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."
For once in your Slashdot browsing days, read the article! It's really interesting and worth your time.
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.
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
Stood there and watched the blue ionized air as it poured out of the reactor?
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?
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
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?"
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.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"In 1986, the Russians were our enemies."
Who do you think "we" are, that we had the same enemies in 1986?
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).
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..
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
Where is the "Chernobyl Disaster Veterans for Truth" post? :-D
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.
Sadly, a fake, I believe.
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.....
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/20 03/08/23/MN300070.DTL
not unpatriotic, it's factual.
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.
Read jack phelps dot net
That's cuz it was later shown to all be a hoax.
o gs_cher.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2004/05/26/girl_photobl
Google is your friend.
Senior NCO in the fight against entropy. I've seen things, man. Things no one should have to see.....
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 ;)
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
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.
Because I'm someone who supports nuclear fission as a means of generating power (at this point in time, anyway)...
... redundant safety precaution after redundant safety precaution. Three Mile Island proved that those precautions work, even after a series of mistakes.
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.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
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
That is just sad. RTFA. Are people just incapable of understanding heroism anymore?
...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.
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.)
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."
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
One moronic bigoted stereotype deserves another eh?
Imagine getting a job with "Engineer, Chernobyl" on your CV.
GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
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:)
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.
Read jack phelps dot net
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
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.
> 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?
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)
I would rather have 50 nuclear power plants in my "back yard", than 1 coal or oil plant.
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).
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..."
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.
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.
0 3.htmle ments/Rn -en.htm
9 7/FS-163-97.html looks good.
Some links:
http://www.stormingmedia.us/76/7636/A7636
http://www.lenntech.com/Periodic-chart-el
Especially http://greenwood.cr.usgs.gov/energy/factshts/163-
Moritz
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.
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?
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
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!
Because the president said so:
(emphasis added)
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.
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]
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.
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.
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?
Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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
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.
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.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.
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.
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.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
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
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...
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.
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?