Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Touring Chernobyl In 2010

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by DuSTman View Post
    Yeah. Sometimes people weigh the evidence and then come to an opinion, but usually it happens the other way around - just human nature. I'd be lying if I claimed I wasn't defaultly pro-nuclear as a child of people who work in the nuclear industry and a (partial) physics graduate.

    It's often difficult to tell who is doing which but some behaviours give the game away:
    To draw an analogy, if I were worried about the amount of rubbish going to the landfill I might campaign against the packaging used by soft drink manufacturers, but the absolute last thing I would ever do is try to get the recycling centres shut down - I'd see can recycling centres as a win and a sign my concerns were being taken seriously. The only reason I'd want to shut down the can recycling plant is if I just wanted to hurt the industry.
    Similar with nuclear waste - If greenpeace and the like were really concerned about nuclear waste, the absolute last thing they'd be doing is trying to get the waste reprocessing plants shutdown (even illegalised as in the US). That would not be congruous with the stated goal, and the only reason for it would be to hurt the industry by making its waste and economic profiles worse so that they could complain about them some more. And yet who is the number one campaigner for the closure of our fuel reprocessing facilities? Greenpeace. Hmm.
    I guess the problem here is more to make people aware of the problem. Of course closing would be wrong right now but in the long run it's not a solution so making people aware of that is a good thing. Since lobbyists are governing it is necessary to have "extreme" counter-forces in the other direction. The truth is in the middle but without extreme counter-force this middle can not be achieved in the long run.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by SkyHiRider View Post
      Wish they would find a less dangerous power source - too many lives lost. Thou with the current power hungriness of people that ain't gonna happen.
      There is its called A Thorium Reactor.
      http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2005/07/68045

      But since you can't have enriched uranium from it no one wants it.

      Comment


      • #33
        Re nuclear waste: A lot of it can be reprocessed into usable fuel. France does it.
        Or, just use a breeder reactor. They produce more fissile material than they consume. (No, I don't know how it works either.)

        But what I'd REALLY like to see is fusion. Much better than fusion, in my opinion.

        Also, Michael, is it possible to download all the images in an archive? I'd like to flip through them all, but the back/next links sometimes break (i.e. don't appear at all).

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by SheeEttin View Post
          Also, Michael, is it possible to download all the images in an archive? I'd like to flip through them all, but the back/next links sometimes break (i.e. don't appear at all).
          When do the links break for you? Any example. I am not aware of any issues unless its due to the server load with the page just quitting. But no it's not possible to download them at this time for advertisement reasons.
          Michael Larabel
          http://www.michaellarabel.com/

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by SheeEttin View Post
            Much better than fusion, in my opinion.
            You meant fission, right?

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Michael View Post
              There's Yucca Mountain and other facilities for storing waste for many, many years.
              While true that Yucca Mountain is "there," the inconvenient truth is that Dear Leader (0bama) has killed the federal Yucca Mountain Project. Here is a video news report on the details.

              NVUH

              Comment


              • #37
                But Wait, There's More...

                Thanks Michael for that great post. The pictures and text are stunning.

                Many who have replied to this forum eagerly defend nuclear energy as safe, clean, economical, etc, etc, and etc.

                The indisputable fact is that Chernobyl is just as "alive" - as fatally radioactive - today as it was 24 years ago only an hour after the tragic failure.

                For those interested, I have posted this shameless link to ongoing news of a nuclear nature.

                I suggest that everyone bookmark and read the NRC postings of Nuclear Event Reports for all reactors in the USA. Most are minor, but there are dozens every week. Here they are for
                2009 and 2010.

                NVUH

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by NextVoiceUHear View Post
                  The indisputable fact is that Chernobyl is just as "alive" - as fatally radioactive - today as it was 24 years ago only an hour after the tragic failure.
                  Indisputable? That's extremely disputable. The estimates I've seen suggest that the majority of released matter was of an isotope with a 10-day half life, which would have mostly decayed to nothing within a single year of the accident.

                  It's certainly true that you wouldn't want to rub your scrotum on any foliage near the reactor building, but it's a *long* way from the 10-minutes-and-you're-dead levels immediately following the accident.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by cliff View Post
                    There is its called A Thorium Reactor.
                    http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../2005/07/68045

                    But since you can't have enriched uranium from it no one wants it.
                    just start using it already !

                    the other advantage afaik is that there can be no core meltdown

                    (and dump all of that "unclean" atomic waste and uranium into space )

                    *runs and hides*

                    of course that wouldn't be the "right thing" (with responsibility in mind) to do ...

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      First off, nice pictures. Photojournalism is probably the best way to get more attention on Chernobyl, as it should be. There are still plenty of russian design RBMK's around the world, so it's best that everything that still exists is out in the public.

                      Secondly, a young woman did one of the first phototours of this area from her motorcycle about 5 years ago. Her exploits are now hosted on
                      www.kiddofspeed.com. She did two phototours and they are very interesting. She has a couple of others including phototours of areas of Nazi and Mongol invasion, separated by a thousand years but occurring on the same land. Also one of the orange revolution in 2004.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Thanks guys for doing this article. i enjoyed reading it
                        I myself would really love see and visit that place :P

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by kernelOfTruth View Post
                          (and dump all of that "unclean" atomic waste and uranium into space
                          No joke, one could do that AFAIK. It's radioactive out there anyway, just the atmosphere protects us. It's just that it's so damn expensive to fly 1 kg into space that it doesn't make sense. And the other disadvantages of this technology persist and it's still that uranium is like oil, in some time there will be nothing available any more. Also it's still damn dangerous.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by bugmenot View Post
                            It's just that it's so damn expensive to fly 1 kg into space that it doesn't make sense. And the other disadvantages of this technology persist and it's still that uranium is like oil, in some time there will be nothing available any more. Also it's still damn dangerous.
                            Quoted for truth, it's expensive to lift anything with the current state of spaceship drives. If we had impulse drives, then it would be possible, but we don't have them, and the current rocket-based drives make it so the ship is already extremely heavy, and after launch fuel burns down making the ship a lot lighter yet having enough fuel to carry out the mission. If the ship was additionally loaded with waste, it would never lift off since it would need more fuel than it could carry.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Just wanted to point out that here we call the apartment flats "panelki" because they were assembled from prebuilt panels in factories, hehe.

                              An interesting fact is that the largest radioactive values, that were detected here, were during the May 1st manifestation when radioactive rain poured over the celebrating people. Of course the public did not know of any nuclear disasters.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Nice trip. I like how in that one "library" photo the most prominent book has English on the front page...

                                @Dragonlord
                                So when are you moving into your cave? Guess we won't be seeing many more posts from you as I'm sure that you'll set an example for us all shortly.

                                Some of the reactors are also setup to produce certain types of isotopes for other uses.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X