Slashdot Mirror


Chernobyl...18 Years Later

abysmilliard writes "A young Ukrainian woman has posted a photo journal of her motorcycle rides through Chernobyl and the area surrounding it. Included are pictures of the now-emptied city, maps of current radiation levels, and a discussion of how the area has changed. While the english is quite broken, it's often rather surreal, as well, with quotes like, 'I don't know how sound the silence to those tourists that they can not stand it, but to me after hitting a red line on my bike tacho it sound like all those ghosts cursing 1100cc kawasaki engin.'"

971 comments

  1. Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You don't need to run any lights at night.

    1. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by MBCook · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Reminds me of the song "Three Mile Island" by Pinkard & Bowden. It talks about how at TMI baseball field during the night games... they turn the lights down. 'Cause the home team... glows in the dark.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, my mom was just outside of Chernobyl at the time, as a guest journalist of the Russian government who were trying to foster a better image in the west. Nobody told the journalists what was going on or get them out of the area as that would have made for some serious bad publicity.

      So there she was, an American journalist who just happened to be right there at the scene, and didn't find out about it until she left Russia and entered Finland just as the radioactive fallout was hitting.

      We use her for a nightlight now. Or to scare kids on Halloween.

      I'll have to refer her to this site after it recovers.

      KFG

    3. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn she's a hottie

    4. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by Fenris+Ulf · · Score: 3, Funny

      You know what they say, more people died at Chappaquiddick than Three Mile Island...

    5. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by liquidice5 · · Score: 1

      Studies actually show that less people have died from the cancer caused by radiation in York Haven and Cly and such than would have that kind of cancer in any normal town of the same size

      I personally live 4 miles as the crow flys from TMI, its a great landmark to tell people from far away where I live, lol

      --

      Conscience is the inner voice that warns us somebody is looking - H.L. Mencken
    6. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this happened 4 days prior to my unchangeable post high school europe trip ... scarry then and now great coverage

      t

    7. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How nice it is that so many people like to make jokes about an event that killed and ruined the lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

      Makes me feel so good to be a geek knowing that there are other geeks who indulge in amusement from that.

    8. Re:Great thing about driving through Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reference to the website with photos seesm to be broken. Please help. MS

  2. Quiet Town? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Funny

    She mentions that if the guys at the checkpoint find you have too much radioactive dust they give you a shower and eat your bike. I was always under the impression that in Soviet Russia, your bike ate YOU!

    Also, I'm on the page now where you can see a city, but it's so QUIET that people wat to get out ASAP after being there a few minutes. I totally want to go see this!

    --
    "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    1. Re:Quiet Town? by wafwot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Also, I'm on the page now where you can see a city, but it's so QUIET that people wat to get out ASAP after being there a few minutes. I totally want to go see this!
      Can you say, "giant paintball game"?

    2. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      She mentions that if the guys at the checkpoint find you have too much radioactive dust they give you a shower and eat your bike.

      Like to give her a shower and eat her...

      Um, nevermind
    3. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Like to give her a shower and eat her...
      Do check her "relevant place" with a radioation meter before starting in. :-)
    4. Re:Quiet Town? by Saven+Marek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On christmas day in my suburb there is almost no activity and usually cars are all taken inside. I don't know that it gets so quiet that I would freak and want to leave but it does have an especially eerie quality about it. Especially when in a formarly busy street I hear just the wind in the trees and maybe birds.

      The disparaty between what I see and what I hear & feel is an experience. I've stood in the middle of the road times like this and just looked around at the world. I'd like to visit Pripyat too

      nude macgirls webcam

    5. Re:Quiet Town? by fm6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think "eat your bike" means that the chemicals are pretty corrosive.

    6. Re:Quiet Town? by Surazal · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Also, I'm on the page now where you can see a city, but it's so QUIET that people wat to get out ASAP after being there a few minutes. I totally want to go see this!

      Can you say, "giant paintball game"?


      For the love of all that is good and holy, man! There are some subjects never meant to be broached. Like paintball in an abandoned radioactive town.

      The potential for evil is purely delicious. Horrible! I meant to say horrible!

      --
      --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
    7. Re:Quiet Town? by berkut1337 · · Score: 1

      that's because it's not Soviet Russia, but Soviet Ukraine.

    8. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that in Chernobyl there are no birds.

    9. Re:Quiet Town? by strike2867 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can you say, "giant paintball game"?
      Can you say, "3 eyes and 1 testicle"?

      --

      Vote for new mod!!! Score:-2,Imbecile
    10. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go visit Centralia, PA. It's a quasi-ghost town due to an underground coal vein fire. The town is steaming in places. Most of the houses are gone, but a few are still inhabited. It's seriously spooky, as the road gridwork is sitll in good shape and a state highway still passes around the town -- but it's eerily quiet.

    11. Re:Quiet Town? by grazzy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I live in sweden, we were too affected by chernobyl, I must say I find it very disturbing when people like you makes a comment like this about a non-native english speakers english, especially when the linked article is such a honest and sad story.

      The moderators modding this up as funny are probably the same modding me down when I wonder why there are 1000+ people being kept without a trial in Cuba.

    12. Re:Quiet Town? by sydb · · Score: 1

      The post was not criticising her English. It was just a weak play on the "In Soviet Russia..." meme.

      Nothing to get upset about, although I agree it didn't warrant getting modded up to +5.

      --
      Yours Sincerely, Michael.
    13. Re:Quiet Town? by Flingles · · Score: 0

      The irony- this place was called Ghostown.

      --
      Karma: -2^0.5 . Mainly due to the imbibing of dihydrogen monoxide
    14. Re:Quiet Town? by PreteristGuy · · Score: 0

      When Cernobyl happened I lived in Romania...of course Romania is not too far, but fortunately we lived at the other end of the country. I still remember the health officials coming to our school and giving us huge iodine pills.

      Now I live in Dayton Ohio...and am miserable from allergies caused by pollution. You lose some..win some. Hehe..

    15. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol I'm glad I'm not you.

    16. Re:Quiet Town? by orangesquid · · Score: 1
      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    17. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I live in sweden, we were too affected by chernobyl, I must say I find it very disturbing when people like you makes a comment like this about a non-native english speakers english, especially when the linked article is such a honest and sad story."

      Wow. I thought it was only people from Finland who are so morose. You must be a great big picnic to be around.

    18. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Can you say, "3 eyes and 1 testicle"?

      That would be even more concerning for the girls!

      Of course we must ask if a person with one testicle a "mawom", half man half woman.

    19. Re:Quiet Town? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I was startled at the degree of emotion that came across, given the state of the English used. It was almost like those sentences with the jumbled inner letters showing that we use word ends to recognize words. I though that I'd just ignore it as some badly written content and found myself being drawn deeper and deeper.

    20. Re:Quiet Town? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      Isn't the point of using paintballs instead of bullets to *avoid* the risk of severe physical harm?

    21. Re:Quiet Town? by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      I've played paint-ball on the old Greenham common airbase (UK).

      Erm... thats it. It was fun though!

    22. Re:Quiet Town? by MarcQuadra · · Score: 1

      Chill out! I lived with a Russian family from the Ukraine, they all had health problems (my girlfriend-at-the-time included) from the pollution/radiation. I know how serious it was, and I know that there's a language gap to be respected. This is a MESSAGE BOARD on the INTERNET, jokes and political incorrectness are to be expected. The problem I have with abiding by all the politically-correct ultra-sensitive talk is that it makes me really mopey, all you can do is walk around in cirles mumbling about injustice and racism. It's a good thing that we can all read that article, shed a tear, and then write jokes about it, it helps heal the itty little hole it created in my heart.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    23. Re:Quiet Town? by BerntB · · Score: 2, Funny
      I live in sweden, we were too affected by chernobyl
      US joke at the time:

      Q:How do you recognize a Swedish child born 9 months after Chernobyl?

      A:Look for the blonde eyes and blue hair!

      (-: I'm allowed to joke with stuffed shirt Swede, since I'm Swedish too, but not blonde... :-)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    24. Re:Quiet Town? by Walt+Dismal · · Score: 1

      It's not completely quiet. When the radioactive flesh-eating zombies come shambling out of the woods to eat tourist brains, believe me, it gets noisy for a few moments.

    25. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just wrong.

    26. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No,

      Cataracts and no functioning testicles is more realistic.

    27. Re:Quiet Town? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ARRGH! My eyes! The goggles, they do nothing!

    28. Re:Quiet Town? by jfdawes · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that ... in normal countries ... your bike eats corrosive chemicals?

  3. Engrish rules. by The+Human+Cow · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The word CHERNOBYL scares holly bijesus out of people here."
    Holly Bijesus? Is it just me, or would that make a *great* bisexual porn star name?

    --
    The Human Cow - bringing you scrumtrelescence since 1995
    1. Re:Engrish rules. by ktakki · · Score: 5, Funny
      Holly Bijesus? Is it just me, or would that make a *great* bisexual porn star name?

      The Passion of the Bijesus?

      k.
      --
      "In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
    2. Re:Engrish rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The Passion of the Bijesus", starring Holly Bijesus.

      So somebody in California reads this, makes a couple of calls, rents a mansion for a day, and a new movie is born...

      Keep your eyes on the /. ads next week!

    3. Re:Engrish rules. by jettoblack · · Score: 2, Funny

      You know at first, I thought you were talking about CHERNOBYL, not "Holly Bijesus."

      But if you think about it, CHERNOBYL would be a pretty good name for a transsexual porn star.

      "Is it Cher? No, Bill!"

    4. Re:Engrish rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      What about:

      Tchernobyl Sluts

      Women with 3 tits and 4 cunts, really nice or not

    5. Re:Engrish rules. by pitdingo · · Score: 1

      Better take that back or the Republican Religious Police at the FCC will come and get you like they are doing to Howard Stern.

    6. Re:Engrish rules. by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      Bijesus Christ, Soopa-Stah! (starring Snoop Dog!)

    7. Re:Engrish rules. by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

      OK, what's "scrumtrelescence"?

      --
      That that is is that that that that is not is not.
    8. Re:Engrish rules. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious. Too bad the author actually spelled it with an "e" and not an "i".

  4. angelfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    linking to a 10+ page site full of photos on angelfire? yeah, that'll last long...

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

      Good thing some of us saw it before Slashdot linked to it.

    2. Re:angelfire? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Server seems to have at least the half-life of the elements present in all the pix....

      still working fast here.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    3. Re:angelfire? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, I was going to point out that the article did show up on Friday night but then I remembered that this was slashdot. Actually, the response time wasn't bad but I'm on an ISDN line so my pipe is pretty thin. Maybe the stereotypes are wrong and people who hang out on slashdot really do have a life. Nah.

      (Who me? I'm married and work for a living so, by Friday night, I'm too tired to do much of anything but either watch the tube or read slashdot).

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    4. Re:angelfire? by Bonker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a site worth mirroring. It's a history lesson. 50-100-500 years from now, people will be referring to archives of that sight to give people an impression of what Chernobyl did.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    5. Re:angelfire? by tunabomber · · Score: 3, Funny

      138 comments and still going.... AngelFire think its kung fu pretty good eh- wait til it fight my brother's browser.

      still going...

      cmon- we can do better than this!!

      --

      pi = 3.141592653589793helpimtrappedinauniversefactory71 ...
    6. Re:angelfire? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Damned insightful. Try 20 years from now, tho; assuming that there is any real history still taught by then.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    7. Re:angelfire? by sahrss · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is zipped copy of the entire thing, including a fix of page 16 (+ links) mentioned by another /.'er below. I wanted a personal copy, figured I would offer it to anyone else who wanted to keep this excellent site...

    8. Re:angelfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'd mod you up just because your nym is tunabomber...i spit my soda on my keyboard!!!!

    9. Re:angelfire? by nikkipolya · · Score: 1

      Dont worry. Its already doing rounds on *the* P2P network. 5-10-15 years from now, we are going to see the news of a major copyrights violation suit on /.

    10. Re:angelfire? by scum-e-bag · · Score: 1

      Many thank for the zip.

      If I had mod points you would get some, perhaps I shall add you to my freind list and give you some later. :)

      --
      Does it go on forever?
    11. Re:angelfire? by jobbegea · · Score: 2, Insightful

      10 pages, but only 2 Mb in total size.

      A sparse but informative site.

      --

      Net sa best, mar it koe minder
    12. Re:angelfire? by Alan+Cox · · Score: 1

      Its just creepy. Its like "The Zone" in Tarkovsky's "Stalker" (aka the book 'Roadside Picnic').

    13. Re:angelfire? by Guedon · · Score: 1

      I fully agree. One may also reflect that what happened there is like a very accelerated version of what we are doing through pollution. That too is worth meditating. How about showing and discussing these photos in every school, all over the world?

    14. Re:angelfire? by Insipid+Trunculance · · Score: 1

      I'm married and work for a living so, by Friday night, I'm too tired to do much of anything but either watch the tube or read slashdot

      Well i am not married but i do work regular hours.But i am never too tired to prefer the tv or /. to some other recreations.But then again maybe its because i am not married.

      --
      Wanted : A Signature.
    15. Re:angelfire? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry about that, enjoy :-P

    16. Re:angelfire? by bug-eyed+monster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I haven't seen this mentioned here... This is what internet is really all about. It's not about major news sites displaying what they think people are interested in, or major retailers selling their usual wares, it's about individuals sharing their raw experiences and knowledge with everyone else in the world.

    17. Re:angelfire? by NoRemorse · · Score: 0

      yea it did last and it still works

  5. An anglefire site by digitalgimpus · · Score: 4, Informative

    Guess how long that will take to /. the bandwidth out of?

    I'm saving a mirror now, if necessary, I can mirror.

    1. Re:An anglefire site by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

      For the record, a free Angelfire site presently gets 1 GB of monthly bandwidth on which to serve up to 20 MB of content. Which means, when /. finishes off this site's bandwidth allowance, this site's gone for the month.

      If somebody were to give this unfortunate person Angelfire's highest "element plan", it would cost $15 for the setup and $14.95 for the first month, and give her 30 GB of monthly traffic. That might be enough to survive a slashdotting.

    2. Re:An anglefire site by RITjobbie · · Score: 1

      http://www.jayps.net/kiddofspeed/page2.html

      ~Jay

    3. Re:An anglefire site by OldManAndTheC++ · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If somebody were to give this unfortunate person Angelfire's highest "element plan", it would cost $15 for the setup and $14.95 for the first month, and give her 30 GB of monthly traffic. That might be enough to survive a slashdotting.

      You know, maybe that would be a good use for all that Slashdot subscription money: funding for a place to mirror sites like these...

      --
      Soylent Green is peoplicious!
    4. Re:An anglefire site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um... r u kidding? Taco needs a new iPod.

    5. Re:An anglefire site by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Guess how long that will take to /. the bandwidth out of?

      How's that? You know Slashdotters don't read the articles...

      --
      "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  6. IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    wait...

    damn.

    1. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by mindriot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry to say this, but the fact that on such a story -- which is highly interesting and moving at the same time --, the first five comments are (+5, Funny) ones, makes me feel rather sad.

      Anyway, these are great pictures. Most people have forgotten about Tchernobyl now -- I bet practically everyone thinks that life is just going on there normally by now. The pictures show us the dangers of working with nuclear energy -- one small mistake, and the whole region is doomed for a long time, far beyond the lifetime of a single human. If this doesn't teach us a lesson about safety and security, I don't know what will.

    2. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Penguinshit · · Score: 5, Informative


      Yeah.. Lesson One is don't use an RBMK reactor with no secondary containment. Current (and future) designs have Fail-Safe systems where, should the control system fail, the whole shebang fails into a "safe" mode (control rods are dropped which effectively stops the reaction and free-flowing coolant is delivered to alleviate residual core heat). TMI would have failed safe, except for incorrect operator intervention.

      Chernobyl was also utilized to produce weapons-grade plutonium as well as civilian electricity, which is why the graphite moderator was used (instead of water, as in US civilian designs). When the graphite burned, the temperature shot up very quickly and the reactor exploded through the pressure-seal which was the only line of defense (not the reinforced concrete secondary containment vessel in Western designs). TMI showed how well that design could withstand both an incident and poor handling of that incident.

    3. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by torpor · · Score: 5, Insightful


      Yeah, me too. Stupid piss-taking jokes about an event that goes beyond the realm of experience of any one of the lives of a small group of people currently sitting on their ass in a comfy place, reading a website called /. in sanctity and relative haven.

      Prosperity does not give one the right to degrade another persons experience ... Chernobyl is no laughing matter, even still to this day, for a lot of people.

      And before anyone pulls out the ol' "get over it, its only a joke" excuse, let me just say that jokes have their time and place.

      The Chernobyl incident was a completely different time, in a completely different place. If this site was hosted in Russia, and the jokes were about American disasters, how many of you would consider them to be flame-bait, or make a noise about how 'inappropriate' it is?

      Ridicule aint no compliment, and it aint no reflection.

      That said, I hope that the generations yet to come understand that the generation currently alive are sorry for what they did to the future, with Chernobyl.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      The pictures show us the dangers of working with nuclear energy -- one small mistake, and the whole region is doomed for a long time
      Sadly, that's utterly untrue. The events at Chernobyl were the end result of a long chain of mistakes great and small.
    5. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by DieByWire · · Score: 5, Insightful
      TMI would have failed safe, except for incorrect operator intervention.

      Exactly. Which is why our next reactors will have only infallible humans operating them.

      Oh, wait.... our next reactors will have only infallible computers operating them.

      Dang! Wait... our next computers will have only infallible humans programming them.

      Wait...

      --
      Never shake hands with a man you meet in a fertility clinic.
    6. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by kisak · · Score: 1
      To put it into perspective, I can imagine the response if Russians came on /. and made fun of the 3000 dead in WTC. People here are making fun of Chernobyl where probably over 100 000 died and then of course all the cancer related deaths in the years to follow.

      The increadable thing is that the Soviet Union tried to pretend that nothing had happened in Chernobyl. Nobody really knew about it in the west before nuclear plants in western europe started to freak out because their employees started to have high geiger counts. It is naturally routin procedure for nuclear plants to check if their employees have had exposure by mistake or because of a leak inside the plant, but this time the exposure was from the nuclear rain outside, directly flown in from Chernobyl.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    7. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by edxwelch · · Score: 5, Informative

      From what I read about the Chernobyl disaster it wasn't really the reactor design that was at fault but the dangerous experiments that were being carried out at the time.

      "The disaster began with a routine operation for maintenance and fuel change that commenced a day before the accident. In addition to these procedures, the technical crew wanted to perform a test of the plant's steam turbines. Their goal was to determine if the turbines would continue to provide power for the plant's safety systems after their steam supply was cut off. While attempting to perform this test, they committed a series of errors that culminated in catastrophe. More than simple blunders, the errors stemmed from a reckless disregard for safety procedures. The errors compounded, and the disaster would likely not have occurred if any one error had been avoided.

      The crew began by reducing the reactor's power so they could start their experiment. They also switched off the reactor's emergency core cooling system. This meant that in the event of a malfunction the reactor would become dangerously hot, which is exactly what subsequently happened. At 12:28 A.M. the crew made another serious error by putting the reactor's regulator at much too low a setting for the planned experiment. At this point, the reactor should have been shut down and the experiment abandoned, but the crew feared a reprimand for the incorrect regulator setting, so they decided to bring the reactor back up to power. To do this, they removed most of the graphite rods that moderated the fissioning of nuclear materials in the reactor core. By 1:00 A.M., the power output had reached 200 MW, still too low for the experiment. At this point, they switched on two extra pumps for the circulation of more cooling water in the core. This action made the reactor highly unstable, and water and steam levels began to oscillate uncontrollably. The crew then made another major mistake by blocking the automatic shut-down system. At 1:23, they started their experiment, and a few seconds later they switched off the safety apparatus that would have come into operation as soon as the turbines stopped.

      In less than a minute, the crew chief realized that he had a serious problem, and he ordered the graphite rods to be reinserted in the core. The rods did not fall home, probably because the rods or the nuclear fuel had been distorted by the heat. The rods were then disconnected so that they could fall into the core, but by this time the situation was hopeless. The reactor's power surged from 7 percent to several hundred times its normal level. An explosion rocked the core, followed by another one 4 seconds later. These explosions blew the roof off of the reactor and caused the collapse of a refueling crane into the core, destroying what was left of the cooling system. A reaction of the steam with the fuel rods' zirconium cladding caused the formation of hydrogen, which then ignited, setting off 30 separate fires through the plant. The graphite in the core also ignited."
      http://www.fofweb.com/Subscription/Scie nce/Helicon .asp?SID=2&iPin=ffests0172

    8. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, it *was* partly the reactor design that was to blame, as well as operator error.

      The Chernobyl design had control rods entering the core from top and bottom. This particular design causes the reactor to have, in certain operating regions, a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity (like positive feedback for you non-nukes.) This has the effect of the reactor power level rising in response to a rise in temperature - and in response to the bottom control rods rising into the core.

      Western designs are almost all designed to have a negative temperature coefficient of reactivity in operating regions.

      What happened was, as the reactor temperature rose, power followed, such that when they finally tried to shutdown the reactor, reactor power level shot way up (basically, the reactor went prompt critical - some experts have said that the reactor went prompt supercritical - I'm not sure myself since I'd have to go back and research the values for beta and beta-bar that Chernobyl was designed to.) As a result, the power level exceeded design values by a couple hundred times, and the resulting step rise in temperature and pressure caused a massive steam void to form in the reactor, which promptly escaped by rupturing the top of the reactor.

      Had Chernobyl been built to western designs the disaster wouldn't have happened.

      1. Cooling and fuel channels containing thousands of welded joints through which the coolant continually passes vs. a western design consisting of a single pressure vessel that holds the majority of the coolant covering the core with a few loops to circulate water to the steam generators. This makes the design much more prone to a leak in an inaccessible location.

      2. Using graphite instead of water. Graphite has its uses - a power reactor is not one of them.

      3. A positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. If you do *nothing* else, make sure your design has a negative coefficient in all operating regions.

      4. A flimsy steel shed vs. a proper containment. Even when the reactor suffered a steam explosion, a proper containment structure would have caused Chernobyl to be a localized accident resulting in the contamination of the inside of the containment structure, instead of a disaster affecting the entire world.

    9. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      Some time back, I read about a reactor design that only depended on gravity to provide the fail-safe, and not even the operator could interfere with the fail-safe process.

      Something about the core being surrounded by a liquid which had the property of greatly expanding its volume as it got hotter. If the core got too hot the expanding liquid would rise up to the lip of the core and starting pouring in to kill the reaction (through some chemical process based on the nature of the liquid; can't remember the details anymore). There was no built-in ability to drain the liquid, so it wasn't possible to accidentally reduce the amount of liquid.

      The cleanup after a fail safe event would be difficult and expensive because of its design, but the design also meant that a meltdown was just about impossible.

      So I think it is possible to design a reactor that even takes the fallibility of its operator into account.

    10. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by Aglassis · · Score: 1

      You said: "The cleanup after a fail safe event would be difficult and expensive because of its design, but the design also meant that a meltdown was just about impossible."

      You realize that TMI-2 was shutdown when the fuel actually started melting, right? Even when you shutdown a nuclear reactor there will be some decay heat that decreases based on the different half-lives of fission products. If you are unable to remove the decay heat the reactor complex *will* fail, like TMI-2 on 28 March 1979.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    11. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by True+Grit · · Score: 1

      IIRC, their design meant that the liquid they used as the fail-safe actually entered the core itself and not only stopped the reaction but also was what cooled the core down by absorbing the heat. Unfortunately, its been so long, I can't remember the details.

    12. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by mindriot · · Score: 1

      Sorry for replying to my own post, but...

      the first five comments are (+5, Funny)

      Thanks to the moderators for taking care of that! Looks much better now.

    13. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by BerntB · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Prosperity does not give one the right to degrade another persons experience ... Chernobyl is no laughing matter, even still to this day, for a lot of people.

      You joke about things as a way to handle and relate to them. Look at the incredible Jewish humour traditions.

      That said -- there are things I don't joke about, because it's a bit too close to friends. Like rape -- which can give mental problems. But it would feel like failure if I e.g. got cancer and failed to joke about it.

      (This I should do Anon, but never mind. I'll stand up for this point.)

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    14. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by torpor · · Score: 1

      This planet has a language problem. Jokes do not translate.

      They should not be the -first- line of repair, as a way to handle and relate to 'things', because ... as the Jews well know ... it doesn't always go down so well with those you can't communicate with properly and honestly.

      {Anonymity is another poor corrective approach ...}

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    15. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by torpor · · Score: 1


      Call it pontificating if you want, but I'm not willing to live my life continually in pursuit or refinement of fault.

      In my humble opinion, here among the crowd, there are far too many lazy reasons -not- to take responsibility instead of finding fault. Maybe, if Russia and the Soviet Union hadn't been brick-walled away from more significant participation in International Standards and reviews efforts among the nuclear engineering community, their reactor designs and facilities would've been a little bit better run.

      But, as we well know, Russia was hamstrung, or so they say ... how do you think a nuclear-capable nation gets that way?

      There are many lessons to be learned from Chernobyl. Discussing, and observing the discussion here among a select demographic of the world populace, is a worthy effort.

      Certainly better than TV anyway ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    16. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by BerntB · · Score: 1
      Uh?

      I didn't write "first line of repair". Or only.

      The Jewish example was about Jewish' problems, so I can't see what communication have to do with it.

      To joke about other's problems are, of course, more sensitive. But the attitude here is important. Maybe you could argue that, in my case...

      (Other classics of the '80s:
      How many Ethiopians can you fit into a shower stall? Can't be counted, since they keep slipping down the drain!
      What do you call a blonde with coloured hair? AI!)

      The most valuable condition on this planet today occurs when two people agree with each other.

      What is to learn from that?

      I prefer when people disagree with me -- and they reached those opinions not by religious/ideological ways but by careful reading and thinking. That gives me a chance to learn and maybe change my mind.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    17. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by potat0man · · Score: 0, Troll
      It takes a big man to cry.


      It takes a bigger man to laugh at that man.

    18. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by RayBender · · Score: 2, Informative
      TMI would have failed safe, except for incorrect operator intervention.

      TMI did fail safe. You had a partial meltdown with only very limited release of short-lived radiactivity (Iodine-131, half-life 8 days). No deaths or injuries.

      It woudn't have failed at all if it hadn't been for incorrect operator intervention.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    19. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by torpor · · Score: 1

      I prefer when people disagree with me

      But the ludicrousy of the situation is that this is, then, a bias.

      B -. Re-think it from your own point of view, that an opinion, religious or otherwise, should be evaluated carefully, by thinking and reading...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    20. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by BerntB · · Score: 1
      I didn't understand what you meant, so I assume you misunderstood my comment.

      I commented on "The most valuable condition [is] when two people agree with each other".

      I disagreed. You learn less from people that agrees with you. (But you don't get that happy feeling of togetherness you get, sitting and confirming your opinions.)

      Do you use some other definition of "agree" than "have the same opinions on a subject"? Never mind, this is not going anywhere.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
    21. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by torpor · · Score: 1

      I mean that you're promoting an ideal of 'wider dataset reachable from disagreement', while ignoring that this is in fact a bias. And therefore, there is still yet a wider, widerer dataset to be observed.

      You can't recognize or communicate about a condition, without some form of agreement. If I say 'cheese' and you say 'smelly stuff made out of old milk', thats agree'ing on the condition of cheese. Thats what 'cheese' is ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    22. Re:IN SOVIET RUSSIA... by BerntB · · Score: 1
      I mean that you're promoting an ideal of 'wider dataset reachable from disagreement', while ignoring that this is in fact a bias.
      Certainly, if it is a simple problem domain that we can have certain opinions on -- then agreement is good. But it is a boring discussion subject and it doesn't work like that in the real world outside e.g. math.

      With groups of people in society, it is so complex and badly understood that we can't have any certain theories. We just don't know how people work. (Especially considered that people are partly "programmed" culturally, which means that how we function is changed at least every generation!)

      Hence, all our opinions on the world are more or less wrong. And we need to have an open mind and continuously learn -- and be scared of too little disagreement.

      Note that if we got a good theory of how people work in groups, people would learn it and change their behaviour. I read about an example from economics, where researchers waited with publishing their theory until after gathering more data -- because they knew the actors in the economy would update their behaviour after reading their work.

      --
      Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
  7. It's a lesson by superpulpsicle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The disaster was a damn good example of bad mix of technology, science and politics. Boy, don't we have plenty of that in the U.S.

    1. Re:It's a lesson by hackstraw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The disaster was a damn good example of bad mix of technology, science and politics. Boy, don't we have plenty of that in the U.S.

      Not to meantion that the system had little to no foresight that humans would be using it. When it started overheating the alarms went off full steam and the workers got scared and threw all of the rods into the core. (The rods are supposed to slow down the reaction.) Well, since the core was so hot, the rods started reacting inside of the reactor and _increased_ the temperature.

      The moral of this story is that there is no moral. All great system failures or any other "big" event never is caused by the apparent singular event right before the shit hit the fan.

    2. Re:It's a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can't believe some girl's photo album was the single greatest link I have ever read off slashdot. And it wasn't even M$ or SCO related. Incredible.

    3. Re:It's a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I can't believe some girl's photo album was the single greatest link I have ever read off slashdot.

      Oh my god, how easy to joke about clothes on/off, not even si(licon) involved. Etc, etc.

    4. Re:It's a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. The reaction you're thinking of is probably the graphite burning.

      The boron steel rods would always moderate a reaction by absorbing stray neutrons. What happened at chernobyl was that the rods just wouldn't fit into the holes (since the heat had warped them in the seconds prior).

    5. Re:It's a lesson by jimhill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Insightful, but wrong...as with most nuclear anything-related posts on /.

      The RBMK reactors have a positive void coefficient. The rod control mechanisms had been manually disabled for the turbine coast-down experiment (because they kept ramming in the rods, something which should have served as a Big Clue to the operators that what they were doing was a bad idea). When the cooling water began to boil, the reactivity jumped due to that positive void coefficient and the power level spiked 3-4 orders of magnitude in some milliseconds. That flashed the cooling water into steam, which exploded and blew the top off the roof. The 3,000+ degree graphite moderator was now exposed to open air and burst into flame and it was good night, Gracie.

      Read Medvedev's book. Hell, read _any_ book.

      --
      Learn to spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably, ridiculous, deity, hierarchy, versus
    6. Re:It's a lesson by everdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Exactly, this is what the WWW was great for back in the day. When I set up my first "homepage" on geocities back in 96 or 97 people would e-mail and say how they enjoyed it... I have actually searched google for a tour of the now deserted Chernobyl, b/c a friend in the Marines got to visit there once. Her story and pictures are excellent...

      --
      Elliott Smith Tribute CD available now on Double D Records! Visit www.doubledrecords.com to order.
    7. Re:It's a lesson by Geek+of+Tech · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      >>>The 3,000+ degree graphite moderator was now exposed to open air and .....

      Wow. You're telling me that have nuclear reactors to do slashdot moderation?! Of course! When a site gets slashdotted, the unfortunate server probably gets shot to kingdom come. Think if we could harness that power....

      Oh, and how do I get a 3000 degree karma?

      --
      Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
    8. Re:It's a lesson by shadowbearer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah, amen.

      That is one brave girl. Smart, too, to have a dosimeter along.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    9. Re:It's a lesson by mooman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Another photographer has put together a whole book that looks very much like her site... I've flipped through it.. hundreds of ghostly images..
      Here's a link to it from Amazon:
      Robert Polidori: Zones of Exclusion: Pripyat and Chernobyl

      --
      In the Portland, Ore area and like card games? Check out: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/portlandgames/
    10. Re:It's a lesson by Bootsy+Collins · · Score: 2, Interesting


      This link may help. The one thing it doesn't explain that most people don't go in already knowing is that neutron capture, and subsequent fission, of uranium is more likely (in nuclear physics terms, the fission cross-section is higher) if the neutrons are slowed down a bit from the energies they had when their parent nucleus fissioned.

    11. Re:It's a lesson by Bahumat · · Score: 1

      AOL Style: Me too!

      --
      "To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
    12. Re:It's a lesson by instarx · · Score: 1

      Her father is a Russian physicist. Russians have always been cavalier about radiation - it looks like Chernobyl hasn't changed a thing.

      Also she's about 25 years old. At that age EVERYONE is brave because they are immortal. Its only when she gets older that she'll realize how stupid she was to drive an open motorcycle through the dead zone without protective gear. A dosimeter is no protection - it only tells you how much you have ALREADY BEEN irradiated.

      Still - it does look like a vey interesting place to visit.

    13. Re:It's a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking up that book. Is it:

      The Legacy of Chernobyl
      Zhores A. Medvedev

      OR

      No Breathing Room: The Aftermath of Chernobyl
      Grigori Medvedev,

      OR

      Truth about Chernobyl
      Grigori Medvedev

      Thanks.

    14. Re:It's a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      See my post, above - IIRC, the RBMK design also had a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. Although the void coefficient boiled off the coolant and added positive reactivity, IIRC, it was the temperature coefficient that cause the reactor to go prompt-(super?)critical when the bottom control rods rose into the core at a low power level. I'm not sure on the prompt-critical vs. prompt-super-critical aspects since I don't have the design values of beta and beta-bar, let alone the values for voide and temperature coefficient handy.

    15. Re:It's a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it would be interesting to visit, in a nice lead lined suit.

    16. Re:It's a lesson by True+Grit · · Score: 2, Informative
      1. Its only when she gets older that she'll realize how stupid she was to drive an open motorcycle through the dead zone without protective gear.


      If you had read her article, you'd know that she wasn't being stupid. The radiation fallout didn't "stick" to the asphault, so it has become quite safe to enter the area as long as you stay outside the buildings and on the asphault/concrete. Why else would the government even allow tour buses, much less folks on motorcycles, to enter the area?

      1. A dosimeter is no protection - it only tells you how much you have ALREADY BEEN irradiated.


      You sound as if you are thinking that any radiation is bad or that radiation itself is bad. The danger from radiation, is mostly a matter of how long you were exposed to it, *not* that you were exposed at all. In extreme cases, of course, like being in the reactor core itself, just being there for a fraction of a second is enough to kill you (later), but for the most part you can enter a radiated area and still be safe as long as you don't stay in the area long enough to accumulate a lethal dose of radiation. Radiation is something that happens every second of every day to every thing on the planet, it is a natural occuring phenomenon, but just like many other things, too much of it can be a bad thing. Note there is a big difference between entering a radiated area, and coming into contact with radioactive fallout, especially if the contact includes inhaling radioatice dust. Its been 18 years since the disaster, the radioactivity is now in the ground and buildings but not in the air (and has also been washed clean from flat hard outside surfaces like concrete and asphault).
    17. Re:It's a lesson by Crash6-24 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've worked at Hanford for 25+ years - inside the N-reactor (it was graphite moderated), in the tank farms where millions of gallons of radioactive waste are still stored, in Z-plant where they made Pu ingots, and you get used to working in a radioactive environment. You ignore what might happen if the radioactive material got loose. Would Spokane be abandoned? The Columbia polluted? The article gives a preview of a future I hope won't come to pass.
      Sometimes the scariest reporting is the most amateurish/heartfelt/honest.

    18. Re:It's a lesson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      u suck

    19. Re:It's a lesson by instarx · · Score: 1
      If you had read her article, you'd know that she wasn't being stupid. The radiation fallout didn't "stick" to the asphault, so it has become quite safe to enter the area as long as you stay outside the buildings and on the asphault/concrete.

      Yeah, Uh huh. If the asphalt is so clean why doesn't she want a companion along to disturb dust on the asphalt in front of her? I read the article and I saw that the river was blocked off. How much dust do you think is in the river? Oops, a dumb theory blown to hell by an inconvenient fact. That the Russians totally blocked off a major shipping artery should indicate to you exactly how dangerous that place is.

      You sound as if you are thinking that any radiation is bad or that radiation itself is bad.

      It is. That is exactly what I am saying. In another example of me knowing more about this than you, there is NO safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, natural or not. It isn't like a chemical or biological exposures where there are minimum affective doses. ANY radiation passing through your body has the potential to mutate that one single unlucky cell into a cancer cell.

      ...you can enter a radiated area and still be safe as long as you don't stay in the area long enough to accumulate a lethal dose of radiation

      You've been watching too many movies. You may not get an immediately lethal dose where every cell in your body is damaged beyond operation, but every ionizing event in your body does damage. If one happens to damage a critical DNA segment you get a runaway cancer cell. Since there are trillions of neutrons per m3 in Chernobyl and billions of cells in your body the chances are actually pretty good you will live to regret being there.

      [radiation] it is a natural occuring phenomenon, but just like many other things, too much of it can be a bad thing

      Harr! That's a good one. Radiation and chocolate bars - too much of a good thing can hurt you! Don't let the Bush administration hear that one or he'll be saving the energy industry money on shipping containers next. But you are right - some radiation is natural. There are two problems with that rationalization: 1) all natural things are NOT good for you, and 2) there are different types of radiation and the type of radiation at Chernobyl is the really, really bad kind.

      Its been 18 years since the disaster, the radioactivity is now in the ground and buildings but not in the air (and has also been washed clean from flat hard outside surfaces like concrete and asphault

      But it is still in the plants and the seeds and the pollen and the insects. Did you ever look at the air in a shaft of sunlight? That's dust. And in Chernobyl that's radioactive dust.

      In the dead zone you can get irradiated in three ways: 1) you can walk over to the reactor and get irradiated to death in a matter of minutes, 2) you can walk into an area that has enough radioactive material around to kill you in a few hours or days, or 3) you can breath radioactive dust that may kill you in a few years or decades from cancer. Seems pretty stupid to go in there without a respirator to me.

    20. Re:It's a lesson by RayBender · · Score: 2, Interesting
      You sound as if you are thinking that any radiation is bad or that radiation itself is bad.

      It is. That is exactly what I am saying. In another example of me knowing more about this than you, there is NO safe level of exposure to ionizing radiation, natural or not. It isn't like a chemical or biological exposures where there are minimum affective doses. ANY radiation passing through your body has the potential to mutate that one single unlucky cell into a cancer cell.

      Slow down there cowboy. Your cells have mechanisms in place to repair DNA. In fact, every second of every day your cells are getting some small amount of DNA damage from chemical byproducts of your metabolism (free radicals), UV radiation, and natural background radiation. There is some probability that a strand break can occur and not be repaired, and that can sometime lead to cancer. But the fact is that you can get cancer just from living and breathing (ie. your metabolism). It's not at all clear that any additional dose of radiation is necessarily dangerous. In fact, there is some evidence that radiation exposure activates protective mechanisms in cells to improve DNA repair - look up "radiation hormeisis". Your statement about no minimum damage threshold is not on a very firm scientific basis; it is an assumption made by regulatory agencies who are trying to be conservative, not a scientific fact.

      Dose/mortality rates used in setting health standards are based on extrapolation from survivors of Horoshima and Nagasaki. You have to understand that the doses and dose rates they received are 5-10 orders of magnitude greater than the rates you are likely to encounter walking around Chernobyl today. As any decent scientist will tell you, when you extrapolate a linear trend across that many orders of magnitude, you are basically just making shit up.

      Since there are trillions of neutrons per m3 in Chernobyl

      I call bullshit. That statement tells me that you are talking out your ass. There are NO neutrons anywhere except deep in the remainder of the core itself, where you still have fissile material. What you have in the surrounding area is alpha, beta and gamma radiation. Neutrons are produced by fission, and you don't have a trillion fissions/sec/m3 in the area. That would be producing something like 30 Watts per cubic meter; the place would be HOT, thermally. It isn't, so I doubt your number pretty strongly.

      According to her maps the dose rates were something like 80 micro-roentgen/hr. That's about 700 millirem/year. Natural background radiation levels are typically 300 milliorem/yr, but can be up to 15,000 millirem/year.

      there are different types of radiation and the type of radiation at Chernobyl is the really, really bad kind.

      How so? Becuase it is Communist? I THINK you mean that there is a lot of alpha-emitting dust around, which is indeed not good to breathe. But I think she pointed out that unless you went indoors, there wasn't actually much dust. That was 18 years ago - a lot of the material gets buried in that time, because it's not particularly biologically active (i.e. doesn't get incorporated into plants - there aren't many proteins with americium in the active sites). The stuff that does get incorporated, such as strontium (which displaces calcium), is not an alpha emitter. All this being said, I don't think you should be farming in the dead zone. But a few trips through on a motorbike is really no big deal.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    21. Re:It's a lesson by Al-Hala · · Score: 1

      It's not just this place. If you intend to worry that much, check out studies on Radon gas in the US, and other places in the world.

      Your own home could be poisoning you.

    22. Re:It's a lesson by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Yeah :) I remember, vaguely, 25 - 13 yrs ago now.

      I'll agree with the sentiment about immortal. But not about dosimeters. If she really thought she was, she wouldn't have carried one.

      Remember that the real damage from radiation exposure is accumulative, not instantaneous. I don't doubt that she probably took more dosage than was healthy for her, tho. But then that's life. Everyone in any modern society gets exposed to crap that's not good for you. There's no way to avoid it, no way to predict it, and no way to determine how much damage it will do to you, especially when you don't know it's even there.

      Still.... brave kid. Nobody has ever said that bravery needed intelligence or (especially) wisdom. That's why the military likes youngsters.

      You just do what you feel you have to (or want to). Sigh....ah, well.

      Perhaps she felt it was worth the risk. She hasn't said, so who knows.

      I'd *love* to visit it. One can gather a real feeling for history in places like that. It's one reason I like to hike, visit old farms, old mines, old places. It's about as close to being field that I can get anymore :(

      Cheers, instarx
      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    23. Re:It's a lesson by instarx · · Score: 1

      Your cells have mechanisms in place to repair DNA. In fact, every second of every day your cells are getting some small amount of DNA damage from chemical byproducts of your metabolism (free radicals), UV radiation, and natural background radiation.

      That's true, but how does that change anything? DNA damage occurs from sunlight, and the vast majority are handled by the repair mechanisms, but not all - hence the probability of skin cancer increases. Radiation is NOT harmless in any amount because you don't know which of that damage is not going to be repaired. My "no threshold" coment isn't on shakey scientific ground at all. It is a an accepted fact by toxicologists that there is no dose-response curve for radiation exposure that extrapolates to zero.

      Dose/mortality rates used in setting health standards are based on extrapolation from survivors of Horoshima and Nagasaki.

      Now I have to call bullshit on you. Although that data has been incorporated in the body of knowledge, atomic bomb blasts have hardly been the sum of human radiation exposures over the years. To list a couple of examples, there have been many epidemiological studies of radiation exposure to industry workers and x-ray technicians. I'm not even mentioning the many, many accidental exposures. I'm surprised you think human exposure data only comes from A-bombs.. Additionally there have been numerous animal studies on the effects of all types of radiation on living organisms.

      it is an assumption made by regulatory agencies who are trying to be conservative, not a scientific fact.

      If anything, the agencies' exposure limits are high. Except for NIOSH, the government is required by law to take economic factors into considertion when setting occupational exposure limits. However I'm not talking about legal exposure limits, but real-life exposure effects.

      That statement tells me that you are talking out your ass. There are NO neutrons anywhere except deep in the remainder of the core itself, where you still have fissile material.

      Ok, you got me there - I made a wild uninformed guess on neutron count, although it is not true that there are NO neutrons. There just aren't billions per m3.

      Becuase it is Communist? I THINK you mean that there is a lot of alpha-emitting dust around

      Well, let's see, there's alpha, beta and gamma ionizing radiation. Relatively speaking, alpha, and to a lesser extent beta, are not that hazardous. Much of the radiation in Cherobyl is, however, gamma. Which is very very bad. I believe it is apolitical.

      You are getting the exposure mechanisms confused. You can breath dust and that is a source of internal exposure or you can be exposed to background. Alpha, which is pretty harmless in the air, is dangerous when alpha emitters are inhaled as dust particles. These particles become lodged in the lungs, right against a cell and the radioactive material has a long enough half-life to do damage. Going into a structure has two risks - disturbing the dust and being exposed to the background radiation. The background is alpha, beta and gamma, the gamma being the important one since the alpha doesn't penetrate the skin.

      Everyone is making the incorrect assuption that the only dangerous radiation in the area is ihnhaled alpha. More correctly, alpha is only dangerous WHEN inhaled. Do not make the assumption that dust particles floating around Chernobyl are only alpha emitters.

      The dust in the air in the dead zone is not enough to register high levels on a dosimeter in the center of a road, but the dosimeter measures whole-body exposure. The danger is from dust that is breathed into the lungs which become point-sources of internal radiation. Going onto that area without respiratory protection to ride a motorcycle is just stupid. EIt is just common sense that any place where it is too dangerous to ride your motorcycle anywhere but down the CENTER of the road to avoid radiocative dust is a stupid place to ride a bike, and is doubly stupid without protective gear.

    24. Re:It's a lesson by michajoe · · Score: 1

      >> bad mix of technology, science and politics just another example of why Scientology is evil!

    25. Re:It's a lesson by RayBender · · Score: 1
      Dose-response curves for radiation are actually somewhat controversial, at low levels. Read this for an interesting discussion. I've read in a Science (the magazine) article (sorry. forgotten the reference) that many researchers have given up on finding epedemiological effects from Chernobyl and are starting to look at other sites with worse (!) contamination, such as Mayak. That was the site of Soviet bomb-plutonium production, and there was apparently more contamination over a larger area from that. Who the fsck knew?

      Much of the radiation in Cherobyl is, however, gamma. Which is very very bad. I believe it is apolitical.

      Gamma is very penetrating, yes. But if you'd read the article you'd have seen the map and the radiation counter both showing dose rates on the order of 100 micro-roentgen/hr; that's less than 1 rem/year, and only slightly above natural background radiation levels. She said that those rates increase by a factor of 4-5 if you go off the road. I conclude then that a) it's smarter to stay on the road, b) these does rates are not "very, very bad" by any reasonable stretch of the imagination, and c) the only way you could be in serious peril is if there was an additional source of radiation exposure. Since she'd mentioned dust indoors, that's what I figured you were talking about.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    26. Re:It's a lesson by instarx · · Score: 1

      If you intend to worry that much...

      I'm not really worried about normal levels of radiation and I don't sit around fretting about it, although I do periodically measure the radon levels in my basement. If I gave the impression of being an anti-radiation freak I did not mean to.

      Is the young woman smart? Clearly yes, but she was also very foolish. Is she brave? Yes, but with the bravado of a 20 year old.

    27. Re:It's a lesson by bareshiyth · · Score: 1

      We do.
      Science and politics is the deadliest of potions. Chernobyl was a lousy technology, bought and paid for by a corrupt political bureaucracy. That happens here. But the technological failure accounted for only a small fraction of the death and disaster. Far more was caused by the politicians who refused to accept what was happening, who sent all the heroic rescuers to the center of all the radioactivity (a bit like our rescue folks who were being assured the air was OK at the twin tower site), and the hundreds of thousands who were NOT evacuated, and the world which was lied to.
      About half my own weblog is about this sort of thing, and more. I just finished a series on global warming, which is another, ultimately even more disastrous elixer of science and politics.
      I love science, and am something of a political junkie (got my BA in Pol Sci !), but I hate the poisonous mix of the two. When the search for truth becomes the tool of power, and the wonders of technology are sold to the Machiavelli's of the world, we are always the losers.
      Thanks Michael... great topic, memorable website. I'm putting a link to it on my site, in a feature I call the "Dishonor Role", generally intended to bring recognition to singularly BAD scientists, etc. In this case, the names of those responsible are just too many... and that young lady deserves a memorial.
      I must admit, it does amaze me, even disgusts me, to read some of the comments, here, about her. I think she's hauntingly truthful, and so "Russianly" frank. I think some have missed the point... If her site was made into a 30 minute documentary, what a film that would be... she almost made that, a cinema verite, in what she posted!

  8. Gamma World by BWJones · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The essay was absolutely amazing. The surreal description is perfect, reminding me of apocalyptic movies of the 80's and describing what I imagined the world looking like in the RPG Gamma World. Abandoned buildings as people left them, houses falling apart, yet seeing scenes of prezwalski looking horses crossing a stream.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Gamma World by MarcQuadra · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it would be fun to go there myself and check things out on my bicycle for a day. Unfortunately my Russian friends would all be too chickenshit to actually go with me.

      --
      "Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
    2. Re:Gamma World by MBCook · · Score: 4, Interesting
      After reading you comment and thinking about it, it reminds me of that little short story. I can't remember quite what book it's in (it's in a book of fiction).

      It's about a little automated house with no one living there. It told about how it would make breakfast, and clean it up with little mechanical sweeper mice, and the house eventually burns down. The house is in a town that is empty because of a nuclear blast and the only "people" left there is a "shadow" of someone left on a wall from the nuclear blast. Interesting and sad story. The place was just as if everyone had suddenly vanished from the face of the Earth. Everything else was left.

      I want to say it was in "A Brave New World" but it could have been a H2G2 book.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    3. Re:Gamma World by SilentOne · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a Bradbury story from _The Martian Chronicles_

    4. Re:Gamma World by BeBoxer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's the weird thing about the place. It's considered basically uninhabitable by humans. Yet nature as a whole seems entirely unfazed by the radition and is thriving in the absence of humans.

      On the other hand, it really isn't that weird. The "nature preserve" aspect is only disturbing in relation to the empty roads and buildings. Without those features to provide the desolation aspect, nothing would seem amiss. Plus, nobody is keeping track of the average lifespan of those horses, which is almost certainly below average.

      Still, a fascinating photo-essay either way. And I think it's funny that her Kawasaki probably would have been worth as much as a whole town in that part of the world in 1985.

    5. Re:Gamma World by Have+Blue · · Score: 4, Informative

      There Will Come Soft Rains.

    6. Re:Gamma World by lone_marauder · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, no doubt, man. A hot chick on a motorcycle cruising through radioactive ruins pursued by marauders has 80's postapocolyptic action flick written all over it.

      By the way, I disclaim any responsibility for marauder activity in that area. As the name suggests, there is only one of me, and I am not there. Thank you.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    7. Re:Gamma World by MBCook · · Score: 1

      I knew I was off. But, Slashdot always knows. Thanks guys.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    8. Re:Gamma World by lone_marauder · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Yes, I misspelled post apocalyptic. Retractions, etc.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    9. Re:Gamma World by Tracy+Reed · · Score: 1

      I read that story in high school. It wasn't "Brave New World". Very good story though.

    10. Re:Gamma World by damiam · · Score: 1

      It wasn't Brave New World or an H2G2 book. I think it was a Ray Bradbury short story, but I can't find it anywhere...

      --
      It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
    11. Re:Gamma World by sparrow_hawk · · Score: 4, Informative

      The story in question is Ray Bradbury's "There Will Come Soft Rains," which is part of the _Martian Chronicles_. And yes, both it and Chernobyl are extremely, extremely spooky.

    12. Re:Gamma World by Dahamma · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree - the original /. article was half making fun of the language, but somehow it feel like if she had written it in Russian it would have had almost a weird sci-fi Dostoevskian quality... (how's that for a bad Russian stereotype!)

    13. Re:Gamma World by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      I believe that's an Edgar Allen Poe story if I recall, though I dont remember the name.

    14. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.dchsenglish.com/dchsenglish/assignments /therewillcomesoftrains.htm

    15. Re:Gamma World by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      nevermind.. i just read that about the same time as martian chronicles.

    16. Re:Gamma World by Safety+Cap · · Score: 4, Informative

      Someone posted the story and an analysis, too.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    17. Re:Gamma World by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      who knows how long the animals live though

    18. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are doing this under the name S.T.A.L.K.E.R
      http://www.stalker-game.com/

      Looks Like A Decent Game!

    19. Re:Gamma World by mesocyclone · · Score: 1, Troll

      A lot of very sensitive studies have found little or no impact on wildlife from the radiation. This includes DNA analysis looking for excess mutation rates.

      The much-hyped 100,000 excess cancers have not appeared. The only solidly linked human effect (other than to those who fought the fire) has been an excess of thyroid cancer in children downstream, with one reported death as of a few years ago.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    20. Re:Gamma World by jelle · · Score: 1

      Yeah, especially that she's not just a hot chick on a motorcycle, but she's completely in gear (did you see the 'kawasaki' leather jacket?), and the bike probably has more horsepower than most /. readers' cars...

      If Kawasaki picks up on this, they could be in for a hugely successful worldwide marketing campaign around her.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    21. Re:Gamma World by jelle · · Score: 1

      Well, comparing the few before and after pictures on the site, I'd say that it used to be a lot greener there before the accident...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    22. Re:Gamma World by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      For some reason I'm thinking associating your product with a radioactive meltdown tragedy and subsequent radiation poisoning and deaths of thousands of people is maybe not the best marketing move.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    23. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    24. Re:Gamma World by Kris+Warkentin · · Score: 2, Informative

      Here
      Good story.

      --

      In Soviet Russia, hot grits put YOU down THEIR pants.
    25. Re:Gamma World by GEEK+CRUSHER+5000 · · Score: 0

      Are you fucking insane?

    26. Re:Gamma World by clarinetforhire · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's probably due to the time of year the pictures were taken.

      All of her pictures were from Feb. 21, which is before there are leaves on most of the trees and bushes. The old picture with the two young girls in it looks like it was at least April when it was taken because they're dressed for warm weather and the hybrid tea roses are blooming.

      --


      The definition of a liberal: I may disagree with what you have to say, but I'll fight for your right to say it
    27. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, Edgar Allan Poe would have had to be a
      great visionary to write a nuclear apocalypse
      story, especially since he died in the mid
      19th century.

    28. Re:Gamma World by chamenos · · Score: 1

      "...the bike probably has more horsepower than most /. readers' cars..."

      A much greater horsepower to weight ratio, yes. However the bike won't have more horsepower than most cars. Its engine displacement is 1100cc. The engine displacement of an average car is at least 1500cc to 3000cc, depending on where you live.

    29. Re:Gamma World by fatman1683 · · Score: 2, Informative

      There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground, And swallows circling with their shimmering sound; And frogs in the pools singing at night, And wild plum trees in tremulous white; Robins will wear their feathery fire, Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire; And not one will know of the war, not one Will care at last when it is done. Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree, If mankind perished utterly; And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn Would scarcely know that we were gone. Sara Teasdale

      --
      Look, defenseless babies!
    30. Re:Gamma World by jelle · · Score: 1

      Given that those motorcycle engines reach up to around 125 horses per liter, and in comparison a 2004 honda civic coupe dx has 115 horses to run on, I stand corrected and replace 'most' with 'a lot of'...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    31. Re:Gamma World by jelle · · Score: 1

      What is new? We're not talking about a minivan.

      Motorcycles have historically been associated with a combination of danger, power, speed, and substance abuse.

      Bikes are not marketed to soccermom.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    32. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't the dog come back to die in that one?

    33. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The only solidly linked human effect (other than
      > to those who fought the fire) has been an excess
      > of thyroid cancer in children downstream, with one
      > reported death as of a few years ago.

      Maybe you'd like to take a nice little vacation there.

    34. Re:Gamma World by prandal · · Score: 1

      It always makes me think of "The Zone" in Andrei Tarkovsky's movie Stalker

    35. Re:Gamma World by WuphonsReach · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's the weird thing about the place. It's considered basically uninhabitable by humans. Yet nature as a whole seems entirely unfazed by the radition and is thriving in the absence of humans.

      Yeah, but nature doesn't get all sentimental or up-in-arms if critters are born with birth defects or die early from cancer. As long as the critters live long enough to reproduce at a growing rate, then that's all that's needed.

      Humans are a bit pickier about that pesky "quality of life" issue.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    36. Re:Gamma World by dbIII · · Score: 3, Insightful
      A lot of very sensitive studies have found little or no impact on wildlife from the radiation.
      So long as you completely ignore any actual studies, like the one on the moles, it would be easy to come to that conclusion. Google should help and be more informative.
    37. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you others that are replying to this please take into account that the original poster is most likely american and that under the bush reg^h^h^hadministration global warming isnt happening either.

    38. Re:Gamma World by Lord+Prox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      here ya go. Some info on the death toll. after reading that page I suggest your click around that site a little, it's a good read.
      Here is the authors bio for reference. He does know (unlike most /.ers) what is BS and what is not.

    39. Re:Gamma World by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      A hot chick on a motorcycle cruising through radioactive ruins pursued by marauders has 80's postapocolyptic action flick written all over it.

      Hehe, that quote actually made me think of the Dark Angel series :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    40. Re:Gamma World by kisak · · Score: 4, Informative
      It is very well documented the relationship between high radiation and cancer. The best known study is from Hiroshima, where there was found clear correlations between the rate of cancer and the amount of radiation that people were exposed to. As the study shows, the peak of leukimia was 7-8 years after the atom bomb was dropped.

      The link between radiation and cancer has much to do with the increased mutation rate of DNA caused by radiation, which is natural since most cancers are caused by changes in the DNA of a cell. I find it difficult to see why you try to deny this?

      It is too bad, but I guess because of the Soviet Union and the turmul in the years after the Soviet Union disintegrated, there has not been done real studies on the wildlife of Chernobyl. (There has been done many studies on the radiaton effects on humans in Chernobyl.) But since all life is related to DNA, there is no doubt that the animals and plants in the area has been seriously affected. Can you show any scientific study that has shown no impact on nuclear radiation on wildlife, we would like to hear about it. And remember, radiation is one thing, but plutonium is one of the mosth leathal chemical poisons in its own right, so if the radiations doesn't get you, the radioactiv chemicals is there for you to worry about the. Again, it is quite natural that plutonium and other radioactive isotops made in a nuclear plant are poisonous, since because they don't excist naturally in nature, organisms have not evolved protections against them.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    41. Re:Gamma World by EaterOfDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      One thing that is often overlooked about radiation exposure is the fact that radioactive particles WITHIN your body are much more dangerous than just being exposed to radiation. Alpha radiation can be stopped by PAPER, but if a particle lodges within your body (say, your lungs), that constant stream of alpha radiation (as well as the beta and gamma of course) becomes extremely dangerous. It may already be too late, but she should be wearing at least a breathing mask in this area. Sad, sad.

      --

      Crushing my karma one post at a time.
    42. Re:Gamma World by Zonekeeper · · Score: 0

      Thanks. I never could remember that name. I read it in junior high lit. years ago. Was spooky to me even then.

    43. Re:Gamma World by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 1

      A quick google search for "Chernobyl DNA study -children -liquidators" pulls up a whole list of links:

      Chernobyl and Genotoxicity

      Chernobyl: Wildlife Followup

      DNA Damage and Radiocesium In Channel Catfish From Chernobyl

    44. Re:Gamma World by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

      --
      Sig it.
    45. Re:Gamma World by flabbergasted · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I read the article I was more strongly reminded of Boris and Arkady Strugatsky's "Roadside Picnic". Travelers from the star Vega stop on Earth while passing through on their way to somewhere else. The result is an area so contaiminated with alien litter and microbes that the place is uninhabitable. Scientists enter the area to gather artifacts, but the consequences of wandering off of the well marked trails can be deadly. Really great, spooky story. Macmillan published a lot of Russian science fiction in the US during the late 70s and early 80s. I have five or six volumes that I picked up in a clearance bin years ago. Sadly it is all out of print here again.

    46. Re:Gamma World by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      ...radioactive isotops made in a nuclear plant are poisonous, since because they don't excist naturally in nature, organisms have not evolved protections against them.

      You don't really understand what an isotope is, do you? This is the problem with all environmental doomsaying. While I characterize Chernobyl as no less a tragedy than would the greenest eco-activist, this abandonment of scientific fact makes your argument look like ludditism at best and propaganda at worst. It puts me in exactly the same frame of mind as this sort of statement would:

      "Stop using CFCs; don't you care about global warming!?"

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    47. Re:Gamma World by djward · · Score: 1

      It's fascinating that the vast majority of Sci-Fi portrays the post-apocalyptic landscape as barren desert surrounding the old hulks of abandoned buildings. Yet in the real post-apocalyptic landscape around Chernobyl, everything is green and blooming. It seems spookier that way, but it also highlights our societal underestimation of the ability of life to go on after a disaster.

      Either way, it's kind of funny (in a sad way) that when a deadly disaster removes the human element, the rest of life seems to do better for itself.

    48. Re:Gamma World by kisak · · Score: 1
      I do know what isotops are. Why did you cut my sentence just there? Why not include:

      ...plutonium and other radioactive isotops...

      Plutonium has many isotops, so does many other radioactive atoms or isotops. Where did I use the word isotop wrong?

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    49. Re:Gamma World by mesocyclone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would, actually. It would be quite interesting.

      I did an experiment one time... one you can't do since 9-11 probably. I took a digital geiger counter in an airliner. At about 10,000 feet it was close to off-scale.

      There's lots of radiation around.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    50. Re:Gamma World by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Reminded me a lot of Charlton Heston's "Omega Man".

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    51. Re:Gamma World by XSforMe · · Score: 1

      ...And I think it's funny that her Kawasaki probably would have been worth as much as a whole town in that part of the world in 1985.
      Ummm... you basically have no idea of the value of things. Your comment is not only insensitive but also rude to anybody who has had to live through an evacuation.

      --
      My other OS is the MCP!
    52. Re:Gamma World by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      My primary source is a Science Magazine overview article from a year or two ago. There was one mole study that was refuted. Is that the one you are referring two?

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    53. Re:Gamma World by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think "chickenshit" means what you think it means. You want "smart".

      I wonder how long she stayes in the city.
      Time exposed could be less then your would be on your bycycle.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    54. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I've had thyroid cancer, which is really not a lot of fun. The articel and pics are fascinating. Radioactive iodine is the clearest nuclear accident danger because the thyroid gland concentrates iodine to make the hormone controlling metabolic rate - so tiny amounts cause enormous damage immediately.

      The US government is currently, after litigation, paying parts of the medical costs of tens of thousands of "downwinders", of the Hanford WA nuclear site
      http://www.usdoj.gov/civil/torts/const/reca/ index. htm
      (I was further away, but when I was growing up in Indiana, the government was providing Kodak [which used corn fiber from my area to pack film] test schedules to avoid problems with film clouding).

      The amount of radioactive iodine from some famous events:

      Hanford (1944-1957): 737,400 curies of Iodine 131
      Three Mile Island accident (1979): 15 - 24 curies of Iodine 131
      Chernobyl accident (1986) 35 - 49 million curies of Iodine 131
      Nevada Test Site (1951-1970): 150 million curies of Iodine 131

      If you're considering doing a bravado visit, you might consider taking potassium iodide pills first, and while there, stop at some of the children's clinics in Ukraine and Belarus.

    55. Re:Gamma World by Alan+Cox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The film of it ("Stalker") is also well worth watching btw. It takes a slightly different angle than the book and its perhaps a little slow but its very good.

      Another short story on a similar theme is "Flying Dutchman" about a post holocaust world where nothing is left but robot systems still bombing each other

    56. Re:Gamma World by lone_marauder · · Score: 1

      Ok, you really don't know what isotopes are. That's okay. Not knowing the facts is quite different than trying to deliberately ignore them because they don't support your argument. I therefore retract the accusatory tone of my last comment.

      An isotope is not "a radioactive atom". An isotope of any given atom X is an atom containing just as many protons and electrons as X, but with more neutrons. For example, deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen. It, like very many isotopes, is not radiactive, and its chemical behavior is identical to normal hydrogen. That means that if you look at a toxin like cadmium or iodine, for example, any isotopes of those elements would have exactly the same (chemical) toxicity as the elements themselves. Lifeforms dealing with those toxins, therefore, are not particularly unprepared (chemically) for their isotopes.

      Now, that leaves two arguments which would not be in dispute. The first is the radiation effects of radioactive isotopes, which is inarguably catastrophic. The second is that the quantities of toxic chemicals in the Chernobyl area is probably higher than would occur naturally.

      --
      who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.
    57. Re:Gamma World by mesocyclone · · Score: 4, Informative

      The best guide to the studies on animals and humans, as of a couple of years ago, was a survey article in Science Magazine, one of the leading professional science publications in the world. Rather than relying on the sorts of news reports you reference (which are not scientific and report information from governments which have a major financial stake in blaming all problems on Chernobyl), I'll take Science Magazine any time

      Your evolution based argument is pure supposition, and is unlikely given that there are natural compounds with similar chemical toxicity (other heavy metals) and plenty of natural alpha-emitting natural compounds (e.g. polonium).

      As far as the chemical toxicity, this says: :The chemical toxicity of plutonium (a heavy metal) is inconsequential alongside the radiation effects.

      In other words, the chemical toxicity is irrelevant.

      Overall, ricin, of Al Qaeda fame, is 10-20 times more toxic than plutonium. Botulinum toxins (the reference bacteria strain for which was found in a refrigerator in Iraq by David Kay's team) is 10,000 times more toxic than plutonium.

      Furthermore, I do not deny that high levels of radiation cause cancer, not to mention radiation sickness. What is not well known is that people live and prosper in areas of very high natural radiation.

      When one looks at low levels of radiation, the sensitivity is undetectable. Low dose radiation level rules are based on an unproven and somewhat implausible theory called Linear, No-threshold Theory (LNT). This theory is used to derive radiation hazard predictions and exposure standards as one of the first uses of the Precautionary Principle. The theory assumes that one can estimate risk at a low level by applying the ratio of that level to a high level where the risk as been established. The risks for low level radiation dosages are hypothetical, having been derived by this ratioing from populations exposed to much higher dosages (uranium miners, Hiroshima/Nagasaki survivors).

      Furthermore, the risk is presumed to be based on total lifetime dosage independent of the rate of exposure. Again, this has not been established scientifically.

      You mention Hiroshima. Because Hiroshima had no local fallout, all excess radiation exposure occurred in an extremely short period of time - most of it in a few seconds. Furthermore, the levels of dosage received by Hiroshima victims had to be estimated, which could not be done accurately.

      There are several problems with LNT. First, it is based on a very old, discredited model of carcinogenesis which assumes that a single point mutation in DNA is the cause of cancer. In fact, the process is far more complex, with cells having the ability to repair mutations.

      This means that the odds of acquiring non-repairable damage are higher if the radiation is delivered more quickly, because a single cell may sustain multiple hits. There may also be secondary effects, due to the death of an excessive number of cells at the same time.

      great radiobiologist, the late Harald Rossi summarized the situation as follows: "It would appear...that radiation carcinogenesis is an intricate intercellular process and that the notion that it is caused by simple mutations in a unicellular response is erroneous. Thus, there is no scientific basis for the "linearity hypothesis" according to which cancer risk is proportional to absorbed dose and independent of dose rate at low doses" .

      However, lets just assume that LNT is correct, since it is widely used.

      Consider this (April 2000):

      The Chernobyl catastrophe resulted in vast quantities of radionuclides being released into the global atmosphere, which were easy to measure even high in the stratosphere, and far away at the South Pole . It was a godsend for anti-nuclear activists. Yet according to estimates of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR),

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    58. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm thinking that her film in her camera didn't like the exposure to radiation. Count the number of over exposed shots...

    59. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's global cooling that we have to worry about. Welcome to the next ice age.

    60. Re:Gamma World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not all humans. The tradition of large families among people in the Third World is a response to high mortality, and an effective one.

    61. Re:Gamma World by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

      hmm, well at least I know what I need to rid of those pesky moles...

    62. Re:Gamma World by netsharc · · Score: 0

      Wow, yet another ignorant proud 'Merkin. Tell me, does that mean the Chernobyl wasn't a terrible catastrophe (to paraphrase you, "gees, it's only children getting cancer."). Besides, they were commie children, not sweet American kids, so they don't count, right?

      Gathering from your website, I'm guessing you live in a closed world, you probably only read magazines/websites that agree with your viewpoint and dismiss everything else (for example this comment of mine) as bullshit (leftist/liberal bullshit?).

      Yay for George W. Bush, where science that disagrees with his viewpoint get censored! (liberal source, but ey, no freaking conservative site is going to cover that fucking news!).

      To continue this fucking rant, what the fuck was that Bush using Sept. 11 in his campaign video? Remember that day, he fucking chickened out and hid in airbases around the country, compare that to Rudy Giuliani who I remember seeing in the news - he was a few feet away from dust from the towers with only a handkerchief to cover his nose and mouth. Bush a hero, my fucking ass.

      --
      What time is it/will be over there? Check with my iPhone app!
    63. Re:Gamma World by kisak · · Score: 1
      The chemical toxicity of plutonium (a heavy metal) is inconsequential alongside the radiation effects.

      Plutonium is a poison as salts, not as pure metal. It is the same with Mercury, which is not toxic when in metal (liquid) form. The problem is that when exposed to other chemicals, the salts forms fast and you have an environmental problem.

      The best guide to the studies on animals and humans, as of a couple of years ago, was a survey article in Science Magazine, one of the leading professional science publications in the world.

      Here are some quotes from an article from Science, since you accept that source. Note that recombination here means that there are significant mutations of the DNA, mutation that in many cases will lead to cancer. (Richard Peters and Robert Sikorski; Science, Vol 282, Issue 5397, 2214, 18 December 1998):

      PLANT GENOMICS:
      Plant Genotoxicity

      Following the accident, numerous studies reported genotoxicity in humans, animals, and plants around Chernobyl. Around the reactor itself, a 600-km2 zone has been closed to agriculture since the accident, because the average soil contamination is too high. This disaster, although very unfortunate, offers the opportunity to study the effect of ionizing radiation on living organisms and to compare data collected in a laboratory setting with data obtained from the field.

      Germination rates of the seeds decreased with increasing density of soil pollution, and there was a high degree of correlation between laboratory and open-field experiments. Moreover, an increase in soil contamination was linked to an increase in the average number of recombinations (up to five per plant) in both open-field and laboratory experiments. The number of recombinations peaked at a soil contamination of about 1000 Ci/km2 and decreased at higher levels. The authors suggest that under higher radiation doses, the precision of the recombination process may decrease. Another explanation is that higher doses lead to more double-strand breaks that may be repaired more often through end-to-end joining (often referred to as illegitimate recombination). Cytological studies in other plants indicated a correlation between homologous recombination frequencies in A. thaliana and in the frequency of chromosomal bridges and fragments. Of note, the authors found that the dose-response curves they observed tended to be left-shifted for the field experiments compared with those for the laboratory experiments, that is, although the trends were identical, there was more damage in the field. They explain the differences by indicating that the plants in pots were surrounded by much less contaminated soil than the plants in the field.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    64. Re:Gamma World by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      In independent reports made by WHO and the Red Cross, nationwide rate of Thyroid Cancer increased by 2400% from 1985 to 1992 in Belarus alone. And that's just Thyroid cancer, and not other variants.

    65. Re:Gamma World by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      Yes, thyroid cancer in children is known to have occurred. How much is a result of radiation as opposed to intensified screening is not known. However, children, especially those in that area who are likely to have an Iodine-deficient diet, are extremely sensitive to radioactive iodine induced thyroid cancer - far more so than anyone is to other radioactivity levels.

      The good news is that thyroid cancer has a very high cure rate. The bad news is that several children in the area have died of it, and it is probable that one or more of those deaths is due to Chernobyl fallout.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    66. Re:Gamma World by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Not that I should feed the troll, but on September 11, Bush would have been a number one target, while Giuliani was just another person. No one knew what else was coming... Ground Zero after the towers fell would have been the least likely place in the entire country to get attacked.

      I don't know about you but I spent 9/11 waiting for nukes to go off in U.S. cities. Thank God, I was wrong.

      Bush's actions were the only sensible thing for him to do.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    67. Re:Gamma World by Shinobi · · Score: 1

      An increase of 2400% isn't just the result of increased screening, no matter how much nuclear power proponents wish it was. In fact, the increase in screenings for Thyroid cancer didn't begin until the middle of 1994, when Belarus got large contributions for that purpose.

    68. Re:Gamma World by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      That's the weird thing about the place. It's considered basically uninhabitable by humans. Yet nature as a whole seems entirely unfazed by the radition and is thriving in the absence of humans.

      That doesn't mean there is no impact from the readiation. It just means that on average across the whole population of animals living in the exclusion zone, humans were worse than radiation.

      The other thing is in this case thriving means reproducinig more and sustaining a higher population than before the incident. Thriving does not mean living longer or not dying of cancer.

  9. there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... but not all that is invisible and harms is radioactive. Heavy metals such as mercury, PCBs etc, can be seriously nasty. The sheer calous lack of regulation of these pollutants by governments world-wide is unbelievable. Even your fabric-softener can have mercury put in it.

    So while there is this collective phobia and aura surrounding radiation, there isn't around other many other toxic threats. Note the security surrounding nuclear materials, but how easy it was to obtain unbelievably toxic dimethylmercury (until someone killed herself when a droplette momentarily touched her protective glove) until recently.

    1. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Justice8096 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      When I lived in Camden, New Jersey, we had problems with toxic waste. Dogs and cats were most susceptible - all of the animals we raised died of cancer. There were mutations amongst most of the wild animals, and birth defects amongst the people. It has died down by now - most of the dumping of waste stopped in the early 80's, when the dumpers got too scared of travelling into the ghetto to dump their waste.
      When my family got out of there about 5 years ago, the incidents of tumors and cancer had gone down significantly. I have my suspicions that some of the waste was dispersed by the birds that ate the contaminated animals and scattered their shit outside of the area - which is probably slowly happening over there too.

    2. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by theoddball · · Score: 3, Informative
      Dimethylmercury is scary, scary stuff:

      Dartmouth researcher poisoned by 2 droplets.

      Odd that this happened (semi-recently) at my school, and nobody's ever mentioned it in ANY of the chem classes I've taken...

    3. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Informative

      No shit. I just recently was informed of a student around this area who, for whatever reason apparently "ate a lot of tuna" with her dog one week, and get this, they are BOTH suffering from mercury POISONING. Now I don't know what the fuck "a lot of tuna" is, maybe they got a whole tuna as a gift or something, but that you can possibly get mercury poisoning from just an amount that you can stuff in your face in a week (and let's assume that's not 24/7 eating tuna, in that case you'd die of your stomach rupturing first), is seriously screwed up.

      Now let's say she ate tuna EVERY meal for a whole week...that adds up to what, 21 meals of tuna? How many tuna sandwiches have you had recently? In 21 weeks will you have consumed enough to otherwise qualify you as "mercury poisoned"?

      I'm glad the general public has such a say in how our food is raised because, yes sir, I loves me that good old American heavy metal poisonin'! I'll fry it up in my recycled radioactive-waste frying pan!

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    4. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      There was guy in Prague who was using dimethylmercury to make trimethylthalium. His experiment went exotherm and spilled, he cleaned the spill. Next day his vision was blurred, and shortly after he was no longer able to talk and stand upright. He died couple of weeks later in horrible spasms. I used to remember his name.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    5. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you're on the topic of mercury. I'd like to point out the the "silver" in dental amalgam [silver filling] is also approx 50% mercury. This dental technique was developed in the 1800's. Today mercury is toxic if it's outside of your body, if they remove it from your mouth they have to dispose of it as toxic waste, but the ADA [American Dental Association] claims that it's completely harmless inside your body. I've read many studies of people able to measure sharply elevated levels of mercury after people with these fillings have chewed gum/eated something.

      Scary shit, but as long as it's in your body, harmless, nothing to fear... From what I understand, the reason this dental technique caught on and eventually became the norm, was because it was cheaper than the alternatives. BTW, the ADA is a trade association, they don't exist to protect consumers or champion public health, although they'd like to leave you with that impression.

      Here's an interesting link I found if you want to read a little more:
      The Doctor Within - The New Agenda of American Dentistry
      http://www.thedoctorwithin.com/index_fr .html?conte nt=articles/index.html

    6. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by genmanath · · Score: 1

      Your comments remind me of something I heard from my sister about a quicksilver (mercury) mining town in the Big Bend of Texas. The town is called Terlingua. Ironically, it's not quite the industrial wilderness that Pripyat now is. For one thing, it's much smaller and settled amid the natural ruggedness of the Big Bend. More tellingly, the Terlingua Ghost Town is a tourist attraction (if a hazardous one). I suppose that Terlingua is an industrialized natural disaster. I hesistate to call it a Chernobyl, though.

      --
      G. M. Manath

      Go not to the Elves for counsel, for they will say both 'Yes' and 'No.'

    7. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What gets me in that link is that OSHA fined the college for this because they didn't give the professor proper training. WTF!! She's not in a high school chemistry class. She's studying the toxicity of mercury. If anybody should have known the properties of this chemical she should have!

      Damn.

    8. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Sangui5 · · Score: 1

      "Plutonium may give you grief for thousands of years, but arsenic is forever"

      Good Omens, Neil Gaiman and Terry Pratchett

    9. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by firewrought · · Score: 1
      OSHA fined the college for this because they didn't give the professor proper training. WTF!!.... If anybody should have known the properties of this chemical she should have!

      Obviously, she knew the properties of the chemical; she probably knew several strategies for handling them safely too. What she obviously didn't know was the safety ethos. This is because abstract scientific knowledge does not directly transfer to practical safety techniques. Especially for absent-minded professors.

      Translating knowledge of theory into safety techniques can be hard work. At a minimum, you have to identify dangers, design strategies to avoid them, and then implement these strategies while carrying out the task in such a way that you remain mindful of them. What can make this especially difficult for a theorist is that "safety design" requires a paranoia not suggested by the domain knowledge of the problem. The job of the scientist is to model the world. Models are simplifications that leave out "uninteresting" phenomena so that more interesting things can be explored. The trouble is, those "uninteresting" phenomena are a rich source of safety hazards. The translation can be done, but only if you're familiar with safety design techniques (redundancy, vigilance, continuous improvement, etc...).

      In the case of a lab accident, the prof might not have to do that much thinking to avoid killing herself, but we're only human. This is where a good grounding in safety training and mentality can help us maintain our sense of caution even when one is just trying to mix a few test tubes together.

      I'll give you an extended example of how the naieve application of theory can hurt safety practice: I have a friend--very smart--who believes (or believed) that it's safe to tailgate on the expressway with a 1/2 second following time. This is about 1 car length at 60-70 MPH. His reasoning? "My reaction time to breaking will be 1/4 second, and given approximately equal vehicle mass and breaking power, it is a FACT OF PHYSICS that two cars will come to a stop in the same amount of distance w/o colliding." [Emphasis his.]

      My friend's theoretical model and proposed reaction time is accurate, but he made several mistakes in this analysis:

      1. 1/4 second is enough to react, but you'll need a lot longer to know how much to react [unless you have a policy of slamming on your brakes every time :-)]. Usually when we see tail lights, we assume it's a minor slow down and we do not brake that hard.
      2. His model does not account for lapses in his own attention. Hey... we're human and we make bad judgement calls sometimes when we reach for the radio, adjust the AC, or just let our minds start wandering off the road.
      3. His model assumes that the cars are moving in a fixed, single-file order w/o ability to swerve across lanes, cut people off, flip, or jackknife. 2 seconds following time would buy a lot of breathing room when a situation begins to happen. Do not underestimate this when you're riding through Atlanta in 6 lanes of traffic moving in the same direction.
      4. His model does not account for debris and stopped cars in the road. I know of an incident where car 1 was tailgating car 2. Car 2 came up quickly on car 3, stalled in the middle lane. Car 2 swerved and avoided car 3 successfully, but car 1 had no time to react and nailed the broken-down vehicle [instantly making car 1 at-fault].
      5. His model completely ignores reality when it assumes that all cars have approximately equal mass and braking power.
      6. Finally, his model did not consider the social impact of tailgating: 1 or 2 seconds is not a bad price to pay for making your passengers more comfortable. (It also might prevent them from complaining about it years later on slashdot.;-) This is not a 'physical safety' consideration, but it does affect 'social safety'. (I guess you could piss off the guy in front of you and he might pull out a shotgun, in which case it becomes physical again.
      --
      -1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
    10. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7. Tractor Trailers can stop faster then cars, especially if they're running light/empty. 18 wheels on the ground is a whole lot more static friction for stopping then 4.

    11. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by greening · · Score: 1

      Actually, your body requires a small amount of arsenic. It's just when you go overboard that you die. The same goes for salt (NaCl). You need salt in your system but, if you consume too much, it becomes toxic (remember kids, it's safer to drink your own urine than ocean water). Work in a chemical lab and you'll learn what to be afraid of (nasty things like NaOH, Hydroflouric acid (spill some of that on you and you'll have a really great day), HCl, H2SO4, etc.).

      A little interesting fact, the headache that you get after a long night of drinking is caused by your blood's pH level being to acidic. That's why you drink a lot of water, so you can dilute your system's acidity level...

      --
      Are you telling me that you don't see the connection between government and laughing at people? - Interviewer
    12. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is possible that the high levels of mercury in tuna are natural. Of course doesn't make it any better for you.

      (That study is from a journal published by the American Chemical Society, which is as legit as other scientific organization. Though that research was apparently partly funded by something called the "U.S. Tuna Foundation", which presumably is funded by the tuna industry.)

    13. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to give me studies thankful poster, I'm already severely heavy-metal poisoned from 'silver fillings'. I don't know whether I'll live to be 30, but what hurts me most of all are these FOOLS who keep saying pollution and health dangerous like mercury are imagined waffle or a left-wing plot.

      The truth is no matter who I tell I can't get anyone to take these things seriously. As someone who actually knows a bit about it, I am awestruck by the sheer scale of carnage things like these are causing to millions (or perhaps hundreds of millions) of people. But nobody will listen. It's hopeless.

    14. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      High levels of mercury are from human pollution released into the environment. While many fish contain acceptable levels of mercury in them, tuna are higher up in the food chain and accumulate higher levels. Do not ever eat tuna. It is seriously unhealthy.

    15. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by IainMH · · Score: 1

      I remember this. She was an NMR researcher.

      I wasn't too happy when my girlfriend started using that stuff in her project.

      Horrid, horrid stuff.

    16. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Lanae · · Score: 1

      Yeah, 30 is so seriously, really, very...old! ;) What about all those baby-boomers and their parents, who have those fillings because that's all there was for them.

      I have them too and I'm...wait, is that poisoning coming on---*thud*

    17. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Well, they need to have those fillings out. The scare industry executives have boat payments to make, you know...

      --
      ---
    18. Re:there're many 'Chernobyl's in this world... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignorant. There're different types of amalgam fillings. Older style silver / mercury amalgams release mercury at only 1/10th of the rate of newer 'high-copper' amalgams. Basically, they replaced the silver with copper in the 1980s to make them cheaper.

  10. one phrase... by flynns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read this, and I look at the pictures, and all I can think, numbly, is "...holy shit..."

    --
    'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    1. Re:one phrase... by Nf1nk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I felt the same way. and at the same time it reminded me of the ghost towns in the sierras that I have visited. there too you feel unnerved by the silence and the items just left sitting there unmoved for decades, and the odd decay that they undergo.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    2. Re:one phrase... by stangbat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My thoughts too. The site will probably be Slashdotted soon, but for those that don't get a chance to see it, it is sobering. I don't know what else to say...

    3. Re:one phrase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think that's bad, you should check out pictures of Japan's cities after the Bombs were dropped.

      That is the true 'holy shit'

    4. Re:one phrase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now come on "Insightful" for saying "...holy shit..."
      you editors suck !

    5. Re:one phrase... by smallfries · · Score: 1

      I know what you mean, it really does make you stop and think doesn't it? Not just the surrealness of the place but the way the article captures the feeling of a 'dead place'.

      It made me think thank fuck the cold war never went hot. Every major city in the western world could have been like this and there would have been nowhere for us to go to. The part about the evacuation of the hospital after the head doctor died of cancer really brings it home.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  11. Hmm... by Gary+Yogurt · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much of that city I could buy if I won one of our (US) mega-lotteries. It'd be an awesome movie lot, although I'd imagine shooting a film in 4-minute bursts would be kind of difficult.

    1. Re:Hmm... by silentbozo · · Score: 1

      Send robots with film equipment and bluescreens in. Shoot live action plates (as they did with Disney's Dinosaur) and composite the actors on top of the plates, with additional shots in the studio and in nearby (but less-radioactive) locales. The question is, will the radioactivity fog your film? You might have to use lead-lined canisters, and slower film to compensate.

    2. Re:Hmm... by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      "The question is, will the radioactivity fog your film?"

      No worries. Just shoot it with digital cameras and transmit the footage via satellite. That way, there's no need to recover your equipment if it becomes hot through contact with lethally radioactive dust (which may be likely if your machines go indoors or dangerously close to the Chernobyl reactor).

      I doubt any science fiction filmakers would take advantage of robotic tech to do something like this, but maybe a documentary might. It would be interesting to see the inside of the reactor today without worrying about the risks.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    3. Re:Hmm... by NeuroManson · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe there's a major difference between silver nitrate film (a chemical light reactive process) and digital cameras (CCD or CMOS being an electronic reactive process). That may be the reason why there was no fogging (recall too that a lot of cameras used to videotape Chernobyl were either tube or CCD based).

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
  12. Sad graffiti... by 0m3gaMan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's another site out there with pictures of the abandoned buildings. Something about it is incredibly compelling and sad; almost like looking at a modern-day Pompeii. People who were children back when this happened go back there and spray-paint messages to former classmates on the walls of their elementary schools, trying to contact them or just to say they're still still around.

    I also saw on a :60 Minutes segment a few years ago that the gov't pipes music into various parts of the city, where apparently there are still some people working--this is to keep them from going insane from the silence.

    1. Re:Sad graffiti... by dilweed · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here it is, although it's geocities, and will be /.ed real quick.

      http://www.geocities.com/pripyatcity/argazkiak.htm

    2. Re:Sad graffiti... by BillTheKatt · · Score: 1

      I saw that 60 minutes segment too. They were playing a very solemn classical song while they were touring the actual reactor. Do you remember what the song was?

    3. Re:Sad graffiti... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Do they pipe in much Simon & Garfunkel?

      "The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls and tenement halls and whispered in the sound of silence."

    4. Re:Sad graffiti... by p4ul13 · · Score: 1

      Down quickly; any mirrors out there? The first article was fascinating, so I'm real interested in seeing more like this...

      --
      Paul Lenhart writes words!
    5. Re:Sad graffiti... by jelle · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Down quickly; any mirrors out there?"

      Yes. The WayBack Machine has at least some of it.

      (can we /. the wayback machine?)

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    6. Re:Sad graffiti... by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      this is to keep them from going insane from the silence.

      A friend of mine once did some work in an anechoic chamber (no echoes, soundproofed from outside noise). His boss told him that people can start hallucinating from the sensory deprivation, and that he'd be back about every 20 minutes to check on him. Every 20 minutes, the guy actually did show up, he took it that seriously.

      I personally haven't ever experienced silence like that. But sometimes in town here on winter nights, when the trees are bare and there's no traffic, it gets really quiet. Creepily quiet, because when you go outside you normally think of it as being a noisy place. Chernobyl is probably something like that, except *all the time*.

    7. Re:Sad graffiti... by alexburke · · Score: 1

      My mirror: http://www.alexburke.ca/pripyat/ (God bless wget, even on Windows!)

  13. What is the scale? by craenor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    She shows a nice map of the radiation levels, but without showing the scale it doesn't mean jack. She has the norm listed as 12-18.
    I am guessing that she means millirem per hour, but I honestly have no idea. Anyone know?

    1. Re:What is the scale? by r00zky · · Score: 3, Informative

      In page 12 she shows a radiation display at the city 4km from reactor, it says 81.6 but the scale is in russian characters, the text says "microroengen per hour"

      Dunno if that's accurate...

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    2. Re:What is the scale? by no_carrier · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what the scale is, but 12 mrem/hr is not 'normal' by any stretch. One of the detectors pictured was reading in microR/hr, which is more reasonable (at these levels, R approx== rem).

    3. Re:What is the scale? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From what I've read 10 or less microroentgen/hour is normal, and you're safe up to around 20. I couldn't find much definitively, but it would be nice if somebody educated in this area would clear this up.

    4. Re:What is the scale? by Harinezumi · · Score: 4, Informative

      The cyrillic characters read "mk R / ch" which I assume to stand for "mikro Rengen v chas" or "micro-Roengen per hour". So yeah, it's accurate.

    5. Re:What is the scale? by Rorschach1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Sounds about right. According to my detector here in California at about 200 feet elevation, I'm getting around 33 microroentgens per hour. I measured about 25% more than that up in the Sierras last summer due to the higher altitude.

      Of course, *I* wrote the firmware in this thing, so God only knows how accurate it is.

    6. Re:What is the scale? by PSC · · Score: 1

      text says "microroengen per hour"

      It's micro Roentgen per hour.

      Wilhelm Conrad Roentgen, 1845-1923, German physicist who in 1895 discovered what he called and most people know as X-Rays. (For some obscure reason, in German they're called Roentgen-Strahlung.) Got the Prize for it in 1901.

      --
      --- The light at the end of the tunnel is probably a burning truck.
  14. Dangerous? by SuperBanana · · Score: 2, Informative
    Dad is nuclear physicist and he also says that of all dangerous things he can only think about one, which is riding on fifth or sixth gear on my bike

    Yep. Especially when you're wearing jeans, which will be ripped through in a half-second if you were to fall off the bike. I don't ride a motorcycle, but I do know only the truly stupid ride without motorcycle pants+jacket/suit, especially if the roads aren't in great shape and you'd be lucky if days went by before someone happened to pass you by. Same goes for riding without a helmet- dumb, dumb, dumb.

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

      She is riding through Chernobyl and you thing she is dumb for not wearing the proper motorcycle gear?!?

    2. Re:Dangerous? by jelle · · Score: 1

      That was exactly her and her nuclear-effects-researcher dad's point...

      The most dangerous part of driving there, in their opinion, is not the radiation, but the danger resulting from the high speeds on the motorcycle.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    3. Re:Dangerous? by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      From a practical point of view:

      1. If you have an accident there, it's likely nobody will find you for quite awhile. Will an ambulance crew go in there after somebody?

      2. The roads are probably poorly maintained. Do they send in a road crew to repair those roads? So it's probably a gradually more hazardous place to ride a motorcycle.

      --
      ---
    4. Re:Dangerous? by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      SuperBanana;

      The vernacular is/was (snirk) "leathers" and yeah, it's really smart to wear them - if you lay your bike down, a good set of leathers will keep you from losing skin (to a point, eh :)

      That said, it's part of the risk you take, not wearing them. Hell, riding a bike is what most, ehem, "sane" people would call a huge risk. It is. It's also a skill demo, to coin a phrase.

      For a lot of us, we call it just riding. It's not the kick of defying death, it's not the thrill of risking spending time in the hospital regenerating tissue (been there)...it's just knowing, like mountain climbers and many others, that there's a thin skin between you and death (or serious injury).

      It's for the freedom of doing what you want to do. It is what it is. One can't adequately describe it unless you've been there.

      I'm 37, yet I still take risks. It makes me feel alive. I climb vertical rock faces with no other equipment than my feet and hands. It's not the rush, it's the satisfaction of knowing you can do it - meeting the challenge.

      There is simply no way to explain that to people who haven't dreamed of or done it. It's like trying to talk to a different species. Not flaming you - it's just what it is.

      Argh! :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Dangerous? by wcdw · · Score: 1

      I've ridden a motorcycle in jeans/slacks/shorts for over 20 years now. Heck, I bought some sandals specifically because they leave my feet bare, but still have a pad under the shift lever. (Note that I ride year round, including commuting, not just two weekends in the summer.)

      Now, I've just checked, and I _can_ still hear my own voice, so I haven't been struck dumb yet. And I've been called stupid over more inane issues....

      I can live with a little rash, particularly when the alternative is wearing full leathers in 90+ degree temps. If I lay it down hard enough to do more than rip holes in my skin, I have bigger problems, leathers or no.

      Heck, I was just in a car accident two days ago, where a car turned left in front of us. If we'd have been on the bike, we'd both be in the hospital (at best), even in full battle dress conditions, including kevlar and crash plates.

      Everyone has their own level of risk aversion. Personally, I think the two guys hanging from the sheer rock wall in the Mastercard commercial are freaking nuts. But I also fly airplanes, enjoy skydiving, and am thinking about learning to fly rotocraft (among other risks).

      You're certainly entitled to your opinion, howver ill-informed it may be. However, perhaps you ought to learn something about the subject before you make such sweeping statements? By your own admission you don't ride (and likely never have, from the sounds of it).

      --
      If you're not living on the edge, you're just taking up space!
    6. Re:Dangerous? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Yeah I can vouch for that. Coming off the back of a moped onto a tarmac road at 45-50mph is nothing compared to what dropping a real bike will do to you but it still took 3 months for all the skin to grow back. That was wearing sandals and shorts but the principle is the same

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    7. Re:Dangerous? by Shiifty · · Score: 1
      If she does crash, its not like she can phone home to have someone pick her up. Theres no mobile phone network, and it looks like she rides alone sometimes. She'd be done for.

      I hope she never runs out of gas or has engine troubles ...

    8. Re:Dangerous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope she never runs out of gas or has engine troubles ...

      Yes because lord knows, walking all of twenty or thirty kilometers to get help would be just superhuman.

  15. the text (not much without the pictures, i know) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Motorcycling is a great hobby of mine, I ride all my life and I owned different bikes and I ended with big kawasaki zzr 1100 cc sport touring motorcycle, which also known as ZX-11. it fast like a bullet and comfortable for long trips. I travel a lot and one of my favorite destination lead through poisoned with radiation, so called Chernobyl "dead zone" It is 130kms from my home. Why favourite? because one can ride there for hours and not meet any single car and not to see any single soul. People left and nature is blooming, there are beautiful places, woods, lakes. There is no newly built roads, but those which left from 80th in fairly good condition The word CHERNOBYL scares holly bijesus out of people here. If I tell someone that I am heading in "dead zone"... you know, what I hear.. In best case- "are you nuts?" My dad used to say that people afraid of a things which they don't know. Dad is nuclear physicist and he also says that of all dangerous things he can only think about one, which is riding on fifth or sixth gear on my bike. In any way, dad and their team work in "dead zone" for last 18 years. They doing researches from the day when nuclear disaster happened. The rest of guys in a team are microbiologists, doctors, botanists.. etc. I was 7 years old back then and in a few hours after accident happened dad sent us with sister off with the train to Grandmother. Granny lives 800 kms from here and dad wasn't sure if it was far enough for us to stay away of troubles. We had communists at power those days and they kept silence about this accident and then people start learning by themselves and real panic began in 7-10 days after disaster. Dad says, that in those first 10 days exposure to radiation was so powerful that one day of staying in Kiev those first days was equal of 1 year of living in Chernobyl now. Here is map that shows radiation level in different parts of dead zone and which I updated for our local biker club in February 21st of this year (2004) map shows level of radiation on asphalt, usually on the middle of road, because on edge of road it is twice as higher and if you step 1 meter off the road it 4 or 5 times higher. Radiation sit on earth, on the grass, in apples and mushrooms. It is not on asphalt, which make rides through this area safe. I always go for rides alone, because not need anyone to rise dust and I had never problems with dosimeter guys. They are on check points and if they will find radiation on you vehicle, they give a chemical shower and it eat ya bike next page some 15-18 years ago, we've been getting 95% of chernobyl radiation through the air, now radiation went in soil and we getting 99% of it with our food. so, better to watch those cucumebers they sell on market place. Own garden is a way out 900 years In theory radiation will stay in Chernobil area for the next 48.000 years, but in reality first people must start to populate those area already in some 900 years. This is when the most dangerous elements will dissapear. their half-value period is from 300-900 years. I suppose there will be someway discovered to neutralise or clean up the radiation in the next 100 years. Well, if our government will finance our science as they do it now, then we won't be able to rid of this and will have to wait this 900 years untill radiation will evaporate by itself. Actually, some people coming back to their homes and settle down, those mostly old people who do not care if they die today or tomorrow. important is to die at home. checkpoint this is a place where they give a chemical shower, also their mission was to stop marauders. marauders marauders in radiation poluted area are not just a regular marauders, they don't steal stuff for themselves. There were cases of radiactive tv sets and other stuff being sold on city second hand markets and then police shot 7 or 8 of them and it helped barges they wanted to melt those barges for a metal, but it appears that those metal will still containt radioactive elements. next page this is a bus stop. One don't need to be in a 30kms "dead

  16. This never wouldn't have happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    if we had more central planning, higher socialist taxes, more government, and a good state run economy. Oh wait...

    Vote for John, he'll fix it - you pay!

    I'm posting anonymously so all you bleeding heart, flaming liberal, socialist pud-knockers can kiss my ass...

    Chernoybal is what happens when no one takes responsiblity and is accountable - i.e. socialism

    1. Re:This never wouldn't have happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, dip stick, what is your excuse for 3 Mile Island or Love Canal?

    2. Re:This never wouldn't have happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, let's vote for Republicans. They never screw up the country.

      Oh wait, what about Nixon? And Reagan? And Bush Sr?

      You tight-ass Republicans have a real problem with long term memory.

    3. Re:This never wouldn't have happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey fuckwit, did you happen to notice that Pennsylvania is not an abandoned surealistic, abandon wasteland suitable for for sci-fil movie sets and Love Canel is being cleaned up... Fuck you...

    4. Re:This never wouldn't have happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/elec-f21 .shtml

    5. Re:This never wouldn't have happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...as apposed to say ah... loose-ass democrats

      Open your brain instead of thinking with your dick and your "feelings"...

    6. Re:This never wouldn't have happened... by yobbo · · Score: 1

      Hey great idea, let's use a tragedy in another country for political gain in the united States!

  17. Like the American southwest by BWJones · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This comment in the essay: This is highest building in town and in April 26-27, 1986 after reactor exploaded, people gathered on the roof of this building to watch a beautiful shining that rised above APP. They didn't know this was shining of radiation. they learned it on next day when evacuation began reminded me of talks I had with some of my patients some years ago that either lived in southern Utah and Nevada, or were in the military. Whole families would gather on high mountains to watch the pretty lights from the atomic bombs being tested in the open air and I had one old army guy tell me that soldiers who were gathered at the exercises, if they were not issued goggles, were told to look away and cover your eyes with your hands. When the bomb went off, you could actually see the bones in your hands from all the X-rays that were emitted from the bomb.

    Amazingly scary.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      you could actually see the bones in your hands from all the X-rays that were emitted from the bomb.

      Without the proper x-ray film how does one utilize an invisble spectrum?..... Just wondering

    2. Re:Like the American southwest by Mipmap · · Score: 4, Informative

      When the bomb went off, you could actually see the bones in your hands from all the X-rays that were emitted from the bomb.

      How exactly does this work? When have human eyes been capable of seeing the x-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum? Or, is there some grain of truth in this, in terms of the visible light being so intense that it's possible to see vague impression of bones within your hand? I suspect the latter.

    3. Re:Like the American southwest by cybercuzco · · Score: 5, Informative

      When the bomb went off, you could actually see the bones in your hands from all the X-rays that were emitted from the bomb. True, but not for the Reason you stated. I dont care how bright the light is, you cant see X-Rays with your eyes. however, with a sufficiently bright light your hand becomes translucent and you can see the outline of your bones. Try this: With a very powerful flashlight (like a Maglite) go into a dark room and let your eyes adjust for a minute or two. Then hold your hand so the palm completely covers the flashlight part, dont let any light escape. Turn the flashlight on and you should be able to make out the outline of your bones, if the light is powerful enough. But you still cant see X-rays.

      --

    4. Re:Like the American southwest by BWJones · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I am not exactly sure, but there must have been some combination of bright light and higher energy radiation. From a retinal vision perspective, all one would need to do would be to activate opsins and this could easily be imagined happening with all of the high energy particles being emitted by the bomb.

      Also, a quick google search reveals that others have relayed the same experience.

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    5. Re:Like the American southwest by Mipmap · · Score: 2, Informative

      The funny (sad) thing is I had a science teacher in the 7th grade (1985?) who said the exact same thing "and the x-rays from the bomb allowed people to see their bones".

      We were talking about the made-for-TV movie "The Day After". For you young 'uns this was a movie about nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The movie did actually depict, during the nuclear flash, being able to see the skeletons of people. Complete and utter bullshit.

    6. Re:Like the American southwest by hkfczrqj · · Score: 1

      That quote reminded me of a radiation accident in Brazil, where IIRC a machine for cancer treatment was left abandoned in a rural road. The machine had not-so-small amounts of some radioactive isotope... maybe cobalt, maybe cesium...

      Well, the tragedy began when, at night, locals were atracted by the eerie, funny looking powder, which was glowing with THAT blue color (Cerenkov radiation?). People, specially children, picked-up some of the powder and they put it onto their skins, like talc powder, just to play and glow in the dark. I don't really know how many people died. Tens... hundreds are still sick (cancer, burns).

    7. Re:Like the American southwest by corngrower · · Score: 2, Informative

      The eye is only sensitive to visible light. Its just that the light was so intense that it actually shone through her hands. You can see this effect with some of those little 3mw red lasers you can buy. They can shine right through your hand as well.

    8. Re:Like the American southwest by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "This is highest building in town and in April 26-27, 1986 after reactor exploaded, people gathered on the roof of this building to watch a beautiful shining that rised above APP. They didn't know this was shining of radiation."

      This makes me wonder exactly what those people saw. It obviously wouldn't be a bright flash like a nuclear bomb since it wasn't a nuclear explosion, it was a steam explosion with a tremendous amount of aerosolized radioisotope contamination. So it's a good bet that if this story is true they were actually looking at a blue glowing steam/dust cloud with the glow caused by CERENKOV RADIATION in the air!! To actually see Cerenkov radiation in the air would mean that the radiation in that initial rising cloud must have been unbelieveably intense, and they didn't even know the danger of the situation......horrifying.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    9. Re:Like the American southwest by starnix · · Score: 1

      He is mistaken. It has nothing to do with X-Rays. Just the Intense light from a nuclear explosion would be enough to let you see the bones in your hand. I mean, shadows could be burned onto blacktop with the intense light. It is an order of magnatude brighter than the sun

    10. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When your bones started glowing in the dark i suppose you could argue that you could "see" the x-rays. Of course then you know you've got bigger problems.

    11. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Same thing with those big 3Mw (megawatt) lasers.

    12. Re:Like the American southwest by NeuroManson · · Score: 1

      If I recall correctly, it wasn't the X-rays emitted by the bombs, it was the bright light they emitted, several times as bright as the sun. Naturally that much candlepower would be enough to see through your hands to a degree.

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    13. Re:Like the American southwest by MajorDick · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its actually the visible light, I have seen this effect many times at work, I was a plumber and pipefitter, when working on boilders or pipelines a guy would yell arcin, and if you were or had to be looking in that direction would close eyes and depending on the aperage and stick cover it with your hand, you could "see through" it sometimes , there was however one phenomena I never figured out maybe a slashdotter could help, during the same experience it was not uncommon to see your own retina, blood vessels and all for a very brief flash, I was not the only one to experience this, was it somehow reflecrting off the front inside of the eyeball due to the intense light ?

    14. Re:Like the American southwest by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Technically it's not brighter than the sun. It's a lot dimmer - it's just a hell of a lot CLOSER than the sun.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    15. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard some of them found jobs in Hollywood, California...

    16. Re:Like the American southwest by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      I think it's more likely that what they would see is flames and/or red glow from the graphite moderator burning in the air.

    17. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks reported being able to see the flash with their eyes closed.
      X-rays or not, that's certainly not normal visible light by any means.

    18. Re:Like the American southwest by pyrosoft · · Score: 1

      The same thing can happen at an eye doctor examining you with a slit scope (I don't know the technical name for it). As near as I can figure out, the reflected light from the back of your eyeball bounces off the lens/cornea/whatever and back into your retina. It's kind of neat to see, until the bright light goes directly over the retina and you see floaters for the next hour.

      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
    19. Re:Like the American southwest by Muhammar · · Score: 5, Informative

      The observed shining was caused by white-hot burning graphite.

      Cherenkov radiation is not observed in air (you need particles with mass traveling with speed higher than the speed of light in given medium , and the optical density of air is low (close to vacuum), the particles would have to travel at speeds near to c - which are difficult to obtain because of relativistic effects. (You can get that from accelerators, but not from fission)
      You can see Cherenkov typicaly in water - the blue shine around immersed fuel rods or intense radioisotope source.

      There is similar-looking bluish shine/flash around extremely strong sources, like criticality accident with Pu, U, or in nuclear explosion (the mushroom has bluish envelope). This shine is caused by intense ionisation of air molecules by radiation, mostly X-ray. The recombination of ions produces excited states whis give away the surpluss of energy by emission in UV/vis , which also appears bluis white.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    20. Re:Like the American southwest by Hard_Code · · Score: 2, Funny

      I just want to add a non-sequiter that I find it funny we still use colloquial phrases like "candle" and "horse" to quantify scientific measurements.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    21. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was probably the back of your eye you were seeing. Not a reflection but a sudden change in light probably caused the cones and rods to change shape so fast you saw the blood vessels on the back of your eye. As the cones and rods would have a lower/higher density around those areas. Normaly you do not see it probably because your brain 'filters' it out. Like for example in the dead center of your eye you can not see very well (its where the optical nerve is). Yet your brain 'figures' it out. Most peoples eyesight is actually quite 'fuzzy'. We do not see everything. It is why optical tricks work so well on us.

    22. Re:Like the American southwest by Detritus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The Earth's atmosphere is effectively opaque to x-rays. They are absorbed and the energy is reemitted at lower frequencies. This is what produces the fireball when a nuclear device is detonated in the Earth's atmosphere.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    23. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      yep, your right. Another example here from a physician describing the blast.

      http://www.publicshelter.com/main/bofile.html

      and here

      http://www.angelfire.com/tx/yuccaflat/herb.html

      and here

      http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_6843.s ht ml

    24. Re:Like the American southwest by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm not so sure....IANAP but like to contemplate these things anyway :) if there is a physicist here and I'm wrong please correct me (us?).

      Firstly, the citizens viewing the catastrophe from the roof apparently noted that "it was shining of radiation". I wish I could talk to a few of them to determine exactly what they meant by this but I would tend to think they wouldn't have made that bizzare characterization of what they saw if it was merely burning graphite on the ground.

      Cherenkov radiation is not observed in air (you need particles with mass traveling with speed higher than the speed of light in given medium , and the optical density of air is low (close to vacuum), the particles would have to travel at speeds near to c - which are difficult to obtain because of relativistic effects. (You can get that from accelerators, but not from fission)

      The beta particles coming from the aerosolized radioactive isotopes should be at least Mev scale which I would think is enough....no? Also the reactor was an RBMK design which when it exploded should have released a huge amount of steam (small water droplets) likely intensifying any cerenkov effect...

      There is similar-looking bluish shine/flash around extremely strong sources, like criticality accident with Pu, U, or in nuclear explosion (the mushroom has bluish envelope). This shine is caused by intense ionisation of air molecules by radiation, mostly X-ray.

      In the accounts I've read of the observed "purple glow" from a nuclear blast, it is usually attributed to the mushroom cloud, which after a couple of seconds must not emit much at all in the way of x-rays(I think x-rays are only emitted when the initial fission/explosion plasma is still extremely hot[blackbody radiation]). So if the blue glow is there during the mushroom cloud it is either Cerenkov or ionization by particle radiation coming from fast (intense) decaying isotopes in the air.

      In the '40's there was a scientist at LosAlamos, Louis Slotin, who was doing a very foolish experiment to measure the criticality of a sphere of plutonium called "tickling the dragons tale" where beryllium hemispheres are slowly closed around a small core of Plutonium. Slotin slipped and the assembly went immediately critical releasing a large flux of beta particles. Slotin died, but not before noting a "blue flash" at the moment of criticality which may have been either Cerenkov radiation in the air or.. more likely in the jelly inside his eye which would have made it look like it was filling the room. So I still think the Cerenkov explanation is possible.....

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    25. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At the temperature the accident caused it may well have been burning graphite.

    26. Re:Like the American southwest by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      Slotin died from X-ray + neutron radiation. Like Slotin's co-worker and student Daghlian less than year before him. Yes, there was blue flash and wave of heat. It was from air ionisation, not Cherenkov. This is a common misconception about Cherenkov in air.

      The other (irradiated) bystanders described the flash as originating from around the sphere Slotin was playng with. If your eye fluid was shining, your vision would be opaque and you would not be able to determine where it came from.

      The intense buish glow around nuke shroom is from radiation produced by intense decay of the short-lived fission products. So you are right, it is probably gamma and beta.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    27. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The reason you see the blood vessels in the eye during brief flashes
      like that is because the blood vessels are actually in front of the
      photoreceptors. Light entering the eye passes through a layer of
      blood vessels and nerves before it gets to the rods and cones.
      Ordinarily, you don't see that because images that are stabilized
      with respect to the retina get filtered out by the brain. Sometimes
      you can stare at something just right, and then the image begins to
      fade. Most of the time you can't, because even when you're staring
      at something, your eyes are constantly moving very slightly, so the
      image isn't stabilized. I guess that's why cats shake their heads
      just before the pounce: so they can get a clearer picture of their
      target.

    28. Re:Like the American southwest by hugzz · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. We use kilowatts in australia, not horsepower.

    29. Re:Like the American southwest by deglr6328 · · Score: 1

      "Slotin died from X-ray + neutron radiation. Like Slotin's co-worker and student Daghlian less than year before him. Yes, there was blue flash and wave of heat. It was from air ionisation, not Cherenkov. This is a common misconception about Cherenkov in air.

      hmmm.... where would the x-rays come from? (bremsstrahlung from the betas going through the Pu?? ...maybe?)

      anyway, bed time for me, great talking with you though! :o)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    30. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With a very powerful flashlight (like a Maglite) go into a dark room and let your eyes adjust for a minute or two."

      A maglite isn't powerful. Its just well-built and slightly brighter than most other flashlights in its class. Want to see a bright flashlight? Check out the SureFire M6. www.surefire.com

    31. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Your retina is actually below a layer of blood vessels, as the retina itself is backed by non-venous nervous tissue. So basically you are seeing the blood vessels that float above your retina.

      No, this design is not intuitive. Seems to work though.

    32. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ome survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks reported being able to see the flash with their eyes closed. X-rays or not, that's certainly not normal visible light by any means.

      Yes it is, it is just pretty fucking bright light. Closing your eyes just means they're covered with flap of tissue, not that your actual eyes somehow lose their ability to feed data to your brain. Bright enough light goes through your eyelids, which you can easily witness by looking at a lightbulb in a dark room, closing your eyes and turning on the lights. Yes, you can actually see the change of brightness. Isn't life amazing?
    33. Re:Like the American southwest by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Some survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic attacks reported being able to see the flash with their eyes closed.
      X-rays or not, that's certainly not normal visible light by any means.


      I think this proves that this geek has never been to a beach to get a tan.

      Since then, when you close your eyes, it's still sure as hell brighter than when you close your eyes in a dark room in front of your computer.

      But of course, this geek is probably unable to make the comparison. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    34. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think that's likely either. Muscle, compared to bone, is not much more transparent to visible light. Yes, thin fleshy areas like earlobes or the webbing of one's hands do transmit light... but so do thin bones. You can see light through the bottom of a fine bone china teacup, which is made of calcium phosphate.

      I think it's more likely that the soldiers were observing the different thicknesses in their hands, due to the shape of the fingers and the tendons.

    35. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a retinal vision perspective, all one would need to do would be to activate opsins and this could easily be imagined happening with all of the high energy particles being emitted by the bomb.

      The lens of the eye cannot focus x-rays as it does visible and near-visible light. I don't see how one could image anything larger than a few mm with such a system.

    36. Re:Like the American southwest by TheOrquithVagrant · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I think you're wrong here. The surface of the sun (the part we actually see) is only around 6000C, whereas an exploding nuclear bomb is several _million_ degrees. It should have the brightness of the exposed _core_ of the sun.

      Of course it depends on what you mean with "brightness". A million LEDs may put out more visible-light photons than a camera flash, but I think we can both agree on which one will leave the biggest blotch on your retina.

      Don't forget that with a fission bomb, you're actually releasing stored-up excess energy from an ancient supernova explosion. ;)

    37. Re:Like the American southwest by yaj · · Score: 0

      Nah, they, like me, bought the "X-RAY" glasses from the back of the Comic Books

      I always had the same problem setting sensitivity.
      All I really wanted to do was see girls naked.

      I wound up seeing alot of bones instead.

    38. Re:Like the American southwest by jim3e8 · · Score: 1

      Ask your eye doctor. I had this experience during an eye exam and mine said it was common when a bright light is flashed in your eye, I think the pattern of veins you see is called a "Purkinje tree".

    39. Re:Like the American southwest by OgGreeb · · Score: 1

      Well, clearly not faster than c, close to the speed of light.

      --
      -- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD //www.digimark.net/
    40. Re:Like the American southwest by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It's not the temperature that matters, it's the amount of light. The reason the sun appears dimmer is that your eye is only recieving a very tiny fraction of the light that emits from it - due to the fact that your pupil covers a puny area in comparasin to the area of a sphere of one astronomical unit in radius. Being closer means your eye receives a greater percent of the light because it hasn't spread across as large a sphere yet.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    41. Re:Like the American southwest by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      lol heh

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    42. Re:Like the American southwest by JonSidneyB · · Score: 1

      Maglite...Maglite? Oh, I have been calling those Gaglites for so long I forgot the real name. Oh my, we need some education here but not on the X-rays. Maglites are not particularly good or powerful lights at all. Especially for their size, and they certainly are not a Geeks light. Maglights have yellowish flawed beams with lots of ugly artifacts in them. Geeks should be using Smart Lights, one with current regulation, possible a boost circuit. Perhaps with an LED that can kick a Maglites but all over the place in brightness. No, not one of those cheap led light from Walmart. We are talking lights in the 140.00-600.00 price range. A real geek needs a smart light on his belt like a Surefire L4 that is even made batter with a smart battery like a Pila(which I happen to sell). The real geek also has an ARC-4 in his pocket, this light is so smart, it does not need a smart battery, it can think for itself and for the battery at the same time. If you want a photon pump, look at a SureFire M6, its light haveing 10 maglights except for a cleaner beam in a package smaller than a 2 D-cell maglight. About seeing light with eyes closed, I Surefire 12zm can make you turn your head with your eyes closed in full daylight they are so bright, and that is only a 500 lumen light. A 3000 lumen light is a real head turner. Careful about the use of the word Candlepower. Candlepower is a measure of photons hitting a single point. Lumens is a measure of the amount of photons produced. These are very different things. A 360 degree light source may produce fewer candlepower than a much dimmer light source but the light source with the higher candlepower, it just has a beam. The tighter the beam, the greater the candlepower cerbusperbus/I know I know, I spelled it wrong. I suspect the bones you are seeing, are actually shodows. Like someone shining a light behind a tree from your vantage point. A really Geeky flashlight forum. CandlePowerforums.com Feel free to stop by and lean about step up regulation, boost circuits, Luxeon LEDs, HIDs, and such. Just kick off some of the Strontium 90 and Cessium 33 at the door. The tritium is ok, we like tritium.

    43. Re:Like the American southwest by JonSidneyB · · Score: 1

      ummm, leds range from less than 1 lumen to well over 250 lumens. The led flashlights you see at wallmart might be 2 or 3 lumens. Take a peek at a real led at 250 lumens and you will be seeing spots for awhile. LED flash is not far off.

    44. Re:Like the American southwest by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      He didn't say faster than c, he said faster than the speed of light in a given medium--big difference. -steve

    45. Re:Like the American southwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh and I thought that whole part of the film "The Manhatten Project" was bullshit. Shows me right!

  18. Listed as science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is interesting, that something as chilling and historic as this, was listed as science.

    1. Re:Listed as science by DaLiNKz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was science.. It still is. It shows what happens when you don't respect what power these things truly have -- or to reword it, shows you that you should always respect something that you barely have under control.

      --
      I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
  19. Facinating by MBCook · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The site is quite facinating. In a way Chernobyl is the largest time capsule in the world. Amazing to see that you could just go into homes and offices and see EXACTLY what life was like there in 1986. If it wasn't for the plants and animals and such, things would be almost completely identicle. It would be very cool if some archiologists could get some NASA space suits or something like that (to protect them from the radiation) to go in and photograph all those places and things.

    The MOST interesting thing in the article to me though was the "deafening silence" that is mentioned. The author said that many companies have investigaed doing things like 2 hour tours but the tourists complain and want to go home after 15 minutes because it's so quite it's like being deaf. I wouldn't think that it would be so bad (go to wheat feild in the middle of the US and it's silent too), but I guess it's the combination of all the buildings and normal city sights (with the exception of the fact that there are no people) and the silence that makes it so eerie and spooky.

    I bet it's spooky as hell there.

    --
    Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    1. Re:Facinating by Osty · · Score: 2, Informative

      go to wheat feild in the middle of the US and it's silent too

      You'd have to find a very remote wheat field. I grew up in the rural Midwest, and even in the middle of a field you could still hear planes flying high overhead, cars driving on the highways miles away, almost-inaudible buzzing from power lines, birds and bugs(depending on the time of year), and more. There are very few places in the world that are truly silent, but I could imagine that the Chernobyl area is one of them.

    2. Re:Facinating by AmiNTT · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Not only is it a time capsule, it is a great chance to watch how nature reclaims the land and how the wildlife adapts - obviously all of the animals haven't died. I wonder if there are any scientists watching for radiation caused progressive mutations?

      I've been in a few places in Algonquin park that 75 years ago were there used to be towns, hotels and whatnot. If you aren't keeping your eyes open and looking for it, you will miss the signs.

      Now obviously, this isn't going to be the case here, but it will still be interesting to see what can be learned - for example, how are the roads holding up? With almost no wear and tear, the area could serve as an excellent testbed for environmental effects on road surfaces (hot and cold damage, etc).

    3. Re:Facinating by MBCook · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Birds and bugs. Good point. I guess I've just learned to tune them out after years of living here. When I first moved to the midwest I had a horrible time sleeping because of them. Now I almost never notice them (with the exception of those damn circadias or whatever they're called). The only sound I was thinking you'd be able to hear was the wind hitting the trees or grain, but in Chernobyl you'd hear the wind hitting the buildings and such.

      I guess your right. I guess most people have never really heard silence. What an odd thought. Next to no one has ever heard nothing.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    4. Re:Facinating by suyashs · · Score: 1

      So is North Korea...but thats I'd go to Chernobyl anyday compared with Kim's place...

      --
      http://chrono.posterous.com/
    5. Re:Facinating by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      There are a number of studies looking at mutations. So far, no excess mutations have been found. This includes studies of ground-living mammals right next to the plant.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    6. Re: Facinating by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1
      I guess your right. I guess most people have never really heard silence. What an odd thought. Next to no one has ever heard nothing.

      What about Spelunkers? As a kid, I remember going into the Indian Echo caves near Harrisburg in PA. At one point, the guide turned off the light, to show people what was likely the most blackest they ever experienced. I recall it being very quiet as well (since everyone stopped moving and talking).

    7. Re:Facinating by pyrosoft · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are very few places in the world that are truly silent, but I could imagine that the Chernobyl area is one of them.
      Try the Sahara, too. No plants to move in the wind, no planes if you're away from air routes, no cars, no bugs, just sand, rock, and silence. And, unlike Chernobyl, no radiation.
      --
      Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Albert Einstein
    8. Re:Facinating by NeuralAbyss · · Score: 1

      Some of the places I've been hiking around in Victoria, Australia in the past have been pretty damn close - in winter, it's rather quiet (and cold); if you find yourself out in the middle of nowhere on a non-windy night, it really is eerie. The silence is disturbing, to say the least.

    9. Re:Facinating by acidrain69 · · Score: 1

      Slightly offtopic, but if you are looking to deprive one of the other 5 senses, I have been to some caverns out in Arizona. You go down underground, and they shut off all the lights for a minute. You have never seen (not seen?) such darkness. It would probably be pretty quiet down there as weel, if it weren't for the tourists and perhaps the splatter of water on the stalactities/mites.

      --
      -- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
    10. Re:Facinating by jelle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Looks like this guy took that tour last year...

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    11. Re:Facinating by blincoln · · Score: 1

      I guess your right. I guess most people have never really heard silence. What an odd thought. Next to no one has ever heard nothing.

      Years ago I read an account of John Cage visiting an anechoic chamber to hear what silence really sounded like. Apparently when it's that quiet, you can hear your blood pumping and your nervous system running.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    12. Re:Facinating by corngrower · · Score: 1

      Go out some night after it's just snowed a few inches of light, dry snow. Late (like 2:00 am). Yes, caves can be silent as well. I've been in several along the Wyoming/Mt border that fit the bill. But at that location, even outdoors is pretty quiet, if there's no wind.

    13. Re:Facinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or you could go to pretty much 90% of canada for that kind of silence.

    14. Re:Facinating by eap · · Score: 3, Funny
      Amazing to see that you could just go into homes and offices and see EXACTLY what life was like there in 1986.

      If you want to see 1986 in action don't waste your time in the Ukraine, just stop by my office. We program in Pascal on VMS, have no Internet access, and refer to Powerpoint presentations as "View Graphs".

      Now if you'll excuse me my New Coke is getting warm.

    15. Re:Facinating by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      One might conclude (before one gets violently flamed by environmentalists) that really, no matter how seriously these stupid hairless apes fudge up the planet, ultimately, they are only messing with themselves.

      If they kill themselves off eventually, 500 years later (an eyeblink in planetary lifespans) pretty much nothing will notice they were ever here.

      --
      -Styopa
    16. Re:Facinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It would be very cool if some archiologists could get some NASA space suits or something like that (to protect them from the radiation) to go in and photograph all those places and things.

      I'm not sure about that one. I'll admit to being fascinated by the pictures of houses left abandoned with everything still in them. But it has only been 18 years... if I was one of the people who had lived there I don't know how I'd feel about people going in and studying everything.

    17. Re:Facinating by CharlieG · · Score: 1

      Total darkness isn't that strange - heck, I've done it with a dark room - takes some doing (most darkrooms are NOT perfect, but...

      --
      -- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
  20. Mirror by pr00f · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://unbolted.llarian.net/chern/

    Mirror is the site gets overloaded or bandwidth exceeds limit (which can happen with angelfire).

    1. Re:Mirror by pr00f · · Score: 2, Informative

      FOr the record, this mirror is running on multiple gig-e, sitting one hop off three backbones. Please let me know if you find issues with mirror.

      And just so it's a clickable link... http://unbolted.llarian.net/chern/

    2. Re:Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the mirror. For some reason it's missing page 16 though.

  21. how did this find its way to Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Now, i am happy that i was one of the few who got to see it (like others said, angelfire and slashdot? yeah, right) and I found it very very interesting.

    But i'd like someone to do some sort of anthropological study of how these little stories get noticed and submitted to slashdot and other blogs (is slashdot a blog? hmmm).

    I'm curious who found this story.. was it the author of the page? a friend, or a really interesting "other"...

    1. Re:how did this find its way to Slashdot by aenea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It was posted on a motorcycle forum. Next I saw it was on Metafilter. The version that's up now has been edited it a bit, she removed some of the more personal information.

  22. Silence.. by Jediman1138 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Very troubling to know that there is a city where silence alone can scare one away...Kind of funny how one can find total peace in the shadows of death, destruction, and the flaws of man. I, for one, would love to visit it..Apocalyptic visions are filling my head already..

    --

    nothing.can.stop.me.now

  23. Weird -- and intriguing by BarakMich · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is quite scary and fascinating at the same time.

    First of all, this should very much be an example of the terrors, not of nuclear power per se, but of nuclear war.

    With a war-happy president, this is all the more scary.

    On the other hand, wouldn't it be terrible and exciting at the same time to ride through these places?

    If I make enough money when I grow up (being barely of voting age) I might do that one day. Affermation of my anti-war beliefs, strange sci-fi fanboy fantasy, who knows...

    Amazing.

    1. Re:Weird -- and intriguing by imr · · Score: 1

      It reminded me of Tarkhovsky's movie "Stalker".
      You might like it, if this kind of feeling appeals to you.

    2. Re:Weird -- and intriguing by BarakMich · · Score: 1

      Thank you -- I shall indeed look into that.

    3. Re:Weird -- and intriguing by Blackknight · · Score: 1

      If you like movies like that, check out The Day After. That movie gives me chills every time I think about it.

    4. Re:Weird -- and intriguing by /dev/trash · · Score: 2

      I was wondering when I'd see the first anti-Bush post.

    5. Re:Weird -- and intriguing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was that the movie that ended in the ruins of a town
      with scene completlely bleak and grey except for an orange that a survivor was eating?

      I had a friend who was really into such movies of
      post-apocalyptic devastation.

    6. Re:Weird -- and intriguing by rampant+mac · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "First of all, this should very much be an example of the terrors, not of nuclear power per se, but of nuclear war. With a war-happy president, this is all the more scary."

      If you're interested in that sort of thing, you shouldn't be looking at Chernobyl as an example, you should be fact-finding Nagasaki and Hiroshima. _Those_ are examples of nuclear devastation during wartime; Chernobyl was the result of an nuclear accident involving a power plant reactor meltdown. Quite a different situation.

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
  24. SITE IS STILL UP - MOD DOWN KARMA WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the angelfire site is still going strong.. do not post mirrors until the site is slashdotted, you filthy karma whore

    1. Re:SITE IS STILL UP - MOD DOWN KARMA WHORE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YUO FAIL IT

  25. The game set out there.. by walkerIV · · Score: 1

    is being made by some ukranian team. It's called 'Stalker'. It promises to be quite good with atmosphere captured just so.

    1. Re:The game set out there.. by abandonment · · Score: 1

      It's eerie how well the Stalker team have captured the look and feel of the area - and it looks like more than a couple of those pictures were used as direct concepts for locations in the Stalker game as well.

      Very cool - definitely #1 on my 'most looked forward to' game list ...

      http://www.stalkerthegame.com

      -------------

    2. Re:The game set out there.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there is also a Russian movie by the same name (Stalker)I only saw the last 10 min or so on IFC
      and I have yet to find it since, it seemed too be about a nuclear doomsday weapon about the size of a baseball.
      and the radioactive aftermath and mutations from deploying it.

    3. Re:The game set out there.. by green_crocadilian · · Score: 1

      It's eerie how well the Stalker team have captured the look and feel of the area - and it looks like more than a couple of those pictures were used as direct concepts for locations in the Stalker game as well

      For those unfamiliar with use of the word "stalker" in Russian, it is a sci-fi term that roughly means "tomb raider or marauder in a post-apocalyptic wasteland". AFAIK, it was first used in the Strugatsky brothers' Roadside Picnic, quite possibly the best sci-fi novel I've ever read (I think English translations exist, so you should go and read it. Now.) In the book, stalkers were guys who would sneak past police checkpoints to steal alien artifacts.

      The Stalker game is based on the plot of Roadside Picnic, except they changes the setting from a North American alien landing site to the Chernobyl power plant disaster site. Probably makes the game more understandable for those who haven't read the novel. The most interesting thing is that they are going to keep the Strugatsky's concept of the Zone and its anomalies - areas of variable gravity, corrosives that turn flesh into rubber, invisible "meat grinders", burning air, walking corpses, etc. In the book, a stalker's lifespan was directly proportional to his sixth sense for detecting such anomalies. I wonder how well that would work out in the game.

    4. Re:The game set out there.. by Op7imus_Prim3 · · Score: 1

      They have a great write up of the game here.

      It looks set to be absolutely awesome. It takes the idea of the marauders that
      were mentioned in the journal and makes it into a game.

      And with graphics to rival the quake 3 engine, I really can't wait for this
      to come up. I just hope they don't have to give out on their great ideas in
      order to meet some silly publishing deadline, which seems to happen to so many
      games these days.

  26. mirror by targo · · Score: 1, Redundant

    mirror

    Absolutely phenomenal pictures.

  27. Reporting (almost) at the time by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 3, Funny
    There was a joke told in Hungary (and presumably other Soviet bloc countries) after they'd been listening to Voice of America report on the disaster for days, but getting no local mention of it at all until about a week after the event.

    Q: Why do we celebrate the October Revolution on November 7?
    A: Because that is when TASS (Soviet news agency) saw fit to report it.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    1. Re:Reporting (almost) at the time by ttyv0 · · Score: 1

      It might be a joke to you, but my family found out about this because my dads factory got a big order for geiger counters to be made in great hurry. He did not know exactly what had happened, but he know something was not right.

      The first official acknowledgement was, if I recall correctly, on May 3rd -- full week after the disaster.

    2. Re:Reporting (almost) at the time by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It might be a joke to you [...]
      No. But I heard this joke from people who'd lived through that week of deception. Many of them listened to Voice of America or the BBC World service and tried to get further away and find iodine tablets. If they found it acceptable to tell the joke to each other (and later to me), then I think it is fine for me to pass it on.
      --
      Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    3. Re:Reporting (almost) at the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember watching the fire and firefighting on TV (yes, I lived in Ukraine at the time). I don't think the exact extend of [radioactive] problem was told however..

      Luckily, I was in Eastern Ukraine which did not get affected as much as Belarus and some other countries.

    4. Re:Reporting (almost) at the time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The first official acknowledgement was, if I recall correctly, on May 3rd

      It couldn't have been the 3rd, I remember my school being the only one in warsaw that forced its students to go on a labour day rally, so all already knew it by before May 1st.

  28. Favourite Quote by Dodger73 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "marauders in radiation poluted area are not just a regular marauders, they don't steal stuff for themselves. There were cases of radiactive tv sets and other stuff being sold on city second hand markets and then police shot 7 or 8 of them and it helped"

    Now, does that sound like the Soviet Russia from a bad movie, or what?

    1. Re:Favourite Quote by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

      >"then police shot 7 or 8 of them and it helped"
      >Now, does that sound like the Soviet Russia from a bad movie, or what?

      Welcome to The Real World. Marauders and looters will be shot on sight. Goes for practically all countries. Even in our world. Even here, in Germany, which is a *lot* more peaceful than the US.

      No, it's not nice. But it IS the only way to stop it.

      --
      Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
    2. Re:Favourite Quote by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, peaceful Germany. Instigators of two world wars. Pfft. Why don't you come into the real world?

    3. Re:Favourite Quote by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

      > Yes, peaceful Germany. Instigators of two world wars. Pfft. Why don't you come into the real world?

      Wow, I actually *am* going to respond to an AC, and completely off-topic, too.
      Man, I'll be moderated into China, especially as I'm going to talk history - always a major problem with little hotmouths who get their world view from Indiana Jones.

      First off, sir, allow me to officially call you an idiot. I do so because you know nothing about history and blather about as if you did - just like an idiot.

      Now, allow me to inform you as to the causes of two world wars - don't worry, I'll keep it short, you can return to your Superman graphic novel in a moment.

      I am going to start with WW2, since it's easier. The peace accord of WW1 was crushing the entire country flat. The tunnel was very deep, and there was no light at the end of it.
      See, the other states asked for a heck of a lot of money - not what they thought they'd get, but what they owed to the USA. Horrendous amounts. And nicely open-ended, in the style of "Okay, you'll pay *that* per year until 2000, and then we'll see".

      Obviously, this didn't work. A harsh peace never does. The people became desperate, the inflation went into the sky (it is *not* funny to go shopping with a cart full of bank notes).
      So they voted for the guy who could hold these amazing speeches. That guy was not "satan himself", he was a romantic nut. Yes, try it sometime - give one of these people a lot of power, and see just how bad things turn out.

      Initially quite well - he told the other countries to go to hell, he built highways (suddenly, you had a job again), stuff like that. Soon enough, though, he went nuts, and a LOT of trouble was the result.
      Some interesting side-effects remain up to this day:

      a) You have to call Hitler "evil". You're not really allowed to look at the entire time period without shivering in disgust at all these evil people, too.

      b) Germany is irredeemably evil. It is the only country on earth with an unforgivable past.
      Think they did worst? Man, I can give you examples to make your toes curl, quite a few of them from your home country, whichever it is.

      c) Israel is allowed to do absolutely anything as a country. Any disapproval is instantly anti-semitic, and will be met with hatred from all over the world.

      The first World War (called "The Great War" back then) was a bit more complex.
      Initially, the interesting countries were Britain, France, Austria and Russia. A prussian called Otto von Bismarck (yes, the ship was named after him) was a brilliant enough politician that he actually managed to pull Prussia, Bavaria, Saxonia and the rest of the tiny countries into their own real state: Germany.
      Furthermore, the endless squabbles between Britain and France, with the occasional agressiveness from Austria, were held well in check. Amongst other tricks, Germany had an alliance with Austria and Russia, meaning the UK and France did not dare attack it.

      When the second king of the new Germany came (yes, Germany had a king), he was a disaster. Friendly, nice guy, a bit simple perhaps, knew less about politics that even you do.
      To him, things had always been that way. Peaceful times for over 30 years. Who needs an Old Fart like Bismarck, especially if the kings mother hated him so much?

      So he fired him. The russians came to renew their treaty are were told "Nah, don't worry, we don't need this". Might upset the others, you know.
      Obviously, Russia was horrified, They needed a partner. They found them: France and the UK.
      See the lines around Germany already?

      At an ambassador meeting later between Russia, France and the UK, the Russian brought out a toast: "We'll meet again in Berlin, friends!". Raging applause.

      Thus the war was ready to be started. Just a spark was needed. Everybody knew this - except Germany.
      Then a Serbian shot the soon-to-be-King of the Hungarians (who were with the Austrians back then). The response came reasonable q

      --
      Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
    4. Re:Favourite Quote by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1

      I dunno...I think World War I was a bit of a shared effort -- there were a *lot* of nations too read to go to war -- and much of World War II came from World War I fallout.

      Germany gets a bad rap for the World War involvement because it lost both.

      And remember that Japan is a startlingly peaceful nation today...and remember Japan's history. Past wars do not dictate the current climate of a nation.

    5. Re:Favourite Quote by Dodger73 · · Score: 1

      As for looters being shot immediately - that's not a foreign concept to me, and I know it goes for every desaster area anywhere in the world. Perhaps my comment was a bit unclear - what I was primarily referring to, was the apparent indifference with which this woman reports about this, that makes it seem like an everyday occurrence. Fits the cliche, is all I was saying ;)
      Speaking of cliches.
      First of all, I am originally from Germany. I now live in the US - what precisely is 'more peaceful'? No sarcasm, I'm looking for what you're actually referring to - citizens or politicians?
      The reason I'm asking is, because so many europeans see the TV image of the US, in which shootings are around every corner every day, ex-police officers are all alcoholics and look like Bruce Willis, and wacko neo-nazis try to blow the world up with a custom-built hydrogen bomb once a week. Exaggeration aside, I've seen this sort of picture in the minds of Europeans many times. Admittedly, I had part of it, before I moved here. Reality ain't like TV. It really isn't.
      Now, politicians are a whole different story. No question here (no they don't all look like Bruce Willis, and so on, either, but... well, you get my drift ;).

    6. Re:Favourite Quote by parkanoid · · Score: 1

      What makes you think that the US would be any different?

    7. Re:Favourite Quote by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

      >Perhaps my comment was a bit unclear - what I was primarily referring to, was the apparent indifference with which this woman reports about this, that makes it seem like an everyday occurrence.

      Ah, I see. Yes, it was a bit strange, wasn't it?

      >I now live in the US - what precisely is 'more peaceful'?

      Life in the streets. Not having to avoid eye contact, being scared of the people next to you in the street.
      I lived in the USA (CA) for two years, and a couple years here in Germany, and some in Canada, and South Africa, and so on. My personal opinion would be that life in Germany is more peaceful than in the USA, and I'd say that statistics (for example, murders per 1000 inhabitants per year) bear me out.

      >Reality ain't like TV. It really isn't.

      Tell me about it :)
      Happily, I don't own a TV and am not interested in one.

      And, um, let's not talk about politicians, ok? We seem to agree on this, but my main take on them is that the top 30% should be hung from lamp posts, in the hope that the rest will behave a bit better for the next couple of years. Apparently, not everybody shares this belief ;)

      --
      Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  29. Pompei by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Informative
    Her comparison (on page 15) of the area to Pompei mirrored my own impressions from her site. Spooky.

    (She - apparently by mistake - skipped page 16, which you can access by modifying the URL manually.)

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:Pompei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Thanks for the link!

    2. Re:Pompei by Thing+1 · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Her comparison (on page 15) of the area to Pompei mirrored my own impressions from her site. Spooky.

      I like her broken English, it reminds me of Pulp Fiction when she says "I don't know if this true, people say a lot." -- the line being "They say a lot, don't they?"

      By the way, she's kinda cute (surprised noone else picked up on this) and I'm wondering, might she have done this as a way out of Russia? (Y'know, somewhat related to the "Russian brides" sites that supposedly do a lot of business?) Not that I'm interested, I've had enough wives myself, but I'm always questioning motivations...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    3. Re:Pompei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if she can afford a kawasaki zx-11, i think she doesn't need any help getting out of russia. regardless, its of no consequence to you, since you're so fucking butt-ugly.

    4. Re:Pompei by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >a way out of Russia

      Ukraine

    5. Re:Pompei by BillX · · Score: 1

      You mean meet one of the many ravishing, worldly, exciting, virile Slashdot men?

      --
      Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
    6. Re:Pompei by Thing+1 · · Score: 1
      Yeah, exactly. I got -1 Flamebait for it. Suppose I should have split the comment, as I don't think it was the Pulp Fiction reference that someone thought was offensive...

      But as I said, I'm not interested, just questioning. Oh well.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  30. NOT A FULL MIRROR - JUST ONE PAGE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you look at the "next page" link at the bottom of the page, it just links back to the original site. He only mirrored one lousy page! If you're going to karma whore, at least do it right.

  31. Re:MIRROR :) by ThrobbingGristle · · Score: 1

    When you click on next on the first page it takes you back to the angelfire original.

  32. 60 minutes new show by ramar · · Score: 1

    I still vividly remember a segment on 60 Minutes (roughly 10 years ago) about Chernobyl. It never really sunk in for me how major the devastation was until then- you need to *hear* it as well as see it.

    Photos can't really do justice to how eerie the place really is. There are complete scenes of every day life frozen in time- exactly how they were so many years ago- minus the people.

  33. Radiation exposure in Kiev by titaniam · · Score: 5, Informative

    She mentions that the radiation exposure in Kiev during the first few days was equivalent to about a year's worth of radiation at Chernobyl now. The bastards did not inform the populace until the wind blew into Europe and radiation alarms started going off, igniting international alarm. My wife, a child at the time, was belatedly rushed out of town along with all the children in Kiev a week later. I can't prove a link, but the fact is my wife had cancer surgery just last week. I'm sure that coal and gas are worse for the environment, and I support nuclear energy as a cleaner alternative, but a freak accident combined with a stupid reaction of a government made matters much worse than they should have been. People will be suffering due to Chernobyl for decades and centuries to come.

    1. Re:Radiation exposure in Kiev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't prove a link, but the fact is my wife had cancer surgery just last week.

      I'm so sorry. Best wishes on her quick recovery.

      You can't prove a causal link per se, but we know that she was exposed to radiation, and radiation mutations cause cancer. We also know that cancer rates are higher in the Chernobyl area. That seems like enough proof to me.

    2. Re:Radiation exposure in Kiev by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't need to prove a link. Your story says enough.

      I'll say a prayer for your wife tonight.

      Peace,

      wbs.

      --
      Huh?
    3. Re:Radiation exposure in Kiev by mog007 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nuclear FISSION is just as bad for the environment as Coal and Gas are. Do you know where the spent nuclear waste is? In the United States it gets packed in rusty barrels, which are then welded shut, and then the barrels are buried in the desert. The barrels are also beginning to get corroded and waste is starting to seep out. I'm not a fan of acid rain personally, but I'd find it difficult to justify contaimenating the ecosystem with three armed apes.

      The waste is ALWAYS a byproduct of nuclear fission plants, the meltdown at Chernobyl is a damaging event, but it's also very rare.

      We need to get fusion technology perfected, then we have no nuclear waste, and no chance of meltdown, just maybe a containment field collapsing and a ball of plasma burning for a few minutes. So let's make it cold fusion, then we're totally covered, since we'd rather harness the same power the sun uses, instead of harnessing all the power the sun radiates.

    4. Re:Radiation exposure in Kiev by Weird+O'Puns · · Score: 1

      Fusion _does_ create some radioactive waste though not as much as fisson does. You see, during the fusion neutrons are released making the walls of reactor radioactive. But as I said there will be a lot less of radioactive waste and it's half-life won't be as long as the that of fission reactor's waste.

    5. Re:Radiation exposure in Kiev by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Uh...I know. I was 18 days old back then, and lived in Kiev. From what I've been told (can't remember :), We, and most people, went on a parade less then a week later, because we were not informed. When they did inform us, we moved to our relatives in another country.

    6. Re:Radiation exposure in Kiev by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My sympathies to you and your wife. My wife was downwind, in Moscow; she recalls a strange rain that day, with unusually large raindrops. Her surgery was several years ago, and she seems to have made a complete recovery, but she'll be taking thyroid hormone for the rest of her life.

    7. Re:Radiation exposure in Kiev by Ubergrendle · · Score: 1

      My wife's immediate family left Poland in 1982 during the crackdowns on Solidarity. Her mother's two sisters (my wife's aunts) stayed in Poland, in the southern portion near the Ukraine border.

      No incidents of cancer yet, but both women hit menopause in their late 30s. My wife's mother is 52 and just hitting menopause now. Their mother hit menopause in her late 40s as well, before Chernobyl.

      Yes, alot of things environmentally could be different between the mid-80s and now, but I'm still inclined to believe its Chernobyl. Unfortunately this stuff is almost impossible to prove, except on a macro scale of tens of thousands of subjects, years after the fact.

      I wish you and your wife the best of luck.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
  34. Hidden page by bgeer · · Score: 5, Informative

    There is another page of pictures that you won't see clicking on the links, she has page 15 going directly to 17 by accident. This page shows the swimming pool.

    1. Re:Hidden page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An eerie web site with a 'secret page'. Wow.

    2. Re: Hidden page by bezuwork's+friend · · Score: 1
      Good catch.

      I'm curious why there is no stairway to the first/lower platform. You can see where it goes, by the break in the railing. Was the place never finished, or was there a movable stair used?

      As there appears to be some swimming equipment there, I'm guessing the pool was in use and that there was a movable stair.

    3. Re: Hidden page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      You have to get the ladder from the janitor's closet. Break the lock with the crowbar you found in the parking garage (assuming you came in that way and made it past the zombie guarding the ticket booth.)

    4. Re: Hidden page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, that or they tore it off to discourage individuals from going up there. Or, more likely, some vandals took it (AKA marauders).

  35. Mirrored by radioactive76 · · Score: 1

    Since Angelfire is crap for bandwidth, mirrored:

    Here for everyone

  36. Death by Design by qw(name) · · Score: 0, Redundant


    What an incredible journey that was. It also shows how destructive a poor engineering design can be. Hundreds of thousands dead. Amazing. This was truly a moving exprience.

    1. Re:Death by Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because jesus sucks cock/ass.

  37. Mirror ;) by shfted! · · Score: 1
    --
    He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
  38. Bi Jesus Lives! by adb · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1. Re:Bi Jesus Lives! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your wish is the LiveJournal's command.

      And with the emergence of BibleSlash, I think it's safe to say that *everything* has been slashed.

      Excuse me while I look for some John Adams/Thomas Jefferson slash....

  39. innocent TVs murdered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    >>There were cases of radiactive tv sets and other stuff being sold on city second hand markets and then police shot 7 or 8 of them.

    you don't want to be a radioactive TV in russia...

  40. Eerie.... by Bytal · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The pictures are just sooo eerie. The housing in the pictures is a perfect visual example of the kind of large apartment complexes built in the Soviet Union at that time. Large sprawling 16-24 story houses with balconies and nearby schools, playgrounds, stores and hospitals. She mentions how they were brand new, just waiting for families to move into them.(In the Soviet Union your housing was assigned to you btw). Just seeing pictures of those apartment complexes was the most horrifying part of this entire photo journal. Interestingly enough it also reminded me of a Russian book, "Picnic by the Roadside" by Strugatski Brothers and the it's movie adaptation by Tarkovski(same guy who made the original Solaris) called "Stalker." Same idea of traveling through a modern ghostown after a catastrophe. Incredibly eerie.

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

      So it is true?

      In the Soviet Union, the house chooses you!

    2. Re:Eerie.... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Those are the kinds of highrise housing complexes that Urban Planners in the United States, I mean the kind that carry on about 'urban sprawl', have in mind for us. A typical example is the 'Hiawatha Corridor' project in Minneapolis. High density housing along a light rail corridor.

      Needless to say, the American 'idealists' in favor of such projects probably envy the control the government in the USSR had over their people.

      --
      ---
  41. I've been to Ukraine... by anzha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've been to Ukraine 3 times in the past 2 years: my gf is of Ukrainian extraction. Chernobyl is a name to conjure demons with there. Even more so than in the West. What's even scarier is that the Ukrainian government's denial over the state that it is in. They still are running at least a couple of the reactors and they are not being terribly maintained. The Russians came out stating that the buildings that the reactors are in are about to collapse...yet the Ukrainian government is unwilling to shut the place down.

    Expect a sequel there, folks, and it's gonna be just as ugly if not worse. To make matters even more horrifying, based on the behavior of the Ukrainian government, the people are going to be informed through western sources long before, but far too late even so, that anything wrong is happening there when it does.

    Note I say when, not if. I really mean it too.

    --
    Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    1. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The Russians came out stating that the buildings that the reactors are in are about to collapse...yet the Ukrainian government is unwilling to shut the place down.

      They can't shut them down, at least not without shutting down most of the Ukrain. Those plants produce a significant fraction of the power there.

    2. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by anzha · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes and no. The West has repeatedly offered to build replacements of a safe design: not just the US, but France and others. However, the West wants to keep control of the money and construction: Kuchma et al aren't exactly known for being good, honest men with the dinero, ya know?

      Hell, Kuchma's government isn't exactly known for being good at anything other than lining their own pockets and killing journalists.

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    3. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by BrainInAJar · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Chernobyl Reactor 2 was shut down in 1991 after a fire, Reactor 1 was shut down in '96 to scam money out of the EU, and reactor 3 (the last one standing) was shut down permanantly in December of 2000.

      However, the cement structure encasing reactor 4 (the one that went boom) is starting to show signs of wear and about 10% of it is cracked.

      Scientific types are warning about structural failure happening sooner rather than later. The real issue here is repairing that, because when it comes tumbling down we're going to be in a world of trouble again... and what with the no-soviet union anymore, good luck convincing anyone to go to ground 0 and clean it up (rather than forcing them to do it at gunpoint.)

    4. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by dwillden · · Score: 2, Funny
      Step 1: In Soviet Russia a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods imagines you! Step 2: ??? Step3: Profit!!
      This is OT but shouldn't your sig have read

      Step 1: Profit!!
      Step 2: ???
      Step3: In Soviet Russia a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods imagines you!

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    5. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by jelle · · Score: 1

      "good luck convincing anyone to go to ground 0 and clean it up (rather than forcing them to do it at gunpoint.)"

      If anything, they're not going to just redo the on-site concrete-pooring again, it will be more some sort of prefab rapid construction.

      For example: babelfish translated from 3sat.de: Some smart people have been working on that.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    6. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I've been to Ukraine 3 times in the past 2 years: my gf is of Ukrainian extraction

      Lemme guess, she gave you shit for calling it "the Ukraine" so now you make an effort to call the country just "Ukraine", eh, am I right? Ukrainians always get riled up over that.

    7. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Ridge · · Score: 1

      "my gf is of Ukrainian extraction"...

      Is that like a Russian mail order bride? :)

    8. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      and what with the no-soviet union anymore, good luck convincing anyone to go to ground 0 and clean it up (rather than forcing them to do it at gunpoint.)

      This may surprise you, but most of people that secured reactor were volunteers. Firemen, soldiers and miners from all over the country were there of their own will despite knowing that they will probably die.

      This nicely shows that Russia was not only Evil Empire but also a home, ``matushka rassyia'' for millions of people.

      Robert

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    9. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Helge9210 · · Score: 1
      This may surprise you, but most of people that secured reactor were volunteers. Firemen, soldiers and miners from all over the country were there of their own will despite knowing that they will probably die.

      This nicely shows that Russia was not only Evil Empire but also a home, ``matushka rassyia'' for millions of people.


      What are you talking about? There were no volunteers from Russia. Only from Ukraine.



      Do you know that order to celebrate 1st May in Kyiv were received from Moscow? Russians knew about catastrophe but issued that order anyway.

    10. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Gadzinka · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about?

      Well, obviously I fell victim of Polish and Ukrainian propaganda (both at the end of nineties/beginning of this century).

      There were no volunteers from Russia. Only from Ukraine.

      And all people living in Ukraine are/were Ukrainians? There were no Russians or rusified Ukrainians? I was under the impression that huge Russian minorities in all (former) member states were the main obstacle on the way to full independence (or was it majorities in some of them?). Belarus being the example of full reversal of this process.

      Do you know that order to celebrate 1st May in Kyiv were received from Moscow? Russians knew about catastrophe but issued that order anyway.

      And sadly this is the prime example of dictatorship state... But it doesn't take national disaster and communist dictatorship to endanger people via exposure to radiation at gunpoint. Just read about American soldiers that were used as guinea pigs in nuclear tests.

      I guess my point was, that you don't have to point the gun at people to make them save their families and friends, even if the effort may be fatal for them. No matter if the country they live in is independent democratic state or any flavour of dictatorship.

      Robert

      PS Some misunderstanding may have risen from the fact that I rarely use the term ``Soviet Union''. For me it was just a Russian Empire, no different from before 1918. The only thing that changed was ``royal family''. It was neither soviet, nor union, just Russia and its colonies.

      I did welcome independent states on our eastern border and grieved the fall of Belarus independency later on, because I am afraid of the madman state that Russia is. Not that I don't like Russian people -- they are as good or as bad as Germans or Canadians. Or any other nation, for that matter. But the Russia-state seems to be cursed to me. Ruled by madmen for centuries with its citizens paying the bill of blood for their leaders.

      PPS I am from Poland. Did it show? ;)

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    11. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason they do it is because "the Ukraine" used to signify Ukraine being a province of Russia, at least that's the way they think. As you might guess, Ukraine was not a very happy and cheerful province, thus all the consternation over "the Ukraine".

    12. Re:I've been to Ukraine... by Helge9210 · · Score: 1
      And all people living in Ukraine are/were Ukrainians? There were no Russians or rusified Ukrainians? I was under the impression that huge Russian minorities in all (former) member states were the main obstacle on the way to full independence (or was it majorities in some of them?). Belarus being the example of full reversal of this process.

      Oh, you mean that russians? They are ukrainians too. :)

      Russian minorities are not the main obstacle. Russian-speaking part of population are. They are instruments of Russian government to put pressure on neighbour states (which were part of Soviet Union). Baltic states, Ukraine, Moldova, Central Asia states, we all live under this pressure. And where weak spot found by Russia, that place they hit hard. (Remember recent border conflict around Tusla island.)

      PS Some misunderstanding may have risen from the fact that I rarely use the term ``Soviet Union''. For me it was just a Russian Empire, no different from before 1918. The only thing that changed was ``royal family''. It was neither soviet, nor union, just Russia and its colonies.

      We here in Ukraine don't like to be called russians and don't like when someone call Ukraine like "Malorossia" or "part of Matushka Rossia".

      Not that I don't like Russian people -- they are as good or as bad as Germans or Canadians. Or any other nation, for that matter. But the Russia-state seems to be cursed to me. Ruled by madmen for centuries with its citizens paying the bill of blood for their leaders.

      Have you been in Moscow? There you will find that you a greatly mistaken about "they are as good or as bad as Germans or Canadians". :(

  42. Radiation levels variations? by Fiz+Ocelot · · Score: 1
    map shows level of radiation on asphalt, usually on the middle of road, because on edge of road it is twice as higher and if you step 1 meter off the road it 4 or 5 times higher. Radiation sit on earth, on the grass, in apples and mushrooms. It is not on asphalt, which make rides through this area safe.

    I don't quite understand this. Why is the level of radiation so dramatically different on roads? Or is this simply not even true? Regardless, I wouldn't be driving through there like that...If your bike breaks down in the middle of it you're sooo screwed.

    1. Re:Radiation levels variations? by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 1

      Roads are designed so the water runs off them onto
      the sides (where there are usually gutters or ditches).
      Every time it rains, it's washing a little more of the
      radioactive dust away from the center of the road and
      towards the edges.

      --
      >;k
    2. Re:Radiation levels variations? by Nf1nk · · Score: 1

      Most the radiation is in the dust.at the center of roads and on the concrete much of the dust washes away with the rain, so you would expect to see radiation concentrations in areas nearby. In the US you will find a similar pollution magnification also about 1 M from the road.

      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    3. Re:Radiation levels variations? by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Because the radioactive dust that settle around was later kicked off by the tires of the vehicles driving through.

      No, you wouldn't be screwed if you stopped on the road for a while, but it would cause damage over a period of time. Even driving through will have some effect. Radiation is a cumulative thing like time x strength.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    4. Re:Radiation levels variations? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember seing on ETV a documentory on closing the top of Chernobyl You know theirs something wrong when the remote controled vehicles break down due to too much radiation. Completely surreal.
      There were souls who did the cleanup work on the aftermath of Chernobyl. Unfortunately, many have died of cancer.
      To think a nuclear weapon would have this effect across multiple cities... its amazing anyone would have the audacity to create and propogate tools of destruction like that. Newer nuclear weapons are supposed to be cleaner, but they shouldn't have been created to begin with.

    5. Re:Radiation levels variations? by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Why is the level of radiation so dramatically different on roads?


      My guess would be that asphalt absorbs less radiation than dirt/dust/mud/plants do.... whenever it rains, more radioactivity is washed off of the road and onto the areas around the road.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    6. Re:Radiation levels variations? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      It's for the same reason dirt doesn't stay on the top of the road. Rain and wind. The radioactive dust particles that were thrown into the air washed off the road, but where they hit earth, they became part of the soil just like any other dust would.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  43. Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

    Chernobyl is just one reason that nuclear techology is such a bad idea. For a source of power to pose as much danger as nuclear power does, it's not worth using. Sure, nuclear power plants can be well maintained, there's very little room for mistakes. And then there's the issue of having nukes which are an absolute nightmare. They're security risks as well as liability. An accidental launch of a system glitch would prove to be catastrophic. Again, the risks outway the benefits. How can it be usefual as a weapon when it jeopardizes both security and safety?

    1. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were you irradiated as a baby, or just dropped on your head?

    2. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect both in his case.

    3. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Chmarr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because, one day, we are going to run out of fossil fuels, and one day, our energy needs will be greater than that possible by covering the available areas of the Earth with solar energy collectors.

      Nuclear power is dirty, but... unless we use and research it NOW, it'll always stay dirty. Coal plants, while still emitting pollution, are MUCH more efficient and much LESS polluting than they were 50 years ago.

    4. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      Great. But what do we do with the waste produced by nuclear fission plants? What do we do with the ICBM's sitting in our back yard? Nuclear technology is going to haunt us for millenia.

    5. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But what do we do with the waste produced by nuclear fission plants?

      Block off a few square miles and store it. That's all it takes. The amount of nuclear waste generated is miniscule compared to the amount of other types of waste that we don't think about twice. The whole "what do we do with nuclear waste" thing is way overblown.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    6. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All the talk is about nuclear, coal, etc. I never see anybody mention geothermal energy as a solution. It's the most simple and safe power generation technology out there (perhaps save wind), but you can put it anywhere that you can drill down into the earth far enough for heat.

      http://www.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/whatisgeoe ne rgy.html

    7. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      While I agree that the poster was being stupid, there is one problem that still persists with nuclear waste - while it can be stored safely, every single form of transport known to man has safety problems. If the waste dump is a thousand miles away from the plant, then the transport of the waste across that thousand miles is the really risky part.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    8. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "...outway..."

      Its spelt as "outweight". Go back to school, loser.

    9. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Well, we need to store the waste somewhere where nobody lives and nobody cares too much about habitability, right? Hmm... I just saw a web site with a bunch of pictures about a place like that. Let's store the waste at Chernobyl! It's already uninhabited and contaminated, so why not? Problem solved.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    10. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by kisak · · Score: 1
      Because, one day, we are going to run out of fossil fuels, and one day, our energy needs will be greater than that possible by covering the available areas of the Earth with solar energy collectors.

      I heard a talk many years ago about the possibility of having solar panels in space and to send the energy down to earth by micro-waves. I guess one should make sure the micro-waves are not powerful enough to fry the birds that fly by. So, even excluding the increase efficiency of new design on solar panels, the earth available area is not the limit for how useful solar power can become in the future.

      Besides, why does our energy use have to increase exponentially in the future? Why not make more energy efficient technology both for industry and home use?

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    11. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      Not really. Do a little reading about it and you'll find that accidents aren't any big deal. The storage containers are designed such that breaking them is nearly impossible, and even if you did, the waste itself is quite manageable. Terrorists are a little more worrysome, because they could use the waste to create a dirty bomb, but given relatively tight security, it would make a rather poor target -- high risk, little benefit -- for a terrorist group. (If they had the resources to attack a nuclear waste shipment, they could use them much more effectively.)

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    12. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by Gary+Destruction · · Score: 1

      Yes and I noticed it was stored in the mountains of Nevada. What happens if an earthquake occurs there? And don't forget about terrorists who would love to get their hands on it.

    13. Re:Nuclear technology has always been a nightmare by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Well, that may be true. I have to admit that I don't know the facts. It's just that when it comes to arguments of the form "This form of transport is safe because of this and that safety measure", I get skeptical because that is dependant on human willingness to keep spending money on those safety measures. (To keep that in perspective, look at the Chernobyl accident - Nuclear power is safe - sure, until human beings start making design decisions and being stupid about it, followed by the operators also being stupid in their decisions to disable the few safety measures they did have.)

      Any form of safety that depends on humans being permanently vigilant will eventually fail.

      (As a side topic, an interesting problem the US government is facing is how to label a waste storage site in a way that effectively communicates the message "danger, this will kill you, stay away, even if you are curious" - to future generations ten thousand years down the road, who might not have the same level of technology anymore. They can't assume language will remain unchanged. They can't assume people will understand pictures and symbols either. One clever solution is to just make the place undesirable by buring the waste in the desert, then putting up a grid of large solid black blocks on the surface, that you would have to walk between if you wanted to pass through the area. These black blocks would absorb sun's rays and become very hot, thus making the air temperature around them too hot to breathe. The theory is that if people have the technology to make survival suits that could withstand those high temperatures, they will by that point also have the technology to detect radiation and recognize the site for what it is.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  44. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  45. Makes you think... by Psychic+Burrito · · Score: 1
    From the page:
    People had to leave everything, from photos of their grandparents to cars. Their clothes, cash and passports has been changed by state authorities. This is incredible, people lived, had homes, country houses, garages, motorcyles, cars, money, friends and relatives, people had their life, each in own niche and then in a matter of hours this world fall in pieces and everything goes to dogs and after few hours trip with some army vehicle one stands under some shower, washing away radiation and then step in a new life, naked with no home, no friends, no money, no past and with very doubtful future.
    Makes you think how safe those reactors near you are and what will happen with your stuff... in the ussr, people had basically nothing because everything belonged to the state, but in other countries, loss could even be bigger...
    1. Re:Makes you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      They're a heck of a lot safer than Chernobyl ever was. Chernobyl's design would never have been permitted to operate in any other country besides "Soviet Russia."

    2. Re:Makes you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When something like that happens, you realize your 'stuff' isn't worth shit. It's the people that matter.

    3. Re:Makes you think... by mesocyclone · · Score: 5, Informative

      There is another of that design under construction in Cuba.

      The graphite moderator reactor has a positive temperature coefficient, so it is inherently unstable. The fact that the graphite burns isn't too neat either.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

    4. Re:Makes you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "There is another of that design under construction in Cuba."

      Hey! That's awfully close man.

    5. Re:Makes you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is another of that design under construction in Cuba.

      Yes.
      I know.
      We begin bombing in five minutes.
      - W.

      (Seriously, can you provide a citation for this? Who in the world could be crazy enough to sell fissionable materials to Fidel Castro?)

    6. Re:Makes you think... by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      Russia.
      The project has been underway since the Soviet era.

      As far as a cite... try google

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  46. Before anyone starts trolling... by ZuperDee · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I realize this might be slightly off-topic, since I don't think this article really discusses the any of the dangers/merits (or lack thereof) of nuclear power in the first place. However, I know that all the same, some people are going to try to bring it up, so before anyone starts trolling about how dangerous nuclear power is, I just thought I'd point out:

    1) Chernobyl was based on very old technology. Nuclear power is much safer today.

    2) France gets >80% of its power from nuclear sources. Nuclear power is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world. (I have nothing against fossil fuels, either--at the moment NOTHING has proven as economical. But I do think ultimately, we will have to find alternatives, and nuclear power is certainly a viable option.)

    3) It is my opinion that the worst part of Chernobyl was the way the communist regime tried to keep it a secret, until they found out that it was just so big they simply couldn't keep it a secret anymore. Sure, many other governments in the world (and I am NOT naming any ones in particular) have also been forced to fess up to things later, but that is NOT an excuse. The Russian government was truly evil, and I will not retract that statement, as long as I live.

    1. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by corngrower · · Score: 1
      3) It is my opinion that the worst part of Chernobyl was the way the communist regime tried to keep it a secret, until they found out that it was just so big they simply couldn't keep it a secret anymore.

      Yes, their attempts to keep it under cover were truely appalling. The news about this first came from sources that were monitoring sensors Outside of the USSR. These sensors had detected abnormally high levels of radiation. Even then they didn't admit to the seriousness of the accident for a while. This was mentioned in another post as well.

    2. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Nuclear power is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world.


      Assuming the plant is well run, never attacked by terrorists, and the nuclear waste it generates never leaks into the environment. And if any of those things DO happen... well, 48,000 years is a rather long time to wait before you can move back home...

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chernobyl was far from the worst thing their government did in terms of people killed.

    4. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Exactly. Chernobyl was caused in the large part by inexperienced and/or badly trained technicians disabling safety devices that were *built in* so they could run some idiot experiment they were ordered to.

      I'll add that, despite the US having *many more reactors* (don't forget our Navy reactors, people) we've *NEVER* had a serious accident. NEVER.

      (3Mile island people can go read up on it)

      I'm not saying that it's impossible we'll ever have an accident here; what I'm saying is that US engineers, workers, and administrators, have done a damned good job of keeping them running safely. NEVER had.

      If there wasn't a virtual moratorium on building new reactors (stupid public fueled by greedy media and politicos rears it's ugly head) for the last, what, twenty years? we'd have a lot less reliance on foreign energy sources. Think about it. Perhaps with more widely available *cheap* electricity, there would have been more research into battery technology for cars... - it's a stretch, and I'll admit that. But you know what? I lived with nuclear power supplying my electricity for years on and off.

      The whole phear and doubt about nuclear power in this country is stupid propoganda initiated by the media nearly 25 years ago, and promulgated since by a lot of people who don't want it to happen /removes tinfoil hat

      Meanwhile we're losing 1-2 soldiers in Iraq....defending our "interests" over there...um, our "interests" in democracy and freedom...which our government (the same one that initiated the war) is busy starving at home....

      flame me, comment, I don't really give a rat's left testicle. I'm sick of this shit. I'm not some teenage read it on the internet kid, I remember 3M Island, I remember Chernobyl (and it sounds like the gov there is still doing the same ol' denial routine, bastards) and like many other people who don't wear tinfoil hats for a living, realize that fission reactors are our best option. Maybe someday there'll be something better. THERE ISN'T NOW.

      Don't preach to me about byproduct storage, either. So we can't find a site because NIMBY? So? So it's being stored all over the damned country, in MOST EVERYONE'S BACKYARD, IN THE MEANTIME. Oh, that's really, really smart.

      If it was *really* that much of a problem, this country would spend the money to find a site. Or develop a 99.9% reliable booster to make it not a problem. Don't tell me we can't do it, we sent more than a half dozen expeditions to the fucking Moon, fer chrissakes, with one - one! failure.

      Bullshit. It's a political football. It'll get kicked around until it *really* becomes a problem. In the meantime there's the Hanford facility...man, I could go on and on about this.

      Mod whatever, reply whatever, I might even answer you. I'm likely going to bed. Fucking politics. If politics ever finds reality, the temperature in hell will be -90C.

      The Russian Gov at the time (and still to a large extent, like most other governments) is/was composed of ignorant, power-hungry idiots. Gee...what's new. When will it become legal to shoot these fuckers? (I'd guess that a large number of people might support such a measure, the problem would be the public having a quoram on who to shoot first :) [Oh, and BTW, to the Feds/national security nuts - I'm just talking, ok? I believe I have a constitutional right to. But I'm really not dangerous :) as long as you *behave* - (damn kids need a spanking, grumble!) ]

      *disgusted with this shit already after watching it get kicked around for two decades+*

      Might or might not respond to comments. If you don't like it, sue me.

      /rant

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    5. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Russian government was truly evil, and I will not retract that statement, as long as I live."

      Yes of course, you can tell they're the EVILDOERS because they wear black hats and/or trenchcoats.

      Life's so much easier in black and white. The shades of gray are for the Commies and the fags.

      God bless America and pass the ammunition.

    6. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Hard_Code · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and what if we run out of sacred Indian sites to bury our toxic waste in? What then, send it into space?

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    7. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USSR was bad. But did you know Easter Block countries were pretty bad too? I was stuck in Poland at the time, and my dad tried to call us from the US with the news of what happed (he saw the satellite images etc.) - the phone lines were blocked for several days.

    8. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 0, Flamebait


      To the moderator who modded me flamebait:

      Bite my corroded metal ass, kiddo.

      If you feel about it so strongly as to mod me flamebait (I never use that mod option) than reply to my post, and refute me. Otherwise save your mod points and mod someone else up.

      *disgusted*

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    9. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by westyvw · · Score: 1

      BULLSHIT: Clean Energy MY ASS.
      Have you considered the waste?
      I dont call that clean, I call that DIRTY!

    10. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do some reading.

      You're committing a fallacy common to many armchair logicians on Slashdot. Just because we live in a world painted in shades of gray doesn't mean that nothing is black or white.

    11. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Woofles · · Score: 1

      All nuclear power is inefficient and expensive! From what I recall 98.9% of the fuel is waste! Deposing of the fuel is also hard and often left up to the government to pay for; also what about the burnt out buildings left behind? Do you think the company maintains control, they abandon them and leave it to the government. So it ends up costing a lot more over time than those 20 or whatever years they get out of them. Newer Technology, http://www.tmia.com/pebbles.html . As for the French using Nuclear Power all I have to say about them is they are idiots. "We tested nuclear weapons in paradise, why because we are French," Robin Williams.

      --
      Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes something special to be different
    12. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by dschl · · Score: 1
      >>I'm likely going to bed.

      Should have done that. It wouldn't have bothered you by morning.

      --
      Slashdot - the place where you can look like a genius by restating the obvious
    13. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by jmv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While the Chernobyl reactor were really unsafe, there's still a danger currently. Also, you're mentioning France, but they've had many problems with nuclear plants too (had to shut down several reactors IICR). Now, about nuclear power being clean and safe, I wouldn't go that far. The main problem is that nobody has yet found a solution for all the waste (both used fuel and exposed material). The problem is that some of that stuff stays dangerous for thousands of years. We've only been using this stuff for a couple decades. Just imagine in a couple thousand years having to deal with 100 times the amount of radioactive stuff we have today. It probably won't be as cheap. Of course, many things can happen since then, but it's still dangerous to rely on "future technology will solve it".

    14. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      It doesn't bother me now, either :)

      But I should have gone to bed. Damn working weekends...now I'm awake again. Sigh. Ah, well 6AM comes soon...and like always, one pays for one's slashdot habit.

      I won't even discuss idiot moderations. OT, you know. :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    15. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Dude 3 mile island was such a CLOSE call its not even funny. It was within like 30-50 seconds of COMPLETE disaster. I did read up on it. Have watched MANY shows on it. Watched the news... etc... If that reactor had melted through it would have made Chernobyl look like two orderlies bumping into each other in some hall. Yes it could have been THAT bad. That was not SKILL that saved that area. It was pure damn luck.

      It is also a good reason why there have been NO more reactors. Most were built by lowest bidder that didnt actually have to use the things. It was a CONTROL room that had serious flaws built into just the controls. Not to mention the basics of the the reactors themselves.

      Also Chernobyl is a good example of why NO one wants one in their backyard. One good screwup and your life starts over if your lucky enough to keep your life. The pictures speak volumes. THOUSANDS of people had to up and leave. They could take nothing with them because it was radioactive. They had to leave their whole life behind. Sure its that .01% time but hey people win the lottery all the time...

      Also no one has come up with a good way to get rid of the waste other then let it decay. The decay rate is on the order of thousands of years not a few years. What happens when you run out of places to hide the stuff thats to hot to handle anymore? You can not pile it up too close to each other or you will create a bomb. You can not keep spreading it out as you make a bigger mess.

      Also think about this there are WAY more serious issues in the power system currently. Its working at max capacity for the wires. You may remember a little blackout last year. It was caused by goofie procedures a bit of bad code and a bit of bad luck all imploding on itself. With that accedent a few hundred died(?). But with a good radioactive incident the effects are lasting for hundreds of years. Not to mention it would probably cause another huge cascade like we saw last year.

      OH yes lets launch it into space. Well let me put it to you that MANY launch vehicles blow up. A few thousand gallons of liquid oxygen is HIGHLY combustable (its why they use it). Even the Apollo program of which you speak so highly had some VERY spectacular falures ON the launch pad no less! A few dozen people lost there lives to that. It still is more of an art than a science. Now lets say 99.9% of the time it works. Ok now its that 0.01% time it didnt work. You do realize that when the shuttle broke up a few years ago it scattered debris over an area of 1/3rd the united states. And they had about a hundred safe launches with that shuttle alone. Its that one time that you do not want... Do you want a chunk of radioactive metal raining down in your neighborhood? Even lets just say 1 piece. Sure that 1 piece isnt that bad. But what if it is a 2 pound piece? Sure there are a lot of what ifs here. But the whole system you built up has a lot of em too.

      The REAL reason you will never see anymore reactors is because people are scared. Thats it. They see these acidents and go 'damned if I want that NEAR ME or my kids'.

      I also put it to you that the basic idea of a reactor is quite crude. Put this metal near this and it gets very hot (heat wise). Boil some water turn a turbine and make electricity. There are MANY ways to boil water.

      The only 2 things in this country capable of building a reactor is the goverment or a coporation. Neither of which has shown the wherewithal to do it correctly. That is also why NO one wants it around. Who do you trust to build the thing right?

      You seem to be under the impression that nuke power will solve a bunch of problems. Well it could. But guess what, it creates a WHOLE new set that are just as nasty if not more so. But until you can solve those problems you come off as a loony waving a gun around no less!

      I too would like to see more aplication of nuke power. However I have been less than impressed with the current instalations, and the people that built them, and the people that own them. And like dilbert said 'nucular power can be used for good or evil and you dont want to get any on you'.

    16. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When a nuclear plant rotates out its used fuel and rotates in unused fuel, where does the spent fuel go? You know exactly where it is.

      When fossil fuels are used, where do they go? In the air. In the water. In the ground. No "ifs" about it. They DO get into our environment. With nuclear power, we can keep a tight lid on where the fuel goes and prevent it from getting out. And if we didn't have so many people who wrongfully hate nuclear power, the United States could reprocess fuel so there would be less waste. But, unfortunately, we Americans are collectively assholes about it.

    17. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Have watched MANY shows on it.

      Yeah, Jane Fonda was kind of cute. Cast iron bitch, and stupid enough to be controlled by the latest media blitz, but cute.

      She was also a halfway decent actress, but I don't see what that has to do with anything.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    18. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA! 900 years for Chernobyl.

      Still a long time, but not 48k years...

    19. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Easter Block"

      Its "Eastern Bloc", you fucking retard.

    20. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by KlausBreuer · · Score: 1

      "Chernobyl was based on very old technology. Nuclear power is much safer today."

      I believe it was not *too* long ago that it was found out that the workers from a US reactor (nice and modern, apparently) stacked old rods OUTSIDE the dome.
      Managing to actually get a (small) reaction going outside. Congratulations.

      Okay. It's not as bad as the mushroom-pickers in the Soviet Union happening across rods lying in the woods (and fleeing in panic).

      But, in the end, I don't CARE how safe and good and modern and well-managed and beloved a reactor is.
      One major accident and you're back to being a third-world country. For a long time. Want to take that risk? Really?

      --
      Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
    21. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by iion_tichy · · Score: 1

      Chernobyl was caused in the large part by inexperienced and/or badly trained technicians disabling safety devices that were *built in* so they could run some idiot experiment they were ordered to.

      Didn't read the rest of your post, but about this: actually I have always heard that the staff of chernobyl was highly qualified and well trained. If you think you are so much better than those poor people, you are just fooling yourself. Smart people have been wondering since why people started to work around the security measures. It's a problem everywhere, to be sure you'll find laboratories in the US where people don't adhere to the safety instructions, because it's too cumbersome. Yes, human errors where responsible for the desaster, but power plants are being operated by humans everywhere in the world, not only in russia. And american humans are just humans, too, not smarter than the russian ones.

    22. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Before anyone starts trolling
      Too late, you just did :)
      Chernobyl was based on very old technology. Nuclear power is much safer today.
      No-one's built new reactors in a long time apart from countries wanted to join the nuclear club - like North Korea etc. - it's all old technology, decades old.
      Nuclear power is one of the cleanest sources of energy in the world
      Brush your teeth with plutonium and you will die. The clean bright words of advertising agencies should never be mistaken for reality - it is not a washing detergent, it is a highly complex piece of machinery designed to keep the reaction from running away and killing people.
      NOTHING has proven as economical.
      If someone else pays all the costs it's easy to make a profit - it's called subsidising, and that's how the 1950's white elephant of nuclear power can appear to break even or make a profit in some parts of the world.
      the worst part of Chernobyl was the way the communist regime tried to keep it a secret
      They made the old and nasty mistake of thinking of their jobs before shouting fire.
    23. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      Shhh, you'll upset his racial conditioning.

    24. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      I don't recall claiming anywhere that I was better.

      But I have to doubt the efficacy of the training of a nuclear power plant crew who deliberately disable *all* of the emergency cooling. I, too, have heard that they were highly trained. Well, perhaps it was a fault in their training, then? Because what they did was just plain stupid (and they paid for it with their lives, too). So how else would you explain it? Human error? That's about as much human error as me deliberately pouring gasoline on the floor of my garage and setting a lit candle in it, then watching.

      Yup, people make mistakes, in the US and everywhere else, too. But Chernobyl sounds almost like they set out to deliberately make the disaster worse right from the beginning. If that was good training, I'd shudder to think of what *poor* plant operations training in the USSR was like.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    25. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by iion_tichy · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps it was a fault in their training,

      Well, we can assume one thing for sure: the Chernobyl desaster was the result of a fault, somewhere. What does it matter if the fault was in the training of the staff, the design of the reactor, the politics, or whatever? What matters is: can you guarantee that you wouldn't produce any faults if you were to design a nuclear power plant? Do you know of any kind of training that turns humans into fail-safe humans, and guarantees that they will handle every situation in the proper way? I highly doubt that such a method is known yet, nor do I have reasons to believe that the US or anybody else would do a better job in training the staff than the Russians did. People just try to do their best, but at times they still fail - it's just a shame if the failure results in huge parts of the earth being devastated.

    26. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please read up on the effects of mining and refining nuclear fuel before you go calling nuclear power clean.

    27. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know. I don't think that our people here in the US are perfect, yet we've had no serious accidents on our submarines/surface ships/power plants. It has to be combination of design, training, and crew quality, wouldn't you think? I don't think we can ascribe it to an act of god, or to luck.

      It's also fairly well-known that Russian reactors tended to be pretty shoddy designs. Please note that Chernobyl was not the first reactor accident the Russians ever had (tho by far the worst); and tell me again how many lives have been lost in the US to reactor accidents?

      I'm not saying it isn't impossible here; there isn't such a word. But I think it's pretty damned unlikely we'll ever have an accident like Chernobyl.

      I'm off to work...

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    28. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its "Eastern Bloc", you fucking retard.

      It's "it's," you fucking retard.

    29. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Second_Derivative · · Score: 1

      Have watched MANY shows on it. Watched the news...

      Fair and Impartial(TM) news channels, I hope.

    30. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jane Fonda is a nutter. Just because I watched a couple of shows on it does not mean im a loony or misinformed... It means I am open about where my information comes from.

      And I was NOT talking about that movie (in fact I've never watched it). Movies are about entertainment not fact. Something apparently lost on you. There have been MANY MANY MANY documentarys on that acident. It was a BIG deal you know... OH and Jane fonda is nearly 70 if you think thats somehow cute all the more power to ya dude.

      Did you know that the operators were actually trained to ignor certian warning lights? Did you know that the 'elevator doesn't work light' was next to the 'overheat' light? This was just a BAD freeking design. The WHOLE area around that plant is lucky. Not just a LITTLE lucky. The whole core/support struct was ready to burn right through the bottom. It was also ready to create a steam explosion that would have been seen for about 20 miles. It was within a minute of doing that. It was THAT close.

      My WHOLE point was while nuke energy CAN be VERY VERY VERY safe. We 1) have only so many places to put the nasty leftovers, and 2) goverments and corps have little hope in doing it right.

      The subject does fascinate me because we could have a decent power supply but because of fear/greed/incompitence we will never have it at the level it could be at. If you actually researched it a bit you would see that you are being a bit extreem. People are concerned as is their right. From what I have seen they damn well SHOULD be concerened.

      Also the average lifespan of a plant is 50-100 years. What do you do with 80tons of radioactive contanment vessel when your done with it? Just curious. I have never seen that answered by either side of this argument. And its not like you can just melt it down the metal or pound up the concrete and reuse it. The radioactivity actually degrades the structure of the material.

      Sure we can have clean air but cancer is kinda of a drag you know.

      Have you ever known anyone with cancer? Its a SLOW way to die dude. Then chemo (with some forms of nuke in it) makes you feel like living death.

      All so your power bill will not be 50 dollars it will be 30 dollars. Also if you think your power bill would go down. THINK again. The reason it is at the price it is is market dynamics. Also in some parts of the country the goverment actually decides what the company will make. My power company (duke) sends out every year a little pamphlet that shows where the money is going (required by law). 90% is in people/goverment overhead. So that means only 10% is to cost of producing power. Power is already CHEAP. But when you have an army of people to fix lines, man phones, fix vehicles, etc... it costs money. Now add in a group of highly trained (and highly paided) people to run/maintain nuke plants. You can see why power companies are not exactly in love with nuke plants either. Also because of the posibilty of a massive accident these things are highly regulated. Which means even MORE people they have to hire. With my minor in econ I can tell you the FIRST thing they teach you about a busness is people = cost. The next thing the drill into you is marginal rev = marginal cost. people are cost. But lets say its more optimal for me to hire one less person because of my bottom line. What do you think a power company will do? I can tell you what I would do as a busness that one 'extra' person would not get hired. Yet what if you need 10 people to run this board. Yet its only optimal to hire 9?

    31. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Brush your teeth with plutonium and you will die.

      Is anybody here advocating that?

      They made the old and nasty mistake of thinking of their jobs before shouting fire.

      It goes far, far deeper than that. The communist regime represented an extreme example of central planning run amok. The bureaucrats in charge were certainly willing that a part be sacrificed to keep the central plan in progress. They were even probably, to a degree, sincere enough to sacrifice themselves for said 'plan.'

      For the most part, that kind of 'we know it all, now let's implement it' is scary. It's the sickness that all big-government types can ultimately be reduced to.

      --
      ---
    32. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Invent a fool proof system and the world will create a better fool. I see very smart people every day make simple math errors. And they are not even under stress! Now say "your reactor is about to go critical". A very stressfull thing. How many mistakes are more likely to occur? Training helps but when the real deal goes down training goes just so far.

      We have had at least one. Luckly it was contained in the building...

    33. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      Whoa, dude. The Fonda comment was a joke (yeah, I agree she is/was a nut, but back in the 70s, she was pretty good looking - tho I doubt you're old enough to remember).

      MANY documentarys on that acident

      Then say "documentaries" instead of "movies".

      Did you know that the operators were actually trained to...

      Well, some of that is hyperbole, and some isn't. See my other posts to this thread for my opinion about their training, anyway.

      This was just a BAD freeking design.

      Yes.

      MY whole point was that when you factor in all the costs and risks, it's a damned sight better than what we have now, and that the only reason that nuclear power plant construction has been sidelined is because of (mostly) ungrounded fears - in the US! - about their safety. Do some research on how many people have died in conventional plants here vs. how many have died in nuclear plant accidents, and look particularly at the statistics involving civilians who weren't employed at the plant.

      Sure, people should be concerned. That's why we have the training and safety regulations involving nuclear power - which, here in the US (and other countries such as France) have worked precisely as they were intended to. That's why I made my first point in the original post about the fuckups that happened at Chernobyl. Bear in mind that the US military has operated many, many reactors for many decades without a single serious accident. Design, training, people quality. It makes a difference.

      Waste disposal is a solvable problem, if we could subtract NIMBY, which, as I pointed out, is a much worse problem when it's spread all over the place rather than being in one place where it can be dealt with using less money and fewer resources such as trained people. I'll grant that transportation is a problem, but it's a solvable one nonetheless, being an engineering problem.

      Cancer: How many people die of cancer from conventional power plants emissions (smog, etc - why do you think there are EPA emissions regulations anyway?) vs. cancer from radiation? Go do some research. I think the results will surprise you.

      As to power bills, I've lived in areas that had conventional plants, and areas that had nuclear plants. The bills in the nuclear plant supplied areas were consistently lower (and considering that my electricity use was mostly higher in those areas - more computers - they were *considerably* lower; there were also fewer blackouts - which I ascribe to better personnel and components in the system).

      In your "cost analysis" you're not including the cost of fuel and fuel transport for conventional plants - which is much greater than that of nuclear plants - plus it takes more people on the average to run a conventional plant; they may not be as highly paid as 'nuke' employees, but there are a lot more of them.

      I think you need to go do some serious research. Bear in mind that I've been reading and thinking on these issues since before 3MI. I could refute you with a lot more facts, and links, but this isn't the forum to do it in; and in any case, what I've already done is a waste of my time, because you are approaching this issue from an emotional standpoint, and will probably not change your mind anyway.

      Oh, and yes, I've seen people die of cancer. Most of my relatives on both sides have died of cancer. Not a single one of them, save maybe one (who was a army grunt and witnessed several nuclear tests in the 50s) was ever exposed to high levels of radiation. Two of them died of cancer induced from coal mining. Think about that. Here's another hint - power plants are *NOT* an enclosed system (you seem to apply that to nuclear plants but not to conventional plants, which have a much higher overall environmental and social cost)

      On another note, there's a reason I put "/rant" at the end of my post....but that seems to have been lost on you, and others (including the idiot moderator (singular) who modded my post.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    34. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Brush your teeth with plutonium and you will die.

      Is anybody here advocating that?

      It's a simple reality check for chemicals - the adverisers say it's warm cuddly clean and green, but the reality is that you do not want these things in close proximity to yourself. It's a less confronting way of saying that the "clean" tag for nuclear power is complete bullshit.

    35. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Informative

      What part of "design, training, and crew quality" did you not understand? What does "foolproof" have to do with it?

      Don't lecture me about training. One of my best friends is a plant operator on a missile sub, and we've had many discussions about the training he receives. Some years ago I also knew a couple operators at the Prairie Island plant in Minnesota, and they were cool, dedicated customers who knew what they were doing. You're comparing apples and oranges here.
      They are all *very* aware of what kinds of mistakes they could make.

      As I've said, in the original post and the responses, I consider the training that the Chernobyl people had to be sub-par - not necessarily because they panicked, but because they allowed the situation to develop in the first place - which, in combination with the bad design, and other factors, caused the whole situation. You might want to read this where it says To prevent the automatic safety systems from interfering with the experiment, the technicians disconnected them, opening the way for a chain of fatal mishaps..

      Well trained? So well trained that you disconnect *all* the safety systems to test the design parameters of the turbines?. Yeah, right. Also the very fact that the design of the plant allowed this to lead to the explosion is very well documented.

      So tell me, where, in your 'experience', has this occurred in the US? 3MI? Not hardly. At 3MI the safety systems worked as they were designed to. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CHERNOBYL AND 3MI WAS THAT THE OPERATORS HADN'T DISCONNECTED THEM. At 3MI, the emergency cooling system was even disconnected, yet the other safety systems kept a major catastrophe from happening.

      More modern reactor systems *are* failsafe by design. Yes, there are ways to build them so, that bypass operator error. You need to go do some research.

      Ignorant asshole.

      I'm done with this conversation.

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    36. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im SURE she was a total hottie at the time. But I was like 5. But now shes like 70 I do not exactly find that attractive :)

      No the /rant was NOT lost on me. Maybe I was ranting too? If you want a better place to rant where no one will respond go start a blog with no ability for people to post comments. Also I never said movies. You did. I said SHOWS. I consider shows to be things I see on tv or documentaries. But that is probably just a fun bit of American dialect.

      As to power bills...
      An oversupply of energy will drive the power bill down SOME. But total life cost will be on average the same. However you seem to think that a nuke plant will drive prices down on a permanent bases. Maybe short term for a bit. But long term that extra supply will be used up. Also the maintenance of *ALL* the other infrastructure is what is 90% of your bill. You pick up the phone and call them to tell them your power is out. A truck will roll and fix it. That is paid from your bill indirectly. This sort of thing is the SAME for ANY sort of plant they build. Any new plant will drive prices down for awhile. But as the capacity is used up the scarcity of the energy will drive the price RIGHT back up. This is classic econ 101 stuff. The nuke plant is not the savior of power woes.

      Cancer: How many people die of cancer from conventional power plants emissions
      Ill ask the question differntly. How many have died from accidents? And do not say 'well here in the states'. As people watch the news they see other countries too. Hell even the artical was talking 30k-400k. Those are the people you will have to get past. I was just asking the same sort of questions because I am in the middle. When I hear the other side I ask the same sorts of questions you ask. Both sides of the matter are like you said 'emotional'. I am trying to decide what way to sway here...

      Waste disposal is a solvable problem.
      Not currently. Most solutions I have seen so far either everyone is pissed off "not in my backyard". Or it just will not work "lets launch it at the sun". However Chernobyle may have solved the not in my backyard problem. Sounds like a NICE place to dump the crap. Its already radioactive! However do we want to give it to what is a basicaly a 3rd world country? Hmm that doesnt quite work either politics again...

      Also you keep talking about the military as if they have the answer. Their mindset is this 'This is my weapon, I will maintain my weapon, as my weapon is my LIFE'. Its drilled into them from basic on up. That is why you have seen so few, even 'close calls', in the military. Can you say the same for the dude who has been hired to work on the board behind the plant near you? You can not. Also most 'military' plants are not of the size run half of a state.

      You also give people way more credit than they deserive. Cynical perhaps but think about it this way. BRAND new plant goes up. No accidents for 10 years. Well a new company comes in buys the plant and fires half the people and puts their own people in. Now you have probably a half fearfull/disgruntled group. Think that group is going to perform at the same level they were before?

      Also you seem to think that I do not want nuke plants. I think they are much cleaner IF RUN RIGHT. However of all the major screwups in other projects I have seen I am lets just say a TAD concerned. You know things like the 5k bolt. If they can not even keep track of what a 30cent item costs. What sort of OTHER things are they missing. Sure there is some oversight but not to the level I think needs to be there.

      Also take where I live. There is a 'inspection' on cars every year. There is NO damn way the amount of cars in this area generate enough emmisions to have the smog levels the way they are. Either there is a hell of an inversion above this area or there is a coal plant nearby (which there is). Yet that coal plant is running

    37. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by ID_Roamer · · Score: 1

      48,000 years before you can move home is a stretch. The highest levels of radiation emitted by used nuclear rods are from Strontium and Cesium. Its been a long time since I looked it up, but basically 1 has a 10 year half life, the other has a 20 year half life.

      What this means for you is that 200 years after a fuel rod has been removed from a reactor, it is no more radioactive than it was when it was put into the reactor. Meaning it can be handle safely by people without wearing special safety equipment

      The most dangerous, in the form of cancer causing, radioactive elements are the alpha emitters, like plutonium. Alpha particles are highly charged and lethal. However, because of their high charge, they readily absorb electrons from the surrounding environment and lose their charge quickly. They are also large. They are unable to penetrate human skin. To get poisoned by them, you have to ingest them in some way, such as eat or breathe them.

      It has been the US policy for at least 25 years, that nuclear reactor rods are not reprocessed after use. The fuel pellets are left intact. The reason for this is the nuclear isotopes are entrained in the metal structure of the pellet and can not get into the environment. For someone to be poisoned by the plutonium in a fuel pellet, they would have to swallow one. Swallowing a thumb size chunk of metal is never easy. The strontium and cesium radiation would still kill you before the plutonium did anyway

      All that said, the US Government wasn't always so smart with how they handled fuel rods. I live in Idaho, they had a plant here in the desert that they used to reprocess fuel rods. They could recover up to 80% of the original fuel back out of the used rods. They also recovered plutonium for things like nuclear weapons. In the process, they produced those infamous rusty barrels of liquid waste other posters have mentioned. The solution to those is vitrification, but the antinuke activists have so much fear and emotion tied up in the argument that they won't allow even this simple process be used to make those products safer to handle. Remember it is always easier to clean up spilled sugar than spilled milk

    38. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a luddite could have said 'brush your teeth with arsenic' in the 19th century and demanded a shutdown of the science of Chemistry.

      --
      ---
    39. Re:Before anyone starts trolling... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Yes, but a luddite could have said 'brush your teeth with arsenic'
      No-one has ever called arsenic clean. Nuclear power is not clean by any definition other than some idiots endlessly repeating the word.
  47. MOD DOWN - ANGELFIRE SITE STILL WORKS - KARMA WHOR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  48. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL

  49. Workers' Paradise by idiotnot · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The wonderful soclialist construction looks even better after eighteen years' passage. Sadly, it didn't look much different before the people left, save for being in better repair. No grandeur at all, just shabbiness.

    Eastern Europe has come an awful long way since the fall of the "Evil Empire." Why people still admire it, I will never know.

    1. Re:Workers' Paradise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. I'd much rather be black and selling drugs to survive on the streets of America.

    2. Re:Workers' Paradise by ozborn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know the reason for some, since I've talked to older people living in Eastern Europe and asked. Basically it boils down to working hard your whole life (some with nice professional jobs) and then watching your nice pension be destroyed by inflation in the transition to capitalism and your lifestyle plummet. Things really were materially better for them under the old system, although all of them are happy to see the political repression gone. The problem is that the same people in many cases that ran the country under communism and now doing so under capitalism. The more things change, the more they stay the same....

    3. Re:Workers' Paradise by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      The people you refer to are those who bought into the old system. The collaborators and in some cases the perpetrators.

      --
      ---
    4. Re:Workers' Paradise by ozborn · · Score: 1

      Does being a medical doctor or an engineer mean you are a perpetuator or a collaborator? The people I talked to were not even party members and were not at all directly involved with the repressive arm of the state.

  50. An irony by rffmna · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Many people think the Chernobyl area is just like a desert. It's true, there are no people, but there ARE animals. Researches have found rats living there. When they tested those rats, which are living healthily, the scientists found that DNA of rats changed as fast as it had in last 20 million years. That's right, the radiation caused mutations (or evolution) in 20 years, at rate equal to 20 million years.
    The rats aren't mutilated or anything, they just happen to adapt.

    --
    -------
    FM Clan
    1. Re:An irony by Bytal · · Score: 1

      So how many years before they become intelligent and take over the world? :)

    2. Re:An irony by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds about right..

      There's a bacteria that can live in high radiation places due to high redundancy of DNA. Those suckers have 5 copies of dna on 1 long strand, and can auto-correct incorrect bits. And multiple strands per cell.

      --
    3. Re:An irony by Art+Tatum · · Score: 1

      You realize what you've done, don't you? Now we're going to hear a never-ending stream of "I for one welcome our evolved-rat overlords" posts.

    4. Re:An irony by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Well I for one welcome our Ironically posting "I for one welcome our evolved-rat overlords," Overlords.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    5. Re:An irony by jelle · · Score: 1

      thank you, but I come in peace. Take me to your lizard.

      --
      --- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
    6. Re:An irony by techstar25 · · Score: 1

      Sure they found evolved rats, but did they find mutated three-headed frogs?
      Interestingly it's been posted for over an hour now and it's not /.ed yet. I guess it helps that it's in the middle of the night on the eastern US. I'm glad I got to see it though. It's truly surreal.

    7. Re:An irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The rats aren't mutilated or anything"

      Its "mutated", you fucking dumbass.

    8. Re:An irony by AbbyNormal · · Score: 1

      Um. "Splinter" lives!

      Go Ninja, Go Ninja Go!

      --
      Sig it.
    9. Re:An irony by Spunk · · Score: 1

      They are mutated.

      You fucking dumbass.

    10. Re:An irony by Idarubicin · · Score: 3, Interesting
      There's a bacteria that can live in high radiation places due to high redundancy of DNA.

      That bacteria would be Deinococcus radiodurans. Literally, 'strange berry that withstands radiation'. Its trick is actually several copies of important genes on different chromosomes, so that it can line up a good copy with a bad one and rapidly make the repair to damaged DNA. From this site:

      Among the many characteristics of D. radiodurans, a few of the most noteworthy include an extreme resistance to genotoxic chemicals, oxidative damage, high levels of ionizing and ultraviolet radiation, and dehydration. The ability to survive such extreme environments is attributed to D. radiodurans ability to repair damaged chromosomes. It is known that heat, dehydration and radiation causes double-strand breaks in chromosomal DNA. D. radiodurans will repair these chromosome fragments, usually within 12-24 hours, using a two-system process with the latter being the most crucial method. Initially, D. radiodurans use a process called single-strand annealing to reconnect some chromosome fragments. Next, D. radiodurans use a process known as homologous recombination, where a modified yet efficient RecA protein patches double-strand breaks. RecA protein works by cutting usable DNA from another molecule and inserting it into the damaged strand.

      However, these repair methods alone are not unique to D. radiodurans, which therefore cannot account for its radiation resistance. The aforementioned statement has led scientists to propose the "Life Saver" hypothesis. The hypothesis states, that in order to speed homologous recombination, D. radiodurans align copies of its genome so that identical DNA sequences are near each other. This proposal is now entirely possible due to the verification that D. radiodurans genes come packaged in four distinct circular chromosomes, thus giving stacked loops of DNA and resembling a Life Saver. To add to the list of radiation protective traits, D. radiodurans also possess carotenoid pigments, oxygen toxicity defense enzymes, and a distinctive outer membrane. First, carotenoids, which cause red pigmentation, are thought to act as free radical scavengers, thus increasing resistance to DNA damage by hydroxyl radicals. Next, high levels of enzymes such as superoxide dismutase and catalase both play a role in effective defense mechanisms against oxygen toxicity. Finally, a cell wall forming three or more layers with complex outer membrane lipids and a thick peptidoglycan layer containing the amino acid omithine also serves to protect D. radiodurans from lethal doses of radiation.

      The genome for D. radiodurans is available from TIGR.
      --
      ~Idarubicin
  51. But the good news is... by barfy · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Have you seen the size of strawberries since chernobyl? Seriously, they are HUGE!

    And they say that there is no such thing as a good nuclear meltdown...

    Scewz me, I have some shortbread to eat...

    ____________________________

    Say YES! to abstinence!! No Bush! No Dick! Vote Dems 2004!

  52. Radioactive dust washes off roads in the rain... by adb · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...and accumulates in the dirt near the roads, because the roads are smoother and higher than the surrounding ground.

  53. How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by Charles+Dodgeson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Jehovah's Witness and other sects which have as their central doctrine that we are in the "end times" and that John's hallucinations described in Revelations have already started. Anyway, these people have worked to fit 20th century events into the sequence of events outlined in the nightmare.

    Now, there's been a group in every generation since Jesus that has managed to find evidence that it is the generation of the apocolypse. So far, they have all been wrong, but that doesn't seem to bother contemporary apoclyptics.

    But they do have a clear idea of where we are in the sequence of events. As you can imagine most of the fitting of events is somewhat vague, or takes some generosity of interpertation. (Please bear with me, this is going somewhere). But there is something that is very late in the sequence (and lots of very dramatic things need to happen before it). This event is

    Revelation 8:10
    The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters.

    Revelation 8:11
    The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter.

    And what is the Ukranian word for "wormwood"? Chernobyl.

    Somehow this news of the meaning of "Chernobyl" tends to disturb people who believe we are in the end times.

    --
    Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
    1. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah but Absinthe is made from wormwood so it could just as easily be talking about alcoholism. Thats the thing about prophecies they are vague for a reason.

    2. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ---The third angel sounded, and a great star fell from heaven, burning like a torch, and it fell on a third of the rivers and on the springs of waters.

      Great star from heaven while falling... Sounds like an ICBM or EMP-nuke

      ---The name of the star is called Wormwood; and a third of the waters became wormwood, and many men died from the waters, because they were made bitter.

      Perhaps cherynobl-like disaster...

      Why, if you put those together, it sounds like good'ol Global Thermonuclear War. The estimate for that date is 2015 by the "Time Travler" John Titor (www.johntitor.com). He mentions some biblical-like strange event near that time.

      --
    3. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Cute, but the JW church has frequently proclamed the (coming) end of the world even without that. 1975 was the last predicted end. (The founding of Microsoft? Aiiieee!)

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by borgheron · · Score: 1

      I'm not a religious man, but I will point this out.

      Heavy elements are formed in stars by fusion, some of the heaviest metals are formed when a star explodes in a supernova. Amoung these are Uranium and Plutonium.

      So, in essence, Uranium and plutonium are parts of "fallen stars". :) Strange, huh?

      Later, GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    5. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Chernobyl is a Russian transliteration of the Ukrainian word 'chornobyl', which in English means wormwood, 'a perennial herb of genus Artemisia with bitter, tonic, and stimulating qualities used in preparation of vermouth, absinth and in medicine." According to the Dictionary of the Russian Language by S. Ozhegov, the word "chernobylnik" means "a variety of absinthe (wormwood) with red-brown or deep purple stem."
      Most striking is the testimony of Hans Blix, Executive Director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, in a speech given before the UN General Assembly on October 23, 1990. To this great body he quoted Revelation 8:10-11 and said, "In Slavic languages, including the Ukrainian and Byelorussian languages, there is a word 'chernobyl', which means wormwood, bitter grass. This has a striking relevance to the Chernobyl tragedy. I am no fatalist. I do not believe in the blind inevitability of fate, but who can fail to be moved by these tragic and elegiac words from Revelation, which must leave their indelible imprint on the heart."

    6. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by Synn · · Score: 1

      Er, that's not so strange because everything on the planet comes from the same process.

    7. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by borgheron · · Score: 1

      Hehe... I was purposfully not saying that to increase the "mystery".

      Thanks, GJC

      --
      Gregory Casamento
      ## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
    8. Re:How to annoy a Jehovah's Witness with Chernobyl by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Now, you stop that!

      People spend large amounts of time building up the mystique of people like Alestair Crowley, calling them 'Ceremonial' and all. Then you go pointing out that it's all a bunch of soggy alcoholics and heroin addicts.

      --
      ---
  54. MOD PARENT DOWN - INCOMPLETE MIRROR, ORIG STILL UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do not reward karma whores who mirror pages that STILL WORK and geez, the mirror isnt even complete.. its just one page with links back to the angelfire page wake up mods, this is a blatant attempt at karma whoring

  55. Horses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was heartening. One of the things the greens are wrong about is people destroying the earth. We'll destroy ourselves long before we finish of the earth, and a hundred million years after we're gone our damage will seem like a bad dream.

    1. Re:Horses... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's right, just conveniently forget the descriptions of the areas that are utterly silent.

      No animals there.

  56. who keeps modding this crap up? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its not even a complete mirror.. he just mirrors one page and links back to the angel fire page and the angelfire links still work! man this is pathetic and you guys are falling for it

  57. chernobyl thoughts by little_5_points_geek · · Score: 0

    My father was a health physicist, I wonder what he would have to say. He died of cancer, not due to radiation exposure, although he was exposed to more than his fair share of "zoomies". It would seem that a defective gene runs in my family that triggers prostate cancer. Any technology that deals with the fundamental nature of universe needs to be handled with respect. I only hope that we learn from Chernobyl. Who knows what this tragedy of science and politics might someday reveal, but for now it reveals just how little we people really do know.

  58. The scary part... by myov · · Score: 1, Interesting

    is that Chernobyl is still producing power on the electrical grid. This might have changed recently but I doubt it.

    --
    I use Macs to up my productivity, so up yours Microsoft!
    1. Re:The scary part... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1
      This might have changed recently but I doubt it.

      Earlier posts indicate that this occurred in 2000.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  59. Re:MOD DOWN - INCOMPLETE - ORIG PAGE STILL WORKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Dude, chill.

    If it's not down now, it will be soon.

    Should he go save the pics after the site is dead?

  60. I Have to say by SomeOtherGuy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That this was the most eye opening thing I have seen linked on /. in a long time. Really makes all the SCO and Ipod stuff seem kinda small. I mean that was one of the most surreal things I have experienced in a long time.

    --
    (+1 Funny) only if I laugh out loud.
    1. Re:I Have to say by krewemaynard · · Score: 2

      "...this was the most eye opening thing I have seen linked on /. in a long time. Really makes all the SCO and Ipod stuff seem kinda small. I mean that was one of the most surreal things I have experienced in a long time."

      ditto. my baby wouldn't sleep, so i came in to read some /. till he crashed. then i found this story. baby's been asleep for a good hour now, while i've been looking at these pics and googling for chernobyl history/facts/etc. good luck getting me back to sleep.

      and you're right...it really does make a lot of other topics seem somewhat trivial, especially when you consider that chernobyl is still a threat, with the aging sarcophogas and the shape it's in.

      --krewe

      --
      I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
    2. Re:I Have to say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      last night i was tripping and i came accross this link. interesting to say the least, but not so bad after watching Kill Bill while peaking

  61. If the article is /.'ed.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a hot Ukranian biker chick. Nuff said.

    Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
    They leave the West behind


    1. Re:If the article is /.'ed.... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure The Beatles intended to be ironic.

      --
      ---
  62. Wow. by mrseigen · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This site is amazing; the town looks just like any other town anywhere else in the world, but nothing is there.

    The abandoned ferris wheel and barges gave me a serious case of the willies.

  63. What a tour by HPNpilot · · Score: 1

    Now that is a ride I would have loved to go along on. Anybody can go to London or Paris. Should be a required trip for engineering students.

  64. Needs more pictures of the telephones by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Then she could have gotten them published in
    2600 and gotten a year's subscription to the
    magazine. :)

  65. and plus... by Doktor+Memory · · Score: 1

    ...she's kinda hot.

    I guess in many senses of the word now.

    --

    News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters? Like hell.

  66. the borg? by narkotix · · Score: 1

    " there are lot of domestic animals live in the woods, they got wild and assimilated with other animals that live in this area, such as wolfs, wild boars and deers "

    boy theres nothing as tasty as a pigdeer from the chernobyl region!

    --
    We played dungeons and dragons for 3 hours.....then i was slain by an elf
  67. Oh man.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Actually, some people coming back to their homes and settle down, those mostly old people who do not care if they die today or tomorrow. important is to die at home.
    Well now I'm depressed. See? THAT's why I don't like to RTFA!
  68. In Soviet Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    energy wastes YOU!

  69. Re:MIRROR :) by boobsea · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I think it would be prudent to point out that whoever this person is has been dying to get modded up so badly.

    Why is that? Normally I would associate this kind of activity with anti-slash.org, but I cannot make that determination at this point.

    Mod with caution.

  70. Death Toll by Rhett · · Score: 2, Interesting
    400.000 dead, other about half million. Dad says that those figures rised very high and so far death rate is 80.000-120.000 but it will be more because people will die within next 50-70 years


    Ok, so we know about 30 firefighters died within a few weeks of thea accident. Do people who died 88 years after the accident still count in the death toll?

    I have never heard figures above a few thousand before this. Maybe she is being accurate to 3 decimal places? Does anyone have a real source?
    1. Re:Death Toll by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      No, she's using decimals as commas, the way they do in Europe

  71. Meltdown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone explain just what a meltdown would look like? Did the area around the power-plant glow? Would the light given off pulse? Is it a flash of light like a nuclear bomb, or does it last longer? Just how would you describe it? Would it give off any sound?

  72. just remeber the real reason this all happed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not because nuke power is unsafe

    But because a bunch of MORONS tried to "OVERCLOCK" a reactor

  73. And some of them happened on US soil... by Deffexor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hey. Let's not forget close-call that was "3 Mile Island" and another snafu here in the US: The SL-1 Accident in Idaho.

    1. Re:And some of them happened on US soil... by corngrower · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, not too many people know about this one. That must have been quite something for that worker to get impaled to the roof of the containment building with a control rod.

    2. Re:And some of them happened on US soil... by Muhammar · · Score: 1

      There was far worse accident in US, than 3Mile Island. Tens of tonns of plutonium cought on fire in a nuke factory, with Denver few miles downwind. They put it out with water, almost causing criticality
      http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/ja99/ja99ac kland.html

      Friend who lived in Kiev at the time of Chernobyl told me the whole capital was evacuated twice, the second time in the fall when all dried leafs with accumulated radiation went dry and produced enormous amount of radioactive dust.

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  74. Re:MOD DOWN - INCOMPLETE - ORIG PAGE STILL WORKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How long does it take? Its been almost an hour.

    He should post the pics after the site dies (if it dies). He can save them beforehand and post them after to gain karma legitmately.

  75. Still melting? by Zed2K · · Score: 1

    Isn't it still melting through the concrete casing they put over it? I thought I read a while ago that they need to go in and repair it soon or else it will be completely through the casing they poured over the reactor.

  76. What's even more scary... by Chordonblue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is what's left behind there - a big crumbling concrete tomb no one seems to want to take responsibility for. Someone had better goddamn well do it or else EVERYONE will suffer again.

    There isn't a hole deep enough to bury this demon in. Chernobyl is the kind of thing that gives me real nightmares. Part of me wishes I never read that book. What a horrible, HORRIBLE disaster.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:What's even more scary... by shadowbearer · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Ditto. There are a number of great books describing exactly what happened. (It's amazing how much info never made the mainstream press even in the years following, even here in the West)

      IMHO, they should be required reading in any engineering classes ( or, perhaps, in any and all high school classes) but the latter is not likely to happen..

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:What's even more scary... by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      When I was in Jr. High, an article describing the explosion at Chernobyl was used in a touch-typing lesson. I had to type it out over and over and over until I had something like 60 WPM...

    3. Re:What's even more scary... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


      Ow. :)

      When I was in junior high, 3MI was news :)

      Not that it had anything to do with touch typing, we did boring exercise lessons jklfdsamnbvcxzqwertoiy for example :)

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    4. Re:What's even more scary... by Trillan · · Score: 1

      Which book in particular is that?

    5. Re:What's even more scary... by Wakkow · · Score: 1

      "IMHO, they should be required reading in any engineering classes"

      I took a class on nuclear weapons UC Davis.. Definitely a worthwhile class if only for the discussions and the coverage of the Cold War. All Applied Sciences, and many Computer Engineering students took it.. Not a requirement for CS majors. It's a shame.. I was even able to take a field trip to Lawrence Livermore to meet Dr. Teller.

      137. Science and Technology of Nuclear Arms Effects and Control (3) Lecture--3 hours. Prerequisite: upper division standing; one course from Physics 1B, 5C, 9C, or 10. Scientific and technical aspects of nuclear arms effects and nuclear arms control including the nuclear physics of atomic and hydrogen bombs, blast and radiation effects, radioactivity, electromagnetic pulse, ICBM accuracy, laser weapons, verification safeguards, biological and ecological effects.

    6. Re:What's even more scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      must have been like some disaster report on cnn. watching the 20 seconds clip repeat until your feeling numb :o

    7. Re:What's even more scary... by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

      Sooooo.... tell me. Would you happen.... to have any... umm *wisper* used textbooks you might care to part with?

    8. Re:What's even more scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Which book in particular is that?

      The King in Yellow
      "I was dumbfounded. Who had placed it there? How came it to my rooms? I had long ago decided that I should never open that book, and nothing on earth could have persuaded me to buy it. Fearful lest curiosity might tempt me to open it, I had never even looked at it in book-stores. If I ever had had any curiosity to read it, the awful tragedy of young Castaigne, whom I knew, prevented me from exploring its wicked pages. I had always refused to listen to any description of it, and indeed, nobody ever ventured to discuss the second part aloud, so I had absolutely no knowledge of what those leaves might reveal. I stared at the poisonous yellow binding as I would at a snake."
    9. Re:What's even more scary... by M1FCJ · · Score: 1
      I did two courses on nuclear energy when I was in the university. You just can't believe how hard to get a negative coefficient reactor to start and stay working and how easy to overblow a positive coefficient reactor to get out of control. It's just simple physics. In one type you have a dynamically unstable (tends to shut down) system, the other is dynamically stable (tends to work by itself). Most of the PWR and BWRs are negative coefficient designs. Most of the graphite-cooled systems are positive coefficient designs. Strangely enough. United Kingdom has till a couple of these monsters. They tend to be very tricky.

      Nuclear reactors are pretty safe if you know what you are doing. Almost all of the USA subs and all aircraft carriers have nuclear reactors and they are safely travelling all around the place for more than 50 years now. There has been a couple of accidents but even without nuclear reactors submarines tend to be pretty tricky things to run.

      Nuclear energy is not as unsafe as GreenPeace claims.

      If anyone insisted of the safety of planes and cars as much as they insisted on nuclear safety, all of us would be walking everywhere today. :(

    10. Re:What's even more scary... by True+Grit · · Score: 1
      1. Nuclear energy is not as unsafe as GreenPeace claims.


      Even Greenpeace's founder has changed his mind about nuclear power.
    11. Re:What's even more scary... by dukeisgod · · Score: 0

      True, but if my car catches fire, it dosen't put a whole region at risk from radioactive fallout. Not quite apples to oranges we're comparing here.

    12. Re:What's even more scary... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the graphite-cooled systems are positive coefficient designs. Strangely enough. United Kingdom has till a couple of these monsters.

      Isn't Hinkley A graphite moderated? I've only ever toured the (more modern) Hinkley B, but A is a much cooler looking building!

  77. Re:Mod parent up -- Insightful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're quite correct. Most people would not have known that. Especially n00b mods.

  78. John Philip Sousa Messin' With My Head by MyHair · · Score: 1

    I am in the middle of going through the article in awe of everything, and my mp3 player randomly selects John Philip Sousa's Air Force song. What a clash of mindsets!

    By the way, I was in the USSR in 1987 for three weeks on a People to People international student ambassodor exchange trip with students from most states. (We didn't school there, just tour.) The trip originally included Kiev but that was changed due to Chernobyl. The alternative city the most beautiful city I visited: Riga, Latvia.

  79. MOD DOWN - ANTI SLASH TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this guy is listed on http://www.anti-slash.org's little "posts needing moderation" page.

    anti-slash is a group of trolls who go around purposely trying to gain karma to be able to troll to lower the signal/noise ratio on slashdot

  80. 'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 1, Informative

    I talked to my radiation-biology professor and he swore, that in 15 years of working with radioactive he had never, ever seen anything radioactive actual glow. In fact it's usually grey, and sits there rather innocuously. If anyone has heard different please let me know.

    --

    Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    1. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      Then he's an idiot.

      Ever heard of "Indiglo" before? Well, back in the 20's to the 50's people used radium paint for clock dials. It would glow a flourscent green like a permanent indiglo.

      --
    2. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We had EXIT signs in our gym in high school that were glowing Radium. They were expired too, due for replacement - kinda scary.

    3. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      people used radium paint for clock dials

      And a number of people used to lick their paint-brush (to straighten the bristles) while painting it on. *ouch*!

      That idiot has obviously never seen pictures of "swimming pool" reactors with the blue Cherenkov glow.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    4. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      But doesnt it, in certain places, work wonders? No electricity needed.

      Of course, with "RADIATION!!!" being an extremly negative buzzword, using sources like this is nearly out of the question.

      --
    5. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 1

      That's fluorescence, not radiation. Do you actually think nuclear reactors have big vats of glowing green ooze?

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    6. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      ---That's fluorescence, not radiation. Do you actually think nuclear reactors have big vats of glowing green ooze?

      It's radio-activated flourscence. Oh, and it IS glowing... Just not a wavelength you can see. And that "ooze" is usually salt or water depending if it's a fast or slow reactor.

      --
    7. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 2, Informative

      http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a990430a.html

      Little FAQ on Cerenkov radiation. Radiation itself doesn't glow, it energizes other particles which do the glowing.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    8. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by JimboOmega · · Score: 1

      It might not be radiation but the tremendous heat the reactor core had.... it would definitely glow (a la black body radiation). Wouldn't be green, of course...

      As for radiation itself, well, I'm sure if it was intense enough it would cause a glow by the same effect, just from the heat. As for it possibly colliding with things and spitting out lower intensity EM emissions (ie, light), it's certainly possible. You know, like when you shine a UV light on things... Maybe the better versed can prove me wrong, but gamma radiation is just at the extreme high end of the spectrum.

      Don't know for sure, but I doubt your bio prof ever had a huge nuclear meltdown worth of radioactive material, so...

    9. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And nuclear bombs don't really explode. They just heat everything around to a million degrees, and they explode.

    10. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Killswitch1968 · · Score: 1

      Well then again he was a biology prof. He didn't work with big fat nuclear reactors, just radioactive material, like solids and such. Which of course would never glow.

      --

      Corporations: your universal scapegoat for all society's ills.
    11. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by 0111+1110 · · Score: 1

      Oh god. It's not the radium itself that glows (emits visible light). It's the phosphors in the paint that are excited by the radium.

      Do you really imagine that you could find a naturally occuring rock containing radium in the mountains that glowed a bright green?

      Look up phosphorescence some time. Your computer monitor probably uses it. It really annoys me when someone who doesn't have the faintest clue what they're talking about corrects someone else.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    12. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a troll, and I'd put my mod points where my text is, if I had any left.

    13. Re:'Glowing' radiation doesn't exist by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      No. Actually a piece of pure radium metal will emit a faint glow too. This is caused by the air ionization around the metal surface, caused by the emmited alpha particles.

      This fenomenon is unrelated with Cherenkov radiation, fluorescence etc.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
  81. Re:Rowr! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I met my Russian bride on OSDN Personals!!! Powered by Squirt.Org!!!

  82. she mentions a glow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently a lot of people were standing on buildings to see a "beautiful glow" coming from the area of the reactor. She doesn't go into any detail about it. I don't think she saw it first hand.

  83. Euless, Texas 2001/09/12 by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sounds like Euless, Texas on the days after 9/11 when air traffic (DFW) was shut down. With no airtraffic and next to no vehicles on the roads it was very quite and very disturbing.

    1. Re:Euless, Texas 2001/09/12 by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That was certainly an eerie night. Here in the Bay Area, we have the Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose airports all nearby (and Sacramento isn't too far away).

      Go outside on any clear night and you'll easily see 20 airplanes, and will usually hear an airplane fly overhead several times per hour.

      On that night though, I couldn't sleep and went for a walk at 2am. There were no planes, few cars (Mostly cops, some fire engines), no celebrations, no music or loud conversations... just dead quiet.

      It was the first time I looked up at the bay area sky and saw only stars, except for a single radar plane which slowly travelled in a giant circle around the area for hours and hours.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    2. Re:Euless, Texas 2001/09/12 by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      Here in the Northeast, just being outside on the afternoon of 9/11 and not seeing any contrails like normal was spooky. On a bright clear day you're just used to seeing a dozen or so. (I also watched the Navy ships putting out to sea from Norfolk around noon which was also unsettling.)

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    3. Re:Euless, Texas 2001/09/12 by Tarrek · · Score: 1

      Around Oak Ridge National Labs we had nothing but formations of helicopters going in circles ALL night, LOTS of 'em...

  84. A better title would be "Chernobyl...18 Years Ago" by srcosmo · · Score: 1
    Roger Zelazny's Damnation Alley (the book, not the movie!) kept coming to mind..

    Incredible photographs and narrative.

    --
    free speach
    Did you mean: free speech
  85. Do you have any evidence? by mangu · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The sheer calous lack of regulation of these pollutants by governments world-wide is unbelievable. Even your fabric-softener can have mercury put in it.


    Wow, welcome to the 1940's. Where have you been in this last half century? I'd say the furious over-regulation by governments world-wide is unbelievable. For instance, I now have to recycle the few micro-grams of mercury contained in fluorescent lamps and batteries. Do you know what's the biggest cause of cancer in humans due to chemicals? Salt. Sodium chloride, that is. Do you know what's the biggest cause of cancer due to radiation? Sunshine. Do you know what's the second biggest cause of cancer after tobacco? Obesity. Don't believe my words, ask any oncologist. No, the biggest environmental threat to humans isn't either radiation or chemicals, it's ignorance, stupidity, and paranoia.

    1. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking contrarian twit spouting factless nonsense, hoping that you're perceived as the wise wizard that sees through it all. How about next time you shut the fuck up?

    2. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even if your claims were true, one has to consider that the regulation may be working. The reason we don't see thousands of people dying from mercury poisoning is because they don't have the opportunity.

    3. Re:Do you have any evidence? by mangu · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      You're a fucking contrarian twit


      If, by "contrarian" you mean I think instead of following the trend, thank you.


      spouting factless nonsense,


      Have you checked the facts I presented? How about doing it? I guess the environmental laws in most countries would be different if people knew the true causes of cancer and other serious diseases. These facts aren't secret, they are widely available to anyone. Only it's much more convenient and face-saving to blame your cancer on mercury and radiation rather than the unhealthy habit of eating candy and snacks that you have cultivated since early childhood...


      How about next time you shut the fuck up?


      How about the next time you log in? Are you afraid to show your identity when you climb on your soapbox to shout the same BS that was fashionable twenty years ago?

    4. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Katz_is_a_moron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If what you say is true, then these regulations are having the proper effect.

    5. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No refined poisons, including mercury used in lamps and batteries, belong to nature. Put it somewhere it won't end up being eaten by us or other animals.

    6. Re:Do you have any evidence? by LightningBolt! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I'd say the furious over-regulation by governments
      > world-wide is unbelievable. For instance, I now
      > have to recycle the few micro-grams of mercury
      > contained in fluorescent lamps and batteries.

      I see you have adopted the popular motto of: "Think locally. Act like nobody else exists."

      When you throw trash out, where it goes is a bit more complicated than "away". Because 6 billion other people are out there doing the same.

      --
      Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
    7. Re:Do you have any evidence? by MannyDixn · · Score: 2

      Sodium chloride does not cause cancer.

      Furthermore, I can choose not to go in the sunshine, but I can't choose to not drink water.
      So keep your micrograms of mercury out of my drinking water, and so forth.

      --
      Can *you* prove that *you* don't have weapons of mass destruction?
    8. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Do you know what's the biggest cause of cancer in humans due to chemicals? Salt. Sodium chloride, that is.

      I've never heard of this, and I doubt that it's true. It would be difficult but not impossible to test. Of course, it is generally true that people eat and drink too much sodium, but AFAIK that is more a question of blood pressure, not cancer

      Or perhaps you are thinking of potassium chloride. Naturally occurring potassium is significantly radioactive.

      It is true that the biggest cause of cancer due to radiation is sunshine... but this is ultraviolet radiation. When most people talk about radiation they mean ionizing radiation. Naturally occurring radon is the biggest contributor to the average person's dose of ionizing radiation.

    9. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But we ARE seeing millions of people dying from mercury poisoning, it just goes unnoticed and undiagnosed, because people like that poster don't take it seriously.

    10. Re:Do you have any evidence? by kisak · · Score: 1
      Do you know what's the biggest cause of cancer in humans due to chemicals? Salt.

      You forgot to mention the most dangerous chemical of all, dihydro monoxide. Why worry about mercury, when you have all that H2O around ...

      No, the biggest environmental threat to humans isn't either radiation or chemicals, it's ignorance, stupidity, and paranoia.

      It is a good thing then that we have Bush in the White House, to fight for more arsenic and lead in the water and more mercury in the air. These stupid environmental laws are just in the way when fighting against ignorance and stupidity.

      --

      --- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---

    11. Re:Do you have any evidence? by mangu · · Score: 1
      I've never heard of this, and I doubt that it's true. It would be difficult but not impossible to test.


      It's very simple to demonstrate by epidemiological tests. There's a positive correlation between salt use and intestinal tract cancer. There are several studies demonstrating this, by comparing regional diets by their relative salt use. When other cultural factors and genetics are factored out, the correlation persists, implying that salt use is the main culprit. Of course, the effect is relatively small, there's no reason to outlaw salt based on this. However, due to the wide use of salt, it ends having the largest overall effect of any food additive on cancer incidence.


      My point is that, when governments regulate chemical products, the reasons are often emotional and not rationally studied. A much better effect on nature and human health could be had if regulations aimed for the overall largest benefit, instead of at the most prominent issue in the popular press. To get the best effect in improving human health and well-being, instead of outlawing admittedly dangerous but little used substances, the law should try to reduce use of unhealthy but popular substances, such as salt and sugar. And to protect nature, the most needed law today would be one that put a high tax on fossil carbon burning. Why do people feel so comfortable about recycling button-sized batteries, while they drive their two-ton SUV's to work?

    12. Re:Do you have any evidence? by scrytch · · Score: 1

      > Do you know what's the biggest cause of cancer in humans due to chemicals? Salt. Sodium chloride, that is.

      Please post a citation from JAMA or Lancet that supports this assertion.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
    13. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      people increase their salt intake when their ability to sense taste declines. This happens when a person becomes zinc deficient, which incidently increases the chance of cancer developing.

      Things are not always as the research makes them seem.

    14. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you know what's the biggest cause of cancer in humans due to chemicals? Salt. Sodium chloride, that is.

      It does appear that excess NaCl in the stomach is correlated with stomach cancer...however, this is generally also correlated with the presence of known carcinogens like the residues on grilled meats.

      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?ho ld ing=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1873446&d opt=Abstract

      But perhaps your strident post has more to do with this url, one of the few I could find on google associated with this issue:

      www.godshealthplan.com/healthtips/Harmful.htm

      It does appear to be a stretch to say that NaCl is the LEADING cause of cancer in humans. Especially, when it's been demonstrated only in the presence of other known carcinogens.

      It might be a cancer-enhancer but calling it a cancer-causer leads me to suspect, along with your other statements, that your motivations are based on other than concern for your fellow humans or scientific fact.

      So thump away. Or say, "Ditto, Rush" or something.

    15. Re:Do you have any evidence? by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

      not to mention we are exposed to background radiation every day. everything has radiation, even our own bodies emit radiation.

      and radiation is a broad term, radiation doesnt automatically mean poisonous or deadly.. there's heat radiation, ultraviolet, light, microwave, radio, and many many others. not all harmful, some are, etc.

      most nuclear radiation, however is deadly as hell, and extreme amounts of xray and gamma radiation can be deadly, etc.
      basically, just live life, you're gonna die anyways, so just live life the best you can, because if you die, it was just your time to go, no one lives forever, you just make best to avoid most bad situations.

      Chernobyl was one that could have been avoided, but because some engineers were fooling around, and werent using good safeguards, they got burned, and so did a whole lot of other people. (figuratively speaking.)
      Personally, I think the government of Russia should pay those who lost their homes, and relatives in the disaster if not already.

      Chernobyl was a bad incident, worse than anything that has happened in modern day america.

      just isnt as hyped because a buncha "ruskis" were killed and the american attitude against russians and the world's attitude as well, and because they were commies. This has often been downplayed.

      I bet if 3 mile island had breached and gone the same way, there would have been national and all sorts of sympathy, TV shows, memorials, etc towards it. the Victims of Chernobyl were simple evactuated, stripped of their clothes and money and belongings, showered down, and then left to deal with it. Their Government didnt care at the time, and prolly doesnt care even today, even though it's all been changed to democracy.

      Not to mention this event impacted many Eastern European countries who dealed with the nuclear winds.

    16. Re:Do you have any evidence? by mangu · · Score: 1
      It does appear that excess NaCl in the stomach is correlated with stomach cancer...however, this is generally also correlated with the presence of known carcinogens like the residues on grilled meats.


      I don't have links, sorry about that but the info I have comes from dead trees, Science magazine, IIRC. There are studies showing a positive correlation between salt intake and cancer. These studies have been made with care to eliminate other factors, such as genetic or cultural. And I didn't say that salt is the "leading" cause of cancer. The leading cause is tobacco. I said that, among food additives, salt is the one that causes more cases of cancer than any other chemical product. This isn't because it's a strong carcinogen, it's because it's so widely used. My point was that, instead of trying to regulate the minuscule amount of mercury in wristwatch batteries which you discard once every five years, legislation should try to bring the widest benefit to most people. Regulating the use of salt and sugar in the food industry probably would have a far greater benefit to people.

    17. Re:Do you have any evidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How you say what you say is pretty funny. Correct, but funny nonetheless :)

  86. MOD DOWN TROLL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this guy posts an incomplete mirror of a website that is not down.. do not mod up

  87. the playground is scary by rebelcool · · Score: 1
    her description says that children were playing in it before the town was evacuated and it was covered in smoke so thick it could not be seen through.

    This smoke would have been highly radioactive. Those children are probably all dead.

    I'd never read an account like that, even in the west which didn't gloss over the horrors of chernobyl. If its true, then that disaster was far, far worse than any of us realized.

    --

    -

    1. Re:the playground is scary by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      No worry, $cientology says that they helped cure people of radiation from Chernoyl. Oh yeah, I'm sure many people were saved from radiation by Elronic methods. Ghouls.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:the playground is scary by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you want to watch a good movie on the threat of vast radiation poisoning, watch the BBC movie Threads. I got this tip from another Slashdot post a while ago, and am passing it no. I had to go to my library to find it.

      It is about how the "threads" of society essentially unravel within a generation after a nuclear attack, in the face of massive homelessness, starvation and of course widespread and incurable radiation sickness.

      Lovely stuff.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:the playground is scary by Jellybob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      [Shudders]

      Shit... I watched that film in science at school... everyone spent the week beforehand getting all excited, because another class had seen it, and told us about how crazy it was.

      For the second half, we had no teacher, because she'd gone to do anything but watch it... I don't think anybody ate that lunch time.

      It's some scary, scary shit, but if you can handle that, well worth watching.

      There was also one recently by the BBC about smallpox, which was disturbing, but not in quite such an extreme way.

    4. Re:the playground is scary by ashitaka · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oh Christ, "Threads".

      Don't remind me.

      At around the same time one of the U.S. networks had a similar made-for-T.V. movie that was supposedly very controversial: "The Day After". However, it came off like an Irwin Allen disaster flick compared to Threads.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    5. Re:the playground is scary by Ulven · · Score: 1

      I saw that at school around 15 years ago.

      I still shiver whenever I'm reminded of it.

    6. Re:the playground is scary by toolfann · · Score: 1

      "the day after" was not made-for-tv. it was in the theatres. i grew up 20 mins from Lawrence, the town that is depicted in the movie. I remeber people talking about being freaked out when they came out of the theaters and Lawrence was still standing.

      side note-my father was a fireman at an industrial airport at the time and went to an open casting call for that movie. he got called back twice and turns out he was auditioning for the part of Airman McCoy, i think.

      --
      "learn to swim" - TOOL
    7. Re:the playground is scary by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      Maybe ir played the theaters in your town because they filmed it there, but the majority of America (almost half the TV-viewing public) saw it as a made-for-TV movie on ABC Sunday, 20 November 1983.

      There had been a huge amount of hype before it played (I remember the TIME cover) related to its obviously anti-nuclear bias which was in direct conflict with the Reagan presidency's view that a nuclear war was survivable.

      More info here and here.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
    8. Re:the playground is scary by ashitaka · · Score: 1

      One correction: That magazine cover was probably Newsweek because I couldn't find it in Time's cover archive.

      --
      If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  88. IN MY EXPERIANCE by autopr0n · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ukranaian women are fucking hot That is all. Thank you.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
    1. Re:IN MY EXPERIANCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my experience, you're a cocksucker. And your website sucks, you soggy-bottomed faggot.

    2. Re:IN MY EXPERIANCE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That must be the radiation.

  89. Slashdot Effect? No... by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    linking to a 10+ page site full of photos on angelfire? yeah, that'll last long...

    Naaa, this is Slashdot. The story has nothing to do with games, SCO, the latest video card benchmark, or esoteric science. Therefor, it should last fairly well.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  90. Cognitive dissonance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    " I believe that's an Edgar Allen Poe story if I recall,"

    Really? You thought a story about an automated house cleaning itself long after a city has been destroyed by a nuclear blast was by Edgar Allen Poe?

    Isn't the human mind strange?

    1. Re:Cognitive dissonance by Loconut1389 · · Score: 1

      I didnt remeber the nuclear blast part, maybe im thinking of a different story.. but i thought there was an edgar allen poe story about a house that had everything automated, clean up robots, cooking robots etc.. *shrugs*

  91. Mirror by polin8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    http://home.etria.com/files/kiddofspeed/page2.html

    Wow, that's the most powerful thing I've seen on the internet in a long time.

  92. Oh, don't get me started... by TheSHAD0W · · Score: 0, Funny

    What has wings and glows in the dark?

    -- Chicken Kiev.

    What do you get if you put 20 people from Kiev in one phone booth?

    -- Critical mass.

    1. re: Oh, don't get me started... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only thing shorter than the life expectancy of the Chernobyl workers is the half-life of these jokes :)

  93. Biker chicks are hot by slurpburp · · Score: 1

    I've been riding for 12 years now, and I have to admit that any chick who REALLY rides is kinda hot. Most women like the IDEA of a motorcycle. The reallity is less comfortable, noisier, and more if a hassle than they're willing to endure for very long. And (not wanting to seem sexist) most guys are esentially posers. Kudos to this young woman for having the heart to tour, and the intellect to choose someplace interesting to tour.

    1. Re:Biker chicks are hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was a chick? She seems about as feminine as a Russian tank. Well whatever floats your boat. Are you attracted to guys as well? There are plenty of guys who are less masculine than she.

  94. Midnight on Elm street by mnmn · · Score: 1

    ...or the Village of the damned. What adds to the fun of being in that town is the lack of an implemented speed limit.

    If I were in Russia, I would try to get a hold of a radiaition suit, test it well, and try to get into the Chernobyl compound and take pictures there (digital camera, not film). The town is eerie, the nuclear compound would be totally alien.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    1. Re:Midnight on Elm street by kakos · · Score: 3, Informative

      Inside the Chernobyl Plant, you'd need a lead block encased around you to be safe. The radiaction in the vicinity of the pile is still so intense that most electronics malfunction within minutes, if not less.

  95. Many more pictures here.... by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is a site with many more pictures of the military vehicle graveyard there.

  96. Friendly public reminder by jensend · · Score: 5, Informative

    TMI was nothing like Chernobyl. Going to the dentist for an x-ray gives you more dangerous radiation than just about anybody got from TMI. Nobody died because of TMI.

  97. Links to the Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Odd, we read that in english class as 9th graders.

    Here are a couple of links to read the story. fairly short, just a couple of pages.

    http://www.plazaboricua.com/anil/archivo/fabulas 2/ cuentos/august2026.html
    http://home.earthlink.net /~hiflyer/APbradbury/twcs r.htm
    http://www.dchsenglish.com/dchsenglish/assi gnments /therewillcomesoftrains.htm

    There you go!

    ~Shodekiagari

  98. still... by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    still glowing, and glowing, and glowing....

    at least the core anyways.

    I remember my jr. high science teacher comment about it as a tin-can reactor. I'm sure there was still the cold-war bias in play at the time.

  99. Nature preserve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like the demilitarized zone in Korea, this would make a great place for a nature preserve.

    1. Re:Nature preserve by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Problem is, if and when peace is arrived at, the starving North Koreans will enter that zone and chop all those animals to pieces. Starving people have a habit of doing that.

      --
      ---
  100. Vacation? by dukeisgod · · Score: 0

    This sounds like a vacation plan to me. How much would it be to transport my motorcycle to the Ukraine for a vacation? This story has it all, a good looking woman on a motorcycle, and plenty of wide open terrain to give the throttle a good twist.

  101. Only a few post read but has.. by annisette · · Score: 1
    anybody noticed thet this woman is quite attractive, on a motorcycle and likes to take chances?....Well I did. Good article too.

    --
    I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
  102. Thanks to the Swedes.. by olafo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As I recall, we have the Swedes to thank for 1st informing the world of the excessive radioactive fallout their detectors measured. It's a pity that even the reindeer in Lapland (northern Norway, Sweden & Finland) were affected as they ate grass which contained radioactive fallout. And the Lapps survive by eating reindeer.

    1. Re:Thanks to the Swedes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They herd reindeer yea, but the "surviving" is done by buying food from a supermarket. :)

    2. Re:Thanks to the Swedes.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a friend who works at the Forsmark nuclear plant. He has told me about the hours of terror when they first noticed the radiation from Chernobyl and were trying to figure out what was wrong with their plant.

  103. I have mirrored it. by Vilim · · Score: 4, Informative

    Chances are, because it is on an Angelfire page, it will go down within the next 45 seconds. In anycase I have mirrored it at

    http://ryans.northernwatercolour.com/chernobyl

    I also included page 16 which she mistakenly skipped in the linking, it shows a swimming pool.

    --
    History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it - Sir Winston Churchill
  104. Medvedev's book... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...is here.

  105. Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by Chordonblue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "The whole "what do we do with nuclear waste" thing is way overblown."

    No, it's not overblown at all. I can deal with a lot of things but this is one that I don't want in MY backyard!

    It doesn't take much of this radioactive shit to cause a serious disaster. I agree with using something like Yuca Mt. to store it all in but even this has problems.

    1) Transportation. Getting it there will be more than half the fun. What if there's an accident on the way in? Which town along the way will become the next Chernobyl?

    2) Possible environmental consequences. Things like water table contamination are a real concern.

    3) Natural disasters. A sudden earthquake or volcanic activity could certainly ruin your day.
    Can you predict the future for 10,000+ years? That's how long a site would need to remain stable.

    Of course, where it's all stored now is a bigger nightmare because it can hardly be protected - particularly from terrorists. Then there's the waste of the plants themselves. I haven't heard any real info on what to do with a decomissioned plant yet other than just 'leave it lay'. Not good at all.

    I'm not nuke-phobic, but I am realistic about man - an imperfect being handling something that you simply CANNOT make a mistake about.

    The sad thing is, this is hardly the first time this sort of thing has happened. I don't usually support Greenpeace, but check this info out about the city of Mayak since a nuclear disaster. These people still LIVE THERE! Some of the pictures in their image gallery are quite disturbing:

    http://archive.greenpeace.org/mayak/index.html

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not nuke-phobic, but I am realistic about man - an imperfect being handling something that you simply CANNOT make a mistake about.

      So you're OK with current means of electricity production, including coal-fired generating plants, which probably kill off a couple of Chernobyl-sized human populations every year?

      At some point, you have to realize that burying a few buckets of nasty shit in the desert and posting a "Keep out if you know what's good for you" sign is probably the lesser of many, many evils. The truth is that presently, we don't know of a cleaner, ecologically-safer way to generate power than fission. You are only looking at a very narrow slice of the big picture.

    2. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by Muhammar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mayak's walking wounded:

      http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/1999/so99/so99la rin.html

      --
      I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
    3. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      "You are only looking at a very narrow slice of the big picture."

      We'll see how 'narrow' it is the first time an accident on the way to your nuke haven happens. And you know what? To HELL with accidents - what if a whacko terrorist group decides to self-detonate a shipment of spent fuel in downtown Omaha?

      At least alternatives like coal can be and are being made cleaner over time. The tech to make coal a clean option is certainly a lot more viable than our current and foreseeable ability to clean up after a major nuclear disaster.

      In my state (PA), we have several nuclear plants that are going to undergo decommission over the next few years. When this happens our alternatives are to build more of the same (good luck), or move to coal (an abundant resource), or windpower.

      Fully 15% of PA's power will be generated by wind by 2010. Already windfarms are populating slopes in Wind Gap and Somerset and they are a welcome sight. Nowadays there are clean/green alternatives - and certainly those that present far less risk.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    4. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by acxr+is+wasted · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. It's our desert, not yours. When Nevada builds a nuclear power plant, maybe we'll consider it.

      The truth is that presently, we don't know of a cleaner, ecologically-safer way to generate power than fission.

      Really? What about this, this, or this.

      You are only looking at a very narrow slice of the big picture.

      Both of you are scum.

      --
      "Come on, let's go drink till we can't feel feelings anymore."
    5. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by tehdaemon · · Score: 1
      "1) Transportation. Getting it there will be more than half the fun. What if there's an accident on the way in? Which town along the way will become the next Chernobyl?"

      Simple, put it into containers made out of good grade 1/4 in. welded steel. I read a book about the expierimental fusion reactors etc, anyway, they had this large piece of equipment they needed for the reactor. It was made out of the 1/4 in. steel mentioned. They had to transport it. They put it on a truck. But the driver made a wrong turn, and came to a bridge that was too low. He though 'they checked out the route, I am ok' and the large steel thing hit the bridge at full speed. Knocked the bridge off it's foundation. The steel thingy still worked perfectly, and it even had to contain a perfect vacuum. The transportation bogey isn't that big of a deal. Worry more about terrorists stealing it to make a dirty bomb than accidents.

      --
      Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
    6. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by gotr00t · · Score: 1

      I think he means that the quantity of nuclear waste is small. Currently, all the nuclear waste in the world would fit in about the volume of a moderately sized gymnasium containing 2 basketball courts. (forgot where I got this info tho, but I know I saw it somewhere)

    7. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not as scary when you acutally know something about the dedication and processes that go into containment and control. I dont meant to nitpick you, so dont take the point for point too personal.

      1) Transportation. Getting it there will be more than half the fun. What if there's an accident on the way in? Which town along the way will become the next Chernobyl?

      This is actually one of the safest procedures involved with disposal. The containers housing the waste (often rags, junk, or even water!) are IMMENSELY durable. These things have been dropped from 10,000 feet, impaled on massive "ground-spikes", and smashed by diesel-electric locomotives at high speed without cracking or leaking a bit.

      Modern containment is extremely advanced. Movements are planned and proposed months ahead of time. Even if one were to just plain fall off the truck (most of the time they are on rail cars), you would need a nuclear weapon to penetrate it.

      In other words, you're more likely to die in an accident gawking at the spectacle on nearby train tracks when some idiot slams into your rear end.

      2) Possible environmental consequences. Things like water table contamination are a real concern.

      Not anymore. In fact, go check out the DoE's site. They have this immense study on geo stratum structures and building an "monolith" type warning system that could even ward off natives 10,000 years in the future. I'm not sure about the psychology of that, but at least your kids wouldn't venture near in their life time.

      3) Natural disasters. A sudden earthquake or volcanic activity could certainly ruin your day.
      Can you predict the future for 10,000+ years? That's how long a site would need to remain stable.


      See above, and yep that's exactly what's being predicted! Yikes eh?

      Of course, where it's all stored now is a bigger nightmare because it can hardly be protected - particularly from terrorists.

      Just an opinion, but the only one with access to the waste site after bring sealed is ol' Barney who forgot the whole "tag in tag out" procedure and got left at C-Level when the cap was being installed...

    8. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      1) Transportation. Getting it there will be more than half the fun. What if there's an accident on the way in? Which town along the way will become the next Chernobyl?
      We do the same thing we do with sodim cyanide and other nasties - don't ship a lot of it at once and have a way to deal with it when it spills. Chernobyl was a big steam explosion that scattered radioactive material everywhere - a small drum of something on the back of a truck has a few orders of magnitude less disaster potential.

      Then there's the waste of the plants themselves. I haven't heard any real info on what to do with a decomissioned plant yet other than just 'leave it lay'
      Decomissioning is another reason why nuclear power is an expensive way to boil water.
    9. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Transportation. Getting it there will be more than half the fun. What if there's an accident on the way in?"

      The way the contaners are desined the risk of contmination after an accident is very, very low. The way the contaners are desined and how the radioactive waste is stored, make leakage of radiation a near zero posablity.

      "Possible environmental consequences. Things like water table contamination are a real concern."

      Remotely posable, however the water table is constintly contminated by natural radioactive elemintes and little if any harm comes from it.

      "Can you predict the future for 10,000+ years? That's how long a site would need to remain stable."

      Anti-nuke activest love to use this argument. Theres one proablem with it, after 500 years the waste matteral is substataly less radioactive the the uranium it came from! Granted that's a long time but no where near as long as 10,000 wich is the decay rate untill it reaches backround radiation levels. A site like yuka Mt. even in sevral worst case senairos will last 780 years. more then enough time to decay to naturaly safe levels of radiation.

      And on a side note we wouldn't have any where near as much waste if enviormental actives would alow for the reopening of reprocesing plants. If we actual had an operation reprossing plant we would not only generat a fraction of the waste we do now, but also we would have a ton more full for our reactors, AND the radioactive waste would end up degading at a much faster rate. It would only take about 6500 years to reach backround levels, and about 325 years to end up becomeing less radioactive then uranium!

      "http://archive.greenpeace.org/mayak/index.html"

      Pesonaly I would take every thing I read from them with a gran of salt...

      Pardon my sp errors... :)

    10. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      We'll see how 'narrow' it is the first time an accident on the way to your nuke haven happens. And you know what? To HELL with accidents - what if a whacko terrorist group decides to self-detonate a shipment of spent fuel in downtown Omaha?

      When an accident happens, we'll observe that nobody gets hurt. "Green goo that leaks everywhere" and "jostling nuclear waste makes it explode" are both from Hollywood, not the real world. Same for terrorists -- you don't just "detonate a shipment of fuel" -- that's not possible.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    11. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you. It's our desert, not yours. When Nevada builds a nuclear power plant, maybe we'll consider it.

      You'll damned well consider it when FedGovCo tells you to consider it, thank you very much.

      And that would be now.

      Hydroelectric: pretty much tapped out.

      Wind and solar: enough power for cavemen. We need enough power for people.

    12. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by PreteristGuy · · Score: 0

      Great...a greenpeace moron is teaching us "facts"

    13. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by PreteristGuy · · Score: 0

      Bah..."spent nuclear fuel" doesn't "self detonate" - you are spewing hot air! Spent fuel rods don't detonate...as far as I remember, only highly enriched heavy metals can sustain a chain reaction. So as someone else said, only ignorance perpetuates the fear of nuclear energy...

    14. Re:Mayak - another nightmare that lives on... by JoeBaldwin · · Score: 1

      Hi, I also posted a link to that Mayak site. That fucking thing gave me nightmares and scared the living bejesus out of me, and I actually asked GP to not have a certain picture from that site (the header image of a deformed baby in a jar) on the front page any more, since it's so fucked up (I mean, little kids get sent to Greenpeace.org to research school projects and such...just not a nice thing to see). Certainly opened my eyes a bit (usually in the middle of the night :)

      "Disturbing" ain't half of it :)

  106. Aptly sited by Thakandar2 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does anyone else find the irony in posting a story about a nuclear meltdown...

    By linking Slashdot to an Angelfire web page?

    Angelfire tech: "The core, its heating up! Quick, more Nitrogen on the servers! Too late, Run for your lives!"

    I only joke because I wasn't there.

  107. Lol. by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 2, Funny

    There were cases of radiactive tv sets and other stuff being sold on city second hand markets and then police shot 7 or 8 of them and it helped.

    Yeah, I suppose that oughta send a clear message :P

    1. Re:Lol. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now if only we would do that to Israeli spies who dance on rooftops as they film our national treasures burninf to the ground.

      That too would send a clear message.

  108. How brutal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There were cases of radiactive tv sets and other stuff being sold on city second hand markets and then police shot 7 or 8 of them and it helped

    xDDDDD

  109. if i were to guess... by rebelcool · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it might just've been the light of the fire on the smoke or cloud bottoms.

    A couple of months ago a magnesium recycling plant in ohio (i think) burned up. A town webcam was pointed in its direction, and despite being miles away, the sky looked as bright as day from the white light reflecting off the bottom of the clouds at 2 am. You could definiately say it was glowing.

    or, it could actually have been the radiation ionizing the air (is this possible, nuclear physicists?). I seem to remember some descriptions of nuclear blasts causing purple glows in the air from radiation ionizing it.

    --

    -

  110. It was "The House That Died" by laing · · Score: 1

    And it was written by Ray Bradbury as part of "The Martian Chronicles". Reading the commentary and looking at the photographs reminded me of the same story.

    --
    Post no bills.

  111. Chernobyl Tours by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article seems to mention that tourists are reluctant to visit the silent city, but a Google search actually turns up quite a few links.

    Are these real? It would be interesting to visit the place for your(/my)self...

  112. Russian Bike by n2505d · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems you were programmed well during the duck and cover days. I own a Russian motorcycle here in the US (named same as the river on the rad map) and find it very tough and reliable.
    Don't believe all that you were fed, go there and hang out (not necessarily this place) and you will find some of our propaganda was true but a lot was/is not.

    Riding through there does seem tempting!!

    1. Re:Russian Bike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      If that is a Ural you're referencing, perhaps it runs ok because it's a clone of a 1930s era BMW?

    2. Re:Russian Bike by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Programmed well?

      Well, we had the "Protect and Survive" days here rather than the US "Duck and Cover", but I can say from first hand experience, the Russian cars they sold here (clones of Fiats) were utter crap. They may have been built like a tank, but they were built like a very crap tank that corroded easily. Having said that, domestic cars of the era that Ladas sold in great numbers over here were also pretty dreadful. (Morris Marina, anyone?)

      The only Russian machinery I would contemplate owning is the single engine Yak light aircraft (such as the Yak-52 or the Yak-50) and the Sukhoi light planes. Relatively inexpensive and genuinely well built, even if they are a bit quirky.

    3. Re:Russian Bike by geekoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thats funny. Becasue my friends who are from the Soviet Union say that almost all of it is true.

      To hang out now would be pointless if you want to find out what it was like. The old will complain about how dirty it is now compared to 50 years ago, and the young have no real life experience.

      The one thing that surprised me was that they didn't consider the USA there number 1 threat. It was the Chinese. Now, that makes sence if you think about it, but since they were are number 1 threat, I assumed we were there's.

      Somday, one of those buildings will catch fire, and a lot of radation will become airborn.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Russian Bike by danila · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In Russia we used to joke that after Perestroyka we found out that most of what capitalist propaganda was saying about the Soviet Union was true. Unfortunately, we also found out that most of what Soviet propaganda was saying about the West was also true. :) But, joking aside, you make a good point. It seems that corporations/politicians were more scared of communism than USSR was scared of capitalism.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  113. Wow by opusman · · Score: 1

    In Communist Russia, babes ride big motorbikes!

  114. Chernobyl is a video game. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, no doubt, man. A hot chick on a motorcycle cruising through radioactive ruins pursued by
    marauders has 80's postapocolyptic action flick written all over it.


    Not an action movie, but it did make a good video game

  115. There is something sad and beautiful by azav · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is something sad and beautiful about being to look into a land that has been poisoned and shut down from the other side of the world.

    It is eerie that a beautiful young woman would be our guide. Eerie that she would chronicle this deadened scene for us to view while enjoying the freedom it gives her, well aware of the danger and of those who died and still suffer the effects of the worst nuclear disaster the world has ever known.

    As I slouch back in my chair, well aware of the life around me in this chilly San Francisco evening, it becomes clear that sometimes the internet offers us too much.

    Safe passage Lena.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    1. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by myg · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      Geeze I wonder what you're going to be doing when you 'slouch back' in your chair? A hot babe posted cool pics to slashdot.


      The next 30 minutes there is going to be alot of "cable pulling" if you know what I mean.

      :-)

    2. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I THOUGHT that was Lena. It was good to see what she was doing. And she has an ability to turn a phrase. She's someone worth knowing.

    3. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by demonbug · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to nitpick, and I completely agree with how powerful the imagery is (and the sentiment you express), but the Japanese might disagree about Chernobyl being "the worst nuclear disaster the world has ever known."
      Disasters can happen on purpose, too.

    4. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by RayBlume · · Score: 1

      It just makes me want to take a mental seat and see if I can imagine a bunch of children playing in the past where the reactor now stands, and see them playing and running and jumping and hanging onto Grandpa's arm!!!! Can I see the Mother's divying out the plates for the picnic and for the Papa's carrying their sons on their shoulders for a horsy back ride!! There was life here once, and with enough will there can be life there again! Ray Gunn

    5. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by azav · · Score: 1

      Well, in case you really want to know, I'm a 5 minute walk from several of the hottest straight bars in SF. It's been a long week and Friday night is my detox from the work week. Downtime and lazy tv. No cable pulling required.

      --
      - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
    6. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      Not to nitpick, and I completely agree with how powerful the imagery is (and the sentiment you express), but the Japanese might disagree about Chernobyl being "the worst nuclear disaster the world has ever known."

      The Japanese would be wrong--people can and do live in Hiroshima and Nagasaki today. It will be 900 years before anyone can even THINK about living in the Chernobyl area.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    7. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chernobyl was the worst UNPROVOKED nuclear disaster. As for the atomic bombs, the Japs had them coming.

    8. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by myg · · Score: 1
      Heh. I was hoping to get modded funny. Oh well.

      Even though I have a girlfriend sometimes I find myself doing unwanted cable pulling. Hehe.

    9. Re:There is something sad and beautiful by orn · · Score: 1

      No one ever has it "coming."

      What part of "Thou shall not kill" or the million variants of it is hard to understand?

      We can learn. We can.

      --
      1. 2.
  116. Like Pompeii by dogfart · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Where a snapshot of life in the Roman Empire was captured in a momemt of disaster for posterity. With Pompeii, we wonder how foolish they were to see the obvious signs of the volcano ready to go, yet did not try to escape. With Chernobyl, we see...the same thing!

    --

    "dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"

  117. Danger! Danger! by weeboo0104 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The webserver is in the middle of a meltdown!

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  118. Mirror Me This by alexburke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Here you go. No bandwidth limit, and I took a couple of minutes to strip out the ad-insertion JavaScript.

  119. Creepy Amusement rides by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the most poignant part was the abandoned amusement rides, and how she said that was the part of that town where the radiation doses were strongest. That Ferris wheel standing still and silent, still painted red and yellow, was just... wow. I have no words.

    --

    Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

  120. Nostalgic by AustinTSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    One can only acertain the feeling of nostalgia that dominates that site. We almost forget what the advances of modern civilization will inevitably become.

    It reminds us that we will be consumed by our own creation, entropic in nature.

    And also disturbing.

    --
    austintsmith.com
  121. Responding to your sig by Srin+Tuar · · Score: 1


    You will be taken more seriously if you can spell: nickel, missile, lose, solely, amendment, speech, kernel, probably


    Please add "rediculous" to that list. I see it at least twice a day on this site, and thats reading with a +4 and up filter.

    1. Re:Responding to your sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Someone please mod this rediculus post down. It's off topic.

  122. Re:kawaii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kawaii is not a Japanese word commonly used by men. It's actually quite effiminate to use it for such a thing.

  123. Chernobyl as microcosm of USSR by aynrandfan · · Score: 1
    In my readings of what happened at Chernobyl, it seems as if the whole things was a microcosm of the whole Soviet system. You had a huge, complex institution (the government, or power plant), combined with inept people put there for political reasons (the politicians and the "engineers" at the plant). You had mishap after mishap, mind-blowing stupidity after mind-blowing stupidity, corruption up the wazoo.

    In the end, it amounted to a catastrophic collapse in the end. A lot of people got hurt for no fucking reason.

    It will happen again, just in a different place/time.

    --

    ----

    "Ours was a free culture. It is becoming much less so."-Lawrence Lessig

  124. Most moving thing I have ever seen! by f1ipf10p · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This double true.

    She is, I am very certain, very fast moving on that ZX-11.

    More so moving, I have perhaps never been so humbled as a human being as viewing her site. It should be praised. Insight into one of human kind's saddest tragedies that I rarely think one person has, and she can convey it to others so completely.

    Thanks. I learned a lot more from her site than I expected to by following that link.

    --
    ~8^]
  125. Can /. scientists translate rad level? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    81,6 microroengen


    Can one of the /. scientists (is that an oxymoron?) translate the above figure into millirems?

    I'm familiar with millirems. If its in rads/millirads, or something else, can you put it in millirem equivalents?
    1. Re:Can /. scientists translate rad level? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a typo, correct spelling is roentgen (R). It seems it's not a direct equaivalent of rem. AFAIK rem is radiation dose, while roentgen is the current radiation power (not sure of the term). So I guess you have to multiply roentgens by time to get rems.

    2. Re:Can /. scientists translate rad level? by michael · · Score: 1

      They're not directly equivalent. REM stands for "roentgen equivalent man", which is to say, it's Roentgen modified by a factor which accounts for how much dose an actual human would absorb. The absorbed dose differs depending on the type of radiation involved. If we assume that the radiation involved is mostly gamma, the modifying factor is "1", so this would be equivalent to 81.6 microrem/hour.

      As a general idea of how much radiation this is, background radiation in many parts of the United States is about 10 microroentgen/hour. So this is about 8 times higher than average background radiation. If you live in an area at a high elevation (less air above you to block the sun and cosmic rays) or in an area with a lot of granite or other naturally radioactive rock, your dose will be higher. The dose being recorded by that counter is actually on a par with living in Denver (high, granite-y).

      Of course, that counter may not be recording anything like the highest dose in the area.

  126. I want to here some stories from people there by tdwebste · · Score: 1

    It was still winter, spring was just around the corner. The milk was picked up from the farmers as usual, except that it was dumped. The radiation level in milk was too high. And we were warned not to go outside.

  127. OMG that woman is a CUTIE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either that, or I'm just feeling the effects of sitting alone surfing Slashdot on a Friday night...

  128. Re: Hearing nothing by Baron_Yam · · Score: 1

    At my local science center, there is a snaking tunnel lined with sound-absorbing material.

    You get about 6 feet in and it feels like a horrible pressure in your ears.

    It's a very disconcerting sensation.

  129. Nobody dief because of Chernobyl either by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    They just ended up as super human mutants that now wear spandex.

  130. Translation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It blew up real good."

  131. Re:MOD DOWN - INCOMPLETE - ORIG PAGE STILL WORKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At the bottom of a pile of several hundred posts?

  132. Re:A better title would be "Chernobyl...18 Years A by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

    How about about "Chernobyl...18 Up"? Like the continuing 7 Up .. 42 Up series of documentary films, this story has a while to go. (eevil NY Times link)

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  133. Three Mile Island by corngrower · · Score: 5, Informative

    The situation at TMI was pretty serious. Although no one died, the fuel rods in the core of the reactor did melt. That's how hot it was. There was a lot of contamination inside of the containment building (it served its designed purpose) and it took a long time to clean it up.

    1. Re:Three Mile Island by Eskarel · · Score: 5, Informative
      The differences between TMI and Chernobyl are essentially those of design and the ways in which they affected the disaster.

      Though the containment building was very helpful the design of the reactor was somewhat more important, Soviet and US nuclear plants use a different substance as a moderator(could have the term wrong, been a while, it's the thing which slows the neutrons so the reaction can take place). In the US reactors use deuterium(heavy water) as a moderator, if the reaction gets out of control and the heat reaches a certain point the heavywater is vaporized and the reaction stops, in the USSR however they used graphite for this purpose, which does not evaporate in the same way. Because of this, not only was the reaction not contained as well at Chernobyl, but the reaction continued for a much longer period of time releasing more radiation.

      Of course the way things were handled also didn't help Chernobyl much, I've seen the footage of the people they sent in there afterwards, they had nowhere near sufficient protection and I've also seen footage of the gigantic lump of plutonium sitting underneath where the reactor used to be. Not a good place for inadequately protected people.

    2. Re:Three Mile Island by Eunuchswear · · Score: 5, Informative
      Right in principle, wrong in detail:
      In the US reactors use deuterium(heavy water) as a moderator
      No, the US reactors use light water as a coolant and moderator.

      The Canadians use heavy water in the Candu design.

      For the details of what happened at Chernobyl see

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    3. Re:Three Mile Island by edxwelch · · Score: 4, Informative

      What really blew up Chernobyl was the dangerous experiment that they were carrying out at the time. Even though the design was unstable in principle it was very difficult to get it into that state. They actually had to de-acivate dozens of safeguards before they could run the reactor at very low power, and that was the point where it was unstable.

    4. Re:Three Mile Island by sonofuse · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Operators and Techs at Chernobyl were doing low power Physics testing and trying to take the reactor critical at the time of the accident. The reactor design was stable and proven. The reactor had been just previously shutdown and had been operating at power. While operating at power one of the fission products that is produced is Xenon, an isotope that has a huge microscopic cross-section for absorption for neutrons, and hence a reactor poison. Unknown to the Operators and Techs this Xenon buildup prevented the reactor from going critical to do the low power testing and they kept bypassing safety circuits to achieve criticality. They also kept pulling "rods" to expose more of the core until nearly the entire core was exposed. They achieved criticality and in a short time the worst thing imaginable happened. Xenon burn-off came down the curve and was no longer an inhibitor to neutron population. The resulting super-critical pulse blew the reactor apart, set fire to the graphite moderator, and in general destroyed the physical plant. The rest is history.

      The photojournalist should get some kind of reward for an excellent presentation. This is the best coverage I have seen to date on the results of "Chernobyl".

    5. Re:Three Mile Island by nolife · · Score: 2, Informative

      Very good description. Small point to add to those not familiar with nuclear power generation.

      Unknown to the Operators

      They should have known! Specially a group doing "physics testing". Anyone that has ever been anywhere near operating a nuclear power plant knows about Xenon and the key times involved when dealing with Xenon. Reactor power is nothing more then summing the +'s and -'s. Some things add reactivity and some subtract it, when all factors considered equal 0, the reactor is "critical". Of course any factor that changes can easily swing it the other way. Here is a BASIC example scenario with a pressurized water type reactor:

      The operator raises the control rods which adds + reactivity (less control rods to absorb neutrons so the U23x can absorb more), that increases power and causes temperature to increase, temperature increasing causes the water density to go down which adds - reactivity (more space between water molecules so more neutrons can escape the core and not be absorbed by the U23x) and the reactor power goes back down. The final result in a minute or so is the same reactor power but the core temperature went up a few degrees. All of this can easily be calculated on paper based on a current plant design.

      Of course Chernobyl was not a pressurized water reactor and actually had a positive temperature coefficient (as temperature went up, power went up) so it would act differently but the point is the same, all things need considered.

      The effects of poisons, fuel loading, core age, current coolant temperature, and recent previous reactor power history is taught from day 1. For plants operating at consistent power levels, Xenon does stabilize and becomes less of a factor but not something you can forget about by any means. These factors and others are also taken into consideration before starting the reactor, independent parties should calculate at what rod height criticallity should occur (the US Navy requires this on paper by hand using the previous reactor operating logs, design graphs and a calculator). At that point you would realize if you were Xenon precluded (which Chernobyl apparently was). A reactor startup and warmup evolution are the *MOST* demanding for planning and potential for damage. The overall plant is going through many structural stresses due to various rates of temperature and pressure changes and is generally operating further from protective setpoints which means once something gets out of control and fission being momentum based, it takes longer to reach a setpoint before a protective action or operator action can occur, at that point, it may too late.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    6. Re:Three Mile Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The photojournalist should get some kind of reward for an excellent presentation. This is the best coverage I have seen to date on the results of "Chernobyl"."

      Likewise. The journalist is just some woman who's dad used to work at the plant. She is beautiful and brave and a biker, what more could you want. I will go to Ukraine to look for women I think.

    7. Re:Three Mile Island by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      Not only the problem was using the graphite as a moderator, but also the reactor did not have an additional system of neutron-absorbing control rods. By inserting/retracting the control rods in the main core you could suppress the generated neutrons and ultimately control the speed of the nuclear chain reactions. For example, if you fully insert these rods then the reactor is shut off. If you take them out completely, the reactor will probably overheat.

      A safety system for vertical control rods is designed to work even if there are serious failures in the electromechanical part. For example if the electrical motors are not working, this system still works since the rods will just enter in the core by gravitational force.

      For example, the US Hanford reactors built in 50's were also graphite-based. They had both horizontal control rods (for normal power control) and also a backup system of vertical control rods (to be used in emergency situations). Fortunately, the safety control rods were never used in an emergency. Even the first man-made nuclear reactor (made at University of Chicago) had a primitive system of vertical safety control rods.

      AFAIK, the Cernobyl reactors had only one horizontal set of control rods, and no safety rods.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    8. Re:Three Mile Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is true that no accident remotely like Chernobyl can happen in the United States. First of all, there is the containment building thing - even if there was a steam explosion, US reactor containment buildings are constructed to take an awful lot of pressure. Second, there's physics.

      One of the main reasons why Chernobyl happened was that the Chernobyl reactor was built so that it could have a positive temperature coefficient. A reactor with a positive temperature coefficient is a reactor in which the reaction feeds itself - the higher your power, the 'better' the reactor works. This can be due to many reasons, among which perhaps the most prominent is that the reactor can be over-moderated (too much moderator, so that, when temperature rises, moderator expands, its density decreases and less of it interferes with the reaction), which was the case with Chernobyl in the particular experiment. I can't claim to understand fully how the Soviet-design Chernobyl type reactor works, but there was something fishy about it so that it could have both a positive and a negative temperature coefficient, depending on the circumstances, and, in the experiment they were doing, they created a positive one. (There was also a lot of personnell incompetence with switching off safety systems involved).

      Now, all US reactors are undermoderated and all have a negative temperature coefficient. Very simply, this means the higher in power you go, the worse the reactor works. Thus, while US reactors can get a fuel meltdown under very, very, VERY specific circumstances (as TMI proved), a more explosive accident is impossible. To a large extent, TMI happened because of personnell incompetence (a hundred safety systems were turned off that should've remained on), but, even with a horde of blunders, the total release of radiation from TMI was comparatively miniscule - studies have shown no effect whatsoever on anyone's health from the incident.

      An ironic thing about Chernobyl that is also observed in US reactors was this: when the reactor scrammed and the control rods first dropped into the core, the power, instead of going down, went up. This is not a danger in US reactors because of the above reasons (the power spike is comparatively small and short-lived), but, in Chernobyl, it added to the mess. It happened because of the thing called neutron flux - the distribution of neutrons in the core (neutrons are what cause fission events - control rods are used to absorb them). When the control rods were first dropped, it so happened that part of the control rods went from a part of the core where there were neutrons to a part where there were none - and, as a result, less neutrons were absorbed and the power increased. . .

      I must note once again: At Chernobyl, they did everything that could be possibly done wrong and the result was a major accident. At TMI, they did everything that could be possibly done wrong (and more, it seemed), and the result was a scare, but no real threat to anyone (only losses to the company running it).

      Hailing from Eastern Europe, I enjoyed the photo gallery a lot. I thought some of it was somewhat irresponsible, though - such as claims about hundreds of thousands of people having died. Many studies show that the total number of deaths due to the accident are in the one (!) hundred (not hundred thousand) range, but numbers have been blown up by soviet and post-soviet governments and all kinds of 'helpful' agencies to attract more pity & aid (and to scare people of nuclear power). Approx. 40 people died from the immediate effects of fighting the accident. There was also a notable rise in thyroid cancer in children born after the accident - but only in thyroid cancer; the incidence of no other cancer was observed to increase. Most other deaths and problems attributed by the media to Chernobyl have been shown to be at no higher levels than in 'test populations' elsewhere in the world (it is, after all, estimated that 20% of all Americans will get cancer in their lives

    9. Re:Three Mile Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chernobyl's design is a matter of public record and is not described correctly here.

      See the book by Grigor Medvedev, _The_Truth_About_Chernobyl_
      ISBN 0-465-08776-0

      The control rods were vertical, and when finally the attempt was made to insert them, they descended 2 to 2.5 meters of the total 7 meter travel down into the core before the reactor overheated and jammed them.

      The operators turned off the electromechanical control system which should have let the rods continue to descend due to gravity.

      The control rods had a section near the tip (the lower end, first entering the reactor) that did NOT absorb neutrons. The attempt to drop the control rods into the already out of control reactor increased the neutron flux.

      The reactor design had a "positive void coefficient" -- and with all the other safety systems manually taken out of action, had already begun to fail. Dropping the control rods -- as the non-absorbing tips entered the reactor, displacing water -- increased the 'void' space and increased the neutron flux.

      50 tons of fuel evaporated in the explosion -- by comparison the Hiroshima bomb used 4.5 tons of fissionable material.

    10. Re:Three Mile Island by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      You are right - I just double-checked this and the control rods were vertical at the Chernobyl reactors. Still, other graphite-based reactors like the Hanford ones had two systems of control rods - one for normal operation (horizontal) and another one just for safety. Reading more about this on the internet, it looks like two separate control rods systems wouldn't help them anyway. The temperatures were so high that the control rods refused to enter in the reactor at some point. Anyway, thanks for the reference - I'll look for that book.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    11. Re:Three Mile Island by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >50 tons of fuel evaporated in the explosion -- >by comparison the Hiroshima bomb used >4.5 tons of fissionable material.

      Check your sources. The Hiroshima bomb might have weighed 4.5 tons altogether, but it only had a few dozen pounds of highly enriched uranium in it (those days, they were only still discovering how to enrich it efficiently). And comparing the two incidents is altogether unreasonable. In Hiroshima, only a small percentage of that already small amount of fuel fissioned - but it was through a nuclear chain reaction that had nothing to stop it and, therefore, become a thermonuclear explosion. The bulk of the damage in Hiroshima was done by those few pounds of uranium exploding, not by contamination spreading around.

      Chernobyl was the converse. There was no nuclear explosion - what made the building explode was steam pressure, which blew up the lid over the core. Then melted fuel was thrown up into the air and traveled all over the place - there was a lot more of it than in Hiroshima, but it caused a lot less damage. (And most of it stayed in the reactor building, of course).

      Hiroshima killed many people, but did not contamine the land that much. Chernobyl killed not that many, but made the area unlivable in and added to background levels in the whole world.

  134. No, more along the lines of... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Russia, evolved-rat traps YOU!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  135. Paul Fusco by andawyr · · Score: 2, Informative

    Magnum photographer Paul Fusco has some very moving photographs of Chernobyl, and it's victims. They can be found here. Magnum appears to be offline at the moment, but please, take the time to view the photographs. Very powerful stuff.

    I recently attended a presentation by Paul, and some people were reduced to tears by the photographs he showed of Chernoybl.

    It's a very sad situation.

  136. Bigger? by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    I was thinking the opposite - between the lawsuits and insurance, anyone near a reactor going up like that would be in for the biggest payday ever.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  137. List of interesting nuclear accidents. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  138. when the cost of a screwup is as dire as this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you cannot afford to listen to some egghead tell you how safe it is.

    yes france has done a good job.

    not all countries are france.

    i dont know if you ahve ever lived in a place where there isnt a lot of money to go around and the corruption of the politicians leaks down into every branch of government.

    you need people and money to maintain a nuclear power plant. consider the instability of most of the nations on earth, the corruption, and incompetence of administration, let alone the lack of education of the people who are hired to work on the nuclear systems.

    then look at the cost of a screwup.

    this is why wind, wave, solar, are very important to look into. while we wait for world civilization to perfect itself to the level of, uhm, france.

  139. want to take a tour? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.ukrcam.com/tour/tour_3.html

  140. Chernobyl game by Muhammar · · Score: 1

    Soon you will be able to visit and play in Chernobyl in from your home. The upcoming S.T.A.L.K.E.R game (inspired by bros Strugatsky sci-fi post-disaster novel) was re-enacted in Chernobyl. The screenshots are impressive:

    http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/stalker/screen in dex.html

    --
    I doubt that we will ever figure out - and I suspect that even if we did figure out we couldn't do much about it
  141. Re: Hearing nothing by tehdaemon · · Score: 1

    Hmmm. I bet this is because the only other time you expierience that kind of silence is when you _do_ have a lot of pressure in your ears.

    --
    Laws are horrible moral guides, moral guides make even worse laws.
  142. Another Chernobyl by Vejeta · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    is made by humans to humans without the need of radiation in Guantanamo.

    This Government which says that they take care of peple are making experiments with this people as nazis used to do.

    If they eventually get freedom their mind will be so fucked off that there will be no money to pay them. It's what the government of freedom and liberty chips has done.

    Can the torture and lies they told us be measured with dozimeters?

  143. In My Dreams I See That Town...Silent Hill... by engineerErrant · · Score: 1

    Though the parallel between Chernobyl and Silent Hill needed to be made, it should not reflect any real humor from my end. This sort of page is what the internet is for, and as geeks, we owe it a solemn hats-off. Here's a mirror with relative-ized links, corrected page 16 reference, and minus the crappy Angelfire adware. http://www.davidweaver.com/chernobyl/page2.html

    1. Re:In My Dreams I See That Town...Silent Hill... by adamvjackson · · Score: 1

      I thought I was the only one to make that connection after viewing those photos. Truly haunting.

  144. She removed this photo yesterday... by slashdaughter · · Score: 1

    This photo was giving Elena too much attention. Do you think she is single?
    http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/face .JPG
    _
    -

    --
    "The U.S. Constitution - not perfect, but its better than what we have now"
  145. There Will Come Soft Rains by MattTC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "There will come soft rains and the smell of the ground,
    And swallows circling with their shimmering sound;

    And frogs in the pools singing at night,
    And wild plum trees in tremulous white;

    Robins will wear their feathery fire,
    Whistling their whims on a low fence-wire;

    And not one will know of the war, not one
    Will care at last when it is done.

    Not one would mind, neither bird nor tree,
    If mankind perished utterly;

    And Spring herself, when she woke at dawn
    Would scarcely know that we were gone."

    --Sara Teasdale

    --
    --"You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think."
  146. more photos at this album.. by maxyt · · Score: 1

    The Ministry of Ukraine of Emergencies

    Chornobyl: Time of Overcoming

    http://www.mns.gov.ua/chornobyl/photo-album/index. en.php?l=en

  147. the "REAL" death toll and the real story by cdn-programmer · · Score: 4, Informative

    While not wanting to diminish the size of this catastrophie, it is nevertheless very important to actually look at the numbers and to put things into perspective.

    Please refer to the papers from the United Nations studies on this. They can be found here: UN website on the Chernobyl Disaster

    Starting with paragraph 1.26 we find a discussion. In paragraph 1.28 we find that there were some 2000 cases of thyroid cancer attributed to the radiation (iodine). However, thyroid cancer can be treated and there is no real death rate associated with the thyroid cancers.

    Next we find that the anticipated development of leukimias has not occured. In paragraph 1.36 we find this quote: unexpected appearance of early childhood thyroid cancer, the unexpected absence of leukaemia stemming from the accident.

    In paragraph 1.38 we see that there is a iodine deficiency problem in the population and that addressing this problem in a timely fashion would no doubt have made a considerable difference.

    Starting with paragraph 2.01 on page 30, we have a history of the event itself. In paragraph 2.03 I131 is discussed. This isotope has a half life of 8.05 days and were the population given an ample supply of non-radioactive iodine - through the use of simple iodized table salt - then the radioactive version would not have been picked up.

    It is really unfortunate that iodine pills could not have been distributed faster!

    On page 56 we find more telling information. 28 highly exposed individuals died within 4 months of the accident (see box 4.2). In addition to the end of 1998, 11 others died.

    in paragraph 4.18 we have more discussion of the thyroid cancers, and the esitmation is made that the total number could be as high as 8,000.

    In the end, while this certainly was a major disaster with an impact on innocent people that should not be underestimated, we are still left with the facts that the media overestimated the impact and the death rate by many orders of magnitude.

    In fact some of the pictures clearly demonstrate this. If one looks at the flora and the fauna in the pictures we see groups of wild animals happily running along totally oblivious to the radiation.

    These animals have a faster metabolic rate than humans and thus are not as radiation hardy as we are. Yet they are clearly thriving and the world they are living in, and rearing their offspring can only be described as very beautiful.

    Yes the radiation is there and yes it should not be scoffed at. But the pictures clearly show that animal life is not impacted all that much. Those horses look pretty healthy and pretty happy to me!

    1. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by leob · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here is another real story:
      a PDF document about a town in Iran with a comparable level of the natural background radiation, and people live there quite happily (or as happily as one can live in Iran, for that matter).

    2. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by dbIII · · Score: 1
      But the pictures clearly show that animal life is not impacted all that much. Those horses look pretty healthy and pretty happy to me!
      That is what is called looking at the superficial appearance of a very small sample size.
    3. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by smallfries · · Score: 1

      How does this account fit with the stories being told in this forum from people who were either a) there or b) knew people that were there?

      They suggest a much higher death toll than 39 people.

      In fact some of the pictures clearly demonstrate this. If one looks at the flora and the fauna in the pictures we see groups of wild animals happily running along totally oblivious to the radiation.

      As others have pointed out further up, nature is quite happy as long as something reproduces before it dies. People put more of an emphasis on quality of life and not dying from cancer...

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    4. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by vesik · · Score: 2, Funny

      The thing is those "horses" are really dogs.

    5. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by fermion · · Score: 1
      I was around and i didn't think the media overestimated the damage. Maybe initially, but as more information came out, the numbers came in line. The damage, as has been widely reported, was to an area, an economy, and a small group of people.

      Also, lower order animals are often going to survive. Higher metabolism also means shorter life spans and faster adaptation. Unless these animals are directly or indirectly targeted, they will usualy be fine. I live a happier life knowing that if humans off themselves we won't take all other species with us.

      I am sure the horses are happy. There are few humans around to bother them.

      BTW, for a good fictionalization of the event, try Pohl's Chernobly.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by danila · · Score: 1

      To give another perspective, almost 20 years after the catastrophe 25% of the Belarus state budget and 10% of the Ukrainian budget is still spent on Chernobyl-related issues every year.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    7. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by cdn-programmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The UN reports do address the quality of life and the impact this disaster had on 100,000's of people. Mostly the UN reports talk of the impact of the relocation and the fact there is insufficient money to help the population.

      When I read the reports I looked for hard medical data on physical imparments. Other than the thyroid cancers, this seems to be not addressed. One might erronously conclude there really were only 40 or so people who died and that no one suffers from radation effects other than this small group.

      I think it is really good to get the information out in the open. To me the UN report looks credible. But the personal accounts also look really credible and there seems to be a disconnect between them. It would be good to get more information.

      As for the flora and fauna. Yes - the horses look quite happy actually. Is there evidence of mutation in the wild animals and plants in the area? How about physical effects? Still births? Premature death?

      I'm sure the scientific community is doing research... hopefully they will publish it on slashdot or that someone from here will find it.

    8. Re:the "REAL" death toll and the real story by smallfries · · Score: 1

      Its an interesting contradiction between the two sources as you say. It does make you wonder how much politics went into the decisions made on what the report should be about. After all, deciding to focus / not focus on things can change the balance of a document quite clearly. Yes, hopefully someone out there is doing research on the wider impact of the disaster.

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
  148. This is the best slashdot link I have ever seen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and it is not really a "nerd" topic. It makes you think doesn't it.

    Very sobering piece and reminder of the dangers in the world.

  149. I was close... by drgonzo59 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I lived not that far from Cernobyl. I was 8 at the time. When it happened it was so downplayed that nobody outside that small area realized the impact, until much later. It was on the evening news and it was a 5 minute thing, my dad was a little worried but said it's probably something minor. They showed a cloud of smoke comming from the place and that's all, then other daily news followed. I also remember later, my mom saying how that year many of her plants outside had died, don't know if it is related or not. The worst is when the government had asked for volunteers to help clean-up the mess and promised appartments for those who sign up. They didn't say that when they come home to those new appartments, they won't have that time much to enjoy them. There were rumours how people with heavy doses where "cooked" that the skin and meat was comming of their bones and they couldn't even feel that.

  150. See Also... by LMNTK · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...the upcoming PC game, S.T.A.L.K.E.R. The developers of the game made a trip to Chernobyl and also took some photos of "The Zone" that are quite amazing as well. Supposedly they recreated about 60% of the real world for this game. How creepy...

    Here is the link to the photos, and here is the game.

    Both photos collections are unsettling. Just to think of what it must be like to experience Chernobyl, past or present, gives me chills. But is it not somehow fascinating to see our own technological marvels destroyed and decayed, as a sort of humbling reminder? Or am I the only one?

    -K

    1. Re:See Also... by BokLM · · Score: 1

      That's strange that they've been to the sames places the girl has been.

      Would it be possible that the 1st website is a fake to make people look at the game ?
      I hope not ...

      Does anyone know if there are there a lot of places we can visit ?

  151. my god by deviantonline · · Score: 1
    i am just blown away by this.

    so moving.

  152. woh, creepy by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    and I thought ground zero was creepy.... that beats it.

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  153. damn the chick is so hot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she's radiating!

    1. Re:damn the chick is so hot... by smchris · · Score: 1

      I'm surprised more people aren't admitting it: thoughfully poetic young girl, fast bike, post-modern cyberpunk landscape. I know I'm in love.

    2. Re:damn the chick is so hot... by hensons · · Score: 1

      Did anyone get her email address?

  154. Absolutely by Ratface · · Score: 1

    It's sites like this, blogs from warzones and similar personal accounts that make you realise the potential power of the web.

    This made my Saturday morning!

    --

    A little planning goes a long way...
  155. Another Ghost Town: Centralia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Reminds me of another ghost town I've seen (personally)... It's Centralia in Pennsylvania. You get near it where I80 meets Knobles or Route 61. (IIRC) - The story is that there was a giant waste fire burned in a open pit near a mine that ended up burning down hot enough/low enough to hit an exposed vein of coal under the mountains. The town has been burning ever since. It's not like a giant wildfire that you may first imagine, but a slowly moving, ever constantly burning coalfire underground.

    This fire started in 1961 and still burns today. Centralia no longer exists on some maps because it has been deserted (by most). Due to the underground fire, some portions of land is too hot to walk on or has simply been dried out/burned to a crisp from the heat below. I wish I still had pictures of what I was able to take (lost the pics in a HD crash.) - From a slightly higher viewpoint, you can literally see a band stretching across... sort of like a slow moving creature devouring everything in its path and turning it all charred black or seared white.

    One of the most interesting things I came across was scorched wood near an open vent: The steam coming up from the ground carried copper and baked it into the wood/bark. Lots of rocks were simply bleached white from the heat. I tried to be a dumbass and stood near an open vent to piss on the rocks... the heat was pretty damn intense. My shoes started melting (though I was standing a bit away from the vent) before I could finish urinating.

    A link. (I used some info to correct my faulty memory.)

    The Chernobyl Photo Journal is _stunning_.. I have considered going back to Centralia in the summer to do a more extensive photo documentation along the lines this young woman has. Beautiful work. First thought in my mind when I saw some of the pics was how desolate Centralia was as well... very erie and hard to describe if not for pictures.

  156. Pattern here by leomekenkamp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Iraq had weapons of mass distruction, the USSR was an empire of evil ready to conquer the world.

    Houston, we have a pattern.

    --
    Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    1. Re:Pattern here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah... those are *unmaintained* 20 year old tanks. The Soviet mechanized army was very capable of destroying western Europe. Plus they had almost 20,000 nuclear warheads, some smaller ones even pre-located in stratigic places.

  157. hrm by ircbuddy · · Score: 0

    why doesn't she get naked??

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

      That's not a she. When in doubt look for the Adams apple. Oh yeah, and the gigantic motorcycle might be a clue as well.

  158. Another dumb joke by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    --My future's so bright, I gotta wear shades.--

    The Sharp QT-107 could get shortwave, and I listened to Radio Moscow and the BBC as soon as the news hit the USA.

    Nuclear Holocaust Angst, it had been building up for so long. Eventually it had to come out.

  159. i remember by user317 · · Score: 3, Informative

    being in odessa when a bunch of "survivers" where sent to live out the last of their days. odessa, ukraine is kind of a resort town for vacationing buerocrats and a tuirist attraction for foreigners. there were mostly little kids around were our dacha was, but there were the unlucky soldiers there as well that were sent in to clean up that mess without any protection what so ever. It was really creepy seeing a bunch of hairless kids play on the beach, i was just a kid then and didnt quite understand what was going on but the images stuck, but it could explain why i harbor so much resentment towards anyone associated with that regime.

    --
    me fail english? thats unpossible
  160. Re:Dangerous? ever wrecked? i have. by citmanual · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am an American who got a bike license in the Netherlands. I wrecked my 95 Honda VFR750 two years ago, nearly to the day, on the north side of Hilversum, NL.

    I was going about 45 mph, which isn't terribly quick, and things went awry. I was wearing a Clover textile jacket (hard armour, not unlike what the Ukraine girl was wearing with Kawa green). Triple stitched Carhartt jeans were covering my posterior.

    The hard armour and the jacket saved me from a broken arm. My leather gloves kept my hands clean, and the jeans split at the center seam.

    The results we a broken tailbone and a tiny bit of rash on my ace. I skidded over 25 ft and it's amazing what jeans will protect you from.

    I walked away. The bike was totaled, despite me riding it home. You'd be amazed at what it really takes to cause serious damage.

  161. Poor Ukrainian bastards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not to defend Ukrainian government, the gal said it right, what a terrible thing it was to inherit this disaster with Ukraine's independence. Do you know that Ukrainians pay around 10% of their wages as the "Chernobyl tax"? This nation has to guard and maintain a huge exclusion zone right next to their capital city. No one would help them build a new encasing to replace the old one. No one would give any significant medical or environmental assistance. The poor bastards have to either do it themselves or die of radiation. It is ironious that the biggest help to treat tens of thousands of sick children came from the Cuban government. Chernobyl is just the very recent disaster for Ukraine, but it's far from the largest. In 1933 alone Russian Bolsheviks killed 8 million peasants. There was plenty of suffering before and after that.

  162. Yay! I was counted as dead! by Alex+Belits · · Score: 0, Troll

    Some tell about 400.000 dead, other about half million.

    I am sure, I was counted among those "dead" (I lived about 90km from the power plant, and there are only few millions of people within the that radius).

    Dad says that those figures rised very high and so far death rate is 80.000-120.000 but it will be more because people will die within next 50-70 years

    Most of the people who are reading this sentence will be dead within the next 50-70 years. This is how dangerous it is.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  163. Chernobyl == example of Isaiah 13 by xjqkojqxj · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Isaiah 13:
    19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
    20 It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation: neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there; neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
    21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there.
    22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses, and dragons in their pleasant palaces: and her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged.

    1. Re:Chernobyl == example of Isaiah 13 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dragons?????

  164. Radiation death... by Cougem · · Score: 1

    Actually, some people coming back to their homes and settle down, those mostly old people who do not care if they die today or tomorrow. important is to die at home.

    I wonder if they know what a death from radiation poisoning is really like?

  165. s.t.a.l.k.e.r by graincloud · · Score: 1

    A Russian team of game designers is almost finished with Stalker, a fps/rpg based on the Dead zone. Check out http://www.stalker-game.com It's creepy, but certainly not as creepy as the real thing. But shooting the looting maruaders is gonna be a fun time. They have their own graphics engine am told, and from the earlier, dx9 demos, it looks damn good. Physics engine is havok I believe, if not, a similar varient. shacknews.com has been all over it for a while now.

  166. Dozimeter == Dosimeter by kerb · · Score: 2, Informative

    for those who know what it is (like me), heres from wikipedia :

    A dosimeter is a pen-like device that measures the cumulative dose of radiation received by the device. It is usually clipped to one's clothing to measure one's actual exposure to radiation. Magnifying lenses (a low-power microscope) and an illumination lens allow one to directly read the dose by aiming the illumination lens at a light source and looking into the device.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dosimeter

  167. Whoa... by the+JoshMeister · · Score: 1


    Did she use babel to translate that for her or what?

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

      Um, I think the author intended for this to be modded Funny. Ever used babel to try to translate something? It looks almost *exactly* like that!

  168. That one safe city by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Someone please check my math:

    81.6 microentgen= 81.6 millionths of an Entgen

    1 Entgen=1 REM

    1 REM=1000 millirem

    1 millionth of 1 REM=1 microrem, or .001mrem=1 microentgen

    .0816 mrem=81.6 microentgen x 24 hours=1958.4 microentgen x 365=714816 microentgen=.7 REM per year

    For doses less than 1 rem "The risk from radiation exposure of this amount is too small to estimate." For doses 1 to 5 rem: "The risk from radiation exposure of this amount is considered to be similar to other every day risks, such as driving a car."

    sources and respective average annual dosages of background radiation from each source are as follows: [1] Terrestrial (radiation from soil and rocks): 0.05 rem. [2] Cosmic (radiation from outer space): 0.05 rem. [3] Radioactivity normally found within human body: 0.025 rem. Depending geographic and other factors, the range of cumulative annual dose of background radiation is 0.075 to 5.0 rem, with an average dose of 0.125 rem.

    The preliminary results of cytogenetical, immunological and hematological studies on the residents of high background radiation areas of Ramsar have been previously reported (Mortazavi et al. 2001, Ghiassi-Nejad et al. 2002 and Mortazavi et al. in press), suggesting that exposure to high levels of natural background radiation can induce radioadaptive response in human cells. Lymphocytes of Ramsar residents when subjected to 1.5 Gy of gamma rays showed fewer induced chromosome aberrations compared to residents in a nearby control area whose lymphocytes were subjected to the same radiation dose. Despite the fact that in in vitro experiments lymphocytes of some individuals show a synergistic effect after pretreatment with a low dose(Mortazavi et al. 2000), none of the residents of high background radiation areas showed such a response.

    Based on results obtained in studies on high background radiation areas of Ramsar, high levels of natural radiation may have some bio-positive effects such as enhancing radiation-resistance. More research is needed to assess if these bio-positive effects have any implication in radiation protection (Mortazavi et al. 2001). The risk from exposure to low-dose radiation has been highly politicized for a variety of reasons. This has led to a frequently exaggerated perception of the potential health effects, and to lasting public controversies

    There are many other areas with high levels of background radiation around the world, and epidemiological studies have indicated that natural radiation in these areas is not harmful for the inhabitants. Results obtained in our study are consistent with the hypothesis that a threshold possibly separates the health effects of natural radiation from the harm of large doses. This threshold seems to be much higher than the greatest level of natural radiation.

    The International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) recommends and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) mandates an occupational annual dose equivalent limit for the whole body no more than 5 rem/year and no more than 10 rem in 5 years [4], [20]. No short-term health effects (i.e., no blood changes) are detectable at this dose equivalent. The occupational annual dose equivalent limit for the eye lens is 15 rem/year and for other individual organs and body extremities (hands or feet) 50 rem/year. The whole-body limit (5 rem/year) is further internally reduced by various US federal agencies, for example to an administrative control level 2 rem/year for the Department of Energy (DOE) radiation workers

    25 to 35 Human body's own radiation dose per year from radioactive elements and minerals in the body.

    +245 Exposure of one 70 pound youth in Federal research at the Fernald School by MIT in the 1940s, using trace elements to track iron
    absorption while eating cereal. The research showed iron supplements should not be taken with meals.

    Product: Tobacco

    Body Portion: Lung

  169. Industrial pollution as brought to you by Dubya... by WIAKywbfatw · · Score: 1

    Well, it's a good thing that all those industrial waste materials are 100 percent safe, and that there aren't any companies that put profits before public health and the environment nowadays, because there are only 200 public health and environmental laws that George W. Bush has attempted to downgrade or weaken since he came into office.

    Bush's presidency is a godsend to anyone who wants to make even more money by tossing the safety manual out of the window.

    --

    "Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
  170. you missed a page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:you missed a page by klokop · · Score: 1

      thanx, i didn't notice.

      --
      Passing silhouettes of strange illuminated mannequins
    2. Re:you missed a page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, the link on page 15 went directly to page 17.. is page 16 an easter egg page?

      probably just a small mistake.

  171. Re:Three Mile Island vs Chernobyl by WuphonsReach · · Score: 4, Informative

    The differences between TMI and Chernobyl are essentially those of design and the ways in which they affected the disaster.

    Unlike TMI, Chernobyl almost seemed to be "how dumb can we be and get away with it". (See the quote: "like airplane pilots experimenting with the engines in flight".)

    --
    Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
  172. Yes, there are... by imsabbel · · Score: 1

    Those worms pictured in gozilla were based on real reasearch.
    I also have seen something about a scientist watching mice. It seems that the radiation isnt as harmfull for them as for us, and works mostly as a evolutionary jumpstart.

    Its not so illogical. Mice get 10-20 offspring a year, statistically 19 have to die so there isnt a population explosion. Noone cares if they starve, get eaten by predators or have birth defect/cancer. With humans, 5% mortality per year is a cathastrophy, with animals it doesnt matter...

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  173. Wow. by Vthornheart · · Score: 1

    That was probably the most powerful thing I have read in a long time. I'm glad to have seen it, and I hope that the site doesn't get /.ed out of existence. That was... well, damn powerful. Wow.

    --
    -Vendal Thornheart
  174. Much-hyped? I don't think so by Helge9210 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The much-hyped 100,000 excess cancers have not appeared.

    Is it so? Tell me than, why my friends, relatives, friends of relatives, and relatives of friends have died or are dying because of cancer?

    1. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they smoke to much?

    2. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cancer is a really common disease anyway. It's the biggest cause of death, bar heart disease, in other countries. Around Chernobyl, most people will naturally blame Chernobyl for all of the cancers, when the vast majority of cancers were/are naturally induced.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    3. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It used to be called old-age.....

    4. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes yes yes.
      So, the incredibly high % of cancers for that group is clearly just a statistical anomolly, and has nothing to do the all the radiation.

    5. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by nutznboltz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Silver Lining in Chernobyl's Cloud

      Published by the Sunday New York Times
      September 03, 2000

      The loudest protest over the closing of the nuclear plant is coming from a most unlikely place: the people who work there. What's a little radiation when it puts food on the table?

      By MATTHEW BRZEZINSKI

      There was a time when Leonid Aniskin was frightened of radiation. But that was before he went to work at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. He still remembers his first day on the job. It was in 1987, a little over a year after an explosion had ripped the roof off the plant's fourth reactor block. "The trees in the forest behind the station had all died," he recalls. "The pine needles had turned red and dropped off."

      Soldiers were burying the radioactive tree trunks when he arrived for his first shift. Everywhere he looked there were men in masks and dark rubber suits, and orange bulldozers scraping away the contaminated soil.

      The station's three undamaged reactors were all up and running by then, ordered back on line by Soviet central planners. While the world was still reeling from a disaster that spewed radiation over much of northern Europe and forced the evacuation of more than 100,000 people, the Kremlin was wrestling with a different issue: where to find workers willing to operate the stricken plant.

      Aniskin was 27 at the time, a champion marathon runner and a newly graduated acoustical engineer. He and his wife, Marina, had just celebrated their first wedding anniversary and the birth of their son, Igor. Like most young couples, they were living in a crowded dormitory near the Kiev airport while waiting for a state apartment in a soulless high-rise. In those days, newlyweds faced years if not decades of communal showers and public toilets before they were assigned their own place.

      There was a way, however, to bypass the waiting list. The Kremlin was building a new city 40 miles from Chernobyl -- just outside the depopulated Exclusion Zone -- a town unimaginably luxurious by Soviet standards. The nation's best builders had been harnessed for the showcase project, and construction crews from eight Soviet republics were working double-time to erect housing districts in the traditional styles of their lands.

      Brand-new apartments were to be had in this "model city," which the Kremlin christened Slavutich after the Russian word for glory, and jobs that paid 10 times the average national wage. All Aniskin had to do to win this Faustian Soviet sweepstakes was sign up to work at Chernobyl.

      "When Igor was born," he says, with the conviction of someone looking back on a difficult decision that came out right, "I decided to offer my family a chance at a better life."

      It is a warm and breezy Saturday morning in Slavutich. Mothers push baby strollers in the central parade ground, and children play near the memorials to posthumous Heroes of Soviet Labor. In the Riga district, plant bosses tend their flower gardens, while the six-foot-wide Geiger counter over the pediatric wing of the nearby hospital flashes a reassuring 15.4 microroentgens -- about the same as in Denver -- if you stick within city limits, where the contaminated soil has been removed.

      Leonid Aniskin has already run his daily 10 miles and is cooking breakfast for his family and me. The aroma of fish and fried potatoes fills the sunny second-story apartment and drifts into the living room, where Igor, now a tall and big-boned teenager, sits transfixed by a sumo wrestling match on ESPN's Eurosport. Aniskin brings out a pot of coffee and clamps his son in a good-natured headlock. "You don't want to become like them," he gibes in mock horror, pointing to the jiggling giants on the screen.

      "Papa is a little crazy when it comes to exercise," announces Igor, who has his father's earnest face to go with short, spiky hair. Aniskin takes the rejoinder in stride. His thick hair may have grown silvery around the edges these past 13 years and he may have lost a step or two,

    6. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by Helge9210 · · Score: 1
      Cancer is a really common disease anyway.

      My grandfather have died because of cancer (he was 75), my friend died because of cancer (he was 29), father of my classmate died because of cancer (he was 45 and worked at Chernobyl, building a sarcophagus), even my dog and rat have died because of cancer.


      I asked my friend from Khabarovsk (Russia, Far East): "Do you know someone, who died or going to die because of cancer?", "No", he reply, "Why?".


      Here in Ukraine everyone knows someone, who died of cancer, and it wasn't before a Chernobyl.


      There is a lie, a bigger lie and a statistics.


    7. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 1
      That's pretty much in line with my experience though; my grandfather died of cancer (lung cancer- he was a big smoker), one grandmother died of cancer, my hamster died of cancer, a colleague at work she died of cancer, a family friend died of cancer. My aunts dog recently died of cancer.

      But I live in the UK.

      I'm not saying that there aren't more cancers around Chernobyl, particularly thyroid cancers, but I am saying that there's a heck of a lot of cancer everywhere anyway.

      Basically, every day, every cell in my and your body has atleast one strand of DNA break. These get patched up pretty well most of the time. But some of those breaks can eventually lead to cancer.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    8. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by Helge9210 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that there aren't more cancers around Chernobyl, particularly thyroid cancers, but I am saying that there's a heck of a lot of cancer everywhere anyway.

      Here is a lot more cancers around Chernobyl.

      I can't understand why explosion of "dirty" bomb in London city believed to cause cancer and other deceases, but Chernobyl which was a huge "dirty" bomb isn't.

    9. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by 4ntifa · · Score: 1
      That's pretty much in line with my experience though; my grandfather died of cancer (lung cancer- he was a big smoker), one grandmother died of cancer, my hamster died of cancer, a colleague at work she died of cancer, a family friend died of cancer. My aunts dog recently died of cancer.

      But I live in the UK.


      I haven't got the statistics to back it up and I don't have the time to look up any (I'm at work), but I'm quite sure that cancer is more common in the West than the East. It's all those chemicals we keep ingesting, inhaling, etc. Not to mention that we live longer and thus accumulate more carsinogens (sp?) during our lifespan.

      So, comparing UK and Ukraine to determine the effects of Tchernobyl doesn't paint a realistic picture.
      --
      -=- 4ntifa -=-
    10. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think harder.

      Then graph cancer rate vs. average life-span.

    11. Re:Much-hyped? I don't think so by varjag · · Score: 1

      Would you debate that smoking causes cancer? No, because there is a strong correlation between smoking and probability of lung cancer.

      Similarily, there are certain forms of cancer that manifest mainly due to radioactive contamination. Thyroid gland is known to accumulate iodine, which is normally not radioactive, but in contaminated areas is prevaletnly present as a radioactive isotope. Hence, a person (esp. a child) living there would inevitably accumulate a lot of radioactive material in the small volume of the gland, thus greatly increasing likehood of tissue pathology in that area.

      I live in Belarus (where about 70% of Chernobyl contamination fell out), and since the accident the thyroid gland is on routine medical checklist here. Large percentage of children here have gland anomalities, but due to proper profilactics (e.g. consuming salt enriched with non-radioactive iod) very few cases develop do cancer.

      However some definitely do, and people die.

      --
      Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
  175. Contacting kidofspeed. by torpor · · Score: 1


    I couldn't find her e-mail address, but I would like to congratulate her on making my bookmarks, getting her own complete mirror dir on my 'stuff for the future' archive, and generally giving me the boot in the ass that I needed to start off a very creative Saturday.

    Sites like that are what the Internet is all about. Thank you, kidofspeed, wherever you are.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:Contacting kidofspeed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ditto. I'd mod you to the ceiling if I had points left...

  176. More Chernobyl Images by Devar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    These were taken on a visit to the Chernobyl area by staff of the upcoming game "STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl" (based on the Chernobyl area)...

    I could not find the original hosted site, but I had it backed up so I uploaded it for everyone here. It is very haunting. Anyway, check it out:

    http://ii.net/~eenhoorn/s/Chernobyl/chern.html

    --
    It's a Bagel.
  177. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So why don't they just make people wear protective suits and build another nuclear reactor there? At least this way if there is another melt down it is already in a contaminated area.

  178. Many Children are ill by AShocka · · Score: 2, Informative

    I have a friend living in Dnepropetrovsk and she says that most children in the vicinity have a weaker immune system and suffer allergies and all sorts of ailments.

  179. Mayak by JoeBaldwin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Greenpeace released a similar site a while back about the Mayak plant. The Mayak plant released the same amount of radiation over 50 years than Chernobyl released at once, and it's totally fucked up the area. Minatom don't want to shut it down and they're still reprocessing fuel.

    Half Life: The Dangerous Effects Of Nuclear Waste

  180. Nuclear power for maximum profit - rubber stamp by dbIII · · Score: 5, Informative
    Going to the dentist for an x-ray gives you more dangerous radiation
    Funny thing about Three Mile Island - one x-ray in the right place and it wouldn't have happened. A few hundred x-rays in a more convenient spot with a dishonest person changing the numbers over, and no-one apart from the dishonest contrator ever looking at those x-rays and it did happen.

    Nuclear safety always should be more than just a guy with a rubber stamp - hopefully three mile island and the subsequent court case changed all of that.

    Those who think nuclear accidents can never happen in the good old USA should consider superior or more expensive technology is worthless if the lowest bidding contactors don't even do the job, and no-one is there to see that they haven't done the job.

    TMI was nothing like Chernobyl.
    Different situation, different outcome, but we can learn from both, so long as we stick to the technical instead of the emotional, and keep nationalism out of it. The lesson I get from Three Mile Island is to watch your contractors - they may not care if what they do can result in a major catastrophe. The lesson I get from Chernobyl is that a steam explosion is far more catastropic when nuclear material can get scattered around - so the design has to avoid that and try to bring it down to a less major incident.

    The main problem with nuclear power today is we keep having to subsidise the plants we have - shutting them down is usually a bigger problem than keeping them going. We just have to pour cash in to keep this 1950's white elephant going - at least in the UK where they are not supported by the same weird financial misdirection that makes the US plants appear to make a profit. Maybe when defence in the USA gets pissed off and wants a bit more of their own budget it will also become clear to people in the USA nuclear plants are made up of a lot of expensive parts and require expensive maintainance - it's not a cheap way to boil water.

    1. Re:Nuclear power for maximum profit - rubber stamp by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Canada (Ontario) has had cost problems with their nuclear reactors as well. Our reactors went down for maintenance or something and they still havent' come back online. They are several years late and several billions over budget. Right now, Ontario faces a dilemma about these nuclear reactors: do you pump several billions more to bring them back up (we still don't know how much we need to spend) or somehow manage to phase out their usage (resulting in increased coal power usage)?

      When I was younger (teens :) ) I was more optimistic about nuclear power. These days, I think they are totally useless. I would rather spend billions on some other alternative energy (say developing batteries to store huge quantities of solar energy, or something).

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  181. So tiresome... by iion_tichy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever Chernobyl is mentioned, there are always those people eager to explain why it doesn't matter, because the same thing couldn't happen with more advanced reactors. Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure....

    Of course the SAME thing couldn't happen. But other things could/will/do. Anyone who is an engineer knows that, as there simply are no perfect fail-safe systems.

    Here in germany people were also priding themselves about their fail-safe reactors, especiually compared to Chernobyl. But then along came 9/11, and they wondered what would happen if a Jumbo Jet would crash on the nuclear power plant. No, the shielding wouldn't hold - the best idea they come up with now is to use fog bombs to make the plant invisible. Like that's going to make a difference with GPRS available.

    You know, the nature of such catstrophies is that they come in a way nobody has thought of before. Of course Chernobyl has been analyzed over and over, and people won't make the SAME mistakes. But you bet they'll make OTHER mistakes. To deny that is just being in denial.

    1. Re:So tiresome... by Penguinshit · · Score: 1


      Well, up until now, no one ever thought someone would drive a large jetliner into a reactor. The plants are and were designed to be safe from themselves, not from a large external explosive force.

      So yes, the plants used now are much safer (the Chernobyl design was *never* approved for large civilian use in the US - only small weapons-production reactors). They are designed to contain the reactor core in the event of a problem with the core itself. I guess the answer to the jetliner problem is to put the reactor core 100 feet underground (try driving much of anything into that).

    2. Re:So tiresome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you're right.

      Clearly we should just renounce all progress and climb back into the trees, while there still are any trees.

      Otherwise, we'll all be vulnerable to something, and we just might die someday... if not at the end of a rope, then at the end of a chain of improbable events like some assclown crashing a 747 into a reactor vessel. (Of course, they couldn't quite manage to hit one of the largest buildings in the world -- the Pentagon -- dead-on, but the point is, they could, right?

      Blah. I demand a DNA test. I don't think we're members of the same race, after all.

    3. Re:So tiresome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does having GPRS help? People going to PXT in the location on their mobile phones? ;)

    4. Re:So tiresome... by dustmite · · Score: 1

      Straw-man straw-man straw-man ... *sigh*, now *that* is tiresome. Yeah, that's the ticket, claim the parent made all sorts of claims that he/she very obviously didn't.

    5. Re:So tiresome... by iion_tichy · · Score: 1

      How does having GPRS help? People going to PXT in the location on their mobile phones? ;)

      I didn't work out a complete scheme of how to hit a power plant with a jumbo jet, but yes, why not zone in using GPRS? Surely it's possible to determine the coordinates of the targets before launching the assault. (I don't know what PXT means?).

    6. Re:So tiresome... by TheScienceKid · · Score: 1

      I think he (or she) is reffering to the fact that GPRS (aka General Packet Radio Service) is a 'phone network and that GPS (aka Global Positioning System) would be a better bet. I'm sure you could triangulate with GPRS, but you would need the 'phone company's assistance as they generally don't relay that information to you and even if they did, the 'phone companies could just decide not to give you your location if you were anywhere near a power plant. GPS, on the other hand, relies on YOU triangulating your own location with multiple timing signals sent by satellite that are accurate to very small fractions of a second (therefore, one can calculate one's distance from each satellite based on the difference in the time readings), although there are more accurate signals sent by the satellites, these are encrypted (hence why only the military can make use of those). HTH TheScienceKid

    7. Re:So tiresome... by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      I don't know what you build in Germany, but American reactors can take an airliner and not even blink. Well, the control rooms and other outlying buildings will be toast, of course, but the core is inside several feet of steel-reinforced concrete and it won't even notice than you drove several hundred tons of fully-fueled airliner into it.

      There are different degrees of fail-safe. For example, I can be 100% sure that my computer will not explode with enough energy to level my house, because there simply is no physical way for that to happen. Likewise, it is possible to design nuclear reactors which have no physical way of exploding or melting down. I'm not talking about safety systems, I'm talking about physics. Even with no safety systems, such a reactor could not cause a disaster like Chernobyl.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:So tiresome... by iion_tichy · · Score: 1

      I think he (or she) is reffering to the fact that GPRS (aka General Packet Radio Service) is a 'phone network and that GPS (aka Global Positioning System) would be a better bet.

      Thanks, I am always mixing up those two abbreviations. But I think it was clear what I really meant.

    9. Re:So tiresome... by iion_tichy · · Score: 1, Troll

      I don't know what you build in Germany, but American reactors can take an airliner and not even blink. Well, the control rooms and other outlying buildings will be toast, of course, but the core is inside several feet of steel-reinforced concrete and it won't even notice than you drove several hundred tons of fully-fueled airliner into it.

      Are you sure? As far as I remember, there were concerns about aircrafts before 9/11, and german power plants have the concrete shield as well. But maybe they only thought of smaller aircrafts. Steel-inforced concrete maybe sounds good from the point of view of human being, consisting largely out of soft material like water. Jumbo Jets might be less impressed. And what about those new rockets the US developed to penetrate bunkers 12m below rock?

      it is possible to design nuclear reactors which have no physical way of exploding or melting down.

      interesting point, although surely a power plant contains more energy than a PC, so it seems less obvious to me why the explosion couldn't be big enough to blow up my house. So how is it supposed to work? Is there some kind of feedback loop to decrease the activity the hotter it gets (or whatever, I am no nuclear scientist)? Does that loop work without extra controlers, which might have been destroyed in the case of an accident?

    10. Re:So tiresome... by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Insightful
      As far as I remember, there were concerns about aircrafts before 9/11, and german power plants have the concrete shield as well.

      After 9/11 there were concerns about all kinds of things. There were concerns about arab-looking people having graduation parties on their lawns. Post-9/11 concerns have remarkably little to do with the real world.

      But maybe they only thought of smaller aircrafts. Steel-inforced concrete maybe sounds good from the point of view of human being, consisting largely out of soft material like water. Jumbo Jets might be less impressed.

      This isn't theoretical, it's been tested. Not with a jumbo jet, but with a rocket-propelled F-4 Phantom. It's smaller than a large airliner, but it has larger engines, and it's the engines that have real penetrating power. Don't make the mistake of comparing with the WTC; those buildings were mostly open space and were not designed to take any kind of impact.

      And what about those new rockets the US developed to penetrate bunkers 12m below rock?

      What about them? There's no way a terrorist would get ahold of one of those. I'm not saying there's no way to breach a reactor's containment. However, with most methods of doing so, whatever breaches the containment is likely to be as dangerous to the surrounding countryside as the containment breach itself.

      it is possible to design nuclear reactors which have no physical way of exploding or melting down.

      interesting point, although surely a power plant contains more energy than a PC, so it seems less obvious to me why the explosion couldn't be big enough to blow up my house. So how is it supposed to work? Is there some kind of feedback loop to decrease the activity the hotter it gets (or whatever, I am no nuclear scientist)? Does that loop work without extra controlers, which might have been destroyed in the case of an accident?


      Yes, it's possible to make a reactor which reacts less as it gets warmer, without any systems at all. Building a reactor isn't a matter of just piling enriched uranium together until you have enough of it in one place. (You can, but it's really inefficient and nobody actually does.) Instead, you have a very complex system involving enriched uranium, moderators, neutron reflectors, etc. which all have to be in exactly the right position for anything to happen. When stuff heats up, it expands, and it's possible to make it so that this expansion makes the reactor less reactive. Even ignoring that, once the reactor heats up to a certain point, things will start to bend and break, which will knock everything completely out of position and the reaction will stop right away. The China Syndrome (a core melting and sinking to the center of the earth because it keeps itself out) is basically impossible.

      Chernobyl was also like this, in fact it's hard to make a reactor that isn't. The giant mistakes in Chernobyl was that it didn't have a containment structure, and it used graphite as the moderator. Graphite is carbon, and carbon burns really nicely. What happened was that the reactor core heated up extremely and set the graphite on fire. That fire threw large pieces of the core into the atmosphere. The way to keep similar accidents from happening is simple: don't put highly-flammable substances in your reactor core! With a sane reactor design, you could even breach the containment dome and nothing really terrible would happen because all of the nasty substances will still stay in one place, absent a large quantity of explosives or flammable substances.
      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    11. Re:So tiresome... by iion_tichy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Post-9/11 concerns have remarkably little to do with the real world.

      I was only mentioning that as an example that unforessen things can happen, not because 9/11 made me particulary worried.

      whatever breaches the containment is likely to be as dangerous to the surrounding countryside as the containment breach itself.

      I don't think so, surely spreading radioactive waste is more perilious than just creating a big hole in the floor.

      With a sane reactor design, you could even breach the containment dome and nothing really terrible would happen because all of the nasty substances will still stay in one place, absent a large quantity of explosives or flammable substances.

      Unless a jumbo jet crashes into it... Thanks for your infos, but I am not fully convinced yet. It seems to me you are mostly making the old point, that an accident like Chernobyl couldn't happen in modern plants. My point was that other things can happen, that we didn't take into consideration yet. Your point with the PC that can't explode was a good one, however, you kind of refuted your own argument by admitting that the Chernobyl reactor was following similiar principles as other reactors. So apparently even with such a technology, the stuff in the core is still dangerous. It doesn't always take explosions, for example - maybe some evapourated polluted water would do the trick just as nicely? (but again, this is just an example trying to make a theoretical point - don't bother replying by explaining why water can't evaporate etc., we could go on like that forever).

    12. Re:So tiresome... by HeghmoH · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Thanks for your infos, but I am not fully convinced yet. It seems to me you are mostly making the old point, that an accident like Chernobyl couldn't happen in modern plants. My point was that other things can happen, that we didn't take into consideration yet.

      Fair enough. But I would like to point out that doubting the safety of nuclear power in general because of a single accident, while simultaneously not understanding how nuclear power works from an engineering and physics standpoint, is foolish. Nitrate-based explosives have killed more people than nuclear power and nuclear weapons ever have, but I don't see people subsequently doubting the safety of their nitrate-based fertilizers. What I see is, people are frightened of nuclear power because they don't understand it and they can only imagine the bad, and I don't feel this is justified. Please don't take this as a personal insult, I mean this as something I see in people in general.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    13. Re:So tiresome... by iion_tichy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But I would like to point out that doubting the safety of nuclear power in general because of a single accident, while simultaneously not understanding how nuclear power works from an engineering and physics standpoint, is foolish.

      There simply is a big difference: coal power plant blows up (if it can), maybe a city is polluted for a few months or years. Nuclear power plant blows up, whole continent might be polluted (or whatever), perhaps for hundreds or thousands of years. I believe you that as long as nothing bad happens, nuclear power is better for the environment. But I don't believe that taking into consideration the risk*damage equation, nuclear power is still so good. I think most people in favour of nuclear power just forget to multiply by 'damage' in the above equation. The odds of winning in the lottery are also neglectible, but people are becoming millionaires because of the lottery every week.

      I don't think it's just that people don't understand it enough. Would you go out and fertilize your vegetables with Plutonium? Why not? I think there goes your strange nitrate-analogy (which to me seems completely unrelated - as long as we don't blow up the whole planet, you can find an infinite list of things that have killed more people than nuclear weapons).

      The bottom line is: nuclear power is NOT a harmless thing, and the only mistake is not that people don't know it's harmless. You have to admit that you have to handle it in the right way. Think about coal - people have been storing coal in their cellars for ages, carrying it to the ovens by hand. Would you recommend the same with nuclear power? I think that shows that there is a fundamental difference that people are aware of. Sure, maybe burning those fossile fuels in the long run also kills, but that's yet another issue (I don't want to recommend fossile fuels, either).

    14. Re:So tiresome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nitrate-based explosives have killed more people than nuclear power and nuclear weapons ever have, but I don't see people subsequently doubting the safety of their nitrate-based fertilizers"

      the reason that nuclear power/weapons are scarier than nitrate are because there effects last for hundreds of years. where as effects nitrate based explosives are over after the first explosion.

    15. Re:So tiresome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coal fires burn underground for decades. google burning coal fires. 18years vs. 40years. just destruction for thought

    16. Re:So tiresome... by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      In a CANDU, yes, there is something that decreses the activity if it gets too hot. The coolant is heavy water. The heavy water also acts to conduct the neutrons between the fuel rods. If the coolant leaks out, the reaction cannot continue because the neutrons are not traveling at the right speed anymore. In a normal reactor, if the rods get too hot they melt down and away. Once away from the coolant and control rods, the chain reaction speeds up, since nothing is absorbing the neutrons anymore, and nothing is absorbing the heat. In a CANDU reactor, this won't happen.

      And as long as we are talking about 9/11, 2 of the 9/11 planes passed OVER an operating nuclear reactor. The air around nuclear reactors is highly restricted. Normally, whenever a plane gets close Airforce jets are scrambled to warn it and/or shoot it down. This is also what is supposed to happen within 5 minutes of a jet's transponder going off-line, or a loss of radio contact. These arn't new rules, they have always been in place.

      The long and the short is, on 9/11, they could have crashed into two nuclear reactors, possibly killing everybody in the north eastern corridor. Others have pointed out that the reinforced concrete could take it. Maybe they knew this and didn't bother trying. But either way, there are strict airspace rules designed to prevent this sort of thing, it's just that on 9/11 people decided not to bother with the rules.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    17. Re:So tiresome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, up until now, no one ever thought someone would drive a large jetliner into a reactor.

      Many reactors in the US can withstand direct hits with airliners. It's just that airliners have gotten bigger since they were designed. That was also true of the World Trade Center.

    18. Re:So tiresome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more a slippery-slope argument than a straw-man fallacy. The grandparent poster was arguing that if something is potentially dangerous, we shouldn't build it, because something bad might happen.

      My argument would be: do it, and be careful.

      See the difference?

    19. Re:So tiresome... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what you build in Germany, but American reactors can take an airliner and not even blink. Well, the control rooms and other outlying buildings will be toast, of course, but the core is inside several feet of steel-reinforced concrete and it won't even notice than you drove several hundred tons of fully-fueled airliner into it.

      US reactors can take an airliner hit when they are designed. But you can't know how big airliners will get. Many reactors will not survive a hit from the largest airliner today.

      There are different degrees of fail-safe. For example, I can be 100% sure that my computer will not explode with enough energy to level my house, because there simply is no physical way for that to happen.

      Your computer can short out and start a fire that burns your house down.

      Likewise, it is possible to design nuclear reactors which have no physical way of exploding or melting down. I'm not talking about safety systems, I'm talking about physics. Even with no safety systems, such a reactor could not cause a disaster like Chernobyl.

      Yeah, right. Maybe a reactor that doesn't produce enough electricity to power anything. The fact that the fuel can power a city leads me to believe it can blow itself apart.

  182. Toxic chemicals are real - read a MSDS by dbIII · · Score: 1
    Wow, welcome to the 1940's. Where have you been in this last half century? I'd say the furious over-regulation by governments world-wide is unbelievable.
    It was a reaction to some very nasty events. People died from a variety of poisons and regultion was increased. In my own fairly well educated country farmers didn't read pesticide labels and died from high doses as a result. Lots of people died from asbestos in the century after a British insurance company refused to insure asbestos workers. Those that need to work with toxic chemicals still can, but the regulations make it sure that you are not going to get exposed to any really toxic chemical unless you actually work with them. As for those micrograms of mercury, only a thousand batteries and you have grams - you have to think on an industrial scale about these things.
    No, the biggest environmental threat to humans isn't either radiation or chemicals, it's ignorance, stupidity, and paranoia.
    Tell that to people along the Danube, they got a big shock last year. Various regulations cut down on things like that occuring. Toxic chemicals are real, but people are far more careful about them than they were in the past. I can show you two mining towns in my country with no vegetation for quite some distance on the downwind side of the smelters, and I'm sure there are similar things in all industrialised countires - and there are good reasons why people don't live in those spots.

    I've been sprayed by a cropduster, worked with asbestos, mercury, HF, coal dust, many kinds of toxic chemicals and zapped by 240V and suffered no ill effects whatsover, but that certainly does not mean that any of these things are safe - all of the above have killed people under different circumstances. All of these things are kept controlled for a good reason.

    1. Re:Toxic chemicals are real - read a MSDS by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      Actually, in a lot of cases, new and more stringent regulations are the result of a new ability to measure things more accurately, and a lobbying effort by interests who will benefit from greater regulation.

      Asbestos is an excellent example. The inert asbestos in many public buildings is more of a hazard when they bring in highly-paid moon suit types who scrap and stir it up into dust, than it is stabilized and in solid form. If there's a case for no longer producing the asbestos-bearing, so be it. The problem of disposing the installed base of asbestos-bearing is a long term one, to be dealt with at end-of-life for facilitys containing it. Not an alarmist get-rich-quick scheme for opportunists.

      The people who die from asbestos are people exposed to mega-doses of it in industrial/mining operations.

      But asbestos removal was a 'growth industry' in the 90's, an excellent way for people with connections to make a lot of money.

      --
      ---
    2. Re:Toxic chemicals are real - read a MSDS by dbIII · · Score: 1
      The people who die from asbestos are people exposed to mega-doses of it in industrial/mining operations.
      No, it isn't a dose thing, it is a one inert fibre trapped in the lungs forever thing where the chance goes up with increased exposure. Asbestos is safe enough to eat, but getting it in your lungs is a very bad thing - hence the highly paid moon suit guys who are there to limit the number of people exposed to loose fibres blowing around in offices (only a problem when things crumble, which they will eventually do).
      But asbestos removal was a 'growth industry' in the 90's, an excellent way for people with connections to make a lot of money.
      Unfortunately I have come across at least two dodgy asbestos removal groups, which is why I know that loose asbestos fibre drifting through the air glitters prettily in the sunlight, and why I got upset on another occasion when the first I knew removal was going on was one someone said "didn't you guys down below know we were removing asbestos? You should have had masks on".
      Actually, in a lot of cases, new and more stringent regulations are the result of a new ability to measure things more accurately, and a lobbying effort by interests who will benefit from greater regulation.
      Are you saying that Greenpeace has enormous power over George Bush - please be serious.
  183. its still lasting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    early saturday morning here (2am) and the site is up :)

  184. My visit by kruczkowski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I had the chance to visit the national museum in Kiev two years ago.

    It was truly amazing, I hope that they make a good movie about it becouse it seems that most people only learn about the world from movies.

    In the museum they had two newspapers, one a Soviet and an American the day after. On the American the disaster was on the main page as the headline. On the soviet it was on the 6th page in a little box in the cornner.

    Once the Soviets figured out the shit they were in - on the third day - they started to evacuate people. There was one film they showed of little kids playing, you could see bright flashes in the film. It was from radiation on the film. (Think airport xrays)

    Another film showed the clean up crew. Each soldier was given a gas mask and a iorn vest. Before the door the took a shot of vodkia and walked out - Each man would shovel for 30 seconds and then go home. Most died a few days later.

    On a side note my parents and brother meet some local people and they went out to a beach on the river (look at the map on that website). My father was just reciently diagnosses with tyroid cancer (in germany) a was not too happy so none of them swap just watched. Later my dad finds out that they were in the red-zone. Mind you there were a lot of kids playing in the water.

    For those who may not know - the nuclear plan was just recienty shut down ('98 i think). It had been in operation for quite some time (using the remaning reactors)

    --
    hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
  185. Extensive damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is a look at just how extensive the damage was.

  186. Who modded this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    I know you're trying to make a political point, but it has been estimated that, although different radionuclides were released, the total radioactivity of the material from Chernobyl was 200 times that of the combined releases from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

    1. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know you're trying to make a political point, but it has been estimated that, although different radionuclides were released, the total radioactivity of the material from Chernobyl was 200 times that of the combined releases from the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      I think what matters most is that more people died from it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Even if the radioactivity was 200x less, it still was much more than enough to wipe out entire cities.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's 200x MORE. As in, Chernobyl released 200 times MORE radiation than either of the bombs dropped on Japan. But yeah, the human damage (lives and cities) is probably more relevant than some roentgen statistic.

    3. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who said anything about politics?

    4. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think what matters most is that more people died from it in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      What are you talking about? It's estimated that upwards of three million lives were saved by the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      If the Japanese hadn't surrendered, the Americans would have invaded the home islands. Two million American soldiers would have stormed the beaches, Normandy-style. The death toll would have numbered in the millions.

      A hundred thousand people died to save thirty times that number.

    5. Re:Who modded this insightful? by danila · · Score: 1

      This is not true. First, the 3 mln number is pulled out of someone's ass (cite some sources, if you disagree). Second, Japanese were almost ready to surrender, there have been talks already and the biggest remaining problem was that Americans wanted to remove the emperor from power, while Japanese were not ready to do that. In any case, Soviet army was ready and would happily save Americans their effort, keeping Japan for themselves, of course. ;)

      This was unacceptable to Americans, thus they decided to accelerate the events with this barbaric bombings. BTW, the American general responsible for the Pacific war theatre (IIRC) later admitted that nuclear bombings were a very bad idea and should not have been done.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    6. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, the 3 mln number is pulled out of someone's ass

      There's a difference between an estimate reached by people who know a hell of a lot more than we do and something that's just "pulled out of someone's ass."

      Japanese were almost ready to surrender

      That's untrue. In the weeks before the bombing of Hiroshima, in fact, there was an attempted military coup that would have, if successful, ended the war. The Emperor crushed the coup and executed all of those connected with it. Look it up.

      this barbaric bombings

      Nonsense. It's barbaric to start a war. It's hardly barbaric to end one.

      BTW, the American general responsible for the Pacific war theatre (IIRC) later admitted that nuclear bombings were a very bad idea and should not have been done.

      You mean MacArthur? Don't be absurd.

    7. Re:Who modded this insightful? by danila · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between an estimate reached by people who know a hell of a lot more than we do and something that's just "pulled out of someone's ass."
      Well, the estimate had a political purpose, to justify bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so we can't rely on it. From what I've read, the validity of the number is extremely questionable. If you can provide any sources that say "Yes, it would be 3 mln people dead and not a man less", I would be very interested.

      As for the coup, you are correct, but that still doesn't mean Japanese would be ready to fight much longer.

      Nonsense. It's barbaric to start a war. It's hardly barbaric to end one.
      It's not starting or ending the war, which is barbaric, it's the way you do it. Japanese started the war barbarically and Americans ended it so. Compare that with the Soviet Union, who ended the war with Germany non-barbarically.

      You mean MacArthur? Don't be absurd.
      I don't recall the name, really. Sorry.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    8. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that you're speculating, while the victims are the hard facts.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    9. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I actually meant 200x LESS. I was comparing Hiroshima with Chernobyl, not the other way around.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    10. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. It's barbaric to start a war. It's hardly barbaric to end one.

      Well, that depends on how you do it... I sure hope other nations didn't use the American Way of ending a war as a good example of how to best do it... :-P

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    11. Re:Who modded this insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, the estimate had a political purpose, to justify bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, so we can't rely on it.

      Bullshit.

      From what I've read, the validity of the number is extremely questionable.

      This is getting old. You start by indicting any estimate that's associated with an agenda, then throw out agenda-laden criticisms of those estimates as if they're gospel.

      Skeptic, question thyself.

      As for the coup, you are correct, but that still doesn't mean Japanese would be ready to fight much longer.

      Actually, read some history. That's exactly what it means.

      Compare that with the Soviet Union, who ended the war with Germany non-barbarically.

      You're kidding, right? The "let's split Poland down the middle and feast on the corpse" Soviet Union? The "let's never, ever leave East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia" Soviet Union? Jesus Christ. You don't even know barbarians when you see 'em.

  187. Touching by alex_tibbles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Pretty amazing stuff. The desertion so nearly complete. The suffering and loss of life. The fact that the evacuation was so late.
    I found it strange that the tourists who went to the ghost town were disappointed that it was so quiet! I would have thought that was the point.
    Great stuff! To be commended.
    She did admit that radio-activity on the roads she travelled is still many times normal background. I hope her dad knows his safe doses well...

  188. Replying to first proper posting... by KlaymenDK · · Score: 1

    ...having seen those pictures, I wanted to state a comment. But browsing down through the posts ... sheesh people, this is nothing to joke about. The parent post is the first 'proper' one I've come across, so I post in reply here.

    How very strange that someone might want to make a trip through such a ... tomb. But then again, I think I can see the attraction, somehow. Nevertheless, I am quite happy to see documents like this being brought to attention every now and then because this is going to stay with us for a long time yet to come, and we shouldn't forget. We musn't. I shuddered at the fact that the roads are the only places that are even now (somewhat) safe to be, and how all the rescue vehicles are "poisoned" (perhaps not the best word to choose, but it sure makes a firm point).

    It's not mentioned in her photo journal, and I haven't seen it commented here, but once read somewhere that the amusement park you see some shots of actually had never been used -- it was due to open a few days after that fateful date.
    A propos amusement ... the folks at Stalker-game.com are making a game set in this city. From the material, it looks most excellently engineered, but I can't help thinking how very nasty this really is, using such an event as an opportunity for gun-toting entertainment.
    As far as I can see, the site does not mentioning the disaster at all, which I think is wrong of them. They should at least provide insights to the "truth" and the unpleasant present, for instance by linking to photo journals such as this.

    From a comment further down:
    What's even more scary is what's left behind there - a big crumbling concrete tomb no one seems to want to take responsibility for. Someone had better goddamn well do it or else EVERYONE will suffer again.
    There isn't a hole deep enough to bury this demon in. Chernobyl is the kind of thing that gives me real nightmares. [...] What a horrible, HORRIBLE disaster.

    Honestly, I cannot agree more. Sometimes I think this planet is long overdue for that end-all nuclear strike by some extremist militant who just happened to manage to appropriate a nuke somewhere.
    But, I see that it just might as well happen this way -- accidentally, slowly.
    I saw that picture of the free-running horses, and I felt so very sad. Ususally horses are a pleasing sight to me (don't ANYBODY dare to make a joke of that!), but knowing that they (and all the other animals that "of course" weren't evacuated by the gov't) are trying to get by on contaminated land, makes my heart sink. We should really learn to take care of this blue dot in space.

  189. Little Old Miss Macbeth by number6 · · Score: 1

    It reminds me of a story by Fritz Leiber (Little Old Miss Macbeth), about a woman who is woken one night by some noise. She goes hunting through the big deserted city where she lives, until she finds a dripping tap, which is the source of the disturbance.

    The only noise in the ruined city.

    --
    I'm a number, not a free man!
  190. Cyberpunk by carcosa30 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There's something really cyberpunk about this, and not in the glitz-and-glamor Mondo2000 sort of way.

    I think it's the duality between the rusted-out poisonous landscape, the hot motorcycle, and the logo jacket.

    Very cool. Best /. article ever.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
  191. Distributed Mirror by Kalak · · Score: 4, Informative

    Instead of just karma whore with a wget, I made a listing for the Distributed Mirror Project of the site. I added the mirrors listed here (that I could connect to), and they are listed on the DMP page for this site

    This way I'm Karma whoring for doing some real work for this wonderful site she made, and oh yeah. /. will get something after it uses her bandwidth up (unless someone had graciously upgraded her account, in which case mod me to oblivion - I've got karma to burn.)

    --
    I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
    1. Re:Distributed Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      One mirror so far (I've voted the rest as "good", I found it pointed back to angelfire, as the original site used absolute links.)

      A few have page16.html, some do not.

      replying to myself, but posting AC.

      Kalak

    2. Re:Distributed Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If someone has a Paypal link for her, I'll donate cash for the privilege of viewing those pictures.

    3. Re:Distributed Mirror by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm translating this web into Japanese.
      but is it ok to upload the translations without her permission? i wonder..
      Any means to get in touch with her?

    4. Re:Distributed Mirror by Kalak · · Score: 1

      No way that I can tell from her site. This site deserves to be translated though. It's a true example of history on the web.

      --
      I am, and always will be, an idiot. Karma: Coma (mostly effected by .hack)
  192. Ozymandias by Trailwalker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ozymandias

    I met a traveler from an antique land
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
    Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read,
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed,
    And on the pedestal these words appear:
    "My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
    Look upon my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.

  193. Get your damn priorities straight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an iPod, not an Ipod! (joke!)

    1. Re:Get your damn priorities straight! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahafuckingha.

  194. On a similar note by FunctionalMethod · · Score: 1

    www.stalker-game.com is a Russian made game , about the Chernobyl zone . Check out this screenshot of the Devil's Ride : http://www.stalker-game.com/download/gallery/scree nshots/middle/sb_xray_48.jpg download the vids too. You'll be amazed

    --
    -- TRUST ME! I KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!
  195. Those .edu guys cant even get the map right ! :-) by boaworm · · Score: 1

    I say, ah an interesting link, and I click it. What is the first thing I see ? The stupid people making that page dont even know the difference between Sweden and Norway. Now that's very very impressive, i think i gonna just believe the rest of the page.. :D
    Oh wait....

    --
    Probable impossibilities are to be preferred to improbable possibilities.
    Aristotele
  196. Implications of Chernobyl for Europe by zoney_ie · · Score: 1

    I remember here in Ireland we were advised to stay inside on some particular day because of slightly radioactive rain.

    Chernobyl is something that the Ukraine and Belorus in particular will have with them for a long time. From May, the European Union will have a border with both. Eventually the E.U. will have to start paying a lot more money to help clean-up contaminated areas in Eastern Europe, and fix up nuclear reactors.

    To put it in perspective, for us in Ireland (the E.U. state furthest to the west), it's the same distance away as the Arizona desert is from New York. If this happened in Arizona - I think you East Coast folks would be, well, worried. And similarly, the U.S. would have much more upset people in Texas and California.

    I sincerely hope that this results in a serious rethink of the Euratom treaty. (Officially at least, the E.U. still promotes and supports nuclear power).

    --
    -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
  197. Not the same design by Lady+Jazzica · · Score: 1
    I did a little Googling, and it turns out that the reactors at the Juragua Nuclear Plant in Cuba are not the same design as the one in Chernobyl.

    From the Federation of American Scientists website:
    "VVER" is the Soviet designation for a pressurized light water moderated reactors, which is designated PWR in western designs. This type of unit is generally regarded as less vulnerable to fire than the RBMK graphite-moderated reactors (LGR) employed at Chernobyl.

    The article goes on to discuss some of the safety issues relating to the Cuban reactors.

    However:
    In part because of these concerns, efforts by Moscow and Havana to find international financial support for the project have so far failed, and remarks by Cuba leader Fidel Castro in January 1997 signal that it is unlikely to be completed anytime soon.
    1. Re:Not the same design by mesocyclone · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. I should have Googled it, rather than relying on memory.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  198. Ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "... after few hours trip with some army vehicle one stands under some shower . . . naked with no home, no friends, no money, no past and with very doubtful future."

    Wait, are we talking about Chernobyl or the gulags here?

    1. Re:Ummm... by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      We're talking about Communism.

      --
      ---
  199. That awful silence.... by vudufixit · · Score: 1

    She describes how tourists couldn't stand the awful silence of the Dead Zone. Too bad - when I visit the desert, especially Death Valley, I think the silence is one of the best things about it. Perhaps it's the combination of silence and existing vacant structures that drove them away.

  200. It's not just the Sierras, and it's not just you by Crash+Culligan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Urban archaeology doesn't have the following of some hobbies, like stamp-collecting or professional sports, but I can see its appeal.

    All constructions, like all people, have life cycles. They're built/conceived, people move in, they're lived-in, they have make-overs/get remodeled, they have mid-life crises/get remodeled tastelessly to hide the structure's growing problems, the spirit leaves/people move out, and get torn down.

    If the area is busy enough, there's no gap between moving out and tearing down. And if the area is really busy, there's no gap between the tearing down and the building up, the quest eternal for the Next Big Thing.

    Sometimes places die, and this interests people. Pripyat has the dubious distinction of actually being killed, and of course there's some interest in its slowly decaying municipal corpse. And there are other ways for a place to die suddenly too.

    Obligatory links:

    Come to think of it, there's a place not far from me, pretty much right in the middle of Annapolis, which I need to snap pictures of for posterity's sake. Sure, I'll be using a digital camera, but...

    --
    You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
  201. S.T.A.L.K.E.R Oblivion Lost by sunbeam60 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Hmmm, how much do I want to play that game now. Are we sure this isn't a plant by Nvidia? :)

  202. Broken English but knows the Slang by coyotejoe76 · · Score: 1

    I find it interesting (although maybe I shouldn't) that even though her english is broken she uses the term 'bejesus'. I can understand learning english slang and curse words before mastering sentence structure and spelling but I never thought I'd see 'bejesus'.

    1. Re:Broken English but knows the Slang by Thrymm · · Score: 1

      There's also alot of inconsistencies within the essay... "There's radiation on the asphalt" and a sentence later "radiation is not on the asphalt". Plenty more of them scattered on there. Just walking on there, going into those houses, she's at major risk of cancer by the time she's 30.

    2. Re:Broken English but knows the Slang by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      keep your religion to yourself. i'll say bejesus when i want to.

  203. So, you think it's a laughing matter, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    If you think the world is there for your amusement, grow up.

    I gather from your Web site that you are from the U.S.

    Do you think that the September 11 attacks are a joking matter? Those attacks killed thousands; the effects of Chernobyl may have killed 300,000 if one accepts an estimate from a U.K. charity. The radiation of Chernobyl spread across multiple countries. -- I remember news reports reporting radiation tracked all the way to northern Finland ; radiation was tracked to Central Europe and the Mediterranean .

    I entered college 90 minutes' drive east of Three Mile Island in the Fall of 1979. The campus was still on edge because of the accident and uncertainty about its long-term effects -- because weather can go from west to east there....

    Links that may be useful rather than callously "funny:"

    Zeal.com search on Chernobyl

    www.chernobyl.info English-language pages

    Chernobyl Charities U.K. page on book Voices from Chernobyl

    1. Re:So, you think it's a laughing matter, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmmm...another humorless Slashdotter potty-trained at gunpoint.

      I suggest you check the lithium dose response curve again before your next post

    2. Re:So, you think it's a laughing matter, do you? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think that the September 11 attacks are a joking matter?

      Let's see: Nineteen Islamic extremists walk onto four planes. Three years and two wars later, the President is using those images to get (re)elected. And he may succeed.

      Nope. no joking matter at all.

  204. Fuck off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subject says it all.

  205. Chernobyl heart by yarisbandit · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't forget to keep an eye out for this years Oscar winning short documentary Chernobyl Heart. Imagine if a tragedy like this hit some built up part of the western world - in the states or the u.k. etc...

    The documentary was made in collaboration with Adi Roche and the Chernobyl childrens project, which is worth special mention...

  206. CHERNOBYL COMPUTER GAME RIGHT FROM THE UKRAINE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.stalker-game.com/

    The company?

    http://www.gsc-game.com/

    I'm surprised, noone mentioned it before.

  207. MOD: -6 Tactless by PReDiToR · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    nt

    --

    Do not meddle in the affairs of geeks for they are subtle and quick to anger
    1. Re:MOD: -6 Tactless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it should be 767.

  208. try washington! by MacAndrew · · Score: 2, Interesting

    i live a few miles from national airport (and the pentagon), and our airport was closed for WEEKS, nearly closed forever had some in the white house had their druthers. some things you don't realize are there until they're gone, and you'd find yourself kind of waiting for the next jet. all we did hear was the flights of military jets, which normally pass over here at less than a thousand as they cut through over national from andrews, but now of course they sounded ten times as loud.

    just after the jet hit, i just remember hearing all the sirens, headed in the same direction. our fire department (arlington) was the first there, reportedly the engine was out on another call and saw what happened. (yeah, i wondered what happened to the other call,, too.)

    strange time here. then came the anthrax. then the snipers. yes, it did occur to me to wonder whether we should be here, but this is our home.

    i notice that most of the biker's pictures (including the one of her in a kawasaki jacket, the brand she mentions repeatedly? did they pay her for promo?) of how the chernobyl area has gone to hell focus on decrepit buildings. well, of course manmade stuff would fall apart; how's nature doing? and to be honest i find it humbling and a tad reassuring that man's creations will go away once man has left, let the earth move on.

    1. Re:try washington! by jxs2151 · · Score: 1
      ...including the one of her in a kawasaki jacket, the brand she mentions repeatedly? did they pay her for promo?

      I find your comment stikingly cynical. FYI, morotcyclists are very brand loyal- you're are a "Kawasaki rider", or you have been a "Honda Man" all your life. These people started out on a certain brand of trail bike at an early age and build trust in a product that, if not properly built can take their life. This tends to make morotcycle riders stick with a brand they trust. I think (but don't know) that European riders are even more into "their brand" than American riders since they (and their car brethren) tend to form clubs and riding groups based on the type of bike or car. Perhaps some of our European friends on /. can go into this further.

      BTW, I love the Arlington area.

    2. Re:try washington! by GoneGaryT · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Geezer, I'm cancelling a mod point here just to tell you that Kwacker riders are a breed apart.

      I was a Yammy man myself. I had a decently quick 750 at one time and used to get creamed by the Kwacker crew on a regular basis. Bastards.

      Respects to this crazy honey - she's got that heroic quality and a Mad Max landscape. Fantastic approach to living with a radioactive wasteland. "This is pompea last day sort of place." Shit, not half.

  209. Re:Ukraine, not Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Is this the wrong time and place..."

    Yes it is, just like any other. We're ONE people, sharing most of our culture and language. We're all Russians, like it or not. Independent statehood can be best characterized as a DISASTER (killing and impoverishing a lot more people than Chernobyl) for the people in THE Ukraine and perhaps a minor inconvenience for those in the Federation.

    Consider this: NEW BORDERS DO NOT MAKE PEOPLE FREE.

    Greetings from THE Ukraine...

  210. A "war happy" President isn't the threat.... by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    That "war happy" President you are referring to has morals. What some people seem to have forgotten is that terrorist don't have morals.

    They are more than willing, when able, to use any means to kill people. The big problem is they don't kill combatants, they prefer civilians as it causes shock. Besides their eventual goal is the destruction of their target which means the civilians that we think we are are combatants to them.

    Terrorism is bringing a Chernobyl to anywhere in the world. Unfortunately that requires a different outlook to combat. So while you can label this President "war happy" it is far better than having an "appeasement" President which doesn't protect anyone. Terrorist only use appeasement to give them room to plan and setup. Taking the war to their turf is an unfortunate need of our generation.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  211. Well... by Oswald · · Score: 1

    ...that was absolutely heartbreaking. Just the thing for my Saturday morning cup of coffee.

  212. Threads by metamatic · · Score: 1
    --
    GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    1. Re:Threads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh Christ, don't. That is the only film that has ever actually managed to scare the shit out of me.

      I also managed to get hold of a copy of the book After The Bomb which described in quite precise detail the effects of a nuclear blast of 4 1MT bombs over London and the planning and surviability plans in place for the aftermath, and discussed wether any of it was survivable. I learnt a lot from that book but it scared the hell out of me.

  213. My Uncle Was In Chernobyl And He Survived It by $criptah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My uncle was a member of one of the first rescue teams that were sent to Chernobyl after the disaster. This might be slightly off topic, but if you think that the pictures of the empty city are disturbing, take a look at people who were there after the tragic event.

    I hate a lot of things about my former country, the Soviet Union, and its leaders. One of the things that I hated the most was the fact that people were never told the truth. In May of 1986 my uncle was told that he had to go to Chernobyl to help patch things up. Since he was a memeber of an elite task team that was a part of chemical forces, a special unit within the Soviet Army, he had no other options. He went there in May and he spent some quality time there. His major task was to drive tons of cement to a helicopter that would drop it off on the damaged reactor.

    The not-so-funny thing was that nobody who was in my uncle's shoes knew what was going on there. The superior officers, had to tweak radiation meters down so nobody could find out the real level of radiation. People did not have proper protection, tools to work with; moreover, the Soviet leaders did try to play things down a notch. Afterall, how could a superpower have a major disaster?

    Out of all of my uncle's rescue team, only a dozen or so people are alive now. All of them are disabled. My uncle has problems with his eyes and due to this fact he had to quit his job: he was a professional photographer. The Ukranian government pays him a small pension, not enough to buy food for a week. His immune system got reduced down to 60% of what he used to have. Still, he's better than his son. My cousin's system is 40% of the normal level. I remember reading a newspaper about a woman who had to buy a bottle of vodka every day. She did it because her husband could not surive through pain without it. Just as my uncle, he was in Chernobyl trying to fix the Soviet problem without exposing it to the rest of the world. That guy was lucky. His kids had been born before he went to Chernobyl. You won't believe how many stories I've heard when people just wanted to die without pain and suffering.

    Finally, here is a surprise for you. Chernobyl is not the only empty city. In fact, if you want to see more of them, you should travel to southern Belarus. See, due to the winds and the rain that happened right after the disaster, most of the radiation that escaped in Chernobyl ended up miles away in the neighboring state. In fact, Belarus recieved more damage than the Ukraine due to the wind pattern for that day. Most of the winds blew from the Ukraine straight into my motherland and the damage was done. I was lucky. Although I was in the rain that day, most of the radiation passed around my town. However, many towns received a solid amount of radiated water but the government did not do anything until it was late. As I said above, the government did everything it could to cover up the problem.

    We were told to burn our clothing and take a shower. That is it. That was the f*cking Soviet solution to the problem. Months later dozens of small towns were evacuated. People left leaving everything behind in hopes that they would return. Return my ass. The only people who returned were either looters or bums who scored nice houses where they could live. Years later, after the Soviet regime had collapsed, some reporters were providing us with information places that were emptied out. Most of these places are still there. They are a real time machine. If you go there, you'll see pretty much everything as it was in late 80's. Pictures of those places are distrubing, but not as bad as pictures of kids with cancer or disabilities due to the Chernobyl disaster. As for me, I am afraid of having a child myself. Who knows what got inside of me during that f*cking rain... All I know is that some of my friends started to develop problems already.

    Have a nice day.

    1. Re:My Uncle Was In Chernobyl And He Survived It by jim3e8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your story is the counterpoint to the callous bastard above saying the disaster was overblown, citing the low UN death figures and pretty frolicking animals. People are dead and disfigured, but the horses are happy! Get a heart transplant, man.

  214. STALKER game by S3D · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There is a game in the production -STALKER about Chernobil zone. Designers of the game took a special trip into Chernobil zone, to take pictures and get a feeling of the zone. Pictures form their trip (don't mistake them for screenshots)used to be buried somethere on their site.

  215. The Empty Quarter by pcol · · Score: 1

    Twenty-five years ago I was working for Collins Radio in Saudi Arabia as a microwave engineer helping install the country's first nation-wide communications system and was part of the team that installed relay systems across the Empty Quarter (Rub al-Khali) of Saudi Arabia.

    Absolute desolation, totally uninhabited, hundreds of miles from the nearest city, no living creatures (plant or animal) in the part we crossed. Complete silence.

    Yes, you can hear the blood flow in your veins through your neck.

    At night, I would do out onto the desert floor and lay on my back and look up into the stars on a moonless night and it felt like you were floating in the center of the galaxy.

  216. More pics of Pripyat here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/chernobyl_poems/ph otos1.html

  217. Chernobyl, wormwood, and the Bible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wormwood is a common plant in Europe. It's a weed with bright yellow flowers, and frequently shows up in places after there's been a fire. It's the active ingredient in absinthe.

    There's a section in Revelations that says something like "...and wormwood shall fall from the sky and poison a third part of the waters and a third part of the people shall die," allowing for a relatively accurate paraphrase. In that part of the Ukraine and Russia, the colloquial term for wormwood is chernobyl (literally, "there was black").

    Interesting.

  218. Abandoned places by kurtkilgor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here are some of my bookmarks with photos of abandoned places . . . don't know how well any of them work:
    http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman /index. htm
    http://home2.planetinternet.be/henk/index.htm l
    http://www.columbia.edu/~brennan/abandoned/
    ht tp://www.forgottendetroit.com/
    http://www.forgott en-ny.com/
    http://www.acme.com/jef/photos/archaeo logy.html
    http://www.infiltration.org/
    http://ww w.starfury.demon.co.uk/uground/
    http://www.lostam erica.com/lostframe.html
    http://www.modern-ruins. com/
    http://www.losthighways.org/radebaugh.html
    http://detroityes.com/toc.htm#Gilded
    http://e.web ring.com/hub?ring=draining&list&page=1

    Regarding nuclear power, it is important to remember that uranium can run out just like fossil fuels, and in fact if we had started out using nuclear power instead of oil for energy, we would certainly have run out of nuclear fuel by now. In other words, nuclear power is not a solution except as a pollution free way to power a few dozen densely populated areas.

    1. Re:Abandoned places by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

      it is important to remember that uranium can run out just like fossil fuels,

      That would be true, so long as we stuck with the old fission methods as first developed and ceased to innovate. If the waste management process can be perfected, breeder reactors mean we would never run out of fuel.

      --
      ---
    2. Re:Abandoned places by applemasker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That ignores the fact that breeder reactors would never run out of fuel. If you consider the aggregate pollution of fossil-fuel plants I would expect their lifetime pollution to be equally hazardous as nuclear waste. Because its more diffuse, however, it seems to be accepted. Nuclear power, properly managed, can be safer in many respects.

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
  219. Surreal by ThisIsFred · · Score: 1

    Surreal is definity an accurate description. The pictures and text describe a scene that seems like a cross between Mad Max and 12 Monkeys.

    --
    Fred

    "A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
    -RMS
  220. "Evil Empire" & Workers' Paradise by yaj · · Score: 0

    Eastern Europe has come an awful long way since the fall of the "Evil Empire."

    What? did Microsoft go under??

    Or was it SCO??

  221. This years documentary short Oscar winner by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 2, Informative
    700 comments and nobody's mentioned this ...

    This past Sunday, the Oscar for Documentary Short went to a film about Chernobyl:

    • http://www.oscars.com/oscarnight/winners/win_331 62.html
    • http://www.oscars.com/nominees/nom_33111.html
    • http://www.documentary.org/festivals/infact.doct ober/infact2003/chernobyl.html
    • http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:2 91392
  222. Chilling... by brain1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    To look at the pictures she has taken of the aftermath, the lives that were lost. I'm deeply disturbed, and saddened.

    My hat is off to her and others that document this as a monument to those who lost their lives, their loved ones, and their homes. These people died needlessly at the hands of those that considered human life to be secondary to political goals.

    In a time where we all worry about the possibility of a rogue nation, or a terrorist triggering a nuclear or "dirty" bomb, we need to look at this and be aware of the outcome.

    May this tragedy never be repeated.

    -dh

  223. Gives new meaning to the phrase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    There were cases of radiactive tv sets and other stuff being sold on city second hand markets


    Gives new meaning to the phrase "Buying a hot TV."
    1. Re:Gives new meaning to the phrase... by edgedmurasame · · Score: 1

      ...twice over.

      --
      "Forget the engineers." -Carly Fiorina, briber of MIT Technology Review.
  224. Made me want to cry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    From the website: "People had to leave everything, from photos of their grandparents to cars. Their clothes, cash and passports has been changed by state authorities. This is incredible, people lived, had homes, country houses, garages, motorcyles, cars, money, friends and relatives, people had their life, each in own niche and then in a matter of hours this world fall in pieces and everything goes to dogs and after few hours trip with some army vehicle one stands under some shower, washing away radiation and then step in a new life, naked with no home, no friends, no money, no past and with very doubtful future"

    I guess I must be a big pussy, but when I read that, it made me want to cry.

    Also the part about the head doctor from the oncology hospital. He knew better than most any other people just what the fatal dose of radiation he had received was going to do to him, yet he must have kept working the best he could anyway until he himself died of cancer a mere 40 days later. Whew!

  225. R - Definition (Micro-Rontgen) by j.leidner · · Score: 1

    Brave girl.

    For those hackers who are wondering what the radiation displays mean:

    The unit micro-Rontgen is the ISO-unit of radiation.

    1 uR ('u': read mu, the Greek letter) is the quantity of radiation means 10E-06 times the associated corpuscular emission per 0.001293 g of dry air (of volume 1 cm^3 at 0 degrees Celsius temperature and 760 mm Hg presure) produces in air ions carrying 1 electrostatic unit of electrical charge.

    PS: sorry that I can't use proper symbols here, as ./ seems not to render neither UNICODE SGML entities properly nor accept ISO 8859-1 input. :/

  226. Non-PC joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    Why don't Ukrainians wear boxer shorts?

    Because they're afraid that Chernobyl fall out.

    Ta-daa. All the way from 1986, young 'uns.

  227. Re:STALKER-Oblivion Lost by Brutal_Adviser · · Score: 0

    A number of people have mentioned the similarity to the forthcoming STALKER-Oblivion Lost game but you should reference the original prophetic book and later film. "Stalker" was a film from the great russian film maker Andrei Tarkovsky who also did the original version of "Solaris". It was based on a SF novel by Arkady and Boris Strugatsky called "Roadside Picnic". This was a very strange, mystical account of a group of people been escorted round a forbiden "Zone" by a local guide (Stalker) in search of a special place deep within. The Zone was supposedly a result of a "Stopover" by aliens who left various artifacts behind although there were analogies to a nuclear wasteland area. Tarkovsky filmed it in a very polluted industrial town in Russia and this is blamed for the lung cancer he developed. A lot of the crew and cast also later developed cancer. It was his last film and released in the early 80s about 4 years before Chernobyl. It is regarded as being very prophetic of the later events and the images on the russian girls site really evoke memories of the book and film. I'm also reminded of reading "Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance" for that lonely feel of it all. I would love to take a bike trip through that place. And yes, she is one hot biker chick.

    --
    Tone
  228. I'll bet nobody likes you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " If you think the world is there for your amusement"

    Hey asshat, most of the rest of the world (except for you...you didn't get the word) says that its okay to make jokes about disasters.

    Jokes are a human way of coping with tragedy.

    Maybe not for somebody like you who has a two by four stuck up his ass, but for everybody else.

    You are fucking welcome.

  229. Great article. by donniejones18 · · Score: 1

    This woman has done a great service to all of us.
    By far the best article on /.
    I personally mirrored for history sake.
    Such a very sad story... Life can be terrible.

  230. MOD Parent UP by rpj1288 · · Score: 1

    This was true, and the movie sounded quite insightful. Probably a good thing to see about now.

    --
    Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
  231. sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Back in the USSR...

    Well the Ukraine girls really knock me out
    They leave the West behind

  232. Pictures missing from original by Peripherus · · Score: 1

    The original site has changed, some of the entries and pictures are missing. Good thing you caught this when you did.

    1. Re:Pictures missing from original by alexburke · · Score: 1

      The original site has changed, some of the entries and pictures are missing. Good thing you caught this when you did.

      God bless wget, even on Windows. :)

    2. Re:Pictures missing from original by alexburke · · Score: 1

      Upon further examination, two pictures (and the associated paragraphs of text) are no longer in the original version: a picture of who is presumably her and her father, and a picture of her standing in front of a building. I thought these changes might have been to make it harder to identify her, but there's still a photo of her in her jacket on page 14.

      Incidentally, my page 15 was broken (the "next page" link went to page 17); this is now fixed.

  233. My God, who keeps modding this moron "Insightful"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There simply is a big difference: coal power plant blows up (if it can), maybe a city is polluted for a few months or years.

    Coal plants don't blow up. They kill people via air pollution when operating as designed.

    Nuclear power plant blows up, whole continent might be polluted (or whatever), perhaps for hundreds or thousands of years.

    Nuclear plants don't blow up. Bad designs combined with human error can cause release of radioactivity.

    I don't think it's just that people don't understand it enough. Would you go out and fertilize your vegetables with Plutonium? Why not?

    Would you fertilize your vegetables with gasoline? WTF does that have to do with anything?

  234. Re:Those .edu guys cant even get the map right ! : by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does darwinism work on your spelling?

  235. Prepare to return to Chernobyl by danila · · Score: 1

    In a few months, coming to a store near you.
    S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Shadow of Chernobyl
    http://www.stalker-game.com/index_eng.html
    http://www.russobit-m.ru/eng/games/oblivion/
    http://www.3dgamers.com/games/stalker/
    Scarier than DOOM3, prettier than Half-Life 2.

    Check out the screenshots and the trailers, they will blow your away.

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  236. that motorcycle has 125+bhp by Bishop · · Score: 1

    Depending on the review site, that motorcycle she rides has a 125hp or 129hp engine with a claimed top speed of 172mph, 277km/h. She writes that her father believes that rideing in 5th and 6th gear is more dangerous then the radiation. He is probably right.

  237. Neither war-happy nor appeasement by BarakMich · · Score: 1

    "Can't we all just get along?"

    If you want my opinion, it is this:

    True - terrorists would prefer to kill civilians for the shock value.

    The problem I have with our current president and his policies is two-fold.

    1) He feeds the cycle of hatred. Ok, sure - appeasement doesn't always work. The short decapitation campaign of Afghanistan, for instance, seemed somewhat justified. But by moving into countries that are minorly peripherally related, such as Iraq, what he is doing is creating a reason for other countries to hate us more.

    Or to see the cycle:
    Israel unrest -> Terrorists attack -> Bush retaliation -> Terrorists attack ..and so on. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"

    Yes, there is a time (under very limited circumstances) for military action, but there is also a time for diplomacy, which should be preffered. An appeaser doesn't understand the first, a war-monger doesn't understand the second. Consider that.

    2) He is not being open with the public. 1984, etc. You know what I mean. I'm not one to follow blindly into whatever the president decides. Let's see the game plan, let's understand some of the machinations that go on up there. Let's also not have Rumsfeld come out every now and again and declare that "something bad's gonna happen" and that we should all be scared.
    The gov't is using terrorism as an excuse to inflict terror (the emotion, not the noun they've invented) on it's people. A man with a tinfoil hat would say, to keep us obident... a sentiment not without some truth, but maybe too severe. I'll leave off a SOVIET RUSSIA joke.

    To conclude, I know I'm not voting for Bush in the next election (and, if he were to have done well, Clark would have been a decent president, IMO). I know you probably will vote for Bush. We're not going to change each other's opinion, so no hard feelings.

    To the rest of the /. community -- you know how we feel. I think it's the best to believe what you feel -- all of you.

  238. Anyone got more examples? by Scorillo47 · · Score: 3, Informative

    One other place with high levels of radiation is Uranium City

    http://www.interlog.com/~grlaird/uraniumcity.htm l

    --
    Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
  239. Very good documentary on the same subject by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Pripyat (1999)

  240. Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry for calling it what it is. Yes, the West did offer to build replacements, it just never offered any money for that. The West gave all sorts of conditions to Ukraine, all of which would mean huge financial losses to Ukraine. Kuchma government is a bunch of crooks. The Western governments are just slightly better with regard to their promises. No one wants to spend $800 mln and that's the truth of the matter. Ukraine is not USSR, no one forbids helping people there. If the US or France came to Kuchma and said, here are our equipment and materials, let us build a new cover for Chenobyl, even Kuchma would not dare to refuse.

  241. British Power by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Trouble is, what's the alternative to nuclear power for the UK?

    We've closed down most of the pits and are using North Sea gas to power the stations. How long is that going to last?

    Wind and solar would be great, but what I've heard about yields from both, the investment to replace our power requirements would be immense and completely blight the landscape of the country.

  242. Try a cat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, seriously. My cat kills moles very often.

  243. silence by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

    The closest thing to silence I experienced (in Canada) was due to the recent blackout in Ontario (and Northeast USA). Everything was so quiet. I remember lying outside at night and there wasn't any noise for a while (there WAS some noise once in a while due to sirens and some cars). But it was still nice.

    Having said that, this clearly does not compare to Chernobyl. I imagine Chernobyl will be TOTALLY quiet for practically the whole day--or for decades!

    This was a good photo essay (although not artistic enough to be considered the best or anything). Perhaps the most interesting thing coming out of Chernobyl wil be the mutated animals. I have no idea what is going on with the animals in that area. It would be interesting to see if some new future organisms evolve under radiation.

    Sivaram Velauthapillai

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  244. Re:Industrial pollution as brought to you by Dubya by Endive4Ever · · Score: 1

    And Clinton's presidency was a godsend to anybody quick enough to move on it when new instrumentation is invented that allowed measurement of parts-per-million to a finer resolution.

    The 'chicken little' attitude espoused by many 'toxic environment' alarmists nullifies the credibility of many practical and meaningful measures. The guys in the plant end up pooh-poohing even reasonable precautions because the snively 'safety expert' with his college degree is clearly out of his rocker. Safety suffers as a result.

    --
    ---
  245. Re:Abandoned places - running out of nuclear fuel by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    Oh it would be so nice if some ppl would check their facts before they go spouting off.

  246. Damn! She's smokin hot! (and not in a radioactive by multiplexo · · Score: 2, Funny

    A Ukrainian chick who no doubt has one of those sexy eastern-European/Russian style accents who rides a big bike and likes to go to dangerous places on it.

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  247. Just another reason for UN bureaucrats to be fired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The report does not look even remotely objective in regard to the health situation in the Chernobyl-affected areas.

    For instance, the report says

    "4.03 In many settlements visited by the Mission living conditions were far from
    conducive to good health. Thus, the perception held by local doctors that there
    had been a general increase in morbidity from non-oncological conditions, such as
    cardiovascular and respiratory conditions, may be well-founded."

    The obvious implication here that it is not radiation, but rather "living conditions" that attribute to the increase in death rate. However, the report fails to mention that the "living conditions" in the villages had been very similar before the Chernobyl disaster. How does this explain the higher rate of deaths reported by the doctors?

    Such obvious questions arise at practically every point of the UN argument for the ridiculously low effects of high radiation on humans. Practically all the health related data presented are at best anecdotal, at worst a pure speculation. There are documentary movies about hospitals around Chernobyl overflooded with the children sick with leukemia and thyroid cancer. You can see it with your own eyes, no need for silly UN reports claiming the opposite.

  248. mining and refining uranium by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

    Anyone know how uranium is mined and refined?

    I would imagine it is not the cleanest process.

    --
    Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
  249. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Cute babe. Nice bike. Weird hobby. I think I'm in love...

  250. Um that was scary... by xintegerx · · Score: 1

    Don't make the mistake of comparing with the WTC; those buildings were mostly open space and were not designed to take any kind of impact.

    I saw a show with my family on building the WTC a few months after 9/11. That video was Copyrighted in 2000 or early 2001. It was shot BEFORE 9/11, and it was shown on the history channel or TLC because I guess they had a video of that lying around. It showed how the WTC looked on a blueprint with its columns, people falling off during construction, and talked about and showed video of the elevators inside WTC and how they were designed to only go like 10 levels at a time and then you switch elevators, that's because it would be a waste for 1 elevator to go from floor 1 to the top or something I don't remember. But the whole video was like, this is an engineering marvel.

    Engineers and one of the top engineers of the WTC was interviewed throughout the program. In the closing minutes, one guy says something along the lines of it was build so that even if a jet crashed into it, it would withstand the impact.

    So yes, it was designed to be that strong. And yes, it failed on what it was assumed it could do. So your comment doesn't apply.

    1. Re:Um that was scary... by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The WTC was designed to survive the impact of a 707. It probably would have, although they missed the effect that a massive paper fire would have on the denuded steel support columns, which is what brought the building down in the real world attack. However, it's a completely different type of survivability. WTC was not designed to have the airplane splatter against the walls, it was designed to absorb it and still have enough structure remaining to hold. The people on the affected floors get an express ticket to heaven. Despite the fact that the airplanes which hit the WTC were much larger than what the WTC was designed to withstand, the towers still managed to stay standing long enough for nearly everybody to evacuate.

      Nuclear reactor containment domes, on the other hand, are designed to actually shield from an airplane impact. They don't just absorb it and survive, the airplane will not penetrate. This is a totally different degree of survivability. Not to mention that this has actually been tested, and the dome is barely even scratched. A bunker buster could crack it. A nuke going off right next to it could, but a nuke a little distance away probably wouldn't do much. These things are seriously strong.

      About your completely nutty tin-foil hat theory about the causes of WTC, get real. People have been flying airplanes into things to destroy them since the 40s. An Algerian terrorist group tried to fly an airplane into the Eiffel Tower in 1994, and was only unsuccessful because French security forces learned of their plans beforehand and decided to raid the airplane during negotiations on the runway. An operation involving 20 people on four different flights timed to go off within minutes of each other requires years of planning to pull off. There's no way your show could have been the inspiration for the attack.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    2. Re:Um that was scary... by Behrooz · · Score: 1

      Technically, the WTC was designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707, the largest passenger airplane in wide use at the time they were designed. Reasonable, considering the bar for plane-building interactions had previously been set by the crash of a USAAF B-25 bomber into the Empire State building in 1945.

      Also, note that the WTC *did* withstand the impact quite well. The final structural failure (significantly after impact) resulted from weakening in the main steel girders due the massive fires.

      Compare that with a reinforced-concrete-with-six-inches-of-steel reactor vessel, designed to contain internal overpressures and temperatures that make an airplane crash look like a cream-pie impact, and you'll see why I'm not that worried about the possibility.

      --
      "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  251. Oh , I forgot.. by xintegerx · · Score: 1

    I forgot to mention this tidbit that came to my head:

    When the video then ended, and the credits showed Copyright 2001, it hit me that this is how the terrorists might have got the idea for 9/11. And what happened? Terrorists sent the first two planes into the WTC. They got the idea about the crashing planes in the first place from that video. And did it to the WTC just because the video said it couldn't be done. Plus, they had tried the WTC in 1993. And just in case the engineer was right, they wanted to send a plane to DC also.

    1. Re:Oh , I forgot.. by kriston · · Score: 1

      The video was in post-production when the 9/11/01 tragedy happened. They re-editted it with new narrative segments and notes on the fates of interview subjects, many of whom at the time of the airing were still listed as "missing."

      --

      Kriston

  252. So what you're saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... you're intimidated by a woman driving anything besides a minivan.

    It's OK, you can admit it. Feelings of inferiority are common among the sexually repressed.

  253. More images of Pripyat - 3km from ground zero by freelunch · · Score: 0, Redundant
    I found this when looking for a better map (which I did not really find):

    pripyat.com

  254. Coal isn't harmless either. by Behrooz · · Score: 1

    [i]The bottom line is: nuclear power is NOT a harmless thing, and the only mistake is not that people don't know it's harmless.[/i]

    Estimating conservatively, pollutants released from coal-fired powerplants cause tens of thousands of deaths in the US alone every year.

    Nuclear power scares people because few people understand it.

    Coal power scares me because most people think they do understand it.

    --
    "We have to go forth and crush every world view that doesn't believe in tolerance and free speech." - David Brin
  255. Decomissioning Plants by DoubleReed · · Score: 1

    "I haven't heard any real info on what to do with a decomissioned plant yet other than just 'leave it lay'."

    Well, now you have.

    Scientific American article on decomissioning plants:
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=s a006&colI D=1&articleID=000B76FF-B366-1E41-89E0809EC588E EDF
    The unsolved problem of how to decommission nuclear power plants looms. The Maine Yankee reactor is a case study in the technical, environmental and economic complexities

  256. Re:It's not just the Sierras, and it's not just yo by RabidMonkey · · Score: 1

    don't forget www.infiltration.org ... great site, based in toronto. some great writeups of landmarks..

    t.

    --
    We emerge from our mother's womb an unformatted diskette; our culture formats us. - Douglas Coupland
  257. MOD PARENT UP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice post. As an ex-nuclear operator this thread was great.

    I have seen a bucket of water take down a cross-connected plant on startup...underway. Damn sailors.

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP!!! by Duarh · · Score: 1

      (I'm the author of the post above the previous one - just created the user) Do you mean to say you operated on a submarine? :) give me more of that bucket story, perhaps? btw, how do cross-connected plants work? :) I'm up for my NRC exam in a few months (for a small TRIGA reactor). . .will be fun :D.

      What really irritates me about the Chernobyl accident coverage is the way statistics are blown all out of proportion. It's just so very damaging to an energy source that could be developed far beyond what it is right now if people were actually ready to put money into it. I mean, think about it - the newest commercial plants we have around in the States are what, 20 to 30 years old, built only a few decades after nuclear power was developed even as a theoretical possibility. We're still building new coal plants today and I'm sure we're much more effective about producing power from coal now than we were 70 years ago - if we continued developing nuclear power, there's no guessing where it'd be in a few decades.

      Ah well. Waiting for cold fusion to come around. And studying to perhaps help it on its way :). _That _should be a neat energy source.

      And to operator-types: hopefully, we'll never have that $1 extra again :D. . .

  258. Offtopic reply - maybe by uglomera · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hey, I just wanted to reply to express my simpathy towards you and your family. I think I can relate - my family had to survive the Holocaust, another great cover-up attempt.

    No matter how long you live after that, or where you move, the images and memories will haunt you. And the older you get, the more you learn about how stupid and egotistic the political decisions can be. And the governments excuse themselves with "we didn't know..." and you feel how lucky you are to be alive today.

    Live and tell the story. I think this is our purpose, the next-generation survivors. And if you truly do so, you'll see how people just don't want to hear, don't care, and excuse themselves with having more important things to do...

    I truly hope you have a healthy child one day.

    1. Re:Offtopic reply - maybe by $criptah · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

  259. Environmental disaster cleanup ideas? by computer+ancestor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's curious whether there is any scientific/industrial research going on in this direction. Let's note, Chernobyl is not the only technological disaster area in the world. The world is full of leaking, diffusing, lying in the open and pretty deadly chemical and radioactive stuff.

    Practically every large city in North America and Europe has highly contaminted patches of land next to them due to the past or present industrial activities. Things can get very expensive when people finally figure out the reasons for soaring rates of cancer and other sicknesses.

    Is there a technological solution to the problem? Nanotechnology? Genetic engineering? You can imagine cesium gathering ants and mercury hungry bees. There was a report somewhere about generically modified bacteria successfully neutralizing toxic chemical substances. Perhaps some ideas could be sparked by the Ukrainian biker chronicles.

  260. Good Fucking Lord by Saeed+al-Sahaf · · Score: 1

    Touchy, touchy! It's a joke that is quite common here, you stupid fuck.

    --
    "Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
  261. Re:Three Mile Island and slashdot by Macrolord · · Score: 0



    Soviet and US nuclear plants use a different substance as a moderator...

    I have to wonder...what would happen if slashdot moderators were used to slow the reaction at a nuclear plant. I suspect disaster at the plant if their ability to affect reactions here are any clue.

    :-)

  262. Re:And the Kraplockistanis by A55M0NKEY · · Score: 1

    use Fluffy Fuzzy Bunnies. They keep going and going and going...

    --

    Eat at Joe's.

  263. Re:Damn! She's smokin hot! (and not in a radioacti by hensons · · Score: 1

    So, did anybody manage to get her email address?
    Or maybe a few more pictures?

  264. another one by linoleo · · Score: 1

    Another novella capturing the nostalgia of a depopulated world full of automated machinery that keeps going is "Slow Music" by James Tiptree, Jr. Beautiful.

    --
    Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
  265. not to mention DHMO! by linoleo · · Score: 1

    Dihydrogen Monoxide is arguably the most abundant lethal chemical on this planet.

    --
    Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard
  266. Accident timeline by PreteristGuy · · Score: 0

    I know this may not have much to do with the post, but here is a timeline of the accident: http://users.owt.com/smsrpm/Chernobyl/tlinedt.html

  267. really 30 seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    really 30 seconds?

    GrimRC