What is Digg?101 Comments
- abyssknight, on 10/10/2007, -1/+79Iron curtain activated!
- Djerrid, on 10/10/2007, -10/+52"Ukraine has hired a French firm to build the structure..."
I bet the French give great helmet. - AndrewDB, on 01/10/2008, -1/+32Can't wait to see what it looks like on Google Maps. :]
- kaptainchump, on 10/10/2007, -4/+32Simpsons did it
- ilkeryoldas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22Your comment makes me want to play Red Alert 2
- moosepimp06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+18In other news, a massive patch is released for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. to implement the dome. Other changes include:
*Radiation has been cleaned up, the bandit and mutant epidemic has been eliminated.
*STALKER has been renamed H.E.L.M.E.T.
*Weapons have been replaced with hammers, shovels, and welders.
*Bolts are no longer a useless item, but a necessity for HELMETS to use in completing the dome.
*Enemies have been renamed and recoded as Coworkers. - keyboardduder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14only one man ever gave me the raspberry.....
- NullzipZero, on 10/10/2007, -2/+14Gives a whole new meaning to a cover up.
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11So they shouldn't do anything?
Nice attitude! - Dokument, on 10/10/2007, -6/+16Chernobyl is the JUGGERNAUT BITCH!
- roland, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I had an aunt that died of cancer years before the Chernobyl incident.
She was in the US! So these ***** DOES NOT CARE TIME!!!! - fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10No, he has a valid point which he expressed in a oafish way: A single person is not a sample set, and does not prove anything.
Sorry, but your suffering may or may not have been completely unrelated to Chernobyl. We can't tell what caused your particular problem, but we CAN poll random people from a pool consisting of everybody who were born before and after the Chernobyl meltdown from people who were in turkey before and after the Chernobyl meltdown, and then see if we can find a correlation between the time and the birth defects.
Also, I wouldn't call Chernobyl a living hell. It's actually safe to visit as long as you don't break the rules they set out for it. - theNazz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10That site is extrememely hot. I'm interested to see how they do it without sicking all of the workers. Kudos for working to clean up that mess!
- fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7It's not 22 years too late, the containment dome they built AFTER they blew up the reactor has suffered a partial collapse. That was only a few years too late.
Of course, the SANEST solution is to send in some remote controlled drones to reclaim the now-solidified puddle of isotopes that was once the reactor core so that it will stop being a source of contamination - also, reprocessing it would allow the useless and dangerous junk to be disposed of properly, while the usable fuel could power other reactors. - geomon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7The work will be performed using remotely activated cranes running inside of the exclusion zone. Worker exposure will be managed within international limits.
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7@dima7b
"The toxic radiation is still in the air around most of the ukraine."
*****. There is radioactive contamination in the soil and groundwater around and downgradient of the facility, but the alpha particles only travel a few feet from their source and beta only travel a few tens of feet. How does that translate to "around most of the ukraine"?
The only form of energy that can travel any significant distance from radioactive particles (waste, sources, isotopes) are gamma rays. But they travel in straight lines and there a lot of mass between Chernobyl's radioactive sources and the rest of the Ukraine.
The idea that there is some kind of radioactive fog floating around the Ukraine is hogwash. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10Does this remind anyone of the Simpsons Movie?
- Falldog, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Good news. Last I heard Ukraine was too broke to afford it. If it's the same design I heard about they plan to build most of it next to the power plant then slide it over top, sort of like a retractable stadium roof.
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I think the sanest solution is the one they plan on implementing, but they may be waiting for at least one half-life of both cesium-137 and strontium-90 to bring the temperature down a bit. That isn't too far off, only 8 more years.
- BossKey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7The great thing is, it will seem like a lot more money since you'll have to spend all of it in the 6 months you have before you finally succumb to radiation poisioning. Carpe diem!!!
- dark_helmet, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5LONESTAR!!
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I think you missed my point. I agreed that the sanest approach was the one you mentioned. You are arguing with yourself.
- Soytaco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Dalaran?
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"You don't even really need to stop the radiation itself as much as you do the radioisotopes."
Okay. You and I have had a colloquy about this topic on several comments, but this one is beyond the pale. What makes radioisotopes dangerous? RADIATION.
"The gamma rays and neutrons are absorbed fairly well by air"
No, they are not. They pass unimpeded though air. Check any physics book. They are not absorbed by air. They are absorbed by dense materials. They convert to beta particles in some interactions with some materials which makes shielding difficult if you don't know what you are doing.
"- which has a halving distance of 150m for those kinds of radiation."
That is the recommended distance to stay away from gamma-generating sources. But it doesn't have anything to do with air absorption anymore than the distance away from a magnetic source has anything to do with air "absorbing" the magnetic field.
"As long as people don't decide to spend lots of time buzzing the site, I wouldn't expect any issues that a rad-blocking dome would solve."
True enough. Time, distance, shielding.
These are your friends. - Farhan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3what have u been smoking ?
- phrozenfearz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3For the most part they use robots to build steel structures in radioactive zones. Of course the robots can't withstand a full blast of gamma rays, but then again, what can?
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Your skin will stop radiation: alpha radiation.
Plastic and sheets of paper will stop radiation: beta radiation
Material of sufficient density will stop gamma radiation. That would include steel of sufficient thickness, concrete of sufficient thickness, and lead. But you have to keep your structure within strength limits and lead is not only incredibly heavy, it is also too soft to support loads - like structural beams.
Steel will work just fine. Most of the work will be done with remotely operated vehicles/equipment. - Animal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No sir! I didn't see you playing with your dolls again sir!
- fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The void coefficient wasn't a problem with the operators, as the plant was designed that way.
Water is good at both moderating and absorbing neutrons, and there is a specific neutron energy range in which chain reactions are possible. If the neutrons have too much or too little energy, they become vastly less effective at causing chain reactions.
The RBMK reactors use graphite as a moderator and water to absorb the excess. When a steam bubble formed, the graphite kept moderating the neutrons as per normal, but the gap in the water let FAR more neutrons through than was intended and caused the chain reaction to speed up dramatically, which caused both more neutrons to be released and more steam-causing heat to be released. The water flash-boiled and exploded, exposing the core to the outside world (If it had had a containment dome, the explosion would not have breached to the outside.), and at that point the graphite caught fire, and the reactor started to melt.
Of course, it also never would have happened in the first place if they hadn't sabotaged the safety systems, or if they had been using a research reactor (.5MW-1MW) for research instead of a production reactor (1,500MW), or etc...
Chernobyl is a morbid comedy of errors, really - fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2That's not entirely true. Although the radioisotopes have mostly settled out into the soil and groundwater, there was a LOT of radioactive smoke released into the air that traveled for quite a long distance - much of Europe received some dose of it, albeit mostly not at harmful levels.
Also:
Alpha particles have a halving distance of a few cm in air, not feet.
Beta particles have a halving distance of a few dm in air, not tens of feet.
Gamma rays have a halving distance of 150m in air.
You can't say "They go X distance", as it depends on the energy of the particle and random luck - it's theoretically possible that somebody in, say, Africa was hit by a gamma ray emitted by some debris in the Chernobyl containment dome, but it's exceedingly unlikely. We have a halving distance because we just care about the average, not the outliers. - azAZ09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What's Russian for "Spear and Magic Helmet!" ?
- BladeOfAnduril, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Directly? The plant operators. They were conducting a test on the reactor for which they were not trained. They inadvertently set up the conditions necessary for the meltdown to occur. Indirectly? The designers of the reactor, which was an RBMK-1000. The reactor had a design flaw that the operators didn't know about. The flaw caused what is known as a "positive void coefficient" in the core, which accelerated the fission reaction out of control, ultimately leading to the meltdown.
- fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well, no. Putting a band aid on it isn't going to fix the underlying problem. That dome is going to degrade over time, and eventually collapse as well. However, if they get rid of the worst of the contaminates then we don't need to worry so much about what the place will be like centuries down the road.
I'm not saying that the dome is a bad idea, just that buying a rug is not an alternative to using a pooper-scooper. - geomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2"That's not entirely true."
Which part?
"Although the radioisotopes have mostly settled out into the soil and groundwater, there was a LOT of radioactive smoke released into the air that traveled for quite a long distance - much of Europe received some dose of it, albeit mostly not at harmful levels."
The original said that airborne contamination was still floating around the Ukraine. I called *****. Care to dispute it?
"Alpha particles have a halving distance of a few cm in air, not feet.
Beta particles have a halving distance of a few dm in air, not tens of feet.
Gamma rays have a halving distance of 150m in air."
Your distances are more precise than mine. I didn't bother to look them up. I just know they don't go far enough to still be floating around the Ukraine.
"You can't say "They go X distance", as it depends on the energy of the particle and random luck -"
Correct, but I didn't care to explain Bremsstrahlung radiation or other squirrelly forms of radiation.
"... it's theoretically possible that somebody in, say, Africa was hit by a gamma ray emitted by some debris in the Chernobyl containment dome, but it's exceedingly unlikely."
It is theoretically possible for a hammer to materialize out of thin air where I am standing right now, but we weren't discussing quantum theory, were we? - rspeed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Finally!
- fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Okay. You and I have had a colloquy about this topic on several comments, but this one is beyond the pale. What makes radioisotopes dangerous? RADIATION."
... Except that if the radioisotopes stay where they are, then the radiation won't affect anybody as there isn't that much direct radiation escaping from the containment dome. Further, people largely avoid that area.
Also, radiation from outside the body is orders of magnitude less harmful than radiation from inside the body, and radiation doesn't occur inside the body unless radioisotopes have a way to get in there - contain the radioisotopes, and the harm they can do becomes far less relevant.
Aside from THAT, there are a good number of radioisotopes which are negligible radiological hazards, but are fairly chemically toxic. Uranium, for example, is a fairly weak emitter that causes heavy metal poisoning.
"No, they are not. They pass unimpeded though air. Check any physics book. They are not absorbed by air. They are absorbed by dense materials. They convert to beta particles in some interactions with some materials which makes shielding difficult if you don't know what you are doing."
Halving distance of 150m combined with the inverse square law means that the radiation drops off VERY quickly (The equation is something like (U/2^(X/h))/X^2, where U is the radiation unit of the source, X is the distance, and h is the halving distance, which works out to about 9.84*10^-9 times the original strength of the source for the gamma ray exposure of a plane flying at an altitude of 1,000m, or 8.54*10^-29 times the dosage for a plane flying at an altitude of 10,000m). Since I'm fairly certain it's a no fly zone, these numbers aren't all that important aside from establishing context.
The "fairly well" statement was contextual - it's not going to fatally irradiate people who are 1,000km away with an altitude of 1,000m even with a clear LOS and no barrier in the way, as the air and attenuation are more than enough to keep the levels down to negligible levels.
"That is the recommended distance to stay away from gamma-generating sources. But it doesn't have anything to do with air absorption anymore than the distance away from a magnetic source has anything to do with air "absorbing" the magnetic field."
Air DOES attenuate gamma radiation, as the halving distance is based on straight-line energy losses from focused emitters which are not affected by the inverse square law. It's quite poor relative to lead or uranium, but adequate if you have enough of it.
Further, the recommended level of protection is measured in the number of halving distances required to bring it down to safe levels, which is naturally dependent on the strength of the source.
"True enough. Time, distance, shielding."
Quoted for truth. - rrc589, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The radioactive area will no longer be called "The Zone," instead it shall henceforth be known as "The Dome."
- geomon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Freakin' repeat button.
:) - Robijnson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I saw that the project was partially funded by some international investors, its good to see that the Ukraine doesn't have to do this on their own.
- bioncinola, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1THE WORLD'S BIGGEST CONDOM !!!!
- dima7b, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I've lived in Ukraine for 9 years and for those who don't know, it still has a major impact to this day. The toxic radiation is still in the air around most of the ukraine. It won't resort to being normal for a veryyyyyyy long time sad to say. Hopefully this will make a difference or be a waste of money.
- scorchedearth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This was first discussed 15 years ago but the Ukraine couldn't afford it.
- killaw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3The bigoted digg users with an anti-french bias should have a look at transparency international numbers, they will see that in the "corruption perceptions index" France is ranked 18 and the USA only 20, equaling Chile...
http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2006
The firm with the contract, named Novarka, is a 50/50 consortium made of Vinci (the world's leading company in construction) and Bouygues. - demizer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is great news! They finally get to completely dismantle and bury reaktor number 4. This will hopefully bring a little peace to the people of Ukraine.
- lohphat, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Helmet!? What about the diaper!?
- dslartoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They originally were supposed to have finished this thing in 2005. Glad to see them finally getting on it.
- fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, I see.
Unfortunately, they don't have any plans to actually clean up the site, just to keep covering it and waiting for it to go away. - andrewmp, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They speak Ukrainian.
- robszol, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1sucks for whoever has to work there to build that sucker
- fgsfds, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You don't even really need to stop the radiation itself as much as you do the radioisotopes. The gamma rays and neutrons are absorbed fairly well by air- which has a halving distance of 150m for those kinds of radiation. As long as people don't decide to spend lots of time buzzing the site, I wouldn't expect any issues that a rad-blocking dome would solve.
-
Show 51 - 99 of 99 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is