Chernobyl

[ViperZ]

Forum Sponsor

what "nightmare" would that be....just more fear mongering and quite frankly Chernobyl was way over stated as the actual events showed.

In the meantime coals kills hundreds of thousands world wide directly every year and affects the health of millions. That's $4 billion in health costs for Ontario alone.



Japan and Germany are being seriously stupid about this. If you want the science visit
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

There are far far greater risks we undertake every day - including our rides...would be nice to do in clean air

Yeah, Chernobyl was overstated. Thousands died on the spot saving the future generations. Tens of thousands if not more got affected by radiation. Maybe you'd think differently if you saw with your own eyes buses of people living your city - people who never came back.

 

[Johnny_M]

Yeah, Chernobyl was overstated. Thousands died on the spot saving the future generations. Tens of thousands if not more got affected by radiation. Maybe you'd think differently if you saw with your own eyes buses of people living your city - people who never came back.

I was thinking the same thing. Chernobyl was overstated. WTF? MacDoc you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[MacDoc]

Sure - thousands died on the spot

Thirty one deaths are directly attributed to the accident, all among the reactor staff and emergency workers.

The Chernobyl Forum estimates that the eventual death toll could reach 4,000 among those exposed to the highest levels of radiation (200,000 emergency workers, 116,000 evacuees and 270,000 residents of the most contaminated areas); this figure includes some 50 emergency workers who died of acute radiation syndrome, nine children who died of thyroid cancer and an estimated total of 3940 deaths from radiation-induced cancer and leukemia

and THAT estimate is considered overstated....

The meter reading showed levels about 10 times the normal level found in Kiev. (By comparison, I probably received a bigger dose of radiation flying from London to Kiev than during my visit here.)We are no more than 100m from the site of the explosion.

The best attempt at assessing the death toll from the accident has been a report published by the Chernobyl Forum -- a group including the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation -- in 2006, at the time of the incident's 20th anniversary. Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts suggests about 1000 workers received high doses of radiation in the immediate aftermath. Of these, 134 were diagnosed with acute radiation sickness and 28 died during 1986 as a result.

Two others died from injuries after the explosion. A further 19 died during the next seven years, but some of these deaths were not related to radiation.

Beyond these deaths, how many people have died from radiation-related disease in subsequent years? The difficulty for those trying to measure the health effects is that there has been no obvious spike in rates of cancer or other illnesses.[/B] The exception has been a surge in thyroid cancer, which is normally rare and usually treatable. Chernobyl's Legacy stated there had been about 4000 cases to 2006, with 15 deaths.

Now these people
the UN, the International Atomic Energy Agency and the World Health Organisation
indeed know what they are talking about as do I....I don't read tabloids but science journals.

let's put this in perspective for the more excitable amongst us

in one year

The United States had 5,285 childhood gun deaths that same year, the Center for Disease Control reports.

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.

There are things to worry about, radiation is NOT one of them. Do come down off the nonsense hobby horse and get irradiated with reality.

Chernobyl: when truth went into meltdown

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...nt-into-meltdown/story-e6frg6z6-1226027914874

and this is from a country that has no nuclear stake.

No reactor design like that will ever be in use - there was no containment dome.
What Japan suffered was a once in a thousand year earthquake and even then the reactors did a reasonable job of containment. Errors of human judgement in storage of materials and failure to heed suggestions for improved emergency cooling procedures went unheeded.
No nuclear reactor designed today requires electrical power for emergency shutdown.

Learn something instead of looking foolish in public.

 

[jc100]

what "nightmare" would that be....just more fear mongering and quite frankly Chernobyl was way over stated as the actual events showed.

In the meantime coals kills hundreds of thousands world wide directly every year and affects the health of millions. That's $4 billion in health costs for Ontario alone.



Japan and Germany are being seriously stupid about this. If you want the science visit
http://bravenewclimate.com/integral-fast-reactor-ifr-nuclear-power/

There are far far greater risks we undertake every day - including our rides...would be nice to do in clean air

I wouldn't say it was overstated when the fallout from Chernobyl was detectable in British milk from cows grazing on grass that was in the path of the fallout. It was detection of the radiation from fallout that eventually led to the Ukranian authorities admitting that there had been an accident. I'd say Chernobyl was indeed serious but could have been much worse.

 

[ViperZ]

jc, it couldn't have been worse. The reactor was wide open to the sky. The helicopters were dumping concrete, sand, etc. right into the reactor (and were falling down when pilots were dying after a huge dose). People like MacDoc are unfortunately clueless, but it's his own choice to live in his own world.

 

[silverbullet132]

jc, it couldn't have been worse. The reactor was wide open to the sky. The helicopters were dumping concrete, sand, etc. right into the reactor (and were falling down when pilots were dying after a huge dose). People like MacDoc are unfortunately clueless, but it's his own choice to live in his own world.

I read something about the containment needing rebuilding soon? Wonder how that will be done...

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[mxs]

I like the fact that the people in Japan are getting their panties in a knot. Wanting to eliminate nuclear energy. Can u imagine the amount of air pollution that would be increased?

Nuclear disaster only happen once every what? 30yrs?
Only ones I can think about are:
Chernobyl
3 mile island

How much nuclear reactors are in the world now?

You'd be singing to a different tune, if something happened close enough to you, I can guarantee you that, unless you don't care about what might happen to you in weeks, months or years to come. It's nature of a human being to discount something they don't think will ever affect them.

I didn't live close to Chernobyl, but I still was worried, because the Russians were not saying much and my government wasn't exactly helpful either. You have no idea what is the feeling until you go through it ...

 

[ViperZ]

I read something about the containment needing rebuilding soon? Wonder how that will be done...

The sarcophagus needs a replacement. Apparently it will only last until 2015-ish (30 years life for sarcophagus, since 1986).

 

[toshison]

What I find insane is that disasters like Chernobyl essentially scar a section of earth for thousands of years. That the contamination will likely outlve our civilization. That is just craziness for me.

I don't know why some of you guys are saying stuff like its "over stated" or that the Japanese are making a big deal of Fukashima when they shouldn't be... Its a friggin problem if a disaster "permanently" (in our lifespans anyway) contaminates/destroys a region of earth. Its terrible. Perhaps you'd feel differently if it were to occur in your own backyard.

 

[RockerGuy]

What I find insane is that disasters like Chernobyl essentially scar a section of earth for thousands of years. That the contamination will likely outlve our civilization. That is just craziness for me.

I don't know why some of you guys are saying stuff like its "over stated" or that the Japanese are making a big deal of Fukashima when they shouldn't be... Its a friggin problem if a disaster "permanently" (in our lifespans anyway) contaminates/destroys a region of earth. Its terrible. Perhaps you'd feel differently if it were to occur in your own backyard.

I think you're missing my point.

What I mean is, the advantages of a Nuclear power plant far outweighs the disadavantages.

Unless there is another way to generate clean electricity. I don't think we can shut down all nuclear plants. That is what some people in Japan want. They want to shut down all Nuclear and burn coal, which is a big joke. The air will be in soth in a matter of months

 

[ViperZ]

I think you're missing my point.

What I mean is, the advantages of a Nuclear power plant far outweighs the disadavantages.

Unless there is another way to generate clean electricity. I don't think we can shut down all nuclear plants. That is what some people in Japan want. They want to shut down all Nuclear and burn coal, which is a big joke. The air will be in soth in a matter of months

I agree with you that we shouldn't shut down all nuclear reactors. I think they should shut down all nuclear reactors in the areas with high probability of natural disasters - think California with earthquakes, coastal Japan with tsunamis. It does not make any sense to build the nukes in the areas where we cannot protect them properly. Chernobyl disaster may have happened due to a human error, but Fukushima Daiichi disaster could have been avoided if they weren't building their nukes in dangerous areas.

 

[RockerGuy]

I agree with you that we shouldn't shut down all nuclear reactors. I think they should shut down all nuclear reactors in the areas with high probability of natural disasters - think California with earthquakes, coastal Japan with tsunamis. It does not make any sense to build the nukes in the areas where we cannot protect them properly. Chernobyl disaster may have happened due to a human error, but Fukushima Daiichi disaster could have been avoided if they weren't building their nukes in dangerous areas.

Most of these disasters are due to human error. INcluding Chernobyl!
Chernobyl can be classified as the only major nuclear disaster. Remember this was in a Soviet era during the cold war. I highly doubt they had enough funding and the gov't was preoccupied with other problems.

Fukishima was also due to human error. That whole fiasco could've been avoided if the workers were trained in a "manual" shutdown. The cooling system was allowed to overheat (don't quote me on this).

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21528753.800-human-error-blamed-for-fukushima-meltdown.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18718486

 

[TheNewDude]

I agree with you that we shouldn't shut down all nuclear reactors. I think they should shut down all nuclear reactors in the areas with high probability of natural disasters - think California with earthquakes, coastal Japan with tsunamis. It does not make any sense to build the nukes in the areas where we cannot protect them properly. Chernobyl disaster may have happened due to a human error, but Fukushima Daiichi disaster could have been avoided if they weren't building their nukes in dangerous areas.

If I'm not mistaken, Nuclear plants require a lot of water so are usually built near a lake, sea or ocean. And Japan is a very densly populated country. I don't think they really have very many places inhabitated areas where they can build a Nuclear plant.

You would think these would be well thought of decisions. Or at least I hope they were thought about before they start building these massive nuclear plants.

 

[ViperZ]

Remember this was in a Soviet era during the cold war. I highly doubt they had enough funding and the gov't was preoccupied with other problems.

Dude, reading your posts is like going back to an iron curtain era. There are tons of current documentaries (American and Ukrainian/Russian), which describe in great detail what happened there. If you're interested in the subject, why not watch/read some of them to educate yourself instead of pulling out those amazing 'facts' or thoughts of yours???

 

[MacDoc]

You would think these would be well thought of decisions. Or at least I hope they were thought about before they start building these massive nuclear plants.

Um Fukishima is one of the oldest facilities in Japan - it WAS built to a very high standard - it was not built nor does anyone build to a 1,000 year event.

It could have had some upgrades that were not implemented and they broke existing rules by leaving the fuel rods in the the TEMPORARY holding pool.
These are judgement calls.

In the meantime all this nitpicking goes on and coal kills every day. Fortunately that is slowly changing as over a hundred proposed coal plants were stopped for environmental reasons and some of the oldest are going off line.

This is a good article on the irrational fear - that fear is the cause of most health effects.

Viewpoint: We should stop running away from radiation
By Wade Allison University of Oxford

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-12860842

I've had radiation like this....

However, patients receiving a course of radiotherapy usually get a dose of more than 20,000 mSv to vital healthy tissue close to the treated tumour. This tissue survives only because the treatment is spread over many days giving healthy cells time for repair or replacement.

In this way, many patients get to enjoy further rewarding years of life, even after many vital organs have received the equivalent of more than 20,000 years' dose at the above internationally recommended annual limit - which makes this limit unreasonable.

yeah it was uncomfortable for after effects - an internal sunburn but like any technology there are risks associated with the use and the risk of side effects was outweighed by the risk of my cancer spreading.

Compared to coal -nuclear power is extremely safe and has the record to prove it.
Chernobyl is a good reminder of how not to build a reactor and how not to allow safety aspects to be overridden. 45% of our power in Ontario is nuclear and 90% + of all towns with nuclear facilities support the expansion of those facilities.
Towns with coal facilities - well let's just say it's the inverse number.

People get killed daily using our technology - cars, motorcycles, falling off a roof......put your angst on the one's that count.
The U-turning driver as a start.
Now why aren't you out there riding?.

 

[ViperZ]

MacDoc, are you serious? Really? If someone falls off a motorcycle, they die. Ok, fine, there is a certain number of motorcycle death in the world per year. When nuke blows up, you kill a few thousand people, and then hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will be affected for hundreds of years.

When you're talking about radiation therapy, it's a COMPLETELY different beast. The therapy, like you said, is spread over a long time, AND it's a VERY precise beam. If they were irradiating your whole body, even over a long period of time, I really don't want to know the consequences, especially genetic ones for the future generation.

 

[RockerGuy]

Dude, reading your posts is like going back to an iron curtain era. There are tons of current documentaries (American and Ukrainian/Russian), which describe in great detail what happened there. If you're interested in the subject, why not watch/read some of them to educate yourself instead of pulling out those amazing 'facts' or thoughts of yours???

Which part u dont agree with? The cold war or the funding? I have no clue what u're arguing. Anyway... moving along

MacDoc, are you serious? Really? If someone falls off a motorcycle, they die. Ok, fine, there is a certain number of motorcycle death in the world per year. When nuke blows up, you kill a few thousand people, and then hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will be affected for hundreds of years.

When you're talking about radiation therapy, it's a COMPLETELY different beast. The therapy, like you said, is spread over a long time, AND it's a VERY precise beam. If they were irradiating your whole body, even over a long period of time, I really don't want to know the consequences, especially genetic ones for the future generation.

You're getting confused with the statistics. I would say nuclear power plants are like aeroplanes. Hardly ever crashes but when they do they kill hundreds of people. People get killed in cars all the time but the numbers in each crash is small. If u were to add up the deaths in planes and cars every year that value is probably the same.

Nuclear has the same effect as the airplane scenario


Sent from my tablet using my paws

 

[caboose56]

Which part u dont agree with? The cold war or the funding? I have no clue what u're arguing. Anyway... moving along


You're getting confused with the statistics. I would say nuclear power plants are like aeroplanes. Hardly ever crashes but when they do they kill hundreds of people. People get killed in cars all the time but the numbers in each crash is small. If u were to add up the deaths in planes and cars every year that value is probably the same.

Nuclear has the same effect as the airplane scenario


Sent from my tablet using my paws

Orders of magnitude more people die in crashes than plane crashes.

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MacDoc]

Hardly ever crashes but when they do they kill hundreds of people.

wrong - nuclear plants do not kill hundreds of people....coal kills hundreds of thousands of people, donkeys and mules kill more people than airplanes annually.
You really do need to adjust your risk calibration to match reality.

When you're talking about radiation therapy, it's a COMPLETELY different beast. The therapy, like you said, is spread over a long time, AND it's a VERY precise beam. If they were irradiating your whole body, even over a long period of time, I really don't want to know the consequences, especially genetic ones for the future generation.

a) it's NOT over a long time - it's 17 weeks.
b) it's not that precise. Why do you think the technicians leave the room?
c) it would prevent me having kids but it does not kill me and my body repairs itself. It took about a year.

You are a walking posterchild for irrational fear of radiation. Better not fly in a plane - you get a whole bunch.

 

[ViperZ]

c) it would prevent me having kids

Word. Thanks.

Forum Sponsor