101–110 of 894 posts
Quoted post unavailable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Potentially. I'd worry more about coolant and power (to run the coolant pumps if the plant has to shut down) than about direct hits on a containment structure, but it's not like that won't eventually also cause problems if they keep doing it. This is, so far as I know, the first time anyone has carried out a military attack on an operating nuclear plant. Nobody knows yet how that really plays out. But it looks like w…
We know what happened in Japan when an earthquake attacked a nuclear plant.
I would argue that this is a near equivalence of nuclear war with Ukraine. A well-/mis-placed Russian artillery shell could cause a loss of reactor integrity and meltdown, no? EDIT: according to child comments, a meltdown is unlikely/impossible, but spread of radioactive particles due to a direct strike is possible.
A few artillery shells probably won't breach the containment. Missile shielding is part of the plant design (I don't know what level of shielding; US plants are designed to withstand a strike by an airliner). Not saying that the attack is thus acceptable, just saying that it will take a concerted effort to breach the containment.
God damn, is the Russian army really this stupid? Is this an act of desperation, ignorance or spite?
Most likely ignorance, seems like they have soldiers who still think they are on a training mission. Initiation of an actual radioactive disaster near your own border on purpose…
They pulled the same shit in 1956 when they got captured by the Hungarians and in 1968 when they invaded Czechoslovakia: 'We were told it was a training mission'. This is straight-up a survival tactic for the prisoners. They're playing dumb and acting innocent. It's impossible not to know by now where, what and why you are doing in a foreign country, in a fucking military convoy.
God damn, is the Russian army really this stupid? Is this an act of desperation, ignorance or spite?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am using nuclear war in a literal sense, but I do see how my wording seems sensationalist given historical context.
It's not equivalent to nuclear war with Ukraine in either the sense of relative risk (for the reasons I gave) nor in the sense in which the term "nuclear weapons" is actually used. Russia intelligence agents poisoned Alexander Litvinenko with radioactive polonium, but this was not called a nuclear attack because that's not what the term means. One could argue, at most, that this would be equivalent to a radiological…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Probably not. Reactors generally can't melt down the way Chernobyl did anymore. The most significant risk is a breach of the reactor chamber fragmenting the fuel rofs and spreading radioactive particles around, or a hit to the spent fuel stores doing the same. Neither are good, but they wouldn't be nearly as bad as Chernobyl or a nuclear weapon strike.
Nobody builds RBMK-style uncontained graphite piles any longer, but that's a long way from saying meltdowns are no longer possible.
Live stream from plant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYUT36YGOh8 Automated Radiation Monitoring system: https://www.npp.zp.ua/en/safety/arms
The radiation numbers look similar to Feb 26 based on Wayback machine's last crawl.
"BREAKING: Ukraine's energy ministry claims firefighters have been fired at while trying to put out fire at Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant" https://twitter.com/spectatorindex/status/149954992461016678...
edit: posts from head of the Zaporozhye Regional State Administration Alexander Starukh - looks like for 20m firefighters were not let through. Is that because they were fired upon? I don't know. He writes they are there working now though.