Spaceman Gallery :: Chernobyl

Chernobyl

So-so movie from within the sarcophagus. Can't see much detail but interesting nonetheless. Taken from A-News TV Report. sar.avi (~4.1meg)


	From: URL (Sun Feb 6 03:09:02 2005) Fascinating

	From: drew (Sat Feb 19 23:10:13 2005) Incredible.

	From: Martin Tucker (Wed Feb 23 13:44:42 2005) They need to build a second tomb, as the 1st one is cracked I heard and is HIGHLY unstable. Noone will help pay for it from US or Europe!

	From: BUDDHA (Sun Feb 27 16:27:53 2005) soon the houle world will be full of reactors so a new acsedendt will com end it wil meldt doune tru the eardt destroing us all :(

	From: barraccuda13@hotmail.com (Sat Mar 5 16:06:34 2005) I'm sorry to spoil your views of an apocalypse brought upon by nuclear reactors, but there are many other ways to generate power. I highly doubt the entire world will be overcome with reactors that will all suffer the same consequences as that of Chernobyl.

	From: nukey (Thu Mar 17 15:46:23 2005) We won't see this type of accident again. In spite of our arrogance, we do learn.

	From: Blah (Mon Mar 21 08:56:58 2005) We should hope that we learned for this. But You and I may have someone else may not have

	From: Guy (Wed Mar 23 16:44:52 2005) Well the accident was purely human error, they were too concerned about powering the town. I think the town wouldve survived if there was no power for a few hours.

	From: Eli (Sun Mar 27 12:47:23 2005) Bullshit. It wasn't about powering the town, it was about an experiment gone wrong. Very very wrong.

	From: martin (Wed Mar 30 22:16:02 2005) it is always funny to see people that do not know anything about the history trying to argument during the discussion. Eli is right, the cause of the uncontrolled reaction was inresponsible experimenting with the reactor with the unpropriate reaction of the unskilled staff.

	From: dell (Sat Apr 2 14:11:55 2005) Like most industrial accidents this was a chain of events that linked in a catastrophic way. No single incident caused the disater: it was a combination of smaller unfortunate errors.

	From: Regnier (Thu Apr 7 13:17:40 2005) Dell's right, it was a series of accidents linked with human error and poor technology that caused this, and yes they do need to replace the tomb, as ths first one is starting to break down from the radiation.

	From: xenonman1 (Sun Apr 10 07:23:12 2005) I don't even like going in the containment at work when the reactor is shut down and defueled. Those guys in the video are F-ing crazy!! This is a great site!!

	From: Wilson (Thu Apr 14 23:15:45 2005) I don't believe anyone would like to see things happen willingly in this way. Technology will never be perfect although it advances. It feels like this is a pay back of the nature to our greedy exploitation.

	From: dratomic@indiatimes.com (Fri Apr 29 02:28:26 2005) Coming Soon. Tailings in the mist. That native american glow that's not from a bottle. Uranium, natures tan.

	From: Russki Dyatel (Fri Apr 29 20:37:31 2005) Any of you been there at the time of this incident? Than what you morons arguing about.. I was there, watching my ralitives work their ass off putting out the flame. and for what? so the government will reward them in some way? Yeah OK!!! This incident was due to human stupidity. Lack of care and attention can turn mostly any type of job into a catastroffy.

	From: Morticia (Sun May 1 14:52:49 2005) After reviewing this album I must say...I think I'm gonna hurl/cry/never go near any nuke plant again. It's amazing to think that humans can be retarded enough to cause something like this. It's even more stupid though to go in and basicly committ suicide for these pictures. You would have to be insane to go in there. The pictures of all that fuel lava in quasi-stalactyte formations creeps the crap out of me. I am now glad that I stumbled across this site though. It was interesting and informative and an excelent way to blow a snowy sunday afternoon. however, i know I am gonna have nitemares about this tonight.

	From: K.Cham (Sat May 7 14:09:23 2005) In responce to barraccuda13, I dont share the same views as you do. There are other reactors throughout the world that are much more dangerous than the RBMK reactor used at Chernobyl.In Japan and United States, there are reactors that can cause more of a disaster than that Chernboyl if mishandled. The reason thatthe explosion occured was mainly due to the incompetance of officials. Despite numerous warnings of the hazard of RBMK reactors, the Soviet officals decided to continue its operation. To NUKEY, we don't always learn. If we had learned from Chernobyl, many of the nuclear power stations would have been shut down. There were countries who decided to shut down their nuclear power plants, but there are MANY more still in operation today.So how have we learned?

	From: lkarlov (Sun May 8 06:29:24 2005) RBMK reactors are still being used only in russia. I think only one operational RBMK is outside russia, but there in the north, in former USSR. They use them because they need power, and RBMK doesn't need expensive higher enriched fuel, or heavy water. I don't think that there are alot even more dangerous reactors other than RMBK. What type of reactor do you talk about? OK, maybe LMFBR, because it uses liquid sodium as primary and secondary coolant (sodium burns in contact with air! also, sodium freezes under 90 degrees celsium, so if temperature drops, you need to heat all systems so the coolant doesn't freeze.). But there aren't many LMFBR's, because it is primarily used for fuel enrichment (it is a FBR reactor).

	From: lkarlov (Sun May 8 06:56:47 2005) People need to realize that there isn't much fossile fuels left. And there are not many ways to produce power in an acceptable way. Nuclear energy might be everything we'll have in future. And don't you think that fossile fuel plants pollute the world MUCH MORE than nuclear plants? Soon we won't be able to breathe! You all like to watch TV, use your PC, have a hot bath, use your washing machines for clothes and dishes, use microwaves, go somewhere by tram or train and MUCH MUCH MUCH more.... Sometimes you don't even realize that you use electricity for something, like when you use WC. What do you mean, how are your "products" flushed? Do you really think that there's a small monkey at the other end of water pipe which pumps water in??? Even now, while you're reading this, somewhere (possibly in a nuclear reactor) energy is being produced for your computer and like it or not, you are using it. Wind, tidal, geothermal and solar plants? Who ever tells you that this could become primary energy source, doesn't really know anything about energy distribution, or energy demands. This could work - if there was only one light bulb in each home, and not anything else. Or if you covered entire country size of US with solar panels, wind generators.... And even then you need alot of sunny weather or windy storms. Hydro plants are good, but we can't build many plants like this, because there are not many good places for them. There are also people who are against hydro power, because it destroys areas flooded by accumulation lakes. Well, how should we produce energy then, if we are against hydro plants too? If someone has an idea, shout it out!

	From: QMAN (Fri May 20 15:18:35 2005) Lets see. The areas around Chernobyl could benefit from Solar electricity if the Govt uses the land that will be uninhabital for the next 3 to 6 hundread years and fill it with solar panels and storage facilities. But it would cost a lot of money..

	From: lkarlov (Sun May 22 05:17:38 2005) this is good idea, but as you said, too expensive

	From: omg!! (Mon Jul 11 08:27:24 2005) hmm i think i saw this video before hrr when i first saw that i fell a sleep only when its morning :D

	From: Jimmy (Wed Jul 20 07:37:20 2005) Did they Ukrainians continue using the powerplant, despite reactor 4 wasnt working ? Did they continue using the remaining three reactors. Sounds stupid to me.

	From: Lee (Fri Aug 12 12:48:01 2005) I think that in the future nuclear energy will be used much more, in france they are starting to build the first fusion reactor, and I believe that Japan has two or three experimental reactors. I think that Chernobyl has helped make things much safer for everyone. I guess we just need to figure out what to do with all of the waste. I don't think making containers that only last for 10,000 years and burying radioactive waste is going to cut it though. I've heard that the Sweedish have made a much better containment vessel than we Americans have, but I think that buring this crap will not suffice.

	From: x (Thu Aug 25 12:25:55 2005) Waste is problem, but I think this is only acceptable solution, but it would be very, very expensive: In orbit, there should be constructed large constructions. The waste should be stored in those constructions. Then, when a construction gets full of waste, it should be "pushed" towards the Sun (or some gas gigant, like jupiter), by some kind of rocket engine. The rest of the trip to Sun should be possible because of inertion (no resistance in space).

	From: jsb12@localnet.com (Mon Nov 7 20:10:04 2005) It saddens me greatly to see this site. Too many people died and for what?; energy ? Scary, scary stuff!

	From: Chris (Thu Nov 17 08:35:13 2005) The trouble with sites like this is that any old arsehole can contribute to it. I'd like to put a few facts down, then I will go on to some opinion. Chernobyl was a result of poor reactor design, namely Positive Void Coefficient, and a group of very misguided operators who wanted to conduct an experiment. Not all RBMKs had this inherent design flaw. Not all the RBMKs with the flaw have been shut down, this is an issue which the EU and USA are helping to address through assisted decommissioning programmes. The Chernobyl accident has lead to greater restrictions being placed on these plants to prevent a similar accident happening. Most reactors cannot have this kind of accident. The worst accident scenario in a PWR (bulk of the world's reactors) is a core meltdown, like the one which occured at Three Mile Island power plant in the 70s. No one was killed and very little radiation escaped from the plant, this is due entirely to an inprovement in the design of nuclear plants. As we build more plants around the world, we will build more advanced, safer and more sustainable plants. Not the old RBMKs and the like. Now some opinion: An earlier comment mentioned the apocolypse due to nuclear plants, I completely refute this and turn it on it's head - without the dramatic expansion of nuclear and the development of commercial fusion plants we will make the earth uninhabitable for most living things. Human induced climate change caused by vast emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere will heat the earth to the like seen on Venus (450�C). What will we do then?

	From: rob159o2.pl (Mon Dec 5 09:38:36 2005) Jm from poland.J cant speak, read and... your photo is fantastsc, beatiful.in polen why have a small photo of chenrobyl.Congratuliasions.

	From: lk (Wed Dec 21 15:15:28 2005) I agree with Chris. But I have a question: Why the hell are russians trying to build a "new type" of reactor - MKER??? it is basically a RBMK reactor, in a containment dome. And they say that it doesn't have positive void coefficient. I think that is full of crap. They are planning to build 8 MKER-800 units at LENINGRAD plant (Sosnovy Bor). Why can't they build good old vvers????

	From: stephy (Fri Jan 6 07:45:29 2006) OK... I don't know much about radiation. I do know this... As is almost always the case once again it's the children and the normal everyday people who suffer. Even now 20 years on. We humans need to learn that just because we CAN do something it doesn't mean we SHOULD do it!!! God bless.

	From: chuck (Fri Jan 6 19:07:01 2006) Russians want to build over 20 more reactors in the next 20 to 30 years. I've worked in over 8 different nuke plants, being an engineer but working in the skilled trades. I see how badly the work force is and the apathy (lack of concern or interest) of most of the workers. I believe there will be other accidents. It's a social problem with everybody thinking that the design of the plant will stop an accident and even though people work on these systems - no matter what they do, the system will always work. No way - there will be other accidents, if the social structure of the workers is not changed.

	From: navidad (Thu Feb 2 06:49:38 2006) A lot of my friends and my husband worked at Chernobyl after the explosion. They worked under the sarcophage during 5 years. They enterd 3 times inside the cylinder itself. They knew what they were doing. They are all professionals, all scientists and certainly NOT crazy. All of them are alive exept one that had an heart attack not connected with his work and another one died because of alcoolism. I would like to say something to Chuck... if it will be more nuclear plans in Russia they will not be more dangerous than in others countries. People should stop to criticize Russians. They do care about what is happening in the world and they certainly do not want another catastrophy. They are at the top level regarding technology. This accident happened in another era. It was due to several human mistakes and procedures changed. Like things changed after Three Miles Island....... Do not forget: Russian love their children too.......

	From: doubleview@gmail.com (Mon Mar 6 04:49:29 2006) hi everyone, im from Australia , well 1 thing, why would they go in there without 100% radiation protective equiptment on? theuy only have 60% , plus if you see thier faces, all they have on is dust masks and not full face and 100% skin covering .

	From: doubleview@gmail.com (Mon Mar 6 04:50:32 2006) There is alot of radioation and radioactive objects in chynobyl , and in the reactor under the scarbcus , there is soo much radiation in there

	From: randomly interested (Fri Mar 24 15:31:06 2006) nuclear power is the way forward! coal, gas and even hydroelectric power plants can be just as dangerous if not more dangerous than nuclear. coal powered plants are 40 times more dangerous per unit of electricity produced than nuclear power, and gas plants release dangerous gases into the air all the time, and more than 2,500 people were killed in Italy in 1963 when a hydroelectric dam collapsed.

	From: lk (Sun Mar 26 13:10:31 2006) I agree that nuclear power production is the future. People may not like it, but that's just the way it is going to be. Hydroelectric plants are only alternative, but we can't produce enough power by just using them. Wind, solar, tidal ... etc... power plants can't either produce enough power. They just can't, no matter what greenpeace says. And they are too expensive, and we have to mention the fact that these are "ALTERNATIVE" power sources, it means that they can't give power 24/7 (all the time). Nuclear plants are dangerous. No matter how good redundant safety systems are, there can allways be an accident. Maybe not so bad as it happened at Chernobyl. But you need to realize that nuclear plant won't kill you (chances for that are the same as for a meteor falling out of the sky and hitting you). There are so much worse sources of pollution all around us. Look at this power production information: If you compare a 1.3 GW power plants: Thermal (coal) would burn up over 500 TONS of coal to generate this quantity of power in ONE HOUR. It would also release over 1100 TONS of different toxic gases in the atmosphere (IN ONE HOUR). Thermal (black oil) would burn up over 300 TONS of black oil to generate this quantity of power in ONE HOUR. It would also release over 1000 TONS of different toxic gases in the atmosphere (IN ONE HOUR). Nuclear plant would "burn up" 1.32 kg of U235 to generate this quantity of power in ONE HOUR. No gases would be emitted in the atmosphere. No additional polution. Only bad thing: these 1.32KG of uranium would be radioactive for the next 100 milleniums. Conclude something from these facts for yourself. ___________________________ We can expect fusion power plants, hopefully in this century. It will be an era of cheap clean energy.

	From: whoknows (Sat Apr 1 17:11:58 2006) everyone seems to be forgetting one big thing, these people who went inside right after did not know what radiation would do to them, the people of the neighboring towns thought they would be back home in TWO days. They had no idea, and this test they were doing they had done before, things just went bad. This could happen again of course, we learn yes, but that leads us to new and "better" ideas, we dont use this type of reactor anymore....so the next disaster, will not happen in the same way. With new and "better" comes more learning and understanding...what was right for chernobyl..will not be right for the next.

	From: lk (Tue Apr 4 03:38:04 2006) I agree with whoknows, but he said one thing that isn't true: "we dont use this type of reactor anymore". Oh yes, we do. LNPP, INPP, and some other plants still use RBMK-type reactors, because this countries (most of these reactors are located in Russia) don't have enough money to replace old RBMK plants with safer pressurized water reactors. New RBMK plants will not be built, but the old ones will remain online maybe for another decade. But, lessons are learned, old RBMK-s are modified to be a bit safer.

	From: whoknows (Tue Apr 4 06:25:05 2006) by we dont i was refering to what was said above, and how the new ones being built arent of this type. Like it meant this scale of disaster was nolonger possible. I disagree, maybe not in the sameway, but perhaps in another and even worse way.

	From: someguy (Tue Apr 18 17:51:54 2006) Yeah thank god Canada has one of the safest type of reactors around. You can do it too with CANDU!

	From: slim (Wed Apr 26 02:07:33 2006) Russki Dyatel : If you was that close watching them put out the fire you would be in direct contact with the radiation as were the rest of the fire fighters and workers. All those who were that close died from extreme doses of radiation. Find a better subject to lie about instead of one with such tragedy

	From: splat (Wed Apr 26 02:29:06 2006) Great. I love distasters me.

	From: kt_kanwalgmc (Wed Apr 26 02:40:20 2006) "Human induced climate change caused by vast emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere will heat the earth to the like seen on Venus (450�C). What will we do then?" to chris: 450 c due to human activity related release of greenhouse gases- u gotta be kidding.. this whlole thing called as global warming is an exaggeration..

	From: antime (Wed Apr 26 09:17:59 2006) Global warming is a hoax. it's propaganda to let us pay more for our gaz at the petrol station. don't let them tell you otherwise.

	From: lk (Wed Apr 26 11:24:24 2006) Global warming really is a terrible problem. Partially because electricity generation in thermal power plants.

	From: monika (Wed Apr 26 13:52:47 2006) my sister had a thyroid gland cancer becouse of Charnobyl. i remember the day when it happend i was 12 years old and we had to go to police station to drink redish looking fluid, to prptect us against radiation.i still clearly remember all the paranoia in Warsaw Poland.

	From: Dean (Wed Apr 26 16:31:36 2006) opponents of nuclear power need to assess carefully alternative options. coal power generally produces more radiation that nuclear plants, not to mention ruining lakes for cooling and irrepairable damage from mining. hydro power has ruined rivers and lakes across the world - but largely goes unnoticed. solar power sounds great, but what of the polution in doping the materials to make the solar cells? greenpeace and other organisations are great at sensationalising everything. but very rairly look at the many steps involved in any given process. here in australia they have even started protesting against coal power! nuclear power has its pros and cons much like all other sources of power. alas just the word 'nuclear' tends to go hand in hand with 'nuclear bomb'. the chernobyl disaster wasnt the result of someone nudging the 'self destruct button'. it was a series of events and misinformation. the other reactors were left in operation as the ukraine drew 10% of its power from the chernobyl facility. reactors breathren to the chernobyl facility are still in operation as these countries cannot afford to turn them off! the UN, usa and other governments are helping in the process but government spending is not infinite unless people start voting for tax increases! and dont forget that ac power is, every day, giving you cancer.

	From: Szein (Thu Apr 27 00:53:11 2006) This accident were a huge mistake from the russians (not to blame every russian) but it was a huge mistake to turn of the warning system and then let the reactor do a massive test to gain more power from it. The whole accident appeard because of to much energy released at the same times so the process got uncontrolable and finally it blowed into 1000 pieces. And as usual the russian government tried to silence the whole accident to not get blamed or any more trouble they allready had. Now 20 years later the "sarcophagrus" has some huge craks in it so the rain water can get into it. As i have heard the sacrophadus is water filled allmost to the half. And what did that nuclear explosive do? A massive destruction? Nah...but it sent out a huge radioactive cloud all ower the european countries. My own county were one of them: Sweden. My friends mother fed a little girl not long ago but when they looked at her, they didnt see any sex just a hole. they checked and did then confirm that it was a girl from the genetick code. She cant fed babys in her whole life because of the accident. Well well i hopes this wont happend again but you know how mankind is: Stupid and destructive :P the Chernobyl Accident is a perfect example for this.

	From: madguru (Thu Apr 27 03:03:20 2006) all workers knew what will be to them. who didnt wanted didnt went (where hiding ant bla bla). where radiation was wery hight, like on the roof, workers were working for 45s intervals. ant then another crew where comming. they were called Bio-robots. real robots went outta control after 30 min - 180min work. some even faster coz of radiation. in my country still are 2 RBMK-1000 reactors :/ but whatahek. nuclear power is good, and we will only just be increasing plants in the world. thats the future.

	From: Bozzy (Sun Apr 30 22:19:14 2006) Chernobyl produced about 10% of Ukraine's electricity at the time of the accident. 10%!!!! Was it really necessary to built 4 reactors just to produce 10% of the electricity?

	From: Pete (Mon May 1 12:23:37 2006) At the time of the disaster they were building 2 more reactors. Chernobyl would have been the biggest nuclear power plant in Europe.

	From: lk (Tue May 2 14:54:22 2006) Soviet long term plans were to make NPP Balakovo the largest NPP in the world. They wanted to build 24 x VVER-1000 reactors, so total net output would have been 24GW. But today, only 4 of them are built.

	From: Maria (Fri May 5 22:09:39 2006) The fact is that it's been over 20 years since the accident and the original reason that it occured is no longer a primary concern. What is a primary concern, however, is that the Sarcophogas was made to last a maximum of 20 years and there are massive amounts of readiation leaking out of the structure and into the environment. There is also water entering the structure that threatens to re-activate the nuclear reaction. Unfortunately the world has failed to learn, and if they fail to act soon, the next Chernobyl will be Chernobyl.

	From: Matt (Sun May 7 23:55:12 2006) I understand that everyone is allowed to post on this site, and I think that ignornace, not stupidity should be tolerated. Sure, you may not know a certain fact about nuclear power plant operations, and you should definetely forge ahead and ask a question. But if you're eight years old and you're on daddy's computer, and you just want to argue, find another place. Seriously. You shouldn't get drawn into a debate about something you can't grasp. To those of you (And there are quite a few) who are either contributing information, or asking a legitimate question, I enjoyed reading your posts. It was a good homework diversion.

	From: lasosce@yahoo.com (Tue May 16 10:36:54 2006) �� Chernobyl �� ? �� ? � �� thankful �� cataclysmicly. Weaponry �� deadly � �� -�� . Chernobyl �� , � �� ... �� , � �� . � �� , � ��. � �� horrible �� .

	From: Tim (Wed May 17 14:01:28 2006) what was that whit stuff near the end that pile of cotton like junk

	From: emis (Sun May 21 04:10:10 2006) I can belive what happend at Chernobyl is 1986 and anybody hope that wouldn't happen again.i also think that was a lesson from russians.

	From: Kasag (Sun May 21 09:42:22 2006) i love these alarmist that talk about "the horid dangers of atomic plants" ..please..other than chernobyl ..tell me one person who has been hurt in a nuke plant acident..yeah TMI was bad..but it was contained..and no one was hurt ..10 times as many people are killed every year by contaminants from pesticides and petro chemicals ..when the DOW plant in india exploded there were 5,000 people killed that night ..another 200,000 have died since then ..at that was a pesticide plant ...if you dont want atomic power ..then turn off your tv..move out of your house..and back into a cave..thats the only way to avoid neading more atomic plants..coal isent a option unless you like acid rain..burning natural gass is expensive and produces sulfides and carbon monoxide ..hydro electric damages huge tracts of land ..wind power isent dependable..and you would have to cover the the earth in solar cells just to power 1/4 of it ..atomic power is cheeper ,cleaner and safer than aney other major fform of generateing power ..so before you scream "close all of these plants down!!" you beter be ready to pay energy bills 10 times higher than thay are now ..or give up useing power all together ..me i would rather see more atomic plants replace the coal and natural gass burning plants ..

	From: Chris (Engineering Student) UK (Sun May 21 13:45:54 2006) After reading many of the posts on this forum, it would seem people haven't grasped that the accident at Chernobyl happened over 20 years ago. Yes there were problems with the old reactor RMBK types but newer reactors have been designed without the same loop holes. The new breed of HTGR (High Temp Gas-Cooled Reactors) are inherently safe, meaning they need an energy input to sustain the fission reaction. Thus making an event such as Chernobyl highly improbable. Nuclear energy has had a bad press, mainly due to peoples poor knowledge or understanding of how it works. Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl had a profound effect on the development of this essential source of energy, I hope my generation will realise Nuclear energy as the only realistic GREEN alternative to fossil fuels.

	From: nem (Tue May 30 09:55:27 2006) why are we fighting about 20 years ago if your going to fight fight about the future

	From: Don't know much (Wed Jun 7 12:58:09 2006) This disaster has to rank in the top 3 worst of the 20th century. Everytime I read about or see pictures of it I can't help becoming overwhealmed with deep saddness.

	From: Tim H (Thu Jun 15 16:40:10 2006) Well said Chris, I don't think people realsie just how important Nuclear energy is as a sustainable energy resource. Just look at France, it wont be long until we (the UK) are buying our energy from the French, because the current and previous goverments have hesitated to invest in the new generation of nuclear power plants. Sure wind & hydro have many pros, but one main prob, apart from limited resources, are they are dependant upon the weather! Not much good when a nation all decided to put the kettle on at once!

	From: claw (Wed Jun 21 20:11:18 2006) Has anyone stopped to think about the people? How about the children? What of them in all of this? It seems that all we are concerned about is technology, lack of judgment; does anyone know what happened to the kids that no one wants because they are handicapped due to this disaster? Let us all hope that we have learned a valuable lesson from this -- that our future engineers will come up with better, safer means to obtain energy.

	From: mikeb (Mon Jun 26 08:14:58 2006) This site is educational. By understanding the risks, we can learn and move forward with NUCLEAR ENERGY as the power of the future. Even with Chernobyl, it is yet the safest and most efficient method of providing clean power to the masses. COAL-burning technology is still many times more dangerous and potentially disasterous than nuclear energy technology. COAL burning plants are an in-efficient stop-gap means to produce dirty power and at high-costs: coal is completely capital-intensive and labor-intensive (coal mining, transportation, scrubbing/sleaning and generating) not to mention the risks to human life in the process. For this one Chernobyl accident photo site, there should be a-thousand coal-accident sites. Thank god for modern technology and the prospects of a brighter nuclear future.....

	From: Alan (Wed Jul 12 01:22:31 2006) A Coal "accident" will not leave an impact on the world for dozens or even hundreds of generations to come. That said, instead of using Ur-235 to fuel our nuclear powerplants, why don't we use He-3? Even if there are no accidents, the disposal of the radioactive spent Uranium is still a problem. We just keep burying it in containers which will eventually leak and cause problems for future generations. Using radioactive He-# helium as a fuel source pretty much eliminates this problem. While there is very little He-3 here on earth, scientists tell us that the moon is rich in He-3 desposits. Depending on who you talk to, a single ton of He-3 is worth anywhere between $4 - $32 billion! Even taking the conservative numbers, that should justify a return to the moon for mining of He-3 to be used as a safe source of nuclear energy.

	From: Costi (RO) (Fri Sep 8 06:58:23 2006) There is risk in all of man's industrial activities. It happens to be higher regarding nuclear power. As long as this risk is assumed with a conscience we have nothing to worry about. The real scientists don't make things to hurt people, but to help them. The real problem are the politicians, they are the ones messing everything up. People must understand that no one should play with nuclear power. When you talk about the Russians I hope you reffer to the government and not the regular people who have no bussines in the matter. The Americans have a word: "You cannot make an omlet whitout braking eggs". We just have to make shure that we don't brake the whole basket :P ! So, let there be nuclear power plants, they offer many advantages as long as they are kept safe. The only problem that requires an immediate solution is the waste disposal. Someone wants to launch them into the sun. Can anyone realise what are the costs in getting them to orbit? We have to think to something else.

	From: Dave_SuthAfrica (Mon Nov 6 06:47:16 2006) This is a great resource - thanks Spaceman, and thanks to those who added valuable insight. And a HUGE thanks to those who cleaned it up and will work to make the place safer in future

	From: skull (Sun Nov 12 06:52:15 2006) wow... those guys are really brave... but i think a little bit too brave... even after 20 years, there is still radiation in the plant, and just for looking insight what's goin' on there, i wouldn't do that. Nuclear power is bad, very bad. But there are advantages with it. Much electrical power. And this catastrophe wasn't the mistake of the plant, it was the mistake of the workers, who worked there. They weren't informed good about how to control the plant. I think in nearly 50 years, living near the plant is possible again... let's hope that it was and stays the worst nuclear catastrophe in the exist of humanity.

	From: Svetlana (Wed Nov 22 15:19:25 2006) What can I say; us good old russians! We are tough little basterds and we take lots of pride in what we do. Despite of all our hard work and effort the we put in; there is still a margin for mistakes and failier. We learn new things every day and we try to strive for profection. But yet even that is not good enough for americans. May God truely bless those who linger in suffering due to catastrophic disaster, and mey God open up the eyes of those who are blind.

	From: Me (Sun Dec 17 22:40:01 2006) I believe nuclear power is a very safe alternative, and although there have been some major accidents in the past the safty track record is very good, especially compared with coal burning and gas plants. My understanding of the accident was that many of the operators were not trained for the RBMK, a lot of them only had previous experience in coal or small reactor plants. So nobody quite realized what was going on, I don't blame the russians or anyone, it was an unfortunate accident, that everyone learned from, it could have just as easily have happened in the U.S if they were using the same type. Think of the SL-1 disaster if that had been in a town the size of Chernobyl same thing would have occured. Every reactor type has its pros and cons.

	From: egonfreeman@gmail.com (Sun Dec 31 19:35:19 2006) Quote: "Waste is problem, but I think this is only acceptable solution, but it would be very, very expensive: In orbit, there should be constructed large constructions. The waste should be stored in those constructions. Then, when a construction gets full of waste, it should be "pushed" towards the Sun (or some gas gigant, like jupiter), by some kind of rocket engine. The rest of the trip to Sun should be possible because of inertion (no resistance in space)." As a reply to Costi and the post cited above, why won't anyone think about what would that do to our sun? I mean, we're worried about our precious little ecosystem, so instead of letting the waste spill around here, we're going to put freakin' tons of fissible material into a giant fusion reactor?! I'm sorry, did I hear that correctly? You DO know that without the sun, our ecosystem is pretty much useless? Not to mention that without it, we can't really keep any ecosystem different that the one found on Pluto or some similar space-rock (read: none)... It may be that the amount of the waste we'd be putting there would be like 10^-10, but all in all there are also other dangers we have to consider, apart from our sun burning out too soon (as it inevitably will, though we have a few billion years or so before that happens - let's not accelerate the process by putting more mass to it). For example, a "small" solar flare directed straight at us would be enough to graciously wipe out half of our planet's life. The ecosystem wouldn't rebuild, not to mention the vast amount of space radiation (which, believe me, is MUCH more deadly than, say, ten Chernobyl explosions in one place, simultaneously?). Injecting it into a gas giant like Jupiter is also out of the question, as such a "creature" also relises heavily on its mass, and the gravitational pull resulting from it. So, on one side we have a potential "big match" that'd burn our atmosphere (the sun), and on the other - a potential black hole resulting from rapidly increased mass (Jupiter). It's not a matter of a decade or two, of course, but we'd still be dropping the problem on our grand- grand- grand-... grand- grandchildren anyway. I'd consider the He-3 proposition. Although it is widely known that the last machine (as in: rocket propeller) that could safely carry a human-being-in-a-can onto the Moon has been de-comissioned (and taken apart, if those terms don't mean the same thing) by NASA some fifteen years ago...? I guess we'll get around to that either after World War III or some global event that'll unify all of mankind... Possibly in a struggle for power, in which case it will be too late. I wonder why we're fu**ed up as a race. Anyone? ;-) PS. And PLEASE, if you're thinking about injecting it into our own core (which consists of solid and molten rocks (commonly known as lava)), FORGET ABOUT IT. We'd blow our planet to cinders or distrupt its magnetic axis, and we'd be gone before you could say "interstellar escape" really, really fast.

	From: withoutadoubt@nnex.net (Fri Feb 9 14:40:30 2007) I see all of you people saying how awed you are at these images and that someone should build a second sarcophagus... with how many people there are in the world, and with how many people are so interested in Chernobyl, I am pretty sure the Government would accept a worldwide donation fund to be set up. It seems logical, at least. I know I would donate some cash as to help create a safer environment for hundreds of thousands of people.

	From: Cheryl (Wed Mar 7 14:19:31 2007) The accident at Chernobyl terrifies me!! It would be one thing if the land would only be contaminated for a short time, but we are talking hundreds of years that lots of land will be uninhabitable.Many people had to leave their homes never to return to this hightly contaminated land. I feel so sorry for them and the poor children. What a sad, sad situation. I do not feel that nuclear energy is safe and would be willing to do without . Three Mile Island could have been like Chernobyl if that hydrogen bubble would have burst. Also, what about all of the waste from these reactors. What will we do with all of it??

	From: Derek (Sun Mar 25 22:58:27 2007) The estimates at this point are that 4-9 thousand people are dead, directly caused by the reator...by the time it is said and done, 95000 peoples lives are to be taken early by adverse effects of the radiation

	From: jdd (Tue Apr 3 14:35:21 2007) lol, cant even keep global warming out of a site like this... that's really sad, seing as global warming has not been shown to be caused by anything man does... but anyway, i was greatly amused by the whole throwing-nuclear-waste-into-the-sun-will-blow-up-the-earth thing. the sun consumes it's own mass at such a rate that, no matter how much junk we throw at it, it won't make a lick of difference. and besides, the sun already absorbs a huge number of kinetic events (comets, meteors, stuff like that, some of which contain radioactive material) we could throw our whole planet at the sun, and absolutely nothing would happen (besides our planet being destroyed...) Also note, the moon, which definitely is important as far as mass goes, but is a measly bythought compared to the sun. The moon's farside is absolutely riven with kinetic event craters, but it's orbit remains stable, and probably will continue to be stable for the next few billion years or so. Also the mass of the moon has not noticeably changed. Therefore, the orbital configuration of the moon is not influenced by kinetic events. (asuming of course, the event is not of sufficient mass to fracture the moon) now there are a lot of things in the solar system bigger than the moon, but nothing even close to the mass of the sun. Therefore, nothing humans can do can upset the stability of the sun.

	From: Nicole (Fri Apr 20 16:43:04 2007) Why do we need so much energy? Did we not survive without it before? I could see the need for hospitals, water recycle places and such, but most of the energy we use today is not needed, just desired for convenience. Light bulbs, dishwashers, ect.

	From: kim (Tue May 15 04:35:39 2007) Tant de souffrances !!! Tant de b�tise humaine !! L'humanit� a-t-elle tir� une le�on de cette catastrophe ? L'homme d�truit l'homme et ce sont les enfants qui souffrent dans leur chair et leur �me, alors qu'ils sont cens�s �tre notre devenir !

	From: dk (Thu Jul 26 13:54:36 2007) OK people, do any of you work at a nuclear power plant? Well I do and can tell you it is ridiculously safer than any other industry out there. I would rather work at a nuclear power plant than the 3M chemical plant down the road. I can't even begin to tell you all the safety measures we go through on a daily basis. In the "real world" what would be a 30 minute job, can easily take up to 8 hours, I have seen it take longer. All the preparations, safety talks, etc. What I am trying to say is that nuclear power is very safe. We freak out at work if someone receives a paper cut.

	From: bomberosmdp@hotmail.com (Sat Jul 28 12:48:25 2007) Im a firefighter and currently working in a HAZARDOUS MATERIALS unit. ive never faced radiation and haven�t been able to find a proper course here in Argentina. Could any of you tell me where to get good and reliable information on protective gear for ALFA, BETA, and GAMMAR RAYS ??

	From: ashleyroyds@btinternet.com (Tue Oct 9 10:32:03 2007) interesting arguments from both sides... jurys still out on this but the case for nuclear is growing stronger in my book

	From: (Fri Jan 11 13:52:44 2008) http://gytd.iespana.es

	From: Unseen (Thu Feb 7 03:45:10 2008) It was realy disgusting

	From: petra777888@msn.com (Sun Mar 23 20:10:16 2008) I gave read much said here and can honestly say that there are some very cold people who think this is something that is minor or as one comment I seen,"diasters are great". This is something that will haunt for generations to come and I have watched countless heart crushing footage on the ones fallen and who still are,this is not what we need to happen again yet it will,probably here in america where I live for time being and I have lived here all my life yet I agree with svetlana,nothing is ever good enough for this country.Has any of you smart asses ever watched someone you love,die from cancer? I buried my mother when I was 18 and countless numbers of little children have died such horrible,painful deaths and all I can say is if I could, I would take thier pain and die in thier place. Yet I will not be afraid and plan to relocate to someplace in ukraine as I feel God calling me there and I have the utmost love and respect for them as people from uktaine are some of the most kind and warm hearted people on earth and since I am a single man I will glady find my wife there too as they need to know that not all americans are heartless and cold as I have seen here

	From: timi (Wed May 14 16:32:46 2008) this whole thing is bullshit. screw the rusians

	From: Joe Soap (Wed Jul 30 05:50:44 2008) Great pictures. Intend to go to Ukraine/Belarus to see first hand the landscape. History will ALWAYS repete itself. It's only a matter of time until there are other major nuclear accidents (like car crashes), just hope they do not effect you. How close we came to Nuclear exchanges in 50's 60's is unclear but the day WILL come. Perhaps not in my lifetime but definitely in someone's.........

	From: dragonfromthedepths@hotmail.com (Fri Dec 19 02:55:54 2008) why would they send people in there, that's just cruel! there is that saying that 'those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it' i hope that the second sarcophagus is built soon and our government wants to build nuclear power stations here then they just going to repeat histoy

	From: twitter.com/mccaw (Wed Feb 25 03:13:47 2009) Wow, a great place for Nadya Suleman (the octuplet mom) to raise her brood of 14 children. Plenty of space to stretch out in. A _whole_ 30KM area. :-)

	From: noboy (Wed Mar 11 02:56:58 2009) i just wanna make me cry

	From: TokenBob (Sat Sep 26 17:16:59 2009) I'm not a scientist by any means, but I've been a pro-advocate for nuclear energy since childhood. Many of my science repots in school were about nuclear-related things. In America (where I'm from), the ignorance of people thinking that driving a hybrid is going to save the world. ???, it burns two fossil fuels, oil and coal, when it's plugged in. Which is what still powers 2/3 of our homes in the U.S., coal. Not to mention the pollution created to produce a hybrid battery alone. Oh that's right, Obama is magic and grows them in flower ponds. Other countries are getting it together and going nuclear, America is just sitting there imagining other things, wasting their time. My faith relies in the nuclear future and i stongly stand behind the technology. I'm not the same person as I was 20 years ago, and neither was Russia/Ukraine, cut'em some slack. I've also seen some real winners for comments. Post no haste from the person who said we got along fine without energy years ago, she can start by turning off her computer and walking to a far land and live in a cave, dumbass. But my favorite comment was about firing the waste into space, at the sun. Why at our most precious asset in the solar system, our refuse, or make it our neighboring planets' problem. Then there's a possible booster failure halfway up to space and you get atomized radioactive fuel dispersed high in the stratosphere. That's happened before with a small amount of Plutonium Snap-9A, used for keeping satellite electronics from freezing. The rocket exploded and was distributed. Now there isn't a person on the planet without a trace amount of snap-9A in their system. For the radiation exposure at TMI, you're probably absorbing more radiation looking at your computer screen while reading my bullshit entry. On a more nice note, I like Russians, they seem like a fun, festive bunch of people. My father served in the Air Force during the cold war, he never hated Russia, nor the people. He knew they were people that loved their familes and their country, as he did his. I'd raise an Amercan beer with a Russian and his vodka to toast our past differences, present resolve and future peace times. Excellent pictures.

	From: nuclear barsuk (Sat Dec 12 18:20:01 2009) RBMK is the great soviet reactor. West peoples never understand what is a russian s.
	[add comment]

24 of 24

Gallery: Spaceman Gallery

Album: Interests

Album: Chernobyl