Chernobyl

[das1330]

When I asked about Chernobyl in my 7th grade science class, my teacher mentioned a similar place called "Love Canal" that was abandoned because of either pollution or radiation. However, I haven't been able to find any sources to validate this.

 

 

 

 

 

the love canal disaster was an incident that occurred in Tennessee if I remember right where a company dumped toxic chemicals into a dump then sold the land above it to a developer without telling them. A neighborhood was built above the dump, and people were getting all sorts of diseases because of it.

 

 

 

If an entire nuclear plant explodes (explodes, from a bomb), a massive area will be infected and turned into a wasteland of fallout. I don't remember where I saw this, but a video showed that the area would be intensely infected with radiation approximately 100-150 miles surrounding the plant. Can anyone confirm this or find that video?

 

 

 

Thats not entirely true, it depends on things like the size of the reactor and the design of the reactor. For instance, the Israelis have bombed nuclear reactors in Syria, Iran and Iraq and the fallout was negligible. If a large commercial plant had its cooling system damaged and a meltdown occurred (and the containment building failed) you may see big fallout but for the most part the small research reactors the Iranians and North Koreans are not particularly dangerous.

 

 

 

Chernobyl has had its worst effect in discouraging other countries, particularly the United States, from building new nuclear power plants. The design of the reactor was horribly unsafe, and the operators were incompitent, but it has caused people to fear perfectly safe reactors.

[Da Pirates]

I wonder what would happen if you put some of that stuff in a can and threw it at someone :shock:

[fgfuyfyuiuy0]

I wonder what would happen if you put some of that stuff in a can and threw it at someone :shock:

 

 

 

They would get cancer?

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty crazy stuff, though. The videos seem eerie and I went and played COD4 after watching it. The map looks just like it O_o

 

 

 

EDIT: Is there a movie reenacting it? I bet it'd be amazing.

[Lenticular_J]

I wonder what would happen if you put some of that stuff in a can and threw it at someone :shock:

 

 

 

They would get cancer?

 

 

 

 

 

Pretty crazy stuff, though. The videos seem eerie and I went and played COD4 after watching it. The map looks just like it O_o

 

 

 

EDIT: Is there a movie reenacting it? I bet it'd be amazing.

 

Why would it be amazing? It'd show an explosion, then people getting cancer and having four-headed children. Really doubt you could give that a catchy title, even if Angelina Jolie appears nude in your ad.

[Barihawk]

For those saying it's safe, 3 Mile Island was a "safe" facility with excellent design and competent employees. Not to mention the waste that nuclear reactors put out.

 

 

 

Wind Power is the future. West Texas is almost nearing 50% power from generators and they are absolutely gorgeous to look at.

 

 

 

Convenience is what got us into the coal situation in the first place.

[Tom_Servo]

What happens when a nuclear plant gets bombed? it reallly smart to have a plant in iran/iraq at this moment?

 

If an entire nuclear plant explodes (explodes, from a bomb), a massive area will be infected and turned into a wasteland of fallout. I don't remember where I saw this, but a video showed that the area would be intensely infected with radiation approximately 100-150 miles surrounding the plant. Can anyone confirm this or find that video?

 

 

 

Winds carrying the radioactivity could make this region much, much larger.

 

 

 

If the reactor has a meltdown, yes. But if the plant gets hit by say a conventional bomb absolutely nothing will happen as long as the reactor isn't breached and the water supply remains intact. Both of which are incredibly strong and have numerous fail-safes. If the reactor is breached it will not explode. It will just leak radiation similar to what happened in Chernobyl. Fallout only happens after a nuclear bomb explosion, as the radioactive material falls down from the atmosphere (the movie The Day After explains it pretty well if I remember right). However, if the water supply is cut and the core is exposed the it will heat up and cause what is called the China Syndrome. China Syndrome is when the core will heat up so much that it will melt through the reactor room barriers and end up burying itself in the ground, which isn't good. It is also said that if this accident happened in the US, the core could, theoretically, burn all the way down through the core of the Earth itself and end up in China. But that doesn't seem possible due to gravity and the depth of the Earth.

 

 

 

But no matter what though, a nuclear power plant cannot explode. Ever. It's just not possible.

[nickeley102]

For those saying it's safe, 3 Mile Island was a "safe" facility with excellent design and competent employees. Not to mention the waste that nuclear reactors put out.

 

 

 

Wind Power is the future. West Texas is almost nearing 50% power from generators and they are absolutely gorgeous to look at.

 

 

 

Convenience is what got us into the coal situation in the first place.

 

case and point

 

 

 

for those arguing that the US should be allowed nuclear power but iran/korea shouldnt, know deep down, that that is specious reasoning. Philosophically you are only promoting the american cultural empire by saying that the US is allowed something because they have proven themselves to be morally superior.

 

 

 

we all know what happens to empires...

[Lenticular_J]

For those saying it's safe, 3 Mile Island was a "safe" facility with excellent design and competent employees. Not to mention the waste that nuclear reactors put out.

 

 

 

Wind Power is the future. West Texas is almost nearing 50% power from generators and they are absolutely gorgeous to look at.

 

 

 

Convenience is what got us into the coal situation in the first place.

 

I very much agree, I love wind power. And the windmills are beautiful. It doesn't even take too many; the distance between them is quite large.

 

 

 

And to Mini_Me: I'm sorry, my small views on that matter are, well, small. Most of my information on nuclear disasters is, apparently, out of date. (And here I thought I was safe, I built my house under a desk!)

[Uldric]

I'd like to see more nuclear reactors built. With the right procedures they can be perfectly safe. The only problem is what to do with the waste that's left over. Bury it underground? Put it in a container and dump in the ocean? If they can solve that, I don't see any reason why more shouldn't be built.

 

 

 

Also, if you enjoy knowing about this kind of stuff, watch The China Syndrome. It's a movie that deals with possible meltdown of a nuclear power plant.

[baalboy5]

I'd like to see more nuclear reactors built. With the right procedures they can be perfectly safe. The only problem is what to do with the waste that's left over. Bury it underground? Put it in a container and dump in the ocean? If they can solve that, I don't see any reason why more shouldn't be built.

 

 

 

Also, if you enjoy knowing about this kind of stuff, watch The China Syndrome. It's a movie that deals with possible meltdown of a nuclear power plant.

 

 

 

I don't think those 2 are the best ideas...

[Ren0gade]

My friend showed me this video where they went around hunting the mutated wildlife living in Chernobyl. The craziest place though of chernobyl in the video i saw was, i think its called, the red forest. I'm pretty sure they said that it's the most radioactive place on earth, and if you enter you will die.

[Flodder450]

When chernobyl went "BOOM" the vedgetable patch at my grandparants house was turned upside down,all vegetables were destroyed (and that was in The Netherlands!)

 

 

 

the "red forest": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Forest

 

ive seen pics of a goat with his mouth on a place were its not supposed to be....... :shock:

[Nadril]

Even though it's still a dangerous place in some spots I would love to some day visit there. I've seen pictures and even though most of it is destroyed and abandoned it just makes it that more interesting.

[Barihawk]

My friend showed me this video where they went around hunting the mutated wildlife living in Chernobyl. The craziest place though of chernobyl in the video i saw was, i think its called, the red forest. I'm pretty sure they said that it's the most radioactive place on earth, and if you enter you will die.

 

 

 

It's actually called the Wormwood Forest, but is commonly called the Red Forest. The thing is, it doesn't exist anymore. There is no Red Forest. When the Soviets noticed that the trees were growing red (hence the name) at night, they chopped down the trees, mulched them and buried them. It's basically an open field right now. But you are right, it is the most radioactive place on Earth. Humans will die within three minutes of standing there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Going anywhere in Pripyat without a Geiger counter is suicide. And there are no "mutated" wildlife. The 3-headed goats all died within days, the only game you are going to find are normal deer and horses. Albeit they will be unsafe to eat because they eat radioactive grass.

 

 

 

If you want amazing pictures of Cherynobl and Pripyat, go to http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ Elena has done many pictures and videos of the Pripyat of today. It's stunning to see how even our great civilization can break down and be overrun by nature in just twenty years.

[das1330]

For those saying it's safe, 3 Mile Island was a "safe" facility with excellent design and competent employees. Not to mention the waste that nuclear reactors put out.

 

 

 

Wind Power is the future. West Texas is almost nearing 50% power from generators and they are absolutely gorgeous to look at.

 

 

 

Convenience is what got us into the coal situation in the first place.

 

 

 

That is the point, three mile island was a well designed reactor with a containment building that was adequately designed, unlike Chernobyl. A meltdown there did occurred and yet no radioactive or otherwise dangerous materials leaked into the environment. Despite scaring some people, the only damage that happened because of the three mile island incident was within the reactor core. A correctly engineered reactor is very, very safe.

[magekillr]

It should be a given that the energy strategy of the future will be a combination of many clean resources. I say that alongside solar, wind, and hydrogen, nuclear deserves a slot

 

 

 

There are four amazing advantages to nuclear power: efficiency, expense, safety, and security. Many reactors run on a low, and I mean looow, level of enrichment in its uranium: less than 20%. That means that it burns the very cheapest fuel. I know of reactors that after 30+ years they have only used one gram of Uranium. That's the amount of metal in a paperclip! And this isn't due to any hocus-pocus: light water reactors in general generate waste at a level some three to four orders of magnitude less than fossil fuels. New reactor designs, such as the two breeder reactors used in France, actually make more fuel as they run.

 

 

 

Nuclear power is also incredibly safe. Unbelievably safe, really. Lots of people cite Chernobyl as the only evidence necessary to close the case on nuclear energy. The story of this Soviet-built nightmare has nothing to do with the American power industry. Condemning American plants based on Russian performance is like accusing Rocky of using steroids because we saw Draco get those shots (no Stalone jokes, please). The only American nuclear accident worth has been Three Mile Island, which vented steam and hydrogen into the air for a matter of seconds. The scientific community is in a consensus that the valve error in that plant had no, meaning 0%, negative impact on the community. That's because in any light water reactor--the American style of power plant--water is both the moderator and the coolant. That means that the reactor can't even run if it's not protected from meltdown: it's not physically possible. The threat that you saw on 24 doesn't even make sense in the real world: it's like threatening to break down a wall with a pair of scissors. And anyone who's worried about those ominous cooling towers should know that those only exist to cool down water. You may be surprised to know that living near a nuclear power plant gives you about 1/10th of the amount or radiation of living near a coal power plant (due to the uranium in coal) and about 1/1000th the amount of radiation of living in a brick house (due to the uranium in clay). I'll repeat that again, because it sounded vaguely important: a brick house is much more radioactive than a nuclear power plant.

 

 

 

Finally, I'd like to tell you that I've looked into terrorist threats to a nuclear power plant. I'll tell you this: it's hopeless. Nuclear power plants have backup safety systems miles away from the plant, are mostly buried below the level of the water table (even more so in the case of breeder reactors), and are almost always very distant from population centers. No terrorist could fly a plane into any one building to knock out even one part of a plant. It would take at least half a dozen plane crashes to throw the whole plant onto backup systems. And any terrorist looking to steal uranium by smashing through yard after yard of steel-reinforced concrete and draining an entire water system to get to the fuel pile would be disappointed to get a hold of an extremely heavy brick of very hard silver metal. It would take them many years with very advanced, expensive machinery to get that metal into a form they could use in a bomb, dirty or nuclear. And beside that, radioactive material (like cesium) that poses a greater risk for dirty bombs can be found in hospitals and medical waste facilities.

 

 

 

We know that terrorists have looked into attacking nuclear power plants because we found schematics and blueprints in Afghanistan. The terrorist leaders said they gave up on those plans because an attack is practically impossible.

 

 

 

On the other hand, we also know that 99.8% of France's power comes safely and cheaply from its 59 nuclear reactors. Do we have to be beaten by France in yet another rubric?

[Barihawk]

For those saying it's safe, 3 Mile Island was a "safe" facility with excellent design and competent employees. Not to mention the waste that nuclear reactors put out.

 

 

 

Wind Power is the future. West Texas is almost nearing 50% power from generators and they are absolutely gorgeous to look at.

 

 

 

Convenience is what got us into the coal situation in the first place.

 

 

 

That is the point, three mile island was a well designed reactor with a containment building that was adequately designed, unlike Chernobyl. A meltdown there did occurred and yet no radioactive or otherwise dangerous materials leaked into the environment. Despite scaring some people, the only damage that happened because of the three mile island incident was within the reactor core. A correctly engineered reactor is very, very safe.

 

 

 

And also puts out the most toxic waste on the planet. With NO systems in place to destroy it. It's one thing that Carbon Monoxide dissipates in the atmosphere and gets filtered by the planet. It's another to bury millions of barrels from a handful of plants (keyword handful) in some concrete bunker and expect it to be someone else's problem (kind of sounds like Global Warming arguments, no?)

 

 

 

As for safety, you are trusting the lives of hundreds of thousands of people on some concrete.

[Sumpta]

I vaguely remember Chernobyl, or rather, my mother's reaction to the news. Seeing her so shocked and afraid really scared me. I also remember she wouldn't let me play outside for a week or so, when the fall-out cloud passed over half of Europe. Most of our crops were ruined that summer, and we live in Belgium. I thought the world was going to end.

 

 

 

It was a horrible tragedy for all the people involved. Even today, there are huge problems with the Chernobyl site, which had been locked of with concrete. There are holes in that concrete the size of cars, so they'll have to build a new kind of 'shield'.

 

 

 

However, I agree that this tragedy cannot be a reason to drop nuclear energy just like that. Nuclear waste is indeed a pain, but nuclear energy is a lot less polluting than the other tradition methods of gaining energy. As said above, the amount of waste is quite minimal.

 

 

 

Still, I'd rather get my energy from a sun panel or a wind generator... The waste may be minimal, but it's still highly toxic and difficult to get rid of. And no matter how low the risk may be, why take the risk when there are alternatives in the wind, the sun, the earth. It's merely a question of investing enough in nuclear power while we sophisticate the other methods.

[Agunimon979]

Love Canal

 

 

 

William T. Love had plans to turn a canal area in the Niagra Falls, New York area into an island neighborhood. However, he ran out of money and could not complete the project. Chemical companies started dumping chemicals and toxic waste where the area was, and lined it with clay. I don't know how but somehow people started living there again. A school was to be built on an area that wasn't made on top of toxic waste, but when a hole was drilled, chemical waste was there. Blah, blah, more holes were drilled around the town and chemical waste came out through the holes and started infecting children with radiation. It was evacuated and left empty.

 

 

 

All there is today is a few empty streets, most houses have been demolished. People actually visit there now, the parts with the toxic waste have been fenced off.

 

 

 

I didn't go into much detail, and some parts may be wrong.

 

So here you go http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal

[baalboy5]

See thats what I mean, the waste! they can't handle the waste correctly. How would they in America? 1 mistakes and a city is infected.

[nomadmike]

If we place nuclear reactors in the USA the plants would have a lot of waste. Thats what I believe is holding it back. Place it under a mountain and wait 10's of thousands of years to have it go somewhat safe -.-

 

 

 

Best bet is to send it into space. We already have garbage out there so why not place more man made junk there? :roll: [/sarcasm]

[Range_This11]

Sooo many people ignoring magekillr's post. Mage, you had a very well-informed post that pretty much sums up all there is to know about nuclear power. :D

[baalboy5]

Sooo many people ignoring magekillr's post. Mage, you had a very well-informed post that pretty much sums up all there is to know about nuclear power. :D

 

I want to know where he got his sources from.

[Range_This11]

 

I want to know where he got his sources from.

 

I'm sorry, but why the hell do you need everything spoon fed to you? Go find this stuff on your own. Ah well, I guess I'll find it for you:

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16809

 

Three Mile Myth

 

 

 

Any discussion of nuclear power safety inevitably turns to Three Mile Island, considered the worst--and only--nuclear power failure in the United States. Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) addressed Three Mile in his outstanding 2004 book, A Brighter Tomorrow: Fulfilling the Promise of Nuclear Energy:

 

 

 

"... few realize that even though 90 percent of the fuel rods ruptured, the accident was a non-event from a radiation standpoint. The maximum exposure to the nearest member of the public was little more than a third of the [Nuclear Regulatory Commission's] annual limit for the public. And no worker exceeded the commission's current annual limit for occupational exposure."

 

 

 

Domenici also recounts the amazing health record for sailors living on nuclear submarines during the past 50 years. "In the Navy's nuclear submarines, the sailors who live and work within yards of operating reactors receive less whole body radiation while underway than while at home and exposed to natural background radiation."

 

 

 

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9502E7DD1330F937A2575BC0A962958260

 

 

 

The 110 nuclear-power plants on line in the United States today have never caused an injury to the public or released harmful quantities of radiation. Generation of nuclear electric power is the safest industry in the country. Electric utilities routinely report that nuclear facilities deliver the lowest cost of their mix of generation sources. Shoreham was a safe licensed nuclear-power plant ready to deliver power. The Fitzpatrick Nuclear Power Plant upstate New York has been delivering low-cost electric power to Long Island for decades, and Shoreham, without the cost of obstruction, would have been a low-cost producer, too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ARE YOU CONVINCED YET? Nuclear power is the way to go. There is not one reason why not to other than that people are stubborn, old-fashioned, and cannot commit to any type of change.

[Barihawk]

Or we are worried about the nuclear waste, which IS a problem. To which the only current solution is to bury it.

 

 

 

Claiming that your opinion is right and everyone else is wrong is nothing short of blind arrogance. Yes, we get that the actual process is safe. But the aftereffect is deady. The reactors in America alone produce 20,000+ barrels of toxic waste that will be a danger for 25,000 years. Not to mention places like France which have more reactors.

 

 

 

What the hell do you plan to do with this waste when we have hundreds of reactors in the United States? The world? What will the 3rd World nations who don't have the money to use neutralization technology (that has not even been invented) do with their waste?