4 ms·

An unreported release of radionuclides from a Western European reactor would be much more surprising.

tobias3 6y ago
Yeah, I was surprised that there are a handful of reactors of the same type as Chernobyl (RBMK-1000) still online. For example west of St. Petersburg ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Nuclear_Power_Plant )
- wbl 6y ago
  They did substantial renovation to control the more interesting characteristics of the design. CANDU has an excellent safety record despite the same external moderation technique.
  - gdubs 6y ago
    “On the next episode of ‘This Old Reactor’...”
  - m4rtink 6y ago
    The power power/to cost radio of RBMK is still pretty good, as well other aspects (online refueling, isotope production, good scalability - there were plans for RBMK 2400 and RBMK 4800 etc.). If it just were not for the few desing flaws that make them unstable and dangerous in some situations.
bonestamp2 6y ago
Unless they too were unaware of it.
legulere 6y ago
In Germany they tried to use Chernobyl to hide a reactor accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  Thanks for the link, it's fascinating: > some radioactive dust was released to the environment. This happened just a couple of days after the Chernobyl disaster. The operators played down the incident, which caused a loss of confidence in the regulatory authorities. Radiactive dust is not a small problem, it's fatal if inhaled. Skin can stop a lot of radiation, but dust in the lungs is a worst-case scenario. > THTR-300 was only in full service for 423 days It was dismantled after only 4(!) operating calendar years because of rising costs and lack of faith in the regulation process. Of course, the government is on the hook for the overruns. What a disaster. Oh, exactly the same things the HN nuclear apologists gloss over. The challenge in the US is that most reactors have their operating permits rubber-stamped to extend 20 additional years. It means they're active much longer than designed, inviting corrosion and brittleness problems, and the operator can avoid paying for the decommissioning "until later," when it's somebody else's problem, usually the tax payer. Hence why nuclear reactors need to be stopped before construction even begins.

Yeah, I was surprised that there are a handful of reactors of the same type as Chernobyl (RBMK-1000) still online. For example west of St. Petersburg ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Nuclear_Power_Plant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Nuclear_Power_Plant )

wbl 6y ago
They did substantial renovation to control the more interesting characteristics of the design. CANDU has an excellent safety record despite the same external moderation technique.
- gdubs 6y ago
  “On the next episode of ‘This Old Reactor’...”
- m4rtink 6y ago
  The power power/to cost radio of RBMK is still pretty good, as well other aspects (online refueling, isotope production, good scalability - there were plans for RBMK 2400 and RBMK 4800 etc.). If it just were not for the few desing flaws that make them unstable and dangerous in some situations.

bonestamp2 6y ago

Unless they too were unaware of it.

legulere 6y ago

In Germany they tried to use Chernobyl to hide a reactor accident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

redis_mlc 6y ago
Thanks for the link, it's fascinating: > some radioactive dust was released to the environment. This happened just a couple of days after the Chernobyl disaster. The operators played down the incident, which caused a loss of confidence in the regulatory authorities. Radiactive dust is not a small problem, it's fatal if inhaled. Skin can stop a lot of radiation, but dust in the lungs is a worst-case scenario. > THTR-300 was only in full service for 423 days It was dismantled after only 4(!) operating calendar years because of rising costs and lack of faith in the regulation process. Of course, the government is on the hook for the overruns. What a disaster. Oh, exactly the same things the HN nuclear apologists gloss over. The challenge in the US is that most reactors have their operating permits rubber-stamped to extend 20 additional years. It means they're active much longer than designed, inviting corrosion and brittleness problems, and the operator can avoid paying for the decommissioning "until later," when it's somebody else's problem, usually the tax payer. Hence why nuclear reactors need to be stopped before construction even begins.