Skip to content
 
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.

(Daily Mail)   Scientists confirm children from parents exposed to radiation from Chernobyl disaster in 1986 have no excess mutations, hidden superpowers   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

153 clicks; posted to STEM » on 22 Apr 2021 at 3:30 PM (3 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



26 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2021-04-22 3:02:27 PM  
Of course not.  After all, it was only 3.6 Roentgen.
 
2021-04-22 3:11:25 PM  

wage0048: Of course not.  After all, it was only 3.6 Roentgen.


Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-22 3:26:42 PM  
Beautiful pseudopods, though.
 
2021-04-22 3:37:29 PM  
Chernobyl was a big nothingburger. The Soviet Ministry of Health showed conclusively that there were only a few deaths from the accident and almost none afterwards. The epidemics of heart failure and pneumonia for several years later remain unexplained.
 
2021-04-22 3:45:37 PM  
The home of Ukraine's No Petting Zoo
 
2021-04-22 3:55:24 PM  
Do you really want chrysalids? Because being blasee about it is how we get chrysalids.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-22 3:56:33 PM  

anuran: Chernobyl was a big nothingburger. The Soviet Ministry of Health showed conclusively that there were only a few deaths from the accident and almost none afterwards. The epidemics of heart failure and pneumonia for several years later remain unexplained.


The fallout over Europe wasn't a big deal either. Nothing a little sand from the Sahara can't cover up.
 
2021-04-22 3:57:55 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-04-22 4:01:44 PM  
Chernobyl Trifecta in play?
 
2021-04-22 4:04:39 PM  

Ivo Shandor: [Fark user image 640x323]


It's worth reading the main book the series was based on, Voices From Chernobyl. A lot of the things I've heard as "inaccurate" come directly from eyewitness accounts in the book. And the series only scratched the surface about how horrible things were.
 
2021-04-22 4:26:43 PM  

anuran: Chernobyl was a big nothingburger. The Soviet Ministry of Health showed conclusively that there were only a few deaths from the accident and almost none afterwards. The epidemics of heart failure and pneumonia for several years later remain unexplained.


Of course.  That's why they filled all the responding ambulances and emergency vehicles up with concrete and buried them.
 
2021-04-22 4:41:10 PM  

labman: anuran: Chernobyl was a big nothingburger. The Soviet Ministry of Health showed conclusively that there were only a few deaths from the accident and almost none afterwards. The epidemics of heart failure and pneumonia for several years later remain unexplained.

Of course.  That's why they filled all the responding ambulances and emergency vehicles up with concrete and buried them.


After being used in such a noble cause they were Honorary Heroes of Soviet Labor and deserved proper burial, never to be used in a lesser cause and all that.
 
2021-04-22 4:43:32 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Ivo Shandor: [Fark user image 640x323]

It's worth reading the main book the series was based on, Voices From Chernobyl. A lot of the things I've heard as "inaccurate" come directly from eyewitness accounts in the book. And the series only scratched the surface about how horrible things were.


On the other hand, I lost a lot of respect for the series when they tried to play up the drama by introducing a fictitious risk of a 4 MT explosion that would render much of Europe uninhabitable.
 
2021-04-22 5:02:07 PM  

labman: anuran: Chernobyl was a big nothingburger. The Soviet Ministry of Health showed conclusively that there were only a few deaths from the accident and almost none afterwards. The epidemics of heart failure and pneumonia for several years later remain unexplained.

Of course.  That's why they filled all the responding ambulances and emergency vehicles up with concrete and buried them.


No, that part was pure insurance fraud.
 
2021-04-22 5:18:28 PM  
If their superpowers are hidden, how would you know?
 
2021-04-22 5:38:28 PM  
That's a good thing.

The initial casualty list, 20-mile exclusion zone, Elephant's Foot, and pattern of all three to lesser degrees in any other nuclear power plant failure, to say nothing of nuclear waste, is why calling nuclear power 'green' is laughable--it's the only thing I can think of that kills people faster than coal and fracking.

Stop. Using. Nuclear. Power. There's plenty of stuff that relies on the nature around you and isn't going to kill people if it blows up.
 
2021-04-22 5:47:59 PM  

It'sMorphin'Time: That's a good thing.

The initial casualty list, 20-mile exclusion zone, Elephant's Foot, and pattern of all three to lesser degrees in any other nuclear power plant failure, to say nothing of nuclear waste, is why calling nuclear power 'green' is laughable--it's the only thing I can think of that kills people faster than coal and fracking.

Stop. Using. Nuclear. Power. There's plenty of stuff that relies on the nature around you and isn't going to kill people if it blows up.


The number of people who die due to nuclear power is almost nil compared to the millions who die due to coal pollution alone. I'm not saying nuclear is a good choice, but it is the cleanest way right now to produce our baseline energy needs. Just don't build them in places subject to major earthquakes, tsunamis and Godzilla appearances. (But even if you do, coal is still far more dangerous,)
 
2021-04-22 7:30:45 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: The number of people who die due to nuclear power is almost nil compared to the millions who die due to coal pollution alone. I'm not saying nuclear is a good choice, but it is the cleanest way right now to produce our baseline energy needs. Just don't build them in places subject to major earthquakes, tsunamis and Godzilla appearances. (But even if you do, coal is still far more dangerous,)


I'm not so much arguing the death toll alone is what's bad. The idea behind green\clean energy is that the byproducts and production result in no harmful effects. Nuclear waste is something that is horrifically toxic to almost every living thing on the planet, remains toxic for thousands of years, and we can only dispose of by burying it and really hoping we can pass on the message to future generations that they shouldn't crack open the vaults and kill themselves and anyone nearby. That's what happens when everything goes right. If coal ash had that kind of toxicity we'd be screaming bloody murder.
 
2021-04-22 9:31:15 PM  

It'sMorphin'Time: AliceBToklasLives: The number of people who die due to nuclear power is almost nil compared to the millions who die due to coal pollution alone. I'm not saying nuclear is a good choice, but it is the cleanest way right now to produce our baseline energy needs. Just don't build them in places subject to major earthquakes, tsunamis and Godzilla appearances. (But even if you do, coal is still far more dangerous,)

I'm not so much arguing the death toll alone is what's bad. The idea behind green\clean energy is that the byproducts and production result in no harmful effects. Nuclear waste is something that is horrifically toxic to almost every living thing on the planet, remains toxic for thousands of years, and we can only dispose of by burying it and really hoping we can pass on the message to future generations that they shouldn't crack open the vaults and kill themselves and anyone nearby. That's what happens when everything goes right. If coal ash had that kind of toxicity we'd be screaming bloody murder.


Nuclear waste is only a problem because we're going about it in the most stupendously idiotic and inefficient way possible.

And we're doing that because, after TMI, the regulatory and engineering costs for building new nuclear plants became so high that the market shut the process down completely. Thus the price of new mined Uranium remains low because demand did not increase 10x as expected when nuclear was going to completely displace coal by 2000, so waste recycling and breeder reactors never* happened.

And thus, we accumulate used fuel rods from which 1% of the available energy has been tapped because it's cheaper to let them sit around than recycle them.

It's not unknown how to build a nuclear power plant that will destroy all the long-lived nasties in waste and leave you waste that will be dangerous for 100 years instead of 10000, it's just until very recently nobody's actually tried to go and do it.

* not for any meaningful/useful purpose at least
 
2021-04-22 11:07:06 PM  

erik-k: It's not unknown how to build a nuclear power plant that will destroy all the long-lived nasties in waste and leave you waste that will be dangerous for 100 years instead of 10000, it's just until very recently nobody's actually tried to go and do it.


...Friend, I'm not sure how to tell you this, but I don't want nuclear waste being dangerous for a hundred years either. I'd like to use things that don't produce dangerous byproducts in the first place. A concerted effort to match solar, wind, geothermal, and hell, even just souped-up water mills to whatever location works best? It would power us all, with no danger at all, for pretty much the entirety of our civilization. Why do you want to play with nuclear waste when you have that?
 
2021-04-22 11:47:33 PM  

It'sMorphin'Time: erik-k: It's not unknown how to build a nuclear power plant that will destroy all the long-lived nasties in waste and leave you waste that will be dangerous for 100 years instead of 10000, it's just until very recently nobody's actually tried to go and do it.

...Friend, I'm not sure how to tell you this, but I don't want nuclear waste being dangerous for a hundred years either. I'd like to use things that don't produce dangerous byproducts in the first place. A concerted effort to match solar, wind, geothermal, and hell, even just souped-up water mills to whatever location works best? It would power us all, with no danger at all, for pretty much the entirety of our civilization. Why do you want to play with nuclear waste when you have that?


You forgot coal. We're not getting close to our baseline needs without coal. Unless you want to go nuclear. Those are the only serious options. I'm sorry but renewables simple can't produce enough power to come close to meeting our needs; this is not controversial. It's getting better and may reach that stage, but we can't gamble our future on that hope, especially when nuclear can be done safely. To dismiss nuclear because it produces waste products that are dangerous is to dismiss one of the most hopeful possibilities for dealing with the effects of climate change.
 
2021-04-23 12:58:00 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: It'sMorphin'Time: erik-k: It's not unknown how to build a nuclear power plant that will destroy all the long-lived nasties in waste and leave you waste that will be dangerous for 100 years instead of 10000, it's just until very recently nobody's actually tried to go and do it.

...Friend, I'm not sure how to tell you this, but I don't want nuclear waste being dangerous for a hundred years either. I'd like to use things that don't produce dangerous byproducts in the first place. A concerted effort to match solar, wind, geothermal, and hell, even just souped-up water mills to whatever location works best? It would power us all, with no danger at all, for pretty much the entirety of our civilization. Why do you want to play with nuclear waste when you have that?

You forgot coal. We're not getting close to our baseline needs without coal. Unless you want to go nuclear. Those are the only serious options. I'm sorry but renewables simple can't produce enough power to come close to meeting our needs; this is not controversial. It's getting better and may reach that stage, but we can't gamble our future on that hope, especially when nuclear can be done safely. To dismiss nuclear because it produces waste products that are dangerous is to dismiss one of the most hopeful possibilities for dealing with the effects of climate change.


Also, it's not just a matter of replacing today's dirty electrical generation with renewables. A whole lot of other stuff also has to be electrified, replacing liquid transportation fuels and natural gas for heating etc. We'll need more power for water desalination and for fertilizer production.

Solar is nice when the sun shines, but on a dark December day you might only be getting 10% of your mid-July peak output. A nuclear plant can chug along providing solid base load power 24/365.
 
2021-04-23 1:14:13 AM  

It'sMorphin'Time: That's a good thing.

The initial casualty list, 20-mile exclusion zone, Elephant's Foot, and pattern of all three to lesser degrees in any other nuclear power plant failure, to say nothing of nuclear waste, is why calling nuclear power 'green' is laughable--it's the only thing I can think of that kills people faster than coal and fracking.

Stop. Using. Nuclear. Power. There's plenty of stuff that relies on the nature around you and isn't going to kill people if it blows up.


Sometimes I make big post full of citations, but I'm really not in the mood to put a lot of effort into this right now.  Maybe later.  But here is the thing... you don't actually know what you are talking about.  Both your understanding of the statistics and the base premises... are just plain wrong.  Completely, totally mistaken.  What's worse... is that you think you know what you're talking about.
 
2021-04-23 12:24:30 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: You forgot coal. We're not getting close to our baseline needs without coal. Unless you want to go nuclear. Those are the only serious options. I'm sorry but renewables simple can't produce enough power to come close to meeting our needs; this is not controversial. It's getting better and may reach that stage, but we can't gamble our future on that hope, especially when nuclear can be done safely. To dismiss nuclear because it produces waste products that are dangerous is to dismiss one of the most hopeful possibilities for dealing with the effects of climate change.


Citation?

bk3k: Sometimes I make big post full of citations, but I'm really not in the mood to put a lot of effort into this right now. Maybe later. But here is the thing... you don't actually know what you are talking about. Both your understanding of the statistics and the base premises... are just plain wrong. Completely, totally mistaken. What's worse... is that you think you know what you're talking about.


Citing an insult is not an argument. If you're too lazy to post, don't post.

Ivo Shandor: Also, it's not just a matter of replacing today's dirty electrical generation with renewables. A whole lot of other stuff also has to be electrified, replacing liquid transportation fuels and natural gas for heating etc. We'll need more power for water desalination and for fertilizer production.

Solar is nice when the sun shines, but on a dark December day you might only be getting 10% of your mid-July peak output. A nuclear plant can chug along providing solid base load power 24/365.


Since we were talking about nuclear power plants, I wasn't really talking about cars, no. But you'll notice that solar works even when the sun stops shining because of this novel thing called batteries.
 
2021-04-23 12:42:31 PM  

It'sMorphin'Time: Since we were talking about nuclear power plants, I wasn't really talking about cars, no. But you'll notice that solar works even when the sun stops shining because of this novel thing called batteries.


Batteries are fine for filling in short-term gaps. I'm talking about seasonal variations, particularly at higher latitudes, where you only have a few hours of winter sun and often find it on the wrong side of a cloud bank for days at a time. Whether you charge a vanadium flow battery or use the electricity directly, you're only getting a fraction of the total kWh that you can get under ideal conditions.

Fark user imageView Full Size
Fark user imageView Full Size


And these days you don't get to talk about power plants without considering cars. They're going electric, whether as plug-in hybrids or full EV. Tomorrow's grid is going to have to shove a lot more electrons around than today's grid does. You need to figure out how to supply all of that extra energy.
 
2021-04-23 3:11:24 PM  

Ivo Shandor: It'sMorphin'Time: Since we were talking about nuclear power plants, I wasn't really talking about cars, no. But you'll notice that solar works even when the sun stops shining because of this novel thing called batteries.

Batteries are fine for filling in short-term gaps. I'm talking about seasonal variations, particularly at higher latitudes, where you only have a few hours of winter sun and often find it on the wrong side of a cloud bank for days at a time. Whether you charge a vanadium flow battery or use the electricity directly, you're only getting a fraction of the total kWh that you can get under ideal conditions.

[Fark user image 390x411][Fark user image 400x411]

And these days you don't get to talk about power plants without considering cars. They're going electric, whether as plug-in hybrids or full EV. Tomorrow's grid is going to have to shove a lot more electrons around than today's grid does. You need to figure out how to supply all of that extra energy.


That's why I said to use multiple forms across the nation. There is nowhere, nationally or worldwide, that has not at least one of: Solar, wind, water, or geothermal. You use combinations of techniques depending on what the local environment sustains. There are cloudy places--but are they windy? Do they have geothermal energy? If they're cloudy, they definitely have water.

It's also worth noting that would provide a lot of security as well--if you only have nuclear power plants, what happens when something goes wrong and you have to shut it off? If you have multiple sources of power, you don't have that problem--imagine a world without power outages.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.