/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11845543
Aslong as It’s American/nuclear nuclear plants not made by retarded Russians.

>>11845543
oh no bros we're all gonna get fucking cancer its over for us

Looks like them blyat-boys are at it again

>>11845543
What do Russians consider "within the norm"?

The Russians are always the ones playing with Nuclear material. Why can’t they just chill?

>>11845845
Why is everyone else such a total cuck when it comes to nuclear power? Only 200 people died from Chernobyl, 1 from Fukushima. All areas have been reclaimed safely and people are clueless about what an actual "safe level" is. I personally own a few exempt sources and did radiochem and neutron experiments starting at 12 years old, I own a 5Ci tritium tube and a pile of other stuff and I've never came close to the dose limits from handling it. It's hardly dangerous people are just scared of nothing, more people fall off roofs installing solar meme panels than every year than died from nuclear power.
Also, what's all this cancer fear? Radiation levels below 0.5mRem/h don't cause an increase to begin with and the people getting all scared a boomers who smoke or hippies who take LSD from strangers and also smoke. Besides there's radiation everywhere, radon in your basement can naturally reach levels hundreds of times higher than "the zone" it's just not as cool or scary.

>>11845543
>Are you saying nuclear is still safe, /sci/?
Did anyone get hurt? Does this event make nuclear worse in deaths/kwh than fossil fuel?
Stop being a greenfag. Cut your nose to spite your face and we'll end up with another 50 years of burning hydrocarbons.

>>11846027
They're just coping with the fact that their cucked governments won't invest in nuclear power until everyone else does. No bragging rights for them.

>>11846027
chernobyl hasnt been cleaned up yet and wont be for decades

>>11845543
Rumor has it that this was a failed test of their nuclear torpedo doomsday weapon. The last time this happened, it was from a failed test of their nuclear-powered ramjet doomsday weapon, and it killed a bunch of their engineers.

>>11846027
There isn't a single nuclear power plant that is profitable without massive (and we are talking truly massive) government subsidies. Do you like being cucked by big corps?

>>11845543
>Are you saying nuclear is still safe, /sci/?
Depends.
It can be done reasonably safe with a core catcher, full pressure containment, negative void and temperature coeficient reactor design.
However russian nuclear power plants tend to have none of that.

Main issue with somewhat modern western nuclear power plants is the radioactive waste they produce.
There is no safe long therm storage facility in operation as of now and only Finland is actualy building one.

>>11846727
Do non-nuclear plants produce a profit when externalities are included in the cost of operation?

>>11846027
>Only 200 people died from Chernobyl, 1 from Fukushima.
Where did you get these numbers?
I'm pretty damn sure more than one person died an early death due to high radiation exposure in Fukushima.
And god knows how many liquidators died of cancer from Chernobyl.

>>11846182
Nooo I can't go to Chernobyl this summer. Only to the other 99.99999999% of places on earth.

>>11846746
Noooo at least 2-3000 people must have died because of nuclear power plant failures. How will we be able to push through??

>>11847432
It was a mistake with an estimated 235 billion in damages due to the failure of a single plant.
Nuclear is expensive. That's the worst part about it, and I'm sure you know that, O' educated wojack poster. You either implement expensive safety measures or deal with an even more expensive aftermath.

>>11847977
That would be catastrophic if half the plants failed in that way. But they don't. Such failures are extremely, extremely rare. So the solution is to charge a very small insurance tax on nuclear energy so we're prepared for the 1 in 100 year accident. Oh wait, this is already done in the US. Plants are required to pay for the cost of their deconstruction and for the possibility of an accident. They are still plenty profitable.

>Are you saying nuclear is still safe, /sci/?
— Comrade finance minister, glorious Motherland will of build nukular plant!
— For the great Stalin! We can to affording of 5 billion rubles!
— Is of good! Write it in budget for 15 year!

— Comrade energy minister, you of build nukular plant!
— Yes, comrade premier! For Motherland!
— Take this 2 billion rubles! Must be of ready in 7 year!
— For Motherland!

— Comrade engineer, you of build nukular plant!
— Yes, comrade minister! We need 3 billion rubles and 10 year.
— We of having only 1 billion rubles. But superior soviet engineer can build with that and only in 5 year!
— O-okay... for Motherland...

— Comrade worker! Why in the **** you of drunk and where in the ****** ***** is third of construction material?
— lol is of good vodka xDDD

>>11846727
While nuclear power does get subsidies, so do other forms of power; in the US at least the amount of subsidies for nuclear power aren't particularly high. Per megawatt-hour nuclear power got a subsidy of $1.74 in fy2019; higher than fossil fuel's ~$1, but much lower than wind or solar's $15 & $42 respective subsidies.

https://live-energy-institute.pantheonsite.io/sites/default/files/UTAustin_FCe_Subsidies_2017_June.pdf

>mongoloid retard soviets fuck up everything they do
>blame it on a perceived inherent danger from radiation
wow dude. thats totally why nuclear is dangerous. this totally happens literally everywhere and not just in the areas surrounding the world's most nigger-rigged country of all time

Considering Chernobyl and Russia's monumental oil spill fuckup earlier this month, seems totally plausible they had a nuclear incident they haven't revealed yet.

Reminds me of the scene in Chernobyl where the Belarusian scientists noticed the small increase in radioactivity and calculated where it was likely from.

Nuclear energy is great and safe if it's run by very competent people, and it isn't if it's run by shitty, corrupt bureaucrats.

>>11846182
Ah yes, that's why people live in the zone, they give tours to busloads of tourists, nature is overgrowing it, and Geiger counters barely read over a few CPMs on hot spots.

>>11847977
Oh yeah, what a pressing ecological tragedy Chernobyl is, how ever will we clean up this....oh it's totally fine and nuclear waste literally decays on its own.

What about Exxon Valdez, the BP oil spill, minnemata island Mercury waste, persistent toxins in Bhopal, coal Ash dumps, tar sand waste ponds, and the giant vats of thorium nitrate contaminated water from chink rare earth mining (used to make solar panels) renewables literally make more radioactive waste than nuclear power plants and spread that shit around all the time you absolute brainlet.

>>11845543
Yes, it's safe.

At least it's safer than any other form of power production. Nothing is 100 % "safe" since people die to bubble gum too.

>>11845844
>What do Russians consider "within the norm"?
The equivalent of a few chest x-rays.

>>11845543
>Are you saying nuclear is still safe, /sci/?
Yes. Operators being fucking retards doesn't chenage that.

>>11846027
you can't measure damages only in deaths when you're dealing with a incredibly vast distribution of toxic material. Radiation damages and stresses the body even if it doesn't cause lethal mutations, making the health of a lot of people just a little bit worse (or a lot worse).

>>11848964
Seems like burning coal is extremely dangerous.

>>11849831
Every single thing about coal is dangerous. From mining, to moving, to burning, to cleaning.

Well probably not entirely

is oil "Safe"?

>>11846027
Chernobyl was a complete disaster, stop downplaying it because you did some bedroom experiments on radiation.
The level of radiation in the worst zones was estimated at 5.6 roentgens per second, well above the lethal dose.
Don't get me wrong, nuclear power is much more efficient and safe than every other source and the entire disaster was caused by the complete mishandling of the power plant.
The fact that it could happen at all, even with the substandard technology used at the time, was so unlikely that it's a testament to how ignorant the people in charge actually were and how far they pushed the core.

>>11850535
Chernobyl was a total nothingburger. Probably did less long term damage than a single coal mine.
Stop being a scared little faggot.

>>11850537
Consider the fact that the only way to stop the endless radiation coming out of chernobyl was to send human sacrifices to shovel shit for a minute at a time. We did not have the technology to stop it with mechanical means.
Compare that with all of coal mining and it's better.
Besides, there's a consistent refusal to investigate, or even admit, the negative effects of so much radiation released and the subsequent spike in cancer levels that has persisted.
Not solely because of nuclear power being the only current viable alternative but also because of the refusal to acknowledge actual causes of cancer. Everything "may" cause cancer and little has been proven to cause cancer since smoking.
Chernobyl was absolutely terrible but if you actually knew what happened you'd understand how extremely unlikely it was to happen in the first place.
Again, i'm all for nuclear power but you are downplaying how much of a disaster it was because you read some memes about how quickly the region has recovered despite expectations.
I would rather be on DWH than in chernobyl and not because "muh radiation bad" but because of the difference in scale and response. Russia had neither the infrastructure, willingness or technology available to deal with it safely.

>>11845543
>Are you saying nuclear is still safe, /sci/?
We never said that. Paid shills say that that come out every time there's bad news about nuclear power as it slowly dies.

>>11850592
That was not the only way. It was the way the Russians did it, in a society which allowed that suicide plant to be built in the first place. In a society where sending workers to die was seen as completely acceptable and not even a problem. There were plenty of other solutions, but killing people was cheap and easy for them.
I know a lot about Chernobyl. It was a nothingburger compared to a ton of things we've done which nobody seems to care about because it doesn't have a cool name. Seriously, a complete and utter nonhappening. Oh maybe a few thousand humans died? Yeah big fucking whoop.

>>11846027
Get fucked you little shit, im a millenial from eastern europe and there are far higher rates of birth defects in my generation than in the older ones. I wish i could punch your gay ass chem set down your throat.

>>11850628
>In a society where sending workers to die was seen as completely acceptable and not even a problem.
>There were plenty of other solutions
As i said.
Russia had neither the infrastructure, willingness or technology available to deal with it safely.
>It was a nothingburger compared to a ton of things we've done which nobody seems to care about because it doesn't have a cool name.
I'm not disagreeing with your comparison.
Compare that with all of coal mining and it's better.
>Oh maybe a few thousand humans died?
Maybe check the global cancer rates per capita in countries around the region before you pull numbers from your ass.
I don't know why you're defending so hard when i'm basically agreeing with you but pointing out that you're reducing the disaster with strawmen.

>>11848560
And yet they still beat nazi germany, makes you think....

>>11850669
You aren't agreeing with me. You're trying to get me to buy your bullshit by playing nice. Whether or not there is a causal link between the low level radiological contamination found in communities surrounding Chernobyl is still hotly contested, decades later. It's definitely not cut and dry like your histrionic ass believes. It's more like "well it COULD be responsible for a 10% increase in this cancer which typically affects 0.01% of the population."

>>11848443
>zero replies
This kills the Greenpeace shill

>>11850713
>You're trying to get me to buy your bullshit by playing nice
And you're trying to start an argument with ad hominems and strawmen.
You're trying to derail the discussion into an argument about energy sources because you want to argue with some dumbo who's chanting "radiation is bad" so you can call them a hippie or commie or some such and feel superior.
>well it COULD be responsible for a 10% increase in this cancer which typically affects 0.01% of the population.
See
>Not solely because of nuclear power being the only current viable alternative but also because of the refusal to acknowledge actual causes of cancer. Everything "may" cause cancer and little has been proven to cause cancer since smoking.
That's a separate discussion though.
As for your silly comparisons, here's a strawman for you using the same logic;
>Comparing the devastation of WW2 to WW1 does not invalidate either from being wars.
I'll state one last time.
I'm not disagreeing that there are worse disasters or claiming that it was the worst disaster and i never made those argument in the first place. Only you arbitrarily decided that was what i was implying and brought up coal into a discussion about radiation.
I can only think you are a coal miner or work at a rig which is fair enough as i have no problem with either. In fact, i applaud you if you do and i personally think you should be paid much more than you do especially if you're occupation is higher risk than your fellow employees.
There, i have devolved the discussion into ad hominems, analogies, comparisons and strawmen just like you wanted in the first place. Are you happy now?

probably not a nuke plant,russia fucks with nuclear powered missile tech and that shit goes BOOM when it fucks up

>>11850759
>words words words
>No proof that chernobyl was more than a nothingburger
Okay, Mr. Disingenuous Faggot. Whatever you say.

>>11850790
>words words words
Is this something you struggle with?
>No proof that chernobyl was more than a nothingburger
The former is the reason you think the latter.
Why don't you post evidence for your own shit before asking for others to provide.
>Okay, Mr. Disingenuous Faggot.
Kek.
Keep masturbating intellectually.

>>11850802
I don't have to prove a negative and I don't have to take you even a little seriously.

>>11845543

>>11851431
What the fuck is that 60 doing in the top right?

I bet the russians lost a submarine in the baltic.

>>11851571
I assume that's where a wildfire is.

>>11851571
>>11852698
Oh wait, that might be a nuclear power plant about to explode.

>>11851571
squirrels chewing things in the weather station again

conspiracy nuts really think the marginal increase is actually really big? Schizos are trash now a days. You can just go outside and measure it yourself. Schizo back in the day did this now they just sit on their chair and post bullshit.

Russia is such a shit country to live in.

>>11846027
This.

>>11845543
Delusional

>>11850656
And yet it's the only reason someone would visit your country for tourism, don't look a gift horse in the mouth Dimitri. The birth defects are because alcoholism and smoking is practically a national sport over there not because your dad got a little Cesium on his peenium.

>>11846027
>Besides there's radiation everywhere, radon in your basement can naturally reach levels hundreds of times higher than "the zone"
And people are rightfully worried about it you stupid cuck

>hey guys don't worry you totally need this extra radiation in your life

>>11846027
>Only 200 people died from Chernobyl
retard

>>11851571
>>11851431
VOLCANO