[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;42896880]Now it's going to look like a big stadium in the distance.
Can we have mutated creature Olympics?[/QUOTE]
Chernobolympics does have a certain ring to it.
Wow, look at this one:
[t]https://images.4chan.org/hr/src/1381167779118.jpg[/t]
Amazing.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42895594]Nuclear seems to be a terrible idea.
Too bad the world seems hell bent on using it.[/QUOTE]
Please, never contribute in any public decision, ever, not even indirectly.
[editline]18th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42896958]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]
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).[/QUOTE]
Except both Fukushima and Chernobyl were powerplants nobody would ever build again, today.
We already HAVE passed the time of risky designs. The reactors we build today, like for example CANDU, BY PRINCIPLE can't go fuku/chernobyl.
Yeah, I agree with one thing. We should tear down the powerplants from more than 40 years ago.
But each and every one of them should be replaced by a new one.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42896958]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]
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).[/QUOTE]
Solar/Wind couldn't have a chance of keeping up with demand and coal power creates an unregulated risk equal to or greater than that created by nuke plants [I]as a side product of working normally.[/I]
If you were to choose between getting shot in the foot or losing an arm in surgery, are you really telling me that you'd choose to lose an arm because it's tried-and-tested?
Also, "events effect lots of people for a long time" might be true, but you are ignoring the fact that the level by which they affect people is still orders of magnitude lower than pretty much every other source of energy.
More people died, dies, and will die due to coal powerplants than ever died due to radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the danger of nuclear power will only go down, while danger of fossil fuels seems to be only increasing with the threat of global climate change.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42897125]Please, never contribute in any public decision, ever, not even indirectly.[/QUOTE]
It's nice that you thoroughly consider risk, certainty, possibilities and potential long term effects when it comes to decision making.
If everyone took your [del]haphazard[/del] approach when it comes to making [del]potentially catastrophic[/del] decisions, nothing would ever go wrong.
After all, if something's unlikely, that means it's never going to happen so you should just do it anyway. YOLO.
[editline]17th November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42897125]Except both Fukushima and Chernobyl were powerplants nobody would ever build again, today.
We already HAVE passed the time of risky designs. The reactors we build today, like for example CANDU, BY PRINCIPLE can't go fuku/chernobyl.
Yeah, I agree with one thing. We should tear down the powerplants from more than 40 years ago.
But each and every one of them should be replaced by a new one.[/QUOTE]
Alright this makes sense.
[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;42897184]Also, "events effect lots of people for a long time" might be true, but you are ignoring the fact that the level by which they affect people is still orders of magnitude lower than pretty much every other source of energy.
More people died, dies, and will die due to coal powerplants than ever died due to radiation from Chernobyl and Fukushima, and the danger of nuclear power will only go down, while danger of fossil fuels seems to be only increasing with the threat of global climate change.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's valid, also agreed.
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;42897076]Wow, look at this one:
[t]https://images.4chan.org/hr/src/1381167779118.jpg[/t]
Amazing.[/QUOTE]
Amazing new desktop background, thanks for posting!
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42897208]It's nice that you thoroughly consider risk, certainty, possibilities and potential long term effects when it comes to decision making.
If everyone took your [del]haphazard[/del] approach when it comes to making [del]potentially catastrophic[/del] decisions, nothing would ever go wrong.
After all, if something's unlikely, that means it's never going to happen so you should just do it anyway. YOLO.
[editline]17th November 2013[/editline]
Alright this makes sense.
Yeah that's valid, also agreed.[/QUOTE]
I like how your saying these things are valid like you're the foremost expert on nuclear power.
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42897208]snip[/QUOTE]
Nuclear power sure isn't perfect but it's certainly better than all the other alternatives. It's safer than everything else sans natural power (wind/dams/tides/solar) but it's versatility and efficiency can't be matched by those.
The notion that nuclear power is dangerous and should be stopped is usually done by people with a gross misunderstanding of how radiation works and by ignorance of how dangerous coal and natural gas actually are.
Like when [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingston_Fossil_Plant_coal_fly_ash_slurry_spill"]this happened 4 years ago[/URL] I barely saw any news coverage on it. But for the past two years I've seen so much on Fukishima. It's like the average person thinks dangerous green goop comes out of NPPs and that coal just magically disappears when you burn it.
[QUOTE=Ninja Duck;42897076]Wow, look at this one:
[t]https://images.4chan.org/hr/src/1381167779118.jpg[/t]
Amazing.[/QUOTE]
I've stood in that exact spot
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/8051002826/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8455/8051002826_39ee19a3fb_c.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/8051002826/]Flashing Prypiat[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/bengley/]Bengley1[/url], on Flickr
Are they ever going to try and clean up the area around it after it's covered, or is it useless?
[QUOTE=Marlamin;42897860]Are they ever going to try and clean up the area around it after it's covered, or is it useless?[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure it's useless for a few hundred years. Not a big deal, Ukraine is vast and has plenty of other space for new settlements if necessary.
[QUOTE=Bengley;42897667]I've stood in that exact spot
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/8051002826/][img]http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8455/8051002826_39ee19a3fb_c.jpg[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/bengley/8051002826/]Flashing Prypiat[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/bengley/]Bengley1[/url], on Flickr[/QUOTE]
Doesn't look like the same spot to me
Also what's the point of flashing your nipples in Chernobyl? That's pretty disrespectful
[QUOTE=spiritlol;42897566]Nuclear power sure isn't perfect but it's certainly better than all the other alternatives. It's safer than everything else sans natural power (wind/dams/tides/solar) but it's versatility and efficiency can't be matched by those.[/QUOTE]
actually it's much safer than any kind of dam, owing pretty much entirely due to this monstrosity:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam[/url]
[quote]The dam failures killed an estimated [B]171,000 people[/B];[1] 11 million people lost their homes. It also caused the sudden loss of 18 GW of power[citation needed], the power output equivalent of roughly 9 very large modern coal-fired thermal power stations.[/quote]
[QUOTE=DeeCeeTeeBee;42894798]I think the creation of the shell is really cool and one of the best most viable solutions to containing the CNPP, but I'm really sad that it has become an actual thing.
The CNPP and the Chernobyl disaster are such iconic things. It really is a shame to see a piece of history get covered up with a big box.[/QUOTE]
Nostalgia is very much secondary to not getting Europe covered in radioactive dust again
what they dont want you to know is they are hiding the [url=http://stalker.wikia.com/wiki/Wish_Granter]Wish Granter[/url] in there.
[img]http://www.sitepoint.com/forums/images/smilies/smiles2/shhh.gif[/img]
[QUOTE=Laserbeams;42898021]Doesn't look like the same spot to me
Also what's the point of flashing your nipples in Chernobyl? That's pretty disrespectful[/QUOTE]
I didn't have my geiger counter handy but my nipples tingle with the radiation
[QUOTE=SCopE5000;42896958]
A space-shuttle explosion isn't going to result in worldwide devastation that effects millions of people (maybe emotionally).[/QUOTE]
you know what will result in worldwide devastation that will effect millions of people
not having enough electricity
I wonder if the machinery used will be scrapped now, because of the chance of a small radioactive particle that might have come into contact with the machines as they drive through and disturb the dirt.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;42898477]I wonder if the machinery used will be scrapped now, because of the chance of a small radioactive particle that might have come into contact with the machines as they drive through and disturb the dirt.[/QUOTE]
A single radioactive particle doesnt magically make the machine unusable.
[QUOTE=Roll_Program;42898477]I wonder if the machinery used will be scrapped now, because of the chance of a small radioactive particle that might have come into contact with the machines as they drive through and disturb the dirt.[/QUOTE]
There's likely some radioactive contamination on the work equipment, but probably not enough to be of concern (if it's even measurable). As someone mentioned previously, the ground of the immediate surroundings of the plant was thoroughly decontaminated after the initial disaster.
[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]
Mail that box to me, and SMASH IT WITH A HAMMER!
I like how the only reason I could think of as to why they should keep the ventilation stack up is because "I walked around there in STALKER"
I've always wanted to visit the ZoA in my lifetime. Too bad now when I do I'm not going to get to see iconic history, but hey, it's better than the thing collapsing. That'd just be catastrophic.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;42895826]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]
Here's the excellent BBC drama/documentary (dramamentuary?) that covered it pretty well.
[video=youtube;njTQaUCk4KY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njTQaUCk4KY[/video]
It's not as good as pure documentaries, but I'd still say it's a required watch for anyone interested in the topic.
The series of things that caused Chernobyl was truly fascinating, we had an inexperienced new batch of staff (veteran staff were meant to be present at the time) when emergency tests were being carried out (that they disabled [B]ALL[/B] safeties at the same time, which you should never do) which combined with graphite tipped control rods which caused a spike in activity as they were dropped, which caused the cooling rods to break, leading to the reaction not being stoppable, causing it to build up heat and literally begin to melt through the floor. Pressure built up too, which is what blew part of the top of the building off. Then they had the water pool under the reactor, which had to be drained to stop a steam explosion which would have been devastating.
Then there's the little things, like the fact they had no meters that could actually read the sheer amount of radioactivity in the area - literally every counter they had was maxed the fuck out, which they assumed was an anomaly at first.
I've not watched this documentary here, but intend to once I get a spare hour.
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pNvmShXD0vw[/url]
[QUOTE=Kyle902;42898588]A single radioactive particle doesnt magically make the machine unusable.[/QUOTE]
Depends on how hard they will be to detect and if the risk is there.
Step one: create a nuclear fallout
Step two: put your reactor in a box
Step three: make sure no one opens that box. [B][I]Ever[/I][/B]
Wish I would've been able to see it in person before it was taken down.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
