anyone here ever heard about this tragedy 19 years ago?
Chernobyl Nucular Reactor, Ukraine Russia
Printable View
anyone here ever heard about this tragedy 19 years ago?
Chernobyl Nucular Reactor, Ukraine Russia
Yeah, it's real sad. I remember having to watch a video on it's effects last year in Physical Science.
it's been 19 years all ready, and still no superhero's you lied to me marvel.
it all happened from the irrisponisble Staff that commanded the employess to turn off the steam and pump to see if the turbines would turn but it caused the reactor to distabilize and overheat then explode emitting radioactive fragments blowing a hole in the roof cuasing another explosion as the exposed Uranium leaked out into the colling water and into the air. wow that was real bad its been buried and encased in concrete today
the effects ended up effecting almost half of the world. hell, there are trees near the accident that are completely different now. its almost like someone drew a line, and a different tree grew from the line on. and its amazing how many warning signs they ignored to cause this.
its just ridiculous how stupid some people are about the planet and the effects of there actions they need to know theres only one life and planet and what use is money and power if everyones dead from radioactive poisons? did them jerks learn anything from Chernobyl or is it just another thing of the past?
anyone remember 1988 the Piper Alpha incident? 167 dead and no one seems to care anymore
Anatoly Dyatlov (the man in charge of Reactor No. 4 that night) wasn't that stupid, and it wasn't entirely his fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
In the reactor there are uranium rods to make the fission happen. There are also control rods made from boron. When Dyatlov gave the order to remove most of the control rods out of the reactor, the few that still remained in it were only slightly inserted at the top. So power and heat were building into a hot spot at the bottom of the core, where the sensors sometimes can't detect it.
No one in the plant were aware of the flaw in the reactor with the hot spot. If they did have, Dyatlov probably would have changed his plans. Sadly, tragically, he didn't.
If you want to see a good documentary on it, I recommend Zero Hour: Disaster at Chernobyl as a good watch. It dramatises what happened in the final hour at the plant from records and eye-witness accounts. Really good stuff.
yeah, because of chyrnobl there are tounds in the ukraine now which are deserted. everything is left right where it was, there's just no one there. no spider webs or bug infestation (save maybe cockroaches), everything is so quiet from the fallout.
i saw a series of pictures by a lady who went there on her own a few years ago. ghost town.
i was born pretty close to it physically and on a time line actually.
Of course, the U.S. has done similar tests in it's own reactors. Mostly a standardized safety check. To detect flaws before they become so dangerous that the plant (while truly active) breached. And if you think Chernobyl was bad... it would have been a hundred times worse if it was fully operational when that occured.
I live within a few miles of a nuke plant. If it breaches just a little, like Chernobyl did, I'd be in danger of radiation poisoning if I stay around too long. If it breaches at full capacity, I cease to exist. Every molecule in my body will be seperated from all of the others. Not that bad a way to die, instant disintigration, no pain, no mess, just a shadow on the wall behind me. But the difference in the devastation would be profound.
i find it fasinating that noone actullay knew about it until a few days after the event.
i think that in europe they were doing a routine test and found this cloud of radiation.
theres been many,much worse accidents then chernobyl.
it's just that chernobyl is the most publisised.
well the minimum fission rods for health and safety rules were 22 and only 8 got used the staff went ahead of it regardless of the warnings of other people reactor 4 was going to be shut down in a few days though so they were testing it one more time but they cut off the steam causing the reactor to overheat and breach the roof exposing the uranium to the outside air emitting radioactive gas into the atmosphere but the major explosion was when the rest of the uranium hit the cooling water, those brave firefighters should be remembered 100s sacrificed there lives by going inside unprotected to put the fire out
i agree Chernobyl isnt the worst disaster but it had more of an impact on a global stanzas
Just a couple of things:
1)
Check out this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1071344.stm
2)
As far as I know, the three main nuclear disasters that are put forward in the case against nuclear power are Chernobyl, Three-Mile-Island and Windscale in the 1950s (now Sellafield).
I say the year for Sellafield as it's not the first accident to happen at the plant and is one of the reasons that the Irish Government want it shut down. I'm all for nuclear power but even two accidents with such a phenomenally powerful thing as a nuclear power plant is pushing your luck.
3)
I think that the woman who Reno mentioned was at this site:
http://www.kiddofspeed.com/
very interesting but i think Chernobyl should of been shut down alot earlier
The three remaining reactors would've powered most of the Ukraine, so they weren't going to close down Chernobyl until they had another source of power. I understand their point but they should've still been closed down a lot earlier.
yeah another Chernobyl incident could have been catastropic because its quite a large power plant
lol dud eoyu should just move to the good old state of Oklahoma you know the one you read about in school.We have no nuclear reactors.But our surrounding states do.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Anyway I think what happned then was stupid but it really wasn't entirely their fault.ALso things could've been a lot worse.
definatly but the radiation fumes still reside in our atmosphere today the world shouldnt rely on unstable power use denser radioactive materials but if they use Plutonium one meltdown could decimate a continent damn where the hells my periodic table of elements. people should use renewable sources for power things that wont kill us in the future
Things could've been a lot worse... well... how?
Anatoly Dyatlov, Sasha Yuvchenko and Boris Stolyarchuk all survived. All suffered horrible radiation sickness.
Dyatlov died in 1995 of a heart attack. He always claimed that it was not his fault.
Sasha Yuvchenko survived. He had 16 skin growth operations in the first year after the accident. He says that "I can drive a car, but I can't do any repairs. I can't touch oil or petrol. The blood won't congeal properly. There are other things, but you get used to them. You learn to live with them. You have to." (Speaking on Zero Hour: Disaster at Chernobyl) He currently lives in Moscow with his wife Natasha and their son Kyril.
More info about Boris Stolyarchuk can be found here:
http://www.news24.com/News24/Archive...015392,00.html
Another mention goes to Nikolai Fomin. He was the boss of Chernobyl, but he wasn't in the power plant at the time. He was asleep in his home just outside Chernobyl. He was sentenced to 10 years hard labour for gross negligence, but was released soon after he had a mental breakdown. He is still alive, drifting in and out of madness.
O'll try and dig up some more stuff for tomorrow...
but hten life will be too easy then.You see we have to create a hole for ourselves because we are stupid.We wanna die.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
ok the governments dont care bout the planet or how power is made thats the thing why dont they just drop an atom bomb on all the nucular plants in the world and blow us up for god sake Nucular powers is liable in a way but so friggin dangerous thats the whole point you want somethng that cannot wipe out the planet if it goes wrong
things could have gotten worse the reactor could have been at full power and all 4 reacors could of went aswell as reactor 4
OG&E is a electric company here in oklahoma.Even though they use coal.they actually started using Windmill power also and people can actually have there house powered lik that.But seeing that conservatives htink that coal is a clean way to get electricity.I guess theya ren't gonna use windmills.
thats just totally horse crap windmills dont produce much power and coal isnt supposed to be used nowadays without special licenes to get it out of Quarries and old mines. Coal is a fossil fuel but only becomes bad in high quantities of flame exposure
How about a white-hot energy wave that would have annihilated all life within a 30 or so mile radius? Then a concussive shockwave to level just about every standing structure, including most trees, within 50 or so miles? Followed by a radioactive dust cloud that would have covered over a thousand square miles in an irradiated path of slow and painful death? Yes, things could have been much, much, worse.Quote:
Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach
Well, coal isn't workable AT ALL... it's safer to work with the plutonium. Wind power is useless in most parts of the U.S. (which has the best setup for alternate sources, geographically speaking)- either they get too little wind, or tornadoes, either is bad. Not to mention the difficulty in maintaining such equipment.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
The same applies to solar and other power sources. The only one that might work is geo-thermal, and that's somewhere between theoretical and experimental right now. We'll be forever dependent on fision (because we can't create fusion safely right now) until we invent something very new and powerful. I'm betting on harnessing solar energy DIRECTLY from space, where it's never cloudy.
that was what could of happened if the reactor was on full power and if the core overheated alot more the reaction to the water and oxygen could of caused a massive reaction of a white hot radioactive gamma ray sweeping aross the area then the reasctor could of blown again and destroyed the other 3 aswell which would have easilly caused an explosion big enough to destroy everything within 30-80 mile radius.
Uranium is a vital ingrediant to a fission bomb the explosions can be so massive it can be catastropic easilly bad enough to wipe anything out.
Uranium atoms split easilly when unstable and when atoms split they explode in reaction
yep you basicly got it but there really isn't a high demand for electricity in oklahoma except for big towns and cities.There are towns in oklahoma who still get there light through laterns and oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by udsuna
Plutonium has a heavier more unstable mass of neutrons than Uranium a slight tap could send the whole place to the sky so thats why there is never high quantities of it in one place and no Plutonium reactors because compressing it raises the danger scale
Then we need to compress it then!!!!!!!!!!!!!Seriously I understand htat but they aren't gonna listen to reason because companies and gov. think aobut money and blah blah blah blah they want us dead.
thats true thats why Bush is still president because hes a moron and a power abuser with the power to blow any place he likes sky high
you cannot use coal in the cities of theUK but in the countryside we still have coal merchants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
coal is a fossil fuel, which emits levels of CO2, CO and some SOx. all are toxic and BAD.
we should stop worrying about nuclear power as it really isn't that bad. Fossil fuels release toxins in the air causing global warming.
this has been happeing since the 18th century and the start of the indusrial rev. whilst nuclear accidents are few and rare.
i'm not sticking up for it. but i think that we need to concentrate on a totally new energy sourse.
the germans use bio fuel which generate enough energy to keep small towns with power. plus windfarms are really good for areas such as scotland.
we should stop using fossil fuels before nuclear energy. it really is far better for the earth then fossil fuels.
use the area itself for power like the north of england has lots of rain and wind try windfarms they look great on hills and they dont damage the environment, but Nucular stations use unstable isotopes such as Uranium and Plutonium which could decimate alot of the planet or release radioactive gasses into the air killin a hell of alot of people but fossil fuels need to be reduced such as petrol and diesel use differewnt energy sources or take the gasses out of the chemical so it doesnt emit much Carbon based toxins
fossil fuels can have reduced emissions but still have them.
how many cares are there in the world?
bikllions. all releasing posins into the air.
there have been so few nuclear accidents. believe me, CO2 and CO have just as bad effect on the environment.
yes nuclear accidents are huge, and will decimate an area for hundreds of years.
but how many LARGE accident have there been?
chernobyl, three mile island, hirosima (sp) and a few others.
there are so many safe guards against this.theres such a small chance of accident.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
i do environmental science as a degree. we look at this all the time.
oils slicks cause so much damage of the seas ecosystems, raised CO2 levels can cause plant species to die, SOx can cause acid rain and eroded both man made and natural habitat.
theres so many different factors. basically the world cannopt cope without both nuclear and fossil fuels.
one thing is for certain, fossil fuels will run out far before nuclear power ever will.
Just to throw a case into the works on this debate here.
What about France? There are over 50 reactors in France, and so far there have not been any disasters as far as I know. Over 80% of all of France's power comes from nuclear power and even the citizens of Paris are lobbying the government on getting their own nuclear power plant.
Any comments?
I am for nuclear power, as it is (for the most part) run well and with efficency. It does not contribute to global warming and, frankly, it's the best source of power that we've got for when fossil fuels run out.
Though there has to be a zero tolerance policy. Any accidents that releases a lot of radiation into the atmosphere must result with the power plant being checked thoroughly or even shut down.
PS: Boris, no, no, you can't call Hirosima or Nagasaki or Bikini Atoll an accident. Nuclear bombs were used there, designed to cause destruction.
yeah but you have to look at risks and possibilities not what has happened or chances thats what i'm saying. Uranium and Plutonium are heavilly unstable one mistake with it could release radioactive gasses causing more than just acid rain and dead plants the world may survive but the amount of radiation absorbed could make the place dangerous to anything there radiation causes cancer and cancer kills you know i'm sorry for being such an arse but look at possibilities please i know fossil fuels are bad but they are alot more stable than isiotopes like Plutonium and Uranium science degree maybe, i repsect that and your oppinion i also see where your coming from but face the facts even if people told the government about it and what they want they wont bother they only want power and money
i know. i just used that as an example of radiation. you're very right.Quote:
Originally Posted by OdaiseGaelach
Shoden. the car is just burning fossil fuels. isn't that just as dangerous?
do you know about radon gases? they are naturally occuring radioactive gases. worst effected areas are the south west coasts of england. if the accumilate it can cause radiation poisening. we could think, oh no radiation!!! lets all go to the fall out sheds! but it's not that high a risk.
radiation is naturally occuring in most rocks. yes, unstable isotopes are bad but i still think that it's the cleanest energy we've got.
it would be nicer if we could use bio fuel or wind farms but we're just not there yet.
fossil fuels are whats killing the planet, not nuclear.
I have to agree with both of you here. I agree with Boris No No where nuclear power will be the future. Fossil fuels might be more stable but they are also in a much shorter supply than uranium and plutonium. When they run out, what will governments turn to?
As you said yourself Shoden:
even if people told the government about it and what they want they wont bother they only want power and money
And there is the greatest problem. You remember when the Irish government took the British government to the EU Courts to have Sellafield shut down? Cancer kills - Dundalk has seen an increase of cancer cases because waste from Sellafield has been dumped into the Irish sea. There was also a huge worry that if there was a major disaster at Sellafield - especially in the wake of 9-11 - that Ireland would be badly polluted with the fallout radiation.
I still think that Sellafield should be shut down but on retrospect, it seems that the Irish government were trying to get one up on the British government, and vice versa. Pretty petty when you think about it.
thats true. i guess that one reason why chernobyl exploded was that russia was trying to keeep up with the other "super" nations. they wern't ready for it.
without sounding harsh but, nowerdays everything causes cancer. theres that sudan I things going on right now. soon we won't be able to walk outside without being told we'll get cancer from it.
its not only the fossil fuels you know its CFC gasses Radiation from other things together, Radioactive substances have the ability to release havy radiation into the atmosphere
i think that nowadays cancer is caused by all these new chemicals in food drinks and air and the past aswell coming back to haunt us. lets start having a nicer conversation about the Chernobyl incident im on a hyp listening to Aeris'stheme i dont wanna start crying
its a sad thing about the stupidity of man.
we think that we can rule the earth but it isn't something to rule.
radiation is naturally occuring, as is fossil fuels. we choose to expoit them causing devistation.
we relese so much rubbish in the atmosphere. who knows what we've really done. is it reversable? can we save ourselves for the mistakes we make?Quote:
Originally Posted by Shoden
nuclear energy is still a clean and reliable energy source. but it is dangerous in the hands of those that do not acknowledge its destructive power.
sorry i've had a rant about this. energy sources is what i want to carry on (hopefully) and do my final year at uni about. it's so fasinating to hear all your opinions! :) energy is a fansinationg thing! i really want to learn more about it!
well really my knowledge is little im just 15
Nucular energy is very dangerous and only clean if people know how to use it they should learn from Chernobyl's mistakes and try to create better and safer reactors
Heard about Chernobyl? I remember seeing the News Report after it happened. My dad was freaking out because the Jet Stream currents recorded by the weather satelites passed over the Ukraine, over Siberia and then to here. We didn't get much fallout, but I remember Radio broadcasts for the nearest shelters, I remember Dad getting lots of fresh water in big jugs, and Mom calling God and everybody on the phone.
Edit: Trees grow back after you cut them down. Therefore, technically, wood fuel is a renewable resource. :D
i wasnt even alive then i was born in 1989 3 years after it happened.
no trees take a long time to grow back how about i get the ents from LOTR to stalk you lol
i was one...i think. it happened in 86 right?
maybe it explains a few things about me..... ;)
yeah it was 86 if i was born before then id be less schizo lol
I'm pretty up on Chernobyl as I'm both interested in nuclear technology and Russia. :)
The thing no one has mentioned, and I'm really surprised, is that more likely than not the next Chernobyl scale accident will be at Chernobyl. The reactor is still "hot". The concrete dome that's been built over reactor 4 is crumbling with age. It will collapse if nothing is done and there aren't any plans in the works for that at the moment. It's a scary prospect. HBO just recently did a documentary that focused mainly on the birth defects that are still being seen as a result of the accident, but they did visit the site...as close as they could get to it anyway, and they discussed the crumbling dome and what will happen if nothing is done. I believe the name of this documentary was Chernobyl Heart or Heart of Chernobyl...something like that. It's well worth a look as most have pushed the incident out of there mind...but the ongoing horrors the people of that region face are very real.
by the time the dome completely falls which will be a long time as it has so many hard layers the uranium in the reactor will have stabled or cooled Uranium has strange propertie if the dome falls which will be another 30 years or so if nothing is done than the uranium released would be so less in quantity and Atomic properties it will just crumble most likely
The motorcycle chick in green? That was effing spooky...and sad. I know it's on the net somewhere. I'll post it if I find it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Not At All Reno
But yeah, sad, sad event.
EDIT: Here it is. She's actually rode back through in spring of 2004 and added more photos.
Just a note, modern reactors are physically incapable of melting down like Chernobyl. They have learned from their mistakes. There are basically two problems with nuclear reactors today. One is the danger of some terrorist group blowing the power plant up. The other is the nuclear waste, and what to do with it. But meltdowns aren't really a factor anymore.
Also, cockroaches aren't all that resistant to radiation. The fruit fly can take over three times the dosage a cockroach can, and there's a species of parisitic wasp that can take nine times that radiation.
What really saves insects from radiation, for those who don't know, are their short life span, simple bodies, and life cycle. They don't really live long enough for anything to go terribly wrong. Cancer's not likely to set in fast enough. Because they're comparatively simple, there's less that can go wrong, fewer gene sequences for radiation to damage. And their cells only divide right about the time they molt. For cockroaches, that's about once a week. Your DNA's most vulnerable when the cell's dividing, which is why skin and marrow cells tend to be so vulnerable. So, in non-sustained radiation, most of the cockroaches in a population will be very difficult to affect with radiation.
What really takes the cake is a bacterium, D. radiodurans, which can take as much as 1.5 million rads. A thousand rads will kill you, twenty thousand a cockroach.
Nuclear technology has come a long way since chernobyl. I've heard of reactors that are fail-safe; almost any problem imaginable will push the reactor into a harmless stagnation. Nuclear power is becoming an increasingly ideal energy source.
My physics book claims that living within 50 miles of a nuclear power plant exposes you to 0.09 microsieverts of radiation per year, compared to 0.3 µSv from living within 50 miles of a coal burning plant, 1 µsv from using a computer, and 260 µsv naturally from rocks. Interesting stuff.