Chernobyl No.4's New Roof is Completed; Currently Moving Into Position - Polidicks

[QUOTE=pentium;51372411]Once a reactor is successfully dismantled the remains of the structure are filled with sand and capped. Most of the Hanford Reactors are just small-ish blocks of concrete now that they've been entombed and the surrounding building has been demolished. [img]https://usresponserestoration.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/hanford-f-reactor-area-remediation-complete-cocooned-reactor-landscape_dept-energy_1000.jpg[/img] Eventually the entire plant will be a few concrete blocks where the reactors used to be and the rest will be empty field. [img]http://www.hanford.gov/images.cfm/100F_9-30-09-111_Large.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] This can not be done for Chernobyl so I am not sure why you're bringing it up as an answer to his quote.

as far as i know, they built the shelter with a remote crane inside as well as a sprinkler system to suppress radioactive dust. The intention is to remove the concrete shell, then dig down into the rubble and remove the slagged fuel elements and keep going until they've reduced the radiation. Then eventually they will begin tearing down everything until there is nothing left. the issue is not that they can't cover it up, its that they have to remove the actual radioactive fuel from the plant which is still just sitting on the reactor room floor and underneath it. Once they do that they can contain the dust stirred up by the dismantling of the reactor itself

This is really fucking exciting to me, i've done extensive research on Chernobyl since i was a child, and even during high school i wrote all of my papers on it. So to see them making solid progress on it in my lifetime is amazing.

Tbh I wonder if it would be possible to live in a permanent residence within walking or at least driving distance of it all not that I'm interested, but it'd be cool if it were truly habitable and safe soon Really fucking doubt it though

[QUOTE=Overhauser;51501728]This can not be done for Chernobyl so I am not sure why you're bringing it up as an answer to his quote.[/QUOTE] How can it not be done at Chernobyl? It's your basic site cleanup and remediation. They aren't going to pull the cores out and leave the complex to fall apart.

[QUOTE=J!NX;51501856]Tbh I wonder if it would be possible to live in a permanent residence within walking or at least driving distance of it all not that I'm interested, but it'd be cool if it were truly habitable and safe soon Really fucking doubt it though[/QUOTE] There are a bunch of people living within the exclusion zone who just refused to evacuate back in '86. I read an interesting article about it with nice pictures but I can't seem to find it.

What a feat!! It's wicked to see it finally in place.

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;51501995]There are a bunch of people living within the exclusion zone who just refused to evacuate back in '86. I read an interesting article about it with nice pictures but I can't seem to find it.[/QUOTE] This is true, not only that but there's tons of wildlife returning to the Zone, including herds of wild horses.

[QUOTE=Araknid;51378394]Yeah but I'd love to be able to explore the actual inside of the building. Fuck it'd be so cool.[/QUOTE] ...You can. for 10 minutes at a time. [editline]9th December 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=J!NX;51501856]Tbh I wonder if it would be possible to live in a permanent residence within walking or at least driving distance of it all not that I'm interested, but it'd be cool if it were truly habitable and safe soon Really fucking doubt it though[/QUOTE] You can, and people do. Dont eat crops from the ground, try to stay out of dusty buildings and dont drink tap water, dont pick up rusty digging implements laying around and other such precautions and you will be fine.

The one thing I want to know is, sure the tops covered but what about underneath? There was a massive deal when this happened about it leaking into the groundwater which would spread the radiation quite far so they made some massive concrete slab under the reactor (?) to stop that. Would that not still be an issue?

[QUOTE=DeVotchKa;51501775]This is really fucking exciting to me, i've done extensive research on Chernobyl since i was a child, and even during high school i wrote all of my papers on it. So to see them making solid progress on it in my lifetime is amazing.[/QUOTE] Never knew STALKER counts as research

[QUOTE=Megadave;51501400]fucking wicked seeing that many people in a dangerous zone[/QUOTE] It's really not that dangerous. The area directly around the reactor is probably the best cleaned up area of the Zone.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;51502246]The people living there have been doing all of these things for decades.[/QUOTE] but but but my environmental science teacher said chernobyl killed millions and rendered the area permanently uninhabitable! She told us this during our school field trip to protest GMOs!

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;51503119]but but but my environmental science teacher said chernobyl killed millions and rendered the area permanently uninhabitable! She told us this during our school field trip to protest GMOs![/QUOTE] theres a documentary by vice? i think on youtube where a guy goes around the exclusion zone and talks to the residence [editline]10th December 2016[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khv87k68kIs[/media] it wasnt vice but i think this is the one i was remembering.

[QUOTE=download;51502779]It's really not that dangerous. The area directly around the reactor is probably the best cleaned up area of the Zone.[/QUOTE] Yeah, they spent months cleaning up the area around where they were working. Which basically meant removing all the old buildings and rubbish in the way of the work area and removing the layer of contaminated topsoil. So essentially now that the NSC is finished, that area, like you said, is the cleanest and thus probably the safest area of the Zone.

[QUOTE=shian;51502763]Never knew STALKER counts as research[/QUOTE] Listen, it's all about getting into the mindset. You get a little cheeky breeky, maybe a bit iv damke, and the Monolith opens up to you.

[QUOTE=pentium;51501940]How can it not be done at Chernobyl? It's your basic site cleanup and remediation. They aren't going to pull the cores out and leave the complex to fall apart.[/QUOTE] Basic site cleanup and remdediation can not be done at Chernobyl I am not sure why you think it can, please explain.

[QUOTE=Overhauser;51512498]Basic site cleanup and remdediation can not be done at Chernobyl I am not sure why you think it can, please explain.[/QUOTE] Like to explain why you think it can't be done?

[QUOTE=download;51512579]Like to explain why you think it can't be done?[/QUOTE] I don't think a single human can give such an answer for something as complicated as this. It's pretty hubristic to think so, isn't it? The IAEA report of this is from 2006 and skimming through it it's getting pretty clear that "basic site cleanup" is not possible and an understatement so severe that it's almost mocking the issue. [url]http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf[/url] Apart from the shelter now being built, as far as I know we still haven't found a solution for this [quote]It is also required that prompt solutions be found for the safe predisposal and disposal management of the radioactive waste to be generated during this period, in particular for the management of long lived and high level waste.[/quote] A quick google also shows, that it's anything but "basic" [url]https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&q=chernobyl+remediation&btnG=&lr=[/url]

[QUOTE=Overhauser;51512700]I don't think a single human can give such an answer for something as complicated as this. It's pretty hubristic to think so, isn't it? The IAEA report of this is from 2006 and skimming through it it's getting pretty clear that "basic site cleanup" is not possible and an understatement so severe that it's almost mocking the issue. [url]http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1239_web.pdf[/url] Apart from the shelter now being built, as far as I know we still haven't found a solution for this A quick google also shows, that it's anything but "basic" [url]https://scholar.google.de/scholar?hl=de&q=chernobyl+remediation&btnG=&lr=[/url][/QUOTE] :rolleyes: A basic site cleanup would involve demolishing reactors 1 to 3 and any other non-nuclear structures in the area. This is something that is very feasible. By the time you've finished reactors 1 to 3 you could probably start on parts of reactor 3, either actual demolition and disposal or long-term entombment. It helps if you don't misrepresent "basic" as "a complete zone cleanup".

[QUOTE=download;51515257]:rolleyes: A basic site cleanup would involve demolishing reactors 1 to 3 and any other non-nuclear structures in the area. This is something that is very feasible. By the time you've finished reactors 1 to 3 you could probably start on parts of reactor 3, either actual demolition and disposal or long-term entombment. It helps if you don't misrepresent "basic" as "a complete zone cleanup".[/QUOTE] You do realize that the entire place is irradiated right. Cleaning up a decommissioned plant is a fuck ton more straight forward than cleaning up one that fucking exploded and spewed radiation over a good portion of Europe. It's feasible but I'd hardly call it a "basic" site cleanup.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51515309]You do realize that the entire place is irradiated right. Cleaning up a decommissioned plant is a fuck ton more straight forward than cleaning up one that fucking exploded and spewed radiation over a good portion of Europe. It's feasible but I'd hardly call it a "basic" site cleanup.[/QUOTE] The plant is cold enough that thousands of workers enter the plant every day and conduct work. It's perfectly safe with basic safety precautions.

[QUOTE=download;51515435]The plant is cold enough that thousands of workers enter the plant every day and conduct work. It's perfectly safe with basic safety precautions.[/QUOTE] Except safety is not the only issue(which I wasn't even talking about but w/e), it's also question of scope and a bunch of other things. But you seem to be under the impression that completely cleaning up the plant and immediate area would be a damn cake walk. Correct me if I'm wrong on that assertion. I honestly don't see how the complete cleanup, which imo is the only worthwhile solution, of the power plant and the immediate area would be a "basic" operation. If it was then this shit would have been done decades ago.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;51515496]Except safety is not the only issue(which I wasn't even talking about but w/e), it's also question of scope and a bunch of other things. But you seem to be under the impression that completely cleaning up the plant and immediate area would be a damn cake walk. Correct me if I'm wrong on that assertion. I honestly don't see how the complete cleanup, which imo is the only worthwhile solution, of the power plant and the immediate area would be a "basic" operation. If it was then this shit would have been done decades ago.[/QUOTE] It wasn't done decades ago because the area the area was too hot and the Soviet Union and later Ukraine was broke. Reactors are left in cold shutdown for years or decades before demolition takes place and this is no different.

[QUOTE=download;51515512]Reactors are left in cold shutdown for years or decades before demolition takes place and this is no different.[/QUOTE] Notable example of this is that the decomissioning plan for Fukushima does not start seeing reactor buildings being demolished until around 2040, mind you I'm working on very old plan information but decommissioned nuclear facilities typically do not see major demolition work within the first decade which is fuel for the anti-nuclear crowd even though it's normally a slow and tedious process. Look at how long it took to clean up Windscale 1. Major demolition work isn't expected until 2037, some 80 years after the incident but site decontamination was done before 1960.

[QUOTE=pentium;51515628]Notable example of this is that the decomissioning plan for Fukushima does not start seeing reactor buildings being demolished until around 2040, mind you I'm working on very old plan information but decommissioned nuclear facilities typically do not see major demolition work within the first decade which is fuel for the anti-nuclear crowd even though it's normally a slow and tedious process. Look at how long it took to clean up Windscale 1. Major demolition work isn't expected until 2037, some 80 years after the incident but site decontamination was done before 1960.[/QUOTE] Is there any notable reason for this or does it just come down to cost, whether it be financial or human?

[QUOTE=download;51515435]The plant is cold enough that thousands of workers enter the plant every day and conduct work. It's perfectly safe with basic safety precautions.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Workers have a daily and annual radiation exposure limit. Their dosimeter beeps if the limit is reached and the worker's site access is cancelled.[16] The annual limit (20 millisieverts) may be reached by spending 12 minutes above the roof of the 1986 sarcophagus, or a few hours around its chimney.[/QUOTE] [url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement[/url] [QUOTE]The reactor building itself, badly damaged in the 1986 explosion and fire, is still far too radioactive for people to work there assembling the arch above it. Instead the arch has had to be put togetherfew hundred metres away, at a safer distancefrom the reactor's intense radiation. Half of it is ready, and when the other half is finished, the two parts will be clamped together. Then,as nervous engineers look on, 29,000 tons of metal will slide along specially laid tracks, until the reactor is covered and sealed off. ... Last February there was a radiationalert when part of the turbine hall roof next tothe reactor collapsed. The site was evacuated, although nobody suffered harmful effects and work soon resumed.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25086097[/url] Sounds perfectly safe to me.

[QUOTE=Morgen;51516249][url]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_New_Safe_Confinement[/url] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25086097[/url] Sounds perfectly safe to me.[/QUOTE] I feel like a broken record player. Reactors 1 to 3 I said could be demolished now. Not reactor number 4 which might be able to be demolished once 1 to 3 are done. Much of the internal work for reactor 4 could probably be done based on the dose rate in control room 4 given in your BBC article. [editline]12th December 2016[/editline] The BBC article also notes that disposal isn't happening because they don't have the money for it.

[QUOTE=shian;51502763]Never knew STALKER counts as research[/QUOTE] It kinda is though, its just that good

[QUOTE=download;51516446]I feel like a broken record player. Reactors 1 to 3 I said could be demolished now. Not reactor number 4 which might be able to be demolished once 1 to 3 are done. Much of the internal work for reactor 4 could probably be done based on the dose rate in control room 4 given in your BBC article. [editline]12th December 2016[/editline] The BBC article also notes that disposal isn't happening because they don't have the money for it.[/QUOTE] They are scheduled for decommissioning to be completed by 2064 due to the work being tightly integrated with reactor 4s cleanup.