4 ms·

Basically 30 years after it become more and more clear that only the USSR was capable of containing such events properly. In 1986 Soviet Army soldiers with impr

Basically 30 years after it become more and more clear that only the USSR was capable of containing such events properly. In 1986 Soviet Army soldiers with impregnated coats and shovels in just 2 weeks ensured containment of the accident to the controllable level. Something Japanese government in the 21st century cannot achieve in Fukushima with nanotech and robotics in 5 years.

googletazer 11y ago
Japanese "construction companies" were rounding up homeless people at subway stations and sending them to Fuku cleanup. They got paid around $80/day from which their room and board fees are deducted. I recall articles and photos that they didn't even have protected footwear, and had to wrap their shoes in plastic bags. If anything, USSR had a more organized and humane (funnily enough) response to Chernobyl.
bronson 11y ago
Japan wasn't willing to send 30+ rescue workers to their deaths. That makes it a lot harder.
- ommunist 11y ago
  Dude, Soviet Army did not sent anyone to death. There were hit and run 2min runs. Once soldier got 5Rh exposure, he was removed, directed to medics and replaced by another soldier. There have been volunteers who dedicated there lives to save the others and we honour them greatly. Only 30-yrs old or elder soldiers were accepted for decontamination works, and only those who had kids already. Their Army contractual payment was tripled. Don't speak of things you do mot know, please. So Japanese managers simply failed to account the exposure and deliver appropriate human ps up to task.
  - niccolop 11y ago
    I think for many people who cannot remember these times, they automatically assume that Chernobyl was worse, simply because how could an advanced country like Japan repeat the same mistakes. Clearly, both incidents were very bad, but to assume one is worse than the other, is probably a mistake, particularly considering the Fukushima incident was so recent.
    - bronson 11y ago
      I don't know which one was worse. Does anybody? I do know which one killed more rescuers though, regardless of whose fault it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impac... vs. Fukushima's "As of September 2012, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures." Which is why I think the OP is demonstrably wrong. Impregnated jackets and shovels can't help with seawater leaks -- the two incidents are just too different. Apologies for the "send to death" wording, that was clumsy.
    - gozur88 11y ago
      I remember those times, and Chernobyl was clearly far worse pretty much any way you want to measure it. But that was in the cards once the graphite caught fire. Light water reactors are inherently safer - the Japanese never had to deal with a fire you couldn't put out with water and they never had to deal with fly ash.
      - ommunist 11y ago
        The Pacific Ocean was contaminated down to Hawaii after Fukushima. On the other hand, Chernobyl caused massive atmospheric conmamination in Eurasia. Fortunately tech was in place and dangerous clouds were mostly brought down in Bryansk region. Good for Poland, winds blew to the East. You cannot directly compare the magnitude and severety of consequences, but you can compare organisation and effectiveness of countermeasures. The Soviet Union in this was far more advanced country than modern Japan.
        gozur88 11y ago
        >The Pacific Ocean was contaminated down to Hawaii after Fukushima. Which was meaningless unless you were closer than about twenty miles at the worst. The fact that you can measure it is irrelevant. Crops were contaminated by Chernobyl, and people ate those crops.
        ommunist 11y ago
sickbeard 11y ago
It turns out robots are useless when they encounter radiation too.
- jcranmer 11y ago
  Well, more specifically, it turns out that Japan's robotics industry isn't well-suited to disaster recovery robots, and Japan was too proud to accept offers from foreign robotics companies that did have more suited robots ("we're a rich country, we shouldn't need help from anybody else").
  - sickbeard 11y ago
    Where are you getting this from? Robots built by Toshiba have been able to remove some 1500 spent fuel rods from reactor 4 where the radiation is lower. Reactor 3 has so much radiation I don't think any robot can work there without getting fried.
pvg 11y ago
The severity of the events is not comparable and the one in Japan was, to a great extent, a consequence of a major natural disaster. There would have been no need for the Soviet Union to display its (rather dubious) expertise in containing such events if it hadn't created it in the first place.
- Aelinsaar 11y ago
  An expertise in spending human lives, dubious indeed.

googletazer 11y ago

Japanese "construction companies" were rounding up homeless people at subway stations and sending them to Fuku cleanup. They got paid around $80/day from which their room and board fees are deducted. I recall articles and photos that they didn't even have protected footwear, and had to wrap their shoes in plastic bags. If anything, USSR had a more organized and humane (funnily enough) response to Chernobyl.

bronson 11y ago

Japan wasn't willing to send 30+ rescue workers to their deaths. That makes it a lot harder.

ommunist 11y ago
Dude, Soviet Army did not sent anyone to death. There were hit and run 2min runs. Once soldier got 5Rh exposure, he was removed, directed to medics and replaced by another soldier. There have been volunteers who dedicated there lives to save the others and we honour them greatly. Only 30-yrs old or elder soldiers were accepted for decontamination works, and only those who had kids already. Their Army contractual payment was tripled. Don't speak of things you do mot know, please. So Japanese managers simply failed to account the exposure and deliver appropriate human ps up to task.
- niccolop 11y ago
  I think for many people who cannot remember these times, they automatically assume that Chernobyl was worse, simply because how could an advanced country like Japan repeat the same mistakes. Clearly, both incidents were very bad, but to assume one is worse than the other, is probably a mistake, particularly considering the Fukushima incident was so recent.
  - bronson 11y ago
    I don't know which one was worse. Does anybody? I do know which one killed more rescuers though, regardless of whose fault it was: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Human_impac... vs. Fukushima's "As of September 2012, there were no deaths or serious injuries due to direct radiation exposures." Which is why I think the OP is demonstrably wrong. Impregnated jackets and shovels can't help with seawater leaks -- the two incidents are just too different. Apologies for the "send to death" wording, that was clumsy.
  - gozur88 11y ago
    I remember those times, and Chernobyl was clearly far worse pretty much any way you want to measure it. But that was in the cards once the graphite caught fire. Light water reactors are inherently safer - the Japanese never had to deal with a fire you couldn't put out with water and they never had to deal with fly ash.
    - ommunist 11y ago
      The Pacific Ocean was contaminated down to Hawaii after Fukushima. On the other hand, Chernobyl caused massive atmospheric conmamination in Eurasia. Fortunately tech was in place and dangerous clouds were mostly brought down in Bryansk region. Good for Poland, winds blew to the East. You cannot directly compare the magnitude and severety of consequences, but you can compare organisation and effectiveness of countermeasures. The Soviet Union in this was far more advanced country than modern Japan.
      - gozur88 11y ago
        >The Pacific Ocean was contaminated down to Hawaii after Fukushima. Which was meaningless unless you were closer than about twenty miles at the worst. The fact that you can measure it is irrelevant. Crops were contaminated by Chernobyl, and people ate those crops.
        ommunist 11y ago

sickbeard 11y ago

It turns out robots are useless when they encounter radiation too.

jcranmer 11y ago
Well, more specifically, it turns out that Japan's robotics industry isn't well-suited to disaster recovery robots, and Japan was too proud to accept offers from foreign robotics companies that did have more suited robots ("we're a rich country, we shouldn't need help from anybody else").
- sickbeard 11y ago
  Where are you getting this from? Robots built by Toshiba have been able to remove some 1500 spent fuel rods from reactor 4 where the radiation is lower. Reactor 3 has so much radiation I don't think any robot can work there without getting fried.

pvg 11y ago

The severity of the events is not comparable and the one in Japan was, to a great extent, a consequence of a major natural disaster. There would have been no need for the Soviet Union to display its (rather dubious) expertise in containing such events if it hadn't created it in the first place.

Aelinsaar 11y ago
An expertise in spending human lives, dubious indeed.