Thread: Ukraine Elections 2010 + various political off-topics

Originally Posted by Ramil

I somehow know the answer and the answer is no, a fusion plant cannot be 'safer'. The only thing that matters is the amount of 'controlled energy'. If it suddenly becomes 'uncontrolled' - the whole thing explodes.

Let's not jump too much ahead, as we shouldn't underestimate the future engineers. I'm not a big nuclear physicist, so I have no clue on all the ways to control the reaction. Perhaps, they would install large permanent magnets for safety to encompass the plasma. Or, perhaps, they would build it the way that as soon as the magnetic control is lost and the plasma loses its density, the reaction stops momentarily. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

I somehow know the answer and the answer is no, a fusion plant cannot be 'safer'. The only thing that matters is the amount of 'controlled energy'. If it suddenly becomes 'uncontrolled' - the whole thing explodes.

Let's not jump too much ahead, as we shouldn't underestimate the future engineers. I'm not a big nuclear physicist, so I have no clue on all the ways to control the reaction. Perhaps, they would install large permanent magnets for safety to encompass the plasma. Or, perhaps, they would build it the way that as soon as the magnetic control is lost and the plasma loses its density, the reaction stops momentarily. Who knows?

We shouldn't underestimate Murphy's law either.

Originally Posted by Ramil

We shouldn't underestimate Murphy's law either.

That fear is similar to the fear of lightnings by the cave men. There are laws of Physics and they work. Atoms that form the crystal structure do not suddenly disappear (even though the Murphy's law allows them to).

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Originally Posted by Ramil

We shouldn't underestimate Murphy's law either.

That fear is similar to the fear of lightnings by the cave men. There are laws of Physics and they work. Atoms that form the crystal structure do not suddenly disappear (even though the Murphy's law allows them to).

Your words would really make those guys at CERN laugh.
Quantum physics somehow denies standard logic. Particles disappear and reappear somewhere else, they change into something else and they seem to travel at speeds faster than light. There are still many paradoxes

Originally Posted by Ramil

Your words would really make those guys at CERN laugh.
Quantum physics somehow denies standard logic. Particles disappear and reappear somewhere else, they change into something else and they seem to travel at speeds faster than light. There are still many paradoxes

That's right. And the plant should be designed by taking into account all those (and probably many other) factors. Think about it this way: one of the biggest nuclear plant catastrophes in Chernobyl fission plant resulted in emission of some significant portion of radiation, but the plant didn't explode like a nuclear bomb. If it were a fusion plant, there would be much less radiation hazard. Also, according to your "Murphy law" logic, we shouldn't be building the fission plants either.

PS. So far so good for the Ukraine Elections 2010.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

PS. So far so good for the Ukraine Elections 2010.

Who cares?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Originally Posted by Crocodile

PS. So far so good for the Ukraine Elections 2010.

Who cares?

Some Ukrainians perhaps (?), but probably not the ones here on this forum! They have not shown any great interest in this discussion lol... Apart from the defeatist comment from iti-ogo that there is no hope for Ukrainian politics...

But I am speaking as someone who hasn't voted for 10 years due to living abroad most of that time, and the complications of that..

But I didn't get that part about the "clean" planes. Do they EXIST now?
Can I fly to Asia or the US or a European destination in a clean plane? Which airlines have them? (As far as I've noticed all European carriers fly old Airbus, Boeing or Russian ones. None of them environmental!)

Are you for or against nuclear power then?
I think it's marginally preferable to coal and oil for energy. One lethal accident in ~45 years of usage is not THAT bad, even though Chernobyl was a terrible, terrible thing. I guess the people in the area there are strongly against nuclear power though.

But looking forward to the day when we can use renewable sources more efficiently and I think people should be forced to live more ecologically; it's disgusting how some people think that just because they have money, it's ok for the to pollute the planet at a rate of 100x that of a 3rd world person.

I studied the incident at Chernobyl at length. I reviewed many documents and interviews. I even went as far as studied the whole scheme of this particular reactor type (RBMK-100). It blew out due to negligence of personnel, not due to some technical malfunction.
The operators have deliberately turned off all safety mechanisms and run it in a mode it had not been designed for. This accident can be put in a textbook named 'A complete idiot's guide to blowing a nuclear reactor. Seven practical steps' (There were SEVEN fatal mistakes that operators made on 26.04.1986 in order to blow it).
The reactor resisted till the last moment but they blew it nevertheless.

Well, we don't need Al-Quaeda if them at power plants will do this now and then.

Originally Posted by Ramil

I studied the incident at Chernobyl at length. I reviewed many documents and interviews. I even went as far as studied the whole scheme of this particular reactor type (RBMK-100). It blew out due to negligence of personnel, not due to some technical malfunction.
The operators have deliberately turned off all safety mechanisms and run it in a mode it had not been designed for. This accident can be put in a textbook named 'A complete idiot's guide to blowing a nuclear reactor. Seven practical steps' (There were SEVEN fatal mistakes that operators made on 26.04.1986 in order to blow it).
The reactor resisted till the last moment but they blew it nevertheless.

Well, we don't need Al-Quaeda if them at power plants will do this now and then.

Interesting. I saw a documentary about it. It basically blamed a certain senior manager who was there to carry out some routine safety test (the irony!) and bullied the rest of the local staff into going along with his instructions despite, them being against safety procedures. According that that documentary, the talk of a serious fault with the reactor was a exaggerated - essentially it was a case of human error on the part of one man. If he hadn't ignored the guidelines it wouldn't have happened. Was that the conclusion you came to?

There is a similar plant in Lithuania which has been running fine for many decades although the EU had managed to close it down (to the frustration of the local people who wanted to keep it. Now they have no energy...)

There is a good link that summarizes and explains graphically what happenned, but unfortunately it's in Russian only.

http://eco.rian.ru/ecoinfogr/20090425/169208464-ig.html

(requires flash)

There's another source (unfortunately in Russian too):
I'm inclined to believe this version:
http://www.ufo.obninsk.ru/chernob0.htm (part 1)
http://www.ufo.obninsk.ru/chernob1.htm (part 2)


There's an alternative opinion. It his book about the accident
Anatoly Dyatlov, a former chief engineer of the power plant states that there were faults in the reactor's design.
Well, he's dead already and he was the one who suffered the most, but nevertheless his arguments are weak.

Not to go too deeply into specifics I can illustrate his point like this:
Imagine, you have a TV set, and you are trying to 'experiment' with it. You pull out an electric fuse and attach the mains directly, then you open the casing and put your hand onto the leads. Naturally you will suffer an electric shock, but you will say afterwards that the fact that 'something might go wrong if you put your hand onto the leads' was nowhere in the documentation for your TV.

His book:
http://lib.ru/MEMUARY/CHERNOBYL/dyatlow.txt

Originally Posted by Johanna

But I didn't get that part about the "clean" planes. Do they EXIST now?

They exist, but they aren't commercial yet (for the cost reasons mentioned above).

Originally Posted by Johanna

Are you for or against nuclear power then?

There are two types of nuclear power: the fission (the present ones) and the fusion (the future ones). It's been theorized that the environmental impact of the later is less than the former. However, both are said to be slightly cleaner in the short term than the fossil fuel plants.

Originally Posted by Johanna

it's disgusting how some people think that just because they have money, it's ok for the to pollute the planet at a rate of 100x that of a 3rd world person.

The 3rd world persons would gladly pollute just as much (or perhaps even more) should they be given the opportunity. Presently, they have more immediate issues than the environmental ones.

To the topic. It appears Yanukovich wins this after all.

Originally Posted by Ramil

To the topic. It appears Yanukovich wins this after all.

Does anybody think there's a possibility for a complete political separation between the eastern and western Ukranians? Like two different states? (I mean, the difference of 3% is not really convincing who is the leader.)

Remember George Bush junior.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Remember George Bush junior.

It wasn't that much geographically divided in 2000. However, the last time it was (North vs South) some things did happen.

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Does anybody think there's a possibility for a complete political separation between the eastern and western Ukrainians? Like two different states?

No. Because there are also Central Ukrainians and they are essentially more then Eastern and Western ones.

(I mean, the difference of 3% is not really convincing who is the leader.)

In 2004 all of them were leaders. Now no one of them is. We will see if the result will be different.

No more Maidans I'm disappointed - I was secretly hoping to see the sequel - Maidan 2.

=)))))))))

Code:

Жители села Старый Угрынов Ивано-Франковской области, где родился Степан Бандера, напуганы победой Виктора Януковича на выборах президента Украины, пишет газета "Сегодня". 
Как сообщает издание, селяне опасаются, что у них отберут землю, загонят в колхозы, не дадут ходить в греко-католическую церковь и заставят говорить "по-москальски".
Кроме того, староугрыновцы озабочены поисками "иуд" - именно так они обозвали своих односельчан, кто во втором туре выборов голосовал за Януковича. Согласно протоколам местного избиркома, из семисот избирателей села таких набралось около пятидесяти.

http://lenta.ru/news/2010/02/12/bandera/
У меня вопрос: почему западенцев называю рагулями?

Originally Posted by BappaBa

=)))))))))

Code:

Жители села Старый Угрынов Ивано-Франковской области, где родился Степан Бандера, напуганы победой Виктора Януковича на выборах президента Украины, пишет газета "Сегодня". 
Как сообщает издание, селяне опасаются, что у них отберут землю, загонят в колхозы, не дадут ходить в греко-католическую церковь и заставят говорить "по-москальски".
Кроме того, староугрыновцы озабочены поисками "иуд" - именно так они обозвали своих односельчан, кто во втором туре выборов голосовал за Януковича. Согласно протоколам местного избиркома, из семисот избирателей села таких набралось около пятидесяти.

http://lenta.ru/news/2010/02/12/bandera/
У меня вопрос: почему западенцев называю рагулями?

http://lurkmore.ru/%D0%9B%D1%8C%D0%B2%D ... 0%BB%D0%B8

Originally Posted by Ramil

To the topic. It appears Yanukovich wins this after all.

Good, bad, ugly? Or have you got the same cynical view on Ukrainian polics as on Russian polutics?

I was very sad to read in a paper about poverty in some parts of Ukraine. I really wish Ukraine can find a way to turn things around and find the best way ahead, whatever it might be. It's disgusting of the EU to treat Ukraine so coldly (Jean Monnet would turn in his grave) and the relationship between Russia / Ukraine / Belarus at the moment is really confusing to me.