Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Four Years Since The Phoronix Chernobyl Expedition

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

  • Four Years Since The Phoronix Chernobyl Expedition

    Phoronix: Four Years Since The Phoronix Chernobyl Expedition

    Today is the 28th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster within the Ukraine. With this being a light news weekend, if you weren't a Phoronix reader four years ago, we took a trip out to Chernobyl and Pripyat and you can see a horde of our photos...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY3MzE

  • #2
    Thanks Michael, that is one poignantly enduring photo shoot. Those interested in What Went Wrong might wish to browse WNA's article: Chernobyl Accident 1986.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by pipe13 View Post
      Thanks Michael, that is one poignantly enduring photo shoot. Those interested in What Went Wrong might wish to browse WNA's article: Chernobyl Accident 1986.
      Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by storm_st View Post
        Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.
        Bad Russian reactor = Chernobyl
        increase in reactivity when control rods initially inserted (the primary reason for the accident)
        no secondary containment (should they had serious secondary containment, it would have contained the consequences of the first problem)
        crappy medical system fails to distribute iodine tablets to the people exposed

        Good US reactor = Fukushima
        reactor operating for 45 years successfully
        when the earthquake hit it shutdown itself successfully like many times before
        reactor building tsunami defenses calculated 13 meter walls, tsunami waves were 14 meters
        all 3 diesel generators for each reactor in the basement, generators flooded and stopped, should just one generator for each reactor have been placed in the ceiling the problem might have been avoided
        should one of the reactors have been restarted in a low power setting to provide power for safety systems the accident could also have been prevented
        TEPCO had receiver reports warning about both the tsunami wall being potentially to small and the placement of the diesel generators, but did nothing about it (not fault of nuclear reactor supplier but that of TEPCO)

        So please go a head and apologize for talking all of this nonsense. You have no idea what you are talking about on nuclear matters. I have completed an 8 week intro course on nuclear power that allows me to understand all of this stuff you have no idea about.

        Today even in Russia nuclear energy should be safe, after the cold war ended, and the Chernobyl experience, free exchange of ideas brought Russia to adopt most international nuclear safety rules.

        This anti USA view of the world is so stupid. I'm from Brazil and lived in the USA, so I know the difference. You are so wrong, it's not even funny to show how wrong you are.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by storm_st View Post
          Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.
          So which points in this article are incorrect? Please enlighten us.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by storm_st View Post
            Typical BS from rival reactor manufactures (spoiler: Russian reactors bad, American are good). "Good" american reactor: Fukushima Daiichi, hi-end industry dancing robots, boston dynamics amasing mule, toilets with chips since ~1980, blabla.
            Japanese-American ESBWR and AP-1000 designs are admittedly the worlds best bar none. But I wouldn't write Rosatom off just yet: their WER PWR series is no slouch, as witnessed by an impressive slew of design wins: see Nuclear Power in Russia -- particularly the table of Export sales and prospects for Russian nuclear power plants near the bottom.

            Comment


            • #7
              What appears to be a decent documentary on youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18o_X696dYw

              Pretty scary stuff. Lots of sacrifice.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by log0 View Post
                So which points in this article are incorrect? Please enlighten us.
                The part where it pretends that our species is intelligent, mature, and responsible enough to develop technology that safely harnesses the energy released by nuclear fission.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by russofris View Post
                  The part where it pretends that our species is intelligent, mature, and responsible enough to develop technology that safely harnesses the energy released by nuclear fission.
                  The *species* is sufficiently intelligent / mature / responsible (at least a sufficient subset is), but we haven't developed societal and reward models which encourage the right behaviour yet. Availability of relatively cheap fossil fuels puts an upper limit on the amount we are willing/able to spend to make reactor installations safe and implement something closer to a "closed loop" fueling/reprocessing model that limits or eliminates the nuclear waste problem.

                  I remember hearing someone suggest that drilling a sufficiently deep hole to dump nuclear waste into the earth's molten core (assuming we still believe the earth has one) would "solve the problem", hey what could go wrong ? Seems to me that radioactive volcanoes would be even worse than sharks with lasers.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by macpacheco View Post
                    Today even in Russia nuclear energy should be safe,
                    Nonsense. Those power plants are planned, built, maintained and operated by humans. Mistakes will be made and disastrous accidents will happen in the future, as they happened in the past, no matter how safe you think those reactors are, simply because humans make mistakes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                      Nonsense. Those power plants are planned, built, maintained and operated by humans. Mistakes will be made and disastrous accidents will happen in the future, as they happened in the past, no matter how safe you think those reactors are, simply because humans make mistakes.
                      Let's see, USA nuclear plant operators undergo training every 6 weeks. So every single procedure is so deeply ingrained in their minds, it's unlikely for any significant mistake to be made.
                      Plus computers monitor every remotely important reactor parameter, with all data monitored by quadruple probes, and action only taken when at least 2 probes show something wrong (preventing a single bad probe from triggering wrong safety action).
                      Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could have been prevented with computers analyzing parameters and all failure modes programmed into monitoring software (for best recommendations).
                      The only parallel I see in human endeavours in large aircraft, with their triple or quadruple everything.
                      I also know quite a bit about jet aircraft being a private pilot with instrument ratings and a junkie of large aircraft technology.
                      I strongly suggest you go learn about this before making some uninformed criticism.
                      Nuclear power has enough people criticizing it out of malice, please don't criticize out of ignorance.
                      Russia and other former USSR states did learn a lot from Chernobyl, don't think for a second that they didn't. Plus almost every nuclear plant in the world is subject to IAEA inspections plus national regulatory inspections. After radiation from Chernobyl hit Europe serious countries, it became very clear to the whole world that what one country does with nuclear power matters to every other country when the subject is safety.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by macpacheco View Post
                        Let's see, USA nuclear plant operators undergo training every 6 weeks. So every single procedure is so deeply ingrained in their minds, it's unlikely for any significant mistake to be made.
                        Plus computers monitor every remotely important reactor parameter, with all data monitored by quadruple probes, and action only taken when at least 2 probes show something wrong (preventing a single bad probe from triggering wrong safety action).
                        Three Mile Island and Chernobyl could have been prevented with computers analyzing parameters and all failure modes programmed into monitoring software (for best recommendations).
                        The only parallel I see in human endeavours in large aircraft, with their triple or quadruple everything.
                        I also know quite a bit about jet aircraft being a private pilot with instrument ratings and a junkie of large aircraft technology.
                        I strongly suggest you go learn about this before making some uninformed criticism.
                        Nuclear power has enough people criticizing it out of malice, please don't criticize out of ignorance.
                        Russia and other former USSR states did learn a lot from Chernobyl, don't think for a second that they didn't. Plus almost every nuclear plant in the world is subject to IAEA inspections plus national regulatory inspections. After radiation from Chernobyl hit Europe serious countries, it became very clear to the whole world that what one country does with nuclear power matters to every other country when the subject is safety.
                        My criticism is exactly what I said before: Those power plants, like anything else built and operated by humans, are not 100% safe. If something is as dangerous as a nuclear powerplant 99.9% simply is not enough. So you want to tell me that I shouldn't be worried about the 0.1% (or let it even be 0.01%), just because you had an 8 weeks intro course and know for certain that accidents can't happen?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Vim_User View Post
                          My criticism is exactly what I said before: Those power plants, like anything else built and operated by humans, are not 100% safe. If something is as dangerous as a nuclear powerplant 99.9% simply is not enough. So you want to tell me that I shouldn't be worried about the 0.1% (or let it even be 0.01%), just because you had an 8 weeks intro course and know for certain that accidents can't happen?
                          I took the intro course after having studied radiation and nuclear technology for about 18 months using less formal sources.
                          I got an A+ grade (78 of 80 questions answered right).
                          The main reason I got that course was so people couldn't criticize me for talking about nuclear technology with information from youtube and wikipedia, and now I'm still an idiot. Please take the class before disqualifying the class and my nuclear education.
                          Fukushima reactors that meltdown were 45 years old. 1960s designs.
                          Gen III+ reactors were designed to be immune to such scenarios (and were designed about a decade before Fukushima).
                          If we got rid of all Gen II reactors in the world, then I would tell you with all confidence that nuclear power is 99.999999999% safe.
                          I believe your perception that a nuclear accident is serious is mostly driven by a hollywood driven misperception about the risks of radiation. Godzilla, the Incredible Hulk, deadly gamma rays, all of that BS, OMG !
                          Radiation is everywhere. Our bodies produce about half a million radioactive disintegrations per minute by its own devices. We produce gamma and beta rays continuously. Radioactivity is like Aspirin, taking one or two Aspirin a day is BETTER than none, while 100 Aspirin will probably kill you. There is a lot of compelling evidence in that sense.
                          Finally, 200 thousand people die yearly from coal mining, transport, burning and pollution effects. Peaceful nuclear energy killed less than a thousand people over the last 50 years we've been using it seriously. That's a fact. Even hydro electricity and natural gas are far more dangerous than nuclear.
                          Please inform yourself.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            > Even hydro electricity [...] are far more dangerous than nuclear.

                            Wow! That's what they tell in the "nuclear" courses? Do they bring photographs of the babies born after Chernobyl? Those with no arms, no legs? too deformed?

                            Hidro electricity is more dangerous?

                            Don't terrorists exist? Aren't nuclear sites a target? And big enough earthquakes? And accidents with planes colliding? And other factors?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nth_man View Post
                              > Even hydro electricity [...] are far more dangerous than nuclear.

                              Wow! That's what they tell in the "nuclear" courses? Do they bring photographs of the babies born after Chernobyl? Those with no arms, no legs? too deformed?

                              Hidro electricity is more dangerous?

                              Don't terrorists exist? Aren't nuclear sites a target? And big enough earthquakes? And accidents with planes colliding? And other factors?
                              The course does spend one out of 8 weeks on radiation and another week on nuclear safety and nuclear certification standards.
                              Most data about hydro, coal and natural gas accidents I got from elsewhere.

                              For every deformed baby in Chernobyl hydro killed 10 people from burst dams.
                              For every deformed baby in Chernobyl there is one thousand killed by coal.
                              A single hydro dam burst in the 70s in China kill 170k people. Every year burst dams kill many hundreds.

                              The issue is nuclear is just like aviation. The safest transportation form. You are at greater risk of suffering an accident on the drive to the airport than on a flight around the world. Yet aviation accidents get all the attention, and car accidents are ignored.
                              If we do to the airlines what anti nuclear people want to do to nuclear, we'd be talking about banning all airlines from operating, grounding them for good.
                              Yes, you are deeply misinformed.

                              We need to accept the fact that the press is 99% interested in sensation, 1% in facts. They have zero interest in telling a dull 100% factual story, so they didn't call the nuclear safety experts to talk about Fukushima, they called all the nut jobs they could find in an hour. Even CNN did that. And perhaps they got so guilty about it they supported Pandora's Promise to make up for their huge fuckup !

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X