If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Toronto Star)   Chernobyl roof collapses under snow. EVERYONE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CALM   (thestar.com) divider line 130
    More: Scary, Chernobyl, Soviet republics, roof collapses, snow, Maya Rudenko, Chernobyl roof  
•       •       •

19937 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Feb 2013 at 2:24 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



130 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-13 03:02:48 PM  

traylor: "Yes, it is unpleasant, but there is no danger."

If a section of the roof collapsing did not create any risk then what's the point of the roof altogether? Wouldn't it be better to bring it down entirely?


You go pull it down. We'll watch. (From a very very long way off)
 
2013-02-13 03:06:50 PM  

djh0101010: Even more puzzling to me are people who pretend to be environmentalists, but who are against building modern nuclear power plant designs. They fixate on Three Mile Island (a non-event), Chernobyl (a horrible design never used in this country, and being run in an unsafe manner at time of failure, and Fukishima (a reactor design from only a few years after Hiroshima), and pretend they are relevant to current reactor design.


you forgot to mention that Fukushima was poorly maintained and should have been turned off 10 years ago

/environmentalist
//who understands farking science.
 
2013-02-13 03:07:57 PM  

MBooda: Emairgency.  Emairgency.  Everybody to get from strit.  Emairgency.
[img.rp.vhd.me image 720x304]


Kudos!

/you get one (1) internet
 
2013-02-13 03:09:36 PM  
Remain calm, ALL wild animals glow in the dark.
 
2013-02-13 03:10:04 PM  
A Ukranian man is out on a walk with his grandson. The little boy turns to him and asks, "Grandfather, is it true that there was a nuclear disaster here many years ago?"
"Yes, child," he says, patting his grandson's head.
"But I heard that there were no consequences at all; is this true too?"
"Yes, child," he says, patting his grandson's other head.
And then they strolled off together, wagging their tails.
 
2013-02-13 03:13:12 PM  

BigNumber12: KIEV, UKRAINE-Ukrainian officials on Wednesday sought to reassure the public that radiation levels were unaffected at Chornobyl and there was no safety threat after a partial roof collapse at the exploded nuclear power plant.


It's good that they want to learn from their mistakes, but separating a nuclear power plant's major components from each other for ease of viewing doesn't seem like a good decision in this case.


I thought it didn't really explode
 
2013-02-13 03:13:15 PM  
Which artifacts did you discover, S.T.A.L.K.E.R.?
 
2013-02-13 03:14:10 PM  
I think that's the building they were housing the gigantic mutants in....
 
2013-02-13 03:15:07 PM  
Enhance your calm
 
2013-02-13 03:15:12 PM  

Kazan: //who understands farking science.


Does that qualify you to work in the porn biz?
 
2013-02-13 03:19:13 PM  

Kazan: Voiceofreason01: Kazan:
it's a turbine housing, nothing hazardous in it.

Yeah but you know there was at least one poor bastard near the site who heard that thing collapse and was like "OH SHIAT!"

um.. no... not really. look up the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

nobody lives there


And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.
 
2013-02-13 03:20:48 PM  

Hand Banana: brantgoose: Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.

A modern containment structure is already being built.


And unlike the sarcophagus it's not being thrown together in a panic without any planning.
 
2013-02-13 03:21:55 PM  

NightOwl2255: Kazan: //who understands farking science.

Does that qualify you to work in the porn biz?


i wondered how long it would take someone to make a joke

Jument: And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.


they'd have to rotate the workers fairly often to keep them under allowable radiation worker exposure limits.
 
2013-02-13 03:23:34 PM  

Jument: And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.


There has always been people working there. If I recall correctly, not long after the accident they fired up at least one of the other reactors onsite.
 
2013-02-13 03:25:06 PM  

Fark Rye For Many Whores: BigNumber12: KIEV, UKRAINE-Ukrainian officials on Wednesday sought to reassure the public that radiation levels were unaffected at Chornobyl and there was no safety threat after a partial roof collapse at the exploded nuclear power plant.


It's good that they want to learn from their mistakes, but separating a nuclear power plant's major components from each other for ease of viewing doesn't seem like a good decision in this case.

I thought it didn't really explode


There was an initial steam explosion caused by too low water in the reactor. There was also a second explosion from the core overheating (exact mechanism of this explosion is unknown). Then the graphite control rods caught fire and burned until the Soviets dumped enough sand/boron/lead/clay on the core to extinguish the fire.
 
2013-02-13 03:27:45 PM  

oldfarthenry: I'm not sure what criteria Russian engineers use in structural design but "snow" is a pretty big one in Canuckistan. Top of the list, really.


I'm betting that they don't have to worry about "radiation embrittlement" of structural steel, however. I'm betting that was a factor, and I am betting that shiatty steel production standards is a bigger one.
 
2013-02-13 03:31:14 PM  
TFA: Ukrainian workers at the plant have not been evacuated or ordered to implement any additional safety measures: "We are not wearing face masks, we have not been evacuated, which is what would have happened had there been danger".

Anyone else find this absolutely hilarious?
Because, ya know, the Russians were very transparent and informed all the first and second responders of the dangers after the original incident. LOL.
 
2013-02-13 03:34:18 PM  
gopher321

Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.


www.aerospaceweb.org

FFS russia learn.
 
2013-02-13 03:37:49 PM  
can't wait to vacation there one day
 
2013-02-13 03:37:55 PM  

nickerj1: TFA: Ukrainian workers at the plant have not been evacuated or ordered to implement any additional safety measures: "We are not wearing face masks, we have not been evacuated, which is what would have happened had there been danger".

Anyone else find this absolutely hilarious?
Because, ya know, the Russians were very transparent and informed all the first and second responders of the dangers after the original incident. LOL.


Things are a little different now.
Not much, but a little.
 
2013-02-13 03:42:36 PM  

p51d007: [lh3.googleusercontent.com image 400x323]


"Push to test; release to detonate"
 
2013-02-13 03:45:29 PM  
And us Americans know how to build them so they can't be repaired. (Crystal River in Florida)
 
2013-02-13 03:45:41 PM  
I wouldn't think a snow flake could get within 500 yards of the place.
 
2013-02-13 03:46:42 PM  
Can't see that shiat from my house.
 
2013-02-13 03:48:51 PM  

traylor: "Yes, it is unpleasant, but there is no danger."

If a section of the roof collapsing did not create any risk then what's the point of the roof altogether? Wouldn't it be better to bring it down entirely?


Just guessing the point was to keep snow off the workers in the turbine area but it has not been important for 30 years
 
2013-02-13 03:51:30 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2013-02-13 03:57:55 PM  

Kazan: um.. no... not really. look up the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

nobody lives there


Kazan: Jument: And yet from TFA there are construction workers on site. That surprised me actually. I imagine they were radiation detector badge thingies constantly and get a shiatload of hazard pay.

they'd have to rotate the workers fairly often to keep them under allowable radiation worker exposure limits.


You pretty clearly don't understand the magnitude of the disaster at all. The Chernobyl plant has four reactors- after the catastrophe in 1986 the remaining three reactors continued to operate normally for substantial periods afterwards, and the last reactor was shut down in 2000. Even then, the process of decommissioning the reactors is expected to take quite some time, and the current plan is to finish in 2022. There have been workers at Chernobyl pretty much constantly since the disaster and there will continue to be regular workers there for some time.

There are some hotspots, but the majority of the exclusion zone is at a safe albeit elevated radiation level. Despite your claim to the contrary, previous inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtm l
 
2013-02-13 04:03:52 PM  

djh0101010: Even more puzzling to me are people who pretend to be environmentalists, but who are against building modern nuclear power plant designs.  They fixate on Three Mile Island (a non-event), Chernobyl (a horrible design never used in this country, and being run in an unsafe manner at time of failure, and Fukishima (a reactor design from only a few years after Hiroshima), and pretend they are relevant to current reactor design.


To me Fukishima is an argument for nuclear power. I mean the thing was 40 years old and was hit with a 9.0 magnitude earth quake and then a giant tsunami. And even with that level of disaster, the power plant didn't kill anyone.

As far as Chernobyl, using that as an example for why nuclear power is bad makes not a whole lot of sense either. I mean the thing was built in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto was built in the 70's too and that car was unsafe, yet people weren't calling for cars to be banned because of it.
 
2013-02-13 04:09:43 PM  

mechgreg: As far as Chernobyl, using that as an example for why nuclear power is bad makes not a whole lot of sense either. I mean the thing was built in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto was built in the 70's too and that car was unsafe, yet people weren't calling for cars to be banned because of it.


It was also intentionally misused and didn't have any safety protocols.  The firemen who responded weren't even trained for nuclear exposure and didn't have the proper protective gear.   Using that plant for argument is stupid given current standards, construction, and safety protocols.

3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

The only real valid argument that you can't escape is what to do with the waste that has absurd half lifes.
 
2013-02-13 04:16:50 PM  

Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.


Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.
 
2013-02-13 04:19:29 PM  
Get out of here, STALKER.
 
2013-02-13 04:21:14 PM  

thecpt: mechgreg: As far as Chernobyl, using that as an example for why nuclear power is bad makes not a whole lot of sense either. I mean the thing was built in the 1970's. The Ford Pinto was built in the 70's too and that car was unsafe, yet people weren't calling for cars to be banned because of it.

It was also intentionally misused and didn't have any safety protocols.  The firemen who responded weren't even trained for nuclear exposure and didn't have the proper protective gear.   Using that plant for argument is stupid given current standards, construction, and safety protocols.

3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

The only real valid argument that you can't escape is what to do with the waste that has absurd half lifes.


The volume of that waste, the really scary highly radioactive waste, is almost trivial. The bulk of the nuclear waste out there is hardly or not at all radioactive, but it's mandated that it be treated as nuclear waste by regulations. This is things like protective clothing, old machinery, and the like that might have been exposed to nuclear material.

And we would have a place for the really scary stuff if it wasn't for the very determined efforts of a misguided anti-nuclear lobby to block progress at every turn. They're just like the current congress: they stonewall every effort that responsible people make to deal with the problem and then jump up and down and cry bloody murder when you start hearing about how our cooling ponds and spent fuel pools are overloaded (the problem that they created).
 
2013-02-13 04:26:39 PM  

Red_Fox: Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.


A lot of the people who have returned are old enough that they'll die of something other than cancer and the hot spots aren't so hot anymore.
 
2013-02-13 04:27:42 PM  

Fubini: And we would have a place for the really scary stuff if it wasn't for the very determined efforts of a misguided anti-nuclear lobby to block progress at every turn. They're just like the current congress: they stonewall every effort that responsible people make to deal with the problem and then jump up and down and cry bloody murder when you start hearing about how our cooling ponds and spent fuel pools are overloaded (the problem that they created).


bu bu buuut Yucca Mountain is taking toooo loooonnnng (because a hole in the ground apparently takes over a decade).

Its farking ridiculous, and of course the party that supports it is the GOP which means nothing will happen.
 
2013-02-13 04:28:24 PM  

Red_Fox: Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.


Studies have found no ill health effects from living there, and the local authorities have stopped trying to move them. They're not there with the blessing of the government, but nobody thinks that living there is such a risk that it requires forced expulsion.
 
2013-02-13 04:28:50 PM  

Red_Fox: Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.


I was going to post some pics of chernobyl mutants because I thought it would be funny. After looking at a few... no, no it would not, not even a little bit.
 
2013-02-13 04:29:30 PM  
I wouldn't think a snow flake could get within 500 yards of the place.

Don'tknowifserious.jpg

Something radioactively 'hot' is not thermally 'hot'. Both are referring to the amount of activity/emissions. In the first case we mean radioactive particles decaying and giving off alpha, beta or gamma radiation, and in the second case we mean molecules containing energy vibrating and giving off radiation in the infrared spectrum. We feel the infrared radiation as heat. Despite the damage it does, we can't feel the alpha, beta or gamma radiation, which is why people wear dosimiters.
 
2013-02-13 04:33:33 PM  

Fubini: Red_Fox: Fubini: inhabitants of the zone have in fact returned to their homes and do live there of their own free will.

Even though their government has told them that they're batshiat insane for doing so.

Studies have found no ill health effects from living there, and the local authorities have stopped trying to move them. They're not there with the blessing of the government, but nobody thinks that living there is such a risk that it requires forced expulsion.


I should clarify: the government does not allow children to live in the zone, and most of the residents there are old enough that radiation exposure is unlikely to cause cancer, and even if it does cause a cancer it is unlikely to play a major role in their health before they die.

The point is that the zone is not an area of extreme nuclear hazard, it's an area of extreme nuclear cautiousness. There's probably some little bit of spent fuel just sitting under a log someplace waiting to be discovered by someone, and that stuff is bound to cause trouble in the future. I'm not trying to deny that Chernobyl was an ecological disaster, but on the scale of bad to apocalyptic, it's much more on the low end.
 
2013-02-13 04:36:05 PM  

thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.


I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.
 
2013-02-13 04:42:21 PM  

Champion of the Sun: thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.


exactly what I was getting at.  I am very pro nuclear, and although I wouldn't call it a true "success" due to there being an actual mechanical failure and failure of a sensor, protocols developed even 30 some years ago were able to avert any further problems.  People in the immediate area were exposed to the effect of a day in the sun without their shirt on.
 
2013-02-13 04:58:29 PM  

Champion of the Sun: thecpt: 3 mile isle never killed anyone, and the argument that birth rates declined have never been confirmed or agreed upon.

I thought three mile was considered somewhat of a success story.  Something bad happened, all the safety protocols were followed and disaster was adverted.  I could be wrong, just remember reading that in one of these threads.


The success story is that proper planning and design averted a potential catastrophe. Ideally, nothing would ever go wrong, but when something does go wrong you want to be able and prepared to handle it. The operators did exactly that.

Nuclear safety is planned around a "defense-in-depth" approach. There are numerous policies and regulations that govern how a plant should operate, so that a dangerous condition is never reached. However, when a dangerous condition occurs, there are again numerous policies and regulations that govern how to mitigate the danger and minimize radioactive release (even at the expense of the plant and plant workers). Then, in the event that a radioactive release does occur, there are policies and regulations that govern how to mitigate the effect of the release and how to manage that.
 
2013-02-13 04:59:54 PM  
No offense, guys, but "didn't kill anyone" or "didn't kill many" doesn't count for much when you have large uninhabitable zones. Fukushima, and almost all of the reactors in Japan, are sited in rural areas for precisely this reason - but it means you lose farmland and have to evacuate 100k people, in a country that literally has no farmland to spare. Incidentally, one of the main reasons Fukushima didn't lead to major health problems was that the wind was favorable and blowing to the sea. Had the wind been blowing towards Tokyo during the worst phase of the disaster it would not have been so pretty.

Also incidentally, there have been 2 majornuclear disasters with nuclear being a pretty small part of overall power generation, and only for the past 60 years. You can claim newer designs are safer, but since most of what's claimed to be so safe doesn't exist, it's not exactly that credible (the gen 4 reactors are purely in theory at this point). It's a finicky technology, which is appealing when it doesn't force you off land that's been in your family for generations and poison said land for decades. The very small amount of waste and lack of CO2 pollution are somewhat overshadowed by the potential for serious disaster.

Considering that solar and wind are getting very cheap, why not just build a lot? Yes, storage is an issue, but it's a solvable problem. Yes, people in the US would probably have to cut down their energy use, but so what? Why go from one dirty energy source to another when you have even better options?

www.landartgenerator.org
 
2013-02-13 05:05:33 PM  
i1182.photobucket.comEVERYONE SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY CALM!!!i1182.photobucket.com
 
2013-02-13 05:08:18 PM  

TheOmni: "Even if the radiation level has not changed, it's still an alarming signal," Vladimir Chuprov, head of the energy program at Greenpeace Russia, said, according to the Interfax news agency. "If the panels in the turbine hall have collapsed, then in principle there is no guarantee that the sarcophagus, built in 1986, will not start falling apart in the near future."

This doesn't really follow. These two things were built for completely different purposes, there's no reason to believe that the collapse of a roof in a turbine hall has any relation to the structure of a protective dome over a major nuclear disaster. It could be indicative that other parts of the original Chernobyl plant are in danger of collapse, but the sarcophagus is a completely different structure.


Not trying to defend Greenpeace here, because I think they're totally bass-akward, but it does follow, just not in the way dude up there is saying it. The reality is that the Sarcophagus isn't actually held together by anything other than gravity. What's more, it was made to be a temporary shelter, never something permanent. It's in really, really, really, and I can't stress this enough, REALLY bad shape. It was too hot (both physically and radioactively) to weld together when it was built, and after the fall of the soviet union, nobody really had any money to do anything about it. They're pretty much afraid of low hurricane force winds, significant snow accumulation, and minor earthquakes being able to topple it. That's why there's been such a push to have the new safe containment system put in place as soon as possible. It's already been delayed (they hoped to have it finished by now way back when they first started talking about it) and won't be finished until over a decade from now. Only then will collapse not be nearly as much of a danger as they'll actually be dismantling everything under the new shell in an attempt to clean it up as much as they possibly can.

Now the sarcophagus doesn't have a flat, asphalt roof like the turbine building did/does, so it would take more snow to topple it, but it still illustrates that the region does have it's problems. Also, the roof has been maintained far more recently than the sarcophagus structure itself. Since Reactors 1-3 were still used over the years for power generation (well, until unit #2 had a fire in the turbine hall, then just 1&3 were used) they kept the rest of the plant in operable shape until they shut the whole thing down for good in 2000.

But I digress, both structures, despite being built for different purposes, are in bad shape and in danger of collapse, otherwise the NSC wouldn't be a huge priority right now.
 
2013-02-13 05:08:36 PM  

adamatari: www.landartgenerator.org


Well, that's not misleading at all.
 
2013-02-13 05:25:53 PM  
Indeed the sarcophagus was hastily put up in a hurry.  There are holes in it big enough to drive a car through folks.  They do have a sprinkler system set up inside to keep dust from exiting.

To be completely honest if the main roof collapses it is entirely possible to have another release of radiation and dust that could be as big as the explosion in 1986.  They really need to get their act together and complete that biological shield they've been talking about the last couple of years.  So yeah... feel free to panic a bit.

It's almost impossible to find, but if you ever run across Suicide Mission to Chernobyl watch it.  They still have to go in to the ruined reactor from time to time to check up on it's condition.
 
2013-02-13 05:28:51 PM  

adamatari: but it means you lose farmland


oh come one, you lose that for every thing.  you'll lose fishing areas for oil, you know, like the gulf coast for a year.

adamatari: Fukushima didn't lead to major health problems was that the wind was favorable and blowing to the sea. Had the wind been blowing towards Tokyo during the worst phase of the disaster it would not have been so pretty.


I can agree to some of that, but as you speculate that we can't be certain of how safe the new reactors are you can't be sure of how much damage that could have caused. Considering how facility mgmt, design, and upgrades are routine in building technology there is truth that risk will be eliminated with the next generation.  It's not like there stepping out on a brand new limb or anything.

adamatari: It's a finicky technology


cadmium rods say lolwut.

adamatari: Considering that solar and wind are getting very cheap, why not just build a lot?


They aren't cheap and right now its a joke how much power those two methods produce.  I'm all for supplementing the grid and reducing supply, but using those for a large chunk of demand is nearly impossible.  Inconsistent supply, insignificant contribution to several geographic area, and the life cycle of analysis of solar can sometimes show a panel is worse for the environment.  These methods along with tidal simply can't handle demand, and tidal causes many dead fishies.

your chart makes no sense.  LAGI seams to be an unfeasible joke from looking at their website.

adamatari: The very small amount of waste and lack of CO2 pollution are somewhat overshadowed by the potential for serious disaster.


So you're saying that we can't have a nation that has 80% of our power come from these things safely, like i don't know France already does.  If forecasts for climate change are wrong we still face that fossil fuels are dying and we will need something in 30 years.  If they are right and saying the temperature is rising at only half the predicted rate we need to cut down on carbon emissions now which Nuclear can do in combination with electric cars.  And that will need to happen within the next 20 years.

Again, its the best we can do with what we have now.  Its proven to be safe.  It's waste is manageable and containable.

Why farking not?
 
2013-02-13 05:32:54 PM  

thecpt: Why farking not?


Because ZOMG RADIATION!, that's why.
 
2013-02-13 05:39:01 PM  

brantgoose: Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.


I thought that was the existing plan. They just don't have any money or political will to do it.
 
2013-02-13 05:43:28 PM  

thecpt: bu bu buuut Yucca Mountain is taking toooo loooonnnng (because a hole in the ground apparently takes over a decade).


The YMP project has been shut down.

http://www.reid.senate.gov/issues/yucca.cfm
 
Displayed 50 of 130 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report