Comments on: Meltdown at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

By: Daniel

Daniel — Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:42:05 +0000

How on earth could any religious minded person expect to be saved for what we have done on this planet?

By: Richard Reed

Richard Reed — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 12:28:54 +0000

In all the discussion of the technical aspects of what happened at Chernobyl No. 4, I think one critical bit of information is missing here.The Chernobyl reactor was [u]graphite-moderated[/u], a design that I’m certain the NRC would never permit for power generation in the U.S., due to the inherent hazards of that design. It is difficult to persuade graphite, a crystalline form of carbon, to burn, but once you get it started it is an exceedingly difficult fire to put out. The graphite fire at Chernobyl was the reason it took so long to get the whole mess under control.U.S. power reactors are moderated with water, of one type or another (heavy or regular), at various temperatures and pressures, depending on the design. One of the primary safety features of American reactors (and others outside the former Soviet Union) is this water moderator: If reactor-core temperature goes wildly out of control, the moderator will at some point boil away, stopping the reaction (well, pretty much, depending on severity of the accident and what configuration the core melts down into).The moderator is necessary to slow down neutrons so that they can be absorbed by the fuel (uranium, plutonium, thorium, or a mixture of these) and keep the chain reaction going. Without a moderator, the reaction simply will not start or proceed. Moreover, water is nonflammable, and so will not cause a fire that, in the absence of containment, would create an updraft that would carry radioactive death far and wide through the atmosphere — as is the case with graphite.A common misconception is that a nuclear reactor used to generate power could become a “nuclear bomb” in case of an accident. That is, a reactor gone wild could create a Hiroshima- or Nagasaki-type mushroom-cloud explosion. Not so. If that were true, it wouldn’t be such a difficult proposition for nations to develop nuclear weapons. The technicalities required to build a working nuclear weapon are so picky that it is a very difficult thing to achieve.By the way, I think the Soviets chose their design, and not to provide containment, simply because they were strapped for funds. They built Chernobyl “on the cheap,” crossed their fingers, and hoped for the best, in my opinion.

By: Malcolm Taylor (DJMX)

Malcolm Taylor (DJMX) — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 06:33:58 +0000

I went to Chernobyl and Pripyat in October 2009 and got a few more pics as well. The links to my review, and pics are :Pictures : http://www.krisisdnb.com/event-gallery/mx-ukraine-belarus-and-chernobyl-october-2009Review : http://www.krisisdnb.com/content/mx-ukraine-belarus-and-chernobyl-october-2009Hope you enjoy !!!MX (Malcs)

By: jeri

jeri — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 12:59:04 +0000

One thing I see no one has mentioned is the fact that Chernobyl had no containment building, something that is required on all US nuclear plants. All containment buildings are to be at least 3-4 feet thick of concrete and most contain steel rebar cables, and what was the major reason that Three Mile Island didn’t release any radiation outright.The Soviets apparently thought that their plants were perfect and didn’t need a containment shelter. Then they had to concoct one above a very dangerous steam-explosion fire that was emitting lethal amounts of radiation, and now have to construct a much-better containment to replace the sarcophagus that is starting to fall apart.

By: Mod

Mod — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 02:45:34 +0000

Aye – no doubt some fuel at Chernobyl melted, the reactor had a positive void coefficient which meant that a positive feedback loop got started and it ran away with itself.But if the fuel at Chernobyl did meltdown at all, nobody was particularly bothered by it at the time. The people on site and at Pripyat etc, were mostly concerned about the significant amount of radioactive material in the atmosphere, rather than whatever amount had managed to melt through the shielding into the ground. (well the people on site were mostly (fatally) concerned about the chemical fire…)I mention it because when deciding on nuclear energy policy, and an expert says that the worst case scenario is a meltdown – it is detrimental to the decision making process (and the public understanding of science) if people automatically associate ‘meltdown’ with ‘Chernobyl’ rather than ‘Three Mile Island’.There are risks with modern reactors, but we should try and ‘frame’ them in a more accurate fashion so that we can make informed choice about our future relationship with energy production. :-p

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 17:29:05 +0000

Ketchum, L.E. 1987. ?Lessons of Chernobyl: SNM members try to decontaminate the world threatened by fallout. Experts face challenge of educating public about risk and radiation.?

By: Erik D Johnson

Erik D Johnson — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:22:01 +0000

> By the way, something like 200 thousand fetuses were> aborted in the weeks/months after Chernobyl by mothers> who feared negative consequences.Yes, I’ve heard that too; it’s interesting.I’m a PhD candidate in a nuclear engineering department, and other students and faculty occasionally mention that casually in the hallway, though I have never been able to confirm it independently. I would be interested if anyone knew of a reference.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:55:58 +0000

I should note that the photo essay linked to here is about Soviet/Russian nuclear projects in general and is not confined to Chernobyl.By the way, something like 200 thousand fetuses were aborted in the weeks/months after Chernobyl by mothers who feared negative consequences.

By: Erik D Johnson

Erik D Johnson — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:48:16 +0000

>The argument has been made that the "health science" industry is not capable of>making these kinds of assessments because the techniques are not developed and>because of the political bias against them.Even if this were true, the fact remains there is not yet a demonstrable link between Chernobyl and diseases in the regional population other than thyroid cancers.> Note that many of your sources are the nuclear industry itself.I quote only one industry source, NEA. Besides, I figured since the Robert Knoth collection included Greenpeace as a reference, then the Nuclear Energy Agency would be fair game. The NEA's results are consistent with the other references, which are international organizations.

By: Martin

Martin — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 13:24:37 +0000

The argument has been made that the “health science” industry is not capable of making these kinds of assessments because the techniques are not developed and because of the political bias against them. Note that many of your sources are the nuclear industry itself.