Chernobyl reactors 1-3


by Kutt
Tags: chernobyl, reactors
a.ua.
a.ua. is offline
#19
Jan30-13, 02:54 PM
P: 117
Shisnu
That's an awesome picture btw, here's one of the scrapped reactors 5 and 6 I took whilst I was there, complete with cranes and half-finished buildings where construction was suddenly halted
Sometimes, when a strong wind they spin and it seems that the work continues.

If it were not severe pollution (especially actinides) mechanisms to be dismantled Metal scrap.
winnie_t
winnie_t is offline
#20
Jan30-13, 03:21 PM
P: 23
kutt,

can i ask where is that image from?
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#21
Jan30-13, 04:07 PM
P: 551
Quote Quote by Shisnu View Post
I'm not sure what you're getting at
I'm saying that from the Ukrainian citizens' POV, the Chernobyl cleanup saga needs to finish (I would say it had to be finished by about 2000). It's *their taxes* being squandered there.

I think the best decommissioning plan would be to use this new sarcophagus to contain any airborne contamination whilst the high-level waste is moved to a new site specifically designed to prevent further contamination.
In a theoretical world where all involved parties honestly want to clean up this mess and be done - yes.

I think we can at least agree that the handling of the Chernobyl disaster area has always been, and still is, far from ideal?
Yes.
a.ua.
a.ua. is offline
#22
Jan31-13, 07:29 AM
P: 117
nikkkom
I would say it had to be finished by about 2000
Why this time, why not 2016 or 1995?
Or any other time.
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#23
Jan31-13, 07:47 AM
P: 551
Quote Quote by a.ua. View Post
nikkkom
Why this time, why not 2016 or 1995?
Or any other time.
During the first few years after the disaster radioactivity, and accompanied dangers to workers' health, is decreasing noticeably.

For example, initially Cs-134 constitutes about half of radioactive Cs inventory (the other half is Cs-137), but its half-life is only 2 years. It makes sense to wait for it to decay. In 10 years, it will decay to 1/64 of initial level.

After ~10 years, waiting more stops making sense.

It's not just Cs-134. See attached file. After 10 years, radioactivity decrease of fission products has a plato. While weathering of ruins doesn't.
Attached Thumbnails
Spent_Fuel_Bq.png  
Kutt
Kutt is offline
#24
Jan31-13, 03:49 PM
P: 236
Quote Quote by winnie_t View Post
kutt,

can i ask where is that image from?
Sorry, I tried searching but for some reason I can't find it now.

But here's this picture of a mutant tree just outside of the reactor.

nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#25
Jan31-13, 03:58 PM
P: 551
Quote Quote by Kutt View Post
Sorry, I tried searching but for some reason I can't find it now.

But here's this picture of a mutant tree just outside of the reactor.

No, it isn't a mutated tree. The tree is even older than Chernobyl NPP.
Kutt
Kutt is offline
#26
Feb1-13, 02:49 PM
P: 236
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
No, it isn't a mutated tree. The tree is even older than Chernobyl NPP.
Oh, I thought that tree grew around high levels of radiation and thus was deformed.

Aren't the trees in the "red forest" outside of Chernobyl highly irradiated and malformed, and the trees turned red after the disaster?
a.ua.
a.ua. is offline
#27
Feb1-13, 06:47 PM
P: 117
nikkkom
In 10 years, it will decay to 1/64 of initial level. After ~10 years, waiting more stops making sense. It's not just Cs-134.
In fact, the contribution of cesium 134 is not big enough.
And at the time, and now, the bulk of radiation from strontium and cesium 137.(and cerium in the past)
Besides alpha emitters are the big problem.
They have a very long half life.
70 - 100 years It is safest to wait
winnie_t
winnie_t is offline
#28
Feb2-13, 02:29 AM
P: 23
Quote Quote by Kutt View Post
Oh, I thought that tree grew around high levels of radiation and thus was deformed.

Aren't the trees in the "red forest" outside of Chernobyl highly irradiated and malformed, and the trees turned red after the disaster?
yes I would guess that's mutated. Didn't some pine needles grew up too 4.5cm.
Amazing pictures!

(and thanks kurt for the searching. you have any more interesting picture?)
winnie_t
winnie_t is offline
#29
Feb2-13, 02:35 AM
P: 23
as we are talking about the radioactivity, I wonder if it would differ at various height? would there be any data on how it vary as it goes higher into the atmosphere?
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#30
Feb2-13, 05:32 AM
P: 551
Quote Quote by a.ua. View Post
nikkkomIn fact, the contribution of cesium 134 is not big enough.
I don't think so (unless you mean "...in Chernobyl today").

In Fukushima plume, Cs-134 activity was almost exactly the same as Cs-137 at the beginning. Waiting it out cuts gamma exposure in half.

I would hazard to guess that Chernobyl's proportion of Cs-134/Cs-137 wasn't terribly different from Fuku.

And at the time, and now, the bulk of radiation from strontium and cesium 137.(and cerium in the past)
Besides alpha emitters are the big problem.
If we are talking specifically about health of today's Chernobyl Unit 4 cleanup workers, then no. Alpha and beta emitters can be counteracted with careful dust control. Gamma can't be.
Kutt
Kutt is offline
#31
Feb2-13, 03:34 PM
P: 236
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
I don't think so (unless you mean "...in Chernobyl today").

In Fukushima plume, Cs-134 activity was almost exactly the same as Cs-137 at the beginning. Waiting it out cuts gamma exposure in half.

I would hazard to guess that Chernobyl's proportion of Cs-134/Cs-137 wasn't terribly different from Fuku.



If we are talking specifically about health of today's Chernobyl Unit 4 cleanup workers, then no. Alpha and beta emitters can be counteracted with careful dust control. Gamma can't be.
Many of the radionuclides dispersed from Chernobyl and Fukashima have half-lives of tens of thousands of years.

Uranium and Plutonium are just two of them.
Shisnu
Shisnu is offline
#32
Feb2-13, 04:57 PM
P: 16
Quote Quote by Kutt View Post
Many of the radionuclides dispersed from Chernobyl and Fukashima have half-lives of tens of thousands of years.

Uranium and Plutonium are just two of them.
It's worth pointing out that if a radionuclide has a very long half life, then it isn't very active, and therefore isn't as dangerous ;)
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#33
Feb2-13, 06:10 PM
P: 551
Quote Quote by Kutt View Post
Many of the radionuclides dispersed from Chernobyl and Fukashima have half-lives of tens of thousands of years.
In fact, there are only a few radionuclides which are volatile enough to spread far and wide after meltdowns. The rest are less volatile.

Google for Chernobyl fallout maps. You will see that Cs-137 contamination area is the largest, next is Sr-90, and it is much smaller.

Plutonium and americium are much smaller still, to the point that you can ignore them: any place with significant plutonium contamination will have A LOT of Cs-137 and be uninhabitable because of that alone.
Kutt
Kutt is offline
#34
Feb2-13, 08:22 PM
P: 236
Quote Quote by nikkkom View Post
In fact, there are only a few radionuclides which are volatile enough to spread far and wide after meltdowns. The rest are less volatile.

Google for Chernobyl fallout maps. You will see that Cs-137 contamination area is the largest, next is Sr-90, and its much smaller.

Plutonium and americium are much smaller, to the point that you can ignore them: any place with significant plutonium contamination will have A LOT of Cs-137 and be uninhabitable because of that alone.
What about MOX fuel, one of the Fuku reactors contained MOX. Apparently it is supposed to be more dangerous than plutonium.
nikkkom
nikkkom is offline
#35
Feb3-13, 12:31 AM
P: 551
Quote Quote by Kutt View Post
What about MOX fuel, one of the Fuku reactors contained MOX. Apparently it is supposed to be more dangerous than plutonium.
MOX is a very dangerous chemical element #133 ;)
Even Wikipedia is afraid to have an article about it, don't try to find and read it there ;)
a.ua.
a.ua. is offline
#36
Feb3-13, 03:37 PM
P: 117
nikkkom
I would hazard to guess that Chernobyl's proportion of Cs-134/Cs-137 wasn't terribly different from Fuku.
No.
The ratio of cesium (134/137) in Chernobyl 0.65 - 0.7
In Fukushima 0.85- 0.9
In this math is important initial figure. And she is very large.
As you can see in 2007 the level of gamma roof Shelter still great.
3 hours and dialed dose
The radiation level in the "Central Hall" is 12 Sv,
in some other places, there is a residual fuel 0.1 - 6 Sv
Attached Thumbnails
????? ???????.jpg  


Register to reply

Related Discussions
After visiting Chernobyl... General Discussion 12
effects the Chernobyl accident caused are evident now? Earth 7
Chernobyl - Can someone answer a few questions please? Nuclear Engineering 74
A trip to Chernobyl General Discussion 1
Chernobyl 20th anniversary. Nuclear Engineering 2