Comments on: Chernobyl Part III

By: dragondm6

dragondm6 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:45:50 +0000

Even more interesting, now they are using the city of Chernobyl to watch how fast nature deteriorates our buildings, which is especially fast when compared to old relics that we know of today from lost civilizations: Egyptians, Mayans, Incas, Romans, etc. Apparently we don’t build our buildings to the quality and longevity of our ancestors.

By: Dauric

Dauric — Mon, 11 Aug 2008 22:06:34 +0000

(I know it’s an old article, but I’m still reading the archives)
There’s a substantial difference between the United States/Western Europe and the Russian/Soviet attitudes about safety and accountability. American fighter pilots wear a full bodysuit designed to put pressure on the body in high G-force situations that keeps blood from draining from the brain and causing blackouts. Soviet pilots, even when full suits are available, frequently wear only the lower half if any at all.

Americans don’t casually disable safety systems like Russians do. We don’t have the cultural machismo that replaces vodka for science. We’re more paranoid about our health, and if two techs came back from examining a reactor a different color than they were when they left evacuations would be sounded instantly, if only because the supervisors wouldn’t want to stick around, and they’d be afraid of being culpable of not sounding the alarm if they survived.

America has had a nuclear reactor accident, Three Mile Island. The notable difference is our own accident at the state of the art -thirty years ago- produced no noticeable/statistical effect on the health of the people that worked at the plant or in the immediate area, as opposed to the Soviets who were showing severe tissue necrosis before they got back to the control station.
Last point to be made is the Russians/Soviets were never the paragons of high technology. They did marvels with vacuum tubes, and Russian-made amps are fantastic, but they had to steal Integrated Circuit technology from the U.S. to the degree that the first Soviet Built computer when booted up displayed, in English: “Welcome to IBM”. The Chernobyl reactors were designs that western nations had long since abandoned for the inadequate operational margins and safety protocols.

Is it impossible for a modern nuclear reactor to do what Chernobyl did? No, there’s always statistically outlying events that can happen, and if you look at the way Chernobyl event happened; in a western society it would have taken a chain of statistically improbable events for that to have been repeated. Much of the circumstances that led to the explosion were cultural and political rather than solely technological. If you’re evaluating the risks of nuclear power you have to take that in to account.

My own $0.02.

By: Alx_xlA

Alx_xlA — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 03:17:16 +0000

[quote]Reactivity said: “That is the reason why the U.S. Navy relies on competent, well-trained operators to ensure reactor safety in its nuclear propulsion plants. Yes, there are automated safety systems in place, but they are there as a backup to the operator, and they are never bypassed or disabled while the reactor is operating.”[/quote]

But remember, they were trying to perform an experiment for which the equipment was not designed, at the end of a cycle, with the added problems produced by the poor design.

By: Reactivity

Reactivity — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 19:23:56 +0000

Misanthrope said: "I couldn't agree less. Look at how many safety systems had to be ignored time and time again… and then look at the fact that they were ignored (and even were able to be ignored/bypassed in the first place). That would suggest that no amount of safety systems will completely ensure safety. There is no limit to stupidity."

That is the reason why the U.S. Navy relies on competent, well-trained operators to ensure reactor safety in its nuclear propulsion plants. Yes, there are automated safety systems in place, but they are there as a backup to the operator, and they are never bypassed or disabled while the reactor is operating.

By: Misanthrope

Misanthrope — Thu, 15 Jun 2006 00:54:31 +0000

mrjondoe said: "ironically enough, this just goes to show how safe nuclear reactors are. look at how many safety systems these men ignored time and time againl; each one could have stopped the entire thing."

I couldn't agree less. Look at how many safety systems had to be ignored time and time again... and then look at the fact that they were ignored (and even were able to be ignored/bypassed in the first place). That would suggest that no amount of safety systems will completely ensure safety. There is no limit to stupidity.

By: mrjondoe

mrjondoe — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 15:10:05 +0000

ironically enough, this just goes to show how safe nuclear reactors are. look at how many safety systems these men ignored time and time againl; each one could have stopped the entire thing.

By: Chad Cloman

Chad Cloman — Mon, 12 Dec 2005 16:41:26 +0000

I thought these types of self-serving idiots only existed in fiction. It’s somewhat sobering to realize they’re in the here-and-now.

By: cedricindra

cedricindra — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 22:36:03 +0000

Dave, I am interested in knowing what your conclusions are in relationship to the Soviet and US reactors, and the relevance of the information concerning the stockpile under the football stadium at the University of Chicago.