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

181–190 of 204 posts

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#181

Post by Zababa »

reitanqild wrote: post #103
KarlKemp wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see what purpose posting gore such as this serves. Nobody needs proof that war is bad.

I'm afraid a lot of people have no clue. Their only idea is action movies and FPS games. I don't have much more myself. But I do care deeply and this - while tragic for the poor souls and their poor parents back in Russia - isn't that bad.

> I'm afraid a lot of people have no clue. Their only idea is action movies and FPS games.

The horrors of war is like half of the history classes. It's hard to miss.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#182

Post by nopenopenopeno »

ineedasername wrote: post #178
nopenopenopeno wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was countering a claim of Russian peoples’ awareness vs American peoples’ awareness. I can very confidently say that Americans, in the aggregate, are vastly more ignorant and unaware of any given political issue or how to responsibly think about any given political issue. The causes of that can be up for debate, but the difference is too stark to debate whether or not it is the case.

I'm not going to comment on American ignorance. My statement was in regards to access to information or the ability to speak/publish it without reprisal, specifically in comparison with Russia. How people make use of that, or ignore it all together, are a separate topic.

Information access is has diminishing relevance in an attention economy.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#183

Post by lazide »

contravariant wrote: post #108
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.)

The problem with breathing the stuff is that it may stay with you for quite a while. This isn't the worst thing with gamma radiation since most radiation will just pass through the body, but beta or alpha radiation could be worrying if that's still present (I don't know if it is, but disturbing the ground in Chernobyl and breathing the resulting dust doesn't sound like the safest way to find out)

They are soldiers in an active war zone. They have far more serious and pressing concerns than a slightly elevated radiation dose.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#184

Post by lazide »

Retric wrote: post #162
arcticbull wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. What do folks exactly mean by "get the oil" because it certainly wasn't for domestic consumption. About 72% of US foreign oil comes from Canada and Mexico - mostly Canada. The rest, a broad smattering of countries without any meaningful concentration. Iraq…

Oil is fungible so increasing or decreasing the global supply still impacts US prices. This is because unlike say concrete US suppliers can easily ship oil to the France if people in France are willing to pay more than US consumers. Now that doesn’t mean the second Iraq war was about oil, but it does explain why we care more about the Middle East than say Africa.

Iraq was a lot more about making Hussein pay for various personal bs, expending vast amounts of built up ordnance, and getting the next set of officers combat experience than oil.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#185

Post by lazide »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #140
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 op…

Whataboutism isn't an argument and these are also false equivalencies. Hundreds of thousands of us were out in the streets protesting when western countries attacked Iraq. Most of us are the same people angry about Russia in Ukraine.

Did it make a difference either time?

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#186

Post by lazide »

kergonath wrote: post #156
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.

The danger is mostly for themselves. Bringing tiny amounts of dust with them is not a huge problem. However, having alpha emitters in your lung and intestines because you breathed, drank and ate in a contaminated environment is a death sentence.

Dose makes the poison. It’s very unlikely the amounts they’re getting will make any difference.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#187

Post by lazide »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #130
petters wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless someone goes into the main containment building and starts licking things, this is unlikely to do much of anything.

Getting shot by Ukrainians however, is very real danger.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#188

Post by lostlogin »

reitanqild wrote: post #100
lostlogin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand why my dad urged me to not go voluntarily to artillery. Can you explain this further?

He told me that armour is not protection. It is instead a death trap: It is loud, valuable for the enemy and if they shoot at you using shape charges you'll be roasted alive.

Thanks. I’d assumed that ‘artillery’ would be back from the frontline and slightly safer than some of the other ground based roles.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#189

Post by usr1106 »

kergonath wrote: post #157
ajsnigrutin wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Russians know. They are not stupid. Also, more than half of all of Russia's army has been concentrated along the border. There is no way they were thinking they were going to a picnic.

Roughly 50% of Americans believe what Trump says. They would have no difficulty to choose different media.

In Russia different media do not exist for the average citizen. I have no idea how many percent believe the official propaganda at least in its main message that NATO is threatening Russia. But it's probably significant. Even for those not believing it, saying so or actively acting against is dangerous.

Re: Radiation spikes in Chernobyl

#190

Post by reitanqild »

Zababa wrote: post #181
reitanqild wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm afraid a lot of people have no clue. Their only idea is action movies and FPS games. I don't have much more myself. But I do care deeply and this - while tragic for the poor souls and their poor parents back in Russia - isn't that bad.

> I'm afraid a lot of people have no clue. Their only idea is action movies and FPS games. The horrors of war is like half of the history classes. It's hard to miss.

Not everywhere.

I remember intense descriptions of the death camps in primary school books (pictures of a bulldozer moving a pile of corps, detailed descriptions of murdering etc) but about war it always focused on the terror of the civilians (rape, killings, famine, becoming refugees), not the terror of the soldiers: flame throwers, the endless waiting, the fear of killing someone innocent, ambush, mine fields etc.

I think a whole lot of people think of war through the lens of the Battlefield series and CSGO where there is Valhalla style mechanic where you go out to fight every day, get slain and become alive to feast in the evening before starting the cycle anew next morning. Also there are no stench, no terrorized faces om of friends or enemy fighters etc.

Real war is brutal on a whole different level than games.

Note: I'm not saying we shouldn't teach the horrors civilians face, just that I think people have extremely unrealistic views of what war is like. If anyone is in doubt: stay out of wars if you can avoid. And a very effective way is to 1.) train for war so you become a scary target 2.) don't start a war.

Post reply on HN