3 ms·

How save? Chernobyl's exclusion zone today is 2600 km², it initially affected 150000 km², Armenia is what? 40000 km². One well planned sabotage or airstrike, an

How save? Chernobyl's exclusion zone today is 2600 km², it initially affected 150000 km², Armenia is what? 40000 km². One well planned sabotage or airstrike, and the energy independence is not only gone but also an eventual long term disaster for much percentage of that land.. > It is now clear that Western use of natural gas and petroleum from aggressive dictatorships—which use cash flows from oil and gas sales to reinforce and expand their hold on power—has backfired badly. This feels awkwardly over repeated today. Embargos as always of course don't work, still most of the West more easily than all doomsayers expected reoriented (while they ideally could have been off that much dependence already longer).. there is enough market to other countries and also circumventing embargos. Do the Armenians btw dig the uranium out of their soil and refine it?

polotics 3y ago
You choose to ignore one key difference between Chernobyl and the Armenian plants: the size of the exclusion zone in Ukraine was large because of the mad graphite combustion. As the plants in Armenia didn't have an insane design, no matter how well placed a strike the worst you'd get is a meltdown, like the Fukushima situation that killed nobody except collaterals of the rushed evacuation...
- serf 3y ago
  > like the Fukushima situation that killed nobody well, that's wrong.[0] that disaster will continue killing people far into the future with the way it was handled at nearly every step of the recovery. Tepco was great at playing the victim and spinning every facet of PR at their disposal to avoid looking like jerks. the 'Fukushima situation that killed nobody' comment is a direct reflection of how well Tepco played it reputationally, even if they did a piss-poor job of handling it practically. Thankfully the whole thing wasn't entirely unjust[1]. I agree with your points w.r.t. Chernobyl. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/13/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-ex-bosses-of-owner-tepco-ordered-to-pay-yen-13tn-tokyo-court https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/13/fukushima-nucl...
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    Tepco: We need to put a fine point on this. https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-daiichi-radioactive-water-release-75becaaf68b7c3faf0121c459fdd25af https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-daiichi-radioacti... There is still melted reactor in the ground, nothing is "cleaned up" we just dont really talk about it. Much like Chernobyl this is going to be a "generational" project for Japan. Its handling of contaminated materials remains "questionable". The reason we get less coverage than Chernobyl is that Japan doesn't have its hand out for money and technical support as Ukraine did to get the latest covering built.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > well, that's wrong.[0] Last I checked, Wikipedia is not entirely accurate here. Yes, the worker had worked at the Fukushima plant since 1980, and his cancer was regarded as a work-related injury for insurance purposes. However, it was not actually linked to the accident and such a link would be very difficult to prove. "A decade after the triple tragedy that occurred in Japan in March 2011, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said that future health effects, e.g. cancer directly related to radiation exposure are unlikely to be discernible, in its 2020 Report launched today." https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2021/unisous419.html https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2021/unisous419....

polotics 3y ago

You choose to ignore one key difference between Chernobyl and the Armenian plants: the size of the exclusion zone in Ukraine was large because of the mad graphite combustion. As the plants in Armenia didn't have an insane design, no matter how well placed a strike the worst you'd get is a meltdown, like the Fukushima situation that killed nobody except collaterals of the rushed evacuation...

serf 3y ago
> like the Fukushima situation that killed nobody well, that's wrong.[0] that disaster will continue killing people far into the future with the way it was handled at nearly every step of the recovery. Tepco was great at playing the victim and spinning every facet of PR at their disposal to avoid looking like jerks. the 'Fukushima situation that killed nobody' comment is a direct reflection of how well Tepco played it reputationally, even if they did a piss-poor job of handling it practically. Thankfully the whole thing wasn't entirely unjust[1]. I agree with your points w.r.t. Chernobyl. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/13/fukushima-nuclear-disaster-ex-bosses-of-owner-tepco-ordered-to-pay-yen-13tn-tokyo-court https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/13/fukushima-nucl...
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  Tepco: We need to put a fine point on this. https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-daiichi-radioactive-water-release-75becaaf68b7c3faf0121c459fdd25af https://apnews.com/article/japan-fukushima-daiichi-radioacti... There is still melted reactor in the ground, nothing is "cleaned up" we just dont really talk about it. Much like Chernobyl this is going to be a "generational" project for Japan. Its handling of contaminated materials remains "questionable". The reason we get less coverage than Chernobyl is that Japan doesn't have its hand out for money and technical support as Ukraine did to get the latest covering built.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  > well, that's wrong.[0] Last I checked, Wikipedia is not entirely accurate here. Yes, the worker had worked at the Fukushima plant since 1980, and his cancer was regarded as a work-related injury for insurance purposes. However, it was not actually linked to the accident and such a link would be very difficult to prove. "A decade after the triple tragedy that occurred in Japan in March 2011, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said that future health effects, e.g. cancer directly related to radiation exposure are unlikely to be discernible, in its 2020 Report launched today." https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2021/unisous419.html https://unis.unvienna.org/unis/en/pressrels/2021/unisous419....