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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
>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"
"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")
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.
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.
> 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.
[+] [-] acidburnNSA|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] jnsaff2|4 years ago|reply
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"
[+] [-] Barrin92|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Lochleg|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] egorfine|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Maursault|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] eyelidlessness|4 years ago|reply
Besides being the original reporting, it won’t hijack your back button or come with bonus hate content just below the fold.
[+] [-] kingkawn|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AngryData|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acidburnNSA|4 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] jdkee|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ttul|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trhway|4 years ago|reply
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")
[+] [-] jcranmer|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] shrubble|4 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] vogre|4 years ago|reply
The plant is secured to prevent possible provocations like the one Ukrainians did in Zaporozhye.
[+] [-] politician|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] adventured|4 years ago|reply
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.