digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

See the original image at news.yahoo.com

Doomed Chernobyl reactor to be buried in giant steel coffin

news.yahoo.com — Twenty-two years after the Chernobyl nuclear disaster, work is under way on a colossal new shelter to cover the ruins and deadly radioactive contents of the exploded Soviet-era power plant.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • mark101, on 04/28/2008, -35/+4great comment From the article ""Nuclear energy has shown how expensive it is," said Vladimir Chuprov of Greenpeace Russia."
    • Culyt, on 04/28/2008, -1/+26Chemobyl was more of a failure of communism than nuclear power, the engineers at the station got various warnings and told the person in charge that if they continued there would be a high risk yet he ignored them in order to get the test completed on time.

      It was a very out of date design compared to reactors now days, and it actually did what it was supposed to and warned people that they where ***** up. Newer reactors won't let you ***** up, they have too much saftey features. The only other notable reactor problem was 3 mile island that actually released less radiation than coal power plants release in a day. ☢
    • JoshuaLowe, on 04/28/2008, -2/+6Really? I mean seriously? You're going to try and use a poorly run, poorly maintained, Soviet-era reactor as an example of the dangers of nuclear power? Are you also going to use Soviet-era cars as an example of the poor reliability and safety of automobiles?
    • shark615, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4Another thing to consider in addition to the above comments it was not a nuclear explosion. The poorly run tests caused a steam explosion.
    • Heiminator, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1as long as these soviet era reactors are in use in some parts of the world (eastern europe...), i see no reason why he cant use them as an example for the dangers of nuclear power...
    • lordthor, on 04/28/2008, -5/+3Number of deaths resulting from radiation due to the breach at Chernobyl: ZERO. Period. Today, you could take a tour of Pripyat in the Ukraine and get less radiation due to chernobyl than you did from the sun during that walk. This is hippy propaganda B.S. It saddens me to think that people still use Chernobyl to show how "dangerous" nuclear power is. It is the cleanest, most efficient, least costly, LEAST HAZARDOUS of any method of procurement of energy to this date. People hear the word 'Nuclear' and think it automatically means DEADLY RADIATION!!!! (as the word "radiation" is most often precluded by the word "deadly" in the media) - In fact that's the reason the MRI is called the MRI. It used to be called "NMRI" for "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging" - Because it uses the spin of the individual nucleuses.... nuclei? (what's the plural of nucleus?) - but people were afraid of the word nuclear, and so the name was changed - so people would start actually using it.
      It's a sick world we're living in. Damn hippies.
      • funkywood, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2I agree with almost all of that but you had to ***** it up on the last two words with an ignorant insult. Since when are 'hippies' to blame for the media spreading fear and paranoia?
      • sTiVo, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2I'm no environmentalist and am actually a big proponent of nuclear power. But to address your initial comment, a lot of people actually did die of radiation poisoning as a result of the breach, many of which were the firemen that extinguished the flames after the disaster occurred and had no idea that they were exposed to "deadly" radiation. Maybe what you meant was that there have been no deaths from radiation exposure due to the existing leaking enclosure. That may or may not be true. I've never seen any study to indicate either. If you have a source, please post it.
    • funkywood, on 04/28/2008, -3/+2The stupid thing is the Chernobyl disaster has been GREAT for the environment. The radiation levels aren't harmful but they are enough to keep paranoid humans away, leaving nature to take the whole place back.
  • OfNumbers, on 04/28/2008, -29/+3And people are still threatening to use nuclear bombs.
    • lolinyerface, on 04/28/2008, -3/+11Who is threatening? Cite some sources, please.
      • jackal42, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Worcester sauce?
        • lolinyerface, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1How do you say that anyways. You never actually hear the company say the word. Even in their commercials.
        • djholybolt, on 04/28/2008, -0/+0it's pronounced 'werchester'
      • Frostek, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1WOO-STER is close enough.
  • TomBolland, on 04/28/2008, -1/+39Still no superheros?
    • FDisk, on 04/28/2008, -3/+4Well kinda, I have a relative from Chernobyl. He can't fly or anything but if you point to a page in the local phonebook and say the page number to him he can tell you every name, address and phone number on that page.
      • Andyschism, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1So I should call him when robbers . . . are?
    • zantos420, on 04/28/2008, -1/+4Doctor: Mayor West, you have Lymphoma.
      Mayor: Oh My.
      Doctor: Probably from rolling around in that Toxic waste. What in God's name were you trying to prove?
      Mayor: I was trying to gain super powers.
      Doctor: Well that's just silly.
      Mayor: Silly yes ... Idiotic ... yes.
  • thentro, on 04/28/2008, -1/+7Chernobyl New Safe Confinement video:
    http://movies.propeller.com/story/2007/01/17/chern ...
  • iamnotcreative, on 04/28/2008, -7/+42mark101 said: great comment From the article ""Nuclear energy has shown how expensive it is," said Vladimir Chuprov of Greenpeace Russia."

    How is that a great comment? The incident at Chernobyl occurred not because of any flaw in reactor design or because nuclear power is inherently unsafe, it happened because the people running a test at the plant were incredibly incompetent and bullheaded, refusing to believe anything was wrong when it could have been contained, and then responding in a completely inadequate fashion until it was too late.
    • thentro, on 04/28/2008, -12/+2#1 use the reply button.
      #2 All Nuclear power is run by humans, and all humans are incompetent and bullheaded, not just Ukrainians. There will always be a risk of something happening again, and this risk is never calculated into the cost of the final electricity.
      • Murdats, on 04/28/2008, -1/+11it was the worst reactor design of the earliest generation with saftey protocols ignored and overridden.
        modern reactors cannot meltdown like this, and even if they could i doubt anyone would ever do anything this stupid again or even if reactors would ever be built with the ability to override protocols.
      • jackalsclaw, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1they are when you build plants with 10 times the margin for error and redundant systems for everything and have the crewed by highly trained professionals. it's like the risk of air travel.
    • lolinyerface, on 04/28/2008, -11/+6Learn to hit reply.
    • michnuc, on 04/28/2008, -1/+25Yes and no. The design was horrible. Due to the fact they wanted to use natural uranium, heavy water and graphite were used to moderate the neutrons. Due to the design there was a the large positive void coefficient, which basically means that when the reactor gets hotter, the reaction rate increases and vice versa. Normally this ok (like in CADNU reactors), when the void coefficient is small and positive. In the old RBMK designs, it was very positive, and thus the increase in reactivity was too great for the response (control rod drop) to mitigate the event ( rods took 20 seconds to drop).

      However, the event occurred because they were running a dangerous test with an inexperienced staff, while the reactor had high poison concentrations. Control rods were removed beyond what should have been allowed. A scram after the test rapidly inserted the poorly designed control rods and between some breaking, jamming and the initial reactivity jump, the reactor increased in reactivity, the core melted and boiled off all the water. The steam created exploded the reactor top. The heat from the reactor and air through the broken room caused the graphite to ignite and burn.

      TL/DR Sum up: People caused it to happen, design prevented them from stopping it.
      • quack, on 04/28/2008, -2/+7Great description!
      • palehorse864, on 04/29/2008, -0/+2The steam blew off the reactor top but the mess was still contained to the building. You left off that after the steam blew off the top, the water and other chemicals in the reactor. zirconium and some of the graphite i think, created a great deal of hydrogen. This is what finally blew the roof off the building and let it all escape into the open air. Granted, I'm not sure how much would have leaked out through ventilation, doors, etc. if the roof had remained on.
    • dagnome1984, on 04/28/2008, -1/+18The reactor had its flaws. After all we are talking about a generation one reactor. Yes, there was big time user error, but the fact that graphite control rods were used didn't help much when the reaction became unstable. Todays modern reactors are far safer than the old Chernobyl reactor.
  • craighoxton, on 04/28/2008, -5/+17"50,000 people used to live here..."
    • KBailey1734, on 04/28/2008, -4/+5Where did they all go?
    • jayjr, on 04/28/2008, -4/+3CoD4 reference!
    • h4mx0r, on 04/28/2008, -1/+10Now it's a ghost town....
      • craighoxton, on 04/28/2008, -5/+1"Bands won't play no more: too much fighting on the dance floor"
      • keepinithamsta, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Your so-called leaders burst to the test; destroyed our culture, our economies, our honour...
        • PR1811, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1It's actually "Our so called leaders prostituted us to the west, destroyed out culture, our economies, our honour"
  • steveoco, on 04/28/2008, -10/+3Welcome to news of yesteryear... where we feature news everyone has heard before...
    • fantasticjon, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2You did see that this article came out Sunday, April 27, 2008?
  • Shadowgamers, on 04/28/2008, -7/+1I wonder how many more games are going to have Chernobyl in it now...
  • wafflesomd, on 04/28/2008, -6/+13GET OUT OF HERE STALKER.
    • Maciula, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5don't just stand there, come in!
      • Divals, on 04/28/2008, -0/+2This was a tri- er, I mean, Black ravens, black ravens, circling, above the graves.
    • TheProWasTaken, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Hello! Hello!
  • steveoco, on 04/28/2008, -2/+13Chernobyl to be covered in $1.4 billion steel helmet - front paged and popular story posted 223 days ago
  • thingnumber2, on 04/28/2008, -3/+8The benefit of nuclear power far outweighs the cost. It's not that it's an inherently dangerous way of creating energy, it just needs to be carefully managed by responsible parties.
    • jackalsclaw, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2coal power plants put our more radiation cause the ore they burn contains radon. you have to measure the effects of nuclear power in the cost of the alternatives. Coal is bad for the environment, Oil is the same and cost of oil is growing exponentially, biofuel is not scalable to 1/20 of our needs, solar/wind/hydro would need 100's of trillions of dollars and require us to drastically alter the face of plant. Realistically it's nuclear or coal and coal is a lot worse.
    • pilobilus, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1I will agree that nuclear power is safe and practical when:
      1. Uranium mining no longer kills people and poisons large tracts of land,
      2. Safety design and inspection processes are 100% transparent to the public, and
      3. The cost per kWh, including amortized cradle to grave fuel costs, are comparable to existing solar tech.

      Until then, nuclear power is a clear last-place loser.
  • Ganja420, on 04/28/2008, -5/+15In soviet russia, reactors bury you
  • Sub7, on 04/28/2008, -7/+4At this distance, you also have to take the Coriolis effect into account.
    • mrgreenjeans9, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1y'know, after checking this story out i GIS'ed 'chernobyl', and there it all was: the blown out pool, the ferris wheel....gotta love that COD4
  • momsshizzle, on 04/28/2008, -6/+2Will Gene Simmons sell them a Kiss Casket?
  • breezytrees, on 04/28/2008, -6/+1isn't this story like a year old or something?
  • mactrix, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4I say they should just "Nuke it".
    • funkywood, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2lol. Someone doesn't agree and dugg you down but I thought it was funny.
  • xNav, on 04/28/2008, -3/+1Wait 5 years and there will be a horror movie about this.
  • davidwasman, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1Doesn't Steel absorb radiation and then emanate it? Why not use Lead? It's much more dense. Hell, even I remember in Science class when they brought out radioactive isotopes, they had them in lead containers. They even showed us a movie about how STEEL watches transfered the radioactivity of the 'glowing dial' to the person's arms.

    stupid russians.
    • nardologix, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3Virtually anything in excess is good shielding for radiation.
    • shark615, on 04/28/2008, -2/+3Wow so you think you an anon poster on digg knows more about this then all of the experts involved because of a lame science class?
    • thomashauk, on 04/28/2008, -1/+6Because lead is soft, expensive and toxic, not good when you need to build a large structure exposed to the elements.
      Also you need to coat in in copper because it emits x-rays when exposed to radiation which is even more expensive.
    • Ramble, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Steel absorbs alpha and beta, gamma can be let through since it's not really dangerous. Neutrons are more of a problem, but since it would take thousands of years for the structure to become dangerous it doesn't really matter.
      Steel is used because it's cheap, easy to find and can be used ina structure, lead would collapse.
      • nardologix, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1How come people that aren't fully sure about the stuff they are talking about try to educate others with the wrong information?

        Last I checked, gamma rays are pretty damn bad. I'll give you some Co-60 and I'll let you figure that out by yourself.
    • michnuc, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1The purpose of the steel is not to contain the radiation, but contain the radioactive particles. The rubble, steel and volume of air between the fence and the remains of the reactor should be enough shielding to prevent significant doses to those individuals offsite. However, in this case, the material must remain onsite, and that is the purpose of the additional shield, to contain the fission products. The sarcophagus prevents transport though the air, I don't know what's being done about through the soil and the aquifer below.
  • DestroyFascism, on 04/28/2008, -7/+2So what happens when the concrete containing the 15 tonnes of Plutonium and many other other contaminated materials breaks, cracks and its reinforcing decays? The whole thing was built on a swamp. swamps are moving constantly, and this one drains into South Eastern Europe. The basement must be slowly leaking already, damp and contaminated, the water will be moving in and out like a flux. The Roof is not even 1/10th of the problem but seems to be the focus. Another cheap cover up for the Nuclear industry! Just put it under the rug until the blood starts running out from the floorboards. Until the elephants foot is gone, this will continue in perpetuity...
    • nardologix, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1It's pronounced Uranium.
      We don't generally use plutonium for power production.
      • michnuc, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1DestroyFascism may be right, as the USSR used natural uranium as the fuel, guaranteeing that much of the U-238 would be transmuted into Pu-239
        • nardologix, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1He's not right, as there wouldn't be 15 tonnes of Plutonium.
          Plutonium is produced as a by-product of neutron absorption and/or fission. It must later be extracted from the fuel by isotopic separation if you wish to concentrate it to make higher yield nuclear weapons. There would be some (along with other fission products which are far more toxic), but not 15 tonnes.
        • michnuc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1I was referring to the fact that Pu would be present in the core, not his quantification of it. Ok, so it wasn't 15 tons of Pu-239 in the core, but due to the nature of Pu-239 as an alpha emitter, it is still extremely dangerous in small quanities. Using this source: http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c02.html ( 8.5x10^14 Bq), this gives about 257 kg in the core at the time of the accident (of which, 3.5% is estimated to have exited the core).

          Plutonium is extracted from spent fuel through chemical means, as it has different chemical properties than uranium and other fission products. Isotopic separation is used to separate U-235 and U-238.
        • DestroyFascism, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1If you want to include the total product of the melt, the Uranium, the vessel, the by-product, (plutonium included g /kg) then yes its a 15 tonne glowing mass of metals and it is not going anywhere but the swamp -> the river -> the Mediterranean. (food chain)
  • jeffness, on 04/28/2008, -5/+2Chernobyl didn't explode. Meltdowns are merely accelerated chain reactions in which the heat became too much for containment and the core melts through the floor and surrounding areas, releasing radiation. Nuclear power plants do not explode as if they were atom bombs when a meltdown occurs; these two distinct aspects of nuclear fission are completely and totally different. Nuclear bombs require very specific packing methods to cause an explosion.
    • nardologix, on 04/28/2008, -0/+5Look up "LOCA"
      Water + Heat = Steam
      Steam = Pressure
      Too much pressure = Kaboom

      This is not a nuclear explosion, but rather a pressure build up that caused the containment building to pop open.

      This problem is solved by either venting pressure to atmosphere (this was done at the Three Mile Island accident) or the use of a containment building that is designed to condense the steam (such as a Candu's vacuum building).
    • pilobilus, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3Chernobyl exploded. This steam explosion breached a main reactor containment vessel, and scattered hot fuel and graphite all over the complex. In the meltdown that followed, the pile went critical. A purple flash was seen THROUGH reinforced concrete walls. Nuclear engineers gave their lives, deliberately, entering hot zones to report conditions - and the f**king Soviet Army ignored their advice and fought it as if it was a conventional chemical fire, spreading contamination and assuring a continued strong fission reaction. There is no reason to believe that the United States will handle its first meltdown any better - can we say, New Orleans? "We" knew for 40 years what would happen there...
      • palehorse864, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1"There is no reason to believe that the United States will handle its first meltdown any better - can we say, New Orleans? "We" knew for 40 years what would happen there..."

        Does a partial meltdown count? We did have the three mile island accident and began early evacuations once someone realized it might be a problem. We managed to get it under control though and contain it.
    • palehorse864, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Only the chernobyl internal reactor exploded from the steam I believe. The final building explosion that released everything into the atmosphere was a result of hydrogen afterward (mix the steam water with other chemicals at high temperatures and it breaks apart into hydrogen). First the steam explosion, then the hydrogen..
  • crichards7, on 04/28/2008, -4/+0This seems like a bit of a waste of money. The half-life of the material in there is thousands of years. I think there should be international collaboration into a project to completely dismantle and dispose of the whole site.
    • shark615, on 04/28/2008, -0/+4There is but you have to contain properly before you clean up
    • michnuc, on 04/28/2008, -0/+3The most dangerous radionuclides in spent fuel are those with short half-lives and occur in great quantity, most notably Cs-137 (30a) and and Sr-90 (28.8a). It is true that many of the Trans-Uranics (TRU) and the Uranium have long half-lives, but as they will be around for a long time, they then pose the least risk in terms of health effects. (dose=energy/time) Short-lived mobile radionuclides (like Cs and Sr) and alpha-particle emitters(Pu) are the greatest danger, and are likely present in large quantities in the rubble of Chernobyl.
  • usgovterrorists, on 04/28/2008, -8/+1I thought they could just walk in with NASA's spacesuits, and clean the place up.
    The spacesuits that NASA was too afraid to test in a real life situation.
    NASA is a joke!
    • tomz17, on 04/28/2008, -1/+3And how does a spacesuite protect you from radiation?
    • nardologix, on 04/28/2008, -1/+0Rad suits do not protect you from radiation (except beta and alpha), instead they provide a barrier between particles which undergo radioactive decay and your body. Basically when you're out working in the suit you get bombarded by radiation and when you're done working and remove the suit, you no longer are bombarded by those elements as they are left behind on the suit (as opposed to being absorbed into your body).
    • usgovterrorists, on 04/28/2008, -4/+1NASA claimed they went to the moon, and these spacesuits protected them from the radiation.
      Now now, lets not try to rewrite the history book.
      • Frostek, on 04/28/2008, -1/+2Is your tinfoil hat radiation-proof?
        • michnuc, on 04/29/2008, -0/+1Aluminum is a poor choice for a shielding material. Better go with a lead hat.
  • Cyber_Akuma, on 04/28/2008, -2/+4Wait

    I remember reading once about some fungus or something that they found growing in the reactor when they sent a scouting robot in to survey the area, it was apparnetly feeding off the radiation. Something like that could be of incredible use to humanity in the future, can we really seal that off?
  • o0JoeCool0o, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1When has covering something up or burying it EVER solved a problem. it should be dismantled, carefully and appropriately. Ground waters will be contaminated and seep everywhere poisoning everything in the long run.
  • Morality, on 04/28/2008, -2/+1It is rare that a story is posted that is in fact, OLDER THAN ***** DIGG.
  • pilobilus, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1In the final analysis it's about money. The concrete "sarcophagus" has been in danger of collapse for years, and the only reason ANYthing is being done, is fear of the economic cost of evacuations downwind and adverse national publicity that would follow. The real "decision makers" literally and absolutely do not care about anything but the money - their solution is to retire with enough capital to move anywhere in the world they expect their children will grow up safe to inherit the wealth and power.
  • khyberkitsune, on 04/28/2008, -0/+1Steel will NOT block the radiation coming from that wasteland. It's the old "Out of sight, out of mind" tactic.
  • NoNamesLeft, on 04/28/2008, -1/+1A lot of people posting comments here about about how we should dismantle this thing, and because we aren't means we are 'brushing it under the carpet'. Listen, that thing now has compacted dust, maybe only a few millimeters at points but none the less, held away from air contact. We need to seal the area off. In 50-100 years time, we will need to seal it off again, this time, with a shelter above the already built shelter (I doubt they will be able to remove the nuclear fuel within 50 years). It is the almost certainly the most incompetent mistake ever done in the history of mankind, but from it they have learnt a lot in the nuclear industry. But to dismantle it would certainly be a job for robots, advanced robots, an army of them in fact which are immune to radioactivity, and we would need to make sure we did not allow any of the contaminants into the atmosphere, so no dust. Also, robots can last a mater of hours in intense radiation, before their circuits burn out. Do you know where we can hold of an army of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of robots which could dismanlte this structure, without causing any dust? Huh?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.