/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11040023

86KiB, 1280x720, maxresdefault[7].jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 19:40:59 2019 No.11040023 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11040034 >>11040067 >>11040080 >>11040082 >>11040109 >>11040115 >>11040145 >>11040202 >>11040215 >>11040317 >>11040424 >>11040623 >>11040632 >>11040660 >>11042532

>Just watched the HBO documentary on Netflix
>We came this close to wiping out all life in Europe
>We are still building more of these things today

Why?
Can't smart people understand the environmental impact these things have?
Do they really only care about the money?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 19:41:43 No.11040025 Report

Quoted By:

>documentary
haha

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 19:44:24 No.11040034 Report

Quoted By: >>11040348 >>11040451 >>11042499 >>11042554

>>11040023
>in Europe
You mean on Earth, right? Chernobyl literally almost blew up the sun and were 1% off creating a black hole

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 19:55:05 No.11040067 Report

Quoted By: >>11040367

>>11040023
nuclear has the lowest amount of deaths per TWh produced

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 19:59:56 No.11040080 Report

Quoted By: >>11040111 >>11040171 >>11040367

>>11040023
Not all nuclear plants are the same, most are better designed than Chernobyl; also Chernobyl's worst case radioactive steam explosion scenario would have long-term destroyed 0.3% of Europe's birds, mammals and amphibians, 12% of humans in Europe and barely anything else, centered on Ukraine.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:00:19 No.11040082 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
And in early nuclear research people used to do the equivalent of fuck around with bombs by hand in their faculty basement.
Chernobyl therefore NEVER EVER is lazy and alarmist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:06:08 No.11040109 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
>We came this close to wiping out all life in Europe
>Brainlets take the memes from show seriously

>Do they really only care about the money?
>Brainlets don't know how did socialism work

Don't be a brainlet, op.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:06:16 No.11040111 Report

Quoted By: >>11040124 >>11042499

>>11040080
>12% of humans in Europe
It wouldn't have been anywhere near that bad. There's an interactive nuke map you can look up. Stop shilling for the coal industry

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:08:49 No.11040115 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
>We came this close to wiping out all life in Europe

No. Get out you and your scaremongering.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:11:01 No.11040124 Report

Quoted By: >>11040136 >>11040148 >>11040451 >>11040615

>>11040111
Chernobyl would not have been a nuclear explosion, so nuke calculations don't work.
We're talking about the pool under the reactor superheated and radioactive steam expanding outwards with hundreds of conventional (non fission) megatons of TNT-equivalent energy)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:14:58 No.11040136 Report

Quoted By: >>11040196

>>11040124
>We're talking about the pool under the reactor superheated and radioactive steam expanding outwards with hundreds of conventional (non fission) megatons of TNT-equivalent energy)
>Water heated by 2% uranium has more power than conventional nukes

Who are you and what are you doing on this board?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:17:49 No.11040145 Report

Quoted By: >>11040149

>>11040023
>environmental impact
I hope we someday eradicate all natural environment and replace it with one that's purely artificial.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:18:32 No.11040148 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040124
>hundreds of conventional (non fission) megatons

Take your pills.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:19:14 No.11040149 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040145
Just get VR, bre.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:27:00 No.11040171 Report

Quoted By: >>11040184 >>11040451 >>11042360

>>11040080
>trying to minimize the worst case scenario by saying “only” 12% of the humans in Europe would have died long term
Umm, sweaty, that’s not still acceptable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:31:21 No.11040184 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040171

The worst nuclear disaster in history ended up with only 42 people death. Even if you count the long-term ones it is still less than 100 people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:37:19 No.11040196 Report

Quoted By: >>11040214

>>11040136
I think he means that fallout would be a lot worse from a steam explosion than a traditional nuke.
It would have just been a really fucking huge dirty bomb. Worst case scenario they were fearing was that the steam explosion would take out the other 3 adjacent reactors.
In hindsight, a lot of what they did turned out to be unnecessary (the heat exchanger was never needed or installed) but the idea was that the Soviets really didn't want to be responsible for doubling down on the worst nuclear accident in history by failing to act and letting it get worse. Ivan's weird like that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:40:10 No.11040202 Report

Quoted By: >>11040231

>>11040023
>We are still building more of these things today
But we aren't. Any reactor nowadays is built with a containment building, and are far more automated then Chernobyl. An anomaly like that simply won't happen today, and if it did would be completely contained

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:43:30 No.11040214 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040196

Except that his numbers are way off. Not even the show is this stupid.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:43:34 No.11040215 Report

Quoted By: >>11040673

>>11040023
This type of stuff is why we used to forbid the hippies from deciding in congress

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 20:46:33 No.11040231 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040202
I watched a video on youtube doing a second order analysis of three mile island, and one of the interesting things about it and chernobyl was that the accident happened when you had people doing everything they could to prevent the automated system from stopping the problem before it started.
Also those super complicated boards of lights you always see in reactor control rooms aren't optimally designed. Those light up boards can have an important emergency light right next to the one that says you left the lid off a toggle switch, and so when things go wrong its not immediately obvious.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 21:20:33 No.11040301 Report

Quoted By: >>11040314 >>11040316

I liked the first two episodes, because it was fun to see people deal with a deadly hazard that is impossible to sense directly.

I stopped at Episode 4, when I was wondering why I was watching some dude cry over shooting some dogs. The build up inaccuracies and overly dramatized plot just was too much for me.

I guess it is quite decent to watch for entertainment or with a non /sci/ friend. However it is amazing how you can make a show about the worst nuclear accident in the history of mankind and still go over the top with dramatization.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 21:25:57 No.11040314 Report

Quoted By: >>11041878

>>11040301
>I was wondering why I was watching some dude cry over shooting some dogs.
Because shooting friendly dogs is fucked up and gives you a glimpse into some of the less talked about realities of the recovery effort.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 21:26:34 No.11040316 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040301
>it was fun to see people deal with a deadly hazard that is impossible to sense directly.
>I was wondering why I was watching some dude cry over shooting some dogs.
He was dealing with a deadly hazard that is impossible to sense directly. Russia hired thousands of people to churn dirt, evacuate people and kill animals in the exclusion zone. It was part of the cleanup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 21:26:56 No.11040317 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
The coal industry unironicaly produces more radioactive waste than the Nuclear power industry

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 21:38:30 No.11040339 Report

Quoted By:

>Why?

Because it's safer than any other energy source and it's profitable

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 21:41:50 No.11040348 Report

Quoted By: >>11040451 >>11042499

>>11040034
It almost sucked in the entire galaxy. That's crazy!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 21:51:07 No.11040367 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040067
>>11040080

Stop attaching the nuclear energy cart to that shitty old horse. Old nuclear was bad. The worst case was completely unacceptable. Trying to minimize the problems of old nuclear just makes people think that's the stuff we want to build. We don't. New nuclear designs are safe and good. Old nuclear bad. Throw it under the bus, that is the only way people will get over it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1517842658847.png, 105KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 22:12:56 No.11040424 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
>We came this close to wiping out all life in Europe

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO DF725E5B-BC30-41E4-9535-3B9698BD (...).jpg, 50KiB, 500x437

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 22:24:02 No.11040451 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040034
>>11040124
>>11040171
>>11040348

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 23:28:33 No.11040615 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040124
>hundreds of megatons
The show said only 2-4 megatons, which is still orders of magnitude off.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 23:30:48 No.11040623 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
Bad b8 2/10

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO it's that easy.gif, 2MiB, 500x249

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 23:33:41 No.11040630 Report

Quoted By:

>this thread

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1458256638139.gif, 4MiB, 400x225

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 23:34:08 No.11040632 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
>Do they really only care about the money?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 23:35:11 No.11040637 Report

Quoted By: >>11040714

Is it really a problem that the fail-safe is cheaply built if there's basically zero chance of failure barring gross operator incompetence?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 23:45:38 No.11040660 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
>solar and wind require much more land to produce the same amount of energy as nuclear
>this means that if we kill nuclear, the price of land will increase as governments and corporations will be buying left and right to produce more energy

I wonder (((who))) would benefit from inflated land prices?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO back-in-my-day-hippies.jpg, 56KiB, 500x700

Anonymous Mon 07 Oct 2019 23:50:39 No.11040673 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040215
>the hippies

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Oct 2019 00:06:30 No.11040714 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040637
>gross operator incompetence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5MOatu5-DE

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Oct 2019 12:06:13 No.11041878 Report

Quoted By: >>11042384

>>11040314
>realities
they didn't use conscripts, they used professional hunters for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Oct 2019 16:33:16 No.11042360 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040171
100% of all humans die long term, you cretin

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Oct 2019 16:45:25 No.11042384 Report

Quoted By:

>>11041878
Hunters wouldn't like killing pet dogs either, and that's beside the point. It's something you wouldn't normally consider when you think about Chernobyl, the little fucked up absurd things people had to deal with.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1024px-6_Virgo_Supercluster_(ELi (...).png, 506KiB, 1024x1024

Anonymous Tue 08 Oct 2019 17:34:24 No.11042499 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040034
>>11040111
>>11040348
I believe that would only have happened if it made the sun fall out of orbit. In that case, I don't believe it would have destroyed more than, say, the local supercluster.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Oct 2019 17:48:22 No.11042532 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040023
>Believing every piece of misinformation put out by shills

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 08 Oct 2019 17:58:52 No.11042554 Report

Quoted By:

>>11040034
>thinking main sequence g type star cores can explode
Get this man to the infirmary.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches