Chernobyl Revisited

If Soviets couldn't steel the info, they always did things half @ssed any way! This plant was a design flaw from the go! These are the same clowns building for Iran.

I am not sure I totally agree with Nuclear, but some thing has to be done soon! CA is going to end up either blacked out durring a crisis (old people die from heat), or end up on the other end of an Enron deal.

People want things, just not in their back yards.

 

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chernobyl-land-of-the-wolves
shame this one is not working....
want to read on

48,000 years before radiation will be gone.........
think about the many nuclear plants we have on this planet....

A plume of radioactive fallout drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern and Western Europe, Scandinavia, the UK, Ireland and eastern North America.

just one power plant

 

Everyone should note that the forbidden zone around Chernobyl is not at all "dead", indeed it has rapidly become a de facto wildlife refuge with among the greatest diversity of plants and animals in all of Europe. For a taste try the links at

chernobyl wildlife - Google Search

The mere presence of humans is far more damaging to the wild world than even this level of residual radiation.

 

If you haven't seen it already, I recommend the Academy Award winning documentary short, Chernobyl Heart. It shows the effect of Chernobyl on human beings. (A revolutionary concept. Compare what's allowed or not allowed to be shown about the Iraq War.)

HBO: Chernobyl Heart

 

I want to second the comment about the bad design of that plant. The western world had begged the soviets for years to shut it down. It was a disaster waiting to happen from the moment it opened. Even then, it took an incredible series or really stupid human errors to initiate the melt-down.

Tom

 

While there are some benefits to wildlife by having a lack of human presense there I'm not sure the effects of radiation are all that hot for genetics. There is also the issue of some pollutants being taken up by lichens/mosses and then subsequently being eaten by grazing mammals (Caribou) and then eaten by people who become the end recipient of that bioaccumulation.

We can make the same argument for the DMZ between North and South Korea being a wildlife haven. Should we create more war zones to benefit wildlife? Surely there are better ways.

 

Of course I'm not advocating the creation of DMZs or radioactive zones as wildlife preserves, just pointing out that radioactivity is not supernaturally evil. Obligatory smiley indicating that I am not humorless :_>

 

The Chernobyl reactor was Graphite moderated. The problem with this design is that as the temperature gets out of hand, the reactor runs amok. It's a positive feedback loop. Graphite spontaneously combusts at 700 deg C. So what happened at Chernobyl was that the moderating elements weren't properly managed and they heated up which resulted in the reactor running hotter and hotter. Then, the moderator combusted and the containment building failed and vented to the atmosphere. This allowed the incinerated graphite to billow out and ride the prevailing wind.

The Soviets were notorious for operating their reactors well beyond Western thresholds. Coupled with a poor, poor design it was only a matter of time.

 

Part of the reason the Soviets shouldn't be exporting their tech and opperational methods to countries like Iran.

 

Just giving you a hard time Richard.

 

The story is not over yet. The existing cement crypt is falling apart. No real clue as to what the Russians will actually do about it. If it is handled like their decaying submarine reactors, we know the answer....nothing of significance. It will be very necessary for the European states to apply pressure to do something.

 

It's no big deal. In a few hundred thousand years it won't make any difference.

Tom

 

That site is a famous fake. I heard about it being a fake long time ago.

Here's just the 1st Google hit on it.

Urban Exploration Resource: Forum - View Thread

 

That's because they are creating several new species every day! Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Perhaps you'll find comfort from history. Last time an atomic facility neared completion in a country controlled by Islamo-terrorists it was blown to bits before it could ever come on line. History always repeats itself. Whether it happens next time in the exact same manner, or by ground troups is the only variable. One of their neighbors already have made it clear. When it comes to nukes, they will not be allowed.

 

If the world is afraid that a terrorist-controlled country will build a nuclear reactor for ulterior motives, why doesn't the world encourage these countries to build solar and wind-powered power plants? The "encouragement" could come in various diplomatic or economic forms.

Regarding nuclear power, I hope smarter minds prevail in recognizing that certain types of designs of nuclear power plants pose orders of magnitude less risk to the environment than burning oil or coal. Unfortunately, the uneducated don't see it that way, citing Chernobyl as the danger to expect from nuclear power. It's just sensationalistic reporting without understanding or researching the actual numbers and science behind it.

Yes, Chernobyl was a terrible accident. It was a terrible design, it was terribly operated. Safety systems and emergency planning were inadequate. The horrific mismanagement of the emergency itself by the Soviet government resulted in thousands of unnecessary cancer cases. But with the lessons learned, it won't be repeated. People seem to forget that the TMI accident a was just about a "worst case accident", but due to much better design and emergency management, no deaths were attributable and no member of the public received an exposure above the EPA limits for radiation exposure. Most newly developed reactors (naval reactors in the US, civilian reactors in place like Europe) are even safer in design and operation.

Also unfortunately, those with deep enough pockets to invest and develop new nuclear plants don't seem to care as much about the significantly lower environmental risk of nuclear power vs. fossil fuels, as they care about the slightly cheaper cost to build and operate a fossil-fuel plant. Sometimes, money is the overriding factor.

With that said, citizens and governments should encourage the development of nuclear power plants in the hands of safe countries. Actually, there should be a balance of clean energy source development: solar, wind and nuclear.

 

But if western nations won't that's what happens. Perhaps we should give them our safer, more advanced technology instead

/End Troll

 

There is some interesting stuff at this site to promote a book about Chernobyl: WORMWOOD FOREST



I think I may read the book, I have always found this fascinating. I read the Elena website several years ago, but didn't know it was a fraud - but I did wonder how someone in the Ukraine would get ahold of a Kawasaki.

 

Maybe Russia's plan for Iran is to have them self-immolate. :target: