-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Man films his own death: Chernobyl disaster, the first days of clean up inside
- Thread starter Sealda
- Start date
- Status
As far as I'm aware, nuclear power is very safe now, and even safer because of Chernobyl and further advancements in technology, best practices and regulation. We should be scientifically sure that this wouldn't happen again for us to keep using it.FStop7 said:
The main thing is, we have catastrophic climate change happening this century. It can be prevented through green energy generation, and nuclear power is green and very powerful. We need to get onto a near 100% carbon free system, and doing that without nuclear power being part of the mix would be insanely more difficult. Even windmills have killed more people than nuclear power stations since Chernobyl (a fairly selective time range, I admit, but the point being that nuclear power safety shouldn't be based on circumstances that no longer exist).
Al-ibn Kermit
Junior Member
That's a good point and I can't find any scientific studies with all the methods laid out that measure the malaria rates in sri lanka 50 years ago but I can find several news articles on malaria that mention the malaria rates going from 2.5 million annually in the 1950's to the low double digits in 1961-62 when it was at the record low in ceylon (sri lanka now). According to those same articles, when they banned it in 1964, it went back up to 2.5 million cases a year by 1969.CrunchyFrog said:
You could make the point that those articles could all be repeating the same popular misconception and I've no idea how to really disprove that. It sounds like you might have a background in entomology or at least an interest in it so if you have any idea where to find a decent source with old numbers I'd appreciate it.
MarkMclovin
Member
MNC said:
Jesus Christ, those babies
FlashFlooder
Member
I'm an electrical engineer and I actually work in the nuclear industry. Chernobyl (and to a lesser extent, Three Mile Island) totally revolutionized the way Nuke plants are scrutinized/operated.
My job is to analyze every part of a nuclear plant, all of it's components and systems, and ensure that there are adequate safety mechanisms to guarantee safe shut down no matter the event.
The plant operators responsible for Chernobyl were not qualified (they were coal plant workers) and ignored the plant's safety systems warnings (management was pushing them to complete a test on schedule... they had to actually override the plant's automatic shutdown mechanisms). The level of incompetence is mind-numbing, really. All so that they could minimize down-time (a euphemism for 'make more money').
All that being said, I'd rather live next to a Nuke plant than ANY other kind of power plant.
My job is to analyze every part of a nuclear plant, all of it's components and systems, and ensure that there are adequate safety mechanisms to guarantee safe shut down no matter the event.
The plant operators responsible for Chernobyl were not qualified (they were coal plant workers) and ignored the plant's safety systems warnings (management was pushing them to complete a test on schedule... they had to actually override the plant's automatic shutdown mechanisms). The level of incompetence is mind-numbing, really. All so that they could minimize down-time (a euphemism for 'make more money').
All that being said, I'd rather live next to a Nuke plant than ANY other kind of power plant.
Youta Mottenai
Member
No it shouldn't, but unfortunately when people use fear, distrust or conspiracies to campaign against a subject, it's a steep hill to recover if a person falls for it. Case in point, the loons against vaccines.Pseudo_Sam said:
For the Portuguese speaking GAF here is an Discovery Channel documentary (chopped in nine 10 minutes parts).
p.s. And I'm sorry to disagree with people who says it shouldn't be used/pursued because it's dangerous. Progress will come to halt with this kind of thought.
Using a catastrophic/worst case scenario as an argument why not to do/use something is ludicrous.
What happened would be like turning off all safety systems of (very old) jet-liners, disabling all safety alerts on control towers (while changing shifts) and experimenting some new manouver with an overloaded plane during take off/flight/landing disregarding any safety protocols and then telling planes are unsafe.
I do understand the techno-utopian vision of a green nuclear society, but right now the reality is problematic in many ways.
Just looking at this list and the clusterfuck that is the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_most_expensive_single_objects - costing billions, still very much behind schedule due to manufacturing errors and mismanagement. A great read about it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html
Now mining for uranium and the problem of nuclear waste show that it's not the end-all solution for our energy woes that will intensify.
Chernobyl is a good reminder that the human fallibility is always there. The Deepwater Horizon was never meant to burn & sink either, but what happened? I think that's a very valid comparison.
Just looking at this list and the clusterfuck that is the Finnish Olkiluoto 3 project - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_world's_most_expensive_single_objects - costing billions, still very much behind schedule due to manufacturing errors and mismanagement. A great read about it is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/business/energy-environment/29nuke.html
Now mining for uranium and the problem of nuclear waste show that it's not the end-all solution for our energy woes that will intensify.
Chernobyl is a good reminder that the human fallibility is always there. The Deepwater Horizon was never meant to burn & sink either, but what happened? I think that's a very valid comparison.
FlashFlooder
Member
Olkiluoto 3 is the very first build of a completely new design. It's just like manufacturing, where the prototype always costs billions. It is not surprising that it would be over budget and over schedule. They take all the lessons they learn while building this one to improve on the process.
That plant, by the way, has 4-way redundant safety systems to keep the core from melting, a completely sealed containment with extra 'pool' to catch and store all material in case of a meltdown. The concrete around the reactor building is designed to withstand impact from a commercial plane.
Yes, human fallibility exists, but these plants are designed to withstand human error. That chemical plant, coal plant, etc down the street from your house was not.
Not sure what problem you are referring to when you say "mining for uranium", but I don't see any problem with mining a substance that has as much energy as:
-3.5 barrels of oil
-17,000 cubic feet of natural gas
-1,780 lbs of coal
in a pellet this big:
That plant, by the way, has 4-way redundant safety systems to keep the core from melting, a completely sealed containment with extra 'pool' to catch and store all material in case of a meltdown. The concrete around the reactor building is designed to withstand impact from a commercial plane.
Yes, human fallibility exists, but these plants are designed to withstand human error. That chemical plant, coal plant, etc down the street from your house was not.
Not sure what problem you are referring to when you say "mining for uranium", but I don't see any problem with mining a substance that has as much energy as:
-3.5 barrels of oil
-17,000 cubic feet of natural gas
-1,780 lbs of coal
in a pellet this big:
PistolPete
Member
Yep, it might have ruined some. Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but you can see the effects of the radiation on the film by the white bands at the bottom of the first photo in the OP.TheSeks said:
Poor guys on the roof. They probably had no idea they were going to die.
Youta Mottenai
Member
My disagreement (and I guess many others share the same line of thought) is not about if it is dangerous or not, if it is the definitive energy solution or not. It's about using fear as an argument to not pursue, understand and improve our knowledge/use about something.Keio said:
edit: FlashFlooder presented in a better way.
Yep. On the Discovery Channel documentary it is shown that the radiation affected the film.PistolPete said:
And you know things are bad when machines break down due the radiation.
I would hope so. Still, the failures made with the concrete, with the welding, with pretty much everything don't instill much confidence in the project.FlashFlooder said:
And damn, safety systems are great but with people like this, you never know: Technician Mike Williams told the panel that the alarm system was turned on to monitor for fire, explosive gas and toxic gas but that its sound and light alarms had been disabled. Williams testified that he had asked before about the settings and was told the company didn't want a false alarm waking people at night.
Uranium mining isn't simply a matter of extracting nice high-powered rocks out of the ground. One presentation regarding waste & environmental impact is here, http://www.wise-uranium.org/stk.html?src=stkd01e - although it's from an environmental agency and you can find pro-nuclear sites touting that "it's not different from mining other precious metals" etc.
But I would like to stress: as a stop-gap solution I do support nuclear over crappy coal and oil(!?!) power plants, as burning carbon based shit will not help combat climate change. I'm just saying that nuclear too is a road fraught with problems.
Here I completely agree. The "think of Chernobyl" arguments are not constructive, but then again not are the techno-utopias painted by the nuclear lobbyists. Chernobyl exists as a good reminder of what happens in a text book "everything fails" scenario, but it is a highly improbable event to repeat.Youta Mottenai said:
However, the costs of nuclear power are an interesting question. If investing the similar amount to solar/wind/hydroelectricity would bring better results etc. are relevant points to be considered.
I heard that in Olkiluoto the conditions were fucking atrocious. There was this part that costs about half a million euros (some kind of cooler?) that was left in the rain and destroyed in one night.
Also inspectors have been repeatedly turned away at the gates and they have gotten in only with the help of police (too late of course to see the illegal workers and horrible safety procedures).
Can't believe this shit is happening in my country.
Also inspectors have been repeatedly turned away at the gates and they have gotten in only with the help of police (too late of course to see the illegal workers and horrible safety procedures).
Can't believe this shit is happening in my country.
FlashFlooder
Member
Whether you have confidence in the project or not, by the time it is up and running every single aspect will have been inspected, tested, and scrutinized more than you can imagine. The concrete and the welds would've been "good enough" for just about any other application - but not for nuclear. If anything, findings like these should bolster your confidence.
What I'm trying to highlight for you is that Technician Mike Williams doesn't really come into the picture with these new designs. He could call in sick and leave the plant unmanned without a major event occuring, and certainly without any radioactive materials being released.
All of the major nuclear events have come from personnel misinterpreting the warnings and information being supplied to them by their instrumentation. Naturally, systems have been redesigned to eliminate any possible source of confusion.
revolverjgw
Member
There are holes in the "sarcophagus" big enough to drive a car through?
Sheeeeeeyit
And apparently that is by design? Why are there such big holes?
Sheeeeeeyit
And apparently that is by design? Why are there such big holes?
Darth Pinche
Member
I used to enjoy watching this video, but now it is hard to watch. It is a NIN video made from nuclear blast footage, nothing graphic, just the destruction that had a perverse beauty in it
Right where it belongs
Right where it belongs
PjotrStroganov
Member
Meanwhile, in Germany.
FlashFlooder
Member
^here in the US, nuclear waste is encased in lead and concrete plugs. You can basically wrap your arms around one and not get any radiation. That looks..... sketchy at best.
My family correspondes with the mother of a family that lives in one of the perimeter towns around where the Chernobyl disaster happened. On top of being a terrible place to live on its own, everything is deeply contaminated. Most recently they were fascinated by our garden photos, because they were trying to acquire a piece of dirt about the size of my cubicle to try and grow vegetables on in the tiny growing season they get a year. They were amazed to see shit can actually grow. Just a terrible situation. My aunt paid the for the college education of two out of three of their children and one lives in Moscow now. They sent photos of their grandchild recently and all were wearing surgical masks to hold them for fear of passing an infection. They were very upset because they said the child had been diagnosed with diabetes and will most likely die as a result. They do not even know it is a managable disease in other places. Most of the money she sends now gets spent on sending her kids to "camp" which I suppose is a big deal there as it sounds like the equivolent of a vacation.
Here's a BBC documentary of soviet scientists examining Chernobyl a while after the incident. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5968506788418521112#
The soviet scientists are wearing only paper masks, even though they know the risk, I believe the BBC crew was were western made radiation suits. At the time the yearly exposure for a British worker was 2 roentgens per year and volunteer soldiers were being exposed to that in 90 seconds or something, and this is after the sarcophagus was put into play
The soviet scientists are wearing only paper masks, even though they know the risk, I believe the BBC crew was were western made radiation suits. At the time the yearly exposure for a British worker was 2 roentgens per year and volunteer soldiers were being exposed to that in 90 seconds or something, and this is after the sarcophagus was put into play
Huevos de Oro
Member
My knowledge in this subject is almost non existent. Has there been any recent advancement in regards to a safer disposal of nuclear waste?
PjotrStroganov
Member
FlashFlooder said:
It's an extreme case. But it still happened in a country that can be considered trustworthy. How is this stuff managed in developing countries? Or North Korea?
And I know the US does alot to safely dispose of the waste. But I am apprehensive when thinking about what is going to happen with that stuff in 10.000 years. Will we still know that it's there?
FlashFlooder
Member
^^disposal is really the elephant in the room when it comes to nuclear. There is no good way to get rid of the stuff. You can store it safely, but it just sticks around and presents an environmental hazard for a loooong time.
^here in the US, we (will) have a facility specifically designated for nuclear waste (Yukka Mountain). Of course, politics have gotten in the way but it will be the inevitable outcome. As long as they concentrate the waste and dispose of it with the proper precautions, the risk is really low.
Funny you should mention how other countries handle their nuclear programs, as that's also my biggest concern. For example, another genius idea from the people that brought you Chernobyl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
A floating nuclear power station... What could possibly go wrong?
Just to play Devil's Advocate a bit, I am more concerned about what the planet will look like with another 10k years of burning coal/oil at an ever-increasing rate.
^here in the US, we (will) have a facility specifically designated for nuclear waste (Yukka Mountain). Of course, politics have gotten in the way but it will be the inevitable outcome. As long as they concentrate the waste and dispose of it with the proper precautions, the risk is really low.
Funny you should mention how other countries handle their nuclear programs, as that's also my biggest concern. For example, another genius idea from the people that brought you Chernobyl:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
A floating nuclear power station... What could possibly go wrong?
Just to play Devil's Advocate a bit, I am more concerned about what the planet will look like with another 10k years of burning coal/oil at an ever-increasing rate.
Meus Renaissance
Member
Rest in peace
Ponti
Member
Really interesting, especially the thought of new types of life forming because of it (the black slime that was mentioned for instance). Or the effect the radiation is having on the wildlife. Would love to visit Pripyat someday. The pictures of it are so eerie, can only imagine what it's like to actually be there.
LaserBuddha
Member
Wazzim said:
Neat, what problems has it caused you?
vas_a_morir
Banned
Wazzim said:
...w-well then, that's good I suppose.
Dreams-Visions
Member
You missed that the comment was the punchline to the story that the area is being opened up for tourism. I don't expect that anyone in their right mind would tour the area, much less people touched directly.Diablos said:
In short: ya missed the joke.
No, I meant what I said how I said it. When I say "nuclear war", I mean a conflict where nuclear weapons are exchanged on both sides of a battle. Not one side dropping 2. When I say Nuclear War, I think most people rightly imagine ICBM's from waring parties crossing in the air on their way to obliterate life at their respective destinations for years to come.zoukka said:
Let that day never come.
With that said, I worry greatly about Pakistan. Even moreso than NK.
I couldn't help but feel sorry for them. Most of the helicopter pilots died and their efforts had no effect at all. As for the volunteers, they weren't even told what was going to happen to them, though it was well known to people in power.Kinyou said:
They died without being given the right to know what was going to happen to them and to make a choice. As did all the people in surrounding communities who were deemed unworthy of the information and died or struggle with multi-generational disease as a consequence...while those in power got the fuck out and took their children with them.
Yea, it's cool they were able to stop the spread (and more importantly, they greatly reduced the chances of another self-sustaining chain reaction)...but at the same time, they did it without any knowledge of the risk involved. They were robbed of their honor and humanity.
And this is why we made Yucca mountain in North America. I am sure if Nuclear plants ever catch on again, the US government is going to go out of its way to get nations in South America to store its waste in Yucca mountain, someone in Washington is going to paranoid over the waste "falling into the wrong hands" or such.PjotrStroganov said:
Meanwhile, in Germany.
Also, Nuclear waste has the benefit of all the waste is contained at one spot and fairly easy to account for, unlike burning Oil or Coal.
PjotrStroganov said:
Meanwhile, in Germany.
Stuff like this doesn't happen today anymore in the West. Also Germany is pretty silly when it comes to Nuclear power anyway. They don't want Nuclear power so they build coal power plants which produce far more toxic waste; then they realise they still don't have enough Power Plants to replace their old nuclear power plants, so they are forced to keep them running long after they should've been shut down. So instead of decreasing the risk of a nuclear accident by building new power plants, they keep running the old ones.
FlashFlooder
Member
I love how they put a yellow/green tinge on that picture to increase the fear factor. OMG TOXIC!
Youta Mottenai
Member
Exactly. Make decisions based on scientific evidence and technical data, even monetary costs/benefits data when reasonable.Keio said:
Those men sacrified their lives to stop the radiations, hoping to save the town, but frying themselves in the process. Truely tragic heroes.
I do have a question.. What if the same situation happened today, I mean, we take the same nuclear plant, the same problem, error and explosion, the same fallout, etc, What could be done using modern technology to contain the radiation? I remember reading a while ago that there were still workers doing maintenance from times to times over there, but they had those super hardcore protective suit, and even there, they couldnt stick around for more than half a hour.
The original crew of helpers was sent to die to stop this, but today, people know the risks. What kind of tools, methods, or are our modern anti-radiation suits even strong enough to protect workers from the level of radiation that was present at the peak of the meltdown? I swear, nowadays, nobody would want to go; jsut look at how the bp oil leak was handled, I would expect some massive clusterfuck of an attempt to be honest.
I do have a question.. What if the same situation happened today, I mean, we take the same nuclear plant, the same problem, error and explosion, the same fallout, etc, What could be done using modern technology to contain the radiation? I remember reading a while ago that there were still workers doing maintenance from times to times over there, but they had those super hardcore protective suit, and even there, they couldnt stick around for more than half a hour.
The original crew of helpers was sent to die to stop this, but today, people know the risks. What kind of tools, methods, or are our modern anti-radiation suits even strong enough to protect workers from the level of radiation that was present at the peak of the meltdown? I swear, nowadays, nobody would want to go; jsut look at how the bp oil leak was handled, I would expect some massive clusterfuck of an attempt to be honest.
Dreams-Visions
Member
I don't believe any of them knew what they were doing or the personal consequences of their actions.shuri said:
Is it still bravery when you're robbed of the knowledge of what there is to fear? Did you sacrifice your life, or did someone sacrifice it for you? Rob you of the ability to make a sacrifice or not?
FlashFlooder
Member
^^sadly, there isn't much you can do. Modern technology or not, the only effective way to shield from radiation is by using a physical barrier. Which would make cleanup pretty hard. I suppose we could use robots and such, but I can't see that working in an emergency situation.
Hari Seldon
Member
In my Nuclear Physics class I had years ago they explained the reason why a Chernobyl style catastrophe could never happen anymore, and in fact was impossible to happen in western reactors at the time. I wish I remembered the science, but it had to do with the design of the fuel, the Soviets designed it for maximum power but it had like a positive feedback effect that could cause an explosion if the operators were not careful. The western fuel was designed with negative feedback, such that the fuel would burn itself out if left unattended - at the cost of less power.
But as someone who interned at American civilian plants, you guys would be amazed at how old the tech is. I'm talking like light bulbs instead of LEDs, vacuum tubes instead of ICs, that kind of thing. They need to build new ones.
But as someone who interned at American civilian plants, you guys would be amazed at how old the tech is. I'm talking like light bulbs instead of LEDs, vacuum tubes instead of ICs, that kind of thing. They need to build new ones.
No, I had an environmental science a teacher of mine who actually was able to get a tour there a few years back. Simple put, the radiation is still very high in some parts while in others it has dissipated. He said they simply walked with a Geiger counter in areas that had been deemed safe for short term exposure, and was able to see the town. I think he described the areas they could walk in as similar to the Radiation you would get while taking an international flight.Darklord said:
- Status