6 ms·

If Chernobyl had been a dam burst incident, people would be living in Pripyat right now. What if a nuclear disaster like that happened next to say, Philadelphi

If Chernobyl had been a dam burst incident, people would be living in Pripyat right now. What if a nuclear disaster like that happened next to say, Philadelphia, and left the area uninhabitable for 10,000 years?

krschultz 16y ago
Haven't people been visiting Pripyat and finding it to be habitable to a lot of species of life? It won't be a wasteland for 10,000 years. And Chernobyl was so pooring designed it is not analagous to everything else (as was the damn that killed 50,000 people).
- code_duck 16y ago
  There is life, to be sure, but it's not 100% healthy. The area is still too radioactive for humans to dwell in without shortening their lives and it's not going away any time soon. We'll see in the next 50 years how it goes having nuclear power plants operating in Africa, Indonesia, the Middle East, etc. New reactors are better designed, but I still don't trust 80% of the governments or corporations in the world to responsibly operate anything nuclear.
- gamble 16y ago
  Are you joking? It's only 'habitable' in the sense that wildlife doesn't drop dead the moment it enters the exclusion zone. The animals are still receiving substantial amounts of radiation, and will continue to suffer for decades. The worst areas will be dangerous for centuries.
  - iujyhgtfhj 16y ago
    Towns like Picher, Oklahoma, will still be toxic when the sun goes out. Radioactive Ceasium and Strontium are a pain for a few decades - lead, mercury and cadmium are for ever.
    - gamble 16y ago
      Non-sequitor. Just because something else is bad doesn't make this situation any better.
      - iujyhgtfhj 16y ago
        Oh my god they had a nuclear accident in Japan - we must shut down our nuclear reactors and instead pump out many millions of tons of dangerous radioisotopes and chemical poisons from new coal plants instead. It's standard knee jerk procedure. We had a rail accident (the first in 10years) so the reaction was to close a bunch of inter city lines for months while they checked everything. Where did all those extra travellers go? onto the roads! I hope the government doesn't hear about the problems with Toyota in america - they would then ban ABS and give everybody Tiger tanks to commute on.
        code_duck 16y ago
        I think most people who are opposed to nuclear are hoping governments and industry will seriously pursue more sustainable and non-toxic sources of power, not coal.
    - code_duck 16y ago
      Radioactive metals are still toxic as heavy metals even when they're not radioactive, though. Uranium, for instance, is just as bad as lead, or worse.
  - sorbus 16y ago
    Also habitable in the sense that a lot of people still live there, in ways extremely similar to how they did before, with (apparently) few ill effects. See http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-pf-201103-chernobyl-wildlife-refuge-sidwcmdev_154483.html http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-pf-201103-chernoby...
- Duff 16y ago
  I'd like to offer you some prime property in Pripyat for your home. If you buy today, I'll even throw in a free well-drilling for your water supply.
icarus_drowning 16y ago
And if Chernobyl had been a dam burst, it is likely a great many more people would have died, and much more quickly. EDIT: Despite the downvotes, this is not a trivial point, and is precisely why the OP is getting so much attention.
mistermann 16y ago
So, if you are allowed to use Chernobyl as an example of "typical" nuclear power installations, and come to the logical conclusion that all other nuclear reactor installations in the world carry the same risk, then can I similarly use the Banqiao Dam as an example of a "typical" hydroelectric dam, and declare that all dams in the world therefore carry the same risk?
- bioh42_2 16y ago
  You sure can. I think his point is still valid. Nuclear disasters are unique in that the damage from then tends to last FAR longer then the damage from any other type of disaster.
  - fleitz 16y ago
    People still live near three mile island.
    - asdkl234890 16y ago
      That accident was safely contained.
  - landhar 16y ago
    I agree, and even without nuclear disasters, no human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after.
    - fleitz 16y ago
      Nuclear waste is a US only issue. It doesn't exist in any other country. Buy some CANDU reactors from Canada and you can burn your nuclear waste for energy.
      - schrototo 16y ago
        You can't be serious... nuclear waste is a huge issue in pretty much every country that has nuclear power plants. Half of Germany goes insane every time there is a transport of nuclear waste from one temporary storage location to another.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
What if a nuclear disaster happened in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? What would those cities look like today? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_montage.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_montage.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nagasaki_C1414.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nagasaki_C1414.jpg
- code_duck 16y ago
  An accident at a nuclear facility is rather dfferent than the effects of a nuclear weapon. The radiation exposure produced is much more gradual. It's not as instantly lethal as a bomb of course, but the effects of Chernobyl are still lingering. Obviously they didn't have to encase Nagasaki or Hiroshima in a concrete sarcophagus. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fairly small, and air burst vs. ground burst. The amount of radioactive material in the bombs is a tiny fraction of what was released at Chernobyl. People are fond of saying you can't compare Chernobyl to other reactors, etc. but it's all we had until recently. I'm sure we'll have some better examples in the future, but for now, according to the IEAE: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-... "How does Chernobyl’s effect measure up to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The accident at Chernobyl was approximately 400 times more potent than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima" I assume things would look different in Japan if we had dropped a couple hundred of those bombs vs. one.
advnano2045 16y ago
So your argument is that as long as the asset or land is reusable then it does not matter if people died ? So if you were driving a buick roadmaster and got killed in the car. the fact that they could hose of the dash and reuse the car is what matters ? Or that in World War 2, when the tank crew of a Sherman tank was killed they could refurb it and send out a new crew, does that mean it is somehow better for the first crew ?

krschultz 16y ago

Haven't people been visiting Pripyat and finding it to be habitable to a lot of species of life? It won't be a wasteland for 10,000 years. And Chernobyl was so pooring designed it is not analagous to everything else (as was the damn that killed 50,000 people).

code_duck 16y ago
There is life, to be sure, but it's not 100% healthy. The area is still too radioactive for humans to dwell in without shortening their lives and it's not going away any time soon. We'll see in the next 50 years how it goes having nuclear power plants operating in Africa, Indonesia, the Middle East, etc. New reactors are better designed, but I still don't trust 80% of the governments or corporations in the world to responsibly operate anything nuclear.
gamble 16y ago
Are you joking? It's only 'habitable' in the sense that wildlife doesn't drop dead the moment it enters the exclusion zone. The animals are still receiving substantial amounts of radiation, and will continue to suffer for decades. The worst areas will be dangerous for centuries.
- iujyhgtfhj 16y ago
  Towns like Picher, Oklahoma, will still be toxic when the sun goes out. Radioactive Ceasium and Strontium are a pain for a few decades - lead, mercury and cadmium are for ever.
  - gamble 16y ago
    Non-sequitor. Just because something else is bad doesn't make this situation any better.
    - iujyhgtfhj 16y ago
      Oh my god they had a nuclear accident in Japan - we must shut down our nuclear reactors and instead pump out many millions of tons of dangerous radioisotopes and chemical poisons from new coal plants instead. It's standard knee jerk procedure. We had a rail accident (the first in 10years) so the reaction was to close a bunch of inter city lines for months while they checked everything. Where did all those extra travellers go? onto the roads! I hope the government doesn't hear about the problems with Toyota in america - they would then ban ABS and give everybody Tiger tanks to commute on.
      - code_duck 16y ago
        I think most people who are opposed to nuclear are hoping governments and industry will seriously pursue more sustainable and non-toxic sources of power, not coal.
  - code_duck 16y ago
    Radioactive metals are still toxic as heavy metals even when they're not radioactive, though. Uranium, for instance, is just as bad as lead, or worse.
- sorbus 16y ago
  Also habitable in the sense that a lot of people still live there, in ways extremely similar to how they did before, with (apparently) few ill effects. See http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-pf-201103-chernobyl-wildlife-refuge-sidwcmdev_154483.html http://outsideonline.com/adventure/travel-pf-201103-chernoby...
Duff 16y ago
I'd like to offer you some prime property in Pripyat for your home. If you buy today, I'll even throw in a free well-drilling for your water supply.

icarus_drowning 16y ago

And if Chernobyl had been a dam burst, it is likely a great many more people would have died, and much more quickly. EDIT: Despite the downvotes, this is not a trivial point, and is precisely why the OP is getting so much attention.

mistermann 16y ago

So, if you are allowed to use Chernobyl as an example of "typical" nuclear power installations, and come to the logical conclusion that all other nuclear reactor installations in the world carry the same risk, then can I similarly use the Banqiao Dam as an example of a "typical" hydroelectric dam, and declare that all dams in the world therefore carry the same risk?

bioh42_2 16y ago
You sure can. I think his point is still valid. Nuclear disasters are unique in that the damage from then tends to last FAR longer then the damage from any other type of disaster.
- fleitz 16y ago
  People still live near three mile island.
  - asdkl234890 16y ago
    That accident was safely contained.
- landhar 16y ago
  I agree, and even without nuclear disasters, no human society has ever lasted for as long as nuclear waste must be looked after.
  - fleitz 16y ago
    Nuclear waste is a US only issue. It doesn't exist in any other country. Buy some CANDU reactors from Canada and you can burn your nuclear waste for energy.
    - schrototo 16y ago
      You can't be serious... nuclear waste is a huge issue in pretty much every country that has nuclear power plants. Half of Germany goes insane every time there is a transport of nuclear waste from one temporary storage location to another.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

What if a nuclear disaster happened in Hiroshima or Nagasaki? What would those cities look like today? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_montage.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hiroshima_montage.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nagasaki_C1414.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nagasaki_C1414.jpg

code_duck 16y ago
An accident at a nuclear facility is rather dfferent than the effects of a nuclear weapon. The radiation exposure produced is much more gradual. It's not as instantly lethal as a bomb of course, but the effects of Chernobyl are still lingering. Obviously they didn't have to encase Nagasaki or Hiroshima in a concrete sarcophagus. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were fairly small, and air burst vs. ground burst. The amount of radioactive material in the bombs is a tiny fraction of what was released at Chernobyl. People are fond of saying you can't compare Chernobyl to other reactors, etc. but it's all we had until recently. I'm sure we'll have some better examples in the future, but for now, according to the IEAE: http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-faq.shtml http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/features/chernobyl-15/cherno-... "How does Chernobyl’s effect measure up to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The accident at Chernobyl was approximately 400 times more potent than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima" I assume things would look different in Japan if we had dropped a couple hundred of those bombs vs. one.

advnano2045 16y ago

So your argument is that as long as the asset or land is reusable then it does not matter if people died ? So if you were driving a buick roadmaster and got killed in the car. the fact that they could hose of the dash and reuse the car is what matters ? Or that in World War 2, when the tank crew of a Sherman tank was killed they could refurb it and send out a new crew, does that mean it is somehow better for the first crew ?