[mechcon]

April 26th 1986 was when Nuclear Reactor 4 was blown apart in Chernobyl.

folks? care to add some thoughts?

[hawker]

Originally posted by mechcon@Apr 27 2006, 07:13 AM
April 26th 1986 was when Nuclear Reactor 4 was blown apart in Chernobyl.

folks? care to add some thoughts?

Wow, that was yesterday, didn't even hear about it.

It changed my thoughts on nuclear power - and I still worry that one day, the US Navy will have a meltdown on one of their nuclear powered submarines or aircraft carriers etc.

And they want to put a nuclear power planet in Australia :blink:

[cgollner]

The legacy of Chernobyl. When the crap hits the fan, it sticks for thousands of years. There is no amount of advertising that could alter my opinion that it is safe. It a form of devastation that I hope I never see again in my lifetime. If you saw the piece A Current Affair did a week or so ago, well, I feel for the children, orphans, with god knows what is wrong with them that will never know the simple happiness of a family or just going outside to play, the simple things. They have nothing and will die slowly and painfully.

I credit the engineer though who did stay at his post in the control room at the time of the disaster who despite everything tried to shutdown the reactor. He didn't live long.



Chris

[Paxton]

Originally posted by hawker@Apr 27 2006, 07:45 AM
Wow, that was yesterday, didn't even hear about it.

It changed my thoughts on nuclear power - and I still worry that one day, the US Navy will have a meltdown on one of their nuclear powered submarines or aircraft carriers etc.

And they want to put a nuclear power planet in Australia :blink:

Chernobyl's biggest problem was the fact that it's chain reactions were moderated by Graphite, not Water. When they turned off the water pumps, the heat in the Reactors built up, and the graphite became red hot. When they re-started the water pumps, they heat of the reactors, combined with the Chain Reaction spiralling out of control caused the melt down (or rather, the blow up) of reactor number four. Their other problem was the Soviet Union. They didn't warn people of the disaster until many hours (or days) afterwards.

On the subject of Nuclear Power, I am for it. I live within 25 KMs of our Nuclear Reactor in Lucas Heights. It doesn't worry me at all, and I forget it exists more than I realise that it is there. Hawker, we NEED a power generation system that is safe (it is only poor management that causes disasters), and clean. Nuclear Energy fits this bill perfectly. The waste energy rods can be shipped to France or the US for re-processing, and can be used again in Nuclear Submarines. Wikipedia has a great writeup on Chernobyl, and also on Nuclear Power.

There will always be a stigma over the head of Nuclear Power, however in these times of Greenhouse Gasses, Smog, and an increased need for energy with Coal running out, they are becoming a necessity.

[Georgina EG]

The reactor already needs to be recapped, but what astonishes me is that although the general area has high radiation levels, some people have returned to live there. Cheap housing no doubt.

Other Russian nuclear power station reactors are also suspect, but as with Chernobyl, they'll wait until something goes wrong.

[sunrisesister]

You must read this site. Truly haunting..

http://www.elenafilatova.com/

[Devski]

The whole argument that 'nuclear is bad just look at Chernobyl' is quite flawed.

Even if there were no improvements in safety and we have a new Chernobyl every 50 years - it's probably still better for the environment than burning coal.

[symean]

Chernobyl was the only commercial reactor accident where so many workers were killed and it produced health and environmental issues on such a scale. Back when I chose to do Nuclear Power as an elective in Physics I seem to remember writing about that. The only other major accident was Three Mile Island, and that was completely contained.

All other radiation-or-reactor-accident-realted deaths have occurred due to war or medical waste or other industrial or military sources. More people are killed producing other sources of energy. Coal mine explosions, floods and collapses still happen regularly in China and kill hundreds at a time; thousands have been killed by dam accidents and in 1998 over 500 were killed in an oil pipeline disaster.

I don't pretend to understan the logistics behind it but I wrote in a paper ten years ago (and still think today) that we should be using nuclear power as the major energy source. That will free up billions worldwide spent on cleaning up environmental and humanitarian disasters caused by other polluting energy sources, which can be used to produce a program aimed at collecting nuclear waste worldwide and launching it into space on a collision course with the sun, ala Superman style.

So we'd end up with abundant energy; without long term waste, health or pollution problems. We've also got plenty of desert to place these reactors in case a major accident does occur.

[hawker]

Originally posted by Paxton@Apr 27 2006, 07:41 AM
On the subject of Nuclear Power, I am for it. I live within 25 KMs of our Nuclear Reactor in Lucas Heights. It doesn't worry me at all, and I forget it exists more than I realise that it is there. Hawker, we NEED a power generation system that is safe (it is only poor management that causes disasters), and clean. Nuclear Energy fits this bill perfectly.

I agree

However you did say 'poor management that causes disasters' - what would be the chances of us getting good management?

[Paxton]

Originally posted by hawker@Apr 27 2006, 09:02 AM
I agree

However you did say 'poor management that causes disasters' - what would be the chances of us getting good management?

Better than the USSR. Look at Lucas Heights, or in the USA - one disaster (Three Mile Island), and it was contained because the US Government alerted people of the fact that it had happened. Compare this to Chernobyl.

[applecollector]

The problem was defiantly poor management but the other problem was not warning people after it had happened a gust of wind blew that nuclear dust all over europe.
In 1996 we had to urgently go to hungary because my grandfather was sick the doctors has no idea what it was i remember that they kept him in this inclosed room just before he died because they still had no idea what was wrong with him so i wasn't allowed to go in just before he had died but my point is that he died of lung cancer How? He never smoked never did anything that would have damaged his health, Not just this case but many many cases like this are pop up in europe. Everyone is blaming Chernobyl for the spread of the nuclear dust.

[step_andy]

I used to live under Soviet regime behind the iron curtain.

One thing for sure, Soviets did not spend much on safety and most major accidents were covered up and kept secret.

[El Guardo]

I've been doing a bit of reading on this topic of late and have the following tidbits for consideration:

GreenBanana's link to Elena Filatova: she's a partial fake. She doesn't have access to the dead zone and she didn't ride her bike in and around the reactor. Instead she took the basic tour that you and I could go on from Kiev. The story is compelling, and the photos are real, but she's taken a rather long literally license in her account.

Paul Fusco: a professional photographer, he recently spent two months in and around Chernobyl capturing the effects of the disaster on the children of the region. The photos are dramatic, moving, and not for the faint of heart. The require sound as the accompanying commentary only emphasizes the pain these kids are going through. Not recommended for work settings.

Working Chernobyl: you would think that after the disaster the plant would have been shut down? No. It continued to operate through to 2001. The remaining two reactors (5 & 6) were never completed because much of the equipment required to do so was too radioactive, and unsettling the ground too dangerous. But reators 1,2 and 3 were fully operational until recently.

Chernobyl's twin: Now the good news. Chernobyl wasn't the first graphite based nuclear reaction design in the USSR. The original plant, or prototype if you will, is located 500kms south of Moscow near the town of Kursk. The plant continues to work to this day, it has not implemented any of the IAEA imrovements recommended following the Chernobyl disaster, and enjoys a number of 'accidents' each year. It is, in short, a bigger disaster waiting to happen.

[Silver]

While I doubt that there will be another Chernobyl, I don't understand the desire for painting nuclear power as a 'clean' source. The waste lasts forever, and unlike true renewable energy sources, uranium is a limited commodity that will eventually run out, just like coal.

[timothy]

flower power. i will never support lucas heights. and the submarines are not important. if something tragic happened at lucas heights people would never understand the reasons it was built.

i hope it all works out in the end. seems all a little bit stupid, with green energy moving well away from radioactive sources.

there are many power sources and the big money dudes like it all the way it is, everyone believes it is our best option because coal is so bad. there are many ways to produce power. the planet will move away from an old technology that will be laughed at in the future.

[scruffie]

The BBC has a documentary podcast about Chernobyl. Its a good listen

[Aa]

If even a fraction of the human endeavour towards development of nuclear power - or better still - the microprocessor, were spent on developing the harnessing of solar energy, there is no doubt that the human energy requirements would be surpassed very quickly.

Look at al those wasted roof tiles/sheets.

But all you hear is pathetic whinge whinge saying it can never account for more than 10% of gross energy production. 'Its too unpredictable' blah blah...

Bullshit. it's the same logic as saying "There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home." ( Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment, in 1977.)

It's nonsense because it was based on technology (both hardware and software) at that very moment.

To quote NASA.
Averaged over an entire year and the entire Earth, the sun deposits 342 Watts of energy into every square meter of the Earth. This is a very large amount of heat—4.4 x 10(power of 16) watts of power that the sun sends to the Earth/ atmosphere system. For comparison, a large electric power plant would produce 100 million watts of power, or 108 watts. It would take 440 MILLION such power plants to equal the energy coming to the Earth from the sun.

OOOH... Cant be done. Must go nuclear. wtf?

[gelfie]

Couldn't be any worse than Richard Carlton's (ego)trip there the other week on 60 minutes.

The number of times he pointed out how brave he was and how standing where he was standing could kill him in 5 minutes was just embarrassing. Even for him.

Interview Expert: Expert mentions that the Chernobyl guys did six things wrong. Does Carlton ask what they were? What the effect of each was, at which point it was too late to go back? Nope! Instead we.....

Cut to some disabled kiddies, got to get those viewer tears flowing. And of course there just happens to be a bunch of Irish people there helping them out at the time, unpaid, volunteers.

The whole thing was so pathetic and almost scripted. "Brief (very) history, DANGER, reporter being brave, the hurt innocent kiddies, the compassionate volunteers"

What a fucking joke.

How about some information on what happened? How it happened. How to ensure it never happens again. How long it took to happen. What could have been done to turn it around. Was it a flaw inherent in the design; just purely human error? Do reactors of today do anything to make this scenario less likely, and if so what?

None of that in 60 minutes report. And what a fucking waste of my time it was.

Lets hope SBS have something better to show.

[speedway boy]

no surprises there gelfie. Its sixty minutes. Not news or any real doco program. It is there to inflate the egos of some pathetically popous reporters.

It saddens me so many people like it to keep that type of reporting going. It is bile. I don't know how they sleep at night.


As for Nuclear power. I think it is a necessary evil. Its going to happen anyway. We have reached a pretty interesting time with fossil fuels. Within 2 years my bet is on petrol around $2. Then wait for all those politicians desperate for a quick fix. Out comes the nuclear reactors.

We are living the last of the good life. My first kid comes into the world in about a month. Its life will be vastly different to the life I have enjoyed.

[nateb]

There will always be a stigma over the head of Nuclear Power, however in these times of Greenhouse Gasses, Smog, and an increased need for energy with Coal running out, they are becoming a necessity.

Coal running out, WHAT THE!