Slashdot Mirror


Putting A Lid On Chernobyl

slicer622 writes "Chernobyl is finally getting a containment structure (Washington Post). Billed as the largest moveable structure ever built, its designed to help take apart the wreckage and keep most of the radioactive material from spreading. It will be 800 feet across, and 300 feet high and will cost $800 mil."

293 comments

  1. Moveable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we really sure we want THAT? I'm just fine with it staying exactly where it belongs.

    1. Re:Moveable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you not read the article? The dome to cover Chernobyl will be moveable... not Chernobyl itself. Since the dome will be so massive (I believe I read it to be over 800 feet high, and the steel will be 40 feet thick) that it will be moved into place around Chernobyl in four sections along lubricated steel tracks. Next time, learn to read more than just the headline.

    2. Re:Moveable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      1. It's a first post. That implies little time for reading.
      2. The headline ("Putting A Lid On Chernobyl") doesn't say moveable anywhere. Guess you should take some of your own advice about reading.
      3. The post wasn't even about a moveable reactor. It was about a moveable shield. Why would you want to move the shield around the reactor, though? Once it's in place, hopefully it stays there.
      4. It was a joke. Laugh.
    3. Re:Moveable? by Peterus7 · · Score: 1

      I have a russian medal for Chernobyl survivors that I bought at a swap meet. I figure the previous owner probably died of radiation poisoning and wasn't able to recieve the medal. That, or it's irradiated, which would explain the strange burns I get on my chest whenever I wear it...

  2. The world's largest? by YellowSnow · · Score: 1, Funny

    Stable door finally closes!

    1. Re:The world's largest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worlds largest movable building structure is,I believe, the Cargolifter construction hall in Brand, Germany. Some details can be found at http://www.siat.de/projekte/_FACTSHEETS_SORTED/pdf _komplett/Cargolifter_Werfthalle_komplett.pdf

  3. Quake 3 mapping. by kpdvx · · Score: 5, Funny

    I always wondered what a Quake 3 map would look like in real life... :)

    For those of you who map, you'll know what I'm talking about. :)

    1. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Spyffe · · Score: 5, Funny
      I always wondered what a Quake 3 map would look like in real life... :)

      Pretty much the same. But maybe the frame-rate will be a little lower, and textures won't be as detailed.
      Most of the "real world" was actually produced for viewing using the ATI Rage 128. That's why computer games have become more and more attractive compared to the "real world" since nVidia unleashed the GeForce3.
      Making matters worse, the physics model in the real world is also limited. For instance, rocket jumps are impossible because of improper collision detection between shards of the rocket casing and the jumper, resulting in shards improperly embedded in the body.
      Unfortunately, the world was intended for full simulation on what was considered powerful in the 1980s. (The world existed before that, but only in a 2-dimensional form suitable for reproduction on thin, 35mm film.)

      --
      Sigmentation fault - core dumped
    2. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      perhaps linkage to a picture for those who dont map would help?

    3. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by delphi125 · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the clearest proof this millenium of the damage that radiation can do.

    4. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it just me or does the parent post make absolutely no sense whatsoever? I swear I read it like three times.

    5. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's just you. read it again.

    6. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone shoot a railgun up this guy's ass.

    7. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I still don't get it...

    8. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by elixx · · Score: 1

      Reminds me of the Calvin & Hobbes where Calvin's father explains to him how the world was actually in black and white a long time ago...

      --
      No, Beowulf clusters can't imagine in Soviet Russia.
    9. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Spyffe · · Score: 1

      My friend,
      That was just the illusion I was going for in that last line. You have made my day.
      Happy new year.

      --
      Sigmentation fault - core dumped
    10. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by niker · · Score: 1

      spyffe... it was simply brilliant... thank you :')

      --
      Moderators: Don't agree? pray tell why.
    11. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2

      Care to explain exactly what you on about for the many of us who don't "map" in Quake 3, and don't know what it means?

    12. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by DynamicBits · · Score: 1

      Wow, I was going to post a reply saying just that. I had forgotten exactly where I had seen the idea at. I checked to make sure no one else had said it, and viola! your post. Calvin and Hobbes was a great comic strip.

    13. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i believe it's called SEGmentation, not sigmentation..

    14. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by ErikZ · · Score: 2

      What, a nuculear bomb isn't enough proof?

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    15. Re:Quake 3 mapping. by Usquebaugh · · Score: 1

      Bandits at three o'clock!

      It's only two forty five, what shall we do until three?

  4. Hundred Years? by RobertTaylor · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The shelter is designed to keep water out and dust in for 100 years"

    Great, in 2108 we are screwed again.

    1. Re:Hundred Years? by eingram · · Score: 3, Funny

      Great, in 2108 we are screwed again.

      That won't be our problem, though. ;)

    2. Re:Hundred Years? by Subcarrier · · Score: 5, Funny

      That won't be our problem, though. ;)

      Early indications are that kids from the Chernobyl fallout area will live to be at least 200 years old. The third arm comes in pretty handy, too.

      --
      "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
    3. Re:Hundred Years? by FTL · · Score: 5, Insightful
      > Great, in 2108 we are screwed again.

      This is actually really good design.

      The first sarcophagus was built in great haste over a hot reactor. The article points out there there are huge holes in the roof, but doesn't point out that the holes are a feature of the design, not a bug. If it were air-tight it would melt.

      It has been nearly 20 years, and the sarcophagus has done its job well. Conditions are much better, and it is time for a new containment structure that addresses the current requirements.

      In 100 years when the new structure is worn out, it will be time to reevaluate the conditions, and build a permenant enclosure. Suggestions I've heard are that a simple (but large) sand pile might be the best option at that time (presumably waterproofed on the outside).

      The requirement for a 100 year lifespan for the current enclosure is a good one. Any longer, and you end up designing something that has to perform two very different jobs.

      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    4. Re:Hundred Years? by Yorrike · · Score: 2

      But what about their fantastic ninja skills and the ability to fight crime and the forces of evil?

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    5. Re:Hundred Years? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 2

      ... the holes are a feature of the design, not a bug. If it were air-tight it would melt.

      So, reactor #3 is still in operation, which means that plant workers show up to work several feet away from a nuclear pile reacting in open air. I wonder what they have to be thinking every time a warm breeze wafts over from the sarcophagus.

    6. Re:Hundred Years? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 4, Funny

      speaking of sarcophagi...

      why not just build a pyramid around it? They've lasted 2000 years, haven't they? (Dead pharaoh, nuclear reactor... pah... big difference)

    7. Re:Hundred Years? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      Sand cannot be used as it is a insulator, and they need to control the temperature inside the (admitedly devastated) core. Basically if they did this then there is a small chance the core could get hot enough for another release.

    8. Re:Hundred Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm you people do know that there are still people living around the powerplant? So the radiation isnt that bad its acctually only 25 times worse than 3 mile island from what I read. Chenobyl used to be a vacation spot for party bosses very beautiful place its sad what happened but in 100 years I think it will be more than habitable. There was a study done recently saying that the cases of disease and mutation and deformaty as a result of Chernobyl are greatly overstated and that in reality very few incidents of serious consequence resulted from the disaster.

    9. Re:Hundred Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've done some consulting work for Bechtel. If any organization can build a structure for this purpose, they can. They've done everything from the worlds largest dam, lauch systems for NASA, sections of the london underground, power plants all over the globe, they even put out the fires in Kuwait after the gulf war. I, and a lot of other people, have a lot of respect for this very fine organization.

    10. Re:Hundred Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > I've done some consulting work for Bechtel. If any organization can build a structure for this purpose, they can.

      Except they can't. Read the article:

      "None of the three design contractors, including Battelle and the French state utility Electricite de France, will be allowed to bid on the actual work."

    11. Re:Hundred Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe because we dont have half a million slaves to build it for us. (we could, but the leftists wont let us. :)

    12. Re:Hundred Years? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      It has been nearly 20 years, and the sarcophagus has done its job well.

      It has, but from the last i heard, it could collapse at any time, sending radioactive material half way around the world. Not really something i'd really want to see happen any time soon, since the results of such a collaspe would be grave.

      Anyone know why they are NOT building the new structor to keep radioactivity in?

    13. Re:Hundred Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      why not just build a pyramid around it? They've lasted 2000 years, haven't they? (Dead pharaoh, nuclear reactor... pah... big difference)


      Build a pyramid around it, and put a dead pharoah in with the nuclear waste. It seems like that would make for a great horror/action movie. They could have the mummy duke it out with Curium Man, a shitty Sov technician who was exposed to radiation and got super crime-fighting powers.

    14. Re:Hundred Years? by blitziod · · Score: 1

      well in 100 years we may also know how to clean up the place. I mean we could have WAY advanced technology by then and simply have a spray bottle full of stuff that removes radioactive fallout.

      --
      The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
    15. Re:Hundred Years? by sfe_software · · Score: 2

      ...from the last i heard, it could collapse at any time, sending radioactive material half way around the world.

      The first part of the plan is to re-enforce the current structure (specifically the stack that could potentially collapse). From some reports I've read, it seems it's not nearly as unstable as was thought when the 10-year report was made (1996).

      Anyone know why they are NOT building the new structor to keep radioactivity in?

      I thought they were. They will be sliding the arc-shaped thing over top of the area in four chunks. One end will be sealed off, and the other (which meets Reactor #3) will be closed off somehow. I couldn't find specifics on how that will be done, or whether it will be completely sealed or what.

      There's a river that flows nearby as well, and a wall was constructed underground about 30 meters deep to prevent (or reduce?) contamination. I also read that they don't want to do any digging near the site, to avoid uncovering any radioactive material; the "rails" (lack of better word) that the arc will slide on will be mostly above-ground.

      Basically I got bored and did a ton of reading about the whole Chernobyl disaster. Interesting stuff...

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    16. Re:Hundred Years? by fredrik70 · · Score: 1
      They've done everything from the worlds largest dam, lauch systems for NASA, sections of the london underground, power plants all over the globe,

      London underground? Not sure I would like to have that on my merit list! (londoners will understand...) ;-)

      --
      if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
    17. Re:Hundred Years? by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      I thought they were [building the new structor to keep radioactivity in].

      From the article:
      The new shelter will not "contain" the core's radioactivity but will be weatherproof.

      There's a river that flows nearby as well, and a wall was constructed underground about 30 meters deep to prevent

      If you believe other postings, this wall is falling apart too.

      I hope that things really aren't as bad as they were thought in 1996, but i wouldn't want to gamble on it.

    18. Re:Hundred Years? by netsharc · · Score: 2

      Care to share some links? I'm also curious, before reading the article I didn't realise the place is still boiling with radioactivity, now I want to find out more. No insult, but you seem to have only quoted the article.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    19. Re:Hundred Years? by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Yeah right. Or maybe we can destroy it with antimatter or send it back in time to way past the half-life of the longest decaying materials. Or maybe by then we'll all just leave the planet in our interstellar FTL personal flying cars, cars like in blade runner except traveling faster than light. Or maybe we could just lock in the coordinates on our freight transporter and teleport it directly into the sun. You're thinking 1000 years, not 100. Think of what we have accomplished in the past 100 years and stop being ridiculously optimistic. Where is my HAL9000 PC anyway? It was just here!

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    20. Re:Hundred Years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We already know how to do that. Evaculate all the people, detonate a neutron bomb at high altitude, move back in and operate normally. The spray of neutrons from such a bomb would make all the radioactive atoms decay on the spot.

      In one week the whole mess could be sorted out and returned to nearly pristine conditions. Unfortunately this is politically impossible. It would violate every nuclear arms treaty, it would eliminate the compensation payments that Ukraine gets from Rusia, it would cause Greenpeace to have a cow, etc...

    21. Re:Hundred Years? by sfe_software · · Score: 2

      Care to share some links?

      Here is where I started. I'd never known the full story, and did some Googling that landed me there first.

      I then modified my search to "Chernobyl Disaster" (with quotes) and found lots of information.

      One site that explains quite a bit can be found here. If (like me) you don't know much about nuclear power, see his Nuclear FAQ linked at the top of that page.

      I don't recall all of the other links I read; I followed a few from the Google results, and followed link after link from there. But the Stanford page is pretty informative IMO.

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    22. Re:Hundred Years? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2

      actully reactor #3 was shut down a year or two ago. It's now going to be the one side for the contanment dome.

    23. Re:Hundred Years? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Agree'd it was a good artical but not saying that it was never ment to be air tight was missleading.

      The other flaw of the article was it writes as if the core exploded which is incorrect. The explosion was a steam explosion when all the coolent boiled. This is what blew it apart. By some reports the rods from the core went for miles all around. It wasn't a nuclear blast. Thats why it was so bad from a radiation point. There was never a proper reaction to deal with the radiation. Now granted the explosion was caused by people doing something they shouldn't have causing the melt down. They had turned off all safty messures and were running an un-authorized experiment. It got away on them and there was no stopping it. This meltdown wasn't an accident. It was an orginized effort at being stupid. This is why chernobyl is a poor reason to call Nuclear power unsafe. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't a function of the reactor. Granted if they had a good containment dome everything probably would have been ok. Also if they hadn't done something they should have never been doing.

      3 mile island had and accident, though once again it was do to something stupid, a pump turned off and no one knew. A good part of the core melted. But since there was a proper dome no radiation was released. And because of what was learned there plants are even safer now.

      Nuke power is very safe, and clean. I much prefer one of them then a coal plant around. Also considering how shady reactors in countries like russia are it's very impressive there has only been one bad incident and it wasn't do to a design flaw.

    24. Re:Hundred Years? by Graff · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...maybe we could just lock in the coordinates on our freight transporter and teleport it directly into the sun. You're thinking 1000 years, not 100. Think of what we have accomplished in the past 100 years and stop being ridiculously optimistic.

      Well first of all we did learn how to split the atom and how to fuse several of them together. We also learned how to make materials that can conduct electricity without resistance at fairly high temperatures. We can travel underwater for months at a time without coming to the surface. We managed to get to outer space and visit the moon. Some of our creations have even left the solar system.

      Not only that, we also have devices as small as a match-head that can do billions of calculations every second. These devices can be put together into a machine that can hold their own against the best chess players in the world. People can not only fly, but many do so for less than a week's wages and they travel from one part of the world to another in just a few hours, going faster than sound can travel in some instances. There are now devices which can create light so intense and organized that it can cut through just about any substance. Many diseases which have killed billions of people in their childhood have been eradicated. We have managed to learn how to replace broken-down organs in order to prolong life and even how to make copies of people and animals.

      In short, we have come a long way in the past 100 years. If you were to bring someone from 1902 to the present they would most likely be utterly astounded by what we have accomplished in so short of a time. Many theorists already have some ideas of how we might be able to eventually "teleport" physical objects, they have done it for information and are seeking to expand it further. Where will we be in 100 years? 1000 years? I'm not sure, but judging from the past 100 years it would not surprise me to find out that a lot of the discoveries that you have just scoffed at are around in a century, or even less.
    25. Re:Hundred Years? by Graff · · Score: 4, Informative
      Evaculate all the people, detonate a neutron bomb at high altitude, move back in and operate normally. The spray of neutrons from such a bomb would make all the radioactive atoms decay on the spot.

      Uh, no.

      First of all, neutrons are stopped fairly easily by minimal shielding. Most of the irradiated debris would not get bombarded by a single neutron from that neutron bomb.

      Secondly, adding a neutron to an atom will have wildly differing effects depending on many factors such as the speed of the neutron, the geometry of the collision, and the nuclear structure of the atom. Some atoms, such as hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and other light elements tend to form stable or long-lived isotopes that give off fairly low levels of radiation. Others, such as uranium, can form highly radioactive elements and can start limited chain reactions - not a good idea in a closed environment. Take a look at this site for more information on nuclear chemistry.

      One last thing you should know is that a neutron bomb is not a totally "clean" bomb. It still has a pretty decent amount of radioactive fallout, it just tends to produce quicker forms of radiation which will dissipate more easily. There will still be a fairly "hot" zone which will only add to the bad situation in Chernobyl.

      Still, this is probably just a troll judging from your comment about the whole mess being cleaned up in a week. I thought you trolls were attending some sort of training sessions on how to be subtle? If you are then you had better take a refresher course on troll techniques, the first one didn't take.
    26. Re:Hundred Years? by Aglassis · · Score: 1

      You said "First of all, neutrons are stopped fairly easily by minimal shielding. Most of the irradiated debris would not get bombarded by a single neutron from that neutron bomb.

      This isn't exactly true. Neutrons are not easy to shield. They tend to pass through heavier elements like lead due to their neutral charge and the fact that they don't lose much kinetic energy per collision with a heavy nucleus. They can be shielded much easier with something like water where a light nucleus (of a hydrogen atom in water) can transfer more of the neutrons kinetic energy, slowing it down and hence shielding it. But this is still not trivial shielding. Things like the iron, cement, and other plant materials around the Chernobyl site should offer minimal shielding. Only the water that is above the core should affect it (which is undefined).

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    27. Re:Hundred Years? by seanadams.com · · Score: 1

      it wasn't do to a design flaw.

      You word for the day is "due."

    28. Re:Hundred Years? by PD · · Score: 1

      Trent Lott shut your damn mouth already.

    29. Re:Hundred Years? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      UniverseIsADoughnut wrote:

      > They had turned off all safty messures and were
      > running an un-authorized experiment. It got away
      > on them and there was no stopping it. This
      > meltdown wasn't an accident. It was an orginized
      > effort at being stupid.

      [and later...]

      > 3 mile island had and accident, though once
      > again it was do to something stupid, a pump
      > turned off and no one knew.

      In 1999 in Tokaimura, Japan had its greatest plant accident. Again, it was stupidity: discard all safety measures to save money and mix uranium power with nitric acid in a bowl with a great big spoon until it boils from the uranium spontaneously reacting. Two people died, and Tokaimura got a nice dose of radiation.

      It isn't that surprising that stupidity would be at the root of these disasters. After all, stupidity is at the root of a lot of factory accidents too. Budgets get cut, people get complacent and lazy, and bad things happen.

      Of course, inviting Godzilla over to film an attack on your plant on location, while engaging in bad safety practices is the height of stupidity. Life has a nasty habit of imitating his movies. Take, for example, Godzilla's love for power plant cuisine and the nuclear accident the Russians have in "Gojira", 1984 (Japanese version, the American version is a hatchet job as it was in the original movie).

      > Nuke power is very safe, and clean.

      We discovered fire thousands of years ago; but last summer's rampaging wild fires are testament to how much we don't have that under our control. What makes you think that our control of the fire of the atom, after a paltry few decades, is somehow perfect? There will be accidents, because humans are stupid, lazy and greedy. There will be accidents, because nature is chaotic, and the fire of the atom is not truly tamed. And there will be accidents, because our knowledge is imperfect and our experience is lacking.

      Then there is nuclear waste, which is neither safe nor clean. Especially when you have a Godzilla sized lump of it to sock somewhere, and your President wants to put it in a heap of volcanic ash with many fault lines and seven young volcanos nearby, 100 miles from a major city.

      > I much prefer one of them then a coal plant
      > around.

      I live near a coal plant, and my sinus problems are a serious pain. On the other hand, I'm kind of glad that when three trains collided in my town, turning their engines to scrap metal (they looked like they were made of crumpled tin foil), they were carrying coal, not nuclear waste. (And yes, I know coal can have a little uranium in it.) That accident was another example of monumental stupidity, with extra credit for the creativity needed to get three coal unit trains to collide head on, considering the limitations of train tracks.

      I don't care what kind of container they put waste for Yucca Mountain in, it is not going to be able to withstand an accident like that.

      Sonora:"New Godzilla reading. He's moving inward toward Tokai."
      Shinoda: "The nuclear plants, I knew it.
      Sonora: "Afraid so."
      Yuki: "Well, that's just lovely. Another Chernobyl."
      "Godzilla 2000" (US version dialog)

    30. Re:Hundred Years? by Graff · · Score: 2
      Neutrons are not easy to shield. They tend to pass through heavier elements like lead due to their neutral charge and the fact that they don't lose much kinetic energy per collision with a heavy nucleus. They can be shielded much easier with something like water where a light nucleus (of a hydrogen atom in water) can transfer more of the neutrons kinetic energy, slowing it down and hence shielding it.

      True, I misspoke there. I meant to say that the neutrons would most likely be shielded in this instance due to the collective effect of the water and the debris in which much of the radioactive material is immersed. Not only is there an undetermined amount of water, there is also TONS of concrete, steel, sand, and other materials surrounding the radioactive debris. The sheer amount of material above the radioactive elements would have a pretty good shielding effect on neutron radiation, even if it is inefficient at blocking neutrons.
    31. Re:Hundred Years? by stinky+wizzleteats · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the clue, dude.

    32. Re:Hundred Years? by stephanruby · · Score: 2
      We discovered fire thousands of years ago; but last summer's rampaging wild fires are testament to how much we don't have that under our control.

      That's because many environmentalists chose to have the forrest burn "naturally". With a little bit of preventative maintenance, those wild fires could have been prevented.
      http://pushback.com/
      http://greenspirit.com/

    33. Re:Hundred Years? by mangu · · Score: 2
      There was a study done recently saying that the cases of disease and mutation and deformaty as a result of Chernobyl are greatly overstated and that in reality very few incidents of serious consequence resulted from the disaster.


      It was in Science magazine last year. As far as can be discerned, in the fifteen years after the accident, nine people died of cancer which might have been caused by the radiation. Added to the thirty people who were directly killed by the radiation, plus one fireman who fell from a ladder while fighting the fire, a total of forty people died. Not too bad, considering that was the worst accident in the forty+ years history of commercial nuclear power.


      Countries that have outlawed nuclear energy based on it supposedly being "dangerous" should also consider outlawing air travel and most other forms of transportation, as well as most human activities.

    34. Re:Hundred Years? by mangu · · Score: 2
      I'm kind of glad that when three trains collided in my town, turning their engines to scrap metal (they looked like they were made of crumpled tin foil), they were carrying coal, not nuclear waste.


      Nuclear waste containers are designed (and have been tested) to survive any train crash. Train engines are not.

    35. Re:Hundred Years? by scrytch · · Score: 2

      The same people who would have these forests clear-cut 20 years ago are still running these companies and writing policy for the administration. Why the hell should we trust these greedy lying venal sons of bitches to not completely rape the environment until we're left with parking lots and strip malls coast to coast? Fox guarding the goddam henhouse indeed...

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    36. Re:Hundred Years? by Obasan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A little extra-curricular work if you are interested in the subject.

      How many people die every year as a result of coal mining, and respiratory related illnesses due to our use of coal as a source of energy?

      How many people die every year in oil extraction & refining? How many from petroleum based airborn pollutants released when petroleum products are burned in generating stations? (In fact, to make it easier, just look at Nigeria. One country alone is more than sufficient to make my point.)

      Now I'll do this bit for you. :) Not a single worker or member of the public has been killed by a commercial nuclear power plant in any country using nuclear power with the exception of Chernobyl and more recently Japan (2 deaths). There are currently 103 nuclear plants in the US providing some 20% of US power. France has 56 nuclear plants generating some 76% of their electricity. Yet there have been no fatal accidents in these countries. Compare this with the hundreds+ dead every year in oil and gas explosions in developing countries, dozens of miners killed every year even in North America where safety standards are very high... not even looking at the closer to hundreds or thousands of coal miners that die in poorer countries like the Ukraine.

      If this is not enough to persuade you, consider this. Oil funds terrorism. It is that simple. It was oil money that allowed Sep. 11 to take place. If you are going to follow the full cycle "toll" of using fossil fuels, you had better tally in another 3000 dead for the year 2001, and who knows how many in the future. Bush's claims that drugs fund terrorism is a red herring - the Taliban had banned and actively executed those who cultivated opium poppies. It was the Northern Alliance that was exporting heroin as a means of funding their civil war. (Hint: they are our ALLIES).

      "Nuclear" has become a bogeyman, when you look at the facts, it is the safest alternative.

    37. Re:Hundred Years? by yoyodyne · · Score: 1

      Battelle != Bechtel

    38. Re:Hundred Years? by armb · · Score: 2

      While you're basically right, it's a bit unfair to include coal mining deaths and not include uranium mining in your nuclear statistics.

      I'm still wondering how anyone gets the three trains in the previous post to collide head on, but I've seen photos of (empty) nuclear fuel containers after a deliberate test train crash, and they were still intact. The little uranium in coal is no problem in a train crash, but it does mean that most (all?) coal burning plants release more radioactivity than nuclear power stations are allowed.
      On the other hand it's hard to see how a coal power station can do as much damage in a single incident as Chernobyl when the people in charge do something really stupid (long term effects on climate change from continuous normal operation of lots of coal and gas powered plants compared with nucleur is another question).

      --
      rant
    39. Re:Hundred Years? by persist1 · · Score: 1

      ...Which almost happened in the days following the initial meltdown.

      For one reason or another (containment?) the authorities thought it a good idea to dump sand from helicopters, which had the unintended (but foreseeable) consequence of moderating the fuel present in the slag.

      http://www.wwnorton.com/catalog/backlist/030814. htm

      --
      ...When in doubt, think for yourself.
    40. Re:Hundred Years? by UniverseIsADoughnut · · Score: 2

      Correct, the containers are basicly indestructable. I belive they can even take a direct misile hit. Also if it was breached the Waste has been glassified, thats is mixed with molten glass and hardened. so it is very hard to spill. the container itself is layers of steel, concrete, re-bar, kevlar and all sorts of stuff to make it pretty much impossable to destroy. The have done test running trains into them. No problems. I would be more than happy if the government would pay me just to let me park them on my land. Easy money.

    41. Re:Hundred Years? by armb · · Score: 2

      > Also if it was breached the Waste has been glassified, thats is mixed with molten glass and hardened.

      Spent fuel for reprocessing (as featured in the news recently when it was found BNFL had falsified safety data for Japanese fuel they were reprocessing - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/646230.stm)
      also gets moved around by train (not all the way from Japan, obviously, but Sellafield isn't a port (and boats have accidents too)), and that isn't glassified.

      (More background on fuel reprocessing -
      http://www.defra.gov.uk/rwmac/press/p001115.htm
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/647981.stm)

      --
      rant
  5. state the obvious! by RobertTaylor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "We will need a lot of shielding"...said Vincent Novak, director of the Nuclear Safety Department for the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

  6. Other uses by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We could also use this dome to convince Paulie Shore to shoot "Biodome 2". Once he is trapped inside, we'll successfully rid the world of two of the most terrible horrors in the last 20 years.

  7. NYET! by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 0, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, the fact that Chernobyl isn't in Russia realizes you!

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    1. Re:NYET! by Ponty · · Score: 1

      It's actually on-topic. The poster is correct: Chernobyl is in Ukraine.

  8. Don't worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'll be dead by then! (Unless you live near their and the radiation gives you a mutant ability that allows you to live a really long time.)

  9. Thats All Great but.... by dirkdidit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    what happens if the existing "sarcophagus" fails after the bigger one is built over top of it? Couldn't this still be a disasterous problem? After all, I've heard before that if it were to cave in, it'd be like having the accident all over again.

    1. Re:Thats All Great but.... by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 3, Informative

      what happens if the existing "sarcophagus" fails after the bigger one is built over top of it?

      If the existing sarcophagus fails inside the new one, the dust and debris that are kicked up will remain inside the outer structure. The purpose of the outer structure is to prevent this dust from being picked up by the wind and contaminating the surrounding countryside.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    2. Re:Thats All Great but.... by Kanasta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what happens if the existing "sarcophagus" fails and there's no new one over it?

      I don't see how having a new one over it could make it any /more/ dangerous...

    3. Re:Thats All Great but.... by dirkdidit · · Score: 2

      I completely agree that something needs to be built over the existing containment building, but do they plan to dismantle the current structure after the new one is built? Even with a larger structure over top of the exisitng sarcophagus, in the event of a collapse couldn't that mean that the larger building would fall as well, creating much more material to be irradiated?
      Just my two cents.

  10. Why Shouldn't You Wear Russian Pants? by yoyona · · Score: 5, Funny

    Because Chernobyl Fallout.

  11. Radioactive Christmas trees by Spudley · · Score: 5, Funny

    Ties in nicely with the story today about radioactive Christmas trees being sold by russian businessmen.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
    1. Re:Radioactive Christmas trees by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ties in nicely with the story today about radioactive Christmas trees [bbc.co.uk] being sold by russian businessmen.

      Hmmm. Reindeers with glowing noses may not be myth after all.

    2. Re:Radioactive Christmas trees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just think of the electricity saving!!!

      Glow in the dark :D

    3. Re:Radioactive Christmas trees by Graff · · Score: 2
      Ties in nicely with the story today about radioactive Christmas trees [bbc.co.uk] being sold by russian businessmen.

      Heh, at least you don't have to worry about the lights burning out on those trees. The tree is its own light, glowing eerily over your Christmas presents.
    4. Re:Radioactive Christmas trees by hendridm · · Score: 3, Funny

      > Radioactive Christmas trees (Score:4, Funny)

      Only on Slashdot could this be modded as 'Funny'. I suggest doing a Google search for "Chernobyl Pictures".

  12. nuclear containment development cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should outsource the development of this structure to India; there is plenty of skilled, cheap, English-speaking labor there.

  13. Correction 16 years after by YellowSnow · · Score: 1

    Engineers are completing plans for what may be the largest stable door ever built. How many riders of the apocalypse?

  14. Surrounding areas by slycer9 · · Score: 2

    I'm curious about how much the surrounding areas have been irradiated...as far as how much the 'hot zone' has grown. Has anyone given any concern to the groundwater contamination? The dome is a great plan to prevent atmospheric contaminants, but I've not seen any below-ground plans. This seems like a half-baked (no pun intended) plan to me...at least they're doing SOMETHING.

    --
    Don't park drunk, accidents cause people.
    1. Re:Surrounding areas by core+plexus · · Score: 2

      See my post below yours for some info on that.

    2. Re:Surrounding areas by dirkdidit · · Score: 5, Informative

      About 7 years ago they built a huge concrete wall that goes underground and is meant to stop the flow of groundwater(to some extent) from the contaminated areas. The last I read of this said that the wall had begun to fail. The Pripyat River, which was Chernobyl's water supply, was severely contaminated.

      This map shows the "hot zone." It actually covers quite a large area.

    3. Re:Surrounding areas by dirkdidit · · Score: 2

      Bad to reply to your own comments I know but I forgot to mention that the wall was built very near to the plant. I did, however, manage to did up some more information on it.

      From Chernobyl.com:
      "To stop rising ground water (Chernobyl is next to the Prypiat river) a concrete wall was built 30 meters into the ground between the riverbank and the reactor. That wall is now acting like a dam."

    4. Re:Surrounding areas by haggar · · Score: 2

      On the map the link to you posted, shows basically two patches: one around Chernobyl, and the other nort-east of it. What's that other patch, whre did it come from?

      --
      Sigged!
    5. Re:Surrounding areas by dirkdidit · · Score: 2

      AFAIK, the other patch that's further away from Chernobyl is where much of the radioactive dust came to rest after being blown many feet into the atmosphere. The night of the accident there was enough of a wind to cause the dust to travel a few hundred miles before settling.

    6. Re:Surrounding areas by haggar · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that have been cleared after all these years? I understand the area around the reactor, which is a constant source of radioactive material, being so large, but the other spot, too?

      Really interesting map nonetheless. Thanks, do you have any other info?

      --
      Sigged!
    7. Re:Surrounding areas by agent+oranje · · Score: 1

      ... and here's the hi-resolution version for those of us who demand high-fidelity.

      still looking for some good photos of the reactor...

      --
      -agent oranje.
    8. Re:Surrounding areas by dirkdidit · · Score: 2

      I think the map is a few years old but a lot of the radioactive material that Chernobyl released has a halflife of a few thousand years. From what the Ukranian Govt. has said(probably isn't true, however) the immediate area around Chernobyl is relatively radioaction free, with the exception of the Reacter 3/4 building.

      Check out these site for more info
      Chernobyl.com
      Chernobyl.co.uk
      WNA Chernobyl Info
      Chernobyl Disaster Zone Site There's an english link on the bottom.

      Those sites are defintely some good places to start. Chernobyl is actually quite an interesting subject.

    9. Re:Surrounding areas by haggar · · Score: 1

      a halflife of a few thousand years And much more, even. There was stuff like stronzium and plutonium there.. but nuclear decay wasn't really what I meant, either. I was thinking about the diffusion of the radioactive elements in the environment, which disperses them in the surrounding area. After all, the dust that has propagated in the clouds is finite, and it's small compared to the material in reactor 4, which I consider a focal point/source of radioactive elements, and was expecting to see the radioactive "patch" mostly around that.

      Could it be that the picture was taken shortly after the meltdown? Besides, makes me wonder how exactly do they map the radioactivity in such a large area, with such a precision?

      Chernobyl is actually quite an interesting subject
      It is, isn't it? It was/is a great tragedy, but maybe we have an opportunity to learn much from it.

      --
      Sigged!
  15. And that's not the REALLY scary part by core+plexus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    They want to reopen Chernobyl. This article states "Officials from the European Bank for Reconstruction have criticised plans by the Ukrainian authorities to reopen a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. They say they are concerned about the safety of reactor number three, which sits next to the remains of the world's worst nuclear disaster, because of a failure to put in place extra safety measures that had been agreed. " Here is a link about the facilities.

    1. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are linking to a story that is several years old.

    2. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by core+plexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Here are some newer ones, sorry: SFChron NYTimes Try here for more.

    3. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by FTL · · Score: 4, Interesting
      > They want to reopen Chernobyl.

      It's not as scary as it sounds. Two reasons:

      1. The Ukranian government has a history of politically milking Chernobyl for all it's worth. Need some foreign loans? No problem, just pull out the Chernobyl reactivation plans (again) and watch Europe go nuts and provide aid (again). Rinse, repeat. Take these plans with a grain of salt.
      2. Even if Chernobyl were reactivated, it isn't that big of a deal. Chernobyl isn't as ludicrously safe as western reactors, but it isn't bad. The only reason it blew up is that the _mechanical_ engineers were running a test to see what would happen if they turned off all the safety systems, removed all the control rods, and shut off the power (duh). The _nuclear_ engineers were horrified at the proposed test, but under the Soviet system they didn't get veto power.
      --
      Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
    4. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      They say they are concerned about the safety of reactor number three, which sits next to the remains of the world's worst nuclear disaster, because of a failure to put in place extra safety measures that had been agreed. " Here is a link about the facilities. [chernobyl.com]

      Most reactors are extremely safe. TMI only realeased small amounts of radiation, and it didn't hurt anybody. Pressurized Water Reactors, like those used in the U.S. and most areas around the world, are extremely safe. They can't have a large scale chernobyl type meltdown. A much better safety record than many other forms of power generation, (Hey, people get killed in coal or oil plant accidents all the time) and they don't produce pollution. New types of reactors, such as Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which uses nonflammable helium (which cannot become radioactive when exposed to a reactor core, unlike water) are very safe and completely meltdown proof.

      The reactor used in Chernobyl and a few other Russian plants is different. It's an RBMK reactor. These were made because the are excellent and weapons production and electrical power production. But they are extremely prone to meltdowns. All of them should be shut down.

    5. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by smithmc · · Score: 1


      But, come on - surely the integrity of the remaining plant has been at least somewhat compromised by the meltdown?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    6. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2

      After reading this. I have to dissagree with you implication that TWI was only a small accident. Yes it did only release small amounts of radiation, but it could have been much worse. A very interesting and detailed read anyway if you've wondered exactly how a plant works, and what exactly happened at TMI.

    7. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 2


      The RBMK reaktor design is a piece of crap. It has a positive void coefficient, which means that coolant failure could lead to a strong increase in power output from the fission process. Worse still, the design has no containment dome. If Three Mile Island didn't have a containment dome there would've been a serious radiation release there as well.

      maru

      maru

    8. Re:And that's not the REALLY scary part by ScannerBoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Close but no cigar.

      They were running a low power test yes, that required them to turn off many of the plants exteranious support devices yes.
      What caused the reactor to blow up was a FUNDAMENTAL design flaw which allowed for pockets of gas to get trapped within the core when operating in low power mode.

      What happend was that during the low power test a system failed and the "operators" turned the reactor back to near full power (to get the emergency backup systems online) without purging the gas pockets they had created.

      Boom.

      The accident was caused by design flaw, broken system, followed by human error. Reving #3 back up is like blowing on dice for luck.

      --
      --Should work--
  16. Hey, some of it works just fine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once you get past the radiation problem, parts of that reactor are just fine for using. The country needs that energy.

  17. I remember reading that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in the now abandoned city (except for the cleanup workers), music is blasted over loudspeakers, to keep the workers from going crazy in the isolation (isolation from people, and from their senses since the cleanup suits insulate them somewhat from the environment) of the cleanup process. I guess they can hear through the suits, or wear hearing devices.

    1. Re:I remember reading that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to scare away animals?

      Rave at Chernobyl!
      LOL

  18. Old article. by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

    I'm pretty sure that Reactor 3 is shut down now, but that only happened recently.

    Tim

    --
    Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    1. Re:Old article. by satterth · · Score: 1
      the last reactor was shut down in 2000

      they want to restart it or get money to help with the power issues they are facing right now

      --
      Being called a dork on Slashdot must be like being called the retard in special ed.
  19. Obligatory Simpsons Reference by Cyno01 · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    "...birds and squirrels and birds come and go all the time."
    So do they have squirrels like in that one ep where Mr Burns was dumping radioactive waste in the park and that squirrel came outa the tree and zapped off the acorn with beams from its eyes and snatched it up with an extending tounge?

    GIR: I saw a squirrel! It was goin like this.

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  20. Have we got... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a mosix cluster of these yet?

  21. Riders of the Apocolypse? No joke. by MickLinux · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Chernobyl is named for a small, bitter herb, "chernoblis", that grows in the region. Of course, that's the Ukranian word. In English, the herb is called "wormwood."

    No joke.

    Of course, to quote my father when he heard that, "That's nonsense. Chernobyl wasn't a star. A star is a ...

    !!!

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  22. Obvious Russian Solution by limekiller4 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Leave it to the Russians to come up with a solution that is, in essence, one big matrioshka doll.

    Now I want to see the heir of the peasant who invented these things sue for IP infringement.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
    1. Re:Obvious Russian Solution by Chalex · · Score: 1

      The counter at the link said 106 when i saw the page :) Now that the parent comment is (+4 Funny), whoever owns the webserver might need to build a containment structure of their own.

    2. Re:Obvious Russian Solution by limekiller4 · · Score: 1

      You know, I noticed that counter too, but it didn't occur to me what would happen as a result.

      That's going to be one confused webmaster...

      "What the 1234 is a 'Slashdot'??"

      --
      My .02,
      Limekiller
    3. Re:Obvious Russian Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oops, that should have been "what the !@#$ is a 'Slashdot'??" =)

  23. Twighlight Zone by checkitout · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This reminds me of a "new" Twighlight Zone episode circa 1987, where a guy has a fallout shelter in his basement.

    His wife and kid go to the grandmothers for the weekend. Meanwhile, he's chilling with his friend drinking a beer, and a nuclear bomb touches down. They both go into the fallout shelter. They guy thinks he's lost his wife and kid forever.

    Months go by in the fallout shelter, and external radiation levels aren't going down. They can't tell if the detector is broken, or what. Eventually some "scavengers" come pounding on the door, and the father has to stop his friend from making any noise.

    More months go by, there's an argument and the friend finally says fuck it and leaves. Now the father is by himself, and even more months go by... finally he decides it's hopeless, puts on his sunglasses and heads out of the fallout shelter.

    Next scene, the wife and son are looking at the father's grave. Talking about him, etc. Then the camera pans up, and there's the city about 10 miles away with a huge glass dome over it.

    I found this summary of the episode as well:

    Shelter Skelter
    Teleplay by : Ron Cobb & Robin Love
    Based on a story by : Ron Cobb
    Directed by : Martha Coolidge
    Starring : Joe Mantegna; Joan Allen
    Summary : A survivalist believes he has lived through a nuclear war in his shelter. In reality, it was an accident which destroyed his town and contributed to bringing peace to Earth, and he has been entombed for ever.

    1. Re:Twighlight Zone by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      This story is remeniscent of what it is like trying to pick the right stocks or the right career.

      BTW, how did the wife and kids survive before the shell was built? Maybe they were waaaay out of town at the time?

    2. Re:Twighlight Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I totally remember that episode. He also lost the ability to communicate using his radios since he was just showing off to his friend when the accident happened, and he forgot to lower the antenna, which was then destroyed in the accident (I think it was a nuclear bomb factory nearby).

    3. Re:Twighlight Zone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      BTW, how did the wife and kids survive before the shell was built? Maybe they were waaaay out of town at the time?

      IIRC they were at his wife's parents/sister with the kids, out of town, when the incident happened.

      The man was hopeless because he had no contact with the outside world. Even if his shelter had radio equipment, he was just showing it to his friend when the meltdown came, so the antenna which was normally kept sealed shut was blown with the rest of the town.

      The funny part is that the scavengers where (supposedly) officers that were making sure nobody was left inside alive.

    4. Re:Twighlight Zone by checkitout · · Score: 2

      BTW, how did the wife and kids survive before the shell was built? Maybe they were waaaay out of town at the time?

      Yeah, they were at the grandmothers house, very far away from the city.

    5. Re:Twighlight Zone by phillymjs · · Score: 3, Informative

      I have this episode sitting on my TiVo right now, and you're almost right. This is one of my favorite NTZ eps, so allow me to summarize:

      The wife and kid are out of town at a relative's house.

      The nuclear detonation is from an accident at a nearby airbase while the crews were preparing the planes in case of war.

      The 'scavengers' Joe Mantegna and his buddy hear are actually recovery crews looking for survivors, and bulldozing the contaminated rubble into as small an area as possible prior to encasing it in the concrete dome later to be known as the "Peace Dome."

      Eventually Joe Mantegna's buddy goes stir crazy and leaves the shelter, against Mantegna's wishes. He later returns and begs for readmission to the shelter, but Mantegna refuses because the buddy is now contaminated.

      The ending is great-- the camera focuses in on Joe Mantegna, sitting alone in his shelter/tomb... it slowly pulls back, 'through' the door and into the dead world outside. Mantegna's buddy is lying dead outside the door, IIRC. We get to see a lot of blackened rubble and destroyed cars (think the scenes from 2029 in the Terminator flicks), and it's dark as night. The camera keeps pulling back, and then goes through another wall, and boom, suddenly there's birds singing, green grass, blue sky, and sunshine. Cut to a reporter who fills the audience in on the Peace Dome. Then we see the wife and kid. Presumably the wife knows Mantegna is still in there, but has decided that since he was so overbearing and loved the shelter so much, she'll just let him die in it so she can be free.

      ~Philly

    6. Re:Twighlight Zone by seann · · Score: 1

      send!

      --
      I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
  24. At last, a practical use for... by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    At last we have a practical use for all those AOL CDs eh?

  25. Re:THANKS TJERNOBYL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im sure the welsh were glad for the radioactive sheep

  26. Re:THANKS TJERNOBYL! by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry. Did you forget Lithuania? It seems to me that Lithuania, not Estonia, was at the center of the maximum fallout path. Right over Klaipeda, if I remember correctly.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  27. Re:THANKS TJERNOBYL! by nkrumm · · Score: 1

    Well, it happened. Thats partially why we have new saftey measures these days, and also why other countries are paying 768 million dollars to clean it up. To protect their own citizens.

  28. Cost by dokutake · · Score: 5, Informative

    It will be 800 feet across, and 300 feet high and will cost $800 mil.

    The dome itself will not cost $800 million, the whole project, including cleaning up inside the dome once it's there, will cost $768 million.

    --
    - Peter
    1. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, I'm glad I'm not the only one who actually read the article and found this grave typo (?).

    2. Re:Cost by SW6 · · Score: 1
      The dome itself will not cost $800 million, the whole project, including cleaning up inside the dome once it's there, will cost $768 million.

      We've got a dome in Greenwich that's already cost that much. Would they want to buy it off us, cheap?

    3. Re:Cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But given the fact that this is a government estimate, $800 million is probably less than what will actualy be spent.

  29. Photos and Poetry from Pripyat. The worker's town. by muonzoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I stumbled (ok Googled) across some interesting and moving photos from Pripyat, the town where the Chernobyl workers were housed.
    Shocking and worth a read / look.

  30. Bechtel by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2

    Great, Bechtel. If the budget is $800M, Bechtel will blow $4B for evaluation and planning, never build the thing, then punt the project off to the next biggest bribery outfit. Bechtel's main accomplishments have been building a massively overpriced and non-standard rail system in the Bay Area, screwing up the water distribution systems of several nations, ripping off Malta, and repeatedly gassing the residents around the Carquinez Strait.

    1. Re:Bechtel by Reverberant · · Score: 1
      Let's not forget that minor little highway project in Boston

      (Okay, so that's not totally fair, but I couldn't resist)

    2. Re:Bechtel by avij · · Score: 1

      I'm not aware of the other things you mentioned about Bechtel, perhaps I've been living in a cave or something. But at least I read the article that explicitly states that None of the three design contractors ... will be allowed to bid on the actual work. So I guess they're pretty safe from bechtelism.

      --

      Follow your Euro bills at EBT
    3. Re:Bechtel by Jeffrey+Baker · · Score: 2

      Of course, Bechtel usually doesn't build anything. They just go way, way, way over budget in the planning, design, and bribery phase.

  31. Re:THANKS TJERNOBYL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes I did forget Lithuania and I'm sorry about that.

  32. Chernobyl accident information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    A lot of stories about the Chernobyl accident can be found here.

    Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster On April 25th -26th, 1986 the World's worst nuclear power accident occurred at Chernobyl in the former USSR (now Ukraine). The Chernobyl nuclear power plant located 80 miles north of Kiev had 4 reactors and whilst testing reactor number 4 numerous safety procedures were disregarded. At 1:23am the chain reaction in the reactor became out of control creating explosions and a fireball which blew off the reactor's heavy steel and concrete lid.

    The Chernobyl accident killed more than 30 people immediately, and as a result of the high radiation levels in the surrounding 20-mile radius, 135,00 people had to be evacuated.

  33. Re:THANKS TJERNOBYL! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Stuck inside of Memphis with the mobile home, sing:
    Mother Russia
    Mother Russia
    Mother Russia rain down down down
    Mother Russia
    Mother Russia
    Mother Russia rain down

    Note: if you don't get the quote, check here

  34. Cover Story by limekiller4 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I've seen more than enough movies to realize that this is a mere cover story to hide the real purpose of this "container" -- sheilding a priveleged few thousand against a rogue earthbound asteroid.

    I'll bet you ten bucks that nobody knows where Bruce Willis is right now, either.

    Can't fool ME.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
    1. Re:Cover Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Naaah
      It's the new Microsoft skunkworks for work on the next generation operating system, codename "E-foot":
      - Big footprint, multi layered, hot core.

      - Uses gamma radiation carrier for increased bandwidth and propagation.

      - New "Blue Sheen of Death".

      - Auto-mutating Kernal and child processes.

      - Built in longlife power supply.

      Pity about the terms of use..

  35. Causes of the Chernobyl accident by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How can this happen in REAL LIFE???

    CAUSES OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT

    * Lack Of A 'Safety Culture' - The organisations responsible for the Chernobyl Nuclear Power plant lacked a 'safety culture' resulting in an inability to remedy design weaknesses despite being known about before the accident. A secret USSR memorandum in the Russian archives "Chernobyl Construction Weaknesses" clearly illustrates this fact.

    * Design Fault In The RBMK Reactor - The RBMK reactor type used at Chernobyl suffers from instability at low power and thus may experience a rapid , uncontrollable power increase. Although other reactor types have this problem they incorporate design features to stop instability from occurring. The cause of this instability is:

    + Water is a better coolant than steam

    + The water acts as a moderator and neutron absorber (slowing down the reaction) whilst steam does not.

    Excess steam pockets in the RBMK design lead to increased power generation this is known as a positive void coefficient. This excess power causes additional heating thus producing more steam and means less neutron absorption causing the problem to escalate. This all happens very rapidly and if it is not stopped quickly it is very hard to stop as it supplies itself.

    * Violation Of Procedures - While running a test of the reactor numerous safety procedure were violated by the station technicians.

    + Only 6 - 8 control rods were used during the test despite there been a standard operating order stating that a minimum of 30 rods were required to retain control.

    + The reactor's emergency cooling system was disabled.

    * Communications Breakdown - The test was carried out without a proper exchange of information between the team in charge of the test and personnel responsible for the operation of the nuclear reactor.

  36. Bechtel = CIA ?? by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    Is there anything to the rumor that Bechtel does CIA work, is a CIA front company, etc??

    --
    -kgj
    1. Re:Bechtel = CIA ?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course, the Russians are morons and only you know the score between Bechtel and the CIA.

      Don't flatter yourself.

  37. US$800 Mil? by ddtstudio · · Score: 1

    That's nothing. Just cruise around www.fuckedcompany.com for a while and look at executive compensation, not to mention the billions venture capitalists have tossed around each year.

    Now, if the advertising market were still hot, and the owners sold lighted space on it... it'd sell itself.

  38. Don't make me angry... by Stillman · · Score: 1

    Lethal gamma rays escaping from the reactor's damaged core would make the center of the arch too hot for humans to work.

    Not to mention the Hulk-tacular side effects.
    It'd cost them a fortune in clothing repairs for the hulking-out workers! ;)

    --
    Prisoner #655321
  39. I dated a girl from there... by SoVi3t · · Score: 0, Troll

    Her brother and her were given money constantly by the Ukrainian Government...meanwhile, her brother ended up going through numerous surgeries...but man, she was good in the sack ^_^

    --
    Defender of Microsoft and Communism!!!
    1. Re:I dated a girl from there... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but man, she was good in the sack

      Well, I would expect that having a tongue growing out of her vagina because of radiation exposure would have that effect on a girl.

  40. Most? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    Hmm ' will keep MOST of the material from spreading '.

    Glad i dont live around there.. :)

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  41. I wonder by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 2

    It will be 800 feet across, and 300 feet high and will cost $800 mil."

    How cheaply could we hurl the whole thing out of orbit?

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
  42. Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by more · · Score: 1
    It is most likely cheaper to build the reactor cover before the accident rather than waiting for one and then trying to figure out how to cover it. Also, the workers will receive far less radiation.

    Also, in Soviet Ukraine (nor anywhere else in the right-minded world) people do not use feet to measure distance. Feet are strictly reserved for walking purposes.

    Come on, you are supposed to be the information age intellects. Where is your nerd-pride? Pounds, feets and inches, oh dear!

    --

    -- Imperial units must die --

    1. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is most likely cheaper to build the reactor cover before the accident.

      Yes and no. Modern reactors already have a reactor housing that is designed to contain radioactivity in case of an incident. However, in case of a serious accident the pressure will rise inside the building, so to keep it from bursting like a balloon seals will break at a given pressure to ventilate air. Special filters are used to remove as much radioactivity as possible from the air you let out, but it won't be 100% effective.

      Also, in case of a full core meltdown so much head and radioactivity will produced that it's far from certain that any pre-installed housing will survive; at least it might be severely damaged.

      Soviet Ukraine

      ??? Ukraine was once part of the Soviet Union, but that was some time ago. It is now a sovereign state.

      AC

    2. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by nuintari · · Score: 3, Informative

      You can't build a reactor cover before a plant blows and hope it to be of any use. Unless you really want to ignore the nasty effects of a nuclear blast. Any structure built over a reactor would be blow sky high, and throw the structure materials off at hundreds of miles per hour, turning the entire plant into one giant nuclear claymore mine. You build them so they don't blow up, and use common sense, which the soviet government did not have, the test they demanded are what caused the accident.

      --

      --Nuintari

      slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.

    3. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by kylegordon · · Score: 1

      What has nerd-pride got to do with units of measurement? Some countries developed with different units of measurement. Tough luck to those that can't figure out how to work out things in different quantities. Some of us have been brought up using imperial measurements, _as well as_ metric stuff and would rather not be dragged kicking and screaming into your completely metric world. Not counting the cost of updating _every_ sign and notice on the roads etc, a good 2/3rds (or would you rather I wrote 0.66666 recurring) of our population were never taught metric in the first place.
      Learn to live together and be good at more than one thing. Just watch your boss smack you in the face when you tell him that his new 17" monitor is 43.18cm and if he wants it in inches he can use his calculator.

    4. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      I've seen sheets of plasterboard (sheetrock, for the USians) with the height printed in imperial and the width in metric... 8'6" x 1200mm or some such.

    5. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by afidel · · Score: 2

      Umm no, reactor containment facilities are in fact supposed to be able to contain anything short of a supercritical event (which should not be possible in a properly designed system). The Chernobel plant did not explode in a supercritical event, rather it's cooling system exploded due to the reactor becoming extremely hot and superboiling the coolant to pressures much higher then the system could handle. If the reactor containment facility had been about twice as thick it would have contained the explosion and nearly no radiation would have leaked to the environment.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    6. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've seen sheets of plasterboard (sheetrock, for the USians) with the height printed in imperial and the width in metric... 8'6" x 1200mm or some such.

      Sure you don't mean drywall?

    7. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government didn't demand the tests, the plant manager did -- he wanted bonuses that people got for doing stuff on time. In fact, I believe he was later tried and imprisoned for that exact thing. I would say that the only stupid people were the engineers who started the tests and that manager guy. The government had nothing to do with it.

    8. Re:Reactor covers, build it before the accident! by Gordonjcp · · Score: 2

      Hm, I thought you called it sheetrock. I have heard it referred to as drywall too though, just not as often.

  43. And in an unrelated story..... by Darth_brooks · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...The City of Cincinnati has offered the Bengals another new stadium 'out in the suburbs.' Mayor Charlie Luken Deemed the new stadium a 'multi-use facility' and plans are in place to have the team moved within the next 90 days.

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  44. Changes not as big as people thought by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

    according to this article The impact on wildlife and even humans is not as worse as people thought it would be.

    For example: Years ago, some researchers theorized that a severe nuclear accident like the one at Chernobyl would cause such severe genetic damage that animals would be born showing drastic changes in appearance. So far, the Chernobyl accident has not borne that out, the researchers note.
    and
    "For instance, there are probably two million people in the contaminated areas, and only a few thousand are actually sick from diseases than can be reasonably linked to the high levels of radioactive contaminants. We really don't know why this is yet," said Dallas.

    1. Re:Changes not as big as people thought by seanadams.com · · Score: 2

      Years ago, some researchers theorized that a severe nuclear accident like the one at Chernobyl would cause such severe genetic damage that animals would be born showing drastic changes in appearance.

      I don't know squat about nuclear radiation, so I'm honestly curious about this. How bad would it be? We all know "blinky", the three-eyed fish...

      Mutation is a normal and necessary component of evolution. Is the kind of mutation caused by radiation inherently bad, or is it possible that there might be some positive long term side effects (at the expense of some organisms dying because of the radiation poisoning)?

    2. Re:Changes not as big as people thought by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 2


      This is going to sound like a joke, but it isn't. One of the primary mutations found in animals was missing anus. The detectable mutations weren't of the kind that would benefit the evolutionary process, they were of the type that would commonly rapidly result in death: absence of one or more extremities, deformation of the skull or spine, absence of eyes, overgrowth of the eyelids, lack of hair, exposed internal organs, or absence of an anus.

      maru

  45. IN SOVIET RUSSIA by JanusFury · · Score: 0, Troll

    In soviet russia slashdotter who make joke about chernobyl get to help build new sarcophagus... Without pesky protective gear

    --
    using namespace slashdot;
    troll::post();
  46. Mutants? by haggar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have been thinking about this for a very long time: since we have this exclusion area around the reactor since 1986, animals were exposed to the radioactivity and no doubt, many died. But did any survive? Did the radioactivity produce some major genetical changes (some believe that the increase of cranial capacity in the Homo Sapiens was due to mutations from increased gamma rays)?

    --
    Sigged!
    1. Re:Mutants? by GlassUser · · Score: 1

      Generally, the first result of mutation due to irradiation is sterility.

    2. Re:Mutants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Millions of animals and thousands of humans live in the containment area. Over 2 million people were to Chernobyl level radiation for over 100 days until the area was cleared. To date only several thousand illnesses can be reasonably traced to Chernobyl as a root cause and only a few thousand birth defects (over two million people after all) can even potentially be attributed to Chernobyl. The radiation simply wasnt/isnt that bad outside the powerplant. Those who worked inside died. Search google for more detailed data. Living in space for 6 months will expose you to similiar levels of radiation.

    3. Re:Mutants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw a story about how scientists had compared the genes of mice in the affected area with good ol' standard mice and found approximatley 10,000 years worth of evolutionary difference between the two. Still looked like a mouse to me though.

    4. Re:Mutants? by glwtta · · Score: 2

      Not sure what they meant, but modern genetics isn't anywhere precise enough to detect "approximately 10,000 years worth" of evolution; that's just a tiny amount of time.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    5. Re:Mutants? by glwtta · · Score: 5, Funny

      Of course all the animals were radically affected. Approximately half of these animals are now gigantic and are terrorizing Japan as we speak. The other half have become smart-talking, hip ninjas.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    6. Re:Mutants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes. Mutant children were born like this poor baby.

    7. Re:Mutants? by haggar · · Score: 1

      Yes, and those are, of course, excluded from the gene pool. I was talking of those who survived and didn't become sterile.

      --
      Sigged!
    8. Re:Mutants? by haggar · · Score: 1

      I wasn't talking about the people: they were evacuated to a safe distance. That's why I was mentioning the animals, who were exposed to the radiation all the time.

      I still think we might find some surprise in the wildlife around that reactor.

      --
      Sigged!
    9. Re:Mutants? by haggar · · Score: 1

      Sounds interesting. Do you remember any keywords that could help me do a search on the 'net? Was it a TV documentary, and if yes, who prepared it?

      --
      Sigged!
    10. Re:Mutants? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course all the animals were radically affected. Approximately half of these animals are now gigantic and are terrorizing Japan as we speak. The other half have become smart-talking, hip ninjas.

      Oh.. I thought they were working for the RIAA.

    11. Re:Mutants? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 2

      haggar wrote:

      > That's why I was mentioning the animals, who were
      > exposed to the radiation all the time.
      >
      > I still think we might find some surprise in the
      > wildlife around that reactor.

      My guess: you are mostly going to find genetic defects. Most mutations are not beneficial. The most likely beneficial mutation would be resistance to radiation. After all, that is the negative factor introduced to their environment, and the ones to overcome that factor will be most likely to be selected to survive and reproduce.

      You are *not* going to find a Godzilla there. Every origin story Toho has ever given has either explicitly specified or at least implied some sort of divine or supernatural element in his creation. Godzilla the god predates Godzilla the mutated dinosaur. In "Gojira", the dance the characters watch on the island is a Shinto sacred dance, meant to placate Godzilla by worshipping him. As the old man says, in days of yore they sacrificed girls to Godzilla. Apparently, Godzilla prefered the sacrifices.

      "All our tomorrows, Great Sun, by the Light, are very forgotten.
      The Light dies. We pray and it sleeps."
      "Oh Peace Oh Light Return" (national song of mourning)
      from "Gojira" 1954

    12. Re:Mutants? by haggar · · Score: 1

      I did not expect Godzilla. Actually, I never saw any of those Godzilla movies - except the trailer (that's why I decided not to see the movies).

      Yes, resistence to radiation is the necessary pre-requisite for these organisms, to be able to perhaps develop other mutations. Useful? Well, -if- our overgrown skull is the result of such a mutation, then it has been a useful one, from the point of view of dominating the other species. Whether we're heading in a good direction overall, I don't know...

      --
      Sigged!
    13. Re:Mutants? by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      glwtta wrote:

      > Approximately half of these animals are now
      > gigantic and are terrorizing Japan as we speak.

      Sorry, the only animals doing any terrorizing in Japan these days are Hamataro and his pals. The one being terrorized is Godzilla. He was mean to Mothra in last December's movie, so she saddled him with her little anime hamster friends. Poor Godzilla had to suffer through nearly a year's worth of filming with them constantly underfoot and he couldn't even step on them! (Let that be a lesson to you: don't mess with the Moth!)

      Otherwise, it's just Godzilla duking it out with MechaGodzilla, operated by this year's "girl with a grudge". Looks like somebody is going to have to save the idiot humans from their latest Anti-G weapon. Anyway, it is going pretty good. Opening weekend, Godzilla came in third behind the latest "Harry Potter" and "Minority Report".

      "Human, yet running wildly --
      Can it be stopped?
      The Mechanical Dragon (MechaGodzilla)"
      Translated from the second "Godzilla X MechaGodzilla" (2002) trailer

  47. perfect place for it ... by HealYourChurchWebSit · · Score: 1


    I think they've got land cheap up at Three Mile Island that might be able to accomodate some of the waste.

    --
    --- have you healed your church website?
    1. Re:perfect place for it ... by DarkAurora · · Score: 0

      I used to live in Harrisburg. And there's nothing wrong or dangerous with the land surrounding TMI. I saw it with my own three eyes.

    2. Re:perfect place for it ... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Did you bring your geiger counter and if so, what were the readings? I'm genuinely curious.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    3. Re:perfect place for it ... by joskay · · Score: 1

      Here is a list of all of the US sites than can go for cheap. Look at Colorado (at 1300+ areas).
      http://www.prop1.org/prop1/radiated/

    4. Re:perfect place for it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There should be 0. There wasn't that big of a problem like they had there at Chernobyl.

  48. Did you see? by YellowSnow · · Score: 1

    The episode of Millenium (by Chris Carter of X-files) about Chernobyl, that was one of the scariest things I've ever seen, despite being a sceptic and non believer in the supernatural.

  49. Re:Riders of the Apocolypse? No joke. by LucVdB · · Score: 1

    ...and ?

  50. Current costs are ~ . . . by kfg · · Score: 2

    $20,000 American/pound.

    Do you have a "plan B"?

    KFG

    1. Re:Current costs are ~ . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Build a space elevator

    2. Re:Current costs are ~ . . . by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not to mention that the process would be worse than the equivilant of cleaning up the dog's accident on the carpet and carrying it, balance pecuriously on a peice of newspaper, right over you family xmas dinner, on the way to the trash can.

  51. OH GOD, DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all I can say.. Take a look at the pictures of the dead city.

    1. Re:OH GOD, DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever seen pictures of those old abandoned coal towns in West Virginia? Its just as bad. Chernobyl wasnt as bad as people believe it was. Countless studies have proven it. Only a few thousand illnesses and birth defects can be traced to Chernobyl (over 2 million people lived there) the Communists had no plans of evacuating anyone until the media made such a fuss. Thousands of people still live in the "containment area" and incidents of cancer there are only marginally higher than anywhere else.

  52. Why build another one by Boiling_point_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    Psssst - I know where you might be able to pick up a suitable enclosure really cheaply, if you don't mind using second hand equipment. As an added benefit - it seems to do a good job of discouraging tourists! ;-)

    --
    "If you create user accounts, by default, they will have an account type of Administrator with no password." KB Q293834
  53. Houston, we have a problem. by locutus2k · · Score: 0

    Not that I'm trying to be negative, but unless there is a need to screw with that, why? Isn't the place already contained? Besides, I really think the place should stand as a monument to the stupidity of man. Afterall, if your going to start using that stuff, shouldn't you ensure you have engineers running the place, not commie politicians?

    1. Re:Houston, we have a problem. by redcliffe · · Score: 2

      Read the article......

    2. Re:Houston, we have a problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a suggestion:

      Read the fucking article.

  54. How easy would it be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to see this structure from space? Also, could the outside covering of the structure be used for anything useful?

    1. Re:How easy would it be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My business plan calls for the installation of a muli gigapixel LCD display covering the whole roof area. We wil lease out the display as a live, realtime advertising display beaming its messages to overflying aircraft and space tourists. The display will be linked to airline schedules and local air traffic control radar to ensure that the messages are correctly aligned with the interests and probable language of the viewers. We plan to power it with a thermocouple on a little dangly thing that will be lowered into the seething carcase of the popwer station, that should kee us running for a while. Keep an eye out for the IPO

  55. Re:Photos and Poetry from Pripyat. The worker's to by freeweed · · Score: 2

    These photos are absolutely astounding. Looks like a fairly modern city, just abandoned for nearly 20 years. Anyone who has an interest in 'end of the world' type sci-fi, we've all seen 12 Monkeys and the like - THIS is what it really looks like when our modern structures are left completely to nature.

    I've never seen anything like it. Awe-inspiring and incredibly sad.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
  56. Why build a container? by MongooseCN · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    I thought Russia was using it's citizens to soak up the leaking radiation?

    1. Re:Why build a container? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Ukraine is using its citizens to soak up the leaking radiation.

  57. $250 million, not "$800 mil". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to the article the steel structure will cost $250 million, while the Slashdot blurb incorrectly states the structure will cost $800 million. The $800 million includes the costs of repairs performed to the sarcophagus in 1999, and will fund future cleanup work that will take place under the new structure.

    Dan East

  58. Chernobyl by DaSheeter · · Score: 0

    Overclockers "greatest" achievement.

  59. How wonderful... by ATAMAH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    After this tragedy occured soldiers were volunteered
    to go there and die fighting with fire and radiation. Many lost their homes and were evacuted to the town i lived in. We got lucky - the wind was in the other direction. Nevertheless streets had to be washed literally - trucks were spraying water everywhere trying to wash off the radioactive dust.

    Many thousands of people died in Chernobyl. Many more are STILL dying from this disaster. It was a tragedy. Please don't joke about it. It's beyond "dark humor" IMHO.

    1. Re:How wonderful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I apologize for the assholes who are making fun. We'll see how they handle laughing at a national tragedy when the WTC jokes start.

      And that was only 3000 americans.

    2. Re:How wonderful... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Start? Dude, I heard one on the 12th. I laughed my ass off. In soviet ukraine, reactor jokes you!

  60. Re:Photos and Poetry from Pripyat. The worker's to by garcia · · Score: 2

    the site has 18,497 visits (at this time today) since 1997. Watch that # double.

  61. Widespread Payment by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "In 1997, the Group of 7, plus Russia, the European Union and Ukraine, set up the Chernobyl Shelter Fund with the European reconstruction bank in charge. The bank established a shelter implementation plan, estimated the project cost at $768 million, and funded it with donations from 28 nations, ranging from $170 million from the United States to Iceland's $10,000."

    Interesting: far too expensive for the Ukraine, but the consequences are global, therefore countries around the world share the expense. This gives me a modicum of hope that people will put aside their national differences for the sake of planetary survival.

    --
    -kgj
  62. Heh. by DarkHelmet · · Score: 2

    Chernobyl: The results of a Russian Homer Simpson working at a nuclear power plant :P

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
    1. Re:Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if that is where the idea for The Simpsons came from.

  63. Re:Riders of the Apocolypse? No joke. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Chernobyl is named for a small, bitter herb, "chernoblis", that grows in the region. Of course, that's the Ukranian word. In English, the herb is called "wormwood."


    Cite!

  64. Re:Riders of the Apocolypse? No joke. by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

    > A star is a ...

    Huge nuclear reactor? ...

    Must... resist... "in Soviet... Russia"... joke...

    --
    if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
  65. Re:nuclear containment - outsourcing? by LUN!X · · Score: 1

    India?? Hell no. Try O&K instead if you want some serious machinery. If O&K can't handle it, then perhaps the makers of this little beastie can. Big Muskie was a 27-million-pound, 220-foot tall hydraulic walking dragline machine.

  66. barker by sstory · · Score: 2
    "It's so big, it could even rain inside, so we have to keep the moisture down,"

    Wasn't there something like this in Clive Barker's Imajica? A building, owned by the Autarch, so large it contained weater systems? How cool is that? Sure, not as big as Slartibartfast's shop, but still....

    1. Re:barker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given some rather large "ifs"...
      Wouldn't it be interesting to see what kind of ecosystem develops inside, especially given the fact that some of the animals in the area are bound to have interesting mutations?

    2. Re:barker by afidel · · Score: 2

      This will be the second building big enough to have its own weather system, the first is the shuttle processing facility in Cape Canavril Florida.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  67. Weather Systems, that is by sstory · · Score: 2

    *Weather Systems, that is

  68. Expert's Input... by miketang16 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "If it weren't for the radioactivity, I could almost call the job 'a piece of cake,' but the radiation makes it hugely complex and extremely difficult."

    Yea... and if it weren't for the radiation you wouldn't even be building the 'piece of cake'.

    --
    -------
    "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
    -- George Orwell
  69. the subject is overhyped by maluke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    come on, i live mere away 70km from the 'object' and i'm fine, actually i'm doing better than most people are. it has nothing to do with the incident - it was not SUCH a disaster after all. talking about some 'danger' from Chernobil is not even funny, it's like speculating about tv radiation effects on health while puffing a cigar.

    incident was local, incident didn't spawn no monster populations (some mutants - yes, but those don't replicate, you know), that's it.

    if anything is worth discussing in the story it's a technical side, so please reduce your speculations about 'Chernobyl danger' to a minimum - those make my bald head itch.

    1. Re:the subject is overhyped by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2

      The subject is only overhyped if you are ignorant of it. Where is you research that everyone affected by the radiation doesn't reproduce? Are you not aware of the fact the contaminates can spread if not contained? Why should we belive anything you say when you don't give a shread of evidence?

    2. Re:the subject is overhyped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because this is slashdot, a haven for research, science, and facts.

    3. Re:the subject is overhyped by maluke · · Score: 1

      that's a common way of replying to things that say that it's not like what they say on the tv.

      it's much more likely that the subject is overhyped when you are ignorant of it.
      All the tiny changes in plants in Chernobyl area are ok - mutation goes on all the time, any mutation that exceeds some limits makes the mutant practically dead, so all the changes are as tiny as those that would be without radiation, there are more of those - but that's not anything dangerous, IN ANY WAY.
      And yes contaminates spread if not contained, but that's not THAT dangerous as well. when it happened the first time there were no corpses on the streets (as could have seen in reality tv or something) very few effects on health were detected afterwards, our 'sporty' everyday life, cars, food and stresses are thounsands times more dangerous than all the effects of the incident in the past and in [speculated] future.
      After all it was not the worst nuclear incident, Hiroshima killed way more people.

      And about evidence: there is such a thing like 'null hypothesis': i don't need to prove anything - you do.

  70. Re:Photos and Poetry from Pripyat. The worker's to by MSBob · · Score: 2

    Quick question: Why do Russians always hang area rugs above their beds? Off topic, I know, but I'm really curious...

    --
    Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
  71. RADIOACTIVE CLOUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As we can see it affected many countries.

  72. Re:nuclear containment - outsourcing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow. These are impressive!

  73. Bechtel: Poor Safety Record by handy_vandal · · Score: 2, Informative

    The project design consortium is headed by Bechtel. We should perhaps be concerned:

    "Although Bechtel did not build the ill-fated Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear power plant, as co-manager of the cleanup operation at TMI it did help make a bad situation worse. The NRC's Office of Investigations found that Bechtel schemed to avoid making the necessary repairs and that the company "improperly classified" modifications to the plant as "not important to safety" in order to avoid safety controls. When workers such as Senior Safety Start-up Engineer Richard Parks complained that Bechtel and TMI's owner were deliberately circumventing safety procedures, they were harassed and intimidated. In 1985, the NRC fined the two companies for this abuse. Bechtel also disregarded the health and safety of the cleanup crew at TMI. A 1985 series in the Philadelphia Inquirer revealed the details of the neglect: workers were sent into radioactive sections of the plant without adequate protective clothing or respirators; workers were routinely given clothing that was already contaminated; and equipment intended to detect radiation hazards often malfunctioned. Contamination incidents have been routine since the accident, averaging two a week.

    Source: http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1989/ 10/mm1089_08.html

    --
    -kgj
  74. largest moveable structure ever built by csguy314 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It will be 800 feet across, and 300 feet high and will cost $800 mil.

    And after being used to move the Chernobyl remains, Cowboy Neal will be using it as a car.

    --
    This is left as an exercise for the reader.
  75. Re:Photos and Poetry from Pripyat. The worker's to by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

    Actually, are you sure it didn't look like this even *before* the accident?

    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  76. MGS2 by IainB · · Score: 1

    did anyone else start thinking about the big shell when they saw the subject?

    scary.

  77. RADIATION MAP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Check out how many countries were affected by the radioactive clouds!

    1. Re:RADIATION MAP! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      Couldn't they make that blob on the map even larger, or make it of even more unnatural shape?

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  78. This is not a "containment structure" by eclectro · · Score: 2


    From the article; The new shelter will not "contain" the core's radioactivity but will be weatherproof.

    So the idea is to make it "weatherproof"

    The article is very vague as to how much of the sarcophagus they are going to deconstuct, or how they are going to "stabalize" the core for the long term.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  79. bad hu? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK we know radiation is bad

    now i'm no geolegist but arnt peopel affected who live on sites that contain uranium in the underground.

    i remeber reading that uranium wasnt as scarse as it was thouhgt to be. a a great number of peopel should be living on deposids or veins or what ever the ore is called. an earth quake could make it rise now cant it?

    just wondering

  80. Re:Bechtel: Poor Safety Record by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1
    workers were sent into radioactive sections of the plant without adequate protective clothing or respirators

    Amazing what people will do when ordered to by their supervisor. I would have demanded a lead lined space suit with its own SCBA system, and then I'd quit.
    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  81. Order two please! by Alsee · · Score: 2

    Any chance we could put one of these over Hilary Rosen?

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  82. underground by brettlbecker · · Score: 1
    So this thing will be built as a shell, from the ground up, around chernobyl, right? (haven't actually read article, so please correct me) I'd heard somewhere that the biggest problem with raditation leakage was that it was beginning to get to groundwater under the plant. You can build as much containment over and around it as you want, but how do you control ground seepage?

    B

    --
    "We must still have chaos within in order to be able to give birth to a dancing star." --Friedrich Nietzsche
    1. Re:underground by InadequateCamel · · Score: 1

      There are so many holes in the existing shell that I suppose their aim is to minimise the amount of rainwater entering the site. That way run-off will be at a minimum and thus infiltration into the groundwater will be reduced.

      Since the groundwater is under the plant it stands to reason that it is not the primary source of run-off, ie. it is not washing over the chunks of radioactive material.

      I think that trying to prevent groundwater beneath the plant from getting contaminated by a direct means would cause more unsettling of radioactive matter, never mind the cost of doing so.

      Maybe they should just blanket the area in liquid nitrogen! Groundwater wouldn't go anywhere if it was frozen. We just have to keep that supply up for the next 300 years and all will be well :-)

  83. The Twilight Zone is fantastic by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    The Twilight Zone is some of the most enjoyable entertainment I've ever had the pleasure of watching. Brilliantly done, didn't require a huge budget, and looks gorgeous.

    Of course, I've only seen "old" ones, but it's one of the very few TV shows that I really enjoy.

  84. Hmm . . . by code+shady · · Score: 1

    You'd think for 800 million dollars, it would do more then just keep "most" of the radiation inside.

    --
    Look out honey cause I'm usin' technology
    Ain't got time to make no apologies
  85. MODS RTFA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But these were emergency measures. "Safety analyses show there are still about 1,000 square meters [1,200 square yards] of holes in the roof and sides," said Eric Schmieman, chief engineer for environmental technology at Battelle Memorial Institute's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash. "A significant amount of water can go in, and dust can go out, and birds and squirrels and birds come and go all the time."

  86. Some info via PBS.ORG by PsychoElf · · Score: 1

    try this http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reac tion/readings/chernobyl.html

  87. Drifting off topic here, but I don't care. by DoraLives · · Score: 1

    Astounding photographs.

    Kindest thanks for drawing my attention to them by providing the link.

    --
    Is it fascism yet?
  88. Not true by Aglassis · · Score: 1

    You said: "We already know how to do that. Evaculate all the people, detonate a neutron bomb at high altitude, move back in and operate normally. The spray of neutrons from such a bomb would make all the radioactive atoms decay on the spot."

    This is not true. While some radionuclides would absorb neutrons and transmute (maybe or maybe not to a radioactive nuclide) and some would undergo fission (probably leaving radioactive fission products), there would exist some radionuclides that would not be affected at all. A stream of neutrons doesn't affect how long it takes for any radionuclide to decay, only time does (after all this is a one time stream, not a flux--so you can't do more than one transmutation). This doesn't mean that it wouldn't reduce the radioactivity at the site. It might (I highly doubt it though). But also remember that these neutrons will activate some other nuclides that are not at the site. Overall effect is likely more radionuclides released to the environment.

    --
    Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
  89. Relatively Old News by Niscenus · · Score: 1

    We (the U.S.) learned this from the natural restoration at Bikini, which was well underway years before Chernobyl.

    For more information about Bikini, visit here: http://www.bikiniatoll.com/home.html

    I cannot find the information on the terrestrial information, as I originally learned of it in 1980's National Geographic, and only re-heard of it in the past couple years with a Nova episode.

    --
    "Yeah...it was the numbers that were irrational, not the murderous cult of vegetarians...." -- Hippasus of Metapontum
  90. Neutron absorber != neutron moderator by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    In fact, they're distinctly opposites. A neutron absorber reduces the thermal neutron flux within the core. A moderator increases the flux.

    Yes, water acts as both. It has a rather large absorbtion cross section, and the hydrogen atoms work well as a moderator (old physics truism - the best way to slow something down is to bounce it off something the same size).

    The geometry of the Chernobyl reactor made the poisoning effects of the water predominant - less water meant more power, which meant more water boiled off....

    And with large amounts of the safety system disabled by a bunch of true morons, BOOM.

  91. Got your own glow-in-the-dark nightlight now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if you're Jewish you have no way to turn it off... :-)

  92. Impossible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shielding works exponentially - you can't stop it all no matter how thick it is.

  93. Here's a citation link by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    Here's one link that a Google search of "Chernobyl wormwood" turned up:

    http://www.yowusa.com/Archive/March2002/wormwood 1/ wormwood1.htm

    That said, I didn't get this from such a source. I got this from a Russian exchange student, back in 1993.

    That said, *I consider that this site I mentioned goes way too far in tying a Biblical prophecy to "current events"*. That is not to say that they are wrong or right -- I don't know. Just suffice it to say that historically significant events usually have analogs everywhere.

    But seeing such a thing *should* make a person stop and think twice, especially about whether their own lives are right.

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  94. most mutations by rebelcool · · Score: 2
    result in sterilization. Nature's way of saying 'shit, something aint right here. You're not breeding.'

    Thus mutations which propagate are quite rare.

    --

    -

  95. A better one by MickLinux · · Score: 1

    http://www.endtimeprophecy.net/~tttbbs/EPN-2/Artic les/Articles-Endt/wormwd-1.html

    --
    Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
  96. Regarding Chernobyl by Serge1 · · Score: 1

    I was seven at that time, lived about one hundred miles from Chernobyl. On that April morning (around 5 o'clock) we woke up. The air was too thick, hot... The skies were rather strange reddish color... For two weeks following the disaster the communist assholes in the government tried to tell all of us that nothing happened, and everything was just fine. However, our friends, coworkers, classmates, the people we knew started getting sick. Leukemia, lung and skin cancer were the most common by the end of 1987 in Belarus and Ukraine regions.

    In 1986 the communist government sent local firemen, engineers, civilian and army construction crews to build the dome. Almost every one of these thousands of people either died of various forms of cancer or sick.

    They said that the radioactive material that was expelled on 04/26/86 will become relatively harmless in approximately 300 years. I heard that they still have at least two reactors working in Chernobyl power plant, and people still live in the general area, despite the obvious danger. I seriously cannot imagine anyone willing to work at that site, especially in the hot zone near and inside the dome. It seems to me that the Ukrainian government once again is sending their people to die the horrible deaths in order to cover their mistakes or make up on empty promises.

    1. Re:Regarding Chernobyl by Alex+Belits · · Score: 2

      I was seven at that time, lived about one hundred miles from Chernobyl. On that April morning (around 5 o'clock) we woke up. The air was too thick, hot... The skies were rather strange reddish color...

      And Communists were flying on giant dragons across those skies, spreading purple glow from their mouths...

      I have lived about 95km from there at the time, and nothing of the kind happened. If it did, I (and you if you actually was there) would be dead.

      The rest of the message id even more bullshit, so I won't even touch that.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  97. Use the international unit system by more · · Score: 1
    Conversion to the sane unit system is a one time cost only, with millions of years of benefit after that. We used inches for some woodwork here in Finland some 20 years ago. Recently, we had two extra rooms built. I was glad to notice that even they had converted to metric. I asked about the conversion from the 50-year-old construction worker, and he told that it was not a big deal to say 50x100 instead of 2x4. If the conversion is easy for the old construction people, it should be manageable to the young neards at slashdot.

    You claim that having a special unit system is about "learning to live together". It is quite the contrary. Adopting the common unit system is all what learning to live together is about. Having an own unit system is stupid and most arrogant.

    You should also learn the basics of the SI system. cm is not a recommended unit, mm should be used instead. So, that's 431.8 mm.

    If your boss hits you, you should consider calling your company hot line for abuse. You have really no reason to tolerate behavior like that.

    IMHO, Real Neards do not use imperial units. We know that standards are good, and even if people can, with some cost, to adapt several unit systems, they will cause additional costs for computer systems and may even create new expensive failure modes.

    --

    -- Imperial units must die --

    1. Re:Use the international unit system by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "We know that standards are good"

      The simple fact that we have a different standard than yours does not mean that we are lacking in such things!

      "Having an own unit system is stupid and most arrogant"

      It's not much of a stretch to make the same parallel to an 'own language system'... say... Finnish? Why is it you still utilize a non-standard tongue -- don't the vast majority of Finns speak English? What's so hard about just dropping Finnish altogether and getting with the program. You're all about standards, right?

      Our measurement standard has worked well enough for a couple hundred years, and nobody really takes any note of it except for the occasional dimwitted tourist who drives around on the interstates at 65 kph (60,000,000 mmph for the metric nazis who prefer mm so damned much).

      Finally, I'm quite content in my nerddom despite the fact that I frequently traverse hither and 'fro between the metric and imperial universes.

      -AC

    2. Re:Use the international unit system by more · · Score: 1
      ... 'own language system'... say...

      I am not aware of a widely-adopted international standard for interhuman communication. However, to comply with most used scientific and engineering practices, I have written my academic work (all the publications, both the M.Sc. and Ph.D. thesis) in English. In addition to that I write all the documents (at work) in English. I choose the variable names and write comments in English. I try to do my best - even though I realize that my English is not as good as it should be for these purposes. I, alone, could work more efficiently in Finnish, but to be compatible with the rest of the world, I chose to responsible and do operate in English. Being responsible is common practice here. Linus did not write the comments in the kernel in Finnish or Swedish, but chose to write them in English.

      ... interstates at 65 kph (60,000,000 mmph for the metric nazis who prefer mm so damned much).

      I guess the nazis used the metric system. In my opinion that is irrelevant. Still, it is the current international standard. The use of kilometers is just fine, but the hour should be avoided as a unit of time. The correct international unit for car speed would be m/s.

      I am not saying that you should immediately change the whole system, but a minimal wish would be to avoid the usage of inches and feet in the scientific and international language and reserve the local units for local use. Remember, there is the science.slashdot.org flooded with imperial units. The scientific world is already converted to the international standards and it is quite confusing to have imperial units here.

      There is no future for imperial units in the internet. The internet is not a state of USA. Slashdot is an international forum.

      --

      -- Imperial units must die --

  98. Good Link by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is a good CLEAR picture and a full rundown of the event...
    http://www.infoukes.com/history/chornoby l/gregorov ich/

  99. As weird Al would say... by mraymer · · Score: 0, Troll
    It's Christmas at Ground Zero
    There's music in the air
    The sleigh bells are ringin' and the carolers are singin'
    While the air raid sirens blare

    It's Christmas at Ground Zero
    The button has been pressed
    The radio just let us know
    That this is not a test

    Everywhere the atom bombs are droppin'
    It's the end of all humanity
    No more time for last minute shoppin'
    It's time to face your final destiny

    Well, it's Christmas at Ground Zero
    There's panic in the crowd
    We can dodge debris while we trim the tree
    Underneath a mushroom cloud

    (siren)

    You might hear some reindeer on your rooftop
    Or Jack Frost on your windowsill
    But if someone's climbin' down your chimney
    You better load your gun and shoot to kill

    Oh, it's Christmas at Ground Zero
    And if the radiation level's okay
    I'll go out with you and see the all new
    Mutations on New Year's Day

    It's Christmas at Ground Zero
    Just seconds left to go
    I'll duck and cover with my yuletide lover
    Underneath the mistletoe

    It's Christmas at Ground Zero
    Now the missiles are on their way
    What a crazy fluke we're gonna get nuked
    On this jolly holiday
    What a crazy fluke we're gonna get nuked
    On this jolly holiday

    (siren)

    --

    "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the human spirit." -Stephen Hawking

  100. Chernobyl spread more radiation than Hiroshima by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do your studies pal before you come here and rant about something you have no clue about. You could start here .

  101. .seg? by Puu · · Score: 1

    Apologies for being an arse ;-)

  102. Show some respect by pkphilip · · Score: 1

    I find the attitude on this site towards the Chernobyl disaster distressing. Thousands died in that disaster and many of those who died were people involved in rescuing others - who willingly put their lives at great risk for others.

    I am sure the attitude will be less flippant towards events such as the WTC and Pearl Harbour disasters.

  103. Interestingly enough... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iran chose exactly the same type of reactor to be built in Busheir.

  104. Hi Koo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An atom breaks
    A shell remade
    Eternal Cycles

  105. Re:Photos and Poetry from Pripyat. The worker's to by Bartmoss · · Score: 2

    That's a good link but not very many photos, unfortunately. Not considering the tragedy itself, there is something eerily beautiful about abandoned, overgrown cities. I found it rather interesting how bad the condition of part of the city is (for example the stairs of the cultural ministry or whatever it was, totally falling apart). I mean, it hasn't even been fifteen years now and yet parts of this place really look like wilderness.

    I feel old now.

  106. Look at humans, not fish by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

    That's a study primarily about fish.

    Try reading up on what Chernobyl did to Ukraine's neighbor Belarus (where most of the radiation came down, partly thanks to the Russians seeding rain clouds so it didn't make it as far as them).

    About 1/3 of Belarus is contaminated. In an already poor country people can't pick wild mushrooms, berries etc in contaminated areas because of it.

    The biggest suffers from this are young children - there are much increased rates of blood diseases like Leukemia in Belarus as a result of it.

  107. No Fix but One by oldstrat · · Score: 2

    This is yet another patch on a dike that will one day burst.
    Unfortunately the burst will not be visable as it would be with a water dam.

    The only fix today, is the one that should have been put in place at the time of the original disaster. Time will not be a friend in fixing this problem, it will only make the fix impossible if the wait is too long.

    The entire site needs to be encased in high lead glass.

    Yes the lead provides a hazard, but one much lower than radioactive contamination of the water table, and bio-spread by insects and birds.

  108. Re:Photos and Poetry from Pripyat. The worker's to by DrunkenPenguin · · Score: 1

    Quite touching...really. When I looked at those pictures I had a strange feeling - it was very unusual feeling that I can not explain. I felt something I have never felt before.

    ---

  109. music is blasted over loudspeakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scary. Imagine walking in that dead city at nighttime and hearing loud music coming from loudspeakers located in the roofs of those buildings. It's like from the movie Apocalypse now.

  110. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    soviet sad man? what a lame attempt at creating a new troll. try being a little original you fuck tard.

  111. In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...Chernobyl puts a lid on YOU!

  112. Good ole nuclear power by Gortbusters.org · · Score: 1

    Nuclear power has never been worth it, nuclear power plants are often a monument to inefficiency and waste. At least they don't hold as much political power as the large oil companies.

    --
    --------
    Free your mind.
    1. Re:Good ole nuclear power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a real pro eh?

      Why don't you go check out www.hubbertpeak.com and read on why the world oil output will peak within a couple years. If you think the gas lineups were bad during the opec crisis you know dick all. The largest field in the world you know is the ghawar anticline. It is so large that Chevron drilled it for 10 years before they found it was one field they were drilling. Its about to peak you know.

      There is a convoy of supertankers between Japan and the middle east. Every 20 miles there is a ship and these ships have been running constantly for 40 years. When Ghawar starts to decline where to you think the extra supertankers are going to go? eh? Do you think North America can fill in the missing production?

      Production=Depleation you know. There may be 1.7 trillion barrels in the Alberta tar sands with 300 Billion recoverable now - this is 5x bigger than Ghawar for instance. But it takes 2 barrels of oil equivalents burnt to get 1 barrel for delivery to the gas pumps. With the 10 billion planned for investment in the tar sands the best Alberta can expect is to produce 1/3 of Canada's requirements and this represents about 3% of North American consumption. In doing this Alberta will need to release as much CO2 as all of the rest of the country.

      So go on with your opinions about how nuclear energy is not worth it.

      As for me - I'm investing in companies like Usec and Comeco.

      So go hug yer trees but I'll be collecting the dividends from the nuclear power plants and your options will be to pay up and shut up or shut off your electical services.

      Oh - you can go invest in companies like Calpine all you want - their shares dropped from 45 bux to under $2. They were planning on doubling North American natural gas consumption and had more co-gens ordered up than any other generator in North America.

      This during a time when gas wells depleat at a rate over 30% per year on average.

      So go hug your trees my friend but it will be a nuclear world that lites your bulbs.

  113. A Rose . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that anything like the Apollo Vehicle Assembly Building?

    Darn whipper snappers.

  114. 3rd trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rev. 8:10-11 And the third angel trumpeted. And a great burning star,like a lamp, fell out of the heaven. And it fell onto a third part of the riversand onto the springs of waters.
    And the name of the star is said to be Chernobyl. And a third part of the waters became changed into wormwood and many died from the waters because they were bitter.

  115. Some photos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here are some photos.

  116. Solution to Physics Limitations! by The_Guv'na · · Score: 1

    Smoke some weed! It'll feel just like The Land Of Carmack :)

    Oh, but not the weed around Chernobyl. That was planted to mop up the heavy metals. Don't smoke that. It would probably suck...

    Ali

  117. Re:Riders of the Apocolypse? No joke. by ScottBob · · Score: 2

    IANAU (I Am Not A Ukranian), nor do I play one on TV, but from what I understand, The Ukranians call it "Chornobyl". "Chernoblis" is wormwood. "Chornobyl" means "black water". The plant is built along the Prypiat River, which was once called "Black Water River".

  118. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    A student, in hopes of understanding the Lambda-nature, came to Greenblatt.
    As they spoke a Multics system hacker walked by. "Is it true", asked the
    student, "that PL-1 has many of the same data types as Lisp?" Almost before
    the student had finished his question, Greenblatt shouted, "FOO!", and hit
    the student with a stick.

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...