8 ms·

Note that, despite the headlines, the final units at the Chernobyl nuclear plant stopped generating power in 2000. These aren't like the Zaporizhzhia units whic

Note that, despite the headlines, the final units at the Chernobyl nuclear plant stopped generating power in 2000. These aren't like the Zaporizhzhia units which are still providing power to the area. Once a nuclear chain reaction stops, the afterglow heat reduces exponentially. By now it is exceedingly low, and can be fully cooled passively. Best info on this whole situation comes from the UN's "nuclear watchdog" (the IAEA), who now has 27 individual updates from this overall event. https://www.iaea.org/nuclear-safety-and-security-in-ukraine https://www.iaea.org/nuclear-safety-and-security-in-ukraine Not to say people shouldn't be allowed to rotate shifts, of course. But don't let the word Chernobyl freak you out too much is all.

Barrin92 5y ago
>But don't let the word Chernobyl freak you out too much After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy I have no hope that's happening any time soon. It was genuinely baffling to me how a show, that was about as accurate on the threats of nuclear energy as Jaws was for sharks, got so much praise heaped on it.
- mixedCase 5y ago
  How does the show portray modern nuclear energy in a bad light?
  - Barrin92 5y ago
    by inventing complete nonsensical dangers. From claiming that the meltdown would result in a "4 megaton explosion" (that's off by about a million as this is the yield of a thermonuclear weapon, a plant isn't a bomb), claiming that the plant would render Europe uninhabitable (no such thing is possible), to portrayals of radiation sickness in Pripyat (the residents received about 3 x-rays worth of radiation), portrayal of radiation sickness as weirdly contagious (which it is not), and so on.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      The impending explosion was going to be from the molten reactor and sand they dropped on it melting through the concrete and hitting a large underground lake, instantly vaporizing it and causing a massive explosion, and ejecting radioactive debris in a very wide area. I have read several articles criticising some aspects of the accuracy of the show (though none even venture close to saying "nonsensical"), and none of them say anything about the inaccuracy of that plot point. Do you have a source?
      - nand4011 5y ago
        https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large... The risk of an explosion was very real, but the show claimed it would be measured in megatons, which is completely ludicrous.
        DangitBobby 5y ago
        I see comments there explaining that the writer got that estimate from a phsycist, so maybe wrong, but definitely not ludicrous. Linked from that same discussion: https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she_say_the_potential_water_reservoir_could/enozssk/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she...
        colechristensen 5y ago
        No it’s ludicrous. Much of the point of the manhattan project was devising mechanisms to bring fissile materials together fast enough and precisely enough that they could reach criticality for long enough to produce an effective weapon. To propose that you could get comparable effects via nuclear materials burning through their containment vessel melted in a pool is absurd and just extraordinarily unlikely. That quote is about “testimony” of a Soviet physicist… who knows what political or other motivations were at work to justify that statement. I can’t imagine any modern physicist saying that was reasonable and it seems the writer couldn’t make that happen… it just seems like a fishing expedition for the most impressive quote that found someone saying something ridiculous and used that as a source of truth ignoring everything else which wasn’t as “fun”.
- tormock 5y ago
  > After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy it was not perfect but it was a good show... aren't all movies cartoonish in some way?
  - acidburnNSA 5y ago
    Yeah only got a few risks off by more than 5 orders of magnitude. Too bad they can't make something that scary about air pollution.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Ratatouille is about a rodent who can cook but doesn’t leave the viewer with major misconceptions about soup or what life working in a kitchen can be like. It doesn’t leave people with misconceptions about reality.
- ahelwer 5y ago
  Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: * the “bridge of death” scene that never happened * irradiated firefighters portrayed as themselves being radioactive * military dude threatening to throw a member of the academy of the sciences out of a helicopter for trivial/arbitrary reasons I remember there being other notable ones when briefly looking into it after watching it a couple years back.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: It's worth noting that show was not a work of nonfiction. In fiction, when the needs of drama and factual accuracy collide, drama usually wins, and there's nothing wrong with that.
    - colechristensen 5y ago
      There is when the drama comes from lying about how the world works and dressing up your show just like reality. Most people who watch something like that without foreknowledge of the truth of the situation are going to believe the drama is real.
    - ako 5y ago
      The problem with fictional drama is that it does frame how people perceive the world.
- datatrashfire 5y ago
  The US continues to fail to effectively clean up the 56 million gallons of high level waste at the Hanford nuclear site and others throughout the US. Nuclear waste is slowly seeping into the water table and the Columbia river. The site is threatened by the risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, and flooding. We are no where closer to making it safe now than we were in 1985. While I appreciate the devotion to facts, I feel the portrayal still rings true. These risks are catastrophic and are to this day being handled with scandalous incompetence.
Maursault 5y ago
> Once a nuclear chain reaction stops Please note that, despite your apparently reasonable handwaving, in fact fission reactions are still occurring in uranium fuel masses buried deep inside what's left of at least one of Chernobyl's reactors. Not saying there is any need to panic. But try not to let a false sense of security lull you into a coma.
Lochleg 5y ago
There are units that still require cooling. https://www.wired.com/story/the-situation-at-chernobyl-is-deteriorating/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-situation-at-chernobyl-is-de... Wired also had an old article about the long-term situation with radioactive contamination, which the surrounding environment has to absorb including wildlife that continues to mutate rapidly last I checked. So, I would say secure containment is paramount. Nuclear energy can be safe, but we keep failing to recognize how short of foolproof the many fail-safes involved really are even in a high-tech society. Things going bad when you lose power or a single (water) pump are the prime examples.
egorfine 5y ago
Chernobyl is much more dangerous in hands of russian soldiers than Zaporozhskaya Power Plant. See, a complete destruction of ZNPP Unit by an external force (bomb) is going to contaminate the immediate area but not much further. It won't be nowhere near at the scale of Chernobyl accident. On the other hand, The Shelter in Chernobyl NPP contains 50,000+ tons of highly radioactive and highly volatile (light) dust particles of graphite and concrete. If they destroy Novarka and The Shelter in the worst case scenario half of Europe becomes the exclusion zone. Source: I am closely working with Chernobyl guys. Based on what we see so far in this invasion, we have no reason to rule out intentional destruction of The Shelter.
- kranke155 5y ago
  You have every reason to rule out the destruction of the Shelter since the plant is right next to the Belarus border... which is Russia's ally.
  - egorfine 5y ago
    Unfortunately it seems to me that conventional logic isn't really helpful to bring a better understanding of the circumstances of this war. For instance, you wouldn't expect sane combatant to repeatedly fire ordnance directly into the nuclear power plant units. In Chernobyl they have already disrupted the top soil level and dug back radioactive particles back in the air and thus in the lungs and GI tracts of their soldiers and civilians unlucky enough to live where the wind blows. Given the Putin's rhetoric of "why do we need the world without Russia" and similar we cannot rule out destruction of The Shelter.
    - kranke155 5y ago
      Yes we can because it makes no strategic or tactical sense. The so called strikes against nuclear power plants were made far too big of a deal. Ukraine is trying to blow everything out of proportion - and I say this being a total supporter of Ukraine - so that US/EU will help them. There has been no real danger of incidents around nuclear power plants that I’ve seen, just Ukrainian propaganda efforts to try and frame the Russians for attempting one.
jnsaff2 5y ago
What is actually funny was after watching the show was .. huh, this was interesting .. but if the worst nuclear disaster we have has about a few hundred direct deaths, and a few thousand indirect .. with other health complications to some tens of thousands. Then compared to the respiratory illness related deaths caused by burning fossil fuels NOW and all the future wars and deaths and ecosystem collapses caused by climate change is absolutely nothing. Now I have read quite a few books on nuclear disasters before and was aware of the fact that the megaton explosion was not true. So I may not be a representative example of how people reacted to the show. What was scary to me was the relatively accurate representation of the behavior of the soviet brass. I even found their representation quite mild. And as we see in Ukraine these days, nothing has changed, russians have zero regard for civilians, nuclear power plants are being endangered with shelling, maternity wards are being bombed, bread lines are bombed. Post-soviet mafia does not care about anything but their own kleptocracy and looting. Every time I think about this I get reminded the Fork Yeah! talk by bcantrill. https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1986 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1986 "An open mind is completely wasted on russians" "The lawnmower does not care"
- jnsaff2 5y ago
  I however want to acknowledge that there are some brave people in russia who stand up and protest and risk their lives. It may seem futile but I still respect them. There is a great book [0] by Masha Gessen called The future is history that talks about them too. [0] - https://mashagessen.com/ https://mashagessen.com/

Barrin92 5y ago

>But don't let the word Chernobyl freak you out too much After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy I have no hope that's happening any time soon. It was genuinely baffling to me how a show, that was about as accurate on the threats of nuclear energy as Jaws was for sharks, got so much praise heaped on it.

mixedCase 5y ago
How does the show portray modern nuclear energy in a bad light?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  by inventing complete nonsensical dangers. From claiming that the meltdown would result in a "4 megaton explosion" (that's off by about a million as this is the yield of a thermonuclear weapon, a plant isn't a bomb), claiming that the plant would render Europe uninhabitable (no such thing is possible), to portrayals of radiation sickness in Pripyat (the residents received about 3 x-rays worth of radiation), portrayal of radiation sickness as weirdly contagious (which it is not), and so on.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    The impending explosion was going to be from the molten reactor and sand they dropped on it melting through the concrete and hitting a large underground lake, instantly vaporizing it and causing a massive explosion, and ejecting radioactive debris in a very wide area. I have read several articles criticising some aspects of the accuracy of the show (though none even venture close to saying "nonsensical"), and none of them say anything about the inaccuracy of that plot point. Do you have a source?
    - nand4011 5y ago
      https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large... The risk of an explosion was very real, but the show claimed it would be measured in megatons, which is completely ludicrous.
      - DangitBobby 5y ago
        I see comments there explaining that the writer got that estimate from a phsycist, so maybe wrong, but definitely not ludicrous. Linked from that same discussion: https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she_say_the_potential_water_reservoir_could/enozssk/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she...
        colechristensen 5y ago
        No it’s ludicrous. Much of the point of the manhattan project was devising mechanisms to bring fissile materials together fast enough and precisely enough that they could reach criticality for long enough to produce an effective weapon. To propose that you could get comparable effects via nuclear materials burning through their containment vessel melted in a pool is absurd and just extraordinarily unlikely. That quote is about “testimony” of a Soviet physicist… who knows what political or other motivations were at work to justify that statement. I can’t imagine any modern physicist saying that was reasonable and it seems the writer couldn’t make that happen… it just seems like a fishing expedition for the most impressive quote that found someone saying something ridiculous and used that as a source of truth ignoring everything else which wasn’t as “fun”.
tormock 5y ago
> After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy it was not perfect but it was a good show... aren't all movies cartoonish in some way?
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  Yeah only got a few risks off by more than 5 orders of magnitude. Too bad they can't make something that scary about air pollution.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Ratatouille is about a rodent who can cook but doesn’t leave the viewer with major misconceptions about soup or what life working in a kitchen can be like. It doesn’t leave people with misconceptions about reality.
ahelwer 5y ago
Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: * the “bridge of death” scene that never happened * irradiated firefighters portrayed as themselves being radioactive * military dude threatening to throw a member of the academy of the sciences out of a helicopter for trivial/arbitrary reasons I remember there being other notable ones when briefly looking into it after watching it a couple years back.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: It's worth noting that show was not a work of nonfiction. In fiction, when the needs of drama and factual accuracy collide, drama usually wins, and there's nothing wrong with that.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    There is when the drama comes from lying about how the world works and dressing up your show just like reality. Most people who watch something like that without foreknowledge of the truth of the situation are going to believe the drama is real.
  - ako 5y ago
    The problem with fictional drama is that it does frame how people perceive the world.
datatrashfire 5y ago
The US continues to fail to effectively clean up the 56 million gallons of high level waste at the Hanford nuclear site and others throughout the US. Nuclear waste is slowly seeping into the water table and the Columbia river. The site is threatened by the risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, and flooding. We are no where closer to making it safe now than we were in 1985. While I appreciate the devotion to facts, I feel the portrayal still rings true. These risks are catastrophic and are to this day being handled with scandalous incompetence.

Maursault 5y ago

> Once a nuclear chain reaction stops Please note that, despite your apparently reasonable handwaving, in fact fission reactions are still occurring in uranium fuel masses buried deep inside what's left of at least one of Chernobyl's reactors. Not saying there is any need to panic. But try not to let a false sense of security lull you into a coma.

Lochleg 5y ago

There are units that still require cooling. https://www.wired.com/story/the-situation-at-chernobyl-is-deteriorating/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-situation-at-chernobyl-is-de... Wired also had an old article about the long-term situation with radioactive contamination, which the surrounding environment has to absorb including wildlife that continues to mutate rapidly last I checked. So, I would say secure containment is paramount. Nuclear energy can be safe, but we keep failing to recognize how short of foolproof the many fail-safes involved really are even in a high-tech society. Things going bad when you lose power or a single (water) pump are the prime examples.

egorfine 5y ago

Chernobyl is much more dangerous in hands of russian soldiers than Zaporozhskaya Power Plant. See, a complete destruction of ZNPP Unit by an external force (bomb) is going to contaminate the immediate area but not much further. It won't be nowhere near at the scale of Chernobyl accident. On the other hand, The Shelter in Chernobyl NPP contains 50,000+ tons of highly radioactive and highly volatile (light) dust particles of graphite and concrete. If they destroy Novarka and The Shelter in the worst case scenario half of Europe becomes the exclusion zone. Source: I am closely working with Chernobyl guys. Based on what we see so far in this invasion, we have no reason to rule out intentional destruction of The Shelter.

kranke155 5y ago
You have every reason to rule out the destruction of the Shelter since the plant is right next to the Belarus border... which is Russia's ally.
- egorfine 5y ago
  Unfortunately it seems to me that conventional logic isn't really helpful to bring a better understanding of the circumstances of this war. For instance, you wouldn't expect sane combatant to repeatedly fire ordnance directly into the nuclear power plant units. In Chernobyl they have already disrupted the top soil level and dug back radioactive particles back in the air and thus in the lungs and GI tracts of their soldiers and civilians unlucky enough to live where the wind blows. Given the Putin's rhetoric of "why do we need the world without Russia" and similar we cannot rule out destruction of The Shelter.
  - kranke155 5y ago
    Yes we can because it makes no strategic or tactical sense. The so called strikes against nuclear power plants were made far too big of a deal. Ukraine is trying to blow everything out of proportion - and I say this being a total supporter of Ukraine - so that US/EU will help them. There has been no real danger of incidents around nuclear power plants that I’ve seen, just Ukrainian propaganda efforts to try and frame the Russians for attempting one.

jnsaff2 5y ago

What is actually funny was after watching the show was .. huh, this was interesting .. but if the worst nuclear disaster we have has about a few hundred direct deaths, and a few thousand indirect .. with other health complications to some tens of thousands. Then compared to the respiratory illness related deaths caused by burning fossil fuels NOW and all the future wars and deaths and ecosystem collapses caused by climate change is absolutely nothing. Now I have read quite a few books on nuclear disasters before and was aware of the fact that the megaton explosion was not true. So I may not be a representative example of how people reacted to the show. What was scary to me was the relatively accurate representation of the behavior of the soviet brass. I even found their representation quite mild. And as we see in Ukraine these days, nothing has changed, russians have zero regard for civilians, nuclear power plants are being endangered with shelling, maternity wards are being bombed, bread lines are bombed. Post-soviet mafia does not care about anything but their own kleptocracy and looting. Every time I think about this I get reminded the Fork Yeah! talk by bcantrill. https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1986 https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1986 "An open mind is completely wasted on russians" "The lawnmower does not care"

jnsaff2 5y ago
I however want to acknowledge that there are some brave people in russia who stand up and protest and risk their lives. It may seem futile but I still respect them. There is a great book [0] by Masha Gessen called The future is history that talks about them too. [0] - https://mashagessen.com/ https://mashagessen.com/