Printable View
Strangely, nobody is discussing it here. If anybody wants to express his/her opinion, come on. My point of view is somethink like:
- Is Chernobyl disaster a argument against nuclear energetics in general? No.
- Is it the argument against total idiots in control of nuclear facilities? It is.
Gorbachev about Chernobyl, trying to white himself as hardly as he can:
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/gorbachev3
I think there was some brief discussion of it somwhere on the General section of the forum...
I hardened to the view in two subjects:
1) Innefficiency and stupidity of various soviet leaders.
2) Self-sacrifice of soviet people and ability to acts of bravery.
I was shocked when I knew that people of injured cities and villages had known about the tragedy one day later. Officials really didn`t kow what to do and couldn`t organise evacuation of nearby cities. Many people got large doses of radiation because didn`t know about the danger of disaster and came to the reactor to see the place of explosion. Maybe officials were afraid of panic, but people would panic before such danger any way. They could minimize the level of possible panic.
I admire the people who tried to minimize the aftermath of tragedy and lost their health. They are true heroes and it`s a great pity that officials and our people have already forgotten their acts of bravery :(
The experience of Chernobyl doesn`t stop the developing of nuclear energy and expansion of nuclear plants but I hope it warned our nuclear staff against experiments with the operational nuclear reactor.
I think he should keep silence after all and don't even try to vindicate himself so frantically. Virtually nobody respects him and his opinion in Russia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio
Long time ago I had a talk about Chrnobyl with a professor of nuclear power plant faculty and he told me that they had just played with nuclear reactor making some stupid experiment on it.
Also, people are always talking about Ukraine and Chernobyl', when most of the radiation went into Belarus', and Belarus' is thought to have the highest number of affected people. Chernobyl' is practically on the border between Ukraine and Belarus' and unfortunately for Belarus', the wind was blowing north.
... and the rivers flowing south back to the Ukraine...Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
...and the free-range alligators that roam back north into Belarus... I don't think it's really necessary to say one side got it worse than the other. The fact of the matter is that they both got clobbered and that really, really sucks, fictious alligators aside.Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
But the worst on this fact is, the west countries are scared. Here, in Slovakia, no country from former "west block" do not allow us to use nucler power plants in our counntry, they say because Chernobyl. But their saying about Chernobyl is only saying under colour of they plan to sell us the energy - so they are trying (they are trying very good - Austia exspecially) to prohibite "no so safety reactors" as is ours.
Skin them. "Give us money or we'll ask Russians to build us a nuclear power plant." :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pejko
Frankly, all these cries about the ecology - it's just an excuse to forbid you to have an energy of your own in order to make you purchase it from them. They HAVE nuclear plants you don't. Moreover - nuclear power is one of the most "pure" kinds of energy. Everything works in a closed cycle, nuclear power produces no pollution at all. Of course, when a disaster like Chernobyl happens people suffer, but no power - no industry, no industry - no money.
No money - we may celebrate the birth of yet another banana republic.
P.S. I sorrow deeply for all those who had died because of that catastrophe but it happenned mostly due to a human idiocy, not mere some technical malfunction.
Gorby dealt with the Soviet legacy. And now, as the soviet power is again coming to its own, those who have taken part in liquidation of the aftermath are comletely forgotten by the state.Quote:
Virtually nobody respects him and his opinion in Russia.
Ramil, you have got it.
Let's live bannanas, VIVA la bannanas, VIVA nucler-free bannanas at all. :twisted:
1) Nuclear reactor produce pollution. It is called nuclear waste, which is almost impossible to process. Current method is to dig it down and let it be there for 100000 years until it is harmless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
2) According to the sources I read about the Chernobyl disaster, a design fault was also a contributing factor to the disaster. Not just human idiocy.http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/ "The RBMK reactor type used at Chernobyl suffers from instability at low power and thus may experience a rapid , uncontrollable power increase. Although other reactor types have this problem they incorporate design features to stop instability from occurring."
the disaster was caused by the incompetence of comunisim
Where does Comunisim lie on the Periodic table? Certainly, you couldn't have meant "communism."Quote:
Originally Posted by patriot
вот тут неплохой сайт есть на эту тему: http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddo ... icles.html
На iXBT его обсуждали...
Waste != PollutionQuote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Nuclear reactor doesn't pollute environment. What I cannot say about some other energy sources. And those several barrels of nuclear waste doesn't make all that difference compared to pollution produced by cars for example.
Source:Quote:
2) According to the sources I read about the Chernobyl disaster, a design fault was also a contributing factor to the disaster. Not just human idiocy.http://www.chernobyl.co.uk/ "The RBMK reactor type used at Chernobyl suffers from instability at low power and thus may experience a rapid , uncontrollable power increase. Although other reactor types have this problem they incorporate design features to stop instability from occurring."
http://stopatom.slavutich.kiev.ua/1-2-1b.htm
Here's some excerpts:
2.1.6.1. Выводы комиссии, представленные на совещании экспертов МАГАТЭ в августе 1986 г.
Изложенные ниже выводы были первым официальным документом, в котором на основании анализа хода событий, предшествовавших аварии, сделана попытка выделить основные ее причины. Такой анализ показал, что происшедшая авария была связана с вводом избыточной реактивности. Отмечено, что конструкция реакторной установки предусматривала защиту от подобного типа аварий с учетом физических особенностей реактора, включая положительный паровой коэффициент реактивности. Технические средства защиты и управления должны были обеспечить безопасность реактора при превышении мощности и уменьшении периода разгона, при появлении различных неисправностей в его работе.
Кроме технических средств защиты, имелись также строгие правила и порядок ведения технологического процесса на АЭС, определяемые регламентом эксплуатации энергоблока. К числу наиболее важных правил относятся требования о недопустимости снижения оперативного запаса реактивности ниже 30 стержней.
В процессе подготовки и проведения испытания турбогенератора персонал отключил ряд технических средств защиты и нарушил важнейшие положения регламента эксплуатации, касающиеся безопасного ведения технологического процесса. Основным мотивом в поведении персонала было стремление быстрее закончить испытания. Нарушение установленного порядка при подготовке и проведении испытаний, нарушение программы испытаний, небрежность в управлении реактором свидетельствуют о недостаточном понимании персоналом особенностей протекания технологических процесса в ядерном реакторе и о потере чувства опасности.
Вместе с тем, разработчики реакторной установки не предусмотрели создание защитных систем безопасности, способных предотвратить аварию при имевшемся наборе преднамеренных отключений технических средств защиты и нарушений регламента эксплуатации, так как считали, что такое сочетание событий невозможно.
Сделан вывод, что первопричиной аварии явилось крайне маловероятное сочетание нарушений порядка и режима эксплуатации, допущенное персоналом энергоблока. Катастрофические размеры авария приобрела в связи с тем, что реактор был переведен персоналом в такое нерегламентное состояние, в котором существенно усилилось влияние положительного коэффициента реактивности на рост мощности.
Таким образом, в изложенных выводах основная вина за аварию возлагается на персонал АЭС. Перечислен ряд нарушений, допущенных операторами в ходе испытания турбогенератора, впервые упомянуто о существовании положительного коэффициента реактивности реактора. Однако оставлен в стороне вопрос о том, почему оказалось возможным такое "крайне маловероятное сочетание нарушений порядка и режима эксплуатации" [1] реактора и кто несет за это ответственность.
The first and last cause of accident was the "human factor" (e.g. the idiotic experiment they were conducting).
Maybe some design faults were present, but I don't think it's important factor. I'm not an expert in nuclear energetics, but there's a lot of RBMK-1000 nuclear reactors still working in Russia and other countries -- and there is nothing wrong with them. If operated properly, they are absolutely safe.
About the posiible reasons of "Chernobyl histeria" Pejko wrote above:
-- absolutely correct.Quote:
But the worst on this fact is, the west countries are scared. Here, in Slovakia, no country from former "west block" do not allow us to use nucler power plants in our counntry, they say because Chernobyl. But their saying about Chernobyl is only saying under colour of they plan to sell us the energy - so they are trying (they are trying very good - Austia exspecially) to prohibite "no so safety reactors" as is ours.
Спасибо за источник, потом почитаю внимательно.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Вдобавок к изложенному: от одного, вроде бы информированного человека, я слышал, что с реактором все-таки было что-то не так (избыточное содержание какого-то изотопа йода, или что-то в этом роде). Это послужило еще одной *косвенной* причиной аварии -- из-за этого как раз "разогреть" реактор как следует не удавалось, поэтому персонал решился на отключение АЗ. Это, понятно, не оправдание их идиотизму, но хоть какая-то попытка его разумно объяснить.
Как говорили герои бессмертного романа, тоже мне бином Ньютона. Уверен, что очень хотели порадовать начальство и побыстрее (наверное, к 1-му Мая) отрапортовать об успешных испытаниях турбогенератора. Порадовали.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
Это называется йодная яма, вот очень хорошая ссылка, рассказывающая про принципы действия реактора РБMК и причины аварии в Чернобыле:Quote:
Originally Posted by Scorpio
http://ufolog.nm.ru/chernob0.htm
Там, чуть-ли не посекундно восстановлены события 26 апреля 1986 г.
Именно отрапортовать. И именно к 1 мая.Quote:
Как говорили герои бессмертного романа, тоже мне бином Ньютона. Уверен, что очень хотели порадовать начальство и побыстрее (наверное, к 1-му Мая) отрапортовать об успешных испытаниях турбогенератора. Порадовали.
But isn't its amount less than the amount of common waste comming from other sources of energy (like Ramil has said)? For example :coal-power-station: -- its waste come thrice: firstly during mining a coal mine, secondly during its storage nearby the water sources and finally during its burning in power-house. And this effect of air polution and water polution is more hazardous in long-ranged-wiev for us. A little waste from burned uran235 we can sell to our friends -- Extra-Terrestrials, high above, far away, near the birthplace of big-bang. But Extra-Terrestrials given hordes of carbon dioxide? Unable to proceed. Only nuclear waste we can and we are able to pack in to the one or two middle-big bags and say them hello on their long way throuht the space...Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
well, of course nuclear waste is different from regular pollution. I just reacted to that there was "no pollution at all". Radioactive pollution is pollution.
pol·lu·tion n.
The act or process of polluting or the state of being polluted, especially the contamination of soil, water, or the atmosphere by the discharge of harmful substances. (and Chernobyl did what?)
I can tell you, you do not want to live close to the area they bury the waste... :)
But I am all for Nuclear Techonolgy, don't get me wrong. One has to know all the good sides and the bad sides of it, though!
What people are worried about is that a Chernobyl is going to happen again, because you can never understimate human stupidity!
True, but I could happen in any place and at any moment. It's better to relax and hope for the best :)Quote:
Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie
Nuclear energy is clean... apart from the indisposeable, highly toxic waste it produces.
And Pejko's complaint about the West not letting them build Nuclear power stations in Slovakia is not really accurate.
Slovakia is only considering to do so, and hasn't actually said it is going to build more.
Ukraine are planning to build new ones. Two for now, and they plan 11 by 2030. And they are not being stopped. If the former "West block" is ;
'letting' Ukraine (where Chernobyl' is) build more, they are not going to stop Slovakia.
And, anyway, Slovakia has already got SIX nuclear reactors which generate 55% of the countries energy.
yeah. and taking into account, what oil resources will be enough for just 20 years, and thermonuclear power-station still not invented...
True:Quote:
Originally Posted by TATY
http://www.ujd.gov.sk/Nssjrb/ObrNSSJRB/Image45.gif
*green symbolize quota of nuclear energy in range of the whole country.
But:
realise, there are presures (too apolitical) from the side of EU. And in our constitution stays:And being in EU is type of this pact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Constitution
Reactor V1 in Jaslovsk
And what about cold-fusion generator? :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by ST
It is music of the future...
The battle of Chernobyl The Battle of Chernobyl | Watch Free Documentary Online
I support nuclear power as it is the most environmental source of energy currently available.
I've seen the documentary on Chernobyl, a re-enactment based on all the known information. The accident was caused by human error (primarily an arrogant boss who disregarded safety procedures) and a very minor construction weakness that would not have been an issue unless the human error had played in. The accident happened during a safety drill - ironically.
In my opinion we in Europe (including all the CIS countries, the EU and others) should set up an international state-funded agency to monitor nuclear plants in Europe. Those that do not pass should be closed. The inspectors should be incredibly well paid, on performance related pay, so they are impossible to bribe and have every incentive to do a first rate job. Any country that does not conform should be seriously penalised.
That way we can continue to use the cleanest available energy and everybody can feel safe about their own nuclear power plants and about those of their neighbouring states.
I also think that we MUST invest (state funded, if necessary) into research on alternative fuel, like solar, wind, waves etc etc.
We also MUST look at reducing energy use wherever possible.