http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss

On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss

Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss


Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

....the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres
(1,000 square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.




--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On 30/03/2016 18:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss



Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

...the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres
(1,000 square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.

and all those workers standing about posing for photos, with no PPE more
sophisticated than an anorak.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 18:30:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss


Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

...the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres
(1,000 square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.


Short lived wildlife.
I wonder why they're building such a structure if it's not necessary?

"harry" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 18:30:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss


Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

...the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres
(1,000 square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.


Short lived wildlife.

Nope, they actually live rather longer than they used to
because there aren't as many people killing and eating them.

I wonder why they're building such a structure if it's not necessary?

To stop the worst of the radioactive debris getting out, stupid.

On 31/03/2016 07:47, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 18:30:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss


Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

...the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres
(1,000 square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.


Short lived wildlife.

The shorter the lives, the faster you see the effects of any external
influence on the population. Meanwhile 3000 of the workers and around
400 locals, live in the exclusion zone.

I wonder why they're building such a structure if it's not necessary?

The emergency measures put in place immediately after the accident were
not a long term solution. The sarcophagus is supported by the remains of
the damaged reactor building which will almost certainly eventually
fail. The new structure will help protect the sarcophagus from
corrosion, increasing its life, and will act as a containment vessel if
(probably when) it does eventually fail.


--
Colin Bignell

En el artículo , Nightjar
cpb "insert my surname here.me.uk"@?.? escribió:

The new structure will help protect the sarcophagus from
corrosion, increasing its life, and will act as a containment vessel if
(probably when) it does eventually fail.

AIUI, the new structure (the New Safe Confinement) is designed to allow
demolition of the sarcophagus, then eventual removal of the corium and
melted fuel inside what's left of the reactor vessel.

The existing sarcophagus was a temporary structure only designed to last
a few years. It's had a partial collapse, is close to total collapse
and has several holes in the roof. To prevent the 30 tons of highly
radioactive dust inside from escaping into the atmosphere if it
collapses, there are sprinklers keeping the insides wetted down, but the
drawback is that the water from the sprinklers, now highly radioactive,
is entering ground water.

Some great pics he

http://chernobylgallery.com/chernoby...r/sarcophagus/

--
(\_/)
(='.'=) Windows 10: less of an OS, more of a drive-by mugging.
(")_(") -- "Esme" on el Reg

On 31/03/2016 07:47, harry wrote:
On Wednesday, 30 March 2016 18:30:17 UTC+1, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss


Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

...the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres
(1,000 square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.


Short lived wildlife.
I wonder why they're building such a structure if it's not necessary?


Its to stop the weather getting in until they can clean it up in about
50 years time.

You don't want the heavy metals leeching into the water as they are toxic.

I think the point is that nobody wants to be the one to say its safe, even
though in the main it probably is. There are still hotspots wher some of
the debris ended up of course, and a highish background radiation, but
possibly no more than there is in places like Cornwall where radioactive gas
that occurs naturally has existed for thousands of years.


Does anyone recall that documentary not long after the explosion where
scientists were using a remote controlled model car with a small sony camera
on it to explore the lower levels and discovered the piece they called the
Elephants foot of multicoloured melted core that was so radioactive that it
was still steaming and the camera was flecked iith white interference as
they got closer to it, and the guy in lead clothing trying to chip bits off
with a rifle so they coulee be collected for research?

Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss


Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

...the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres (1,000
square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.




--
Canada is all right really, though not for the whole weekend.

"Saki"

On Thursday, 31 March 2016 09:21:12 UTC+1, Brian Gaff wrote:
I think the point is that nobody wants to be the one to say its safe,

pretty similar to our PAT testing regime and a lot of other safety stuff it's more to do with finding who to blame if things go wrong than making sure they don't go wrong.

On 30/03/16 19:00, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:30:14 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/03/16 17:42, newshound wrote:
On 3/30/2016 2:36 PM, harry wrote:
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/chernobyl-h...m_campaign=rss


Fantastic bit of hardware, but pretty awful article apart from the
pictures. It isn't to block radiation, it is to prevent the spread of
contamination.

Usual lies

...the surrounding exclusion zone of around 2,600 square kilometres
(1,000 square miles) will remain largely uninhabitable...

No, its perfectly inhabitable.


As the massive amounts of wildlife prove.

I liked the contradictory links at the end:

Chernobyl and Fukushima exclusion zones: Nuclear disaster sites
are not wildlife havens
Wildlife in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone: Bears, Wolves and Rare
Horses Roam the Forests

and this:

Greenpeace: Chernobyl locals still eat radioactive food 30 years
after nuclear disaster

So not really that hazardous then.

Everybody eats radioactive food.

Its a matter of degree, that's all ;-)


--
Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper
name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating
or condoning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its
logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of
the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead. They must
face it, then decide whether this is what they want or not.

Ayn Rand.

On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:00:03 +0100, Chris Hogg wrote:



Greenpeace: Chernobyl locals still eat radioactive food 30 years
after nuclear disaster

Preserving food so that it lasts 30 years,

Greenpeace should be pleased
Think of all the electric saved not running a deep freezer.


G.Harman