Chernobyl (HBO miniseries)

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
12,933
Dyatlov was there at the time of the explosion and the radiation leak, so how did he not only survive but was able to endure 3 years of labour camp ( sentenced to 10, given amnesty after 3 ) ?
There was an episode of Mythbusters where they proved some insects could survive nuclear blasts... Well, 100 000 rads specifically.

So there you go.
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
15,977
The dose he received meant he would have a 50% chance of dying within 30 days. You win some you lose some.
one could argue Dyatlov's sentence was lenient compared to what many of the first responders suffered with radiation sickness.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,046
Two TEPCO employees died of injuries from the earthquake, and six others received radiation exposure above the lifetime limit.[9] As of September 2018, one cancer fatality had resulted in a financial settlement to the family of a former station workman.[4][16] A report by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation[17] and World Health Organization projected no increase in miscarriages, stillbirths or physical and mental disorders in babies born after the accident.[18] More than 171,000 evacuees were still unable to return home as of March 2016.[9] An estimated 1,600 deaths are believed to have occurred, primarily among elderly who had lived in nursing homes, due to poor evacuation conditions.[19][20]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
15,977
Hmm, I dunno. There is only 1 recorded death for Fukushima.
in the coming decades, what will the dosage level be?
and since Fukushima is an INES 7 event (like Chernobyl)

who knows exactly how many deaths (maybe indirectly) came from the release of radiation at Fukushima.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,046
in the coming decades, what will the dosage level be?
and since Fukushima is an INES 7 event (like Chernobyl)

who knows exactly how many deaths (maybe indirectly) came from the release of radiation at Fukushima.
Fukushima had much higher safety standards even though it was on older plant. People also had a much better idea of how to handle and avoid the radiation. Also much better safety equipment and detection equipment.
The radiation spill was never as high as Chernobyl (one tenth) and 80% of the radiation fell out over the Pacific where it was diluted so as to be almost negligible.
The exclusion zone was smaller, and the after effects are not expected to be as deadly.

Though Fukushima and Chernobyl are both level 7 nuclear accidents, the health consequences in Japan to date are much less severe. In part, that's because far more radiation was released at Chernobyl. So far, Fukushima Dai-ichi has released about one-tenth of the amount of radioactive material that escaped Chernobyl, according to an official from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1135616/chernobyl-hbo-series-sky-atlantic-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-ukraine-japan-spt

https://www.npr.org/2011/04/12/135353240/fukushima-vs-chernobyl-what-does-level-7-mean

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

Kosmik

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
19,157
Dyatlov was there at the time of the explosion and the radiation leak, so how did he not only survive but was able to endure 3 years of labour camp ( sentenced to 10, given amnesty after 3 ) ?
I suspect because of where the control room was, probably the heaviest shielded section of the building save for the reactor itself. Remember , everyone else was outside and directly exposed to the graphite core.

That final output figure though :oops::eek:
 

theratman

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
8,947
Binged on the weekend and finished the series last night. One of the best I've watched in ages, incredibly acted, shot and produced. Well done HBO.
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
15,977
imagine Koeberg experiences the same as Fukushima, IE a Generator floods and cant start to generate power.
to keep the cooling ponds flowing. I mean its a serious consideration in the aftermath of the tsunami, with Koeberg on the coast.


do we know what the emergency directives are to avoid a meltdown? has such information been published?
and would the radiation release be bigger or smaller considering Koeberg is only 2 units not the 8 units of Fukushima.
 

LazyLion

King of de Jungle
Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
102,046
imagine Koeberg experiences the same as Fukushima, IE a Generator floods and cant start to generate power.
to keep the cooling ponds flowing. I mean its a serious consideration in the aftermath of the tsunami, with Koeberg on the coast.

do we know what the emergency directives are to avoid a meltdown? has such information been published?
and would the radiation release be bigger or smaller considering Koeberg is only 2 units not the 8 units of Fukushima.
It's not possible by itself. It's not the same reactor type (as has already been explained in this thread).
Completely different technology type.
Even if something disastrous happens, Koeberg will cascade to cooler, not hotter.
It's the way the reactor was designed...

Koeberg contains two pressurised water reactors based on a design by Framatome of France.

Pressurized water reactors, like all thermal reactor designs, require the fast fission neutrons to be slowed down (a process called moderation or thermalizing) in order to interact with the nuclear fuel and sustain the chain reaction. In PWRs the coolant water is used as a moderator by letting the neutrons undergo multiple collisions with light hydrogen atoms in the water, losing speed in the process. This "moderating" of neutrons will happen more often when the water is more dense (more collisions will occur). The use of water as a moderator is an important safety feature of PWRs, as an increase in temperature may cause the water to expand, giving greater 'gaps' between the water molecules and reducing the probability of thermalisation—thereby reducing the extent to which neutrons are slowed down and hence reducing the reactivity in the reactor. Therefore, if reactivity increases beyond normal, the reduced moderation of neutrons will cause the chain reaction to slow down, producing less heat. This property, known as the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, makes PWR reactors very stable. This process is referred to as 'Self-Regulating', i.e. the hotter the coolant becomes, the less reactive the plant becomes, shutting itself down slightly to compensate and vice versa. Thus the plant controls itself around a given temperature set by the position of the control rods.

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

Mortymoose

Honorary Master
Joined
May 26, 2013
Messages
11,179
I worry more about the fault line that runs about 1km off the coast under the sea next to Koeberg....... long overdue for a shudder!
 

Kosmik

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
19,157
It's not possible by itself. It's not the same reactor type (as has already been explained in this thread).
Completely different technology type.
Even if something disastrous happens, Koeberg will cascade to cooler, not hotter.
It's the way the reactor was designed...

Koeberg contains two pressurised water reactors based on a design by Framatome of France.

Pressurized water reactors, like all thermal reactor designs, require the fast fission neutrons to be slowed down (a process called moderation or thermalizing) in order to interact with the nuclear fuel and sustain the chain reaction. In PWRs the coolant water is used as a moderator by letting the neutrons undergo multiple collisions with light hydrogen atoms in the water, losing speed in the process. This "moderating" of neutrons will happen more often when the water is more dense (more collisions will occur). The use of water as a moderator is an important safety feature of PWRs, as an increase in temperature may cause the water to expand, giving greater 'gaps' between the water molecules and reducing the probability of thermalisation—thereby reducing the extent to which neutrons are slowed down and hence reducing the reactivity in the reactor. Therefore, if reactivity increases beyond normal, the reduced moderation of neutrons will cause the chain reaction to slow down, producing less heat. This property, known as the negative temperature coefficient of reactivity, makes PWR reactors very stable. This process is referred to as 'Self-Regulating', i.e. the hotter the coolant becomes, the less reactive the plant becomes, shutting itself down slightly to compensate and vice versa. Thus the plant controls itself around a given temperature set by the position of the control rods.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor
Until some idiot decides to jippo the system to pass a test........

*cough* *cough*
Thus the plant controls itself around a given temperature set by the position of the control rods.
 

eg2505

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 12, 2008
Messages
15,977
Until some idiot decides to jippo the system to pass a test........

*cough* *cough*
human factor is always the weakest part.
nothing is 100% safe, especially nuclear reactors and the like.
 

Urist

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2015
Messages
2,122
When you think about it, management's denial that the core exploded does have some merit, don't know if Dyatlov's portrayal was completely accurate, he seemed comically arrogant so some of it does seem like dramatisation.
Imagine farking up that bad, while working for the soviet union, working on a supposedly infallible system believing that at least there's still a failsafe.

"Right... now I'm either going to die horribly from radiation poisoning, or horribly somewhere in Siberia... nope... that didn't just happen"

I'd be in denial as well.
 
Top