15 ms·

Lithuania plans to hold drills in case of accident at the Belarus nuclear plant

157 points by maury91 6y ago

lnsru 6y ago
Let’s think from other side. It’s a great geopolitical move. Russia build a power plant almost on the EU border. It will be paid by Belarus. That’s even cooler. Now imagine some bad event going in Vilnius. Like some NATO conference. 30 minutes before it radioactive water comes through the river Neris and the city must be evacuated. Conference didn’t happen. I even don’t see a good way for city evacuation. There is not enough road capacity to the west. Like 2 roads with 2 lanes each. During serious nuclear disaster the whole city is sitting ducks, there is not place to hide and no road to run.
- rmind 6y ago
  It's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? :) In addition to the safety concerns, you are absolutely right that it was also a Russian geopolitical project, though, just with more realistic and with more practical objectives. One of the objectives was an attempt to make the Baltic States dependant on the Russian (well, Belarusian, but due to political realities it doesn't quite matter) energy supplies by flooding them with cheap electricity and discouraging them from diversification. Such dependency would give some means to make political influence to the Baltics. This was in addition to another objective of making Belarus even more economically reliant on Russia (in this case, very cheap but large loans given to build the power plant). However, I don't think they managed to gain anything in the Baltics, because of a robust strategic response from the Baltic States: 1) they diversified their electricity supply with more links to Scandinavia and Poland (see NordBalt, EstLink and LitPol projects) 2) created an open and well functioning electricity market (see Nord Pool) 3) eventually decided to boycott the electricity from the Belarus Power Plant, undermining its economic basis. Russia succeeded in tightening the economic grip on Belarus, but in terms of economic dependency, things are already pretty grim there..
- billfruit 6y ago
  Isn't geopolitical paranoia running too high these days even compared to the Cold War in certain aspects. I remember Canada building Nuclear Reactors in Romania during the Cold War years. Even during the 90s USA I think even started work on nuclear reactors in North Korea. Even recently Russia is building a nuclear power plant in Turkey.
  - petre 6y ago
    Some nuclear tech choices are geopolitically motivated. Romania licensed CANDU specifically because its then communist leader did not trust the Soviets after the invasion if Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They also have or had domestic heavy water production and domestic nuclear fuel production.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  I would do this in SimCity: always build my coal and nuke plants at the corner of town :)
- hangonhn 6y ago
  > Let’s think from other side. You’re not thinking. You’re fantasizing and projecting. In your fantasy you basically stripped the Russians of all humanity to the point where they would intentionally poison a river with highly dangerous nuclear waste to stop a NATO conference and basically kill off an entire city. Rather than these complicated conspiracy theories, a far simpler explanation is that Belarus needs energy and Russia has a nuclear power industry. Russia have sold these power plants all over the world, not just next to the EU border. If Russia really wanted to do something so horrific they don’t need to go through all the steps of building a complicated nuclear power plant to do it. They have plenty of weapons in their arsenal to do it already.
  - lnsru 6y ago
    Well, these guys like poisoning bad people in foreign countries with weird substances. So dropping couple radioactive barrels into a river does not sound that unrealistic to me. And it then makes a thing called “accident”. Using weapon is an “attack”, what is totally uncool nowadays.
    - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
      Targeted actions against individuals is bread and butter covert operations for states. Just ask the CIA or the Mossad. I don't think you can use the evidence of targeted attacks to suggest that a state will engage in crimes against humanity.
  - wassenaar10 6y ago
    > In your fantasy you basically stripped the Russians of all humanity to the point where they would intentionally poison a river with highly dangerous nuclear waste to stop a NATO conference and basically kill off an entire city. That's true, Russians only intentionally poison individuals and not entire cities.
    - pvaldes 6y ago
      > In your fantasy you basically stripped the Russians of all humanity to the point where they would intentionally poison a river with highly dangerous nuclear waste... and kill off an entire city. Meanwhile in Nagasaki...
- selivanovp 6y ago
  You should eat your pills again asap.
- mikolka_paravoz 6y ago
  Yep. Belarus is so stupid to pollute its own land just to prevent NATO conference. What are you smoking?
brutusborn 6y ago
I wonder why they practice distributing iodine pills rather than just distribute them ahead of time? The article reminds me of fraudulent material certificates at South Korean nuclear plants. As much as I advocate for nuclear power, I am fearful that more disasters will occur due to human error.
- nikaspran 6y ago
  Iodine pills have been distributed already. This is most likely for subsequent doses.
  - rmind 6y ago
    Yup: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1256930/vilnius-hands-out-iodide-pills-as-belarus-nuclear-plant-nears-completion https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1256930/vilnius-han...
- maury91 6y ago
  That power plant has a LOT of human error, from the news, it appears they made many mistake while building the power plant ( breaking stuff, pouring concrete in the wrong way, ... ) and they did try to hide it. And many incidents after turning the power plant on. I also think that Nuclear plants are safe, but only when constructed and operated properly, and this doesn't seems the case. - tanks imploding: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1288877/belarusian-ngo-reports-incident-at-astravyets-nuclear-plant https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1288877/belarusian-... - transformers exploding: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1272842/incident-reported-at-belarus-nuclear-plant-days-after-launch https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1272842/incident-re... - broke a reactor vessel: https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-05-rosatom-replaces-reactor-core-that-technicians-dropped-at-its-belarusian-plant https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-05-rosatom-repl...
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    Lithuania was operating an RBMK (Chernobyl-type) reactor just 140 km away from that new Generation III+ design and the majority of Lithuanians opposed the closure of the plant in Ignalina. And that reactor vessel was never used, it’s actually still lying on the compound of Atommash in Volgodonsk. Furthermore, transformers have been failing at NPPs in the West as well.
LockAndLol 6y ago
Is this being done in other places close to nuclear plants? The article just mentions that there are allegations of security standards not being followed but who was making the accusations and why? And why are the Baltic states pulling out of the Belorussian energy network? I find the article pretty sparse on details.
- vincnetas 6y ago
  Recent EU resolution (with more details) regarding safety situation in this nuclear power plant : https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2021-0109_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2021-0109_...
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    The EU inspectors haven’t even finished their work yet, but the European parliament is already sure the plant is unsafe: > https://twitter.com/RosatomGlobal/status/1361996208928153604 https://twitter.com/RosatomGlobal/status/1361996208928153604
    - vincnetas 6y ago
      If you read the resolution it says that inspectors have not finished everything. But what worries EU is what they already found, and what recommendations they made, which are still not implemented by Belarus. Have you read the resolution? It's only 3 pages long.
      - mikolka_paravoz 6y ago
        Do you actually read them? Which recommendations are you referring?
    - dmos62 6y ago
      Such an inspection is incremental. What will be found later won't undo what was found previously.
    - 6y ago
cbmuser 6y ago
Lithunia was operating a twin RBMK-1500 (Chernobyl-type) plant just 140 km from the site of the new Generation III+ VVER-1200 plant in Belarus which is magnitudes safer. The majority of Lithuanians opposed shutting down their own plant in Ignalina which was done on request of the European Union. I think it was even a requirement for their EU membership. And now just a decade later, the same people are worried about the safety of a far more modern and safer plant as the one that they refused to shut down just 140 km away? Not very credible at all. Lithuania is just upset because they invested a lot into natural gas plants and now Belarus is competing with zero-emission electricity from a Generation III+ plant they would love to have themselves.
- ksm1717 6y ago
  Why would you hold erring on the side of caution against them?
  - cbmuser 6y ago
    Because Lithuania has very good economical reasons to be upset about this plant: Quote: "Lithuania invested almost 500 million euros in their aspiration of being an LNG supplier for an EU supposedly weening neighbors from Russia. Since then, their EU partners, led by Germany, collaborated with Gazprom to build a second natural gas pipeline to Germany, undercutting Lithuania." > https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/28/eu-nuclear-fears-just-because-its-russian-doesnt-mean-its-bad/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/28/eu-nuclear...
- wolfram74 6y ago
  The data supports the idea that nuclear power is safe, making them /feel/ safe is the next step in widespread adoption, so we have a lot of FUD to undo from the coal lobby. Drills and explicit plans might help from the "there's nothing you can do" angle. I'm not sure, though.
- rmind 6y ago
  A few points: - The RBMK-1500 in the now decommissioned Ignalina Power Plant wasn't built near a big city, unlike the Belarusian power plant. - Lithuania invested a lot into the safety of the Ignalina Power Plant, installing the latest European safety systems. Partly thanks to EU, yes, but the point is that there was cooperation and safety improvements. Belarus largely ignored the safaty concerns and recommendations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). - Lithuania didn't invest into natural gas -- this is just factually not true. Elektrenai Power Plant was modernized (well, in fact, they just built a modern one in the same site and closed down the old units) as a strategic "backup" power plant, but the overall capacity was not expanded. If anything, Lithuania has been investing significantly into renewable energy, although perhaps not as much as we would wish.
OnAironaut 6y ago
Looks like cbmuser will be working overtime today.
- dmos62 6y ago
  What you probably mean is that this user is often active in similar topics. What your comment might be interpreted to say is that cbmuser is paid to participate, as in troll farming. Whatever you meant, let's try and steer away from what might be seen as inflamatory remarks.
  - Udo 6y ago
    Not sure if that's typical, but my perspective is this: I know almost nothing about energy infrastructure, and even less about local conditions and history in that field. I do tend to lend credibility to HN users who seem to have detailed knowledge, like cbmuser. However, I also see that they are often engaged in heated discussions where basic statements of facts are disputed on both sides. With that in mind, I don't see why it would have to be inflammatory to ask cbmuser if a) they work in that field b) there are potential conflicts of interest and c) what their general outlook is. Even if there is a conflict of interest, that wouldn't invalidate their positions, of course, it's just something to keep in mind when reading. Edit: you're right dmos62, this comment was a bit trite. I can't delete it anymore now. Thank you for clarifying anyway!
    - dmos62 6y ago
      I don't think it's inflamatory to investigate some user. We all tend to lend credibility to those we perceive as having detailed knowledge. What I was talking about is that the topic of this thread is unfortunately inflammatory due to regional politics, so we should be careful to maintain a standard of discussion.
    - bob29 6y ago
      I'll say it, that user reguritates rhetoric and talking points that happen to be aligned with a multi-billion lobbying industry, but they're always packaged in social media comment sized appealing package. Very few on HN actually work in the energy industry and so anything that "sounds about right" gets accepted if the person says it confidently. Unlike anything related to computer languages, where there are people who also know the topic techncially to debate. It's a case of "those who speak do not know, those who know do not speak" because to do the topic justice would be a longer comment than anyone wants to read, and it cbmuser's ignorant comment is sure to be at the top.
londons_explore 6y ago
This seems at least 60% political to try to get the population worried about foreign 'scary' nuclear, and the fact they have no control over it...
- duxup 6y ago
  How do you calculate 60%?
- varjag 6y ago
  Belarusian here. Lithuanians hardly have a perception of Belarusians as "scary foreigners" due to enormous amount of shared history, culture and even cuisine. It's foreign in the sense an Irish is foreign to an English, or a Norwegian to a Swede. Lithuanians did live under the not dissimilar regime for half a century though and they understand how safety is done in such circumstances. The power station had numerous incidents during construction and commissioning, including human fatalities. Can't blame them for taking precautions.
slicktux 6y ago
Aren’t drills more for safety preparedness for worst case scenario rather than fear driven; I see no problem here if it’s the former...
johanneskanybal 6y ago
Everyone hates nuclear and has been told to hate nuclear for decades. Irrational and hope it changes fast enough.
KDJohnBrown 6y ago
Perhaos Lithuania has valid fears about the stability of the country given the unrest over dictator Lukashenko’s sham elections. The region doesn’t exactly a stellar reputation in honesty after nuclear incidents. Japan was instantly honeat about Fukushima. Russia still lies about Chernobyl.
- AnotherGoodName 6y ago
  >Japan was instantly honest about Fukushima They acknowledge it now but when it hit there were non-stop blog posts going viral about how it's impossible for Fukushima to suffer a meltdown due to the design. The Japanese government was restricting information so tightly that there was no refutation of this misinformation. Josef Oehmen's "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" went viral for example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehmens-advice-on-fukushima-went-viral/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehme... It was all very reminiscent of the Soviet "It's impossible for Chernobyl to meltdown". So no Japan was not instantly honest. They were not informing people of the real situation even after they knew.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Chernobyl came pretty close, if you read whatever factual information is available about the progression of the accident there were at least two moments where very small changes made all the difference.
selivanovp 6y ago
It’s fun to see how Lithuanians fucked up their own nuclear power plant, basically murdered their own cheap energy production, then had to buy electricity from other countries and stage drills to pretend they closed their own station “for good”.
mikolka_paravoz 6y ago
Ignore those political claims. Read reliable sources. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-missions/seed_mission_report_belarus_2017.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-mi... https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-missions/inir-3-mission-belarus-040320.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-mi... Belarus can not help political hysteria in Lithuania no matter how actually safe NPP is.

157 points by maury91 6y ago

Let’s think from other side. It’s a great geopolitical move. Russia build a power plant almost on the EU border. It will be paid by Belarus. That’s even cooler. Now imagine some bad event going in Vilnius. Like some NATO conference. 30 minutes before it radioactive water comes through the river Neris and the city must be evacuated. Conference didn’t happen. I even don’t see a good way for city evacuation. There is not enough road capacity to the west. Like 2 roads with 2 lanes each. During serious nuclear disaster the whole city is sitting ducks, there is not place to hide and no road to run.

rmind 6y ago
It's a bit of a stretch, isn't it? :) In addition to the safety concerns, you are absolutely right that it was also a Russian geopolitical project, though, just with more realistic and with more practical objectives. One of the objectives was an attempt to make the Baltic States dependant on the Russian (well, Belarusian, but due to political realities it doesn't quite matter) energy supplies by flooding them with cheap electricity and discouraging them from diversification. Such dependency would give some means to make political influence to the Baltics. This was in addition to another objective of making Belarus even more economically reliant on Russia (in this case, very cheap but large loans given to build the power plant). However, I don't think they managed to gain anything in the Baltics, because of a robust strategic response from the Baltic States: 1) they diversified their electricity supply with more links to Scandinavia and Poland (see NordBalt, EstLink and LitPol projects) 2) created an open and well functioning electricity market (see Nord Pool) 3) eventually decided to boycott the electricity from the Belarus Power Plant, undermining its economic basis. Russia succeeded in tightening the economic grip on Belarus, but in terms of economic dependency, things are already pretty grim there..
billfruit 6y ago
Isn't geopolitical paranoia running too high these days even compared to the Cold War in certain aspects. I remember Canada building Nuclear Reactors in Romania during the Cold War years. Even during the 90s USA I think even started work on nuclear reactors in North Korea. Even recently Russia is building a nuclear power plant in Turkey.
- petre 6y ago
  Some nuclear tech choices are geopolitically motivated. Romania licensed CANDU specifically because its then communist leader did not trust the Soviets after the invasion if Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They also have or had domestic heavy water production and domestic nuclear fuel production.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
Scoundreller 6y ago
I would do this in SimCity: always build my coal and nuke plants at the corner of town :)
hangonhn 6y ago
> Let’s think from other side. You’re not thinking. You’re fantasizing and projecting. In your fantasy you basically stripped the Russians of all humanity to the point where they would intentionally poison a river with highly dangerous nuclear waste to stop a NATO conference and basically kill off an entire city. Rather than these complicated conspiracy theories, a far simpler explanation is that Belarus needs energy and Russia has a nuclear power industry. Russia have sold these power plants all over the world, not just next to the EU border. If Russia really wanted to do something so horrific they don’t need to go through all the steps of building a complicated nuclear power plant to do it. They have plenty of weapons in their arsenal to do it already.
- lnsru 6y ago
  Well, these guys like poisoning bad people in foreign countries with weird substances. So dropping couple radioactive barrels into a river does not sound that unrealistic to me. And it then makes a thing called “accident”. Using weapon is an “attack”, what is totally uncool nowadays.
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
    Targeted actions against individuals is bread and butter covert operations for states. Just ask the CIA or the Mossad. I don't think you can use the evidence of targeted attacks to suggest that a state will engage in crimes against humanity.
- wassenaar10 6y ago
  > In your fantasy you basically stripped the Russians of all humanity to the point where they would intentionally poison a river with highly dangerous nuclear waste to stop a NATO conference and basically kill off an entire city. That's true, Russians only intentionally poison individuals and not entire cities.
  - pvaldes 6y ago
    > In your fantasy you basically stripped the Russians of all humanity to the point where they would intentionally poison a river with highly dangerous nuclear waste... and kill off an entire city. Meanwhile in Nagasaki...
selivanovp 6y ago
You should eat your pills again asap.
mikolka_paravoz 6y ago
Yep. Belarus is so stupid to pollute its own land just to prevent NATO conference. What are you smoking?

brutusborn 6y ago

I wonder why they practice distributing iodine pills rather than just distribute them ahead of time? The article reminds me of fraudulent material certificates at South Korean nuclear plants. As much as I advocate for nuclear power, I am fearful that more disasters will occur due to human error.

nikaspran 6y ago
Iodine pills have been distributed already. This is most likely for subsequent doses.
- rmind 6y ago
  Yup: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1256930/vilnius-hands-out-iodide-pills-as-belarus-nuclear-plant-nears-completion https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1256930/vilnius-han...
maury91 6y ago
That power plant has a LOT of human error, from the news, it appears they made many mistake while building the power plant ( breaking stuff, pouring concrete in the wrong way, ... ) and they did try to hide it. And many incidents after turning the power plant on. I also think that Nuclear plants are safe, but only when constructed and operated properly, and this doesn't seems the case. - tanks imploding: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1288877/belarusian-ngo-reports-incident-at-astravyets-nuclear-plant https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1288877/belarusian-... - transformers exploding: https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1272842/incident-reported-at-belarus-nuclear-plant-days-after-launch https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/1272842/incident-re... - broke a reactor vessel: https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-05-rosatom-replaces-reactor-core-that-technicians-dropped-at-its-belarusian-plant https://bellona.org/news/nuclear-issues/2017-05-rosatom-repl...
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Lithuania was operating an RBMK (Chernobyl-type) reactor just 140 km away from that new Generation III+ design and the majority of Lithuanians opposed the closure of the plant in Ignalina. And that reactor vessel was never used, it’s actually still lying on the compound of Atommash in Volgodonsk. Furthermore, transformers have been failing at NPPs in the West as well.

LockAndLol 6y ago

Is this being done in other places close to nuclear plants? The article just mentions that there are allegations of security standards not being followed but who was making the accusations and why? And why are the Baltic states pulling out of the Belorussian energy network? I find the article pretty sparse on details.

vincnetas 6y ago
Recent EU resolution (with more details) regarding safety situation in this nuclear power plant : https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2021-0109_EN.pdf https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2021-0109_...
- cbmuser 6y ago
  The EU inspectors haven’t even finished their work yet, but the European parliament is already sure the plant is unsafe: > https://twitter.com/RosatomGlobal/status/1361996208928153604 https://twitter.com/RosatomGlobal/status/1361996208928153604
  - vincnetas 6y ago
    If you read the resolution it says that inspectors have not finished everything. But what worries EU is what they already found, and what recommendations they made, which are still not implemented by Belarus. Have you read the resolution? It's only 3 pages long.
    - mikolka_paravoz 6y ago
      Do you actually read them? Which recommendations are you referring?
  - dmos62 6y ago
    Such an inspection is incremental. What will be found later won't undo what was found previously.
  - 6y ago

cbmuser 6y ago

Lithunia was operating a twin RBMK-1500 (Chernobyl-type) plant just 140 km from the site of the new Generation III+ VVER-1200 plant in Belarus which is magnitudes safer. The majority of Lithuanians opposed shutting down their own plant in Ignalina which was done on request of the European Union. I think it was even a requirement for their EU membership. And now just a decade later, the same people are worried about the safety of a far more modern and safer plant as the one that they refused to shut down just 140 km away? Not very credible at all. Lithuania is just upset because they invested a lot into natural gas plants and now Belarus is competing with zero-emission electricity from a Generation III+ plant they would love to have themselves.

ksm1717 6y ago
Why would you hold erring on the side of caution against them?
- cbmuser 6y ago
  Because Lithuania has very good economical reasons to be upset about this plant: Quote: "Lithuania invested almost 500 million euros in their aspiration of being an LNG supplier for an EU supposedly weening neighbors from Russia. Since then, their EU partners, led by Germany, collaborated with Gazprom to build a second natural gas pipeline to Germany, undercutting Lithuania." > https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/28/eu-nuclear-fears-just-because-its-russian-doesnt-mean-its-bad/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2020/04/28/eu-nuclear...
wolfram74 6y ago
The data supports the idea that nuclear power is safe, making them /feel/ safe is the next step in widespread adoption, so we have a lot of FUD to undo from the coal lobby. Drills and explicit plans might help from the "there's nothing you can do" angle. I'm not sure, though.
rmind 6y ago
A few points: - The RBMK-1500 in the now decommissioned Ignalina Power Plant wasn't built near a big city, unlike the Belarusian power plant. - Lithuania invested a lot into the safety of the Ignalina Power Plant, installing the latest European safety systems. Partly thanks to EU, yes, but the point is that there was cooperation and safety improvements. Belarus largely ignored the safaty concerns and recommendations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). - Lithuania didn't invest into natural gas -- this is just factually not true. Elektrenai Power Plant was modernized (well, in fact, they just built a modern one in the same site and closed down the old units) as a strategic "backup" power plant, but the overall capacity was not expanded. If anything, Lithuania has been investing significantly into renewable energy, although perhaps not as much as we would wish.

OnAironaut 6y ago

Looks like cbmuser will be working overtime today.

dmos62 6y ago
What you probably mean is that this user is often active in similar topics. What your comment might be interpreted to say is that cbmuser is paid to participate, as in troll farming. Whatever you meant, let's try and steer away from what might be seen as inflamatory remarks.
- Udo 6y ago
  Not sure if that's typical, but my perspective is this: I know almost nothing about energy infrastructure, and even less about local conditions and history in that field. I do tend to lend credibility to HN users who seem to have detailed knowledge, like cbmuser. However, I also see that they are often engaged in heated discussions where basic statements of facts are disputed on both sides. With that in mind, I don't see why it would have to be inflammatory to ask cbmuser if a) they work in that field b) there are potential conflicts of interest and c) what their general outlook is. Even if there is a conflict of interest, that wouldn't invalidate their positions, of course, it's just something to keep in mind when reading. Edit: you're right dmos62, this comment was a bit trite. I can't delete it anymore now. Thank you for clarifying anyway!
  - dmos62 6y ago
    I don't think it's inflamatory to investigate some user. We all tend to lend credibility to those we perceive as having detailed knowledge. What I was talking about is that the topic of this thread is unfortunately inflammatory due to regional politics, so we should be careful to maintain a standard of discussion.
  - bob29 6y ago
    I'll say it, that user reguritates rhetoric and talking points that happen to be aligned with a multi-billion lobbying industry, but they're always packaged in social media comment sized appealing package. Very few on HN actually work in the energy industry and so anything that "sounds about right" gets accepted if the person says it confidently. Unlike anything related to computer languages, where there are people who also know the topic techncially to debate. It's a case of "those who speak do not know, those who know do not speak" because to do the topic justice would be a longer comment than anyone wants to read, and it cbmuser's ignorant comment is sure to be at the top.

londons_explore 6y ago

This seems at least 60% political to try to get the population worried about foreign 'scary' nuclear, and the fact they have no control over it...

duxup 6y ago
How do you calculate 60%?
varjag 6y ago
Belarusian here. Lithuanians hardly have a perception of Belarusians as "scary foreigners" due to enormous amount of shared history, culture and even cuisine. It's foreign in the sense an Irish is foreign to an English, or a Norwegian to a Swede. Lithuanians did live under the not dissimilar regime for half a century though and they understand how safety is done in such circumstances. The power station had numerous incidents during construction and commissioning, including human fatalities. Can't blame them for taking precautions.

slicktux 6y ago

Aren’t drills more for safety preparedness for worst case scenario rather than fear driven; I see no problem here if it’s the former...

johanneskanybal 6y ago

Everyone hates nuclear and has been told to hate nuclear for decades. Irrational and hope it changes fast enough.

KDJohnBrown 6y ago

Perhaos Lithuania has valid fears about the stability of the country given the unrest over dictator Lukashenko’s sham elections. The region doesn’t exactly a stellar reputation in honesty after nuclear incidents. Japan was instantly honeat about Fukushima. Russia still lies about Chernobyl.

AnotherGoodName 6y ago
>Japan was instantly honest about Fukushima They acknowledge it now but when it hit there were non-stop blog posts going viral about how it's impossible for Fukushima to suffer a meltdown due to the design. The Japanese government was restricting information so tightly that there was no refutation of this misinformation. Josef Oehmen's "Why I am not worried about Japan’s nuclear reactors" went viral for example: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehmens-advice-on-fukushima-went-viral/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20266-how-josef-oehme... It was all very reminiscent of the Soviet "It's impossible for Chernobyl to meltdown". So no Japan was not instantly honest. They were not informing people of the real situation even after they knew.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Chernobyl came pretty close, if you read whatever factual information is available about the progression of the accident there were at least two moments where very small changes made all the difference.

selivanovp 6y ago

It’s fun to see how Lithuanians fucked up their own nuclear power plant, basically murdered their own cheap energy production, then had to buy electricity from other countries and stage drills to pretend they closed their own station “for good”.

mikolka_paravoz 6y ago

Ignore those political claims. Read reliable sources. https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-missions/seed_mission_report_belarus_2017.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-mi... https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-missions/inir-3-mission-belarus-040320.pdf https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/documents/review-mi... Belarus can not help political hysteria in Lithuania no matter how actually safe NPP is.