After 600 hours 64 workers at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant finally relieved

https://tech.slashdot.org/story/22/03/20/1934212/after-about-600-hours-64-workers-at-chernobyl-nuclear-plant-finally-relieved

by MilnerRoute • 4 years ago

145 71 4 years ago

tech.slashdot.org

kingkawn2• 4 years ago

Most of the arguments in favor of the renewed development of nuclear power rely on faith in engineering culture to prevent catastrophic failures and avoid large-scale loss of habitability of areas around these plants. This faith does not account for conflict and significant social disruption. We are fortunate that so far the nuclear assets in Ukraine have not been critically disrupted. I hope this is not where and when we learn this lesson.

jdkee• 4 years ago

Western democracies, Japan and South Korea are politically stable so power plant disruptions due to armed conflict on their territories are likely a relatively low risk.

pasquinelli• 4 years ago

politically stable for now. how long is the average period of political stability?

danhor• 4 years ago

If prosperous (as that's usually a match for a low chance of armed conflicht) nations mostly expand to non-fossil energy sources that aren't available/viable for developing/poorer nations, this is an issue since their power system won't profit from a large amount of research & investments on how to run a non-fossil fuel based system.

With the energy usage of non-western countries exploding quickly this could be a major hinderance to stopping climate change if all prosperous nations go all-in on nuclear and discourage other countries from doing so because of the risk.

A non realistic scenario tbh, it's very unlikely that e.g. germany will construct new nuclear power plants and a lot of not-very-stable countries already use nuclear power as we're seeing right now.

throwaway65324• 4 years ago

What about Russia? What if famine strikes and the nuclear engineers at a given power plant starve to death?

pvaldes• 4 years ago

Russia has been politically stable for the last 20 years also

kingkawn2• 4 years ago

That you cite Japan as an example of reliable nuclear safety after Fukushima…

KennyBlanken2• 4 years ago

The US and UK nuclear programs - commercial and military - are littered with incidents, many of them fatal or releasing significant quantities of radioactive waste. In one case, someone was likely murdered as part of a coverup (google Karen Silkwood.) The attitude during much of the US nuclear program was "you're either with us or you're for those commie bastards."

In Japan, TEPCO demonstrated a long-running, stunning disregard for safety that led to the Fukashima disaster (and it was not Japan's first nuclear power plant disaster, either): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_nuclear_disaster#Pri...

And as a reminder, Chernobyl happened because a bunch of engineers were basically engaged in a dick-measuring contest, likely to satisfy some apparatchik.

I'd say the world's nuclear power programs have demonstrated extensively that humans as a whole can't handle the responsibilities, and now we have numerous, much safer alternatives.

It's an absolute miracle we haven't had an accidental detonation of a nuclear weapon near a population center given bombs have even been released from planes, in some cases with multiple safety systems satisfied - and that the permissive action link system was almost completely bypassed by petulant air force commanders who had weapons set to (I wish I were making this up) codes of all zeros.

AngryData• 4 years ago

It isn't like you have to blow up the reactor itself to disable a foreign nuclear plant. I see no reason why anybody would ever target a reactor core. There is a HUGE amount of electrical substation infrastructure outside of these plants which would take like 1/1000 the effort to damage or blow up as the reactor core itself and would shut the whole thing down. The only reason you would target a reactor core itself is to spread nuclear debri on purpose, which is still probably more effort than it would take to just make a dirty bomb and far less effective than a dirty bomb. Also you destroy all value in taking that territory, piss off every other country in the world likely prompting them to join the war against you, and likely spread the poison back into your own territory.

nicoburns• 4 years ago

Would destroying the support infrastructure for these plants be any safer? My understanding is that almost all (if not all) nuclear power stations presently in operation need active cooling even after the reactor is shutdown. If that cooling infrastructure is disrupted then that could be just as disastrous as if the reactor core itself was targeted.

TheOtherHobbes• 4 years ago

Tac nuke ground burst + reactor core = extremely bad news.

And of course you can wait until the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Yes, there would be consequences. But there are also consequences for going on a random shooter spree, and they don't stop random shooters.

anarazel• 4 years ago

Spent fuel tank cooling not working isn't fun either. That needs power too.

heartofadog• 4 years ago

I don't see much of any "reason" behind what this invading army has been doing for the past 3.5 weeks, actually. Or if it's even right to call them an army.

Anyway I don't think the concern is that they would target or otherwise intentionally sabotage the reactors -- but that nonetheless they would allow something bad (potentially seriously bad) to happen by pure neglect. Kind of like the way they managed to blow up Reactor 4 in the first place back in 1986.

tablespoon2• 4 years ago

It isn't like you have to blow up the reactor itself to disable a foreign nuclear plant. I see no reason why anybody would ever target a reactor core. There is a HUGE amount of electrical substation infrastructure outside of these plants which would take like 1/1000 the effort to damage or blow up as the reactor core itself and would shut the whole thing down.

If you attack that infrastructure, the core will melt down without suffering a direct attack.

IIRC, that's what happened at Fukushima: a tsunami took out the backup generators, which shut down the core cooling system, which then led to the core overheating and melting down.

acidburnNSA4• 4 years ago

With the fossil and biofuel status quo powering more than 80% of the world causing climate change and air pollution on the scale of 8 million deaths per year [1], I don't find this argument particularly compelling. Sure there are hazards with nuclear, but even in wild hypothesized scenarios the damage from not doing nuclear is worse. For perspective, fossil + biofuel kill a full Chernobyl's worth of people (short term plus long term deaths) every 7 hours, and counting.

And as for loss of habitability, the dose rates around Chernobyl are elevated but not incompatible with life. Around Fukushima, I'd join Elon Musk in eating any locally grown food. Better to avoid airplanes if you're concerned about those levels of radiation, below the threshold known to cause the smallest measurable increase in cancer (100 mSv acute, 300 mSv annual). Good read here: [2]

[1] https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution#tab=tab_1

[2] https://thoughtscapism.com/2019/05/08/what-about-radioactive...

throwaway65324• 4 years ago

I'm not as worried about global warming as I used to be after taking a look at world demographics and learning a bunch of stuff about global supply chains and agricultural practices as a result of this conflict breaking out.

World population is likely to steeply decline, and globalization plus high living standards will most probably go away. We just won't consume as much energy or make and trade as much stuff in the future.

Gwypaas• 4 years ago

Doesn't that make renewables the optimal solution? Recyclable, no pollution to speak of when generating electricity and no radiological risks.

acidburnNSA4• 4 years ago

Note that, despite the headlines, the final units at the Chernobyl nuclear plant stopped generating power in 2000. These aren't like the Zaporizhzhia units which are still providing power to the area. Once a nuclear chain reaction stops, the afterglow heat reduces exponentially. By now it is exceedingly low, and can be fully cooled passively.

Best info on this whole situation comes from the UN's "nuclear watchdog" (the IAEA), who now has 27 individual updates from this overall event.

https://www.iaea.org/nuclear-safety-and-security-in-ukraine

Not to say people shouldn't be allowed to rotate shifts, of course. But don't let the word Chernobyl freak you out too much is all.

Barrin922• 4 years ago

But don't let the word Chernobyl freak you out too much

After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy I have no hope that's happening any time soon. It was genuinely baffling to me how a show, that was about as accurate on the threats of nuclear energy as Jaws was for sharks, got so much praise heaped on it.

mixedCase• 4 years ago

How does the show portray modern nuclear energy in a bad light?

tormock• 4 years ago

After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy

it was not perfect but it was a good show... aren't all movies cartoonish in some way?

ahelwer• 4 years ago

Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was:

* the “bridge of death” scene that never happened

* irradiated firefighters portrayed as themselves being radioactive

* military dude threatening to throw a member of the academy of the sciences out of a helicopter for trivial/arbitrary reasons

I remember there being other notable ones when briefly looking into it after watching it a couple years back.

datatrashfire• 4 years ago

The US continues to fail to effectively clean up the 56 million gallons of high level waste at the Hanford nuclear site and others throughout the US. Nuclear waste is slowly seeping into the water table and the Columbia river. The site is threatened by the risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, and flooding. We are no where closer to making it safe now than we were in 1985.

While I appreciate the devotion to facts, I feel the portrayal still rings true. These risks are catastrophic and are to this day being handled with scandalous incompetence.

Maursault• 4 years ago

Once a nuclear chain reaction stops

Please note that, despite your apparently reasonable handwaving, in fact fission reactions are still occurring in uranium fuel masses buried deep inside what's left of at least one of Chernobyl's reactors. Not saying there is any need to panic. But try not to let a false sense of security lull you into a coma.

Lochleg• 4 years ago

There are units that still require cooling. https://www.wired.com/story/the-situation-at-chernobyl-is-de...

Wired also had an old article about the long-term situation with radioactive contamination, which the surrounding environment has to absorb including wildlife that continues to mutate rapidly last I checked. So, I would say secure containment is paramount.

Nuclear energy can be safe, but we keep failing to recognize how short of foolproof the many fail-safes involved really are even in a high-tech society. Things going bad when you lose power or a single (water) pump are the prime examples.

egorfine4• 4 years ago

Chernobyl is much more dangerous in hands of russian soldiers than Zaporozhskaya Power Plant.

See, a complete destruction of ZNPP Unit by an external force (bomb) is going to contaminate the immediate area but not much further. It won't be nowhere near at the scale of Chernobyl accident.

On the other hand, The Shelter in Chernobyl NPP contains 50,000+ tons of highly radioactive and highly volatile (light) dust particles of graphite and concrete. If they destroy Novarka and The Shelter in the worst case scenario half of Europe becomes the exclusion zone. Source: I am closely working with Chernobyl guys.

Based on what we see so far in this invasion, we have no reason to rule out intentional destruction of The Shelter.

kranke1553• 4 years ago

You have every reason to rule out the destruction of the Shelter since the plant is right next to the Belarus border... which is Russia's ally.

jnsaff22• 4 years ago

What is actually funny was after watching the show was .. huh, this was interesting .. but if the worst nuclear disaster we have has about a few hundred direct deaths, and a few thousand indirect .. with other health complications to some tens of thousands. Then compared to the respiratory illness related deaths caused by burning fossil fuels NOW and all the future wars and deaths and ecosystem collapses caused by climate change is absolutely nothing.

Now I have read quite a few books on nuclear disasters before and was aware of the fact that the megaton explosion was not true. So I may not be a representative example of how people reacted to the show.

What was scary to me was the relatively accurate representation of the behavior of the soviet brass. I even found their representation quite mild. And as we see in Ukraine these days, nothing has changed, russians have zero regard for civilians, nuclear power plants are being endangered with shelling, maternity wards are being bombed, bread lines are bombed. Post-soviet mafia does not care about anything but their own kleptocracy and looting.

Every time I think about this I get reminded the Fork Yeah! talk by bcantrill.

https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=1986

"An open mind is completely wasted on russians"

"The lawnmower does not care"

jnsaff22• 4 years ago

I however want to acknowledge that there are some brave people in russia who stand up and protest and risk their lives. It may seem futile but I still respect them. There is a great book [0] by Masha Gessen called The future is history that talks about them too.

[0] https://mashagessen.com/

ttul• 4 years ago

I can think of no good strategic reason to take over Chernobyl. I think Putin did it just to create terror. Knowing that the actual risk of a catastrophe is small, it’s a low risk way to make everyone else terrified of what Russia might do. Low cost, high yield - if you are a despot.

jcranmer• 4 years ago

Chernobyl is along one of the very few roads into Kyiv from the north west of the Dnieper. If you're trying to surround Kyiv, you'd be very hardpressed to avoid going by Chernobyl.

adventured2• 4 years ago

I can think of no good strategic reason to take over Chernobyl.

If you're going to try to annex Ukraine, you're going to take Chernobyl. Of course there are very good strategic reasons (including the location issue, as mentioned by another comment) to take over all nuclear facilities and electricity production in the nation you're trying to annex.

What kind of annexation is it if you don't take the electricity production facilities and all the nuclear plants? If you do, what, leave all the nuclear power plants under the control of the Ukrainian Government and its proxies? It would be wildly irrational in terms of strategy.

One of the first things you'd want to accomplish, if you can, is to seize utilities and be able to control their function (for all manner of reasons), as well as controlling anything nuclear related.

politician• 4 years ago

It's a great prize. They can blackmail the West for funds to maintain it forever now, then use the funds for other things like yachts.

kadoban2• 4 years ago

That's not going to work at all. Russia would look weak asking, the West wouldn't be that stupid, and Russia has easier ways to do damage if they really want to start playing with nukes.

shrubble• 4 years ago

The Russians have access to the main rail line that goes into Kyiv from Chernobyl.

And, they can't be attacked in that area with anything other than small-arms fire - anything explosive will be too great a risk to send radioactive dust into the air.

trhway• 4 years ago

I can think of no good strategic reason to take over Chernobyl.

that speaks good of you :) For Russia that allowed for one of the pillars of the current Russian propaganda - (the link below in Russian) "It has been discovered that Ukraine was making nuclear weapons in Chernobyl"

https://news.ru/world/ukraina-rabotala-v-chernobyle-nad-sozd...

"Existing high radiations levels allowed to hide that work"

Granted that stupidity doesn't work outside of Russia. Unfortunately inside Russia it is a hit (together with "Ukraine making biological and chemical weapons to attack Russia")

spaetzleesser• 4 years ago

"Granted that stupidity doesn't work outside of Russia. Unfortunately inside Russia it is a hit (together with "Ukraine making biological and chemical weapons to attack Russia")"

I know a few right wingers in the US who believe this too. They think Putin is a good guy who is cleaning up Ukraine.

rad_gruchalski• 4 years ago

I’ve been saying that this will be Russian story for Chernobyl.

Mariupol is going to be another one. They’re destroying it so they can show on their propaganda tv “look Russians, this is what we found in Ukraine, this is why we had to liberate it”.

vogre• 4 years ago

Chernobyl is the backyard of Russia. Do you think Putin will just blow it up so radioactive dust can cover Moscow in few days?

The plant is secured to prevent possible provocations like the one Ukrainians did in Zaporozhye.

adventured2• 4 years ago

The problem is that many of those workers won't be willing to return. Chernobyl is facing a disaster unless Russia drafts its own people in to operate it.

eyelidlessness• 4 years ago

Link to the actual article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/20/chernobyl-wo...

Besides being the original reporting, it won’t hijack your back button or come with bonus hate content just below the fold.

After 600 hours 64 workers at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant finally relieved

Related Stories