Some Cherobyl photos
 

I came across these Chernobyl photos tonight, and they are some very spooky photos indeed. :o http://englishrussia.com/?p=293

Let's hope we never see another meltdown like that :dead:

Thats Photos from Pripyat, Chernobyl is the name of the NPP, Pripyat was built for housing the workers at chernobyl NPP.

Been there once, was quite an experience, quite remarkable that nature can take over so fast when you leave something.

Make me greatful that the only nuclear reactor in Australia is a medical/research reactor. It would have a hard time even getting to 1% as bad as this if everything went wrong!

Those pictures are pretty disturbing. They show us time and again how careful we have to be with this technology.

There are some more pictures here: http://forums.filefront.com/s-t-l-k-...tra-death.html

:dead:

Pictures are one thing but its the stories that strike dread in my heart - a white-hot reactor melting its way into the earth, the desperate actions of the disaster response units, the sarcophagus, etc.

Especially the Firefighters, they rushed to the site to extinquish the fires, not knowing of the radiation they would be exposed too.

We arrived there at 10 or 15 minutes to two in the morning ... We saw graphite scattered about. Misha asked: What is graphite? I kicked it away. But one of the fighters on the other truck picked it up. It's hot, he said. The pieces of graphite were of different sizes, some big, some small enough to pick up ...

We didn't know much about radiation. Even those who worked there had no idea. There was no water left in the trucks. Misha filled the cistern and we aimed the water at the top. Then those boys who died went up to the roof - Vashchik Kolya and others, and Volodya Pravik ... They went up the ladder ... and I never saw them again.

I'd love to go there, looks stunning.


Good hunting Stalker... :D

I'm actually all for nuclear power. If done right, it is cheap, safe, and plentiful.

Nuclear power is like flying in an airplane. Both are the safest in their respective categories. But all it takes is a Three Mile Island or a Chernobyl to happen to give the opposition exactly what they need.

Sigh. I remember seeing some statistic (after 9/11, I think) where you'd have to fly TWENTY THOUSAND YEARS, non stop, to likely be killed in in an act of terrorism. It just takes one dramatic example to screw up perceptions among the unwashed masses, and lead to an unreasonably large reaction which screws things up even more.

The problem though, is when something does go wrong, the results are pretty large. When a plane crashes its not a couple of people it can be a couple hundred. We also don't know the full extent of what Chernobyl did, how many really died or suffered from it will never be fully known.

While I am no eviromental activist etc I am against nuclear power plants as Obama has proposed.I am against it because of Three Mile Island and especially Chernobyl.

Sure nuclear power is relatively safe, cheap, and plentiful but if something does go wrong like a Chernobyl, not only is the immediate area affected but people thousands of miles away are as well.When a plane crashes usually, it "only" takes out a small number and usually there are not long term health problems with your "standard" plane crash, 9/11 is a whole different story.We have other options than nuclear power,
so need to use them.Want some evidence, watch the documentary that aired on HBO a while back called Chernobyl Heart, people many miles away having children years later born with serious birth defects.


Torvald Von Mansee,

I have found the perception of nuclear power among the "unwashed masses" which I will assume you meant the uneducated or misinformed, is that nuclear power plants are good things because of the jobs but during their construction and once they are operational.I understand both sides of the argument but my education along with instrict and knowledge of history(Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, whichever nuke distaster is next) tells me that while nuclear power has benefits, they are not worth the risk.I don't want to see parts of my country end up like Chernobyl.Unlikely, perhaps but not worth the risk.

Another problem is where do you put the radioactive waste? That stuff stays dangerous for millenniums. If you calculate the "safe" storage of nuclear waste from power plants into your running costs, nuclear power isn't that cheap any more all of a sudden. But that is usually paid by the tax payer so the nuke companies can keep saying that it is cheap.
Over here in Germany we have quiet a problem with finding a final storage place for nuclear waste. A "research" mine that was used for storing barrels with radioactive stuff has started to take water some years ago and now all the waste has to be removed from it again (if that is possible, the barrels are corroded beyond recognition and the company which ran the show didn't take safety too serious at all...they don't even know exactly what they stored down there:damn:).
The mine was supposed to prove how safe such a final storage place is. The stuff stays dangerous for about 30.000 years and that mine remained solid for....30 years:damn:! Yeah, awesome how safe that is (let alone that the company tried to cover the mess up of course)!
With nuclear power you give a heavy burden to the generations to come. Assuming that a final storage place would last for 30.000 years to come is ridiculous at best. Imagine, if Jesus had stored nuclear waste somewhere it would still be dangerous in 28.000 years. Do you believe any one would still know that someone has stored something there thousands of years ago?

You and other anti- nuclear power detractors are seriously overestimating the risk I think.

What you're all saying is that you prefer the ongoing, constant environmental damage caused by coal and oil power plants over the potential damage of a nuke power plant meltdown in spite of the fact that your two examples: Chernobyl was a particularly bad design that is now totally obsolete and Three Mile Islands spill was so minor that it didn't even raise local cancer rates.

Think about it.