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."

105 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. 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 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?

    3. 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.
  2. 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 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
    9. 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!
    10. 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
    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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)

    16. 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.
    17. 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/

    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    22. 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
    23. 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.

    24. 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
  3. 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.

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

    Because Chernobyl Fallout.

  5. 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 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.
    3. 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".

  6. 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 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.

  7. 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 core+plexus · · Score: 4, Interesting

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

    2. 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.
    3. 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.

    4. 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

    5. 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--
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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 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.

    2. 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

  12. 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
  13. 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.

  14. 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 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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
  17. Most? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

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

    Glad i dont live around there.. :)

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  18. 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!
  19. 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.
  20. 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

  21. 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 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
    2. 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
    3. 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

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

    $20,000 American/pound.

    Do you have a "plan B"?

    KFG

    1. 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.

  23. 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
  24. Re:Houston, we have a problem. by redcliffe · · Score: 2

    Read the article......

  25. 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.
  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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 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.
  31. Weather Systems, that is by sstory · · Score: 2

    *Weather Systems, that is

  32. 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
  33. 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?

  34. 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.
  35. 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.

  36. 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
  37. 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.
  38. 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"
  39. 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.
  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.
  43. 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.

    --

    -

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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".

  49. 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.
  50. 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.