chernobyl by motorcycle

[fuscia]

i've always like this site - http://www.kiddofspeed.com/ (lots of pics)
this woman goes on bike trips into chernobyl. she mentions, at some point, driving in the center of the road where the radiation is less intense.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image1.1.jpg

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image2.2.jpg

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/367img/image11.3.jpg

[IYY]

Yeah, I've seen that site a long time ago and I love it. Great photos.

[Bandit]

Girl is very brave or very stupid. IMHO, prob take little of both to go into that area.
Still nice photos. Makes me very scared of nuclear radiation.
Cheers,
Joey

[futz]

Saw that site a long time ago and thought it was interesting. Then I read somewhere else that it's complete bullsh*t. I don't know which to believe...

[fuscia]

Saw that site a long time ago and thought it was interesting. Then I read somewhere else that it's complete bullsh*t. I don't know which to believe...

LOL! i might have a new hero if this isn't true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiddofspeed

[KiwiNZ]

I am so glad my country is Nuke free

[YourSurrogateGod]

I almost forgot about this site, thanks for bringing it up fuscia. It brings up some memories from when I lived in Ukraine at the time of this disaster. Man... still creepy today and will be for thousands of years to come. It's a disaster of biblical proportions for my former country (especially since it's so poor.)

The person who comes up with a way to clean the area up and make it liveable again in an economic fashion deserves a prize so grand that the nobel peace prize does not even begin to cover it.

[polo_step]

It's interesting that this may be a hoax. I hadn't heard that. Funny what you pick up here!

I've read lots of first-person reports from The Zone and read a mystery novel last year that was set there.

[fuscia]

I almost forgot about this site, thanks for bringing it up fuscia. It brings up some memories from when I lived in Ukraine at the time of this disaster. Man... still creepy today and will be for thousands of years to come. It's a disaster of biblical proportions for my former country (especially since it's so poor.)


wow, i didn't know you were from there. we live about five miles from a nuclear plant, in north carolina (apparently, this plant benefits from studying the problems of chernobyl. if i hear a loud 'boom', followed with an introduction to a mr. lucifer, i'll know just how much of a benefit it will be). do you know a lot of people who were directly affected by it?


It's interesting that this may be a hoax.

after finding out chairman kaga was just an actor, i'm prepared for anything.

[YourSurrogateGod]

wow, i didn't know you were from there. we live about five miles from a nuclear plant, in north carolina
I was born in western Ukraine, not Chernobyl or Pripyat. But it's still too close to comfort.

I still remember the newsreals about the whole thing and what I've been told by my parents about not going outside and such...

[edit]

I think I misread what you've said. I was originally born in Ukraine when the USSR was still around (I think that's what you were trying to say by me being from there, not the chernobyl area specifically, kinda confused me for a sec.)

(apparently, this plant benefits from studying the problems of chernobyl. if i hear a loud 'boom', followed with an introduction to a mr. lucifer, i'll know just how much of a benefit it will be).
This might sound ironic, but me being from there, I actually favor nukes over other forms of power generation. And I do believe that there is much benefit that comes from there. There is the aspect of the knowledge that we gain from knowing more about science and the like. Also, it is relatively clean in some ways (no CO2 in the atmosphere, atleast not as much as from a coal powered plant.) The problems are operating them safely and the waste. We've gotten pretty good at the safety part so far. Plus, if you don't have nukes, then you'll be stuck with either oil or coal and those energy sources carry their own risks with them.

The chernobyl power station used to be one of the safest powerplants in the whole of the USSR, the problem was that you had a group of 'scientists' from Moscow conduct an experiment on the system with all of the safety features and back up systems turned off (real geniuses I tell ya.) The 'experiment' was rejected by all other power stations in the USSR as being horribly unsafe and downright stupid, but the soviet nuclear regulatory commission forced Chernobyl to carry it out and the rest is history.

I think I'll stop on the politics and such before the thread derails too much.

do you know a lot of people who were directly affected by it?
No, I don't. I was in western Ukraine. When it blew, most of the radiation went northward and eastward (some westward to Germany.) As you might imagine, Belarus got screwed. It was a twisted blessing of a sort...

I do remember knowing one kid that I met here in the states who was from Moscow. When Chernobyl blew up, a few days later some of his hair would fall out for some reason (which he figured was due to the increased radiation from the power plant.)

[Sirin]

*nvm

[fuscia]

This might sound ironic, but me being from there, I actually favor nukes over other forms of power generation. And I do believe that there is much benefit that comes from there. There is the aspect of the knowledge that we gain from knowing more about science and the like. Also, it is relatively clean in some ways (no CO2 in the atmosphere, atleast not as much as from a coal powered plant.) The problems are operating them safely and the waste. We've gotten pretty good at the safety part so far. Plus, if you don't have nukes, then you'll be stuck with either oil or coal and those energy sources carry their own risks with them.

i don't know anything about power sources, really, but i'm under the impression that nuclear is cleaner and safer, except for the waste and the occassional accident.

[YourSurrogateGod]

i don't know anything about power sources, really, but i'm under the impression that nuclear is cleaner and safer, except for the waste and the occassional accident.
Well, it all depends on how it's implemented. That assumption holds up better in western countries than in some other places.

Sorry, I just went on a rant there.

[skirkpatrick]

fuschia, would that put you in the general area of Lake Norman? :)

I've always wondered why they didn't use rockets to boost the waste toward the sun. You don't need a complex rocket to do that and it's not like it would cause a problem with the sun. I guess the only problem is the possibility of a malfunction before it's safely out of our orbit.

[YourSurrogateGod]

fuschia, would that put you in the general area of Lake Norman? :)

I've always wondered why they didn't use rockets to boost the waste toward the sun. You don't need a complex rocket to do that and it's not like it would cause a problem with the sun. I guess the only problem is the possibility of a malfunction before it's safely out of our orbit.
It can be done. Whenever nuclear waste is transported, it is encased in large cylinders that are nearly impossible to penetrate (they've rammed a train into the damn thing.) You'll just have to make one that withstands an impact on the ground atleast 2000 mph and can stand up temperatures of 1000+ fahrenheit (which I believe was already done.)

[fuscia]

fuschia, would that put you in the general area of Lake Norman? :)

no, i'm near raleigh.


I've always wondered why they didn't use rockets to boost the waste toward the sun. You don't need a complex rocket to do that and it's not like it would cause a problem with the sun. I guess the only problem is the possibility of a malfunction before it's safely out of our orbit.

no, send it to those bastards on mars.

[Bandit]

I've always wondered why they didn't use rockets to boost the waste toward the sun. You don't need a complex rocket to do that and it's not like it would cause a problem with the sun. I guess the only problem is the possibility of a malfunction before it's safely out of our orbit.
Its a really good idea. But the only thing I see holding it back is the fact that rockets science is still not fool proof. If we was to launch spent uranium into the atmosphere from a rocket explosion it would be bad, very very bad..
I dont see why we need to use Nuclear energy now anyway. Cost effectiveness?/ Yea, kiss my *** it cost more to maintain the waste and build a simi safe facility then it does for anything else. We have a unlimited supply of energy from a extreamly huge nuclear reactor (THE SUN) that we can harness via solar energy and wind energy as well. These two alone are safe and effective when properly placed. There is also hydroelectric power for many areas, not as effective is the mid west as it is in the eastern US. But this can start nice ecosystems (big lakes to fish in) and still remain safe.
Many people think reactors are like some big battery or something.. The are nothing then superhot boilers.. When the rods are pulled from their seats (were they set en ert..) they start reacting with each other, causing great amount of heat. The heat of course boiles water, which is hot enough to boil another supply of water and cuases steam. The escaping steam pressure is used to turn big electrical turbine generators. Which in turn makes electricity.
Not much more effective the hydroelectricity from a dam turbine generator.
I think we should shut down all nuclear plants and coal burning plants. They are bad for everyone and the planet.
Cheers,
Joe

[Alpha_toxic]

They are bad for everyone and the planet.
You are not exactly right here...
1. Nuclear power is much more cost efficient (like 2-3 times) than the "clean" energies (solar, water, wind...)
2. Clean energy is not enough. Even if you cover vast areas with solar panels, you still won't be able to power the air conditioners in LA during the summer...
3. Though it's in no way secure to keep the waste in "hangars", there are other possibilities, like bury it in salt mines (this is the most stable ground, not moving even in case of an earthquake)
4. The future is not in clean energies, as they are not enough, and AFAIKS it's not in nuclear fission energy either. Hopefully The modern science will soon find a way to exploit the nuclear fusion, wich is many times more power efficient than the fission (who the hell decided to uses words that are so simmilar?!!?) and uses a trully unlimited resource - hydrogen (oceans are vaaast, and would be enough for millennia to come). Plus it should be much safer - the waste is helium and water and there is much less harmfull radiation.

[Bandit]

like bury it in salt mines Bury METAL containers in SALT mines??? I think this is a issue they are having keeping the material contained now...


Nuclear power is much more cost efficient (like 2-3 times) than the "clean" energies (solar, water, wind...) Ahh yes.. Many people make that arguement. But then when you have to add the cost for containment of spent uranium. Then it doesnt seem so cheap. BTW, can we bury it in your backyard??


Clean energy is not enough. Even if you cover vast areas with solar panels, you still won't be able to power the air conditioners in LA during the summer...In the state of Nevada, 80% of the land is owned by the goverment. That combined with wind energy (there is alot of wind here too) should provide enouth energy for most of the US everyday. Not only that..
You can place solor pannels and wind turbines in farming areas without effective crops or live stock.

I agree we do have to look into other energy sources. Zero point energy is a good concept, but one that has not been proven to even work yet. Many scientist and a few mad men have claimed to get close, but thats as close as we have got yet.

Cheers,
Joey

[drucer]

Nuclear power can be very handy, but if safety regulations are violated, it can also be very devastating.

http://www.gorbenko.com/photo/Kiev15-01-04/TN_IMG_4413.JPG
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/chernobyl_poems/chernobyl_index.html

Check this out! This is _UNREAL_! Fully grown forest in the middle of abandoned, ghost buildings.

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/chernobyl_poems/ls07.html

Here's info about how it all happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident

[fuscia]

but, bandit, solar energy is about as popular as linux.

[Bandit]

but, bandit, solar energy is about as popular as linux.
What can we do.. :cry:

[skirkpatrick]

The other problem with solar energy is cost. Probably the best way is if every home produced its own energy. I looked at the cost of going off the grid here in NC and it would take 20 years to break even.

Now one thing I thought was interesting that I saw on the Internet (can't find the site now) was somebody who was making a home/vehicle hydrogen station. They used solar power to break down water into hydrogen & oxygen and the hydrogen was used to power your car. They talked about using the hydrogen to also run a small generator to power your home as well.

[majikstreet]

interesting... thanks for the links about it, I dunno what it is..

also, I wonder how many people in LA have air conditioners... when I lived in Long Beach (near LA) we didn't have an air conditioner, you just had to open the windows.

[YourSurrogateGod]

When put into perspective in terms of human fatalities, Chernobyl wasn't so bad. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident#Comparison_with_other_disasters ) That and even if we look at things such as coal mining and oil drilling, how many have died since we started getting those fossil fuels in order to run our industries and homes? I'd say quite a bit.

As for a replacement fuel, I don't think we'll find one any time soon, simply because of economics. It will take time. Although getting coal/oil is expensive out of the ground, it's still cheaper without any incentives or subsidies. Cars are and will get lighter over time (as a result, they'll become more fuel efficient.)

Solar is a good way to go. Out of all of the sunlight that hits the solar panels, only about 20-25% is turned into actual electricity (I covered this with one of my professors in a lecture, so I don't have an actual link.)

Wind power is a hassle that isn't even worth it. Even if one does find an area where there is ample wind, you'll have to deal with wind that comes from different directions and with fluctuating intensity. Also, if an area doesn't have any roads or infrastructure, you'll have to put down a road, wires, etc. (there goes the chance to reduce our environmental footprint on our planet.) Wind and solar will serve as a way to supplement current sources of energy, not replace them.

As for fusion, well, if history is any guide to its development, I won't hold my breath. People have been saying that it's just around the corner since the 70's and now it's the new millenium and no change.

[YourSurrogateGod]

The other problem with solar energy is cost. Probably the best way is if every home produced its own energy. I looked at the cost of going off the grid here in NC and it would take 20 years to break even.

Now one thing I thought was interesting that I saw on the Internet (can't find the site now) was somebody who was making a home/vehicle hydrogen station. They used solar power to break down water into hydrogen & oxygen and the hydrogen was used to power your car. They talked about using the hydrogen to also run a small generator to power your home as well.
Here is some info that you might find interesting.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2004/12/03/grid.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2004/12/10/energy.html

California has a very consumer friendly plan set up when it comes to setting up solar panels.

[prizrak]

Cars are and will get lighter over time (as a result, they'll become more fuel efficient.)
Sorry but it took me a while to stop laughing at that. Cars have been getting heavier and heavier. Case in point a '72 240Z developed only 150HP and is still concidered a very fast. Modern perfomance cars develop upwards of 300HP.
Solar power is damn near useless, it takes longer than the life of a conventional solar panel to break even on an investment. There are a few different ways of gathering alternative power but nuclear is the most cost effective even if considering the cost of deal with waste. Also there is a new design for the nuke plants making them almost completely full proof as well as not needed as much fuel. There was also some way to deal with the storage of fuel but I don't remember all the details anymore. For those of you who read Russian I found the article about it on www.membrana.ru it has alot of interesting stuff there.

P.S. I am also from Ukraine, Crimea to be more specific. I even vaguely remember hearing the news reports that told us to close all the windows and minimize exposure to the outside (even though we weren't really in the way).

[Alpha_toxic]

I couldn't agree with you more. I'll go through that site tomorow, cause right now I'm very sleepy.
btw, I allways suspected sth about your nick ;)

[fuscia]

unless a car can be more magnifiscent than the '69 dodge charger, there is no point in it being heavier.

http://musclecars.ecweb.cl/imagenes/articulos/69charger5.jpg

[briancurtin]

ill take the 68 mustang fastback

lets just re-enact the movie Bullitt

http://www.jimmy.stangnet.com/Bullitt_Mustang__Charger.jpg

[fuscia]

ill take the 68 mustang fastback

lets just re-enact the movie Bullitt]

'act' being the keyword. i'm sure you'd prefer tae kwon do over a gun, as well.

[mips]

You guys really do make some of the ugliest cars in the world and it's kinda like only a mother can love her ugly child ;)

Fortunately you have people like Chip Foose to make these cars look sweet :)

[YourSurrogateGod]

Sorry but it took me a while to stop laughing at that. Cars have been getting heavier and heavier. Case in point a '72 240Z developed only 150HP and is still concidered a very fast. Modern perfomance cars develop upwards of 300HP.
Laugh all you want, but based on the construction techniques developed at the moment, you can make a chasis that weighs less but is equal in strength to many other older models.

Cars can be built much lighter. In Texas U a researcher has developed a ribbon from nanotubes that is exponentially quicker and cheaper than making the same thing by previous methods. If enough investment goes into this field and people start building machines/techniques to make this produced in massive quantities, you'll see these new materials being incorporated into automobiles.

Solar power is damn near useless, it takes longer than the life of a conventional solar panel to break even on an investment.
Uhh... no. The problem with the cost of solar compared to the revenue generated by using this form of power is that (like I said before) the fact that only 20% of solar energy is actually used for producing viable electricity. If enough money is pumped into this area and the efficiency goes up to 50%, solar will become a significantly more viable source of energy.

There was also some way to deal with the storage of fuel but I don't remember all the details anymore. For those of you who read Russian I found the article about it on www.membrana.ru it has alot of interesting stuff there.
Bolshoi pes?

P.S. I am also from Ukraine, Crimea to be more specific. I even vaguely remember hearing the news reports that told us to close all the windows and minimize exposure to the outside (even though we weren't really in the way).
Heh... Ya dumav scho prizrak bulo slavyanske.

[YourSurrogateGod]

You guys really do make some of the ugliest cars in the world and it's kinda like only a mother can love her ugly child ;)

Fortunately you have people like Chip Foose to make these cars look sweet :)
Dude, the Mustang (http://www.desktopexchange.com/gallery/albums/Car-Wallpapers/Ford_Mustang_2005.jpg), Challenger (http://my.execpc.com/~zalen/challengermod1.jpg) and the Corvette (http://www.tcnj.edu/~vanadia2/Corvette.jpg) rule.

[mstlyevil]

You guys really do make some of the ugliest cars in the world and it's kinda like only a mother can love her ugly child ;)

Fortunately you have people like Chip Foose to make these cars look sweet :)

I hope you do not think the Sabb and the older Volvo's are beautiful. The Volkswagon Rabbit was the ugliest thing I ever saw. I don't think we corner the market on ugly cars but we do have our share of them. (for example the Pinto.)

[majikstreet]

I'll take an 85 or 86 mazda rx-7

[prizrak]

I'll take an 85 or 86 mazda rx-7
Excellent choice, the FC is great although rotaries are expensive to own.

Laugh all you want, but based on the construction techniques developed at the moment, you can make a chasis that weighs less but is equal in strength to many other older models.

Cars can be built much lighter. In Texas U a researcher has developed a ribbon from nanotubes that is exponentially quicker and cheaper than making the same thing by previous methods. If enough investment goes into this field and people start building machines/techniques to make this produced in massive quantities, you'll see these new materials being incorporated into automobiles.

Yes they CAN be no question about it. CF, monocoque, aluminum, etc... enable lighter cars. However they are not made lighter they are made heavier because while the body might be light you get A/C, CD Changers, Subwoofers (new Lincoln has 14 speakers), TCS, ASM, ABS, alot of cars are switching to AWD now, Auto trannies weigh like twice as much as manuals. The problem is not that it's impossible to make a light car, is that no one bothers too because of all of the amenities.

Uhh... no. The problem with the cost of solar compared to the revenue generated by using this form of power is that (like I said before) the fact that only 20% of solar energy is actually used for producing viable electricity. If enough money is pumped into this area and the efficiency goes up to 50%, solar will become a significantly more viable source of energy.
Of course if they boost the efficiency it will be great, but they haven't yet. Those things are also highly toxic to produce. It's the same as hybrid/electic cars, technically they polute less but in reality the process is highly toxic.
The thing is that nuke plants produce an enourmous amount of power as compared to just about anything else. They are also fairly cheap since a plant can run for years upon years on one load of fuel. There is also a new nuclear storage facility being built in the desert in the US it's supposed to take care of nuclear waste for a couple of centuries, hopefully by then we will find a way to deal with it. But hey this is all my opinion, I don't see anything else being a viable alternative to traditional coal/oil plants.

[mips]

I hope you do not think the Sabb and the older Volvo's are beautiful. The Volkswagon Rabbit was the ugliest thing I ever saw. I don't think we corner the market on ugly cars but we do have our share of them. (for example the Pinto.)


Well Saab & Volvo dont look to hot either. What was that movie with Dudley Moore (Crazy people?), " Buy Volvo, they're boxy"

No you don't corner the market but you're close ;) Yeah the Pinto is a real dog of a car.

The Italians have got it taped and the Japanese are learning fast.

Strangly enough what you guys call a rabbit we call a Golf Mark I and they are still produced in South Africa, kinda taken over from the beetle as the peoples car. Only problem is they rust like hell. Chek out http://www.vw.co.za/models/ , now called a Citi Golf.

[mips]

Dude, the Mustang (http://www.desktopexchange.com/gallery/albums/Car-Wallpapers/Ford_Mustang_2005.jpg), Challenger (http://my.execpc.com/~zalen/challengermod1.jpg) and the Corvette (http://www.tcnj.edu/~vanadia2/Corvette.jpg) rule.

I'll give you the Mustang.

The corvette is one ugly mother. The ones from the 60's & 70's had way more style and I would not mind being seen in one.

[Krigl]

Ya dumav scho prizrak bulo slavyanske.
Я тоже. And use azbuka next time, if you don't mind. English transcription of azbuka is buttugly, luckily Cyrillic using Slavs strike back (Мік Джегр, Джон Леннон).

[skirkpatrick]

Here is some info that you might find interesting.

http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2004/12/03/grid.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2004/12/10/energy.html

California has a very consumer friendly plan set up when it comes to setting up solar panels.


Thanks for the links. California has much higher tax incentives than North Carolina for alternative energy. I've got a couple of problems with my house. One is that the roof is facing east & west with no southern face. Yes, the panels can be cantilevered to produce a better face but the neighborhood I live it in also heavily wooded. The second problem is that we are planning on moving to a new house in about 5 years or so. That one I will be very interested in getting mostly off the grid.

[fuscia]

i apologize for not having done this sooner. as i mentioned before, we live about five miles from a power plant. when we moved here, we knew there was one, but had no idea how close it was. one day, i was out for a drive (we live in the country and it's beautiful here). i was thinking "oh, there's a nice little farm...oh, look at the deer...HOLY SERIES OF ASTERISKS!!! WTF IS THAT???"

e voila...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/unknownentity/baboom.jpg

i took this pic from the hilariously beautiful park kept up by the power company. the park is huge and has beaches, fishing areas, a disc golf course, a playground (strangely unoccupied by the families of company employees), a longass walking trail. i could have this park to myself (wtf? i drink too much to be worried about a little radiation.)

edit: uh-oh, looks like i was wrong. the land for the park is owned by shearon-harris, but leased and kept up by wake county, here in nc. i'm going to have to go there on a saturday to see if anyone uses this place. if not, then i've got a 680 acre playground all to myself.

[Sirin]

i apologize for not having done this sooner. as i mentioned before, we live about five miles from a power plant. when we moved here, we knew there was one, but had no idea how close it was. one day, i was out for a drive (we live in the country and it's beautiful here). i was thinking "oh, there's a nice little farm...oh, look at the deer...HOLY SERIES OF ASTERISKS!!! WTF IS THAT???"

e voila...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v342/unknownentity/baboom.jpg


OOH. :eek:

[prizrak]

I went to college about 15 miles from the Guinea power plant in Rochester, NY. It was actually kinda fun in my GIS class we had to create a map for emergency evacuation in the 10 mile radius of the power plant :)

[Bandit]

I went to college about 15 miles from the Guinea power plant in Rochester, NY. It was actually kinda fun in my GIS class we had to create a map for emergency evacuation in the 10 mile radius of the power plant :)
I would have shown them a map from my arsh to my car... :-D

[prizrak]

I would have shown them a map from my arsh to my car... :-D
Hehe, I made a map of the quickest route to the national guard air strip ;)

[mips]

I just finished watching a 2hr documentary on Chernobyl called 'Battle of Chernobyl' and it scared the living $#!^ out of me. It could have been worse with a second explosion which basically would have rendered the entire europe uninhabitable !!!

It's still a high risk site and you just have to hope and pray the covering holds and they build a new one. Lets not forget about the after effects which carry on generations later, especially in the Ukraine & Belarus areas.

To think one SS18 missile is 100 times as powerfull as Chernobyl is scary, what are we trying to do here, take out the solar system ?

Anyway, I would really encourage everybody to watch Battel of Chernobyl and say 'no' to nuclear power/weapons !!!

http://www.discoverychannel.co.uk/battle_of_chernobyl/chernobyl/index.shtml
http://www.optimistmag.org/gb/0014/one.php?id=1529