It Was Twenty Years Ago Today...

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

... Ukraine nearly melted away...

Sombre Events Mark Chernobyl Disaster

Last week, a new international report said more than 93,000 people could still die as a result of the accident.

That will be on top of the estimated 200,000 deaths that have already occurred.

...

Researchers [from Greenpeace] believe that of the two billion people affected by the Chernobyl disaster worldwide, an estimated 270,000 will develop cancer and 93,000 will die.

Somebody please remind Iran about this when they get all cheeky about nuclear power (whatever they plan on doing with their plutonium).

[deranger]

Let's also keep this in mind with regard to our CANDU beauties. We may hav better safety standards but Nuclear energy is NOT CLEAN. It creates nuclear waste that can never be detroyed or disposed of. You move it from cement container to cement container as each container becomes radioactive and contaminated.

Man I hate those ads with cheerful female voice and the blue sky backdrop telling us Nuclear energy is clean.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

What's that mountain in the US where they're talking of stashing all their nuclear waste?

[bradm]

I think you mean Yucca Mountain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_mountain

Aloha,

Brad

[Esau]

Move your cursor over the bottom of each picture for a brief description/info on each.

20 years later......

:crazy:

[payce-ley]

10 years ago, I went to school with a girl who lived in Chernobyl at the time of the disaster... was very polite and friendly... came as a quite a suprise when she shared that with us half way through the course... she didn't know if she had suffered any health effects or not yet

I'm always profoundly moved by how many volunteers went to seal up the site, knowing they would die of radiation poisoning afterwards

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest

[Bennyd]

On the BBC last night they said that only two deaths from thyroid cancer could be tied to the disaster. Scientists believe this would be the most likely form. Obviously that does not count the loss of life immediately after the accident. It went on to say that the half life of the radioactive iodine and other elements was much shorter than previously estimated.

It was such a said event and I do not mean to belittle it, but this was good news.

[kookycanooky]

Move your cursor over the bottom of each picture for a brief description/info on each.

20 years later......

:crazy:

that site is fucked!

[Asparagus]

It's interesting to note that, comparatively speaking, nuclear energy is clean.

Flame away.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest

[deranger]

clean as in creating radioactive waste that can never be destroyed or disposed of than ya. Mind if we store in your basement for the next oohhhh I dunno 2300 years?

[Asparagus]

What, pray tell, is your cleaner alternative?

Edit to add: I'm not trying to dismiss the terrible tragedy that happened at Chernobyl. I have heard first hand accounts of the disaster from a co-worker who actually was working at the site when the same disaster almost happened another time about how bad it is and was.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest

[rubberdinghy]

I'd have to agree with Asparagus...you'd rather keep burning coal? Look at it's negative effects first. It's much worse.

[rubberdinghy]

besides, in 2300 hundred years, they'll have a solution. Probably to power the Starship: Enterprise.

[deranger]

wind, solar, and biodiesal could be a good start.

[deranger]

burnig coal may be bad but I fail to see how creating massive amounts of radioactive waste is any better.

[Asparagus]

Where do you intend to place these masses of solar cells and wind farms? Do you have a good source for the scarce near-rare metals needed to build solar cells? What about the by-products of the imcomplete combustion of said bio-diesel? Unfortunately, this is only a short list, it does go on. I am not implying that nuclear energy is completely clean, as I did say 'comparatively'.

There are pros and cons to every source of energy. To espouse the benefits of the alternatives, it is also necessary to understand the drawbacks of our so-called 'clean' technologies.

Edited April 26, 2006 by Guest

[edger]

Regardless of our choice in energy sources we need some serious demand-side management as well. The real problem is the false belief that we can continue to consume at present levels...

[secondtube]

greg, that site is fucked.

scarey to say the least.

[deranger]

but isn't the point of alternative energies that they are "comparetively" cleaner and renewable? As opposed to current energy sources? Wind farms can be set up all across our lakes and our waters of the atlantic and pacific. A number of Euro countries are taking advantage of these sources of constant wind.

The by-productof biodiesal is itself renewable waste, like compost. Alternative energies produce less waste, pollute less and can cost less.

[Dr_Evil_Mouse]

I don't see why it's so hard to find a solution.

All we have to do is round up all the white-collar criminals currently evading prosecution and get them to work. There must be enough around to meet NA energy demands.

[Im going home Donny]

Holy shit... ...how can anyone look at those stories and still say nuclear energy is a good thing?

Those poor people....thats just horrendous on every level imaginable.

[Esau]

that site is fucked!

greg, that site is fucked.

scarey to say the least.

Personally, I think whats fucked is the effects of such a disaster, not to mention reading on another board where most people seem to think the reports of how bad it truly was and still is are grossly exaggerated. I found the pictures extremely moving and very sad, at the same time I was offended also. But certianly not by the site.

I guess I should of mentioned this first (from that link)

Photgrapher Robert Knoth and reporter Antoinette de Jong have documented the impact of nuclear radiation in these four regions since spring 1999. A book of their work, Certificate No. 00358/ Nuclear Devastation in Belarus, Kazakhstan, Ukraine, the Urals and Siberia, is published with the support of Greenpeace International and Unicef Netherlands.

http://www.pixelpress.org/chernobyl/screen2.html

My apologys to anyone who may be offended by the pictures.

[bradm]

There was a recent BBC story

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4923342.stm

that noted

The exclusion zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is teeming with life.

As humans were evacuated from the area 20 years ago, animals moved in. Existing populations multiplied and species not seen for decades, such as the lynx and eagle owl, began to return.

(Read the full article, though, it's worth it.)

Aloha,

Brad

[Asparagus]

but isn't the point of alternative energies that they are "comparetively" cleaner and renewable? As opposed to current energy sources? Wind farms can be set up all across our lakes and our waters of the atlantic and pacific. A number of Euro countries are taking advantage of these sources of constant wind.

The by-productof biodiesal is itself renewable waste, like compost. Alternative energies produce less waste, pollute less and can cost less.

That is, indeed, the point. Often, though, it is not the reality.

The fact remains that bio-diesel is a fuel as any other fuel, and being diesel is imcompletely combusted when it is burned, ie. more pollutants into the air. The reason bio-diesel is held in such high regard is, as far as I know, only due to its sources, organic, and so do not deplete our petrochemical reserves. It still has the same bad air by-products as regular fuel.

I was unaware that it was possible (and that some were doing it) to set up wind farms on the water. If you could direct me to some information, it would be appreciated.

I'm not going to itemize the downside of solar power and the production of solar cells, the information is on the internet. I'm all for sustainable solar power, however, I don't think we can responsibly push forward with it at the present.

As far as people saying nuclear energy is 'good', I haven't read that yet. I said 'comparatively clean'.

As I mentioned in a previous post, what happened at Chernobyl was a tragedy. But in terms of human lives lost, believe it or not hydro power has killed many, many more people. I have yet to hear people call for an end to their cheap, 'clean' hydro power for these reasons. There is an unbelievable amount of misinformation floating around concerning nuclear power.

[Birdy]

In her book she quotes the British scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock, who wrote approvingly in the Daily Telegraph in 2001 of the "unscheduled appearance" of wildlife at Chernobyl.

He went on: "I have wondered if the small volumes of nuclear waste from power production should be stored in tropical forests and other habitats in need of a reliable guardian against their destruction by greedy developers".

what the f is this world coming to?