[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42894476]There's nothing all that odd about that when it's the only solution. The funny part would be
"And what are we going to do when the box starts leaking?"
"Put the box into a bigger box!"[/QUOTE]
Then mail it to themselves and smash it with a hammer.
Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.
[QUOTE=LVL FACTORY;42895572]And the radiation will stop in about 20 000 years
unless we find somewthing that causes things to decay super-fast[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that just cause a major, and dangerous amount of radiation to be released in a short time? Or am I wrong, if so--correct me.
Again, I apologize, as I have little actual education on the rate of radioactive decay.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
Not really. Chernobyl didnt really even follow the basic principles of nuclear safety. They even IGNORED emergency alarms.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Causes[/url]
[QUOTE=areolop;42894792]So its below the imminent danger level, but is still high enough to not allow rebuilding/clearing?[/QUOTE]
Most of the radioactive particles has moved underground through rain. Almost the entire zone is safe to walk around in (except for some hotspots such as rainwater deposits and some old vehicles), but digging into the soil will release that radioactive dust again.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
Awwwwww here it goes
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
As a weapon or as power, because it could be way better as any other power source.
[editline]17th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=smurfy;42895721]Awwwwww here it goes[/QUOTE]
Im sorry smurfy, I fell right into his trap.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
You want to get rid of nuclear reactors? When do you start building the sun explosions device?
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594][B]Shitty soviet-era nuclear power with massive disregard for procedure and non-existent reactor safety [/B]seems to be a terrible idea.
.[/QUOTE]
Fixed it for ya.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
Under practicality, the use of airplanes seems like a stupid, terrible, and dangerous idea, too.
Yet when utilized properly, and with the implementation and use of training and safety procedures, it can be an efficient and common method of travel.
Nuclear power is the same way. When people work safely, and know what they're doing, it can produce astronomically productive results. But when people slip up, and don't have safety measures in place, like at Chernobyl, it can fuck up and be dangerous.
The world turns because of potentially dangerous principles like this. Without them, we'd be nowhere.
[editline]17th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=smurfy;42895721]Awwwwww here it goes[/QUOTE]
Oh...
Shit.
I can't remember where I heard this from, but I remember something like one supervisor being drunk is the reason the incident couldn't be contained and that the reactor exploded. If that's true, it's crazy that one man's intoxication could cause such a huge disaster.
[QUOTE=geogzm;42895779]I can't remember where I heard this from, but I remember something like one supervisor being drunk is the reason the incident couldn't be contained and that the reactor exploded. If that's true, it's crazy that one man's intoxication could cause such a huge disaster.[/QUOTE]
Emergency power test in progress. Test takes long time, shift change. Reactor technician replaced with an inexperienced one. Test gets mismanaged, shit hits the fan.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;42895731]Im sorry smurfy, I fell right into his trap.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, you're not [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1325983&p=42895433&viewfull=1#post42895433]the most predictable person in this thread[/url]. [sp]Look carefully at the top-left of the first image in the OP[/sp]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
You realize that the people in charge of the reactor the night did literally everything wrong?
And that Fukushima was, iirc, past due for retirement?
If there's anything to be learned, it's that more regulation and oversight is needed. Not a complete shutdown.
About this project:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9URUQvGE9g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9URUQvGE9g[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OFEI8S5rG0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OFEI8S5rG0[/url]
Isn't there a picture floating around of the inside of the reactor taken with a mirror+camera, since the camera malfunctioned when going around the corner into the reactor proper?
[QUOTE=bisousbisous;42895952]Isn't there a picture floating around of the inside of the reactor taken with a mirror+camera, since the camera malfunctioned when going around the corner into the reactor proper?[/QUOTE]
It's the elephant's foot you're thinking of.
Gee, this thread derailed fast.
ALL ABOARD THE NUCLEAR DEBATE BANDWAGON
*toot toot*
[QUOTE=RG4ORDR;42894744]The only place you can probably die is inside the reactor otherwise you're pretty much fine. Hell someone YouTube has filmed sitting in crane hooks that removed debris from the reactor and being in it for over 5 hours. It's not really dangerous to go around areas like the ferris wheel or the machinery, just don't go inside the reactor.
Or has the radiation subsided enough to allow for all of this for some period of time[/QUOTE]
We talking about Bionerd23? She's got loads of videos in the area.
[video=youtube;6kg4vVYKc90]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kg4vVYKc90[/video]
Also guys, you really want to use sieverts instead of rads when figuring out quantities related to biological tissue. Sieverts are the effective absorbed dose and what it's going to do, whilst rad is the raw value of amount absorbed, which is very vague and pretty much useless without any context. (in addition to that, the only place that legitimately uses rads is the US, nowhere else has used them in over 30 years, if ever. Use grays instead of rads, 1 rads = 0.01 Gy) Bequerel is the unit for the radioactivity of something (so the rate at which it emits)
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
Properly regulated nuclear power plants are absolutely amazing sources of power. Chernobyl was MASSIVELY under-prepared for a freak scenario. (seriously, graphite tipped cooling rods? the water UNDER the reactor? running tests with safety OFF and new staff members? NO SCRAM?) Fukushima was designed pre Chernobyl, and was also massively out of date on the IAEA recommendations, it was told 2 times (maybe 3) to modernise the fuck up back in 1995, and they fucking didn't. That was clearly a case of a private company being a private company and not listening at all to the past in favour of profits. If it was modernised (and as a note to all chucklefucks, PLEASE keep the fucking floodable backup generators ABOVE ground level) then it would have survived everything. Seriously.
A coal power station actually emits more raw radiation than a NPP, and do you want to know how strictly NPPs are kept to (at least in the UK?)? If they were to deal in tea or coffee, that'd be considered nuclear waste due to how radioactive it is. Fucking tea leaves. Nuclear waste. That's some mighty strict rules. I believe coffee is something like 3 times the legal dose to be considered nuclear waste in the UK when being dealt with by a NPP. Hell, chew on a banana and you're at about the same dose you'll have from living relatively close to a NPP.
Not to mention how good thorium breeders could be if there was more research into them, and I still have hopes for fusion.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
You get more radiation being near a coal power plant then nuclear.
My granpda was in one of the WHO teams sent to Chernobyl after the accident.
It's funny because before he went the KGB gave him a background check. Then the FBI did a background check because the KGB were doing it.
[QUOTE=smurfy;42895854]Don't worry, you're not [url=http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1325983&p=42895433&viewfull=1#post42895433]the most predictable person in this thread[/url]. [sp]Look carefully at the top-left of the first image in the OP[/sp][/QUOTE]
Do you think this is just a motherfucking game?!
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;42895761]Under practicality, the use of airplanes seems like a stupid, terrible, and dangerous idea, too.
Yet when utilized properly, and with the implementation and use of training and safety procedures, it can be an efficient and common method of travel. [/QUOTE]
Prior to the last hundred years or so, there was pretty much nothing aside from incredibly rare, natural disasters that could effect the quality of life of practically everyone (or indeed, wipe humanity from the face of the earth).
With the advent of man-made nuclear anything, you're potentially effecting far more people than just a controlled, regulated number (those who are on the plane or in the near vicinity) if there's an accident or catastrophe.
With these sorts of events, you are suddenly talking completely uncontrolled, widespread and irreversible damage that lasts a long time, and spreads far beyond any boundaries you could hope for. In the last hundred years we've seen multiple examples of such events involving man-made catalysts which HAVE effected almost everyone on earth.
It's risk analysis. And the risk here is, countless millions are affected in a large, irreversible way. Is it worth it for the industry/production/efficiency benefits? You could probably argue a compelling case to say it is undeniably worth it - based on the benefits weighed up against the unlikelyhood of anything unpredictable and catastrophic actually happening. And millions would agree.
But as time has shown, unpredictable and catastrophic events DO occur in almost every possible facet conceivable. From the unpredictable and sudden stock market crashes of 1929 and 2008 to the Titanic, to oil spills, natural disasters and what cancer effectively is (unregulated cell mutation).
Would your opinion change if your way of life was permanently altered as a result of fallout? Would your opinion change if you were permanently entombed in a cold concrete nuclear bunker (if you were lucky) or subject to famine or radiation sickness as a result of fallout? You can dance around the issue of risk, or put on your cool sunglasses and pretend that catastrophic events never happen - but they do.
[editline]17th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Terminutter;42896113]
A coal power station actually emits more raw radiation than a NPP, and do you want to know how strictly NPPs are kept to (at least in the UK?)? If they were to deal in tea or coffee, that'd be considered nuclear waste due to how radioactive it is. Fucking tea leaves. Nuclear waste. That's some mighty strict rules. I believe coffee is something like 3 times the legal dose to be considered nuclear waste in the UK when being dealt with by a NPP. Hell, chew on a banana and you're at about the same dose you'll have from living relatively close to a NPP.[/QUOTE]
I don't see a coal power station exploding/leaking/whatever and rendering the nearby land uninhabitable for 180 years.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42896641]I don't see a coal power station exploding/leaking/whatever and rendering the nearby land inhabitable for 25,000 years.[/QUOTE]
They don't need to leak to do that. Just get enough of them and give it enough time, and let the coal emissions build up a bit in the atmosphere. Might remove a bit more than the nearby land, and might require more than marking sheep. Might kill a few dozen ecosystems, too. Hell, it'll kill most coral reefs and force millions of people to move or drown, too.
It's night impossible for a properly maintained NPP to meltdown, as SCRAM activates. That absorbs the neutrons that keep the reaction in a critical (self-sustaining) or supercritical (growing) state, and brings it sub-critical, causing it to stop. Any deviation from the norm in a modern NPP causes them to drop, which terminates the reaction. It slows, then stops. They are held up, so they'll drop no matter what these days, providing gravity keeps on working. As for an explosion, modern reactors are built more sturdily, and again, the SCRAM stops it.
All NPP issues that have happened so far could have been stopped with either more knowledge, or forcing the company owning it to keep up to the legal guidelines.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42896641]Prior to the last hundred years or so, there was pretty much nothing aside from incredibly rare, natural disasters that could effect the quality of life of practically everyone (or indeed, wipe humanity from the face of the earth).
[/QUOTE]
[b]NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH FLU![/b]
(or black death, or colonising another continent and infecting and subsequently wiping out near an entire population of people)
Extincting mankind, probably not, but affecting the quality of life of everyone? Yep.
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;42895761]Under practicality, the use of airplanes seems like a stupid, terrible, and dangerous idea, too.
Yet when utilized properly, and with the implementation and use of training and safety procedures, it can be an efficient and common method of travel.
Nuclear power is the same way. When people work safely, and know what they're doing, it can produce astronomically productive results. But when people slip up, and don't have safety measures in place, like at Chernobyl, it can fuck up and be dangerous.
The world turns because of potentially dangerous principles like this. Without them, we'd be nowhere.
[/QUOTE]
Progress takes trial and error, it's a simple concept. These accidents happen on the way of achieving new technology and nuclear energy should be encouraged and not be stopped because there is a chance an accident occurs.
Should we stop spaceflight and be stuck on this resource dwindling rock because a shuttle blows up every now and then? Of course not, we need to make progress damnit!
Here is a on-line video of the construction of the shelter if anyone is interested in watching.
[url]http://www.chnpp.gov.ua/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=230&Itemid=101&lang=en[/url]
[QUOTE=FloaterTWO;42895247]The skyline will certainly be different now.
[img]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/9988278/gunsnshit/goldenautumninpripyat001-18.jpg[/img]
It's obscured by clouds/fog here, but you get the idea. Also shows how massive the new containment cover is.[/QUOTE]
Now it's going to look like a big stadium in the distance.
Can we have mutated creature Olympics?
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;42896880]Now it's going to look like a big stadium in the distance.
Can we have mutated creature Olympics?[/QUOTE]
Those run down flats and giant structure in the distance reminds me of City 17 a little actually.
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;42896880]Now it's going to look like a big stadium in the distance.
Can we have mutated creature Olympics?[/QUOTE]
Why not just segment the Olympics into the Special, Normal (boring) and every-drug-and-type-of-radiation-you-can-survive Olympics
[QUOTE=Terminutter;42896710]
(or black death, or colonising another continent and infecting and subsequently wiping out near an entire population of people)
Extincting mankind, probably not, but affecting the quality of life of everyone? Yep.[/QUOTE]
Moderated risks/stressors are fine and contribute to building something that works better - with each plane crash, planes become safer. With each failed rocket launch, rockets become better.
Maybe with each Chernobyl and Fukushima, NPPs become safer too - but unlike with a plane crash, such events effect lots of people for a long time.
[I]In 2003 the Japanese Nuclear Commission said that a fatality due to radiation exposure from an accident at one of its facilities should happen less than once per million years. That was the standard by which they were managing the reactors. Even if we don't have casualties yet from this accident, we know the nightmare scenario almost happened eight years into the million years.[/I]
[editline]17th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Siduron;42896838]Progress takes trial and error, it's a simple concept. These accidents happen on the way of achieving new technology and nuclear energy should be encouraged and not be stopped because there is a chance an accident occurs.
Should we stop spaceflight and be stuck on this resource dwindling rock because a shuttle blows up every now and then? Of course not, we need to make progress damnit![/QUOTE]
Again, spaceflight is a controlled and regulated risk.
A space-shuttle explosion isn't going to result in worldwide devastation that effects millions of people (maybe emotionally).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
