The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 29

CHERNOBYL...threat to Poland?


wildrover 98 | 4,455
2 Feb 2011  #1
When hundreds of workers and soldiers worked to cover the destroyed reactor at Chernobyl in tons of concrete and metal , did we think the problem was over....?

Did we realise that this concrete bunker built over the mess was just a temporary structure , and that its nearing the end of its life...!

Work has been underway for a few years now to construct the new cover for the radioactive mess that was the reactor , but at present they have only half the money needed to complete the job....

One of the walls of the building has a huge crack in it , and has quite a lean on it....

Are we worried in Poland...?

When the reactor exploded the wind was blowing towards Belarus , and not Poland....will we be lucky next time....?

bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12335595
convex 20 | 3,980
2 Feb 2011  #2
I never understood why they just don't place the reactors underground. That would seem to be win-win-win.
OP wildrover 98 | 4,455
2 Feb 2011  #3
One of the things they were most worried about when Chernobyl went pop , was that the molten core would seep deep enough into the earth to contaminate the water table over a vast area...

I guess if they put them underground it would make it easier for such contamination to happen....??

I suspect the cost of digging big holes to put these things in may be a factor also...

You have to remember also , that the Russians are not big on nuclear safety....not so long ago they were taking nuclear subs out of service...and dumping the reactors in the Baltic...
ConstantineK 26 | 1,259
2 Feb 2011  #4
not so long ago they were taking nuclear subs out of service...and dumping the reactors in the Baltic...

Healing nature, it always takes care. Poles need energy so maybe their fishermen will get it out one perfect day.
Lodz_The_Boat 32 | 1,535
2 Feb 2011  #5
That would seem to be win-win-win.

It fragments the surface/core ... which causes many natural disasters...
OP wildrover 98 | 4,455
2 Feb 2011  #6
es need energy so maybe their fishermen will get it out one perfect day.

Ha.. they don,t do this any more i believe....there are now special international teams dismantling these old submarines...
VarianteM - | 1
3 Feb 2011  #7
Haha, irony is one of my favourite words :)
Varsovian 92 | 634
3 Feb 2011  #8
While I don't worry overly about future generations, they will look back on us as particularly short-sighted as regards nuclear power. Try as you might, decommissioned nuclear power stations will NEVER be radiation-free, and the next ice age will come when we're long-dead and the ice-sheets will spread the radioactive waste over the whole of northern Europe ...

... but we will have "saved the planet from global warming" in the meantime ...

Oh how I hate the dumb ecologists who've brought us to this ...
Velund 1 | 421
3 Feb 2011  #9
they will look back on us as particularly short-sighted as regards nuclear power.

I think they will consider "nuclear waste" as valuable resource, there is a lot of isotopes that is extremely rare or not exist at all in Earth crust. But first 100-200 years anyway it is too radioactive to perform any reprocessing attempts.

AFAIK, submarine reactors is liquid metal cooled, so now they represent depleted active zone encased in chunk of solid lead-bismuth alloy. And all these still in submarine reactor compartment (it is cut out as a whole while sub is dismantled for scrap metal).

There was idea to launch well protected containers with active waste to pre-determined sun orbit out of ecliptic plane where they can rest for millions of years if necessary but will still be available for reprocessing (preferably on same orbit) if our descendants will ever need any unique materials that may be found there.
convex 20 | 3,980
3 Feb 2011  #10
It fragments the surface/core ... which causes many natural disasters...

The explosion is conventional, much less powerful than underground nuclear bomb testing.

Thorium reactors are looking very promising.
Varsovian 92 | 634
3 Feb 2011  #11
Civilisation has lasted 6000 years ... and will go on forever (said the ancient Romans).
Velund 1 | 421
3 Feb 2011  #12
But there is some interesting notes in ancient texts, that make me think that our civilisation is not first on this planet.

Thorium reactors are looking very promising.

Yes, especially for India that have lots of monazite...

But I would prefer sub-critical units, that need external neutron source for reaction and can be turned off almost as easily as light bulb. ;)
OP wildrover 98 | 4,455
4 Feb 2011  #13
Here is film taken at Chernobyl just after the explosion...these poor guys were were working in radiation a million times above normal , a fatal dose , protected by only a dust mask that most chose not to wear because it was hard to breath wearing it....

The guy who made the film later died from the radiation....

englishrussia.com/index.php/2011/02/04/chernobyl-first-days-after-the-explosion/
ConstantineK 26 | 1,259
6 Feb 2011  #14
When the reactor exploded the wind was blowing towards Belarus , and not Poland....will we be lucky next time

Here is the common mistake! Certainly it was not the nuclear reaction which exploded the reactor. The first reason was very rare in nature but nonetheless simple set of reactions of water cleavage - radiolysis of water and simple disintegration of water under high temperature inside the reactor. Hydrogen produced in these reactions exploded the reactor scattering parts of reactor and particles of nuclear fuel over the territory.

Did we realise that this concrete bunker built over the mess was just a temporary structure , and that its nearing the end of its life...!

At least it bore new artificial minerals. Fuel, graphite, water, concrete and hight temperature gave many interesting alloys inside sarcophagus.
OP wildrover 98 | 4,455
6 Feb 2011  #15
Fuel, graphite, water, concrete and hight temperature gave many interesting alloys inside sarcophagus.

Who is going to go in and get them though....?
NomadatNet 1 | 457
6 Feb 2011  #16
Years ago, when Chernobyl leakage happened, it affected the blacksea reagon here where tea is one of main agricultural incomes. Nowadays, the worry is more about old nuclear plants in countries like Armenia, etc. But, hey, while even British Petrolium with a highly developed technology is unable to prevent an accident in a developed place like USA, expecting Armenians, Ukrainains, etc with lower tech facilities and abilities to do better about such a risky technology like nuclear shows their weakness of leading countries. Nobody knows if their nuclear plants of leading countries are hundred percent safe or not. Some curious kids back home may want to check.
Velund 1 | 421
6 Feb 2011  #17
Who is going to go in and get them though....?

AFAIK there was attempts to put some monitoring devices inside and get some samples. One interesting thing - there is something living inside. Some previously unknown (or maybe newborn) black fungi grow there. It is harvesting energy from intense radiation using melanine-based "radiosynhtesis" just like regular green plants use chlorophyll for photosynthesis to get energy from sunlight.
OP wildrover 98 | 4,455
6 Feb 2011  #18
One interesting thing - there is something living inside.

Oh my god... its going to come out one day and take over the world...

A huge mutant jelly monster...!
johnny reb 16 | 3,460
8 Feb 2019  #19
Well not actually.
Scientists have found Chernobyl full of thriving animals.
I believe there are still some people living in that area also.
Dougpol1 27 | 2,664
8 Feb 2019  #20
animals.

Dogs can survive nuclear fallout johnny, until they run out of Royal Canin. Mine would die pretty quickly without someone to scratch his ears though.That reminds me - it's a great shame about my fellow Brit - he visited Chernobyl. Do you think that trip killed him?
johnny reb 16 | 3,460
8 Feb 2019  #21
Didn't he wear any protection suit ?
You are saying they just let him walk around there in street cloths.
If so there is a very good chance it did.
Of course being a heavy drinker & smoker probably added to his early death too.
Dougpol1 27 | 2,664
8 Feb 2019  #22
a heavy drinker

That's not true though Johnny, is it. To be a real ale aficionado is not a problem. What is a problem is if you drink a lot of the chemical crap like Tyskie that is"brewed" and bottled in 9 hours....

The lad said on this forum that he went to the part of Chernobyl that is open for guided tours (the abandoned town several km from the affected part of the plant) You do know that Chernobyl produces electricity today, don't you?

Nuclear power is a wonderful thing, but very few engineers are required - which is why Poland, with it's "full employment" of never-ending low pay job creation schemes, will never finance it.
Vlad1234 14 | 544
8 Feb 2019  #23
I think Poland needs to worry not as much about Chernobyl as about those 4 aging nuclear power plants that still operate in Ukraine. Two of them are located in Western Ukraine, not too far from Polish border. They are all in emergency condition due to lack of funds and old age. They all were built decades ago by technology similar to Chernobyl power plant.
Dougpol1 27 | 2,664
8 Feb 2019  #24
4 aging nuclear power plants

With today's working practices and technology there is little risk while the older reactors are being decommissioned. Much less risk in fact than the burning of fossil fuels - it's the age-old chesnut - and they are old sayings because there's scientific fact to back them up them - that coal burning power stations killed far more people than any nuclear power plants have, by many factors of zero. Delph and his statistical bent will come to my aid on this one.
johnny reb 16 | 3,460
9 Feb 2019  #25
That's not true though Johnny, is it.

Well not compared to some people that post here however excessive alcohol consumption over the years does pickle the brain and liver doesn't it.

- that coal burning power stations killed far more people than any nuclear power plants have,

I'm not to sure about that one either Doug.
Michigan had one of the first nuclear power plants in the U.S. (60 years ago and since has been decommissioned) located right on Lake Michigan and the county down wind of it had the highest cancer rate in the State of Michigan while it was in operation.

Of course try to prove the connection.
The water that was used to cool down the reactors was discharged back out into Lake Michigan 24/7/365 almost boiling hot killing thousands of fish.
(I wonder what they did with the spent nuclear fuel rods that glow for a 100 years or more.)
delphiandomine 85 | 17,823
9 Feb 2019  #26
Delph and his statistical bent will come to my aid on this one.

My pleasure.

Coal kills between 24-33 people for every Terawatt hour of energy produced depending . Nuclear has killed 0.07.

99% of all deaths relating to power production are the result of air pollution.
Chemikiem 5 | 1,594
9 Feb 2019  #27
he went to the part of Chernobyl that is open for guided tours

It is supposed to be safe enough. Some parts of the exclusion zone are considered safe for brief stays. You have to cover up, not touch anything or put your belongings on the ground. The tour companies say that the amount of radiation a person is exposed to is less than on a transatlantic flight.
Einstein 5 | 29
13 Feb 2019  #28
I was at Chernobyl three years ago. And there are people who live just a couple kilometers away.
Dougpol1 27 | 2,664
14 Feb 2019  #29
Exactly! But the right wingers bleat on about coal :( :(


Home / News / CHERNOBYL...threat to Poland?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.