Okay, so a nuclear melt down the size of Chernobyl only killed 50 people. Someone tell bush the Iranians making nukes isn't such a bad thing.

Ah, Greenpeace. The only fleet to lose a vessel to the French military in almost 200 years.

This is one of the funniest things I have ever read in my short life.

Dumle:But we could discuss wether would-be fusion reactors are more or less hazardous than our present fission ones.

A fusion reactor would be totally incapable of melting down, even with the most incompetent design.

There's never enough fuel in the reaction vessel to do much of anything, and the temperatures are so high that a loss of containment would just result in the plasma cooling off and dissipating its thermal energy. Even though the temperature is high, the density is so low that the amount of energy contained in the plasma at any one time isn't all that great.

id rather be at Chernobyl than on a Greenpeace boat lolololol.

/what a douchebag

Oldiron_79: remember, a chain smoker from russia who dies of lung cancer is a victim of chernobyl and the increased cancer from radiation if you are greenpeace

Actually, almost any chain smoker (at least in the USA) who dies of lung cancer is a victim of increased radiation. While there are dozens of carcinogenic chemicals in tobacco smoke, none of them have ever been specifically indicated as the actual cause of a single human cancer. All of the known tobacco-caused lung cancers that we know of were of a type typical of radiation, not chemical, damage.

US tobacco is required by Federal law to be treated with a pesticide that contains apatite, which in turn contains a form of radium (naturally found in the apatite rock) that decays into Polonium²¹⁰. While harmless outside the body, inside the body (like, in your lungs) it is devastating. It's an alpha particle emitter.

You may recall from Jr. high school science that radiation from atomic decay exists in three basic types: gamma rays, beta particles, and alpha particles, in order of mass of the particles. Gamma rays are energetic photons, which have no rest mass. They penetrate very well, and each photon is unlikely to interact with any DNA it's passing near. But, a few do get absorbed by the DNA, and ionize it, causing damage which can in turn trigger cancer. It takes several inches of lead or several feet of water to stop gamma rays.

Beta particles are electrons, which, while tiny, do have mass. They don't penetrate as far, but that's because they get absorbed much more readily. The ones that pass through, remember, don't cause damage! A thin sheet of lead or about an inch or two of steel will block beta particles. If a gamma particle is a B-B as far as damage goes, then in comparison a beta particle is more like a small caliber bullet.

Alpha particles are basically Helium⁴ nuclei (two protons, two neutrons). Compared to a beta particle, they are vastly more massive. They don't easily penetrate matter: a few inches of air will stop them, as will a single sheet of paper, typical clothing, or human skin (from outside the body, they might cause skin cancer if you put one right up against your skin). But, once inside, they are devastating because, in comparison size and mass and damage wise, continuing the previous analogies, an alpha particle is like unto an anti-tank cannon round or wrecking ball.

This is why radon gas (also an alpha emitter) is so bad. Smoking tobacco grown in the USA is like breathing radon.

Don't you people know anything about the great danger wind power poses? Every year hundreds of stoned people stare at them for hours, their heads tracking the motion till they fall off....

Let's remember Chernobyl, but we remember it best by not forgetting who used it to frighten people to death.

Replace "Chernobyl" with "9/11" and see if the writer wouldn't sing a different tune. That paper is a Rupert Murdoch rag.

BojanglesPaladin

I said nothing of 3 eyes. The extra genitals thing was a joke. But altered number of limbs? Sure thing. Here ya go:

http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/congenital_amputation.jsp

And here's a quote for ya:
'In two papers published in "Nature", scientists presented evidence that even the children of parents who were exposed to Chernobyl radiation exhibit significantly more mutations in the human minisatellite genome than would be expected. A correlation was found with the level of soil contamination in the areas in which the parents had lived. The rise in the mutation rate among the children of parents exposed to radiation was found to be dose-dependent (138.1 and 139).

Another study suggests that genetic defects should be expected not only after high doses of radiation (above 0.5 Sv), but at lower doses as well.

Researchers from Israel and Ukraine examined the children of liquidators, conceived after the accident and now living in Ukraine or Israel. The number of genetic mutations was seven times higher in these children than in siblings who were conceived before the accident (49.1).
"

From: http://www.chernobyl.info/index.php?userhash=13353333&navID=30&lID=2

I suppose submitter would like a nice thalidomide martini, for his greenlight celebration. =)

Carsa: Anyone who has the nerve to say "only thyroid problems" has never had to live with someone who has said problems. The thyroid affects every function within the human body and when left untreated, impacts daily living.


Preach on...

/Diagnosed with Graves' Disease in 2002

People need to remember that the lesson of Chernobyl is not that nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that leaving a staff of under-trained arrogant idiots in charge of a large potentially explosive facility is very dangerous.

2006-04-27 02:14:04 PM bens99

People need to remember that the lesson of Chernobyl is not that nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that leaving a staff of under-trained arrogant idiots in charge of a large potentially explosive facility poorly designed by similar arrogant idiots is very dangerous.

There, fixed that :)

The 250,000 also includes rats and bacteria, and is considered a very conservative estimate.

/If I ever get cancer, I'm blaming it on Chernobyl

Ripside

Thank you for playing, but I think this quote from your first link sums it up well: "More recently, birth defects as a result of radiation exposure near the site of the Chernobyl disaster in Russia have left numerous children with malformed or absent limbs"

Malformed or missing. No extra arms, no extra genitalia. Moreover, you have confused the birth defect rate of 'liquidators' with the general population. Those who were regularly exposed to much higher radiation levels on a much more frequent basis than those "living nearby" as you described.

No cookies for you.

Let me break it down for you:

Chernobyl was in effect a supersize dirty bomb, and has caused serious health effects, including, in some cases, an increase in birth defects among those people directly exposed.

Your intitial statement was innacurate, ill-informed and needlessly sensational. No extra limbs, no extra genetalia, and birth defects almost exclusively among the small portion of the population that was directly exposed or worked directly on the reactor site during cleanup.

Your hyperbole and wildly innacurate polemics serve no purpose.

Here comes BaconatedGrapefruit into the thread.

I bet the per capita deaths from cancer is much higher in eastern europe. Not because of radiation but because there are fewer obese people, and if your not going to die from heart disease, cancer is pretty much the only thing left to die from.

I'd much rather see stories about how Chernobyl can never happen again because we don't use self-sustaining reactions in reactor cores any more so people will stop freaking the hell out and let us build some damned nuclear plants already.

/start in my backyard

BojanglesPaladin

hyperbole and wildly innacurate polemics. Nobody talks that way. Seriously. Unless they're trying to make people think they're intelligent.

I can't believe you're singling me out for a "sensationalized" statement in this thread.

Fact is, there are abnormally high rates of birth defects in the surrounding areas. Agree?

Long-term affects on surrounding population is unknown. Agree?

Exposure to high levels of radiation can cause genetic defects. Agree?

The radiation cloud that left the facility was miles long (I don't care if you agree with that or not - its a fact, and is easily measurable by taking soil samples).

So exchange "extra limbs" for "missing limibs" and remove "extra genitals" (which was a joke) and my statement is still completely accurate. Much more so than the "50 deaths" in the headline.

BojanglesPaladin, I think you can find much better posts in this thread to pick apart.

The problem with the Soviets was lack of outstanding personnel.

If they had Jack Bauer he would have stopped it going critical just at the last moment, and if not Chuck Norris would just have pissed on the radioactive clouds as they escaped the plant to stop it spreading.

/but seriously mad props to those guys who sealed up the site knowing it was essentially certain death doing so

submitter's IQ is "FIVE ZERO" is he expects us to believe that blatant nuke propaganda BS

mishmashmusic

I recommend you all look at this Chernobyl presentation by photographer Paul Fusco---it will blow your mind...

http://todayspictures.slate.com/inmotion/essay%5Fchernobyl/?GT1=8019

Yeah, I saw that photo essay yesterday. It's pretty heartbreaking. I DRTFA, however, the costs of Chernobyl obviously go beyond just the immediate casualties of the firefighters and plant personnal who died responding to the disaster. Those birth defects coming out of there are shocking.

OMG TREEHUGGER HIPPIES R TEH ST00PID LOL!!11!!!11!eleventyone!!1

Rev. Harry Pants:OMG TREEHUGGER HIPPIES R TEH ST00PID LOL!!11!!!11!eleventyone!!1

I can't believe that nobody has yet mentioned, possibly, the most cogent argument against nuclear power:

Homer Simpson.

Everyone on earth who was alive when that happened are doomed to become radioactive zombie-sluts who must engage in butsecks to ease the pain of their tortured existance.

I think Manbearpig is a direct result of the radiation emited from Chernobyl.
/ask Al Gore, He's getting cereal.

Nothing to see here, people.

The Herald Sun is owned by NewsCorp. Murdoch. Faux news.



Herald Sun = Faux News.

Move on, nothing to see here.

Speaking of Chernobyl, does anyone know when S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Shadow of Chernobyl supposed to come out?

/Only 2 years old when Chernobyl happened.

Hey submitter, since Chernobyl and radiation poisoning is so harmless, why don't you send your kids and your family to live there for a couple of years, let them drink the water the locals have to drink. After all, it's so harmless, right?

reed: The International Atomic Energy Agency (pops) says the total is about 9,000.


fukem. what do they know. they couldnt even find WMD buried in the sand in Iraq. dont think so? they buried the air force, why do you think they wouldnt bury WMD?


/beats fishing at the dock

I am strangly compelled to say "it's Bush's fualt", and "Bush doesn't care about ex-communist people".

VEEDA: The last link couldn't be found. Anxious to read your report. You sound like an educated man, and I'm glad there is SOME intelligience on this site.

nice try, submitter but not even close to the 10th power. and death is not the only negatory to massive radiation exposure. mutation comes immediately to mind.

i read a news article a couple of years after Chernobyl that said that since the area 'downwind' of the plant was a major vegetable-producing area, and since they didn't want any ONE group of people to get poisoned by them, they would continue to ship veggies out of the area, but just rotate who was getting the glowing spuds from shipment to shipment. that way EVERYBODY got a little exposed.

who knew the former USSR was so egalitarian!!!

The Bible doesn't mention gamma rays or nuclear power so this must be a lie by those tin-foiled atheists.

radeation
mewtayshun
radeation
mewtayshun
fiiire
melltiinng
peopllle
screamiinng
muutaits (?)
[untelligible]
you can kiss yo aasss
goodbye, goodbye

/whatcha gon' do
//withoutcha ass!??

Greenpeace...a bunch of hupknuckles

So some moron skims through another moron's article claiming Greenpeace is a bunch of lying hippies and Chernobyl was just like a bonfire at a big Belarussian keg party, posts it to FARK, and most everyone's response starts with "Yeah, Greenpeace is full of it, but..."

I actually bothered to look at Greenpeace's report on its website. Looks like a pretty thorough examination to me. It mentions the low mortality estimate (4000), the high estimate (200,000), and then states that uncertainties in available data makes reaching a concrete number improbable.

Yeah, that really sounds like they're "twisting science". Even the "hype" copy on Greenpeace's site mentions 93,000 PREDICTED cancer deaths. I can't seem to find the submitter's 250,000 mortality number anywhere.

Personally, I'm not really against nuclear power (though, unlike our knuckle-dragging submitter, I AM decidedly anti-nuclear reactor meltdown), but I don't get offended by arguments against it offered up by any group who takes the time to comission and compile the amount of research Greenpeace has on the effects of the Chernobyl meltdown.

Message to retarded ditto-heads and a sensationalist media trying to spoon feed me their opinions on an organization I know little about: Die in a "massive steam rupture".

I happened to watch a very through Chernobyl special on a Russian channel yesterday. Quite a bit of interesting, and frankly scary information...

You might've seen footage of helicopters "bombarding" the reactor core with sand and concrete to contain the fire, and to avoid a second explosion? Well, it turned out that
a) The whole aerial "bombardment" was in fact useless, because 1) there was no danger of second explosion, and 2) they completely. But regardless of that..
b) All the people in those helicopters received a lethal dose of radiation many times over, and died. :(

.. they completely missed the mark, I wanted to say.

There's a big push on at the moment to spin nuclear matters as harmless.

Wonder where that comes from?

Delsueno:Personally, I'm not really against nuclear power (...), but I don't get offended by arguments against it offered up by any group who takes the time to comission and compile the amount of research Greenpeace has on the effects of the Chernobyl meltdown.

Chernobyl is not relevant to arguments for or against nuclear power in the US. The graphite moderated core used by the Soviets is fundamentally different from the light-water moderated cores of American reactors.

Even under identical circumstances, our reactors will not behave the way theirs did. A loss of coolant would result in a loss of neutron moderation -- the little buggers would be flying around too quickly to efficiently participate in chain reactions; you'd loose criticality and power output would drop. There'd still be damage (a-la TMI), but nothing like Chernobyl.

Invoking Chernobyl is nothing more than a scare tactic -- like invoking the Hindenburg to argue against using 747s.

just in case anybody asks ...
http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/90/360/15333_chernobyl.html

and it wasn't just russia ...
http://www.motherearthnews.com/top_articles/1987_May_June/Life_After_Chernobyl

ActionPaintball: My estimate:

Everyone who was within a 7900 mile radius of the blast will eventually die...


Meh.. MY estimate: Everyone within 25,000 miles of it will die...eventually.

No evidence that the children were at any risk? Asside from the insanely high cancer and birth defect rates in the effected areas, you mean?

jshine - good point. Pretty much sums up why I don't fear nuclear power in this day and age. However, it's not a perfect solution and dangers still exist. I'm assuming if a terrorist manages to detonate one of our nuclear plants, it'll cause a lot more damage than if they were to blow up a non-nuclear electric or even a natural gas facility, no?

If Chernobyl data scares enough people into demanding safety and security in their nuclear power options rather than allowing corner-cutting and neglect construction, that's fine by me.

I love this...the Red Staters and the Reds, united in harmony to bury truth.

50? What the fark kind of Soviet Communist bullshiat is that?

Delsueno:I'm assuming if a terrorist manages to detonate one of our nuclear plants, it'll cause a lot more damage than if they were to blow up a non-nuclear electric or even a natural gas facility, no?

Well, if one were intentionally blown up, it would certainly be bad. We'll just have to make sure that security and background checks are up to a high standard. Also, the reactors could be sunk a bit below ground level to prevent 9/11-style aircraft strikes.

I'm not terribly concerned about corner-cutting or construction though. The permitting process is extremely strict -- probably why we've never had a single radiation-related death at an American civilian reactor. With 50 years of operation, that's a record that says something.