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.'"

135 of 971 comments (clear)

  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 Fenris+Ulf · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  2. 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
  3. 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 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
    2. 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!
    3. 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 ...
    4. 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...

  4. 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 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!
  5. 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 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
    4. 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.
    5. 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/
  6. 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 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.
    2. Re:Gamma World by SilentOne · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's a Bradbury story from _The Martian Chronicles_

    3. 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.

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

      There Will Come Soft Rains.

    5. 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.
    6. 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.

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

      Someone posted the story and an analysis, too.

      --
      Yeah, right.
    8. 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
    9. 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?
    10. 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.
    11. 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.

    12. 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 ---

    13. 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.

  7. 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?
  8. 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
  9. 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

  10. 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 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.

  11. 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 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.

    2. 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.

      --

    3. 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.
    4. 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!"
    5. 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
  12. 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 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).

    2. 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.

  13. 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).

  14. 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
  15. 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?

  16. 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/
  17. 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.

  18. 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: 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.)

  19. 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"?

  20. 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.

  21. 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 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.)

  22. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 4, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  23. 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 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.
    2. 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.

  24. 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 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.

      --
    2. 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
  25. 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
  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.
  29. 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.

  30. 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..."
  31. 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.
  32. 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."
  33. 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: 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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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
  36. Many more pictures here.... by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Here is a site with many more pictures of the military vehicle graveyard there.

  37. 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.

  38. 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
  39. 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..."
  40. 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 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.
  41. 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?
  42. 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 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.

  43. 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^]
  44. 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.
  45. 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 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

  46. 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.

  47. 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....

  48. 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
  49. 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.

  50. 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."
  51. 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).

  52. 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.

  53. 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
  54. 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.

  55. 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
  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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. --
  59. 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?
  60. 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 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!"
    2. 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,

  61. 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.
  62. 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.

  63. 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 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!
    2. 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!
  64. Extensive damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here is a look at just how extensive the damage was.

  65. 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...

  66. 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.
  67. 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.

  68. 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.
  69. 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)
  70. 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

  71. 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.
  72. 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

  73. 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.

  74. 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.

  75. 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.