Slashdot Mirror
Chernobyl 25th Anniversary
ZwedishPzycho writes "Twenty-five years later, and yet again we are worried about a nuclear disaster. There will be plenty of stories out there discussing the 25th anniversary of the world's worst nuclear accident; here is just one."
After the Chernobyl disaster, a Russian organization of Chiropractors volunteered their time and set up shop in a nearby Ukraine school gymnasium.
Over 3,500 people visited and had spinal adjustments which helped improve nerve function to the thyroid gland, which is so important with radiation poisoning. NOT A SINGLE PERSON WHO VISITED GOT CANCER!!!
Think about that next time you visit an "MD". Chiropractic is where it's at.
...looking for a Gravi artifact near these old buildings, see. And the detector keeps pointing me inside, so I go. The roof is gone and the moon is out but I'm staring at the detector instead of looking around.
All of a sudden I bump into this bloodsucker, and he's taking a leak. I look at him and go "hey, buddy, why are you pissing in the middle of the building?" And he looks back at me and goes "what the hell are you doing in my house?"
So I look around and realize we're in the middle of a converter room for a substation of the nuclear power plant. There's got to be 10 million volts on the wires in there.
About then I realize that only in the Zone can you walk right past a bunch of giant warning signs, into a room full of enough electricity to kill you faster than the speed of light, and the only thing out of the ordinary enough to make you notice is a blood sucking mutant taking a whiz."
Who wants some cake?
When you said yellow cake, I was picturing, you know, lemon or maybe butter flavored. This is definitely not lemon or butter flavored. It tastes like burning.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
you can see it in postings on this website: technological overconfidence. the inflated sense of mastery over a technology due to technophilia and deriving much personal worth from one's mastery of technology
which is fine when you are talking about space exploration or computers. but nuclear power?
the problem is, accidents happen. they always do. no long winded speech on safety will alter the inevitable. corners are cut, economic considerations bypass longterm challenges, things break and fall apart over time. eventually, you have a nuclear accident. well now, it's a matter of the consequences of the accident. well: you blow up an oil supply depot, collpase a coal mine, undermine a dam, etc: these are awful cataclysmic events. and 5 minutes after it happens, its over. but nuclear power, when you have an accident, it stays with you for centuries. that's the big problem with nuclear power
mankind being too confident in his technological mastery, combined with longterm effects outside of the realm of mankind's normal psychological considerations, and you can see the problem with nuclear power. mankind, in a way, isn't built to handle nuclear power safely, and so we just shouldn't use it
i'm not saying we have better alternatives. and nuclear is great, when it works. and it works 99% of the time. but the problem with nuclear, when it doesn't work that 1% of the time? unlike every other power source, really terrible consequences stay with you for centuries. and so that 1% changes everything about nuclear power in ways that any conscientious person finds very troubling and sobering
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Turns out, at least in Iraq's case, the yellow cake was a lie.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Just wait until the next major forest fire, when all the radiation the trees and ground have absorbed will be lofted into the air again, to land who knows where, depending on the wind at the time.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
A saw a link earlier today to an interesting portfolio of pictures of the modern site. It's actually surprising that there are people still living there. Most of them are nuclear workers and associates. But a few eccentrics have apparently moved back to their villages too (the article talks about an encounter with one old lady who lives there, completely cut off and on her own). I also didn't realize that the other reactors of the plant were kept online long after the #4 reactor was entombed (the last reactor wasn't shut down until 2000). It's also amazing to see how much work has really been done to clean the place up (it's now safe to walk around most of the area, with a guide who knows the really nasty "hot spots" anyway).
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
"Nuclear blast"?
Whoever wrote the article had no clue. Chernobyl consisted of a steam explosion followed by a graphite fire of the exposed reactor core. There may have also been a subsequent brief prompt criticality incident that released less energy than the steam explosion, however the article implies that Chernobyl's radiation release was entirely by a bomb-like nuclear explosion.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
That's not how it works, but I doubt you care.
I wonder if the net result of these nuclear accidents that seem to continuously do orders-of-magnitude less damage than the hysterical anti-nuclear advocates claim will actually help the nuclear industry after a while?
I was a child in Germany when this event occurred and it did manage some interesting changes. I was six at the time and the school I went to had several tents set up outside the school where men in interesting orange, white or yellow suits would give you a once over with a geiger counter before you were allowed in. I know there was another tent set up a distance away for kids who came in 'hot', but I don't honestly remember what went on in the tent as I was always 'clean'. No recess outside for a whole year (a bunch of pent up 6 year olds is a scary thing) and if you were outside, under no circumstances were you to touch anything or put any of the plants (like blades of grass) in your mouth to make whistles. I know there were probably more rules, but I was six at the time and didn't care much outside the "some Russians made it so we can't play outside" angle. Was a military brat. I say this because since then I have read up as much as I can on the incident and am extremely interested in the history behind the disaster. I have even looked into getting one of the CHERNOBYL LIQUIDATOR medals to add to my small collections of all things Chernobyl. The lead up to the actual disaster itself is very fascinating and I encourage people to read into it. It wasn't so much a sudden 'oops!' as it was a lapse in several security and communications measures that lead up to the eventual steam explosion. The descriptions from some of the poor unfortunate first responders is enough to send chills up anyone's spine. Particularly the one I read (looking for link now actually) from a firefighter that died shortly there after describing the sensation as 'millions of hot pins and needles all over ones body'. Other interesting aspects from this were talks of the plant design itself, as well as photos of the nearby towns and abandoned villages. If anything this disaster was a wake up call for a more standardized plant design and communications methodology. My mind doesn't serve me well but the Russians had a habit of making each plant unique (someone correct me if I'm wrong?) and thus how to contain this particular disaster was by the seat of the pants moment. Oh, and if you get a chance, find the remains of the plant via google maps. I am not sure if it is still up but a year ago you could see the concrete tomb from the skies. Also look for some of the 'on site' photography done. The picture of a pipe 'oozing concrete lava' was morbidly fascinating.
"Quote me as saying I was mis-quoted." -Groucho Marx
You don't know how it works, and you guessed wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/26/chernobyl-radioactive-fires-global-danger
I actually want safe, clean nuclear power, but I think people like you are out to destroy any trust normal people might have in the nuclear industry. By continually downplaying any dangers, you make yourself sound like a shrill shill.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's really quite interesting. I know most heavy metals are usually boneseekers and poisonous in their own right, but yellowcake contains not uranium metal, but various Uranium sulfides, hydroxides, etc. I have no idea of the relative toxicity of these compounds. The radiation dosage from the unrefined, unenriched, and unirradiated Uranium would be so minute as to be inconsequential unless you ate a few tons of the stuff in one sitting.
I have to say I'm very much on the fence on this one. In my youth I was definitely against nuclear power, then later I was a strong supporter. Now I'm back to being not sure.
There's a big problem if, for example, you had perfected the containment process, then out of the blue, a Tunguska sized event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event) happened nearby (or on top of) your nuclear sites.
The fallout from that would be impressive.
A Tunguska sized event is a "lesser risk" that we all live with every day, yet it did happen, and very probably will happen again within a few generations.
I think Katrina; and the World Trade Center; and the Coal fires in Centralia, Pennsylvania (burning since '62); and the 1969 oil Spill in Santa Barbara; and the 89 Valdiez spill; and the Heyope tire fire (burned for 15 years;) and the Deepwater oil spill; the Bhopal disaster, etc. etc. etc. all disagree with your statement that nuclear desasters are the only energy/transportation disasters that have a long lasting impact.
Regarding the Centralia coal fires:
"This was a world where no human could live, hotter than the planet Mercury, its atmosphere as poisonous as Saturn's. At the heart of the fire, temperatures easily exceeded 1,000 degrees [Fahrenheit]. Lethal clouds of carbon monoxide and other gases swirled through the rock chambers." - David DeKok (1986)
"5 minutes after it happens, its over" Is a very myopic statement, that could easily be rectified by walking the beaches of Santa Barbara.
I am not a fan of LNT (Linear, no-threshold model of radiation). But the jury is still out on this one partially due to lack of control and that the effect of other stressors is so much more significant. There is evidence in animals that low levels of radiation is beneficial (above normal background, up to about 20-50mSv/year). There is evidence that variations in background radiation (can be 10,000+%, depending on location, from low to high levels, 1mSv - 200+mSv/year) are not correlated with increased cancer rates - this alone contradicts LNT. There is further evidence that people accidentally exposed to radiation levels may have some positive effects, but that has not been investigated. For example, the death rate of Chernobyl cleanup workers is somewhat lower from cancer than of the unexposed public.
The evidence for increased cancer rates from Chernobyl is not there - another one against LNT. For example the predicted increase in Leukemia (cancer type that was predicted to peak a few years ago) - well, nothing happened. Thyroid cancers from Chernobyl is another example of where LNT seems to fail. From radiotherapy of thyroid disorders (eg. used to treat hyperthyroidism - same Iodine as in the fallout is intentionally administered to patient to kill the thyroid, but using massive dosages (100,000x what Chernobyl fallout was), it is known that the peak for thyroid cancers is about 28 years after expose. But the rate of thyroid cancer is decreasing contrary to LNT predictions. Actually thyroid caner rate peaked 1 year after thyroid screening program was instituted and that was immediately after Chernobyl. It turns out that wherever there is detailed screening of a population, detected rates of occult caners spikes simply as a side effect of the screening. Anyway, thyroid cancer rates should be increasing now, not decreasing per the LNT model and per our knowledge of latency of thyroid cancer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthyroidism#Radioiodine
The assumption that LNT must be true is like dogma in general scientific community while in fact it was just selected for ease of understanding back in the early 50s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis
This states there is non-linear relationship to radiation at low levels. This has huge precedence in nature. For example, retinoids are vital to human health but are deadly. Eat a few grams of it and you are dead. This substance is also known as Vitamin A. Selenium is another example of this. There are many more examples of hormesis with different substances. It basically comes down to this. Small amounts are better than little or nothing and large amounts will kill you. That, based on evidence, is what I think applies to radiation too. You DO NOT want to spread nuclear fallout around, but small amounts are not going to kill you (and may even be positive) so stop worrying.
What? The reactor blew it's lid, the graphic and fuel inside caught fire and burned for days. The fuel and fuel rod casings, and the sand packed around the reactor vessel that acted as a bio-shield, all melted and flowed out of the bottom of the reactor, finally solidifying into a large mass of highly radioactive glass like substance now called Chernobylite.
Chernobyl wasn't just a meltdown, it was a complete meltdown.
According to this, I have died of cancer, twice.
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
Other 2 responses were AC, so I'll pitch in -
As stated, Chernobyl sure as heck DID melt down, the core now existing as a sort of glass slurry in something like the 3rd sub-basement.
I don't read AC A human right
Personally, I'd have phrased it more as 'the anti-nuclear crowd blocks further research, much less implimenting the new developments'.
I guess we don't need wars as long as there are apologists like you around.
Apologist? It's pretty much a fact. Imagine if anti-gasoline nuts had blocked the implimentation of fuel injection, unleaded gas, and catalytic converters because their goal was the complete elimination of gasoline as a fuel.
I don't read AC A human right
If a Tunguska sized event happened over the middle of london or washington DC we'd be wishing it had happened over some remote nuclear plant instead.
hell if one had happened during the cold war over a city it probably would have started world war 3.
some things are unlikely enough and catastrophic enough that we'd all be fucked no matter what energy source we use.
Had the chance to trapse through Chenobly / Pripryat a few years back - thought some of you guys might appreciate seeing what's what there.
http://ninjito.com/2008-08-16 [Selection of about 20 photos]
http://ninjito.com/2008-08-12-PANO/qx-pano-pripyat-1.jpg [ the famous hotel ] ..
http://ninjito.com/2008-08-12-PANO/qx-pano-pripyat-2.jpg [ roof of said hotel with the reactor in the background
simon