Thread: Chernobyl disaster (the grim anniversary)

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

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.

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...

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!

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

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

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&t=k&o ... 6,0.004356

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...

Originally Posted by TATY

And, anyway, Slovakia has already got SIX nuclear reactors which generate 55% of the countries energy.

True:

*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:

Originally Posted by Constitution

Slovakia will accomplish all signed international pacts in advance, also to the prejudice of their disadvantages for Slovakia.

And being in EU is type of this pact.

Reactor V1 in Jaslovsk

Originally Posted by ST

yeah. and taking into account, what oil resources will be enough for just 20 years, and thermonuclear power-station still not invented...

And what about cold-fusion generator?
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.