Slashdot Mirror


Interview With Chernobyl Engineer

An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has posted an interview with a former Chernobyl engineer, Alexander Yuvchenko, who was not only there the night of the explosion, but is still alive today to tell about it. A fascinating recollection of some pretty heroic acts."

584 comments

  1. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For once in your Slashdot browsing days, read the article! It's really interesting and worth your time.

    1. Re:RTFA by valkraider · · Score: 1

      This was posted way down in the comments, and I'll repeat it here so perhaps someone will see it. You can follow along with a Motorcycle ride through Chernobyl.

  2. Quite a few by LordHatrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know quite a few in the Cherynobe area who survived just fine. I even have some messed up film, somewhere :) Still sounds scary though.

    1. Re:Quite a few by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Interesting
      • I know quite a few in the Cherynobe area who survived just fine. I even have some messed up film, somewhere :) Still sounds scary though.
      Umm, yeah that's true but this guy was working at the plant the night it exploded and even saw the interior of what was left of the pile at one point. (Which is amazing to read about.) Most of those there that night died, in fact at one point he tells he went with 3 other guys who were ordered to manually lower the rods. He propped the door open for them to go in and see for themselves almost nothing was left. The three guys who went through the door all died very soon afterwards but he's still here. (He credits the door and wall for saving his life.)

      You really should read this interview, it's both fascinating and scary as hell at the same time. I don't think I'll forget his description of the light from the ionized air above the reactor for a long time.

    2. Re:Quite a few by Enigma_Man · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I feel the same way. The description of the ionized air is extremely eerie, and I can't help but imagine the devastation, and horrible beauty of that scene. It gives me the creepy crawlies. Just something about a force so powerful that you can't actually feel until your body starts what amounts to dissolving.

      -Jesse

      --
      Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
    3. Re:Quite a few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The blue glow was Cerenkov radiation, not ionized air. It's common in water, but to see it in air means that there must have been an incredibly intense source of beta radiation.

    4. Re:Quite a few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Like a blown open nuclear reactor?

    5. Re:Quite a few by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Are you actually downplaying the effects of the Chernobyl radioactive blast? "It's not that bad"?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:Quite a few by makohund · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For some reason when reading it I could picture it in my head, but...

      It was accompanied by an overwhelming sense that my mind's picture was superimposed with the old farmer Neham's well. From Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space".

      OK, the reactor light was blue while the color in the story was unidentifiable... but other than that they appeared so alike in my head as to really creep me out. :)

      Even the results of exposure were horribly similar.

    7. Re:Quite a few by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      I went up to a test reactor once, and stood on top of the reactor (basically a large rectangular water tank with the rod-assembly in it) and marveled at the beauty of the blue Cherenkov radiation. Then they turned off the lights, and you could see the entire tank lit up with this eery blue light not even the best computer games have shaders for yet.

      It's frightening to think of what that man saw, when the contained reaction was so awe inspiring.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    8. Re:Quite a few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy is a russian nuclear engineer working at the power plant, not some college drop out. I think he knows what he is talking about.

    9. Re:Quite a few by abborren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A google image search shows some beautiful pictures. I am not sure I used the correct spelling (Cherenkov vs Cerenkov) though "Cerenkov" returns nicer images.

      --
      ><////>
    10. Re:Quite a few by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link! Dunnit make for pretty pictures? :)

      As for the spelling...hey, it's a phonetic of cyrilic, so whatever way you spell it in modern alphanumerics is correct :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    11. Re:Quite a few by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A google image search shows some beautiful pictures.

      Yes, indeed.

  3. Treatment was prompt by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How did they treat you? It was a very intensive and demanding treatment and you had to be very strong to withstand it. I had continuous blood and plasma transfusions. For a few months I lived on other people's blood. Then the ulcers from the radiation burns started to appear. I had a lot of burns. Only after a couple of months did it become clear that there was a chance I might live. For those of you who make fun of the Soviet system wen you probably wheren't even born then, this is a lesson: Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Treatment was prompt by funkdid · · Score: 5, Informative

      For Engineers the treatment was prompt, for the inhabbitants they pulled an "EPA in NYC after 9/11." They didn't evacuate the area, and assured people that all was well. After a week THEN they evacutaed everyone. I don't think the locals received the same top notch treatment.

      --

      I boycott signatures

    2. Re:Treatment was prompt by Angry+Toad · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Seriously - you went to the Soviet Union while it still existed and did a large, statistically significant sampling of people with respect to the appearance of their teeth? Enough to make generalizations about dental care for several hundred million people?

      Wow. Good job.

    3. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Aside from the whole covering-up the safety audit thing which set the stage for the explosion, and the inept fumbling of the inspectors which set it off, yeah I suppose they "took care of their people" well. In both senses of the phrase, actually...

      But seriously, even taking this as positively as possible, it's still a kilo of cure instead of a gram of prevention.

    4. Re:Treatment was prompt by HardCase · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For those of you who make fun of the Soviet system wen you probably wheren't even born then, this is a lesson: Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

      You're kidding, of course. Although the USSR's health care system was universal, the quality was utterly abyssmal for the average citizen.

      I was unfortunate enough to see first-hand the state of Soviet-era medical facilities and the quality of care in the mid 1980's. Many third-world countries had much better medical care than that of the "typical" Soviet hospital that we toured. And, given that this was a state-sponsored tour (as was everything that we saw), I suspect that it was something better than typical.

      -h-

    5. Re:Treatment was prompt by CmdrGravy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I doubt he did that but if you read /. for a while you'll realise certain Americans have some weird idea that the quality of healthcare in countries is determined soley by dentistry and that everyone in all other countries has bad teeth and hygiene when compared to Americans.

      There may be an element of truth in this since Americans need good teeth to consume the amount of food they do but I haven't actually studied this correlation.

      I think this is some kind of reaction to the fact they have to pay directly for their Health Service.

    6. Re:Treatment was prompt by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Seriously - you went to the Soviet Union while it still existed and did a large, statistically significant sampling of people with respect to the appearance of their teeth? Enough to make generalizations about dental care for several hundred million people?

      Likely, the GP is from the USA, a country which judges the healthcare of foreign nations by the quality of their citizens' teeth. Hence, the long-standing jokes about English bad teeth, which totally overlook the fact that the UK has a comprehensive, state-run healthcare system which -- for the less wealthy -- knocks the spots off the private coverage in the US.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    7. Re:Treatment was prompt by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they took care of their people so well that they built their nuclear reactors without containment structures, and then blew one of them up in an ill-conceived test.

      I'll pass on that kind of "care".

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    8. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      As someone who has lived in Soviet Russia and who was in Kiev when the explosion occured (a city nearby) I can personally attest that the medical treatment in the Soviet Union was incomparably worse than anywhere else in the developed world.

    9. Re:Treatment was prompt by winkydink · · Score: 1
      somehow this comment does not apply to the previous poster?

      Do your reasearch, then draw your conclusions.

      Oh wait, this is slashdot. Where people somewhat knowledgeable about computers thing they know everything.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    10. Re:Treatment was prompt by winkydink · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are you trying to infer that dental health is not related to longevity? What percentage of English people over the age of 50, still have their original teeth (the answer is out there, go find it). I'll give you a hint, a lot more do not than do.

      If the English healthcare system is so great, why is there a separate, private healthcare system there for those who can afford to pay? How long does one wait for an elective surgery like, say, a hip replacement?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    11. Re:Treatment was prompt by noewun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, beginning in the late 60s, the Soviet Union suffered from a healthcare crisis: declining care, increasing infant mortality, rampant alcoholism, poor standards of sanitation and public hygeine, etc. The life expectancy of a Soviet male in the mid 1980s was six year less than in the 1960s, and the infant mortality rate was three times that of the U.S.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    12. Re:Treatment was prompt by guyjr · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, UK healthcare definitely "knocks the spots" off US healthcare, what with the very speedy (9 months or more in some cases) timeframe to treat illness, the vast quantity of choices available (to the private healthcare participants... public healthcare = you take what we give you or you take nothing), and of course, all those elective surgeries which are covered (if you've got the $$$ to bribe the doctor).

      And of course, that wonderful, non-fluorinated water, which must do SUCH a superb job of preventing cavities in people's dentals. Not that scientific studies showing that fluoride prevents tooth decay should have any bearing on one's opinion of proper dental care.

    13. Re:Treatment was prompt by guyjr · · Score: 1

      SHHHhhhhh!!! Keep it on the down low... somebody out there might hear you!

    14. Re:Treatment was prompt by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to infer that dental health is not related to longevity?

      Yes, I am. How often does 'bad teeth' appear as the cause of death in a coroner's report?

      If the English healthcare system is so great, why is there a separate, private healthcare system there for those who can afford to pay?

      Because people will always be willing to pay for a private room, shorter waiting lists, etc.

      In any case, you've totally missed my point: in the US, if you do not have private health coverage, you have nothing. Operable brain tumour? If your job doesn't come with health coverage (and for blue collar workers, increasingly few do), and you can't afford the operation using your savings, then you're going to die. Period.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    15. Re:Treatment was prompt by dunc78 · · Score: 0

      Good thing you respond to comments from "certain Americans" with insults on all Americans. I know you have read ./ for a while, because you have mastered the anti-American sentiment.

    16. Re:Treatment was prompt by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      ...and why all Soviet people have such great-looking teeth?

      By that analogy, the Brits must be carriers for every disease known.

    17. Re:Treatment was prompt by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      And of course, that wonderful, non-fluorinated water, which must do SUCH a superb job of preventing cavities in people's dentals.

      Fool, everyone knows that flourination of the water supply is a damn commie plot to make us all impotent! We must defend our Purity of Essense!

      Note to moderators: this post is on-topic, because (a) I reference the former Soviet Union, and (b) Dr Strangelove was modelled on Edward Teller, who led the development of the Hydrogen bomb.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    18. Re:Treatment was prompt by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Life expectancy in Britain (m/f) (yr 2000): 75.7/80.4
      Life expectancy in the US (m/f) (yr 2000): 74.1/79.4
      Combined total healthcare costs per capita, Britain (yr 1998): 4,178$
      Combined total healthcare costs per capita, USA (yr 1998): 1,461$

      I'll take the British system, thanks (and several dozen others) over the US system. If I have to fork over some extra to take care of my teeth, it's no big deal ;)

      --
      No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
    19. Re:Treatment was prompt by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

      Which explains why doctors were some of the lower-paid people in the USSR? My friends from the former Soviet Union would definitely have a different opinion... not to say that their medicine was truly bad, but certainly not top notch.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    20. Re:Treatment was prompt by the+gnat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For those of you who make fun of the Soviet system wen you probably wheren't even born then, this is a lesson: Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

      Quick question: how many people here would honestly trade their political, civil, and economic freedom just for free health care? It's okay if you do, just be consistent about it. I suspect there aren't many who'd agree with this, though. Otherwise, you can't just point to Communist nations and say "well, if you ignore the mass murder and gulags, it really wasn't that bad. . . "

    21. Re:Treatment was prompt by Blimey85 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually this isn't true. My mom didn't have health insurance when she found out that she had a liver tumor. The state (California) paid for the surgery. Just because you don't have insurance and can't afford to pay doesn't mean they'll let you die. They aren't barbarians.

      --
      How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    22. Re:Treatment was prompt by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Their healthcare system may not have been top notch for all people, but their doctors were just as dedicated and, dare I say, more imaginative. They knew how to do something, but didn't have the tools, sot they would devise ingenious substitutes.
      Have you ever seen anything about the ice surgeons performing heart surgery with no life support? They administer drugs to block adrenaline, and pour crushed ice around the body until the heart stops. From there they have about 60 minutes to get in and out. When they are done they wrap the person in heated blankets and heating pads and inject them with a large dose of adrenaline, maybe an electric shock if necessary. The lesson is that the tools are only half of the story; the doctors are the other half.

    23. Re:Treatment was prompt by infinite9 · · Score: 4, Informative

      For those of you who make fun of the Soviet system wen you probably wheren't even born then, this is a lesson: Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

      Eight months ago, I pulled my adopted son out of a Russian hospital in Novosibirsk against the will of the doctor. He had severe asthma and bronchitis which he had contracted while there for minor outpatient surgery. He hadn't been bathed or had his clothes changed in weeks. He was lying in a wet cloth diaper. His crib was made from knit kite string. This is the same hospital where I saw, with my own eyes, supplies being delivered by horse-drawn cart. He is covered in scars. He had more scars at 1 year old than I had at 33. One of them is a scar on his scrotum where they split it front to back for exploratory surgery. In the US, they would have ordered a cat scan. This was last winter. Would you say things have improved since soviet times?

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    24. Re:Treatment was prompt by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      Not true. There are a lot of organizations that help out in such cases, and many doctors who do the work for free for people who can't afford it.

    25. Re:Treatment was prompt by winkydink · · Score: 1

      Are you even remotely aware what periodontitis or even gingivitis can cause? Look it up. That is what will be listed as the cause of death.

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    26. Re:Treatment was prompt by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Not true. There are a lot of organizations that help out in such cases, and many doctors who do the work for free for people who can't afford it.

      And there's the rub. "Lots of" and "many" just doesn't cut the mustard for John Doe whose life is on the line. There is no guarantee that either of these support mechanisms will help an individual.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    27. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Re: Although the USSR's health care system was universal, the quality was utterly abyssmal for the average citizen.

      It's lie. Soviet medicine and particularly doctors was very good. And for average people (not for rich) it was much better than western medicine.

      Soviet medicine (free) - good for all people.
      Western medicine (expensive) - very good only for rich people.

    28. Re:Treatment was prompt by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

      As someone, who was not only born then, but also lived there -- in Kyiv -- at the time, I authoritatively state: you are wrong.

      This is a sign, that nuclear engineers were a really prized folk. Dozens of firefighters and lower-rank workers died right there -- radiation is like that, you don't feel it, until it is too late and noone bothered to warn them. Soviets most certainly did not care of their people, unless -- as in the case of these engineers -- educating them took a while.

      They flew these guys to Moscow, which also means, that Kyiv -- Ukraine's capital, a city of 2.5 million people merely 100 miles away -- did not have the proper facilities. The medicine was not top -- individual scientists and labs did have notable successes, but the public health was awful.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    29. Re:Treatment was prompt by NeverReminder · · Score: 1

      Not exactly. I still remember those times, and, as in many other areas in USSR, in healthcare soviet people can do wonderful things, but in very limited quantities. I.e. some hospitals was top notch, so was doctors who worked there, one of best in world, but avarage clinic in country wasn't good at all.

    30. Re:Treatment was prompt by eggegg · · Score: 1

      286% more money 1-2% average longer life?
      That last year is often so fulfilling too. Are you sure your stats really argue your point?

    31. Re:Treatment was prompt by tekunokurato · · Score: 2, Informative

      Throughout history, if you have not had private healthcare, you have had nothing. Only in the last few decades has anyone guaranteed healthcare, and almost all of the systems which have are very poor at it, producing a significant number of users who would rather have it privatized.

      In the US, if you want healthcare, you fucking work for it. This provides a great incentive to people in our country. As for your claim that increasingly few jobs come with healthcare coverage, do you even know what you're talking about? Granted, Wal-Mart sucks ass. However, even my friend who works part-time at starbucks has basic healthcare coverage after only a few months. Apart from anecdotal evidence, the number of US citizens currently without healthcare is roughly 15%. That stat is roughly the same from the eighties, but it's way, way better than estimates of the sixties (though exact census data apparently does not exist). More people than ever before in history have healthcare, and they have to work and contribute to society in order to get it.

      Is it optimal? No! Not until we hit ST:TNG-levels will it be optimal. But it's better than ever and likely to improve as the cost of healthcare drops (it has risen for the past eight years due to increased acceptance of cosmetic and semi-necessary treatments, but that will taper off over time).

    32. Re:Treatment was prompt by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Good thing you respond to comments from "certain Americans" with insults on all Americans. I know you have read ./ for a while, because you have mastered the anti-American sentiment.

      Welcome to my friends list! Not often somebody has the guts to call the anti-Americanism for what it is as a non-AC.

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    33. Re:Treatment was prompt by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      Oh, please. RTFA. The engineers did everything they could, and by the book at that.

      IIRC, the problem was with the reactor design. With that design, the "scram" unintentionally increased the neutron flux in the core, leading to increased heat, and the explosion.

      The reactor designers were either poorly trained or otherwise incompetent.

      The same can be said about other Soviet technology. If you read Chuck Yeager's autobiography, you'll learn that the MiG designers were nepotism-based drop-ins from the political party. And the planes sucked. Their jet fighters were incapable of some maneuvers that the World War II P-51 could perform easily.

    34. Re:Treatment was prompt by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "There is no guarantee that either of these support mechanisms will help an individual."

      There is no guarantee that _any_ support mechanism, including socialized medicine, will help an individual.

      It's nice to believe in such things, but they just aren't the case. Welcome to life, there are no guarantees. Usually, when someone tries to guarantee X, they do so at the cost of just about everything else, especially freedom.

    35. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the look of teeth got to do with the state of health? Human teeth aren't milky white and absolutely straight by nature. They're crooked and get yellowish over time. If anything, the "great look" of American teeth is an indication of their lack of psychological health.

    36. Re:Treatment was prompt by anomalous+cohort · · Score: 1
      everyone in all other countries has bad teeth and hygiene when compared to Americans

      I remember going to a blue's festival held in a small, rural town in south Alabama. There wasn't a single adult resident in the town that I encountered who had any teeth.

    37. Re:Treatment was prompt by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which is why they sent their high-ranking people to the west for advanced surgeries

      any examples , please.

      Contrarily to what you say - as living in ussr I could say - almost no high ranking people were getting treatment in the west. Though being old people ( and most of the high ranking people in 70 80 s were old) they had a great number of different deceases). For them there was a special department if I remember correctly the 5 th department of the Ministry of health. And , boy, the quality of this treatment called among people 'kremlevka hospital' was extremely high.

      Though I could think on a special cases when it was known that somewhere in the world there were NEW methods to cure difficult deceases. But visiting west for treatments were absolutely not a natural way. Seems you somehow confused North Korea or some other contry with USSR.

      also. Regarding teeth. The treatment of teeth was not advanced still was very good and in most cases based on western ( imported) equipment I might say that in my high school I was checked each 6 months for teeth and when there were problems they were immediately fixed, in some social groups though it was very prestigious ( fetish) to have golden teeth - that is why you probably could notice them.

      overall I could say thouth there were problems in health care - those who wanted to be cured would always get nessesary and hight quality treatment ( of cause those abused alcohol would not have will to induce a health system to provide good medicaltreatment for them..) but my personal experience - I got quite good treatment when I become hardly ill, though it took time to get to good clinic and yes - it affected on how long I was getting rid of my decease. But eventually I was healed and the soviet system provided best western and local equipment and best doctors for that. And hey - I was absolutely average guy.

    38. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI: About 20M people in US do not have medical insurance.

    39. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am glad someone pointed this out.

      Average person got very marginal care. Engineers go special care; they were higher up on the food chain.

      Please keep your "isn't communism/socialism wonderful" rants to yourself, as you have no freaking clue what you are talking about. They are failures, plain and simple.

    40. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is that why MiG-29s and Sukoi-37s kick ass?

    41. Re:Treatment was prompt by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Don't be fooled. They gave this man a good treatment, but he belonged to the happy few. Many people in Soviet Russia who got sick because of Chernobyl weren't treated at all, weren't even informed their health was in danger. The authorities waited a few days before informing the society about the catastrophe, and people in Ukraine were going for walks with their children just when the fallout was the heaviest.

      For some picture of Soviet health care, you can read Solzhenitsyn's Cancer Ward. Try to find some decent (non-propaganda) statistics of infant mortality rate in the USSR, for one. In Poland, the average life expectancy increased and infant mortality rate dropped substantially after the transition from communism to capitalism. I would be very surprised if it was different in the Soviet Union.

      An often-cited example of a good and swift action against the fallout damage in 1984 is the wide-spread dosage of Lugol's fluid (a water solution of iodine (I) in potassium iodine (KI)) to children, which saved them from the worst. What is not so often spoken of, that this was not the communists government's initiative; the doctors had to persuade the authorities to let them carry out the action. I did not hear about such an action carried out in the Soviet Union.

      BTW, Lukashenko is now encouraging people to settle in the areas of Byelaruss deserted because of the fallout.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    42. Re:Treatment was prompt by RWerp · · Score: 1

      The same with public health care. Sometimes you have to wait for the operation so long, that you can die three times in a row before the surgeons get to you.

      I'm rather pro-public health care, but let's not be blind to its disatvantages.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    43. Re:Treatment was prompt by Steffan · · Score: 4, Insightful
      • Quick question: how many people here would honestly trade their political, civil, and economic freedom just for free health care?
      Quick question: How many people here [in the U.S.] would honestly trade their political, civil, and economic freedom just for the illusion of safety? I think we already know the answer to this...
    44. Re:Treatment was prompt by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      That has got to be the most embarassing and pathetic way to die. I would not want that one listed in my obituary.

    45. Re:Treatment was prompt by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      The example plane was the one that a defecting North Korean pilot came with. You didn't take it into spins...and its own designer dreaded diving in it.

      Yeah, I generalized a bit.

    46. Re:Treatment was prompt by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      OTOH, Yeager piloted the first MiG-15 delivered to the US by a defecting North Korean pilot and outflew a fellow pilot in an F-86. They weren't bad planes, just not as good as the Sabres. However, they did very well against the prop planes and early jets that the Allies fielded at the beginning in Korea until the Sabres could start arriving.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    47. Re:Treatment was prompt by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Life doesn't come with any sort of guarantees other than someday you will die. It never has and it never will. Get used to it and plan to take care of yourself.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    48. Re:Treatment was prompt by jafac · · Score: 2, Funny

      radiation is like that, you don't feel it, until it is too late

      I just got sunburned all to hell last weekend, and I know JUST what you're saying. . .

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    49. Re:Treatment was prompt by BK425 · · Score: 1

      Read what was quoted. The relevent section of the article is:
      ---
      It was a very intensive and demanding treatment and you had to be very strong to withstand it. I had continuous blood and plasma transfusions. For a few months I lived on other people's blood. Then the ulcers from the radiation burns started to appear. I had a lot of burns. Only after a couple of months did it become clear that there was a chance I might live. At that point my body started to work on its own again. I didn't need transfusions. But I was on a continuous morphine drip. My wife Natasha says I had lost a lot of weight and looked like a dying man. She says I spoke very slowly and quietly, but that I always retained a clarity of mind. I understood what was going on.
      ---
      The "intensive treatment" he recieved was transufsion and a morphine drip, literally medical treatment that teenage infantry men were giving one another on the fields of WWI. I have no experience of Non US meidcal treatment so my comment is neither favoring treatment in the US or the former republic. But, folks should RTFA before they use it as a platform to launch rants for or against tangentially related things.

    50. Re:Treatment was prompt by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      Get used to it and plan to take care of yourself.

      I do. That's why I have healthcare coverage, rather than hoping -- as the GP poster suggested -- that a doctor, through their kind heart, will treat me for free. You've totally failed to grasp the whole point of my post, haven't you?

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    51. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool info. What's your source? (I'd like to read it too.)

      --SC

    52. Re:Treatment was prompt by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Note the "Funny" rating my post has now recieved and try to chill out a little !

    53. Re:Treatment was prompt by El+Cabri · · Score: 1

      By the way, did you know that the life expectancy in the US is lower than in most other industrialized nations, and that the infant mortality rate is significantly higher ? It must be that the US is closer to the soviet system than most others.

    54. Re:Treatment was prompt by k4w0ru · · Score: 1

      I think they really do.
      It is another year.
      totaly worth it if you ask me. ...unless you're more concerned with saving that money for use after you have passed away, um for the afterlife or something...

    55. Re:Treatment was prompt by Tanktalus · · Score: 1

      Gotta be true. Just ask the French. :-)

    56. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how about just about every homeless person in the country and most of the people who barely have homes? That probably includes around 10 million.

      ""Otherwise, you can't just point to Communist nations and say "well, if you ignore the mass murder and gulags, it really wasn't that bad. . . """

      Well if you ignore the homeless, completely destitute, starving people in a land of plenty, and people dying from easliy treatable medical conditions it isn't that bad.

    57. Re:Treatment was prompt by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Whoops, I labelled those wrong.

      The British system was the cheap one. That's what I get for not previewing....

      --
      No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
    58. Re:Treatment was prompt by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      In Poland, the average life expectancy increased and infant mortality rate dropped substantially after the transition from communism to capitalism. I would be very surprised if it was different in the Soviet Union.

      just to surprise you. russian link ( a report to Eltsin) http://vivovoco.rsl.ru/VV/NO_COMM/DEMOGOV.HTM ( you may try babelfish to translate) a quote - since 1989 to 1995 the number of died increased in Russia form 1.6 million people in 1989 year to 2.2 million people in 1995 year so rose 1.4 times, the number of born childre contracted from 2.2 million people to 1.4 million people so contracted 1.6 times. -- and so on. Actually reforms in Russia which were performed the liberal way ( just to mention - ther reforms which were performed with assistance of US consultants - firs non communist prime minister ( actually acting prime minister - but this makes no difference) Gaidar was building his politics after US Republicans phylosophy ( he claimed it here and there) and accordingly invited Republican minded economists to russia to consult him) were devastating.

      In 1998 the income was $ 15 000 per capita annually now ( after 5 years of 6 - 7 percent annual growth it will reach till the end of this year the mark of $ 10 000 annually) so it will take us some time - seems 5-7 years to reach the economic positions which we had in 1989.

      It is just to make you aware which price russians paid for such kind of reforms.

      I'm personnally for reforms, but I think that was happening after 1989 was rather destructing the enemy rather than modernising the country. I hope russia will modernise - and thanks God it has a positive tendencies now. But it would pay almost 20 years for transition from socialism to market society. But the other way could be chosen. But it was not due to desire quickly to destroy everithing communist like. Yes communism is evel still destroying the entire infrastucture is not better than gradually replacing it.

    59. Re:Treatment was prompt by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      How many people here [in the U.S.] would honestly trade their political, civil, and economic freedom just for the illusion of safety?

      Well, I wouldn't, and I won't be voting for Bush. But we're still many orders of magnitude away from anything approaching what the Soviet bloc nations inflicted on their own citizens. Besides, anyone with a reasonable familiarity with US history (and this appears to exclude most Americans and virtually all Europeans) would recognize that past slips towards authoritarianism have both been considerably more dangerous, but we nevertheless survived with our liberties ultimately stronger than before. This isn't an argument in favor of complacency, merely against hysteria.

      I realize that the USA hasn't always lived up to its lofty principles, either at home or abroad, but that hardly makes Communism any less repulsive.

    60. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell does healthcare have to do with freedom? Getting to see a doctor isn't going to stop you from writing ranting letters to the newpaper editor.

    61. Re:Treatment was prompt by Splab · · Score: 1

      Odd, we got all that here in Denmark, and you know what? We are actually free, USA arent. Wake up!

    62. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orphanages are not representative of mainstream healthcare in Eastern Europe and Russia. Unfortunately they are basically unwanted.

    63. Re:Treatment was prompt by Zetra · · Score: 1

      Pity you had to be AC about that one.

    64. Re:Treatment was prompt by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      It's in his first book, Yeager. In it, he traces his experiences as a pilot in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. He expressed some admiration for the MiG-15, though he still preferred the F-86, and suggested that it was a lack of adequate training for North Korean pilots that allowed the F-86 to maintain air superiority.

      I don't recall whether the following information was in the book or not, but I have read in other places that most of the real air combat aces on the North's side were actually Soviet pilots who were forbidden from flying too close to the front lines, for fear that clear proof of Soviet involvement could widen the war outside of the Korean peninsula.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    65. Re:Treatment was prompt by RWerp · · Score: 1

      I think the hardships faced by the USSR citizens after 1989 were caused by the degree to which communism pervaded Soviet society. Polish people always had this attitude "we have certain rights, and the government must gives us this and this", while the Russians go more along the "let's be happy we've got what we've got, and don't ask for more". Putin is cutting down people's benefits and still his popularity soars. This makes it at the same time easier to carry out economic reforms (no strikes, only bureaucracy resistance), but also makes it easier to deprave people of their benefits and effectively rob the state of its infrastructure.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    66. Re:Treatment was prompt by noewun · · Score: 1

      I do know that. Our healthcare system is seriously fucked, but in a different way than the old Soviet system. We do not lack for either resources, doctors or equipment. What we do lack for is a sane system and a way to ensure that good care is available to all.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    67. Re:Treatment was prompt by dcmeserve · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Now that I have a son (who just turned 1), I find these kinds of stories that much more disturbing.

      How is your son doing now?

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
    68. Re:Treatment was prompt by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      What percentage of Californian people over the age of 20 still have their original teeth?

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    69. Re:Treatment was prompt by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Informative

      And the planes sucked.

      Wrong. The MiG15 you describe below was superior to US fighters at the time of it's creation.

      Their jet fighters were incapable of some maneuvers that the World War II P-51 could perform easily.

      The Space Shuttle can't roll like a P-51 either; doesn't mean it "sucks".

      The MiG-15's main opponent was the US F-86, and given equally skilled pilots, the MiG would NEVER lose. It had superior mobility, so the choice of whether to disengage or continue fighting was up to him. Fortunately for the USA, most Korean MiG pilots were dangerously untrained. (That's Chuck Yeager's opinion I'm repeating)

      Later MiGs were in several ways superior to USA equivalents too. The US fighters usually had an advantage in radars, missiles, or avionics; but that's not really the plane's fault, is it?

    70. Re:Treatment was prompt by kc0dxh · · Score: 1

      Sure... Millions already have. It's called Welfare or Medicare, or Medicaid...

      --

      --- "1.21 Jigawatts!" -Doc

    71. Re:Treatment was prompt by Tongo · · Score: 1

      I'll tell you what, I'm not very rich and I would MUCH rather prefer privitized health care over socialized. I'm sure you and your socialist/anarchist friends feel different however.

    72. Re:Treatment was prompt by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      I think the hardships faced by the USSR citizens after 1989 were caused by the degree to which communism pervaded Soviet society.

      on my side as I remember that days quite well I think that reasons were not such. Actually - Eltsin following his strategy - to get power in Russia ( one of the republic of USSR) and hey - he was then ( when he was moving to power the ULTRA communist and was more eager on words to 'improve' communism than Gorbatchev) - when he got it. He decided that it is not possible to perform market reforms in entire USSR - as he had not power over than ( Gorbatchev did).The market reforms were discussed by Gorbachev and others in power of USSR- but bureaucracy was against any changes and slowed down the reforms) and the key thing here was that Gorbachev was not ready to make real changes. That is why Eltsin move was at least logical. But destroying USSR ( by making new agreement with Belarus and Ukraine) lead to the situation - no PLANS where to move. And here Gaidar appeared who told - hey no need to make reforms, we 'free market economists itself guaranty - that things will go OK - the only thing we need now - to get all moneys off the people by the mean of harsh inflation ( shock therapy) . Maybe in Poland the step was more thought in detail. But shock therapy in Russia which HAD no even any market infrastructure that time led to entire halt of the economy. So the destruction of the country economy took just two years Gaidar was in power for two years economy contracted 4 times. So I would make conclusion that actually the problem were WRONG steps. Actually many economists that time ( I read The Economist review that days. They wonder what are idiots in Russia hoping to make privatization without having ANY specialists on market operations. Actually there was need to gradually develop such specialists etc. Why it succeded in Poland I'm not aware... but heard of big loans and many help from western countries. And yes - that Poland had always small business, farmers etc - they at least had those who had some experience of private initiative - there were NO in Russia... The last thing COULD be taken into account. And maybe slow reform will make life a bit more difficult. But fast reforms led to 4 times contraction of the economy. The consultants from US were THE same as they were to Poland. And they advised the same recipes. But I think they really overlooked the differences and also west did helped Poland and other eastern European countries. To much less degree it was ready to help Russia ( not sure why - but since that west considered Russia as enemy was always and still is here - and actually it is the reason which does not helps to make world safer... Russians would like to have good relations with west. Still it is not possible to call them worm till now.

      Putin is cutting down people's benefits and still his popularity soars.

      I'm not aware of cutting benefits other than YUCOS case - but they really did not pay taxes by using very dangerous ways to come around the law. Yes they managed to come around it - but then when state lawyers took a look at their practice they found that what is used to avoid tax pay is actually illegal. Overall I would not pay much attentions to those people who started 10 years ago like you and me and in ten years become multi billionaires. Yes - the situation was unique still those who were following law are not billionaires here ;) And his popularity gradually vanishes. Still why he is in power the economy grows contrarily to all 90s when economy only collapsed. Overall Putin is more liberal than most of politicians here and he really makes liberal changes here and there. Though it is followed with a degree of autocracy but the things he does are necessary as that complete chaos which was created by crocked hands of 'talented free market economists' ( they called such themselves but actually they were not) should be overcame. I think that Russia becomes more democratic now than it was before ( just allo

    73. Re:Treatment was prompt by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I am a student living on a tiny income and I have medi-cal coverage. As a student you need work only 20 hours a month for this. They cover 100% of my health care.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    74. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My mother's side of the family is British, I have lived in various places in the U.K. for years, and I can live in either the U.S. or the U.K. with equivalent legal standing in each. I choose to live in the U.S. because the quality of life is clearly superior.

      I don't know where you got your figures but they definitely don't tell the whole story. When my aunt died of lung cancer in the U.K. my uncle had to take her out of the National Health System to get her decent treatment at a private facility.

      When another aunt of mine in the U.K. developed a brain tumor the same thing held true then. My family is lucky, even after paying for NHS they can still afford some private care. Not everyone is so lucky.

      There is more to life expectancy than the healthcare system. For example, do those figures take into account the different demographics of the two countries? The different lifestyles?

      By the way, I am the CTO of a company in the healthcare field in the U.S. and it is a myth that people in this country are denied healthcare because of an inability to pay.

      They may not get the best and most expensive treatment available but neither does anyone but Bill Gates. Doctors and hospitals in the U.S. treat anyone who needs treatment. The expenses incurred are shared by the patients who have coverage, pro bono work by the doctors, and "angels" who are wealthy patrons of the hospital who pick up the slack.

      I can guarantee you that very few people on the NHS get the latest medical treatments. The people needing those treatments who can afford the trip come here to the U.S.

    75. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds like the South! Don't anyone else move here. They're all mouth-breathing inbred idiots with room-temperature IQs. The level of poverty and ignorance is unbelievable. You should encourage the South to secede.

    76. Re:Treatment was prompt by Rei · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      > I don't know where you got your figures from

      ??? As if life expectancy figures are hard to come by. Heck, you can even get them from the CIA World Factbook, which has just the most basic information about countries. Seriously - what's next, "I don't know where you claim to have gotten today's DJIA" or "How did you get ahold of the US's population"?

      > Do those figures take into account the different demographics of the two countries

      No, but the fact that almost every last industrialized country in the world that has a socialized healthcare system has a longer lifespan, and that the *next highest cost* to the US is half of what we pay, does. 1 point of data isn't much, but it's the situation everywhere.

      > it is a myth that people in this country are denied healthcare because of inability to pay ... They may not get the best and most expensive treatment available ... anyone who needs treatment.

      True, but misleading. True, if you can't pay, they are required to treat you anyway. However, it is also a fact that they'll hound you until they get payment if they think that there's any way they can get it out of you - they write off very few cases. This is why many people who don't have insurance don't go in for medical care.

      In Britain, you *all* have some coverage, even if you're poor. The wealthy can pay extra for more than that basic service level. It is halfway between true socialized healthcare and the US system.

      The numbers don't lie. People in industrialized nations with socialized healthcare live longer (often a lot longer), and pay far less.

      --
      No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
    77. Re:Treatment was prompt by sharkey · · Score: 1

      Let's look at a picture book: "The Big Book of British Smiles".

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    78. Re:Treatment was prompt by RWerp · · Score: 1

      to get all moneys off the people by the mean of harsh inflation ( shock therapy)

      In Poland, "shock therapy" (a rather biased name for the set of economic reforms administered in 1990) was meant to curb inflation, not to increase it. Poland had some market infrastructure in place, since first pro-market reforms were introduced in 1988 (small business only).

      Why it [privatization] succeded in Poland I'm not aware... but heard of big loans and many help from western countries.

      We sold many companies to foreing capital which had enough expertise to run them properly, not to domestic cronies with political connections (of course, such things happened too, only on smaller scale) like Russians did. It payed off. Poland, too, had economy less geared towards cold war effort than Russia, which made for smoother landing. AFAIR Russia has quite large foreign debt too, created after 1989, so the West lent it money too. Financial help for Poland consisted mainly of forgiving loans made in the 70' by the Gierek cabinet.

      I'm not aware of cutting benefits other than YUCOS case

      I remember reading recently they are planning to take away veterans' and students' benefits, like free metro tickets for students in Moscow. Many other companies than Yucos did not pay taxes too, somehow they are not molested. Perhaps because their owners show no interest in politics?

      Russians would like to have good relations with west. Still it is not possible to call them worm till now.

      Pull out of Chechenya and wait for the phone calls.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    79. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they took care of their people, the care you describe would never have been needed.
      The Soviets treated people like things. They were commodities to be spent. Stalin is responsible for over 50million deaths.
      Starving Ukranians weren't taken care of.

    80. Re:Treatment was prompt by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      In Poland, "shock therapy" (a rather biased name for the set of economic reforms administered in 1990) was meant to curb inflation, not to increase it. Poland had some market infrastructure in place, since first pro-market reforms were introduced in 1988 (small business only).

      yeap it is intresting how the same advisers ( and Gaidar specifically invited people from US who helped in Polish reforms) came to different outcomes in different contries. Actualy the first what was done in 1992 was increasing prices several times just in few months. The last effectivly eliminated all money stocks of people. And Gaidar was pround of that in his interviews, the next his deed was - to stop giving money to big enterprises. So effectivly completely eliminating way they worked in communist times. Yes this should be effective measure in theory BUT after this happened almost NO one that big enterprise survived ( and I think just because there were no real means they could function - there should be something in place of communist managment - but while communist things were droped no one bothered to think on establishing other ways). And destroying big industrial enterprises which were the backbone of the russian industry led to not pleasant consequencies.

      Yes i could think of that there were economical merits in the deeds on our goverment that time - but fortunately now many economists call the deeds mistakes ( fortunately that it heals some mental feelings - how it could be- good measures which destroyed country..)

      I remember reading recently they are planning to take away veterans' and students' benefits, like free metro tickets for students in Moscow. Many other companies than Yucos did not pay taxes too, somehow they are not molested. Perhaps because their owners show no interest in politics?

      not quite correct- they replace non monetary benfits to be paid benefits - so instead of free tickets students would be getting price of the ticket. What is the idea? - Hey , student might decide to have a walk to the university and save money spending them on something. This step will possibly help to optimise market processes. So - there are no such thing as halting benefits. Instead next year the official money on benefits are more than spent current year (as if measured in money).

      Pull out of Chechenya and wait for the phone calls.

      yeap OK.. and have bandits which rob the nearby cities and bombing houses in Moscow and other cities? We actually gave freedom to Chechenya for several years. And Chechenya become even more dangerous place than previously.

      so - maybe you are right - but here is a choice. Either allow banditism and not punish it, or have unfriendly relations with western countries ( I know Russia is especially blamed by Europian countries for Chechenya but their blames does not help. if they actually could resolve the problems - that would be much better. But when complains do not help... then it is wise to skip them

    81. Re:Treatment was prompt by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      The British do not smile, they smirk.

    82. Re:Treatment was prompt by wwwojtek · · Score: 1

      What works against US in these kinds of statistics are immigrants - lower life expectancy of a group constituting much more significant proportion of population than anywhere in Europe. More severe climate also does not help. Traffic fatalities and crime are not directly related to health care but affect life expectancy as well. Many other lifestyle choices do. I don't know the contribution of each of these things to the difference in life expectancy, but before you pin down something about health care to be the culprit think about it for a second at least.

      Most of the really poor in the US have health care - if they are old (over 65) they are on Medicare, otherwise they are likely to be on Medicaid. These are not "universal" programs (though Medicare comes close as it's not means tested) but are public. They are also very expensive for the taxpayer. People who don't have health care are "working poor" - they make a choice not buy a private coverage. Yes, private coverage is expensive. But so are taxes that you have to pay for your helth care anywhere in Europe, the only difference being that there you don't have a choice.

      The rest of the world is also free-riding on U.S. medical research. With U.S. companies not able to charge enough abroad, they just pursue their research with mostly U.S. profits in mind. It means that there is less research than you would otherwise have. It also means that health-care in your favorite socialized system would be even crappier if not for the U.S.

      Finally, just to tease you: "People in industrialized nations with socialized healthcare live longer (often a lot longer), and pay far less." How do you know in which direction causality goes? Maybe nations that (for other reasons) live longer demand socialized healthcare?

    83. Re:Treatment was prompt by Quelain · · Score: 1

      If we're speaking of the 1980's, how much of these stories of mass murder and millions of people detained in gulags were US government cold-war propaganda?

      If you ignore the > 1.5 million US citizens detained in the corporate-run gulags, mass murder of foreign citizens by the military, extreme racial inequality and millions who cannot afford to buy food, maybe US-style capitalism really isn't that bad...

      --
      Cthulhu loves you.
    84. Re:Treatment was prompt by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Quick question: aren't you trading your political, civil and economic freedom just for expensive healthcare, here in the US?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    85. Re:Treatment was prompt by justins · · Score: 1
      Their healthcare system may not have been top notch for all people, but their doctors were just as dedicated and, dare I say, more imaginative. They knew how to do something, but didn't have the tools, sot they would devise ingenious substitutes.

      Yeah! Because if there's one thing that communist bureaucracies are famous for, it is encouraging individual initiative!
      --
      Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
    86. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am torn, do I make you a foe for spewing such baseless nonsense or a friend for having a Ken Kesey quote in your sig.

    87. Re:Treatment was prompt by sjames · · Score: 1

      They flew these guys to Moscow, which also means, that Kyiv -- Ukraine's capital, a city of 2.5 million people merely 100 miles away -- did not have the proper facilities.

      I can't comment on the general state of healthcare in the USSR since I wasn't there, but I can say that VERY few hospitals in the U.S. would be equipped or have the knowledge needed to treat a severe radiation injury either. It's just too uncommon.

    88. Re:Treatment was prompt by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      For those of you who make fun of the Soviet system wen you probably wheren't even born then, this is a lesson: Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.
      For those of you who lack knowledge of the Soviet System, they took care of their upper and privileged classes who received top care, (top for them, which in many ways lagged behind the West). The remainder of the population had access to care of wildly varying quality levels. They also demonstrated an ongoing disregard for known environmental health dangers (radiation, industrial chemicals, pollution).
    89. Re:Treatment was prompt by Quelain · · Score: 1

      Here in Australia, if you walk into a public hospital needing treatment, you will not be turned away. If you walk into a private hospital they will tell you to pay up or fuck off.

      The only cost is a bit more tax than there would be otherwise, which I'm happy to pay if it means people are not dying from preventable medical conditions.

      Where's the cost to freedom? Would we be more free if the only option for the poor was private health care which they cannot afford?

      --
      Cthulhu loves you.
    90. Re:Treatment was prompt by sjames · · Score: 1

      The same with public health care. Sometimes you have to wait for the operation so long, that you can die three times in a row before the surgeons get to you.

      I would be interested to see how long the waits are broken down by what the treatment is. I have seen that a lot of people have really odd ideas about what constitutes an 'emergency' and what needs medical treatment at all.

      Perhaps public health is just better at saying no for things that should be treated with OTC drugs and rest anyway.

    91. Re:Treatment was prompt by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Quick question: how many people here would honestly trade their political, civil, and economic freedom just for free health care? It's okay if you do, just be consistent about it.
      It's not one or the other. A country can manage free healthcare under a democracy. Many do.
    92. Re:Treatment was prompt by ksheff · · Score: 1

      Probably. It seemed like it was going to be a reason to justify govt paying for healthcare. I guess I've read too many whiney Slashdot posts about the topic.

      --
      the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
    93. Re:Treatment was prompt by toddhisattva · · Score: 1
      The MiG15 you describe below was superior to US fighters at the time of its creation. (corrected apostrophe)

      MiG-15 had the Rolls-Royce Nene engine , thoughtfully provided to them by the British Labour Party.

    94. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ??? As if life expectancy figures are hard to come by. Heck, you can even get them from the CIA World Factbook, which has just the most basic information about countries. Seriously - what's next, "I don't know where you claim to have gotten today's DJIA" or "How did you get ahold of the US's population"?

      I was trying to be polite. What I meant was "since your figures are so completely wrong, I don't know where you could possibly have gotten them".

      No, but the fact that almost every last industrialized country in the world that has a socialized healthcare system has a longer lifespan, and that the *next highest cost* to the US is half of what we pay, does. 1 point of data isn't much, but it's the situation everywhere.

      To continue, please stop making things up at random. If you are going to make claims like this, please provide a supporting link. If the data is trivial to find it won't take you any time to do so.

      True, but misleading. True, if you can't pay, they are required to treat you anyway. However, it is also a fact that they'll hound you until they get payment if they think that there's any way they can get it out of you - they write off very few cases. This is why many people who don't have insurance don't go in for medical care.

      That is also completely and utterly wrong. It is so wrong I have to question whether Rei knows anything about healthcare at all, even as a consumer.

      One of the reasons healthcare is so expensive in the U.S. is because large amounts of debt are written off. The company I am CTO of provides the software which does insurance claims processing. We track what is owed, what is paid, and what is written off.

      Approximately 1/3rd of the money owed to MDs is written off. The policy varies from one organization to another but typically, after 120 days the effort to collect is dropped.

      In Britain, you *all* have some coverage, even if you're poor. The wealthy can pay extra for more than that basic service level. It is halfway between true socialized healthcare and the US system.

      As I explained, I am familiar with, and have been covered by, the NHS and it is not the rosey picture you paint. It can take months to get a basic procedure done and the degree of incompetency is high.

      The numbers don't lie. People in industrialized nations with socialized healthcare live longer (often a lot longer), and pay far less.

      Numbers may not lie but people can be mistaken. Please provide citations for your assertions.

    95. Re:Treatment was prompt by mi · · Score: 1
      VERY few hospitals in the U.S. would be equipped or have the knowledge needed to treat a severe radiation injury either.

      True enough. Still, I'd expect there to be more facilities here. Kyiv was the capital of USSR's second most populous republic (Russia was the first). After Moscow and Leningrad (now St. Petersburg) it was, probably, USSR's third biggest city.

      And yet there were no adequate facilities in it -- despite years of "preparations" for a nuclear attack by the "capitalist warmongers"...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    96. Re:Treatment was prompt by RWerp · · Score: 1

      Either allow banditism and not punish it, or have unfriendly relations with western countries ( I know Russia is especially blamed by Europian countries for Chechenya but their blames does not help. if they actually could resolve the problems - that would be much better. But when complains do not help... then it is wise to skip them

      For God's sake, if you want to fight crime, why don't you use police force? You're sending conscripts there, instead. The West has nothing against fighting crime, it's about the human rights abuses which occur in Chechenya. Making people disappear, raping women and demanding money for the privilage of burying your son is a way of fighting crime??? Pulling out == pulling out the army. Just what Lebyed did. You can make a "sanitary cordon" around the republic, screen everybody going in and out, start negotiating with Maschadov, help him introduce rule of law in Chechenya. The USA is bashed for doing far less crimes in Iraq that Russia did in Chechenya. Don't get offended, this is sad truth.

      --
      "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
    97. Re:Treatment was prompt by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      It's not one or the other. A country can manage free healthcare under a democracy.

      Two points in response:

      1) The parent poster was talking about Soviet Russia. Holding the USSR up as an example of why we should have socialized medicine is a worthless comparison. If you want to argue that we should adopt some form of national health insurance, invoking a totalitarian society isn't a good way to go about it.

      2) Stop calling it "free" healthcare - you (or other people) are still paying for it. At least be honest about the costs. If we decide that a 50% income tax is a fair exchange for national health insurance, so be it, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's free. (Or if you prefer a raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-pay-our-medical-costs system, call it what it really is - it's still not "free".)

    98. Re:Treatment was prompt by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 1

      For God's sake, if you want to fight crime, why don't you use police force?

      currently almost all operations in Chechenya are operated by police, also frontier troops are involved as Chechenya has borders with foreign countries .

      Making people disappear, raping women and demanding money for the privilage of burying your son is a way of fighting crime???

      do you think that the things you mention is a norm ? I think it is crime. And those ( who are in charge and commit such misdeeds are punished).

      Just what Lebyed did

      no quite - he did complete remove of forces including police forces. Chechenya was almost independent for a while. And again you know what it lead to - invasion of hundreds of armored people into Dagestan and also explosion of houses in Volgodonsk and Moscow.

      You can make a "sanitary cordon" around the republic, screen everybody going in and out

      this was suggested here but after computing outcomes most come to conclusions that such thing is an utopia. As it is not possible ( other than having massive military presense on border to prevent hundreds of people to invade. Note that quite a bit of boder with Chechenya goes in mountains. And also quite costly.

      start negotiating with Maschadov, help him introduce rule of law in Chechenya.

      Do you think Maschadov is intrested to have Moscow liked rule - no. He was given a chance to build his country as he wanted. But the degree of crime rose inside his republick greatly. Are you aware that Chechens kidnaped people, made some to be slaves etc? The another problem is that Maschadov is nominally ruled the republick - the are a lot of who formally under his governance but actually are self governing leaders. So just talking with Maschadov it is like speaking with representative of tiny minority of actual power in republick.

      The USA is bashed for doing far less crimes in Iraq that Russia did in Chechenya. Don't get offended, this is sad truth.

      no offense taken. and my reply is. There were crimes. But the central ( Russian) government makes quite a bit effort to reduce it in Chechnya not increase. More - now almost everything in the republick is controlled by local Chechens themselfs including police ( if you read the news from there - for example - few days ago after new attack on Grozny 20 of Chechen policemen were killed ( and dozens of peaceful people) by rebel forces - so the presence of russian central forces is reduced and the operations are held by local police.

      And actually - I see the situation like - the more time passes the less crime is commited against chechens - as they by themselfs make internal decisions.

      Now the new phase began - the recovery of houses etc. So currently to speak on crimes against Chechens is to think on two years ago times. It is quite different situation now there. And it has a tendency to get easier each month. So - I think instead of urging Russia for talks with Maschadov it is wiser to support those who will be elected. As after all - killed president Kadyrov got votes of almost ALL population of Chechenya. Maybe not all liked him but the fact was that he was accepted by majority of population.

      And there new elections will be held end of august. Yes again - most probably Moscow biased man would be elected. But it will not be falsified election - but open and democratic one. And seems that this way - establishing peaceful force in the republick of Chechenya is a way to go.

    99. Re:Treatment was prompt by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      1) The parent poster was talking about Soviet Russia. Holding the USSR up as an example of why we should have socialized medicine is a worthless comparison. If you want to argue that we should adopt some form of national health insurance, invoking a totalitarian society isn't a good way to go about it.
      Sure, I agree, but the wording of your response implied that a state-run health system is impossible unless you are prepared to give up civil, political, and economic freedom. That's what people replying to you have reacted to.
      2) Stop calling it "free" healthcare - you (or other people) are still paying for it. At least be honest about the costs. If we decide that a 50% income tax is a fair exchange for national health insurance, so be it, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking it's free. (Or if you prefer a raise-taxes-on-the-rich-to-pay-our-medical-costs system, call it what it really is - it's still not "free".)
      That's nit-picking. We all know what we're talking about here.

      What it comes down to is bureaucratic inefficiences in a state-run system versus profit taking in a private system. For critical servies like health and education most people in most countries prefer at least partially state-run systems because then the primary motive is (or at least should be) quality of service rather than profit.

    100. Re:Treatment was prompt by Sipos · · Score: 1

      Why do so many Americans (I guess I am going to look a bit stupid if the author of the parent turns out not to be american but it is true of many americans anyway) seem to attach such high value to having perfectly arranged beautifully white teeth when they seem to attach so little value to other, more significant, outward signs of health? What makes teeth so important?

    101. Re:Treatment was prompt by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Teeth in the USA are a bling-bling thing, that predates bling-bling culture. If you have bad teeth, you are poor. Simple as that. It's a very visible measure and imediately obvious when talking to someone.

      In many other countries, denistry is provided by the state. So instead of worrying about who has the best teeth, we go on who has the best lawn at their home.

    102. Re:Treatment was prompt by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1


      Hey, I've been living in Novosibirsk all my life and never seen anything like that. You must have been very unlucky. :(

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    103. Re:Treatment was prompt by johnnyb · · Score: 1

      "Here in Australia, if you walk into a public hospital needing treatment, you will not be turned away. If you walk into a private hospital they will tell you to pay up or fuck off."

      That's probably because you _have_ socialized medicine. In countries like ours, I am not aware of hospitals that will turn you down completely because of lack of funds. In fact, no Catholic hospital (which is most of them) will refuse treatment because of lack of funds.

      "Where's the cost to freedom?"

      If you are to guarantee health care, that means that you have to guarantee that the service of health care be available. What if there aren't enough doctors? Do you then compel certain individuals to become doctors who would otherwise choose another career? What if someone thinks that the state's concept of treatment is complete bunk? Do they get treated what they perceive is the "right" way or do they get the same treatment as everyone else? I can tell you for a fact that my son would be dead today if hospitals administered their "standard care" to him. However, since hospitals here are private, they are more free.

      In addition, there are many aspects to medicine that are morally questionable - abortion, for instance. In socialized medicine (correct me if I am wrong), the doctors have to follow the morality of the state, and cannot choose themselves if they believe an operation is immoral (as America is becoming more socialized, this is happening increasingly here, too).

      Also, there is the general concept that taking money away from one person to serve the purposes of another is stealing, even if the purposes are good. For a good overview of that concept, you should read these three columns by Walter Williams and Neil Boortz's book (by the way, Neil Boortz used to be a liberal/socialist).

    104. Re:Treatment was prompt by 21mhz · · Score: 1

      Would you say things have improved since soviet times?

      More likely, the system proceeded to deteriorate since then, among all the populist whines about "keeping up our universal public healthcare". To get treatment that's anywhere good, you generally have to turn to private clinics, get private insurance (above the mandatory "insurance" tax that keeps that ugly system afloat) or bribe the doctor in the "public" hospital.

      However, one's mileage may vary. I have my own born daughter who is 8 months now (so I feel for your baby and wish him good), and the local public out-patient clinic for children gives her all she needs for her sound health; we've only chosen to get a paid vaccination elsewhere. But this is Moscow; drive 100km away and I'm certain the horror will be abound.

      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    105. Re:Treatment was prompt by the+gnat · · Score: 1

      the wording of your response implied that a state-run health system is impossible unless you are prepared to give up civil, political, and economic freedom.

      Well, Freidrich Hayek claimed exactly this, and I'm inclined to agree with him - although the argument is based on the potential for good intentions leading us astray, rather than any inherent totalitarianism involved in socialized medicine. However, this wasn't my point at all. I'm only pointing out that you can't pick and choose which parts of communist regimes to admire and/or emulate. The horrors of communism don't negate the potential value of universal healthcare, but universal healthcare does not excuse mass murder, and the original post I replied to was essentially doing just that.

      What it comes down to is bureaucratic inefficiences in a state-run system versus profit taking in a private system.

      Sure, but that's the discussion we should be having, not "why can't we be more like Cuba?" Any social welfare system must be kept consistent with our liberal democratic values, values which statist regimes do not share.

      Basically, I'm simply fed up with the persistent whitewashing of the history of Communism. I'd prefer we not move towards a more socialist system, but if we do I'd like to be sure we're being cautious about it, and not rushing headlong into tyrrany.

    106. Re:Treatment was prompt by Quelain · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to hear that no-one is refused treatment at church-run hospitals, but do they receive any public funds for providing this service? Religious institutions have tax-exempt staus right? That's as good as receiving state funds in my book, average citizens have to make up the shortfall.

      Yes, there is a problem with availability of staff, especially in rural areas, nurses especially are underpaid. The current government seems very keen on moving to the US model, so they are not doing very much to help the situation. I'm sure they would be thrilled if they could point to a 'collapsing' public health system and say "see, we told you it was a bad idea, now we'll do it our way." Hopefully after the next election things will change, but whatever happens, I don't see the government ever succeeding in forcing anyone into jobs they don't want. Providing incentives such as better pay or more university places in the appropriate areas is most likely to work IMHO.

      Actually, a rather strange thing happened recently, Sydney University announced the closure of their nursing faculty due to lack of funding, and not more than a few weeks later the federal government implemented a bold new initiative to address the nursing shortage: providing $25 million to a private Catholic university for the purpose of *building from scratch* a new nursing campus less than 2km down the road from Sydney Uni.

      What if someone thinks that the state's concept of treatment is complete bunk?

      So far as I know, the standards for health care apply to every institution in the same way. Probably for economic reasons there are some treatments or diagnostics not commonly used in the public system you may be likely to see in the private sector, but the people making the decisions about such things are educated in the same places, probably have worked in either sector at different times. Much like the Linux/MS situation, I'd be more worried about the hospitals where profit becomes a factor in making decisions.

      I can tell you for a fact that my son would be dead today if hospitals administered their "standard care" to him. However, since hospitals here are private, they are more free.

      I'd like to think that the professional people who have a responsibility to save lives will do the best they can in any situation. Possibly a well funded private hospital will have better equipment or better staff, but I don't think public hospitals are limited otherwise, I'm sure they apply whatever treatment they feel is called for on the basis of *medical science*, not government policy.

      In socialized medicine (correct me if I am wrong), the doctors have to follow the morality of the state, and cannot choose themselves if they believe an operation is immoral

      No-one is forcing anyone to work against their will, I can't see that being an issue. I don't know how a surgeon could take a job at a public hospital without knowing what procedures they will be required to perform. So far as I know surgeons often work on a basis very similar to IT contracting, it's probably as easy for them as a programmer saying "No, I really hate Java, I'll pass on that job thankyouverymuch."

      Look at it from the opposite perspective; if I needed a medical procedure which is judged immoral by the only free-as-in-beer institutions, where does that leave me? Can you see Catholic hospitals providing cloned organs if that technology becomes available through use of fetal stem cells?

      (as America is becoming more socialized, this is happening increasingly here, too).

      It is??!!? =) We certainly don't get that impression from here.

      Also, there is the general concept that taking money away from one person to serve the purposes of another is stealing, even if the purposes are good.

      Is it any different to having your employer allocate part of their 'human resources' (hate that term..) budget to health insurance for employees? If your colleague gets hit by a bus, his treatm

      --
      Cthulhu loves you.
    107. Re:Treatment was prompt by Rei · · Score: 1

      > What I meant was "since your figures are so completely wrong, I don't know wher eyou could possibly have gotten them" ... "top making things up at random"

      I hate to be blunt, but are you trolling? Here, lets give you 2004 figures: USA, Britain. Surely you can do this on your own. Oh, and here's a basic primer on healthcare costs internationally; I can get you as many refs as you want.

      So, again, I must ask: Are you trolling, or are you really both that belligerant and ignorant at the same time?

      > The company I am CTO of provides the software which does insurance claims processing

      I may not be the CTO of a medical software company, but I used to do small custom software projects for a medical billing office in Terre Haute, IN. So I'm quite familiar with how they go after people who they think can pay.

      I suggest, given your position, you read a primer about the behavioral consequences of people who are uninsured when it comes to seeking treatment. The highlights of one referenced survey of physicians: 97 percent said uninsured patients are having a more difficult time getting access to primary care and therefore are coming first to emergency departments. 94 percent said uninsured patients often have medical conditions that have persisted or worsened because of a lack of early intervention or preventive care. 71 percent said uninsured patients tend to be sicker and have more serious medical conditions than patients with health coverage. 95 percent said uninsured patients are less likely to receive recommended health screening services. 93 percent said uninsured patients lack regular access to medications needed to manage conditions like hypertension or diabetes. 93 percent said it is more difficult arranging or securing follow-up care for an uninsured patient with a serious medical problem than for a patient with health coverage. I suggest you also take note of the referenced studies, which include the fact that unfunded nonfederal hospital care totaled 35 billion in 2001, but the federal government covered 85% of it, which would leave the hospitals with 5.25 billion dollars of liability - a relatively small amount. To put it into perspective, Shriners Hospitals alone spent over half a billion dollars just to fix the Y2K problem . And we're just talking about writing off expenses for hospitals here; the situation isn't so kind for, say, prescription drugs. Imagine, though - the CTO of a medical software community accusing a person of "making up" the life expectancies of Americans, when a simple look at probably the most basic country reference (the CIA world factbook) - among pretty much every other source as well - shows the exact same thing. And seemingly unaware of the costs of our system. If you don't know even the most basic things about the cost and quality of American healthcare, what on earth are you doing with your position?

      --
      No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
    108. Re:Treatment was prompt by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      Basically, I'm simply fed up with the persistent whitewashing of the history of Communism. I'd prefer we not move towards a more socialist system, but if we do I'd like to be sure we're being cautious about it, and not rushing headlong into tyrrany.
      Can't argue with that!
    109. Re:Treatment was prompt by Rei · · Score: 1

      Hmm, the umaine.edu link doesn't seem to be working, so I'll post as text:

      http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/U.S. HCweb.pdf (note the space)

      --
      No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
    110. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Are you trying to infer that dental health is not related to longevity?"

      Nope - he is trying to imply it :)

    111. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What if there aren't enough doctors? Do you then compel certain individuals to become doctors who would otherwise choose another career?"

      errrr....no...
      (In the UK for instance, we recruit them from abroad. I am not aware of anybody anywhere who was compelled to become a doctor and can't see that working...)

      "In socialized medicine (correct me if I am wrong), the doctors have to follow the morality of the state and cannot choose themselves if they believe an operation is immoral"

      In the UK all National Health Service staff can opt-out of treatments which they object to, such as abortions. The morality of the state does require that abortion be available to any woman who needs it, quite rightly, of course.
      This isn't contradictory.

  4. But how many of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Stood there and watched the blue ionized air as it poured out of the reactor?

    1. Re:But how many of them by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Stood there and watched the blue ionized air as it poured out of the reactor?

      "Is small fire comrade, under control now."

      (Hey at least it's not an "In Soviet Russia..." joke)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:But how many of them by shufler · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, blue ionized air pours YOU.

    3. Re:But how many of them by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Stood there and watched the blue ionized air as it poured out of the reactor?"

      You mean they got for free that "clean, healthy air" those Sharper Image hacks are trying to sell on TV for $400 each?

  5. Great ... More Space Junk by Bob(TM) · · Score: 3, Funny

    but is still alive today to tell about it.

    ... and considers no longer requiring a lamp to read by at night a bonus.

    --

    The little guy just ain't getting it, is he?
    1. Re:Great ... More Space Junk by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Having lived near TMI (Three Mile Island; within the 10 mile circle) all my life and having been out and about delivering papers during the crisis, I can attest to the fact that not having to use a lamp at night to read is a definite bonus.

      It certainly helps my electric bills not having to turn on lights once the sun goes down.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    2. Re:Great ... More Space Junk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, as another resident of a town near Middletown. No nightlight needed. Pee glows nuclear green.

  6. His description of radiation sickness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    The guy describes beginning to vomit about one-and-a-half hours after being exposed, but he didn't think it was the radiation as he had eaten at The Red Lobster earlier that day.

    1. Re:His description of radiation sickness by Scutter · · Score: 5, Insightful

      but he didn't think it was the radiation

      I submit that he was grasping for any alternative he could make himself believe that didn't involve him dying a horrible death.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
    2. Re:His description of radiation sickness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His optimistic mental outlook may have contributed to his survival. His will to survive combined with his willingness to believe he could survive may have helped him endure treatment where others gave up.

    3. Re:His description of radiation sickness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      now now, get your facts straight. it was the sliders for lunch.

    4. Re:His description of radiation sickness by anethema · · Score: 1

      I think he might be right since AFAIK, once you reach the violent vomiting stage, its too late, you're dead.

      But he's clearly not dead.

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    5. Re:His description of radiation sickness by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How the heck is this off topic? I mean what doofus moderated this comment as OT. Did you just land in here from the virtual girlfriend thread or what?

  7. Would Be Interesting to View in US by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Alexander Yuvchenko will appear in Disaster at Chernobyl on Discovery Channel in Europe at 10pm (UK time) on 29 August

    Anyone up for recording this and making it available?

    Back in 1990 I caught a photo exhibit by Igor Kostin in Baltimore, MD. He was the first photographer in the area after the accident and toured it afterwords, taking many pictures which are still very disturbing to remember.

    It's remarkable how optimistic he is on nuclear power, even with his concerns of safety above finanancial or even political concerns.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Would Be Interesting to View in US by Rei · · Score: 1

      They should have a new slogan:

      "Nuclear Power Is Great: 100% of surviving non-reclusive Chernobyl workers agree!"

      --
      No matter how kind you are, German children are kinder.
    2. Re:Would Be Interesting to View in US by laura_glow · · Score: 1

      I suspect that's the point on why this interview has come to light, what better publicity of nuclear power con you find, that of one survivor of a nuclear accident and radiation answering "What do you think about nuclear power?" with: "I'm fine about it" Oh! then nuclear power must not be so bad at all eh? we can let them build more reactors, how about... some miles away from our homes? close to a river? yeh!

    3. Re:Would Be Interesting to View in US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Back in 1990 I caught a photo exhibit by Igor Kostin in Baltimore, MD. He was the first photographer in the area after the accident and toured it afterwords, taking many pictures which are still very disturbing to remember.

      Not to diminish the power of this story, but I'm still intrigued by the caption for the first photo on page 9

  8. Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the most interesting bits of the interview is this:

    What do you think about nuclear power?

    I'm fine about it, as long as safety is put head and shoulders above any other concern, financial or whatever. If you keep safety as your number one priority at all stages of planning and running a plant, it should be OK.


    There you have it. From a man who nearly died and is still sick today from Nuclear power.

    It's imperative for people to realize that Nuclear Power is not devil incarnate. By stopping Nuclear development, you are slowly killing yourselves with Coal and Oil plants. The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl). The number of people killed by coal plants rate in the hundreds of thousands. Think about it.

    1. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by tbjw · · Score: 1

      The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl). The number of people killed by coal plants rate in the hundreds of thousands.

      But coal plants have been here for much longer, and still provide a large amount of power in developing nations, where safety standards are often not as rigorous as, say, in France.

      Also, the number of people killed by Nuclear disasters as a result of cancers which develop only many years later is hard to quantify. (As is, I suppose, deaths due to pollution from coal and oil; but fossil fuel polution has many sources).

    2. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by erotic_pie · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what is the ratio of coal to nuclear plants, that and the fact that coal plants have been around ALOT longer then nuclear plants have. I would bet with that averaged in it would be alot closer in numbers.

    3. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, nuclear power is not the devil incarnate. however, until we can safely store nuclear waste (and don't say yucca mountain is a safe solution, google it and see what you find) it's not a practical solution.

    4. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, that's not correct. For example, over 3,000 people died in one week in 1952. The problem is the makeup of most coal. From this link

      Coal is one of the most impure of fuels. Its impurities range from trace quantities of many metals, including uranium and thorium, to much larger quantities of aluminum and iron to still larger quantities of impurities such as sulfur. Products of coal combustion include the oxides of carbon, nitrogen, and sulfur; carcinogenic and mutagenic substances; and recoverable minerals of commercial value, including nuclear fuels naturally occurring in coal.

      MORE NUCLEAR MATERIALS ARE RELEASED BY COAL BURNING THAN ANY NUCLEAR PLANT HAS EVER RELEASED. That's a VERY important thing to know, because COAL KILLS PEOPLE.

    5. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by thhamm · · Score: 1, Interesting

      most people i know think of nuclear power plants as giant atomic bombs that can go off any second. no use to explain things like "critical mass" or how efficient nuclear power is compared to coal/oil. "nuclear? no way, thats too dangerous."

      but no need to worry anymore. now were dismantling all our high-standard plants here, so the big companies can sell us the power generated by nice russian RBMK reactors.

      ah heck. i dont need no power plants. my power comes right out of this little outlet in my wall.

    6. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you have the number of people killed by solar panels too?

    7. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by abigor · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Too bad you're already at +5, or I'd mod you up more. Modern nuclear power plants are the way to go for cleanish energy (there is still a mining requirement, of course). People don't realise even today how much certain areas (France and parts of Canada spring to mind) get their power from nuclear sources.

      That said, one big problem with nuclear is the low safety standards in certain nations that could lead to a disaster.

    8. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just want to sow it (atomic waste) into the soil in the Middle-East (like Rome sowing salt into the soil of Carthage).
      We can change its name from "The Promised Land" to "The Cursed Earth".

      "If you 2 kids can't share, I am going to take your that toy away from both of you."

      Benefints:
      1) A place to store atomic waste
      2) No more fighting over who gets Isreal/Palestine
      3) Less green house gases and other "bad" energy.

    9. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by n0mad6 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl)

      umm... that's if you believe the official Soviet Death toll as released shortly after the accident happened. This number remains at 31 and takes into account only the lives lost immediately following the accident. While estimates of the true death count vary, most sources agree that its well in the thousands (I've seen some counts as high as 30,000) over the course of the decade following the accident. While I agree that coal-fired plants aren't the healthiest things in the world, the cost of this one accident is in lives for decades following the accident. The land surrounding the Chernobyl power plant will remain a ghost town for decades if not centuries to come.

      While I agree with Mr. Yuvchenko that *if* safety is made the most important priority, Nuclear fission is a very efficient and relatively clean source of power, its simply not right to write off nuclear accidents as being miniscule compared to damage caused by fossil fuels.

    10. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl). The number of people killed by coal plants rate in the hundreds of thousands.

      The problem is security and proliferation. Many countries have used nuclear power plants primarilly as a cover and enabler to develop nuclear weapons. This activity continues even today in Iran and North Korea. Measures are supposedly in place to monitor for legitimate use of nuclear technology, but the world has shown little will to enforce them.

      One day, nuclear power may help kill hundreds of thousands. If events spiral out of control after that day, it could help kill hundreds of millions.

    11. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yucca mountain is perfectly safe, but it's kind of stupid. We have the technology to reprocess most of the stuff into more fuel for reactors. Other stuff is useful in medicine and micro power sources. The remainder can be made safe via a process known as "Photoremediation".

      The reason why this isn't done (save for some allowance for the second case I listed), is that the government considers it a threat to national security. Their problem with these options is that evil terrorists may intercept nuclear materials shipments, then use them for evil deeds. So their solution is to pile it all in a big cave somewhere. *sigh* Things are pretty bad when our own government doesn't understand.

    12. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by polecat_redux · · Score: 1

      By stopping Nuclear development, you are slowly killing yourselves with Coal and Oil plants.

      That may be so, but I wouldn't call nuclear power "safe" until we find a way to neutralize the waste rather than simply "sweeping it under the carpet" in Nevada somewhere. Did you know that on the bases above nuclear waste sites, they are constructing various warning signs to inform future generations of the danger located there? Signs such as statuesque faces of sadness and anguish and fields of large spikes (just in case a million years from now, our ancestors don't happen to speak Ancient English).

    13. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by thhamm · · Score: 0

      at least you are able to store nuclear waste at all. or is there a nice solution to handle the amount of CO2 produced to generate the same amount of energy?

      and i still doubt, that wind/solar/tidal energy etc. can supply us for the next 50 years. mind you, solar arrays, wind turbines etc. need energy as well to be build in the first place.

    14. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by vegasbright · · Score: 0

      Speaking as someone who has BEEN to Yucca Mountain, and also speaking as a Geological student, I disagree with your statement about Yucca Mountain.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
    15. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Zutroy+Of+Earth · · Score: 1

      It's imperative for people to realize that Nuclear Power is not devil incarnate. By stopping Nuclear development, you are slowly killing yourselves with Coal and Oil plants. The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl). The number of people killed by coal plants rate in the hundreds of thousands. Think about it.

      While I do feel that nuclear power is way better than coal or oil plants, I have to point out that the death rates for wind / tidal / solar generation of electricity are probably even lower :)

    16. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by NorthDude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just read this and here is the paragraph for those interested :

      "The accident released about as much radiation as one atmospheric nuclear test," Jackson notes. "Think of Chernobyl, which exuded hundreds of thousands of square meters of radioactive gas into the atmosphere. Think of all the hundreds of atmospheric tests, and think about the next breath you inhale. How many bits of Hiroshima, and Chernobyl, and Nagasaki you are inhaling each time you breathe in."

      I think it speaks for itself...

      P.S.: Is it ok to copy a paragraph from a copyrighted article if I reference it?

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    17. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AJWM · · Score: 1

      There isn't a lot of uranium and thorium in coal. But there is enough that if you burned that in a nuclear reactor, it would yield more energy than would burning (oxidizing) that coal in a furnace.

      And the former would release no CO2, SO2, or any of the other crap that burning coal does.

      --
      -- Alastair
    18. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I was under the impression that current nuclear waste would be inert within ten thousand years.

      Of course, that's still 5 times longer than the time since Christ, which seems like a pretty freaking long time.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    19. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      "... because COAL KILLS PEOPLE."

      When has COAL ever killed people by it self? I imagine there has to be some kind of creature burning the coal for it to "kill people".

    20. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Informative

      P.S.: Is it ok to copy a paragraph from a copyrighted article if I reference it?

      Yes. There's an exception in copyright laws for referencing.

    21. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We aren't living in the 50s anymore. Nuclear development hasn't shown the results it promised and we today we know about more options.

      What options do we have today that we didn't have in the 1950's? How many of those are capable of outright replacing the Coal/Oil/Nuclear infrastructure?

    22. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by shut_up_man · · Score: 1

      Funny - I thought this statement was really good too, but as support for NOT building nuclear power plants! :) Financial concerns trump everything in modern business, which puts safety down the ladder, and makes his recommendation a negative one.

      Perhaps, *perhaps* nuclear power could be done right if it was run by a government agency with exceedingly high safety standards, detailed reporting and public transparency, but most governments are moving towards a privatised energy model anyway, which puts the dollar back on top.

      God, I trust the government more than big business. Talk about the lesser of two evils...

    23. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by cmowire · · Score: 1

      Two ways....

      First, people don't *care* if somebody dies in a coal power plant. It makes the local news, the family mourns, etc. If somebody dies from something similarly bad at a nuclear plant, even if it's in an area of the plant that is exactly the same between a coal and a nuclear plant it makes world news.

      I mean, what about all of the coal miners who died early of lung-related ailments on years gone by from coal dust?

      Second, the same way that smoking does. A certain percentage of people will live shorter lives because of lung damage, etc. You can quantify this statistically.

    24. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I already addressed your concern here.

    25. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1


      MORE NUCLEAR MATERIALS ARE RELEASED BY COAL BURNING THAN ANY NUCLEAR PLANT HAS EVER RELEASED. That's a VERY important thing to know, because COAL KILLS PEOPLE.

      "This message brought to you by the Nuclear Energy Consortium (TM). Nuclear Power... safer than skydiving."

    26. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by 1984 · · Score: 1

      No offence, but I don't care if you've got a dozen PhDs in Geology and you've been to the moon.

      Tell us why Yucca Mountain is unsafe. And tell everyone else. That would be a lot more useful.

    27. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      There are a few million Ukranians who would disagree with you there.. There is still the nagging question as to what happens to the waste - the UK has given up on its nuclear program as a result.

      We have barely begun to exploit natural renewable resources - just one example - offshore wind power could supply *several* times the electicity needs for the UK (British Wind Enrgy Association page).

      Its an old debate, but the points are still valid..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    28. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      What options do we have today that we didn't have in the 1950's? How many of those are capable of outright replacing the Coal/Oil/Nuclear infrastructure?

      Offshore wind power could almost do it alone for the UK..
      (British Wind Enrgy Association page)

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    29. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by cmowire · · Score: 1

      It's actually even better.

      In 500 years, it's less radioactive than the ore it came from, because you are accelerating nuclear decay. Remember, making something not at all radioactive is an impossible goal, but making it safe is entirely attainable. Banannas are amazingly radioactive, but we still eat them, no?

      Of course, you are left with a *lot* of depleated uranium, which is a mildly toxic heavy metal on it's own merits. But it's no more toxic than lead.

      Radioactive waste is very much a problem that is less troublesome the longer you wait.

      The big thing is that right now, we don't *need* reprocessing. It is possible to seperate out the stuff that you want -- u238 a.k.a. depleated uranium, u235, Pu239 and Pu240 (where the more Pu240 the less likely the Plutonium is going to be useful for making bombs), and folks have been talking about a variety of other non-radioactive decay components as being potentially economically feasable to get out of the reprocessed ore. But lately, folks have found all kinds of nice Uranium ores, so other than storage space, it's not economically necessary to reprocess it right now.

      And if it's really really critical that you have waste that's safe *now* you just bombard it with neutrons until it's safe. They have it worked out, and, because it'll put off a lot of heat that can be used, it may not be that expensive as far as energy goes.

    30. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by TheSync · · Score: 2, Informative

      Reprocessing is also uneconomic. Uranium is cheap (mainly because of the global slowdown in reactor building). Reprocessing, on the other hand, is expensive. Until the price of uranium goes up, there will be little reprocessing.

    31. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > One day, nuclear power may help kill hundreds of thousands. If events spiral out of control after that day, it could help kill hundreds of millions.

      Although what you say is true (and you didn't mention any environmental issues), I find it funny that the strongest opponents of nuclear power tend to be the strongest believers in "the greenhouse effect".

      As in, "one day, the Greenhouse effect may turn the planet into Venus, killing all of us". But heaven forbid we use the only scalable (sorry, wind isn't scalable, and solar doesn't scale at our present level of technology) form of power generation that produces zero greenhouse emissions. :)

      For the record, my enviro-credentials: I don't believe that human activity is sufficient to account for recent global warming, especially when compared to variations in solar output. I do believe that nuclear power is a safer and less environmentally-detrimental alternative to fossil fuels, because it scales up, and reduces our reliance on foreign sources of oil. And yes, I would freely/willingly/gladly buy a house next door to, and downwind of, any nuclear generating station in North America.

    32. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Lets see:

      • Actual miners deaths - over 100,000 miners deaths world wide since the 19th century.
      • 116 *children* die in slag heap tragedy (here - my father lost his two brothers in this accident)
      This is not even mentioning the fact that coal smoke is incredibly toxic and even radioactive.
    33. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by LS · · Score: 1

      Ok, why don't you be the first to build a nuclear plant in your backyard then? Come on, this is just the opinion of one guy, who actually may not have been all that informed. For instance, look at this quote:

      "From where I stood I could see a huge beam of projected light flooding up into infinity from the reactor. It was like a laser light, caused by the ionisation of the air. It was light-bluish, and it was very beautiful. I watched it for several seconds. If I'd stood there for just a few minutes I would probably have died on the spot because of gamma rays and neutrons and everything else that was spewing out. But Tregub yanked me around the corner to get me out the way. He was older and more experienced."

      He clearly doesn't know about all the dangers and problems of nuclear power. There are plenty of skydivers who have nearly killed themselves and still love the sport. Doesn't mean I want it to become the next form of public transportation.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    34. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by BranMan · · Score: 1

      To everyone living on the planet, all the atmospheric tests ever done are just background radiation, and about as dangerous (actually, sunshine is probably more dangerous, on average). To the people living near Chernobyl... well, that's a different story. But they got a front row seat.

      Just to nitpick though - you can't measure gas in square meters. Or maybe that was fudged deliberately ('lets see, if I use square meters instead of cubic I can inflate that number an order of magnitude or two. That will get my point across') to get a bigger number so it would be scarier?

      We breathe in so many pollutants and carcinogens from all the other power plants running in the world that traces of radioactive gas should be our least concern. I for one do not get rabid about the dangers of nuclear power.

    35. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by pavon · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reason why this isn't done (save for some allowance for the second case I listed), is that the government considers it a threat to national security. Their problem with these options is that evil terrorists may intercept nuclear materials shipments, then use them for evil deeds. So their solution is to pile it all in a big cave somewhere.

      To be fair it wasn't banned because the US government was concerned about reprocessed fuel being stollen and used for weapons.

      The reason is because we wanted to sign treaties that prohibited creation of weapons grade nuclear materials. While reprocessed fuel itself is not very usefull for creating bombs, the processes and equipment that are used to reprocess the spent fuel is simular enough to those used to process it into weapons grade material, that it would be quite easy to pass off a weapons producing plant for a reprocessing plant to inspectors. Furthermore, Jimmy Carter was one of those presidents that believed that treaties should be a fair deal, so if we wanted other countries to refrain from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel, then the US should agree to do the same.

      Now you can certainly argue that these treaties were not effective, or are no longer relevent. I just wanted to make sure other people fully understood the original reasoning behind them.

    36. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by benzapp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      its simply not right to write off nuclear accidents as being miniscule compared to damage caused by fossil fuels.

      I don't know anything about your statistics, but I will accept them for the purposes of this argument. Even if 30,000 died, that number is wholly insignificant in comparison the environmental damage caused by burning fossil fuels. Millions of cases of cancer the world over can be attributed in some way to the pollution caused by these power plants. The enivironmental damage is also very difficult to quantify, but there are many who believe global warming caused by fossil fuels reduces arable land, which results in more frequent famines.

      No matter how you look at it, the immediate cessation of using fossil fuels and the largscale adoption of nuclear power is the simplest ethical choice one can make. Millions of lives will be saved, and we will take an important step in avoiding serious ecological damage in the future.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    37. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by ischemic · · Score: 1
      It's not just France and Canda. France does generate 78.5% of its electricity (415Bkwh) from nuclear power, but the USA generates 21% of its electricity (808Bkwh) from nuclear power (second after coal). Canada produces only 13% of its power using nuclear plants (73 Bkwh). That may be higher regionally; Ontario has most of Canada's nuclear generation capacity (it's also the most populous province).

      Nuclear is cleaner in air emissions than burning hydrocarbons (although natural gas in modern plants is also quite clean). However, the cost of nuclear generation is pretty high when you factor in all of the safety measures that we require in modern society.

      It's not clear to me that nuclear is the way of the future, although I'm willing to keep an open mind and compare based on a realistic analysis of the costs and benefits. I think that nuclear may win out over coal in the short term, although fuel disposal is a concern. Alternatives such as wind are interesting, although they have capacity concerns and other uncertainties.

    38. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by NorthDude · · Score: 1

      That was the point I was trying to make. I did not realized they had said square meters but you are rigth that it is a bogus claim.

      But anyway, the point is that althougth Chernobyl was a very sad event, there had been worse nuclear "events" and things worse then that happens daily on a large scale. I was just trying to expose a valid comparison for those scared of nuclear power (dispite the square meter thing ;) ).

      --


      I'd rather be sailing...
    39. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      I do believe that nuclear power is a safer and less environmentally-detrimental alternative to fossil fuels, because it scales up

      Given the available uranium resources, the only way that it would scale up significantly past it's current ~5% contribution to our total energy usage would be to switch to all breeder reactors. That would make handling weaponizable plutonium a universal day-to-day activity around the world, probably involving hundreds of reprocessing sites and tens or hundreds of thousands of employees under dozens of governments. The security and proliferation problems would be far worse than the current unacceptable situation.

    40. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/ colmain.html

      For the year 1982, assuming coal contains uranium and thorium concentrations of 1.3 ppm and 3.2 ppm, respectively, each typical plant released 5.2 tons of uranium (containing 74 pounds of uranium-235) and 12.8 tons of thorium that year. Total U.S. releases in 1982 (from 154 typical plants) amounted to 801 tons of uranium (containing 11,371 pounds of uranium-235) and 1971 tons of thorium. These figures account for only 74% of releases from combustion of coal from all sources. Releases in 1982 from worldwide combustion of 2800 million tons of coal totaled 3640 tons of uranium (containing 51,700 pounds of uranium-235) and 8960 tons of thorium.

      That's 12,600 tons of radioactive material in 1982 alone. Yeah, I'd say that's a lot more than has ever been released in all of the nuclear incidents in human history.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    41. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Yokaze · · Score: 1

      The main point is, in the 50s one thought one had a silver bullet for solving our energy needs, nuclear energy. We just have to invest money in the research of it.

      Today, we should be aware that there is no such silver bullet, which should also answer your second question. There is not a single energy source capable of that.

      And it is not so much, that we have new energy sources, like photovoltaic, but more that we have new technologies and materials which made previously known energy sources more viable. (High yield algae for biofuel, fuel cells for more efficient energy conversion).

      Automatisation and miniaturisation made it possible to maintain decentral small efficient cogeneration plants, which also minimises ineffiency in transmission.

      Food for thought:
      DoE etat for R&D in 1999
      Nuclear: $640 million
      Renewable: $134 million

      2/3 of the budget for Nuclear research is used for waste disposal, decontamination and demolishment of old research sites.

      --
      "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
    42. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by pavon · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? All of the studies I have seen show that reprocessing Uranium is no more or less expensive than mining and purifying it. The US report which Carter based his decision on in the 70's definately said that reprocessing is a draw economically, and I'm pretty sure that the actuall reprocessing that the French are doing right now by and large is consistant with the findings in that report.

      So it is really a matter of the what is best for security and what is best for the environment with economics kindly bowing out of the arguement.

    43. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      So are the efficiency rates. I'm looking forward to seeing the results of the solar tower project in Australia, but I still don't think it's going to beat nuclear energy.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    44. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      Lawsuits boost financial costs, so safety becomes an enormous factor. Less safety makes for more lawsuits.

      In addition, government agencies like the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission have strict guidelines and oversight. Westinghouse managed to get their AP600 design for a 600MW reactor approved, but because the estimated cost per kilowatt-hour was too high, they scaled it up to a 1000MW design -- which had to be resubmitted for approval. Even shortened (the NRC accepted that some of it didn't need to be as thoroughly reviewed since the prior design had already been approved), the process was expected to take up to three years.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    45. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      No, he knew the dangers logically, but the beauty of the sight sight was overwhelming. It was someone with the experience required to burn through the beauty of the moment that pulled him aside.

      And yes, I would support one in my backyard, even though my backyard is the apartment complex parking lot. At the very least, I'd get iodine tablets to show off to out-of-town visitors.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    46. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when has anyone EVER found a NATURAL concentration of pure uranium that could kill someone?

    47. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by sfjoe · · Score: 1


      You completely missed what he said: "...safety is put head and shoulders above any other concern, financial or whatever"
      Do you honestly think safety will be put above financial considerations?
      Typical scenario: Major facility upgrades are due but $UTILITY's stock price has tanked lately due to underperforming analyst expectations. Will the upgrades happen? Or will they be postponed to make the quarterly numbers look good?
      Oh, I know.. the government will make them perform the upgrades because the government agencies are well-funded, with plenty of inspectors and not swayed by demads from large corporate campagn contributors.

      --
      It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    48. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      Given the available uranium resources, the only way that it would scale up significantly past it's current ~5% contribution to our total energy usage would be to switch to all breeder reactors.
      IIRC it is possible to make uranium-plutonium breeder reactors that burn up most of the plutonium during operation. Non-proliferation would then be a matter of design and operation, which are easier to monitor, and the mere presence of an isotope separator indicates weaponization.

      There are also uranium-thorium breeders that convert plentiful thorium into uranium. If the thorium and uranium are chemically combined when the fuel is made, the newly-produced uranium just enrichs the fuel slightly.

    49. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 1
      OK, now calculate the total activity of that nuclear material. At about 0.7 microcuries per gram for natural uranium and 0.22 microcuries per gram for natural thorium, that comes out to about 3500 Ci total activity in one year, worldwide. Estimates vary, but the Soviet government estimated 90 MCi released by Chernobyl, and I think we can trust their estimate to be rather conservative. At the quoted 1982 rate, it would take coal plants better than 25,000 years to dump that much radiation into the air. Now, a lot of Chernobyl's radiation came from very short-lived isotopes - things like iodine-131. Plenty of it came from medium-lifetime, biologically nasty stuff like strontium-90, though (one estimate claimed 40 kCi of Sr-90 released in the accident).

      Uranium and thorium aren't radiological hazards by any stretch of the imagination. Their toxicity as heavy metals far outweighs any danger posed my their intrinsic radioactivity. The short-lived fission fragments and neutron-activation products from nuclear power plants are much more hazardous per gram, since they don't wait 4 billion years before emitting that alpha particle.

      Admittedly, the uranium and thorium will be around pretty much forever. But they're already around - the concentration in coal lower than that found in granite. Fly ash is more readily inhaled than granite, but it doesn't remain so for very long. The mercury and arsenic in the ash are much more dangerous than the radionuclides. Not that I'm trying to downplay the hazards of coal plant pollution - I don't like breathing that arsenic. But the focus should be on the materials that actually cause the harm.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    50. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 0

      If you don't mind your hometown suddenly going out when the sun goes down or the wind slows, sure, I guess it works out.

    51. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Zutroy+Of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Perhaps we're not looking at the problem from the right perspective : are we consuming too much electricity because of the cheap availability of coal and oil (or water) If the price of clean air is lower efficiency in production of electricity, maybe we need to be more efficient consumers? There is *a lot* that could be done to achieve that! I for one already have those nice neon light-bulb replacement devices .. now that I think of it, I haven't changed a bulb in quite a while :) I still have a long way to go though :(

    52. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One thing few people realize is that a Coal-fired plant releases more radioactivity into the environment than a nuclear plant. Plus, that radioactivity goes straight into the air people breathe.

    53. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      Yes, but all this is a result of HUMANS doing all sorts of things with the coal, thus, it's HUMANS that kill people, while the coal is just the tool. Coal in itself don't kill people any more than f.ex. cars or guns, which was my point.

    54. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      Yes, but did the coal do this by itself, or did it happen as a result of human interaction with the coal? As I mentioned in another reply, what I did react on, was the statement that "coal kills people", which for me sounds just as stupid as "cars kill people", "guns kill people", or even "kitchen-spoons kill people". If safety is put first, every energy-source can be safe.

    55. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by shut_up_man · · Score: 1

      What worries me is applying this quote from Fight Club:

      "A new car built by my company leaves somewhere traveling at 60 mph. The rear differential locks up. The car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside. Now, should we initiate a recall? Take the number of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probable rate of failure, B, multiply by the average out-of-court settlement, C. A times B times C equals X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."

      I want people running nuclear reactors who would rather go out of business than have an accident. Screw lawsuits and bad PR as a motivator - big tobacco companies have been riding those just fine for years.

    56. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The thermal towers are much more efficient than that. The air under the heating field stays warm enough overnight to continue generating power, albeit at a lower level. However, as the power available decreases, so does the demand. It's much better, in that respect, than traditional solar generators, which rely on the light and hence become virtually useless after sunset. The main problem is that a 1km-tall tower requires a heating field 7km across, so it's not something to be built wherever you want.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    57. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by stefanb · · Score: 1
      Modern nuclear power plants are the way to go for cleanish energy (there is still a mining requirement, of course).

      But you guys never mention the waste that needs to be kept out of the environment for at least 10.000 years before it has decayed to a degree that make it only as dangerous as the naturally occuring isotopes. As far as I know, there's no good solution to that even though mines and similar locations have been scouted for at least 50 years.

      France and parts of Canada get their power from nuclear sources.

      I thought the French were evil? :-) Just because some countries have decided to follow this route doesn't make it right. And (see above) they too haven't found a solution to the waste problem, unless you accept "making bombs" as a waste disposal solution.

    58. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      I've started moving to energy-efficient bulbs myself, though in a couple of cases they're mildly distracting, as the ones I bought were really designed for longer shades. There was an article I saw recently that suggested that a boost of 5% on power supplies used in computers could contribute to a significant decline in the rate of energy consumption, and I imagine that a potential mass move to LCDs will help, too. My 19" Viewsonic A90 at home uses 135W, while a recent 20" LCD from Viewsonic uses only 60W.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    59. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Martin+Blank · · Score: 1

      The thing is that in the case of a significant accident, the flood of lawsuits would mean going out of business, so they go the extra mile in safety.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    60. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by vegasbright · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yucca Mountain is composed of very dense volcanic rock. Think Granite with tiny crystals instead of large phenocrysts, etc. This structure handles heat very well. I'm not going to go into the specifics of rhyolitic rock's chemistry, but it is a very "hardy" rock that can withstand what nuclear waste can throw at it. The current tests being completed simulated the rock's ability to handle the level of heat. Another issue at hand, one that initially called concern to me was the potential for water. Upon visiting the site and reading several papers on the hydrology of the area I do not see any great chance of contamination. I do, with a skeptical mind see a slight chance of mineral salts attacking the containers integrity. This does not worry me, as the environment is dry. Its a desert for chrissake. As for the detractors of Yucca mountain, this is a highly political football that has been tossed around by our rep. Harry reid. He knows Yucca will be here to stay, and so do I. His political livelyhood depends on riling up the ignorant populace with the goddamned "not in my backyard" mentality. Yucca will bring jobs, money, industry, technology, and many other opportunities. I am interested to know where you you believe the nuclear repository should be put.

      --

      Tyler: You don't know where ive been, Lou. YOU DONT KNOW WHERE IVE BEEN!!
    61. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      no, nuclear power is not the devil incarnate. however, until we can safely store nuclear waste (and don't say yucca mountain is a safe solution, google it and see what you find) it's not a practical solution.


      We don't have a safe way to store the waste output from fossil fuel combustion. We pump it all into the air we breathe. Do you find the burning of fossil fuels to be a 'practical solution'?

    62. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      But you guys never mention the waste
      That's funny, because I hear proponents of nuclear power talk about the waste all the time -- generally, trying to explain to people that it's not nearly as dangerous as is commonly believed, and that there's really not very much of it. The reason why we can't find anywhere to store it is because the anti-nuke people have demonized it to the point that the general public is afraid of it, not because there's a shortage of perfectly good places to put it.
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    63. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Did chernobyl happen all my itself, or did it happen as a result of human interaction with uranium? The thread was discussing the 'safety' of coal verses nuclear power, and thats what my post was about. The fact of the matter is that modern reactor designs cannot go supercritical like chernobyl did, its a limitation of the design and the laws of physics.

    64. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by appleLaserWriter · · Score: 1

      The reason why we can't find anywhere to store it is because the anti-nuke people have demonized it to the point that the general public is afraid of it, not because there's a shortage of perfectly good places to put it.


      Nuclear waste stays around for a very long time. If you put it in the wrong place, it will contaminate the local water supply. If it is easy to get at, terrorists will dig it up and make dirty bombs.

      Wouldn't you rather take the time to find the best possible place for nuclear waste than wake up one morning to glowing coffee?

    65. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      This post is way overrated. Photoremediation is simply a hoax.

      You cannot induce nuclear reactions by irradiating matter with light.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    66. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by stud9920 · · Score: 1
      P.S.: Is it ok to copy a paragraph from a copyrighted article if I reference it?
      It may be legal, "fair use" just now, it is not OK. You are denying a hard working publishing company billions of dollars of hard earned income, because every ./ reader would have bought the page ten times for the outrageous price of $10 (and bought it again for cacheing purpose).

      Knowledge is not there to be shared, it is there to be sold and bought. Congress should levy taxes AND forbid under pain of death OSes with copy-paste functionalities : these are obviously also used by computer murderers (I just made this term up, abuse of the word "pirates" is too mild).

      Also, you may have noticed the original was twice encoded with the ROT-13 technology, which is patented until 2049 (extensible). Either you reverse engineered the encryption, which is illegal under the DMCA, either you let some communist European hacker do it, and the thus generated specification is illegal under the DMCA. You will therefore will be put to torture until death, and you family will be sent to the galley. Because of your selfishness, Brad Smith, executive of time.com will not be able to purchase his fifth villa on the French Riviera, and will be the laughing stock of time.com . Bravo !

    67. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by TheSync · · Score: 1

      Natural U3O8 has been between $9 and $12 per pound for the last ten years - but now that I look there has been a spike to $18.50/lb in June.

      From PBS Frontline:

      With regard to uranium, the study was right on the mark in flagging the common misconception about uranium supplies but again was overly cautious. In two decades there have been no shortages of uranium and no increase in cost. In fact, there is such an over supply of uranium that the cost today (about $12 per pound) is only fifty per cent greater than it was 25 years ago before the energy of the early seventies. Thus, considering the 200 per cent inflation rate that has accrued during this period, the real cost of uranium today is less than half the price at that time and less than one tenth the cost at the time of the study. It is dffficult to identify any other basic material whose real cost has declined so precipitously. At present many uranium mines have closed because they cannot compete at current prices and there is a worldwide excess capacity of enrichment facilities to produce low enriched uranium for standard light water reactors. In short, there is no economic reason to pay subsidies that would be required to operate a plutonium fuel cycle.

  9. Re:disgusting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "In 1986, the Russians were our enemies."

    Who do you think "we" are, that we had the same enemies in 1986?

  10. Ironic medals by pjt33 · · Score: 2, Informative

    He mentions a medal which everyone got 10 years after the event. Ironically, the design of the medal gets basic particle physics wrong - it shows alpha-particles being deflected more than beta-particles, although they have a greater mass. (If that link dies, just use the Google image search for Chernobyl medal).

    1. Re:Ironic medals by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1, Informative

      it shows alpha-particles being deflected more than beta-particles, although they have a greater mass

      I believe that's correct. The greater mass of Alpha particles causes them to be more easily deflected than beta particles. Gamma radiation has a near-zero mass, so it can penetrate most forms of matter. (Penetration being the act of "missing" most of the matter.)

      I think you may be getting confused by Neutron radiation, which is the most massive type of radiative particle. Neutrons do a LOT of damage due to their mass, but they don't actually have a lot of penetrating power.

    2. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are particles that are deflected in a Magnetic field. The alpha partical has a higher turning rate because it had a greater static charge. The alpha particle has two positive charge carriers to the beta's one.

    3. Re:Ironic medals by Aardpig · · Score: 4, Informative

      I believe that's correct. The greater mass of Alpha particles causes them to be more easily deflected than beta particles. Gamma radiation has a near-zero mass, so it can penetrate most forms of matter. (Penetration being the act of "missing" most of the matter.)

      No, the greater mass of alpha particles (2 protons and 2 neutrons, basically a Helium nucleus) makes them more difficult to deflect, not less. However, other factors have an impact on the scattering cross section, including particle charge and energy.

      Gamma particles have a zero rest mass, since they are simply energetic photons.

      I think you may be getting confused by Neutron radiation, which is the most massive type of radiative particle. Neutrons do a LOT of damage due to their mass, but they don't actually have a lot of penetrating power.

      No, Neutrons are less massive than alpha particles.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    4. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Gamma radiation has a near-zero mass, so it can penetrate most forms of matter. (Penetration being the act of "missing" most of the matter.)

      Gamma radiation has NO mass. It is a high energy photon. Photons have momentum but no rest mass.

      I think you may be getting confused by Neutron radiation, which is the most massive type of radiative particle. Neutrons do a LOT of damage due to their mass, but they don't actually have a lot of penetrating power.

      Neutrons are not the most massive form of particle radiation. Alpha radiation is essentialy the nucleus of a Helium atom. Check the periodic table and you'll see there are two neutrons and two protons in an alpha particle. Also, Neutrons don't cause the most damage. Gamma are the highest energy of the group.

    5. Re:Ironic medals by jafiwam · · Score: 1

      Well deflection on a curve like that is got to be from a magnetic field not a collision event.

      Particles will curve as they move based on;

      a) their energy

      b) their charge

      c) the intensity of the magnetic field they are traveling through

      d) the polarity of the charge they are traveling through (which way magnetic North is)

      I see it entirely possible that the lighter particle be deflected less or more... but I don't know the charge or the strength of the field or the particles themselves... so that's still reasonable to me.

      Of course, medals are made by art majors, not physics majors... so it could also be a mistake.

    6. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which idiots modded this post up? It's wrong on almost every count, see the other responses.

    7. Re:Ironic medals by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but it's a few thousand times as massive, so it's a lot harder to deflect.

    8. Re:Ironic medals by Graff · · Score: 4, Informative
      The greater mass of Alpha particles causes them to be more easily deflected than beta particles. Gamma radiation has a near-zero mass, so it can penetrate most forms of matter. (Penetration being the act of "missing" most of the matter.)

      No, beta particles are deflected more in a magnetic field than alpha particles are, all things being equal.

      Alpha particles are essentially helium nuclei, they have a charge of +1 and a mass of 4. Beta particles are electrons, they have a charge of -1 and a negligible mass when compared to an alpha particle (each proton is about the mass of 1800 electrons). Gamma particles are high-energy photons with no charge and essentially no mass at all.

      When they are ejected in the same direction with the same velocity through a uniform magnetic field it is the beta particle which will be deflected more. This is due to the fact that both particles will have the same force acting upon them, but they have a different mass. Since the alpha particle has much more mass it will be deflected a lot less by the force and so it will curve less than the beta particle. The gamma radiation will not curve at all because photons have no charge and will hardly be affected by a magnetic field.

      As for deflection, the alpha particles take up a lot of room. When they encounter other material they are much more likely to have a collision than beta particles which have a very small volume. This means that the alpha particles usually only travel a small distance through a material before slowing down enough to be stopped. Beta particles get slowed down less because they tend to be able to slip right past the atoms (actually past the nuclei) in the material. Gamma particles penetrate the furthest because they really are only captured occasionally by atoms and quite a large percentage will manage to get through even a couple of feet of low-density material.
    9. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Alpha particles are essentially helium nuclei, they have a charge of +1 and a mass of 4.

      Wrong.

      Alpha particles have a +2 charge.

    10. Re:Ironic medals by rleibman · · Score: 1

      Re your signature...
      When was "the end of eternity" lost?
      One of his best. I'll agree.

    11. Re:Ironic medals by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      When was "the end of eternity" lost?

      It's been out of print for many, many years. It's only gone back into print recently.

      BTW, remind me never to venture a guess about radiation on Slashdot. No one (myself especially) ever seems to get it quite right. :-)

    12. Re:Ironic medals by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I really worry about Slashdot's moderation system. When you get something wrong (but sound like you know), then you get modded up. But when you say something correct, you get modded down as a troll.

    13. Re:Ironic medals by rleibman · · Score: 1

      I guess since I had *my* copy I never even knew it was out of print. Oh, well, see what you've done? now I'll have to go re-read it all over again, which will likely lead me to read the whole foundation all over again. Let's see... should I read them in print order this time or timeline order? Alphabetical?

    14. Re:Ironic medals by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You're quite welcome. ;-)

    15. Re:Ironic medals by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Actually you got the representation of 3 in IEEE754 wrong. Forgot the implicit bit of significand.

    16. Re:Ironic medals by pjt33 · · Score: 1
      BTW, remind me never to venture a guess about radiation on Slashdot. No one (myself especially) ever seems to get it quite right. :-)
      I'm surprised that anyone has to guess. This is a site for nerds and geeks, so I expect the majority to have paid attention in physics lessons. IIRC we covered basic radioactivity when I was 14.
    17. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The difficulty with discussing things like this is that ideas (such as volume) are mostly innapplicable when discussing elementary particles, especially when discussing scattering. However, the facts are as follows:

      Alpha radiation consists of helium nuclei consisting of two protons and two neutrons. They have a charge of +2 fundamental charge units, or about 3.204e-19 coulombs. They have a mass of 4 nuclear mass units, or about 1.67e-27 kg.

      Beta radiation just consists of electrons. They have a charge of 1.602e-19 coulombs and a mass of 9.1e-31 kg.

      Gamma radiation is high-energy photons. Photons have no charge and no mass, and always travels at the speed of light, and interact neglibly with each other.

      All of these particles obey the laws of quantum mechanics, which means that things like size and position are more than a little indeterminant. This is not the place for a full-fledged explanation of wave mechanics, but the following statements are true:

      1. The ability of a particle to travel through material depends both on its wavelength, which is determined by both its mass and its velocity, and the nature of the material it is traveling through. For instance, low-energy electrons have a long wave-length compared to low-energy alpha particles, which are much more massive and thus much more "normal." Thus in some crystals, electrons are scattered into an interference pattern determined by the speed of the electrons and the grid spacings. There is no simple reason why the interactions happen the way they do, and it would be well-advised to not try to give any. If any are found, they are probably based on conservation of energy and momentum, which are just as true quantum-mechanically as classically.

      2. However, the discussion of trajectories in magnetic fields above is mostly correct. The waves follow the classical trajectories in these simple cases. It is a straight-forward derivation to discover that if a charge particle is released in a magnetic field, it will travel in a circle with a radius of curvature r=m*v/q/B, where B is the magnetic field strength, m is the mass, q is the charge, and v is the particle velocity. Thus because the alpha particle and electron masses are so different, the radius of curvature for the alpha particle will be much larger than for the electron, and it will tend to curve less in a field. The gamma rays will travel in a completely straight line.

    18. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Alpha particles are essentially helium nuclei, they have a charge of +1...
      They have a charge of +2, they move comparatively slowly, and for quantum mechanical reasons they interact comparatively strongly with electrons. That's why they slow down so well in solid matter.
    19. Re:Ironic medals by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      There's an old saying about "the devil is in the details". My post was an extrapolation of what I knew about Alpha particle penetration power. (Hint: It sucks.) Of course, my reasoning was wrong. Similarly, a poster mentioned that Alpha particles have a charge of +1. He was wrong. (Charge is +2.)

    20. Re:Ironic medals by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Check again. I didn't forget it. I just removed the decimal point. (No decimal points in binary. :-)) Of course, there's no implicit bit in a real representation either, but who's counting?

    21. Re:Ironic medals by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      No, you have binary points. But that's not the point. The point is that the IEEE representation has an implicit bit. Double.doubleToLongBits(3) returns 0x4008000000000000, not 0x400c000000000000.

    22. Re:Ironic medals by Graff · · Score: 1
      Alpha particles have a +2 charge.

      Whups, yes you are right. I mistakenly wrote down +1 when I meant +2. Alpha particles have two protons, two neutrons and should have no electrons (assuming they haven't picked up one or two somewhere).

      Dunno how I missed that in preview but it happens...
    23. Re:Ironic medals by Graff · · Score: 1
      The difficulty with discussing things like this is that ideas (such as volume) are mostly innapplicable when discussing elementary particles, especially when discussing scattering.

      Of course. I was simply "dumbing it down" for any layman who might be reading this. Yes, volume is not quite the proper term for the various interactions that occur when an alpha particle hits other matter but it gets the general idea across. Alpha particles tend to slow down more than beta particles when traveling through dense matter because they interact with the matter more strongly than a beta particle would.

      As for the discussion on the radius of curvature, that is a fact that I make use of almost every day. I routinely use a gas chromatograph - mass spectrophotometer which takes ions and categorizes them by how they interact with a magnetic field. If they hit one target they have a certain mass-to-charge ratio, if they hit a different target then they have another ratio. These targets are at different radii along a curve and how strongly the particle curves determines where it ends up. It's quite a neat trick.
    24. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I routinely use a gas chromatograph - mass spectrophotometer which takes ions and categorizes them by how they interact with a magnetic field. If they hit one target they have a certain mass-to-charge ratio, if they hit a different target then they have another ratio. These targets are at different radii along a curve and how strongly the particle curves determines where it ends up.

      Except that it will be a mass spectrometer, not spectrophotometer, from your description. The latter use optical methods rather than physical ones to generate a spectrum.

    25. Re:Ironic medals by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I included the implicit bit in the binary code. (There's an extra bit, check for yourself.) An actual implementation would lack that bit (because it's implicit). Thus the reason for the different numbers.

    26. Re:Ironic medals by RedWizzard · · Score: 1
      No, the greater mass of alpha particles (2 protons and 2 neutrons, basically a Helium nucleus) makes them more difficult to deflect, not less. However, other factors have an impact on the scattering cross section, including particle charge and energy.
      Alpha radiation does not tend to penetrate other materials (deatils, more). They travel (relatively) slowly, quickly losing energy and pick up free electrons to form helium. Usually dead skin or evena piece of paper is enough to block alpha particles. Beta radiation also doesn't penetrate very far, but can cause skin damage as it can reach the germinal layer. Gamma radiation and X-rays penetrate very easily and are therefore generally more dangerous. One exception is inhaled and ingested alpha- and beta-emitters. Due to the mass of alpha and beta particles they cause a huge amount of damage once inside the body. Thus radioactive dust is extremely dangerous.
    27. Re:Ironic medals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heavier particles move more slowly than lighter ones for the same energy. And since nuclear decays produce comparable energies, you wouldn't expect the alpha and beta particles to travel at the same speed.

      Given the same energy, the alpha particle should have a smaller radius than the beta particle; the medal is actually correct.

  11. Stalker by essreenim · · Score: 2

    thats the first word that came to my mind ;)
    He may or may not in fact be a stalker, but surely he could help out making the game..

    1. Re:Stalker by essreenim · · Score: 1

      You hurt my feelings with your modding you insensitive clod.

    2. Re:Stalker by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 1

      Why was the parent modded Offtopic?
      S.T.A.L.K.E.R (aka Stalker) is a new first person shooter taking place in Chernobyl, after the events.

      --
      ^_^
  12. heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by vg30e · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't dispute the heroic efforts by everyone who put their lives on the line, but the tragic fact is that the chernobyl reactor fire could have been avoided if there had been more attention paid to safer reactor design and materials.

    Although the fire itself was caused by human error, the RBMK style reactors are much worse than the machines run by the US or western Europe and the powers that came up with that style of reactor are at least partly to blame for that tragedy.

    The end isn't in sight yet, the "coffin" that is encasing the bad reactor is cracking, it may collapse causing another giant radioactive cloud of dust to blow all over the Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

    1. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The end isn't in sight yet, the "coffin" that is encasing the bad reactor is cracking, it may collapse causing another giant radioactive cloud of dust to blow all over the Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

      There was already a fire in the area that kicked up radioactive dust and sent it back into the air. I read somewhere before that the disaster at Chernobyl released about as much radioactive material into the atomosphere as one nuclear weapon test.

      Scary.

    2. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Performer+Guy · · Score: 3, Funny

      The nimrods running the plant deliberately disabled critical safety systems to conduct a test of another safety system. There's a key issue here, if you need to ask the question then you should not put it to the test without considering the very severe consequences and erroded safety margin left should the answer to the question be other than you expect.

      It reminds me of a story of the F-16 pilot sitting on the ground who thought the aircraft would stop him raising the gear when on the ground. So he tried it and discovered that yes he could indeed raise the gear contrary to his expectation, now I ask you why would to do something so dumb?

      I also ask, why would the plant engineers at Chernobyl disable safety systems to *test* another *backup* safety system? Utterly moronic, and there's not a lot a plant designer can do to avoid that kind of rank stupidity. A good old fashoned Soviet show trial followed by swift execution of the plant managers is the appropriate remedy.

    3. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Ignignot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, the RBMK style reactor isn't as safe as the CANDU or the pebble bed reactors. However, any reactor that can go critical (basically all but the pebble bed) can suffer from Chernobyl's problem - blatant disregard for safety procedures and nuclear physics. They attempted to simulate no load, turned off the automatic safeties, and turned off the coolant. Boom! What a suprise! The fact is no normal usage of the reactor could have produced that situation, but they were interested in studying the outcome, somehow not realizing how bad it could be. A combination of poor oversight and an inability to recognize dangerous situations, along with trial and error engineering with a nuclear reactor produced the tragedy. Yes a better reactor might have handled the disaster differently, but every kind of reactor except for pebble bed would still have had some serious problems.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    4. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Informative

      "It reminds me of a story of the F-16 pilot sitting on the ground who thought the aircraft would stop him raising the gear when on the ground. So he tried it and discovered that yes he could indeed raise the gear contrary to his expectation, now I ask you why would to do something so dumb?"
      Most likly a myth. Every airplane with retactable gear I know of have what they call squat switches that prevent the gear from retracting when the plane is on the ground. Also the way the gear on the F16 retracts I doubt that it could retract with the plane sitting on it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by wjwlsn · · Score: 2, Informative

      How is pebble bed not a critical reactor? Unless they're planning some kind of subcritical, accelerator-driven system, I don't see how that would be possible. It would not be consistent with anything I know of the PBMR, for instance.

      Basic definitions:

      Subcritical reactor - fission reaction rate is declining over time

      Critical reactor - fission reaction rate is constant over time, self-sustaining chain reaction has been achieved

      Supercritical reactor - fission reaction rate is increasing over time

      There's nothing mystical about these terms. Every power reactor in existence goes supercritical during startup, for instance -- it's the only way you can raise power. When full power is reached, then you sit at a critical state for as long as you can. When you need to shutdown, you go subcritical. That's all there is to it.

      The only way I know of to have a subcritical assembly raise power, or maintain a constant high power, is to have some external source of neutrons to drive the pile. Accelerator driven systems would have the advantage of always being subcritical, all you'd have to do to shutdown is shut off the accelerator. The problem right now is the high amount of power needed to run the accelerator constantly. Right now, and for the near future, critical reactors are going to be much more efficient.

      So really, what are you talking about? Nobody is going to build a subcritical accelerator driven system in the near future. Pebble beds, at least in the form of the PBMR, are critical reactors. Where are you getting your information?

      --
      Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
    6. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

      I can's say whether this really happened, but as an A&P mechanic I can tell you squat switches are known to fail.I would never pull the gear on the ground without having the aircraft supported.

    7. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by sexylicious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The F16 gear can retract on the ground. The nose gear especially. I've also seen several other plane's gears be retracted on the ground. On pilot retracted his gear because he bumped the lever inside the cockpit... I think he sneezed or something and it knocked the lever. He was flying a cessna, if my memory serves.

      And the next guy down is correct, squat switches fail all the time.

    8. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's also an issue of people in certain societies where people are not willing to question their superiors. Last year, the government of Japan had to shut down 17 reactors due to safety concerns. People had known about these concerns for a long time, but their supervisors told them to ignore the problem, and most Japanese people are not nearly as willing to go above their supervisor's head(much like Soviet Russia) as they are in the West. Thankfully, someone finally came clean and informed the authorities who ordered the plants shut down for maintenance.
      It was a cool summer last year in Japan(well, cool by Japanese standards, it would still be roasting by US standards, I don't know how those people stand that weather) so there weren't any forced blackouts, but there are problems associated with strict obedience....

    9. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by tetromino · · Score: 4, Informative
      Very true. Primary cause of disaster = plant engineers who didn't understand the reactor internals and who ignored safety procedures. Let's see what went wrong:
      • RMBK reactors are unpredictable at power levels below ~25%. Reactor engineers lowered power to 1%. Doing so, I believe, required modifying some programs in the reactor computer,
      • Emergency cooling systems prevent meltdowns. Reactor engineers disconnected the systems.
      • In addition, reactor engineers disconnected the emergency scram switches (which would have tripped several times during this moronic exercise).
      • Control rods regulate reaction rate; on RBMK's, they can't be reinserted quickly once you take them out. Reactor engineers pulled all control rods out all the way.
      • Half the recirculation pumps were switched off, causing coolant to stagnate in the core.
      • Reactor engineers did not remember that at very low power, the RBMK core tends to be poisoned by radioactive xenon and iodine, which slow down the reaction. But as soon as a large enough fraction of them decay, Boom!, the reaction suddenly shoots up. The fact that operators ignored this meant they didn't really know how the reactor worked.

      More than anything, the Chernobyl disaster reminds me of a Windows user who disables the firewall and antivirus just to install that nifty Explorer toolbar. The difference being that an average Windows user doesn't kill thousands of people through his stupidity...
    10. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How else do you know if the backup works, if you never test it because you let the primary do the work.

      Most failures of backup systems are discovered when they are needed. Hence the need to test backup systems.

      The problem is testing the backup when its failure could cause a problem. For example, you don't unplug for testing a UPS on a computer that you are counting on to do useful things right now, and you don't test a data backup by restoring it by overwriting your current data.

    11. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by transient · · Score: 1
      Not all retracts have squat switches (although I bet the F-16 does). More importantly, the first thing you should learn when transitioning to a complex airplane is to check the gear switch before turning on the master switch, because you can't rely on the squat switch. They break with alarming frequency, and the only way you're going to find out is if you raise the gear on the ground.

      What strikes me as mythical about that story is that (a) an F-16 pilot didn't know his airplane's systems, and (b) he was irresponsible enough to try raising the gear on the ground.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    12. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I am sure they do but It would shock me if an f-16 would retract it's gear while on the ground "WITHOUT" a mechanical failur of some kind. Since it has a FBW control system I would think a tie in to prevent gear retraction with airspeed below stall would be a good safty feature to complament the squat switches.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    13. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      Sorry, by critical I mean "have an uncontrolled, unstable nuclear reaction". I didn't realize that critical was a specific measurement of a nuclear reaction. Serves me right for getting my vocabulary from the entertainment industry. Now that I think about it, the sub/super critical terminology is the same as in differential equations, where you can have underdamped, critically damped, and overdamped systems. Of course the stability is opposite, because underdamped are unstable and critically damped and overdamped are stable, but you get my drift. And since seem to know what you're talking about, I guess I'll refrain from describing why pebble bed reactors can't have an unstable nuclear reaction.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    14. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by wjwlsn · · Score: 1

      Ah, I see now. I think you're alluding to reactivity coefficients. In the case of pebble bed, there would be a very strong negative coefficient for fuel temperature (sometimes called "doppler coefficient"), and there would be no coolant/moderator coefficients (void or temperature) to speak of since helium gas has basically no neutron interaction. So any increase in temperature would have a strong negative effect on fission rate.

      It's interesting that you mentioned CANDU, then... traditional CANDU actually has a positive void coefficient, like the RBMK. It's only the newest CANDU design that has achieved a slightly negative void coefficient; actually, for that reason, the Advanced CANDU is the first CANDU that could ever be licensed in the US.

      --
      Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
    15. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > Basic definitions:
      >Subcritical reactor - fission reaction rate is declining over time
      >Critical reactor - fission reaction rate is constant over time, self-sustaining chain reaction has been achieved
      >Supercritical reactor - fission reaction rate is increasing over time

      And the fourth:

      Prompt critical reactor - Hey, did you just see the whole office turn blue for a second? Oh... shit.

    16. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Ribald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Generally known in military aviation as a Weight-on-Wheel (WOW) switch. The gear shouldn't come up (you'll also get an annoying warning klaxon, IIRC), and with the F-16's gear design, I too feel that the actuators would have trouble retracting the mains while loaded.

      Also keep in mind that many other systems (fire control, navigation, radar) are inhibited while on the ground. One of the ex-USAF guys I work with had an amusing story--this is secondhand, so take it with a grain of salt. They needed to check something out on an aircraft, and it required WOW=false. So they lifted it off its wheels and started to power up the equipment, when they found that the radar had energized--keep in mind an airborne fire control radar is a bit stronger than a cop's radar gun.

      By the time they shut it off, it had burned a hole a few feet in diameter through the (luckily unoccupied) hangar across the runway.

      --Ribald

    17. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      The country in question has not been called "the Ukraine" since independence from the USSR. It's just "Ukraine" now, and this is the usage in all travel guides, academic publications, and news wire articles. Just like people say "Sudan" nowadays instead of "the Sudan" as it once was.

      It may sound like a trifling issue, but writing "the" before a country name can be quite offensive by insinuating that their nation is a mere region instead of a sovereign country. Ukrainians have been oppressed by every neighbor over the past millennium, they need acknowledgement.

    18. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Carnildo · · Score: 1
      You missed the big one:
      • Positive void coefficient. Bubbles in the coolant cause the reaction rate to increase.
      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    19. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      The difference is that if everyone were to disappear form the facility, a PBMR would fizzle out quickly. It's default is to not sustain istelf.

    20. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by wjwlsn · · Score: 1

      Good point, I should have added prompt critical to the list.

      Prompt critical reactor - chain reaction is self-sustaining on prompt neutrons alone

      The point being that in a fission event, there are both prompt and delayed neutrons. The prompt neutrons are released immediately during fission. The delayed neutrons are released later due to radioactive decay of unstable fission products.

      It is because of delayed neutrons that we are able to control the rate of fission reactions. The delay is long enough to bring the average lifetime down to controllable levels. You do not want to be critical (or supercritical) on prompt neutrons alone, otherwise power will increase at uncontrollable rates.

      When achieving criticality (actually, slight supercriticality) at commercial reactors, we typically measure doubling time to determine reactor period -- how long it takes for neutron population to increase by a factor of e. You have to wait a minute or so for a stable period to be achieved. This is due to the effect of delayed neutrons.

      At the BWR I worked at, we typically targeted a reactor period of 50 to 150 seconds for our startups. It's slow enough to be easily controllable, but fast enough to maintain a good, steady heatup rate.

      --
      Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
    21. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Ignignot · · Score: 1

      . It's only the newest CANDU design that has achieved a slightly negative void coefficient

      I looked around on the web (google, wiki) and only the candu product page said much about the advanced candu reactor having a negative void coefficient, and it gave no discernable reason other than lattice structure. I assume from your familiarity you either work building / designing the reactors or work at one of the reactors. How does the advanced design attain a negative void coefficient then? Is the separation between elements of the fuel bundle different?

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    22. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately in this case the system in question was tested with a live plant running in well beyond normal operating procedures with almost all the safety systems hacked off, not turned off (there was no procedure for that), they hacked around their safety systems.

      To use your own analogy, if you're testing your UPS, you don't burn your backup tapes, turn disk software cache to max, rip out a drive from your RAID 5 array to eliminate redundancy, turn the case cooling fans off, start thrashing your harddrive with data writes to your business critical database, give the case a few good kicks and just as you do it pull the plug out.

      That's the equivalent of what these Chernobyl morons did, except they had *much* *much* more riding on this than a business, and even a bad UPS is a lot more reliable and predictable and simpler than the nuclear pile they were playing games with, and no this really isn't an exaggeration.

    23. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by wjwlsn · · Score: 1

      I currently work at the Pickering CANDU station east of Toronto, but not in a design/analysis role. My previous experience is with analysis and operation of Boiling Water Reactors. I'm very interested in the Advanced CANDU (ACR-700), though. It's a sweet design.

      There are several evolutionary changes in the ACR-700, relative to the previous generation CANDU-6. First, it uses fuel enriched up to 2% U-235 as opposed to natural U. Second, it retains heavy water as a moderator/reflector in the calandria, but uses light water as coolant in the primary heat transport system. Third, the fuel bundle design's been optimized to include two different pin diamaters, and the center pins are actually poisoned with dysprosium.

      The end result of all those changes is that the lattice spacing of the pressure tubes, running through the calandria, has been decreased. The pitch was apparently tuned to achieve a slight, negative void coefficient.

      The canonical site for ACR-700 information is http://www.aecl.ca/

      You can find a lot of other info at:
      http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/license- reviews/design-cert/acr-700.html

      Scroll down to the bottom, and you'll see a link for other Pre-application documents. That's where you want to go for more technical info.

      --
      Getting tired of Slashdot... moving to Usenet comp.misc for a while.
    24. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

      ...raising the gear...

      I toured the Pan Am repair facility at JFK in '77 (big enough to hold 2 747s) and they told us it happened there. Yes, with a 747.

    25. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Sunlighter · · Score: 1

      It may sound like a trifling issue, but writing "the" before a country name can be quite offensive by insinuating that their nation is a mere region instead of a soverign country.

      I think the United States didn't get the memo.

      --
      Sunlit World Scheme. Weird and different.
  13. "My neighbors don't know who I am" by Zen+Punk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "...there is a stigma attached to it."

    I had no idea that someone who was involved in Chernobyl would feel the need to hide the very fact that he was there.

    What if this man was your neighbor and Chernobyl was your hometown? Would you harbor a grudge against him because he worked there?

    After all, just because someone was there doesn't mean they were responsible for the accident. Like he said, "there was nothing we could do."

    --
    Sleep is futile.
    1. Re:"My neighbors don't know who I am" by GoofyBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe that it would be the amount of radiation he could have on (in?) his body and maybe also a bit of superstition?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    2. Re:"My neighbors don't know who I am" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all, just because someone was there doesn't mean they were responsible for the accident.

      You are badly understimating some people's ability to arrive at irrational conclusions. I can see a lot of the common folk blaming the engineers for the accident. These folk have been cheated by the government and the "upper" class too much to believe anything they hear or read, but they'll listen to their uncle, their neighbor and they guys at the pub. And if these guys say the accident happened because, e.g., the engineers were drunk, that's what they'll believe.

    3. Re:"My neighbors don't know who I am" by S3D · · Score: 1

      There were a lot of blaims floating around, some plant officials were balimed of criminal neglgigence and some of covardice. There were some covnvictions too. Most people don't rember who was a covard and who was a hero but it's in human nature always remember worse... so probably as a result some dirt stuck to every survivor by association...

  14. Dropping the control rods. by Angostura · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He says in the interview that the control rods were dropped by his colleague, but from what I recall it was much, much too late. The core was so hot that the rods warped and jammed.

    The disaster was caused partly by one engineer previously over-riding automatic safety protection in order to increase reactor power to levels needed to run a safety test.

    Moreover manuals were outdated with areas simply crossed out. Human error at its worst.

    1. Re:Dropping the control rods. by Muerte23 · · Score: 4, Informative

      >The disaster was caused partly by one engineer previously over-riding automatic safety protection in order to increase reactor power to levels needed to run a safety test.

      Uh, IIRC the reason the thing blew is that the power levels were decreased to too low a level to sustain stable reaction.

      I'm not a nuclear physicist, but I believe in that style of reactor, the presence of the particular water they were using decreased the reaction speed, instead of increasing it as it is done in modern, western reactors. So they had the control rods pulled all the way out, and the water flow super low.

      Then the water started to boil a little, and that boiling caused bubbles in the moderating water, which allowed the reaction speed to launch into some nasty exponential power spike that could not have been prevented in the time it took to see the spike.

      I'm pretty sure what I just wrote was mostly right. I'm just too lazy to find links. But I am sure that the power level was super super low, and the control rods were pulled all the way out. Bad idea.

      Muerte

    2. Re:Dropping the control rods. by Performer+Guy · · Score: 1

      Warped rods jamming is a recurring theme in reactor accidents. The same thing happened at Windscale, although in that case they were trying to push fuel rods out of the pile as an emergency procedure. It was all a bit more crude back then and operators could see the fuel glowing orange in the pile, the pile was on fire due to excess heat.

      Chernobyl went way beyond human error, having morons using a massive nuclear power plant for their personal experimentation is not a good thing.

      One thing about Soviet Russia though, they kept the other perfectly good reactor running after the meltdown. You can't accuse them of kneejerk political pandering.

    3. Re:Dropping the control rods. by Angostura · · Score: 1

      Likewise, I'm too lazy, but from what I recall you are right. The power levels were too low to carry out the safety test and the levels didn't come up sufficiently when the rods were pulled by the requisite amount. So the safety measures were turned off and the rods fully withdrawn.

      Then things began to happen very, very quickly.

    4. Re:Dropping the control rods. by gantzm · · Score: 1

      This is from memory, but, I think you are mostly correct, with the addition of one fact. If I remember correctly the final nail in the coffin was the fact lowering the rods displaced water and made the problem worse.

      That was an issue with the design, it basically had an 'event horizon' that once you crossed you couldn't recover. Do nothing, water evaporates and plant blows up. Drop rods, water gets displaced by rods and you lose cooling, plant blows up.

      --


      Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
    5. Re:Dropping the control rods. by khrtt · · Score: 1

      Do nothing, water evaporates and plant blows up. Drop rods, water gets displaced by rods and you lose cooling, plant blows up.

      From what I remember, also:
      Drop rods one-by-one, the reactor stops. But it takes time to drop rods one by one, so, again, at some point you are out of time to do that either, and the only thing to do is, well, hmm, something like duck and cover...

    6. Re:Dropping the control rods. by gantzm · · Score: 1

      duck and cover...

      Hmmm, one wonders what one uses for cover when the guts of a nuclear power plant are approaching at supersonic speeds?

      --


      Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
    7. Re:Dropping the control rods. by Fenris+Ulf · · Score: 1

      Correct, the term for this is "positive void coefficient".

    8. Re:Dropping the control rods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From reading the article it seems that they didn't go to put the control rods down until after the explosion had already decimated the reactor area and there were no rods left to drop.

    9. Re:Dropping the control rods. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      My recollection is that they were attempting an experiement to see if they could continue to draw power from the unit while it was "going down", and this was why they disabled some of the safety mechanisms.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  15. Chernobly today by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    1. Re:Chernobly today by Angostura · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sadly, a fake, I believe.

    2. Re:Chernobly today by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      It seems to be a partial fake, anyway.
      http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/2004/05 /fraud-exposed-and-true-thing.asp

      it seems she did go there, but not the 'lone woman on a motorcycle' thing. She was evidently escorted around in an official car.

    3. Re:Chernobly today by Pirow · · Score: 5, Informative
      Yup, unfortuantly it's fake.
      Welcome Slashdot readers!
      Just so's y'all know, you folks are setting serious records for the number of individual users on the server at once (peaking around 1000 right now instead of the typical 80 or 100). Now, on to what you're probably looking for:

      Chornobyl "Ghost Town" story is a fabrication TOP <#top>
      e-POSHTA subscriber Mary Mycio writes:

      I am based in Kyiv and writing a book about Chornobyl for the Joseph Henry Press. Several sources have sent me links to the "Ghost Town" photo essay included in the last e-POSHTA mailing. Though it was full of factual errors, I did find the notion of lone young woman riding her motorcycle through the evacuated Zone of Alienation to be intriguing and asked about it when I visited there two days ago.

      I am sorry to report that much of Elena's story is not true. She did not travel around the zone by herself on a motorcycle. Motorcycles are banned in the zone, as is wandering around alone, without an escort from the zone administration. She made one trip there with her husband and a friend. They traveled in a Chornobyl car that picked them up in Kyiv.

      She did, however, bring a motorcycle helmet. They organized their trip through a Kyiv travel agency and the administration of the Chornobyl zone (and not her father). They were given the same standard excursion that most Chernobyl tourists receive. When the Web site appeared, Zone Administration personnel were in an uproar over who approved a motorcycle trip in the zone. When it turned out that the motorcycle story was an invention, they were even less pleased about this fantasy Web site.

      Because of those problems, Elena and her husband have changed the Web site and the story considerably in the last few days. Earlier versions of the narrative lied more blatantly about Elena taking lone motorcycle trips in the zone. That has been changed to merely suggest that she does so, which is still misleading.

      I would not normally bother to correct someone's silly Chornobyl fantasy. Indeed, correcting all the factual errors and falsehoods in "Ghost Town" would consume as much space as the Web site itself. But the motorcycle story was such an outrageous fiction that I thought the readers of e-Poshta should know.

      Mary Mycio, J.D.

      Legal Program Director
      IREX U-Media
      Shota Rustaveli St. 38b, No. 16
      Kyiv 01023, Ukraine
      Tel: (380-44) 220-6374, 228-6147
      Fax: 227-7543

      Slashdot readers:
      You liked the chernobyl motorcycling? Check out this abandoned Aircraft Carrier!
    4. Re:Chernobly today by Phiu-x · · Score: 1

      May as well put up a bit more :

      "I am sorry to report that much of Elena's story is not true. She did not travel around the zone by herself on a motorcycle. Motorcycles are banned in the zone, as is wandering around alone, without an escort from the zone administration. She made one trip there with her husband and a friend. They traveled in a Chornobyl car that picked them up in Kyiv.

      She did, however, bring a motorcycle helmet. They organized their trip through a Kyiv travel agency and the administration of the Chornobyl zone (and not her father). They were given the same standard excursion that most Chernobyl tourists receive. When the Web site appeared, Zone Administration personnel were in an uproar over who approved a motorcycle trip in the zone. When it turned out that the motorcycle story was an invention, they were even less pleased about this fantasy Web site.

      Because of those problems, Elena and her husband have changed the Web site and the story considerably in the last few days. Earlier versions of the narrative lied more blatantly about Elena taking lone motorcycle trips in the zone. That has been changed to merely suggest that she does so, which is still misleading. "


      from: http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/26/girl_photoblo gs_cher.html

      --
      This is a stolen sig.
    5. Re:Chernobly today by Cyclotron_Boy · · Score: 1

      Wasn't this shown to be a fraud? -F

    6. Re:Chernobly today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've read widely on this accident and its aftermath. His comments do not ring true. I suppose he made up a good story for a TV producer who paid him a small amount of money for it and who made a larger amount of money from showing it to a gullible public who lapped up the 'scary radiation story' which confirmed their preconceived notions of the big bad nuclear menace. It's sad what it says about us as a society and our disregard for the truth. ONLY the truth can set you free - or protect you from radiation poisoning (not to mention green propaganda).

  16. Why Nuclear will never work.. by KenFury · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quote: What do you think about nuclear power?

    I'm fine about it, as long as safety is put head and shoulders above any other concern, financial or whatever. If you keep safety as your number one priority at all stages of planning and running a plant, it should be OK.


    Nuclear power will never work in the US for that very reason. Power is a private enterprise. Don't ask me why that is just the way this country thinks. Private industry will never put safty as number one priority. It's number one priority is profit. Companies will skimp on safety to maximize profit. Yes I know that we do have nuclear reactors in this country now. They are extremly regulated. They are being deregulated every day. When they are de-regulated enough for the companies, a disaster will soon follow. (5-10 years)

    1. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean growth... Not profit, right?

      I'd feel a lot better if I had ever worked for a company who's number one priority was profit, but they're usually more interested in "growth".

    2. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by forrestt · · Score: 1

      Nuclear reactors will NEVER be "de-regulated enough for the companies". The difference between a nuclear powerplant and a conventional powerplant is that you can't make an ICBM out of depleated coal or natural gas (at least not a very effective one). With the heightened security concerns since 9/11 I wouln't be at all supprised if the government took over all nuclear powerplants.

    3. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by ender81b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly enough you are probably right.

      The best example for nuclear power safety is the fact that after 50 years of operation of hundreds of Nuke power plants only 1 serious accident occurred - and that was at a poorly designed USSR station that would never have been allowed to be built in the US.

      But, nowadays, we have some relaly, really, really fail safe designs that could be used like the Pebble Bed Reactor that can never ever melt down even assuming a complete and total failure of all safety backups, coolant etc (of course, it could still cause contamination if a break in the cooling or such occurred).

      Now, OTOH, you have people like the US Navy who have a *perfect* record for Nuclear safety simply because if their was ever an accident the Navy knows that would likely be the end of all their Nuke powered boats (helluva a motivator eh?)

    4. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by philbert26 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Nuclear power will never work in the US for that very reason. Power is a private enterprise. Don't ask me why that is just the way this country thinks. Private industry will never put safty as number one priority. It's number one priority is profit. Companies will skimp on safety to maximize profit.

      Right on. The only safe way to generate nuclear power is to have the government do it. Like in Soviet...oh yeah.

      Yes I know that we do have nuclear reactors in this country now. They are extremly regulated. They are being deregulated every day. When they are de-regulated enough for the companies, a disaster will soon follow. (5-10 years)

      Strong regulation is essential for nuclear power. I don't see that private or public ownership automatically provides a better system. Public ownership works well in France, but was a disaster in the USSR. Britain's nuclear industry was state owned until quite recently and is hardly a convincing example of state superiority.

    5. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by mike_mgo · · Score: 1

      I don't pretend to know much about the energy business, but I thought economics were as much a reason for nuclear power basically dying out in the US. Nuclear power just isn't profitable when compared to coal, oil and other sources for power. Obviously NIMBY and public fear of anything nuclear plays a role, but I just don't think power companies really want anything to do with nuclear power.

    6. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by bwy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nuclear power will never work in the US for that very reason. Power is a private enterprise.

      You're kidding, right? Was Chernobyl run by a private enterprise? No, the world's worst nuclear power accident was caused by exactly what you are proposing- putting it in government hands.

      I don't know what makes you think government is the ultimate safety blanket. Governments are big, bloated, and not accountable for their actions. Just look at how they sit in Washington and go back and forth like children trying to decide who reported for duty and who did what on a boat 40 years ago. Yeah, these fuckers will keep us safe.

      A private company at least has to endure the threat of going out of business if something bad happens. Unfortunately, that isn't always enough. But I'll still take it over Kerry or Bush.

    7. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by anorlunda · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sigh. No wonder we can't agree on simple issues. You don't trust private industry. I don't trust government.

      You should study the record on nuclear power in the USA. Zero people have been killed by private nuclear power, (except in non-nuclear related ordinary accidents like falling off a ladder at a nuke plant) but many have been killed and many endangered by government programs.

      The number may be different today, but some years back they said that 98% of the high level nuclear waste in the USA is from weapons, not power plants. Yet nearly 100% of the national debate and are directed at the 2% civilian waste, because most facts about weapons waste are classified and because civilians are not asked to give their opinion about weapons programs.

      Still because industry's #1 priority is profit, they are ineligible for trust in your eyes. Politicians, motivated solely by re-election are more credible to you.

      In the USA and many other countries, nuclear power plants are owned and operated by non-profit government utilities. If those plants are demonstratively safer than profit-motivated plants, the evidence should be plain from the records. Can anyone cite such evidence?

      As long as we need a majority to change anything, and as long as we can't find a majority to decide whom to trust, we're stuck with perpetual gridlock. The status quo, no matter how good or bad, reigns supreme.

    8. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by bs_02_06_02 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wouldn't trust the government to run nuclear power. Scratch that... there is one way I'd trust the government to run nuclear power:

      All elected officials (and bureaucrats) need to live in the immediate vicinity of a power plant. Nuclear, coal, wind, hydro, solar, etc. They need to live with (and provide budget for) the plants that supply them with power, and they need to live in the immediate vicinity of the risk too! Chalk it up to their elected (or appointed) "duty."

      On the flip side, you've got celebrities and politicians voting down clean power:
      http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20030811_1031.html /
      If everyone used their arguments, we'd never put any power plants anywhere.

      --
      -- No sig for you!
    9. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      A private company at least has to endure the threat of going out of business if something bad happens.

      That is of course effective because the people at the top can always be counted on to give a shit. Just look at Enron.

    10. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by jb.hl.com · · Score: 3, Informative

      after 50 years of operation of hundreds of Nuke power plants only 1 serious accident occurred

      Er...no.

      Here's a British one, Here's a list of them, and oh here's a nice big page on a really fucking scary one that released more radiation than Chernobyl. Scared? You should be.

      Despite this, I'm still a supporter of nuclear power, mind.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    11. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by KenFury · · Score: 1

      No offense to the soviets but I would not think of them as the shining beacon of how to run a nation. They were cash and tech strapped. Perhaps a better example would be Europe. They are more our equal.

      I agree that strong regulation is essential. It's just that every business is complaining that regulation is hurting their bottom line. Two quick examples for regulation and one against that spring to mind. Airlines, energy, and telco.

      Airline: 50/50 Over the last twenty years or so airlines have become increasingly deregulated. On one hand prices have dropped, which is good. OTOH, service has been cut to many places, saftey has slipped, and flights are increasingly late. Also how many times has one airline or another asked for Govt interference when they need a bailout.

      Energy; Pretty much all bad. Since deregulation prices have gone up, a lot. Service has gone down, and everyone is getting ripped off. Enviromental rules have been loosend, resulting in increased polutants.

      Telco: Mostly for the good. Sure we get slammed some times and customer service of CLEC's is down right crappy, however the growth in the last twenty years I dont belive would have happened if there was just Ma Bell.

      One last thought as I ramble. Canada has many of the same geographic problems the US does. Why is their broadband/phone/power so much cheaper? Regulation. People in the sticks in alberta can get broadband, yet here (US) you always hear about some town that had to create their own broadband solution. Good for the town and I congratulate their spirit but it should not have to be that way.

    12. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by nester · · Score: 1

      Private industry will never put safty as number one priority. It's number one priority is profit. here's a clue: make not being unsafe so expensive (or a right risk of expense) that it will be more more important than anything else. before you suggest the government as a solution to all problems (it's more often the cause), i suggest you consider some basic economics.

    13. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by ender81b · · Score: 1

      By serious I meant large loss of life.

    14. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      I think that you are right. I think that the fuel is low cost, but the waste is very nasty stuff. Right now each plant has to store it on-site until the government discovers some way to dispose of it.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    15. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by xconslash · · Score: 1

      Chernobly was not a privatley run plant, and look what happened there. You can't sell power if your business plan includes a core-meltdown. The problem is in people who are put in positions of power who are not competent to run things.

      --


      .sig error: carrier signal lost.
    16. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by agristin · · Score: 1

      It appears the US Navy do not have a perfect record:

      http://www.lutins.org/nukes.html

      Seems like weapons and coolant accidents happen often enough, there are over twenty in the section labelled submarines and ships.

      These appear to be confirmed on other sites (including wikipedia) by googling "US Navy Nuclear Accidents".

      It doesn't refute all of your argument, but the last sentence is suspect.

      -A

    17. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by ender81b · · Score: 1

      I didn't believe they have ever suffered anything extremely major - especially submarine wise. FOr instance the two submarines currently sitting at hte bottom of the atlantic with intact reactors are just fine, as are any warheads on them.

      Reading through that it doesn't look like any accidents at all have occurred in the last 20+ years and the ones that DID occur look to be pretty minor. Compare those accidents to the Soviet Union's track record...

    18. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Now, OTOH, you have people like the US Navy who have a *perfect* record for Nuclear safety...
      The USS Enterprise ran aground near San Francisco, pushing her cooling water intakes into the mud. From what I heard it took rather strenuous action to keep the reactors cool.
    19. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by SagSaw · · Score: 1

      All elected officials (and bureaucrats) need to live in the immediate vicinity of a power plant. Nuclear, coal, wind, hydro, solar, etc.

      I agree. Its not nuclear, but our utility is run by the city, and operates this plant and another right downtown. I imagine this arrangement, (politicians living near the plants) contributes to their support of projects like this and this

      --
      Come test your mettle in the world of Alter Aeon!
    20. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it that this incorrect post is scored for display and the arguments that demonstrate it is inaccurate are not?

  17. Heroism and Chernobyl by randall_burns · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Regardless of how you feel about nuclear power politically, the heroism demonstrated by the crew at Chernobyl was incredible-and deserves commendation.
    If not for them, things could have gotten much worse. Many of these brave men knowingly gave their lives.

    1. Re:Heroism and Chernobyl by einTier · · Score: 1

      And many more unknowingly gave their lives.

      --
      -------------------------------------------------- $665.95 -- retail price of the beast.
  18. Article forgot the picture by StevenHenderson · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Poor guy - look what happened to him

    1. Re:Article forgot the picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      can i punch you in the face?

  19. Re:Not on FOX? by Thrymm · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I may have a sense of humor and love the Simpsons, but this is not something to joke about.

  20. TV by michaelmalak · · Score: 1

    When does the TV movie come out?

  21. Oh, I'm soooo sure! by jqcoffey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Where is the "Chernobyl Disaster Veterans for Truth" post? :-D

    1. Re:Oh, I'm soooo sure! by forrestt · · Score: 1, Troll

      I wasn't there, but I was somewhere in the vicinity, and I can assure you that the entire accident was caused by the fumbling of John Kerry. He had rubbed his hand along a desk and got a very small metal splinter in his finger. He was running around in circles screaming, "Mommy, Mommy, I got a boo boo" waving his splintered finger in the air, when he ran smack dab into the reactor's self-destruct button. The rest we all know.

      Of course, the whole incident could have been avoided entirely if George W. Bush hadn't called in sick with, "...vomiting, a headache, and the inability to open [his] eyes to bright light." Prompting Kerry come to work on his day off.

      Of course, Kerry's later attempts to blame the other reactor employees shouldn't go without notice either.

  22. Catch-22 by bhima · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I thought about this sort of thing ever since I read that between 40~60% of the energy generated in America is used in the distribution of energy being that Austria is smaller I guess we use less energy that way... but still if smaller energy stations were more abundant we would less energy pushing it around and huge accidents like this would be even more less likely.

    Unfortunately more stations means more opportunity for smaller incidents... Tut mir leid.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    1. Re:Catch-22 by Wapiti-eater · · Score: 1

      Lemme get this straight - you're saying transmission lines loose %40 to %60 of their energy in transmitting electricity.

      So, how does having more, smaller power plants decrease this percentage?

      Problem is in the transmission lines - not the power plants. Review your Ohm's Law for the basics.

      Who else wants superconductors at ambient temps?

      --
      Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
    2. Re:Catch-22 by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

      The point is to look at -distributed- solutions. Produce the energy close to where it is used. It makes sense on several levels...

      --
      A house divided against itself cannot stand.
    3. Re:Catch-22 by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Power source closer to power use reduces distance travelled reduces loss? Is that wrong? I did pretty bad in electromagnetism.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    4. Re:Catch-22 by bhima · · Score: 1
      If the power is generated closer to where it is used you decrease this lose due to shorter lines. How far away from your house is the plant that generates your power? Not like trucking coal to from the mine to New York City because people use power in the city because that's worse than ohm's law. But a modern version of the reason there's so many aluminum smelters close the big hydro plants in the US. For example the German's have a nuke that employs ceramic spheres...the stack heats up, the spheres expand, the reaction goes below critical, it's mostly self regulating, much safer than the ancient plants operational today and is perfect for creating hot water for heating in a smallish city like mine...

      Oh and yes I'd take superconductors at ambient

      .

      And too the pro consumption, pro nuke people: I am a Still a member of Greenpeace so I can shag the Greenpeace chicks and the recuiter in my town is HOT!

      --
      Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
    5. Re:Catch-22 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      40-60% umm no. Where do you get your info? Thanks to a gentleman called Tesla we can do a little better than that, an amazing new invention called Alternating Current, add to that another invention called the trasformer (Tesla again) and we can use high voltage transmission lines.

  23. Re:I just can't get over it... by Wapiti-eater · · Score: 2, Informative

    Dude, you need to get outside more often.

    "Torch" is a common term folks in the rest of the world use for what we North Americaners call a flash light.

    Ain't you ever watched Dr. Who??

    --
    Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
  24. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
  25. Re:I just can't get over it... by jmoo · · Score: 0

    Umm...I'm pretty sure he means flashlights. In Europe anyway they call them torches don't know about Russia.

    --
    The world isn't run by weapons anymore, or energy, or money. It's run by little ones and zeroes, little bits of data.
  26. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your comment made me chuckle even though it's more sad than anything else. +1 Unfortunate

  27. Re:Unpatriotic by tekunokurato · · Score: 4, Informative

    What the hell is wrong with you? He's absolutely right; I was up by columbia (116th) then and a few days after, and even there you could smell the dust. When we visited near the site it was absolutely lung-clogging. I was incredibly thankful that I didn't have to live or work there.

  28. Re:The THUD by mikael · · Score: 1

    Somehow I feel that this is a very important statement. I guess it is trying to tell me the next time I hear a loud thud, that it might not be my grandmother breaking a hip, but the war beginning.


    I once lived opposite some warehouses converted into residental flats. Instead of internal staircaes, these buildings had metal staircases on the outside going all the way up to six floors. On one Saturday, repairs were being carried out by welders on the top floor. At this time, I had my computer on a desk in the corner of the room beside the window, and just about freaked out when I saw the reflection of an intense bright shimmering light being projected onto the wall opposite my window.

    --
    Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
  29. Re:I just can't get over it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..they keep torches in a nuclear power plant?

    IIRC, a torch is an idiomatic British expression meaning flashlight.

    On a side note, relatives of mine in India call a flashlight a battery. They also call a battery a battery. Very confusing.

  30. mod parent UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats pretty damn funny!

    1. Re:mod parent UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's actually not that funny. Mocking the Soviet bureaucracy for their incompetence in planning the power plant, for their misinformation of the public when dealing with the mess, for their cover-up via strategic, undocumented shuffling of army batalions in and out of chernobyl, is perfectly acceptable and deserved. However, I find it completely unacceptable to ridicule an employee of the Soviet union who survived one of the country's biggest disasters, for being Russian.

  31. Yes it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I submitted a story about it being revealed as a fake to Slashdot since they ran stories on it TWICE, but it was rejected.

  32. Torch == Flashlight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...in British English that this guy presumably learned.

  33. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by mmerlin · · Score: 1

    Ah ha found it... domain name was kidd with a double d

    Kidd of Speed's photo journal of Chernobyl

    --

    smile, it makes everyone else wonder what you're up to :-)
  34. Old slashdot article? by jmcmunn · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I read an article that I thought was posted here on /. a while back about a woman who rides her motorcycle around the chernobyl area. She had a website with lots of photos...wish I could find it again if anyone can track it down.

    Also, were't they filming a movie there (Night of the Living Dead or something) recently? From the sounds of it, there are just now becoming areas where you can go and not be subjected to the radiation...it's hard to imagine this guy making it this long.

    1. Re:Old slashdot article? by NoahsMyBro · · Score: 1

      Looking for this:
      http://www.kiddofspeed.com/default.htm

      When I found that site, whenever it was last posted on /. many moons ago, I was absolutely fascinated, and read the entire thing. Spooky.

    2. Re:Old slashdot article? by Pirow · · Score: 1

      The original site was hosted on angelfire which is now down, but a mirror can be found here.

      Unfortuantly as I posted a little earlier the story's a fake.

  35. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by Wapiti-eater · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's cuz it was later shown to all be a hoax.

    http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/26/girl_photoblo gs_cher.html

    Google is your friend.

    --
    Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
  36. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by ToshiroOC · · Score: 1

    I believe this site was shown to be a fake - she didn't go through there alone, but took a bunch of pictures from other sources and some of her own pictures during a standard tour. I can't find a source easily, though I'm sure someone else here can.

  37. Still remember... by kg_o.O · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I still remember the brownish color and ugly taste of Lugol's solution (hope I didn't mess up the name) the nice ladies at kindergarten gave us. Of course, it was a matter of a few years until I understood the reason this "medicine-that-doesn't-taste-good-but-you-must-dri nk-it" was given to us. Weird feelings when playing Fallout ever since ;)

    1. Re:Still remember... by chiph · · Score: 1

      The schools around here have received bottles of Potassium Iodide pills in case the local reactor blows up. You can buy some at www.ki4u.com

      Chip H.

  38. Russian R.B.M.K reactors were badly designed ... by phoxix · · Score: 5, Informative

    the sad part is, some of them are still running ...

    The following is the Paper everyone will link to. And the following provides some nice diagrams to look at

    And just for kicks: Some really freaky pictures. (The second one really gets to people, he is working IN the bloody thing!!)

    Sunny Dubey

  39. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by mmerlin · · Score: 1

    Hmm interesting.

    Also, your link has a space in it, try again:
    http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/26/girl_photoblo gs_cher.html

    Preview is your friend ;)

    --

    smile, it makes everyone else wonder what you're up to :-)
  40. Re:Most Amusing Line in the Article by Rexz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Thanks for pointing this out for us. A man on the brink of death, about to endure months of intensive treatment after one of the most horrific nuclear accidents in history, grasping for a reason to doubt the mortal danger he was in and the inevitable pain he would have to face. Hilarious.

  41. Chernobyl motorbike girl... by advocate_one · · Score: 0, Redundant
    wonder if she's done any more trips through...

    Nah... looks like she's been exploring some WWII battlefields...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
  42. Re:The THUD by WD_40 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    In A.D. 1986 was was beginning...

    "Main screen turn on!!!"

    "It is you!!!"

    "You have no chance to survive make your time."

    --

    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

  43. Interesting, IMO. by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because I'm someone who supports nuclear fission as a means of generating power (at this point in time, anyway)...

    What do you think about nuclear power?

    I'm fine about it, as long as safety is put head and shoulders above any other concern, financial or whatever. If you keep safety as your number one priority at all stages of planning and running a plant, it should be OK.

    This is why this is not going to happen in the U.S. ... redundant safety precaution after redundant safety precaution. Three Mile Island proved that those precautions work, even after a series of mistakes.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  44. Kidd of Speed - Ghost Town by _anomaly_ · · Score: 1

    ...is one of my favorite chronicles of Chernobyl after the explosion. It's a little story (with pictures) about a woman that rode her motorcycle through Chernobyl and documented what she saw and how it made her feel. Very good read IMHO.

    Here's the link (hopefully you people won't kill their server)
    If I get a mirror put up, I'll post it.

    --
    "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
    1. Re:Kidd of Speed - Ghost Town by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A very good read for sure, but last I heard, she admitted it was fake, more poetry than reality as she put it. Google for 'motorcycle fake chernobyl' and you can find some more info on it.

    2. Re:Kidd of Speed - Ghost Town by _anomaly_ · · Score: 2, Informative
      A very good read for sure, but last I heard, she admitted it was fake, more poetry than reality as she put it. Google for 'motorcycle fake chernobyl' and you can find some more info on it.

      Yeah, it seems to be the case.
      But, the images are still pretty incredible.

      --
      "I have no special gift, I am only passionately curious." - Albert Einstein
  45. real-life Radioactive Man? by Zen+Punk · · Score: 0

    Come now, you don't really think that the man could actually carry enough radiation in his body to actually harm anyone else do you?
    That's like being afraid to shake the hand of someone who has cancer because you might catch it from them.

    --
    Sleep is futile.
    1. Re:real-life Radioactive Man? by smclean · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yeah, my interpretation was that his shame was more the result of the fact that Chernobyl was a disgrace for the Soviet Union, and he does not want to identify himself as someone who people could blame (his being blameness in fact has nothing to do with it).

      --

      "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

  46. Good Chernobyl Reference by zymurgy_cat · · Score: 5, Informative

    For those not versed in things nuclear (and why positive temperature coefficient of reactivity reactors are a BAD IDEA), a good background on the accident and nuclear power in general.

    --
    -- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
    1. Re:Good Chernobyl Reference by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 2, Insightful
      To me, one of the most memorable quotes from that site is the very last one, from an ORNL review of the incident:
      "...if the operators had failed to complete the test they could not have repeated it for a year. This probably influenced them to take more risks than normal."


      Geeeeez...not to stir the tinfoil hat crowd, but it sounds like you almost couldn't've scripted things to have gone much worse.
      --


      This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
    2. Re:Good Chernobyl Reference by notyou2 · · Score: 1

      Not trying to be negative, but that link is rather technical... anybody have something more understandable?

  47. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

    I think the photos are true, it's just the circumstances under which they were taken which is bogus.

  48. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

    You're probably having a hard time finding it as it was shown to be a hoax. While some of the pictures were interesting, the story to go with it should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

  49. Re:Actual interview text... by ggvaidya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That is just sad. RTFA. Are people just incapable of understanding heroism anymore?

  50. More detailed article also published... by lxt · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...as those in the UK might realise, the newspaper The Guardian also published today a much longer and more detailed article with Sasha Yuvchenko, another engineer working at Chernobyl at the time who survived the disaster. He too comments on the excellent medical care he recieved. Read it here.

    1. Re:More detailed article also published... by Looke · · Score: 4, Informative

      Nice, but it's definitely the same engineer. Sasha is a common Russian short form of Alexander. Their experiences are remarkably similar, too :)

    2. Re:More detailed article also published... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Guardian also published today a much longer and more detailed article with Sasha Yuvchenko, another engineer working at Chernobyl at the time...

      Same engineer as in this article -- in Russian, Sasha can be a shortened form of Alexander.

  51. Like my grandpa used to say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I'm way too old to worry about every loud thud that comes along, unless said thud is accompanied by a neutron emission.

  52. There is a better design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Babcock-Wilcox engineers should be shot and the idiots approving their designs for government funding should be hung by their testicles.
    This design has been available for decades before installations like Three Mile Island were built.

    They went cheap, someone else paid the ultimate price.

    Read below for a truly safe system.

    PIUS

    The Process Inherent Ultimate Safe reactor is a 640 MWe advanced pressurized water reactor designed by ABB-Atom of Sweden that utilizes natural physical phenomena to accomplish control and safety functions. The PIUS design consists of a vertical pipe, called a reactor module, which contains the reactor core and is submerged in a large pool of highly borated water. The reactor core is comprised of fuel elements that are similar to current PWR fuel elements. The borated pool water is provided to shut down the reactor and to cool the core by natural circulation. Unlike most reactors, PIUS does not use control rods for controlling the nuclear chain reaction. The reaction is controlled by the boron concentration and temperature of the primary loop reactor water. The steam generating equipment of the PIUS design is similar to that of a typical pressurized light water reactor plant. One important difference in plant design is the very large, by current standards, prestressed concrete reactor vessel. This vessel holds both the reactor module and the borated pool.

  53. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Preview?

    Friend?

    Huh?

  54. Sobering fact... by hoggoth · · Score: 1

    "The accident released about as much radiation as one atmospheric nuclear test," Jackson notes. "Think of Chernobyl, which exuded hundreds of thousands of square meters of radioactive gas into the atmosphere. Think of all the hundreds of atmospheric tests, and think about the next breath you inhale. How many bits of Hiroshima, and Chernobyl, and Nagasaki you are inhaling each time you breathe in."

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:Sobering fact... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      How many bits of Hiroshima, and Chernobyl, and Nagasaki you are inhaling each time you breathe in

      I'm also inhaling some of Hitler's waste air. And the chances are good that there are thousands of molecules of Shakespeare's urine in the average bottle of Pepsi.

      And every atom in my body heavier than hydrogen is fallout from a nuclear reaction gone horribly wrong. So what exactly is the point here?

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  55. Not an accurate statement... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 1


    It's imperative for people to realize that Nuclear Power is not devil incarnate. By stopping Nuclear development, you are slowly killing yourselves with Coal and Oil plants. The number of people killed by nuclear power rate in the dozens (most at Chernobyl). The number of people killed by coal plants rate in the hundreds of thousands. Think about it.


    I am not arguing the fact that most of our current energy production is not good for us. However, Andrew Gregorovich and a entire load of people would disagree with your assessment of what the costs of Chernobyl was.
    From Gregorovich's article:
    THE LIQUIDATORS are those people who were recruited or forced to assist in the cleanup or the "liquidation" of the consequences of the accident. As a totalitarian government the Soviet Union forced many young soldiers to assist in the cleanup of the Chornobyl accident, apparently without sufficient protective clothing and insufficient explanation of the danger involved. Over 650,000 liquidators helped in the cleanup of the Chornobyl disaster in the first year. Many of those who worked as LIQUIDATORS became ill and according to some estimates about 8,000 to 10,000 have died from the radioactive dose they received at the Chornobyl Power Plant. This group apparently includes those who built the containment building over the destroyed reactor No. 4 which is called the SARCOPHAGUS.

    Don't worry. Sometime in the next ten thousand years Chernobyl will be safe to walk near. Then everything will be just back to normal.

    1. Re:Not an accurate statement... by cmowire · · Score: 1

      Don't worry. Sometime in the next ten thousand years Chernobyl will be safe to walk near. Then everything will be just back to normal.

      Faster than that.

      The more radioactive an atom, the less the half-life is.

      The whole civil defense crap from the fifties was built around that. Reduce the immediate fallout several orders of magnitude from packed earth. Stay there for a few weeks until most of the really really nasty stuff is gone.

      So it'll be a few hundered years, tops.

    2. Re:Not an accurate statement... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      As a totalitarian government the Soviet Union forced many young soldiers to assist in the cleanup of the Chornobyl accident, apparently without sufficient protective clothing and insufficient explanation of the danger involved.
      In case anybody was wondering, in the days after the explosion they had those poor soldiers picking up chunks of the core with their bare hands.
  56. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by jafiwam · · Score: 2, Informative

    The photos are not a hoax.

    The fact that she drove through on a motorcycle at high speed is the hoax.

    It was a guided tour, she took a helmet and took pictures of it. (Never see the bike in actual situ.)

  57. Safe Nuclear power: Focused Fusion by Corpus_Callosum · · Score: 1

    We should be moving to technology like this in the near future. Get familiar with it, send links to your friends... Stop the established energy complex from supressing technologies like this.

    --
    The reason that it can be true that 1+1 > 2 is that very peculiar nonzero value of the + operator
  58. Coal Power Nuclear Output by mykepredko · · Score: 0

    I remember reading (I think in the book "We almost lost Detroit") that a coal plant releases a lot of Carbon-12 into the atmosphere. The measurement that I remember is that over 25 years, a coal plant releases the same amount of radioactivity in form of Carbon-12 as a reactor meltdown.

    myke

    1. Re:Coal Power Nuclear Output by Spirilis · · Score: 1

      carbon-12? Is carbon-12 radioactive? (I thought it was carbon-14...)

      --
      the real at&t mix
    2. Re:Coal Power Nuclear Output by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 1

      Sure, coal plants release a lot of carbon. Some of it's C-14 (as another poster already pointed out). But you know where that carbon-14 came from? It came from the atmosphere that the dinosaurs (or trees, or diatoms, or whatever) were breathing. In fact, since the coal has been underground for so long, where it's not exposed to the cosmic rays that create the C-14 in the upper atmosphere, it contains a far lower concentration of C-14 than the CO2 you're exhaling right now.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
  59. Yeah? Clean it up! by Chordonblue · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is a primary difference between coal/oil and nuclear. Nuclear can't be cleaned up. It can be moved from one spot to another though. How about we put it in your backyard for starters?

    And even when it's done well (most U.S. plants appear to be safely constructed and maintained), how can we guanantee it's safety through administrations or government overthrows? How many people were needlessly affected (in Russia and elsewhere) because of Soviet political bullshit?

    Chernobyl is fucking TERRIFYING. There's a reason why that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game is based on that location.

    I say, nuclear power becomes a more viable option when you can tell me what to do with the waste it generates. And the answer has to be better than 'bury it'.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I say, nuclear power becomes a more viable option when you can tell me what to do with the waste it generates. And the answer has to be better than 'bury it'.

      Besides reusing it, you can always look into Photoremediation. Pump the stuff full of X-Rays, and watch it become harmless in a few minutes. Of course, tell that to the government. Terrorists might get ahold of the materials while they're being remediated! Bah.

    2. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a primary difference between coal/oil and nuclear. Nuclear can't be cleaned up. It can be moved from one spot to another though. How about we put it in your backyard for starters?

      Sure. A few hundred kilometres north of here is the Canadian Shield, which has been geologically stable for about 3 billion years. Vitrify the waste (turn it into glass with radioactives as dopants), put that in standard radioactive waste storage barrels (you know, the kind they test by dropping 30 feet onto spikes), and put those at the bottom of a mine shaft in non-porus shield rock. Plug the hole with clay, and it'll stay there until north america is subducted back into the mantle. The barrels decay after a few centuries, but they're mainly to prevent tampering and accidents in transit. Vitrified waste in non-porus bedrock in geologically stable areas goes nowhere.

      The volume of waste to deal with is also far lower than, say, the volume of arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and other heavy metals that have comparably nasty effects that we have to dispose of on a yearly basis.

      As for cleanup - most of the wastes are still heavy elements. They can be concentrated and removed from contaminated areas following a hypothetical nasty accident the same way other heavy metals are.

      And the answer has to be better than 'bury it'.

      What could possibly _be_ better? Any reprocessing scheme will give you more opportunity for contamination that sticking it in the shield for the rest of eternity. There really isn't much waste to _deal_ with - last I heard all of the high-level waste produced by the world's power reactors would fit in a couple of swimming pools if piled in one place.

      If you really need fancy toys, look up the actinide-burning fast neutron reactor designs that others have proposed for destroying radioactive waste.

    3. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Lightwarrior · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > I say, nuclear power becomes a more viable option when you can tell me what to do with the waste it generates. And the answer has to be better than 'bury it'.

      You basically have one of two choices to make in the coming (10ish) years: Nuclear or Coal. No other technology is at the point where it can be made ready to deploy when petroleum starts (~50+yrs, generous est.) to run out and gets really, really expensive.

      So take your pick: the world has the technology to create Nuclear reactors whose byproducts are non-radioactive (simply depleted uranium).

      The alternative is to pump thousands of tons of burning coal into the atmosphere.

      With a mind for safety, Nuclear is *SAFE*. The same *CANNOT* be said of coal.

      -lw

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
    4. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Digicaf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would rather have 50 nuclear power plants in my "back yard", than 1 coal or oil plant.

    5. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not true. There is clean coal tech - and right here where I live in PA. There is also wind, solar, etc.

      I agree with you about oil and coal, but there are options where they are looked for.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    6. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is a primary difference between coal/oil and nuclear. Nuclear can't be cleaned up.

      So how do we clean up the billions of metric tons of coal byproducts released into the atmosphere every year.

      How about we put it in your backyard for starters?

      Why do I always hear this back yard argument? If you took an average size suburban house and made it water tight, all of the nuclear waste made by all of mans reactors since the beginning of the nuclear age wouldn't even fill the basement.

      Tell me, what have you read of experimental nuclear reactors called PBMR's? Read this and pay close attention to the section labeled "Gas turbines heated by nuclear furnaces. When people mention nuclear energy, all they can think of is some 1950's, slow neutron reactors. Because of careless mistakes by humans, not their machines, all development of nuclear research has been severely limited. The much safer and, fool proof, technology of the PBMR's could have replaced most of the older reactors in this country if it weren't for panicky people who rely on sensational news outlets for their education. Who knows what we would be capable of now if development hadn't ground to a halt.

    7. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Lightwarrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you mean coal scrubbing? It doesn't eliminate the pollution, but it does cut down on it. Still, we're talking a basically nonexistant chance of a meltdown + small amounts of uranium VS. significant amounts of pollution.

      Wind and solar energy accounted for less than 2% of our (USA) total power consumption from 2001. Our solar technology basically hasn't changed since the mid-70s - it's about 2% efficient. These are not technologies that we have significantly invested in, and the time to find an alternative is almost up.

      Shortly put, we don't have any other options - unless there is a gigantic scientific blitz of research. Truth be told, the way we're heading I'll be surprised if we get *anything* accomplished before it's too late to roll out a solution.

      -lw

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
    8. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Thuktun · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I say, nuclear power becomes a more viable option when you can tell me what to do with the waste it generates.

      Currently, wastes from using fossil fuels are dumped into the environment and basically ignored. How is this fundamentally better than burying nuclear waste?

    9. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Chordonblue · · Score: 1

      Indeed, who knows? There's at least a few places that aren't yet affected by radiation, I'm sure.

      Look, all sarcasm aside, I'm all for research and I never said otherwise, but I am against producing more of something we can't get rid of and something so toxic.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    10. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Including or excluding the spent fuel?

    11. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by timeOday · · Score: 2, Informative
      Why do I always hear this back yard argument? If you took an average size suburban house and made it water tight, all of the nuclear waste made by all of mans reactors since the beginning of the nuclear age wouldn't even fill the basement.
      That is not true. You can't count just the spent fuel itself; "nuclear waste" is mostly stuff like contaminated water, dirt, and equipment. The Hanford site alone has "more than 50 million gallons of nuclear waste material," and unfortunately it's not all contained.
    12. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by cameldrv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm also pro-nuke, but your point about solar isn't correct. Newer cells are 10+% efficient, and the super high-tech ones they put on satellites are over 25%. A lot of new installations are using fresnel lenses and small cells to get the costs way down. If you're in a desert type area, utility scale solar is pretty cost competitive with more expensive forms of conventional generation, like gas or oil. The big problem, of course, is the lack of power on demand. Hopefully if fuel cell and hydrogen generation technology advances, we will be able to generate hydrogen in Arizona and pipe it all over the country.

    13. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by dfenstrate · · Score: 3, Informative

      Why do I always hear this back yard argument? If you took an average size suburban house and made it water tight, all of the nuclear waste made by all of mans reactors since the beginning of the nuclear age wouldn't even fill the basement.

      Not quite correct, I work in a nuclear plant. If you take the volume of your high-end single family home, 2 stories + basement, you have a volume about equal to the fuel used by a single reactor in it's lifetime.

      That being said, to generate the same amount of electricity, you need to burn 4-5 times that volume in coal per day, and several times the weight.

      A nuclear fission event releases 2 million times the energy of any chemical reaction (i.e. burning). The amount of waste fuel a nuke plant generates is incredibly small by any reasonable standard.

      Of course, we also generate lots of low level radioactive waste (contaminated tools, clothing, instruments, neutron sources, etc) but much of this stuff really isn't harmful, it's just that since we know it's more radioactive on it's way out of the plant than on the way in, we have to exercise ridiculous controls.

      --
      Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    14. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · · Score: 1

      There is a primary difference between coal/oil and nuclear. Nuclear can't be cleaned up. It can be moved from one spot to another though. How about we put it in your backyard for starters?


      Sure, I'll store nuclear waste in concrete barrels in my back yard. Better there than pumping it into the atmosphere.

      Now what do you say we do about all the toxic gas currently being pumped into the air we breathe by coal & oil combustion?

    15. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by oudzeeman · · Score: 1

      I took a Geology course in college as an elective. My professor said he would volunteer to live on the same site as a proposed small scale waste storage facility (that got rejected) located in our home state of Maine, saying that even though some radiation would escape from the storage facility it would be much less than a few xrays at the dentist, or the radon problem that plagues much of Maine (large portions of the state's geology is comprised mainly of granite, which is high in uranium, people drill wells into the bedrock, and ...)

      If some of you don't know, Maine Yankee, a nuclear powerplant once operating on the coast of Maine, was the first large nuclear reactor in the United States to be completely decomissioned and disassembled (including land reclamation). The license for the plant expired (maybe it had gotten a few short extensions), and it would not be renewed.

      The reactor core was taken by barge from Wiscasset Maine, to a port on the Missisippi River, where it was taken by train to a storage facility for highly radioactive waste. Low level waste such as concrete from the containment dome was truck to some low level storage facility. The spent fuel is sitting in big drums on a concrete pad, located at the original facility. Decades ago, there were plans to build other nuclear power plants in Maine, but that will never happen now.

    16. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Izago909 · · Score: 1

      Here's an interesting fact: There is a radioactive isotope known as strontium-75. Before 1942 the quantity on Earth was so low that only trace amounts were ever detected and had to be searched hard for. Since then, after all the atmospheric testing, every human born has had a comparatively large quantity in their bones. That's not counting all the other isotopes that found its way into our food chain, such as some of the iodine used in table salt. Technically, everywhere a human stands, is affected with radiation.

      Despite this, evidence shows that organisms can develop tolerance to certain types of radiation given constant exposure to less than lethal doses. Many plants and lower level animals in the Chernobyl area have modified DNA sequences that have an extra molecule to reinforce the base pairs because normally they are relatively weak to allow for easy "unzipping" for replication during cellular mitosis.

    17. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Pssst! I think you mean Strontium-90, not 75. Sr-90 acts a lot like Calcium and thus gets deposited in people's bones.

    18. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plus, nuclear waste can be transmuted into nuclear waste that stops radiating in less than two hundred years. So all you have to do is transmutate the waste (not a trivial enterporise, but still) and house it in something for 100 to 150 years. End of problem.

      Couple this with the new intrinsicaly safe nuclear reactors (these are reactors which, due to their design, have physical principles which mean they shut down themselves if anything goes wrong...no faulty electronics, we're talking simple mechanics here) and yeah, nuclear power is the only green power there is.

      What bugs me most is that so-called 'action groups' like Greenpeace haven't a fucking clue. But then again, that's becuase they have hardly any PHD's working for them...and when they do, those phd's are for law, no (applied) physics, no chemistry...the only technical phd working for Greenpeace in the Netherlands came from fucking Aeronautics! A bloody plane builder! Greenpeace and it's ilk, whilst doing some good work, is ignorant becuase they're staffed like a goddamn PR firm.

      Oops: sorry for the rant :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    19. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's always comforting to hear people who work in a nuclear power plant refer to safety procedures as "ridiculous".

  60. Re:Actual interview text... by Performer+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One moronic bigoted stereotype deserves another eh?

  61. The same thing happened to me... by ave19 · · Score: 1, Funny

    From the article:

    What happened?

    The first thing I heard wasn't an explosion, it was a thud, a shaking. Then two or three seconds later came the explosion. The doors of my office were blown out. It was like when an old building is demolished, with clouds of dust, but combined with lots of steam. It was a very damp, dusty, powerful movement of air. There was a lot of shaking, a lot of things were falling. The lights went off. Our first thought was to find somewhere we could safely hide. We headed towards the transport corridor, where there was a small passage with a low ceiling. We were standing there and everything was falling around us.

    Almost the same, but I was in the dorms, and my room mate had Taco Bell.

    -ave

    --
    ...or maybe not.
  62. Poor guy by Eudial · · Score: 2, Funny

    Imagine getting a job with "Engineer, Chernobyl" on your CV.

    --
    GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
  63. Re:Actual interview text... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    Are people just incapable of understanding heroism anymore?

    I think one could probably draw a graph correlating the number of people who are incapable of understanding heroism with the number of people incapable of understanding a joke.

  64. exactly correct by ArbitraryConstant · · Score: 1

    Where does the helium we put in baloons come from? Natural gas wells where it collects from decaying uranium and thorium. Those things are what keep the Earth's core hot. Vast quantities of these things are released every day by coal plants.

    I'm not saying we can just replace coal power trivially, but we should be working towards that as a goal. I'm also not saying fission power is perfect either, but a well maintained nuclear plant causes less radioactivity in the environment than a coal plant of similar power output, and as the isotopes released have basically unlimited half-lives (4.5 b.y. for uranium and 14 b.y. for thorium, which are essentially forever to humans), the problem will last a lot longer.

    Ultimately, neither is acceptable, and we should be doing our best to replace them both as soon as we can do it without bankrupting the world.

    --
    I rarely criticize things I don't care about.
  65. Re:Unpatriotic by bwy · · Score: 1

    What the hell is wrong with you? He's absolutely right; I was up by columbia (116th) then and a few days after, and even there you could smell the dust.

    At least you could smell the dust and leave on your own before it did what... made you cough a bit?

    Not quite the same thing as the government witholding information that your surroundings are being hammered with invisible radiation which people would soon start to die from. Hell, even the firefighters at Chernobyl weren't told that radiation was involved.

  66. It's you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1986AD, I heard loud thud. War was beginning.

  67. Chernobyl = 100s of nuclear tests by abbamouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, if you read a UN report on the matter, its scientists concluded that the lingering radiation from Chernobyl is equal to about 40% of the dose from all nuclear tests put together. Check the table at the bottom. I recall reading that the particular isotopes released by the explosion were worse than those from nuclear tests for some reason, but I haven't been able to locate the source of that information.

    --
    Make cheese not war 8:)
  68. Re:Unpatriotic by tekunokurato · · Score: 2

    I wasn't talking about the soviet gov't at all. I was reflecting on his statement that criticizing the EPA for its idiocy after the attacks was somehow unpatriotic. I was merely pointing out that it was valid criticism, not that it was somehow comparable to chernobyl.

  69. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone posted the link to the woman in question in an earlier post:

    Here

  70. Re:The THUD by BrokenStructure · · Score: 1

    where the hell have you been?? War began 3 years ago!

  71. Arrgghhh - Carbon Isotopes by mykepredko · · Score: 1

    Yes, you're right, Carbon-14 is the radioactive form of Carbon that is released when coal is burned.

    Sorry about that,

    myke

  72. Re:Unpatriotic by funkdid · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Why is ANY critisism of the government "unpatriotic" do you have any idea what "patriotic" means? (Rhetorical question you obviously do not)

    Being a 4th generation american let me step up for the rest of us and clue you in:

    Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.

    Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

    If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.

    Thomas Jefferson, letter to Colonel Charles Yancey, January 6, 1816

    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. --Edward Abbey (1927-1989)

    Ever heard "Freedom isn't Free" The United States of America is better then every other nation so long as each and every citizen does their part to keep the government in check. If you don't believe me, read the constitution it shouldn't take very long for you to get the theme of the document. The duty of every citizen is to watch the government like a child trying to get away with something.

    If you accept everything your government tells you as gospel, you become the trailer park woman on Jerry Springer who believes everything her derelict 13 year old drug addicted car thief son tells her. "And I did axe him, I taid Timmy, where'd you get dat Merchedes Benz? And he did tell me dat he had done founded it." Just like being a parent you need to be in your kid's (government's) face 24-7. It's your duty to, it's your job and responsability to cry foul. Living in the US you get all these great rights and responsabilities, but they aren't a gift. You have a job to do in exchange for them.

    I'm reminded as well of Lewis Black's comentary where he adds "Ever here people say 'America is the GREATEST country in the world', but they've never been to another country? How do you know? How do you know for sure that there isn't something better out there? For all you know there are countries out there just giving stuff away for free, like HEALTHCARE!"

    Yeah if you think the US has gone downhill, or if there's just one thing or two that another country does better, it isn't the US government that's been slackin' IT'S YOU!

    That concludes how to be American 101.

    --

    I boycott signatures

  73. Re:Chernobyl...18 Years Later by bwy · · Score: 1

    I'm very disapointed to learn that her story was a hoax. I sure fell for that one- it was definately a moving story to read. I guess it is just hard to believe someone would make up something like that.

  74. Re:Actual interview text... by ggvaidya · · Score: 1

    The point is, you have to draw a line somewhere :P. And you're never going to satify all the people. You just call it as seems appropriate to you.

  75. Danger of coal by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Not to mention the bulkiness of coal means much more has to be mined and transported than uranium. Even at a low rate, mining and rail accidents add up.

  76. Teeth? For American Food by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 0, Troll

    > There may be an element of truth in this since Americans need good teeth to consume the amount
    > of food they do but I haven't actually studied this correlation.

    Really? I think most American food can easily be consumed without feet. Ground meat, soft bread, slimy cheese without taste (often not made from milk, too), fruits ground to pulp, everything overcooked and laced with cream, guacomole and most important extra cheese.

    One serving for an American is enough for two Europeans or probably three Africans.

    The teeth are only there to show your wealth. Look at all teh hollywood stars with their ceramic blended smiles... Spooky...

    --
    Moritz
  77. And I'll take a higher standard of living... by FatSean · · Score: 1

    ...ver a year and a half more life on average! We both win!

    --
    Blar.
  78. Re:Unpatriotic by rossifer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.

    -- Theodore Roosevelt

    (any typos or misspellings are mine)

  79. Ditto. by antdude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It was worth reading. It made me sad and rethink about life. :)

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:Ditto. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, the article only works on gay people.

  80. RE: Sadly a fake by DMCBOSTON · · Score: 1

    The motorcycle trip was a fake. The trip through the area was real

  81. Re:Unpatriotic by Eccles · · Score: 3, Funny

    Indeed. I take great comfort that the Bush administration compares favorably to the Soviet dictatorship.

    I'd bet he'd win a head-to-head with Mussoulini too!

    --
    Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
  82. Radon mainly by Moritz+Moeller+-+Her · · Score: 4, Informative

    The main problem seems to be the Radon gas, which as radioactive gas can not be filtered out. Radiation levels near coal plants are higher than near atomic plants.

    Some links:
    http://www.stormingmedia.us/76/7636/A76360 3.html
    http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-ele ments/Rn -en.htm

    Especially http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-9 7/FS-163-97.html looks good.

    --
    Moritz
  83. Re:Unpatriotic by CrackedButter · · Score: 0

    That was moving even for me and i'm British! You said what needed to be said, parts apply to other people of other nations however.

  84. Re:Full Story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a Chernobyl guys, he's flying to the sky, that Chernobyl guy... Some people survived, other people didn't...

  85. Amen! by The+Queen · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's nice to know I'm not the only one.

    "Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the President." - Theodore "Teddy" Roosevelt

    --

    The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
  86. Re:The THUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I guess it is trying to tell me the next time I hear a loud thud, that it might not be my grandmother breaking a hip, but the war beginning.

    Nope. The loud thud you hear is your brain trying to get itself started, and failing miserably.

  87. Re:I just can't get over it... by khrtt · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Europe anyway they call them torches don't know about Russia. In Russia they call them in Russian:-). The word would be "fonarik", you insensitive clod!

  88. Re:Unpatriotic by Mad+Man · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Re:Unpatriotic


    Why is ANY critisism of the government "unpatriotic" do you have any idea what "patriotic" means? (Rhetorical question you obviously do not)



    Because the president said so:



    Remarks by the President of the United States
    Spartan Stadium
    Michigan State University
    May 5

    [snip]

    I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.

    [snip]

    I believe you have every right, indeed you have the responsibility, to question our government when you disagree with its policies. And I will do everything in my power to protect your right to do so.

    But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.

    [snip]

    But the Weathermen of the radical left who resorted to violence in the 1960s were wrong. Today, the gang members who use life on the mean streets of America, as terrible as it is, to justify taking the law into their own hands and taking innocent life are wrong. The people who came to the United States to bomb the World Trade Center were wrong.

    [snip]

    How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.

    [snip]

    [T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government. There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

    [snip]



    (emphasis added)

  89. Re:Unpatriotic by JavaLord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's your duty to, it's your job and responsability to cry foul. Living in the US you get all these great rights and responsabilities, but they aren't a gift. You have a job to do in exchange for them.

    Yes, it is your duty to cry foul, if something foul is indeed being done. However crying foul to the point where the government is crippled from fulfilling it's main duties (national defense, and regulation of interstate commerce) for your own personal gain is NOT Patriotic.

    A good example of this is the American media. They LOVE a good story they can attack a president on. When Bill Clinton tried to kill Osama Bin Laden the media screamed "Wag the dog, Wag the dog!" and the American people followed like sheep. Now, with Iraq the American media spews shit about no WMD, even though Iraq was planning terrorist strikes against America and the people follow along once again, calling Bush a nazi even though like Clinton, he is trying to protect them against an unseen monster.

    So how many people have to die before people open up their eyes? Did Clinton step down his effort to catch Bin Laden because of the Media and "American Patriots" who were assuming the worst about him? Will Bush be afraid to use force the next time America is threatened?

    Questioning your government to the point of them becoming ineffective because the media "told you so" isn't patriotic, it's being led like a sheep to your own slaughter.

    For all you know there are countries out there just giving stuff away for free, like HEALTHCARE!

    That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare. Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working.

    Yeah if you think the US has gone downhill, or if there's just one thing or two that another country does better, it isn't the US government that's been slackin' IT'S YOU!

    You are right about this, go out and VOTE people. If you don't like the current political parties, find one that appeals to you or make your own and VOTE. While you may think that a third party vote is "throwing your vote away" a third party only needs about 5% to get federal campaign funds for the next election.

  90. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That Roosevelt fellow is obviously an Evil Unpatriotic UnAmerican Terrorist. Do you have his current address so that we can arrest him?

    Thank you,

    The DHS.

  91. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    way to take someone out of context you tree hugging hippie homo

  92. Re:Unpatriotic by ksheff · · Score: 1

    If you are going to liken the government to a child, who in their right mind gives a child more responsibility when it's clearly shown that it can't handle the chores that it has already been given? The Federal Govt does so many things poorly it's been lampooned about it for decades. But knowning that, you want it to start handling something like healthcare? The healtcare cost increases are due to the Fed Govt meddling with it since 1964. Having it get involved for everyone will only make it worse and cost more for everyone. It needs to get out of the business entirely. If you read the US Constitution, you will see that it's not their duty do any it anyway - all of these programs are bribes for votes.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  93. Grigori Medvedev by anubi · · Score: 4, Informative
    Grigori Medvedev, one of the Soviet Union's leading nuclear physicists involved with Chernobyl, wrote a very interesting book about the whole accident and coverup. After the Cold War ended, he was finally at peace to write his account. Believe me, its a very interesting read.

    I got my copy several years ago when I was researching the politics of obedience and whether engineer subordinates should be responsible to authority or the laws of physics for a course in Ethics.

    The book, "The Truth about Chernobyl", by Grigori Medvedev (ISBN 0-465-08775-2) ( English translation - by the way very well done ) Copyright 1991 by Basic Books, Inc.

    ( Incidentally, from my research in Ethics, I just about got the feeling that if you were gonna toe the line on Ethics, you had better work for yourself.).

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  94. I was born like 300 km from reactor. by kennycoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was born in Kiev.. something like 250 - 300km from Chernobyl. Most of us were lucky cause the wind took frist radiation wave to another side... otherwise you could see Kiev dead (actual capital of Ukraine). I've seen lots of children in special hospitals tolly mutated.. not a good thing to see.. i imagined myself @ their's place. Nuclear power is a great this once it is controlled proprelly. Now Ukrainian government is asking for $ each year for creating new shields for old reactors... bastards!

    --
    Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
    1. Re:I was born like 300 km from reactor. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Now Ukrainian government is asking for $ each year for creating new shields for old reactors... bastards!"

      Like it or not at least they are building the shields. Better late than never.

      Would you prefer they NOT build the shields to save some tax money?

    2. Re:I was born like 300 km from reactor. by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Shut up if you don't know what are you talking about.

      I was in Gomel, at the other side of Chernobyl, less than 100km from there, and I am certainly not dead, and neither is anyone else in Gomel.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  95. Inspiring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I have mod points, but you are already at +5 so I decided to reply.

    That, sir, was one of the most inspiring, insightful, and patriotic statements I have heard since late '01.

    I think I'm going to go fax another letter to my Congressman about the USAPATRIOT Act. I haven't gotten replies from my last one, but then all his responses take at least 2 months.

    To ALL Americans: get off your asses and do something about the erosion of your civil and constitutional rights!!

  96. Re:Unpatriotic by RWerp · · Score: 1

    The United States of America is better then every other nation so long as each and every citizen does their part to keep the government in check.

    After World War II, saying "we are better than any other nation" seems kinda scary to me.

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  97. Re:Unpatriotic by RWerp · · Score: 1

    Wow! Reminds me our First Secretary's speeches... scary.

    --
    "Long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead." (John Maynard Keynes)
  98. Interesting fact... by burns210 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had a class with a russian girl last year. Not russian actually, but a former satelite state whose name escapes me. Anyway, because she was born within a certain distance from Chernobyl(she was 17, or so as of this past year) the Red Cross will never except her blood for donation for her entire life.

    I thought that was fairly interesting, that they have a lifelong ban on all people's blood that lived/were born within a certain perimeter of the accident.

    1. Re:Interesting fact... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had a class with a russian girl last year. Not russian actually, but a former satelite state whose name escapes me. Anyway, because she was born within a certain distance from Chernobyl.

      Umm... the Ukraine? That's where Chernobyl is.

  99. Re:The THUD by laura_glow · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "all your base are belong to us"

  100. Simpsons Quote by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

    Russian Model: After Chernobyl, my penis is falling off.
    Moe: And "penis" is Russian for?

  101. Re:Unpatriotic by John+Courtland · · Score: 5, Informative
    At least you could smell the dust and leave on your own before it did what... made you cough a bit?
    Dust has the potential to be very dangerous. Go breathe in some concrete dust. Do it a lot. I'll bet the people who live in the immediate vicinity who did not take precautions to not breathe the dust will die quite a bit earlier than if they did not.
    --
    Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
  102. Re:Trading freedom for Healthcare. [or security] by brodin · · Score: 1

    Offtopic, but I think the more important question for us now is how many people would trade their political, civil, and economic freedom for security? I guess we're going to find out...

  103. Re:Russian R.B.M.K reactors were badly designed .. by TheHawke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait for that reflected moderated reactor to come online up in Alaska. Toshiba's 4S system, consists of a prefabricated core, sealed at the factory, then delivered to the site and installed into prefabricated concrete casings, then plumbed and wired. The 4S system does not use the traditional rod and core design. It design is based on a reflector that moves up and down the face of the uranium core, reflecting neutrons back into the core, causing the fission rate in increase, creating power. If more power is needed, the refector moves faster, but it also shortens the core's life, which is 6 years on the nominal decay rate.
    The upshot to this design is that if something breaks, the reflector simply stops, and the core cools down back to it's normal static decay rate. For instance, you have a power surge that causes a turbine trip, which in turn causes a surge in high pressure steam feed. The operator or automation would take note of it, tripping emergency venting on the secondary coolant loop, finally ordering the reactor to SCRAM. The refector stops moving and things cool down and the community relies on the auxillary generator until a technician can come out to check things out before resetting the system back to normal power generation.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  104. Re:Russian R.B.M.K reactors were badly designed .. by TheHawke · · Score: 1

    Erf! 30 years on the core, not 6!
    My bad.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  105. Coal as a nuclear fuel... wow. by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Informative
    This last comment was interesting enough that I looked it up. According to the USGS, most coal has a concentration of under 2 ppm (mass/mass, I think) of uranium. However, a significant amount of coal in the U.S. has concentrations of 10ppm and above. Now, U-235, the useful isotope, has a relative abundance of 0.75%, so if you select the proper mine you can get about (7.5e-3)(1e-5)(1e9 mg/tonne) = 75 milligrams of U-235 per tonne of coal (note "tonne"=1000kg=2200 lb, not "ton"=2000 lb).

    Fissioning U-235 releases about 200 MeV/fission, or about (2e8 eV/fission)(1.6e-19 J/eV)(6.02e23 fissions/235 g)(0.075 g) = 6e9 Joules per tonne of the more enriched coal. That's about 1.6 megawatt-hours of heat, that can be derived from fissioning the U-235 in a tonne of coal.

    Bituminous coal has an energy density of combustion of about 25e9 Joules per tonne, or about 7 megawatt-hours of heat from burning a tonne of coal.

    At first glance, the combustion seems to win, especially when you consider that you can only get about 10% of the energy out of the uranium without reprocessing. But if you use the U-238 too (to make plutonium, which will then also fission in a conventional reactor), you get about 100x as much energy as from fissioning just the U-235. Of course, that takes reprocessing the fuel at least once, which is energy intensive, and there will of course be losses in the system. So maybe you only win by 30x. The fission should yield about 50 megawatt-hours of heat in a proper breeder-reactor setup. That's more than ten times the heat of combustion. Even "crappy" coal with only 1.5ppm of uranium in it could match the energy of combustion.

    Wow.

    1. Re:Coal as a nuclear fuel... wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      getting the U238 and U235 out of the coal will take energy.

    2. Re:Coal as a nuclear fuel... wow. by AJWM · · Score: 1

      And you didn't even touch the thorium (which is bred to fissionable U-233 just as the U-238 is bred to Pu-239).

      --
      -- Alastair
    3. Re:Coal as a nuclear fuel... wow. by AJWM · · Score: 1

      Nobody's suggesting using coal as a nuclear fuel. Just pointing out how radioactive it is. Consider that all that uranium and thorium is left lying around as ash (or goes up the smokestack) after the coal is burned -- and on a per megawatt basis, the coal plant probably produces more nuclear waste than does a nuclear plant. None of it subject to rad-waste controls.

      Actually the ash from a coal-fired plant might even make a usable uranium ore

      --
      -- Alastair
    4. Re:Coal as a nuclear fuel... wow. by div_B · · Score: 1

      Nobody's suggesting using coal as a nuclear fuel. Just pointing out how radioactive it is.

      Why then, was he comparing the energy yielded by combustion to that which could be obtained by fission? Seems that he was talking about its potential as a nuclear fuel to me, the radiation it emits wasn't mentioned at all.

    5. Re:Coal as a nuclear fuel... wow. by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 1
      AJWM made a comment about the amount of uranium in coal, and added a little spice about the energy content of that uranium. I went back and did a back-of-the-envelope and found that, hey wow, it works.


      In practice, it would be quite difficult to extract those 75 mg of uranium from the tonne of coal, making coal about a suitable as cola for uranium ore -- but AJWM has a point that fly ash (which presumably contains precipitatable uranium oxide) might be a good ore.

    6. Re:Coal as a nuclear fuel... wow. by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      There are certain considerations here:

      1) Nobody considers now breeder reactors as a good alternative for nuclear power generation.

      There are several reasosn, assuming that you want a U-238 based breeder reactor:
      a) One reason is that is very hard to intensively reprocess the spent fuel. This requires huge installations that has to dissolve the spent fuel after a couple of weeks/months in nitric acid or equivalent. This is pretty challenging, even for US who has the experience of dozens of years in U-238/Pu-239 separation. The main problem is that you have all these dangerous byproducts like Cs-137, Sr-90, which appear in small quantities but still are pretty reactive properties (a medium half-life of a couple of years, etc). They are still pretty dangerous and hard to isolate chemically.

      b) Another issue: the Pu-239 becomes a very dangerous material that fall off in the hands of terrorists. You need around 15-30 Kg of Pu-239 to build something that would detonate. This is a very small quantity. Today, there is a lot of Pu-239 that has to be either consumed or buried such that it won't fall in the wrong hands.

      c) And finally, nuclear reactors are not that efficient. For one thing, the amount of generated power doesn't really depend on nuclear reactor size. Mainly because you have to be in the region between the critical and supercritical mass for a certain configuration. This also means that the main challenge in designing a reactor is optimizing the heat transfer process. Smaller reactors are better.

      Second, you get about 1% energy from the fission fuel in one pass; there is no way to get 10%. And, reusing the other 99% for anything is pretty hard.

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
  106. Lands Away by AKScooter · · Score: 0

    I lived in Detroit at the time, and even a week later, weather men were saying the radiation cloud and dust particles were effecting weather, half a world away, in Detroit.

    I still think that Nuclear power is far beter than coal, or any other method of energy creation. The purified cooling water actually comes out 30 times cleaner than when it was sucked in!

  107. Mod parent up by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    AC or not, it's a valid correction.

  108. Re:Unpatriotic by rot26 · · Score: 2, Insightful



    However crying foul to the point where the government is crippled from fulfilling it's main duties

    Explain how this is possible. Are you implying that George Bush reacts so poorly to verbal criticism or adversity that he would be paralyzed and unable to perform his duties? (On the other hand, given his reaction when told of the unfolding 9-11 events, you MAY have a point there.)

    That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare.

    It's not a "good thing" for the class of Americans who can afford decent health care. You make a significant overgeneralization, however, when you say people from other countries...; in actuality it's RICH people from other countries who come here for treatment, in part because we have generally good health care available to those (like them) who can afford it, but more to the point, our American health care is less clogged-up (i.e. less waiting) for those who can afford it BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT and thus do not "get in the way" of the more affluent, as happens in their home countries with health care rationed by need rather than by ability to pay.

    --



    To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
  109. Re:Unpatriotic by john_smith_45678 · · Score: 1

    No, anything that quotes Edward Abbey is "How to be an Environmental Extremist Terrorist" 101.

  110. They cannot turn you away if you need treatment. by Venner · · Score: 1
    In any case, you've totally missed my point: in the US, if you do not have private health coverage, you have nothing. Operable brain tumour? If your job doesn't come with health coverage (and for blue collar workers, increasingly few do), and you can't afford the operation using your savings, then you're going to die. Period.
    Um, not so much. Public hospitals are required by law to treat you for an emergency visit and are required to keep treating you while you are there. They can't just say, "Oh, now his liver has failed. Too bad he can't afford a new one."

    Obviously, this doesn't help you for chronic/long term conditions before they become an emergency, but it is hardly the draconian state you claim.

    Me? I'm for more governmental control and regulation of the medical industry (and just as, if not more importantly, the pharmaceutical and insurance industries. Malpractice suits especially need limits.), but not abject European socialism. When industries get too big for individuals or states to handle, the federal government has an obligation to step in and keep them honest. What bothers me is that people are too apethetic to keep the Fed honest.
    --
    A preposition is a terrible thing to end a sentence with.
  111. The Red Cross are a bunch of supersticious idiots by stud9920 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They won't accept blood given by homosexuals either. Because somehow, they feel that the people who fuck without taking simple precautions are the same peoplas as those who want to waste an hour to give blood. And you know, teh gheys habe teh AIDS OMG.

  112. Re:Actual interview text... by Trolling4Dollars · · Score: 1

    Hmmm... I thought the second "interview" was funnier than the first. But then again, I'm always accused of being one of those supposed commie-leftist-pinko types.

  113. Re:meltdown != explosion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was an explosion. RTFA, he says so himself and he was there, you weren't. There was a massive steam explosion.

  114. What do you base your opinion on? by WebCowboy · · Score: 1

    Do you assert that "Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top" simply because of stories you read on the 'net, or do you have substantial evidence of this? Perhaps you are old enough to remember the tragedy at Chernobyl but have you ever even BEEN to Russia or any other former Soviet republics, or know people who have? Or perhaps do you live there now and your own personal circumstances have not been good since the fall of the USSR and you remember the good times?

    From my perspective it looks like the Soviets were quite the opposite--they neither cared for citizens at large nor did they have an adequate public healthcare system. This fellow was highly educated and had skills and background considered important to the state. Furthermore, the more plant operators, technicians and engineers that survived, the more witnesses the state had to obtain information from in analysing the explosion. At least in the US there is SOME degree of protection and money can buy you good care--in the USSR you had to hope the Soviet government thought you were worth saving.

    This isn't a case of a good system turning bad through stagnation and corruption either--the Soviet Union was rotten to the core right from the beginning in 1917. My grandmother's family was not really wealthy but did live alright on their own farm in Ukraine--until the revolution when their farm was seized and they were expelled from their property. My grandmother was a small child and the family faced great enough hardship that they fled to Canada to make a new life. A lot of attention is paid to the fact millions were killed in concentration camps during Hitler's reign of Germany, and rightly so. Unfortunately not so much attention is paid to the criminal acts of Stalin, who committed genocidal atrocities that probably even surpassed those of the monster Hitler.

    Until communism fell we only had information that was either filtered by the Soviet state or came from informants or defectors, but our eyes were really opened with the breakup of the USSR. Although great effort was placed on central planning as a means to enforce equality, the reality was that there was no equality--central planners decided who was "more equal" than others. As a result, if you had connections in the politburo or were blessed with certain skills, intelligence or family ties you were taken care of.

    If you were a farm worker, or coal miner or factory worker you were worthy of little more than enough sustinance to perform your duties--the system established just the kind of classes that the revolution was supposed to eliminate. So as engineers, doctors, politicians and such got top notch hospital treatment, schoolchildren in Kiev got untreated tumours and lesions, coal miners got emphesyma and citizens in general got to live in riteky state housing built with concrete largely reinforced with straw and refuse.

    I suspect that you grew up believing in the communist ideal and never had to live in the reality of it, or you actually DID live in it and were fortunate enough to be part of the "more equal" strata of Soviet society--that is, you or your family were "white collar" partipants in the state machine. Admittedly, post-Soviet Russia hasn't been all that kind to that segment of society.

  115. Re:Heroism and Chernobyl BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I was in S Italy during the event and do not see how it could have been any worse. We were taking RADs and had to wear anti-c's to go outside the lab.

    You are a cluless trol that should be admonished for karma whring.

  116. Stability and Xenon by Dr.+Zowie · · Score: 4, Informative
    The problem that caused the steam explosion was Xe-135 buildup. Xe-135 is a fission daughter product. It is a secondary product (produced by decay of fission products) and itself decays with a few-hour half-life. Xe-135 is a "neutron poison" and when present in the reactor it has the same effect as a control rod, only Xe-135 is much more effective per atom than (say) Cadmium or Boron, the two main materials used for control rods.


    Xe-135 is destroyed when it absorbs a neutron. So in an operating reactor is it "burned" rapidly as it is produced. But when you shut off the reaction, Xe-135 levels rise over the next eight hours to a peak level and then decay. This makes it very difficult to start a power reactor eight hours after you shut it down: the Xe-135 acts like an additional control rod, damping the reaction. You find that you have to pull the control rods much farther out to get the reaction started.


    There's a problem with that: as soon as you get the reaction going in the core, the Xe-135 will rapidly "burn" off, restoring the usual control laws. That is dynamically unstable, as more neutrons -> less Xe-135 -> more reactive core -> even more neutrons!


    The operators should have known what was happening when the found they had to pull the rods much farther than expected in order to bring the reactor stable "zero"-power operation ("zero-power" operation means that a chain reaction is being sustained but is not producing a significant amount of power. It is an important first step in operating the reactor: you start the reaction going, demonstrate positive control, calibrate your control settings, and then proceed to the power level you want. In the reactor where I worked, 5 watts of power, out of a rated maximum of 250 kilowatts, was considered "zero power".).


    That unstable positive coefficient (as the Xe-135 burned off) made the reactor spike rapidly in power to a high thermal level -- where the reactor's positive void coefficient [what the Muerte23 described in the parent article] took over. That is a poor element of reactor design -- the Chernobyl reactors were "over-moderated". Fission neutrons come out fast, but uranium absorbs neutrons best when they're moving slowly. So you put the reactive material in a medium (water or graphite or Zirconium hydride or whatever) that will absorb energy from the neutrons without absorbing the neutrons themselves -- they bounce around, losing energy, until they can be absorbed by the core. Too little moderation, and the core won't start up. Too much moderation, and the neutrons will get absorbed and the core won't start up. The Chernobyl reactors were over-moderated, so that small voids in the graphite/water matrix in the core would increase the reactivity of the core. That's just stupid -- properly designed reactors are under-moderated, so that if the water boils the reaction tends to shut itself down.


    Anyhow, all that would be moot except that the operators had disabled the main reactor shutdown mechanisms -- they couldn't SCRAM (or rapidly re-insert the rods into the core), but were forced to rely on the much slower drive mechanisms -- which couldn't contain the reaction. A rapid-drop SCRAM system existed (and would have saved the facility) but had been disabled for testing.


    The problem (as I see it) with nuclear power is that people are such fuckin' idiots. Reactors are completely safe around people with what is called "common sense" but unfortunately, common sense isn't. Eventually, pointy haired bosses and Joe Sixpack rule the day.


    (BTW, I hold a no-longer-current nuclear reactor operator's license).

  117. Re:Unpatriotic by JavaLord · · Score: 1

    Explain how this is possible. Are you implying that George Bush reacts so poorly to verbal criticism or adversity that he would be paralyzed and unable to perform his duties? (On the other hand, given his reaction when told of the unfolding 9-11 events, you MAY have a point there.)

    *sigh* I notice you didn't touch the Clinton comment. What is wrong, do you think it only goes one way? Clinton read polls and cared more about how he looked "politically" than Bush does. I don't doubt that EITHER of them could be influenced and paralyzed by the media. I would bet that Clinton was during the Lewinsky scandal.

    It's not a "good thing" for the class of Americans who can afford decent health care. You make a significant overgeneralization

    No, you make a signifcant overgeneralization. You make it sound like poor people are dying on the street from lack of health care. The US has Universal health care. ANYONE can walk in to a hospital off the street and get heath care if anything serious is wrong with them and the hospital MUST take them and MUST give them the same treatment and it comes out of the American taxpayers wallet.

    Everyone might not have universal health care, but where in the constitution does it say that? You have the right to life, liberty and to see the doctor if you have the flu?

    And what happens to the health care system once the government takes over? In places like Canada it the average time it takes is 2 weeks to see a doctor. How motivated will the nurses and doctors be to take care of you? Ever been to motor vehicles in the US? That is what you can expect if the US government takes over health care. It's been proven time in and time out, taking away choice and handing an industry over to government never works as well as letting the free market decide things.

    , however, when you say people from other countries...; in actuality it's RICH people from other countries who come here for treatment, in part because we have generally good health care available to those (like them) who can afford it, but more to the point, our American health care is less clogged-up (i.e. less waiting) for those who can afford it BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD IT

    No, they come here simply because it's the best health care. It's not about the "wait time"...If you are going to have a major operation would you wait an extra week for a good doctor or take any old shmuck who has the next opening?

    People who have to pay for their health related services take up 50% less resources than people who are insured however there is little to no effect on their overall health (this is from a study done at Harvard. Look it up, it was done by Newhouse).

  118. must be democrates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FLIPing and FLOPing with the wind.

  119. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Re:Unpatriotic (Score:4, Insightful)


    Why is ANY critisism of the government "unpatriotic" do you have any idea what "patriotic" means? (Rhetorical question you obviously do not)

    Because the president said so:

    Remarks by the President of the United States [Bill Clinton at the time - ed.]
    Spartan Stadium
    Michigan State University
    May 5 [ back in 1995 -ed. ]

    I would like to say something to [those of you] who believe the greatest threat to America comes not from terrorists from ... beyond our borders, but from our own government.... But I also know there have been lawbreakers among those who espouse your philosophy.... How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.... [T]here is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you can love your country but despise your government.


    And again on December 30, 1995: "We recognized, once again, that we can't love our country and hate our government." And how many other times did President Clinton and his suporters try to crush dissent by smearing his critics as terrorists (or at the very least, terrorist enablers).

    Ah yes, the good old days when Newt Gingrich and the Republican congress, Rush Limbaugh and talk^H^H^H^H hate radio, and especially the National Rifle Association, were blamed for their "role" in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing as part of the Left's wave of new McCarthyism.

    And honestly, how many of you who believed that quote was from George W. Bush also believe that Clinton and his allies didn't exploit the OKC bombing for his own political purposes, but was right to do so anyway?
  120. The Conspiracy by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

    That's nothing new. U.S health care has always been centered around pharmaceutical profits. Pharmacies charge 4x the cost of Canada even though the drugs were build from the same manufacturers. Then U.S. health delegations say "Canada and oversea medicine is unsafe". That's complete bullshit.

    By the end of the decade, U.S. health care will no longer be known to be top among the world. It'll go down as a service that is overpaid, too political and complicated. And Americans will be sitting on top of miracle treatments that no one can afford except the millionaires.

    The conspiracy behind all this is the population control. You either send a bunch of people to war and keep a low headcount OR you provide unaffordable heathcare. Conspiracy 101.

  121. Mod Parent Up by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

    I read the MIT report, the Xenon problem was an important issue and ment that it was very difficult to 'relight' the reactor. When the raction restarted, it was too quick.

  122. Re:Unpatriotic by Nept · · Score: 1

    Right ... Saying otherwise and coming up with the propaganda and the media to support the view that the president is always right comes dangerously close to Facism.

    --
    "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
  123. Re:Unpatriotic by funkdid · · Score: 1
    I know a man that burned his US Marines uniform when he came back from Viet Nam. I was never a Marine, I was never in Viet Nam. I wouldn't dare speculate on this for a second, nonetheless it's a pretty powerful action for any member of the armed services to perform. I know a lot of Veterans and for the most part I've found them to have similar stories, except Viet Nam vets. They have a different attitude towards their war then other Vets do. In fact if you want to find some people with a deep hatred for their government's actions.....

    You should always support and give thanks to those soldiers who are willing to risk their lives in your defense. In return you should be ready to hang from the trees anyone that would risk the lives of those soldiers needlessly.

    It's really a simple promise. "I'll die for my nation and any member of it, just don't make me die for something less"

    --

    I boycott signatures

  124. My question about the Chernobyl disaster is..... by cyberassasin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what should have been done. There are many excellent description of what caused the event, and what was done wrong to produce the event, but I still haven't found any explanation of what the response should have been to stop the accident. Can anyone comment, or have a link. And I am talking about fixing the problem once all of those safeties were removed. Was this a recoverable condition that they hadn't trained for, or was the outcome unavoidable....

    --
    Who is the master of foxhounds, and who says the hunt has begun? -Pink Floyd
  125. MIT report by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
    This was posted a few days ago, but this probably one of the most accurate summaries:

    Unless you want to pay money, you are stuck reading negative gifs (sucks when you get to the photographs), but this is pretty good.

  126. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you that the problem with the government is us and that Lewis Black is often amusing but the line "For all you know there are countries out there just giving stuff away for free, like HEALTHCARE!" doesn't make sense.

    There is no such thing as free healthcare. There is healthcare paid for by the taxpayers or other group.

    Even then there is a limit to the care that can be provided as no group has the capacity to pay for every treatment that would be of benefit to someone.

    I guess you could say "Freedom isn't free and neither is healthcare!".

  127. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, he could be a radical rightist with a gun fetish. He doesn't explicitly make clear whether he disagrees or agrees with the president, he just quotes him.

  128. Re:My question about the Chernobyl disaster is.... by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    or was the outcome unavoidable....

    sorry no links - but briefly from what I read in russian press -the outcome after the things they did was unavoidable. But then ALL similar reactors were equipped with new features which will make the similar situations avoidable. So now if the things at any power plant will go the same way - then there will not be tragedy.
  129. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Now, with Iraq the American media spews shit about no WMD, even though Iraq was planning terrorist strikes against America
    What's wrong with talking about WMD when that was the justification Bush gave to go to this war and that justification turned out to be false?
    calling Bush a nazi even though like Clinton, he is trying to protect them against an unseen monster
    The unseen monster beeing Iraq's WMD yet to be found... Unseen, indeed.
    So how many people have to die before people open up their eyes?
    Perhaps people have opened up their eyes already.
    Did Clinton step down his effort to catch Bin Laden because of the Media and "American Patriots" who were assuming the worst about him? Will Bush be afraid to use force the next time America is threatened?
    Good questions. And what are the answers?
    Questioning your government to the point of them becoming ineffective because the media "told you so" isn't patriotic
    If the government becomes ineffective because somebody questions them, that means they are incompetent and should step down so somebody more up to the task can do a better job.
    That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare.
    And many other people in the US go to other countries for health care because it is cheaper and faster. If so many Americans are not satisfied with their health care, does this not mean that there really might be a problem with the system?
  130. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For all you know there are countries out there just giving stuff away for free, like HEALTHCARE! That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare. Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working.

    Your kidding right? Our health care in australia is awsome, i just hope it stays the way it is, without America trying to force there way in. In the first draft of the free trade agreement, one of the requirments of America was that we abolish the PBS, effectivly allowing them to charge any price they want for imported products.
    Your health care may not be great, but please leave ours alone.

  131. Would YOU want to be that patient? by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 1

    That procedure might be suitable in a dire emergency, but if the medical system is so degraded that most heart surgeries are dire emergencies what does that say about the society's capabilities and priorities? It certainly does not fit with Soviet claims of being the Worker's Paradise and the pinnacle of civilization.

    1. Re:Would YOU want to be that patient? by Izago909 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but what does it say about America when the level of care and protection of law one recieves is directly related to the size of your bank account? At least in Soviet Russia nearly everyone was treadted with an equal lack of care.

  132. Cerenkov radiation in air? I think not. by Engineer-Poet · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nuclear reactors don't emit beta particles at a high enough energy to create Cerenkov radiation in air. On the other hand, Cerenkov radiation in molten glass (which is now solidifed and known as Chernobylite) coming up through the air and scattering off dust is quite plausible.

  133. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And far off-topic!

  134. Re:Unpatriotic by Bun · · Score: 1

    Er... he was joking. See, these days it seems that any sort of criticism of the government or public services, etc., gets slammed for being unpatriotic... especially if they are defense or terrorism related... so he wanted that post modded down for being critical of the EPA's actions after 9/11, which scratches a particularly raw nerve in the public psyche and... oh, just forget it...

    --
    "Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
  135. Making it on the Cheap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chernobyl was a wicked disaster, fueled by the necessities of politics. There was a reason why they HAD to use natural (99% U-238) uranium; why it was the sole determining factor in the design, regardless of all other considerations. Russian lives have always been cheap, just as a matter of recent (~1000 years) history, but the guys involved in this incident (and K-19) truely are heroes. Whether they knew the dangers they were being sent into, or not. Whether they had a Phd. or were just a schmoe pushing a broom.

    That kind of courage is both awe-inspiring and scary...

  136. Untruthful by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Informative

    Your statement that Iraq was planning terrorist strikes against the US is linked to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB head. That's never been corroborated. They rank down there with Bush's "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address claiming that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger, *according to the British*. There was no uranium purchase, just forged documents from Italy, passed through Britain, to American intelligence and State Department analysts who dismissed it. There's even less evidence for Putin's statement than forged documents. And there's no WMD, not even according to Putin. You can be irrationally afraid of anything you like, if it helps you believe the lies pouring from Bush, then getting blamed on foreigners. Just stop spreading those lies and fears around.

    BTW, if you're going to talk baseless crap, you're probably better off complaining about "socialist" universal healthcare than weapons and terrorism. Most people won't believe you, especially if you don't even toss in the "communism is dead" canard.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

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

      Your statement that Iraq was planning terrorist strikes against the US

      It's not my statement, it's Putin's, and the CIA had the same information.

      is linked to a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin, ex-KGB head.That's never been corroborated.

      Yes, it was by the CIA. Now, WHY WOULD PUTIN LIE? Answer that question. He has absoultly nothing to gain by lying, he was part of the Iraqi "oil-for-food" scam. He was one of the FEW that was against the US war on Iraq. Why would he lie? What is his motivation? The CIA is lying too? Do you want to call moulder or should I?

      You can be irrationally afraid of anything you like,

      You would have said being afraid of Bin Laden pre-september 11th was irrational. You need people to DIE before you can see a threat for what it is. People like you, your lack of vision is paid for with the blood of innocent Americans.

      if it helps you believe the lies pouring from Bush, then getting blamed on foreigners.

      Huh? This statement makes no sense.

      Just stop spreading those lies and fears around.

      Please document anything you have other than your word that can prove Putin is lying. I tend to believe the Preisdent of Russia over a tin foil hat wearing paranoid leftist Slashdot user.

      BTW, if you're going to talk baseless crap,

      Baseless? I offered proof Putin made the statement from CNN. You offer nothing but your opinion that Putin is lying because he is ex-KGB. Is that how you judge people? By their past professions? I thought liberals weren't judgemental. Hmm.

      you're probably better off complaining about "socialist" universal healthcare

      I wasn't complaining, I was stating fact. I did it pretty well huh?

      than weapons and terrorism. Most people won't believe you,

      I don't need people to believe me, I just try to state the truth. The fact is the media is fucking Bush the same way they did Clinton both over defending America. I'm not interested in pushing the right or left, just stating fact that so many people seem to ignore.

      especially if you don't even toss in the "communism is dead" canard.

      Was it ever alive?

    2. Re:Untruthful by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I'm from NYC, where I live. I've known about bin Laden's threat since at latest the 1993 attempt to blow up the WTC. Which is why I understood Clinton's bombing of Afghanistan in 1998, after al Qaeda bombed our African embassies. Which is why I resented the Gingrich Republican Congress stopping Clinton by waving a blue dress, wagging the leash that wags the dog. Where are you, with so much at stake in the Terror War?

      I also know that Putin, running Russia on a weapons and oil economy, has much to gain by lying about Hussein, or anything else to row his boat along with Bush, and little to stop him. If you can produce CIA corroboration of Putin's claim, let's see if it's as flimsy as their other lies about Iraq and terrorism. How about the CIA clearly saying there was "no evidence of any active Iraqi terrorist threat against the U.S."? Your proof that Putin made the statement is as relevant as proof that British intelligence said that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger. I'm unimpressed by someone who believes the uncorroborated word of the obviously complicit Russian president, and talks about tinfoil when spewing shibboleths about other people's politics, especially when they're wrong about both. And if you don't understand the significance of your boy, Bush, pouring lies into the media, then blaming them on foreigners, while strutting to the chant of "personal responsibility", then I'll never get through to you in a Slashdot post. Best of luck with your appetite for official propaganda.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

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

      I'm from NYC, where I live. I've known about bin Laden's threat since at latest the 1993 attempt to blow up the WTC. Which is why I understood Clinton's bombing of Afghanistan in 1998, after al Qaeda bombed our African embassies.

      I never said YOU didn't understand it, I was talking about how the media spun it to make Clinton out to be Wagging the dog, just as the are fucking Bush over now.

      Which is why I resented the Gingrich Republican Congress stopping Clinton by waving a blue dress, wagging the leash that wags the dog.

      Which is the same reason I resent the Howard Dean's of the world who are playing politics with American lives. Sad.

      Where are you, with so much at stake in the Terror War?

      NJ, I work in NYC.

      I also know that Putin, running Russia on a weapons and oil economy, has much to gain by lying about Hussein, or anything else to row his boat along with Bush, and little to stop him.

      BULLSHIT, Putin has been fighting the Bush administration tooth and nail against the Iraq war because they had sweetheart deals with Iraq going on and they still look to foil the US whenever they can.

      If you can produce CIA corroboration of Putin's claim, let's see if it's as flimsy as their other lies about Iraq and terrorism.

      I'd have to find the article, but basically when the Russians contacted the CIA and told them they said "we know".

      How about the CIA clearly saying there was "no evidence of any active Iraqi terrorist threat against the U.S." [cbsnews.com]?

      Richard Clarke? The guy appointed by Clinton who was running around saying anything to promote his book? Cmon man. I like how you point to that link and make it sound like the CIA came out and SAID that. Clarke said that, we have no proof that it is true. But I guess what Clarke says in an interview pushing his new book carries more weight to you than what the CIA says in public and what Putin says in public. You really like consperacy theories don't you?

      Your proof that Putin made the statement is as relevant as proof that British intelligence said that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger.

      What the fuck are you babbling about? Putin MADE the statement, it was covered by all the news networks. What does that have to do with bad British intellegence?
      I'm unimpressed by someone who believes the uncorroborated word

      It was backed up by the CIA and our president. I believe them over some guy on Slashdot...silly me.

      of the obviously complicit Russian president,

      Oh yes, he is very complicit that is why he voted against the Iraq war. That is why he only made the statement after being questioned by a report over and over again about it. Did you ever read the article? I doubt it. Maybe if it were a geocities website about the New World Order you would be interested.

      and talks about tinfoil when spewing shibboleths about other people's politics, especially when they're wrong about both.

      "OMG YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT POLITICS!" that is some arguement you have there. Weak like most standard liberal democrats.

      And if you don't understand the significance of your boy, Bush,

      He isn't "my boy"

      pouring lies into the media, then blaming them on foreigners, while strutting to the chant of "personal responsibility",

      Oh yes, he's pouring lies into the media. It's all propaganda. Rightttttt...

      then I'll never get through to you

      Get through to me? What are you looking for converts? Go kill yourself.

      in a Slashdot post. Best of luck with your appetite for official propaganda.

      Sorry dude, I'm not into propaganda, I leave that to the communist/socialist countries. I don't worry about that too much here in America since liberal socialists are the minority.

    4. Re:Untruthful by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      I think your selfserving attitude is best illustrated by your misinterpretation of my words:

      'and talks about tinfoil when spewing shibboleths about other people's politics, especially when they're wrong about both.

      "OMG YOU ARE WRONG ABOUT POLITICS!" that is some arguement you have there. Weak like most standard liberal democrats.'

      You are wrong about *my* politics. I'm not a Democrat, or Republican, or member of any other political party. I'm probably not "liberal" either, according to whatever buzzword definition you're implicitly using. I'm mainly libertarian, although "free" might better describe my politics. But I'm an experienced American adult, and I understand that our large complex country requires stable structures for management. So I'm an avowed defender of our Constitution, and much of the laws under it, with some significant patches for a more equitable political process within the current structure.

      Considering my stance, and your rhetoric, we probably have a lot of common interests in political change. We also both distrust the media, especially when reporting politics.

      We have some important disagreements. I don't buy the Republican spin on Clarke's credibility, that he's pumping his book. Clarke started working for the government in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (Kissinger) in 1973, and was appointed to the NSC by Bush Sr. Clinton inherited him, and appointed him to the new position for coordinating security, infrastructure and counterterrorism work in the government. Bush had him running the situation room in the White House during 9/11/2001. This guy is an expert, a complete bipartisan insider, who could just as easily have written his book in 2002 about Bush as the essential Terror War leader. No one has convincingly challenged his assertions. And his successor, Rand Beers, quit a few days later, making the same complaints that Clarke claimed when he couldn't do his job under Bush.

      Credible evidence that the CIA has at least contradicted itself on claims of Hussein antiamerican terrorism removes it from consideration - without that odd note, Putin's claim is unsubstantiated. Of course Russia and France defended Hussein and his Ba'ath government: those countries' corporations were owed billions for oil collaboration, now in question after the regime change. But now they're bargaining with the new devil: the motley crew of Americans and Chalabists who will determine how to deal with that inherited debt. So of course they're playing as nice as they can with Bush, now guarding the hoard, while appearing to be as opposed as possible for their own corporate constituents. They're all walking a greedy, amoral razor's edge, just like global politicians do as they rise to, and stay at, the top of their industry.

      It's worth it for me to think through these complex issues for a Slashdot audience, even if you, Anonymous (AKA JavaLord?) Coward, can't understand the reasoning, of stand to hear the facts. That's why comments like "go kill yourself" don't dissuade me from posting a sensible reply. Like "oh, New Jersey".

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  137. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how is this funny?

  138. Re:Heroism and Chernobyl BULLSHIT by randall_burns · · Score: 1

    Yes, and my understand is that the accident involved 1 of the four reactors-and wasn't quite the worse accident theoretically possible for that reactor. Personally, I think nuclear power isn't a very good idea--and building reactors without safeguards is even worse. Still, that doesn't detract from the heroism shown by the men that kept a bad situation from getting worse. You didn't loose your entire community in this disaster-some folks did.

  139. Re:Unpatriotic by Scrameustache · · Score: 3, Informative

    Now, with Iraq the American media spews shit about no WMD, even though Iraq was planning terrorist strikes against America and the people follow along once again, calling Bush a nazi even though like Clinton, he is trying to protect them against an unseen monster.

    God damn revisionist warmongers...

    The reason given prior to the invasion was that, according to Bush & Co., Saddam Hussein had in his possession an arsenal of weapons of mass destructions with missiles to launch them beyond the range allowed by the U.N., and deployable within 45 minutes.

    Bush said that he would deliver the proof after his "hundreds of thousand" of "weapons inspectors" (troops) had been there for 2 weeks.
    Its been what, a year and a half? Bush lied, the U.N., France, Germany and Russia were right, the weapons inspector were right, they did their job, there were no weapons of mass destruction.

    But now you'll hang on to any justification once that the actual motivation has been debunked. So this week, apparently, its Russia's word that Saddam was planning something, somewhere, against the U.S. Really?

    Questioning your government to the point of them becoming ineffective because the media "told you so" isn't patriotic, it's being led like a sheep to your own slaughter.

    Who was led to the slaughter like sheep under false pretenses again?
    And the death toll is what, 5 to 1 Iraqis killed compared to U.S. troops? Bah...they don't count, their lives have no value, they weren't born in the U.S., who cares if they live or die...

    Will Bush be afraid to use force the next time America is threatened?

    Dammit, if you support the damn war, at least have the guts to support the real motivations for it. Not the pretend reason of the week.

    P.S. Wanna use the "Saddam did bad things in the 80's while we were supporting him and financing him so we can invade his country all we want now that he isn't obbeying us anymore" excuse? How about some follow through on that idea?

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  140. Air ionized by gamma rays by douglips · · Score: 1

    More likely, the air was being ionized by gammas.

  141. Summer without lettuce by incompetent_bitch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just a young lad at the time of the explosion and living in Switzerland, but I still remember it as the summer without lettuce. I guess the radiation was being absorbed in the leafy green above ground plants, and hence you couldn't eat it.
    It's weird, I don't remember the drastic explosion, the incredible loss of life, the aftermath, except the fact that I couldn't eat lettuce that summer.
    Odd the things you remember.

    1. Re:Summer without lettuce by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      School children in the UK also had to do without their school milk for that year.

  142. Re:Unpatriotic by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    What do you mean, "start handling healthcare"? The Federal government runs Medicare, the VA, the NIH, and various other healthcare operations. It has done so for decades,and is one of the few factors keeping healthcare affordable. If you want to complain about factors driving up the cost, let's talk about the artificially constrained supply of doctors, the dangerous workplaces and polluted environment increasing demand, and the billions of dollars spent marketing drugs.

    "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

    The "common defence", and even "the blessings of Liberty", especially for posterity, require a healthy population.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  143. does not compute by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Er, "socialist/anarchist" evaluates to "1/0", which is an error. Do you balance your healthcare bills with that calculator?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:does not compute by Tongo · · Score: 1

      good point, it was probably more of a flamebait kinda post anyways. heat of the moment and all that.

    2. Re:does not compute by Sunnan · · Score: 1

      That's bullshit. Wikipedia article on anarchism.

      Anarchists were the first socialists, before Lenin and the bolsheviks.

    3. Re:does not compute by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      No, *your* post is bullshit. In that long (and interesting, thank you) Wikipedia article about anarchism, socialism is covered in a section that also covers capitalism:

      7 Major conflicts within anarchist thought
      7.1 Private property
      7.1.1 The anarcho-socialist perspective
      7.1.2 The anarcho-capitalist perspective
      7.1.3 Other anarchist traditions with respect to private property

      Then there's the passage clarifying these relationships:

      "For instance, there are very few similarities in belief between a libertarian socialist and an anarcho-capitalist. Indeed, the two groups are probably more radically different from each other than either one is from mainstream political thought."

      Anarchism is the political philosophy of "no king", (an/archon), or politics without a state. Socialism is the political philosophy of state ownership of property and organization of labor. The inherent contradictions are resolved in a synthesis of anarcho-socialists, which is as different from simple anarchism as it is from simple socialism.

      You can be afraid of any threat to your simple political worldview as you like. But keep your oversimplifications, and your obnoxious language, out of the way of people who know what we're talking about, or even we who can read a Wikipedia article.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:does not compute by Sunnan · · Score: 1
      I replied to one of your posts which said:
      "socialist/anarchist" evaluates to "1/0", which is an error."

      I found that both obnoxious and untrue.

      If I meant to carry out some grudge against "anarcho-capitalists", I would've linked to The anarchist FAQ, but I consider that too rude and unbalanced for my tastes; compared to Wikipedia, which I like because it does bring up "anarcho-capitalism", even though that contradicts my viewpoint (I guess I could be considered an anarcho-socialist, for those with the labelmaker handy. That doesn't mean I'm as prejudiced against the procapitalist libertarians as most of my brothers and sisters.)

      I use a different definition of socialist than you, however. ("State ownership" is not a good solution in and of itself.) (And not even Wikipedia can seem to make up its mind on the matter.)

      I linked to Wikipedia for a reason - that it isn't oversimplifying things, unlike you.
    5. Re:does not compute by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Socialist = state owns everything = 100% = 1
      Anarchist = no state = 0% = 0

      Those are the simple definitions of those terms, suitable for a Slashdot quip. Of course that's an oversimplification of any human political system, especially when they exist so much in theory, and so rarely/incompletely in practice.

      There's no getting around your calling my accurate, if imprecise, quip "bullshit", then stating "Anarchists were the first socialists", which is so imprecise as to be innacurate, not to mention factually wrong - government ownership of property (including labor) is much older than modern civilization. So there :P.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    6. Re:does not compute by Sunnan · · Score: 1
      I very much disagree with your definition of socialist. You're the one that's oversimplifying so much that you state inaccuracies when you're denying the existance of the (very real) movement that's been, at various times in history, labeled "anarchists", "anarchocommunists", "anarchosocialists" and "anarchosyndicalist".

      "Socialism" is one of the words I've been thinking of stopping using; I've found that using it often causes aggravation and misunderstanding since there are so many varying definitions of it.

      How about this:
      Capitalist = people with money own everything = 100% = 1
      Anarchist = no private property = 0% = 0

      Imprecise, inaccurate? Yeah. That's why oversimplifications are bad, and that's why your Slashdot quips may occasionally cause someone to cry out "bullshit!".

      "government ownership of property (including labor) is much older than modern civilization."

      Despotism, feudalism? I don't think workers were much happier during the industrial revolution than during feudalist times. (And what was the basis of feudalism? "I own this land; you don't own land - you must work for me." Same as how capitalism works in e.g. some South American countries. (And same as the Soviet system worked.))
    7. Re:does not compute by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      Governments are much older than feudalism - we've got physical records dating back at least 4000 years, to Egypt and Babylon. And those big, complex governments almost certainly developed from even older tribal governments (unless the UFO rumors are true :). Tribal bands during the last ice age, 25K-12K years ago, almost certainly had some kind of government. The continuing tradition among most tribes worldwide of ownership or control of manufactured assets and assignment of labor indicates the main mode of government through the ages. Government is probably at least as old as speech, and socialism as a form, if not a rhetoric, is ancient as well.

      I will note that anarchism, to the degree that anarchists have consensus, is defined merely by any alternative to the state, or a central ruler, as a means of governing people. Some alternatives require group ownership of property, some require individual ownership, some exclude property as a construct entirely, others aren't constructed in terms of property at all. My original reduction was not in terms of property, but of the state: in socialism the state is a totality, in anarchism the state is a nonentity.

      I decline to engage in an valuing the "happiness" of workers in any of these political economies. You brought it up,and I'm not interested in discussing it in the context of this thread about a Chernobyl engineer's sad recollections of his nuclear disaster. Even though I probably agree with you.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

  144. I'm fine with nuclear power.... by pimpbott · · Score: 1

    ... apart from the waste issue. That's the thing, the main masty by-product of nuclear reaction is the waste, and what the heck do you do with it? If there was a way to safely recycle it into something safe, we would be high to not embrace nuclear power... but that's the thing, you can't. solar, water (waves, tides) and wind should be worked on. I think there is real potential there to free ourselves from sucking carbon from underground and blowing it into the air.

    1. Re:I'm fine with nuclear power.... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Sir, answer me honestly. Have you read the 500 other responses that discussed reuse, photoremediation, and storage? If you did, why are you still posting this?

  145. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God damn revisionist warmongers...

    God damn ignorant sheep.

    The reason given prior to the invasion was that, according to Bush & Co., Saddam Hussein had in his possession an arsenal of weapons of mass destructions with missiles to launch them beyond the range allowed by the U.N., and deployable within 45 minutes.

    Bush said that he would deliver the proof after his "hundreds of thousand" of "weapons inspectors" (troops) had been there for 2 weeks.
    Its been what, a year and a half? Bush lied, the U.N., France, Germany and Russia were right, the weapons inspector were right, they did their job, there were no weapons of mass destruction.


    At some point did I mention I was voting for Bush? Did I say "OMG THE WMD ARE THERRRREEEE". Instead of blabbing your ideologies standard lines, go back and read my first post and actually respond to it. I simply mentioned that the people follow the media like sheep in America.

    But now you'll hang on to any justification once that the actual motivation has been debunked. So this week, apparently, its Russia's word that Saddam was planning something, somewhere, against the U.S. Really?

    *sigh* You are making up things I never, EVER said. I never said that WMD that were able to strike Isreal were worth the US going to war over. EVER. Stop assuming people fall into either just the right or the left and believe the same old standard lines from each side.

    Who was led to the slaughter [cnn.com] like sheep under false pretenses again?
    And the death toll is what, 5 to 1 Iraqis killed compared to U.S. troops?


    Yeah, because the US is engaged in a worthless endevor...nation building.

    Bah...they don't count, their lives have no value, they weren't born in the U.S., who cares if they live or die...

    Did I ever said that? Where do you get this shit from? Do you usually assume you know everything about someone from a post on slashdot? You are pretty judgemental.

    Dammit, if you support the damn war, at least have the guts to support the real motivations for it. Not the pretend reason of the week.

    And what are the real motivations. Lets hear it. Provide some proof too, not tin foil hat stuff. ok? As for the "motivation of the week" when did you hear Putin's statement mentioned in the press? By Republicans? By anyone? I don't think most Americans even realize that statement was made.

    P.S. Wanna use the "Saddam did bad things in the 80's

    Did I mention this at any point? Do you spend a lot of time talking to yourself because you barely touched on any of the points made in my post with your reply. I suggest you take a deep breath, read my first post and try to reply like a normal human being judging me by only what I said. Ok? thx.

  146. Re:Unpatriotic by justins · · Score: 1
    Dust has the potential to be very dangerous.

    Indeed. This is how asbestos can cause cancer, just by being a mechanical irritant on the inside of the lungs. It's not chemically toxic or anything, like breathing cigarette smoke or something.
    --
    Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
  147. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And many other people in the US go to other countries for health care because it is cheaper and faster.

    Proof? Anywhere? When was the last time an American went to Canada or Mexico for healthcare? Are you kidding me? The only thing Americans "cross the boarder" for are prescription drugs because they are cheaper. Do you know why they are cheaper? Is it because Canada has "better" healthcare? No, they get their drugs from the same AMERICAN companies that America pharmacies do. It's just that Canada and Mexico have unfavorable trade agreements like NAFTA that hurt Americans. They get to buy drugs from the same companies at a cheaper rate. The Democrats AND Republicans have sold America out to the globalists.

    But that doesn't change my main point, If you need surgery tomorrow the place to go is AMERICA. When they have some freak baby twins attached at the head from Iran, or Brazil where do they go for the surgery to seperate them? Do they try Iran? Do they go to Canada (Soviet Kanuckistan)? No, they come to America or they get American doctors to do the surgery.

    Seriously, have you ever been to DMV? Do you want your doctors to act like that?

  148. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your kidding right? Our health care in australia is awsome,

    When was the last time someone from the US flew to Australia for surgery? I'd be interested to see this if you have any links. You aren't confusing health care with prescription drug prices are you?

    i just hope it stays the way it is, without America trying to force there way in. In the first draft of the free trade agreement, one of the requirments of America was that we abolish the PBS, effectivly allowing them to charge any price they want for imported products.

    You mean the American drug comapnies wanted....free trade! Why shouldn't American companies be able to charge whatever they want for their goods? I'm sure our government sold them out and you are getting our drugs at a lower cost.

    Your health care may not be great, but please leave ours alone.

    It's fine, thanks. I'd like to see how far yours would go if none of the American drug companies did business there or were allowed to actually charge what their drugs are worth.

  149. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  150. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How dare you suggest that we in the freest nation on Earth live in tyranny.

    Reminds me of something I heard this morning...

    Apparently President Bush is a little upset at a newspaper in North Korea, who accused him of being "a power-hungry tyrannical dictator, bent on world domination".

    Bush was upset, because according to him, he hasn't even visited Tyrannia.

  151. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "No, they come here simply because it's the best health care."

    "Best"? Maybe "equal best". There are many other countries with the same level of medical technology and training as the USA. There are also plenty of countries that have much inferior health systems. You'll find people from the latter regions going to the former regions for medical care. (The other poster was half right - it's the wealthy that do this, because US health care is very pricey for foreigners. But that's by-the-by.)

    I wouldn't be too arrogant about it. The US has a good health system, if you can afford it. But it isn't some kind of paragon.

  152. Re:My question about the Chernobyl disaster is.... by kurtkilgor · · Score: 1

    As some posts below reveal, the accident resulted from a series of mistakes/stupid actions. If any of these mistakes had not occurred, the accident would not have happened. The removal of the safeties in itself did not cause the accident - it was the raising of control rods, removal of cooling water, etc. Then because of the positive void coefficient, lowering the control rods briefly increased the power of the reactor and caused the explosion. Once the explosion happened, it was all over -- putting out the fire quickly was pretty hopeless once the graphite had caught on fire.

  153. a bit OT by louden+obscure · · Score: 1

    i'm not familiar with the exact definitions, but there seems to be two kinds of nukes. those that heat the water directly and those that use a heat exchanger. neither is perfect, but the heat exchanger deally is safer. seems like a very complicated way to boil water in either case. i have worked at several com-ed (IL) nukes as an employee of a roofing contractor and observed that any problems seem to originate with the suits. the techies and security people were knowledgable and competent and for the most part polite and courteous . it was the PHBs of the operation that effed up the most.

    --
    Serenity now, insanity later.
  154. Re:Unpatriotic by shadowbearer · · Score: 1


    I'm not going to get into this argument, but I have to point something out to you:

    If you use the same highlighting (ie, bold for previous posters comments, standard text for your own) there isn't a whole lot of point in posting anonymous, is there?

    SB

    --
    It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  155. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People do go to Mexico for healthcare.

  156. Re:Your Sig by Tokerat · · Score: 1

    Parent's current sig:
    All posts marked "Funny" will be mod'ed or metamod'ed down.
    Why? It doesn't affect karma. Set your Funny modifier negative in preferences if you don't have a sense of humor.
    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  157. Re:Unpatriotic by the_meager · · Score: 1

    You make some great points about the media.

    Here's an EXCELLENT article about the Red Team-Blue Team hypocrisy in politics and media today:

    http://www.centraloregonian.com/PCOGuestOpinions 7. html

    I recommend you read it and share among those
    you associate with.

    "That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare. Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working."

    They're already coming to the US now for healthcare. Canada, which has a highly touted health care system (touted by socialists, like Kerry-- who would bankrupt us with his bullshit health care plans), has waiting periods that can be several weeks (4-6 averages?), even for serious operations. An increasing number of ill or injured Canadians continue to come to the United States for health care.

    There's alot of hidden costs associated with "free' socialized health care... not to mention the layers of bureaucracy that have to be dealt with. After they get around the bureaucrats, you're still going to have people using up more and more of what they perceive as "free".

    These people should have read some Heinlein.
    TANSTAAFL. There Aint No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

    All to often people associate Americans lacking medical insurance with lacking medical care. If you're bleeding to death, or seriously injured in some other way, you're GOING TO GET MEDICAL CARE in the United States. It's pretty much by law. However, the hospital is going to expect you to get on a payment plan to pay them back. What is so bad about this? Nothing. It's morally acceptable, and it's efficient.

    "You are right about this, go out and VOTE people. If you don't like the current political parties, find one that appeals to you or make your own and VOTE. While you may think that a third party vote is "throwing your vote away" a third party only needs about 5% to get federal campaign funds for the next election."

    When the system is built for as little change as possible, and those that are capable of altering the system start to merge, the only sensible vote is to not vote at all... which is a vote for all intensive purposes. Even few enough people vote, then our government will begin to lose legitimacy and inevitably you'll find some radical changes in politics or our government structure outright -- which no matter where you stand on the political spectrum, you have to agree with.

    --
    Speckpot?
  158. Re:Unpatriotic by RedWizzard · · Score: 4, Informative
    Because the former president said so:
    Emphasized word added. I find it extremely interesting that you concealed both the fact that those remarks were made by Clinton, and the fact that they were made in 1995. The whole speach can be found here.
  159. Re:My question about the Chernobyl disaster is.... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

    The main problem was that the "condition" was created artificially, as a part of a dangerous experiment that no one of the reactor's designers would approve. Without that there would be no disaster. There may be a lot of nitpicking about safety of the design, however people that were stupid/ignorant enough to run that experiment, would be likely stupid/ignorant enough to compensate for the safety of any other design, too.

    --
    Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
  160. Re:Unpatriotic by ksheff · · Score: 1

    HAHAHAHA! All the Federal programs you mention are SUCH standard bearers for providing quality and inexpensive care. NOT! The only reason I've ever heard of anyone to ever go to a VA hospital was that it was 'free', not because they receive quality care. When the Feds passed Medicare/Medicaid in 1964, they essentially gave the healthcare industry a blank check with little oversight or controls. In my own family's experience, it wasn't uncommon for a hospital to bill the Feds for procedures that weren't done (even after the patient was dead!) and even after it was reported there was an error, they still paid the erroneous amount. Take a look at http://www.academyhealth.org/2003/presentations/do cteur.pdf and look at the GDP chart. Take a ruler and draw a line using the US's spending from 1965 (right after M/M was passed) to 1970 and extend it out. It pretty much tracks the rate of spending until 1995. Do the same with the segment from 1960 to 1965. It results in a line that is at a rate of change that is similar to Canada's, the UK's, etc. Any surprise that this change is after the Feds decide to take over payment for a significant portion of the population? No. Have working conditions or pollution gotten significantly worse since 1965? No. If anything, they have gotten better. Who limits what companies can sell pharmacuticals in the US? The Feds. Who would also limit the supply of docs? Again, the Feds. But there is a good reason for both of those*.

    Also, the last I checked, Promote does not equal Provide, which is what you want it to do. *Requiring that companies only sell safe products and that the physicians aren't quacks helps contribute to having (or promote) a good health care system for all.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  161. Re:Quite a few--slight spoiler of K-19 Widowmaker by glitch23 · · Score: 1

    Has anyone seen K-19 with Harrison Ford? The sub has a story like the Titanic where things go wrong right from the start, then things go to hell when the reactor powering the sub overheats. The submariners who have to go in and fix it come out with their skin falling off and a few die. Very moving.

    --
    this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
  162. Re:Unpatriotic by ksheff · · Score: 1

    That's not to say that they are the only reason, just a major one. I don't know whether or not they helped popularize insurance packages that took care of everything from regular doctor visits to intensive care. That is another culprit along with malpractice lawsuits. Like Medicare/Medicaid, it imposes another layer of bureaucracy on top of the system and the providers spend a significant portion of their time & energy filling out paperwork instead of helping people. I think /. has had a story or two about doctors rejecting that entire mess for regular upfront payments (like what was very common to pre-mid 60s). They can spend more time with patients and can make as much money seeing fewer people. It also gives people an in-your-face financial reason to stay healthy. My sister is starting her residency and she has said that it's crazy what little piddly things people run to the emergency room for. It drives up the hospitals costs and slows down access for people that really need it. It's almost as if you wanted your auto insurance to pay for someone to check the air in your tires.

    --
    the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
  163. Radioactive cloud by calculadoru · · Score: 1

    This won't be completely off topic, I hope - I was 12 and living in Romania when it happened. As you know (since you are all well-read Slashdot readers) Ukraine is not very far from Romania, and the radioactive cloud hit us pretty soon afterwards. I remember distinctly how frantic my parents were, trying to feed us vitamin C and iodine, along with bottled water. My brother was eight at the time - five years later he was diagnosed with epilepsy. Have been wondering ever since if Chernobyl had anything to do with it. More interestingly even - he is now completely healthy, due to the fact that it was discovered early and he followed a strict treatment for a long time. For those of you who have bothered to read this weepy story all the way, here's the final irony: for the past eleven years I have been living in Japan, I married the most beautiful Japanese woman (well, of course she's the most beautiful, she's mine ) and we're about to have a child in January. And we live in Hiroshima.

    --
    The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it. -- G.B. Shaw
  164. Heroes by thewiz · · Score: 1

    What Alexander Yuvchenko and the others went through that night was incredible. They and the men who built the protective shell around the reactor are heroes for risking their lives to prevent radiation from escaping. I certainly wish that people like this would be treated well instead of being stigmatized. They risked their lives and did the right thing instead of running away.

    Alexander, I salute you!

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  165. Re:Unpatriotic by lucifer_666 · · Score: 1
    You mean the American drug comapnies wanted....free trade! Why shouldn't American companies be able to charge whatever they want for their goods? I'm sure our government sold them out and you are getting our drugs at a lower cost.

    "Free Trade" is not compatiable with health care in Australia. You see, we have the ability to seperate some things from "the money."

    The PBS is a system where everyone can get health care - regardless of what they have. Because if they don't have their health, guess what? They're not going to be working to pay income tax or anything like that. They're not going to contribute to society. Another concept that seems forign to Americans.

    So at the end of the day, corporations in the US saw the way 'drugs' (we call them medicines) are paid for in Australia, and thought "now here's a scam if I've ever seen one... we just up the price, and the people pay"

    THAT's why such a system would never work in the US. The whole concept of doing something for the good of society, as opposed to doing something to make money, has gone out the window. Can a US citizen make any decision now without thinking of his wallet?

    Every year, I pay about 2% of my before tax wage for Medicare. About $750. You know how many times I've been to the doctor in the past five years since I started working? Twice. You know what? I'm HAPPY I'm paying that much. I LIKE paying that much - so PEOPLE who don't have a job, who are WORSE OFF than me, can get their problems fixed... hopefully ALLOWING them to get a job, thus continuing the cycle. I do NOT pay this Medicare charge every year so some greedy, selfish, imoral US stockholder can put it in his pocket!

  166. Re:Unpatriotic by Scrameustache · · Score: 1
    I never, EVER said. I never said that WMD that were able to strike Isreal were worth the US going to war over. EVER.

    Oh?
    Now, with Iraq the American media spews shit about no WMD

    Yeah... Technically, you just implied it.
    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  167. Re:Unpatriotic by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    If you use the same highlighting (ie, bold for previous posters comments, standard text for your own) there isn't a whole lot of point in posting anonymous, is there?

    It protects his precious karma...
    See, he's the sort of person who wouldn't even risk karma to back up his opinions.

    But thanks for pointing that out, I wouldn't have noticed his AC reply if you hadn't pointed that out. He provides a nice second example of revisionism in there, its amusing : )

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  168. Re:Quite a few--slight spoiler of K-19 Widowmaker by valkraider · · Score: 1

    Has anyone seen K-19 with Harrison Ford?

    No. No one has.

  169. Re:Unpatriotic by valkraider · · Score: 1

    No, you make a signifcant overgeneralization. You make it sound like poor people are dying on the street from lack of health care. The US has Universal health care. ANYONE can walk in to a hospital off the street and get heath care if anything serious is wrong with them and the hospital MUST take them and MUST give them the same treatment and it comes out of the American taxpayers wallet.

    Not true. Emergency rooms must take you in and treat your SYMPTOMS enough to STABILIZE you then they can throw you out.

    But that does nothing to solve the problem.

    Emergency room visits are much more expensive than Dr. visits. Why not give people the Dr. visits and keep them out of the emergency rooms? I would hate to be in a car wreck and die because the ER was full of people with the flu...

    And what happens to the health care system once the government takes over? In places like Canada it the average time it takes is 2 weeks to see a doctor. How motivated will the nurses and doctors be to take care of you? Ever been to motor vehicles in the US? That is what you can expect if the US government takes over health care. It's been proven time in and time out, taking away choice and handing an industry over to government never works as well as letting the free market decide things.

    I am glad that you have good personal experience with all of the other countries medical care. But Since all I have is strictly anecdotal evidence, I can only give that... I have two Canadian friends who work here in the states, and both have health coverage in the US. For most things they drive back to Canada for health care because they like the system there better, and our HMOs suck. I work with 5 people from the UK and one from Germany. All 6 prefer their former health care to our "managed care" options. And I have had GOOD health coverage for my entire career, and it still takes me two weeks to get in to the Dr. In fact, even if I paid CASH I couldn't get in to see my Dr. in two weeks... And forget about dental coverage....

    Oh, and I have never had a problem at the DMV either - except it took quite a while to get a slot to take a test once, but nothing major...

  170. Re:Wild ride through Chernobyl by valkraider · · Score: 1

    Damn, you beat me to it. It's a cool as heck site.. (The website, not the nuclear site...)

  171. The Bottom Line... by mOoZik · · Score: 1

    The bottom line is that this was not caused by an improper design - as it was used for some 30 years before and since the accident, albeit with some later modifications (IIRC) - but due to human error. This is obviously a tech site, so a better solution to nuclear stations would be completely eliminate the human factor. Why can't we have computers monitoring absolutely everything? From gas levels, to water levels, to the state of important components, and so forth. What do the human technicians do at this time that a computer cannot? We can certainly have a human present to monitor all the statistics, but to eliminate all control which would allow such a catastrophe to take place.

    I don't consider the loss of life of Chernobyl to be significant in quantity, as compared to war, non-nuclear accidents, disease, famine, et cetera - which is not to say that life lost due to the accident is insiginificant (on the contrary, of course) - but its greatest blow was to the field of Nuclear Energy. As others have pointed out, it is potentially much more cleaner, but the stigma which was created as a result of the accident has had tremendous effect on public opinion. I would wager that more individuals have died pursuing other means of energy production than nuclear, but that hardly matters in the eyes of the uninformed public, politicians, and so forth. Sad, really.

    I can't get the image of the ionized blue air out of my mind. It must have been deathly beautiful.

    1. Re:The Bottom Line... by jpop32 · · Score: 1

      The bottom line is that this was not caused by an improper design - as it was used for some 30 years before and since the accident...

      Actually, it _was_ an improper design, since it made such a scenario possible. The reason for such design is the fact that the reactor had a secondary function, which is to supply the military with the bomb materials. Which mandated certain design choces which made the plant less safe.

      Modern, commercial nuclear plants make such a scenario impossible.

      Why can't we have computers monitoring absolutely everything?

      I would be very uncomfortable with such a design. Ultimate human control must be present at all times. You simply cannot be sure the computers won't fail.

    2. Re:The Bottom Line... by mOoZik · · Score: 1

      I disagree. The reactor was safe...as long as it was used within its parameters. Anything that is not used within its parameters has the potential to be deadly. The fact that it could also be used for weapons is completely irrelevant to the discussion. The real point is that a human did something he/she was not supposed to do at that time, regardless of all other factors. And you can be sure that humans don't fail because? This was a case that clearly demonstrated that. Humans are always the ones making mistakes. You could simply have backup computers to prevent the failure of one computer from causing any problem for the whole. As I suggested, you could always have humans, but they would not have critical functions under their control, but would only serve as observational eyes and ears, in addition to the computer.

  172. Re:I just can't get over it... by mOoZik · · Score: 1

    Or "fanar," as the "ik" after it implies it is small or cute...or generally along those lines. :)

  173. Re:Unpatriotic by Ethelred+Unraed · · Score: 1
    That isn't such a good deal, people from other countries constantly come to the US for healthcare.

    That is a common claim that is misleading. Plenty of people come to Europe for high-quality care, too. (Right here in my city in Germany is a well-known medical college that gets patients from around the world, all the time, for special operations and treatment.) You just don't hear about that in the American press, apparently.

    I'm an American living abroad, and am well acquainted with both European and American health care firsthand. As someone who is chronically ill, I don't stand a chance of getting insured in America in any reasonable way; in Germany I'm fully covered, no questions asked, and fairly cheaply in comparison, with a better quality of coverage than I had with the HMO I was with in America (at the time I was still insured on a policy I "inherited" from my parents' coverage).

    Not to mention, many of the european countries are going to have to cut back on socialist programs like universal health care in 20-25 years because there will be way more people retired than working.

    Another myth, by the way: most European countries I know of don't have socialized medicine, but do have real universal coverage (as in, everyone's insured and can get a level of care at least as good as any given HMO in America, if not far better).

    Germany, where I live, is an excellent example of a universal system that generally works quite well. The Netherlands and Switzerland have broadly similar systems. None have state ownership of the system, none have provider monopolies. France has a single-payer system with private supplemental insurance (while allowing competition between providers); the others have competition and free choice between insurers and providers.

    Ireland and the UK do have honest-to-God socialized medicine (single-payer and single-provider) -- and have lousy care, that is true. Meanwhile, Sweden has socialized medicine and has pretty decent care overall.

    Universal health care actually saves money, apparently -- the European countries I named above (aside from the UK, Ireland and Sweden) all have universal coverage, yet spend far less as a proportion of GDP than the US does on health care. IOW they're spending less and getting a better effect. And by a number of measures, Germans are living longer and healthier than Americans in spite of living unhealthier lifestyles (far higher smoking rates, far higher alcohol consumption, fairly similar obesity rates).

    Cheers,

    Ethelred

    --
    Everyone wants to be Ethelred. Even I want to be Ethelred.
  174. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it protects his precious karma...
    See, he's the sort of person who wouldn't even risk karma to back up his opinions.


    Wrong again cockbreath, I post AC in conversations like this so people don't have to read OT discussions of why you are a pussy. I keep my posts in the same format so you fags still know it's me. It works out pretty well actually.

  175. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, with Iraq the American media spews shit about no WMD

    Yeah... Technically, you just implied it.


    It no way did I do that with that statement. I suggest you take a course in learning how to read.

  176. very informative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i don't get discovery channel, but i think it's
    a really good idea to interview someone who was
    there that night ... maybe i'' ge to see it one
    day.

    this part:
    "From where I stood I could see a huge beam of projected light flooding up into infinity from the reactor. It was like a laser light, caused by the ionisation of the air. It was light-bluish, and it was very beautiful. I watched it for several seconds. If I'd stood there for just a few minutes I would probably have died on the spot because of gamma rays and neutrons and everything else that was spewing out"

    got me all thinking about a doom 3 kinda gateway
    to hell ... which is what you'll find in the
    middle of any fison reactor. just pile alot of
    steal and concret around it and voila, nothing to
    be worried about ...

    also i've seen a diagram of the world most biggest
    atomic "test" explosions and i think the russian
    have had the biggest one. nobody knows what came
    thru that one millimeter wormhole that was open
    at the very center of that explosion...

    it might be true that if you put security at first
    place for the construction and operation of a
    fison nuke plant, it might be safe ... i still
    think that humankind should educate the masses
    first. afterall the theory that was developed to
    explain why this methode of "power" (more exactely
    "heat" generation) can work, is less then 2
    generations away. also the theory in it's simplest
    form states that masse is energy and vice versa,
    but the more complex part of the theory has to do
    with space-time curvature, time travel
    (wormwholes) and other "freaky" ideas ... so what
    is really happening, when we split the heavy core
    of an atom? it doesn't just get hot methinks.
    so other poster suggested that splitting a heavy
    atom acctually opens a "portal" to the very place
    this atom was created ("supernova sun").

    there are other ways to generate electricity,
    hopefully without the use of inefficient "heat
    machines". the fact that we are using a
    relativistic theory combined with a ... steam
    engine is like putting a V6 engine into a wheelchair ...

    oh well, we remeber "that dude" for some reason.

  177. My father-in-law by 21mhz · · Score: 1

    My wife's dad worked there to contain the aftermath. Thankfully, he didn't have to do anything that dangerous, and he's still in good health.
    Actually, the "liquidators" are recognized with honors, and they are entitled to benefits from the government by a special law; they undergo regular health inspections, therapy and stuff.
    That engineer's position, however, is more ambivalent. People still can be found who are quick to blame everyone who worked there at the time of the accident.

    --
    My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
  178. Re:I just can't get over it... by doggiesnot · · Score: 0

    LOL, I was actually visualizing a torch. What a doof!

    Next you're gonna tell me the cold war is over or something.


    I'm crawling back into my cave now.

  179. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  180. Re:Unpatriotic by DulcetTone · · Score: 1
    When did Germany and France say there was no WMD? They repeatedly said that there was WMD, right up to the war. Revisionist, indeed.

    Bush was the guy caught holding the bag when a global consensus on WMD proved incorrect... to this date, inexplicably so.

    I can understand people disagreeing with Bush and his actions, but when they start out with ad hominem labels such as "warmonger" and charges of lying that enjoy no support in fact, they lose the ability to argue the merits of their viscerally-held opinions.

    --
    tone
  181. Re:Unpatriotic by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    When did Germany and France say there was no WMD?

    Wednesday, 22 January, 2003
    Speaking on French television, President Chirac said "an extra delay is necessary" to give the weapons inspectors more time to search Iraq for banned arms.

    French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Wednesday in Paris they were not convinced a war with Iraq was necessary while U.N. arms inspectors were still searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

    France, Russia and China -- all permanent members of the council -- have made it clear they will not be rushed by any pressure from Washington for action against Saddam Hussein, and have backed a call by U.N. inspectors for more time to carry out their searches in Iraq.

    And lets throw in the Beligians in there, while we're at it:
    Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said the planning pandered to the "logic of war." In an interview with Belgian daily Le Soir today, Michel said: "Iraq seems ready to cooperate. Let's not rush things."

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  182. Ob. Futurama Quote by Thuktun · · Score: 1

    Free Waterfall Sr: Good way to avoid frostbite folks: Put your hands between your buttocks. That's nature's pocket.

    Leela: Uh...I think I'll go check on Bender.

    Free Waterfall Sr: Watch that he doesn't pick your pocket.

  183. Russian Nuke engineers by JAD+lifter · · Score: 1

    There sure seems to be a lot of nuke engineers from russia living in the US. When I was in elementary school one of my friends dads was a nuke engineer from russia and now one of my cow orkers is a former nuke engineer from russia. They are everywhere. I spell it "nuke" because I do not know the correct way to spell it, I have depended on spell checkers for far too many years and now without one I cannot function properly. It is sad. Like not being able to do basic arithmatic because you forgot your calculator at home.

  184. Re:Unpatriotic by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    The major reasons for the rise in healthcare expenses are the shortage of doctors compared to the demand for their services, and the shortage of medication compared to the demand for it. That drives up the cost. Having worked in an emergency room for an 800 bed hospital bordering NYC, I know that incoming patients are prioritized by proper management, triage, so minor treatments don't make major treatments wait. If the pre-med and medical schools weren't focused on screening out the less ambitious earners, and instead on educating the maximum number of competent doctors, there would be more service to go around. If more scholarships for living expenses were offered by rural communities in exchange for work contracts there, these healthcare crises would largely disappear as the economics normalized.

    Not only was I pre-med, and worked full time in several hospitals, but I also have worked in many sectors of the medical insurance industry. The amount of waste due to unavoidable duplication of effort in a competitive business was dwarfed by the waste due to mismanagement and greed. The government is no model of efficiency, but the private administration of healthcare and its finance is also bad. And at the breaking point. We need to apply true economics to this essential service market.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  185. Re:Unpatriotic by On+Lawn · · Score: 1

    In Texas I was aquainted with many boiler-makers who had breathing problems from all the asbestos dust. Also there were plants making a powder called "carbon black" that was even finer than soot that was harmful if breathed. I agree, dust can be very harmful.

    But I must confess that my reason for writing was that I noticed your question about my stance ona particular issue to me a while back in a Journal that is now archived. I think it deserves a response. The best thing I can do here is point you to my journal where the debate happens frequently.

    A good progression might be, First, Second, Third, Fourth. Though there are many other notable articles.

  186. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is not just the wealthy. Being poor in the US affords you access to better health care than being average in many other countries. This is especially true for things like immunizations, and pre-natal care which are provided free of charge in many instances.

  187. Re:Quite a few--slight spoiler of K-19 Widowmaker by questorthew · · Score: 1

    I saw K-9 with Jim Belushi, is that close enough?

  188. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every year, I pay about 2% of my before tax wage for Medicare. About $750. You know how many times I've been to the doctor in the past five years since I started working? Twice. You know what? I'm HAPPY I'm paying that much. I LIKE paying that much - so PEOPLE who don't have a job, who are WORSE OFF than me, can get their problems fixed... hopefully ALLOWING them to get a job, thus continuing the cycle. I do NOT pay this Medicare charge every year so some greedy, selfish, imoral US stockholder can put it in his pocket!

    Sorry, you can get up on your communist high horse all you want, it's been proven in the past and it will be proven again in the future, socialist programs fail. I'm glad you think you are so noble for paying into government sponsored health insurance (that is all it is). This line...

    LIKE paying that much - so PEOPLE who don't have a job, who are WORSE OFF than me, can get their problems fixed... hopefully ALLOWING them to get a job, thus continuing the cycle

    Is really funny, what problems do you think people have that are so bad that they can't work? You are talking about a small piece of the population and anyone who is hurt so badly that they can't work in the US gets Social Security. Your communist programs aren't needed here, and I wish US companies would let the free market rule and just not sell to you if you refuse to pay their price.

  189. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking on French television, President Chirac said [bbc.co.uk] "an extra delay is necessary" to give the weapons inspectors more time to search Iraq for banned arms.

    Big fucking suprise since they were in on the food-for-oil scam.

    French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said Wednesday [cnn.com] in Paris they were not convinced a war with Iraq was necessary while U.N. arms inspectors were still searching Iraq for weapons of mass destruction.

    Of course he did! They were getting good money for that. Damn French whores.

    France, Russia and China -- all permanent members of the council -- have made it clear [cnn.com] they will not be rushed by any pressure from Washington for action against Saddam Hussein, and have backed a call by U.N. inspectors for more time to carry out their searches in Iraq.

    Oh gee, it's France and Russia who were in on the food for oil scam and China who was looking to fight US world dominance (another motive for Russia). Big fucking suprise. This is why the UN Doesn't work, many of the countries are corrupt and only looking out for their own self interests. The US should pull out the UN.

    And lets throw in the Beligians in there, while we're at it: Belgian Foreign Minister Louis Michel said [newsmax.com] the planning pandered to the "logic of war." In an interview with Belgian daily Le Soir today, Michel said: "Iraq seems ready to cooperate. Let's not rush things."

    Oh yes, after 10 years of not cooperating they "seemed ready to cooperate!"....Not Fucking likely. Of course they seemed ready, that way the could stall longer. Fucking idiotic eurotrash countries.

  190. Re:Unpatriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I find it extremely interesting that you concealed both the fact that those remarks were made by Clinton, and the fact that they were made in 1995. The whole speach can be found here.


    I also find it interesting that the parent post was modded +5 insightful when it was implied to be a George W. Bush speech. Then you (and somebody else) correctly pointed out that it was a 1995 Clinton speech, after which it was modded down to +3, with some "Flamebait" ratings.

    Maybe pointing out the hypocrisy of some self-styled "dissidents" was the original point in the first place???
  191. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! - Japan's 'Chernobyl' by iamcf13 · · Score: 1

    Of course, we also generate lots of low level radioactive waste (contaminated tools, clothing, instruments, neutron sources, etc) but much of this stuff really isn't harmful, it's just that since we know it's more radioactive on it's way out of the plant than on the way in, we have to exercise ridiculous controls.

    Those controls are there for a reason.

    Otherwise, disaster could strike like what happend in Japan back in 1999 on September 30th. where 'taking shortcuts' produced deadly results.

  192. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! - Japan's 'Chernobyl' by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    There's a difference between being picky about disposing of a ladder that's as radioactive as a coleman lantern filament you can buy at walmart, and making fuel.

    One can obviously kill you. The other might make you ill if you hugged it for five years.

    Appropriate controls for the risk involved. That's all I'm saying.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.