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."

5 of 235 comments (clear)

  1. "So I'm out in the Red Forest at night... by He+Who+Has+No+Name · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...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."

  2. Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! by spun · · Score: 5, Informative

    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
  3. technological overconfidence by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:technological overconfidence by HungryHobo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      when a hydroelectric damn collapses millions can be left homeless and tens or hundreds of thousands can be left dead and it can take years to repair the damage and rehome those left homeless.

      After a regular old industrial accident huge tracts of land can be left unusuable effectively forever when regular non-radioactive poisons and heavy metals leave the land unusable.
      There's lots of mutagens which aren't radioactive but will still give you cancer and deform your children and which have no halflife. they're forever.

      nuclear can be dangerous but fundamentally it's not game changing.
      slag piles and lead don't just stay with us for centuries, there there forever.
      So I'll still go with the nuclear and call for safety systems out the wazoo.

      it's a risk but it's still a lesser risk.

    2. Re:technological overconfidence by peragrin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      we have solved the waste problem technically, we just can't get funding for it as anti-nuclear crowd blocks all good research, and development.

      Seriously the last nuclear plant built in the USA was started in 1977. I was born in 1978.

      We literally have 30 years of additional knowledge but are unable to capitalize on it to help solve the problems of nuclear waste because of the anti-nuclear crowd.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.