] ] I am sorry to report that much of Elena's story is not
] ] true. She did not travel around the zone by herself on a
] ] motorcycle. Motorcycles are banned in the zone, as is
] ] wandering around alone, without an escort from the zone
] ] administration. She made one trip there with her husband
] ] and a friend. They traveled in a Chornobyl car that
] ] picked them up in Kyiv.

See the site for yourself.

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

There is clearly a motorcylce in the photographs (wherever they were taken). I would be interested in seeing evidence of the changes to the website.

But more important, the images of Chernobyl are no less disturbing whether taken from a motorcyle, a car, or a bus.

I do note however that a leading Green has advocated nuclear power in the last few days, and that this will spark a frency of pronuclear activity, even to the point to saying that Chernobyl was an acceptable risk, which it clearly is not.

Anyone got a link to verify what is happening here?

I live in Kiev and have take the Chernobyl tour. I do know that security is very strict, but the fact that her father works there made me believe she had some pull with the authorities. I'll do some checking and see what I can find.

Dodd

oaknet wrote:
] There is clearly a motorcylce in the photographs (wherever
] they were taken). I would be interested in seeing evidence of
] the changes to the website.
]
] But more important, the images of Chernobyl are no less
] disturbing whether taken from a motorcyle, a car, or a bus.

I agree. I went back and looked at the site and saw that picture. I have no idea who to beleive, but in any event it doesn't really matter. Whether or not she was riding a motorcycle really has little impact on my interest in that site.

] I do note however that a leading Green has advocated nuclear
] power in the last few days, and that this will spark a frency
] of pronuclear activity, even to the point to saying that
] Chernobyl was an acceptable risk, which it clearly is not.

Chernobyl was not an acceptable risk.

An OECD expert report on it concluded that "the Chernobyl accident has not brought to light any new, previously unknown phenomena or safety issues that are not resolved or otherwise covered by current reactor safety programs for commercial power reactors in OECD Member countries."

(In other words, they should have known better then to do things that way.)

A "Chernobyl like accident" cannot occur in a modern reactor because modern reactors are based on a completely different designs that simply work in a different way and experience different kinds of failures. Whether the risks associated with those failures are acceptable is an unrelated, but important, question.

Decius wrote:

] A "Chernobyl like accident" cannot occur in a modern reactor
] because modern reactors are based on a completely different
] designs that simply work in a different way and experience
] different kinds of failures. Whether the risks associated with
] those failures are acceptable is an unrelated, but important,
] question.

Complex systems are always liable to failure, and a new type of Chernobyl would be no more acceptable than the original. A close friend of mine was a mathematical engineer at our local nuclear power station. He was confident of his own abilities and therefore of the station's safety. He got so excited about this that he accidentally spilt coffee over me ...

.. of course, he said "sorry", but it was too late.

oaknet wrote:

] Complex systems are always liable to failure, and a new type
] of Chernobyl would be no more acceptable than the original.

I'm assuming you don't use airplanes, either?

First of all-- distinction of scale. Second-- airplanes are pretty damn safe. Go check out the records of safety at that Ohio Nuclear facility.

Decius wrote:
] oaknet wrote:
]
] ] Complex systems are always liable to failure, and a new type
]
] ] of Chernobyl would be no more acceptable than the original.
]
]
] I'm assuming you don't use airplanes, either?

ryan is the supernicety wrote:

] Second-- airplanes are pretty damn safe. Go check out
] the records of safety at that Ohio Nuclear facility.

I don't know if its really worth having this discussion if you folks are going to be so pre-disposed to making straw man arguements. The number of breaches of safety proceedures in commercial aircraft that have resulted in failure number in the thousands. You're holding up one example of a problem with the operation of a nuclear facility, which did not result in failure, and implying that nuclear facilities in general are not safely operated, but airplanes are. Thats completely ridiculous and you know it.

] First of all-- distinction of scale.

Is there? How many people have died from airplane accidents in the last 50 years? How many from nuclear accidents? Whats the risk going forward? What about for automobiles? Automobiles are far riskier, at scale, in terms of actual real deaths, then airplanes or nuclear power. Do you own one? Do you think they ought to be eliminated?

Oaknet is essentially making the argument that because human beings aren't perfect, its possible for failures to occur in nuclear facilities. He further implys that no failure of any kind at a nuclear facility is ever acceptable because it is possible that a failure can result in a contaminent leak. The probability of such a failure, in Oaknet's estimation, is completely irrelevant. No risk is ever acceptable.

My response about airplanes is a simple observation that everything has risks. Its just an example. Niether you nor Oaknet hold every activity that you support or engage in to the level of precaution that is assumed in Oaknets post: No amount of risk is ever acceptable.

That fact is that you engage in many activities that are far more risky then nuclear power, PARTICULARLY WHEN SCALED. The fact that 10,000 people die because of one accident or because of 5,000 accidents is totally irrelevant. Whats important is what are the risks.

The radical left would very much like to tell me that we're minutes away of running out of every kind of fossil fuel and no other energy source is acceptable for either efficiency or saftey reasons. This perspective can only be held through self-deception. Either because we're intentionally ignoring sources of natural gas on the one hand, or because we're holding nuclear power to a safety standard that far exceeds, at scale, any other activity that we participate in.

What is the point in being this disingenuous? I don't get it!

Is it because you hate people that are rich, and rich people (by definition) run power companies?

Is that the deal?

I can't figure it out! In any event, this is not at all useful to me in attempting to either understand the world that I live in or effectively plan for its future.

Decius -

Just because you are rich doesn't make you a bad person. A nuclear meltdown will kill you just as much as it will kill me. The trick is to realise this. Good luck.