/sci/ - Science & Math

Work in shifts?

>can penetrate any gear
Bring the lead armors forged atop of Mount Fuji my men, today, you are... SCIENCE SAMURAIS!

Each shift works 2 days?

And rests 2 days?

There is a monument to the first responders at Chernobyl. It reads:
" To those who saved the world.”

They will fight to contain it. Some of them will die. And a monument will be built for them.

>>2706670
its called STALKER, the greatest piece of art in the last 50 years.

Not a big deal. The yearly allowed dose for a radiation worker is already well below the risk of ever getting cancer. Receiving a little bit more during a crisis situation isn't horrible.

>>2706670
>saved the world
Somewhat of an exaggeration.
Probably should read "saved many lives in Ukraine" and then say they were really fucking brave.

>>2706702
Media needs to build a plot..Then a movie like climax where the hero dies... typical

I was wondering about this. One hour of exposure was equal to 8 years of ambient exposure at peak emission earlier today.
That means if some guy was working his ass off trying to save the plant for 12 hours he'd get 96 years worth of natural radiation exposure.

I bet they're working on one or two hour shifts.

Also of note, that radiation exposure was at the perimeter of the plant. Radiation levels near the reactor were 400 millisieverts, enough to quickly sterilize you and kill you in a few hours. So what are the engineers and technicians and firemen actually getting exposed to?

>>2706723
This sounds realistic.

But for how long do they have to keep this up? (Pumping)

>>2706719
>Implying the media doesn't do this with everything.

Tsunami has no real bad guy or anything so the News gets bored with it, if this Nuclear thing wasn't happening the News would be focusing on whatever small numbers of looters there are and blow it out of proportion saying "JAPAN LOOTING CHAOS!", the News always needs a scapegoat, if it cannot make up a bad guy, they will drop the story instead of actually explaining it.

Which is why the News is now focusing on how "corrupt" these Nuclear Engineers are, it's trying to make them seem like the bad guys who will kill most of the world with nuclear blast 1000x larger than Chernobyl.

...robots? Isn't that what japan is good at building?

>>2706723
It takes like 1-2 Siervet to get you puking/shitting and give you 5% chance of death, so if they work in 1 or 2 hour shifts and wear protective gear, they may only get cancer on the long run.

I really don't know how to put it into words, but, if you want to understand how messed up this is, watch Discovery Channel's Battle of Chernobyl.

You'll feel sick to your stomach for a good 30-40 minutes during the entire segment of the "bio-robots". Volunteers helping to clear the radioactive lead on the rooftop so the sarcophagus could be installed, their only protection being hand crafted sheets of lead plating.

They tried remotely controlled vehicles to plow the graphite blocks off, but the radiation was so high that the circuit boards would become useless and the machines would go completely dead.

"If you look, you can see the radiation on the film. I was holding the camera horizontally and you can see the radiation imposing itself on the film coming from the ground up. As soon as you went out there, you could taste the lead in your mouth. You couldn't hear, you could not feel your teeth. Chomping, grinding, it was like there were no teeth in your mouth." -Igor Kostin

Basically, they were given 100 rubles, to go out into an area with such high radioactivity that no man should have been out there at all, as the levels were so high that being there for more than 10 seconds would be fatal (10-12,000R/h). They were all told before they went that the levels were safe if they all worked in 45 second shifts(1200-2000R/h).

>>2706739
>But for how long do they have to keep this up? (Pumping)
You gave me a hilarious mental image of a couple Japanese engineers desperately taking turns pumping an old style well pump going OHFUCKOHFUCKOHFUCK.
>>2706754
>they may only get cancer on the long run.
Generally, radiation exposure only increases cancer risk significantly when exposed over a long period of time (weeks to months).
Short term exposure generally results in tissue death, most dangerously bone marrow and damage to the immune system - but if you can survive long enough to recover then you don't have that much of an increase in cancer risk

>>2706757
Seen that. So simultaneously surreal and terrible (in a human suffering sense).

>>2706757
This was very very depressing.

>>2706757
Remember that some of the workers at the Chernobyl site were given NBC suits the army had stockpiled, told they would offer protection, and sent off to die.

What I think is really hilarious is that everyone screams at the top of their lungs every 20 or so years when there's a nuclear accident, but they don't even think about the death toll from fossil fuels.

Occasional nuclear accident and radiation exposure
vs
Wars for fossil fuel resources, oil rig accidents, diving accidents when offshore drilling, coal miner deaths from accidents or related lung problems, mercury compounds in the air, CO2 emissions, hydrogen sulfide emissions, natural gas explosions, smog, lunch cancers in regions near coal plants, income inequality and government corruption in fossil fuel exporting nations and the crime/terrorism that comes with it, environmental devastation from fossil fuel mining/extraction practices...

>>2706836
>What I think is really hilarious is that everyone screams at the top of their lungs every 20 or so years when there's a nuclear accident, but they don't even think about the death toll from fossil fuels.
There was a nice thread about this earlier, but it disappeared when 4chan was having those server problems.
If I get rich I think I'll fund a series of billboards that explains these concepts to stupid people - hopefully they'll get distracted then crash and die and all of our problems will be solved.

hey do guys remember when fossil fuels almost made the whole planet uninhabitable?

yea, me neither

>>2706836
Not only that, dust from fossil fuel plants is more radioactive than radioactive waste.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

>>2706836
I feel this is always a nice set of facts to have around for when you need it.

>A fuel melt-down might be expected once in 20,000 years of reactor operation. In 2 out of 3 melt-downs there would be no deaths, in 1 out of 5 there would be over 1000 deaths, and in 1 out of 100,000 there would be 50,000 deaths. The average for all meltdowns would be 400 deaths. Since air pollution from coal burning is estimated to be causing 10,000 deaths per year, there would have to be 25 melt-downs each year for nuclear power to be as dangerous as coal burning.
http://physics.isu.edu/radinf/np-risk.htm

>>2706909
It's slowly happening. Fossil fuels are already making this planet kind of a shitty place to live anyway.
> Yorubas having their native lands destroyed, their people raped and killed, and their natural resources taken from them by Hausa fuckshits in Nigeria.
>Suburbia and endless sprawl, all enabled by the concept of "cheap energy" as opposed to sane and reasonable city planning
>The Royal families of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Brunei, the UAE, etc.... using everything from slave labor to outright murder to stay rich and in power
>Ever been to the Flower Garden Banks national marine sanctuary? Too bad for you, those whale sharks and great hammerheads won't be going there again anytime soon.
>Unsustainable agriculture based on the over-use of petrochemical-based fertilizer and the inevitable crash when GM crops aren't advanced enough to fill in the gaps
Want more?

>>2706950
>counts zero deaths from subsequent radiation exposure.

yea, thats solid science right there.

>>2706909
Actually there have been quite a few mass extinction events precipitated by rapid change in global temperature - and even in recent history massive localized die-offs due the overuse of fossil fuels (see the drastic change in the ecology of the UK during the rise of the industrial revolution).

>>2706973
>He doesn't understand the medical effects of radiation exposure!

>>2706982
Yup. I don't buy into any of the conspiracy bullshit, but if I did, I'd say that the UK (thinking southern England) is the "proving ground" for what the world will one day look like.

Everyone that doesn't want to produce is on the dole, you're monitored by a vast surveillance network that would make the Stasi blush, there is insufficient green space and parks, there isn't really much hope for environmental recovery, social mobility is next to nil, and you're bombarded with meaningless tabloid news/entertainment.

>>2707020
So instead of flying cars you're meaning to tell me we get CHAVS EVERYWHERE? That seems like a fair trade.

Watching that Battle of Chernobyl.

Why is the west so intent on covering up any deaths or illnesses attributed to the disaster? even the Russians were silenced on announcing how many they estimated died (40,000).

We know that Chernobyl was a hellhole, so why is the west so intent on covering it up and saying the deaths and the effects are in the 10s, not the hundreds of thousands?

>>2707484
What do you mean 'even the russians'
It was soviet fucking russia, of course they'd censor the event.
Hell, pripyat wasn't evacuated until they really really had to.

>>2707491
It isn't the Russians covering up the consequences, but the west.

Dude went to first UN conference or whatever saying atleast 40,000 people had died at Chernobyl, his figures were eventually "lowered" by the International community to something like 400. That guy who did the report (40,000 people) later killed himself out of guilt.

France's official stance is that there wasn't even a nuclear dust cloud, despite huge amounts of thyroid cancer showing up in Frances population.

The only explination is that they don't want to "scare" people off from Nuclear Power, but a Chernobyl event can never happen again, hell by fear mongering and having less and less money invested into Nuclear, people are causing more hazardous Gen 1 and 2 reactors to be built, instead of the more expensive but virtually 100% safe Gen 3 and 4 reactors.

While on this subject, how is Japan going?

>how is Japan going?
It went swimmingly, then glowingly.

>>2707491

I've read that the Russians made some of the best scientific analysis done of the event, and they were presented in open western scientific conferences.

Now, what was told to their internal population, I don't know.