Chernobyl

[Frazod]

Just finished the first episode; I guess I'll be keeping HBO a bit longer after Game of Thrones ends.

It is fascinating, horrifying and infuriating. And spellbinding.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by shrlked

There is a documentary made in 2003 called Chernobyl Heart. It won the Academy Award for Short Subject Documentary. Very interesting. I used to show it to high school chemistry students when they were learning about nuclear reactions, power plants etc. It really sobered them up for a day.

[Fish]

**** me, this video is so difficult to watch.

[Fishpicker]

uh
*checks screen cap*

Nope

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by notorious

Don't search "Chernobyl Children". It's heartbreaking.

This sounds like something -- kinda like Schindler's List -- that one should see, even if one doesn't particularly WANT to see. I'll keep it in mind for when the miniseries ends.

That scene where -- errr -- Scherbina (sp?) -- has just found out that parts of GERMANY are not letting their kids outside due to Chernobyl, after Legasov has been repeatedly urging him to order evacuation, and he looks out the window to see teenagers horsing around was pretty ****ing damning and impactful.

Immediately afterwards you see the parade of buses and the forced evacuation, but JFC, how many hours after the incident was that? Waaaay too many, that's for certain.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by notorious

So much suffering, and they are innocent.


Mother **** the USSR.

I've read theories that Chernobyl sped up the demise of the USSR because of the slow and inadequate response. People were ticked off.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I've read theories that Chernobyl sped up the demise of the USSR because of the slow and inadequate response. People were ticked off.

I remember watching something that talked about that. Gorbachov actually said something about the incident leading to him working more with Raegan IIRC>

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

I've read theories that Chernobyl sped up the demise of the USSR because of the slow and inadequate response. People were ticked off.

Yeah, they talk about keeping it secret because they were banking on the idea of technical superiority as their main weapon against the west. Did a nice job of not beating us over the head with it.

Plus on the phone call, they said, whatever it costs, you have it. Which.... doesn't really happen in communist China.

[Shoes]

Just binged through 3 episodes last night- what a great mini series. Unexpected gems like this is why I love HBO. Great series so far.

[Miles]

Don’t think I’ve ever read so much other stuff on the internet after watching episodes of a TV show like I have with this. I’ve always been fascinated by Chernobyl but never really gone much past the wiki.

[BWillie]

Can someone help me understand the current dangers our lack thereof for the current nuclear power plants & reactors that still exist? It appears there is still quite a few. What would happen if someone bombed a nuclear power plant? Wouldn't that effectively destroy a huge region near the plant and be similarly as bad as Chernobyl or even worse?

[Miles]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Can someone help me understand the current dangers our lack thereof for the current nuclear power plants & reactors that still exist? It appears there is still quite a few. What would happen if someone bombed a nuclear power plant? Wouldn't that effectively destroy a huge region near the plant and be similarly as bad as Chernobyl or even worse?

My limited understanding is if one were bombed it could spread radioactive debris just like that but no idea on the meltdown. It wouldn’t be exploding from inside but again no idea. I’d think the similar thought process of not using nuclear weapons would apply.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by BWillie

Can someone help me understand the current dangers our lack thereof for the current nuclear power plants & reactors that still exist? It appears there is still quite a few. What would happen if someone bombed a nuclear power plant? Wouldn't that effectively destroy a huge region near the plant and be similarly as bad as Chernobyl or even worse?

So the immediate, obvious answer is YES, *if* someone were to blow up or cause a critical failure at a nuclear power plant, you could have a Chernobyl-type event at any nuclear power plant.

And of course that's a massive risk that we need to be focused on, but luckily we're not complete morons, and realize this. For example, we have determined that a commercial airliner flying into a nuclear power plant is pretty much not going to be a problem. The plane would not cause a serious nuclear catastrophe. How do we know...welll -- thin aluminum tube meets concrete (the exterior dome) is a clear win for the concrete.

https://interestingengineering.com/c...r-reactor-test




Now, of course, an F-4 Phantom (loaded with water to add weight) is not the same mass as a, say, 747 with a full load of people and fuel (and resulting increases in mass and explosive power). It seems the pointy heads are reasonably confident, however, that a nuclear containment dome could resist that impact.






So what other alternatives are there. A key one in the modern age is hacking. The theory being that if you can take over the controls, you might be able to trigger a meltdown. Now, of course, even in a meltdown, you don't get CHERNOBYL, per se, because of the containment dome. You might, however, get contaminated groundwater, which as discussed in the Chernobyl series is also horrifically bad. Though prehaps less bad than we thought before Fukushima Daiichi.

And, of course, western powers developed the computer worm/virus Stuxnet to mess with Iranian nuclear research / development.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#49e4f97d57b9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

https://www.powermag.com/exercise-pr...-power-plants/

[FlintHillsChiefs]

Originally Posted by Amnorix

So the immediate, obvious answer is YES, *if* someone were to blow up or cause a critical failure at a nuclear power plant, you could have a Chernobyl-type event at any nuclear power plant.

And of course that's a massive risk that we need to be focused on, but luckily we're not complete morons, and realize this. For example, we have determined that a commercial airliner flying into a nuclear power plant is pretty much not going to be a problem. The plane would not cause a serious nuclear catastrophe. How do we know...welll -- thin aluminum tube meets concrete (the exterior dome) is a clear win for the concrete.

https://interestingengineering.com/c...r-reactor-test




Now, of course, an F-4 Phantom (loaded with water to add weight) is not the same mass as a, say, 747 with a full load of people and fuel (and resulting increases in mass and explosive power). It seems the pointy heads are reasonably confident, however, that a nuclear containment dome could resist that impact.






So what other alternatives are there. A key one in the modern age is hacking. The theory being that if you can take over the controls, you might be able to trigger a meltdown. Now, of course, even in a meltdown, you don't get CHERNOBYL, per se, because of the containment dome. You might, however, get contaminated groundwater, which as discussed in the Chernobyl series is also horrifically bad. Though prehaps less bad than we thought before Fukushima Daiichi.

And, of course, western powers developed the computer worm/virus Stuxnet to mess with Iranian nuclear research / development.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesco.../#49e4f97d57b9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuxnet

https://www.powermag.com/exercise-pr...-power-plants/

Aren't nuclear reactors air-gapped?

[BigRedChief]

Physical outside threats to a nuclear plant are just not feasible. That’s why it’s not even been attempted by terrorists.

Like all things today, even if properly secured and security updated regularly, we can never take out the human being as part of the equation. That’s always your weakest part of the security chain.

I worked at a very secure environment. 1 MILLION hack attempts every day. None got through in the 3.5 years I was there. It’s “mostly” even protected from inadvertent human errors. We know how to secure stuff. Yet, one trusted but motivated human being can wreck serious havoc. That’s the worry. How can we ever take that risk out of the security equation?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

Physical outside threats to a nuclear plant are just not feasible. That’s why it’s not even been attempted by terrorists.

Like all things today, even if properly secured and security updated regularly, we can never take out the human being as part of the equation. That’s always your weakest part of the security chain.

I worked at a very secure environment. 1 MILLION hack attempts every day. None got through in the 3.5 years I was there. It’s “mostly” even protected from inadvertent human errors. We know how to secure stuff. Yet, one trusted but motivated human being can wreck serious havoc. That’s the worry. How can we ever take that risk out of the security equation?

Before they put the new sarcophagus on at Chernobyl, I was always a little curious why nobody tried to bomb the old one.

I agree that a modern nuclear facility is nigh on impregnable, but one with a make-shift shield that is admittedly in advance stages of decay? That always seemed like a target one of the deranged separatists might feel like taking a shot at to me.