Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Putting A Lid On Chernobyl 293

slicer622 writes "Chernobyl is finally getting a containment structure (Washington Post). Billed as the largest moveable structure ever built, its designed to help take apart the wreckage and keep most of the radioactive material from spreading. It will be 800 feet across, and 300 feet high and will cost $800 mil."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Putting A Lid On Chernobyl

Comments Filter:
  • by dirkdidit ( 550955 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:20PM (#4978120) Homepage
    what happens if the existing "sarcophagus" fails after the bigger one is built over top of it? Couldn't this still be a disasterous problem? After all, I've heard before that if it were to cave in, it'd be like having the accident all over again.
  • by core plexus ( 599119 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:25PM (#4978144) Homepage
    They want to reopen Chernobyl. This article [bbc.co.uk] states "Officials from the European Bank for Reconstruction have criticised plans by the Ukrainian authorities to reopen a reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. They say they are concerned about the safety of reactor number three, which sits next to the remains of the world's worst nuclear disaster, because of a failure to put in place extra safety measures that had been agreed. " Here is a link about the facilities. [chernobyl.com]
  • by MickLinux ( 579158 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:32PM (#4978177) Journal
    Chernobyl is named for a small, bitter herb, "chernoblis", that grows in the region. Of course, that's the Ukranian word. In English, the herb is called "wormwood."

    No joke.

    Of course, to quote my father when he heard that, "That's nonsense. Chernobyl wasn't a star. A star is a ...

    !!!
  • Twighlight Zone (Score:3, Interesting)

    by checkitout ( 546879 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:35PM (#4978188)
    This reminds me of a "new" Twighlight Zone episode circa 1987, where a guy has a fallout shelter in his basement.

    His wife and kid go to the grandmothers for the weekend. Meanwhile, he's chilling with his friend drinking a beer, and a nuclear bomb touches down. They both go into the fallout shelter. They guy thinks he's lost his wife and kid forever.

    Months go by in the fallout shelter, and external radiation levels aren't going down. They can't tell if the detector is broken, or what. Eventually some "scavengers" come pounding on the door, and the father has to stop his friend from making any noise.

    More months go by, there's an argument and the friend finally says fuck it and leaves. Now the father is by himself, and even more months go by... finally he decides it's hopeless, puts on his sunglasses and heads out of the fallout shelter.

    Next scene, the wife and son are looking at the father's grave. Talking about him, etc. Then the camera pans up, and there's the city about 10 miles away with a huge glass dome over it.

    I found this summary of the episode as well:

    Shelter Skelter
    Teleplay by : Ron Cobb & Robin Love
    Based on a story by : Ron Cobb
    Directed by : Martha Coolidge
    Starring : Joe Mantegna; Joan Allen
    Summary : A survivalist believes he has lived through a nuclear war in his shelter. In reality, it was an accident which destroyed his town and contributed to bringing peace to Earth, and he has been entombed for ever.
  • by core plexus ( 599119 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @05:36PM (#4978191) Homepage
    Here are some newer ones, sorry: SFChron [sfgate.com] NYTimes [nytimes.com] Try here [google.com] for more.
  • > They want to reopen Chernobyl.

    It's not as scary as it sounds. Two reasons:

    1. The Ukranian government has a history of politically milking Chernobyl for all it's worth. Need some foreign loans? No problem, just pull out the Chernobyl reactivation plans (again) and watch Europe go nuts and provide aid (again). Rinse, repeat. Take these plans with a grain of salt.
    2. Even if Chernobyl were reactivated, it isn't that big of a deal. Chernobyl isn't as ludicrously safe as western reactors, but it isn't bad. The only reason it blew up is that the _mechanical_ engineers were running a test to see what would happen if they turned off all the safety systems, removed all the control rods, and shut off the power (duh). The _nuclear_ engineers were horrified at the proposed test, but under the Soviet system they didn't get veto power.
  • Mutants? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by haggar ( 72771 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @06:17PM (#4978360) Homepage Journal
    I have been thinking about this for a very long time: since we have this exclusion area around the reactor since 1986, animals were exposed to the radioactivity and no doubt, many died. But did any survive? Did the radioactivity produce some major genetical changes (some believe that the increase of cranial capacity in the Homo Sapiens was due to mutations from increased gamma rays)?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 29, 2002 @06:51PM (#4978483)
    They say they are concerned about the safety of reactor number three, which sits next to the remains of the world's worst nuclear disaster, because of a failure to put in place extra safety measures that had been agreed. " Here is a link about the facilities. [chernobyl.com]

    Most reactors are extremely safe. TMI only realeased small amounts of radiation, and it didn't hurt anybody. Pressurized Water Reactors, like those used in the U.S. and most areas around the world, are extremely safe. They can't have a large scale chernobyl type meltdown. A much better safety record than many other forms of power generation, (Hey, people get killed in coal or oil plant accidents all the time) and they don't produce pollution. New types of reactors, such as Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, which uses nonflammable helium (which cannot become radioactive when exposed to a reactor core, unlike water) are very safe and completely meltdown proof.

    The reactor used in Chernobyl and a few other Russian plants is different. It's an RBMK reactor. These were made because the are excellent and weapons production and electrical power production. But they are extremely prone to meltdowns. All of them should be shut down.
  • Widespread Payment (Score:2, Interesting)

    by handy_vandal ( 606174 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @07:13PM (#4978570) Homepage Journal
    "In 1997, the Group of 7, plus Russia, the European Union and Ukraine, set up the Chernobyl Shelter Fund with the European reconstruction bank in charge. The bank established a shelter implementation plan, estimated the project cost at $768 million, and funded it with donations from 28 nations, ranging from $170 million from the United States to Iceland's $10,000."

    Interesting: far too expensive for the Ukraine, but the consequences are global, therefore countries around the world share the expense. This gives me a modicum of hope that people will put aside their national differences for the sake of planetary survival.
  • by maluke ( 451507 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @07:56PM (#4978732) Homepage
    come on, i live mere away 70km from the 'object' and i'm fine, actually i'm doing better than most people are. it has nothing to do with the incident - it was not SUCH a disaster after all. talking about some 'danger' from Chernobil is not even funny, it's like speculating about tv radiation effects on health while puffing a cigar.

    incident was local, incident didn't spawn no monster populations (some mutants - yes, but those don't replicate, you know), that's it.

    if anything is worth discussing in the story it's a technical side, so please reduce your speculations about 'Chernobyl danger' to a minimum - those make my bald head itch.
  • Re:Hundred Years? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by UniverseIsADoughnut ( 170909 ) on Sunday December 29, 2002 @09:17PM (#4979028)
    Agree'd it was a good artical but not saying that it was never ment to be air tight was missleading.

    The other flaw of the article was it writes as if the core exploded which is incorrect. The explosion was a steam explosion when all the coolent boiled. This is what blew it apart. By some reports the rods from the core went for miles all around. It wasn't a nuclear blast. Thats why it was so bad from a radiation point. There was never a proper reaction to deal with the radiation. Now granted the explosion was caused by people doing something they shouldn't have causing the melt down. They had turned off all safty messures and were running an un-authorized experiment. It got away on them and there was no stopping it. This meltdown wasn't an accident. It was an orginized effort at being stupid. This is why chernobyl is a poor reason to call Nuclear power unsafe. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't a function of the reactor. Granted if they had a good containment dome everything probably would have been ok. Also if they hadn't done something they should have never been doing.

    3 mile island had and accident, though once again it was do to something stupid, a pump turned off and no one knew. A good part of the core melted. But since there was a proper dome no radiation was released. And because of what was learned there plants are even safer now.

    Nuke power is very safe, and clean. I much prefer one of them then a coal plant around. Also considering how shady reactors in countries like russia are it's very impressive there has only been one bad incident and it wasn't do to a design flaw.
  • Re:Hundred Years? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Obasan ( 28761 ) on Monday December 30, 2002 @11:55AM (#4981608)
    A little extra-curricular work if you are interested in the subject.

    How many people die every year as a result of coal mining, and respiratory related illnesses due to our use of coal as a source of energy?

    How many people die every year in oil extraction & refining? How many from petroleum based airborn pollutants released when petroleum products are burned in generating stations? (In fact, to make it easier, just look at Nigeria. One country alone is more than sufficient to make my point.)

    Now I'll do this bit for you. :) Not a single worker or member of the public has been killed by a commercial nuclear power plant in any country using nuclear power with the exception of Chernobyl and more recently Japan (2 deaths). There are currently 103 nuclear plants in the US providing some 20% of US power. France has 56 nuclear plants generating some 76% of their electricity. Yet there have been no fatal accidents in these countries. Compare this with the hundreds+ dead every year in oil and gas explosions in developing countries, dozens of miners killed every year even in North America where safety standards are very high... not even looking at the closer to hundreds or thousands of coal miners that die in poorer countries like the Ukraine.

    If this is not enough to persuade you, consider this. Oil funds terrorism. It is that simple. It was oil money that allowed Sep. 11 to take place. If you are going to follow the full cycle "toll" of using fossil fuels, you had better tally in another 3000 dead for the year 2001, and who knows how many in the future. Bush's claims that drugs fund terrorism is a red herring - the Taliban had banned and actively executed those who cultivated opium poppies. It was the Northern Alliance that was exporting heroin as a means of funding their civil war. (Hint: they are our ALLIES).

    "Nuclear" has become a bogeyman, when you look at the facts, it is the safest alternative.

E = MC ** 2 +- 3db

Working...