|
I don't know if I trust this picture. That's clearly a sasquatch holding that geiger
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 16:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
SocketWrench posted:I don't know if I trust this picture. That's clearly a sasquatch holding that geiger Clearly that's a Hibagon since it's in Japan you baka gaijin. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
I just caught this show and it was drat well done. I never learned much about Chernobyl, and now it really comes across as some of the craziest goddamn poo poo that's happened on the planet. That a full meltdown would render a huge chunk of Eastern Europe uninhabitable and kill 60 million+ people is just completely bonkers. It also makes me super terrified of nuclear power when my previously mindset was basically "We should be building tons of these things since on balance it's better for the environment, at least for now with the big carbon issues we're getting from other energy sources." Now between seeing that weather can mess up a reactor as we saw in Japen and what went down with Chernobyl I'm pretty cool with just polluting the hell out of the planet and knowing it might get bad but not outright horrible in my lifeteam. Clean energy preferred, of course, and I think eventually everyone will get on board that train for the most part. Pretty mindblowing too that they knew enough to make it seemingly almost human error proof if the panic button had actually worked as intended, but just cheaped out on it, and what was probably $1 million in savings ended up resulting in so much death and illness, the loss of a huge swath of land, $2 billion just in the new dome, and probably the biggest single P.R. blemish of the soviet union, and goddamn is that saying something. I'm definitely hoping nuclear reactor design, upkeep, and personnel training gets a blank check now. It also admittedly makes me a bit paranoid since there's a Nuclear power plant right in my county probably a 15-20 minute drive away from where I live, and one reactor had a minor meltdown and was decommissioned way back in 1972, with the second currently operating reactor built in 1988 (the Enrico Fermi station in Monroe, MI, for those curious). I'm sure nothing bad will come from building that reactor on the shores of one of the largest fresh water sources on the planet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 02:50
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:I just caught this show and it was drat well done. I never learned much about Chernobyl, and now it really comes across as some of the craziest goddamn poo poo that's happened on the planet. That a full meltdown would render a huge chunk of Eastern Europe uninhabitable and kill 60 million+ people is just completely bonkers. It also makes me super terrified of nuclear power when my previously mindset was basically "We should be building tons of these things since on balance it's better for the environment, at least for now with the big carbon issues we're getting from other energy sources." Now between seeing that weather can mess up a reactor as we saw in Japen and what went down with Chernobyl I'm pretty cool with just polluting the hell out of the planet and knowing it might get bad but not outright horrible in my lifeteam. Clean energy preferred, of course, and I think eventually everyone will get on board that train for the most part.  That first paragraph is exactly the thing I am afraid people will take from this series. I lived about 10 or so miles from Fermi (just off Exit 18 in I-75 in the trailer park near the TWB factory) for the first 18 years of my life. I became fascinated by nuclear power at a very young age because I could almost see the cooling towers from my bedroom window. I toured the plant in elementary school. I knew the evacuation plan like the back of my hand, and what KI was for and why. I read obsessively about Chernobyl in middle school. The 1966 incident happened well before my time, but the thing about purpose built power plants like that is that their containment vessel is built to keep the effects of a meltdown trapped inside. The incident at Fermi is an example where the containment vessel did its job. The series establishes this, but Chernobyl did NOT have a containment vessel, which is a large part of why the accident was so devastating. Fermi for example has a vessel. I really don't want to rehash every reason why Chernobyl can't happen again, but most of them come down to not building reactors like that. Chernobyl's experience was tied to the RBMK reactor design, and the specific sequence of events that lead up to the explosion. Fermi, for example, cannot physically have a disaster like Chernobyl because it uses a completely different reactor design. So even without a containment vessel, Fermi can't explode like Chernobyl did. For the second paragraph, the panic button worked, but the control rods should never have been withdrawn all the way from the reactor like they were. The reason there was a power spike was the sudden presence of the graphite tips accelerating the reaction as they displaced the water and steam. Had the rods been partially inserted when the SCRAM was initiated, there would not have been a power spike and the shutdown would have occurred as designed. Instead, the rods had been switched to manual control and all but 18 of the rods manually withdrawn from the reactor. Graphite tip goes in, power starts to spike, core cracks, rods jam, uncontrolled fission, boom. Can't happen in a design where the rods are NOT tipped by the same mediator substance surrounding the fuel rod assembly. And finally, sticking it on the coast of Lake Erie is a hell of a lot better than Fukushima. To this day I scratch my head as to why you'd build the plant in a zone susceptible to tidal waves or earthquakes. Nuclear power plants are built to take some extreme beatings without becoming a danger to the surrounding area. Southeast Michigan is more or less tectonically stable, with very little extreme weather to speak of (low power, infrequent tornadoes like we experience are pretty much no threat to a nuclear reactor). At the risk of sounding  , Chernobyl cannot happen again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 03:49
|
|
|
High pressure reactors are old tech. Nuclear will be the savoir of climate change and energy concerns, just use the safe ones. Not the ones from the 1940s. Start with LFTR in 5
KoRMaK fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Jun 23, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
I live 2 hours from this. It’s reactors are cooled with pee pee and doo doo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 05:18
|
|
|
Yea, enhance your calm. The only kind of mass incidents that can happen now are from old sites that are just eroding away. New plants may have accidents, even ones that locally might cause problems, but nothing on that kind of scale.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 05:28
|
|
|
We can reassure other goons about this, but HBO has a lot of subscribers who do not regularly peruse TVIV 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 05:35
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:We can reassure other goons about this, but HBO has a lot of subscribers who do not regularly peruse TVIV One of my first and biggest concerns after I watched ep 1. Hate what regressive poo poo this could do. The probably should have thrown a title card in the finale about it if they cared.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:26
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:Yea, enhance your calm. The only kind of mass incidents that can happen now are from old sites that are just eroding away. New plants may have accidents, even ones that locally might cause problems, but nothing on that kind of scale. Not great, but not terrible
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:27
|
|
|
I live in Cleveland and we JUST had an earthquake 30 miles east, which is probably 20 miles away from the Perry nuclear power station. It was a tinye lil bump tho I'm sincerely sure things is fine. Just thought it was interesting about your point with regard to lake Erie and tectonic stability! What's KI? Also, I didn't know about containment vessels and while watching Chernobyl I was like "how can they directly see the loving control rods?" Every depiction I know of a reactor had them in some sort of thing that you could only see with cans or something, so I'm assuming I must have been seeing containment vessle type depictions? The SCRAM button is making me want to rewatch the China syndrome. A movie that came out before I was born and that I only watched a year or two ago. Compelling tho
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:36
|
|
|
Holy poo poo it came out like 7 years before
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:40
|
|
|
The containment vessel is basically a hardened building wrapped around the building housing the reactor. So, if they'd done a containment vessel it would have looked basically the same inside. However there would have been an additional layer of protection. It's basically so that if there is a catastrophe like chernobyl, it keeps the fallout local, so even if it collapses it collapses ON the reactor rubble.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:45
|
|
|
How resilient to terrorist attacks or wartime bombings are modern reactors? It’s all well and good to build them away from quake/tsunami areas but what happens if someone blows one to hell?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 06:54
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scramquote:The etymology of the term is a matter of debate.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 07:05
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:How resilient to terrorist attacks or wartime bombings are modern reactors? It’s all well and good to build them away from quake/tsunami areas but what happens if someone blows one to hell? You'd be unable to take one down even from the inside unless you had concrete drills and lots of time. It's steel reinforced concrete that's multiple feet thick all the way round. You can't take them down from the outside without a bunker buster missile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 08:13
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:High pressure reactors are old tech. Nuclear will be the savoir of climate change and energy concerns, just use the safe ones. Not the ones from the 1940s. Start with LFTR in 5 LFTR probably isn't going to happen because the salts are hideously corrosive to basically everything in the reactor. it sounds good on paper but that alone makes it a non-starter, much less the other issues the only solution is to use less energy, period. consume less even if it means having to make sacrifices to your standard of living now or else we'll all be doing it when the environment falls apart on us
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 08:23
|
|
|
Pook Good Mook posted:You'd be unable to take one down even from the inside unless you had concrete drills and lots of time. It's steel reinforced concrete that's multiple feet thick all the way round. You can't take them down from the outside without a bunker buster missile. There's no doubt a flaw in the system somewhere that we won't know about until it happens. Luckily terrorists aren't in the habit of attacking nuclear power plants (yet).
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 10:04
|
|
|
Wafflecopper posted:How resilient to terrorist attacks or wartime bombings are modern reactors? It’s all well and good to build them away from quake/tsunami areas but what happens if someone blows one to hell? The containment units would shrug off a 747, so no worries about a 9/11 styke attack. Blowing it up isn't feasible unless you have acvess to the same bombs the air force does.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 10:07
|
|
|
Shipon posted:the only solution is to use less energy, period. consume less even if it means having to make sacrifices to your standard of living now or else we'll all be doing it when the environment falls apart on us This is a pipe dream because the world population will be 9 billion in the not too distant future and all those people are going to need energy. The world cannot support that amount of people without a lot of energy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 10:49
|
|
|
every reduction in energy consumption i've been forced into has been used to mine bitcoin
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 11:32
|
|
|
TigerXtrm posted:Luckily terrorists aren't in the habit of attacking nuclear power plants (yet). Funny story about that: quote:During the planning stage of the [Sept. 11th] attacks, Mohamed Atta, the hijacker and pilot of Flight 11, thought the White House might be too tough a target and sought an assessment from Hani Hanjour (who hijacked and piloted Flight 77).[122] Atta said al-Qaeda initially planned to target nuclear installations rather than the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, but decided against it, fearing things could "get out of control".[123]
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 13:17
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Funny story about that: This tells me that terrorists apparently do have brain cells, which is worrying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 15:36
|
|
|
TigerXtrm posted:This tells me that terrorists apparently do have brain cells, which is worrying. That surprises you? The terrorists won completely
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 18:20
|
|
|
NowonSA posted:I just caught this show and it was drat well done. I never learned much about Chernobyl, and now it really comes across as some of the craziest goddamn poo poo that's happened on the planet. That a full meltdown would render a huge chunk of Eastern Europe uninhabitable and kill 60 million+ people is just completely bonkers. It also makes me super terrified of nuclear power when my previously mindset was basically "We should be building tons of these things since on balance it's better for the environment, at least for now with the big carbon issues we're getting from other energy sources." Now between seeing that weather can mess up a reactor as we saw in Japen and what went down with Chernobyl I'm pretty cool with just polluting the hell out of the planet and knowing it might get bad but not outright horrible in my lifeteam. Clean energy preferred, of course, and I think eventually everyone will get on board that train for the most part. You are literally safer living next to that power plant than any coal fired plant in the world. Coal plants dump ten times or more the radiation and are not under regulation to control this. You're actually in more danger from radiation by just existing and being exposed to normal background radiation. Chernobyl happened because the Soviets were cheap and paranoid. They wanted cheap reactors with the option of being able to produce weapons grade poo poo. RBMKs at the time Chernobyl was being built were outdated even in the Soviet Union, but they were cheap and easy to build.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 20:08
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Funny story about that: Well, yeah. They were kinda right. If they'd managed to 9/11 a few nuke plants that radiation could reach around the globe to gently caress them too
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Well, yeah. They were kinda right. If they'd managed to 9/11 a few nuke plants that radiation could reach around the globe to gently caress them too SimonCat posted:The containment units would shrug off a 747, so no worries about a 9/11 styke attack. Blowing it up isn't feasible unless you have acvess to the same bombs the air force does. One of you is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 20:46
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:Well, yeah. They were kinda right. If they'd managed to 9/11 a few nuke plants that radiation could reach around the globe to gently caress them too What baffles me is the thought process where hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers in the hopes of collapsing them is not getting 'out of control'.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 21:39
|
|
|
TigerXtrm posted:What baffles me is the thought process where hijacking planes and flying them into skyscrapers in the hopes of collapsing them is not getting 'out of control'. Because managing a chernobyl type event again might actually spread enough radiation that it could get back to the holy land. It's a global nuclear event. Dropping the towers was local.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:37
|
|
|
Am I right I’m thinking there’s audio of bin Laden saying he didn’t think the towers would collapse or has the jet fuel won’t melt steel beams crew poisoned my mind?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:39
|
|
|
CainFortea posted:Because managing a chernobyl type event again might actually spread enough radiation that it could get back to the holy land. It's a global nuclear event. Dropping the towers was local. If terrorists successfully and intentionally destroyed a nuclear plant and spread radioactive material across a wide area, hawks would term it a use of WMDs by terrorists. US doctrine if attacked by WMDs has been to respond with nuclear weapons. That always assumed the WMD attack came as part of an existing war, so the US response to WMD attack by terrorists would be hard to predict. Bad as the US response to 9/11 was, an extra dimension of nuclear uncertainty would be "out of control" by any standard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:48
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:Am I right I’m thinking there’s audio of bin Laden saying he didn’t think the towers would collapse or has the jet fuel won’t melt steel beams crew poisoned my mind? There was a video tape where he says that, yes. Or rather, he says that he thought the floors above those the planes struck would collapse, but not the entire towers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:49
|
|
|
Zorak of Michigan posted:If terrorists successfully and intentionally destroyed a nuclear plant and spread radioactive material across a wide area, hawks would term it a use of WMDs by terrorists. US doctrine if attacked by WMDs has been to respond with nuclear weapons. That always assumed the WMD attack came as part of an existing war, so the US response to WMD attack by terrorists would be hard to predict. Bad as the US response to 9/11 was, an extra dimension of nuclear uncertainty would be "out of control" by any standard. Where would we even nuke in that case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:51
|
|
|
jisforjosh posted:Where would we even nuke in that case? I mean, we didn’t even invade the right country so your guess is as good as mine.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 22:55
|
|
|
kaesarsosei posted:You mean Bryukhanov, comrade. Take him to the nearest police station for questioning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Trevor Hale posted:I mean, we didn’t even invade the right country so your guess is as good as mine. huh
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 23:30
|
|
|
The US invaded Afghanistan, the country that harbored Al Qaeda. In fact, it still has a military presence there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 23:33
|
|
|
El_Elegante posted:The US invaded Afghanistan, the country that harbored Al Qaeda. In fact, it still has a military presence there. Eventually, like, third on the list.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 23:38
|
|
|
KoRMaK posted:Eventually, like, third on the list. The War in Afghanistan started within a month of the 9/11 attack. U.S. forces are still in the country. The Iraq War started over a year later. I'll admit the one pointlessly distracted from the other, but the timeline is pretty clear. And while bin Laden was found in Pakistan, he was in Afghanistan during the attack.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:01 |
|
|
etalian posted:Take him to the nearest police station for questioning. *vomits explosively*
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2019 23:53
|
|