Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

235 comments

Ha (-1)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944476)

In soviet russia, disaster nukes YOU!

Oblig (0)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944486)

According to this [xkcd.com] , Chernobyl will be cleaned up by 2065.

Re:Oblig (1)

x*yy*x (2058140) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944684)

It's nice you can already visit it though. I visited there two years ago and the place really gives you weird feeling.

I had also just played the map in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare and it was funny seeing the same places.

Re:Oblig (2, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944840)

Just wait until the next major forest fire, when all the radiation the trees and ground have absorbed will be lofted into the air again, to land who knows where, depending on the wind at the time.

Re:Oblig (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945230)

That's not how it works, but I doubt you care.

I wonder if the net result of these nuclear accidents that seem to continuously do orders-of-magnitude less damage than the hysterical anti-nuclear advocates claim will actually help the nuclear industry after a while?

Wrong, that IS how it works (2, Interesting)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945354)

You don't know how it works, and you guessed wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/apr/26/chernobyl-radioactive-fires-global-danger [guardian.co.uk]

I actually want safe, clean nuclear power, but I think people like you are out to destroy any trust normal people might have in the nuclear industry. By continually downplaying any dangers, you make yourself sound like a shrill shill.

Re:Oblig (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944994)

That is my favorite level from the game.

Though all the "sniper" levels in Call of Duty games tend to be some of the best.

Re:Oblig (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945170)

I "visited" Cherynobyl via scifi.com's video site. The show was called Destination Truth, and they were filming the area around the nuclear plant and nearby town.

That's as close as I plan to get to a meltdown site, although I did recently receive a job offer to go to Tokyo for a few months (is $65/hour enough money to move within 60 miles of Fukushima? Hmmm).

Re:Oblig (1, Informative)

Vectormatic (1759674) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945856)

I "visited" Cherynobyl via scifi.com's video site. The show was called Destination Truth, and they were filming the area around the nuclear plant and nearby town.

That's as close as I plan to get to a meltdown site, although I did recently receive a job offer to go to Tokyo for a few months (is $65/hour enough money to move within 60 miles of Fukushima? Hmmm).

1) chernobyl didnt melt down, so it isnt a meltdown site, Three mile island is a meltdown site, and now off course fukushima dai ichi

2) the official exclusion zone is 30 km, 60 miles is over three times as far away as the japanase government deems safe, take into account that direct radiation drops off on an inverse cube, and you would be subject to 1/9th of the direct radiation that the japanese government deems acceptable, not counting extra decrease by objects blocking the line of sight. Exposure to fallout and activation products would not drop off as sharply, but still will be significantly below acceptable limits..

Now i cant look into your wallet, so i dont know how much of an improvement $65 an hour would be, but being 60 miles from fukushima wouldnt be very high on my considerations list

Re:Oblig (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35946012)

chernobyl didnt melt down, so it isnt a meltdown site

What? The reactor blew it's lid, the graphic and fuel inside caught fire and burned for days. The fuel and fuel rod casings, and the sand packed around the reactor vessel that acted as a bio-shield, all melted and flowed out of the bottom of the reactor, finally solidifying into a large mass of highly radioactive glass like substance now called Chernobylite [wikipedia.org] .

Chernobyl wasn't just a meltdown, it was a complete meltdown.

Happy 25th Anniversary, bro. (0)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944494)

Now get out of here, STALKER.

Only one thing to say... (0)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944496)

GET OUT OF HERE STALKER

Happy 25th Anniversary!! (0)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944536)

Who wants some cake?

Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! (5, Informative)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944694)

Who wants some cake?

When you said yellow cake, I was picturing, you know, lemon or maybe butter flavored. This is definitely not lemon or butter flavored. It tastes like burning.

Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944816)

Who wants some cake?

When you said yellow cake, I was picturing, you know, lemon or maybe butter flavored. This is definitely not lemon or butter flavored. It tastes like burning.

There's an exhibit in the window of the Wellcome Museum on Euston Rd. in London with pictures of some artist making actual cake from yellow cake and eating it. While you may not actually die from the amounts used, I still wouldn't intentionally EAT some. I guess it's no worse than living in a radon-rich area, but still...

Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! (2)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945540)

That's really quite interesting. I know most heavy metals are usually boneseekers and poisonous in their own right, but yellowcake contains not uranium metal, but various Uranium sulfides, hydroxides, etc. I have no idea of the relative toxicity of these compounds. The radiation dosage from the unrefined, unenriched, and unirradiated Uranium would be so minute as to be inconsequential unless you ate a few tons of the stuff in one sitting.

Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! (1, Funny)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944720)

Who wants some cake?

I'll have some yellow cake.

Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! (4, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944808)

Turns out, at least in Iraq's case, the yellow cake was a lie.

Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944958)

The Daily Show reported a few years ago that the UN Security Council confirmed that Iran was preparing to produce yellow cake. "See the Bush administration wasn't wrong about Iraq--they were just really bad at spelling."

Re:Happy 25th Anniversary!! (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945914)

The cake is a lie.

Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35944540)


After the Chernobyl disaster, a Russian organization of Chiropractors volunteered their time and set up shop in a nearby Ukraine school gymnasium.

Over 3,500 people visited and had spinal adjustments which helped improve nerve function to the thyroid gland, which is so important with radiation poisoning. NOT A SINGLE PERSON WHO VISITED GOT CANCER!!!

Think about that next time you visit an "MD". Chiropractic is where it's at.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35944600)

Wow. Just....wow. I'm speechless. Say, I'm preparing to sell a bridge I own out in the Bay area. Interested?

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945158)

Whoosh...

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

CaptainPatent (1087643) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944630)

Hello pseudscience!

Show me a controlled study and maybe... but there are so many problems with your statement it's frightening.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (2)

NevarMore (248971) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944660)

I'll participate in that study. Free backrubs FTW.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944690)

You fail to understand the power of the nervous system and how Chiropractic care can eliminate bottlenecks in the function. Chiropractic has cured everything from sore backs, bedwetting, colic to arthritis. I've even read about a couple of deaf people hearing after proper diagnosis and treatment by a Chiropractor.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35944784)

Turns out he wasn't God. Jesus was just a chiropractor.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944842)

You fail to understand the power of the nervous system and how Chiropractic care can eliminate bottlenecks in the function. Chiropractic has cured everything from sore backs, bedwetting, colic to arthritis. I've even read about a couple of deaf people hearing after proper diagnosis and treatment by a Chiropractor.

Hell, I've heard of people gaining the ability to fly. Also there was that guy who became really good with clock mechanisms, and cutting into peoples heads with his finger.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944868)

Please do provide links to some double blinds studies showing that.

Heck, Randi will give you a million dollars if you can do this crap in front of the foundation.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945262)

Please do provide links to some double blinds studies showing that.

Heck, Randi will give you a million dollars if you can do this crap in front of the foundation.

I wouldn't waste too much time on this ... a 7 digit ID, with two postings ever [slashdot.org] about chiropractic (in this thread), and a profile which says:

I'm a 41 year old Chiropractor, have been making people healthy and saving lives with Chiropractic since 1993. Really like technology blogs and always try to find ways to incorporate technology into the care of my patients while helping them avoid going to Mainstream Medicine which is controlled by Big Pharma.

He's either a systematic troll, or he's a crackpot chiropractor who really believes that getting people to avoid going to real doctors is a good idea.

He's not going to provide any evidence ... if he's real, he's been soaked in the kool-aid for a long time. Just as likely it's a purpose built account to rile people up.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945324)

I have been reading Slashdot for about 3 years. I don't have much to offer in the way of technical conversation so there was really no need to create an account until now, when I saw my profession being slandered. Watch Doctor Oz today, he's taking on MDs who don't like alternative medicine!

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945376)

Thanks for pointing out how right the parent was :)

Nice trolling there buddy.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945044)

Chiropractic has cured everything from sore backs, bedwetting, colic to arthritis. I've even read about a couple of deaf people hearing after proper diagnosis and treatment by a Chiropractor.

Unfortunately, it can't cure stupidity. Pity.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (2)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944748)

Hello pseudscience!

Agreed. And SLOPPY psuedoscience at that. Everybody knows it was the aroma therapy, IN CONJUNCTION with the chiropractic that prevented the almost-certain cancer/mutations/zombie apocalypse.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

Known Nutter (988758) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944762)

I thought caps, bold text, and exclamation points were enough for science!!!

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

Dr.Bob,DC (2076168) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944888)

No, but "scientists" seem to think that all that matters are facts and numbers. Science can't explain everything, they can't yet find subluxations with all their lab equipment yet the trained eyes and fingers of a Chiropractor can find them within seconds.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

gilleain (1310105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945022)

No, but "scientists" seem to think that all that matters are facts and numbers. Science can't explain everything, they can't yet find subluxations with all their lab equipment yet the trained eyes and fingers of a Chiropractor can find them within seconds.

Absolutely! They didn't even believe me when I showed them the construct I made to convert the Feng Shui energy in my room to Chi in my body, and funnel THAT into my Orgonne machine to power my toaster...

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35944686)

3 questions ...
1) Are you a chiropractor?
2) Where is the link about this detailing the statistics on it?
3) Where can I get some of this koolaid you are drinking?

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

killmenow (184444) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944688)

This reminds me of my favorite chiropractor story.

I went with my wife to the chiropractor's office for her initial appointment. I was skeptical. He wanted to convince me of the legitimacy of his profession. So he threw out some interesting studies. One in particular he focused on. In this study, bodies had been exhumed and their spines checked. In 80% of the dead bodies there were spinal alignment problems. 80 percent! Which he then tried to conflate to the cause of death.

I laughed at him and said that I would be willing to wager 100% of them weren't breathing either. And maybe that was a surer indication of the cause of death. Then we turned around and left.

While there may be such a thing as a reputable chiropractor, that guy wasn't one of them.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944908)

I'm surprised he didn't try to sell you an expensive ergonomic coffin.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944942)

While there may be such a thing as a reputable chiropractor, that guy wasn't one of them.

I saw an interview with a former chiropractor once ... he basically said he left because increasingly he didn't believe in the mumbo-jumbo of the device they used (which I have no idea what it was called). Something "mometer" that measured nerve activity in the spine or something.

He said it was vague, and that depending on how you hold it and what you do with it, you could make the resulting graph more or less show anything you like. And you could use that to "prove" to the client (I refuse to say patient) that they really needed your services.

As you say, there may be some reputable ones ... and there may actually be some science behind it. But, I've yet to see an actual MD who didn't scoff at it for being pseudo-science (at best) or fraud (at worst).

I've also never known one single person who went to a Chiropractor who wasn't more or less told they needed to come back for weekly/monthly 'adjustments', and whose pain wasn't back just as bad (if not worse) by the time that was scheduled. The ones who stopped going altogether eventually found themselves to be pain free for longer periods of time. It's hard not to wonder if they aren't causing more harm than good.

I'm with you ... it's a little too hand-wavy and vague for my liking. I know some people who swear by chiropractors ... but I know far more people who think they're complete frauds. More than a few call themselves "doctor", and since they're not MDs, I find that a bit deceptive.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945406)

I know of a Chiropractor who doesn't do that. Michael J. O’Connor (http://www.thespringsofclifton.com/Practitioners.html).

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

ShavedOrangutan (1930630) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945516)

My wife goes to a chiropractor that uses one of those. One scan supposedly detects inflammation by measuring surface heat and the other supposedly detects muscle tension by measuring electrical resistance through the skin. It prints out a chart with the various readings and connects each "problem area" to a variety of medical problems. From blurred vision to hang nails, they seem to think that the spine affects everything. It's like reading a horoscope - some medical problem you have will fit in with a red area on the scan. Of course, you'll never get better unless you go twice a week for 'adjustments'. They even do this for newborn babies. Seriously.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944708)

NOT A SINGLE PERSON WHO VISITED GOT CANCER!!!

Not a single woman who had sex with me got cancer. Ladies, you can just start a line outside my door. Giggity.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35944818)

That'd be more compelling if you had a significant sample size. And yes, "sample size" is a double entendre.

Nice troll (1)

spun (1352) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944756)

This is a great example of a troll of the "I'm an idiot, please call me such and angrily correct me" type.

Because we all chiropractic is not where it is at. High colonics are where it is at. Remember, the key to life is to have a healthy colon.

Re:Nice troll (1)

Korin43 (881732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945136)

I thought it was an empty colon?

Re:Nice troll (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945646)

I dunno, it seems to me that people who are full of shit seem to live longer...

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

funkatron (912521) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944782)

Source please?

Failing that: Where were these patients from (how close to the disaster)? What level of radiation were they exposed to? For how long? Would level of radiation exposure significantly increase their cancer risk? How long were the patients followed up on after receiving treatment? Is this long enough for cancer to have developed? etc...

Sorry for all the questions but you have to appreciate that 0 out of 3500 does sound a bit incredibly low for a cancer rate, doubly so for a cancer rate following radiation exposure.

Re:Chiropractic can help with radiation poisoning. (1)

TopSpin (753) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945130)

After the /b/ disaster, a Russian organization of Chiropractors volunteered their time and set up shop in a nearby Ukraine school gymnasium.

Over 3,500 people visited and had gullibility adjustments which helped improve snark function to the poast gland, which is so important with blog trolling. NOT A SINGLE PERSON WHO VISITED GOT TROLLED!!!

Think about that next time you visit Slashdot. Chiropractic is where it's at.

30,000 to 60,000 worldwide dying from Chrenobyl (0, Troll)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944872)

Doesn't really work like that. Some people have yet to get cancer, for example. Here is a reasonable estimate: http://www.chernobylreport.org/?p=summary [chernobylreport.org]

World's Worst? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35944556)

I'm not quite sure of that yet.

Re:World's Worst? (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945026)

As of right now yes, it is the world's worst because there are so many deaths linked to it and so many more still expected as a result.

"So I'm out in the Red Forest at night... (5, Funny)

He Who Has No Name (768306) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944616)

...looking for a Gravi artifact near these old buildings, see. And the detector keeps pointing me inside, so I go. The roof is gone and the moon is out but I'm staring at the detector instead of looking around.

All of a sudden I bump into this bloodsucker, and he's taking a leak. I look at him and go "hey, buddy, why are you pissing in the middle of the building?" And he looks back at me and goes "what the hell are you doing in my house?"

So I look around and realize we're in the middle of a converter room for a substation of the nuclear power plant. There's got to be 10 million volts on the wires in there.

About then I realize that only in the Zone can you walk right past a bunch of giant warning signs, into a room full of enough electricity to kill you faster than the speed of light, and the only thing out of the ordinary enough to make you notice is a blood sucking mutant taking a whiz."

technological overconfidence (5, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944774)

you can see it in postings on this website: technological overconfidence. the inflated sense of mastery over a technology due to technophilia and deriving much personal worth from one's mastery of technology

which is fine when you are talking about space exploration or computers. but nuclear power?

the problem is, accidents happen. they always do. no long winded speech on safety will alter the inevitable. corners are cut, economic considerations bypass longterm challenges, things break and fall apart over time. eventually, you have a nuclear accident. well now, it's a matter of the consequences of the accident. well: you blow up an oil supply depot, collpase a coal mine, undermine a dam, etc: these are awful cataclysmic events. and 5 minutes after it happens, its over. but nuclear power, when you have an accident, it stays with you for centuries. that's the big problem with nuclear power

mankind being too confident in his technological mastery, combined with longterm effects outside of the realm of mankind's normal psychological considerations, and you can see the problem with nuclear power. mankind, in a way, isn't built to handle nuclear power safely, and so we just shouldn't use it

i'm not saying we have better alternatives. and nuclear is great, when it works. and it works 99% of the time. but the problem with nuclear, when it doesn't work that 1% of the time? unlike every other power source, really terrible consequences stay with you for centuries. and so that 1% changes everything about nuclear power in ways that any conscientious person finds very troubling and sobering

Re:technological overconfidence (0, Troll)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944956)

Nice troll. Where's it copypasta'ed from?

Re:technological overconfidence (2, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945002)

i pasted it from somewhere between my medulla oblongata and my cerebrum

it's an original post, asshole

go ahead and google, i'll await my apology

Re:technological overconfidence (2, Funny)

$RANDOMLUSER (804576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945120)

Strange. It reads more like it came from a sphincter.

Re:technological overconfidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945410)

Of course it's an original post. Look at the inability to use capital letters and proper punctuation. Do you think anyone that lazy would find something already written and spend the time to switch it to their own lazy style?

Re:technological overconfidence (1, Interesting)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945396)

I did a DuckDuckGo search and yours was the sixth entry in the list that contained the phrase "technological overconfidence". None of them contained all your text of course.
I suspect 99% is a serious underestimate.

Re:technological overconfidence (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945502)

yeah search engines are getting impressive

if you search for "technological overconfidence" in quotes in google, you get my post as the 7th entry. it's 3:09 EST. i posted 2:24 EST

so that's 45 minutes for my brain fart to go from post lunch mental rambling to global reach

the internet really is an amazing thing

Re:technological overconfidence (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945606)

Actually, the phrase "technological overconfidence" was uttered before you did.
Example: 1998 (http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=00025f)

Re:technological overconfidence (1)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945634)

i never thought i was the first person to use that phrase

i was responding to someone who accused me of copypasting my whole post earlier in this thread, then i was responding to you just about how quick search engines return new content

Re:technological overconfidence (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945784)

Sorry, I understand now. Yeah, it was quick.

Re:technological overconfidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945182)

Where did YOU learn to spell ?

Let me guess ... Random Loser High School.

Re:technological overconfidence (5, Insightful)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944968)

when a hydroelectric damn collapses millions can be left homeless and tens or hundreds of thousands can be left dead and it can take years to repair the damage and rehome those left homeless.

After a regular old industrial accident huge tracts of land can be left unusuable effectively forever when regular non-radioactive poisons and heavy metals leave the land unusable.
There's lots of mutagens which aren't radioactive but will still give you cancer and deform your children and which have no halflife. they're forever.

nuclear can be dangerous but fundamentally it's not game changing.
slag piles and lead don't just stay with us for centuries, there there forever.
So I'll still go with the nuclear and call for safety systems out the wazoo.

it's a risk but it's still a lesser risk.

Lesser risk? Really? (3, Interesting)

rmdyer (267137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945672)

I have to say I'm very much on the fence on this one. In my youth I was definitely against nuclear power, then later I was a strong supporter. Now I'm back to being not sure.
There's a big problem if, for example, you had perfected the containment process, then out of the blue, a Tunguska sized event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunguska_event) happened nearby (or on top of) your nuclear sites.
The fallout from that would be impressive.
A Tunguska sized event is a "lesser risk" that we all live with every day, yet it did happen, and very probably will happen again within a few generations.

Re:technological overconfidence (2)

nellahj (1020725) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945822)

"when a hydroelectric damn collapses..." the nuclear power plants which rely on the man-made lake created by the damn melt down. Take a look at how many nuclear reactors depend on man-made lakes as their ultimate heat sinks.. Here are the actual requirements: http://pbadupws.nrc.gov/docs/ML0037/ML003739969.pdf [nrc.gov] Here is a list of reactors: http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist1.htm [animatedsoftware.com]

Re:technological overconfidence (3, Interesting)

owlstead (636356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945824)

You forgot about the waste and the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. The former we haven't solved, and the second, well, lets just say that I don't trust the nuclear industry and the economy enough to be responsible for decommissioning. Then there are things like wars, which tend to alter stuff. Anyone here that wants to decommission a nuclear power plant that is in the middle of a conflict? Or 5m deep in a flood? Hell, even Chernobyl is more than 500 million short for the next concrete sarcophagus, which should last some 100 years.

Re:technological overconfidence (5, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945928)

we have solved the waste problem technically, we just can't get funding for it as anti-nuclear crowd blocks all good research, and development.

Seriously the last nuclear plant built in the USA was started in 1977. I was born in 1978.

We literally have 30 years of additional knowledge but are unable to capitalize on it to help solve the problems of nuclear waste because of the anti-nuclear crowd.

Re:technological overconfidence (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944992)

unlike every other power source, really terrible consequences stay with you for centuries. and so that 1% changes everything about nuclear power in ways that any conscientious person finds very troubling and sobering

Clearly you know nothing about coal power. 100% of the time it poisoning the air, making tons of coal ash slurry and killing many miners every year. Even if we include the deaths due to the A-bombs dropped in WW2 Nuclear power is still safer than coal.

Re:technological overconfidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945056)

the problem is, accidents happen.

There are no accidents. [youtube.com]

THERE ARE NO ACCIDENTS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945200)

Disregard link above. This is the right PSA [youtube.com] .

You're welcome.

Re:technological overconfidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945094)

And apparently your technical incompetence still hasn't allowed you to make use of your Shift key, even after all the years on Kuro5hin and now Slashdot. They exist for a reason, dumbass, start using them.

Re:technological overconfidence (0)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945192)

well sycophant, you've been following me around long enough to notice i haven't started to use it. what makes you think i will start now?

Re:technological overconfidence (1)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945714)

but nuclear power, when you have an accident, it stays with you for centuries. that's the big problem with nuclear power

That's part of it, but the other part is the casualties. Nuclear stays for a long time but, say, a big dam failure can kill more people, even if the land soon becomes inhabitable again. Coal releases a lot of harmful materials (and radiation) in normal operation.

We need a way of generating a lot of power, and nuclear is the best of what we currently have. Though maybe we should build the power plants away from big cities and (more importantly) from areas where earthquakes and tsunamis happen.

If not nuclear, then what do you suggest we use to generate 4.6GW of power (the power capacity of Fukushima Daiichi)?

DarthVader (1)

DarthVain (724186) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945748)

I think the quote you are looking for goes something like this:

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force."

Long term energy desasters (2)

Burning1 (204959) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945770)

I think Katrina; and the World Trade Center; and the Coal fires in Centralia, Pennsylvania (burning since '62); and the 1969 oil Spill in Santa Barbara; and the 89 Valdiez spill; and the Heyope tire fire (burned for 15 years;) and the Deepwater oil spill; the Bhopal disaster, etc. etc. etc. all disagree with your statement that nuclear desasters are the only energy/transportation disasters that have a long lasting impact.

Regarding the Centralia coal fires:

"This was a world where no human could live, hotter than the planet Mercury, its atmosphere as poisonous as Saturn's. At the heart of the fire, temperatures easily exceeded 1,000 degrees [Fahrenheit]. Lethal clouds of carbon monoxide and other gases swirled through the rock chambers." - David DeKok (1986)

"5 minutes after it happens, its over" Is a very myopic statement, that could easily be rectified by walking the beaches of Santa Barbara.

Re:Long term energy desasters (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 3 years ago | (#35946058)

I think Katrina; and the World Trade Center; and the Coal fires in Centralia, Pennsylvania (burning since '62); and the 1969 oil Spill in Santa Barbara; and the 89 Valdiez spill; and the Heyope tire fire (burned for 15 years;) and the Deepwater oil spill; the Bhopal disaster, etc. etc. etc. all disagree with your statement that nuclear desasters are the only energy/transportation disasters that have a long lasting impact.

It should, perhaps, be pointed out that there were several nuclear power plants within the area of effect of Katrina. Ever notice how seldom they're mentioned in the news?

Re:technological overconfidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35946086)

over one percent of the worlds nuclear reactors have melted down.

1 reactor at Three Mile Island
1 reactor at Chernobyl
3 reactors at Fukushima

There are 443 operational reactors in the world.

That is a very high catastrophic failure rate, which I thing supports the OPs argument. Imagine if 1% of all cell phones, from a single vendor, failed (especially in some catastrophic fashion). Nobody would even consider owning that vendors products. The failure rate would be _way_ too high.

I usually enjoy the reasoned comments on /., but the ideological pro-nuke commentary (with all the name calling, and straw man arguments comparing to coal, etc.) has really disappointed.

There is a book coming out of google translated Russian documentation on Chernobyl which places the _immediate_ death toll at around 4000.

And all you who state that thousands of folks dying of cancer is A-OK with you, as long as you can power up your wasteful plasma screen! I invite you to volunteer for the cleanup efforts at these disaster sites. It is easy, for some, to speak of others lives as mere statistics. The antidote for this callousness, is to bring the issue closer to home. I bet none of you would even consider putting your own lives at risk. If anybody takes up this challenge, please post. Yeah, won't be holding my breath.

25 years... (1)

6Yankee (597075) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944788)

...and still no superheroes :(

Exposure to radiation "immunizes" body? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944800)

I recently heard that studies show exposure to LOW level radiation makes the body's immune system more resistant. i.e. Someone downwind of Chernobyl would be less likely to develop cancer. I wonder if there's any truth to this idea? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17867496 [nih.gov]

There was a time when people refused smallpox vaccinations, believing it to be stupid to inject a disease into the bloodstream, but it later proved to be beneficial.

Re:Exposure to radiation "immunizes" body? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945092)

You're confusing cancer with radiation sickness.

When living cells are hit by radiation there is a chance that they will be damaged and turn cancerous. To prevent this the human body will attempt to kill any cells damaged by radiation. The body is obviously not 100% effective at eliminating cancerous cells, but this still gives us decent protection from cancer from exposure to natural background radiation, but if we receive an unnaturally high dose then so many cells will get killed that normal body functions start failing. This is what we call radiation sickness.

According to the article you link to prior exposure to radiation will lessen the body's response to further exposures, giving a kind of "vaccine" against radiation sickness. It seems likely that this effect will also increase the chance of getting cancer from radiation damage, since more damaged, potentially cancerous cells will survive and multiply.

Re:Exposure to radiation "immunizes" body? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945802)

I am not a fan of LNT (Linear, no-threshold model of radiation). But the jury is still out on this one partially due to lack of control and that the effect of other stressors is so much more significant. There is evidence in animals that low levels of radiation is beneficial (above normal background, up to about 20-50mSv/year). There is evidence that variations in background radiation (can be 10,000+%, depending on location, from low to high levels, 1mSv - 200+mSv/year) are not correlated with increased cancer rates - this alone contradicts LNT. There is further evidence that people accidentally exposed to radiation levels may have some positive effects, but that has not been investigated. For example, the death rate of Chernobyl cleanup workers is somewhat lower from cancer than of the unexposed public.

The evidence for increased cancer rates from Chernobyl is not there - another one against LNT. For example the predicted increase in Leukemia (cancer type that was predicted to peak a few years ago) - well, nothing happened. Thyroid cancers from Chernobyl is another example of where LNT seems to fail. From radiotherapy of thyroid disorders (eg. used to treat hyperthyroidism - same Iodine as in the fallout is intentionally administered to patient to kill the thyroid, but using massive dosages (100,000x what Chernobyl fallout was), it is known that the peak for thyroid cancers is about 28 years after expose. But the rate of thyroid cancer is decreasing contrary to LNT predictions. Actually thyroid caner rate peaked 1 year after thyroid screening program was instituted and that was immediately after Chernobyl. It turns out that wherever there is detailed screening of a population, detected rates of occult caners spikes simply as a side effect of the screening. Anyway, thyroid cancer rates should be increasing now, not decreasing per the LNT model and per our knowledge of latency of thyroid cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthyroidism#Radioiodine

The assumption that LNT must be true is like dogma in general scientific community while in fact it was just selected for ease of understanding back in the early 50s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

This states there is non-linear relationship to radiation at low levels. This has huge precedence in nature. For example, retinoids are vital to human health but are deadly. Eat a few grams of it and you are dead. This substance is also known as Vitamin A. Selenium is another example of this. There are many more examples of hormesis with different substances. It basically comes down to this. Small amounts are better than little or nothing and large amounts will kill you. That, based on evidence, is what I think applies to radiation too. You DO NOT want to spread nuclear fallout around, but small amounts are not going to kill you (and may even be positive) so stop worrying.

Interesting pics of the site today (2)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944902)

A saw a link earlier today to an interesting portfolio [firesuite.com] of pictures of the modern site. It's actually surprising that there are people still living there. Most of them are nuclear workers and associates. But a few eccentrics have apparently moved back to their villages too (the article talks about an encounter with one old lady who lives there, completely cut off and on her own). I also didn't realize that the other reactors of the plant were kept online long after the #4 reactor was entombed (the last reactor wasn't shut down until 2000). It's also amazing to see how much work has really been done to clean the place up (it's now safe to walk around most of the area, with a guide who knows the really nasty "hot spots" anyway).

25 years? (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35944998)

...and we still haven't been able to top it? What's wrong with the youth today?

Horrible article... (4, Informative)

Andy Dodd (701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945080)

"Nuclear blast"?

Whoever wrote the article had no clue. Chernobyl consisted of a steam explosion followed by a graphite fire of the exposed reactor core. There may have also been a subsequent brief prompt criticality incident that released less energy than the steam explosion, however the article implies that Chernobyl's radiation release was entirely by a bomb-like nuclear explosion.

Re:Horrible article... (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35946026)

Absolutely true, but I think there would have been a problem with a larger steam explosion if the melting core would have reached water under the reactor. And nuclear blasts aren't that dangerous regarding radiation levels (if anyone within a reach of 50 km is injured, they don't need to be either). Nuclear reactors definitely are, they are basically huge dirty bombs.

coal is a continous ongoing disaster (0)

Dan667 (564390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945272)

Coal poisons and it is sad it is not getting any press.

Re:coal is a continous ongoing disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945352)

Cow farts are causing a greenhouse effect and you almost never hear about that either!

It is in Ukraine, not in Russia (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945290)

1. What is the feeling in Russia of their own disaster in Chornobyl? - It is in UKRAINE
2. It is ChOrnobyl, not ChErnobyl (russian spelling)

Living in Germany at the Time (4, Interesting)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945346)

I was a child in Germany when this event occurred and it did manage some interesting changes. I was six at the time and the school I went to had several tents set up outside the school where men in interesting orange, white or yellow suits would give you a once over with a geiger counter before you were allowed in. I know there was another tent set up a distance away for kids who came in 'hot', but I don't honestly remember what went on in the tent as I was always 'clean'. No recess outside for a whole year (a bunch of pent up 6 year olds is a scary thing) and if you were outside, under no circumstances were you to touch anything or put any of the plants (like blades of grass) in your mouth to make whistles. I know there were probably more rules, but I was six at the time and didn't care much outside the "some Russians made it so we can't play outside" angle. Was a military brat. I say this because since then I have read up as much as I can on the incident and am extremely interested in the history behind the disaster. I have even looked into getting one of the CHERNOBYL LIQUIDATOR medals to add to my small collections of all things Chernobyl. The lead up to the actual disaster itself is very fascinating and I encourage people to read into it. It wasn't so much a sudden 'oops!' as it was a lapse in several security and communications measures that lead up to the eventual steam explosion. The descriptions from some of the poor unfortunate first responders is enough to send chills up anyone's spine. Particularly the one I read (looking for link now actually) from a firefighter that died shortly there after describing the sensation as 'millions of hot pins and needles all over ones body'. Other interesting aspects from this were talks of the plant design itself, as well as photos of the nearby towns and abandoned villages. If anything this disaster was a wake up call for a more standardized plant design and communications methodology. My mind doesn't serve me well but the Russians had a habit of making each plant unique (someone correct me if I'm wrong?) and thus how to contain this particular disaster was by the seat of the pants moment. Oh, and if you get a chance, find the remains of the plant via google maps. I am not sure if it is still up but a year ago you could see the concrete tomb from the skies. Also look for some of the 'on site' photography done. The picture of a pipe 'oozing concrete lava' was morbidly fascinating.

Re:Living in Germany at the Time (1)

AioKits (1235070) | more than 3 years ago | (#35945364)

Sorry for the large wall of text, haven't posted to /. for a while and forgot how to edit my own post.

Re:Living in Germany at the Time (1)

owlstead (636356) | more than 3 years ago | (#35946100)

Interesting none the less. I saw some pictures of legs of helicopter pilots of that time (basically having 2nd to 3rd degree burns all over) and I am amazed that anyone would go through that for his fellow citizens, even at gun point. Fortunately, they did not know back then what was going to happen to them. The burns only manifest themselves at a later stage - once you're already done for to be precise. I think some Japanese fire-fighters were also taken in with those burns, and I'm wondering what their current condition is. Probably not good.

you mean second worst nuclear disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945418)

Chernobyl was one reactor melted down, only 3 months operating (only 3 months worth radioactive waste, rest uranium).
Fukushima is 3 reactors, with 4 years of operation (radioactive waste in the fuel) have melted down, and at least 4 more reactor cores in the spent fuel pools are melting down.
Fukushima is by far the worst disaster of all time by multiple times.
The denial is disgusting. Every delay done to 'help' their ability to deny costs more people's health.

Re:you mean second worst nuclear disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35945642)

The denial is

Countering your badly flawed assertions is a useful and necessary antidote to your misinformation. Fission byproducts aren't the sole factor involved in gauging the severity of an incident. Samples taken from spent fuel pools confirm that fuel damage has been stopped.

Please stop your lying.

Re:you mean second worst nuclear disaster (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35946104)

recent photos show the water is missing, lol, opposite of problem stopped.

iraq3 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35946060)

good pic [iraq3.com] thanx alot its seems so refliction
good pic [iraq3.com] thanx alot its seems so refliction

n

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...