.
If anyone has any information to the contrary, please correct me as I'm trying to arrange to install solar panels on my roof, especially given the rising cost and decreasing reliability of the power grid in California. I wouldn't want to put anything on my roof that'll give me cancer!
Speaking of which, if anyone knows of a place that does solar power panel sales and installation in the S.F. Bay Area, please let me know. The guy I was talking to locally is retired and hence, not very committed.
-"Zow"
Gee, and after only about 4,000 deaths during the cleanup process.
---
seumas.com
Anouther key is the graininess of the photos. I have heard that the radio activity ate at the film/CCDs of recording devices sent inside the sarcoghogouse. (The melted down reactor is inside a corigated steel structure known as the sarcoghogouse.)
And then, when they send a squad of spies to blow up a Greenpeace vessel anchored in your harbor (killing a Portugese photographer), that'll add some international pressure.
Holistic views are unfortunately, a lot to take in, however.
And then, they win the Rugby world cup! Franchement! (Hosté! Tabernacle! Chalice!)
> As for your comment on hydroelectric power, I > disagree. Hydroelectricity can be undoubtedly > the best source if relief conditions help. Been to the Three Gorges project in China lately?
Die slowly, cut into a thousand pieces.
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
Not that I agree with giving them money, but look at it this way, they are a poor nation, barely able to pay to run the current setup. The expenditure required to build a new plant outways the cost of the currently barely maintainable system. I DO NOT want my tax dollars going to fix their problem, but you do have to realize that they are stuck between a rock and a hard place.
A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
Press release-
"The hit TV reality show "Survivor" will now shoot its next endevor at The Ukrainian nuclear power station, Chernobyl. Contestants will participate in such great games as "Avoid the meltdown", "Hot potato, with uranium" and "Contamination Bingo". Prize will be awarded to the last person not dead or deformed in a year after the show is over.
"Stuff... In my home!? NEVER!" - Zim on Invader Zim
"I want the toilet seat!" - Little Dog on Two Stupid Dogs
Sadly, it seems that the very *definition* of Ukraine is "the country that bears the brunt of disaster."
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
On the other hand, you need to mine a million times (or whatever) less uranium than you would coal to get the same amount of power... so unfriendly as it may (or may not) be, I'd rather mine N units of uranium then 1,000,000*N units of coal.
It essentially impossible to turn reactor-grade fuel (plutonium) into weapons-grade plutonium. The reactor-grade plutonium contains far too much of the Pu-238 and Pu-240 isotopes.
You cannot make weapons-grade plutonium with "A HELL OF A LOT MORE" reactor-grade plutonium. It's impossible (barring some ghastly complicated way to separate the plutonium isotopes on a large scale). It is also extremely difficult to make an explosive device with reactor-grade plutonium.
I meant Pu-238, not Pu-239 or U-238. There indeed *is* a Pu-238 (check your chart of the nuclides). It is one of the major reasons why it is so difficult to make a weapon with reactor grade plutonium. The Pu-238 decays with a relatively short half-life causing large amounts of heat.
Would you like a list of all the logical errors in your posts first, or a list of the factual errors?
As you wish.
First, nobody made a claim of the U.S. being the world's police and maintainer of justice in the thread.
Of course not, that's offtopic. But your politicians have mentioned it throughout history COUNTLESS times. (again for emphasis: countless)
I haven't read your comment yet, but you strike me as someone informed and not at all like the flag-waiving, politician-follower American that openly proclaims that the US is the world's police.
I'm bitter, since I've heard so much BS from American sources... It's hard to cope with people who want to rewrite their pasts and worse: hide the present right as it flies past your eyes.
Second, you seem to be confusing the USSR and the Soviet Bloc with the statement "not all of the USSR actually _fought_ for the allies. Bulgaria, Hungary and Romenia fought with the Nazis".
True, the confusion is apparent, but I don't have a choice, since Bulgaria, Hungary and Romenia are (were) a part of the USSR but very anti-socialist. C'mon, man, that's not a point to struggle over.
I don't make any confusion personally, anyway, although perhaps it may have seemed so from how I wrote.
And, in actual fact, the U.S. offered Marshall Plan aid to all the Soviet-occupied countries; the USSR prohibited the occupied states from recieving such aid in order to keep out U.S. influence
The US didn't call back ships with medicine and supplies because of that.
The USSR rejected help because of their pride. You fail to mention (apart from the vague, impartial term "conditional offer") that US made DEMANDS in exchange for the goods. Very particular and unacceptable demands for a socialist government. Demands they knew the USSR would turn down.
Oh, my, it was just a "conditional offer"!
This type of policy reminds me of the inquisition. One of the methods to determine if someone was a witch/sorcerer was to tie her/him up with hands behind her/his back and feet together and thrown the person in a lake. *IF* this person didn't drown, fine, "chances were" she/he wasn't a witch. This is also involves a condition, but not a very fair one.
Third, you view U.S. interventions in South America as wrong but consider restraint in intervening in Africa also wrong?
You didn't understand my point.
US interventions in Latin America (and not just South America -- central american countries (yup, the small ones some call the "banana republics" to other less informed people who may read this) suffered extremely because of them) always had perverse economic objectives.
I asked directly why the US didn't intervene in Rwanda (as one very small example out of dozens possible) because there was ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to be won out of that deal. You'd send, say, 500 soldiers armed with only average equipment and clear out the situation, but there's nothing to be gained.
Fourth, you make no allowance for the fact that humans make errors, or the fact that in imperfect situations often the best choice is merely the lesser of two evils.
Humans make errors.
American politicians consciously make morally horrendous decisions that kill hundreds of thousands of lives and leave whole countries in utter, hopeless poverty and then make sure practically their whole country's population believes that was not the "lesser of two evils", but that it was the most beautiful thing they could've done.
Lots of dirty people make conscious mistakes for personal gain, man. The worse problem is that they're usually reproached for that. In the US they aren't because the ideology works so well. All decisions that were made toward the Soviet Union and Latin America made sure your country stayed on top (by far), thus making Americans extremely happy with their government.
That's what I'm here to criticise. I hope you see my point.
Flavio
Holy shit, you're right. Believe it or not, my source *was* wrong. Thanks.
Flavio
heh. you meant to say "less than 280 million", didn't you?
That's the USSR's _actual_ population, dumbass.
(Russia had 147 million in 1990, for reference; the whole USSR would've had 283 million)
Right before the war the figure was about 120 million, but considering that:
1. 20 million casualties is an extremely conservative estimate (more radical estimates say 27-30 million)
2. not all of the USSR actually _fought_ for the allies. Bulgaria, Hungary and Romenia fought with the Nazis
3. not all of the USSR actually engaged in the war
I reduced the number to 80 million.
BTW we offered Marshall plan assistance to the soviet union in exchange for pulling their troops out of Berlin. They refused.
Of course they refused! The US doesn't have the divine right to boss other countries around. The US would be actually *bribing* the USSR to remove theirselves from Berlin.
Don't make the US into villains
I don't have to make the US villains. It already IS. Consider also that every single latin american country with NO EXCEPTION has had their whole political system destroyed by American interventions at least once, in most cases leading to dictatorships. This is not a lie, and not flamebait. I'm well aware that every country has issues and you can never blame one party for all the evils. These facts only happened because there was an elite siding the Americans (from the USA) in all cases.
I just dislike to hear all the BS of the US being the world's police and maintaner of justice.
If that were true, what exactly was done by your forces in Rwanda, when a dictator with probably 500 soldiers terrorized the population for years? Episodes like this one happen constantly and still the US government has the nerve to say its crap.
This only happens for two reasons:
1. other countries don't have the GUTS to tell the US to shove it, mostly because they depend on the US's economy.
2. other people don't have the guts to say the truth
3. yet other people don't want to listen because their homes and lives are just too comfortable
Don't make the US into villains here for refusing to fund the military expansion of an aggressive, oppressive political regime.
I don't disagree the regime is opressive and agressive. I don't support it.
Your argument, though, proves everything I've written in this comment: absolutely everything the US does aims for huge profit and there is no benevolence or noblility in their actions so drop the BS.
Flavio
Maybe we (the USA and EU) need a Marshall plan for that part of the world, selling them wind turbines and combined-cycle gas turbine generators and taking their spent fuel so we know where it's going (better here than Iraq).
Well, perhaps you should've thought of that just after World War II, when the US not only refused to include the USSR in its Marshall plan despite 20 million male casualties in a country with less than 80 million inhabitants (basically their whole male workforce) and actually called back ships that were already under way.
And this isn't flamebait -- it's the raw fact.
Flavio
I agree. In France nuclear power is by far the largest electricity source and has good popular approval.
Because of (mostly unfounded) international pressure, the french are now changing their minds about nuclear power's safety, but it still is a country where scientists and engineers are greatly respected for their very reliable plants.
As for your comment on hydroelectric power, I disagree. Hydroelectricity can be undoubtedly the best source if relief conditions help.
Flavio
It wasn't shut down because only one reactor blew up. There are four. IIRC, two of them still ran fine after the accident, and still work fine now. The design is somewhat unsafe, but clearly not unmanageably so. The big accident was the result of a stupidly-done experiment, and there hasn't been another one near that scale at Chernobyl or any of the other reactors of the same design. They need the electricity, so why not keep it running?
Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Tau Zero:
...but the Greenies who demand an end to nuclear power...
The "greenies" who preach against nuclear power are not environmentalists. They are drama opportunists. There are no environmentalists against nuclear power. Environmentalists are serious people who study the science behind environmental issues.
Grey (Chris Lusena)
Incorrect.
There has never been any kind of a radioactive leak or spill at any of Ontario's three nuclear power plants. There have been a few instances of heavy water spills, which is something altogether different. Heavy water (D2O) is not radioactive.
I think you are mostly correct, but I wanted to comment on why people call for the elimination of nuclear power. While for many people there is a negative association with nuclear weapons, and for some operational safety is a big issue, I think the biggest un-resolved problem, and the one that worries people the most, is the fact that there is still no long-term solution for dealing with the byproducts of fission. So far everything we've tried will require constant monitoring for the next 10,000 years or so, which understandably upsets people with somewhat less-than-optimistic expectations for the long-term stability of our society.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
I remember reading that the main radioactive element released from burning coal is Uranium. It makes sense, Uranium is found deep in the ground just like coal. It's a metal so it would go right through the combustion process and out the smokestack. I don't have any source for this, but that's what I remember.
-B
A previous poster claims that the solidified pouring stuff is the containment vessel that melted and ran down its own cooling pipes. Can anyone back this up?
-B
How exactly did they operate the plant after the disaster. I thought the surrounding areas were evacuaded and till this day, you can't live there. So, did all of the people running the plantput on suits 10 miles before they got to the plant or what????
witold.org
Yeah, 14 more reactors. Providing lots and lots of power. What do you want to do, shut down a bunch of reactors and let everyone go without electricity? That'll work real well. And I don't understand everyone's obsession on slashdot with wind power solutions-wind power isn't that great. The problem is that power is proportional to the cube of velocity-you therefore only want to use them in a few places-you can't just install them everywhere. Oh, and natural gas plants-cheap, efficient, but... what's that I see? Natural gas prices have quadrupled the last year due to these same plants? We probably shouldn't go nuts building more of them. Our best bet is still fission-water moderated, water cooled fission (unlike the RMBK reactors that are water cooled, graphite moderated.) It's all well and good to say "Ooh, but fission is bad" without thinking about the alternatives seriously.
Colin Winters
Solar Power does require quite a bit of acreage to supply a lot of electricity, but imagine what it could do to _supplement_ the current grid in a city like, say, Washington, DC.
Put a photovolt panel on top of every traffic light in the city. Those power the traffic lights. Put photovolt panels on the rooftops of major buildings, and you power things like stairwell lights, elevators, exterior lights for the building. Put photovolt panels on top of streetlamps. All of these systems can switch to the main fossil-burning grid as a "backup."
The technology will advance by leaps and bounds if state and national governments decide to invest in it.
Ralph Nader, speaking at Madison Square Garden in October, talked about solar power projects. He claimed that the reason the tech hasn't advanced much since the 70s was that the fossil fuel companies don't want it to, because once every consumer has solar panels powering their electric stoves, the utility companies won't be able to control the prices by eclipsing the sun.
"Every since the dawn of Man he has yearned to destroy the sun."
--Montgomery Burns
There's also wind power, tidal current generation, lots of things that can be looked into. A-and don't forget fuel cell technology, which can quietly and efficiently power an entire office building with one ENIAC-sized (or smaller)room.
You are right, and I left that out. Breeder reactors are a very nice piece of technology.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
so, any good books to recommend?
I recommend The Legacy of Chernobyl by Zhores Medvedev, a Soviet microbiologist. If you want a book that looks at Chernobyl from a human standpoint rather than a technical one, this isn't for you, but if you want to know the gory technical details, this is great. It goes into detail about the exact events of 26 April 1986, and also gives quite a bit of background information about the differences between RBMK and modern Western reactors. Be forewarned, though: the author's anti-Soviet biases are quite promiment.
It probably isn't practical to replace these with modern designs, given the current state of the Russian economy, but less drastic steps, like maybe retrofitting these reactors with containment structures would be a good start. I guess what i really should have said was that the only reason Chernobyl was closed for good is its notoriety. There is nothing that makes it fundamentally different from the 14 other RBMK reactors still in operation, other than the fact that there was an accident there 14 years ago. In fact, safety modifications to the number 3 reactor at Chernobyl make the same type of failure that occurred in the number 4 reactor all but impossible. Indeed it was mainly spectacular disregard for safety procedures that made it possible in the first place. Considerable safety modifications have been made to the other RBMK reactors, but all of them still lack containment structures. What I was trying to say is that pressuring Ukraine to close Chernobyl may be doing more harm than good, taking attention away from a much bigger problem.
.^
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
Why shut down 3 perfectly good reactors that supply much needed power to several million people because the one in the building next-door blew up because of the spectacular negligence of its operators? Seriously, the likelyhood that the conditions under which that disaster occurred are not very likely to be repeated. Fire the crew that was running reactor number 4 and get the rest of them some serious refresher training in safety procedures and have them write "I will not purposly operate the nuclear reactor outside of safe parameters" 1000 times on the blackboard, but decomissioning millions of dollars worth of servicable equipment with no suitable replacement available because a similar model failed under highly unusual circumstances was just not an option.
.^
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
Cause i ain't a nuclear scientist, if you couldnt tell.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
(Please don't critique my HTML too harshly; I just banged the minimum HTML into this antique text file necessary to make it format halfway decently in a web browser.)
It's about 64K in size.
The thing is, one or more of the solutions to the nuclear waste problem will be implemented, because we have to. We have no choice. There's already a lot of nuclear waste sitting in those holding pools that we're going to have to do something with.
So, once the disposal solution is implemented, it'll hold plenty of waste, and "no place to dispose of the waste" will no longer be an issue. Note in your message you point out that the plants are still storing all the waste they've ever produced. In volume, it's a very small problem.
There are solutions. It's just that "the usual suspects" will never be satisfied with any solution; they will always have ever more contrived and unlikely scenarios to nitpick with.
I'm more than half convinced that the "No Nooks Shut Them Down" types don't want the waste disposed of. They want it right there on the surface, where it forms a priceless publicity resource whenever they can contrive to appear on the evening news wringing their hands over it.
As for decommissioning an old plant, one of the simplest plans is to just lock the door and weld it shut. The reactor building takes up a fairly small portion of the power plant's real estate. Just build the new one next to the old one.
Nuclear Power is very dangerous.
The fear mongering you speak of has been helpful in making it safer.
If you did not have public concern, then the corporations would do what they always do. They would way the costs of failure against the costs of overengineering and find the most profitable solution. Corporations tend to consider the cost of human life only insofar as it costs money to repay damage to human life. Ditto for environmental concerns.
That being said, the only thing that still leaves me in doubt over the use of nuclear power is the fact that the waste, while small, sticks around for a VERY long time. It is very possible that civilization as we know it will not exist by the time the nuclear waste is back to normal. That's a hell of a surprise to leave to future generations when they find it.
Amen. You said everything I wanted to say. That guy's post was nothing buy a smalltown paranoid crock.
Nuclear power arrived far too early for humanity to understand or respect, and the masses fear it as a protohuman would fire.
t it lepage.shtml
Read the story "Know Nukes" in the text "Minds, Machines, and Evolution" by James P. Hogan.
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/mmande/baen99/
True, that human error is a killer (most literally)... Shutting off the safeties on a (unstable by design RBMK) reactor, and running it at over 110% capacity was not, shall we say, the crowning moment of mankind's nuclear understanding...
TMI stayed contained, though. Not a great thing to happen, but at least the reactor was designed better from the start...
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Hoover Dam is fairly close (about 40 miles away), but Las Vegas gets most of its power from coal- and gas-fired plants. California uses over half (about 56%) of the power generated by Hoover Dam. (The numbers on where the power goes are here. There's a power line near where I live that appears to run between Nellis AFB and Lake Mead (the lake formed by the dam), and that probably is the only dam power used in the valley.)
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
MSK
But I still do not understand what's all the fuss about our nuclear plant. Let's not forget that in the first place Chernobyl's accident was caused by a stupid human error and the lack of automatic systems which would prevent such human stupidities. Add to that unstable situation in Ukraine- economic crisis, low wages, poor worker morality, and you get a disaster.
On the other hand situation in Lithuania is much different- economics is stable and growing, and Ignalina power plant got upgraded a lot to prevent possible problems which could be caused by RBMK's reactor's not very perfect design. With the upgrades we got help from our close neighbor- Sweden.
IMHO there's too much FUD surrounding this topic. The least complaints we get from Sweden, whose experts actually visit our power plant regularly and understand the real situation. And trust me- they'd be the first to call the alarm if something were potentially wrong with our plant.
I don't say that it is 100% safe (shit sometimes happens like nuclear plant accidents that happened in countries- US, UK, Japan). I would classify our nuclear power plant not more dangerous as other plants in well developed countries.
And the last thing- some the FUD is being spread by some of our neighbors because our electricity is cheaper and they don't like the competition
6,000 Chernobyl plant workers were laid off today. While things were pretty bad at the plant itself, the jobs themselves were one of the most desired in the country. Their families lived a good 40km away from the plant and the wages were FOURTEEN TIMES the national average. Plus their families are much more healthy than you would expect (most likely because they can afford good medical care).
If I was already working at the plant I'd probably say "Well, if I was going to be ill I'd be so already, my family is living far away, let's do what's best for the family"
Yes, somewhat contradictory, nuclear power is probably the second best choice (next to hydroelectricity) for the environment. The greatest problem with hydro power is you need to live in an area with a lot of rivers (like British Columbia). Yes, you're disrupting the environment locally, but it's not like spewing CO2 into the air and altering the weather system of the whole planet.
The death of nuclear fission power may only be temporary. Take a look at California right now. They're having MASSIVE power problems, and are starting to talk about rotating blackouts. They need about 4 or 5 large power stations to begin contruction NOW. They'll probably end up building natural gas, but it may not be enough. Expect to see controversy there in the next couple years.
Good note on the CANDU reactor (Canadian made!) Unlike the American reactors, the CANDU reactors don't require refined (i.e. weapons grade) uranium to function, and in theory are safer to sell to "questionable" nations.
Localroger has stated the case quite clearly and effectively, and it looks like the best the resident Slashdot nuclear apologists can do is ignore him and the blatantly obvious issues he brings up. I wonder how many of these clowns own property in Pripyat.
Hey, I'm a geek, too, and I can see where some of these newer theoretical designs sound pretty damn good, especially considering the alternatives. But given two theoretical futures, I'll take the one with solar shingles, flywheels, LEDs, and ever-increasing efficiency over the one with the Not Quite So Likely to Kill Us All nuke plant. As long as we're talking theoretical here.
Yeah, and boy, was THAT all worth it! Thanks, DoD! Way to protect us!
Excellent post.
So what is the worst-case failure scenario for a CANDU? Earthquake, terrorist bombing? Is there any conceivable pathway for a significant amount of radiation to spread over an area?
Which is worse, breathing radioactive dust, or drinking radioactive water? (and growing food in it, kids playing in it, etc)
It is better to drink radioactive water within a 50 mile radius than to harm people a thousand miles downwind of you with radioactive rain and air.
Trees can't go dancing
So do them a big favor
Pretend dancing stinks!
It seems to me that there is the common misconception to evaluate the danger of isotopes on radioactivity alone.
It's not only how much radiation you receive but also what kind and where.
Uranium isn't part of the metabolism, so it's as bad as its radiation is bad.
But Cesium is incorporated into the body.
The Cs-137 concentration nowadays is three to five times as high as the concentration before Chernobyl. Cs-134 hasn't been detected before.
The ovaries and testicles are take the main risk.
Whereas Cs is almost evenly distributed throughout the body, Strontium-90 tends to be incorporated into the bones. The concentration leads to a higher dosis on a single organ, which leads to a higher risk of cancer (in this case leukaemia).
Iodine-131 concentrates in the thyroid gland and therefor tends to create cancer there. The good part is, the Iodine-131 level is as high as before Chernobyl.
So the radioactive fuel U-23X is not the prime concern, the by-product of fission are.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Those are very good pictures, and they really tell the story of the disaster. My question is, how did people take those pictures? Isn't the place still contaminated/radioactive?
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
It's actually doing pretty good:
[dimator@chernobyl dimator]$ uptime
11:35am up 18 days, 12:14, 8 users, load average: 2.23, 2.14, 2.23
--
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
W. Europe is mortgaging it's political indepenedence in favor of cheap gas transiting through Russia and causing the Russians (who don't have a lot of luck running a real economy) to shift towards cheap and dangerous nuclear designs like the RBMK. The alternatives are there, of course, but nobody seems to want to do the heavy lifting to manage non-russian energy alternatives. If the existing Baku-Supsa line were enlarged and the Constanta-Trieste line were built, you would have reasonable, non-russian transit while only having to tanker across the Black Sea (without having to go through that eyedropper called the Dardenelles).
Again, these people should know better than to push the Russian's into further RBMK deployment. And yet in the last few months, encouraging RBMK deployment by sucking up most of Russia's natural gas for shipment to the west is what they've done.
DB
The problem is not only the running of the power plant but also the storage of the "used" fuel.
I think the Powerplants in itself are a safe way to generate energy, just the storage of the waste is a problem.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
They needed (and still need) the power the Reactors are generating.
They PUT the reactors offline immideatly after the accident, but in the end they decided to run it again.
The West (e.g. Germany) wanted to get the reactor taken offline ASAP but they said they would only do it if they would get enough money to build a new powerplant.
I don't know what they did now, but I guess the running costs are too high.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Frontline aired a good documentary on Nuclear Power a while back.. and oh.. here's the site for it..Apparently in France, there is much different opinion on nuclear power than in N.A. See for yourself
c tion/
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/rea
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
The problem is that the plant was over-moderated, and as the moderator efficiency decreased with increasing temperature the reaction sped up. My understanding is that US designs are under-moderated (so a loss of moderator cuts the reaction), but there's nothing that says you can't do the same with graphite; I seem to recall that several designs for gas-cooled pebble-bed reactors use graphite and self-limit their temperature using Doppler broadening and other effects not employed in the RMBK.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
It's dead. The pellets broke and the whole thing was too expensive. There is only one "new" reactor design, the EPR by KWU (german power plant shop) and french partners. It's quite conventional. EPR stands for "European pressured reactor" There are some esoteric conncepts on inherent reactor safety. I do not believe in this stuff: They are too expensive and there is not sufficient demand to justify research on a totally new reactor. And even worse, probably they will not even be safer: Lots of of knowledgr has been lost since the brighter days of nuclear fission, you don't get the best people because they go work for intel and friends, and you have to face some completely new problems which only show up with the new design. Face it, nuclear fission is hopeless. Maybe there will be fusion somedays.
Yes nuclear fission PLANTS may be more or less clean than coal, hydro, etc, but the mining of uranium is one of the worst and most enviromentally unfrindly things in excistance. Not to mention the transportation and storage of the spent fuel. I dont have the nubers in my head, but half-life for the wastes is quite some time. I guess www.greenpeace.org have the numbers. Anyway. i would not like one of those nuclear transport ships to have an accident. Definitly not.
You are the same decaying organic matter as the rest of us.
This should work well in Chernobyl because of the condition of the site and the amount of radiation eminating from it. The rods would never have to be taken out in 2008 when they have been radiating for 12 years. Instead they should be locked in rock for eternity.
Seriously, these photos send chills up and down my spine. Imagine what else is sitting out there, decaying, poisoning the Earth and we don't even know about it.
These are the kind of pictures I would expect someone to use in anti-nuclear ads. I'd sure like to see some pictures detailing the pollution caused by acid rain (to both structures and wildlife).
Scary stuff.
Don't forget that "weapons grade" is not required for terrorists. A small amount of plutonium dispersed over a city with a conventional explosion would do an enormous amount of damage.
Well, this is not entirely true. Not all nuclear waste can be recycled. Certain isotopes particularily transuranics can be recycled, as I mentioned with fast breeder reactors, and breeder-burners. The IFR is (or I should say was - since Congress cut funding) an example of this. Unfortunately, one of the major drawbacks of breeders is that they tend to be good sources of plutonium for weapons. This is one of the reasons their funding and development has been so stunted. The issues of heat generation and conventional pollution are indeed problems, but they have nothing to do with my original point. My point was that fusion-based power generation produces waste that is much easier to deal with than fission, and it has much less long-term risk. I'll add onto that: fusion also uses very little material that would be useful to terrorists - the major exception being tritium. SEAL
First of all, there is more than one way to create a fusion reaction. Some methods do output radioactive isotopes.
HOWEVER, the key point here is that fusion works with small elements with relatively small half-lives. Fission, on the other hand, works with large elements (uranium or plutonium), which, for the most part have long half-lives.
Now there are ways to deal with this - for example, breeder-burner reactors can use fission to break up long-lived isotopes into ones with shorter half-lives. But as far as I know, right now these reactors are only being used for research, and not power production.
That leaves you with a big problem when your fuel rods are spent. What are you going to do with some of this stuff. I looked up some plutonium isotopes for your convenience:
Plutonium 238 - 87 years
239 (fissionable) - 24,110 years
240 - 6537 years
241 - 14.4 years
242 - 376,000 years
Remember, those are half-lives, not time to completely disappear.
And beyond that, they don't always decay into non-emitters. Pu-241 decays into Americium-241 which is a huge gamma emitter.
CANDU reactors fission U-235, but U-238 makes up the majority of naturally occuring uranium. It has a half life of 4.51 x 10^9 years. Good luck disposing of that. The U-235 fission creates other radioactive isotopes (notably iodine) which have contaminated large areas in the past: e.g. Hanford, WA.
Currently, our only plan for these long-lived isotopes is to bury them. We don't even have a very safe facility to do that right now. The U.S. has huge amounts of radioactive waste lying around in various sites like Hanford. When nuclear submarines get decommissioned, the reactor section of the hull is basically just cut out and sent off to one of these sites. Great solution. Meanwhile, how do you protect the water supply many years down the road when those containers begin to deteriorate?
Fusion, even with the deuterium-tritium reactions is way WAY easier to deal with from a cleanup standpoint. You are using far smaller amounts of fuel with shorter half-lives. Tritium has a half-life of about 10 years. The greatest risks are in magnetically controlling plasma, and in keeping radioactive gases contained. Fusion isn't a free lunch but for the long-term, it is a much better solution than fission.
Best regards,
SEAL
Chernobyl happened in 1986, after his accident had occured. He talked about his memory in the lecture, I really don't know much about it. I wonder about this part myself.
His experience in Chernobyl was not secret- I believe he was a UN investigator.
His work on US atomic weapons WAS secret.
Sorry if I didn't write that clearly. I don't exactly get paid to write this... (It's not pleasant, either.)
if you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans
Don't forget the megatonnes of coal ash that have to be disposed of, and that stuff is nasty.
// TODO: fix sig
Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
So the United States should not be the world's policemen, yet we are obligated to provide medicine and supplies to whoever needs it?
The Navy will continue to use nuclear power, even if it were unsafe. They wouldn't go back to diesel subs, even if they were cleaner.
BTW, There are hundreds of nuclear reactors aboard the US's ships. When was the last time there was an emergency with one?
You can not force anyone to go and certainly die in agony by threatening him with quick, painless death by shooting. This alone breaks "theory" of that professor.
There is only one way: a volunteer, a hero, goes and does the job. Many workers felt ready to do that if needed. All the rest... they were paid very, very well; no government could do anything beyond that, and if the accident happens again in other country we'll see the same thing all over again. The Earth civilization knows no other way to contain the damage. We do not have robots that can walk/crawl in "hot" areas long enough. That's why the building is left alone until such technology becomes available.
I don't know what the NKVD
A predecessor of KGB - in Stalin's times. I don't remember when it was renamed/reorganized, but apparently in Khruschev's time. As other posters mentioned, KGB had very little influence on everyday life, and if Prof. Zoller says otherwise advise him to go jump off a cliff. KGB == CIA, and you won't find many CIA agents roaming USA and forcing people to do things.
Wrong. Anyone who lived in Russia knows that. KGB never worked domestic crime cases. They focused on counter-intelligence and (before Gorbachev) dissidents. They did a quick background check on every applicant for a passport (to travel abroad). But they did nothing beyond that.
The confusion may be caused by its origins as NKVD (department of internal affairs). When NKVD was reorganized (in 50s) the internal crime investigation was rerouted to MVD (ministry of internal affairs), and that's where it is right now - MVD controls all police and it has few military units. KGB does not have any military force; it focuses on security of the state. It does not act as FBI (general crime investigation), it is much more like CIA. KGB doesn't even actively spy, there are other agencies (GRU, SVR) to do that. Primakov, one of PMs, was head of SVR IIRC - search Google.
For all their bad publicity, the CIA are pussycats in comparison.
Tell that to Cubans :-) When was the last time KGB arranged an invasion of a foreign country?
Chelyabinsk and Tomsk are two large cities in Siberia. There are nuclear facilities all around, but nobody dies anywhere from what I know, and there were no nuclear accidents ever, not counting a polluted small lake (which was not an accident but just unwise storage plan.)
I never ever heard about nuclear hand grenades. The critical mass of even pure fissile material is about one or two kilograms, it is too heavy for a grenade even without necessary shell. A nuclear suitcase did exist, from what I read - but that is far from hand grenade.
These half-truths lead me to believe that this Professor Zoller is not a very reliable source, to put it mildly... Unfortunately, he does not talk about any of this and now I see why. All the information about Chernobyl incident is available and was openly available immediately after investigation was completed. There is nothing secret. This guy is a fake, rehashing random info for $$$ in lecture payments.
Yikes... Fun with radiation.
Anyone know what is going on in these? Namely this one? Pretty nasty stuff. That looks like something melted to slag just pouring out of a drain pipe.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Hmm. Maybe it's time to do some googling.
--Fesh
--Fesh
Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
Hmm, may be my university nuclear engineering class is not enough to teach me that when people say exponential decay, it means "e to the negative constant times time". Anyway, if fuel is not reprocessed, Plutonium-239 remains in the waste and it does have a long half-life (24000 years). If the fuel is reprocessed and only the fission products are left, the activity falls down to below the level of uranium ore in about 700 years, but this number depends on the exact fuel cycle and reactor design. The activity of uranium ore, while high, is not that dangerous. People used to use some kinds of uranium ore as paint (color was orange). I got those numbers from Intro to Nuclear Engineering by Lamarsh.
We need to know if species can evolve to withstand high levels of radiation, or at least want to know if only it didn't mean loss of some lives along the way
From what I've read, a cockroach (and some other insects) can take as much as 10000 rads body dose and just shake it off. The LD50 dose for humans is about 500 rads. That's whole body dose though. So guess who'll be left after WW3 is over...
You cannot get a nuclear blast from the fuel used in power plants because the concentration of U-235 is only about 4%. For weapons grade, concentrations of 98% and above are used. Many research reactors that use U-235 can be pulsed for a short time (since they use more enriched Uranium than power plants), which is essentially a runaway reaction, but this reaction stops when tempearture of the neutrons reaches the resonance frequencies of U-238 and absorption crossection increases a lot. You are no physicist if you didn't know that.
Back when I was in high school, I got a summer internship down the road from Ottawa at a place called Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories
Hey is that where they make Cobalt-50? I know my school imports Co-50 from Canada for the gamma cell in our nuclear lab. (About 10000 Curies' worth every 10 years or so!).
Sorry, I meant Co-60, I just remembered I was wrong and was going to post a correction, but you beat me to it. Co-60 of course, with half life of about 5.27 years.
You mean FUSION. But as a previous poster mentioned, fusion produces huge quantities of gamma rays and X-rays, which are the most penetrating radiation.
You can reprocess spent fuel, thus minimizing the waste. There will still be waste, but not a large volume, so it can be contained easily. IIRC all the nuclear waste ever produced can be stored in a building the size of a football stadium, where if the waste was put so that it covers the football pitch, it would be 1 meter high. Also, waste radioactivity will decay exponentially, so it will not be a hazard in about 100 years after disposal.
it is better to burn out than to fade away
-=tonyt=-
With current reactor technology, nuclear byproducts and the result of a nuclear accident are far worse than any output from a fossil fuel plant. For starters, just look at the length of time the contaminants remain.
It's kind of absurd to imply that the explosion of a fossil fuel facility would even remotely compare to the explosion of a nuclear facility. Look at the current state of the chernobyl site!
Your description of the events surrounding the accident are far too summarized and are thus incorrect. All coolant was not disabled, the ECCS was disabled. All control rods were not removed. The events that caused the accident were not that few and simple. A relatively complex series of mistakes (aside from the idiocy of the experiment) caused the accident.
The close of your message reads as if everyone can just move back to that area now. This is equally absurd. Animals born in the area still have an abnormally high rate of birth defects. Certain areas are still uninhabitable. The sarcophagus is falling apart and what it contains is more lethal than what escaped during the original incident. The catastrophic failure of a fossil fuel plant would certainly not have the type of long-term effect that the Chernobyl accident had.
I am not against nuclear power, it was just odd to see these messages posted implying that there were no problems with nuclear power, as if the posters had the solutions to the major issues drawn out on a napkin stuffed in their back pocket.
badtz-maru
=====
If there is anyone who wants to debate the safety
of a properly designed and properly run nuclear
power plant, state your arguments
=====
My argument is in this message.
badtz-maru
The problem with nuclear power is that mundane human error or mechanical failure can have catastrophic consequences. Your statements about nuclear power's safety takes no accounting for the type of mistakes and failures that will occur in any system as complicated as a nuclear power plant. The worst thing that can happen at a coal, oil, or natural gas plant is a massive explosion. The worst thing that can happen in a nuclear plant is a massive steam explosion, the subsequent rain of radioactive debris, and a superheated critical core eminating radiation that will be both unreachable due to heat and radioactivity and will additionally remain in this unreachable superheated radioactive state for a really long time. It does not take a complex series of events to cause this to happen, instead, it takes a complex series of events to prevent this from happening and only a few relatively minor failures in either operation, equipment, or both will launch the chain of events that can result in catastrophic failure.
If you study the events that caused the TMI and Chernobyl incidents you will see how easily relatively mundane failures and mistakes can be compounded. Granted, currently utilized PWR and RBMK designs are not exactly cutting edge, but the constant failures of the US space program, although typically not catastrophic, prove to demonstrate that design, manufacturing, and operation of complex cutting-edge systems designed for high reliability are even to this day not highly reliable.
off the soapbox
badtz-maru
Maybe you are seeing the wrong message? Mine starts with "the problem with nuclear power...". Also, you said you wanted to debate safety, which is the topic of my message. I am not arguing for or against them, my message primarly stated that nuclear power plants pose a much higher risk than conventional power generation plants.
badtz-maru
Cesium is however a very common product of fission. For some reason (probably to do with nuclear shell magic numbers) fission tend to happen assymetrically with the heavier product often iodine, xenon, barium or cesium. While the ligher products are often strontium, krypton, yttrium and rubidium.
The radon from the decay series can be bitch though, keeping you rooms well aired, if you live granite area, could save the a few cigerettes a day of lung cancer risk.
Yeah, but who needs to mine it anymore. The is a good ten-twenty years worth of material in decommisioned nuclear weapons, to keep reactors fired.
> For starters, just look at the length of time the contaminants remain. Plutonium as a half life of tens of thousands of years. But arsenic and cadnium (found in from coal ash) are forever.
Now MTV has a new location to shoot an episode of FEAR.
-gerbik
CNN coverage here.
Isn't that the same as giving a man a fish. Teach him how to fish instead. Don't drown, learn to swim. Heh sorry had to say it :)
In relation to the article. Why don't the people who know how to make the reactors safe, teach those that don't. Blah...
Blah.
I found several definitions of Chernobyl. One of the is from here Basically it says that Chern = Black, O = Or, Byl = White. And at this link I found that it means Black water. Go figure. Anyone have anymore definitions?
Blah.
And I was so looking forward to seeing the reactors in action. I guess now they can use it to hide store incriminating evidence against public officials ... who would ever look there?
Thanks for those picture links. The photos of the inside remind me of the Tarkovsky film "The Stalker" where a radioactive meteorite creates a massive zone of destruction, which, if penetrated by a "stalker" guide, gives those who enter it certain strange powers. The irony is that "The Stalker" was made BEFORE Chernobyl.
shit, I wouldn't drink it. All those flyash ponds and other waste piles around? Did you actually read that link?
The Hoover Dam is actually used more for Las Vegas I believe, which is significantly closer...
Would someone care to explain exactly what it is we're looking at, or am I supposed to think it's scary just because it is a picture post-meltdown?
"Why should the West have helped these people? By now we should have learned that all aid to Eastern Europe goes to the Russian Mafia anyway"
because a nucleur fallout effects us all, not just that area. The radioactive particles that are expeled during an explosion are carried in the wind, and water. They can reach all over the world due to weather patterns.
I disagree somewhat... Ask yourself how many dam breaks this world has had and we still are relying on dams for a good hunk of our power needs...The real problem is the "mystery" behind nuclear fission power... People get scared of what they don't know.
managers...why god invented purgatory
Soylent? What a film! I still have shivers when I think about it... and I saw it only once @ 3 a.m. on RaiTre... thanks to Ghezzi... if it wasn't for him, well we'd only see Carra' & Berlusconi crap! BTW: what's the true name of the film? I can't remember!
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Stashing something for 10,000 years?? Abandoned salt mines works for me! A half-mile under the earth is pretty fucking far out of sight. In advertently finding it 5000 years later? If we find it later, and society has continued to progress, we'll know what to do with it. If some post-apocalype humans find it, they'll be exposed to a somewhat higher rad count than your normal coal miners - they'll have to relearn the risks of radiation, but it won't be inadvertent, since they have to mine down there. So hopefully they'll be far enough along to deal with it.
Mother Russia... The Ukraine is an independent country...its not Russia. Chernobyl is the USSR's goodbye present to the Ukraine.
Sell your car, fire your doctor, give your clothes to charity, grow long nails and teeth to fight and eat with...etc etc
Don't shut down Chernobyl, we should keep it around so we can create Mogs like in spaceballs and girls like the one in Total Recall!
These countries never ever were part of the USSR. You are confused. Maybe you ment Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus?
Check your source, Luke.
I would like to die like my grandfather did - sleeping. And not screaming in terror, like his passengers.
Sure this is inappropriate but....
the closing of the facility was celebrated by having a three-legged race around the reactor site.
--
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
As interesting as this story is, there is one MAJOR flaw in it. If there were enough radiation present to kill the photographers in a matter of minutes, it would expose the film in the camera used to take the pictures! Normal photographic film is sensitive to ionizing radiation just like the film used to take X-Rays. So either this Zoller character is mislead or he is full of shit.
~moofbong
If 'con' is the opposite of 'pro', what is the opposite of 'progress'?
You have a nice User ID number, but I do not know how in Gods name you got +4,Informative for your post. I took the liberty to do a Google search on professor zoller chernobyl , and guess what...none of the links seem to have any importance. If your professor is worth anything, he should stand up and yell it out to the world...For the rest I do not believe a word you say (as other posted, the films would have been exposed if the people died)
Besides, I recently saw an interview with some guy that was a grue-driver (not sure of the exact words) during the cleanup in Soviet times, and he now said he was a volunteer...he now has cancer and he said he would do it again because someone had to do it. Now that are true heroes. I don't think your photographers ever died, you're just a plain old troll, a successful one, but nothing much more.
Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
For those of us poor schmucks that only read english, the english version of these pages is at http://polyn.kiae.su/ins/osrez/or1.htm. Makes for a pretty interesting read (if you're into that sort of thing ;o)
D'oh! The URL for the english link shoulda been: http://polyn.kiae.su/ins/osrez/osrez.htm
My DynDhs provider doesn't take kindly to my address changing avery 10 mins (overloadage) so here's my new IP. sigh
Here
- Ando
No.
During nuclear fission, the energy released comes from the nuclear binding energy. The binding energy of the nucleus before fission is lower (more negative) than the sum of the binding energies of the nuclei after fission. The difference is released as photons and kinetic energy.
"Mass-energy equivalence" isn't all it's cracked up to be, since "mass" in modern physics typically refers to proper mass, which isn't equivalent to energy. The famous equation E=mc^2 isn't actually all that useful, because it only holds true for systems with zero net momentum.
Sure, except that equation doesn't display "mass-energy equivalence" since mass is no longer directly proportional to energy; momentum is involved.
That's why it's better to simply call energy energy, and (proper) mass mass. They're quite distinct concepts.
In terms of special relativity, proper mass is the length of the momentum four-vector. (And energy is the projection onto the time coordinate. That's why the two are equivalent when momentum is zero - the vector is perfectly aligned with the time coordinate, so its length would be the same as its projection.)
It's m_0 in the equation you supplied, but most people just use m.
It's a somewhat subtle point if you want to look at it that way. If we work in the zero momentum frame and assume that the emitted photons have no net momentum, then the rest mass of the product nucleus certainly has a smaller rest mass than the rest mass of the system before fusion (that's basically saying that the energy of the system minus the photons is less than the energy of the system!) But bear in mind that the rest mass of the initial system is not generally the sum of the rest masses of the fusing nuclei; their momentum make contributions too! That sounds confusing, I know. That's because "mass-energy equivalence" is a pretty contorted way of viewing this process. The proper way to treat it is with four-vectors.
You forgot the fact that coal tends to have small amounts of radioactive elements in it. So we have a lot of radioactive particles floating in the air from burning coal. This is even more dangerous than a fission reactor, because we can control where the waste from a fission reactor goes, but cannot(yet) control the circulation of air.
Shave the Whales!
I do remember back in the days of 3 Mile Island hearing that if the waste from coal mining were classified as stringently as nuclear waste, it would also be highly classified. The phrase "3rd level nuclear waste" comes to mind to describe it, but I don't know what that means.
We could be standin' at the top of the world Instead of sinkin' further down in the mud -- Meatloaf
Nuclear energy has so much potential (at least it seems to me...IANANuclear Physicist nor am I an expert in anyway).Take the fission process. It releases enormous(sp?) amounts of power (and even it is child's play compared to fusion), and we use this energy to boil water! (which in turn turns the turbines for the generators) This doesn't seem particularly efficient to me, and I'm sure there must be a better way of harnessing this energy (any nuclear physicists in the audience?). But it seems to me that FUD has caused major stalls in research, and this probably has a lot to do with public perception.
Mention nuclear anything to the average Joe or Jane on the street and chances are you will have a negative reaction. And probably because of this very FUD, we as a species will ignore a very viable, very powerful resource. And that is a shame.
or perhaps I read too many sci-fi novels. :-)
"Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
I think the reason that they didn't shut it down was because unlike some parts of the planet, you need energy to heat homes. Additionally, manufacturing resources must be maintained lest civilization degrades or collapses. They did what they had to do to maintain their existance. People do tend to try to do things to survive.
As for turning parts of Russia into a comic book fantasy, several countries around the world openly practiced open-air atomic blasts with visitors from the public! They share the blame for doing stupid things with the best and worst of countries.
As for the knife - you should leave it in - it looked cool...
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
Heh i like that pics page. But theres just one problem with it, I dont know what the fuck im looking at because its written in russian =/
"He Who Laughs Last, Is Just A Hand In The Bush" - Ozzy Osbourne
Computers for instance has hazardous waste products in their making as well as in their disposal.
On a more somber note, there are sirens all around the area where I live that are used to indicate a problem at the nuclear plant. Problem is, if I ever do hear the sirens, I guess it'll probably only give me enough time to realize I will be dying soon. I'll probably be able to sue for lots more money if I die though :o)
Penguins hate radiation exposure. The Linux Pimp
--It's Pimptastic!--
i agree with what you're saying and i'm all for cleaner energy sources but fusion reactors just aren't feasible yet.
my point was just that relatively clean fission reactor technology already exists.
the plutonium issue is way over hyped and was simply used as a scare tactic to bury this technology. the reactor has to be run under specific conditions in order to produce plutonium. a breeder reactor running in its normal energy production mode does not create plutonium.
clean energy technology has already been developed and is available now. reactors have been designed, built, tested and then the technology was shelved and buryed by the oil industries who were unwittingly helped along by misinformed environmentalists.
i can't believe we still burn coal!
if you care about the environment then i suggest you look into IFR Integral Fast Reactor. the prototype was EBR-II built and tested at the Argonne National Laboratory about 10 years ago. it is both safe and clean meaning it effectively produces no waste.
a special type of reactor is required to burn this type of reprocessed fuel. it is called an IFR Integral Fast Reactor and is a very safe reactor design.
yes, recycling waste was only one of the virtues of the IFR reactor. and yes, its fuel cycle does not have to begin with reprocessed fuel.
i believe there are other reactors designs with similar features but IFR is the only one i know anything about. i am by no means an expert.
i was stunned when i read about how this reactor project was cancelled.
these issues should be decided by reasoned arguments not emotional ones.
nuclear waste isn't waste, it can be reprocessed into fuel and burned in a modern nuclear reactor called IFR or Integral Fast Reactor. i've already outlined the virtues of this reactor in other threads so do a search if you're interested.
of course reactor housings and components eventually become waste products that need to be dealt with when the reactor is decommisioned but all in all nuclear power is much cleaner than fossil fuels by several orders of magnitude.
all energy production causes problems. there is always waste heat for one thing. even solar has environmental questions unanswered. what happens if you cover a huge portion of desert with solar collectors. all of sudden the ground temperature in a large region is lowered significantly which will likely disturb the habitation there.
i'm all for solar power, don't get me wrong, i'm just saying there are always issues. nuclear technology is available now and is much cleaner than anything else available.
i think both Nader and the Green party are against nuclear power. i don't agree with their position on that and i disagree with some of their other positions as well.
i simply believed then as i do now that Nader was the best candidate and had far more integrity then any of the other candidates.
the technology was fully developed. the EBR-II reactor was built and operated. it met or exceeded all performance expectations.
the project was then cancelled.
this all happened about 10 years ago. the oil and other energy industries used propoganda and nuclear paranoia to get the project canned. at least that's the picture i got after doing a little research.
yes nuclear plants are more expensive to build however their power output is enormous. we could easily power the entire U.S. with nuclear energy for centuries using only Uranium mined in the U.S.
How many presidents does it take to shut down a power plant?
It's not a feature. It's a bug.
Segmentation fault. Core dumped.
Though it gave alot of bad press to the nuclear industry.
Whoops! Just wanted to correct you: Reactor-grade ANYTHING can be made into weapons grade. It just takes A HELL OF A LOT MORE. I can't remember the figures. Also, there isn't a "Pu-238". You either meant Pu-239 or U-238.
On the map that shows the radioactive clouds from that have passed over the country I see a big black spot over my house. Does that explain the neighbor kid with 3 legs, a tail, and 1.5 eyes?
[ ]
It must have been the BSOD.
[ ]
- Autobots (1984)
- Decepticons (1984)
IMHO, today's transformers suck. First, the transformations stink. Second, I thought the whole point of transforming is to disguise. Not to run all over as wild animals.Back to the topic, CNN came out with a report last September on the pros and cons of alternative power sources.
These are the things to consider: Only a small fraction of naturally occurring carbon is radioactive. Uranium has only unstable isotopes. I'm pretty certain that uranium has a shorter half-life than carbon-14 (but I haven't checked). Also, each uranium atom has to emit a lot more beta particles than carbon-14 as it goes through the process of decaying into stable elements.
This means that uranium atoms decay more often and produce a lot more radiation before they become stable. The amount of radiation produced by 1 mole of naturally occurring carbon would be miniscule in comparison to that produced by 1 mole of uranium (or that produced by any of the intermediate products of uranium's decay process).
"Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto"
(I am a man: nothing human is alien to me)
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
"Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto"
(I am a man: nothing human is alien to me)
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
I'm arguing for nuclear powered generating stations. It looks like your post is as well. If this is not the case, I apologize. Could you state your arguments against nuclear power more clearly, please?
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
I guess I'll need clarification on what "proper" mass is then. If you could, please also include how it figures into at least special relativity, as I am slightly conversant in that as well.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Same reason? Thanks. I thought it had something to do with internuclear forces or something like that. Of course, energy and mass being equivalent and all, what we claim isn't semantically correct. What it should read is something like "The balance between energy and mass reach a new equilibrium, with more energy and less mass, when the atoms (fuse|fission)."
To prematurely circumvent any nit-pickers.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Okay. But isn't the mass of the fused atom after nuclear fusion less than the sum of the initial atoms? This was the first place that we were taught to apply the mass-energy equivalence equation.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Or the next version of survivor! Nuts to that whole survivor in space theme that pops up in every article about MIR or ISS, we can have something much more entertaining!
The person who survives the radiation poisoning the longest wins free mush (that being all they can eat) for the rest of their life! Not only is it a real life drama, but the prize won't cost the network any more than about fifteen bucks, given the winner's life expectancy!
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
"Soviet scientists estimate that about 4% of the 190 tons of uranium dioxide products escaped and began to spread unevenly across the surrounding countryside, affected by the vagaries of the weather."
And we wonder why we've had such strange weather over the course of the last deacde. The math on this equals 7.6 tons of "escaped" uranium dioxide to "spread evenly across the country side". Was that airborne in gaseous form or was it in liquid or solid form? Regardless of the clean up efforts, this is a serious amount of rampant radio-active meterial.
Not to mention they make it sound like it a Glidden paint ad when it "spread evenly". Not good.
a/s/l here. Sorry, adding domain tags to your s
But when I opened the link to pictures from inside reactor number 4 all a got was a page full of question mark links that went to more pages of question mark links.
I'm not closed-minded, your just wrong!
autobots, ROLL OUT!
There is no spork.
great...Lowly russian reasearchers page is slashdotted, mirror site is slashdotted... etc. etc...
There is no spork.
I have to disagree with your comment about solar power. To my knowledge our best solar cells (read expensive NASA grade) are only about 32% efficient, with most commercial grade cells being, at best, half that (in clearer terms, they convert less than 15% of the light energy input to electrical energy output). We have a _long_ way to go with solar energy research.
LEXX
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
In both cases, a little bit of the energy holding the molecules together is released.
The problem with fusion is, that it is not yet feasible as an energy source and will not be for some time. Fission is here, available today. As I see it, the problem with nuclear fission as energy source are largely social. As you state, it's perfectly possible to engineer a nuclear plant to be as safe as we need. The big social issue is twofold:
Until we find solutions to both these questions (and probably a lot more that I don't know about), we're not going to have widespread adoption of fission or fusion. Did I mention that fusion is just as dirty and dangerous? It also generates radiation, and the walls of a TOKAMAK are too hot to handle after a couple of years... and what happens if the magnetic confinement of the plasma inside the TOKAMAK fails? Psssssh...
What Would the Fab Five Do?
But it's pointless to argue the merits. Nuclear
power is on its way out. Ah well. Hopefully
we'll get serious about wind
before long.
I agree. Wind power, solar energy, tidal energy are the
only obvious solutions that come to mind.
Ofcourse, even here, you are only converting forms of energy. This will cease being feasible some day due to our ever-increasing demand for energy, and we'll die or go to some other place to suck it dry. The only long term solution (really long term) seems to be "USE LESS ENERGY/POWER".
But what am I doing? People in power don't visit slashdot. They don't know about the part of the net that isn't the web.
Electrical Engineering is BORING.
But the Soviet Union is the only country to ever have 10+ million curies reactor incidents -- 20 million curies at Lake Kystym in 1957, and 100 million at Chernobyl in 1986.
There's no "we" in team, only "me"
It failed...They fixed it
The people who fixed it...got sick
It almost failed...They fixed it
It almost failed Again... They shut it down
Monkeys learn faster, but hey those people weren't worth much to the goverment anyway.
"The secret of success is to know something nobody else knows." -Aristotle Onassis
> I don't read Russian either, but it's probably in Ukrainian.
It is in Ukranian. It was converted when Ukrainians took over Moscow and the web site.
> What are you talking about, the whole site is in Russian.
And Ukrainians didn't take over Moscow...
The point is, KIAE (Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy) is in Moscow, Russia. And the web site is physically located in Moscow.
Sarcophagus: from the Latin Sarcos, meaning "flesh," and Phagus, meaning "eater." Literally translated, "Sarcophagus" means Flesh-eater. The definition fits, though, as the early peoples, such as Egyptians, thought that the coffin dissolved the flesh as time went by. They were unfamiliar with the process of decay and rotting.
-
I'd rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy.
my father was in chernobyl shortly after it blew up to treat people with medical problems in the vicinity. it's been 15 years and we live in the united states now. what i am wondering is if anyone knows of any facilities in the united states that can test you for radioactive exposure? any information would be greatly appreciated. sorry if this is slightly off-topic. (mlm11@po.cwru.edu)
Actually, at least for Uranium-238 (the most common isotope) has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. Just a tad longer than Carbon-14.
-----------------
------------
You know, the Ukraine's claims that it could have closed this thing down ten years ago if we had given them aid are a load of dog droppings.
They said they needed the plant to produce energy, and hence ran one of the reactors even after the blowup. They could have used coal, natural gas, windmills or any one of a number of other technologies to replace this one.
Why should the West have helped these people? By now we should have learned that all aid to Eastern Europe goes to the Russian Mafia anyway..
Goat sex free since 2001
Hey is that where they make Cobalt-50? I know my school imports Co-50 from Canada for the gamma cell in our nuclear lab. (About 10000 Curies' worth every 10 years or so!).
Are you sure you don't mean Cobalt-60? The chart of the nuclides doesn't show anything below cobalt-54 and that only has a half-life of 0.19s. Cobalt-60 is relatively stable. Personally, I used to use Cobalt-57 as a gamma source for Mossbauer spectroscopy.
you can drink water from a well within 100 feet of a coal-burning plant.
I wouldn't be so sure:
US to cut mercury emissions from coal-fired plants
O.K. you can probably drink water from a well, just don't eat any fish from within a few hundred miles.
Hydroelectric dams don't blow up after 50 years, either.
CANDU ECCS systems also seem prone to "water hammer" which violently shakes the pipes when they are kicked in; in June 1974 the Pickering-A reactor blew out a gasket because of this, and because the detectors were clogged operators were unaware that a sump had flooded with radioactive water until major damage had been done.
Yeah, you said "well maintained" too, but in practice things keep happening that aren't supposed to happen. Experience doesn't seem to suggest that humans are capable of keeping things maintained to the standards that are necessary when the failure modes are so numerous and dramatic.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Anon:This is probably true. OTOH if you look at the normal case scenario a nuclear plant is by far the safest.
The safest method of dealing with dangerous energy levels is not to use dangerous energy levels. The best way to accomplish this is to increase efficiency and exercise frugality so you can subsist on the output of safer sources.
"By far the safest?" That really sounds like nuke-industry propaganda. Even such high-density sources as natural gas are considered cleaner and safer than nuclear. It's just that there is a limit to how much energy you can get from them. That's not even to mention "stereogreen" sources like solar, tidal, and geothermal, which of course are inherently limited both in their output density and their potential for catastrophic self-disassembly.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Simple. No system operated by human beings is always properly designed and properly run.
All systems which maintain a high energy density are dangerous. The higher the energy density, the more dangerous they are. Despite massive checks and controls we still get the occasional thing that "isn't supposed to happen," usually precisely because the system wasn't properly designed or operated.
When you look at worst-case scenarios achievable by the actions of angry or distracted operators and engineers, there is nothing humans do as dangerous as the use of nuclear energy. It is this that causes the problem; while coal, for example, may be overall as dangerous (a thin argument that ignores the relative reactivity of the emissions), it is the local increase in danger due to a malfunction which is much more limited with the chemical source.
No matter what you do to a coal plant, you can't do much more than destroy the plant itself and knock down a few buildings. An equivalent disaster with nuclear energy can kill thousands immediately, cause hundreds of thousands to die prematurely in the following years, and render hundreds of square miles of land uninhabitable to humans for the foreseeable future.
No, it's not supposed to happen. But things that aren't supposed to happen keep happening despite our best efforts. There is a lesson to be learned from that.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
Due to the decrease in total mass
It is in Russian. My grandfather is from the Ukraine and speaks both Russian and Ukrainian. He says that Ukrainian is harder than Russian. There is a considerable difference.
My name fits again.
Now the Russians can sit back and watch us. It doesn't seem so negligible when it's in our neck of the woods...
That information appears to be correct, however in my readings of the "accident" there was also one other factor that rarely gets meantioned, and it appears very relavent to fellow /.ers.
The UI was severly flawed at chernobyl for the operators to use. The above engineering faults were present, however there were also very serious issues in the UI that the operators of the reactor were unaware of. For example, the 1st time the reactor overheated the initial problem was due to the above engineering problems, but the UI to the operators caused them to freak out (overreact, no put intended). The initial overheating was not that big of a deal, and their training told them to stuff the rods into the reactor to slow down the reaction. Well, now its the engineering problem again because the rods were not designed properly, and the reactor temp kept going up, and so did the urgency of the alarms, so the operators by their training kept stuffing the rods in and did it much quicker this time, and again since the rods were flakey they actually speed up the reaction and the temp and the problems until Europe was covered in a cloud...
The moral of the story is that it is initially easy to say that it was a pure engineering disaster, but we UI designers also need to understand the importance of properly designing feedback mechanisms to operators so that they can properly deal with _normal_ variations in the course of operations of dangerous and powerful equipment.
The recent French ruling which disallowed Nazi material from being viewed by French citizens is another great example. It's funny how those abandoned barges are a gigantic and continuing risk, but we've never seen them (I haven't, at least) on TV or in the newspaper. Heaven forbid the talking heads tell the whole story and possibly save lives instead of applying bandages to the bloodied Russian image.
I'm ashamed to admit my surprise at the neglect after the fact being shown in the case of Chernobyl.
How long will it take for the building to go up on ebay... i'd put down a couple million, imagine the paintball? Although you would be a little i would be a little more worried cause you would get more than just welts :) ...
But seriously, folks. There's an issue that I'd like to have some informed comment on. I've heard that Western Europe, especially Germany, is phasing out nuclear power. Among the main steps that will be taken to keep up the capacity is to have gas pipelines from Russia.
But apparently this will probably mean an INCREASE in nuclear risk! Why? Because if the Russians sell their gas, then it seems that they'll just build more nuclear power stations for themselves, with designs that will be less safe than those for the superseded European plants!
Comments, anyone?
"Decepticons! Retreat!@#!@#!@#"
Because the country needed the power from the other reactors, which were still running correctly.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Oh, pretty much just let it sit there. They tried covering it up, but the cover is cracking.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Sand has one advantage: cost. Anyone who has been to any sand dunes knows the problems. Sand shifts in the wind. Nobody is really sure the sand pile won't blow away in the future.
The current sarcofagus was never designed to keep things out, only to help contain any radiation. (I'm not sure if it helps). Scientists are (or were, I've not kept up) going in there often to check on the effects of radiation. (unfortunatly including radiation on them). We need to know if species can evolve to withstand high levels of radiation, or at least want to know if only it didn't mean loss of some lives along the way.
Any thing that encases this needs to encase it fully for as long as it is dangerious. That could be a long time, potentially longer then mankind has been on this earth. Even if socity collapsses we would like to be sure that nobody will it up as archiologics tend to do.
you can drink water from a well within 100 feet of a coal-burning plant.
If you drink water from a well within 100 feet of Cherney-baby, you'll get Sr90, and bone cancer. Cheer up. You can safely drink there in about a million years.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
oh jeez, a Marshall plan for Russia?
Do you have any idea how much foreign aid money has gone into the pockets of corrupt politicians and gangsters?
Lets have some rule of law first. The current atmosphere of anarchy is not where I want to send my tax dollars.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
It was maybe 10 years ago, but I remember reading about teams that sent in radio-controled camera robots to scope things out, and they didn't last long. A few hours in that environment tended to fry the electronics. (not just the radiation, but the physical heat being emitted - this stuff isn't just "hot", it's also literally hot)
This is not going to be cleaned up any time soon.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
THe dome (called a sarcophagus) was built with cracks to allow heat to escape. (wild birds routinely fly in and out of the structure through these cracks, water seeps in and down to the water table).
Perhaps the world's greatest experts on control of leakage of radiation into the environment are the brave men and women at Battelle at the Pacific Northwest Laboratories (in Hanford, WA). They are in charge of the cleanup/ damage control at Hanford, and also, they're aiding the Ukranians with Chernyobl. They will be monitoring this, and working on it for at least another 100 years.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Some people want all fission technology banned. There are reasons of fear of accidents. Fear of storage of waste. Fear of terrorism. You can argue away all of these, and others can argue them right back.
one thing nobody can refute, because it has so plainly been demonstrated over the past 50 years of human history:
The effect on the political global climate, when a country HAS a nuclear weapon, and has demonstrated that they are not afraid to use it.
Overall: Good or Bad for mankind?
You decide.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
http://www.physics.isu.edu/~alber/coal.html
CP
Which is worse, breathing radioactive dust, or drinking radioactive water?
Both suck, of course. But most of the same potential problems still apply (plants grow in air, kids play in air, etc.)
So, given that the same hazards apply, consider that radioactive material in the air spreads much more quickly, and over a much wider area, than radioactive material in the water.
Neither solution is ideal, of course. But I'll take the one that is more easily contained, thank you very much.
----------
This is nothing new.
MetroWerk's "Power Plant" has been crashing and burning for years.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
For /. readers in France maybe you could comment on the fact that a huge amount of your electricity comes from fission and AFAIK there haven't been any "let's make the water turn black" disasters. I suspect it has to do with using more or less one design and building it the same way and applying the same processes to it. I also suspect it has to do with some basic design parameters eg. most US commercial fission plants are evolutionary developments of the original military reactors not designed to light homes but instead to power ships and breed weapons. So if you start from the ground up with a design expressedly developed ONLY to generate clean commercial electricity then I suspect it will operate much more safely.
OTOH none of that speaks to what you with the waste. In the US the #2 growth industry for Native American lands (after casinos) is nuclear and toxic waste disposal. Those lands aren't regulated by the Federal gov't so basically the truck backs up and nuclear shit falls out the back.
I believe that the pictures were taken by Peter Parker. He hasn't been the same since he got back.
Sorry, you needed to pay more attention in your high-school science courses. Radiocative waste decays not exponentially, but inverse-exponentially. A typical half-life for radioactive waste might be 10,000 years (they can run anywhere from seconds to millions of years, but it's the long-term ones that are worrisome). This means that in 10,000 years, half of the material will have decayed into a new form (which might very well be radioactive itself). In another 10,000 years, half of what's left will have decayed. And so fourth.
So, your statement is doubly wrong- the waste decays inverse-exponentially, which is bad news, not good news, and 100 years is on the lower end of the scale of decay rates we're talking about.
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" -Salvor Hardin
I'll bite - here is a web site about the nuke a short distance up the river from my house - it's been in operation since 1972 and you can see straightaway the spent fuel storage cask is a relatively small facility dwarfed by the actual plant itself - also notice no plumes of coal smoke or other emissions. One thing I do hope these experiments provide is real, valid data on the actual costs of running a plant, including spent fuel storage & decomissioning, made publically available. One of the many problems the former SU had was (just like many capitalist companies actually) trying to 'whitewash' various problems, hiding issues, etc. That's not good science, eventually undermines public confidence ("they lied to us once, how can we trust them about anything!") - and nuke power may not be well enough understood for private, profit oriented companies to undertake safely (like various phone companies, who always lie about service problems, but fortunately it doesn't hurt anyone). Hopefully the US regulatory commission (NRC) stays on top of these things.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Your professor is quite interesting. I don't wanna bash the guy for this but still I think it is quite important. I know the Hell it is for not remembering a thing of what you did five minutes ago... Truly my trauma managed to be overcomed after some monthes. Five years later it was all gone. Truly it is a Hell to not remember a few things of the past.
h tm
"In 1984 he moved to the University of Washington in Seattle as a Professor of Chemistry where he still works. Within two years of arriving in Seattle, he suffered a serious auto accident in which he suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury that has removed much of his memory of both the past, and day-to-day functions. Because he had to learn how to teach Freshman Chemistry with out having a memory himself, he devoted his time to learning how to teach in a different way. He learned to teach Chemistry using a computer and the Computer program PowerPoint,. Since then, he has produced over 500 computer slides for teaching Freshman Chemistry. These slides are now used with the Silberberg Freshman Chemistry book (McGraw Hill), since then, all major textbooks also have obtained computer slides, which the students love!"
Now how can he recount his experience in Chernobyl? Besides his work is not so secret as you sound:
"His work also has been with the measurement of RadioIsotopes in the environment from atmospheric weapons testing and reactor accidents such as Chernobyl in the Former Soviet Union.
All this in:
http://faculty.washington.edu/~zoller/biograph.
There is a special page about his trauma and how he overcomes it. Tough guy I may say.
Not so dandy in a place near it... Besides your common knowledge is quite xenophobic no matter the good manners. And there are no fences now... So you could take some more care on your sources.
Then Zoller should have a damn shake on his brains. If someone was talking then about shooting someone then it surely were not the workers.
There was PANICK everywhere. Even I saw this stuff a year later. You talk to some damn jerks and they start panicking. And these guys have fat bellies and take some harsh decisions sometimes. But talking "Chernobyl" was the same as saying "boo". And not because there was a KGB man behind them. One should see to get the picture. You say Chernobyl. Chernobyl what damn Chernobyl, there is no Chernobyl, yes there is, or maybe not, and what is Chernobyl? THAT DAMN CHERNOBYL!!!! Oh ah...
And they start talking. A picture of powerless bosses. Of scientists seeing the Irrational coming out of that building. Of officers running to volunteer death. Of people running away from Prypyat in confusion. Of builders working like Hell to close the sarcophagus. Of party bosses trying to close the truth.
And you see that poor bastard. trying to wipe out from his own memory all this. Not because of a point gun. Because he saw something he can't understand. Something he can't live with. A nightmare that overcomes all his life. Something like if God came to this hard comunnist and said Hi! Its Me! That's what I saw 15 kilometers from Chernobyl.
But no one has ever told about your point guns. On the contrary. Your hellish KGB officers seemed to desire to put point-gun someone in Kiev...
Look. I once heard about the radiation near the core. Now, I don't remember the dose. But I still remember that no one would get there more than 20 meters. To the INSIDE! And I remember that in the first days, the core was so hot that it nearly burned the helicopter in the "death fly" mission where a pilot went into his sure death (an officer btw). So how your dear had three guys sent there... Besides these "don't say anything". Give me a break ok? They would pick your dear professor Zoller and give him a excursion over the core. He asked for it didn't he?
"Get in the car. Shut up..." - What a Troll
And he is talking about KGB Ukraine... Brrr... You even cry THE HELL over them and they start bbbbbb, bbbbb.
In his site there is a reference that he lost his memory till the beginning of the 70's. And that he didn't even remember he was a professor.
His work on US atomic weapons WAS secret? Cool, so what this has to do with Chernobyl then? Why he needs permission to talk about Chernobyl? Clearence to bash the Soviets is still secret? To avoid offending ex-foes?
A pitty I don't have my library nearby. I would recomend you a few things on Chernobyl that explain much more than your xenophoby. Still written in Soviet times and much less pleasant then you may think. But less fantastic than your professor tales. And there, party bosses are not sweetly treated btw. Oh yeah, need Russian to read it...
The starter of this thread is a clear Troll. I wonder what his provocative porpose is. Even he deforms our posts to state how right he is. For example, the reference on this lake. He speaks about the "living graveyard" in Chelaybinsk. I state about the existence of a highly polluted region in Chelyabinsk which I know some people name it as the "zhivoi mogilnik" - living graveyard. Mogilnik is graveyard in Russian and nuclear waste dumps are named as "Yadernye Mogilniki" - Nuclear Graveyards. From the spill the place became known as the Zhivoi Mogilnik as the damn stuff is right inside a forest region, with a lake on it. tftp states correctly the existence of a polluted lake near Chelyabinsk. Now the Troll replies to me,ignores tftps reference to the lake, but refers that he states all good and well in Chelyabinsk City. Where THE HELL I talked about the city????
Your own statement shows a contradiction. The Geiger shows high levels of radiation and he is not allowe to reach the building. First, if they wanted to hide something they would care about this little instrument correct? Second it is natural they wouldn't allow to have him near the building if that thing is deadly radioactive.
And "safe" does not mean "not radioactive". The sarcophagus is deadly radioactive and its walls are crumbling little by little. However many experts say that the stuff will hold most radiation inside for a few years. That maybe the meaning they were telling him that the stuf was safe.
Yesterday, I saw an interview of some "liquidators" who live in my town. I will try to translate what he said. For some paranoid and ecologist dodos here.
He said that, yeap Chernobyl was a Hell. But shutting down the third reactor is maybe a bigger error. As Ukraine is cash stripped. And this reactor is the critical point that turns Ukraine from electricity "donor" to "user". If they shut it down, they will need to get the stuff from their neighbors. Now, he didn't say this, but everyone knows how Ukraine uses Russian gas and doesn't pay for it. Where they will get the money to pay for electricity?
The only way is to use the money people are giving for the shut down and build another station. But that will mean two things. In the state of shamble economy Ukraine is, there are chances they may build another "Chernobyl". And nuclear station construction does not allow errors or cash stripped projects.
Meanwhile money for Chernobyl will clearly be diverted for such projects. That will be natural. So what will happen with Chernobyl itself? There is work still to be done and sarcophagus needs lots of it to avoid crumbling from radiation.
One thing I saw in this "liquidator". A guy with clear traces of suffering some hell of a desease. His skin and hair are quite weird in some places. But damn tough eyes, strong voice, weighted statements and a very clear mind.
Yes, they sent robots AND people. There was even a huge construction tractor being operated from distance. However there were also people risking their damn lives. And some knowing that they wouldn't make it. One of them, the helicopter pilot that risked his life by filming the core. He got so many radiation that he died a few hours later. That was a needed job as no one could get a hint of what was going on, inside. And the only way was to get there in the heli. No robot or person would manage to reach it by land. It was damn too hot and radiation was bubbling everywhere.
Black and white? Well i saw several pictures and films on Chernobyl. They are both in colour and black and white. I still remember that the "dead fly" above the reactor was done in colour for clear reasons.
Besides your babbling doesn't add nothing Hell new to what most people know. Only how bad is the KGB and the soviets. Let me tell you one thing. Yes, there were times when people were forced point gun into death - II World War. Soldiers in panick, whole divisions retiring, camp prisioners were forced back to fight by the NKVD, somehow, the organisation before KGB. But that was in Stalin times. Later, when Stalin died, those who came to power, were some of those who were forced to do many things point gun in the past. And the first thing they did was to shot the main "point-gunner" of the country, NKVD's boss Lavrenty Beria.
Since then no one was forced at point gun to do something. Yes, there was no real freedom, people still lived in communist chaos. But "point-guns" ended in the Hot Summer of 53. Ask any Russian and he will tell you this.
In Chernobyl there were thousands of volunteers or comanded workers. Some knew, others not, the whole dimension of the tragedy. But everyone knew that the problem was very serious. Too hard to not to see this in those days.
Besides there was the problem that radiation is an invisible killer. Under such a situation you may get something even if you know and are warned about the dangers. Some high officers got their dose btw. There are some films on these "liquidator" workers. It shows guys working on the run. Many are seen with radiation suits, white or yellow uniforms and masks. But not all follow the rules. Some have their torses open and white suits bandged around. I noted one construction worker with his mask over his head. Everyone sweeting, dirt, tired and crying Hell at each other. Talks clearly go about running against time, trying to make the sarcophagus as fast as possible. On certain section, a huge robot is working on implanting whole concrete blocks in one side of the building. Helicopters pass the sarcophagus at speed and drop some stuff to inside. Does this fits with your people sent "at point gun" into the unknown?
Fusion produces helium. That's it. Helium. The same helium that they put in helium balloons.
*sigh*.
Once again:
Both fission *AND* fusion produce very intense neutron radiation. This transmutes atoms in anything nearby - i.e. the reactor itself - into radioactive isotopes.
So, your fusion reactor produces helium - which is well and good - but your thousand-tonne reactor vessel is low-grade radioactive waste by the time it wears out. This is a *BIG PROBLEM* - a *bigger* problem than primary waste would be for either type of reactor.
Yeah, the radiation in the core itself is hazardous to life (it is in fission plants, too) but you surround the core with water, or concrete or something and the radiation doesn't escape.
This same "neutron activation" of materials makes it extremely difficult to ensure that reactors - fission or fusion - are safe. Ever wonder *why* a fission reactor has three levels of coolant loops, instead of just running coolant directly through the core? It's because neutron radiation from the reactor breeds tritium and a few nice, unstable isotopes of oxygen and fluorine in the water. You don't want this leaking, and if it does leak between stages, you don't want the *next* stage to leak.
You _can_ build (reasonably) safe reactors, but you are vastly underestimating the difficulty, and completely overlooking a *BIG PROBLEM* with fusion. There's plenty of good research material on the web and in your local university's book store if you're interested in learning more about the subject.
Your sources seem to have missed a few important pieces of information, here:
There's a nuclear plant sitting next to my home city that supplies all of the city's power and exports power to the US. It's been operating for many years. Its waste fits in a swimming pool inside the plant (water makes a nifty radiation shield).
By comparison, a coal plant with comparable capacity would have dumped several million tonnes of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere, with attendant acid rain and other problems (not to mention the environmental and health hazards from mining the coal in the first place and transporting it to the plant).
You don't produce primary waste with fusion, but you do produce one hell of a lot of radiation. This makes your entire reactor vessel radioactive. For both fission and fusion reactors, this is a greater _volume_ of waste than that produced directly from spent fuel rods, and it has to be swapped out and maintained every decade or two.
If fission reactors are properly maintained, they're a wonderful power source. The problem is that a) the public is afraid of the word "fission", and b) nuclear plant maintenance tends to be under-funded.
They are leaving it all where it is. I advise you do the same :)
Finkployd
To combat this they have isntalled sprinklers inside. I guess wet radioactive dust won't fly as easily.
Of course the problem with that is polluting the ground water.
Which is worse, breathing radioactive dust, or drinking radioactive water? (and growing food in it, kids playing in it, etc)
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Quote (from http://www.chernobyl.com.ua/photo_12.htm):
"Technically, the accident was caused partly by operator error and partly by faults in the reactor construction itself. It all started with an experiment to investigate the possibility of producing electricity from the residual energy in the turbo-generators.
"To carry out the experiment, the operators broke six vital safety rules, and all automatic shutdown systems were taken out of operation. In addition, the emergency core cooling system for the reactor was taken out of operation."
Good going!
Bite all you want, but I'm not trolling.
No, it doesn't need much space. Yes, it needs rather a lot of shielding and phenomenal security and yes, it has to be there for a _very_ long time.
Storage _isn't_ cheap.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
You _can_ reprocess, yes, but I wouldn't recommend it.
Notice I'm a Brit. We have the two relevant components here for reprocessing - the Sellafield plant and a fast breeder reactor at Douneray. Neither runs anywhere near as cheaply or efficiently as they were predicted to, while they produce some pretty unpleasant waste. Both are considered failed experiments from all I see, neither likely to be replaced when their operating life ends.
The other thing to consider with nuclear reprocessing is that it necessitates rather more transportation of highly radioactive materials than would otherwise be needed. This is definitely something to be avoided, as the security precautions needed to transport this safely are very stringent, while the risk of contamination of the surrounding environment is phenomenal. Some here will probably remember the Mark Thomas Comedy Product's investigation into this very issue, and it was extremely painful reading for BNFL.
Reprocessing delays the problem at best and amplifies it considerably at worst.
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
Only cheap if we're looking at short-term economics.
I freely admit that I'm not a physicist or nuclear power expert in any way (I'm a programmer) so I won't comment on safety and efficiency. I've heard several suggestions that it really isn't that cheap to run and that the original suggestions were misguided but again I don't know the details so won't comment.
The one thing I've heard consistently enough to feel relatively confident in repeating, though, is that waste storage and decomissioning costs are huge. Except that because of when they appear they frequently aren't factored into the cost equations.
As a Brit, I've heard it suggested several times that our energy needs could be covered several times over by off-shore windfarms - which sounds interesting, plus is rather safer than nuclear fission if and when something fails. Anyone?
Greg
(Inside a nuclear plant)
Aaaarrrggh! Run! The canary has mutated!
2 coal plants to replace the failed Chernobyl one emit 10.4 tons of uranium and 25.6 tons of thorium, and a total of 34,200 millicuries (34 curies) of radiation per year. So operating for a million years they would emit 34 million curies.
8 tons of Chernobyl fuel was blasted out of the plant, in addition to radioactive gas leaks. "Several million curies" to "50 million curies" were released.
The radioactive emissions from coal plants are greater than from a nuclear power plant. The problem at Chernobyl was that it sprayed its fuel outside instead of keeping it inside where it belonged. But remember that the radioactive fuel came from the environment in the first place. Where do you prefer it to be?
Kudos to the great pro nuclear comments. If the general public would understand nuclear power better and its risks relative to coal they would be more accepting. Furthermore, I believe the environment would be cleaner. Coal is awful for the environ and it accounts for most of the electric capacity. Coal mining pollutes the water and wrecks the land. It emits co2, which is a greenhouse gas. Miners die of black lung disease, mine cave ins, and explosions. Pollution scrubbed out of smokestacks need disposal.
Yes nuclear does produce waste, but it can be contained with less environ impact than that of coal. What represents a pinprick on the map of the US can store a lot of nuclear waste. Coal devastates far more space (eg. a lot of the state of WV).
Lastly, nuclear waste does not spontaneously explode like a nuclear bomb unlike a depiction in a crummy made for tv movie that people probably take for fact. Nor do plants themselves.
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
How the amount of radation released in the incident/meltdown compares with the amount of raidoactives released in the coal burned to replace the loss of power.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I don't read Russian either, but it's probably in Ukrainian. Ukraine made the Russian language illegal a few weeks ago. (Not that there's much diffference, kind of like English and American.)
Not that there's much diffference, kind of like English and American.
Sorry for being off topic, but this is analogous to saying that French and Spanish are basically the same language. It's true that Russian and Ukrainian share a common heritage - Ancient Slavonic - but they are full-fledged, independent languages.
Cheers,
Greg
I remember that time quite well. not the explosion that I remember best, but the resulting radioactive cloud that floated across Europe. We were planning to go to Italy for a holiday, but we almost didn't since the cloud was heading towards the south of Europe and my parents would take the risk (even if it wasn't such a big risk I think). But then the cloud changed direction so we could go after all and I was a happy kid again. If I remember correctly, even in the Netherlands (were I live), the government warned us and took precautions. When I think back of it now, a lot of people in Russia risked their lives when they (unknowingly?) were exposed to the radiation and things could have gotten a lot worse even for Europe if they had not attempted to stop the fire from spreading to the other reactors. A lot of these people are dead already, mostly from diseases caused by the radiation. The lives of the people who are still alive today are getting tougher because the Russian government can't affort to pay their benefits anymore. I think this is a shame, because they are true heroes....
Yes, unfortunately the US has a law against reprocessing the fuel, unlike some other contries. I think Japan sends their spent fuel to France to be reprocessed, or something along that lines. You end up with more fuel for less money, with less waste... kind of a win-win... the problem is that people get very concerned about the transport of said materials...
A good breeder reactor does a lot of good, if used properly.
--
"It's tough to be bilingual when you get hit in the head."
Anyone who's talking about "nuclear hand grenades" is, quite simply, full of it.
1. Critical mass for Pu-239 is measured in the kilos. As in multiple kilos. How far do you really think you can throw 50 pounds of plutonium?
2. Shielding for radioactive materials is heavy as all get-out, too. Often, plutonium or uranium nuclear pits are cladd in nickel, tungsten, or some other very hard, dense metal. That also adds considerably to the weight.
3. The amount of explosives required to compress Pu239 in the initial stages of detonation is highly nontrivial.
4. It's possible to get by with less radioactive mass by switching to californium, or some other radioactive element that's easily fissionable and is extremely radioactive. However, the explosives, shielding, etc., are not so easy to switch around.
5. In other words, if your prof told you the Russkies were into nuclear hand grenade research, your prof has zero credibility whatsoever.
The actual author of this post is not Maldivian, but rather... er... well, I don't know, but the original article is here: http://www.dne.bnl.gov/atd-mag/chernobyl.html.
/. karma by lifting other peoples work. See his user info for other examples.
Apparently Maldivian is making a career out of earning
That's really pathetic, man.
MSK
Does anyone have any idea? (and wow, an intelligent AC post!)
-bugg
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
That's a very small number. By way of comparison, the visible universe is composed of less than 10^100 elementary particles. So by this math, if there was one atom of Sr-90 for every elementary particle in the universe, in a million years you would only have one chance in 10^10650 of having one left.
Try a thousand years at the outside, not a million. It would make more sense to just get your water from elsewhere, but with ion-exchange techniques known since the 60's you could make Chernobyl water safe to drink if you had to. (There were studies done on detoxifying fallout-contaminated milk. I happened to read one of them that was in my school library. Fascinating and thought-provoking.)
Did you know that the exclusion area around Chernobyl has become home to all kinds of rare species? It seems they do well when humans aren't around. Chernobyl may be one of the biggest favors the Russians have done for biodiversity... not that I'd want it in my back yard either.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
It got canned by the Clinton administration, I think.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
What water? Ceramic pebble-beds typically use carbide fuel layered with graphite (which becomes the moderator as well as the cladding). You can't use water with graphite, because it reacts to produce CO and H2. All pebble-bed designs I've ever seen are designed for gas cooling (which lets them run a lot hotter than water-cooled reactors can, and achieves higher thermal efficiencies in the bargain).
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
One of the biggest issues hanging over the Former Soviet Union is how that electric infrastructure will be replaced. Getting rid of the RMBK reactors and their explosion and proliferation risks (they were designed for continuous refuelling, and are thus almost ideal for making weapons-grade material) is one thing; putting that part of the world back into the 20th century with a clean and reliable electric supply (which is a prerequisite for the economy to grow) is quite another.
Maybe we (the USA and EU) need a Marshall plan for that part of the world, selling them wind turbines and combined-cycle gas turbine generators and taking their spent fuel so we know where it's going (better here than Iraq).
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
When the accident occurred, why wasn't Chernobyl shut down in the first place? Just curious...
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
I would like to see other pictures as well.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Some of these black and white photos are sure scary. Are there any color photographs?
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
Since the Chernobyl was shut down, what happens to the left overs? Where do they go? Thanks.
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/
get your pictures there, one stop meltdown shop.
1) How many people do you think we can get living on this planet without technology? No apartments that go 10 stories up and house hundreds of people. No efficient way to transfer food to all the people living. Damn, at least half of us are farmers again. Damn, more living space gone there. Damn, don't even have appreciable crop yields. Damn, farming is tough with no technology.
2) Do you think you'd live very long? Those pretty bengal tigers get hungry too you know. And damn, without our guns we'd be up the creek, wouldn't we? If you think your stone axe will take one out I beg you to go to your local zoo. Please, for all of us. And even that is technology. So why don't you go and survive merely hunting with your bare hands and gathering your berries.
3) Carbon monoxide is produced by inefficient combustion. I'm pretty sure fires happened before man had the ability to control them. At any rate its unstable, and breaks down in a short period of time. You might have to worry about it if you're letting your car run in your garage and you're sitting in it, but other than that you don't. I think that's a non-issue. Other pollutants are what nuclear works to get rid of. Coal is very bad for the environment and people. I'll take my chances with relatively very small volumes of nuclear waste, locked up really well, as opposed to SO2 floating through the atmosphere.
4) Nuclear fission isn't producing carbon monoxide, the power is generated by splitting atoms and using the energy released to boil water to turn turbines.
5) Not everything we do is killing us. If you don't believe that take a look at life expectancies across just the last couple of centuries. Without our current medical technology do you think many people would be living past 40? Not a chance.
6) Last tree dead? Last field paved? What is that shit? Do you live in a cave? Have you never used your car to leave a city? Or a bus to be friendlier to the air? Or hell, even walked out? There's plenty of pristene nature left. Sure as hell there's lots of development all over, but if you'd like a place for all us people to live that's the way of it.
7) Didn't have to worry about cancer. No, instead we had to worry about vicious animals, whether there would be enough harvest to feed your immediate family, whether the winter would kill of your livestock, and a billion other things. Cancer is one of the few life threatening things that we have to worry about these days. Worried about the plauge? Worried about typhoid? Cow-pox? Measles? Mumps? No, you're vaccinated or we've gotten rid of or contained these killers. Wow, technology at work. Of course you could just believe that god is pissed with you whenever you get sick. Then die because your solution is to pray until it goes away. Or be eaten by animals in the meantime.
Sure, some of the things that happen aren't pretty. Sure, in a perfect world we could all frolic through fields, gathering berries. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this world is a little more harsh than that. Humans have beat nature at its game of eliminating us. We still die, but if you think that anybody was living to 100 before technology came around you've invested a little too heavily in those intoxicating chemicals you're so worried about. If you think that as simple gatherers without technology we could house this many people on Earth, think again. Come visit Minnesota this time of year without clothing made by tools, have fun freezing to death.
Technology builds upon itself, you can't stop it. You can join the Amish and freeze it at a point, but you can't stop using some technology, and you can't stop more from coming into existance. Its the only way we can keep supporting all this life on this little planet. I for one am happy that I don't have to worry about if there will be enough wild berries. I like getting my food from a supermarket.
So in response to your final question, now what? I'll say this, live with it. Quit worrying so much, you'd be dead a lot quicker without it all. Why ruin the extra years you're getting from technology with the whining, worrying, anti-technology sentiment?
If not now, when?
Images at NASA from the Pioneer robot, and a whole slew of links from one Dr. Meshkati.
The images, in particular, are of very high quality, but are uncaptioned.
NASA's page, with commentary, is found here.
How are nuclear submarines the stupidest ideas in history? You want something to stay underwater, all other power sources require air or sunlight, it strikes me as perfectly logical that you'd use nuclear power. And nuclear hand grenades? Who built those? I honestly doubt such a thing exists. Even if you could find someone willing to use them, they would still be less useful tactically than a shoulder launched missile.
I'm inclined to believe that Zoller may like to talk up his own importance a little bit, and stretches the truth a little to do so. Why would he refuse to talk to you if you're a member of the press? There's no kind of security clearance that you can tell anyone except news people about. That'd be stupid, because the story would still get out, just through second hand sources.
"The question of whether a computer can think is no more interesting than that of whether a submarine can swim" -EWD
One stumbling block to finding out more information about Chornobyl is that the spelling is often different. The proper Ukrainian spelling is "Chornobyl". However, the English press has glossed over the name "change" since Ukraine became independent.
Either way, there are now plenty of books on the topic. Official Soviet statistics have always been suspect and more reliable estimates are, quite frankly, chilling. The thousands of military personnel who were sent in to cleanup this mess were equipped with little more than gas masks and were not well-informed of the extreme dangers they faced. Several respected television news programs have done documentaries on the aftermath (I recall seeing an excellent episode of the CBC's Fifth Estate a few years back).
I have quite a few friends in the Ukrainian community who are more actively involved in helping the victims - particulary children who have been saddled with radiation-related birth defects or sicknesses such as leukemia. The number of these children and their suffering is beyond tragic. Have a look at what you can do to help: www.childrenofchornobyl.org.
If you're seriously interested in learning more about this tragedy, feel free to email me. I'll consult with some fine folks I know who can better recommend insightful reading.
--
Do you think it makes much difference to Ukrainians whether the Russian empire is ruled by a czar or premier? Whether it's called a monarchy or "union of socialist republics"? The USSR was one thing and one thing alone: a vast Russian empire. Trying to pretend that the various "republics" had some sort of autonomy outside of that explicitly granted by Moscow is pretty lame.
Now, having said that, I'm not going to claim that Ukrainians are just victims here. Whoever was running that station had to be pretty stupid. Not only that, but the present president is an outright crook and everyone knows it. Hell, just last week some very Watergate-esque tapes surfaced that allege he had a particularly nosy journalist murdered.
Of course, that all of Ukraine's modern-day presidents are past Party apparatchiks doesn't exactly paint a glowing picture of the USSR, now does it?
The point is that the burden of Chornobyl has been dumped on Ukraine alone. That station was built by Soviet mandate and operated by a Soviet agency. Now that the great Soyuz no longer exists, the rotting legacy is left to Ukrainians to shoulder alone. That really pisses people off.
As for Russian/Soviet debts, the reason Russia hasn't gotten any foreign aid recently is because the astronomic sums they received in the past have vapourized in the most dubious of circumstances. You have your own mafia to thank for that. And don't think Russia hasn't tried to extort Ukraine's "share" of the Soviet debt either. This is what you get after centuries of subjugating entire nations - when it all falls apart. I won't shed a single tear for Russia.
--
My russian is reeeeeeeeeeeeeal rusty so I'm not sure if this is the same text as the linked article but it still has cool photos and is an interesting read: Post-Accident Report
Oh, btw, the russian stuff seems to be in KOI-8 if you want to look at that.
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Oh god, the thought of a panicky Alvin the Helium-Induced Chipmunk just slays me...
--
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
It's just that Chernobyl didn't get stopped early enough. No doubt this thread will be filled with Xenophobic "Hahaha, the Russians are crap and have no money, and the US is better, hahaha" comments when in actual fact, since Chernobyl, the US has easily been able to compete on the "incidents" front with any other country..
It is more than this, though. They do deserve some of that sort of talk in this case. The design for Chernobyl (and others in the former USSR) is such that when problems happen there is positive feedback. Makes it easy for problems to escalate. All nuclear reactors in the US are designed for negative feedback. When things start to get out of hand, that very fact slows down the reaction. This obviously doesn't make the reactor entirely safe, but it does greatly reduce the chance of catastrophic disaster.
I agree fission is history, but certainly the strategy of the NIF (small scale fusion of pellets) is much, much safer.
If something happens to the containment vessel, the pellets can no longer fire...there is no way the lasers can ignite them after a gross malfunction.
Even then, just hit the "off" button on the conveyor belt...no more pellets, nothing to track, the lasers can ignite anything.
Hydroelectric? Silting eventually makes all dams relics. The amount of energy required to desilt a dam exceeds all energy ever provided by the dam.
Solar? Well, the efficiencies are too low to really make it feasible.
If I had to dream about it, I remember reading an article by two scientists (circa 1997?) wherein, after the consumption of imported beer, they outlined a plan for a "big science" project.
In esscence:
1) "Manhattan" style project. Basically, unlimited funding to solve the task.
2) Massive increase in solar efficiency was paramount.
3) Construction of massive "solar farms" in the sunniest areas of the US (this was a US scheme).
4) The solar farms would be completely automated from end-to-end...robots repair all the panels.
But I have to say, I'm more excited by the NIF at this point. Regardless of the naysayers who yap about it just being a front for DOE atomic research (to get past the test bans -- which I don't believe, by the way) the process of pellet combustion appears to be absolutely safe and entirely controlled...there is simply no possible way to have a major accident with an NIF style fusion reactor.
while(1)
{
drop_pellet();
track_and_ignite_with_laser();
}
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
European/International events/people are always a good read...even the tragedies. (from the American perspective, anyway).
Ernst Rudel ("Stuka Pilot"), the battle of Kursk (which was the turning point for WWII) are both excellent reads.
Surely there are books about Chernobyl that are a quality read...I'm not talking about just an internet search, but maybe someone in the industry can post what they think about the various books?
As I recall, the acts of heroism displayed by the workers and military personnel in the aftermath of Chernobyl are chilling...literally, many volunteering to the task even though they knew the result was certain death.
"Mother Russia" : from monarchy to communism to tragedies like Chernobyl and the rampant organized crime and the current thrashed economy...but undeniably a wonderful contributor to the arts and sciences.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
"I can't swim! I know I can't swim! So you know what I do? I stay my black ass out the pool!"
I'll admit, that's a lot creepier than any of the Nostradamian coïncidences they're still making noise about.
---
Quiquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
Quite some time ago I saw something on TV that came out of Germany. They had enclosed the fissile material in ceramic spheres. You could drain all the water out of the reactor, and the pile of spheres would establish a safe equilibrium temperatore--physically impossible to melt down.
My Dad remarked at the time that even though such "second generation" nuclear technologies were orders of magnitude safer, they would never be deployed in the US because of the tremendous prejudice against nuclear. I guess he was right.
Does anybody know what became of this technology?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
Dude, either you're a troll, or your precious Professor Zoller is a troll.
Come on, dude... nuclear hand grenades? Some type of special security clearance that allows him to talk to any random person, but not to members of the press? He was investigated by some random MPs from the local military base, instead of guys in bad suits from the FBI? His work in "discovering" the fallout from Chernobyl? Radioactive fish in Seattle that the EPA is "forbidden" to talk about?
Also, your view of Russians is more than a little xenophobic. Here's a clue -- they're human beings, just like you, motivated by the same thoughts, dreams, and desires you and other people you know are motivated by. The firefighters involved could not have been happy about their jobs, but to say that they were "forced by the KGB" implies that they somehow had different motivations than american soldiers who died in Iraq, or american firejumpers who die fighting forest fires, or american coal miners who die of black lung disease. These are human beings who died, not mindless automatons with "not exactly a concern for human life" (your exact words).
Perhaps, in the future, you should try to remember two things: first, even college professors are human, motivated by human needs and desires, and those motivations are not always rational or honest; second, even russians are human, motivated by human needs and desires, and sometimes those motivations are rational and honest.
Actually, just remember that it applies to everyone.
Slashdot is jumping the shark. I'm just driving the boat.
... but the pictures like the ones here and here seem to say it all. Nasty stuff, but then most plants have "incidents" on a regular basis. It's just that Chernobyl didn't get stopped early enough. No doubt this thread will be filled with Xenophobic "Hahaha, the Russians are crap and have no money, and the US is better, hahaha" comments when in actual fact, since Chernobyl, the US has easily been able to compete on the "incidents" front with any other country...
Anyway, it would be nice if there were an English translation out there of this...
I hope that the site is still strongly monitored for years to come... If I remember correctly the dome that was built to contain the melted reactor began to crack causeing some radiation to seep. The last of the rods for the remaining reactors will be there until 2008, but who knows if that schedual will actually be followed.
I don't agree with Greenpeace Intl. about the renewable sources. What are you going to use? Solar power or hydroelectric? The first one is almost an expensive joke. Does it work? Yes, but for it to generate the same amount of power, you would need acres upon acres of solar panels and hope it doesn't get cloudy. Do the other reactors need to be shut down? Probably if they are in poor condition and poor maintenance.
This may sound selfish, but I think my energy bill is high enough as it is, including home and autos. I don't want it any higher because a people what to bet on flaky technology that is not as reliable, or useful as petroleum based products.
Amigori
-------------
I'll keep my car.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
Um, yes they did, at least for some of them. I remember reading a story about it in National Geographic (I think) a few years ago.
In some areas the radiation was so bad that it fogged up the camera.
I also remember that the "sarcophagus" is pretty lousy as a containment building. There are some fairly large openings. Birds fly in and out freely, and there was danger that the whole thing was going to collapse. There was talk about building a *second* sarcophagus around the first one, but I guess that never happened.
Following up to myself :)....
I did a search on nationalgeographic.com, and it might have been the May 1987 issue, if you want to look it up.
Wasn't it a cloud of cesium (sp?) that drifted over the Ukraine and on over the rest of Europe?
Yes, cesium is a common decay daughter of virtually all isotopes of uranium. Fortunately, most radioactive isotopes of cesium have relatively short half-lives and transmute into something else. Because cesium is probably the nastiest element that there is, and that's even when it's not an isotope that pegs your geiger counter with gamma radiation. Imagine sodium (remember your high school chemistry classes?) but an order of magnitude worse.
Want to know more about cesium? Sing the songs of cesium? Check those links out.
Neat cesium compounds:
Cesium ozonate (Cesium trioxide)
Formula: CsO3.
Molecular Weight: 180.9
Description: Unstable, bright red compound. Strong oxidizer. Decomposes with release of Oxygen. Reacts vigorously with water. Highest known oxide of Cesium, at the opposite end of the spectrum from Cs7O. Prepared by reacting Cesium or its lower oxides with ozone.
Uses: Curiosity, Exploding red ink.
Cesium Chloroxenate
Formula: CsClO3Xe
MW: 347.66
Properties: Explodes
Uses: Chemical curiosity, possible rodenticide
Toxicity: Unknown
Comments: One of the few known compounds involving a noble gas, a halogen, and an alaklai metal. Explodes if you look at it cross-eyed.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Actually, at least for Uranium-238 (the most common isotope) has a half-life of about 4.5 billion years. Just a tad longer than Carbon-14.
Fortunately, though, the longer the half-life, the less radioactive the isotope is.
Why?
The more unstable the isotope, the faster it will decay. That means more alpha, beta and gamma emissions over a shorter time, which means more energy released, more geiger counter or cloud chamber activity, and more risk of cancers to you!
Essentially, a stable (non-radioactive) isotope of anything just has an infinite half-life.
U-238 isn't harmless, but it's barely above background radiation. It's also a very common element in some places of the world. Eastern Manitoba and Western Ontario in Canada have huge uranium deposits. You can dig the ore out of almost any hole in the ground. Yes, it's radioactive. No, it won't hurt you. Just make sure you wash your hands before you eat or smoke, because you don't want it in you.
Like lead or mercury, it's a heavy metal, and tends to do unfriendly things when it gets inside you.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
the IFR Integral Fast Reactor recycles its waste over and over until essentially all of the fuel is spent. the very small amount of remaining waste that is not consumable has a half life of only 300 years and is no more radioactive than the original ore from which it was mined. additionally the IFR has passive safety features which makes meltdown impossible.
Yeah, they're a great idea. I haven't read much on the actual operation of them, but I think they show promise.
About breeders in general, I understand that for the physical size and cost of the facility, they provide minimal energy. I don't want to call them inefficient - I don't think that's really an accurate statement - they just don't put out much power.
But, I see them as an excellent way to dispose of radioactive waste and provide a little bit of power back to the grid, even if they're not good as primary power reactors. And they've got to be great for getting rid of nuclear weapons.
Sadly, I think the "not-in-my-backyard" syndrome will prevail - as it does with most reactor construction - as well as the low MWh-output per $$ in construction, maintenance and staff - will limit their application. I hope - and expect - that someone will come up with a breakthough design that will address the dollar efficiency.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Hey is that where they make Cobalt-50? I know my school imports Co-50 from Canada for the gamma cell in our nuclear lab. (About 10000 Curies' worth every 10 years or so!).
Co-60, and yup. In fact, that's where most of the world's Co-60 is from.
I'm not sure what percentage of it comes from the Whiteshell, Manitoba labs, but I know a lot is made at Chalk River.
I was looking for an article that I had seen somewhere where some kids had found an old radiotherapy machine in a South American garbage dump, and had later died as a result of having painted themselves with glowing paint made from the cobalt they found inside... But I happened on this instead. It's not about cobalt - it's about a kid in Michigan who appears to have gotten quite close to building his own breeder reactor, before the Feds got involved.
Now, I feel like a loser. As far as I got was being able to find steel rebars in concrete walls with an x-ray machine that I built using a microwave oven transformer and a tube I made with a blowtorch and a vacuum pump.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
So what is the worst-case failure scenario for a CANDU? Earthquake, terrorist bombing? Is there any conceivable pathway for a significant amount of radiation to spread over an area?
Operator error, I think.
Let's say an earthquake takes the calandria off its base and it rolls around. Fine, the heavy water will leak and the reactor will stop. There'd be some release, but since the fuel is in ceramic pellets in zirconium-alloy fuel bundles, it's unlikely to escape too far.
More likely - and more sinister - is the possibility of a used fuel bundle somehow getting out. That would be very dangerous, high-level radioactive waste, and could expose thousands of people to lethal doses of radiation.
I've held new CANDU fuel bundles; they're quite harmless. They're heavy, for sure. And they're very radioactive, but it's all U-238, which occurs commonly in nature, and while it's chemically purified, it's also chemically stable. So, it's no worse than a big chunk of good uranium ore. And you can go to the north shores of the Great Lakes and find that easily, if you know what you're looking for.
Like all reactors, the concept and operation is quite simple. A kid can do it in his back yard. But the problem is that they become complicated with all the monitoring and safety systems required to make them practical and actually harness the energy. At the Pickering Nuclear Power Plant - one of three (Pickering, Darlington and Bruce) that powers Toronto, Canada - a plumber made a mistake and hooked a water fountain up to the wrong pipe. Instead of fresh clean tapwater, the plumber managed to run into reserve heavy water. Not a problem to drink - it's water with extra neutrons in the hydrogen, not radioactive - but it's very expensive to isolate. But the big uproar that hit Toronto's media after the incident was that these workers had been drinking "radioactive" water. Indeed, the water had a little more than background radiation - it had run through the reactor core a few times before and had dissolved trace amounts of fuel - but it still posed no serious health risk. Mistakes happen, they have to be carefully monitored.
I think it's fair to say that the biggest risk with a CANDU reactor is accidental release of radioactive materials. I've never seen anyone come up with a failure mode that could cause a CANDU to pull a Chernobyl, or even a Three Mile Island.
I'd live, quite happily, next to any Canadian or American nuclear power plant. Real estate would be cheap, and the neighbor is quiet.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
I am not pro-nuclear, so you'll see my bias, and I don't think it's fair to blame environmentalists on (non-US) governments seeking alternatives to nuclear energy (since it IS unsafe, you cannot EVER guarantee that it will be safe,
Nothing is safe. There are varying degrees of risk.
Solar power, for example, is one of those things that is generally viewed as a benign source of energy, awaiting only more advanced solar cells to be practical.
Couple of problems with that. A solar cell must be fairly large to produce a fairly small amount of energy. Since a solar cell is essentially a large silicon die, it is brittle, and when it's exposed to sun and then to night and then to day, it will be expanding and contracting and will eventually fail on its own just due to mechanical fatigue - let alone if something else breaks it.
Basically, you're looking at making a large (let's say 6" round) integrated circuit for each cell (producing 0.6V at maybe 500mA in full sunlight). Assume a 20 year average lifespan before it cracks and fails. 0.6V at 500mA is 0.3 watts of power. What's the electrical load required to power sunny California? How many solar cells would you need? What would be the toxic chemicals produced as byproducts of those cells? Let alone storage systems, inverters, etc.
Nuclear power sucks. Sure. I agree. If something goes wrong, it can go *very* wrong. But usually nothing goes wrong, and it produces lots of efficient and relatively safe power. Building thousands of acres of solar panels to provide power is definitely going to have nasty environmental consequences, simply based on the huge quantities of chemicals and energy needed to build the cells.
and no one wants nuclear waste or a nuclear power plant in their backyards, whether they are environmentalists or not).I would. The real estate is cheap, the neighbors are quiet, and they won't care if I'm in the garage welding quarter panels onto my car at 4:AM with loud music playing.
I have a geiger counter; I'd probably have several around the house if I lived there. But it's risk management: I'd be safer living there than I would be in a community at the end of a runway, or even living within 200 miles of the San Andreas fault.
And, yes, I believe the government uses nuclear power without taking the appropriate precautions or having decent followthrough - we HAVE had our own nuclear close calls.Not sure what country you're talking about, but Canada's have been minimal. There have been accidents, but the public has never been at risk. Three Mile Island was also pretty small as reactor blowups go. The worst risk to the world from any nuclear project has been the arms race, and the resulting fallout from all the arms tests. Not from civil power plants, even RBMKs.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
As far as I know, forced labor isn't being used to seal the sarcophagus; The forced labor (if Zoller is correct) happened immediately after the accident occured.
Ektanoor; yes; this is correct, if my memory is serving me correctly. (Professor Zoller told us about helicoptor pilots that died hours after flying over it; I forgot what they were doing though.)
I don't know why they didn't want him to know what the radiation was like down there. Yes, they kept him away from the building because he would die if he got too close. He said he needed pictures of the interior. They said that they would get them for him. He showed us the pictures, in lecture, and said that people (2-3, I forget the #) died to get the picture. Now maybe the Russians can afford robots, but by the picture Zoller painted: No, they can't. He told us that they sent people down with cameras until one managed to make it back, and subsequently die.
But I really don't know why they wouldn't want him to know why the radiation levels were as high as they were. That's a good question to ask him.
He mentioned that when they were leaving, there was a guy who was looking over the car with a Geiger counter. Zoller said he looked over at the guy waving the device around, and didn't see any movement on the needle. He said that there is always at least a background radiation; he walked over to the guy with the device and turned it on. The device lit up.
The authorities weren't too happy about this. Someone (I forget if it was a translator or a friend or whatever) said, "Get in the car. Shut up. They'll take you to the airport. Don't say anything." I don't know if they were just embarrased, or if something else was going on. Ask Zoller.
One thing I'm taking from this Slashdot experience- ask more questions and keep more detailed notes!
Remember, you're free to email the prof.
Ektanoor, aside from the part where you called me a stupid troll, I liked your post. Okay?
For you, it sounds like these things are obvious, but from the background I came from, from what I was taught in school, it was just sort of this little cute accident, and it's all better now. So I was really shocked to learn about how terrible it was. It sounds like it's obvious to you how terrible it was, but for the rest of us, who don't know anything about Russia or Chrynoble (hell, I can't even spell it right), or even the cold war (I'm only 23; I don't remember much of it)), it was a bit shocking to learn this stuff.
In this post, you haven't refuted anything that I've said.
But, I was told that there were "brave firefighters" putting out the fire. I saw a hollywood-made documentary with a recreation, and that's the way they drew it: Brave firefighters immediately got on the scene to put out the fire.
Zoller told me otherwise. He said as soon as the accident happened, the KGB (& military- I can't quite remember) were on the scene and getting people to put it out under threat of there lives. (Well, they were all going to die *anyways*...)
As for right now: I have no doubt that your friends were brave and knowingly helping out. That's very heroic, and it's really important to me- they're making a better world for me, because they value human life.
I'm sorry if my description said otherwise.
I have a Russian student who I teach Computer Science. He's a good guy.
I love it. You say "Chelyabinsk? ... Everyone knows about that place, TV, newspapers talk about it, and it is known as the "living graveyard", but the guy immediately before you (tftp) posts that everything is fine and dandy there..! (I added the link to Chelyabinsk.)
This is a really surprising experience for me, okay? Look, I'm just a guy. I go to work. I take Chemistry at night for night classes. One day, a prof tells us stuff I'd never heard of before. I decide, "You know what, I'm going to tell people, as best I can," okay?
Just realize that's what common knowledge for you isn't common knowledge over here, okay? I probably have some of the details wrong, but overall, the picture was, and still is, much worse than we knew/know over here.
Yah, there's propaganda on both sides of the fence; we all know this. But what happened over there is far worse than any accident that ever happened over here. The Navada test explosions, 3-mile isle, and Hanford are *nothing* compared to Cherynoble. This isn't an attack on Russia. Russia doesn't need an attack right now. It needs serious help.
(Atomic Cafe, for the US readers, is a good video on USA propaganda, complete with 1950-60's video TV coverage, aired in Navada: "You're hair may fall out, but do not worry! It will grow back!".)
As for "Lake Death", I've never heard of it. I have no idea what it is.
I wish you were right.
Most of his research has been to use Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis to measure trace elements in samples from the Atmosphere. His work also has been with the measurement of RadioIsotopes in the environment from atmospheric weapons testing and reactor accidents such as Chernobyl in the Former Soviet Union. Zoller also has worked with a lot of nuclear weapons for the military, but that's not on any of his web pages.
The reason Zoller does his Chernobyl lecture ("Chernobyl: A Glowing Account"), is so that people will hear what he has to say. Again, he's not allowed to talk to the press, but he is allowed to lecture on it.
We can all be grateful for the grue-driver courage and sacrifice. There's no greater gift than laying down our lives for another; I believe that is true. But, the people who were initially putting out the fires in the Chernobyl plant were not functioning voluntarily. At least, that's what Zoller told me: The KGB instructed people to put them out. People went to the top of the whatever-you-call-it, pointed their hoses to the whatever-it-was, and died after a short while, to be replaced with someone else. There work was important, we should be thankful, but we should not be operating under the illusion that they were operating voluntarily.
From what I understand, everyone that was on the scene or in the nearby city is now dead.
That you're shocked and accusing me is a good sign. It means that you value human life.
I'm sorry. I just tell this because I have a priveledged position- I was able to hear this, and I wanted to rely this out. Again, I'm very sorry. But this is what Zoller has told me.
I imagine if National Geographic sent their reporters there, they'd have used robots.
But there's a big difference between the Russian government and National Geographic.
Professor Zoller had the same observations about the "sarcophagus". He said that he wasn't allowed to get near the actual building, despite claims that it was safe. (He brought his own geiger counter, and it was showing extremely dangerous levels of radioactivity as he went near the building.)
the IFR Integral Fast Reactor recycles its waste over and over until essentially all of the fuel is spent. the very small amount of remaining waste that is not consumable has a half life of only 300 years and is no more radioactive than the original ore from which it was mined. additionally the IFR has passive safety features which makes meltdown impossible.
But what about the equation:
E^2 = p^2c^2 + m_0^2c^4?
Here mass energy equivalence is being used in a system with non-zero net momentum. Are you telling me that this equation is bunk? We used it in tons of places, conserving energy/mass, and momentum to solve simple systems in my first year quantum course. Of course, I have heard that each new Quantum course first teaches you that everything you have learned so far is wrong, so that may just be the case.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
I feel that there is a huge difference between fear mongering among the general public and adequate supervision & safety. Everyone understands that planes can be dangerous when used/built incorrectly, but news reporters don't call every flight a "potential airline disaster", and there aren't hordes of people protesting outside of airports... Well, maybe that analogy doesn't work, but I hope I got my point across. No good can come of causing irrational fear in anyone.
Okay. The byproducts of a nuclear reactor are hazardous for a very long time. However, it is much easier to collect and deal with these byproducts than those of fossil fuel generating stations. And, at worst, they will probably only have a localized effect on the environment (barring disasters, of course). Compare this to the thousands of acres of trees dying thousands of miles away from acid rain. Besides, aren't the particulate matter foisted into the air by fossil fuel plants also carcinogens? And unless you have *really* good eyesight, you're not going to see them.
Of all the options available to us, I find nuclear the least intrusive and most effective. Call it the lesser of a hundred or so evils.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
The meltdown never would have happened if the Russians had used Linux!
Go to the "Power" button, drop menu down to "Power Plants", and plop down a coal plant for $6,000 in some cleared space.
Or better yet, raise some terrain, and add a water space for $40, and then a hydrodam for $400, and viola, more power!.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
American reactors do not require weapons-grade uranium to function; they typically have new fuel enriched to around 4.some-odd percent in U-235. Weapons-grade is, shall we say, higher than that.
Many university research reactors used highly enriched fuel because they were significantly smaller and would not be going through repeated fuel cycles. The perceived terrorist threat has since caused many to change their configurations in such a way as to use lower-enrichment fuels. As an example, at the time I attended my alma mater the reactor was fueled with 90% U-235 and shortly after my graduation they moved to a 20% enrichment design. The 90% fuel elements are still in the pool, however, so I'm not entirely sure how the "terrorist threat" has been reduced...but I digress.
The advantage of the CANDU is that by using a heavy water moderator instead of light water, they can use natural uranium and not enrich at all. Of course, you can also refule on the fly, which makes the CANDU a risk for proliferants -- and when you have to shut down your LWR every 18 months for refueling it gives you a built-in opportunity to perform inspection and maintenance of the entire facility. Don't knock the value of that.
Lest this degenerate into a cross-border "Our reactors are better than yours", let me hasten to state the obvious, that each design has features which can be considered good or bad depending on your priorities.
Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
My neighbor was a soldier when he got his dose. In a military experiment. Soemthing went wrong and only he survived the Hell. He lived in a town like anyone else. Truly it was a damn picture to see him.
I met a few "Chernobyl liquidators", yes they have a lot of damn stories about the accident and what happened later. But no one has ever told such BS that KGB forced them down. What they told was that the government jerks didn't told all about at the beginning, but that anyway many realized that things were deadly and there is a job to be done no matter the risks.
Not all plants are breeder plants. Go to FAS (www.fas.org) if you trust only american sources.
Chelyabinsk? Aren't your doctor messing something. Yes there is a "living graveyard" and guarded by military. But not to hold people but to hold a deadly nature. There is a dump that broke and radiation entered sorrounding waters and a lake. Everyone knows about that place, TV, newspapers talk about it, and it is known as the "living graveyard".
Your damn doctor should be more careful getting sources. He talks a whole BS about things we know. Chernobyl liquidators live in towns and die in them. Yes the were underpaid and the government is a bastard. The same way US gorvernment is a bastard for shutting down stories about soldiers getting high doses in Nevada, during the 50's, or hidding the whole picture of Agent Orange, or the consequences of Desert Storm. Here both governments don't make a great difference.
And today the Russian government is not KGB in suits. That ended. We are living in a bad but real democracy. Even the ultra-secret Novaya Zemlya and Semipalatinsk are relatively known. There are even photos in journals and newspapers of the greatest "OOOPS" of all History of Mankind. Lake Death - something several orders bigger than Chernobyl, Bikini or TMI.
You're a damn STUPID troll. That's what you are. I managed to be in Kiev for some time a year after the accident. And my accounts don't give any picture near your stupid xenophobic babbling. People were evacuated from nearby regions and from Pripyat city in promptu. However radiation seem to have caught some. There were abortions and mutations among some of these people after the accident. Some caught cancer.
However the government decided to not create panic over Kiev, a city nearby Chernobyl. And Hell there are a lot of places in Kiev that caught radioactivity. Once I got caught in one near Kiev. For nearly 6 months I had a good time, together with a few colleagues.
That's what I saw. HUGE irresponsability. Hiding of facts. A damn confusion. People suffering and not being cared at propper level. Suspected KGB officers saying the HELL of their bosses and burrocritters for being cowards and lazy on dealing with this critical stuff. And I saw Russians and Ukranians saying "we passed October, we passed civil war and we passed the World Wars. We pass this one".
If you don't get the point let me tell you one thing. There is nothing tougher than Russians. Their society is based in a sometimes ingenuous but strong collectivism and voluntarism. And they are a Hell when things get hot. I saw people running 100km/h on trucks under blizzard conditions at -45 to hope to get a near airfield. I saw people carrying by hand 18 tons of products through an airfield at running speed. Hands freezing like hell, wind blowing through your face, the airplane cargo door completely stuck and 10 guys carrying the whole damn shit through the small side door. And why this? Because the jerks in Moscow didn't do their FUCKING job and did everything up-side-down. Now no one gets sit and waits that the Sun comes shiny in Moscow and the boss gets a fresh morning. there is a job to do, and damn we do it! And besides, the supplies were not for us but for another site. We had enough food to hold a month more...
Btw -I got several burns and knocked my spine in this stuff. However I did what I should do.
There are still 14 other reactors of the same design in operation at other powerplants around the former Soviet Union. I have not heard of any plans to shut these down. With Chernobyl being the most visible of these, it's closure will very likely take the heat off the others, and they will continue operating with almost no one giving it a second thought, until the next major failure.
.^
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
A lot of the pictures (and other neat stuff) were taken from the inside Chernobyl by Pioneer, a robot devoloped by students at Carnegie Mellon University.
Coca-cola has just decided to cease production of Coke with traces of cocaine...
Tylenol is sealing their pill bottles to prevent tampering...
People are encrypting their messages using public-key systems and not simple substitution ciphers...
There's been a knife in my eye for ten days and I just pulled it out...
Oh, wait, these things were done years ago or would be done immediately. Why wasn't Chernobyl shut down after it turned parts of Russia into a comic book fantasy?
The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what we share with someone else when we're uncool. -Crowe
So when do the big trucks move in and start covering this mess up so that the land can eventually be used again? Until the entire site is under a large amount of SOMETHING (sand, concrete or marshmellow puff) the site will continue to be a hazzard even if it isn't producing power.
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
I must agree... The potential of nuclear power is grossly underestimated by the uninformed public, and the dangers generally overplayed. When was the last time you heard mention of radiation on the evening news without the word 'deadly' in front of it? And yet, radiation is a fact of the universe, whether you're sunning on the beach or working in a coal mine. Its 'deadliness' is in how its treated... and in the past 20 years, the nuclear power industry as a whole has made significant progress in safety practices.
;-) )
Not that they've had any choice. As one author wrote, all utilities with nuclear plants are 'hostages of each other'. Everyone knows that one more heavily-publicized Major Disaster will spell the end of an otherwise worthy industry, no matter how unsafe and environmentally unsound the alternatives may be. If one company messes up, everyone suffers. Therefore, for most utilities, constant vigilance and high standards of safety are the rule.
I wouldn't say it's absolutely pointless to argue the merits. There are good companies out there that haven't given up on nuclear. As energy in the US is deregulated, the more efficient energies will have a significant competitive advantage. The future is as yet to be written. But of course, there always have been and always will always be the less-than-perfectly-informed masses. Ever wonder if there was a Prehistoric Greenpeace dedicated to ending the use of fire or the wheel?
And who knows? Maybe after global society collapses and we've been through another Dark Ages lasting a couple hundred years, someone in the Second Renaissance find some plans left behind by the Ancients of Candu... (kidding, of course.
---
Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
Yes nuclear does produce waste, but it can be contained with less environ impact than that of coal. What represents a pinprick on the map of the US can store a lot of nuclear waste. Coal devastates far more space (eg. a lot of the state of WV).
Yup. Now, not that nuclear waste isn't without its risks. Certainly, it is. But it's small and containable, though highly dangerous stuff.
This being said, if there were a nuclear waste handling facility near my home, it wouldn't bother me. The real estate would be cheap, and it would be a lot safer (and quieter!) than living under a big airport's flight path. It's just a question of risk assessment.
Yeah, I'd have to put a new tube into my geiger counter and keep it on, but that's just part of my way of dealing with the risk of being in that location. Same thing if I were living on the Pacific rim: there'd be a seismograph bolted to my basement floor. It's a risk. Still less than driving my truck on the freeway to work every day.
Lastly, nuclear waste does not spontaneously explode like a nuclear bomb unlike a depiction in a crummy made for tv movie that people probably take for fact. Nor do plants themselves.No. Nuclear waste gets hot and changes chemically as elements are transmuted from one to another. But this process is well understood and managed.
As for the exploding plants, Chernobyl, being graphite-moderated enriched uranium, is an extremely dangerous design. (Can we think all the stereotypes of the Ford Pinto and the Chevrolet Corvair built into one car, only a thousand times worse? That's how dangerous an RBMK is.) And, even so, it took a *lot* of safety violations and operator stupidity to cause that thing to run away. A staggering number of things that you just don't do, were done there.
You know, things that you just don't do. Like in a car, doing 100 miles an hour, you just don't turn the wheel as hard in either direction as you can. Basic sense of having been around a car and knowing how hard to turn the wheel around a corner at 10 miles an hour give you some measure of understanding of what would happen at 100 miles an hour.
And yet at Chernobyl, they kept trying and trying and trying, doing one stupid ill-advised thing after another, in flagrant violation of all common sense when running a nuclear reactor, until it finally blew up.
This is like driving a 1971 Pinto with a full tank of premium gas down the Santa Monica freeway, and slamming on the brakes as hard as you can when you see an 18-wheeler behind you.
You just don't.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
Images loading slowly for you??
I've created a mirror Here
-Ando[EViLMEDiC]
- Ando
Let me address these one at a time.
Yes, Zoller said that they were working on Nuclear Hand grenades.
As for the special security clearance: No. His security clearance was due to the fact that he worked with nuclear weapons for the military. As for the permission to talk to his class and individuals, but not the press- this has something to do with what he saw through the military, vs. what he saw through the UN. I really don't know much about the protocol; Apparently he saw things working as a UN inspector that doubled what he saw through his military service. When he wrote to DC, they told him he couldn't make statements in front of press, and had to ask press members to leave. Look, I really don't know much about press and the military and what not.
Next: The MP's. He told something in a [previous] class that one of his students later told his father, who was in the military. The students father happened to know something about the matter, and reported it. Days later, MP's showed up in Zoller's office and required him to show his papers granting permission. I don't know what the subject matter was; it had something to do with a river. I really don't know.
His work in discovering the source of the fallout: The 1st people to tell that something was wrong were some people who were working in a nuclear lab somewhere NW of Cherynooble; I forget what the country was. (It wasn't Russia). Nuclear plant workers test themselves for radioactivity after they enter some sort of dangerous area, but just by chance, a worker decided to investigate himself before entering. He had been in the rain before coming to work. When he tested himself, he found that he was radioactive. The people in the plant worked to figure out what was wrong, and they figured out that the rain outside was radioactive. They reported it.
A short while after, Professor Zoller got a phone call from the military. He wasn't an active serviceman then, I think. I think he'd already left the military at this time, and was at the University of Washington (I forget.) They had arranged for airplane tickets for him to fly down to the bay area (I think). He took the flight (on a commercial airplane), and when it landed, before they unboarded everyone, he was specifically unboarded by the military. They took him to a lab where they had some substance. They told him (and other nuclear chemists with him) to analyze it and tell them what it was. They analyzed it for many days, and reported, "This is rainwater that has been contaminated; a nuclear reactor has exploded somewhere." They said, "That's right." (They wanted to verify that it was true- this is before we all knew about it.) He then helped with the determination of which plant blew up. The Russians were denying that anything had happened at all! Zoller has worked in environmental scientists and was a part of figuring out where the accident happened. He showed us maps that they had, of where the various reactors were, and showed us how the figured that it must have been the Chrenobyl plant. That was his role in determining that it had happened. The world didn't know about it till afterwards..!
As for the "Radioactive Seattle Fish": I can assure you, the fish in Seattle are quite tasty, and I imagine uncontaminated as well. Professor Zoller's predictions were that in 10 years, however, the situation will be different. As for this stuff, I refer you to the arctic environmental reports that I linked to above. Zoller claims that the EPA knows about the dangers in our Arctic sea. Right now, he says though, it's not their problem. I don't know what their permissions are like; Zoller seemed to imply that they were not supposed to talk about it.
My personal view of Russians is not xenophobic; I personally tutor a 16 year old Russian in computer science. He doesn't pay me anything; I just noticed talent in him, and decided to help him learn Computer Science. (It was painful just watching him play a MUD when he could be developing his skills and having more fun then typing the "n" "s" "e" and "w" keys.) He's very nice. I'm kinda trying to convince him that communism isn't the way to go, but he's really adament about it. I think he's just a little young and naive. He's leaning more towards socialism now, which I guess is better.
I suspect as long as there is Love in everyone's hearts, it doesn't matter WHAT type of government you have. Hell, you could probably have a fascist state if everyone was warm and caring.
Zoller's another story. He doesn't have the greatest things to say about the Russian culture. <shrug> I don't think that makes him a liar or an exaggerator though. He believes that the Russians have had troubles with corruption before Stalin even. He said that their history has been really bad, and that they've been suffering a lot, throughout history.
I'm really not a Russian historian. I don't know a thing about Russia.
There's a guy posting here (ekeen, or something like that). He might be a better person to ask about the Russian spirit.
At no point have I said that Russians have no respect for human life.
As for Remembering that my prof is a human: Yes, that's true. I can't really tell what parts of what Zoller has said are precise and which are not. Hell, I'm operating off of memory, and that's even worse..! But the essence of what Zoller has said is very clear in my mind. Anyways, I can't discriminate on something in Zoller's mind, so tell you what: I'll just recount as much I can.
It was quite a different story than I had ever heard before...
Hopefully this doesn't dissuade the people from adopting future nuclear ventures as I still think this is a viable energy source.
As for the final resolution of Chernobyl: remove as much of the fuel as possible, and begin to bury it as a permament reminder of the risks of experimenting outside of laboratory/controlled conditions.
And as for the people, they worked hard and bravely, and managed to turn a Significant Disaster(tm) to a major disaster. They should be proud of the work required to even recover from it.
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
I think you mean to say that the future is fusion power. Fusion involves the joining of two atoms into one, and the energy is released due to the decrease in total mass. Fission is the splitting of large atoms, and the energy is released due to (??? I forget)
Rebuttal time: There is no perfectly clean power source. You may claim that fossil fuels are safer than nuclear fuels, but have you ever seen smog in a city, or listened to the chronic coughs of someone who lives in that every day? And that's just from cars. The coal generating stations of the USian middle-north (whatever you call that area) alone dump thousands of tons of pollutants into the sky, most of which drift over into Canada. This isn't an anti-american post, but I'm just pointing out that the effects of these plants are far-reaching indeed. In fact, it has been determined that it is acid rain from these coal power plants that are destroying the maple tree forests in Quebec, and putting many of their owners out of (syrup making) business.
This is one easily recognizable area where nuclear fission has a distinct advantage. The byproducts of the reactions are relatively small, and completely contained. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a bunch of them sitting in a (modified) swimming pool somewhere? Fossil fuel plants dump thousands of tons (or maybe millions) into the ecosystems, and there is no way to contain them. I'd personally rather have one pound of solid waste that I knew was hazardous than breathe contaminated air and be slowly poisoned over my entire lifetime.
I feel it is my open mind which has allowed me to avoid the fear-mongering surrounding nuclear power. As such, I will read all replies with the same open mind. If there is anyone who wants to debate the safety of a properly designed and properly run nuclear power plant, state your arguments.
It may look like I'm doing nothing, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away.
--Scott Adams
Here is a nice map: http://www.angelfire.com/tx/atomicveteran/
The disaster at Chernobyl was the final nail in the coffin of nuclear fission generators, and when the last one is shut down, I suspect that I'll be one of the only people not cheering.
Nuclear power should have (and in almost all cases has) lived up to much of it's "great promise." Properly done, it is cheap, efficient, and safe.
Safe? That's right--it's hard to come up with a safer form of electricity than a good reactor. Coal? Not a chance! Hydropower? Maybe, but it's not very 'environmentally clean.'
But popular opinion matters more than facts, and one disaster like Chernobyl (which still hasn't killed a fraction as many people as coal) will push popular opinion over the edge.
Here's the problem: Chernobyl-class reactors are badly designed, lacking in a lot of safety features, and fairly scary. It STILL took years of substandard maintenance, lack of care, bad luck, and gross negligence on the part of several operators to kick off the meltdown. In a well maintained and properly designed reactor (CANDU!!!), an operator _couldn't_ cause that kind of disaster, no matter how they tried.
But it's pointless to argue the merits. Nuclear power is on its way out. Ah well. Hopefully we'll get serious about wind before long.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
That there are still several aging Chernobyl class reactors still in use.
In Lithuania, for example, the Ignalina plant provides something like 80% of the countries electricity, and is rapidly approaching the end of it's life. The problem is that they can't afford to shut it down, and they can barely afford to keep it running.
We're not out of the woods yet; the Chernobyl legacy will play out for many years to come.
One (slightly used) glow-in-the-dark water heater, near-mint condition. Still operates with the efficiency and safety it did when it was new.
Currently listed as item number #102934613 on ebay.
Buyer assumes all liability for maintenence, disposal and heating costs. Buy now and I'll throw in free shipping!
As is usually the case in any accident, a number of things combined to cause this one at Chernobyl. Unlike power
reactors operating in the U.S. and other nations, the Chernobyl RBMK reactor (which is a graphite rather than a
light water system) has a built-in instability that occurs at low power, which is how the reactor was operating at
the time of the accident. If some of the cooling water in this reactor converts to steam, the RBMK increases in
power. This in turn causes more steam to form, which causes _another_ increase in power. (In Western light
water reactors, the power decreases.)
The power increase feature of the RBMK caused a rupture in the cooling system and a large steam explosion
occurred. This caused the cooling system to fail and the outer covering (or cladding) of the fuel elements to
increase in temperature. The cladding was hot enough to react with the steam, causing hydrogen to form. The
hydrogen then caused a second explosion. The release of this energy set the graphite core on fire.
In spite of its dangerous features, the RBMK -- unlike other reactors -- had no actual containment structure to
prevent release of contamination. Such a design could not be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
this country, nor in most countries of the world. Studies done since the Chernobyl accident have shown that its
releases would have been successfully contained by a U.S. type reactor. As a matter of fact, a test of a 37-foot
tall scale model of a nuclear plant containment building was made at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico
in 1987. The test showed that the type of light water containment used at U.S. nuclear plants could withstand
more than three times the pressure it was designed for without rupturing or fragmenting.
A second factor in the Chernobyl accident involved a safety experiment being conducted. It required that the
reactor be run in a very unusual manner. Because of a series of operational problems, the operators found
themselves running the reactor far outside its safety limits. In their efforts to finish the experiment anyway, the
operators --in spite of running the reactor under unfamiliar conditions-- turned off seven of the safety systems in
the reactor and its control systems. Any one of these seven automatic controls could have prevented the accident
had it been on.
All this reflects important differences between Western and Soviet operators and their training. Unlike the Soviets,
U.S. reactor operators take continued training in classroom situations and on reactor simulators. Further, operators
in Western countries are strictly bound by what are called "technical specifications" which forbid operation of the
reactor outside of preset safety limits. All of which could be debaitable anyway.
Trust the source!
One of the interesting things about Chernobylite is that it appears to be made from fuel melting into the sand which surrounded the reactor itself. We are working on converting radwaste into a glass form for final disposal, and this got there quite by accident. It also did a remarkable job of flowing without melting through things; it's all over the floors, but doesn't appear to have gone any significant distance though them. If someone wanted to budget the money for the robots and such, it shouldn't be terribly hard to break the stuff into chunks using hammers and shovel it up into canisters to cart away. In any event, it's not an immediate problem because it's quite well immobilized as-is. The bigger problem is the stuff on the ground floor of the building that's in small particles or dust form, because it can be leached or blown into the air by a building collapse or just the wind.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f421.gif
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f431.gif
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f441.gif
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f451.gif
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f461.gif
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f471.gif
-Erik
Good, it was an unsafe design anyhow
Heheh... Positive control coefficient, and a moderator that doesn't boil away.
It was an *insane* design, bordering almost on the criminal.
And yeah, there are still more than a dozen of the damned things running.
<sigh> I know that the RBMK reactor was designed for three goals: price, efficiency, and plutonium production (for weapons). And since that didn't include safety, I guess the engineers got what they wanted.
I'm all for nuclear power. You can't burn fossil fuels because of price per MWh and emissions. You can't build damns everywhere, because there are great environmental consequences to those - and they're only practical where there's a large river. (ie. Hoover Damn powers a lot of L.A., but how far from L.A. is it, with resulting efficiency losses in the lines?) You can't build tidal, wind or solar plants yet, because the technology still isn't practical even in the parts of the world that energy is abundant enough to effectively harness.
Western Europe has been shutting down its nuclear plants and increasing its reliance on natural gas. Fine, gas is easy to manage and it's clean as far as fossil fuels go. It's also abundant in neighboring Russia.
Ironically, as Western Europe shuts down its reactors, Russia keeps on commissioning and retrofitting their pressurized water and dangerous RBMK reactors so that they don't have to divert any natural gas that would otherwise be sold to Europe.
As is usual with the policies enforced by environmental lobby groups, it backfired. Fine, the reactors in Western Europe are being shut down. And replaced with far more dangerous Russian reactors. Good work, you stupid long-haired hippie tree-huggers. (Ooops. I have long hair and I like Five Man Electrical Band, I guess I can't insult hippies.)
Before you moderate me down for saying that environmentalists are idiots, check out this link, which has to do very specifically with the Russian reactors vs. Western Europe natural gas fiasco. While environmentalists are full of great intentions, they're generally ignorant of science or the basic fundamentals of how a marketplace economy works.
Like it or not, nuclear power is going to be here for a while.
Let's encourage safe and responsible use of nuclear power, at least until something more practical comes along. Let's try to not ban nuclear power, but to ban RBMK reactors.
Let's see a day when all the running nuclear reactors in the world have *negative* control coefficients (ie. won't run without a moderator) and use a moderator that will boil off and shut down the reactor in the case of an overheat.
Back when I was in high school, I got a summer internship down the road from Ottawa at a place called Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories. This was the home of Canada's nuclear program, and is one of those rare things that makes me proud to be a Canadian. Canada still leads the world in civilian nuclear technology.
At the time, they had three big research reactors there - the decommissionned "ZEEP" (Zero Energy Experimental Pile, put out *one watt* of heat, built in 1944 for the war effort and has a colorful history), the vertical-loading National Research eXperimental "NRX" (since decommissionned) and the horizontal-loading NRU. All three were of the CANDU design, though the ZEEP and NRX were very primitive.
I was assigned to the NRX. Every day, I'd travel from Deep River to Chalf River, don my dosimeter, walk through the checkpoints and head to the reactor. It was great fun, helping out with experiments. And irradiating golf balls for increased driving distance.
There was a Commodore PET on top of the reactor, and it used to record and monitor the temperature throughout different parts of the reactor vessel. Then, there were the tube computers (no kidding!) with ferrite core memories which were used to provide more critical functions. (Semiconductors don't like ionizing radiation if the reactor leaked, tubes are a lot more forgiving.)
And, let me tell you, there's no feeling in the world quite like standing there, on top of the reactor, looking down 30 feet or so to the people below you, feeling the slight vibration of the pumps running all around, and the sheer sense of power in the room as the reactor below you runs.
Food was forbidden in the reactor buildings, because ingestion of bits of radioactive dust was an (unlikely) possibility. Even so, people did eat there occasionally, and I was no exception, though you become very careful with the geiger counters before you put it in your mouth. Because there was (officially) no food allowed in the building, there was no kitchen, so hot snacks were a rarity. Canned stew was a special favorite: the cans fit right into the (sealed) sample tubes. Drop them in at the top, lower them slowly through the reactor, and then retrieve them at the bottom. If you timed it just right, the can was nice and warm. If you got distracted, the can burst and you'd have to clean out the sample tube. (And no, this was not a good idea, but it didn't put anyone at risk besides those of us who ate the food, and we all knew perfectly well how the food had been cooked.)
I'd have gone into nuclear physics as a career if I could have handled the math. <grin>
My favorite reactor design is the CANDU (CANadian Deuterium-Uranium). It's an elegant design. Uranium 238 ("natural uranium") is used instead of the U-235 used in most other reactors. U-235 requires the added steps of processing and is also vulnerable for use in weapons.
The moderator in a CANDU reactor is heavy water; deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen. Deuterium is a rare but naturally-occurring isotope of hydrogen. It's ordinary hydrogen in every respect, except for the fact that there's a neutron in the nucleus. It's not radiactive (unlike hydrogen with two neutrons, called "tritium", which *is* radioactive). Deuterium water is heavier than regular water, simply because of that neutron in the hydrogen.
The heavy water serves as the moderator. It slows down the fast-moving neutrons coming off the U-238 so that they can sustain the fission chain reaction. Light (ordinary) water will not sustain this reaction - nor will no water.
Let's say everything fails. The computers go down, the control rods are all jammed out of the core, and the operators are idiots. A Chernobyl accident still cannot occur. It's physically impossible.
If a CANDU reactor gets out of control and overheats, the moderator (heavy water) can be drained away, shutting down the reactor. You can't do that with blocks of graphite like an RBMK reactor. With a CANDU, if there's a problem and the operator doesn't drain the moderator away, eventually a pressurized pipe will burst and the moderator will boil away. With no moderator, the reactor will cease to work. Since the fuel is uranium in non-water-soluble ceramic pellets, there will be minimal decay daughters in the resulting steam cloud. Which will be contained anyway in the concrete reactor house, which is held under a vacuum to prevent release.
Unlike Chernobyl, which drastically overheated. The solid graphite moderator began to burn. And still the chain reaction continued to produce heat, because the graphite moderator was still there... it burned for 9 days.
Let's take all those unemployed Chernobyl workers to see a CANDU or similar reactor in operation, train them extensively on it, and then help them build them to replace their aging and rickety designs.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
The Chernobyl accident is far from over. I attended a special lecture by Professor William Zoller at the University of Washington, in which he described what happened, and is continuing to happen, at Chernobyl. It is not an entertaining lecture to attend. He told us a lot of things.
Professor Zoller showed us images of the radioactive goo at the bottom of the reacter. He told us that 3 people died to get the picture. The government just kept sending people down with cameras until someone went down, took a picture, and survived the trip back up, and then died. (Prof. Zoller was functioning as a UN inspector, or something. I have forgotten just what he was doing over there.)
If there are pictures of the interior of the building where the accident occured, you can pretty much assume people died to take them.
No, they didn't send robots to take those pictures.
All Russian nuclear plants were breeder plants. Apparently, they wanted plutonium for their weapons. Nuclear submarines, and, yes, NUCLEAR HANDGRENADES are the stupidest ideas in history, but, hey... There wasn't/isn't exactly a concern for human life over there.
Arctic dumping was the primary means of evacuating radioactive waste. Rivers were also a way of getting the waste out of there. As far as I can tell, people panicked, and thought, "Well, if we just dump this in the sea, it'll all just go away." In 10 years time, here in Seattle, we'll be told not to eat our fish. (This is according to Professor Zoller.) He also claims that the EPA knows about this, but is required to keep quiet. But, they continue to monitor the radioactivity of boats coming in on the ports here in Seattle.
The so-called "Brave Firefighters" who put out the fire were not brave. They were forced to put it out by the KGB.
There is a place called Chelyabink-Tomask (unfortunately, I don't have my notes with me and cannot spell the name correctly.) that is a living graveyard, guarded by the military; They are essentially, waiting to die. Nobody goes out, nobody goes in.
You can verify this yourself by contacting him. He will ask you if you are a member of the press. If you are, he is not allowed to talk about it with you. So ask him personally.
I wonder if posting an email to Slashdot is equivelent to being a member of the press.?
These notes are from my memory, not my written notes; I'm afraid there will probably be imprecise. But they are accurate. That is, what is described is true, though I may have numbers and names wrong. His lecture scared me immensly. The room had only about 10% of the people in it by the time he finished...
Related links: