Lessons of Chernobyl disaster, 30 years on

A man walks past the Chernobyl New Safe Confinement structure (NSC) under construction in Chernobyl, Ukraine on January 22, 2016
A man walks past the Chernobyl New Safe Confinement structure (NSC) under construction in Chernobyl, Ukraine on January 22, 2016

Ukraine next week marks the 30th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, when human error and flawed Soviet reactor technology led to the world's worst nuclear accident.

Ahead of the April 26 anniversary, AFP looks at the steps taken since 1986 to improve nuclear safety around the world and—as Fukushima showed in 2011—the challenges that remain.

Only in the USSR?

Experts say a big factor behind the disaster was the unusual and poor design of the reactor, known as RMBK, particularly its propensity to sudden power surges—as happened at Chernobyl.

In addition, and unlike elsewhere outside the Soviet Union, there was no containment structure shielding the reactor to stop radioactivity escaping.

But there was also . According to the World Nuclear Association, the accident was also due to "the violation of operating procedures and the absence of a safety culture".

The aftermath was also poorly handled, with officials slow to evacuate locals and Moscow sending 600,000 "liquidators" with little or no protective gear to put out a fire that raged for 10 days.

The first alarm was raised on April 28, 1986, not by Russia but by Sweden after it detected an unexplained rise in radiation levels. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev did not admit the disaster had occurred until May 14.

A general view taken from a helicopter in April 1986 shows the destroyed fourth power block of Chernobyl's nuclear power plant f
A general view taken from a helicopter in April 1986 shows the destroyed fourth power block of Chernobyl's nuclear power plant few days after the nuclear catastrophe

The response

With enormous public outrage around the world Chernobyl, suddenly a household name, spurred an international push— even overcoming Cold War divisions—to improve atomic safety and reassure the public.

One of the most important steps was the 1989 creation of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), which carries out "peer reviews" of 430 reactors around the world to detect problems.

"The industry has undoubtedly learned the lesson that we are stronger together," WANO chief executive Peter Prozesky told AFP.

The demise of the Soviet Union and the end of its Cold War isolation has also removed barriers to international cooperation.

Chernobyl: chronology of the nuclear disaster
A general view taken from a helicopter in April 1986 shows the destroyed fourth power block of Chernobyl's nuclear power plant few days after the nuclear catastrophe

Ex-communist eastern European countries, many now EU members, have also been helped to adapt their Soviet-built plants. Of the 17 RMBK reactors in operation in 1986, six have been permanently shut down.

In addition the role of the UN nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency was beefed up. It expanded and revised safety standards and member states were required to report swiftly any incidents with potential cross-border effects.

A number of international agreements were signed, the most important being the IAEA Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS). Others covered nuclear waste and early warning systems for accidents.

What about Fukushima?

But any belief that enough had been done was swamped by the tsunami that knocked out the power supply and cooling systems of three reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant on March 11, 2011.

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is seen in the distance from the ghost city of Prypyat on April 8, 2016
The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is seen in the distance from the ghost city of Prypyat on April 8, 2016

"It was the belief in Japan at that time that this facility was robust... and even that it was not a good idea to conduct upgrades or changes to the facility because this could demonstrate in terms of public communication some weaknesses," Juan Carlos Lentijo, head of at the IAEA, told AFP.

"This was an acute error, a huge mistake."

This, the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl, also caused an outcry, further international cooperation and agreements, and an even bigger role for WANO and the IAEA.

Nuclear plant operators again say that they have made more technical improvements, including through better shielding of the nuclear material and more reliable "passive" safety systems in newer reactors.

The 2011 earthquake and tsunami caused a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear reactor and spread radiation over a wide area
The 2011 earthquake and tsunami caused a meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear reactor and spread radiation over a wide area

Human error

But for critics, dangerous risks remain, not least because no matter how many technical and regulatory improvements are made, the risk of human error—the common factor at Chernobyl and Fukushima—remains.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, there were 10 "near misses" at US reactors in 2015, events that potentially increase the risk of a meltdown by at least 10 times, most due to human error.

For Shawn-Patrick Stensil, a nuclear expert at Greenpeace, the biggest risk is that most reactors, particularly in the West, are decades old, their designs dating back to the 1960s and 70s.

"We are now in the wear-out stage for the majority of the reactors in the world," Stensil told AFP.

In addition, these reactors were all built before another risk that has reared its head in recent years—nuclear terrorism—"was even thought about," Stensil said.

There are also lingering concerns about Russia—there are still 11 RMBK reactors, albeit with new safety features—particularly with Russia being a big exporter of to the developing world.

But Lentijo of the IAEA, whose raison d'etre is to promote nuclear technology, is more positive.

"Safety has been improved, and I would say that the level is appropriate in general terms," he said.


Explore further

French group to help Japan dismantle nuclear reactors

© 2016 AFP

Citation: Lessons of Chernobyl disaster, 30 years on (2016, April 20) retrieved 19 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-04-lessons-chernobyl-disaster-years.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
34 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Apr 23, 2016
Some folk never learn.

We have many of them. I think their main drive and impetus is not due to technology, but politics. They hate the liberals who were correct, . . again.

Apr 23, 2016
Some folk never learn
@couyon-liar-kam
and you seem to have topped that list with pride
before you start spreading more misinformation, first learn some actual facts (and note: these aren't wiki pages, moron)
http://physics.ke...re15.pdf

https://www.youtu...yv9arXqU

https://www.youtu...xY-wOrI8

https://www.youtu...rcdMiIGs

https://www.youtu...Zm8XO7Zc

https://www.youtu...I3ifi_UI

more to the point: if you're gonna denigrate a field, why not also admit to your complicity in dumping millions of tons of CO2 by working for a power company (even if it was proven you couln't have been a real engineer here: http://phys.org/n...age.html )

it's what you do that counts, and you already screwed the atmosphere
that is why you guilt others with your emo posts

quit spamming with them

Apr 23, 2016
"why not also admit to your complicity in dumping millions of tons of CO2 by working for a power company"
-------------------------------

Because I have none. My job was Energy Conservation and Management. I actually DECREASED pollution and energy use, and with great results.

Thank you for bringing that up. Most folk are completely ignorant of how our systems work, and you are certainly a leader of that group.

What have you done with anything other than your mouth?

Apr 23, 2016
I actually DECREASED pollution
@couyon-liar-kam
and again, if you worked "for" the power companies that flood the environment with CO2, then by association, you're guilty

it doesn't matter if you only are responsible for 3,999,999 tons vs 4,000,000 tons

you want to argue from authority, and you claimed to work for the polluters that push CO2, then simply accept the facts and know that your "authority" is directly undermined and compromised by your association with the polluters

that is the cost of argument from authority
What have you done with anything other than your mouth?
you mean besides proving you can't argue from evidence?
or that you're a chronic liar with my evidence in links?

obvious troll & flame baiting and reported

if you're not going to bring facts or substantiated claims with links or references, then why continue to argue here?

you do more damage than help to the climate change science when you do that...

epic fail

Apr 23, 2016
Hey, Mister Emotional Wreck, as you fly apart, perhaps you can tell me how saving energy and reducing power demand created carbon dioxide?

(I wonder if I can look it up to see how much energy I saved while I did that work for PG&E. When you deal with concrete calciners, metal foundries, semiconductor manufacturing, steel mills, and large industrial facilities, the savings mount up quickly, then over the years, they continue.)

Why don't you give up this silly personal attack, and outgrow your need to get "even" with me for being real?


Apr 24, 2016
perhaps you can tell me how saving energy and reducing power demand created carbon dioxide?
@couyon-liar-kam
i will quote you
I am a former Senior Engineer for PG&E
by definition, that means you were associated with them and complicit in their crime: it doesn't matter if you only are responsible for 3,999,999 tons vs 4,000,000 tons

so now that i answered your question, answer me one that i asked but you refuse to answer:
which is more dangerous, couyon-liar-kam? flying at 33,000ft or standing within 6 meters of a nuclear reactor?
(support your conclusions with links/references, like i do)
don't forget the universe and earth itself is "radioactive"

Flying on a plane and next to a reactor measured
https://www.youtu...MRkN99aE

https://www.youtu...g-TXBgU8

while you are at it, why don't you give up this silly personal attack, and outgrow your need to get "even" with me for being real?

thanks

Apr 24, 2016
What an ignorant rant. You obviously have been nowhere near a powerplant of any kind, and have no real idea of the complexities involved in running a powerplant.

The only powerplant in which I did work for PG&E for power production was the geysers, which produces no CO2. Poor Trumpy is blabbering in a field he does not understand.

I actually reduced the pollution from our powerplants by reducing the waste in the customer facilities. Grumpy wants to make me a Nazi because of ignorance: He does not understand the system and has a goober's view of the entire field of power production, transmission, and application.

All those hose-holders may be the same, but not the rest of us, Toots.

ps - is the reactor in Fukushima?

Apr 24, 2016
Okay, which gives you more radiation, flying at 33,000 feet or standing next to Unit Three at Fukushima?

YOU answer that one, Ira, Grumpy, otto, Estebane and the other nuke apologists.

Apr 24, 2016
YOU answer that one, Ira,,,,,,,, and the other nuke apologists.
It's a little late for the apologizing Skippy, but since I am a nice guy, just this once. Apology accepted, now we can move on, you don't talk to me, and I won't talk to you. That alright with you Cher?

Apr 24, 2016
Okay, which gives you more radiation, flying at 33,000 feet or standing next to Unit Three at Fukushima?

YOU answer that one, Ira, Grumpy, otto, Estebane and the other nuke apologists.
wow... just wow...

now either this is a demonstration of a really crappy BOT
or this is a demonstration that you're illiterate
or you're just really, really, really stupid

tell me: did you wonder why i linked things under the comment?
think it was for looks?

i will answer you: they answered the question
you know... with evidence... references... a real PhD scientist who actually knows WTF he's talking about!!!!

reported for trolling, baiting to a flame war and being a pseudoscience chronic liar
while you are at it, why don't you give up this silly personal attack, and outgrow your need to get "even" with me for being real

Apr 24, 2016
How can you preach about the "safety" of nukes with Chernobyl and Fukushima staring us all in the face?

How?

My gosh, are you blind? Deaf? Or just overcome with hate and prejudice?

This is about the disastrous nuclear power systems, and how we are trying to protect ourselves from the nuclear disaster of Chernobyl.

Did you "forget"?

Apr 24, 2016
My gosh, are you blind? Deaf?
gskam believes in his own fibs as a beast that eats its own excrements.

Apr 24, 2016
"a beast that eats its own excrements"
-----------------------------

Your verbiage betrays your character.

Once again: How can you preach about the "safety" of nukes with Chernobyl and Fukushima staring us all in the face?

Apr 24, 2016
How
@couyon-liar-kam
for starters, i can look at the overall safety record without being biased, unlike you

My gosh, are you blind? Deaf? Or just overcome with hate and prejudice?
all you've produced is emotional arguments from fear...no validation, no substantiated claims... nothing
absolutely NO SCIENCE WHATSOEVER

Did you "forget"?
http://physics.ke...re15.pdf

https://www.youtu...yv9arXqU

https://www.youtu...xY-wOrI8

https://www.youtu...rcdMiIGs

https://www.youtu...Zm8XO7Zc

https://www.youtu...I3ifi_UI

Your verbiage betrays your character.

Once again: My gosh, are you blind? Deaf? Or just overcome with hate and prejudice?

Apr 24, 2016
"NO SCIENCE WHATSOEVER"
--------------------------------------

Oh, my, . . .

What is the thread we are in regarding? Rumor? Or the science of the consequences of nuclear power?

Paste in the silly empty words of others if you think it makes you feel better, but there they are staring you in the face, Chernobyl, Fukushima, SL-1, and the others.

Reality is a you-know-what, isn't it?

(are you going to copy that phrase, too?)

Apr 24, 2016
Can you nuclear apologists help?

http://www.cherno...nal.com/

Apr 24, 2016
Congenital malformations that have nothing to do with radiation is putting into account.
http://spectator....yl-myths

Apr 24, 2016
Gkam, I have never been a nuke apologist. Go F yourself.
Say my name again in that context and I will put your social security number in every post I make.

Is that real enough for you?

Apr 24, 2016
@ Estevan-Skippy. I really was trying to give you the 5 vote that time, the page jumped while I voting. I am sorry again me. I am sure like me you don't give a hoot about the votes but I did not want you to get the wrong idea.

I don't understand about the apologizing for the nukes either me. Why he think you or Captain-Skippy or Otto-Skippy or me should apologize for them? As far as I know glam-Skippy is the only one who worked in a company that owned nuclear power plants.

I might be wrong about that, but I am pretty sure Captain-Skippy never mentioned it. I thought you work in machine shop or fabrication business. I never remember if Otto-Skippy said one way or the other. I know I never did. So I think he's got some old age mental conditions where he can't remember who said what.

So I am not going to apologize for the nukes either.

Apr 24, 2016
"Say my name again in that context and I will put your social security number in every post I make."
-----------------------------------

DO WE HAVE A MODERATOR?????

HELLO!!

The Forum Trolls are now becoming illegally abusive. How can this be tolerated?

Apr 24, 2016
" As far as I know glam-Skippy is the only one who worked in a company that owned nuclear power plants."

That does not matter here, what matters is the experience with the GE BWR SRV studies and the education in generation itself, the Thermodynamics of Power Systems - in both the undergrad and the Graduate Level courses.

Apr 25, 2016
No more than you are, possibly less
@Phys
you talking to me?
be clear about who your specifically talking to, because i'm not so delusional that i am not aware of my own contributions to the AGW problem... just sayin

.

.

Can you nuclear apologists help?
@Couyon-liar-kam
1- i'm not an apologist. i am a realist

2- considering the sate of affairs, we will need Nuke power until we can do something better

3- you are still not presenting any scientific information that refutes any links or references that i've provided to you regarding the issue... only propaganda and fear based pictures or rants
Your verbiage betrays your character.

Once again: My gosh, are you blind? Deaf? Or just overcome with hate and prejudice?

so by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims with evidence or links / references - so per our agreement you are reported


Apr 25, 2016
" As far as I know glam-Skippy is the only one who worked in a company that owned nuclear power plants."

That does not matter here,
Well Cher, tell me this. If it don't matter here, why you say that we should apologize for the nuclear plants?

Apr 25, 2016
You do not have to apologize for them, Ira, you are not even real. You have neither education nor experience in nuclear matters, so whatever you may "think" is irrelevant. And you are just another troll with a phony name, who is too scared to reveal himself after those ridiculous posts.

Like Trumpy, you post the nonsense written by others, stuff you probably do not understand. I guess if I had a dead-end job, I would spend all workday online playing silly goober games, too.

Now, let us discuss the nature and dangers of nukes, shall we?

Apr 25, 2016
You do not have to apologize for them,
Well make up your mind. First you say we got to apologize for them, now you letting us off the hook and say we don't.

ra, you are not even real.
Most peoples who spend as much time as you fooling around with "not even real" peoples usually get to spend some time in the hospitals for peoples with mental conditions. When they are in there, you can usually find them down by the courthouse square holding up tattered signs flinging slogans at peoples who are "not even real".

I guess if I had a dead-end job,
You say goofy stuffs like that all the time. Is that supposed to hurt my feelings? I really like my job, I keep the same job for almost 20 years now. I can not think of another job like would rather have. But not being like me, you would not understand that some peoples like what they do and don't have any need to try to make peoples think their "experiences" are elite. Experts don't have 15 different kinds of careers.


Apr 25, 2016
Here is a current concern:

http://uaposition...ng-risk/

When will we learn our lesson regarding this disastrous foray into things nuclear?

Apr 25, 2016
Here
@couyon-liar-kam
1- from your own link, the earlier fires
"weren't particularly hazardous in terms of radioactivity," Mousseau says
2- again, from your link: "Two acts of suspected arson" + "30-kilometer no-go zone"
Hmmm....i wonder if there is a correlation there...??? [sarc/hyperbole]

3- the "lesson" from that link? arson + 30k no-go zone = easy target

4- appealing to fear doesn't make nuclear power more dangerous. it doesn't change the facts at all, in any way, except to demonstrate why a fear based response is not logical when talking science

so by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims with evidence or links / references - so per our agreement you are reported

.

.

so... when ar you going to answer the questions posed on APR 24??

i see you are still avoiding that one...
why is that?
evidence?
or it proves you wrong?

Hmmm.....

Apr 25, 2016
Yes, whether arson or terrorist threat, we are left vulnerable because of the use of nuclear power.

We had no "agreement". You are not real, but just another pseudonym.

Apr 26, 2016
whether arson or terrorist threat, we are left vulnerable because of the use of nuclear power.
Couyon-liar-kam
appealing to fear doesn't make nuclear power more dangerous. it doesn't change the facts at all, in any way, except to demonstrate why a fear based response is not logical when talking science

you can't just assume that there will be no danger from either arson or terrorism if you get rid of nuclear energy anyway... especially since the easiest means to make dirty bombs don't come from nuclear facilities at all

so by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims with evidence or links / references - so per our agreement you are reported

Apr 26, 2016
Please grow up. Or just ride away in your Big Truck. "Report" me first.

This regards the disasters at Chernobyl, ones you cannot ignore. You nuke apologists are like the Bush apologists who still insist "he kept us safe", . . yeah, after he let the biggest attack on the United States occur, despite several warnings.

You want us to "forget" Fukushima and Chernobyl and SL-1 and TMI II and the dozens of near-disasters? Wh6y? So you are not embarrassed further?

And I think YOU are the one who got fooled, suckered into the Bush Wars of Mass Killing and Corporate Profit, but now insists on PROOF from us, don't you?

Well you got it in spades.


Apr 26, 2016
Those hats will not protect you from Neutrons, Willie.

Nor will they protect you from Reality: The Reality of the Children of Chernobyl.

Apr 26, 2016
"Report" me first
Couyon-liar-kam
well make up your mind
and because you asked me nicely, i will
ones you cannot ignore
i am not ignoring it
in fact, i don't want to ignore it nor would i want anyone else to ignore it... there are lessons to be learned, so quit being an idiot
You want us to "forget"
try re-reading what i wrote
no one is saying to "forget"
...i am saying to put your emotions aside and quit being a little emo girly troll
YOU are the one who got fooled, suckered
OT
irrelevant
trolling baiting comment

so by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims with evidence or links / references - so per our agreement you are reported

Apr 26, 2016
Outgrow it, Stumpy.

This thread is about the real dangers of nuclear power, which I warned you about.

Apr 26, 2016
This thread is about the real dangers
@couyon-liar-kam
point being "real"... not emotional stupidity, nor unsubstantiated conjecture based upon your emo beliefs

what have you contributed besides emotional outbursts?

absolutely nothing

so by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims with evidence or links / references - so per our agreement you are reported

Apr 26, 2016
@Couyon-liar-kam

so listen: to date, almost all your arguments are circular as well as argument from D-K authority

by definition, you're not adding anything productive except to demonstrate you're an emotional byotch who can't tell the difference between evidence that can be substantiated and emo-ranting opinion

given that the MODS won't delete you as a trolling idiot pseudoscience D-K hack like you are, that means you're paying them to keep you active

have a nice life of lies, i have a real life to get back to, and you have a basement to keep tidy

Apr 26, 2016
All those silly accusations. Just silly emotion, . . . you're flying apart. I learned more about nuke power while doing the tests of the GE BWR SRV systems than you will from Wiki. Get over it.

Did we learn lessons from Chernobyl? Yes, some of us. The others are too easily manipulated emotionally, like they were with "WMD!". Or poisoned by political prejudice.

But these issues are far too important to leave to emotional avenues of resolution. We have to end the personal fighting and all realize we are on the cusp of a new pair of them digms. We have found ways to obviate the "need" for nuclear adventures, so we can stop making nasty stuff we cannot even store.

Our technologies let us work with Nature instead of trying to brute-force it.

Apr 26, 2016
silly accusations
@Couyon-liar-kam
it's not an "accusation" if it can be proven. . . you're flying apart

and you've not been able to prove you learned anything about nukes except how to post pictures about your emotional fears

want to know why you didn't learn a damn thing about them?
http://www.webmd....nxieties

http://ajp.psychi...23.2.218

http://link.sprin...6#page-1

these issues are far too important to leave to emotional avenues of resolution. since all you do is personal fighting, and you can't prove anything with evidence, then you should leave the argument or discussion to rational thinkers who actually "can" substantiate their claims

again, so by definition, you are intentionally trolling and baiting into a flame war because you can't refute my claims with evidence or links / references - so per our agreement you are reported

Apr 26, 2016
Lay off Stumps. He's a puppet master too. I might need a new Sugar Daddy.

Apr 26, 2016
How ignorant is putting "can" in quotes
@lil-trolling jim
well, since i can't actually boldface it on PO... and i wanted to emphasize it for liar-kam...
Does George not have a lawyer? I would love the chance to fillet Frumpy Grumpy in court
by all means, i'm not anonymous... you have the ability to actually hire one for yourself!

feel free to contact liar-kam by private e-mail so you can collaborate on the costs of your litigation (and subsequent Countersuit, of course)

just remember, the rules of evidence!
thanks
And PO, of course
oh, this is gonna be fun!

wow!

thanks!
this means my dreams of world cruising with the wife will have a nice easy payday

Apr 26, 2016
jim_x, have a recommendation? I just got too many ads, and no way to asses their skills and costs, not being in the British Isles.

I have enough to take otto to the bone, flaming stuff devoid of any Humanity at all, inflicted to maximize the pain of others.

Find one for me.

Apr 26, 2016
Did anyone discover where the Fukushima core went?

Apr 26, 2016
No. There are three of them, or were three of them. Number two unit is empty and so is Unit Three which probably sent the reactor vessel into the sky with an H2 explosion-induced criticality, according to nuclear experts who examined the leftovers.

Unit One was reported to have suffered a LOCA before the evacuation, reported by personnel and backed up by radioactive readings at the site perimeter many minutes before the Tsunami hit.

Nasty stuff. They essentially polluted the entire Biosphere, . . for profit.

Apr 26, 2016
Nasty stuff. They essentially polluted the entire Biosphere
https://static.sp...-hat.jpg
https://media.gip...iphy.gif
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_TIp3siafKjA/TD54X-rVg3I/AAAAAAAAAR0/M8_jysdTZzE/s1600/tinfoilhat.jpg

Apr 26, 2016
Wow. Look at the voting between gkam and Stumpy. That's a first. Indicates two things.

Stumpy is Otto (and one or two more).
People are fed up with the gkam/Otto bickering. Was that the cunning plan? New puppet, same attack? Very much hoisted on your own petard. Didn't you once say that puppets are always found out, that "personality shows through"? So, you really are so blinded by rage that you think that we're going to think that someone else is that infatuated with gkam?

Yeah, infatuation. You're as crazy head over heels when he speaks as any amorous schoolboy. You can say what you want, but that's how everyone else is going to see it. You have as much control over your obsession as a schizoid stalker does.

We all know how to read George. You're not saving anyone from his "deceptions". He's an egotistical blow-hard. We've all met a few. A pretty harmless one if you ask me. But none of us need your help handling the situation. No? Prove it. Ignore him.

Apr 27, 2016
Stumpy is Otto (and one or two more)
@AGreatWhopper
No, i am not

and if you care to do a cursory search of PO posts or use Google, you can see that otto and i don't agree on a lot of things, including mills, rossi, hydrino's or certain other things

you can also see where otto found my shared facebook page
We all know how to read George. You're not saving anyone from his "deceptions". He's an egotistical blow-hard
some are impressionable and think "authority" therefore it must be true

i don't argue against the idiot gracie because it's fun (she repeats the same stupid sh*t over and over)

but because there must be someone to teach or show those who are not literate in science how to think critically, spot the obvious mistakes, learn to research and validate a claim

- and no one else is stepping up to the plate here on PO, and there are no MODS

Until we all fight against pseudoscience, it wins

https://www.youtu...EwjBXlZE

Apr 27, 2016
"some are impressionable and think "authority" therefore it must be true"
----------------------------------------
Having actually done the things I mentioned, yeah, I say it is true.

What have you done?

Apr 27, 2016
I want Willie to tell us about the witnessed LOCA in Unit One of Fukushima Dai-ichi.

It wasn't just the tsunami, was it? Unit one had already suffered a fatal blow.

Apr 27, 2016
Having actually done the things I mentioned, yeah, I say it is true
@couyon-liar-kam
so, per your argument, then your claims about THz being deadly are true despite the evidence to the contrary?
http://phys.org/n...ess.html

and it's more dangerous to be near a reactor than fly?
https://www.youtu...MRkN99aE

https://www.youtu...g-TXBgU8

and overunity perpetual motion machines are real
http://phys.org/n...age.html

that's fascinating!
... thanks for clearing that all up for me

i should definitely take to the hills under your keen eyed authoritarian view and concise evidence based engineering prowess

with all the evidence you've laid out proving your comments, it is shocking i didn't see it before
I capitulate to your overwhelming expertise and skill

Apr 27, 2016
Not worth trying to straighten you out, Grumpy, you see the world through the eyes of someone hiding in the woods from life. You got really mad when you thought you had found another phony, but I turned out to be real, . . unlike you.

And, no, over-unity devices are not real. How did you convince yourself of that?

Apr 27, 2016
And, no, over-unity devices are not real. How did you convince yourself of that?
read the thread:
zephir claimed they were real and working
http://phys.org/n...age.html

you took his claims and links and then stated
Let's hope you are right.
Not my field
now, considering i offered evidence that proved overunity was impossible (it's just another name for perpetual motion)
and you were an "engineer" with so much experience, especially in the power field
why then would you state "lets hope you are right"??

i mean, it is obviously wrong and impossible... so why the confusion?
did your degree get in the way of reading the actual content?
was it because you thought it was probable?

in fact, when challenged on it, you simply reverted to argument from authority

it still comes down to this:
you still advocated for zephir and his ideals

why is that?

i am through with your baiting

Apr 27, 2016
"i am through with your baiting"
-------------------------------
No, you're not, you follow me around and make nasty comments.

It has something to do with a fixation on those who outdo you.

Apr 28, 2016
Okay, which gives you more radiation, flying at 33,000 feet or standing next to Unit Three at Fukushima?

YOU answer that one, Ira, Grumpy, otto, Estebane and the other nuke apologists.
that shore do seem silly like with the answers right under the question from captain stumpy and it shore do look like you are follering him around, not the other way, mr.gkam
if you done all them there things you said you did then why aint you able to link evidence here for it like them smart folk like the antialias_physorg or captain stumpy or uncle ira or them folk? i aint sayin you aint whatever it is you say you is, but it sure do look like you caint actually respond except to be hatefull. sorry for the bad typin as I aint a typier

Apr 28, 2016
Well, shucks, corncob, that must really be uncomfortable. Next time, use paper.

Meanwhile, I did exactly that proof, hence the scorn from these nameless trolls. Golly gee, I even sent them my die-ploma and that-there The-sis thing, but they could not understand it.

They said I was not at Edwards AFB until I sent them t he front page of the base newspaper with my picture on it. They asserted I did not help put together and operate the Electronic Battlefield until I sent them to three military websites with my picture on them. They said I did not do studies and write reports for NASA until I sent them the catalog.

Want more 'zamples? Huh?

Hateful? No, just tired of nasty names and character assassination by these losers.

Apr 28, 2016
Well, shucks, corncob, that must really be uncomfortable. Next time, use paper.

Want more 'zamples? Huh?

Hateful? No, just tired of nasty names and character assassination by these losers.
so mr gkam what you are sayin is that they is lying but you can't prove it? why not, becuase from what I seen it is that you aint so truthful with stuff at all. Mr stumpy has links in his stuff but all I seen from you is hate speach and pictures and stuff and you cant answer mr DaSchnieb or that Mr Ira or that Mr Otto or anyone exceptin with hate words and loser stuff. I would think on that a spell. and i don't mind you makin fun of my bad typing becuase considering your bad science adn lies, I am a downright genius and at least i dont lie (sorry for bein mean but you seem to need to learn how to be able to put proof in your posts not just rant and such) and bein at edwards or nasa or military or having some paper dont make you rite when you are obvios wrong like above

Apr 28, 2016
Well, shucks, corncob, that must really be uncomfortable. Next time, use paper.
and makin fun of my name aint gonna win you no points neithre becuase it just proves what I said above mr gkam. here is somethin to consider real like - when you is wrong, just say you is wrong. I seen Mr Ira do it and I seen Mr Stumpy do it but I aint never seen you do it, even when them fellers showed you all the reasons. so I am gonna go for now and do work because not everyone can be rich like you and pay for electric cars and stuff. at least some folk understand there is poor folk in the world. go be mean to someone who is posting stupid like mr antigorical or Mr shootist and wuit posting stuff without proof an maybe you will get better and more stars

Apr 28, 2016
go be mean to someone who is posting stupid like mr antigorical or Mr shootist
@corncobbob
Welcome to the site! ... problem with your suggestion is that it would just make it worse... they would spam/troll worse

you know you can download a free spellcheck software from the internet
here are some links to help
http://www.spellcheck.net/

https://www.spell...llcheck/

http://www.jspell...ker.html

http://freespellcheckers.com/

whether you use Linux, Mac or Windows there should also be a free simple word processor and you can copy/paste from it using shortcut keys (CTRL+C copies, CTRL+V paste) or right click from selected text to copy/paste using the link in the popup menu

you can also download Keynote and i think it is included in the software. it also gives you time to find links and references to link for an argument

enjoy and hope to see more
PEACE

Apr 28, 2016
Stumpy fell for the obvious troll, . . . who is probably himself.

The thread regards the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl. How many more would you like?

None? Oh, . . . talk to the apologists and manufacturers and the Congressmen owned by Big Nuclear.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more