REVscene Automotive Forum - Russia proposes nuke solution to slick

REVscene Automotive Forum (https://www.revscene.net/forums/)

- Vancouver Off-Topic / Current Events (https://www.revscene.net/forums/vancouver-off-topic-current-events_50/)

- - Russia proposes nuke solution to slick (https://www.revscene.net/forums/616067-russia-proposes-nuke-solution-slick.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny_j (Post 6976430)

if you have to drill down that deep to plant the nuke why not drill a little further for the relief well.

Exactly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpl0sive (Post 6976358)

what does Chernobyl have anything to do with nuclear weapons? You do know that Chernobyl was a power plant that blew up right? Russians didnt drop a nuclear bomb on the city of Chernobyl. it's ignorant retards like you that make up the majority of the population which is the cause of a lot of the worlds problems.

The disaster clearly shows that the Russians are not competent with their nuclear technology. I mean they can't even properly operate a nuclear power plant without fucking things up for the rest of Europe.

So do you think the U.S. Government and BP is going to listen to the Russian's proposal on using a Nuclear bomb? HELL NO. The worst thing can happen is the nuke fails to stop the leak and we have not just oil spill but nuclear oil spill as well.

And by this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/03/us/03nuke.html) it doesn't seem I am alone on this point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpl0sive (Post 6976358)

what does Chernobyl have anything to do with nuclear weapons?

the nuke part, radiation, cancer..

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunny_j (Post 6976430)

if you have to drill down that deep to plant the nuke why not drill a little further for the relief well.

umm i'm not sure it's as easy as that.
in this instance, i believe there are other factors affecting it!

i'm not sure what those factors are because i'm not really following it, but i vaguely remember on the news that you can't just drill down and cut it off

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gumby (Post 6976402)

Yes, the Chernobyl disaster has nothing to do with nuclear weapons, but the fact that something screwed up there means that Russia's nuclear technology may not be the greatest... Therefore, don't take their proposed nuke solution for the oil slick as the silver bullet.

How about melt downs that have occured in the states? It seems like noone knows about china syndrome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MajinHurricane (Post 6977716)

How about melt downs that have occured in the states? It seems like noone knows about china syndrome.

Three Mile Island was the only "Meltdown" in the USA, and it was a partial one at that, mostly due to mechanical failure.

Chernobyl was caused by operators knowingly running the reactor outside of design parameters, and ignoring clear warning signs.

Russia has over 30 nuclear reactors currently in operation. Some of the nuclear powerplants have been set up in the late 1960's and are still operational today. So 1 reactor meltdown out of 30+ in 50 years of operations does not make the Russians incompetent with their nuclear technology... people need to take a second and read the actual facts, not eat up everything they see on TV and take it as the truth... the north american media only shows what they WANT the public to see. there is a whole another world out there if you just take a second and look.

^
Unfortunately, that is very true, and I'm often guilty of only seeing the NA point of view...

some facts about Chernobyl and Three Mile Island Meltdowns:

Chernobyl:
At this plant the worst reactor disaster to ever occur took place on April 26, 1986. It happened largely because normal reactor operations were suspended; an experiment was to take place in the reactor. As a result, normal safety guidelines were disregarded, and the accident occurred.

What caused the accident? This is a very hard question to answer. The obvious one is operator error. The operator was not very familiar with the reactor and hadn't been trained enough. Additionally, when the accident occurred, normal safety rules were not being followed because they were running a test. For example, regulations required that at least 15 control rods always remain in the reactor. When the explosion occurred, less than 10 were present. This happened because many of the rods were removed to raise power output. This was one of the direct causes of the accident. Also, the reactor itself was not designed well and was prone to abrupt and massive power surges.

Three Mile Island:
Unit 2 experienced a partial reactor meltdown on March 28, 1979. A partial nuclear meltdown is when the uranium fuel rods start to liquefy, but they do not fall through the reactor floor and breach the containment systems. The accident which occurred at Unit 2 is considered to be the worst nuclear disaster in US history. Why did it happen? There are many reasons for the accident, but the two main ones are simple human error and the failure of a rather minor valve in the reactor.

See anything similar? Both accidents occured due to operator error. How does that make Russia incompetent in Nuclear Technology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by xpl0sive (Post 6977819)

See anything similar? Both accidents occured due to operator error. How does that make Russia incompetent in Nuclear Technology?

The difference is that in Chernobyl, the operators intentionally put the plant into an unsafe situation - by performing their tests when they knew how bad the positive voide coefficient (shitty design) of that RBMK reactor was.

In Three Mile Island the operator error occurred with how they dealt with unexpected mechanical failure. It was much more accidental.

In my opinion there's a big difference between the two. I would rather not risk a nuclear power plant's safety needlessly. The soviets thought otherwise I guess.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great68 (Post 6977928)

The difference is that in Chernobyl, the operators intentionally put the plant into an unsafe situation - by performing their tests when they knew how bad the positive voide coefficient (shitty design) of that RBMK reactor was.

In Three Mile Island the operator error occurred was with how they dealt with unexpected mechanical failure. It was much more accidental.

In my opinion there's a big difference between the two. I would rather not risk a nuclear power plant's safety needlessly. The soviets thought otherwise I guess.

at this point its all just speculation. who knows, if they left the reactor alone, it could have exploded on its own 5 years down the road due to it's "shitty" design. instead they took the risk to test it and see if it was capable of handling the stress... then we all know what happened

Controlled Nuclear Blast under seabed....

birth of Godzilla 10 years later?