search results matching tag: chernobyl

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (61)     Sift Talk (3)     Blogs (12)     Comments (152)   

Ukrainian Airstrike on Russian Soil?

newtboy says...

Hate to see the oil burning.
Love to see Russia get a little blowback.
I fully support expanding Ukraine’s border 100 miles into Russia to create the kind of “buffer zone” Russia tried to turn Ukraine into. 100 miles of no man’s land, all Russians must move. Ukrainians may settle there. Turnabout is fair play, and they deserve every inch of lost territory.
Then they should retake Crimea.

In a second story today, Russian troops are evacuating the Chernobyl area after poisoning themselves with radiation sickness by digging trenches, driving tanks, and generally disturbing the highly radioactive soil there. Those soldiers are in for a gruesome death, Russia can’t afford to treat thousands of cases of acute radiation poisoning.

In a third report, Putin’s ploy to demand rubles for Russian oil has already fallen apart on day one. They continue to accept euros…euros they can’t transfer to Russia because of banking sanctions!

When you are finally comfortable in a relationship

StukaFox says...

I WANT MY MONEY BACK!

If there's going to be a fart in a video, I want a pavement-cracking ripper louder than a ship's horn. I want a blast radius. I want weeping men and shrieking women. I want people 200 miles downwind to think Bhopal fucked Chernobyl and the offspring came blasting out of that woman's ass like The Four Horsemen riding out of Hell. I want sermons written about it. I want it commemorated in legends as epic as a Viking saga and as long-lived as The Canterbury Tales. I want it spoke of only in whispers. I want the Alpha Centuri LIGO to peg so hard that the aliens look at it and mutter, "Ohhhhhh, fuck..."

This was none of those.

This wasn't a full-on fart, it was an asterisks on a turd. This was a "tee-hee" fart, not a "OH JESUS FUCK -- EVACUATE THE WEST COAST AND CALL THE ARMY!" butt-blast. I'd be ashamed to call this one of my own; I'd wrap it in a blanket and dump it in front of the SPD station down the street so our Boys in Blue could take one look at it, sadly shake their heads, and forswear their sacred duty by tossing it in a dumpster.

Mordhaus, you promised me a fart video and you gave me two monochromatic outcomes of butter and corn syrup consumption babbling on; waddling parentheses around a feeble "pbt".

SIR, I DEMAND BETTER OF MY FART VIDEOS AND I -WILL- SEE YOU IN COURT!!

(I farted)

A Message from Alaskans (to Texas) on Wind Power

cloudballoon says...

Not in this climate of fear over all things Nuclear post-Chernobyl. Besides, with so much de-regulation and lack on competency & accountability, would you trust the 21st-century private Nuclear energy sector MORE than the 20th century's? We really need to leverage as much renewable energy sources like Wind/Solar/Hydro first and use nuclear as backup. Fossil based must be the dead-last option for those places that got no other viable means...

eric3579 said:

I'm all for nuclear, but what's the reality of that happening in the states anytime soon or at all? Are there plants being built right now or planned to be built?

Plane Has to De-Board Because Lady Refuses to Wear Mask

StukaFox says...

Y'know that scene in Chernobyl where the miners pat their coal-blackened hands against the director's sky-blue suit as they walk by him? That same thing needs to happen here, only they punch her in the cunt instead.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

newtboy says...

Safest...of those we discussed, maybe. It's certainly not safer than well designed solar, wind, micro hydro, wave/tidal, etc.

Some in Fukushima have seriously elevated risk for cancers, but no one died of radiation poisoning that I've heard of (but many still can't go home). Not true in Chernobyl. I've not seen claims of thousands dead since the very early days, but a short investigation shows estimates vary widely, from 4000-60000 early deaths from radiation related cancers, and even the lowest estimates are unacceptable. Direct radiation related deaths seem to be around 100 there.

It does seem that today the evacuations cause more deaths, likely because of safety measures required after Chernobyl and the fact that most are only exposed for extremely short times because they evacuated and are not allowed to return until exposure levels are low.

There are real, honest health concerns involved, including indirect impact caused by evacuations or shelter in place stress. That said, there's plenty of exaggerated fear mongering too.

Spacedog79 said:

Statistically nuclear is by far the safest means of energy production, even when it goes wrong the main impact is people panicking. No one died from radiation in Fukushima and there isn't expected to be any statistically detectable radiation health effect.

The figures that say Chernobyl killed thousands are extrapolations based on the LNT model, which assumes cells are unable to repair DNA damage. In fact the cell DNA repair mechanisms are a well established fact these days. Yet we still use LNT as a model, even though at low doses there has never been any real world data to support it.

Deliberate scaremongering is basically what it is.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

Spacedog79 says...

Statistically nuclear is by far the safest means of energy production, even when it goes wrong the main impact is people panicking. No one died from radiation in Fukushima and there isn't expected to be any statistically detectable radiation health effect.

The figures that say Chernobyl killed thousands are extrapolations based on the LNT model, which assumes cells are unable to repair DNA damage. In fact the cell DNA repair mechanisms are a well established fact these days. Yet we still use LNT as a model, even though at low doses there has never been any real world data to support it.

Deliberate scaremongering is basically what it is.

newtboy said:

The 1mSv per year is the max the employees at the dump/recycling plant can be exposed to, so leeching more than that into public water systems seems impossible unless I'm missing something. This comes mainly from solid scale deposits removed from the closed loop systems.
Average employees in German plants seemed to get around 3 mSv/yr on their table.

At Fukushima, According to TEPCO records, the average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv. About 35% of the workforce received total doses of more than 10 mSv over that period, while 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv.
The 10mSv was the estimated average exposure for those who evacuated immediately, not the area. Because iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, the local exposure levels dropped rapidly, but because caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, contaminated areas will be "hot" for quite a while, and are still off limits as I understand it.

Sort of...., most of the area surrounding Chernobyl is just above background levels after major decontamination including removal of all soil, but many areas closer to the plant are still being measured at well above safe levels to this day, and unapproachable, while others may be visited only with monitoring equipment, dose meters, and only for short times. It's not back to background levels everywhere, with measurements up to 336uSv/hr recorded in enclosed areas and abandoned recovery equipment (the claw used to dig at the reactor for instance)....no where near that low at the plant itself. Places like the nearby cemetery which couldn't have the contamination removed still measure higher than maximum occupational limits for adults working with radioactive material. The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear power. I just don't believe in pretending it's "safe". That's how Chernobyl happened....overconfidence and irresponsibility. If we consider it unacceptably disastrous if it goes wrong, we might design plants that can't go wrong...The tech exists.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

newtboy says...

The 1mSv per year is the max the employees at the dump/recycling plant can be exposed to, so leeching more than that into public water systems seems impossible unless I'm missing something. This comes mainly from solid scale deposits removed from the closed loop systems.
Average employees in German plants seemed to get around 3 mSv/yr on their table.

At Fukushima, According to TEPCO records, the average workers’ effective dose over the first 19 months after the accident was about 12 mSv. About 35% of the workforce received total doses of more than 10 mSv over that period, while 0.7% of the workforce received doses of more than 100 mSv.
The 10mSv was the estimated average exposure for those who evacuated immediately, not the area. Because iodine 131 has a half life of 8 days, the local exposure levels dropped rapidly, but because caesium-137 has a half life of 30 years, contaminated areas will be "hot" for quite a while, and are still off limits as I understand it.

Sort of...., most of the area surrounding Chernobyl is just above background levels after major decontamination including removal of all soil, but many areas closer to the plant are still being measured at well above safe levels to this day, and unapproachable, while others may be visited only with monitoring equipment, dose meters, and only for short times. It's not back to background levels everywhere, with measurements up to 336uSv/hr recorded in enclosed areas and abandoned recovery equipment (the claw used to dig at the reactor for instance)....no where near that low at the plant itself. Places like the nearby cemetery which couldn't have the contamination removed still measure higher than maximum occupational limits for adults working with radioactive material. The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room, have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a minute.
http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

Don't get me wrong, I support nuclear power. I just don't believe in pretending it's "safe". That's how Chernobyl happened....overconfidence and irresponsibility. If we consider it unacceptably disastrous if it goes wrong, we might design plants that can't go wrong...The tech exists.

Spacedog79 said:

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

Spacedog79 says...

You'd be surprised.

Geothermal try to keep public exposure to less than 1 mSv per year.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283106142_Natural_radionuclides_in_deep_geothermal_heat_and_power_plants_of_Germany

Living near a Nuclear Power station will get you about 0.00009 mSv/year.

Living in Fukushima will get you about 10 mSv in a lifetime, with life expectancy there at about 84 years that is 0.177 mSv/year.

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/a_e/fukushima/faqs-fukushima/en/

Even Chernobyl is almost entirely background radiation now. Radiation is all scaremongering and misinformation these days, so people freak out about it but it really isn't that dangerous. It takes about 100 mSv a year to have even the slightest statistically detectable health effect and far more than that to actually kill someone.

newtboy said:

Please site your sources for this information.
I'm assuming they mean the estimated radiation from a properly functioning nuclear power plant and not the average actual radiation, which includes meltdowns, leaks, transportation accidents, etc. I can't imagine any geothermal plant ever contaminating like Chernobyl or Fukushima did.

It bears noting that coal ash is apparently 3-6 more radioactive than properly functioning nuclear power plants emit for the same energy generation, and it gets absorbed both directly from particles and indirectly in food and water.

Could Earth's Heat Solve Our Energy Problems?

newtboy says...

Please site your sources for this information.
I'm assuming they mean the estimated radiation from a properly functioning nuclear power plant and not the average actual radiation, which includes meltdowns, leaks, transportation accidents, etc. I can't imagine any geothermal plant ever contaminating like Chernobyl or Fukushima did.

It bears noting that coal ash is apparently 3-6 more radioactive than properly functioning nuclear power plants emit for the same energy generation, and it gets absorbed both directly from particles and indirectly in food and water.

Spacedog79 said:

Don't tell the environmentalists how much radiation geothermal releases. It is many orders of magnitude more than a nuclear power station and if they were held to the same standard they would never be built.

fuzzyundies (Member Profile)

ant (Member Profile)

Chernobyl (2019) | Official Trailer | HBO

ant (Member Profile)

Lion jumps into open vehicle full of tourists on safari tour

Chernobyl NSC Arch Being Moved Into Place



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon