Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone • Hacker News Board

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#171

Post by darkpuma » Wed, May 29, 2019, 5:52 AM UTC

robocat wrote: post #108

dalore wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, some consider that the atomic bombs saved lives by ending the war. If the bombs weren't dropped and the ware continued then those fire bombings would have killed even more.

Your comment is based on the myth that the atomic bombs ended the war. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-hi... """ The atomic bombings, terrible and inhumane as they were, played little role in Japanese leaders' calculations to quickly surrender. After all, the U.S. had firebombed more than 100 Japanese cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just two more cities destroyed; whether the attack requ…

Incidentally, after the second atomic bombing the, officers from the Staff Office of the Ministry of War of Japan and many members of the Imperial Guard staged an attempted coup aimed at preventing the emperor from delivering his surrender. During this 'Kyūjō incident' the rebels managed to seize control of the Tokyo Imperial Palace, but of course ultimately failed, with their leaders committing suicide.

To these incredible[ly misguided] men, both atomic bombings and the impending Soviet invasion were insufficient motivation for surrender. It's an incredible incident that few have ever heard of.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#172

Post by holoduke » Wed, May 29, 2019, 5:53 AM UTC

moxie wrote: post #19

dweekly wrote: post #5

The pictures are lovely and the reflections profound. But much of the cited data here appears wrong. For instance, the article states (italicized): "six hundred helicopter pilots were killed" and yet it was only 600 helicopter pilots who _flew_ liquidator missions[1], two of which were killed in an piloting accident and none were registered killed from immediate radiation exposure[2], though at least one eventually d…

I think there's a lot of uncertainty in talking about Chernobyl, since most of the information published by the Soviet authorities was intentionally incorrect or misleading, designed to downplay the significance of the accident. One thing I've found interesting in talking about Chernobyl is that advocates of nuclear power are often willing to accept the Soviet numbers as fact, since they confirm the idea that nuclear…

Discovery channel where every single documentary is staged, exaggerated and filled with useless emotions. Even the department of information in the Soviet Union is more reliable than that.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#173

Post by kzrdude » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:04 AM UTC

ekianjo wrote: post #160

CydeWeys wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to say with certainty. It's not like we can re-run history and try it again. Japan certainly turned out well with what did happen; it's not clear that a better outcome would have resulted from a less total surrender on their part. There's a lot of value in helping to move forward when you admit that you were completely beaten, not just mostly beaten; the latter leaves the door open for a repeat. And another…

> And you know what, the Japanese government deserved it. They started the war, killed millions of people in the process (including many millions of civilians in Asia), and then had the gall to try to bargain for decent surrender terms after all that horror they caused? Nope. Sometimes harsh punishment is necessary. The government yes. The people did not elect them. They had no choice in the matter, and were also tra…

A different perspective, not trying to justify killing civilians.

No matter which way a leader comes to power, the population pays the taxes and the ultimate tolls.

This means that when we are on the inside, in the country, we can't be more or less complacent with a bad dictator than a bad elected leader, we always pay the price for what they do. It's always our problem.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#174

Post by dplavery92 » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:11 AM UTC

baybal2 wrote: post #35

joshuamorton wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> > equivalent of a 5 megaton explosion To be clear, this didn't happen. No one said it did. There was a chance something like this could have happened (the Chernobyl miniseries does a great job of showing this). The issue was that there were large water tanks under the reactor, and that the reactor material would eventually melt into those tanks, superheat the water and cause an enormous steam explosion, further sca…

Man, 5 megaton tnt is like ~25 exajoules. Thermal energy of 100 tons of 2000C uranium is like 0.25 terajoules... Somebody missed at least 5 zeroes And it was later found that only few percents of the fuel melted, so very likely 7 zeroes... And given that it is not possible for anywhere close to 10% of thermal energy of such huge, solid body to go into steam flash, add 2 more zeros.

While 5 megatons definitely does seem like an overestimation, I think the fear was that it was a much larger mass of molten corium, including not just the fuel itself, but also molten silicon and lead, from the material dumped on the exposed reactor to quench the fires and prevent fallout. There was an estimated 5000 tons of this suppressant material, although I don't know how much could have reasonably been expected to melt (and I think later analysis shows that very little of it actually landed on the exposed core itself.)

Then when the molten corium hits the water, the water could act as a neutron moderator for a runaway fission reaction. You have to think this would be more a nuclear "fizzle" than the prompt criticality that is necessary for a >10kt (let alone megaton) bomb, but it would still be bad.

A 5 megaton explosion that levels Kiev? Probably not, but then again I'm not the nuclear physicist who came up with that number.

The idea that blowing the core material into the atmosphere and causing further meltdowns in the other three reactors would be a major radiological disaster for Northern Europe, though, I can appreciate.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#175

Post by switch007 » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:15 AM UTC

equasar wrote: post #65

legitster wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bit over-dramatized, but very, very good. Although I do not really like the decision to reduce the entire engineering team to a single character. I get that it simplifies the writing and casting, but it just perpetrates the lone scientist myth. It could have been really compelling to take the time to show the group effort.

It amazes me how there can be a small digit number of people that always will be complaining for something that is truly remarcable well done.

What is remarkable? Everyone who recommended it to me didn’t articulate an actual reason. I find this quite often. It was over hyped to me

There’s nothing amazing about people disagreeing, surely?

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#176

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:16 AM UTC

gukov wrote: post #3

Highly recommend the HBO's new miniseries Chernobyl. One episode left. It's already at the top of IMDB TV show rankings. [1] https://www.imdb.com/chart/toptv/

Can anyone explain why the Pripyat hospital in the first episode was so dirty and old? It had only been running for about 15 years at the time of the disaster.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#177

Post by _nalply » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:22 AM UTC

wiz21c wrote: post #42

the_af wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While later contested, it's not only "Russia" which estimated 4000 deaths. Wikipedia states the United Nations took part in the joint group, and > "[...] worked to establish international consensus on the effects of the accident via a series of reports that collated 20 years of research to make official previous UN, IAEA, and World Health Organization (WHO) estimates of a total of 4,000 deaths due to disaster-related…

anyway, it's much lower than death caused by burning coal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents

We shouldn't contrast fossil to nuclear energy but both to renewables.

In other words, stop burning things to get energy, for fossil energy because of the carbon dioxide and for nuclear energy because long-term storage of wastes is an unsolved problem. I am surprised again and again that people propose nuclear energy as a solution to climate change. Don't they know we will come out of the frying pan into the fire with nuclear energy? Enough said.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#178

Post by yakshaving_jgt » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:26 AM UTC

dmpanch wrote: post #163

Visited Chernobyl 3 years ago, just before they cover it with Confinement. https://imgur.com/gallery/uIOOz1p Btw, you can easily visit it, because of lots of tours here, it cost about $100-$150 per day. I used this company https://www.chernobyl-tour.com/english/48-one-day-trip-to-th...

I was there around the same time as you — a couple of weeks before the new sarcophagus was rolled into place, and just after the last inhabitant of Chernobyl died and her house burned down.

Everyone recommends going, but to be honest I'd give it a miss. There are plenty of nice things to see and do in Ukraine.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#179

Post by philshem » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:38 AM UTC

iooi wrote: post #34

dweekly wrote: post #5

The pictures are lovely and the reflections profound. But much of the cited data here appears wrong. For instance, the article states (italicized): "six hundred helicopter pilots were killed" and yet it was only 600 helicopter pilots who _flew_ liquidator missions[1], two of which were killed in an piloting accident and none were registered killed from immediate radiation exposure[2], though at least one eventually d…

You seem to have cherry picked sources that have a lower estimate for all these figures, i.e., "propaganda numbers". I think the best source for these numbers is the Wikipedia article "Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster" [1]. From the article, Russia claims "estimates ranging from 4,000" while scientific and environmental organizations claim "no fewer than 93,000". It's clear that Russia wants to downplay the enorm…

There are all sort of statistical outliers when looking at cancer rates around the rest of Europe. See, for example, testicular cancer in Swiss men in 1987/1988:

https://twitter.com/philshem/status/1131635837878362112?s=21

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#180

Post by Double_a_92 » Wed, May 29, 2019, 6:38 AM UTC

dmode wrote: post #168

dalore wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, some consider that the atomic bombs saved lives by ending the war. If the bombs weren't dropped and the ware continued then those fire bombings would have killed even more.

I have heard this argument so many times, it almost seems like this has been drilled into American minds post fact to rationalize the only nuclear attack in human history. I can never take this argument seriously. There was no way there would have been more deaths unless the bombs were dropped. Imagine someone suggesting dropping a bomb in a dense city as an argument for “saving lives”. It seems absurd. Nobody knows…

> drilled into American minds

This was also taught to me in Europe.