Chernobyl, the silent killer capturated by cameras

It is. It is said that this video shows what we never we able to see, radiation. Look at 3:08. Those white points are radiation marks, something that we never were able to see.

Doing some research about Pripyat, there is a part which shows the same radiation marks at 1:03 and 1:04. Then, at 4:34 those points appear again.

Nobody is able to know how many Roentgens were in Pripyat. The report of the CCCP said that there was 1R, but others says there were 7R. Taking both cases, it would mean that the exposed people in the helicopters would have taken so many Roentgen, the numbers are up to 100R.

Now, I would like to know if someone knows if this is true. I mean, is that radiation?

Well from time to time cosmic rays appear in the images from the Mars Exploration Rovers, but I'm not sure about this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Well from time to time cosmic rays appear in the images from the Mars Exploration Rovers, but I'm not sure about this.

---

Its cosmic radiation... so that might could be radiation. From that of being true, I don't know. That's why I ask.

I've seen pictures of birds nesting on the reactors. There are far greater killers in the world than the radiation from Chernobyl. In fact, due to the evacuation of humanity from the large exclusion area, the wildlife has flourished.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I've seen pictures of birds nesting on the reactors. There are far greater killers in the world than the radiation from Chernobyl. In fact, due to the evacuation of humanity from the large exclusion area, the wildlife has flourished.

~:smoking:

---

Is there any truth to the rumours that the wildlife in fact devoured the former populace?

Quote:

---

Is there any truth to the rumours that the wildlife in fact devoured the former populace?

---

None I'm aware of.

Actually, one could argue that on balance, Chernobyl actually works out as a positive story for nuclear safety. The very worst thing that could possibly have happened to a nuclear reactor, happened, and the world did not end.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Bloody Infantry

The very worst thing that could possibly have happened to a nuclear reactor, happened, and the world did not end.

---

For the entire world no, but for some many thousands living in or near the area, yes it for all intents and purposes did end. They and their children are still suffering from the effects to this day.

Nevertheless, Chernobyl is a good example for us to remember and follow. The US and other nations are realizing that moving back to nuclear fission for energy is probably a smart move, so I'd expect to see more reactor powerplant building in the next decades. Given the US's track record of corporatism and corporate irresponsibility, Chernobyl (and even 3 Mile Island) is a good example and reminder of what could happen if too many corners are cut and tight controls are not enforced.

Quote:

---

In fact, due to the evacuation of humanity from the large exclusion area, the wildlife has flourished.

---

In fact, you are half right. Not only for that, but also radiation has alterated genetics to make trees grow too fast and to change the structure of the trees.

Quote:

---

so I'd expect to see more reactor powerplant building in the next decades.

---

I will expect that also. Three Mile Island could have been worse, and, I dont want to sound the bad guy, sometimes those kind of things have to happen. What would happen if the reactor in Three Mile Island exploded? What about in Sellafield?

It is greedy which will lead us to some disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Caius

I will expect that also. Three Mile Island could have been worse, and, I dont want to sound the bad guy, sometimes those kind of things have to happen. What would happen if the reactor in Three Mile Island exploded? What about in Sellafield?

It is greedy which will lead us to some disaster.

---

It's the same in the Aircraft industry. A major accident usually does make saftey far better. It's tragic but it usually is whats needed to make a major change.

still the amount of damage done to the nature is quite high... we can't depend on nuclear energy for long... <.<

Sorry for shameless bumping, I wanted to discuss this a little bit.

We won't rely on nuclear energy for a lot, there is Uranium for the next 50 years.

With proper reprocessing, you could turn those 60yrs into 300 or more, while also significantly cutting down on the amount of waste that must be disposed of.

The US just needs to get on board and start reprocessing like the rest of the nuclear world already does. :yes:

But... do we REALLY need nuclear power?

Yes. I think so. It's safe, non-polluting and plentiful. If we want to cut back on fossil fuels, nuclear energy is going have to be a big part of the equation.

Yes. I think so. It's safe, non-polluting and plentiful. If we want to cut back on fossil fuels, nuclear energy is going have to be a big part of the equation.

What he said

Even with increased energy effiency and people being less wasteful across the board our energy consumption is at best going to have only a slight dip, renewable energy sources are not advanced or plentiful enough to get near meeting our needs yet, unless we want to carry on using fossil fuels until renewable energy technology improves we need to go nuclear...

Despite it can harm people, animals and plants, contaminate the soils and the air we breath, generate health damage transmited generation by generation? Isn't it too many risks when we use nuclear power?

Well depending on your views global warming could be potentially more harmful...

I though nuclear energy was generally quite safe and not too harmful, i know we have to dispose of the nuclear waste but apart from that i thought there weren't any problems (bar chernobyl)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

Well depending on your views global warming could be potentially more harmful...

I though nuclear energy was generally quite safe and not too harmful, i know we have to dispose of the nuclear waste but apart from that i thought there weren't any problems (bar chernobyl)

---

Chernobyl was dangerous by design and its failure was pretty much a worst case scenario even then. No modern reactor could go up like that.

I hope we utilize geothermal, wind and solar power combined to last us until fusion power is perfected and practical 50-100 years from now. Fission power is too messy and dangerous, no matter how well you store it, the thousands of years the stuff has for a half life will outlast any shielding we can probably make for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I hope we utilize geothermal, wind and solar power combined to last us until fusion power is perfected and practical 50-100 years from now.

---

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

Quote:

---

Fission power is too messy and dangerous, no matter how well you store it, the thousands of years the stuff has for a half life will outlast any shielding we can probably make for it.

---

Reprocessing cuts the amount of nuclear waste by more than 80%, leaving much less to be stored and separates out much of the highly radioactive elements for reuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

---

If used in combination with each other I believe they could be sufficient. Doesn't iceland receive the majority of its energy from geothermal? Also just think of how little energy we would need if every house had solar panels on top of it. Coupled with everyone pitching in to save energy, a lot of homes could actually produce more energy then they use, further increasing the energy supply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Reprocessing cuts the amount of nuclear waste by more than 80%, leaving much less to be stored and separates out much of the highly radioactive elements for reuse.

---

But there is still waste. Waste that will still be around for thousands of years. Whether its a ton or a gram, if it escapes its shielding and gets into the groundwater, it can potentially kill a person or people. Especially if its just stored in a mountain and left alone all those years.

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

I think britian was aiming for something like 20% by 2012, i think it at least something like 5% of our energy production already... i will need to go figure hunting...

But britian is an island so easy access to water and wind energy, the us is huge so probably not too difficult for them to get a decent percentage either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly

I don't see any of those methods ever getting implemented beyond boutique levels- they aren't practical for widespread use.

---

And I disagree. If solar panels were installed on every home and massive solar plants were built in deserts for industry and large skyscrapers, lots of energy could be harvested.

And you can see countries were it is being implemented beyond boutique levels. Like I mentioned, there's Iceland: 70% of energy from geothermal and hydroelectric. Is that boutique? If Iceland can get 70% of its energy from renewable sources, then any country can, its just a matter of scale and public opinion. And from the looks of it, its seems like more and more people are wanting renewable sources of energy and doing away with coal and dirty energy.