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 24
    More: Scary, Chernobyl, Soviet republics, roof collapses, snow, Maya Rudenko, Chernobyl roof  
•       •       •

19936 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»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-13 02:29:41 PM  
6 votes:
Now they will have to build an even bigger "sarcophagus" over the existing cement cover.

Soon it will be many layers of massive cement covers. Too bad there isn't an apt Russian analogy involving snugly fitting boxes or containers of some kind.
2013-02-13 02:33:44 PM  
4 votes:

Gyrfalcon: gopher321: Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.

It was never built to last.


It wasn't built in Russia, either.
2013-02-13 11:49:19 AM  
4 votes:

gopher321: Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.


Seriously. No maintenance in almost 30 years? On a flat roof? That's kinda impressive.
2013-02-13 03:06:50 PM  
3 votes:

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 02:35:56 PM  
3 votes:

Evil Mackerel: uncleacid: Snowflakes will now all look alike.

There are many copies and they have a plan.


encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
2013-02-13 03:10:04 PM  
2 votes:
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 03:00:42 PM  
2 votes:

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.


Agreed, but that's the kind of "thought process" the rabidly anti-anything people use.  Doesn't matter if it's nuclear power, guns, or anything else.  "I don't understand (thing), so I'm going to pretend the risk is the same as (otherthing I don't understand)".

The first instinct of a logical person is to try to counter this sort of thing with logic.  That's the last thing that's going to work on them.  Not  saying I know what WILL work on them, but logic sure as hell isn't working.

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.
2013-02-13 02:42:13 PM  
2 votes:

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.


It's greenpeace. They exist to be terrified of absolutely everything nuclear.
2013-02-13 01:22:25 PM  
2 votes:
motywdrogi.pl
2013-02-13 12:31:22 PM  
2 votes:

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


Not much, intentionally anyway.  The RBMK did route water directly from the core to the turbines (like BWRs do) without heat exchangers.  So, like BWRs, you couldn't be in the turbine hall when they were running, but it was mostly just activated nitrogen (from oxygen in the water) you were worried about, so you could go in an hour after shutdown.

With the direct-flow, I'd suspect some other nasty stuff made it to the turbine hall when everything went to hell in 86.  Not a massive amount, though.
2013-02-13 11:55:43 AM  
2 votes:

unlikely: gopher321: Those Russians sure know how to build 'em to last.

Seriously. No maintenance in almost 30 years? On a flat roof? That's kinda impressive.


^^^ that

it's a turbine housing, nothing hazardous in it.
2013-02-14 01:43:48 AM  
1 votes:

thecpt: TopoGigo: Biofuels are not stupid. We just choose to do them in the stupidest way possible.

I one hundred percent agree.  I used the term for those who want to grow algae for direct fuel (which is what I thought the term meant now).  I'll have to read about that GM thing.


I haven't checked it out in a while, so I don't know the latest on GM algae. To my knowledge, nobody was talking about just burning algae. (Some people talked about straight burning other biomass. It's not a terrible idea if we can keep congressional pork out of it, but there just aren't many plants that would qualify to meet our needs. Hemp is probably one, since it doesn't need arable land to grow, and is very heavy in oil.) Last I heard, they had done a successful proof-of-concept in which a small tank of algae converted sunlight and a minor amount of nutrients in their water into jet fuel. They were able to siphon this jet fuel and burn it. That's been a year or so. The real bonus here is that they can pick the octane they want, and we already have the distribution infrastructure and the vehicles already run on gasoline. It likely won't help much for power production, but it sure would cut out the volatility of gas prices.

I agree with everything you listed to, especially in the mantra of reduce, reuse, recycle.  But about human waste,  the little bit of studying I've done for certification has indicated that black water (or material) is useless and needs to be treated as a biological hazard.  Grey water can be reused in buildings, but the moment it involves human waste nothing positive can be done with it.  There can't possibly be a sanitary way to collect human waste for methane production.

Well, we already collect human waste. We do a whole lot of things to it before it goes back into the water. One of those things is that we let it decompose. That decomposition produces methane. It seems to me that it would just be one more step in the purification process. I mean, I don't know for sure that it would produce enough methane to make it worth the extra cost of doing it, but it doesn't seem impossible. Hell, dairy farms already produce power directly from cow manure.
2013-02-13 10:42:34 PM  
1 votes:

thecpt: 'm not surprised.  It had problems to begin with, and quite frankly why would you haul it across the country to a place that near a geologic fault?  Still government attempted to solve a problem, which was stopped by the government, and all at the cost of the tax payer.


Sorry. Forgot this one.

The idea is for the containers to get encrusted with salt to seal them forever. I never thought a steel and salt mix was a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste_Isolation_Pilot_Plant

Then there was the one I saw in a documentary a few years ago. Bore a hole in the Oklahoma aquifer and drop radioactive waste underneath it. Nothing could go wrong here, right? Just possibly losing the largest underground aquifer in the country.

You can't store it here safely. I'm not keen on the outer space idea. I am more for safer nuke plants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor http: //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

But then there is the medical waste.

It is a big mess.
2013-02-13 08:31:03 PM  
1 votes:

Jument: Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?
2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?
3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?
4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.


When coming across someone who supports renewable power:

Rule 1 - question their own personal habits. If they aren't living in a cave or getting calls from Ed Begley Jr. for advice on sustainability, their opinion doesn't matter.

Rule 2 - If the person is really living an ultra-clean & green life, via renewable power - claim that not everyone can live a life like that and it's expensive.

Rule 3 - if they point out anyone can buy into successful community owned renewable energy projects, and show how simple it is to finance improvements with little personal money - simply say it's impossible and it won't work. Then talk about how clean coal and nuclear is the only way forward. Rinse, repeat.
2013-02-13 07:12:53 PM  
1 votes:
Clm down guys, as much as it sucks, the Russian know how to handle this crap...

If you want to shiat your pants, dig a bit more into fukushima and the years of corruption, hidden defects and subcontractor going cheap on anything under the sun...

After if you have spare underwear start to catch up with the crisis management. You don't even have to like or dislike nukaplants. Just see their incompetence toward an industrial accident and try not to bblow a hole in your forehead while facepalming.

Remember several things officially stated though.
The quake intensity at the plant was NOWHERE NEAR  magnitude 9
It was a big 7 well under the supposed specced parameter of the plant
It still managed to ruin it BEFORE THE TSUNAMI STRICKED
The tsunami of this level was a RECURRING EVENT with temple in the mountainside remembering the previous death AND WAS OVERDUE  of about 30 years at least.
The company managing the plant was notified by geologist COUNTLESS TIMES that tsunamis aof  this level could happen again to which they answered that their plant has been approved by the governement (in the 60') and therefore they were not obliged to do anything to improve safety.
AND THE BEST
THE JAPANESE GOVERNEMENT MOUTHPIECES ACTUALLY TELL THE PUBLIC TO SMILE IN ORDER NOT TO GET RADIATION SICKNESS THAT ALL RADIATION RISKS ARE FALSE RUMORS CAUSING STRESS, IT S THIS STRESS THAT MAKE PEOPLE SICK AND SPREADING THESE RUMORS IS ILLEGAL. AND THE MAYOR OF TOKYO ISS WORKING ON A BAN OF PERSONNAL GEIGER COUNTERS IN ORDER TO ALLOW ONLY PUBLIC MEASUREMENT (known to be rigged thanks to personnal measure and safecast work)
2013-02-13 06:19:51 PM  
1 votes:

thecpt: ...It's proven to be safe.

I guess your definition of "safe" is "creates uninhabitable, unfarmable zones that last for generations, with clean up issues that similarly last for decades". As a poster above has pointed out, they still have issues containing Chernobyl (New Safe Containment is behind schedule, old sarcophagus is jury-rigged and old). Nuclear has in fact proven to be disaster-prone and dangerous.

thecpt: you lose [farmland] for every thing.  you'll lose fishing areas for oil, you know, like the gulf coast for a year. 

Losing farmland to urbanization is effectively trading agriculture for habitation. Not possible in irradiated zones. And don't get me started on fisheries issues or oil spills, because I will seriously not stop. Though the biggest problem there is that we literally have scraped the bottom and caught all the farking fish, but habitat destruction and pollution through argicutural runoff is another thing, and major oil spills are just the straw that broke the camel's back in the Gulf. But yes, we should transition from oil to clean power like solar.

thecpt: cadmium rods say lolwut.


Nice job they did in Fukushima. Also, fat lot of good they do if your spent fuel pool catches on fire. I call it finicky because it has very stricty operating perameters, very strict safety perameters (you MUST have cooling, forever, without interruption), and tends to not work as well as planned. Look up Monju Nuclear Plant or Crystal River to see what I mean. Nuclear has always lived on the promise of "safe" and "too cheap to meter" and failed on both counts.

thecpt: Again, its the best we can do with what we have now.


Perhaps the most puzzling comment of the bunch. You think we somehow have the capacity to build hundreds or thousands of new generation nuclear reactors with new and unproven designs but putting up solar panels, wind turbines, and building various types of storage somehow is an engineering feat that is beyond us? Really? I guess we can't beat the Germans, with their solar power and beach volleyball...

I don't even want to touch the waste issue except to say that, despite being very small in volume, it requires storage for literally tens of thousands of years. Human civilization is maybe 10,000 years old, electric power is barely over 100 years old, and nuclear is around 60 years old. I don't consider waste to be the major issue with nuclear, but it's certainly not trivial either.
2013-02-13 05:56:30 PM  
1 votes:

adamatari: 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 image 850x600]


Let me ask you a few question:
1) Do you take mass transit?
2) What kind of car(2) do you drive?
3) How large is your home? Do you have A/C?
4) How have you personally modified your purchasing habits to indirectly consume less energy?

Perhaps you are a model human being and have excellent answers to all of these questions. But I bet not.

TD;DR: It will never happen. Americans will never reduce their consumption.
2013-02-13 05:08:36 PM  
1 votes:

adamatari: www.landartgenerator.org


Well, that's not misleading at all.
2013-02-13 02:51:48 PM  
1 votes:
And the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
2013-02-13 02:49:00 PM  
1 votes:

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
2013-02-13 02:48:14 PM  
1 votes:

GungFu: Chernobyl, Schernobyl...


Harrisburg
Sellafield
Hiroshima

http://youtu.be/QAGCVYDJHss
2013-02-13 02:41:14 PM  
1 votes:

Kibbler: But today's new and modern nuclear power plant designs, citizens, today's designs, will create a veritable utopia in which nuclear energy is clean, cheap and safe.  So cheap that we may not even need to meter it!


Without maintenance any structure lasting for 30 years of freezing and thawing isn't half bad. An already weakened structure lasting that long is pretty damn good.

Also:
The building it is in has nothing to do with the reactor design. Your post is pretty much the same as ripping part of the gasket around your sunroof, then parking your car outside in alternating freezing and direct sunlight and then saying, "Internal combustion engines are dangerous!" when it leaks.
2013-02-13 02:35:07 PM  
1 votes:
Get out of here STALKER.
2013-02-13 11:46:34 AM  
1 votes:
That place is so farked up now anyway, not even a glitch.
 
Displayed 24 of 24 comments

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


Report