-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who Else Is Watching Chernobyl?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
That's why you're messed up.It s not messed up....I just like males...very much...
Liking males....they're icky!
I did not bite for ST
. I'm likely not to bite for STicard. But I did once to watch Jeremiah on Showtime because I liked B5 so much. So it's possible that I might bite on the Puppy Bowl.
No they are not
Whadda you know about'm, lady skull.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
HBO Go. That's the web access, which is how I'm watching.
Chernobyl is Brilliant. As historical as they can make it, and squeeze it into one hour episodes.
I like watching the "director's notes" at the end of each episode, where the methodology/choices of presentation are sometimes given.
The Wikipedia on Chernobyl is also very good reading.
Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia
It was something that shocked all of Europe...not to mention countries bordering with Ukraine...
In my country the people were so shocked that they asked the government to close all nuclear plants, via referendum.
I find the technological, sociological, political & economic aspects interesting.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
There was good reason to be shocked.
But, unfortunately, the USSR's design of an atomic power pile, seemed to assume that everything would always work as designed.
Reading the Wiki on the disaster explains in detail, the several design choices they made which lead to the disaster.
One of the worst choices appeared to be that SCRAMMING the reactor-- emergency shutdown-- was kind of bass-ackawards in how you'd want things.
Think: We have a runaway freight train, but in order to apply the Emergency Brakes? We have to speed the train up-- by a lot-- before the brakes are engaged.... And my analogy is literal--- their control rods, as they are being inserted, would, in fact, speed up the reaction, increasing the core temperatures. For a short time. Then, things would slow down.
When I read about that? I went..... "waaaaat? Surely not.....?"
*sigh*
That wasn't the only Bad Design choice, either...
Thing generally do work as designed.
The big problem is when they don't work as anticipated.
One must always remember one of the fundamental laws
of nature as expressed by Mr Murphy....
What can go wrong will go wrong.
Despite all that, nuclear remains, according to a cost-benefit analysis, the kind of plant that produces the most power with the least quantity of resources. But the risks have scary implications.
I wonder if the cost vs benefit analysis takes into account the long term costs
of all the Cherynobyls, 3 Mile Islands, Fukishimas, Browns Ferrys, etc?
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
True. But, risks can be anticipated. As can worst-case scenario.
Take the majority of the US design-- these are made to assume the worst WILL happen.
That is? There are systems, that if all else fails, gravity will dump water into the core. Active valves prevent this from happening, so, as long as there is power--even emergency power? The valves remain closed, the water held in check.
Remove all power? Wooosh. Water, as it turns out, is an excellent moderator of neutrons. It also cools things.
That's one.
There are several more design decisions in US reactors, including multiple containers, not unlike Russian Nesting Dolls.
Contrast Chernobyl with 3 Mile Island, for a dramatic contrast between the two philosophies.
Btw...hydroelectric power can cause disasters too...like Vajont Dam - Wikipedia
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Doubtful. But-- does anyone consider the 10 year cost destruction from a coal plant? And all the microparticle pollution that these things emit? How about 20 year negative cost?
Oh! Wait-- nevermind-- under conservatives, Corporations are seldom presented with a bill to pay for all the pollution and clean up that their activities create....
Just look at the nastiness created by Radium Equipment Dials... we are still cleaning up that mess, and it dates back to WW2... of course, the top people who perpetrated that, are mostly dead-- but their offspring are enjoying the fruits of their amassed fortunes. Meanwhile, the workers have all died of cancer, and are not in a position to complain... so it's all good... right?
Not as completely so as we'd like.
For example, the Browns Ferry accident (as I recall) was exacerbated by running all
redundant control lines thru a single tunnel. Couple that with flammable insulation &
the use of open flames for diagnostics, the assumption that fire would never affect all
control lines simultaneously was wrongo pongo (a tech term for "erroneous").
But I understand what you're saying, ie, we paid more attention to things going wrong,
eg, providing a secondary containment structure.
I want to avoid getting bogged down in all the details & complexities,
but suffice to say that many corporations are held responsible for such
damage. Sometimes they get off scot free, but other times they pay
even when there's no demonstrable damage, eg, Bayer & glyphosate.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
I'd bet you a new $20, that the single tunnel design was a cost compromise.
And that the original Engineering plans called for redundant tunnels, for safety.
I could be wrong, of course-- some engineers are caught up in the save-money-at-all-cost mental state too.
I remember some details about an airplane design, circa WW2, that had pretty much the same issue-- all control systems went past some specific points in the airframe. Made sense at the time, simplified assembly, etc.
But in a warplane? A well placed bullet rendered those controls inert. Including the backup systems.. So both the primary and secondary controls were gone, with one well placed bit of damage. Not something you want, in a device subject to intentional damage.
Later designs split the two systems...
... one thing about WW2? Was the incredible and rapid pace of design changes, even as the planes were being built.
My grandfather's letters to my gran' were full of such things-- he was working in Wichita, Boeing's airplane plant, during WW2 (flat feet). One particular letter of note, was on the B29's bomb bay doors.... it seemed there were design changes made to the drive motors for these massive doors. According to the plans, the wiring of the motor was indifferent as to which wire went where-- my suspicion was the original motors were AC/induction style. Not unreasonable, as I've no doubt alternators were the primary power generators, as these are typically much lighter than generators of the same power capacity.
But when my Grandad was working? (he was foreman) he observed that during testing, they had a high failure rate of the motors, once installed in the sub-assembly. He also observed that the motor wires were color-coded--but the plans indicated they were both the same color... hmmmm..... the connection terminals were not coded, though. He made some tests (inferred by his language in the letter-- he wasn't this specific) and discovered the motors worked, if you connected the red wire to the same terminal every time (and the black wire to the other, obviously). Notes were put into the plans. Their success rate went up dramatically...
Yeah. Rapid design changes were a thing in WW2. Reading up on the venerable B17? Sometimes the changes varied from one unit to the next, in the number sequence.
My admiration for ground service crews cannot be higher--these people were the most amazing sorts-- Unsung Heroes, IMO. Yes, they were (usually) not put directly in Harm's Way, but without them? Nobody was flying anything-- not even Snoopy's Dog House.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. I tend to get..... hyperbolic. It's a pet peeve of mine, on the subject of corporate pollution
(why yes.. I was bucking for Understatement of the Year...why do you ask?)