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

Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 204 posts

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#121

Post by netsharc »

jaywalk wrote: post #28
UnlockedSecrets wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chernobyl has a nice road that happens to be the shortest road between Kyiv the Ukraine capital and Russia. It also still has several active reactors only 1 of them melted down so that gives some strategic merit byt the road is 99% of it.

All reactors at Chernobyl have been shutdown since 2000. I have been amazed lately at how many people are unaware of this and think Chernobyl is still an operating nuclear power plant.

A few weeks ago there's a cartoon where a guy sits in front a computer, and a speech bubble above him says "After 2 years of being an epidemiological expert, I am now a geo-political expert."...

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#122

Post by jazzyjackson »

capableweb wrote: post #30
perihelions wrote: post #27

Tangentially, if you appreciate being able to read raw, unfiltered OSINT like OP (@OAlexanderDK) dug up, you'd be interested to know Twitter mistakenly suspended his account twice in the past three days [0] -- one among a large number of legitimate OSINT people covering Ukraine. The existence of this kind of HN thread is fragile. You can also read Twitter Site Integrity's apology and response [1], or independent repo…

To add to the list of unfiltered OSINT straight from Ukraine/Russia, Telegram channels/groups are invaluable (but treat everything as unconfirmed rumors until confirmed elsewhere): - https://t.me/uniannet - https://t.me/ukrpravda_news - https://t.me/istorijaoruzija - https://t.me/dumskaya_net - https://t.me/idelator Beware, some of these are literally Russian propaganda, so again, don't take anything being said/share…

> don't take anything being said/shared as truth until verified elsewhere.

Then what is the possible value of following it? I spent an hour or so trying to get updates on twitter and spent the whole time flagging the same fake videos posted over and over.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#123

Post by jl6 »

pleb_nz wrote: post #118

Imagine this for a movie plot Russia stages the invasion as a cover to recover something from deep under Chernobyl What do you think that thing might be....

Chernobyl was a geo-nuclear power plant sited on top of a natural column of subcritical fissile material that extended down deep into the Earth’s crust. The plan was to seed the column with just enough nuclear fuel to bring the upper part to critical mass, and thence draw material upwards into the reaction zone, thus creating a virtually unlimited supply of fuel and energy.

Unfortunately, the accident caused a meltdown which is still going, three decades later. When it hits the mantle, its energy output will begin to grow exponentially as it consumes the greater concentrations of nucleotides at that depth. Eventually, it will explode, triggering global supervolcanism, which will destroy most of human civilization, and potentially drop ash on Putin’s car. He’s only just had it washed, so he sends in the troops to retrieve the melting core, and save the world.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#124

Post by ineedasername »

Does someone have any insight on why Russia would expend resources taking this site? AFAIK it doesn't have anything useful or produce any power, except maybe the possibility that mishandling it could invoke the terror of regional disaster. (Unless that's the point?)

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#125

Post by mdoms »

belval wrote: post #113
connordoner wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might argue that’s a price you pay when murdering innocent civilians in land that isn’t yours, no?

Not to be a apologist of what Russia is doing (really really against the current invasion/occupation) but from what we've seen around social media, it's not clear that the actual soldiers on the ground understand that they aren't "liberating" the Ukrainians from actual Nazis. They are fed misinformation on a daily basis and at least some of them see themselves as the "good guys". It does not excuse anything really, b…

> Not to be a apologist of what Russia is doing [... apologism]

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#126

Post by ajsnigrutin »

belval wrote: post #113
connordoner wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One might argue that’s a price you pay when murdering innocent civilians in land that isn’t yours, no?

Not to be a apologist of what Russia is doing (really really against the current invasion/occupation) but from what we've seen around social media, it's not clear that the actual soldiers on the ground understand that they aren't "liberating" the Ukrainians from actual Nazis. They are fed misinformation on a daily basis and at least some of them see themselves as the "good guys". It does not excuse anything really, b…

Eh, the soldiers know... it's for "power", against nato, and to get a bit more of the land.

Look at every past conflict, every american soldier in iraq knew, that they were going in to get the oil, everything else was just propaganda for the taxpayers.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#127

Post by simplyaccont »

ineedasername wrote: post #124

Does someone have any insight on why Russia would expend resources taking this site? AFAIK it doesn't have anything useful or produce any power, except maybe the possibility that mishandling it could invoke the terror of regional disaster. (Unless that's the point?)

- shortest path to Kyiv from Belarus - you can't really bomb them now at this location in order to push back

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#128

Post by ajsnigrutin »

mdoms wrote: post #125
belval wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to be a apologist of what Russia is doing (really really against the current invasion/occupation) but from what we've seen around social media, it's not clear that the actual soldiers on the ground understand that they aren't "liberating" the Ukrainians from actual Nazis. They are fed misinformation on a daily basis and at least some of them see themselves as the "good guys". It does not excuse anything really, b…

> Not to be a apologist of what Russia is doing [... apologism]

I live in the balkans...

The main sentiment here, especially amongst the older people is, "russia is strong enough, that they can do the stuff america has been doing for decades now", but due to media influences, it's not a "war for democracy" and "saving the locals", as the americans would paint eg. attacking afghanistan after a few saudis flew a few planes into a few buildings.

My personal and very contraversial opinion is, that every country that currently has soldiers as a part of an occupying force in any country, should just shut the fuck up, and clean up their own messes first.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#129

Post by mr_mitm »

temac wrote: post #106
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering that they're mostly just passing by, and that the levels are not really high, it won't be that bad. I didn't do the math, but the radiation levels for driving past there, or staying there for a day or two, would probably be very low, and comparable to a lot of other stuff we do without thinking (plane rides, xrays etc.)

They will breath the dust and get some internal radiation though. Not really a problem for the others if they move after that, but not very good for them.

Being sent into war is also not very good for them. The radiation is probably the least of their worries.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#130

Post by ARandomerDude »

petters wrote: post #107
yumraj wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the Russian soldiers are all probably breathing this dust and their equipment will spread it to where ever they deploy in Ukraine? That doesn't sound good at all.

Compared to the other things the soldiers will likely be doing, this sounds like an irrelevant problem.

Most wartime deaths are not combat deaths. Disease, dehydration, accidents, etc. have always been the greatest source of casualties.
Post reply on HN