It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian wildfires and another Chernobyl event

page: 6
70
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:43 PM
link   
Has Russia endorsed that cap and trade crap? How much carbon is Russia releasing, from uncontrolled forest fires, that will kill all of us from planetary temperature rise.

I thought uncontrolled forest fires occurred only in America with the international media always frothing at the mouth over how many acres of forest being destroyed by greedy Americans.




posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by hinky
 


Indeed. Not to mention all the bad volcanoes emitting all that CO2!! BAD VOLCANOES! BAD!

Volcanoes should be forced to be GREEN! If not, then they should be nuked!

Eh Al Gore?



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vitchilo

I was just saying that 216 tons inside the reactor is as much if not more than all US nuke test actual residual radioactive material.


that's completely wrong. First of all, you added all the weapons grade uranium inside of all the nukes tested. But then you quote the number in Chernobyl not of Uranium but of "radioactive material" which is sand and dust and concrete and cement and all sorts of stuff. That does not count as the actual amount of uranium/plutonium/cesium inside of the reactor is probably weighed in the pounds and far less than even a ton (keep in mind a small amount of uranium is required to sustain a fissionable reaction for a long time, thus the whole point of nuclear power, it's very efficient).

So you can't compare 200 tons of actual purified weapons grade uranium to 2 lbs of uranium mixed inside 2000 tons of sand and concrete. The actual radiation and radioactive contamination is not even comparable to 1000 nukes. And yes you're right U.S. tested about 1000-1500 nukes, most of them in the Nevada desert. Yet it's fine to this day. Chernobyl will be fine too as soon as they contain the waste and move it out. It's already pretty much fine everywhere except inside the actual sarcophagus and EVEN THERE it's no where near as bad as people believe. Yes you'll still die coming in prolonged direct contact but as you saw in the videos posted, scientists worked inside the sarcophagus for years with no decontamination suits or anything and they lived because even INSIDE the sarcophagus not every area is majorly radioactive. Don't listen to the propaganda.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 08:52 PM
link   
A great video!

Officially the death toll is still only 31, but estimates put it at much higher - nearer ~500,000.

The radiation that hit the UK was such that sheep and milk had to be pulled from sale and the products destroyed. People in Wales were given medicine to help stop them absorbing Iodine 131.

It is interesting to note however that it rained quite heavily across a large part of the UK shortly after that period, and the total extent of radiation coverage is (publicly at least) unknown.

Interesting to watch the US versions of videos - you can see the propaganda at work big-time. Minimizing the TMI accident whilst turning the Russian accident into a major catastrophy. Some absolute and pure BS coming out there. (sorry guys).

Interestingly no-one mentioned the accident at Windscale (now Sellafield), UK, in 1957.

en.wikipedia.org...

www.ecolo.org...

[edit on 7-8-2010 by mirageofdeceit]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 09:17 PM
link   
kind of sad how the British response team from 1950's reactor accident look like they have ten times better gear than the Soviet guys from 1986-2000.



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:42 PM
link   

And lastly, if you ask me the effects of Chernobyl are greatly exaggerated anyway. Someone said that woman who went to Pripyat is fake. Are you kidding me? There are guided tours that you can pay for and go to Pripyat yourself probably a mile or two away from the reactor and you are fine there with only slightly elevated but still safe levels of radiation. The only truly DEADLY zone is going within a few feet of the reactor itself or INSIDE of it.

The claim that she rode through the area on her bike is completely fake. As I previously stated she took a tour through the area. Like I said the photos are real, the story is not. This comes from the tour guides themselves.


One group came for a hoax. About two years ago, Mr. Tatarchuk said, a Ukrainian woman booked a tour, wore a leather biker jacket and posed for pictures. Soon there appeared a Web site in which the woman, using the name Elena, claimed that she had been given an unlimited pass by her father, a nuclear physicist and Chernobyl researcher (''Thank you, Daddy!'' she wrote) and now roamed the ruins at will on her Kawasaki Big Ninja.



The site, www.kiddofspeed.com, billed as a tale ''where one can ride with no stoplights, no police, no danger to hit some cage or some dog,'' was a sensation, duping uncountable viewers before being discredited.

The Finns said they had seen the Web site, and hoped their planned site would be as popular.

query.nytimes.com...



Officially the death toll is still only 31, but estimates put it at much higher - nearer ~500,000.

Most estimates put it between 9,000 (IAEA/WHO) and 60,000 (TORCH). It's bad, but 500,000 is a massive overstatement.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 10:58 PM
link   
I believe most of the radioactive material at Chernobyl melted down into a lump and is still there. I read that if a nuclear bomb landed on a nuclear reactor and vaporized it the amount of radiation released would be 500 times that of Chernobyl.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy


I believe most of the radioactive material at Chernobyl melted down into a lump and is still there. I read that if a nuclear bomb landed on a nuclear reactor and vaporized it the amount of radiation released would be 500 times that of Chernobyl.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by RRokkyy]


exactly, the chernobyl radiation has actually been a godsend and could have been much much worse. The reason is because the reactor happened to melt with the sand and molten concrete and as such all the fissable materials (fuel/waste) combined with this sand forming a hardened silica meaning the radioactive material/waste was trapped inside of it and diluted. Not only does this mean that the spread of radiation was greatly inhibited by this process, but it also means that the threat of a secondary actual NUCLEAR reaction/explosion occurring was minimal because the nuclear fuel was too dispersed/dissipated inside of this silica/concrete/lava type of mix. If a bomb were to hit it or if Chernobyl had a nuclear explosion, the nuclear debris, waste, fuel, etc would have been sent skyrocketing much higher into the atmosphere and thus spreading all over the continents, contaminating much more land, killing much more people etc etc. But in Chernobyl's case, the majority of the radioactive material/waste/fuel is actually ossified in this silica in the basement beneath the reactor (it melted through the floor and leaked there) and as such it's the best type of thing that could have occurred because that means through this process, the radiation is even mostly prevented from seeping into the water streams/supplies underneath the plant. As bad as the accident was, it could have turned out much worse!



posted on Aug, 7 2010 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by RRokkyy


I believe most of the radioactive material at Chernobyl melted down into a lump and is still there. I read that if a nuclear bomb landed on a nuclear reactor and vaporized it the amount of radiation released would be 500 times that of Chernobyl.

[edit on 7-8-2010 by RRokkyy]


exactly, the chernobyl radiation has actually been a godsend and could have been much much worse. The reason is because the reactor happened to melt with the sand and molten concrete and as such all the fissable materials (fuel/waste) combined with this sand forming a hardened silica meaning the radioactive material/waste was trapped inside of it and diluted. Not only does this mean that the spread of radiation was greatly inhibited by this process, but it also means that the threat of a secondary actual NUCLEAR reaction/explosion occurring was minimal because the nuclear fuel was too dispersed/dissipated inside of this silica/concrete/lava type of mix. If a bomb were to hit it or if Chernobyl had a nuclear explosion, the nuclear debris, waste, fuel, etc would have been sent skyrocketing much higher into the atmosphere and thus spreading all over the continents, contaminating much more land, killing much more people etc etc. But in Chernobyl's case, the majority of the radioactive material/waste/fuel is actually ossified in this silica in the basement beneath the reactor (it melted through the floor and leaked there) and as such it's the best type of thing that could have occurred because that means through this process, the radiation is even mostly prevented from seeping into the water streams/supplies underneath the plant. As bad as the accident was, it could have turned out much worse!



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   
Hmm, actually, Chernobyl does not mean wormwood. It's an altered form of the word "Chornobyl" which means "mugwort", or "black grass" or "black stalks". Therefore, it was named after the Chornobyl grass (mugwort, black grass or stalks) and is a combination of the words chornyi (чорний, black) and byllia (билля, grass blades or stalks). Just a brief moment of searching to find that. It does not mean wormwood.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 02:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rufusdrak
reply to Someone said that woman who went to Pripyat is fake. Are you kidding me? There are guided tours that you can pay for and go to Pripyat yourself probably a mile or two away from the reactor and you are fine there with only slightly elevated but still safe levels of radiation.


i dont know what any one else said - but i stated quite clearly that :

" the BIKE RIDE was a fake "

do you understand that statement ?

look at the pics again - and as i also stated , the ONLY pictures of the bike are OUTSIDE the exclusion zone .

her narrative about riding around the city on a motor cycle is pure fantasy

i like many others have been to the ukraine , stayed in kiev and taken the tour - but unlike her , i didnt se fit to ` gild the lilly `, but concocting some bike ride story



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Iamonlyhuman
reply to post by smash_the_system
 


Is this what you're talking about? If so, it's a different facility. Keep watching!

Troops defend top Russian nuclear research center from fires


Some 500 servicemen are working to extinguish wildfires near the city of Sarov, where a nuclear research center is located, a spokesman for Russia's Railway Troops said on Friday.


It was only a quick mention on RT yesterday re the deployment of military to help aid the efforts, but it was Chernobyl that they mentioned - tend to watch RT quite a lot at the moment as the UK main stream media is getting beyond a joke these days


Reply to Ctankep: It was late yesterday afternoon when it was reported, nothing detailed as it was 'news just in' by the look of it.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   
Things with really long half-lives generally are not very radioactive. Uranium is approximately as toxic as lead, and you would require about 1500 kilograms of natural Uranium (0.72% U-235) to get a single curie of radioactive activity. It has a half life of a million years.



By comparison, Polonium-210 is so radioactive that 22 milligrams will deliver a single curie of radioactive activity, and has a half-life of a few hundred days. i.e. Polonium-210 is 7 billion times more radioactive than Uranium. Anyway, the point is that Uranium in the grand scheme of Chernobyl is harmless and generally the long lived stuff is far less radioactive than the short-lived stuff (which has decayed substantially since 1986). Since Uranium makes up approximately 90%-95% of the spent fuel, that leaves 11 to 22 tonnes for the rest of the debris including some relatively harmless slightly radioactive substances, as well as dangerous but short lived stuff like Caesium-137 and Strontium-90 (which have decayed significantly since 1986) and long lived dangerous stuff like Plutonium. Most of that should stay locked up in the solidified Corium debris.

So the actual figure is not 200 tonnes of extremely radioactive debris, it should be a few tonnes of extremely radioactive fission products, decay elements, mixed in with large amount of relatively harmless substance (Uranium), locked inside solidified corium. If the sarcophagus were to collapse, then it would be a very big mess - but I doubt it would parallel the 1986 disaster as the most dangerous substances have decayed significantly, it shouldn't catch fire this time, and the majority of the radioactivity should stay locked inside solidified corium. I would expect a whole lot of dust to scatter everywhere and get blown a large distance, and the area to get contaminated even more. Huge mess that would require a big cleanup effort - but you don't have to worry about it wiping out Europe. Additionally, the majority of the contamination of the surrounding areas came from the release of elements such as caesium-137, caesium-134, iodine-131, and strontium-90, all of which should of decayed significantly since 1986 which is why the area is much safer than it was a couple of decades ago.


Interesting to watch the US versions of videos - you can see the propaganda at work big-time. Minimizing the TMI accident whilst turning the Russian accident into a major catastrophy. Some absolute and pure BS coming out there. (sorry guys).

It's not propaganda at all. AT TMI, all of the molten fuel stayed within the 5 inch thick steel pressure vessel, and the concrete containment built around the reactor was practically not challenged. The overall radiation dose for someone standing outside the plant was barely higher than some forms of X-ray scans, and the probability of any health effects is extremely small. Meanwhile, Chernobyl killed 50 people directly, and over 4000 indirectly (depending on who you listen to).

Just because the soviets had an extremely large disaster, doesn't mean that any American disaster was in any way, shape, or form equivalent to Chernobyl.

[edit on 8/8/2010 by C0bzz]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
[...] Most of that should stay locked up in the solidified Corium debris.

So the actual figure [...] is a few tonnes of extremely radioactive fission products, decay elements, mixed in with large amount of relatively harmless substance (Uranium), locked inside solidified corium. If the sarcophagus were to collapse, then it would be a very big mess - [...] it shouldn't catch fire this time, and the majority of the radioactivity should stay locked inside solidified corium. I would expect a whole lot of dust to scatter everywhere get get blown a large distance, big mess, but you don't have to worry about it wiping out Europe.


CObzz, thanks!
I've culled your response to ask a question... I hope I didn't change the meaning. Do you know the melting point is the Corium? If the fires did collapse the sarcophagus, what kind of temperatures would be necessary to release the Plutonium? In your opinion, is this even feasible? This is, of course, aside from the mess that would be created by the collapse itself.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 07:31 AM
link   
This is what is in danger from the fires....my prayers are with the people of Russia. This must be a living hell for them!
Read about the nuclear facility I am speaking of here....
www1.voanews.com...



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by hinky
Has Russia endorsed that cap and trade crap? How much carbon is Russia releasing, from uncontrolled forest fires, that will kill all of us from planetary temperature rise.

I thought uncontrolled forest fires occurred only in America with the international media always frothing at the mouth over how many acres of forest being destroyed by greedy Americans.


No~ MY bad. I caused the global warming, by driving last week. I followed shawn white all over the world, so I could watch him ski, following his tweets. I drove with the windows open, and one tire was low on air. I used a butane lighter to heat up my cigarettes as well...*sigh*. It was MY greed that caused BP to rupture the sea bed when I begged them to look for more oil. I guess I'll self-flagellate now. What volcanoes? What wildfires? What on earth are you talking about???

Maybe when all the trees are gone, all the ice has melted, I won't have to follow him around anymore because it will be too late.

[edit on 8-8-2010 by davidmann]



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:07 AM
link   
Well I hope some of you alarmists and propagandists have had your eyes opened now that C0bzz has posted his decisive debunking of the Chernobyl myth.
Lesson for you all: Stop listening to propaganda and being brainwashed. Chernobyl is no where near the worst disaster of all time, and probably not even the worst disaster of 1986. Hell more people died from 911 disaster arguably than from Chernobyl. And while it still remains a problem, it's no where near as big of one as all the alarmist crap on youtube will have you believe. But hey if you don't believe me, go book your own tour of the sarcophagus and check it out yourself.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


What would happen in a worst case scenario?

If a huge uncontrollable fire made it to Chernobyl and was burning it up.

How catastrophic would it be? How wide would its' effects reach (Russia, UK, US)? How many people could die and/or be poisoned?

Basically what would the effects be?

S+F



Well the burning of the chemicals would send it into the atmosphere higher than it normally would have....

It will then cover an area much bigger than they thought originally.



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:01 PM
link   
I am not sure what thread or entry it was it was a couple days ago, but there was a picture of a map of Russia pin-pointing the general area of the fires. If anyone can send me in the right place to find that map or one close to it please let me know!
Thank you



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/iffn/country/rus/rus_7.htm

I think I'll just leave this here for a nice piece of info detailing previous fires around the area and the effect of said events.

Info title....

Forest Fires on the Areas Contaminated by Radionuclides
from the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident

(IFFN No. 7 - August 1992, p. 4-6)

Also as a secondary link (PDF)

www.fire.uni-freiburg.de...

Info title....

International Forest Fire News (IFFN) No.32 (January - June 2005, 119-125)

Transport of Radioactive Materials By Wildland fires in the Chernobyl Accident Zone: How to Address the Problem

[edit on 8-8-2010 by Ctankep]



new topics

top topics



 
70
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join