Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Power

Ukraine Warns Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Is Without Power (axios.com) 203

Posted by BeauHD from the power-outage dept.
On February 24, Russian forces seized control of the Chernobyl nuclear plant and took its staff hostage, causing radiation levels to increase about 20-fold from all the heavy military vehicles stirring contaminated soil in the exclusion zone surrounding the plant. Today, the Ukrainian government warned that the abandoned nuclear power plant, including other nuclear facilities nearby, no longer have electricity after a power line was damaged. Axios reports: A loss of power at the plant could disrupt the cooling of radioactive material stored there, risking radioactive leakage that can be carried by wind to other parts of Europe. [...] "About 20,000 spent fuel assemblies are stored in the spent nuclear fuel storage facility-1. They need constant cooling, which is possible only if there is electricity. If it is not there, the pumps will not cool. As a result, the temperature in the holding pools will increase," the Ukrainian government said. "After that evaporation will occur, that will lead to nuclear discharge. The wind can transfer the radioactive cloud to other regions of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Europe. In addition, there is no ventilation inside the facility," it added.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said Wednesday that Ukraine had informed it of the power outage and called it a violation of a "key safety pillar" but saw "no critical impact on safety" in this case. The agency's director general said Tuesday that it was no longer receiving data monitoring systems installed at the plant and other facilities and that the handling of nuclear material in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone had been put on hold. "I'm deeply concerned about the difficult and stressful situation facing staff at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and the potential risks this entails for nuclear safety. I call on the forces in effective control of the site to urgently facilitate the safe rotation of personnel there," IAEA director general Rafael Mariano Grossi said Tuesday.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ukraine Warns Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Is Without Power More

Ukraine Warns Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Is Without Power

Comments Filter:

  • Generators (Score:3)

    by Pentium100 ( 1240090 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @07:53PM (#62342313)

    So, do they not have backup generators or did Russians steal all the fuel for their tanks?

    • Chernobyl claims they have 48 hours of diesel for their generators.

      https://www.reuters.com/articl... [reuters.com]

    • It doesn't matter. [reuters.com]
      Chernobyl was fully shut down in 2015. Those fuel rods have been sitting in water for 7 years.
      This is propaganda, pure and simple.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        Yes the plant is shut down and in the process of being decommissioned. Everyone knows that and news articles have pointed that out, even this summary. The issue is the decommissioning process that cannot continue and more importantly monitoring of the stored waste. The radioactive materials are still quite dangerous and need to be protected and monitored for many years to come. To say nothing of the on-going decommissioning work to dismantle and dispose of contaminated machinery and workings. Leaving th

        • The issue is the decommissioning process that cannot continue and more importantly monitoring of the stored waste.

          In the US, spent fuel rods are moved into passively air-cooled chambers after 5 years.

          Yes, monitoring stops if they run out of power.
          That's no good, because shit like this should be monitored- but the fact is, there is no passive event that can happen that's going to cause a disaster at this juncture. Nothing.

          I'm not justifying stopping work at a decommissioned power plant, which is fucking idiotic, I'm complaining that Ukraine continues to explicitly say the thing is going to fucking explode because o

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by caseih ( 160668 )

            I've certainly not read it that way, either in this article or in others. The Ukranian firm reported to the Atomic Energy Commission as stated (and as is appropriate), and indicated there is an increased risk of radiation release, which is absolutely true. There is a definite risk. I don't think Reuters is fearmongering in reporting this. Plus the article summarized stated that the risk was small.

            The actions at the other reactor site reported on recently are more concerning of course, as that is an activ

            • How have [twitter.com]
              you not?! [twitter.com]

              And yes, the shit going on at Zaporizhzhia is far more concerning, but it sounds like it's under control now.

            • The Ukranian firm reported to the Atomic Energy Commission as stated (and as is appropriate), and indicated there is an increased risk of radiation release, which is absolutely true.

              The IAEA says no, it's not.
              Describe how that happens.
              Emissions from the fuel happen whether in water, or not. They're confined to the cooling compartment.
              The only risk to hot fuel is that it's hot enough to burn/melt things.
              This is not.
              Therefor, it's not going to release any radioisotopes in air that it wasn't already in water. The gaseous ones will do the same thing they've always done- migrated upward.
              The extent of any radioactive contamination will be the cooling pools, which... is obviously kind o

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by gweihir ( 88907 )

            In the US, spent fuel rods are moved into passively air-cooled chambers after 5 years.

            Irrelevant. This is not the same type of fuel rod.

            • Sounds to me like you have absolutely no clue about the relevant nuclear tech.

              The decay chains are close enough.
              The graph I used gave 5 or so different fuel cycles. They all followed the same curve (which makes sense, since the decay chain overlaps anyway), and picked one down the middle, though the low and high sides weren't worth mentioning in deviation.

              You're just throwing spaghetti at the wall. Why is that? Why are you so invested in this story not being bullshit?

      • Funny you said it doesn't matter and then provided a link which says it does matter. The IAEA's assessment is based on immediate risk, which there's not, but there is risk if the power isn't eventually brought back online.

        Chernobyl was fully shut down in 2015. Those fuel rods have been sitting in water for 7 years.

        Indeed, so still another 3 years of being too hot (both literally and radiologically) to safely handle outside of the cooling pool and another 3 years of requiring cooling pumps.

        • Funny you said it doesn't matter and then provided a link which says it does matter. The IAEA's assessment is based on immediate risk, which there's not, but there is risk if the power isn't eventually brought back online.

          Incorrect.
          The only person to use the word immediate was you.
          There is precisely no risk. Nuclear fuel at 50MW/kgU critical power density has a decay heat of around 2W/kgU after 7 years (how old these fuel rods are)
          That's plenty cool enough to be exposed to air.

          Fuel is transitioned to dry casks after 5 years in the US.
          At Fukushima, their central 18+ month pool of spent rods went 14 days with no electricity without becoming dangerously warm.

          Indeed, so still another 3 years of being too hot (both literally and radiologically) to safely handle outside of the cooling pool and another 3 years of requiring cooling pumps.

          Radiologically, yes, but that's pretty fucking irrelevant, now i

          • Keep in mind that Chernobyl design was not a power generating U235 reactor. It was first and foremost a breeder reactor for weapons development. The idea was to also use the reactivity to power the grid. However its design inherently had a positive reactivity coefficient (aka prone to positive feedback loop). That means a simple apple-apple comparison to other power plants not really apples-apples. With a U235 design, water temp acts as a moderator. As water warms up, the density decreases resulting in fewe
            • Well, we're talking about the cooling pools. Cooling pools are specifically designed to prevent ongoing fission. They do this with distance and neutron absorbers in between the rods.
              A neutron moderator won't significantly alter the reaction between the rods.

          • The only person to use the word immediate was you.

            Indeed because I have worked with the IAEA before, and immediacy is the core to whether they class something as a safety incident or not.

            Do yourself a favour, branch out from reading dumb news articles.

            Fuel is transitioned to dry casks after 5 years in the US.

            Nope, it's about 10 years, and even then it is done after an assessment of each fuel rod, not after a fixed time.

            Radiologically, yes, but that's pretty fucking irrelevant, now isn't it?

            Right now, yes, if the water evaporates due to lack of cooling (which is why the pool has cooling pumps), then no, not irrelevant in the slightest. Water is one of the most important aspects of any

            • Indeed because I have worked with the IAEA before, and immediacy is the core to whether they class something as a safety incident or not.

              That's blatantly false.

              Do yourself a favour, branch out from reading dumb news articles.

              I didn't get my information from dumb news articles. I dredged through a few dozen PDFs from nuclear regulatory agencies and power companies worldwide. That's how I was able to get the actual decay heat coming off these things, and the actual reason why these luke-warm rods are kept in pools for this long.

              Nope, it's about 10 years, and even then it is done after an assessment of each fuel rod, not after a fixed time.

              Na, man. [nrc.gov]
              Why you makin shit up?

              Right now, yes, if the water evaporates due to lack of cooling (which is why the pool has cooling pumps), then no, not irrelevant in the slightest. Water is one of the most important aspects of any nuclear facility operating or otherwise.

              Nope.
              If that water evaporates, those spent rods reach a steady state thermal equilibrium with the air- as much hot as they can get at their currentl

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        It doesn't matter. [reuters.com]

        Chernobyl was fully shut down in 2015. Those fuel rods have been sitting in water for 7 years.

        This is propaganda, pure and simple.

        Nope. These fuel rods still generate quite a bit of heat and will continue to do so for a long time. Once the water is evaporated they will heat up enough to catch fire and at that time we get highly toxic stuff as a fine dust that can travel very far. Sure, that will take a while. But unless cooling is restored, it will happen.

        Sounds to me like you have absolutely no clue about the relevant nuclear tech.

        • Nope. These fuel rods still generate quite a bit of heat and will continue to do so for a long time. Once the water is evaporated they will heat up enough to catch fire and at that time we get highly toxic stuff as a fine dust that can travel very far. Sure, that will take a while. But unless cooling is restored, it will happen.

          No, they do not.
          That's why the IAEA said there is no safety risk

          Because they don't generate significant heat at all.

          Sounds to me like you have absolutely no clue about the relevant nuclear tech.

          It sounds to me like you're taking a presumption and mistaking it for knowledge. [allthingsnuclear.org]

    • Spent fuel rods, contained in metal canisters, are in a pool for cooling. Power is needed to circulate fresh water to keep the canisters cool, and to power monitoring equipment. After power is removed, diesel generators kick in. The generators have enough fuel for 48 hours.

      The International Atomic Energy Agency believes that this (Chernobyl losing power) will be a non-issue. Just because fresh/cold water isn't circulating doesn't mean that radiation will be released - apparently the system was designed with

      • More importantly, the spent nuclear fuel has been decaying for 7 years.
        It's currently doing ~2W/kgU.
        Absent water, the fuel will get plenty hot, but it's not going to catch fire or melt.

        To put it into perspective, the US moves its fuel into dry casks generally after 5 years. Just concrete. No water.
        Fukushima, the storage pools that had hydrogen explosions were all fresh pools- ~0.25y, or about 40W/kgU.

        The common storage pool at Fukushima (where spent fuel rods are moved after 18 months in a reactor st

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by gweihir ( 88907 )

          More importantly, the spent nuclear fuel has been decaying for 7 years.

          It's currently doing ~2W/kgU.

          I expect you pulled that number right out of your behind. At this heat generation level you do not even need real airflow. Yet these rods are stored in water which gets cooled. You think these people are just throwing money away on all that effort when it is clearly not needed?

          • I expect you pulled that number right out of your behind.

            I most certainly did not.
            I found several sources describing spent fuel rod decay over time, found where the power/kg intersected with 7 years.

            At this heat generation level you do not even need real airflow.

            Correct. Which is why the US air-cools its spent fuel after 5 years.

            Yet these rods are stored in water which gets cooled.

            The water is mostly to shield from radiation. Dry storage requires very expensive casks. Pools of water are cheaper.

            You think these people are just throwing money away on all that effort when it is clearly not needed?

            Sigh. If that's how you try to evaluate why things are done in the world, you're going to come to a lot of wrong conclusions.

            14 days without power, and the central 18+ month cooling p

  • Intended consequences. (Score:3)

    by Ostracus ( 1354233 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @08:07PM (#62342351) Journal

    As a result, the temperature in the holding pools will increase," the Ukrainian government said. "After that evaporation will occur, that will lead to nuclear discharge. The wind can transfer the radioactive cloud to other regions of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Europe.

    Way to go Putin. F*** Up Russia even more than you already have. You're making Donald Trump look like a good leader.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by necro81 ( 917438 )

      The wind can transfer the radioactive cloud to other regions of Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and Europe.

      Way to go Putin. F*** Up Russia even more than you already have

      It would matter little to him. If reports are true, he's been in some kind of isolation bunker for the last two years because of COVID. And you can hardly expect clouds of radioactivity to get wide reporting within Russia, now that every not-state-operated media outlet has folded.

    • I'm thinking this risk, though real, pales in comparison to that of being vaporized or worse in a global thermonuclear war, which, by many accounts, has already begun.

  • 48 hours, Supply Chains (Score:3)

    by smap77 ( 1022907 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @08:11PM (#62342363)

    You have to have a supply chain to supply those generators with fuel. 48 hours is emergency use.

    Unclear what the sustained utilization duration is for those generators, but unless someone can point me to design standards, I'm pretty sure they aren't qualified for continuous multi-day/week/month usage.

    Spent Fuel rods in holding tanks are just another kind of ticking timebomb, continuously reset by the functioning of pumps and electricity to run them.

    • Spent Fuel rods in holding tanks are just another kind of ticking timebomb, continuously reset by the functioning of pumps and electricity to run them.

      This is true for the first few years or so.
      Not after 7 years.
      I'm trying to figure out what the point of the Chernobyl-disaster propaganda. Chernobyl is not a risk.
      The war propaganda [reuters.com] coming from Ukraine and Russia is fucking obnoxious.

    • Unclear what the sustained utilization duration is for those generators, but unless someone can point me to design standards, I'm pretty sure they aren't qualified for continuous multi-day/week/month usage.

      I can't speak for Soviet built nuclear reactors, but US nuclear plants [nrc.gov] usually use locomotive engines modified for stationary power, like an EMD 645 [wikipedia.org] or GE 7FDL. [wikipedia.org] Those engines run on ships at sea for months at a time. They're very reliable.

      I think they are mostly concerned with the amount of fuel they have on hand. Those big engines are very thirsty, consuming up to 200 gallons of fuel every hour. Keeping them fed will be difficult.

      Source: Professional experience with medium speed diesel engines.

  • Nuclear power plants are a conspiracy! They don't produce power! They consume it!
  • Must have previously worked at WHO at the start of the pandemic. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Looks like we have a hell of a weekend ahead...

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by caseih ( 160668 )

      No, nothing is going to melt down. The news articles mentioned (all the ones I've read) quite clearly that the plant is shut down and is being actively decommissioned. What's happening here is reckless, yes, but no short-term danger. Russian troop maneuvers (and the maneuvers of any countering Ukrainian forces) are stirring up radioactive dust, but that's mostly a health hazard for the soldiers themselves.

  • Fucking propaganda. (Score:3)

    by DamnOregonian ( 963763 ) on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @09:37PM (#62342521)
    Hey, Beau, how about we stop the fucking propaganda? [reuters.com]
    Ukraine doesn't need your help to win the hearts and minds with FUD and misinformation. Zelenskyy has already captured our hearts and minds with his gangsta ass stand in Kyiv.
    • How about you channel your emotion for the thousands of murdered Ukrainians instead of getting all wound up about perceived propaganda. It's really suspect that your priority is this side conspiracy theory within the horrible conflict.
      • the propaganda and BS is a big part of why thousands of Ukrainians are being murdered. All Propaganda should be called out regardless of side, if their was less of it the world would be a better place.

    • Propaganda or not, that quote from the expert in the Reuters article that you linked sounds 100% legit to me:

      "The power cut could lead to water in the storage facility evaporating and exposure of spent fuel rods. They could eventually melt and that could lead to significant radiation releases."

      I'm sure that most of the people around here recognize engineer speak when they see it; there are no unqualified predictions about the future. We all talk in terms of how an outage could occur or a patch should insta

      • Propaganda or not, that quote from the expert in the Reuters article that you linked sounds 100% legit to me:

        And that's what fucking sucks so much about this situation.

        "The power cut could lead to water in the storage facility evaporating and exposure of spent fuel rods. They could eventually melt and that could lead to significant radiation releases."

        Not even close. After 7 years, assuming the fuel had an original (middle of the road) yield of ~50MW/kgU, that fuel is now producing 2W/kgU of decay heat.
        That's 2 watts for every kilogram.

        I'm sure that most of the people around here recognize engineer speak when they see it; there are no unqualified predictions about the future. We all talk in terms of how an outage could occur or a patch should install without issues or how there are no known risks to performing a given operation. And if your bosses have been anything like mine, they hate it!

        Engineer speak is one thing, giving impossible scenarios is another.
        Simple air convection will easily cool 2W per kg of fuel at reasonable surface area (which they are arranged for to maximize water cooling)

        Look at it this way.
        At Fukushima, their long-term sto

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Engineer speak is one thing, giving impossible scenarios is another.
          Simple air convection will easily cool 2W per kg of fuel at reasonable surface area (which they are arranged for to maximize water cooling)

          Dayyymn son, you're an expert in biotechnology and nuclear fission too?

          Because other experts in nuclear fission disagree [science.org]. Something about the fuel from reactor 4 no longer being in nice rod shape with reasonable surface area, but an irregular 170 ton mass of fuel and slag that's fallen into a basement.

          • Because other experts in nuclear fission disagree [science.org]. Something about the fuel from reactor 4 no longer being in nice rod shape with reasonable surface area, but an irregular 170 ton mass of fuel and slag that's fallen into a basement. Something about water leaking into that mass making it more likely to undergo fission, not less, because it's a matter of neutron capture, not merely cooling.

            Reactor 4 is uncooled, dipshit.
            There isn't anything that can be done about it one way or another, and electricity obviously doesn't make a difference.

            That's an ongoing risk.

            Try to stay on topic.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              Reactor 4 is uncooled, dipshit.

              So you didn't read the citation all the way through. Seems to be the way that you roll.

              There isn't anything that can be done about it one way or another, and electricity obviously doesn't make a difference.

              Dewatering pumps and monitoring equipment don't run on electricity. Got it.

              Try to stay on topic.

              Nobody's appointed you the arbiter of the scope of the topic.

    • What propaganda? Literally everything in the linked article is also in this summary including the risks as well as the fact that the IAEA said there's no immediate security concern. How about you stick your head back in your arse and leave the rest of us alone.

      • The claim of risk is propaganda. The article disseminates propaganda.
        To clarify, the IAEA didn't say there's no immediate security concern. They said there's no security concern.
        Small, but important difference.

        I am, however, sorry that I interrupted your circle jerk of Bush-era FUD.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

      How about we uphold the spirit of the site by correcting the reasons why invading armies mucking around in an exclusion zone is bad [theconversation.com] instead of obscuring the issue so that you can masturbate your ego with your "I Googled it" knowledge of SNF cooling.

      How about we do that?

      • Calling out blatant misinformation is now obscuring an issue?

        What a desperate attempt at formulating a response. Kudos, though.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

          Calling out blatant misinformation is now obscuring an issue?

          Yes, it is, when you focus only on intact fuel rod cooling 17 times in less than a day and make blanket statements like "Chernobyl is not a risk."

          What a desperate attempt at formulating a response. Kudos, though.

          At least I respond. You merely slink away when you're proven wrong.

          • Yes, it is, when you focus only on intact fuel rod cooling 17 times in less than a day and make blanket statements like "Chernobyl is not a risk."

            No, it's not, because that's the claim- and that misinformation has real-world consequences.

            Chernobyl is at no realistic risk of any kind of passive accident happening with or without power.
            Could someone blow open reactor 4? Sure. But it's being portrayed as if what's going on there is a risk of a recurrence of the disaster (laughably stupid) or a risk of radiation release (IAEA disagrees, as does math)

            This misinformation is important, because it's an attempt by the Ukrainians to foist upon us some Bus

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

              Chernobyl is at no realistic risk of any kind of passive accident happening with or without power.

              It is [theconversation.com], but we've already established that you won't read.

              Could someone blow open reactor 4? Sure. But it's being portrayed as if what's going on there is a risk of a recurrence of the disaster (laughably stupid) or a risk of radiation release (IAEA disagrees, as does math).

              You've contradicted yourself inside of two sentences. Congratulations. Because "blowing open reactor 4" would be "a risk of radiation rele

              • It is [theconversation.com], but we've already established that you won't read.

                I said passive. That article only mentions an attack on the structure directly compromising its integrity.
                I think you haven't had your coffee yet, this morning.

                You've contradicted yourself inside of two sentences. Congratulations. Because "blowing open reactor 4" would be "a risk of radiation release." As would fires in and around the facility. As would several other things associated with rolling military forces into and through the heart of the exclusion zone.

                Maybe I should have bolded the word passive, because you seem to be missing words while you read.
                As for fires, get the fuck out of here. You're reaching so hard right now, it's looking pretty fucking sad. We're talking about the reactor. We're not talking about dust kicked up by troops and materiel, we're not talking about anything around the react

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                  I said passive. That article only mentions an attack on the structure directly compromising its integrity.

                  Bullshit.

                  Perhaps the greater environmental threat to the region stems from the potential release to the atmosphere of radionuclides stored in soil and plants should a forest fire ignite.
                  * * *
                  Currently the zone is home to massive amounts of dead trees and debris that could act as fuel for a fire. Even in the absence of combat, military activity â" like thousands of troops transiting, eating, smoking

              • I'm on the side of the Ukraine, but against propaganda, and don't take sides when Slashdotters have at it virtually. That said, I read the whole story of your theconversation link, but there is nothing about loss of power leading to some kind of disaster. What am I missing?

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

                  I'm on the side of the Ukraine, but against propaganda, and don't take sides when Slashdotters have at it virtually. That said, I read the whole story of your theconversation link, but there is nothing about loss of power leading to some kind of disaster. What am I missing?

                  Well, let's look at an interview from 3 years ago [timesofisrael.com] that wasn't motivated by propaganda:

                  The temptation to look at Chernobyl as a disaster solely in the past tense is false and exceedingly dangerous, Kalantyrsky makes clear. His temporary sa

  • From what we have seen so far, it is perfectly plausible that Putin wants to evoke a nuclear cloud event of some kind. Even if it first drifts over Russia.

    He will then publicly claim that this "disaster" shows what a threat the Ukrainians are, how they are dangerous to the international community, and it fully justifies Russia taking over the country for the good of everyone.

    After all, it will be the Ukrainian workers who will be in control of the plant when that happens, won't it? The Russian peacek

  • Seriously? they are maintaining a critical facility completely dependent on remote power lines with no backup generators?

    • They have 48 hours of backup diesel generators according to the article. That is assuming that the Russian military doesn't steal the fuel for their tanks. New deliveries of fuel might be an issue as well.

  • I'd like to hear from our pro-nuclear power as a low co2 solution to global heating advocates on this. It's an illustration of how vulnerable nuclear facilities are in armed conflict. Global heating causes resource depletion & so makes armed conflicts over diminishing resources more likely. What say ye, Slashdotters?

    • If you have armed conflict on a scale large enough to involve sabotage and/or accidental damage to nuclear plants, then you already have much bigger problems than the 1 in 1000 chance of getting cancer 30 years from now.

      That level of conflict also puts the civilian population at risk of death from starvation, cold, etc., from similar attacks on NON-nuclear power plants.

      I'm still pro-modern-fission, in large part because of how dangerous older generation fission plants are by comparison, but also because, EV

      • ...or simply cutting off power to an active fuel pool. Remember what nearly happened at Chernobyl? If the fuel had reached the water table, the explosion would've been massive & scattered highly radioactive material over a huge area of the world. We only narrowly escaped a major global catastrophe, as if Chernobyl itself isn't bad enough. It's still there, smouldering away. The Japanese are also still dealing with Fukushima. These nuclear disasters last longer than any war.

  • In Europe we still can't eat hogmeat from local forests because it's too radioactive from eating cesium-mushrooms with over 2000 Becquerel from the last incident.

    And that for the last 35 years.

    And soon the next wave is coming and Ukraine has 15 nuclear reactors besides that one.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Vihai ( 668734 )

      A human body has 5400 Bq of radioactivity. This is to put number in perspective.

    • In Europe we still can't eat hogmeat from local forests

      Sure you can, you just have to get them tested first. Wild game is hunted, tested, sold and eaten all the time even in countries close to the Ukraine to say nothing of those further away. Every so often you get some game that is too radioactive to eat and then depending which country you're in the government may buy it off you for compensation.

  • Some people joked that it was hilariously unnecessary to list it as "Season 1".

    Joke's on us, I guess.

  • I'm sorry, but I find it cognitively amusing to read a headline that says a power generator has lost power. I know why it works that way, but I still find it funny.

  • So if we turn a blind eye to Russian shelling hospitals and another nuclear accident... where is the line being drawn? Dropping actual nukes on people?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Our vision is to speed up time, eventually eliminating it." -- Alex Schure

Close