Scientists might have been wrong about the Chernobyl disaster

Comment on articles posted to The DEFCON Warning System
User avatar
DEFCONWarningSystem
Director
Director
Posts: 5965
Joined: Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:26 pm
Contact:

Tue Nov 21, 2017 8:45 pm

A new theory on the Chernobyl disaster could shed fresh light on the world’s worst nuclear accident.

In an article published in the journal Nuclear Technology, scientists argue that the first of two explosions reported by eyewitnesses was a nuclear, not a steam explosion, as is widely thought. Instead, the researchers believe that the first explosive event noted by eyewitnesses was a jet of debris ejected to an altitude of almost 2 miles by a series of nuclear explosions within the Chernobyl reactor. Some 2.7 seconds later, they say, a steam explosion ruptured the reactor and sent yet more debris into the atmosphere at lower altitudes.

“We realized that we, based on real measurements and observations, could explain details in the Chernobyl accident scenario and the nature of the two major explosions that occurred during a few seconds that unfortunate night more than 31 years ago,” explained the report’s lead author Lars-Erik De Geer, in an email to Fox News.

The 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine sparked a widespread environmental disaster. Thirty workers died either from the explosion at the number four reactor or from acute radiation sickness within several months. The accident exposed millions in the region to dangerous levels of radiation and forced a wide-scale, permanent evacuation of hundreds of towns and villages in Ukraine and Belarus.

A cloud of radioactive particles from the disaster reached other parts of parts of Europe, such as Sweden.

The report cites xenon isotopes detected by the VG Khlopin Radium Institute in Leningrad four days after the accident. Leningrad, now known as Saint Petersburg, is about 599 miles north of Chernobyl. Xenon isotopes were also reported in Cherepovets, about 622 miles north of Chernobyl.

The result of recent nuclear fission, the isotopes were likely caused by a recent nuclear explosion, according to the experts. This is in contrast to the main Chernobyl debris that contained equilibrium xenon isotopes from the reactor’s rupture and drifted toward Scandinavia.

Read more at The New York Post

User avatar
KimPossible
Regular contributor
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:52 pm

Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:42 pm

Other then the last paragraph what douse it matter really? All that matters is that humanity royaly screwed themselves and nature over times a billion. No one or no thing can live or step foot there for milleniums that's all that truly matters. Ketch myself being ashamed to be a human a lot lately. Just hope mother nature will show some mercy when she starts fighting back.

Edit: I wouldn't call it a environmental disaster. I would call it a environmental genocide.
There is a war on woman! #VoteThemOut

User avatar
RiffRaff
DEFCON Data Analyst
DEFCON Data Analyst
Posts: 2162
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2016 12:09 pm
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Contact:

Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:30 pm

KimPossible wrote:
Wed Nov 22, 2017 12:42 pm
Other then the last paragraph what douse it matter really? All that matters is that humanity royaly screwed themselves and nature over times a billion. No one or no thing can live or step foot there for milleniums that's all that truly matters. Ketch myself being ashamed to be a human a lot lately. Just hope mother nature will show some mercy when she starts fighting back.

Edit: I wouldn't call it a environmental disaster. I would call it a environmental genocide.
This is somewhat exaggerated. There are people living in the exclusion zone. Wildlife is flourishing like crazy there. Tourism of the area is a growing industry. Would I build my summer home there? No. Was it an environmental disaster? Absolutely. Will it continue to influence the environment in that region for generations to come? Yes, it will. But it has surprisingly turned out to be not nearly as bad as we would have expected, and life there has adapted.
"It's in your nature to destroy yourselves." - Terminator 2: Judgment Day

User avatar
KimPossible
Regular contributor
Posts: 1267
Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2017 5:52 pm

Wed Nov 22, 2017 1:46 pm

Like you said the exclusion zone. At Ground zero I'm talking about. Also I've read about the wild life around Ground zero/exclusion the wild life is very unhealthy riddled by diseases and defects. Many steadies have proven that almost all life in and around do not live for long. There isn't any spin you or anyone can put on this without it still being a absolute environment genocide all around in and around Ground Zero.

Read about the health state of the wild life of all kinds there. Very bad, very sad. A lot of very recent studies as well so there not dated. At work but when done gladly get my sources showing that still to this day its a absolute catastrophe and a sick twisted crime against nature.
There is a war on woman! #VoteThemOut

Green
Regular contributor
Posts: 333
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2017 1:28 pm

Mon Dec 25, 2017 9:43 pm

I once read an interesting article about how certain animals are effected differently by radiation.
The chernobyl disaster has given scientists the opportunity to study how radiation really effects animals over the course of generations.
With the absence of humans, animal populations have exploded and has given them a very good data pool to base observations off of.
They found that things like birds and mice showed little to no difference from creatures on the other side of the planet, most serious mutations were found in larger animals.
The theory is that, for the first generation or two after a nuclear accident there would be a huge spike in strange cancers and mutations, but the more generations pass the less common these become.
too bad Doc hasnt been around in a while to add his 2 cents

Post Reply