Chernobyl

[sparkle_motion]

Being 28 years old, I was pretty young when this happened. So, it's never been something that effected (affected? I never know which) me.

However, a few months ago, I was surfin' HBO at about 3 o'clock in the morning and caught a documentary called Chernobyl Heart. It was something that will not soon escape my memory.

The images of those deformed children were horrifying. Their parents either can't financially support them or they are dead themselves from the radiation. So, the children are placed in asylums and orphanages.
The UN says 3-4 MILLION children are suffering as a result of the Chernobyl disaster. MILLION!
Take a look at this link, y'all.
http://www.ccp-intl.org

[delalluvia]

That's right nic, I agree with you here. But I for one would be ready to lower my energy consumption if it could mean avoiding/reducing hazards and pollution.
And how do you get rid of the nuclear waste?! That is a tricky one to date, one we seem to keep for future generations.

I'm with Isabelle.  I did a term paper in college for my microbiology class on biological remediation of nuclear waste and was appalled at the lack of sufficient resources we have for the monitoring necessary for safe storage.  Some wastes will be toxic for 10,000 years.  Some stored wastes need to be 'stirred' lest they develop 'hot spots' and melt through their containers!

10,000 years?  There hasn't been a society on this planet that has ever lasted more than a millennia and the thinkers in this industry believe that we will be around in that many years to care for the waste products?  I'll be happy to start walking to work a few days a week if we could avoid using that particular power source.

[Chanterais]

Dela, 10,000 years?  Are you freaking kidding me?  That is insane.  Just to prove how ignorant I am on this subject, can I ask how they store that shit?  I'm hoping not in a wine barrel in the cellar, or something.  Not in my backyard, baby.  No way, nohow.

Nic, do you have to take big precautions when you travel to Chernobyl?  Strap Geiger counters to every part of your body?  Wear funny suits?  Swallow pills?  I've heard that there are some people who are taking vacations there, which seems like a really dumb idea to me.  I mean, I've travelled to some strange places, but that is moronic in a really special way.

I think I've also heard of a novelist (I'm thinking Martin Amis?  Peter Carey?) who's set one of his books in the abandoned region.  A murder mystery, I think it is.  Can you imagine all those empty houses?  Schools?  Whole towns?  Spooooooooky.  It gives me the willies just thinking about it.

I don't think I'd be one of those heroes.  I'm ashamed to admit that I'd probably run as fast as my legs could carry me in the opposite direction.  Though maybe when you're placed in a situation so terrible, you don't even think about what the right thing to do is.  You just do.

[sparkle_motion]

Check out these pictures:
http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~dmcmill/Pages/Villages/Villages%20thumbs.html

[delalluvia]

Dela, 10,000 years?  Are you freaking kidding me?  That is insane.  Just to prove how ignorant I am on this subject, can I ask how they store that shit?  I'm hoping not in a wine barrel in the cellar, or something.  Not in my backyard, baby.  No way, nohow.

Chan,

Quickie quotes from Radwaste.org

Radioactive wastes are typically stored for one or more of the following reasons: to allow them to decay to lower radioactivity levels; to temporarily hold them awaiting processing (or until a processing method has been developed); or to temporariliy hold them awaiting disposal (or until a disposal facility has been constructed). Each of these reasons may impose slightly different restrictions on storage in terms of length of time, physical form of the waste, radioactivity levels, etc.

"Storage for decay" is a cost effective way to manage short lived, low level radioactive wastes. Due to the physical laws of nature, the radioactivity reduces with time. After 10 half-lives the level of radioactivity has reduced by a factor of 1024, typically to near background levels. For the short lived radioisotopes typically used in medicine and research, this storage period for complete decay may be only a few weeks to a few months. After this time, the waste is no longer radioactive and can be disposed of as conventional waste (of course, taking into account any other hazards that the waste might pose, such as biological hazards). For other wastes, such as spent nuclear fuel, the "storage for decay" period may be many hundreds of thousands of years. However, it is important to note that all radioactivity will eventually decay.

*emphasis mine

And as for storage, some states with a lot of stable desert areas tend to be dumping grounds - Nevada, Utah, Texas and there are lots of places back east as well.  It may well be 'in your backyard' and you not notice.   

Storage containers:

http://web.em.doe.gov/em30/waststor.html

I think I've also heard of a novelist (I'm thinking Martin Amis?  Peter Carey?) who's set one of his books in the abandoned region.  A murder mystery, I think it is.  Can you imagine all those empty houses?  Schools?  Whole towns?  Spooooooooky.  It gives me the willies just thinking about it.

What a great idea for a novel!

[nic]

Nic, do you have to take big precautions when you travel to Chernobyl?  Strap Geiger counters to every part of your body?  Wear funny suits?  Swallow pills?  I've heard that there are some people who are taking vacations there, which seems like a really dumb idea to me.  I mean, I've travelled to some strange places, but that is moronic in a really special way.

When in the affected area my radiation dose uptake will be monitored.  I am sure to get more dose from the flight there & back though.  If I went into an area where there was a hazard of loose material that could be ingested or inhaled I would need to wear a suit and respiratory protection. 

Many people live in areas with high natural background radiation anyway due to the make up of the surroundings (eg natural radiation from rocks, living at a higher altitude).  Many people travel by plane to go on vacation and will get a higher radiation dose from travelling higher up in the atmosphere - for every hour spent on a high altitude flight you receive about 8 times more dose than on the ground.  It depends why these people are going on vacation there - if it is to tour around then why not if that's what they are interested in.

Radioactive waste is a sticking point, but there are many other chemically and biologically toxic wastes (poisons, carcinogens, viruses, infectious agents, etc) that also have to be dealt with.  Some of these wastes are incinerated contributing to increased carbon emissions. Hospitals are the other main producers of radioactive waste (from clinical procedures).  There are technologies under research to develop techniques to deal with radwaste apart from storage.  Right now storage is the best option.  Storage containers and facilities are rigourously tested to withstand punctures, penetrations, pressures, crushes, impacts, explosions, fires, immersions, etc  In Sweden, a town competed to have a waste repository built near it because of the jobs & associated benefits it would bring to the area.

Like most pro-nuclear people, I am pro in the sense that we have to use it now as part of the energy solution until there is a better more practicable, efficient way.  It is interesting that many people say they would be willing to conserve energy etc but why not actually do something?  I am working in the industry, monitoring safety & environmental impact and feel I am doing an important job to ensure the safety & energy availibity for curent and future generations.   

I have learnt loads of sdiverse tuff through love of BBM - seems like you are too, although it may not be exactly fun stuff.

[delalluvia]

It is interesting that many people say they would be willing  to conserve energy etc but why not actually do  something?

But many people already do.  I, for one, live within walking distance of my place of employment, grocery stores, shopping malls etc.  I already spend my weekends walking to these various places to do my shopping so I don't drive and don't burn the gas.

I haven't noticed an impact on the oil industry due to my cutbacks. 

BTW, in Texas, public transportation sucks.

Cutbacks won't make an impact unless the bulk of the population does it.  That's what most people are saying.  They're willing to make drastic cuts but it has to be something mandated so that it makes a difference.

[nic]

[Cutbacks won't make an impact unless the bulk of the population does it.  That's what most people are saying.  They're willing to make drastic cuts but it has to be something mandated so that it makes a difference.

I agree but can't understand why it is not mandated already or why people are not clamouring for it to be.  We have all the evidence of what is happening, depleting ozone layer, glaciers melting, coastal erosion, alterations in wildlife behaviour, record numbers of asthmatics, etc  All we've done is come up with the Kyoto protocol which is a step in the right direction but so small it's laughable.  Current levels of nuclear power generation are saving nearly twice as much carbon emission as Kyoto already. 

[Chanterais]

Nic, you make some seriously compelling arguments.  I agree, if we (as a society, not just us) want to have a dialogue about nuclear waste, we should also be willing to discuss a whole lot of other areas where we need to find solutions soon.

I would like to say that my contribution to eliminating carbon emissions is not to own a car.  No no, it's not because I'm a poor student, or because only a crazy person would drive in the city.  No.  It's because I am so environmentally conscious that it would hurt my soul to do it.

I read a really, really teriffic book last year called Life at the Extremes (Pay attention, Del, you'd like this one.  No lady detectives anywhere.) by British scientist Frances Ashcroft, where she talks about what happens to humans when they live in extreme environments: hot, cold, high speed, in space, etc.  She wrote about how pilots of the Concorde (when it still flew) were only permitted to fly twice a week.  It was because the Concorde flew so high above the Earth that it received much higher doses of nasty UV, X and gamma rays, which do not reach the surface of the planet because of our lovely atmosphere.  Still, even with that precaution, there's a much higher incidence of various cancers among former Concorde pilots than in the general population.  Interesting, huh? 

Nic, I really, really hope that when you get back from Chernobyl, if you're not too busy, you'll let us know what it was like.  I can't tell you how interested I would be in hearing what you saw.

[nic]

I read a really, really teriffic book last year called Life at the Extremes (Pay attention, Del, you'd like this one.  No lady detectives anywhere.) by British scientist Frances Ashcroft, where she talks about what happens to humans when they live in extreme environments: hot, cold, high speed, in space, etc.  She wrote about how pilots of the Concorde (when it still flew) were only permitted to fly twice a week.  It was because the Concorde flew so high above the Earth that it received much higher doses of nasty UV, X and gamma rays, which do not reach the surface of the planet because of our lovely atmosphere.  Still, even with that precaution, there's a much higher incidence of various cancers among former Concorde pilots than in the general population.  Interesting, huh? 

Nic, I really, really hope that when you get back from Chernobyl, if you're not too busy, you'll let us know what it was like.  I can't tell you how interested I would be in hearing what you saw.

I'll try to remember to drop in here with a report. 

Only recently have airline staff been monitored for their radiation uptake.  There is a higher incidence of cancers in their occupation but it's tricky to determine the cause, because other factors in their lifestyle also contribute to cancer, eg spending more time in sunnier climates depending where they fly (certainly before we were much more sun aware), the fact that shift working pays havoc with the body clock & working in an artifically pressured environment. This also is why it is difficult to assess which cancers are radiation-induced in Chernobyl (apart from some specific ones which are associated with radiation): the affected areas tend to have residents of a lower socio-economic class, their diets are not "good, more likely to be smokers, more likely to do manaul & industrial jobs and the effects of having lived/living in a stressful time due to the accident.  1 in every 3-4 persons contract a cancer so trying to tell what is an excess cancer is difficult.  In general in the nuclear industry, employee's health is better than the average population because it is monitored regularly - the so-called "healthy worker" effect.  Any illnesses are picked up at regular medicals rather than running on undetected.

& good for you not having a car!

nic