Chernobyl (Finally) Shuts Down 343
wpanderson writes "The Ukrainian nuclear power station at Chernobyl has finally been closed down by President Leonid Kuchma, according to the BBC News.
The plant has been plagued with problems - the most public and visible was the failure of Reactor 4 on 26th April 1986, although there have been more problems since. The most recent was a "malfunction" in Reactor 3 which caused a shutdown, just 9 days before the closure date.
Although the plant is now closed, and the Ukrainian government has pledged not to use the site for electricity generation again, it will "be 2008 before the fuel rods can be safely removed from the plant".
There are quite a few pictures taken inside the ill-fated Reactor 4 (cyrillic link) for the morbid!"
Another power plant ruined (Score:2)
Re:How come Chernobyl wasn't shut down earlier? (Score:2)
...phil
Re:What did they do with the left over stuff? (Score:2)
...phil
No good solution. (Score:2)
Sand has one advantage: cost. Anyone who has been to any sand dunes knows the problems. Sand shifts in the wind. Nobody is really sure the sand pile won't blow away in the future.
The current sarcofagus was never designed to keep things out, only to help contain any radiation. (I'm not sure if it helps). Scientists are (or were, I've not kept up) going in there often to check on the effects of radiation. (unfortunatly including radiation on them). We need to know if species can evolve to withstand high levels of radiation, or at least want to know if only it didn't mean loss of some lives along the way.
Any thing that encases this needs to encase it fully for as long as it is dangerious. That could be a long time, potentially longer then mankind has been on this earth. Even if socity collapsses we would like to be sure that nobody will it up as archiologics tend to do.
Re:I wonder. (Score:2)
If you drink water from a well within 100 feet of Cherney-baby, you'll get Sr90, and bone cancer. Cheer up. You can safely drink there in about a million years.
Re:And what comes after that? (Score:2)
Do you have any idea how much foreign aid money has gone into the pockets of corrupt politicians and gangsters?
Lets have some rule of law first. The current atmosphere of anarchy is not where I want to send my tax dollars.
Robots/cleanup (Score:2)
This is not going to be cleaned up any time soon.
Re:Except it's not graphite's fault. (Score:2)
My worry is the disposal of waste. I think most people see that as a problem. The US has NO policy for the permanent disposal of nuclear waste, therefore, it's all piling up AT the plants sites themselves. Precisely where it was NOT supposed to be stored long-term.
Seeing as how this stuff is lethal for periods of time much longer than humanity has even existed as a SPECIES let alone a civilization, and seeing as how the OLDEST structures we've ever created are only thousands of years old, and already crumbling (granted, construction technology has advanced since then), and given that utilities have a huge potential to make tons of money on making power, but no financial incentive to do it safely - why SHOULD I trust nuclear power?
Personally, if we could just launch it into the sun, or reprocess it into harmlessness, I would accept a sodium-moderated reactor in my neighborhood. (I currently live near Diablo Canyon, which is in a Geologically unstable region, I've toured the plant, and the structural earthquake reinforcements were very impressive. Their backup plan for cooling the reactor in the event of a power-loss was NOT impressive. Three days worth of diesel fuel on site for diesel pumps, and then, a "guaranteed" contract with a local fuel supplier? yeah, that'll work in a war-situation, or severe earthquake.)
You can simply shut down a coal plant. Or even a sodium moderated plant (provided it's not damaged by disaster, terrorists, or collateral damage in a war). But current plants require continued effort to keep the cores cooled after they're shut down. And that's all reliant on the existence of a modern supply infrastructure, which can all disappear in a disaster or a war.
Re:still a danger (Score:2)
Perhaps the world's greatest experts on control of leakage of radiation into the environment are the brave men and women at Battelle at the Pacific Northwest Laboratories (in Hanford, WA). They are in charge of the cleanup/ damage control at Hanford, and also, they're aiding the Ukranians with Chernyobl. They will be monitoring this, and working on it for at least another 100 years.
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
one thing nobody can refute, because it has so plainly been demonstrated over the past 50 years of human history:
The effect on the political global climate, when a country HAS a nuclear weapon, and has demonstrated that they are not afraid to use it.
Overall: Good or Bad for mankind?
You decide.
Re:I wonder. (Score:2)
http://www.physics.isu.edu/~alber/coal.html
CP
Re:Solutions (Score:2)
Both suck, of course. But most of the same potential problems still apply (plants grow in air, kids play in air, etc.)
So, given that the same hazards apply, consider that radioactive material in the air spreads much more quickly, and over a much wider area, than radioactive material in the water.
Neither solution is ideal, of course. But I'll take the one that is more easily contained, thank you very much.
----------
Re:The scary thing is... (Score:2)
MetroWerk's "Power Plant" has been crashing and burning for years.
Karma karma karma karma karmeleon: it comes and goes, it comes and goes.
I'm not sure what the point is here (Score:2)
OTOH none of that speaks to what you with the waste. In the US the #2 growth industry for Native American lands (after casinos) is nuclear and toxic waste disposal. Those lands aren't regulated by the Federal gov't so basically the truck backs up and nuclear shit falls out the back.
The photographer (Score:2)
Re:misconceptions about fusion (Score:2)
It's cleaner than fission, all things considered, but fusion power is _not_ the free lunch you portray it as.
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
Sorry, you needed to pay more attention in your high-school science courses. Radiocative waste decays not exponentially, but inverse-exponentially. A typical half-life for radioactive waste might be 10,000 years (they can run anywhere from seconds to millions of years, but it's the long-term ones that are worrisome). This means that in 10,000 years, half of the material will have decayed into a new form (which might very well be radioactive itself). In another 10,000 years, half of what's left will have decayed. And so fourth.
So, your statement is doubly wrong- the waste decays inverse-exponentially, which is bad news, not good news, and 100 years is on the lower end of the scale of decay rates we're talking about.
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:2)
"In 1984 he moved to the University of Washington in Seattle as a Professor of Chemistry where he still works. Within two years of arriving in Seattle, he suffered a serious auto accident in which he suffered a Traumatic Brain Injury that has removed much of his memory of both the past, and day-to-day functions. Because he had to learn how to teach Freshman Chemistry with out having a memory himself, he devoted his time to learning how to teach in a different way. He learned to teach Chemistry using a computer and the Computer program PowerPoint,. Since then, he has produced over 500 computer slides for teaching Freshman Chemistry. These slides are now used with the Silberberg Freshman Chemistry book (McGraw Hill), since then, all major textbooks also have obtained computer slides, which the students love!"
Now how can he recount his experience in Chernobyl? Besides his work is not so secret as you sound:
"His work also has been with the measurement of RadioIsotopes in the environment from atmospheric weapons testing and reactor accidents such as Chernobyl in the Former Soviet Union.
All this in:
http://faculty.washington.edu/~zoller/biograph.
There is a special page about his trauma and how he overcomes it. Tough guy I may say.
Re:BS - Keep your goo stories for the jerks (Score:2)
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:2)
There was PANICK everywhere. Even I saw this stuff a year later. You talk to some damn jerks and they start panicking. And these guys have fat bellies and take some harsh decisions sometimes. But talking "Chernobyl" was the same as saying "boo". And not because there was a KGB man behind them. One should see to get the picture. You say Chernobyl. Chernobyl what damn Chernobyl, there is no Chernobyl, yes there is, or maybe not, and what is Chernobyl? THAT DAMN CHERNOBYL!!!! Oh ah...
And they start talking. A picture of powerless bosses. Of scientists seeing the Irrational coming out of that building. Of officers running to volunteer death. Of people running away from Prypyat in confusion. Of builders working like Hell to close the sarcophagus. Of party bosses trying to close the truth.
And you see that poor bastard. trying to wipe out from his own memory all this. Not because of a point gun. Because he saw something he can't understand. Something he can't live with. A nightmare that overcomes all his life. Something like if God came to this hard comunnist and said Hi! Its Me! That's what I saw 15 kilometers from Chernobyl.
But no one has ever told about your point guns. On the contrary. Your hellish KGB officers seemed to desire to put point-gun someone in Kiev...
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:2)
"Get in the car. Shut up..." - What a Troll
And he is talking about KGB Ukraine... Brrr... You even cry THE HELL over them and they start bbbbbb, bbbbb.
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:2)
His work on US atomic weapons WAS secret? Cool, so what this has to do with Chernobyl then? Why he needs permission to talk about Chernobyl? Clearence to bash the Soviets is still secret? To avoid offending ex-foes?
A pitty I don't have my library nearby. I would recomend you a few things on Chernobyl that explain much more than your xenophoby. Still written in Soviet times and much less pleasant then you may think. But less fantastic than your professor tales. And there, party bosses are not sweetly treated btw. Oh yeah, need Russian to read it...
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:2)
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:2)
And "safe" does not mean "not radioactive". The sarcophagus is deadly radioactive and its walls are crumbling little by little. However many experts say that the stuff will hold most radiation inside for a few years. That maybe the meaning they were telling him that the stuf was safe.
Translating the words of a "liquidator" (Score:2)
He said that, yeap Chernobyl was a Hell. But shutting down the third reactor is maybe a bigger error. As Ukraine is cash stripped. And this reactor is the critical point that turns Ukraine from electricity "donor" to "user". If they shut it down, they will need to get the stuff from their neighbors. Now, he didn't say this, but everyone knows how Ukraine uses Russian gas and doesn't pay for it. Where they will get the money to pay for electricity?
The only way is to use the money people are giving for the shut down and build another station. But that will mean two things. In the state of shamble economy Ukraine is, there are chances they may build another "Chernobyl". And nuclear station construction does not allow errors or cash stripped projects.
Meanwhile money for Chernobyl will clearly be diverted for such projects. That will be natural. So what will happen with Chernobyl itself? There is work still to be done and sarcophagus needs lots of it to avoid crumbling from radiation.
One thing I saw in this "liquidator". A guy with clear traces of suffering some hell of a desease. His skin and hair are quite weird in some places. But damn tough eyes, strong voice, weighted statements and a very clear mind.
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:2)
Re:Isn't film ruined by radiation? (Score:2)
Besides your babbling doesn't add nothing Hell new to what most people know. Only how bad is the KGB and the soviets. Let me tell you one thing. Yes, there were times when people were forced point gun into death - II World War. Soldiers in panick, whole divisions retiring, camp prisioners were forced back to fight by the NKVD, somehow, the organisation before KGB. But that was in Stalin times. Later, when Stalin died, those who came to power, were some of those who were forced to do many things point gun in the past. And the first thing they did was to shot the main "point-gunner" of the country, NKVD's boss Lavrenty Beria.
Since then no one was forced at point gun to do something. Yes, there was no real freedom, people still lived in communist chaos. But "point-guns" ended in the Hot Summer of 53. Ask any Russian and he will tell you this.
In Chernobyl there were thousands of volunteers or comanded workers. Some knew, others not, the whole dimension of the tragedy. But everyone knew that the problem was very serious. Too hard to not to see this in those days.
Besides there was the problem that radiation is an invisible killer. Under such a situation you may get something even if you know and are warned about the dangers. Some high officers got their dose btw. There are some films on these "liquidator" workers. It shows guys working on the run. Many are seen with radiation suits, white or yellow uniforms and masks. But not all follow the rules. Some have their torses open and white suits bandged around. I noted one construction worker with his mask over his head. Everyone sweeting, dirt, tired and crying Hell at each other. Talks clearly go about running against time, trying to make the sarcophagus as fast as possible. On certain section, a huge robot is working on implanting whole concrete blocks in one side of the building. Helicopters pass the sarcophagus at speed and drop some stuff to inside. Does this fits with your people sent "at point gun" into the unknown?
Neutron activation 101. (Score:2)
*sigh*.
Once again:
Both fission *AND* fusion produce very intense neutron radiation. This transmutes atoms in anything nearby - i.e. the reactor itself - into radioactive isotopes.
So, your fusion reactor produces helium - which is well and good - but your thousand-tonne reactor vessel is low-grade radioactive waste by the time it wears out. This is a *BIG PROBLEM* - a *bigger* problem than primary waste would be for either type of reactor.
Yeah, the radiation in the core itself is hazardous to life (it is in fission plants, too) but you surround the core with water, or concrete or something and the radiation doesn't escape.
This same "neutron activation" of materials makes it extremely difficult to ensure that reactors - fission or fusion - are safe. Ever wonder *why* a fission reactor has three levels of coolant loops, instead of just running coolant directly through the core? It's because neutron radiation from the reactor breeds tritium and a few nice, unstable isotopes of oxygen and fluorine in the water. You don't want this leaking, and if it does leak between stages, you don't want the *next* stage to leak.
You _can_ build (reasonably) safe reactors, but you are vastly underestimating the difficulty, and completely overlooking a *BIG PROBLEM* with fusion. There's plenty of good research material on the web and in your local university's book store if you're interested in learning more about the subject.
Clearing up several misconceptions. (Score:2)
Your sources seem to have missed a few important pieces of information, here:
There's a nuclear plant sitting next to my home city that supplies all of the city's power and exports power to the US. It's been operating for many years. Its waste fits in a swimming pool inside the plant (water makes a nifty radiation shield).
By comparison, a coal plant with comparable capacity would have dumped several million tonnes of CO2 and SO2 into the atmosphere, with attendant acid rain and other problems (not to mention the environmental and health hazards from mining the coal in the first place and transporting it to the plant).
You don't produce primary waste with fusion, but you do produce one hell of a lot of radiation. This makes your entire reactor vessel radioactive. For both fission and fusion reactors, this is a greater _volume_ of waste than that produced directly from spent fuel rods, and it has to be swapped out and maintained every decade or two.
If fission reactors are properly maintained, they're a wonderful power source. The problem is that a) the public is afraid of the word "fission", and b) nuclear plant maintenance tends to be under-funded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Solutions (Score:2)
Of course the problem with that is polluting the ground water.
Which is worse, breathing radioactive dust, or drinking radioactive water? (and growing food in it, kids playing in it, etc)
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
"Technically, the accident was caused partly by operator error and partly by faults in the reactor construction itself. It all started with an experiment to investigate the possibility of producing electricity from the residual energy in the turbo-generators.
"To carry out the experiment, the operators broke six vital safety rules, and all automatic shutdown systems were taken out of operation. In addition, the emergency core cooling system for the reactor was taken out of operation."
Good going!
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
No, it doesn't need much space. Yes, it needs rather a lot of shielding and phenomenal security and yes, it has to be there for a _very_ long time.
Storage _isn't_ cheap.
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
Notice I'm a Brit. We have the two relevant components here for reprocessing - the Sellafield plant and a fast breeder reactor at Douneray. Neither runs anywhere near as cheaply or efficiently as they were predicted to, while they produce some pretty unpleasant waste. Both are considered failed experiments from all I see, neither likely to be replaced when their operating life ends.
The other thing to consider with nuclear reprocessing is that it necessitates rather more transportation of highly radioactive materials than would otherwise be needed. This is definitely something to be avoided, as the security precautions needed to transport this safely are very stringent, while the risk of contamination of the surrounding environment is phenomenal. Some here will probably remember the Mark Thomas Comedy Product's investigation into this very issue, and it was extremely painful reading for BNFL.
Reprocessing delays the problem at best and amplifies it considerably at worst.
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
I freely admit that I'm not a physicist or nuclear power expert in any way (I'm a programmer) so I won't comment on safety and efficiency. I've heard several suggestions that it really isn't that cheap to run and that the original suggestions were misguided but again I don't know the details so won't comment.
The one thing I've heard consistently enough to feel relatively confident in repeating, though, is that waste storage and decomissioning costs are huge. Except that because of when they appear they frequently aren't factored into the cost equations.
As a Brit, I've heard it suggested several times that our energy needs could be covered several times over by off-shore windfarms - which sounds interesting, plus is rather safer than nuclear fission if and when something fails. Anyone?
Re:I wonder. (Score:2)
2 coal plants to replace the failed Chernobyl one emit 10.4 tons of uranium and 25.6 tons of thorium, and a total of 34,200 millicuries (34 curies) of radiation per year. So operating for a million years they would emit 34 million curies.
8 tons of Chernobyl fuel [uilondon.org] was blasted out of the plant, in addition to radioactive gas leaks. "Several million curies [wpi.edu]" to "50 million curies [cybertap.com]" were released.
Re:I wonder. (Score:2)
The radioactive emissions from coal plants are greater than from a nuclear power plant. The problem at Chernobyl was that it sprayed its fuel outside instead of keeping it inside where it belonged. But remember that the radioactive fuel came from the environment in the first place. Where do you prefer it to be?
Re:Suicidal to live near an RBMK. (Score:2)
Yes nuclear does produce waste, but it can be contained with less environ impact than that of coal. What represents a pinprick on the map of the US can store a lot of nuclear waste. Coal devastates far more space (eg. a lot of the state of WV).
Lastly, nuclear waste does not spontaneously explode like a nuclear bomb unlike a depiction in a crummy made for tv movie that people probably take for fact. Nor do plants themselves.
I wonder. (Score:2)
Re:I don't read Russian... (Score:2)
Re:I don't read Russian... (Score:2)
Not that there's much diffference, kind of like English and American.
Sorry for being off topic, but this is analogous to saying that French and Spanish are basically the same language. It's true that Russian and Ukrainian share a common heritage - Ancient Slavonic - but they are full-fledged, independent languages.
Cheers,
Greg
They risked their lives.... (Score:2)
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
A good breeder reactor does a lot of good, if used properly.
--
Absolute BS. (Score:2)
1. Critical mass for Pu-239 is measured in the kilos. As in multiple kilos. How far do you really think you can throw 50 pounds of plutonium?
2. Shielding for radioactive materials is heavy as all get-out, too. Often, plutonium or uranium nuclear pits are cladd in nickel, tungsten, or some other very hard, dense metal. That also adds considerably to the weight.
3. The amount of explosives required to compress Pu239 in the initial stages of detonation is highly nontrivial.
4. It's possible to get by with less radioactive mass by switching to californium, or some other radioactive element that's easily fissionable and is extremely radioactive. However, the explosives, shielding, etc., are not so easy to switch around.
5. In other words, if your prof told you the Russkies were into nuclear hand grenade research, your prof has zero credibility whatsoever.
Above post is plagarized (Score:2)
Apparently Maldivian is making a career out of earning
That's really pathetic, man.
Re:[OT] Why is this site still using .su TLD? (Score:2)
Does anyone have any idea? (and wow, an intelligent AC post!)
Re:And what comes after that? (Score:2)
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Re:Robots/cleanup (Score:2)
The heat has also decreased quite a bit in the intervening time; the short-lived isotopes which produce the high wattages of after-heat decay away quickly. Spent PWR fuel is cool enough to be stored in air after about ten years, and it's been 14 years since Chernobyl. We should be able to take care of this now. It would also be a terrific employment opportunity for the area, and the last thing we want is for certain Ukrainians to go job-hunting in places like Iran.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
I wonder about your math. (Score:2)
That's a very small number. By way of comparison, the visible universe is composed of less than 10^100 elementary particles. So by this math, if there was one atom of Sr-90 for every elementary particle in the universe, in a million years you would only have one chance in 10^10650 of having one left.
Try a thousand years at the outside, not a million. It would make more sense to just get your water from elsewhere, but with ion-exchange techniques known since the 60's you could make Chernobyl water safe to drink if you had to. (There were studies done on detoxifying fallout-contaminated milk. I happened to read one of them that was in my school library. Fascinating and thought-provoking.)
Did you know that the exclusion area around Chernobyl has become home to all kinds of rare species? It seems they do well when humans aren't around. Chernobyl may be one of the biggest favors the Russians have done for biodiversity... not that I'd want it in my back yard either.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
The IFR was something else. (Score:2)
It got canned by the Clinton administration, I think.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:2)
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Re:Greenpeace (Score:2)
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Good post, great link, two nits. (Score:2)
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
And what comes after that? (Score:2)
One of the biggest issues hanging over the Former Soviet Union is how that electric infrastructure will be replaced. Getting rid of the RMBK reactors and their explosion and proliferation risks (they were designed for continuous refuelling, and are thus almost ideal for making weapons-grade material) is one thing; putting that part of the world back into the 20th century with a clean and reliable electric supply (which is a prerequisite for the economy to grow) is quite another.
Maybe we (the USA and EU) need a Marshall plan for that part of the world, selling them wind turbines and combined-cycle gas turbine generators and taking their spent fuel so we know where it's going (better here than Iraq).
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
If you don't like corrections, proof-read. (Score:2)
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
How come Chernobyl wasn't shut down earlier? (Score:2)
Re:Picture links (Score:2)
Any color photographs? (Score:2)
What did they do with the left over stuff? (Score:2)
Re:Above post is plagarized (Score:2)
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
All of the pictures (Score:2)
get your pictures there, one stop meltdown shop.
Re:We are our own greatest threat (Score:2)
1) How many people do you think we can get living on this planet without technology? No apartments that go 10 stories up and house hundreds of people. No efficient way to transfer food to all the people living. Damn, at least half of us are farmers again. Damn, more living space gone there. Damn, don't even have appreciable crop yields. Damn, farming is tough with no technology.
2) Do you think you'd live very long? Those pretty bengal tigers get hungry too you know. And damn, without our guns we'd be up the creek, wouldn't we? If you think your stone axe will take one out I beg you to go to your local zoo. Please, for all of us. And even that is technology. So why don't you go and survive merely hunting with your bare hands and gathering your berries.
3) Carbon monoxide is produced by inefficient combustion. I'm pretty sure fires happened before man had the ability to control them. At any rate its unstable, and breaks down in a short period of time. You might have to worry about it if you're letting your car run in your garage and you're sitting in it, but other than that you don't. I think that's a non-issue. Other pollutants are what nuclear works to get rid of. Coal is very bad for the environment and people. I'll take my chances with relatively very small volumes of nuclear waste, locked up really well, as opposed to SO2 floating through the atmosphere.
4) Nuclear fission isn't producing carbon monoxide, the power is generated by splitting atoms and using the energy released to boil water to turn turbines.
5) Not everything we do is killing us. If you don't believe that take a look at life expectancies across just the last couple of centuries. Without our current medical technology do you think many people would be living past 40? Not a chance.
6) Last tree dead? Last field paved? What is that shit? Do you live in a cave? Have you never used your car to leave a city? Or a bus to be friendlier to the air? Or hell, even walked out? There's plenty of pristene nature left. Sure as hell there's lots of development all over, but if you'd like a place for all us people to live that's the way of it.
7) Didn't have to worry about cancer. No, instead we had to worry about vicious animals, whether there would be enough harvest to feed your immediate family, whether the winter would kill of your livestock, and a billion other things. Cancer is one of the few life threatening things that we have to worry about these days. Worried about the plauge? Worried about typhoid? Cow-pox? Measles? Mumps? No, you're vaccinated or we've gotten rid of or contained these killers. Wow, technology at work. Of course you could just believe that god is pissed with you whenever you get sick. Then die because your solution is to pray until it goes away. Or be eaten by animals in the meantime.
Sure, some of the things that happen aren't pretty. Sure, in a perfect world we could all frolic through fields, gathering berries. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this world is a little more harsh than that. Humans have beat nature at its game of eliminating us. We still die, but if you think that anybody was living to 100 before technology came around you've invested a little too heavily in those intoxicating chemicals you're so worried about. If you think that as simple gatherers without technology we could house this many people on Earth, think again. Come visit Minnesota this time of year without clothing made by tools, have fun freezing to death.
Technology builds upon itself, you can't stop it. You can join the Amish and freeze it at a point, but you can't stop using some technology, and you can't stop more from coming into existance. Its the only way we can keep supporting all this life on this little planet. I for one am happy that I don't have to worry about if there will be enough wild berries. I like getting my food from a supermarket.
So in response to your final question, now what? I'll say this, live with it. Quit worrying so much, you'd be dead a lot quicker without it all. Why ruin the extra years you're getting from technology with the whining, worrying, anti-technology sentiment?
Better images, and latin alphabets. ;) (Score:2)
Images at NASA from the Pioneer robot [nasa.gov], and a whole slew of links [usc.edu] from one Dr. Meshkati.
The images, in particular, are of very high quality, but are uncaptioned.
NASA's page, with commentary, is found here [nasa.gov].
Isn't film ruined by radiation? (Score:2)
How are nuclear submarines the stupidest ideas in history? You want something to stay underwater, all other power sources require air or sunlight, it strikes me as perfectly logical that you'd use nuclear power. And nuclear hand grenades? Who built those? I honestly doubt such a thing exists. Even if you could find someone willing to use them, they would still be less useful tactically than a shoulder launched missile.
I'm inclined to believe that Zoller may like to talk up his own importance a little bit, and stretches the truth a little to do so. Why would he refuse to talk to you if you're a member of the press? There's no kind of security clearance that you can tell anyone except news people about. That'd be stupid, because the story would still get out, just through second hand sources.
Re:recommeded books? (Score:2)
One stumbling block to finding out more information about Chornobyl is that the spelling is often different. The proper Ukrainian spelling is "Chornobyl". However, the English press has glossed over the name "change" since Ukraine became independent.
Either way, there are now plenty of books on the topic. Official Soviet statistics have always been suspect and more reliable estimates are, quite frankly, chilling. The thousands of military personnel who were sent in to cleanup this mess were equipped with little more than gas masks and were not well-informed of the extreme dangers they faced. Several respected television news programs have done documentaries on the aftermath (I recall seeing an excellent episode of the CBC's Fifth Estate a few years back).
I have quite a few friends in the Ukrainian community who are more actively involved in helping the victims - particulary children who have been saddled with radiation-related birth defects or sicknesses such as leukemia. The number of these children and their suffering is beyond tragic. Have a look at what you can do to help: www.childrenofchornobyl.org [childrenofchornobyl.org].
If you're seriously interested in learning more about this tragedy, feel free to email me [mailto]. I'll consult with some fine folks I know who can better recommend insightful reading.
--
Re:Mother Russia...Kiev, the capital of Russia? (Score:2)
The region is, as a consequence of geography, connected. Politically, culturally and historically, the region is anything but "connected". Were Pennsylvanians subjected to an artificial famine [209.82.14.226] to force them into the Union? I'm sorry, but needlessly murdering 6 million of your own citizens in cold blood does not the basis for connectedness form.
This may appear to be true, but who first sounded the alarm about this disaster? Not Moscow. It took several days before Sweden raised its concerns. The "primary lead" USSR attempted - foolishly - to cover up this catastrophe. At the time, Ukraine, being a SSR (essentially a province) was controlled from Moscow. Now that the Soviet Union is no more, Moscow likes to point fingers at the Ukrainian gov't and insist they do more to clean up the mess they're left with.
With what resources? The country is economically very unstable and doesn't gain anything from the parade of G7 blank cheques that Russia receives. Instead they're threatened with economic sanctions if they don't shutdown a vital electrical generating station. Everybody knows it's a ticking timebomb, but when you've got heart disease, you don't just rip out the bad heart and wait for a new one to arrive. You have to have a backup system in place.
Ukraine has borne the brunt of this disaster, and since becoming independent, has been saddled almost entirely with this burden. Hundreds of square kilometres of fertile land are now a blight. An entire generation of children, along with their families, from the region has been doomed to an early, painful death. The money to clean up this mess is nowhere to be found. International pressure is forcing them to close this station without the necessary replacements - which will undoubtedly result in winter blackouts for a region which already suffers from periodic brownouts.
And yet, you believe that Ukrainians feel a kinship with "Mother Russia", who, not content to simply abandon them, has in fact stirred up the international community to increase pressure on Ukraine to give up its nuclear arsenal (to Russia) in exchange for token assistance in the massive cleanup operation that is necessary.
Pennsylvanians have not suffered at the hands of their brothers in New York or Ohio the way Ukrainians have suffered at the hands of Moscow - for centuries. Your comparison to Three Mile Island is simply not valid. Understanding this fundamental difference is crucial to understanding the politics of the region and the actions (not) undertaken by the Kremlin immediately following this tragedy and in the years since.
--
Re:Russia != Soviet Union (Score:2)
Do you think it makes much difference to Ukrainians whether the Russian empire is ruled by a czar or premier? Whether it's called a monarchy or "union of socialist republics"? The USSR was one thing and one thing alone: a vast Russian empire. Trying to pretend that the various "republics" had some sort of autonomy outside of that explicitly granted by Moscow is pretty lame.
Now, having said that, I'm not going to claim that Ukrainians are just victims here. Whoever was running that station had to be pretty stupid. Not only that, but the present president is an outright crook and everyone knows it. Hell, just last week some very Watergate-esque tapes surfaced that allege he had a particularly nosy journalist murdered.
Of course, that all of Ukraine's modern-day presidents are past Party apparatchiks doesn't exactly paint a glowing picture of the USSR, now does it?
The point is that the burden of Chornobyl has been dumped on Ukraine alone. That station was built by Soviet mandate and operated by a Soviet agency. Now that the great Soyuz no longer exists, the rotting legacy is left to Ukrainians to shoulder alone. That really pisses people off.
As for Russian/Soviet debts, the reason Russia hasn't gotten any foreign aid recently is because the astronomic sums they received in the past have vapourized in the most dubious of circumstances. You have your own mafia to thank for that. And don't think Russia hasn't tried to extort Ukraine's "share" of the Soviet debt either. This is what you get after centuries of subjugating entire nations - when it all falls apart. I won't shed a single tear for Russia.
--
English article link (Score:2)
My russian is reeeeeeeeeeeeeal rusty so I'm not sure if this is the same text as the linked article but it still has cool photos and is an interesting read: Post-Accident Report [net.kiae.su]
Oh, btw, the russian stuff seems to be in KOI-8 if you want to look at that.
--
Re:A Correction and a Rebuttal (Score:2)
Oh god, the thought of a panicky Alvin the Helium-Induced Chipmunk just slays me...
--
Re:I don't read Russian... (Score:2)
It's just that Chernobyl didn't get stopped early enough. No doubt this thread will be filled with Xenophobic "Hahaha, the Russians are crap and have no money, and the US is better, hahaha" comments when in actual fact, since Chernobyl, the US has easily been able to compete on the "incidents" front with any other country..
It is more than this, though. They do deserve some of that sort of talk in this case. The design for Chernobyl (and others in the former USSR) is such that when problems happen there is positive feedback. Makes it easy for problems to escalate. All nuclear reactors in the US are designed for negative feedback. When things start to get out of hand, that very fact slows down the reaction. This obviously doesn't make the reactor entirely safe, but it does greatly reduce the chance of catastrophic disaster.
some truth, but... (Score:2)
If something happens to the containment vessel, the pellets can no longer fire...there is no way the lasers can ignite them after a gross malfunction.
Even then, just hit the "off" button on the conveyor belt...no more pellets, nothing to track, the lasers can ignite anything.
Hydroelectric? Silting eventually makes all dams relics. The amount of energy required to desilt a dam exceeds all energy ever provided by the dam.
Solar? Well, the efficiencies are too low to really make it feasible.
If I had to dream about it, I remember reading an article by two scientists (circa 1997?) wherein, after the consumption of imported beer, they outlined a plan for a "big science" project.
In esscence:
1) "Manhattan" style project. Basically, unlimited funding to solve the task.
2) Massive increase in solar efficiency was paramount.
3) Construction of massive "solar farms" in the sunniest areas of the US (this was a US scheme).
4) The solar farms would be completely automated from end-to-end...robots repair all the panels.
But I have to say, I'm more excited by the NIF at this point. Regardless of the naysayers who yap about it just being a front for DOE atomic research (to get past the test bans -- which I don't believe, by the way) the process of pellet combustion appears to be absolutely safe and entirely controlled...there is simply no possible way to have a major accident with an NIF style fusion reactor.
while(1)
{
drop_pellet();
track_and_ignite_with_laser();
}
recommeded books? (Score:2)
Ernst Rudel ("Stuka Pilot"), the battle of Kursk (which was the turning point for WWII) are both excellent reads.
Surely there are books about Chernobyl that are a quality read...I'm not talking about just an internet search, but maybe someone in the industry can post what they think about the various books?
As I recall, the acts of heroism displayed by the workers and military personnel in the aftermath of Chernobyl are chilling...literally, many volunteering to the task even though they knew the result was certain death.
"Mother Russia" : from monarchy to communism to tragedies like Chernobyl and the rampant organized crime and the current thrashed economy...but undeniably a wonderful contributor to the arts and sciences.
Re:Mother Russia...Kiev, the capital of Russia? (Score:2)
The USSR was the primary lead for the cleanup operation, and took nearly all international commentary/focus.
When people discuss TMI, do they mention Pennsylvania or the USA? The DOE? Please.
so, any good books to recommend?
Re:The scary thing is... (Score:3)
Go to the "Power" button, drop menu down to "Power Plants", and plop down a coal plant for $6,000 in some cleared space.
Or better yet, raise some terrain, and add a water space for $40, and then a hydrodam for $400, and viola, more power!.
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:3)
Many university research reactors used highly enriched fuel because they were significantly smaller and would not be going through repeated fuel cycles. The perceived terrorist threat has since caused many to change their configurations in such a way as to use lower-enrichment fuels. As an example, at the time I attended my alma mater the reactor was fueled with 90% U-235 and shortly after my graduation they moved to a 20% enrichment design. The 90% fuel elements are still in the pool, however, so I'm not entirely sure how the "terrorist threat" has been reduced...but I digress.
The advantage of the CANDU is that by using a heavy water moderator instead of light water, they can use natural uranium and not enrich at all. Of course, you can also refule on the fly, which makes the CANDU a risk for proliferants -- and when you have to shut down your LWR every 18 months for refueling it gives you a built-in opportunity to perform inspection and maintenance of the entire facility. Don't knock the value of that.
Lest this degenerate into a cross-border "Our reactors are better than yours", let me hasten to state the obvious, that each design has features which can be considered good or bad depending on your priorities.
BS - Keep your goo stories for the jerks (Score:3)
I met a few "Chernobyl liquidators", yes they have a lot of damn stories about the accident and what happened later. But no one has ever told such BS that KGB forced them down. What they told was that the government jerks didn't told all about at the beginning, but that anyway many realized that things were deadly and there is a job to be done no matter the risks.
Not all plants are breeder plants. Go to FAS (www.fas.org) if you trust only american sources.
Chelyabinsk? Aren't your doctor messing something. Yes there is a "living graveyard" and guarded by military. But not to hold people but to hold a deadly nature. There is a dump that broke and radiation entered sorrounding waters and a lake. Everyone knows about that place, TV, newspapers talk about it, and it is known as the "living graveyard".
Your damn doctor should be more careful getting sources. He talks a whole BS about things we know. Chernobyl liquidators live in towns and die in them. Yes the were underpaid and the government is a bastard. The same way US gorvernment is a bastard for shutting down stories about soldiers getting high doses in Nevada, during the 50's, or hidding the whole picture of Agent Orange, or the consequences of Desert Storm. Here both governments don't make a great difference.
And today the Russian government is not KGB in suits. That ended. We are living in a bad but real democracy. Even the ultra-secret Novaya Zemlya and Semipalatinsk are relatively known. There are even photos in journals and newspapers of the greatest "OOOPS" of all History of Mankind. Lake Death - something several orders bigger than Chernobyl, Bikini or TMI.
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:3)
However the government decided to not create panic over Kiev, a city nearby Chernobyl. And Hell there are a lot of places in Kiev that caught radioactivity. Once I got caught in one near Kiev. For nearly 6 months I had a good time, together with a few colleagues.
That's what I saw. HUGE irresponsability. Hiding of facts. A damn confusion. People suffering and not being cared at propper level. Suspected KGB officers saying the HELL of their bosses and burrocritters for being cowards and lazy on dealing with this critical stuff. And I saw Russians and Ukranians saying "we passed October, we passed civil war and we passed the World Wars. We pass this one".
If you don't get the point let me tell you one thing. There is nothing tougher than Russians. Their society is based in a sometimes ingenuous but strong collectivism and voluntarism. And they are a Hell when things get hot. I saw people running 100km/h on trucks under blizzard conditions at -45 to hope to get a near airfield. I saw people carrying by hand 18 tons of products through an airfield at running speed. Hands freezing like hell, wind blowing through your face, the airplane cargo door completely stuck and 10 guys carrying the whole damn shit through the small side door. And why this? Because the jerks in Moscow didn't do their FUCKING job and did everything up-side-down. Now no one gets sit and waits that the Sun comes shiny in Moscow and the boss gets a fresh morning. there is a job to do, and damn we do it! And besides, the supplies were not for us but for another site. We had enough food to hold a month more...
Btw -I got several burns and knocked my spine in this stuff. However I did what I should do.
Yeh, but there are 14 more (Score:3)
^.
( @ )
Soylent Foods, Inc.
Pictures from the inside (Score:3)
Re:Except it's not graphite's fault. (Score:3)
- Among the longest-lived of the strong fission products is strontium-90. Its half-life is 28 years. If you stored it for 30 half-lives (840 years), there would be about one-billionth of the original amount left. We can consider that "gone". 840 years is about 1/6 the age of the oldest pyramid in Egypt.
- The long-lived products are mostly transuranics, which are valuable as nuclear fuel. Throwing them away as waste is technically stupid, but the Greenies who demand an end to nuclear power favor it because they don't want to see the neptunium, plutonium etc. go away both physically and as a political issue.
- The earth is full of toxic materials which will never disappear, like lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic. Coal plants may emit more toxins as mercury than are produced by a nuclear plant, and the nuclear plant's stuff will eventually disappear even if you do nothing.
- The toxicity of most trans-uranics is over-rated. A number of people contaminated with plutonium have lived long, healthy lives.
(What's this obsession people have with shooting things into the sun? Don't they know any orbital mechanics? This is many times as difficult as shooting it off to infinity, and we won't even get into the hazards of launch-vehicle failures. But I digress.) Given that the stuff can be reprocessed into something that becomes nearly harmless within a millenium, and that we can feed the rest back into the cycle and get rid of it, does that change your evaluation? Personally I would not want a sodium-moderated plant near me for two reasons:- Hot alkali metals are corrosive, not to mention explosion hazards if water is involved.
- You could use lead or a lead-bismuth alloy as a coolant instead, and get a nice inert liquid which gives you a gamma-ray shield in the bargain.
If the roads won't work, there are always helicopters. Three days is enough to get a cargo-lifter to California from anywhere in the USA. This is far less of a problem, even in the worst of circumstances, than you seem to think. The reactor containment buildings can survive a direct hit by an airliner, and inland US areas haven't been hit by enemy action during a war in the last century. I can't imagine the kind of disaster which would produce the kind of problem you're postulating, buta.) Most of us would have much bigger problems than the core cooling systems, and
b.) a nuclear plant's toughness might make it one of the safest places to be!
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
In related news... (Score:3)
Tylenol is sealing their pill bottles to prevent tampering...
People are encrypting their messages using public-key systems and not simple substitution ciphers...
There's been a knife in my eye for ten days and I just pulled it out...
Oh, wait, these things were done years ago or would be done immediately. Why wasn't Chernobyl shut down after it turned parts of Russia into a comic book fantasy?
Solutions (Score:3)
So when do the big trucks move in and start covering this mess up so that the land can eventually be used again? Until the entire site is under a large amount of SOMETHING (sand, concrete or marshmellow puff) the site will continue to be a hazzard even if it isn't producing power.
Re:In defense of nuclear power (Score:3)
Not that they've had any choice. As one author wrote, all utilities with nuclear plants are 'hostages of each other'. Everyone knows that one more heavily-publicized Major Disaster will spell the end of an otherwise worthy industry, no matter how unsafe and environmentally unsound the alternatives may be. If one company messes up, everyone suffers. Therefore, for most utilities, constant vigilance and high standards of safety are the rule.
I wouldn't say it's absolutely pointless to argue the merits. There are good companies out there that haven't given up on nuclear. As energy in the US is deregulated, the more efficient energies will have a significant competitive advantage. The future is as yet to be written. But of course, there always have been and always will always be the less-than-perfectly-informed masses. Ever wonder if there was a Prehistoric Greenpeace dedicated to ending the use of fire or the wheel?
And who knows? Maybe after global society collapses and we've been through another Dark Ages lasting a couple hundred years, someone in the Second Renaissance find some plans left behind by the Ancients of Candu... (kidding, of course.
---
Re:Suicidal to live near an RBMK. (Score:3)
Yes nuclear does produce waste, but it can be contained with less environ impact than that of coal. What represents a pinprick on the map of the US can store a lot of nuclear waste. Coal devastates far more space (eg. a lot of the state of WV).
Yup. Now, not that nuclear waste isn't without its risks. Certainly, it is. But it's small and containable, though highly dangerous stuff.
This being said, if there were a nuclear waste handling facility near my home, it wouldn't bother me. The real estate would be cheap, and it would be a lot safer (and quieter!) than living under a big airport's flight path. It's just a question of risk assessment.
Yeah, I'd have to put a new tube into my geiger counter and keep it on, but that's just part of my way of dealing with the risk of being in that location. Same thing if I were living on the Pacific rim: there'd be a seismograph bolted to my basement floor. It's a risk. Still less than driving my truck on the freeway to work every day.
Lastly, nuclear waste does not spontaneously explode like a nuclear bomb unlike a depiction in a crummy made for tv movie that people probably take for fact. Nor do plants themselves.No. Nuclear waste gets hot and changes chemically as elements are transmuted from one to another. But this process is well understood and managed.
As for the exploding plants, Chernobyl, being graphite-moderated enriched uranium, is an extremely dangerous design. (Can we think all the stereotypes of the Ford Pinto and the Chevrolet Corvair built into one car, only a thousand times worse? That's how dangerous an RBMK is.) And, even so, it took a *lot* of safety violations and operator stupidity to cause that thing to run away. A staggering number of things that you just don't do, were done there.
You know, things that you just don't do. Like in a car, doing 100 miles an hour, you just don't turn the wheel as hard in either direction as you can. Basic sense of having been around a car and knowing how hard to turn the wheel around a corner at 10 miles an hour give you some measure of understanding of what would happen at 100 miles an hour.
And yet at Chernobyl, they kept trying and trying and trying, doing one stupid ill-advised thing after another, in flagrant violation of all common sense when running a nuclear reactor, until it finally blew up.
This is like driving a 1971 Pinto with a full tank of premium gas down the Santa Monica freeway, and slamming on the brakes as hard as you can when you see an 18-wheeler behind you.
You just don't.
Mirror of images all on one page... (Score:3)
I've created a mirror Here [2y.net]
-Ando[EViLMEDiC]
- Ando
Re:Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:3)
Let me address these one at a time.
Yes, Zoller said that they were working on Nuclear Hand grenades.
As for the special security clearance: No. His security clearance was due to the fact that he worked with nuclear weapons for the military. As for the permission to talk to his class and individuals, but not the press- this has something to do with what he saw through the military, vs. what he saw through the UN. I really don't know much about the protocol; Apparently he saw things working as a UN inspector that doubled what he saw through his military service. When he wrote to DC, they told him he couldn't make statements in front of press, and had to ask press members to leave. Look, I really don't know much about press and the military and what not.
Next: The MP's. He told something in a [previous] class that one of his students later told his father, who was in the military. The students father happened to know something about the matter, and reported it. Days later, MP's showed up in Zoller's office and required him to show his papers granting permission. I don't know what the subject matter was; it had something to do with a river. I really don't know.
His work in discovering the source of the fallout: The 1st people to tell that something was wrong were some people who were working in a nuclear lab somewhere NW of Cherynooble; I forget what the country was. (It wasn't Russia). Nuclear plant workers test themselves for radioactivity after they enter some sort of dangerous area, but just by chance, a worker decided to investigate himself before entering. He had been in the rain before coming to work. When he tested himself, he found that he was radioactive. The people in the plant worked to figure out what was wrong, and they figured out that the rain outside was radioactive. They reported it.
A short while after, Professor Zoller got a phone call from the military. He wasn't an active serviceman then, I think. I think he'd already left the military at this time, and was at the University of Washington (I forget.) They had arranged for airplane tickets for him to fly down to the bay area (I think). He took the flight (on a commercial airplane), and when it landed, before they unboarded everyone, he was specifically unboarded by the military. They took him to a lab where they had some substance. They told him (and other nuclear chemists with him) to analyze it and tell them what it was. They analyzed it for many days, and reported, "This is rainwater that has been contaminated; a nuclear reactor has exploded somewhere." They said, "That's right." (They wanted to verify that it was true- this is before we all knew about it.) He then helped with the determination of which plant blew up. The Russians were denying that anything had happened at all! Zoller has worked in environmental scientists and was a part of figuring out where the accident happened. He showed us maps that they had, of where the various reactors were, and showed us how the figured that it must have been the Chrenobyl plant. That was his role in determining that it had happened. The world didn't know about it till afterwards..!
As for the "Radioactive Seattle Fish": I can assure you, the fish in Seattle are quite tasty, and I imagine uncontaminated as well. Professor Zoller's predictions were that in 10 years, however, the situation will be different. As for this stuff, I refer you to the arctic environmental reports that I linked to above. Zoller claims that the EPA knows about the dangers in our Arctic sea. Right now, he says though, it's not their problem. I don't know what their permissions are like; Zoller seemed to imply that they were not supposed to talk about it.
My personal view of Russians is not xenophobic; I personally tutor a 16 year old Russian in computer science. He doesn't pay me anything; I just noticed talent in him, and decided to help him learn Computer Science. (It was painful just watching him play a MUD when he could be developing his skills and having more fun then typing the "n" "s" "e" and "w" keys.) He's very nice. I'm kinda trying to convince him that communism isn't the way to go, but he's really adament about it. I think he's just a little young and naive. He's leaning more towards socialism now, which I guess is better.
I suspect as long as there is Love in everyone's hearts, it doesn't matter WHAT type of government you have. Hell, you could probably have a fascist state if everyone was warm and caring.
Zoller's another story. He doesn't have the greatest things to say about the Russian culture. <shrug> I don't think that makes him a liar or an exaggerator though. He believes that the Russians have had troubles with corruption before Stalin even. He said that their history has been really bad, and that they've been suffering a lot, throughout history.
I'm really not a Russian historian. I don't know a thing about Russia.
There's a guy posting here (ekeen, or something like that). He might be a better person to ask about the Russian spirit.
At no point have I said that Russians have no respect for human life.
As for Remembering that my prof is a human: Yes, that's true. I can't really tell what parts of what Zoller has said are precise and which are not. Hell, I'm operating off of memory, and that's even worse..! But the essence of what Zoller has said is very clear in my mind. Anyways, I can't discriminate on something in Zoller's mind, so tell you what: I'll just recount as much I can.
It was quite a different story than I had ever heard before...
Well, it's too bad... (Score:3)
Hopefully this doesn't dissuade the people from adopting future nuclear ventures as I still think this is a viable energy source.
As for the final resolution of Chernobyl: remove as much of the fuel as possible, and begin to bury it as a permament reminder of the risks of experimenting outside of laboratory/controlled conditions.
And as for the people, they worked hard and bravely, and managed to turn a Significant Disaster(tm) to a major disaster. They should be proud of the work required to even recover from it.
A Correction and a Rebuttal (Score:3)
Rebuttal time: There is no perfectly clean power source. You may claim that fossil fuels are safer than nuclear fuels, but have you ever seen smog in a city, or listened to the chronic coughs of someone who lives in that every day? And that's just from cars. The coal generating stations of the USian middle-north (whatever you call that area) alone dump thousands of tons of pollutants into the sky, most of which drift over into Canada. This isn't an anti-american post, but I'm just pointing out that the effects of these plants are far-reaching indeed. In fact, it has been determined that it is acid rain from these coal power plants that are destroying the maple tree forests in Quebec, and putting many of their owners out of (syrup making) business.
This is one easily recognizable area where nuclear fission has a distinct advantage. The byproducts of the reactions are relatively small, and completely contained. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't a bunch of them sitting in a (modified) swimming pool somewhere? Fossil fuel plants dump thousands of tons (or maybe millions) into the ecosystems, and there is no way to contain them. I'd personally rather have one pound of solid waste that I knew was hazardous than breathe contaminated air and be slowly poisoned over my entire lifetime.
I feel it is my open mind which has allowed me to avoid the fear-mongering surrounding nuclear power. As such, I will read all replies with the same open mind. If there is anyone who wants to debate the safety of a properly designed and properly run nuclear power plant, state your arguments.
Atomic bomb testing in NTS (Score:4)
Here is a nice map: http://www.angelfire.com/tx/atomicveteran/
In defense of nuclear power (Score:4)
Nuclear power should have (and in almost all cases has) lived up to much of it's "great promise." Properly done, it is cheap, efficient, and safe.
Safe? That's right--it's hard to come up with a safer form of electricity than a good reactor. Coal? Not a chance! Hydropower? Maybe, but it's not very 'environmentally clean.'
But popular opinion matters more than facts, and one disaster like Chernobyl (which still hasn't killed a fraction as many people as coal) will push popular opinion over the edge.
Here's the problem: Chernobyl-class reactors are badly designed, lacking in a lot of safety features, and fairly scary. It STILL took years of substandard maintenance, lack of care, bad luck, and gross negligence on the part of several operators to kick off the meltdown. In a well maintained and properly designed reactor (CANDU!!!), an operator _couldn't_ cause that kind of disaster, no matter how they tried.
But it's pointless to argue the merits. Nuclear power is on its way out. Ah well. Hopefully we'll get serious about wind before long.
The scary thing is... (Score:4)
In Lithuania, for example, the Ignalina plant provides something like 80% of the countries electricity, and is rapidly approaching the end of it's life. The problem is that they can't afford to shut it down, and they can barely afford to keep it running.
We're not out of the woods yet; the Chernobyl legacy will play out for many years to come.
For sale cheap... (Score:4)
One (slightly used) glow-in-the-dark water heater, near-mint condition. Still operates with the efficiency and safety it did when it was new.
Currently listed as item number #102934613 on ebay.
Buyer assumes all liability for maintenence, disposal and heating costs. Buy now and I'll throw in free shipping!
What actually caused the accident at chernobyl? (Score:4)
reactors operating in the U.S. and other nations, the Chernobyl RBMK reactor (which is a graphite rather than a
light water system) has a built-in instability that occurs at low power, which is how the reactor was operating at
the time of the accident. If some of the cooling water in this reactor converts to steam, the RBMK increases in
power. This in turn causes more steam to form, which causes _another_ increase in power. (In Western light
water reactors, the power decreases.)
The power increase feature of the RBMK caused a rupture in the cooling system and a large steam explosion
occurred. This caused the cooling system to fail and the outer covering (or cladding) of the fuel elements to
increase in temperature. The cladding was hot enough to react with the steam, causing hydrogen to form. The
hydrogen then caused a second explosion. The release of this energy set the graphite core on fire.
In spite of its dangerous features, the RBMK -- unlike other reactors -- had no actual containment structure to
prevent release of contamination. Such a design could not be licensed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in
this country, nor in most countries of the world. Studies done since the Chernobyl accident have shown that its
releases would have been successfully contained by a U.S. type reactor. As a matter of fact, a test of a 37-foot
tall scale model of a nuclear plant containment building was made at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico
in 1987. The test showed that the type of light water containment used at U.S. nuclear plants could withstand
more than three times the pressure it was designed for without rupturing or fragmenting.
A second factor in the Chernobyl accident involved a safety experiment being conducted. It required that the
reactor be run in a very unusual manner. Because of a series of operational problems, the operators found
themselves running the reactor far outside its safety limits. In their efforts to finish the experiment anyway, the
operators --in spite of running the reactor under unfamiliar conditions-- turned off seven of the safety systems in
the reactor and its control systems. Any one of these seven automatic controls could have prevented the accident
had it been on.
All this reflects important differences between Western and Soviet operators and their training. Unlike the Soviets,
U.S. reactor operators take continued training in classroom situations and on reactor simulators. Further, operators
in Western countries are strictly bound by what are called "technical specifications" which forbid operation of the
reactor outside of preset safety limits. All of which could be debaitable anyway.
Re:Except it's not graphite's fault. (Score:5)
To drop the plant to a power level that would simulate that scenario, they had to move through several instability regions where the nuclear properties of the moderator and coolant caused positive feedback loops and the reactor's safety mechanisms kept "getting in the way". Xenon buildup made it difficult to work around these problems, and since the test was being conducted in the middle of the night and the reactor physicists were all snug in their beds, on-site personnel decided to disable the safety control mechanisms. They had the reactor down at (if memory serves) 30 kW or some trivial number when they hit another feedback loop. In the course of the next few seconds, the temperature of the coolant rose with the power level (power spiked to something like 30,000MW in a tenth of a second), the coolant then flashed into steam, the steam pressure blew the roof off the building, and the 3,000 degree graphite moderator was exposed to the air, at which time it burst into flame, cracked, and generaly became a Problem.
The RMBK design of reactor has positive reactivity coefficients. It's a "bad" design in that it requires intervention when the laws of physics want to put it on a runaway. However, unless things go horribly awry, human operators are more than capable of operating such a reactor safely.
The problem at Chernobyl was not the reactor, but the people operating it. Many people around the world want to see nuclear power eliminated because even with the safer designs of the Western world, a ragingly inept (or malicious) employee with access to the wrong places can make Bad Things happen. To me, that's the wrong reaction; a spiteful mechanic at United Airlines could cause the deaths of hundreds of people but we don't see a call for the elimination of air travel.
I don't read Russian either, but... (Score:5)
One of the interesting things about Chernobylite is that it appears to be made from fuel melting into the sand which surrounded the reactor itself. We are working on converting radwaste into a glass form for final disposal, and this got there quite by accident. It also did a remarkable job of flowing without melting through things; it's all over the floors, but doesn't appear to have gone any significant distance though them. If someone wanted to budget the money for the robots and such, it shouldn't be terribly hard to break the stuff into chunks using hammers and shovel it up into canisters to cart away. In any event, it's not an immediate problem because it's quite well immobilized as-is. The bigger problem is the stuff on the ground floor of the building that's in small particles or dust form, because it can be leached or blown into the air by a building collapse or just the wind.
"
/ \ ASCII ribbon against e-mail
\ / in HTML and M$ proprietary formats.
X
/ \
Re:Any color photographs? (Score:5)
From the page: (credit, copyrights go to Chernobyl Charity Online [chernobyl.com.ua], please visit their site)
-Erik
Picture links (Score:5)
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f421.gif [net.kiae.su]
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f431.gif [net.kiae.su]
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f441.gif [net.kiae.su]
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f451.gif [net.kiae.su]
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f461.gif [net.kiae.su]
http://polyn.net.kiae.su/ins/ltsm/f/f471.gif [net.kiae.su]
-Erik
Suicidal to live near an RBMK. (Score:5)
Good, it was an unsafe design anyhow
Heheh... Positive control coefficient, and a moderator that doesn't boil away.
It was an *insane* design, bordering almost on the criminal.
And yeah, there are still more than a dozen of the damned things running.
<sigh> I know that the RBMK reactor was designed for three goals: price, efficiency, and plutonium production (for weapons). And since that didn't include safety, I guess the engineers got what they wanted.
I'm all for nuclear power. You can't burn fossil fuels because of price per MWh and emissions. You can't build damns everywhere, because there are great environmental consequences to those - and they're only practical where there's a large river. (ie. Hoover Damn powers a lot of L.A., but how far from L.A. is it, with resulting efficiency losses in the lines?) You can't build tidal, wind or solar plants yet, because the technology still isn't practical even in the parts of the world that energy is abundant enough to effectively harness.
Western Europe has been shutting down its nuclear plants and increasing its reliance on natural gas. Fine, gas is easy to manage and it's clean as far as fossil fuels go. It's also abundant in neighboring Russia.
Ironically, as Western Europe shuts down its reactors, Russia keeps on commissioning and retrofitting their pressurized water and dangerous RBMK reactors so that they don't have to divert any natural gas that would otherwise be sold to Europe.
As is usual with the policies enforced by environmental lobby groups, it backfired. Fine, the reactors in Western Europe are being shut down. And replaced with far more dangerous Russian reactors. Good work, you stupid long-haired hippie tree-huggers. (Ooops. I have long hair and I like Five Man Electrical Band, I guess I can't insult hippies.)
Before you moderate me down for saying that environmentalists are idiots, check out this link [time.com], which has to do very specifically with the Russian reactors vs. Western Europe natural gas fiasco. While environmentalists are full of great intentions, they're generally ignorant of science or the basic fundamentals of how a marketplace economy works.
Like it or not, nuclear power is going to be here for a while.
Let's encourage safe and responsible use of nuclear power, at least until something more practical comes along. Let's try to not ban nuclear power, but to ban RBMK reactors.
Let's see a day when all the running nuclear reactors in the world have *negative* control coefficients (ie. won't run without a moderator) and use a moderator that will boil off and shut down the reactor in the case of an overheat.
Back when I was in high school, I got a summer internship down the road from Ottawa at a place called Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories. This was the home of Canada's nuclear program, and is one of those rare things that makes me proud to be a Canadian. Canada still leads the world in civilian nuclear technology.
At the time, they had three big research reactors there - the decommissionned "ZEEP" (Zero Energy Experimental Pile, put out *one watt* of heat, built in 1944 for the war effort and has a colorful history), the vertical-loading National Research eXperimental "NRX" (since decommissionned) and the horizontal-loading NRU. All three were of the CANDU design, though the ZEEP and NRX were very primitive.
I was assigned to the NRX. Every day, I'd travel from Deep River to Chalf River, don my dosimeter, walk through the checkpoints and head to the reactor. It was great fun, helping out with experiments. And irradiating golf balls for increased driving distance.
There was a Commodore PET on top of the reactor, and it used to record and monitor the temperature throughout different parts of the reactor vessel. Then, there were the tube computers (no kidding!) with ferrite core memories which were used to provide more critical functions. (Semiconductors don't like ionizing radiation if the reactor leaked, tubes are a lot more forgiving.)
And, let me tell you, there's no feeling in the world quite like standing there, on top of the reactor, looking down 30 feet or so to the people below you, feeling the slight vibration of the pumps running all around, and the sheer sense of power in the room as the reactor below you runs.
Food was forbidden in the reactor buildings, because ingestion of bits of radioactive dust was an (unlikely) possibility. Even so, people did eat there occasionally, and I was no exception, though you become very careful with the geiger counters before you put it in your mouth. Because there was (officially) no food allowed in the building, there was no kitchen, so hot snacks were a rarity. Canned stew was a special favorite: the cans fit right into the (sealed) sample tubes. Drop them in at the top, lower them slowly through the reactor, and then retrieve them at the bottom. If you timed it just right, the can was nice and warm. If you got distracted, the can burst and you'd have to clean out the sample tube. (And no, this was not a good idea, but it didn't put anyone at risk besides those of us who ate the food, and we all knew perfectly well how the food had been cooked.)
I'd have gone into nuclear physics as a career if I could have handled the math. <grin>
My favorite reactor design is the CANDU [www.ieee.ca] (CANadian Deuterium-Uranium). It's an elegant design. Uranium 238 ("natural uranium") is used instead of the U-235 used in most other reactors. U-235 requires the added steps of processing and is also vulnerable for use in weapons.
The moderator in a CANDU reactor is heavy water; deuterium instead of ordinary hydrogen. Deuterium is a rare but naturally-occurring isotope of hydrogen. It's ordinary hydrogen in every respect, except for the fact that there's a neutron in the nucleus. It's not radiactive (unlike hydrogen with two neutrons, called "tritium", which *is* radioactive). Deuterium water is heavier than regular water, simply because of that neutron in the hydrogen.
The heavy water serves as the moderator. It slows down the fast-moving neutrons coming off the U-238 so that they can sustain the fission chain reaction. Light (ordinary) water will not sustain this reaction - nor will no water.
Let's say everything fails. The computers go down, the control rods are all jammed out of the core, and the operators are idiots. A Chernobyl accident still cannot occur. It's physically impossible.
If a CANDU reactor gets out of control and overheats, the moderator (heavy water) can be drained away, shutting down the reactor. You can't do that with blocks of graphite like an RBMK reactor. With a CANDU, if there's a problem and the operator doesn't drain the moderator away, eventually a pressurized pipe will burst and the moderator will boil away. With no moderator, the reactor will cease to work. Since the fuel is uranium in non-water-soluble ceramic pellets, there will be minimal decay daughters in the resulting steam cloud. Which will be contained anyway in the concrete reactor house, which is held under a vacuum to prevent release.
Unlike Chernobyl, which drastically overheated. The solid graphite moderator began to burn. And still the chain reaction continued to produce heat, because the graphite moderator was still there... it burned for 9 days.
Let's take all those unemployed Chernobyl workers to see a CANDU [www.ieee.ca] or similar reactor in operation, train them extensively on it, and then help them build them to replace their aging and rickety designs.
Chernobyl Was, and Still is, Worse than we Know (Score:5)
The Chernobyl accident is far from over. I attended a special lecture by Professor William Zoller [washington.edu] at the University of Washington, in which he described what happened, and is continuing to happen, at Chernobyl. It is not an entertaining lecture to attend. He told us a lot of things.
Professor Zoller showed us images of the radioactive goo at the bottom of the reacter. He told us that 3 people died to get the picture. The government just kept sending people down with cameras until someone went down, took a picture, and survived the trip back up, and then died. (Prof. Zoller was functioning as a UN inspector, or something. I have forgotten just what he was doing over there.)
If there are pictures of the interior of the building where the accident occured, you can pretty much assume people died to take them.
No, they didn't send robots to take those pictures.
All Russian nuclear plants were breeder plants. Apparently, they wanted plutonium for their weapons. Nuclear submarines, and, yes, NUCLEAR HANDGRENADES are the stupidest ideas in history, but, hey... There wasn't/isn't exactly a concern for human life over there.
Arctic dumping was the primary means of evacuating radioactive waste. Rivers were also a way of getting the waste out of there. As far as I can tell, people panicked, and thought, "Well, if we just dump this in the sea, it'll all just go away." In 10 years time, here in Seattle, we'll be told not to eat our fish. (This is according to Professor Zoller.) He also claims that the EPA knows about this, but is required to keep quiet. But, they continue to monitor the radioactivity of boats coming in on the ports here in Seattle.
The so-called "Brave Firefighters" who put out the fire were not brave. They were forced to put it out by the KGB.
There is a place called Chelyabink-Tomask (unfortunately, I don't have my notes with me and cannot spell the name correctly.) that is a living graveyard, guarded by the military; They are essentially, waiting to die. Nobody goes out, nobody goes in.
You can verify this yourself by contacting him. He will ask you if you are a member of the press. If you are, he is not allowed to talk about it with you. So ask him personally.
I wonder if posting an email to Slashdot is equivelent to being a member of the press.?
These notes are from my memory, not my written notes; I'm afraid there will probably be imprecise. But they are accurate. That is, what is described is true, though I may have numbers and names wrong. His lecture scared me immensly. The room had only about 10% of the people in it by the time he finished...
Related links: