# 30 years after Chernobyl meltdown



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 25, 2016)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/world/cnnphotos-chernobyl-youth/index.html







Niels Ackermann is a Swiss  photojournalist that has visited the area since 2012.


> Yulia was born three years after the disaster. Ackermann once asked her what she thought about its consequences. "She was looking at me like it was a really stupid questIon," he recalled. "Because now, the scale of health consequences resulting from radioactivity in Slavutych are much more limited than what we may think about in the West." Slavutych residents who work in Chernobyl are protected by strict control systems. The town's attitude about radioactivity is much more realistic and pragmatic than it would be elsewhere. One young man showed Ackermann the tomb of his best friend in a cemetery and said more people in town die because of drugs and alcohol than radioactivity.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Apr 25, 2016)

The only people that are still alive from that are heavy alcoholics btw... from the clean up workers I mean that were mobilized without asking also from my country... the plume was really bad... I really also hesitate to eat hunted boar meat and something like that... 

Like how lame it may sound, looks like being stoned somehow slows the cancer...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 25, 2016)

There's only 21 official, 41 according to Wikipedia, and 64 according to UNSCEAR died as a direct result of the meltdown:

Most of them died due to acute radiation sickness (they were present when the meltdown occurred or were first responders trying to contain it).  Some were in a helicopter crash that were attempting (unsuccessfully) to put the fire out.  The final three were attributed to the events of the meltdown and received large does of radiation.  Their condition resulting in their deaths may have been linked to the meltdown.

As you can see from that picture I posted, the area is mostly safe.  At this point, the stigma is far more damaging than what's left of the meltdown.  Yeah, the containment structure is failing which is why they're working on sealing it for good.  At the same time, the area can't recover economically until a permanent solution is in place to put the stigma to bed.


The lowest fatal dose known is 400 rads.  An abdomen/pelvis CT is 14 mSv or 1.4 rads.  You'd have to spend a whole day running through a CT scanner to get close to the minimum (maybe) fatal dose of radiation.  Those that died of acute radiation syndrome were exposed to 1000s of rads.  Natural radiation is approximately 0.31 rads/year.


There has been zero cases of acute radiation syndrome at the Daiichi plant.  Yeah, there's a lot more radiation in the environment than normal there (namely because TEPCO covered it up and refused help) but it doesn't even come close to fatal.

The Chernobyl NPP was a *very bad design*.  There are still 11 RBMK reactors operational as of 2013 (Kursk, Leningrad, Smolensk).  That last of its design was built in 1972 and is expected to decommission in 2024.


----------



## qubit (Apr 25, 2016)

The radiation risk from nuclear reactors has always been overblown. Hardly anyone dies or is injured from it while there are many more serious accidents from coal power stations.

This irrational fear has held back the rollout of clean, green nuclear reactors for decades. A real criminal shame.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 25, 2016)

qubit said:


> The radiation risk from nuclear reactors has always been overblown. Hardly anyone dies or is injured from it while there are many more serious accidents from coal power stations.
> 
> This irrational fear has held back the rollout of clean, green nuclear reactors for decades. A real criminal shame.


nice use of loaded phrases and emotive words.
Not one person that has died from radiation has complained.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 25, 2016)

Here's a rather long read about the collapse of new nuclear investment in the USA (more closely tied to the 1974 oil crisis than Three Mile Island):
http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/spring01/nuclear_power.html

Ironically, history repeats.  When oil prices were at $4/gallon with no peak in sight, bids to build new nuclear power plants were finally coming in and Obama lifted the moratorium on them.  There are five under construction in the USA (6 GW capacity) as of 2015 and many more were planning.  These things take a decade to build at a cost of nearly $1 billion/year.


----------



## qubit (Apr 25, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> nice use of loaded phrases and emotive words.
> Not one person that has died from radiation has complained.


Nothing loaded in what I said, it's the truth.

I saw a BBC documentary in the last year or so which made this point and that's why I'm making it. The stats don't lie.


----------



## Caring1 (Apr 25, 2016)

I'm backing away from this because it gets me quite heated.
If it was on telly it must be true.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 25, 2016)

2011 Tōhoku deaths to put it in perspective:
Earthquake (falling debris): 667
Tsunami (drowning): 13,135
Unrecovered (assumed dead, cause unknown): 2,092
Meltdown: 0

As @qubit said, "the stats don't lie."  The damage meltdowns do is far more psychological than physical.  When radiation is known to be leaking, it's like the monster living under your bed.  You know it's there but when you look for it, you can't find it.  I'm not saying psychological damage is anything to scoff at but it stems from misunderstanding, not facts.  Nuclear energy is pretty dang complicated and the media largely doesn't understand it so they fail to adequately explain it to the public.


Let's break it down even more.  Everyone likes electricity, right?  Ever watt produced comes with risks.  Here's the list (based on trillion kwh):
Coal – global average         100,000    (50% global electricity)
Coal – China                         170,000   (75% China’s electricity)
Biofuel/Biomass                    24,000    (21% global energy)
Oil                                               36,000    (36% of energy, 8% of electricity)
Coal – U.S.                               10,000    (44% U.S. electricity)
Natural Gas                                4,000    (20% global electricity)
Hydro – global average          1,400    (15% global electricity)
Solar (rooftop)                              440    (< 1% global electricity)
Wind                                                 150    (~ 1% global electricity)
*Nuclear – global average              90    (17%  global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)*
Hydro – U.S.                                   0.01    (7% U.S. electricity)
*Nuclear – U.S.                                0.01    (19% U.S. electricity)*
Again, "the stats don't lie:" those wind turbines have a greater human toll than nuclear and nuclear is producing *15,000 times more energy*.  It's like how people are afraid to fly because of all that air under them but the more mundane mode of transportation (cars) are far more likely to kill.


----------



## silentbogo (Apr 25, 2016)

In regards of health impact, here is a little piece of info. It's a lengthy and boring report by Sergey Mirniy (former commander of radiation reconnaissance platoon) for his doctorate thesis. Same idea was later conveyed in 2006 UN report. 
I'm only citing a conclusion, but anyone interested can read it here:
http://www.mirnyi.arwis.com/book_2/contents_he_e.html



> 1. The health state of the liquidators does not have classical features of a radiation injury.
> 2. At present, the physical health of the liquidators does not manifest dramatic, outstanding differences, as compared to both the intact population and the irradiated (by the comparable doses) professionals.
> 3. On the contrary, _the mental health_ of the liquidators seems to be distinctly worse than that of the control groups.
> 4. There are abundant indications of the crucial role of non-radiation harmful factors in the observed health effects — namely, both the in-zone and post-zone factors of psychological, social and economic nature.



P.S. Living only 2 hours away from the Exclusion Zone did not make me grow a third testicle. Actually I'm planning on taking a 4-day tour this summer.

P.P.S. Few years ago Wired magazine had a nice 10-page special. I really recommend finding and reading it for slightly different perspective on Chernobyl issue.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 25, 2016)

> There are abundant indications of the crucial role of non-radiation harmful factors in the observed health effects — namely, both the in-zone and post-zone factors of psychological, social and economic nature.


That's exactly it, the hysteria is far more damaging than the radiation.  Humanity really needs to work on that because fusion power has a radiation component as well.  Without fusion, humanity's distant future looks extremely bleak.



silentbogo said:


> P.P.S. Few years ago Wired magazine had a nice 10-page special. I really recommend finding and reading it for slightly different perspective on Chernobyl issue.


http://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff_chernobyl/

Edit: Never heard of Møller and Mousseau’s research.  Interesting stuff.

Edit:


> But one of the few certainties to emerge from research into low-level radiation since 1986 is that different species react to chronic exposure in different ways. Pine trees cope less well than birch. Migrant barn swallows are apparently very radio-sensitive, resident birds less so. *Winter wheat seeds taken from the Exclusion Zone in the days after the disaster and since germinated in uncontaminated soil have produced thousands of different mutant strains, and every new generation remains genetically unstable, even 25 years after the accident.* Yet a 2009 *study of soybeans grown near the reactor seemed to show that the plants change at a molecular level to protect themselves against radiation.* No one can be certain where human beings might fall on this continuum of DNA damage and long-term adaptation. “That’s what we want to know,” Møller says. “Are we more like barn swallows or soybeans in terms of radiation-induced mutation?”


----------



## qubit (Apr 25, 2016)

Caring1 said:


> I'm backing away from this because it gets me quite heated.
> If it was on telly it must be true.


Well, there's no need to get wound up over this and I'm certainly not trying to do so.

It's not just "telly" like you so flippantly put it as if it's some crappy reality TV show. It was on a respected channel in a respected science documentary so it does carry weight. If I could find that program again I would show it to you.

Anyway, I more or less knew this from other sources over the years and you can find out for yourself if you really want to rather than be taken in by scaremongering news reports about nuclear power stations and dodgy websites with hidden agendas.

@FordGT90Concept As usual I don't know how you do it as you've always got the facts and figures to nail the opposition with. I'm glad we're not in disagreement.


----------



## the54thvoid (Apr 25, 2016)

qubit said:


> It's not just "telly" like you so flippantly put it as if it's some crappy reality TV show. It was on a respected channel in a respected science documentary so it does carry weight.



Unfortunately the BBC is far from unbiased and is also losing it's grip on scientifically accurate journalism.  I would not use any documentary as proof of science - that is just as bad as naysayers that say "I saw it online".  You can only use a good documentary as a starting point, or as affirmation of already known scientific doctrine.

Besides what everyone here is woefully neglecting is the huge elephant in the room.  (1) The cost of construction and the cost of decommissioning a reactor.  In the UK, the tax payer will be footing the bill for this (EDF's Chinese funded Hinkley Point) in terns of higher electricity bills while Osborne guarantees EDF a set return on each unit.  It's frankly a fucking scandal. (2) Nuclear waste - it's a long term ... sorry, we're talking half life here- it's a catastrophically long term legacy we need to sort out.  Radiation is bad - it doesn't make us super mutants - it gives us DNA abnormality and potentially cancerous mutation.  If you can avoid the irradiated material, it's all fine and dandy but the stuff that is left after decommissioning needs to be put somewhere for tens of thousands of years.  Radioactive isotopes leaking into a watercourse would be a bit shit tbh.

FWIW - I support nuclear as a clean fuel and I believe government should fund it 100%.  Fusion is still a distant pipe dream and until we have batteries that can store eco generated power (solar/wind), nuclear is our best bet.

But yeah, let's not pretend Chernobyl and Fukishima weren't fucking disasters.

EDIT:

Some light reading

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/HEofC25yrsAC.html#06.01


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2016)

qubit said:


> Well, there's no need to get wound up over this and I'm certainly not trying to do so.
> 
> It's not just "telly" like you so flippantly put it as if it's some crappy reality TV show. It was on a respected channel in a respected science documentary so it does carry weight. If I could find that program again I would show it to you.
> 
> ...


Was it _Pandora's Promise_?  It was an independent film CNN bought up and published.  It might have actually been the very first CNN Films production.  The second is the now infamous _Blackfish_ which ruined SeaWorld.


----------



## qubit (Apr 26, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Was it _Pandora's Promise_?  It was an independent film CNN bought up and published.  It might have actually been the very first CNN Films production.  The second is the now infamous _Blackfish_ which ruined SeaWorld.


No, I've remembered now. It was the BBC's in-house presenters of Bang Goes the theory. Their stats looked very similar to yours.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2016)

Was it this episode? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015t2rr  Can't watch it here obviously because BBC forbids it.


----------



## qubit (Apr 26, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Was it this episode? http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015t2rr  Can't watch it here obviously because BBC forbids it.


Looks like it. It's stupidly no longer available on iPlayer anyway, so region restrictions are moot.


----------



## Vayra86 (Apr 26, 2016)

This makes me want to install STALKER again tbh.


----------



## THE_EGG (Apr 26, 2016)

FordGT90Concept said:


> http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/24/world/cnnphotos-chernobyl-youth/index.html
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Cool article.

I've always wanted to go there ever since hearing about it ~8 years ago in high-school.


----------



## RCoon (Apr 26, 2016)

the54thvoid said:


> Unfortunately the BBC is far from unbiased and is also losing it's grip on scientifically accurate journalism.  I would not use any documentary as proof of science - that is just as bad as naysayers that say "I saw it online".  You can only use a good documentary as a starting point, or as affirmation of already known scientific doctrine.
> 
> Besides what everyone here is woefully neglecting is the huge elephant in the room.  (1) The cost of construction and the cost of decommissioning a reactor.  In the UK, the tax payer will be footing the bill for this (EDF's Chinese funded Hinkley Point) in terns of higher electricity bills while Osborne guarantees EDF a set return on each unit.  It's frankly a fucking scandal. (2) Nuclear waste - it's a long term ... sorry, we're talking half life here- it's a catastrophically long term legacy we need to sort out.  Radiation is bad - it doesn't make us super mutants - it gives us DNA abnormality and potentially cancerous mutation.  If you can avoid the irradiated material, it's all fine and dandy but the stuff that is left after decommissioning needs to be put somewhere for tens of thousands of years.  Radioactive isotopes leaking into a watercourse would be a bit shit tbh.
> 
> ...



I agree 100%. However the waste issue is largely solved by using Thorium reactors. They are leagues safer (they don't melt down), and they produce far less waste (which we're able to recycle some of). Do you know why we still use Uranium instead of investing in this magical Thorium? Because Uranium reactors produce the needed materials for nuclear weapons. Nobody wants to fund a contender to current nuclear technologies, because it undermines various countries' abilities to harvest nuclear materials for weapons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits

A fun read - basically the only reason we don't use them is because it would cost the government money in R&D and licensing, and they can't make weapons out of it. If the government weren't lobbied by immensely rich companies we'd have started the investment in the technology years ago.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2016)

I think I found two parts of it anyway:


















About waste: if you all of the spent uranium around the world into one facility, it wouldn't fill a city block.  Moreover, greater than 90% of that fuel can be reused in fast breeder reactors eventually turning it into depleted uranium which is more radioactive  but even less volume to store.

And we're able to store all of the waste with nuclear fuel.  Look at the primary fuel sources today: natural gas, diesel, petrol, and coal.  The waste of those products can't be stored.  In situations where it is stored (like the soot from coal) it creates massive environmental problems by itself because of the sheer quantity and the it's easy for power providers to not take seriously.  The stigma of nuclear waste that prevents expansion of nuclear power also serves to make sure we guard the waste from leaking.


----------



## dorsetknob (Apr 26, 2016)

Sad to Say that the BBC is becoming known as the British Bullshit company
No longer Truly Independent
Play thing and Propaganda unit for the Government  ( and the EU institutions )


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2016)

RCoon said:


> Because Uranium reactors produce the needed materials for nuclear weapons.


Only fast breeder reactors do which is why they are few and far between.  No body trusts anybody with fissile nuclear material.

Nuclear stockpiles have largely been diminishing, not increasing (only goes to 2002):






Fast breeders can use thorium, plutonium, and uranium and are designed to be incapable of meltdown.

Pebble bead reactors can also be designed to be incapable of melting down and can operate on uranium or thorium but generally can't produce as much power as pressurized water reactors or fast breeders.


The reason why Thorium reactors aren't being built is the same as uranium: energy is cheap and the arguments for investing in ~$10 billion power plants were weak.  That's changing so we could see a commercial thorium pebble bead reactor come online in the next 20-30 years.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Apr 26, 2016)

Epic, interactive "what powers the world?"



http://www.gocompare.com/energy/what-powers-the-world


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Apr 26, 2016)

The fossil fuels slider makes me sad.  That was so 100 years ago.

Edit: They're using old nuclear data.  China has 29 reactors and India has 21.  They shouldn't be that dark for nuclear.

Fun fact: USA has been about 20% nuclear since the 1970s even without adding more power plants.  Existing reactors were permitted to run hotter coupled with less growth in electrical consumption.


----------

