8 ms·

Forgive the macabre question, but if a human (or other living creatue) were to venture in to the plant and collect this fuel by hand, how long would they surviv

Forgive the macabre question, but if a human (or other living creatue) were to venture in to the plant and collect this fuel by hand, how long would they survive? I'm in no way suggesting that this is an option, of course -- just curious.

x3n0ph3n3 8y ago
This might interest you and give you a benchmark for the lethality of approaching it: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-chernobyl-disaster-1986/ https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-ch... > After just 30 seconds of exposure, dizziness and fatigue will find you a week later. Two minutes of exposure and the body cells will soon begin to hemorrhage; four minutes: vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. At 300 seconds you have two days to live. > All of the fire fighters and people who worked in building the sarcophagus died around a year or so after the event.
- java-man 8y ago
  I've read (long time ago) the US did tests on monkeys, exposing them to large neutron doses. There is also a number of human cases of exposure to large neutron doses, starting with Louis Slotin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin
samstave 8y ago
You should watch this documentary on Chernobyl: >According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600,000 liquidators) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators They had guys running in and throwing lead bricks - and some of the scientists died by giving their life to get in and take video of the meltdown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-WdTF2Qr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-WdTF2Qr8 These guys knew they were doomed. But they had freaking reportedly 700,000 men attack that problem.
- varjag 8y ago
  I've met a dying Chernobyl first responder on a commuter train in Belarus, back in early 1990s. These people never made it to WHO statistic as their deaths protracted over many years can not be directly attributed to the accident. As pro nuclear crowd would be happy to tell you, only couple dozen firemen died on the first day and that was it, making nuclear meltdowns almost benign incidents.
  - roenxi 8y ago
    It is a pretty hard-hearted thing to say, but if the WHO doesn't think there is enough evidence to count his death in the Chernobyl statistics, what evidence does he have they are wrong? I mean, it isn't unprecedented for crippling damage to not surface for a long time (eg, asbestos/mesothelioma), but on the other hand cancer can strike at any age [0] and people struggle to attribute things to chance if they have a potential reason for it. The WHO is using a statistical model to account for the fact that individual deaths might be cancer or might be something else. There is pretty concrete evidence that in terms of deaths nuclear meltdowns are benign, and the major concerns are land contamination and how big the exclusion zones need to be when things go wrong. Some of the better science-based counterarguments to nuclear I've heard go to contamination in the food chain. [0] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
    - varjag 8y ago
      Most of the studies among Chernobyl liquidators were based on monitoring the cohorts between 1994 to 2004. Very little was done form 1986 to 1991 at all.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - vidarh 8y ago
    The "never made it to WHO statistics" as the difference in cancer incidence rates and other problems after Chernobyl are so small that they are hard to distinguish from the background noise. A lot of work has gone into trying to document the actual effects, but the reality is that while there were initial large spikes in e.g. thyroid cancer among children, the cancers that spiked are ones with very high survival rates. The WHO estimates were initially very high, but keep being adjusted down because every year that goes is another year without a spike in deaths above expected levels. The breakup of the Soviet Union caused much larger scale effects on life expectancy.
agumonkey 8y ago
This was heavily documented after Chernobyl. If you're not affraid of heavy and even gruesome recollection from people and relatives there at the time you can find documentaries on youtube
jojocool0501 8y ago
This is IMO a must read : https://fr.scribd.com/doc/257062334/Chernobyl-Confessions-of-a-Reporter-by-Igor-Kostin https://fr.scribd.com/doc/257062334/Chernobyl-Confessions-of...
- pndy 8y ago
  I'd recommend Svetlana's Alexievich "Chernobyl Prayer" although is more intimate (as stories told are very personal) prose than historical records: https://thephraser.com/2017/09/07/chernobyl-prayer-a-chronicle-of-the-future-by-svetlana-alexievich/ https://thephraser.com/2017/09/07/chernobyl-prayer-a-chronic...

x3n0ph3n3 8y ago

This might interest you and give you a benchmark for the lethality of approaching it: https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-chernobyl-disaster-1986/ https://rarehistoricalphotos.com/the-elephant-foot-of-the-ch... > After just 30 seconds of exposure, dizziness and fatigue will find you a week later. Two minutes of exposure and the body cells will soon begin to hemorrhage; four minutes: vomiting, diarrhea, and fever. At 300 seconds you have two days to live. > All of the fire fighters and people who worked in building the sarcophagus died around a year or so after the event.

java-man 8y ago
I've read (long time ago) the US did tests on monkeys, exposing them to large neutron doses. There is also a number of human cases of exposure to large neutron doses, starting with Louis Slotin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Slotin

samstave 8y ago

You should watch this documentary on Chernobyl: >According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600,000 liquidators) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_liquidators They had guys running in and throwing lead bricks - and some of the scientists died by giving their life to get in and take video of the meltdown. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-WdTF2Qr8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti-WdTF2Qr8 These guys knew they were doomed. But they had freaking reportedly 700,000 men attack that problem.

varjag 8y ago
I've met a dying Chernobyl first responder on a commuter train in Belarus, back in early 1990s. These people never made it to WHO statistic as their deaths protracted over many years can not be directly attributed to the accident. As pro nuclear crowd would be happy to tell you, only couple dozen firemen died on the first day and that was it, making nuclear meltdowns almost benign incidents.
- roenxi 8y ago
  It is a pretty hard-hearted thing to say, but if the WHO doesn't think there is enough evidence to count his death in the Chernobyl statistics, what evidence does he have they are wrong? I mean, it isn't unprecedented for crippling damage to not surface for a long time (eg, asbestos/mesothelioma), but on the other hand cancer can strike at any age [0] and people struggle to attribute things to chance if they have a potential reason for it. The WHO is using a statistical model to account for the fact that individual deaths might be cancer or might be something else. There is pretty concrete evidence that in terms of deaths nuclear meltdowns are benign, and the major concerns are land contamination and how big the exclusion zones need to be when things go wrong. Some of the better science-based counterarguments to nuclear I've heard go to contamination in the food chain. [0] https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/incidence/age https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
  - varjag 8y ago
    Most of the studies among Chernobyl liquidators were based on monitoring the cohorts between 1994 to 2004. Very little was done form 1986 to 1991 at all.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- vidarh 8y ago
  The "never made it to WHO statistics" as the difference in cancer incidence rates and other problems after Chernobyl are so small that they are hard to distinguish from the background noise. A lot of work has gone into trying to document the actual effects, but the reality is that while there were initial large spikes in e.g. thyroid cancer among children, the cancers that spiked are ones with very high survival rates. The WHO estimates were initially very high, but keep being adjusted down because every year that goes is another year without a spike in deaths above expected levels. The breakup of the Soviet Union caused much larger scale effects on life expectancy.

agumonkey 8y ago

This was heavily documented after Chernobyl. If you're not affraid of heavy and even gruesome recollection from people and relatives there at the time you can find documentaries on youtube

jojocool0501 8y ago

This is IMO a must read : https://fr.scribd.com/doc/257062334/Chernobyl-Confessions-of-a-Reporter-by-Igor-Kostin https://fr.scribd.com/doc/257062334/Chernobyl-Confessions-of...

pndy 8y ago
I'd recommend Svetlana's Alexievich "Chernobyl Prayer" although is more intimate (as stories told are very personal) prose than historical records: https://thephraser.com/2017/09/07/chernobyl-prayer-a-chronicle-of-the-future-by-svetlana-alexievich/ https://thephraser.com/2017/09/07/chernobyl-prayer-a-chronic...