UN: Consequences Remain Decades After Chernobyl Disaster:
The United Nations says persistent and serious long-term consequences remain more than 30 years after the explosion and fire at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine.
The world body is marking International Chernobyl Disaster Remembrance Day on April 26, the 34th anniversary of the accident that spread a radioactive cloud over large parts of Belarus, Ukraine, and Russia.
Chernobyl: How did the world's worst nuclear accident happen?:
Efforts to downplay the scale of the disaster began within government itself — infamously exemplified by the Soviet foreign affairs minister's attempt to allay a more senior official's concern for residents' health with the assertion that they were celebrating weddings, gardening, and "fishing in the Pripyat River".
Three days later, the alarm was raised by Sweden, where the radiation was picked up at a nuclear plant.
The Soviet Union denied that an incident had occurred, but with Denmark, Finland and Norway also voicing concerns shortly afterwards, it eventually became impossible to hide the accident from the international community.
However, Moscow continued to downplay the true scale of the catastrophe, failing to tell even its own citizens to stay indoors and allowing the capital's May Day parade to go ahead a week later. The ensuing secrecy surrounding the handling of the disaster in the years that followed, and the reluctance to warn citizens of the scale of the danger they continued to face, means the true toll is continually being revised.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Monday April 27 2020, @06:39PM (7 children)
Can humans build and safely operate nuclear power plants?
It would seem that some nations do.
At safely run plants, what about Managers? Can safety continue forever in the presence of managers? All it takes is for the wrong managers to come along and prioritize Wall St. over the safety of the state or province the plant is located in.
What about acts of God that are unforeseeable in the design? (eg, Earthquake, Tsunami, Trump, systemd)
What about the problem of disposal of nuclear waste? We can't seem to answer that one. Burying it deep in the Earth doesn't seem as popular as storing it in rusty containers above ground on site.
And one more whataboutism: what about the costs of eventually decommissioning the plant?
Coal seems much cheaper in the short term. As managers know, the short term is forever.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday April 27 2020, @09:21PM (1 child)
There are promising signs that Molten Salt Thorium Cycle reactors could consume the radioactive waste from current piles as enhanced fuel. But those may just be advertisers promises.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2020, @07:12AM
Those darn advertisers. How will we ever know the truth?
(Score: 4, Informative) by sjames on Tuesday April 28 2020, @12:42AM (1 child)
Most of the "waste" is actually fuel. If you re-process the waste, 95% of it is perfectly good fuel, the rest will last 250-500 years before it decays to background levels. That's a long time, but in the same time, the carcinogenic coal ash will still be carcinogenic. It's a far cry from the FUD about needing to store it for 10,000 years.
Most of the induced radiation in the plant equipment itself will be short lived.
It would be interesting to see an apples to apples comparison, how much would coal power cost if the coal plant had to live up to the standards of a nuclear plant (including emission of radiation).
As for manager related damage, I'm not sure anyone has found a solution for that yet.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Tuesday April 28 2020, @03:58AM
The guillotine?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Tuesday April 28 2020, @08:34AM (2 children)
Yes, obviously. Nuclear power is, by almost any measure, the safest means of power generation that exists. Even seemingly harmless technologies like solar have caused many more deaths than nuclear power.
First, we generally need to hold top-level managers accountable for the long-term effects of their decisions. However, that won't stop stupidity. We inevitably need to have regulations that dictate minimal safety standards that must be applied, and we inevitably need independent inspectors to ensure that these standards are followed.
Life is like that. Note that, even accounting for the two worst nuclear accidents in history, nuclear power still remains the safest form of power generation we have. As we learn from past mistakes (Chernobyl was a dangerous design, Fukushima was built in the wrong place, etc.), nuclear power should become even safer.
This is primarily a political problem. Storing nuclear waste is not inherently difficult, it's purely a NIMBY problem. Moreover, more advanced nuclear technologies produce less waste, and can even consume some of the waste produced by older technologies.
This is a completely stupid problem. It's actually not a problem at all. The only portion of a nuclear plant that is actually radioactive is a small part of the reactor building, which is the smallest part of the plant. When it needs replaced, just take out the fuel and seal that building. It's already built to withstand earthquakes, plane crashes, etc.. There is absolutely no need to take the darned thing apart. Just leave it the heck alone and build the replacement reactor right next to it.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday April 28 2020, @04:03PM
Excellent reply, thanks.
People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 28 2020, @05:00PM
Aw that wickle smaww tiny tiny radioactive part, it's soo tiny, soo cute.
But who knows? Perhaps it cures COVID-19. The whole concept of the light, the way it goes in one minute, that's pretty powerful.