Should the UK Re-Open An Old, Cracked Nuclear Reactor? (mirror.co.uk) 264
"Nuclear experts have warned against re-opening a 43-year-old Scottish nuclear reactor riddled with cracks over fears of a meltdown," writes the Daily Mirror.
An anonymous reader quotes their report: Hunterston B nuclear power plant was shut down last year after it was found that Reactor 3 had almost 400 cracks in it -- exceeding the operational limit. EDF, which own the plant in Ardrossan, Ayrshire, are pushing to return the reactor to service at the end of June and July and want to extend the operational limit of crack allowed from 350 to 700. However, the plans to reopen the plant have sparked fears it could lead to a nuclear meltdown similar to the 1986 Chernoybl disaster.
Experts have warned that in the very worst case the hot graphite core could become exposed to air and ignite leading to radioactive contamination and evacuation of a large area of Scotland's central belt -- including Glasgow and Edinburgh. According to Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, and Dr David Toke, Reader in Energy Policy at the University of Aberdeen, the two reactors definitely should not be restarted...
The plant, which is more than 40 years old, can generate enough electricity to power more than 1.7 million homes, and is one of Britain's eight nuclear plants which provide around 20 percent of the country's electricity.
Nuclear expert Professor Neil Hyat reminds The Sun that the reactor will be shut down by 2030 -- and "possibly earlier."
An anonymous reader quotes their report: Hunterston B nuclear power plant was shut down last year after it was found that Reactor 3 had almost 400 cracks in it -- exceeding the operational limit. EDF, which own the plant in Ardrossan, Ayrshire, are pushing to return the reactor to service at the end of June and July and want to extend the operational limit of crack allowed from 350 to 700. However, the plans to reopen the plant have sparked fears it could lead to a nuclear meltdown similar to the 1986 Chernoybl disaster.
Experts have warned that in the very worst case the hot graphite core could become exposed to air and ignite leading to radioactive contamination and evacuation of a large area of Scotland's central belt -- including Glasgow and Edinburgh. According to Dr Ian Fairlie, an independent consultant on radioactivity in the environment, and Dr David Toke, Reader in Energy Policy at the University of Aberdeen, the two reactors definitely should not be restarted...
The plant, which is more than 40 years old, can generate enough electricity to power more than 1.7 million homes, and is one of Britain's eight nuclear plants which provide around 20 percent of the country's electricity.
Nuclear expert Professor Neil Hyat reminds The Sun that the reactor will be shut down by 2030 -- and "possibly earlier."
Yes (Score:5, Funny)
Chernobyl was excellent. I can think of only one way to create another compelling HBO series. It must be reopened.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
This decision to open the reactor again must come from the "What Could Possibly Go Wrong" department!
Re: (Score:2)
The "experts" have their expertise in "radioactivity in the environment" and "energy policy". Neither of these are relevant to judging the effect of the cracks. Expertise in reactor engineering and metallurgical effects of neutron bombardment would be relevant, but that is not what they have.
Wrong, that is exactly what they have.
Re: (Score:2)
EDF also has a huge profit motive (Score:2)
Not sure if Scotland or Westminster have jurisdiction over this.
Re: (Score:2)
At least it's not the bastarding Belgians! God bless that lovely Mr Farage!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I misunderstood. EDF has reactor engineering and metallurgical expertise, not the critics of the article.
Yes, that was my point. The critics appear to have no relevant expertise.
Re: (Score:3)
The entire EDF staff and their families and friends should be standing near the core when it's started.
They'd have no problem being at the plant when it is started. I wouldn't either.
No Problem, Just hand it over in the Brexit. (Score:3, Insightful)
SInce Scotland will apply to join the EU, the UK won't have to deal with the problem, it'll be in a different country
"Eight years involved with the nuclear industry have taught me that when nothing can possible go wrong and every avenue has been covered, then is the time to buy a house on the next continent."
— Terry Prachett
A day without Fusion is like a day without sunshine, but a good day at work is not better than a bad day fission.
Re:No Problem, Just hand it over in the Brexit. (Score:4, Interesting)
If Soctland becomes independent the UK's nuclear problem with be the nuclear subs. Currently they are stationed in Scotland but will have to move south, and no-where wants them.
Re: (Score:3)
Currently they are stationed in Scotland but will have to move south, and no-where wants them.
It's not just a question of no one wants them, they also need a deep water port which provides quick access for submerged subs to useful bits of the sea. There aren't a lot of options.
Schmecial schmeleanship (Score:3)
Couldn't we rent a berth in a US port? I'm sure Donald will make us a good deal. Y'know, special relationship and all that.
Re: Schmecial schmeleanship (Score:3)
Or in Norway, there are a lot of deep fjords there.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they like nuclear things. Plus I can see the headline in the daily fail: "P.M. gives all our nukes to EU[1] hippies!"
[1] It's close enough for the Wetherspoons fraternity.
Re: (Score:2)
South West England. A few ports around the Norfolf area.
You might want to look at a map there: it's a lot shallower than further North and a lot further out to the open ocean.
The latter of which would be uncomfortably close to parliament if it went titsup.
If by that you mean London, is it more sensible to place something like that near a metropolis if 500,000 or 15,000,000?
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he was thinking of the "Norfolf" in Virginia?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should Scotland become independent then the UK will have to look after its US nuclear tech.
The US will have the final say over what happens to the UK and its nuclear mil tech.
All sites will clean and returned to an independent Scotland for Scotland to use in any way it wants.
The UK stays a nuclear power.
Where the US nuclear tech is moved to in the UK is something for the US and UK to work out.
Re: (Score:2)
UK won't have to deal with the problem, it'll be in a different country
Much like how radiation from Chernobyl remained strictly a CCCP problem. [wikipedia.org]
But the real question is how long will it take the Brits... sorry... The Englanders to fund and film their own version of events?
One where it was all a Franco-Belgian-Germanic conspiracy [bbc.com] to devalue the (now English) Pound.
With a little help from M. Bison. [youtube.com]
Of course.
Re: (Score:2)
First of all God Bless Scotland!
SInce Scotland will apply to join the EU
Damn if that isn't the funnest thing I've read all day. Actually gave me a laugh out loud moment. Scotland has been trying to break free of the UK for centuries. If anyone deserves their own free and independent country it's the Scots.
IF the Scots ever get free no way in hell they are going to join that failed cluster fuck called the EU. The Scots have long for a independent Scotland for centuries, they would be fools to get that and just sign it away again. But bein
Re: (Score:2)
You do not seem to aware of Scottish politics in any way.
Support for the EU is much higher than support for independence (as shown in the last two referendums).
Re: (Score:3)
Support for Scotland joining the EU is way over blown. Realistically, it is none existent. Those that want to join the EU are the same ones that didn't want the UK to leave the EU. If you run a poll, not that they matter, with a independent Scotland of the UK then support drops to almost nothing, single digits anyway.
So no, it is very doubtful that Scotland will join the EU if it gets it independence from the UK.
the simpsons needs more Nuclear stuff to use for (Score:3)
the simpsons needs more Nuclear stuff to use for the next 20 years
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh we're planning a live reenactment of the Chernobyl series in real-time,
Most Americans think Russians have Scottish accents anyway... :D
Re: (Score:2)
P.S.
F.Y.I.
I Live a couple of miles form the Reactor.
They were told YEARS ago once "Hunterson A" was shutdown, to also shutdown "B" earlier than planned.
Re: (Score:2)
They do, have ye nae seen Hunt For Red October?
Re: (Score:3)
I am pro-nuclear power. But these reactors are being operated way beyond their design limit.
There are better and safer designs available today. This plant should be replaced.
Not too surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
It should not be too surprising what man will do for a bit of coin.
Willing to throw the dice with the most populated areas in your entire country just to make more money.
That my friends is why all things cannot be left to the "free market" to decide. We'd all be dead otherwise.
Re:Not too surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
EDF are desperate. The French are cutting off their subsidies, their reactor building projects around Europe are all over budge and behind schedule, and they are only surviving on "too big to fail" government life support.
Contaminating large parts of Scotland is the least of their worries right now. They need to get that earner back up and running, and in a way that doesn't cost them more than a bit of paperwork.
Re: (Score:3)
Let the people decide!
What could possibly go wrong?
Re:Not too surprising (Score:5, Interesting)
This is true. The politicians in London don't seem to care too much about the Scottish; All the nuclear weapons for the UK get parked up at Faslane Naval Base, 10 miles out from Glasgow, the most populous city in Scotland.
Re: (Score:2)
The politicians in London don't seem to care too much about the Scottish;
Then tell me, how come English politicians can't vote on matters that only affect Scotland but Scottish politicians can and do vote on matters that affect only England. Mostly when I hear people whinging about London it's really that underneath they feel that Londoners should have less representation per person because they all live a bit too close together so they don't really count as whole people.
The London metropolitan area is abou
You don't think Brexit affects Scotland? (Score:2)
I suspect around 90% of both Scottish MPs and MSPs oppose Brexit, yet it is being foisted on Scotland anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect around 90% of both Scottish MPs and MSPs oppose Brexit, yet it is being foisted on Scotland anyway.
By now more than 50% of the population oppose Brexit too, yet it's being foisted on all of us. Also London voted about the same proportions as Scotland to stay.
Re: Not too surprising (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scottish MPs can't vote on England only laws, EVEL applies to them at the speakers decision
Yes true that is the case now, I completely forgot. Tuition fees for universities however for English students (not Scottish) was swung by Scottish MPs.
Re: (Score:2)
Hold the phone. (Score:5, Funny)
Should the UK Re-Open An Old, Cracked Nuclear Reactor?
Cracked [cracked.com] has a nuclear reactor?
Re: (Score:2)
Should the UK Re-Open An Old, Cracked Nuclear Reactor?
No, my grandparents on my mother's side were fresh of the boat from Scotland . . . Aberdeen and Dundee. My great-great aunt used to send me comics from there . . . "Oor Wullie" and "The Broons".
You would not want these folks fiddling around with nuclear reactors.
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can hold our own - https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com] ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I think we can hold our own
No, you can't. You are a vassal of England.
My relatives in Scotland complain that all the oil money from the North Sea went to London, and not to Scotland.
I guess that you like that.
Now, if Scotland would vote to remain in the EU . . .
Re: (Score:2)
Cracked has a nuclear reactor?
5 reasons to keep this reactor running that you won't believe!
Thank you for asking (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Perfect location for a new amusement park, Nessie World.
Light it up!
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they think that if they can recreate the conditions that awoke Godzilla, the question of whether Nessie exists can finally be answered. Then they can build the theme park.
Re: (Score:3)
Especially since the summary has linked a couple of the world's finest newspapers for the Slashdot crowd to fully appraise themselves of the situation in a detailed and unbiased manner.
Re:Thank you for asking (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sure the resident nuke-nuts will be all over it, explaining in great detail why it would be an excellent idea.
No, all existing reactor designs are outdated and stupid.
But if only The Establishment would stop suppressing [My Favorite Unproven Design] running [My Favorite Fuel Cycle Theory] and allow work to start on [My Favorite Waste Disposal Scheme], fission power could safely supply all of the world's energy needs for [N, for large N] centuries!
Re: (Score:2)
Replace the word "fission" with "fusion" and you'll have the even less effective nuclear power source that has never produced even a single erg of usable electrical power. I've had to deal with a number of very enthusiastic fusion fans in some recent conversations, and their physics are even worse.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
a) The keyway channels *do* have rounded termination. The internal corners of the keyway roots are drilled out, specifically to reduce stress concentration. However, the small radius still acts as a significant stress concentrator for crack initiation. At the time, the initial design life was intended to be 25-30 years, and this was considered an acceptable mitigation.
The methane holes were a last minute addition to the design of revision 2 plants. The reference
Betteridge's law (Score:2)
I'm a nuclear wonk but... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The plant has been closed
2) It's been closed due to structural reasons.
3) The plant is 43 years old. Meaning the tech on it is 50-60 years old.
Simply redefining the structural parameters on an obsolete reactor that's been sitting idle and turning it back on seems like not just asking, but begging, upon bended knee, for trouble.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed; Graphite reactors are Very old Tech.
Wigner Energy and Wigner Growth are two problems no modern reactors have.
The designs were obsolete in the 50's, even tho they kept being built.
But they're great for making plutonium, which is probably one reason for bringing it back online.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanna make Plutonium, go with LFTR and simply scavenge it from the byproducts.
Re: (Score:2)
If you wanna make Plutonium, go with LFTR and simply scavenge it from the byproducts.
The T in LFTR stands for Thorium. LFTRs don't make much if any Pu. They don't have U-238 in them by default (you could add it but its not there by necessity). They consume Pu if you use weapons grade Pu to kickstart the reactor but that's only one of many ways to kickstart a breeder. There are many reactors that are good at making Pu, the LFTR (or anything Thorium specific) isn't among them.
Re: (Score:2)
Another Chernoybl ? You are kidding right? (Score:4, Insightful)
Come on. Chernoybl was an unsafe reactor design and what made it so bad was that the thing literally disassembled itself due to the design and crazy stupid operator mistakes. THEN the whole thing caught fire, nuclear core and all, because it was made from flammable materials and couldn't be put out for days, killing many of the fire crew from radiation exposure. We are talking about a light water reactor, where the core isn't going to explode and catch fire, where meltdowns will take days, not seconds and the worst possible accident is much less dangerous and much less likely than Chernoybl's ever was.
IMHO this article is blowing the risk out of reason and is invoking the name of the worst nuclear accident in history in an effort to sway public opinion and that has me suspecting they might not be interested in any rational discussion here. They just are agin' it, no reasoned argument, no facts are going to move them.
IDK if this idea is a good one or not, but when some group starts to demagogue the issue with the likes of Chernoybl, I'm going to dismiss what they say as being about fear, not reality.
so an China syndrome??? (Score:2)
so an China syndrome???
Re: (Score:3)
Chernoybl was an unsafe reactor design and what made it so bad was that the thing literally disassembled itself due to the design and crazy stupid operator mistakes. THEN the whole thing caught fire, nuclear core and all, because it was made from flammable materials and couldn't be put out for days, killing many of the fire crew from radiation exposure.
We are talking about a light water reactor, where the core isn't going to explode and catch fire...
From the summary:
Experts have warned that in the very worst case the hot graphite core could become exposed to air and ignite leading to radioactive contamination and evacuation of a large area of Scotland's central belt -- including Glasgow and Edinburgh
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. Chernoybl was an unsafe reactor design and what made it so bad was that the thing literally disassembled itself due to the design and crazy stupid operator mistakes.
Minus the stupid human element, Chernobyl might be merrily generating power today. But people have a tendency to bitch things up.
Re: (Score:2)
Minus the stupid human element, Chernobyl might be merrily generating power today.
That is extremely unlikely.
Re: (Score:2)
That is extremely unlikely.
Maybe, but it happens to be true:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
apparently 10 RBMks are still operational though they have been modified a bit since 1986.
Re: (Score:2)
Minus the stupid human element, Chernobyl might be merrily generating power today.
That is extremely unlikely.
The RBMK reactor is sensitive, but with proper operation, and not pulling stupid experiments, overriding safeties, and ordering employees to do things they knew were suicidal to the reactor, yeah, it could be kept running just fine.
This isn't to be saying that we should ever build any more of them. It's saying that a well trained force and non-idiot managers, that it couldn't be kept running. At least to me, it's verification of my hypothesis that most if not all reactor incidents are directly tied to hu
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't a light water reactor. Both Hunterston B and Torness are AGRs (advanced gas reactors), which are a graphite-moderated, CO2-cooled design. It's safer in several ways than an LWR; it can passively cool through convection, for example, and it has a lower power density. However, if the blocks crack, and end up shifting around, that could be rather bad. If it blocks the control rods, or restricts the airflow in the fuel channels, it could cause problems. The cracking is a known phenomenon; one of m
Counting cracks. (Score:2)
I'm not a nuclear engineer so I was surprised to hear that the allowable number of cracks was not "zero".
Given that the limit is not "zero" or "one", wouldn't the location of cracks relative to each other also be a critical (no pun intended) factor?
Re: (Score:2)
The same is true in bridges and things. Some cracks are expected. Each very small crack reduces the strength by some amount. The number is never zero, even when the concrete first dries there are some cracks.
Sensible compromise (Score:2)
Instead of putting band-aids on a creaky old reactor and risking disaster to squeeze a few more years of risky life out of it, why not just leave the old reactor mothballed, build a brand new reactor right next to it, and use the plant for another 40-60 years?
It's not like the 2030 closure was holy writ dictated by some divine power... it was based on the assumption that the old reactor wouldn't be usable after that date. Build a brand new reactor, and the entire reason for closing the plant in 2030 goes aw
Re: (Score:3)
Put another way, does it make more sense to spend $500 million to rehab an old reactor and squeeze another 5-6 years of use out of it, while risking a horrific disaster near Scotland's two largest cities... or to spend $2-3 billion to build a new reactor next to the old one that's better and safer than the old one in every meaningful way, and good for at least 40-60 years of service?
Humans in their wisdom, are just planning on doubling the number of allowable cracks. Much financially smart. Saves money. My guess is the limits will be increased until the reactor is exposed to air, and then the fun begins.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh, they looked into that when "Hunterson A" was shutdown.
But having an American Nuclear Sub base a few miles further up the coast, they idea was quickly shutdown for some reason.
Think their was not the "commercial need" at the time. (Chernobyl took the wind out of the "More Nuclear near Mass Center's of population" movement rather quickly, and Fukushima was the nail on the coffin for another reactor house.)
Re: (Score:2)
You are a factor of four off in estimated construction cost.
Hinkley Point C is estimated somewhere around £19 billion and £21 billion at this point. However, as the only work done so far AFAIK is the pouring of the concrete platform that it will be built on, there is of course a chance that the cost estimates are wildly pessimistic and the whole thing will come in at a quarter of the price. And a tiny risk that it might end up more expensive than expected. On the upside you get 2 reactors for th
Re: (Score:2)
Now a real deep 3D study of the ground would have to be done.
Who gets to design and bring in a turn key reactor for the UK. Not many nations have the skills.
France. Japan. Russia. Contractors around the EU. The USA. China. The UK wants to try on its own project?
Who to give billions and more billions in money? A project that will change the UK budget for many years.
Each nation wi
sure, open it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
Just make smaller reactors, so when a disaster happen, it's not enough to kill people.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Keep it down (Score:2)
oops. I mis-read that (Score:3)
So, the question becomes, what do REAL engineers say? And what about the company that built them? What do they say?
Re:What would be the point? Wasting money? (Score:4)
EDF don't want to write down their nuclear investment, and plus the kinda missed the boat on wind power and on electric vehicle charging. New players have come in and taken that market, and EDF is clinging to its reactors to stay alive.
No money to pivot, no money to properly maintain the nuclear plants because it's all tied up in trying (and failing) to build new ones.
Re: (Score:2)
In France EDF is setting up lots of wind and solar power.
France has now a law that all new city buildings need to have a solar roof and other measures making the building as close to CO2 neutral as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK needs energy that is 24/7 and that does not start up and slow down.
Wind and solar are not good enough for that.
Can more hydro be found to pump?
Coal can't be done due to green politics.
The energy demand is not going away.
Nuclear is about all that exists to keep the production lines going.
Import LNG that few nations can afford long term?
Re: (Score:2)
The UK needs energy that is 24/7 and that does not start up and slow down.
Wind and solar are not good enough for that.
They are if you put the wind off both coasts, and add in some battery storage. Then you'll always have some wind production, and you've got backup.
If you really want to make it robust, though, you need to ship in power to England from off the island, and ship out the excess wind. Perhaps the exchange could be moderated through some sort of economic union.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind off both coasts works until it stops. Then pay full price for hours to spin up gas?
Re "ship in power to England"
England has to pay hope much for energy for that?
The nation wants extra for that energy that month? That hour?
Why give away wealth to import energy at a rate another nations sets in real time?
Robust is 24/7 energy in the UK at a low rate everyone can set their production to.
No unexpected changes to wind/solar/some other n
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with battery storage is that it has a cost to it.
Bzzzzzzzt. Everything has a cost to it. Welcome to capitalism. It's still cheaper than nuclear, when you compare lifetime costs.
Re: (Score:2)
The cost of the next big battery? The cost of a lot of power needed when intermittent solar and wind stops?
A big battery can only hide the drop in solar and wind for so long.
Then an advanced nation needs something to produce its power 24/7.
Nuclear. Coal. Bring in more LNG. Set up more new big hydro this time with a pump design?
Pay for gas from another nations pipe? Supporting their politics by buying their energy?
Power prices that change every hour and month are not good
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Problem with "Chernobyl" the show (Score:5, Informative)
Even the Soviet Union admitted that 28 firefighters died as a result of radiation exposure, out of 134 they admitted were hopitalized.
The baby "absorbing" radiation is accurate. The mother was exposed both in Pripryat and from her husband in hospital, and would likely have ingested/inhaled some radioactive isotopes. The mother and baby share nutrients and blood, and children are particularly prone to DNA damage from radiation, and foetuses especially.
The show was careful to be accurate, for example noting that the three men who went in to open the water valves and prevent a nuclear explosion did not die, despite it being widely reported that they did.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My one hope is that maybe people will understand form the show that it was a combination of a terrible system, a terrible design and just sheer malignant incompetence that means problems like that cannot happen elsewhere...
Yes we heard that the Soviet Union built that with one hand and the vodka bottle in the other, a meltdown would never happen in a first world country with better reactor designs. Then Fukushima happened and they all went silent, except you I guess. Of course Fukushima had its own unique problems, I'm sure the next big meltdown will have its unique cause too but nobody buys the "it can't happen to us" anymore. That sank like the Titanic. Kinda disappointed we haven't been able to get fusion power working tho
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Yes we heard that the Soviet Union built that with one hand and the vodka bottle in the other, a meltdown would never happen in a first world country with better reactor designs.
But look at the harm done, almost no loss of life. It's not that you can forsee and protect against every external cause, it's that the designs can be such that even a full-on melt down can cause minimal damage or radiation release, and that is just what we saw in Japan (where even a badly managed reactor ended up with vastly bette
Re: (Score:2)
No, those of us who bothered to look into it knew, for instance, that the reactor in question was being used in a test, which required that the reactor be put into as close to a "meltdown" condition as was safe for purposes of an accurate measurement of what they were trying to measure.
Alas, they were wrong about how close to a "me
Conflating Fukishima and Chernobyl is just wrong. (Score:2)
Both were clusterfucks, but the design of Fuki\ushima was sound, unlike the RBMK reactors.
For one, a "Positive Void Coefficient" had nothing to do with the Fukushima meltdowns, they were a reliable design.
Nuclear Physics killed Fukushima, because they had no way to cool the reactors after the power went down.
Any running reactor generates short lived daughter elements that generate a lot of heat, that heat has to be gotten rid of.
If you can cool the reactor for 12 hours after you shut it down, it can't melt.
Re: (Score:2)
It was poorly designed for the local conditions. The reactor design itself was fine for the era but not in a place like that.
Today there are better reactor designs, which can include a core catcher, or gravity fed pumps, which were not in the Fukushima reactor design. Still it was a poor place to build a nuclear reactor regardless of how well designed it would be.
You're just wrong. (Score:2)
WHERE they built the reactor wasn't a problem; The Seawall, and how they built the generators in the basement were.
Several other reactors just up the coast, of the same design, were fine.
Why? their generator weren't in the basement, and the seawalls were higher.
Fuckwits always post anon, otherwise you'd have no karma.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes we heard that the Soviet Union built that with one hand and the vodka bottle in the other,
Yeah that's pretty much right. It had a void coefficient of over 4 hen anything over 1 is dangerous. Nothing like that has ever, ever been built in the west.
a meltdown would never happen in a first world country with better reactor designs.
That's bullshit hyperbole.
Then Fukushima happened and they all went silent, except you I guess. Of course Fukushima had its own unique problems,
Fukishima was nothing like Cher
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is there are still several RMBK reactors (Chernobyl type) operational today.
Ten in fact. Three of them right next to St. Petersburg. One was shut down late last year since it was replaced with a new generation reactor. But three still left in there.
The RMBK reactors near Kursk in particular include two dated from the 1970s... One which is still operational close to St. Petersburg is also from the 1970s.
Re: (Score:2)
The thing is there are still several RMBK reactors (Chernobyl type) operational today.
I know that, in fact I've already pointed it out to someone else upthread. I don't get your point though. If Russia decided to install 6inch spikes on the steering wheels of all cars causing a massive slew of deaths, we wouldn't declare all cars unsafe and summarily ban them. We'd make safer cars instead.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps you should just go to Chernobyl, live in a tent for ten years, and give us an update every month how you feel.
a lot of the people they show dying in the show (like the firefighters) mostly did not die.
All died. First day or a few days after they fought the fire.
but terribly misinforms about the effect of radiation
I guess you have no clue about radiation. No problem, you are a layman.
But claiming here, on /., you have, and spreading your missinformation is a close to a crime against humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
The show was very well done, with very effective drama and acting, and got the material culture of the late Soviet Union down very accurately.
But everything else was fiction. Not just portrayals of radiation effects, but essentially all aspects of the reactor disaster (its cause, how it was handled, how the unfolding disaster emerged into official and public awareness, etc.) was fabricated. I wish I could have enjoyed it, but I know far too much about what really happened to be able to. I expect some fictio
Re: (Score:2)
Which part of the documented timeline leading up to the disaster do you claim was fiction:
* The low-power operation leading up to the test.
* The delay in the test.
* The xenon poisoning dropping power output to 30mw.
* The removal of nearly all the control rods to attempt to increase power.
* The SCRAM of the reactor.
* The explosion when the the rods were reinserted.
All of this is widely documented and verifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey!
I resemble that remark...(Ayrshire born and only slightly mutant).