Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

moxie.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 264 posts

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#211

Post by effie »

roenxi_ wrote: post #121
moxie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

1) If you prefer we can multiply all the numbers by 100, nuclear is still better than what we actually did over the past 40 years since Chernobyl. 2) We have actual evidence of how a similar-era nuclear reactor fails in Fukushima (it was built in the 80s iirc). If we write off the Soviet numbers as misinformation, then using a strictly evidence-based approach and extrapolating from Fukushima, their numbers were overe…

Fukushima is 60's design, launched in 1971-75.

https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and...

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#212

Post by effie »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #115
freeflight wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a commentary on the study, it also states: "Whatever the final explanation for the increases, the KiKK study and its implications raise many questions, including whether vulnerable people, such as pregnant women and women of child-bearing age, should be advised on possible risks of living near nuclear power stations." and: "It is recommended that US regulatory agencies should establish a KiKK-style epidemiologic…

I don't disagree, and that same text is also in various meta studies about Cell phone towers causing cancer. And it is the problem in general with statistics based meta studies which where lampooned in XKCD[1] and lamented by the American Council on Science and Health[2]. The summary bit might be "These studies point to areas that should be looked at but offer neither hypothesis or prediction and thus not 'science' s…

> there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans

This does not mean much. The direct destruction effect of strong radiation on cells is cumulative, the longer you're exposed, the greater harm done. Given the physics and biology knowledge, our best bet so far is that effect of weak but extraordinary radiation is cumulative as well. It will increase probability of cancer and leukaemia.

Alpha radiation is lethal too if you get its source into your body.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#213

Post by arethuza »

jabl wrote: post #196
dplavery92 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The largest ever fission explosion was, IIRC, something like a few hundred kT. It's just physically impossible to have a bigger yield from fission alone, as the bomb assembly blows apart before it has time to fission. And this was from a carefully designed weapon, not a reactor fueled with LEU melting. So yes, 5 MT is pure fantasy with absolutely no connection to reality. As for prompt criticality, in a weapon the ne…

The largest fission device tested was the 720Kt UK Orange Herald:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Herald

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#214

Post by effie »

arcticbull wrote: post #133
freeflight wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Perhaps we'll find a mass grave somewhere full of radioactive bodies of dead workers but barring that, most data based consensus puts the total death toll from all radiation effects at less than 1,000 and usually less than 100. The problem is that to this day we struggle to fully understand the effects of long-term low-level radiation exposure because figuring those out usually requires long-term epidemiological st…

Not really; there’s always constant low level radiation exposure in our day to day from background radiation. It goes up tremendously when you eat a banana a day. It goes up another few orders of magnitude when you get on a plane. We’ve got a huge corpus of constantly irradiated people (flight attendants and pilots). We’ve got a pretty good idea of how this works. [1] https://xkcd.com/radiation/

You miss the point. Studies on low level radiation effects study, for example, deviations from the linear model, but are so far inconclusive, because it is hard to prescribe and control the level of radiation over such a long time. It could be done in lab, but who would subject themselves willingly to regular blasts of radiation? Radiation intensity in planes varies a lot, depending on the height, time of flight, geographical location, etc., so little can be inferred. It would take decades and lots of volunteers willing to get harmed in the name of science to do such studies reliably. Do you know of any such study?

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#215

Post by dTal »

4043D wrote: post #100
saul_goodman wrote: post #96

Maby they did sneak in, but fool me once: http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html The last time someone posted pictures claiming they rode their motorcycle through the forbidden zone it caused a stir because that is expressly forbidden because of the risk of picking up contaminated dust. Enclosed tour vehicles only for this reason. Then apparently, in the case of kiddofspeed, we find out she rode her motorcycle to t…

Moxie isn't known for bullshiting about stuff like that he's done a fair few things "normal" people would think fairly crazy.

Mmm, that isn't strictly true. From what I've read his anarchist-leaning sailing documentary "Hold Fast" is... controversial, in sailing circles.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#216

Post by vonmoltke »

effie wrote: post #212
ChuckMcM wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree, and that same text is also in various meta studies about Cell phone towers causing cancer. And it is the problem in general with statistics based meta studies which where lampooned in XKCD[1] and lamented by the American Council on Science and Health[2]. The summary bit might be "These studies point to areas that should be looked at but offer neither hypothesis or prediction and thus not 'science' s…

> there is no study that links low level ionizing radiation to any harmful effect on humans This does not mean much. The direct destruction effect of strong radiation on cells is cumulative, the longer you're exposed, the greater harm done. Given the physics and biology knowledge, our best bet so far is that effect of weak but extraordinary radiation is cumulative as well. It will increase probability of cancer and l…

> This does not mean much.

It does in the context of places, like those mentioned above, with naturally elevated levels of background radiation. The absence of studies out of these areas with links to harmful health effects is evidence that such levels are likely safe.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#217

Post by effie »

wefarrell wrote: post #64
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.

The lone scientist hero myth is hardly unique to science, it's an abstraction that you see in all narratives that use a leader to represent a group. There are few scientific characters because the show chooses to focus on the political/systemic failure rather than the technical one. It shows us the leaders who bury their heads in the sand, the clueless residents who suffer as a result, and the liquidators who are awa…

It is a show about what happens when the state officials and secret state organizations have all the power to keep that power. It corrupts the people, because there is not much left to keep them honest.

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#218

Post by abyssin »

dTal wrote: post #215
4043D wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moxie isn't known for bullshiting about stuff like that he's done a fair few things "normal" people would think fairly crazy.

Mmm, that isn't strictly true. From what I've read his anarchist-leaning sailing documentary "Hold Fast" is... controversial, in sailing circles.

I enjoyed watching his documentary, but I'm not part of sailing circles. In what way is it considered controversial?

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#219

Post by rawTruthHurts »

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.

I feel you... that pesky people with different and well argumented opinions... tsk tsk...

Re: Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone

#220

Post by effie »

nnq wrote: post #210

Q for ppl more knowledgeable - How exaggerated is this claim? : > would have ignited a second reaction that would have been the equivalent of a 5 megaton explosion. It would have leveled Kiev and Minsk, and would have ejected the nuclear material from the other 3 Chernobyl reactors with a force that would have rendered much of Europe uninhabitable for hundreds of years (I can imagine it is exaggerated, but I am not a…

It seems extremely exaggerated, such explosions require complicated bomb design, otherwise the first stages of the explosion throw the reacting matter away and it won't react completely.

However, 5 megatons can destroy city completely, and if it explodes close to ground, it will create lots of contamination. Then it is up to the winds. Bad wind will make this contamination a major catastrophe thousands of kilometers away.

Post reply on HN