Slashdot Mirror


Latest Chernobyl Motorcycle Photos

wrx writes "Elena has taken another motorcycle ride through the Chernobyl area, and has updated her site with a whole lot of new photos and text. The pictures now show several surrounding towns, the radiation level of the magic wood, and many more details inside buildings. After the dust had settled from the original slashdot story, Elena wrote 'who are those slashdot people? they swept over like Mongol-Tartars.'"

28 of 951 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Soaking up the gamma by gumbi+west · · Score: 5, Informative
    Not so sure. You probably get about 300 mR/year and you may get way more. For example, if you smoke you get an additional 1000 mR/year (1 R/year) in addition to all the other things in the tobaco.

    Also, 300 mR is only enough to increase your risk of cancer by 0.01 %, i.e. it's not going to take any time off your life (unless you happen to be the one in 10,000 who gets cancer as a result of that additional exposure, and even then, your chances of dieing are only 1 in 2).

  2. Re:Not yet. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Oh please.

    TMI was a non-incident. The only reason anyone thinks it was a big deal was because of press coverage, and because of TV personalities arguing about it live on nightly news. The most exposure anyone got was around 100millirems, which is about the same as an x-ray at a doctor's office.

  3. Re:Watch the hit counter spin by Falc0n · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yup... Just in case Angelfire decides her bandwidth is too much, here is a mirror: http://www.fcdnet.org/chernobyl/

  4. Re:Soaking up the gamma by gumbi+west · · Score: 4, Informative

    Living in a home made of brick (as I do) will increase your dose by about 30 mR/year. On the other hand, living in a poorly ventilated house over a soil rich in Uranium can increase your dose by about 1000 mR/year. This is all in the United States NRC's (not online) NuReg 1401.

  5. Re:Soaking up the gamma by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Informative

    You said: " Wait a second! she is showing readings of less than 1 mR/hour. Power plant workers can work in 1 mR/hour for the entire year and not exceed NRC's strict 2 R/year limit. In otherwords, this is nothing. Parent poster doesn't know what he is talking about."

    The NRC limit (see 10 C.F.R.) is 3 rem per quarter, and 5 rem per year. A rem is a weighted roetgen (R). The weighting factors are used because while a roetgen measures the energy deposited, a rem measures the physical damage (exposure versus dose). An example of a weighting factor is a gamma will have a factor of 1, while a fast neutron may have a factor of 20. So a 1 mR/hr exposure rate will give you 1 mrem/hr for gammas, and 20 mrem/hr for fast neutrons.

    --
    Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
  6. Re:Question for physics people by Kiryat+Malachi · · Score: 5, Informative

    Very different units.

    Roentgens measure ionizing radiation in air/free field. Rems (actually REM, an acronym for Roentgen-Equivalent Man) are a measure of how much biological damage a given amount of radiation does. Basically, one roentgen of gamma radiation is appx. equivalent to one rad absorbed is appx. equivalent to one rem. However, other types of radiation have different conversions - for instance, one rad of alpha radiation is appx. equivalent to 20 rems of exposure.

    The short version - "In summary, the roentgen is a unit of exposure, the rad is a unit of absorbed dose, and the rem is a unit of biological dose."

    (data from http://www.radford.edu/~fac-man/Safety/Radiation/c hp5.htm)

    --

    ---
    Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
    (I read with sigs off.)
  7. Re:Question for physics people by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 4, Informative

    Roentgen: radiation intensity required to produce and ionization charge of 0.000258 coulombs per kilogram of air.

    Rem: absorbed dose of 0.01 joules of energy per kilogram of tissue

    One roentgen of gamma radiation exposure results in about one rad of absorbed dose.

  8. Re:Soviet calendar? by boomka · · Score: 4, Informative

    On the left there are abbreviated weekdays written, and they go from Monday to Saturday. Traditionally in Soviet Union everyone worked 6 day per week, and this calendar only shows the working days.

    --
    Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe.
    H.G. Wells, "The Outline of History"
  9. Exposure levels by earthforce_1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    From
    http://ldml.stanford.edu/cisac/pdf/Nuc_terr_ back.p df
    20,000 millirem will mutate DNA enough to produce noticeable health effects. Above 100,000 millirem, diseases manifest.

    10,000 millirem is enough to increase your cancer risk.
    5,000 millirem per year is the maximum allowable annual dosage.

    25,000-100.000 mrem - Temporary blood changes
    35,000 - Loss of appetite, nausea
    50,000 - Temporary sterility in males
    100,000 - 2x normal incidence of genetic defects
    100,000 - 300,000 - Vomiting, diarrhea
    300,000 - 500,000 - 50% chance of death if not treated
    300,000+ - Permanent sterility for females
    400,000-1,000,000 - Acute illnes, death within days if not treated.

    Her meter was showing over 800 millirem per hour, when she was standing a few hundred metres from the reactor.

    I am facinated by these pictures, I would love to (briefly) visit these places, but I fear she will do herself serious harm over time. The area is an incredible time capsule.

    --
    My rights don't need management.
    1. Re:Exposure levels by man_ls · · Score: 5, Informative

      Her meter was microretnogen/hour.

      (spelling is wrong)

      REM is retnogen enhanced modifier or something to that effect -- it's the dose * an absorbtion factor.

      not quite the same thing.

    2. Re:Exposure levels by Phanatic1a · · Score: 5, Informative

      Her meter was showing over 800 millirem per hour

      No, it wasn't. It was showing 800 microroentgen per hour.

      One of the things that confuses people about radioation are the different measurements.

      A roentgen is the amount of X or gamma radiation needed to deposit in dry air 2.58E-4 Coulombs per kilogram, or roughly 100 ergs per gram.

      Rads are the absorbed dose, the amount of energy actually absorbed in a material. 1 rad is equal to 100 ergs per gram.

      Rems are the equivalent dose, a relationship between the absorbed energy and actual biological damage. Take the rads, multiply by a quality factor which is based on the type of radiation under discussion, and you the get rems.

      A Curie is the unit of radioactivity, one Curie being equal to 37,000,000,000 radioactive decays per second.

      Flip over to SI, and you have Grays as the absorbed dose (1 Gy = 100 rads), Sieverts as the equivalent dose (1 Sv = 100 rem), and Becquerels as the radioactivty (3.7E10 Bq in one Ci).

      Her meter was showing 800 microroentgen per hour. That's gammas and x-rays, by the way. Those have a quality factor of 1; they're very penetrating, but also chargeless, massless, and very small, so they have a weak interaction cross-section. 800 microroentgen per hour translates to 800 microrads per hour, which when you multiply by the quality factor of 1 is, surprise, 800 microrem per hour.

      So to get "maximum allowable annual doseage" (allowable by whom, exactly?) of 5,000 millirem, she'd have to hang around the reactor for 260 days, which is about 2/3rds of a year to begin with. I don't think she's going to be doing herself serious harm.

      And the alphas and the betas? Lousy mean free path through air.

  10. Re:Soaking up the gamma by Artifakt · · Score: 4, Informative

    Most of that increase is from Radon, which is an inert gas that is produced by the breakdown of Thorium or Uranium. It's much heavier than mormal air and so tends to linger in basements, and as a gas, of course it goes right into a person's lungs.

    Then there's Granite. Some granites produce 500 to 800 mr/year or so exposure. 'The' UN building in NY, NY is sheathed with a moderately hot granite cladding, resulting in, if I recall correctly, employee exposures of 200-250 mR/year at full time, and some buildings are much worse.

    --
    Who is John Cabal?
  11. Re:Soaking up the gamma by Aglassis · · Score: 5, Informative

    You said: " Yeah, potasium iodide, they are saying it keeps radiation out of your system for X amount of dollars, like this: http://www.nukepills.com/"

    Potasium iodide doesn't 'get the radiation out of your system'. Please understand that radiation is the transmittal of energy through EM-wave or various particles (betas, alphas, neutrons). Radiation may pass through your body (perhaps doing harm) but it won't stay. Contamination is some radioactive substance that emits radiation governed by its half-life. If you drive by the a site that has alot of contamination you will get some radiation dose. As long as you don't ingest any of the contamination you will not get a dose when you leave.

    The purpose of potassium iodide is to minimize the dose to your thyroid. One characteristic radionuclide from nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons is radioactive iodine (typically I-129 and I-131). Your thyroid can absorb a certain amount of iodine before it become saturated. If you use iodine pills, your thyroid will absorb a non-radioactive nuclide. This means that when you ingest radioactive iodine following a casuality, little of it will be absorbed into the thyroid, reducing the dose to the thyroid. Please note though, that the thyroid isn't the only organ that can kill you if it gets exposed to a significant amount of radiation. Its just the only one that there is an effective preventive measure for. If you are in the area of radioactive fallout, it will increase your chances of survival slightly, but it won't make you a radiation-resistant superman.

    --
    Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
  12. Re:Such an amazing and atypical slashdot article by Ryvar · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you read through it she mentions that she brings one of the local die-hards who refuses to leave with her for exploring buildings because of the safety issues involved. Presumably said girl took the photo.

  13. Re:Soaking up the gamma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    One of the units at Chernobyl had gotten a license to operate, even though they hadn't run all of the required tests. One of the tests they hadn't run was to verify that the spin down of the turbine after a turbine trip could power the unit until the standby generators could be activated. The unit was coming up to a planned shutdown, so they decided (or were told) to run the test and get it out of the way.

    However, rather than simply tripping the turbine and reactor, which would only give them one shot to get the test right, they decided to keep the reactor running at low power level and simply trip the turbine. That would let them repeat the test as many times as they needed to in order to make sure they passed it.

    Sure enough, the operators flubbed the test on the first run through, but they also allowed the reactor to sink to an extremely low power level. So low, in fact, that they got into an unstable operating range that they didn't know about. So, when they goosed the reactor to repeat the test, they got a runaway instead.

    The resulting pressure excursion and/or steam explosion blew the head off of the reactor and the roof off the building. The reactor, like all Soviet reactors, had no containment structure. This allowed air to enter, which allowed the graphite blocks that served as a moderator to catch fire, creating a radioactive smoke plume blowing downwind. The rest of the world (ie., us) found out about the accident when Swedish scientists reported a radioactive cloud passing overhead.

    The graphite in the reactor all burned away eventually, in spite of many days worth of truly heroic (and fatal) efforts to put it out. The fuel all coalesced into a magma and the proceeded to sink down through the building structure where it (fortunately) dispersed into the different basements and sub-structures until it had been dispersed and cooled enough that it stopped. It's all still there and will be continue to be deadly dangerous for thousands of years to come.

    So much for safe, clean, and efficient nuclear power.

    All this is from memory, so please forgive any errors, which are entirely mine.

  14. Re:Watch the hit counter spin by frostyboy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Heh, looks like you made the same mistake that I almost did. The link on that first page just goes right back to angelfire. The -k option in wget is most useful for these situations

    True mirror at: http://netfiles.uiuc.edui/benoc/mirrors/www.angelf ire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/



    Visit the oldest running human webcam on the internet:
    http://www.mitwebcam.com
    --
    Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my disk????
  15. Re:Not yet. by afidel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, sure. It's a non-event only if you realize how close they were to core meltdown which would have poisoned the water table across a large swatch of the east coast (lookup china syndrome), and ignore the fact that the reactor containment facility STILL (a quarter centyry later) has places too radioactivly hot to enter. And several years after the incident considerably more radiation was released:

    For 11 days, in June-July, 1980, Met Ed illegally vented 43,000 curies of radioactive Krypton-85 (beta and gamma; 10 year half life) and other radioactive gasses into the environment without having scrubbers in place. In November 1980, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the krypton venting was illegal.
    link

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  16. Re:Watch the hit counter spin by Pathwalker · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you want to grab it via bittorrent, and contribute bandwidth back to other people who are downloading, I've got a torrent of a mirror set up here.

    Bittorrent is probably overkill for a 5 meg site, but who cares; it helps spread the bandwidth load around...

  17. It blew the roof off man! by Chordonblue · · Score: 4, Informative

    It in fact blew the roof some 2,000 feet into the air spreading the worst of the worst particles far and wide.

    White-hot graphite rods were exposed to cold water - these exploded and that was what caused the explosion. The outside world first learned of it when some Norwegian folks at a nuclear plant picked up some off the scale readings.

    The majority of the reactor was buried under tons of concrete and steel (which is now in danger of cracking open). Many firefighters died attempting to contain nuclear fire and most of those had no idea what they were dealing with at the time.

    More info here:

    http://www.uic.com.au/nip22.htm

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
  18. Re:Soaking up the gamma by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Informative
    > She mentions at one point that on the "day of disaster people gothered on the roof of this builing and have been looking at a beautiful shining above Atomic Plant. This was the shinning of radiation."
    >
    >I have never heard of radiation producing visible evidence (immediately, that is), but then again, there was a lot of it. What is this "shinning" all about?

    Chernobyl was a graphite fire - the fire is probably what is being described.

    There is a visible phenomenon - Cerenkov radiation - a beautiful blue glow produced when fast moving particles strike water (speed of light in a transparent medium is a function of refractive index -- if particles have to "slow down", that energy has to go somewhere - it gets shot out in a cone of radiation).

    If you're seeing Cerenkov radiation at the bottom of a reactor pool, it's beautiful. If you're seeing it because the neutron flux through your eyeballs is enough that your vitreous humor is glowing blue, it's probably less than beautiful, given that if you know what you're seeing, you realize that your lifespan is probably best measured in hours/weeks, rather than years.

    Given that the only probable reports of seeing Cerenkov radiation from within the eyeball have been criticality incidents at very close range (1946, Tickling the dragon's tail"> and 1999 Japan, Tokaimura), I'm skeptical that the people on top of the building were seeing Cerenkov radiation from within their eyeballs.

    Chernobyl wasn't just a graphite fire, however, it was also a steam explosion. It's plausible (I don't have the numbers) that the neutron flux being spewed from the building was high enough to make condensing steam in the nearby air glow blue.

    From the account provided, there's insufficient data to sway me one way or the other -- were witnesses seeing light from the burning graphite and related fire, or were they seeing Cerenkov light released when you dump a massive neutron flux into a tower of condensing steam. The simpler hypothesis is that it was merely light from the intense fire.

    If I had to choose, I'd go with fire, but a single picture from the rooftop, or an eyewitness reporting blue in the fire would be enough to convince me that the shining was the blue light of Cerenkov radiation brought on by the dumping of insane numbers of neutrons into condensing droplets of water as the steam condensed.

    Aside to Elena: Thank you again for documenting this.

  19. Re:Soaking up the gamma by einTier · · Score: 4, Informative
    I once got to watch a small nuclear reactor fire up, and got to watch the Cerenkov radiation at the bottom of the reactor pool.

    That picture does not do it justice. While I was somewhat disappointed that the whole nuclear reaction was fairly anticlimatic -- no rumbling, no vibration, no nothing discernable except the blue light -- that blue light at the bottom of the pool was probably the most beautiful thing I have ever seen. There's just no way to describe the color. It's so vivid and so intense.

    --
    -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
  20. Thryroid Cancers in exposed residents by WindPwr · · Score: 5, Informative

    I recently worked on a project with a group of radiologists at the research university I'm employed by to develop an expert system to more quickly train operators of portable ultrasound imaging equipment. This group is part of a world wide organization of physicians dealing with the long term irradiation effects of hundreds of thousands of people exposed to Chernobyl's fallout. Specifically, detecting thyroid cancer with ultrasound requires much experience and there is great urgency to speed training to detect these cancers early before they become too advanced for successful treatment. This group began monitoring residents in the fallout area shortly after the accident was made public. Children exposed then are now beginning to show higher rates of thyroid cancers.

  21. Re:Exposure levels - negligible harm from gamma by t14m4t · · Score: 5, Informative
    heh. this is one of those few nuclear topics that I can actually comment on.

    those numbers that are being quoted are for a burst dose -- ie you get it all at once. the effects change if you get a continuous, lower dose to the same levels.

    I'm currently in the Navy's Nuclear Engineer school (2 more weeks and hopefully I'll be a certified nuclear engineer! hooray!). I don't have the numbers memorized, but this is along the lines of what they tell us (and yes, it's unclassified):

    1 Rem = 1 mRem (milliRem)

    The following are effects from burst doses

    • 1 Rem

    Prognossis: Excellent
    Effects: none
    Treatment: tell the guys he's a dumbass for thinking there's a problem

    • 25 Rem

    Prognossis: Excellent
    Effects: none
    Treatment: have him see a doctor just to make sure, but there's still really no problem. possible rise in chance to get cancer.

    • 100 Rem

    Prognossis: Good
    Effects: headache. 5% chance of vomitting within 4 hrs.
    Treatment: seek medical attention.

    • 500 Rem

    Prognossis: OK
    Effects: headache. 50% chance of vomitting within 2 hr. 5% chance of death within 4 months.
    Treatment: seek medical attention immediately.

    • 1000 Rem

    Prognossis: Guarded
    Effects: headache. 100% chance of vomiting within 1 hr. 50% chance of death within a short period (can't rememebr the time).
    Treatment: better get him to a doctor NOW!

    • 5000 Rem

    Prognossis: hopeless
    Effects: headache. 100% chance vomitting within 30 min. 100% chance of death within 48 hrs.
    Treatment: Give him sedatives. Call the morgue.

    For those that are curious, the guys on K-19 probably got more than 5000 Rem.

    And what do these mean? here are some numbers to compare against:

    I work daily 15 feet from an operational reactor (I work on US submarines).
    my exposure last month: 4 mrem.
    my lifetime exposure: .106 (approx 1/10) Rem. (I've been doing this job for 2.5 yrs)
    The radiation levels in the Reactor Compartment 15 minutes after shutting down the reactor: ~50 mRem/hr (avg)

    a day at the beach: 10 mRem per day
    smoking for a year: 1 Rem
    standing next to a bag of fertilizer: 2 mRem / day
    eating a banana: 4 mRem each

    those numbers are mostly from betas and gammas. alphas only affect you if you get them inside you, which is why smokers get so much radiation, and neutron mostly is (a) really low-level and (b) passes right through you.

    so what's my point?

    1. I get less radiation from work that I do from living.
    2. those numbers that they got from Chyrnobl are HUGE, but they can't happen on US Naval Reactors. Even if we were to completely melt down and spray our stuff all over the place, we would still be relatively clean (we use tiny reactors; we only need to power a 300' boat to 25+ knots, we don;t need to power an entire metropolis). besides, the most likely time that would occur is if we get hit with a depth charge, at which point's we'll sit on the bottom of the ocean and get covered with a whole hell of a lot of water! :-)

    weylin
    --
    67.5% Slashdot Pure I guess I need to work on that.... :)
  22. Deserted town in the USA by Sanat · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in the early 80's a small town - Times Beach, Missouri was found to have dioxin sprayed on the dirt streets and caused the government to buy out the whole town and relocate everybody.

    It is eery to drive down I-44 just outside of St. Louis and see this town that is totally deserted. just sitting there...

    I've moved from the area since so have not seen it in a few years so don't know what it looks like today, but it was said that the streets contained 2,000,000 times the amount of dioxin considered to be a dangerous level.

    People living there would rake up dead birds and animals died at an alarming rate. over 50 horses died at a single stable from the spraying.

    Now it is just a ghost town frozen in time from the early 80's.

    A massive cleanup was to be put in place collecting the dirt, processing it and later putting back the cleaned dirt... but it may be a never ending project.

    Any locals from St. Louis area care to elaborate further and update what is going on and if the town is still there?

    --
    And in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make
    1. Re:Deserted town in the USA by freshmkr · · Score: 4, Informative
      Back in the early 80's a small town - Times Beach, Missouri was found to have dioxin sprayed on the dirt streets and caused the government to buy out the whole town and relocate everybody.


      Any locals from St. Louis area care to elaborate further and update what is going on and if the town is still there?


      Contaminated soil and other debris from Times Beach was completely incinerated by 1997. The buildings and houses were leveled years before that. Know what you mean, though--when I was a kid, I used to hold my breath when we drove by on 44.


      Googling for "times beach cleanup" turns up this PDF summary. A quote:


      The Times Beach cleanup has been completed. All residents and businesses were permanently relocated, the purchase of the remaining parcels by FEMA has been completed, and the ownership of the parcels of land has been conveyed to the State of Missouri. The demolition and disposal of the structures at Times Beach has been completed. Excavation of dioxin-contaminated soils, interim placement in temporary on-site storage, and final destruction of site contaminants by incineration has been completed. Thermal treatment of dioxin-contaminated soils from Times Beach and other sites was completed in June 1997, and the site has been restored to a state park.


      --Tom

  23. Re:Soaking up the gamma by omarin · · Score: 5, Informative
    One thing that people are forgetting is that, like it or not, radioactivity is EVERYWHERE. Even before our nuclear age, nature has been putting out radioactivity. Unfortunately many of us don't know this fact and act like hypochondriacs when the topic is mentioned. Here is a list of natural radioactivity (from various web sources):


    1. Our bodies: about half of the radioactivity in our bodies comes from Potassium-40 (naturally-occurring radioactive form of potassium.) Potassium is important for the brain and muscles. Most of the rest of our bodies' radioactivity is from Carbon-14 and tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen. These naturally-occurring radioactive substances expose our bodies to about 25 "millirem" per year, abbreviated as "mrem/yr".)


    2. Radioactivity in food and water: for example, the radio- (and non-radio) active forms of iodine and sodium. The food we eat contains radium-226, thorium-232, potassium-40, carbon-14, and hydrogen-3, also known as tritium.

    To quote a web page: The U. S. Department of Energy gives the following concentrations as examples:

    • Salad Oil 4,900 pCi/l
    • Milk 1,400 pCi/l
    • Whiskey 1,200 pCi/l
    • Beer 390 pCi/l
    • Tap Water 20 pCi/l
    • Brazil Nuts 14.00 pCi/g
    • Bananas 3.00 pCi/g
    • Tea 0.40 pCi/g
    • Flour 0.14 pCi/g
    • Peanuts and Peanut butter 0.12 pCi/g.

    3. Flying: Flying in an airplane increases our exposure to cosmic radiation. A coast-to-coast round trip gives us a dose of about four millirem.

    4. Living at higher altitudes: Generally, for each 100-foot increase in altitude, there is an increased dose of one millirem per year. (So, San Francisco vs. Boulder, for example)...

    5. The rocks, soils and beaches around us are radioactive: In Ohio, radiation in soil and rocks contributes about 60 millirem in one year to our exposure. In Colorado, it is about 105 millirem per year. In Kerala, India, this radioactivity from soil and rocks can be 3,000 millirem per year, and at a beach in Guarapari, Brazil, it is over 5 millirem in a single hour -- but only a few residents who use that beach receive doses in excess of 500 millirem per year.

    6. Radioactivity in our homes:
    A: If you live in a wood house, the natural radioactivity in the building materials gives you a dose of 30 to 50 millirem per year.
    B: In a brick house, it is 50 to 100 millirem per year.
    C: In a tightly sealed house with little ventilation, natural radioactive gases (radon) can be trapped for a longer period of time and increase your dose.

    7. People/coworkers: Each person with whom we spend eight hours a day gives us a dose of about 0.1 millirem in a year.

    8. Cooking: Using a gas stove can increase the dose by about two millirem per year because of radioactive materials in the natural gas.

    9. Smoking: A person who smokes two packs of cigarettes a day receives a radiation dose of about 1,300 millrem per year. This is because polonium (a radioactive element) is part of the smoke and when inhaled, it gets trapped in the lungs.

    10. Misc: There's also the sun, and medical X-rays...

    Basically, on the whole we need not fear natural radioactivity, as our bodies evolved to cope with it (cellular repair). What we need to fear/respect is man-made radioactivity and its waste products, because when human error/greed/fallibility get involved, that is when man-made radioactivity bites us in the ass...
  24. Elena has requested that people not duplicate site by 0x0d0a · · Score: 5, Informative

    Elena has started posting on sport-touring.net.

    When someone put up a mirror, worried about bandwidth, Elena asked him to take it down because she was concerned that her updates wouldn't get propagated, and that people would only see an old version.

    elena

    I asked to remove copied site, because need to update and need to make some corrections.


    Original Elena post here.

    While I realize that folks just want to help out, I think that, given that this is Elena's work (and one that she had to venture into hazardous environments to produce and is giving away freely), her wishes should be respected WRT mirrors. (That doesn't mean that I'm not going to make a personal wget -rk --no-parent'ed copy just in case the site ever goes away permanently, though.)

  25. Re:Soaking up the gamma by goodhell · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ummmm, Chernobyl was tiny compared to other nuclear accidents that happened in the Soviet Union. The only reason it is so well, known is its location. It is very close to other European borders. When it went off, other national communities saw a huge spike in radiation levels coming from that region. The Soviet Union denied anything happened, but after repeated requests to know what happened they finally caved in and said what happened.

    I've lived in areas in the former Soviet Union that had worse nuclear accidents. With Chernobyl, they had a crack that formed over the waste plant, and from that it started to spew waste from it. They flew a chopper over it and dropped some cement over it to stop the process.

    Chelyabinsk Sorok (40 kilometers from the city) had much worse problems. In the '50's and the '60's it had a couple accidents. It blew the top off the waste plant completely. There was no stopping the waste from coming out. They had to bring people from outside the region to clean it up, because the residents in the area knew what it was and would not clean it up. (Normally the Soviet Union would have only those who were in the area clean it up, so rumors wouldn't spread.) This happened again in the '60's. And another time they decided that because there are so many lakes in the area, why not take and dump some of the nuclear waste and dump it in one of those?

    Another city that a huge nuclear accident happened at was Novosibirsk. Although I am less familiar with the details. I just know that some days were "warmer" than others depending on how the wind blew.

    (Please note that I actually lived there and conversed with many people in Chelyabinsk -- who openly scoffed at Chernobyl. I've even conversed with a person who cleaned it up. He was so cancer-ridden that he could barely move.)