[AT] Reply about the rider in Chernobyl

[Jim and Lyn Evans]

I found a lot more interesting pictures and a little more explanation here:

http://www.gsc-game.com/index.php?t=press&s=press_rel&ss=6

Jim 

-----Original Message-----
From: at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com
[mailto:at-bounces at lists.antique-tractor.com] On Behalf Of Steve W.
Sent: Sunday, April 04, 2004 8:51 PM
To: ATIS LIST
Subject: [AT] Reply about the rider in Chernobyl 

Here is the reply I received from Arnie Fero concerning the site with the
bike rider in Chernobyl. For those who don't know him he earns his living
working around nuke plants.

http://www.angelfire.com/extreme4/kiddofspeed/
for those that missed it.

Steve Williams
Near Cooperstown NY


Subject: Re: Atomic question for you Arnie, concers Chernobyl


> Hi Steve,
>
> Skip also sent me that URL.  Please feel free to post this reply to
the
> FATGs if you think it would be of interest.
>
> Her physics is off a bit in spots, but the overall narrative and her
"eye"
> for great photos is fantastic!!
>
> BTW when folks think about radioactive half-lives and the ability to 
> re-occupy an area, they do seem to fixate on the long half-life
nuclides
> and seem to overlook that they also pose the least risk.
>
> Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been re-occupied for ages and the atols
where
> we set of the REALLY BIG H-bombs in the 50's and 60's are starting to
be
> re-occupied.  Chernobyl was a smaller deal than that.  However, the 
> government may CHOOSE to keep the area un-occupied for symbolic
reasons.
>
> And I DEFINITELY agree with her that the border guards probably tried
VERY
> hard to get her into the decon shower!!  8-)))
>
> Here's a couple of general comments about the accident at Chernobyl
and
> the one at Three Mile Island, what they have in common, and what the 
> significant differences are.
>
> Let's start with TMI.  The operators missed some key readouts due in
large
> measure to some "human factors" issues with control board design.  In 
> addition some of the other instrumentation lead to misinterpretation
of
> what was going on.  The end result was that they lost most of the
cooling
> water and the decay heat was enough to melt the majority of the core.
A
> lot of radioactive material was released into the thick-walled
containment
> building that surrounds the reactor.  That radioactive material ended
up
> plated out inside the building or trapped in the water in the
building.
> The amount that got released to the environment amounted to a gnat's
fart
> in a windstorm.  TMI has beed extensively studied over the last 25
years.
> The conclusion is that the only "injury" to the public was due to
stress
> during the accident itself when the information available to the
public
> was spotty and confusing.  There were no injuries to the plant staff 
> either.
>
> Since TMI there have been hordes of "Lessons Learned."  Both in terms
of
> plant modifications to furthur improve safety, to make the plants
easier
> to operate, and to provide effictive communications channels and
better
> cooperation with "First Responders."  Interestingly these latter
efforts
> have not been needed for any nuclear event since TMI, but they have
been
> credited across the country for saving hundreds of lives that could
have
> been lost due to chemical spills, severe weather events, etc.
>
> The accident at Chernobyl was a totally different kettle of fish.
First
> off, the Chernobyl reactor design is one that could not be operated in
any
> Western country.  In Russia it was primarily used to produce plutonium
for
> their weapons program.  The Chernobyl basic reactor design is
unstable.
> The most notable characteristic is that it has a "positive temperature 
> coefficient of reactivity."  What that means is that if you start to 
> increase power and overheat the core, the increasing temperature
causes
> power to increase even more.  No Western country will license a
reactor
> design like that for obvious reasons.  The Western reactor designs
(both
> PWR and BWR) shutdown by nature if you try to increase temperature too 
> much.
>
> The night of the accident they were at low power and were conducting
an
> experiment that had not been approved for low power conditions because
at
> low power in this type of reactor, control is very twitchy.  They
screwed
> up the experiment, and the reactor took off on a power excursion.  In
a
> matter of minutes the water in the core flashed to steam and that
pressure
> blew the "lid" off the reactor.  This type of reactor isn't enclosed
in a
> heavy-wall pressure vessel like a reactor like TMI.  When the reactor
was
> blown apart, there was no way to remove the heat from the decaying 
> radioactive material.  The heat buildup ignited the graphite core.
The
> combination of the steam explosion and the burning core lead to the
large
> release of radioactive material.
>
> NOTE that there is one more MAJOR difference between Chernobyl-type 
> reactors in the USSR and the 400+ nuclear power reactors in the rest
of
> the world.  Chernobyl was "covered" by nothing more than a fancy
"Butler
> Building."  It was totally shredded by the steam explosion.  The rest
of
> the world's power reactors have "containment buildings" that consist
of
> thick (five foot is typical) steel lined, steel reinforced concrete 
> "containment" buildings designed to keep stuff inside in the case of
an
> accident.  They also serve to protect the reactor in case someone
tries to
> fly an airplane into the reactor.  8-))
>
> There were dozens of First Responders (mainly firefighters) who
received
> lethal radiation exposures in the first hours after the Chernobyl 
> accident.  Some were heroically taking a known risk to try and keep
things
> from getting worse.  Sadly some were sent in by the government with no 
> such warnings.  Such is life in a different society.
>
> There is a lot of misinformation "out there" in terms of health
effects in
> the general population around Chernobyl.  However, credible studies
have
> shown no such "unusual" effects.  One "effect" that has been
documented is
> that "the incidence of disease (all sorts)" has dramatically increased 
> after Chernobyl.  And the reason for that is that the population is
now
> being examined by doctors.  The diseases were always there, but the 
> population had terrible medical care and most of the problems were
simply
> not noted.
>
> So that's a quick skim over a lot of material.  Hope that helps.
>
> See ya,  Arnie
>
> PS - Nothing and no one around Chernobyl is now or ever was "glowing."
> With the sole exception of the burning graphite core.  In that case
think
> of a blacksmith's forge fire.
>
> Arnie Fero
> Pittsburgh, PA
> fero_ah at city-net.com
>

_______________________________________________
AT mailing list
http://www.antique-tractor.com/mailman/listinfo/at