Vast New Tomb Now Covers The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster Site (slashdot.org)

The final stage of the Chernobyl clean-up took over 20 years to build -- and will seal up the site for the next 100 years. Slashdot reader MrKaos writes: 30 years and seven months since the explosion...the project known as the 'Shelter Implementation Plan' has been rolled into place, sealing the crippled Chernobyl reactor. More than 10,000 people were involved in the project, which includes an advanced ventilation systems and remote controlled robotic cranes to dismantle the existing Soviet-built structure and reactor. This sarcophagus -- or New Safe Confinement -- is taller than the Statue of Liberty and larger than Wembley stadium.
Over one million people worked on the initial clean-up, the BBC reports, calling this new sarcophagus "the largest object people have ever moved," and its installation was apparently pretty surreal. "World leaders jostle with global executives and anonymous men dressed in full camouflage as platters of shrimp, foie gras and cheesecake are passed around by white-gloved staff...just 330 feet away from the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history."

Comments

100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

What happens then?

Re:100 years?

[Jeremi]

What happens then?

Cthulhu awakens.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 3D printed space-based post-humans will take a break from mining asteroids and return to Earth and correct the situation. Until then, no worries. Progress is eternal.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

you forgot to reference drones and Elon Musk

Re:100 years?

[JBMcB]

Most of the high level stuff will have decayed significantly by then. Send workers in, chop up what's left, seal it up in drums and throw it in an abandoned salt mine.

Or, technology might be available to recycle it into new nuclear fuel.

Re:100 years?

[angel'o'sphere]

So plutonium is not "high level stuff"?

Re:100 years?

[HornWumpus]

You know it isn't. Why play stupid?

Remember 'hot daughters'? I wonder what the PC term for those is?

Plutonium has some nasty decay paths. But it decays slow enough there won't be a ton of any particular nasty, like there was right after the mess.

If you're directly exposed, it's chemical toxicity is a primary concern. Gotta live long enough to worry about cancer.

Re:100 years?

[Freischutz]

What happens then?

Cthulhu awakens.

I'm pretty sure Cthulhu has already awakened and he has an orange comb-over.

Re:100 years?

[Rockoon]

Most plutonium is pretty safe.

Pretty much only Pu-238 and Pu-241 are alarmingly dangerous, and any that is there will remain alarmingly dangerous for between hundreds and thousands of years. Isotopes like Pu-237, Pu-243, Pu-245, and Pu-246 have mostly all decayed by now, while Isotopes like Pu-239, Pu-240, Pu-242, and Pu-244 all have such long half-lives that while "dangerous", are not alarmingly so to varying degrees (you could safely handle Pu-244.)

Re: 100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

They built it with robotic arms and a decommission centre attached. The idea is that now they can start taking the old sarcophagus and reactor apart. If you have iplayer then there is a good documentary of the building of the new sarcophagus and the decommissioning idea on BBC four

Re:100 years?

[angel'o'sphere]

I don't know what you want to say.

In 100 years you die to the plutonium in the same way you die today.

Some micrograms inhaled or otherwise get into your system are deadly.

And FYI: the exact same situation you will have in 10k years. Or 20k or 30k or 90k years.

Re:100 years?

[angel'o'sphere]

The deadly dose of Plutonium for a 80kg human is something like 60 micrograms. I guess to get the exact number you can google for it.

So much to your idea of safety.

Re:100 years?

[ColdWetDog]

Because of alpha decay. Best not to eat or breathe it. But washing your hands, wearing a mask and not having lunch on the worksite would keep you all safe and happy. Plutonium in non critical amounts is easy to work around. The rest of the stuff, not so much.

Re:100 years?

[Applehu Akbar]

What happens then?

The 'corium' will be extracted robotically for use as fuel in a new generation of full-burnup reactors.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just keep building sarcophags. 10.000 years is not too long a time.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty sure Cthulhu has already awakened and he has an orange comb-over.

Four years of this. Hooray.

(Translation: Jesus Christ. Shut up.)

Re:100 years?

[JBMcB]

So plutonium is not "high level stuff"?

Sure is, though nuclear power plants use uranium for fuel. The fuel rods do contain trace amounts of plutonium and other radioactive elements, but not much.

Re: 100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

You expect people to shut up about it but we are still hearing grumblings about Obama on an hourly basis. Why don't you eat your own medicine you fucking piece of shit.

Re: 100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

But globally we build them all the time...

Even the US has new ones coming online and under construction.

Re:100 years?

[jafiwam]

I refuse to accept the we will be as ignorant in 100 years as we are today. We've already learnt that nuclear power plants are a stupid idea. Why would we build more?

That KIND of nuclear plants are not a good idea.

There are significantly safer and more efficient designs now. A trend that's likely to continue.

Also, if you don't drink a quart of vodka before your shift and then go play with the pretty dials and lights, all reactors new generation and old generation are much safer.

We could easily have fission and fusion reactors safe enough for every street corner in the future.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

/tears of laughter at the stupid of the Rethugs!

Re:100 years?

[Rockoon]

The deadly dose of Plutonium...

Which isotope?

Why is it that the fear-monger guy is the least specific, the least informative?

...for a 80kg human is something like 60 micrograms.

its something like you didnt even bother to look it up, because if you had, it wouldnt be "something like" .. you would have a solid number instead of a vague guess that you can back away from later.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

What!!?? You told Jesus Christ to shut up!!?? Hooray for the project completion. Hail Cthulhu!

Re: 100 years?

[Defakto]

I'm tired of hearing shut about Obama also. They need to shut up too.

Re:100 years?

[tinkerton]

With plutonium the whole difference is whether you inhale it or not. Probably ingestion counts as well. Inside of you it it's extremely dangerous, outside of you it's relatively harmless.

Re:100 years?

[cstacy]

What happens then?

The robotic arms, mutated from a century of radiation, break out of the tomb and begin their ravaging trek towards a major city.

Re:100 years?

[khallow]

I refuse to accept the we will be as ignorant in 100 years as we are today. We've already learnt that nuclear power plants are a stupid idea. Why would we build more?

Because we aren't as ignorant in 100 years as we are today. I note here the spectacle of people claiming that reliably burying nuclear waste for tens of thousands of years is going to be better than burning that waste in a reactor.

Re:100 years?

[amiga3D]

Actually the reactor grade fuel is made up of a pretty complex mix of plutonium. The worst radiating particles die off much quicker than the more stable particles. The fuel will be much weaker though still harmful after 100 years. As to how much it takes to kill you that also varies. It's definitely something to avoid though.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

in a hundred years its all going to be AI and robots.. We won't be sending anyone in.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

A simple fully sealed rubber suite will protect from it completely.

Protecting from radiation - it wouldn't.

Re:100 years?

[JabrTheHut]

That KIND of nuclear plants are not a good idea.

There are significantly safer and more efficient designs now. A trend that's likely to continue.

We know they are free of design flaws because their proponents tell us so, and because they are almost tested. Anyway, we can always test it in production. That kind of thinking never got anyone in trouble.

We also know they will have no construction flaws because human nature precludes such a thing happening, and the idea that once it is in operation someone will cut costs and create an unsafe environment is laughable. No one would ever do that with an untested nuclear reactor, or even a tested one.

Also, if you don't drink a quart of vodka before your shift and then go play with the pretty dials and lights, all reactors new generation and old generation are much safer.

Is that what you believe was the root cause of the runaway reactor?

We could easily have fission and fusion reactors safe enough for every street corner in the future.

At least you ended on an amusing note...

Re: 100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of hearing shut about Obama also. They need to shut up too.

So spend the next 4 years telling those people to shut up and then move on bitchin' at the Trump opponents.

Re:100 years?

[MrKaos]

The deadly dose of Plutonium...

Which isotope?

Plutonium 239. As an oxide it is an inhalant, plutonium chloride and nitrate is organically bound easily in the blood and bones because they are iron analogues. These are the main concerns for bio-accumulation of nuclear industry effluents persistent in the environment for 24,000 years and why I'm optimistic that NSC is going to help control the release of any more of these effluents into the environment.

...for a 80kg human is something like 60 micrograms.

you would have a solid number instead of a vague guess that you can back away from later.

In 1944 , Robert Stone, the head of the Plutonium Project Health Division, made the earliest estimate of a permissible burden for plutonium by scaling the radium standard on the basis of the radiological differences between radium and plutonium. Those included the difference in their radioactivities and that of their daughters and the difference in the average energy of their alpha particles. The result indicated that, gram for gram, plutonium was a factor of 50 less toxic than radium, and the standard was set to 5 micrograms.

In July 1945, Wright Langham insisted that the 5-microgram standard be reduced by a factor of 5 on the basis of animal experiments that showed that plutonium was distributed in the bone differently, and more dangerously, than radium. Thus, the maximum permissible body burden for plutonium was set at 1 microgram.

Following those experiments, discussions at the Chalk River Conferences in Ontario, Canada, (1949 to 1953) led to further reductions in the plutonium standard to 0.65 micrograms, or 40 nanocuries, for a maximum permissible body burden. Since then, no further changes have been made.

Considering that the experiments were part of the Manhattan project and some of the subjects involved were not informed some of the specific results may still be classified.

Re:100 years?

[geoskd]

Some micrograms inhaled or otherwise get into your system are deadly.

No, 200 micro grams would likely be needed to cause cancer. Far more would be needed to kill you, and it would be the chemical toxicity of the plutonium that killed you long before the cancer. Plutonium is not very volatile, so it is far from the real dangerous stuff in these reactors. The odds of dying by cancer caused by plutonium are much lower than your odds of dying in a fireball generated by a plutonium bomb (think several orders of magnitude difference).

The real danger at a nuclear accident site comes from the iodine, cesium, strontium and other fission products that have relatively short half lives. These produce the vast majority of the ionizing radiation at an accident site, and within 100 years, they will have reduced to just 5% of the levels immediately following the accident. The real danger there will come from increased cancer risks, and a general shortening of life expectancy by a few years for people who are exposed to those levels their entire lives. There are already people living well within the exclusion zone, and there are large numbers of people who regularly work within a few hundred meters of the sarcophagus.

Ultimately nuclear materials are no more dangerous than many other industrial chemicals until and unless you get enough of them together in such a configuration as to create a supercriticality that results in significant instantaneous fuel burnup (a nuclear explosion), and even then it is just as likely to be the extreme heat that kills you. Even then, there are some pretty nasty chemicals out there: Think fertilizer .

Re: 100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Plutonium isn't high level stuff. What's more, it's great for generating electricity. IF we ever get past the irrational fears of the savage and become thinking beings again, that is.

Re:100 years?

[hcs_$reboot]

What happens then?

Hopefully thanks to progress made in physics we have a way to disable radioactivity.

Re:100 years?

[hcs_$reboot]

What happens then?

You mean after the nuclear war? We'll all find shelter inside the sarcophagus where the radioactivity will be lower.

Re:100 years?

[angel'o'sphere]

No, 200 micro grams would likely be needed to cause cancer. Far more would be needed to kill you
No it is not far more needed.
Plutonium travels into the bone marrow, where it causes Leukemia and other blood related illnesses.

The odds of dying by cancer caused by plutonium are much lower than your odds of dying in a fireball generated by a plutonium bomb (think several orders of magnitude difference).
That is pretty bollocks. The way how Plutonium "kills" is well researched in animal experiments. A 30kg dog dies from something like 40micrograms, roughly 1microgram per kilogram weight. Considering that a dog barely lives 10 years, I think it is safe to conclude that humans suffer in the same way as dogs.

Ultimately nuclear materials are no more dangerous than many other industrial chemicals until and unless you get enough of them together in such a configuration as to create a supercriticality that results in significant instantaneous fuel burnup
Wow, are you really that retarded? please do us a favour and read some books. Or shut up, what ever you think is better.

For beginners I suggest this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:100 years?

[Place a name here]

On the other hand, there's the famous "I will eat as much plutonium as you eat caffeine" offer. Since caffeine doesn't have a mcg/kg LD50 and presumably Bernard Cohen didn't have a death wish, "otherwise getting into your system" isn't enough for plutonium to kill you. Not in mcg doses.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on the plants. In some countries (including France) plutonium from nuclear waste is added to the "new" fuel rods. It's called MOX: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOX_fuel

Re:100 years?

[geoskd]

That is pretty bollocks. The way how Plutonium "kills" is well researched in animal experiments. A 30kg dog dies from something like 40micrograms, roughly 1microgram per kilogram weight. Considering that a dog barely lives 10 years, I think it is safe to conclude that humans suffer in the same way as dogs.

Those tests were performed by injecting The Pu directly into the animals, which is tantamount to a 100% absorption rate. Ingested or Inhaled Pu has a much lower absorption rate. Either way, Lethal dose is much, much higher than cancer causing dose, and as I stated, the toxic chemical effects are more immediately lethal than the toxic radiological effects, so it is not the radiation that kills.

It should also be noted that Leukemia has a less than 50% fatality rate, and falling all the time as medicine advances. Cancer is quickly approaching a state where it can be considered a non-lethal disease.

Take your own advice asshole

Re:100 years?

[torkus]

Some people will fear radiation no matter what anyone says. Show them a person holding a nuclear fission core in their bare hand and you get one of thee reactions:
- That's fake
- He's a walking corpse, must have died shortly after
- He really should use gloves, that shit is toxic to handle

I'm sure there's plenty of *very* toxic substances floating around in those remains. I'm equally sure they'll do a lot of the cleanup and removal with robots partly for that alone. It'll probably lead to some interesting advances in robotics too so I'm looking forward to it.

Re:100 years?

[torkus]

That KIND of nuclear plants are not a good idea.

There are significantly safer and more efficient designs now. A trend that's likely to continue.

We know they are free of design flaws because their proponents tell us so, and because they are almost tested. Anyway, we can always test it in production. That kind of thinking never got anyone in trouble.

We also know they will have no construction flaws because human nature precludes such a thing happening, and the idea that once it is in operation someone will cut costs and create an unsafe environment is laughable. No one would ever do that with an untested nuclear reactor, or even a tested one.

Luckily, not everyone subscribes to this kind of negative logic nonsense. Just because something MIGHT, CAN, or even WILL go wrong is not a universal reason not to do something.

Accidents have happened and will continue to happen. That's the nature of an 'accident' after all. Letting the world be paralyzed by fear or the extraordinarily unlikely while ignoring far greater, common risks is comical. I'm not promoting nuclear power in the absence of safety and regulation...and that regulation and safety get better and better as time progresses.

What we've done instead, because of paranoia like above, is leave existing nuclear plants in place. Nuclear plants with much less inherent safety, even with upgrades, than current-generation plants have as a default. Paranoia prevents us from actually building newer, safer, and more modern plants.

Car analogy turned into plane analogy - if the wright brothers gave up because their plane worked but crashed...and convinced others it was too dangerous...well whatever. Analogies are dumb. :)

I'd happily welcome a nuclear plant to my neighborhood. Some of the very small, buriable nuclear 'batteries' would be perfect...and offer the added benefit of free (waste) heat in the winter.

Re:100 years?

[torkus]

Of all the vaguely plausible options floating around this thread, that is BY FAR the least likely. A way to 'disable' radioactivity would imply/require a way to manipulate or halt the strong nuclear force's action. Whatever it takes to do that, especially on a macro scale to deal with nuclear waste, would certainly require manipulating things (like physical constants) that are far more dangerous.

You might as well ask for a gravity drive to ship the waste to pluto. It would be easier since you're "merely" asking to direct one of the funamental forces...not suspend it.

Re:100 years?

[Coren22]

We've already learnt that nuclear power plants are a stupid idea.

Except they are far less dangerous than EVERY other power generation method we have. Why wouldn't we build more? Even in meltdown, the deaths from nuclear are far outstripped by the deaths from coal, the waste products from solar and wind manufacturing, and many other problems with other generation methods.

Re:100 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

some of the subjects involved were not informed some of the specific results may still be classified.

First rule of government irresponsibility: why minimize damages to the subjects when you can maximize it and save a face or prevent a political head from rolling?

Re:100 years?

[angel'o'sphere]

Take your own advice asshole

Either way, Lethal dose is much, much higher than cancer causing dose it is not, as we are talking about bone marrow cancer which is incurring in _all bones_ hence it is untreatable. To "treat" it you would need to break up the bone and remove all marrow and the plutonium.

the toxic chemical effects are more immediately lethal than the toxic radiological effects, so it is not the radiation that kills.
Of course they are. No one doubted that, idiot.

It should also be noted that Leukemia has a less than 50% fatality rate
If it can be treated, perhaps. If it can not be treated: then no.

Cancer is quickly approaching a state where it can be considered a non-lethal disease.
This is true for about 10% of all known variations of cancer. The other 90% are as untreatable as they where ever, except for better diagnostics and earlier discovery (which makes treatment sometimes possible) we have no way for most cancers to treat them in anyway except suppressing secondary illnesses and treating pain.

I suggest to read a book about it (same for your idiotic ideas about harmful chemicals and radiation).

So what, the problem is it leaks from below

[Anonymous Coward]

And that isn't going to stop.

Documentary

[Joce640k]

The BBS did an excellent documentary on this last week, well worth watching:

https://thepiratebay.org/torre...

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of futzing around with a 1.26 GiB torrent, you can just watch it on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

So good to know that there is a choice.

Re:Documentary

[Rockoon]

What software did they use for that BBS? WWIV?

Re:Documentary

[Joce640k]

Instead of futzing around with a 1.26 GiB torrent, you can just watch it on YouTube:

Horses for courses. I just clicked a magnet link and two minutes later I had a copy I could watch at leisure.

Re:Documentary

[Joce640k]

PS: And ... what did you think of the documentary?

Re:Documentary

[msk]

TBBS

Re: Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Which one could also watch at their leisure on youtube., you know, without futzing around with a torrent. Meh.

Re:Documentary

[SumDog]

But with the torrent you can keep it, forever. You don't have to stream it every time you want to watch it. Really if everyone got that torrent, they'd save the world bandwidth.

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Youtube link is 480p max while torrent is 720p

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a youtube link of the 720p torrent
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bhutCUyOfA

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

With youtube you get usual hit-n-miss youtube quality and it looks crappy. The torrent is 720p and looks great.

Re:Documentary

[Jeremi]

Agreed; streaming is more appropriate for content that you're only going to want to watch a single time. (i.e. 99% of what's out there)

Re: Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

youtube-dl or a youtube download site service or even vlc ie windows though there may be other options for windows im not aware of. torrents are nice too though for fast downloads which if a lot of seeds only bottlenecks from your network speed.

Re:Documentary

[epyT-R]

You also get an increased chance of getting warning letters and/or a summons in the mailbox.

Re:Documentary

[duke_cheetah2003]

Instead of futzing around with a 1.26 GiB torrent, you can just watch it on YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Appreciated, alas, the YouTube video has a lot of audio deadtime. Someone blundered the upload or something. It's not watchable.

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed; streaming is more appropriate for content that you're only going to want to watch a single time. (i.e. 99% of what's out there)

98% of what's out there isn't even worth watching a single time.

Re:Documentary

[sound vision]

The YouTube video is probably about the same size, and not available depending on your geography.

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of futzing around with a 1.26 GiB torrent, you can just watch it on YouTube:

Horses for courses. I just clicked a magnet link and two minutes later I had a copy I could watch at leisure.

And 20 new malware rootkits installed on your system.

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of futzing around with a 1.26 GiB torrent, you can just watch it on YouTube:

Horses for courses. I just clicked a magnet link and two minutes later I had a copy I could watch at leisure.

I just clicked the GGP link and whatever it was... is gone. Lucky the GP posted the youtube link, which I used to download a copy in two minutes I could watch at leisure. (What? You didn't know you can download copies of videos from YouTube, to save locally? Well, at least you know how to torrent, that's never a pita.)

Re:Documentary

[Anonymous Coward]

USA! USA!

Kicking the can down the road..

[JustNiz]

Isn;t this really just making a bigger headache for the people that have to deal with this in 100 years time?

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes and no. The amount of decay by that time will make working on it much safer, not to mention any technologies we develop in the interim could add to that.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[Anonymous Coward]

Basically, its a super bowl roof on top of radioactive building. In russia's defense there isn't a whole hell they can do at this point, the damage has been done, this just prevents rain from washing stuff away.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[thegarbz]

Isn;t this really just making a bigger headache for the people that have to deal with this in 100 years time?

That's the good thing about radioactive stuff. You can kick the can down the road, and when you catch up to it you can just pick it up and throw it in the bin.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[simplypeachy]

The existing sarcophagus is already at end-of-life. Some of it has already fallen in and the rest is waiting to collapse. It was a rush job at the time. As well as that, it is just a simple, static covering. The new construction is weatherproofed in and out, made of much more modern materials and enjoyed the luxury of planning and worldwide expertise. It also has a remotely-operated series of cranes and platforms which will be used to dismantle the doomed interior which will mean it's not only averting another catastrophe (existing structure collapsing) it is also designed to actively "solve" the problem of what to do with the place.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[smooth wombat]

In russia's defense there isn't a whole hell they can do at this point,

Chernobyl is in Ukraine. Russia is the country which created this mess.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[Joce640k]

Isn;t this really just making a bigger headache for the people that have to deal with this in 100 years time?

No.

The original sarcophagus is falling apart. It was built by people who could only stay in the zone for a few minutes at a time and has no welds, bolts, or anything else. It's basically just a big pile of heavy stuff on top of the reactor.

Something has to be done. Now.

This new dome has plenty of space inside it and lots of cranes and robots built-in to dismantle the old stuff. When it's finished work a few years from now there will be easy access to the reactor, lots of space, and many years left over to think about what to do next.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[Zak3056]

Chernobyl is in Ukraine. Russia is the country which created this mess.

Since we're being pedantic, the country that created the mess was USSR, of which Russia and Ukraine were both part.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[phantomfive]

Not only that, the new structure includes robotic cranes that will be able to continue cleaning up the site internally. This is actually a really good solution (as far as I am capable of judging such solutions).

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[fisted]

Yeah that, and also the fact that there's a bunch of cranes and robots inside the dome, remotely operated so a to disassemble and clean up the site.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[jason777]

I wonder why they need to dismantle the old one? Why not keep it covered in case something happens to the shell of this new structure?

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[phantomfive]

The article (one of them) suggests that the old structure is on the verge of collapse, an event that could spew radiation into the atmosphere and around. Presumably they can rebuild it now inside, if they want.

Re:Kicking the can down the road..

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The structure is not just a dome. It is a dome with extensive robotics, cranes and other remote controlled demolition equipment, as well as air locks to allow demolition debris to be removed.

The problem of simply kicking the can down the road, while simultaneously adding a massive rusting dome to the mix, was considered and considered unacceptable at the design phase. Hence the project is actually a remotely operated demolition site with a dome to cover it.

The dome was engineered to be structurally sound for 100 years, which should allow sufficient time for the underlying building to be demolished, and the remains of the reactor core encapsulated and removed.

Re: Kicking the can down the road..

[Anonymous Coward]

Even with 60 seconds exposure, those individuals received a fatal dose of radiation. Their skin turned black, peeled off and they died from infection or multiple organ failure. They became known as human liquidators

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators

Re: Kicking the can down the road..

[nitehawk214]

And not in the occupied part. Pripyat is up river from Kiev.

Camouflage

[freeze128]

They were camouflaged as plates of shrimp? WTF? I doubt that will keep you safe from radiation.

Re:Camouflage

[93 Escort Wagon]

They were camouflaged as plates of shrimp? WTF? I doubt that will keep you safe from radiation.

Normally that'd be true... But this radiation is really, really dumb.

Sources

[borcharc]

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Re:Sources

[Richard_at_work]

Hell, *any* topical link other than to the Slashdot submission would be great...

Re:Sources

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.bbc.com/future/stor...

Re:Sources

[msauve]

Hell, be thankful that the source can be reached via only one level of redirection, and the editor didn't simply create an infinite loop. Almost makes you miss Timothy, doesn't it?

Re:Sources

[Xenographic]

This is Slashdot, you have to hope that one of the comments will take pity on you and give you a link:

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170101-a-new-tomb-for-the-most-dangerous-disaster-site-in-the-world

Re:Sources

[Joce640k]

It's almost as if you missed the links to the TV documentary posted further up.

Re:Sources

[JabrTheHut]

Hell, be thankful that the source can be reached via only one level of redirection, and the editor didn't simply create an infinite loop. Almost makes you miss Timothy, doesn't it?

No.

Re:Sources

[MrKaos]

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

Apologies, I've had food poisoning all week and not enough energy to filter out what I thought were the best primary sources, many of which are pdfs that I'm still getting through myself. Here are the ones that cover the salient details:

• (~2002) Status and discussion of SIP
• Issues on Safe Radioactive Waste Management at ChNPP Site in International Shelter Implementation Plan
• Bioassay program for the shelter implementation plan in Chernobyl
• Shelter implementation plan: a way forward for Chernobyl 4
• Chernobyl shelter implementation plan -- project development and planning: Setting the stage for progress
• Regulating nuclear and radiation safety in the frame of the Chernobyl shelter Implementation Plan
• Development of a Fuel Containing Material Removal and Waste Management Strategy for the Chernobyl Unit 4 Shelter

I would link to the Ukraine body of law that governs all this this however I don't speak the language.

Re:Sources

[MrKaos]

Hell, *any* topical link other than to the Slashdot submission would be great...

Gee Richard, that's a little nasty.

I trust this meets your expectations.

Re:Sources

[93 Escort Wagon]

It would nice if there were some primary sources in this post.....

If I had mod points today, I'd give you all of them.

Re:Sources

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternatively, wikipedia has a *very very* detailed article (without the JS-coated bullshit in the BBC's photo gallery).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

330 Feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very unlikely that they were "300 feet" away from anything. I suspect they were 100 metres away. Please do not use pretend measurements.

Re: 330 Feet?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually there were 328.08 feet away.

Explosion

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds impressive. There was an "explosion" of water to steam, then the reactor fire.

Many people think the reactor exploded like a bomb. There's also many people who think that happened at Three Mile Island. It seems the media tends to exaggerate, and even lie for effect.

Not that it matters much, it's just most people accept what they read. People are still telling me Russians hacked voting machines. And that the Speaker's Mace and Paul Ryan's logo is Nazi symbology. Even people who are normally intelligent. The internet has made things worse in some ways.

Re: Explosion

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you had your chance to blow off the Islamic Curtains in the White House, the Office of the President-elect, and the bust of Churchill, but you didn't, so enjoy the fruits of what you sowed.

Re:Explosion

[SumDog]

IIRC Chernobyl was uncontained, unlike .. well all American reactors. I think there's still one uncontained reactor running in Souther America.

Re: Explosion

[Anonymous Coward]

The safety systems were switched off. The temperatures became so high that the three tonne blocks over the reactor rods started jumping out of their sockets. Then the explosion blew the reactor apart, destroying the roof and sending a beam of gamma rays and light up into the sky. Anyone who looked at it for more than a few minutes wpuld receive a lethal dose of radiation.

Re:Explosion

[serviscope_minor]

Well the opinion seems to be that Chernobyl went prompt critical, which is more or less what bombs do. Except of course without the implosion it didn't explode in the same way exactly.

Plus steam explosions are a real thing. The SL1 reactor also had a steam explosion due to a prompt criticality event. That causes the 12 ton reactor vessel to jump 3 meters in the air where it literally hit the ceiling of the containment vessel.

Re:Explosion

[Solandri]

Also worth noting that the Chernobyl reactor had a positive void coefficient. Basically, the more cooling water evaporated, the greater the rate of nuclear reaction and the greater the heat generation. This is an inherently unstable design since the reactor overheating increases the heat generation, making the problem worse. If the coolant starts to evaporate, the feedback loop with more heat being generated causes a steam explosion, which why Chernobyl blew up.

Reactors outside the Soviet Union never used this design for this exact reason. Western reactors are all designed with negative void coefficients. If the coolant water becomes hot enough to bubble into steam, that slows down the nuclear reaction, decreasing the amount of heat generated. If the coolant starts to evaporate, worst case you get a meltdown due to loss of coolant. But you don't get feedback loop which causes a steam explosion.

Re:Explosion

[AmiMoJo]

Many people think the reactor exploded like a bomb.

I think most people understand that there wasn't a nuclear bomb like explosion, but they also understand that there was an explosion and it throw a large amount of dangerous material into the atmosphere where it was carried by winds over to Europe and various other places.

That's most people's primary experience of it - news reports on how the fallout was being blow over where they live.

Wembley Stadium????

[sconeu]

This is Slashdot, FFS. You have to use proper units of measure. How big is it in Olympic Sized Swimming Pools?

Re:Wembley Stadium????

[Known Nutter]

Nah... Football Fields.

Re:Wembley Stadium????

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Football fields have known dimensions.

Soccer fields officially only have a min. and max. dimentsions, so you never actually know for sure how big they are...

Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[Anonymous Coward]

One failed reactor =

25 years of cleanup effort
$235b cost (which of course - tax payers all around Europe are shouldering)
thousands of lives lost
ecological repercussions for centuries to come in the region

Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[ColdWetDog]

To be fair, it was one reactor that would not have ever been built anywhere but in the Soviet Union (no containment dome) run by people dumber than a animated TV show (The Simpsons).

Of course, nobody suspected that the oh-so-smart Japanese would site emergency generators where they could get flooded when the containment wall was overrun (just like their consulting geologists told them it would).

If engineers ran the world, things would be more boring but quite a bit safer. Instead we get the Soviet Union, the Universal Kleptocracy and, god help us, Donald.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[ledow]

We lose more than 235bn a year from people skiving from work (and that's in GBP, not USD!).

We lose more than 235bn a year.

"Abolishing open borders 'could cost Germany â235 bn'"

"20 global banks have paid $235bn in fines since the 2008 financial crisis"

"Brexit risks losing the UK £235bn in trade"

Those are JUST the search results for that exact number. In the grand scheme of things, worldwide, one $235bn accident every 30 years is really chickenfeed. Especially against the entire energy market and its ramifications.

Big numbers are only scary when they are bigger numbers than anything else. And they are made more scary when, like your 235bn and some of those above, they are basically made up to sound scarier.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[JabrTheHut]

The only people dumber than the ones who built this reactor are the ones who want to build thousands of untested reactors all around the world. Tell me, do you have a ready-made list of excuses when design and construction flaws are exposed, and will you have a fall-back position?

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[JabrTheHut]

The only people dumber than the ones who built this reactor are the ones who want to build thousands of untested reactors all around the world. Tell me, do you have a ready-made list of excuses when design and construction flaws are exposed, and will you have a fall-back position?

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[JabrTheHut]

Oops, ignore that. Replied to the wrong post.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[jafiwam]

The only people dumber than the ones who built this reactor are the ones who want to build thousands of untested reactors all around the world. Tell me, do you have a ready-made list of excuses when design and construction flaws are exposed, and will you have a fall-back position?

Dumb people can't build reactors.

There will never be "thousands" of reactors.

"untested" is a completely false supposition and makes your scare-mongering look even stupider.

You don't know the first thing about this stuff do you? Does your mommy know you are at the computer?

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[TopSpin]

Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

Admiring this map, showing the huge advantage of predominantly nuclear powered nations such as France wrt CO2 emissions.

Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.

No. Stop indulging hysterical thinking.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[blindseer]

Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.

I agree. Nothing is more dangerous than nuclear power... except everything else. No, that's not even true, with no nuclear power we'd die from thirst, starvation, or freezing.

Nuclear power historically has the lowest number of deaths to energy produced, and that is including the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukushima, as well as the deaths from mining the uranium. Solar power and wind are more dangerous than nuclear power by at least an order of magnitude, but we don't hear about the occasional slip-n-fall death in an industry that produces less than 5% of our electricity. What we do hear about is a Homer Simpson type that tripped over a bucket filled with water that is barely detectable as radioactive and call that a "nuclear accident".

I would argue that by not building more nuclear power plants we are putting many lives in needless danger by continuing to burn fossil fuels and operate existing nuclear power plants well beyond their intended lifespans. In the USA we rely on nuclear power for 20% of our electricity and we have not built any new nuclear power plants for 40 years. This year we will likely see the first new nuclear reactor in decades, at an existing nuclear power plant.

I read somewhere that we can expect many of the nuclear reactors to be in operation 80 years after they first went critical. That's an accident waiting to happen. Why didn't we build more nuclear power plants so we could shut these down? Oh, that's right, Democrats.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[lazy genes]

The money is nothing compared to the miracles needed in order to move to the next stage in the clean up. Japan has a bigger problem, they will need those miracles now.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[JabrTheHut]

So they're fully tested? There won't be any dumb people cutting corners in construction? You certainly have to be dumb to believe such a thing. If you get your wish maybe you should work on your list of excuses as to why it went wrong. Call my mom, maybe she can share some of my better excuses from when I was five, you sound like you could do with the help.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[MrKaos]

Stop nuclear power now before we have more accidents like these.

I agree. Nothing is more dangerous than nuclear power... >Nuclear power historically has the lowest number of deaths to energy produced

I think your approach to nuclear power is to have it at any cost. Transposing idealistic notions about NP onto reality and politicizing it doesn't really respect NP for either its potential or its dangerous nature.

Perhaps the metric is wrong for Nuclear Power. Perhaps the metric we should be using for NP is total failed births per GWh or lives destroyed per ton of radioisotope maybe we could use communities obliterated per GWh. I've never heard of a case where people are evacuated for 30 years because a wind turbine caught fire or because of a deadly outbreak of sunshine.

We are at the beginning of nuclear power's impact on the human species so perhaps we need new ways to look at nuclear power in order to understand how it is affecting us, we've just started acknowledging carbon as an externality imposed on our generation, so why not radioactive effluents on future generations?

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[blindseer]

We are at the beginning of nuclear power's impact on the human species so perhaps we need new ways to look at nuclear power in order to understand how it is affecting us, we've just started acknowledging carbon as an externality imposed on our generation, so why not radioactive effluents on future generations?

We don't consider the radioactive waste an issue for future generations for many reasons. First, the size of the problem is actually very small. The energy used in a single American's life could come from a lump of uranium or thorium the size of a beer can. That's not just electricity but also heating, transportation, all energy. If allowed to be recycled then the size of the problem is even smaller. If the fuel is burned in a way that the valuable isotopes can be extracted before they decay away then this uranium and thorium becomes a source of medical and industrial isotopes that makes our lives even better.

Second, is that this spent fuel, if managed properly, is only a radiation hazard for a few decades, or centuries at most. We know how to build structure that last 300 years. This is assuming we don't consume all of those isotopes for other uses and it's all thrown away. The way fission works is that what is left over is short lived or long lived. The short half life stuff is usually quite valuable for medicine and such, and we don't get much of that. The long lived stuff is not very radioactive at all. It must be handled with care, like using gloves, goggles, hard hats, and don't eat it. Much of the long lived stuff is fuel, recycle it back in the reactor.

If the problem of "effluents" bothers you then consider the environmental impact of wind and solar. Where do you think the stuff comes from to make these solar panels? It is mined. Part of this mining is for the steel and concrete to hold up the panels. A common element used in PV cells is arsenic, do you want arsenic mined, purified, and then used to shingle your roof? Sure, the arsenic is vitrified in the PV cell but it doesn't always stay there.

To replace coal with wind and solar worldwide would require 10 billion tons of steel and concrete annually. To put that in perspective current world production is 1.5 billion tons. Do you want to leave all that for your grandchildren to deal with?

In contrast to that nuclear power needs only 1/10th of the steel and concrete of wind and solar for the same capacity. The "effluent" of nuclear power is a much smaller problem than if we tried to do that with wind and solar.

What people fail to understand about wind and solar power is just how much resources it takes. If mining uranium is "bad" then consider all the mining for equally "bad" stuff is needed for wind and solar. We're going to have to deal with that too.

I've seen solar power advocates talk about how cheap PV cells are getting every day but that is a very small cost in making solar power work. Much of the expense is in the wires. Solar and wind need to be collected where it is plentiful, and this tends to be away from population centers. I mentioned the mass of concrete and steel needed, something has to hold up the windmills and solar collectors. There is the cost in land, many wind farms have failed because they couldn't afford the rent and taxes for the land. Moving them out to cheaper land means longer wires, which adds to the expense elsewhere.

All of this cost for solar and wind equates to lives, "effluent" for future generations, and for what? To make you "feel" better? I'm a fan of wind and sun, but I'm also a fan of arithmetic. The future of society requires a large investment in nuclear power. We can collect wind and sun power too, just in places where it is safe, cheap, and generally sensible, which are very few.

Re: Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Waiting for a run-away global warming disaster so we can say "where are the anti nuc fear mongers now?" Of course we'll only have a few weeks to enjoy winning the debate before all perishes.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why was this marked 'Insightful'?

Are you defending a power generation technology that - when things go bad - kill thousands of people, leave >$200b to be paid by tax payers for cleanups?

Is that your point?

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[MrKaos]

We are at the beginning of nuclear power's impact on the human species so perhaps we need new ways to look at nuclear power in order to understand how it is affecting us, we've just started acknowledging carbon as an externality imposed on our generation, so why not radioactive effluents on future generations?

We don't consider the radioactive waste an issue for future generations for many reasons. First, the size of the problem is actually very small.

You're right, it's just small enough to fit in a freight train that wraps all the way around the equator... and a bit more, maybe a third more.

We need to find a way to put nuclear reactors in everyone's backyard, I propose we put the big nuclear reactors right in the middle of cities, every city, lets call it the IMBY movement to force people into accepting nuclear power for their own good. We need purplies to hold down hippies and fart right in their smug faces after a chilli bacon and chipoltle pizza so hippies can appreciate how dangerous wind is.

Chernobyl and Fuklukshima demonstrated that nuclear powers are perfectly safe since no one's ever died from them unless they were a super villain. We need to put big nuclear reactors right in the middle of cities like New York city, London, San Fransisco, NOW! Fart right in their smug faces until they say 'it's safe'.

You've brought up some important points about solar. The sun will be radioactive for 4 billion years and there is still no way to dispose of it. Waste shade from wind installations are a problem we just keep piling on the earth, everywhere and, there is still no solution. Today there was some shade right where I was standing. If we keep using sand for producing solar cells there will be a bit less sand in the world and if we don't dispose of waste shade there will be night everywhere so solar won't work anyway, so suck it mdsolar.

The sun and the wind are really just too toxic compared to nuclear power, anyone who has *ever* had bad case of sunburn and wind burnt lips, will tell you that the wind and the sun are just too dangerous as if there was ever a major problem there would be minor inconveniences. There should be a moritorium on using the sun until we know how to dispose of it properly and until we learn how to stop passing wind, problems onto the next generation.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[Solandri]

A better way to analyze the cost is to compare against the value of electricity generated. Here's a graph of nuclear power generation over the last 45 years. Generation has been about 2300 TWh per year for the last 20 years. The 25 years before that ramped up roughly as a triangle, so call it 2200/2 = 1100 TWh per year average.

This gives us a total of 73,500 TWh generated by nuclear power over the last 45 years. 20*2300 + 25*(2200/2) = 73500.

Using a global average electricity price of $0.20 per kWh, this is $14.7 trillion dollars worth of electricity generated by nuclear over the last 45 years.

Chernoby cleanup cost $235 billion, Fukushima was around $200 billion. Three Mile Island was about $1 billion. These are the only major commercial nuclear accidents in history, and their total cost is $436 billion.

$436 billion / $14.7 trillion = 0.02966. Or about 3%.

So the cleanup costs for the nuclear accidents is about 3% of the price of the electricity nuclear generates. Or 0.6 cents per kWh.

Doesn't seem so expensive when you put it in proper perspective, does it? For even more perspective, compare to the subsidies for different power sources:

• Geothermal's subsidy costs about twice as much (1.25 cents/kWh).
• Wind's subsidy is nearly 9x more expensive (5.25 cents/kWh).
• Solar's subsidy is 161x more expensive than nuclear's cleanup costs (96.8 cents/kWh).

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[ledow]

How many people has coal-fired, gas-fired, oil-fired power stations killed?

Just because it's not in one nice incident all wrapped in a nice little sarcophagus for you, it doesn't mean it was casualty-free.

Again, RELATIVELY SPEAKING, nuclear is safer, cleaner, less impact on the environment, cheaper, and even cheaper to clean up if it does go wrong than almost ANYTHING else.

Even solar has a human cost, you just don't see it because people aren't lying on the floor outside every solar power plant.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[blindseer]

Did you even read the article you linked to? It ended with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, building more nuclear reactors.

Yes, it really sucks that people made a mess with radioactive stuff, but scooping it up and dropping it in a hole doesn't make it go away. To get rid of it requires nuclear reactors. While we're running those reactors to destroy this waste we can get power from it too.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[RockDoctor]

Which fucking miracles? Plenty of hard work for sure, including developing and improving engineering robots. Significant care to be taken in locating, extracting and containing (reprocessing, or moving back into the existing nuclear waste pipeline) the melted and corroded remains of the reactor fuel. Lesser issues over the hugely larger bulk of medium grade contaminated material from the original plant and Mk1 sarcophagus. But things that require the breaking of laws of physics - no.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[MrKaos]

Did you even read the article you linked to? It ended with a solution to the nuclear waste problem, building more nuclear reactors.

Yes I did, several times over the years. I think to evolve NP you have to have an understanding of the reality. You said it's a small problem, well it isn't - it's a big problem. You said it's fixed but it isn't, you think the answer is simple, it isn't and you don't seem prepared to try to understand.

I'm not saying it's easy to understand either, I started from a position of supporting the Nuclear Industry decades ago and I'm still learning. The more I learned the more issues I uncovered to the point of being criticized for asking hard questions to answer or countering fiction with the facts and reality of the situation.

Yes, it really sucks that people made a mess with radioactive stuff, but scooping it up and dropping it in a hole doesn't make it go away.

If you design it right then it eliminates the real and justified concerns anti-nuke folk have and still allows advancement in reactor technology, i.e, you know where your transuranics are stored to use in your new reactor technology one day.

Most pro-nuke folk get fixated on idealism instead of reality and are blind to goals that are actually complementary because they seem to be unable to step out of the polarization of the argument or their own prejudices. You yourself politicized the issue and I just can't take that seriously.

To get rid of it requires nuclear reactors. While we're running those reactors to destroy this waste we can get power from it too.

I agree AND disagree with you. The technology of BURNER reactors already exists that resolves U283 and pu-239 stocks but requires material technology advancements to evolve the technology.

BOTH SIDES of the political debate have nailed the coffin into the nuclear industry so that the oil and coal industry can plunder it fro revenue. I (again) refer you to the 2005 US energy policy act where you will find that it is the oil and coal industry that is preventing the development of these reactors because a reactor that replaced coal and produces hydrogen to replace oil for the vehicle fleet is against their commercial interests. In fact the technology is being dismantled so it can't be studied by nuclear technologists. You say you are free because you are armed but do you have the courage to stand up to oil and coal interests?

Even if you do develop those reactors, you need a place to put them so why not put them in the same place you have stored all of the spent fuel so you can fully contain fuel reprocessing and reactor disposal as well? Do you understand how and why the return on reactor energy investment is so important and how that ties into material technology advances?

If the "pro-nuke" actually understood the situation you would understand that spent fuel storage is the way forward for the industry whilst giving us time to clean up the radiological mess this fucked up rushed prototype nuclear industry has left. But no you always think that it can be fixed with some new reactor with unknown basis design issues whilst making excuses for the failures of the existing technology and it's implementation. That's why normal people don't trust you and why people who have studied the industry think you are lunatics.

The problem is that nutty nukkers are so intent on blaming NIMBYS and hippies that they are too mentally lazy to go and figure out what the real issues are even when someone sticks it right in their face, instead they choose to cherry picking the knowledge communicated to reinforce their deeply flawed arguments. Because of that the nuclear industry never evolves because nukkers believe it is without flaws. They don't respect the power of the elements that are in reactors and therefore they make excuses for the stupid things the nuclear

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[MrKaos]

Big numbers are scary when they apply to one thing. You now have a similar bill for each reactor at Fukushima.

Added together what we have is a cost of doing something stupid in the nuclear industry.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[lazy genes]

There have been several nuclear accidents in the last 100 years. We're looking at trillions and trillions of dollars here. We still have not found a safe and affordable way to process and store nuclear waste. The processing plants catch on fire during the last stages. Every attempt to close the loop has failed. it would be easier to invent a time machine than solving this problem. At least with a time machine you could go into the future and personally hurt them. On second thought, we should find a way for humans to pump up they're fake egos that doesn't involve destroying the future generations chances for survival.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[MrKaos]

So the cleanup costs for nuclear accidents so far is about 3% of the price of the electricity nuclear generates. Or 0.6 cents per kWh so far.

Thank you, your insights are very interesting however I think you mean those are the cost's incurred so far. It would also be interesting to map in energetic costs as well.

Chernoby cleanup cost $235 billion, Fukushima was around $200 billion. Three Mile Island was about $1 billion.

This is the cost to *ESTABLISH* cleaning up Chernobyl, now the work begins. We have not established the clean-up costs for Fukushima, only estimated, incurring and accumulating.

I have not looked at the status of TMI, have all the core elements been removed? Don't we still have to dismantle the facility? Will it require a NSC? Will Fukushima?

How much does it cost to dismantle a reactor core that has been operating for 60 years. Will every Nuclear reactor need a NSC to dismantle it?

These are the only major commercial nuclear accidents in history, and their total cost is $436 billion.

I guess Lake Karachay and Hanford were done on purpose so do clean up costs there count?

What about the cost of the 'non-major' accidents added together, are those costs externalized, like carbon?

What about the cost of spent fuel containment, not the test site at Yucca, a site that can contain radio-products without leaking?

Infrastructure to said containment facility (incidentally, that's why you want to pick a place that works)?

Cost per reactor decommissioning?

What about decommissioning of Enrichment facilities?

Mine tailings clean up, or are those costs externalized onto other countries?

It would be interesting to see the impact of decommissioning even if you ignored everything else. I think it has only been done once and on 150Mw reactor, IIRC it was Yankee Rowe however I am not sure if they have been able to remove the spent fuel. I'll dig out the numbers if I can find them.

Doesn't seem so expensive when you put it in proper perspective, does it? For even more perspective, compare to the subsidies for different power sources [ncpa.org]:

You've missed out the value of the insurance subsidies for damaged caused, which are forced onto the taxpayer. Geothermal, wind and Solar don't get that kind of massive underwriting of liability as a form of corporate welfare because they don't need it. That's the flip side of Capacity Factor.

If these did not exist no one would invest in nuclear power as the liability cannot be calculated. Imagine what a hypothetical Indian Point INES7 accident would do to the asset value of NYC. How do you calculate that liability?

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[blindseer]

You say you are free because you are armed but do you have the courage to stand up to oil and coal interests?

Why should I stand up to them? I like those guys. They sell me natural gas so I can heat my home this winter cheaply and safely. I opted for a gas water heater since it will work even if the power is out. A combination of gravity fed municipal water, natural gas, and some battery powered lanterns and I can get a warm shower even when the electricity is out. I'll just have to sleep in front of the natural gas fire place for the night. As the snow falls the city and utilities will send out bunch of men in diesel trucks to clear the snow and repair the downed lines. So, I'm good.

They don't respect the power of the elements that are in reactors and therefore they make excuses for the stupid things the nuclear industry does. Is that who you are?

I have respect for nuclear power, just like I have respect for natural gas. We put fire in the containment vessel made of brick and steel called a fireplace, it keeps us safe. Fissile material is likewise "burned" in a kind of vessel also made of brick and steel to keep us safe. In both cases if people do something stupid then people get burned. We have people to manage this and they do a very good job. The people outside the USA may need more training than us but they don't have the experience we do. There's no excuses necessary, we do the best we can. When the best is not enough then we fix it. People can and always will die with nuclear power. We know this. What we also know is that even though people are put at risk it's worth it because we get so much energy. Choosing anything but nuclear power means more people die.

Do you think you can figure this stuff out and treat the nuclear industry as a serious concern or will you just continue with the shallow trite bullshit that every other nuke fanboi comes out with?

I do treat it seriously, but I also treat it honestly. People getting all worked up about the capability for a failed nuclear reactor being able to leave large areas of land a radioactive desert are liars with an agenda, and/or ignorant fools. We've seen what a catastrophic failure can do. It sucks for a while, years in fact. People die. Money is lost. Yet after it all humanity is still better off. Once we rid ourselves of these old and safe reactors (and I did call them safe) we can build new even safer reactors. We need new reactors to retire the old. If we are going to keep up with demand for energy, growth in the population, growth in wealth, we need two new nuclear reactors every month in the USA. That also means two new nuclear reactors every week somewhere in the world. It's going to take this much capacity to destroy the caches of spent fuel from old reactors, create the fuel for the next generation of reactors, produce energy, and create the medical isotopes needed to diagnose and treat illness.

You are correct that if treated improperly radiation can injure and kill, but treated with care it can save and cure.

Honestly, it seems to me you are all upset but I'm not sure about what. You go all over the place that it's hard to nail down just what your arguments are. Calm down and educate yourself. Go search the internet for videos and articles from (in no particular order) Mr. Kirk Sorensen, Dr. David LeBlanc, Dr. Leslie Dewan, Mr, Gordon McDowell, Dr. Stephen Boyd, Mr. James C. Kennedy, Mr. John Kutsch, and I know I missed someone. These people work for places like (again, no order) Terrestrial Energy, Flibe Energy, TransAtomic, The Thorium Alliance, and several prominent universities around the world. They've largely solved the problems you give, but the devil is in the details. These people need the freedom to develop their technologies but it seems that people like you hold them up. The know where most of the gremlins lie, and for the ones they don't they have precautions to deal with them too.

Wild Life

[Max_W]

Strangely the wild life is booming in the Chernobyl Zone. Just google "wild life in Chernobyl zone" and see Images.

It seems there is nothing worse than a Homo sapiens for the nature.

Re:Wild Life

[ColdWetDog]

OTOH hand, moderately radioactive wildlife isn't something to be causally ignored.

Godzilla, Spiderman... the list goes on.

We have been warned.

Re:Wild Life

[Dutch Gun]

I'm not sure it's all that strange. Keep in mind that wildlife will still likely thrive even with high birth defect rates, early deaths by cancer, and other unpleasant side-effects from living in higher-than-normal radiation. We would find such a situation appalling among humans, but nature is a bit more brutally pragmatic about such things. Human populations obviously have a much more detrimental effect on populations than radiation.

On the plus side, this gives us a great model for what a post-apocalyptic world should look like 30 years after the bombs fall, or whatever other disaster strikes. It's sort of eerie. I've never like the Fallout aesthetic that implies nothing grows in an irradiated region, even if I understand *why* they did it.

Re:Wild Life

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure it's all that strange. Keep in mind that wildlife will still likely thrive even with high birth defect rates, early deaths by cancer, and other unpleasant side-effects from living in higher-than-normal radiation. We would find such a situation appalling among humans, but nature is a bit more brutally pragmatic about such things. Human populations obviously have a much more detrimental effect on populations than radiation.

On the plus side, this gives us a great model for what a post-apocalyptic world should look like 30 years after the bombs fall, or whatever other disaster strikes. It's sort of eerie. I've never like the Fallout aesthetic that implies nothing grows in an irradiated region, even if I understand *why* they did it.

But as we know, the many studies done in the Chernobyl area show that wildlife is thriving, and not showing genetic damage or birth defects beyond normal rates. In fact, the only time and place that was show was limited birds and insect species directly after the accident in a small very highly contaminated zone. Those effects were limited. There have been no negative effects observed for quite some time, and over multiple generations of animals. And people in the exclusions zone are quite healthy as well.

So this post apocalyptic world you speak of is a nature preserve that can be safely visited and even lived in by people.

Re:Wild Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Sustained higher level of heritable mutations have been observed in many studied lineages in the exclusion zone. This is a direct consequence of ongoing genetic damage. This isn't a -problem- per se, as evidenced by the thriving wildlife.

Re:Wild Life

[Dutch Gun]

But as we know, the many studies done in the Chernobyl area show that wildlife is thriving, and not showing genetic damage or birth defects beyond normal rates.

Oh, well, I didn't actually know. I was under the impression that scientists were debating this point. (?) Maybe I just read old articles, or I could very well be misinformed. In any case, consider my statement as more hypothetical than anything.

Re:Wild Life

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing to keep in mind is that the lifespan of most wildlife is a lot shorter than in humans. Wildlife is a lot more likely to die of other causes before some of the effects of radiation can become significant. And also, it's not likely that increased infant mortality would be observable.

Re:Wild Life

[pepsikid]

A pictorial documentary which I saw in the last year or so studied the plant life within the exclusion zone. They're hanging dosimeters on tree trunks to see what their dosages are over time. It appears that in some places the natural cycle of composting and regrowth has halted. Organisms are no longer decomposing biomass, so it piles up much longer than is natural. The ecology is being starved of nutrients, so remaining growth is slowed. There are dead forested areas persistently standing instead of crumbling and being overgrown. The pics looked appropriately post-apocalyptic. :(

Re:Wild Life

[Anonymous Coward]

Sustained higher level of heritable mutations have been observed in many studied lineages in the exclusion zone. This is a direct consequence of ongoing genetic damage. This isn't a -problem- per se, as evidenced by the thriving wildlife.

This statement is completely fabricated.

Re:Wild Life

[Anonymous Coward]

One thing to keep in mind is that the lifespan of most wildlife is a lot shorter than in humans. Wildlife is a lot more likely to die of other causes before some of the effects of radiation can become significant. And also, it's not likely that increased infant mortality would be observable.

This is a completely false statement. In truth, many animals have much higher metabolic rates and therefore are more sensitive to radiation effects and cancers in a shorter lifespan. Also, multi-generational impacts can be seen sooner, and we've observed that there is no significant impact.

Re:Wild Life

[Anonymous Coward]

A pictorial documentary which I saw in the last year or so studied the plant life within the exclusion zone. They're hanging dosimeters on tree trunks to see what their dosages are over time. It appears that in some places the natural cycle of composting and regrowth has halted. Organisms are no longer decomposing biomass, so it piles up much longer than is natural. The ecology is being starved of nutrients, so remaining growth is slowed. There are dead forested areas persistently standing instead of crumbling and being overgrown. The pics looked appropriately post-apocalyptic. :(

So somebody posted some pictures of a very small (we are talking square yards) area where some plant life is not growing, and then adds an explanation that itself defies the science we know about how radiation affects life, and you accept it as a "pictoral documentary". You should be more discriminating and critical.

Re:Wild Life

[pepsikid]

AC: Ya know, I am actually capable of critical thinking, and if all they showed was a cherrypicked patch or two of brown grass, I probably wouldn't have mentioned it. You seem to know about the article, or a similar one to that which I'm talking about. Please post a link to it, and we can compare. Regardless, the article I read was more substantial than you mockingly retort. Ultimately, we'll only know for sure if it was credible, if we each became polyglot nuclear scientists and ecologists, and team up together to verify the findings. Short of that, it's quite reasonable to take the word of the article's author and the Ukranian researchers s/he wrote about. Their point was that they found something very wrong with the ecology within and around the Exclusion Zone, and they needed more time and resources to determine the extent of it. I'm so very sorry that this clashes with your happy thoughts of a human-free paradise where gentle woodland critters flourish and dance about in the woods, but them's the breaks.

WMDs in Iraq

[SumDog]

From the article:

>Shortly after the accident, Hans Blix was flown to Chernobyl. Blix would later become better known for chairing the United Nations commission responsible for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction in the run up to the 2003 war.

Wait what, the WMDs that didn't exist? The mustard gas that American sold Iraq and relabelling it as WMD? Why even include that bullshit BBC? You just want to keep that narrative going however you can?

Re:WMDs in Iraq

[AmiMoJo]

The BBC's statement is completely factual:

Blix would later become better known for chairing the United Nations commission responsible for disarming Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction

Blix did chair that commission. The fact that Iraq didn't have the WMDs or whatever is irrelevant, there was still a UN commission set up to disarm Iraq and Blix chaired it.

Re:WMDs in Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

The mustard gas that American sold Iraq

I would like to take a moment to ask where the fuck you developed this idea.

I take no issue with the general thrust of your accusation, but there are two factual issues I take umbrage with. For starters, we did not sell Iraq shit. We gave them things. We sold weapons to Iran with the Iran-Contra scheme, at the same time Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Iran's hated enemy. A splendid bit of cold-war backstabbing fueling a vicious war between two packs of hateful scum and using the proceeds to fund a third war against Communists. Top-notch bastardry, any way you dice it.

This mustard gas bullshit is the second inaccuracy. In case you were not aware, mustard gas was invented in WWI. It is laughable, piss-weak shit. It is in fact so laughable, pissweak and obsolete that the Iraqis themselves graduated to proper nerve agents like Tabun and Sarin by 1984. In fact, considering that the vast majority of chemical weapons destroyed in the US's own decommissioning program were modern nerve gas agents and the handful of mustard gas shells left over were so ancient that their corroding condition made them unusable as weapons anyway, you could well accuse the United States of selling them nerve agents. It is actively insulting to me, as an American, to see you insinuate that America is an incompetent bastard bully hegemon.

Old news?

[pahles]

According to the Wikipedia page and this article it was put in place on November 29, 2016...

documentary on Chernobyl

[plopez]

Here's a good documentary on the disaster. http://topdocumentaryfilms.com...

The upshot is that 10's of thousands died fighting the fire and containing and the death toll continues to mount. Score one for safe and clean nuclear energy.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[khallow]

10's of thousands died fighting the fire

Yea, 49 is a big number.

Score one for safe and clean nuclear energy.

Because everyone runs their power plants like cold war Soviet technocrats?

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[plopez]

1) 49 is a big number if you are one of them
2) Fire fighting, containment, and cleanup exposed some 500k workers to the site. And the actual death toll is probably underestimated: http://www.slate.com/articles/...

If you watch the documentary there are a number of people who worked on the project who were in bad health. Which could be radiation, heavy metal poisoning, or a host of many other nasty things found in industrial sites e.g. PCBs, Dioxin, asbestos, etc.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[khallow]

2) Fire fighting, containment, and cleanup exposed some 500k workers to the site. And the actual death toll is probably underestimated:

And the answer is:

Weâ(TM)ll probably never know.

Hooray for stories that don't actually say or mean anything.

If you watch the documentary there are a number of people who worked on the project who were in bad health.

It's been 27 years. Of course there's people in bad health.

Which could be radiation, heavy metal poisoning, or a host of many other nasty things found in industrial sites e.g. PCBs, Dioxin, asbestos, etc.

Sounds real definitive.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[pepsikid]

I'd say it's fair to count the thousands who died and will still die as a result of this wholly unnecessary disaster.
Let's not be pedantic about the far lower number attributed directly to just death by radiation, thanks.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[khallow]

I'd say it's fair to count the thousands who died and will still die as a result of this wholly unnecessary disaster.

Unless, of course, they're not going to die as a result of this disaster. Then I suppose it's not "fair".

Let's not be pedantic about the far lower number attributed directly to just death by radiation, thanks.

No, let's be pedantic for good reason. We need to remember that the "tens of thousands" is a number pulled out of someone's ass. It has no connection to reality.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[pepsikid]

Buddy, you and I are *so* not on the same page here.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[whodunit]

I'm a lifelong proponent of nuclear energy, and I've often vented my rage at the mindless knee-jerk reactionary opposition to nuclear energy voiced by "greenies" who over-inflate accidents caused by infamously careless and dysfunctional regimes. I tell you this so you'll understand the significance when I say that your point is not lost on pro-nuke activists.

"We almost Lost Detroit is one of my favorite nonfiction books - especially because I was born and raised in Fermi I's potential fallout shadow. The book does a lovely job of documenting other costly accidents and near misses as well. Nuclear energy scares the hell out of me - and I think any pro-nuke activist should feel the same. I'm also an avid firearms enthusiast, and as any gun owner can tell you the rules of gun safety are based on multi-layered, defense-in-depth paranoia. It is not a question of if you will make a mistake, but when. Failing to apply this same standard to nuclear energy is insane, and we can't expect anyone to take our advocacy seriously if we brush off their concerns as fear-mongering, Luddite hysteria or flat-out ignorance. All three are present in anti-nuke activism, but that doesn't excuse us from the valid fears that need answering.

Those fears are why Americans proof-test our containment buildings to an extremely high standard. It's why our containment domes (Fermi I, shown here) are a damn sight more spacious than those used by other nations, which might explain why ours don't fail and others have. It's not enough to sit around and point out how the Soviet Union was a pack of incompetent bastards, or how Fukushima was the result of breathtakingly corrupt practices in government and industry, with half the employees being Yakuza, terrifyingly slapdash construction (when two major pipes didn't meet up in the middle like they were supposed to, hooking an earthmover to it, bending the pipe a bit and welding it together wasn't unheard of,) and laughable government "oversight" (i.e. "descent from heaven.") To dismiss these incidents is to say "it can't happen here" and most certainly can. And fear of that keeps the sharp edge on the vigilance needed to ensure it never does.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[LordWabbit2]

I agree with you, on not being on the same page that is. Khallow has a valid point, one you are failing to even attempt to acknowledge. You are clearly in the "Nuclear BAD!" camp and refuse to even consider anything which does not support your opinion.

Re:documentary on Chernobyl

[pepsikid]

Boy, are you wrong! I support nuclear power as long as we aren't building power plants on fault lines or using antique designs that get explodey when the electricity goes off. Liquid sodium and Thorium reactors look like reasonable stepping-stones until we have aneutronic or fusion reactors working.

Re:Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

[tinkerton]

Actually nuclear power in the west is as good as dead. Hardly anything new is being built and huge costs for decommissioning coming up . Now in the east, you know, like china, there is construction going on. That is, where there is a lot of cooling water, meaning in highly populated areas, sometimes unstable geography. That could become interesting. I'm not enthusiastic either.

I would not call this a tomb

[EmperorOfCanada]

This edifice to corruption and terrible engineering could better be called a poor quality concrete, low quality steel, leaky, pretend solution to a problem that will last for millennia.

Re:I would not call this a tomb

[turp182]

They had worldwide experts for design, and the parts of the structure were built and pre-assembled in Italy.

The only part in the Ukraine (I'm sure with many international experts onhand) was the final assembly and moving it into place.

Rather incredible effort to me, the international partners, international construction, and the largest thing ever moved. Oh, and there was a war in the Ukraine during all of this.

Yes, I read the article...

Re:I would not call this a tomb

[EmperorOfCanada]

I wish there was a place where I could place long term bets on the internet. I would be willing to make a 20 year bet that this thing will be a useless cracked pile of garbage in 20 years.

At Banqiao. "thousands" means "49"?

[raymorris]

> thousands of lives lost

You have a typo there. I think you meant to type "49" (38 directly, 11 from cancer). At the time, it was thought that many more people might die 20 years later from cancer (rather than 25 years later from old age, car accidents, etc) but evidence indicates that hasn't happened much - cancer rates haven't increased as much as was feared. One claim that "6,000 workers will die from cancer due to radiation" was debunked when it was pointed out that there haven't even been 6,000 TOTAL deaths of workers, from all sources combined (including car accidents, etc.)

> Where are the Nuclear power fans now?

Well a bunch of them are having a fancy party 100 meters from the reactor. Because it's safe to do so.

Others might be at Banqiao, where a hydroelectric dam failure killed 170,000 people. Maybe they are at Machchu Dam (5,000) killed,
Vajont Dam (2,000) or South Fork (2,200).

Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster

[charlee007]

Over one million people worked on the initial clean-up, the BBC reports, calling this new sarcophagus "the largest object people have ever moved," and its installation was apparently pretty surreal. "World leaders jostle with global executives and anonymous men dressed in full camouflage as platters of shrimp, foie gras and cheesecake are passed around by white-gloved staff...just 330 feet away from the site of the worst nuclear disaster in history."

Definitely NOT a SALT mine.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Most of the high level stuff will have decayed significantly by then. Send workers in, chop up what's left,

Fine so far.

seal it up in drums and throw it in an abandoned salt mine.

Definitely not a salt mine. The US used to consider that (or salt domes). Then they figured something out:

The heat (and even a little builds up) causes water to migrate through the salt to the heat source. Then you've got hot stuff sitting in saturated salt solution. This has lots of opportunity for exciting failure mechanisms.

Once the stuff is out of containment, the water-soluble part has the opportunity to spread through the whole salt deposit, which might be very large (such as the remnant of an ancient inland sea that dried up). Note that small amounts of chemicals dumped in salt mines under Midland Michigan showed up in the salt mines under Detroit.

Once the high-level stuff has decayed enough that the stuff is reasonably safe to handle, it's potentially very valuable, and might be made into useful artifacts in as safe a manner as tech in the 2100s can manage. For instance, this was a graphite moderated reactor, so there's a BUNCH of carbon 14 in there. It could be made into things like the diamond-based nuclear batteries (low power, safe to handle, with lifetimes longer than human civilization so far) that were discussed here last month.

In another hundred years or so who knows what the technology will be capable of? You can predict that it will be a LOT better. But you can't predict exactly what it will BE. (If you could, you could do that stuff NOW rather than waiting for the breakthroughs. B-) )

This'll be great

[Chelloveck]

This will make the *best* video game in about 5000 years when Lara Croft's great-great-...-great-granddaughter breaks in and raids the Ancient Cursed Tomb of Chernobyl.

On the other hand..

[RespekMyAthorati]

All that radiation gave the workers the ability to run really fast.