Jump to content

Meanwhile, at Chernobyl…

Doc Reeves

By Doc Reeves
in Daily Texan

 Share

Recommended Posts

stork642

stork642 4498

Posted
Posted (edited)

We can’t even have some nice radiation talk with someone posting a pic of a three breasted girl.  This is why we can’t have nice things.  On second thought if radiation adds an extra boob count me in.  Hair is overrated anyway.  

Edited by stork642
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Handcruser

Handcruser 2805

Posted
Posted
We can’t even have some nice radiation talk with someone posting a pic of a three breasted girl.  This is why we can’t nice things.  On second thought if radiation adds an extra boob count me in.  Hair is overrated anyway.  

Excellent take.

More boobs + less hair = win!
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Viper

Viper 12109

Posted
Posted
On 5/12/2021 at 1:48 PM, HouTex said:

Hope it doesn’t kill another 31 people.

 

On 5/12/2021 at 3:56 PM, SimonBolivar said:

Don't you just hate it when your copy of Pravda is late?

I don't think that number is that unreasonable. 31 died in the immediate incident, I think 30 something more died weeks later from acute radiation poisoning. After that it gets much more fuzzy and it's all assumed and estimated by possibly bad and certainly disputed assumptions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
  • Author
  • Popular Post
Posted
22 minutes ago, Viper said:

 

I don't think that number is that unreasonable. 31 died in the immediate incident, I think 30 something more died weeks later from acute radiation poisoning. After that it gets much more fuzzy and it's all assumed and estimated by possibly bad and certainly disputed assumptions. 


I was living in Eastern Germany when that happened and even though the winds were going East most of East Europe including myself were irradiated. 

I was 7 at the time so I just kinda shrugged and said ok, but it turns out that shit is serious. I can’t donate blood, bone marrow or organs and my risks for shit is considerably higher. I had a cancer scare when I was 20 at UT which sucked and was eventually attributed to my exposure. I believe I read somewhere that over 200 million people could possibly have been affected. 

it’s some real shit

  • Hook 'Em 7
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bernorange

bernorange 8362

Posted
Posted
Quote

...  The ISPNPP monitors neutron levels in the wrecked Unit Four building, which still contains a molten slurry of uranium fuel rods, zirconium cladding, graphite control rods, and melted sand. The room below the Unit Four reactor was once known as 305/2, but now it’s a vat containing tons of this semiliquid nuclear material. The team estimates half of the reactor’s original fuel is still locked up inside 305/2, so it’s not great news that neutron levels have doubled in the past four years.

No one is sure what the mechanism for this escalation of nuclear activity might be. After all, this fissile soup has never existed before and is therefore poorly understood. ...

https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/322755-chernobyl-is-heating-up-again-and-scientists-arent-sure-why

Fissile Soup would be a decent band name.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
HouTex

HouTex 1879

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, Viper said:

 

I don't think that number is that unreasonable. 31 died in the immediate incident, I think 30 something more died weeks later from acute radiation poisoning. After that it gets much more fuzzy and it's all assumed and estimated by possibly bad and certainly disputed assumptions. 

There apparently isn't even a consensus on the number of deaths in the period soon after the exposure.  The wiki quotes a 30 (not 31) number and then says 30 more died in the "decades since" the explosion.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

Other sites use the 31 number for those who died from direct exposure.  See quote and link below.  You are correct about possible increases in cancer and other deaths over the long term.  Thirty five years after the incident and there is no consensus on that and the possible numbers are all over the place. 

31 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident; two died from blast effects and a further 29 firemen died as a result of acute radiation exposure (where acute refers to infrequent exposure over a short period of time) in the days which followed.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19206

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, HouTex said:

There apparently isn't even a consensus on the number of deaths in the period soon after the exposure.  The wiki quotes a 30 (not 31) number and then says 30 more died in the "decades since" the explosion.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster

Other sites use the 31 number for those who died from direct exposure.  See quote and link below.  You are correct about possible increases in cancer and other deaths over the long term.  Thirty five years after the incident and there is no consensus on that and the possible numbers are all over the place. 

31 people died as a direct result of the Chernobyl accident; two died from blast effects and a further 29 firemen died as a result of acute radiation exposure (where acute refers to infrequent exposure over a short period of time) in the days which followed.

https://ourworldindata.org/what-was-the-death-toll-from-chernobyl-and-fukushima

All is capitalist propaganda. No one really died. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Onboard 2.0

Onboard 2.0 9083

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Viper said:

 

I don't think that number is that unreasonable. 31 died in the immediate incident, I think 30 something more died weeks later from acute radiation poisoning. After that it gets much more fuzzy and it's all assumed and estimated by possibly bad and certainly disputed assumptions. 

I'm Betting it was a bit more than 60 deaths.  This is the soviet union we're taking about they only work in city wide size death tolls, 60 is a Saturday night at the local vodka bar.  A shit load of people died from radiation poisoning weeks and months after the event I thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sandman

Sandman 3403

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:


I was living in Eastern Germany when that happened and even though the winds were going East most of East Europe including myself were irradiated. 

I was 7 at the time so I just kinda shrugged and said ok, but it turns out that shit is serious. I can’t donate blood, bone marrow or organs and my risks for shit is considerably higher. I had a cancer scare when I was 20 at UT which sucked and was eventually attributed to my exposure. I believe I read somewhere that over 200 million people could possibly have been affected. 

it’s some real shit

I was 12 and living in western Germany, I honestly don't remember much fuss about it. Too busy beating off to pay attention, I guess.

I can't give blood either, due to possible mad cow disease exposure. Thanks, Europe!

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Reeves

Doc Reeves 6434

Posted
  • Author
Posted
5 minutes ago, Sandman said:

I was 12 and living in western Germany, I honestly don't remember much fuss about it. Too busy beating off to pay attention, I guess.

I can't give blood either, due to possible mad cow disease exposure. Thanks, Europe!


army brat too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
crash_davis

crash_davis 23113

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, Sandman said:

I was 12 and living in western Germany, I honestly don't remember much fuss about it. Too busy beating off to pay attention, I guess.

I can't give blood either, due to possible mad cow disease exposure. Thanks, Europe!

so the lesson is don't fuck cows in Germany?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gourmand

Gourmand 7774

Posted
Posted
On 5/12/2021 at 2:28 PM, Viper said:

gas lines, inflation and now runaway nuclear fission at Chernobyl? Not the kind of retro week I was hoping for.

Also runaway asteroids....new warning from researchers that we would need at least a five-year head start to implement a plan to prevent such a catastrophe. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mach 1

Mach 1 1677

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Sandman said:

USAF, we were in West Germany for 6 years. 

 

3 hours ago, Doc Reeves said:

Army here. Berlin, Stuttgart and Heidelberg.

👊🏻

Rhein Main/Frankfurt HS representing.

Tried to give blood last year and got the boot for Mad Cow exposure in the 80s.  So odd.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted
On 5/12/2021 at 2:43 PM, Bevo said:

Apparently there is a Chernobyl topless model. That's all I got.

Chernobyl topless model responds to outrage after nude Insta snap in nuclear disaster zone - Daily Star

I'd like to play a game with her.  A little game I call..."Just the Tip"..."just my graphite tip"   just to see how it feels.  Graphite is safe sex, right? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19206

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Longhornstampede said:

I know what my reaction would be from dropping my rod into her core

Well duh, it's pretty simple and given by the integral control rod characteristic:

Capture.JPG.9ac04f41523881b0baeba0c9d9602f5a.JPG

Now to get the full integral reactivity value of the complete rod (hehehe) all one has to do is apply the neutron flux distribution given by:

Capture2.JPG.75e97b4270c802ccaf1da5920610deba.JPG

and integrate over the full length of the control rod from 0 to H.  Obviously this is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Longhornstampede

Longhornstampede 3184

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Well duh, it's pretty simple and given by the integral control rod characteristic:

Capture.JPG.9ac04f41523881b0baeba0c9d9602f5a.JPG

Now to get the full integral reactivity value of the complete rod (hehehe) all one has to do is apply the neutron flux distribution given by:

Capture2.JPG.75e97b4270c802ccaf1da5920610deba.JPG

and integrate over the full length of the control rod from 0 to H.  Obviously this is trivial and left as an exercise for the reader.

 

 

Well duh, too vague, now give us the real details of how this all happens!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fudge Nuggets

Fudge Nuggets 19206

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Longhornstampede said:

Well duh, too vague, now give us the real details of how this all happens!

Nuclear reactors are based on the fission of their atomic fuel.  When a U-235 atom is struck by a neutron it fissions into two smaller atoms and releases on average 2.5 new neutrons.  The new neutrons can strike additional U-235 atoms creating a chain reaction.

Control of the chain reaction is based on the number of new neutrons that propagate to the next generation of fissions.  A reactor is in steady state when the number of fission events in a generation exactly equals the number of fission events in the previous generation.  If the number of fission events this generation is less than the previous generation the reaction is said to be subcritical and cannot be sustained.  If the number of fission events this generation is greater than the previous generation then reaction is considered supercritical and the reaction will grow exponentially - this is bad and causes big 'splosions if not corrected right away.

Control rods are neutron-absorbing structures which can be inserted or withdrawn from the reactor core.  When control rods are inserted into the core, they absorb more neutrons thus lowering the number of fission events.  When a reactor is going subcritical, control rods are withdrawn thus allowing more neutrons to do their thing and result in more fission events compared to the previous generation.

QED

 

Or to simplify further:

MAGIC

 

 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
RomaVicta

RomaVicta 29931

Posted
Posted
On 5/14/2021 at 9:14 AM, Doc Reeves said:


I was living in Eastern Germany when that happened and even though the winds were going East most of East Europe including myself were irradiated. 

I was 7 at the time so I just kinda shrugged and said ok, but it turns out that shit is serious. I can’t donate blood, bone marrow or organs and my risks for shit is considerably higher. I had a cancer scare when I was 20 at UT which sucked and was eventually attributed to my exposure. I believe I read somewhere that over 200 million people could possibly have been affected. 

it’s some real shit

Just when I was being convinced that Chernobyl wasn't really that big of a deal.

I guess my eyes weren't lying afterall. 

Thanks for the informative post. I clicked the article and was mortified. I truly appreciate insight from those further from the immediate area.

Good luck with this health variable that was forced on you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Armybrat

Armybrat 40851

Posted
Posted
On 5/14/2021 at 12:56 PM, Doc Reeves said:

Army here. Berlin, Stuttgart and Heidelberg.

👊🏻

My 6ggrandfather left Heidelberg in 1753 to come to America. Family doesn’t know if he emigrated on his own accord or was kicked out by the mean old Burgermeister.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
blacklab

blacklab 11941

Posted
Posted
On 5/17/2021 at 8:24 AM, Fudge Nuggets said:

Nuclear reactors are based on the fission of their atomic fuel.  When a U-235 atom is struck by a neutron it fissions into two smaller atoms and releases on average 2.5 new neutrons.  The new neutrons can strike additional U-235 atoms creating a chain reaction.

Control of the chain reaction is based on the number of new neutrons that propagate to the next generation of fissions.  A reactor is in steady state when the number of fission events in a generation exactly equals the number of fission events in the previous generation.  If the number of fission events this generation is less than the previous generation the reaction is said to be subcritical and cannot be sustained.  If the number of fission events this generation is greater than the previous generation then reaction is considered supercritical and the reaction will grow exponentially - this is bad and causes big 'splosions if not corrected right away.

Control rods are neutron-absorbing structures which can be inserted or withdrawn from the reactor core.  When control rods are inserted into the core, they absorb more neutrons thus lowering the number of fission events.  When a reactor is going subcritical, control rods are withdrawn thus allowing more neutrons to do their thing and result in more fission events compared to the previous generation.

QED

 

Or to simplify further:

MAGIC

 

 

You don’t even know a thing about delayed neutron precursors do you?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...