Toxic Fart Syndrome posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yU8qYHm2AJI

CainFortea posted:

That's pretty dope. And what song is that supposed to be opening for cause it sounds super familiar.

quote:

The popularity of the HBO miniseries Chernobyl has bolstered a niche market within an online cottage industry -- the sale of Soviet-era memorabilia linked to the infamous 1986 nuclear power-plant disaster.

To be sure, vendors say online demand for vintage communist-era relics has been booming during the past decade, driven mostly by buyers in the United States.

It’s been a lucrative business for sellers in former Soviet republics who work out of their homes and have easy access to an industrial supply of Soviet-era artifacts.

Even with export duties, they say, they’ve been able to turn profits of up to 500 percent on legitimate Soviet articles sold via online marketplaces like eBay and Etsy.

Now, since the broadcast in May and June of the five-part Chernobyl miniseries, cunning online vendors have been racking up sales by adding the words "Chernobyl" or "Chernobyl-type" to items in their website listings.

The Soviet "liquidator" medals given to workers who helped clean up the Chernobyl site and the surrounding area after the April 1986 nuclear accident are the most common item being sold online.

Data Graham posted:

Man they’re selling our 80s Levi’s back to us

Gonz posted:

https://www.redbubble.com/people/el...rt&rel=carousel

Gonz posted:

https://www.redbubble.com/people/el...rt&rel=carousel

Opferwurst posted:

Is that an Apache helicopter attacking the Chernobyl power plant?

e: I guess it is a scene from the new Russian Chernobyl series?

Data Graham posted:

Fuckin Dyatlov cosplayers at conventions

Gonz posted:

Gonz posted:

Jack B Nimble posted:

I like the red face, nice touch.

Warmachine posted:

At the risk of sounding , Chernobyl cannot happen again.

NoDamage posted:

Fair enough, but that does raise the question: what the hell happened at Fukushima and how could such an accident have happened in 2011?

SocketWrench posted:

This popped up on youtube. Most of it is stuff we've all seen before. But the last bit....holy christ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY02bycotzE&t=630s

Gonz posted:

https://twitter.com/mattb0401/status/1146063762513776641

quote:

The 14 sailors who died during a fire last week on a nuclear-powered Russian military submarine prevented a “planetary catastrophe,” a top naval officer said at their funeral, according to media reports.

Captain Sergei Pavlov, an aide to the commander of Russia’s navy, praised the heroism of the men, who died as they battled to stop the fire from spreading in the submersible.

“With their lives, they saved the lives of their colleagues, saved the vessel and prevented a planetary catastrophe,” he said at the funeral Sunday attended by the navy chief according to the Fontanka news service.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said he wasn’t aware of the official’s comments but said there was no indication the incident posed a broader threat. “As for the reactor, there are no problems with that,” he said on a conference call.

Russia broke three days of secrecy July 4 and confirmed that the stricken underwater research vessel was nuclear-powered. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told President Vladimir Putin in a meeting shown on state TV that the nuclear reactor on board the vessel had been completely sealed off.

‘Absolutely Classified’

Russian authorities had previously refused to say whether the country’s worst naval incident in more than a decade involved a nuclear-powered vessel. They have also refused to say what type of craft was involved, with the Kremlin calling the information “absolutely classified.” Neighboring Norway contacted Russia for more details though it said it hadn’t detected any increased radiation levels.

The vessel is linked to a secret nuclear-submarine project known as Losharik, RBC news website reported. Russia said the sailors died from smoke inhalation after the fire started while the deep-water submersible was exploring the sea bed in its territorial waters. The craft was later taken to the Russian Northern Fleet’s Severomorsk base on the Barents Sea coast.

The fire was Russia’s most serious naval incident since 20 people died on a Nerpa nuclear submarine in 2008. The Losharik submarine can operate at a depth of 6,000 meters (20,000 feet), according to RBC. The craft reportedly was used to target undersea communications and other cables.

Russia’s worst post-Soviet naval disaster occurred early in Putin’s presidency, in August 2000, when 118 crew died on the Kursk nuclear submarine that sank in the Barents Sea after an explosion. The authorities were also accused of a cover-up.

skooma512 posted:

I was watching ep 1 and I love the first shot of Dyatlov. Most people would not who this guy is, but that shot make him look menacing and kind of unhinged. Establishes in a couple seconds exactly what to expect from this rear end in a top hat.

hobbesmaster posted:

Fukushima should not be a 7 on the IAEA event scale, or alternatively if it is a 7 then Chernobyl needs to be an 8.

See this chart: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Fukushima7.png/1280px-Fukushima7.png

The evacuation caused more deaths than the accident.

hobbesmaster posted:

Fukushima should not be a 7 on the IAEA event scale, or alternatively if it is a 7 then Chernobyl needs to be an 8.

See this chart: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/Fukushima7.png/1280px-Fukushima7.png

The evacuation caused more deaths than the accident.

NoDamage posted:

Even if it wasn't as bad as Chernobyl, it makes it clear that nuclear accidents can still happen in this day and age. Considering the fact that cleaning up the mess is going to cost $200 billion and take 40 years I think it's entirely reasonable to question whether the cost/benefit is actually worthwhile.

Dalael posted:

I've brought up this point multiple times and linked a bunch of source before. Even without a disaster, the cost benefit is not worthwhile. It really isn't. It's only worthwhile for places where there is literally no other option and even then...

CainFortea posted:

It is worth it for values of "cost" beyond money.

Dalael posted:

That I can't answer since everyone puts different values on things. I'm not really pro nuclear energy but if you told me the only way for me to keep the comfort of the modern world was to live 20 meters away from a nuclear power plant which may or may not meltdown in the next 10 years, i'd live with the risk. That's how much I value internet and air conditioning.

Nail Rat posted:

That's exactly it. The cost to live in an environment that will kill most of us if we continue to use fossil fuels is...how do you even put that in dollar figures?

Nail Rat posted:

That's exactly it. The cost to live in an environment that will kill most of us if we continue to use fossil fuels is...how do you even put that in dollar figures?

Warmachine posted:

Like an economist: You value it in the foregone economic activity that you could have had if we didn't have Category 7 hurricanes ripping open the coastline that is now 30 miles further inland, if 50% of the arable land in the world hadn't been desertified, if there wasn't superfires burning across the other 50%.... etc etc etc.

In short, you price it by what you stand to lose, to which the answer is "an incomprehensible amount."