3 ms·
It's not "stupid russians" but a completely different type of reactor that was used in chernobyl. Western reactors in use today are not of that type and do not
by kisstheblade 9y ago
It's not "stupid russians" but a completely different type of reactor that was used in chernobyl. Western reactors in use today are not of that type and do not have the same failure modes.
Why does the "I'm afraid of the word nucular" -crowd not know this?
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter7.html
- bonesss 9y agoThe reactor at Chernobyl had a failure mode that is the exact definition of "don't do that" in nuclear design textbooks. The category of reactor that Chernobyl belonged to is grossly outclassed in terms of safety and 'meltdown' by multiple "modern" designs (produced primarily in the 50s through 70s). Even some operational since the 70s. Chernobyl, that accident, is much more a story of piss poor crisis management set to the backdrop of poor government systems and the weaknesses of authoritarian regimes than a nuclear scare story. If citizens think their government might murder them they are less likely to take spontaneously delivered iodine pills, for example. Chernobyl the humanitarian disaster... kinda wasn't. Most of the cancers were a highly treatable kind and didn't show up in anywhere near the predicted scale (says the WHO). Our nuclear models are _very_ conservative. The actual problems faced by them now? A poor healthcare system and high rates of substance abuse. And for the mathematically inclined: combining Chernobyl, Fukishima, 3 Mile Island, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, and imagining that disaster every year, we still hit death rates that compare favorably with the respiratory illness and cancer deaths caused by coal. If only nuclear power were scale-able and low-carbon, we might have something worth investing in...