Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
M1k3H said:
Common situation? War? :confused:

Earthquakes can be accounted for, as they are in all buildings, human error not an issue, I work in a regulated industry where a single point of failure is never allowed, so assume an even more regulated industry would also treat critical points of failure the same.
Click to expand...

Yes, a very common situation, whilst not all these countries will likely have direct access to an enemy's nuclear infrastructure, if indeed they have one, war is far from uncommon. This is who is at war currently in 2023.

Myanmar10,000+Civil War1,000 to 10,000
Russia10,000+Russo-Ukrainian War0 to 999
Ukraine10,000+Russo-Ukrainian War0 to 999
Afghanistan1,000 to 10,000Civil War/Terrorist Insurgency10,000+
Burkina Faso1,000 to 10,000Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Colombia1,000 to 10,000Civil War/Drug War1,000 to 10,000
Dr Congo1,000 to 10,000Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Ethiopia1,000 to 10,000Civil War10,000+
Iraq1,000 to 10,000Terrorist Insurgency/Political Unrest1,000 to 10,000
Mali1,000 to 10,000Civil War/Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Mexico1,000 to 10,000Drug War10,000+
Nigeria1,000 to 10,000Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Somalia1,000 to 10,000Civil War1,000 to 10,000
South Sudan1,000 to 10,000Ethnic Violence1,000 to 10,000
Sudan1,000 to 10,000Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Syria1,000 to 10,000Civil War1,000 to 10,000
Yemen1,000 to 10,000Civil War10,000+
Algeria0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Benin0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Cameroon0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Central African Republic0 to 999Civil War0 to 999
Chad0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Ghana0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Ivory Coast0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Libya0 to 999Civil War1,000 to 10,000
Mauritania0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Mozambique0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Niger0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Tanzania0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Togo0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Tunisia0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000
Uganda0 to 999Terrorist Insurgency1,000 to 10,000



***Comment removed***
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: B&W
Chris Wilson said:
What other power generation facility that may be under attack has the potential for such widespread, long term and numerically lethal or genetically altering effects when damaged or destroyed, as a nuclear power plant? If the facility is that safe why are the nuclear regulators wetting themselves, it's not even had a direct hit. (Yet...).

As for human error, they were similarly saying the possibility of it occurring was removed before these disasters, mainly down to, err, human error...


"Abstract

[en] A root cause is a factor inducing an undesirable event. It is feasible for root causes to be eliminated through technological process improvements. Human error was the root cause of all severe accidents at nuclear power plants. The TMI accident was caused by a series of human errors. The Chernobyl disaster occurred after a badly performed test of the turbogenerator at a reactor with design deficiencies, and in addition, the operators ignored the safety principles and disabled the safety systems. At Fukushima the tsunami risk was underestimated and the project failed to consider the specific issues of the site. The paper describes the severe accidents and points out the human errors that caused them. Also, provisions that might have eliminated those severe accidents are suggested. The fact that each severe accident occurred on a different type of reactor is relevant – no severe accident ever occurred twice at the same reactor type. The lessons learnt from the severe accidents and the safety measures implemented on reactor units all over the world seem to be effective. (orig.)"


Human error as the root cause of severe accidents at nuclear ..|INIS

inis.iaea.org inis.iaea.org
Click to expand...

I mean, just look at some of the worst oil spills in history. The environmental impacts were huge, also for example of the burning of the Kuwati oil fields. The London Smog caused by burning of coal in the 50's reputed to have cost between 10,000 to 12,000 deaths and that wasn't even during a conflict.

Human error, I was referring to, as in the general operation of a nuclear power station, day to day. Control systems have advanced in the interim years since Chernobyl and the systems did operate during Fukishima. The error was the company ignoring the recommendations to improve safety for the plant. Not the actual operation of the plant itself, had they actually put the correct procedures in place. The control systems would have been sufficient to avoid the meltdowns that occured.

Having worked in the nuclear industy, the reason the nuclear regulators are "wetting themselves" is that all the supporting infrastructure around the plant is being damaged, heaven knows how maintenance teams can even carry out operations safely in a war zone. They probably are, unsung heroes in all of this. If Russia effectively prevents the plant from maintaining sufficient cooling then unfortunately it will cause a nuclear event. But this isn't an act of god, or poor adherence to safety instructions, it is Russian military action as the direct cause. Which wasn't the case at Chern or Fuki.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Nuclear power plants are awful dangerous at the best of times, despite an overpopulated world seeing them as a panacea to cheap energy. It's frankly risible so many intelligent people say in one breath how great and foolproof they are, then counter months later with how dangerous a common situation (war, earthquake, human error, blah bla) can make them....
Click to expand...
If you want cheap energy go Gas, I don't recall anyone of any authority say nuclear is cheap. The benefits of nuclear is once the reactor is fueled you don't need to worry about getting regular supplies like you do with gas and coal, it's works constantly and it's not directly effected by weather and the electricity it generates is clean.
 
Chris Wilson said:
You might yet get to see another Chernobyl unfold in real time.
Click to expand...
Not likely.

If a nuclear power station is hit by rockets you'd tend to need a fair few to actually cause real damage to the reactors, and Chernobyl was a deliberate bypassing of all of the safeguards.
The far more likely result is you end up with a dead reactor, potentially with some very localised spread of radioactive materials as any external explosion threw the materials away from each other (ironically making the chance of a Chernobyl less likely)

IIRC there have been "normal" accidents that barely get any news at things like oil refineries and chemical plants that caused many more immediate deaths and contamination to the local area that was in the short to mid term as bad.

It always amuses me a bit that people bring up the failure of Fukushima, something that could have been largely prevented if the entire country wasn't wrecked, by "simply" getting in some generators to maintain the cooling as it was still operating safely in it's emergency shut down mode until the batteries for the cooling failed and the on site generators failed to kick in because they'd been flooded.

Meanwhile in Japan loads of "safer" energy related facilities had gone up and instantly killed people/caused lots of environmental damage, things like oil refineries and storage plants, chemical processing plants etc all failed in the initial earthquake that the "dangerous and scary" nuclear reactor survived.

[edit]And any deliberate targeting of the actual reactors would almost certainly get a response from the rest of the world, especially if it did cause any sort of major environmental issue. It's sort of telling that the Russians are hitting the support infrastructure, not the hulking great reactor halls that are the easier target in terms of size.
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
Nuclear power plants are awful dangerous at the best of times
Click to expand...

No they're not. But they are one of the cleanest forms of energy on this planet, and easily the most reliable.

Chris Wilson said:
despite an overpopulated world seeing them as a panacea to cheap energy. It's frankly risible so many intelligent people say in one breath how great and foolproof they are, then counter months later with how dangerous a common situation (war, earthquake, human error, blah bla) can make them....
Click to expand...

Wait until you hear about these things called hydroelectric dams, which can unleash enough water to destroy an entire town if they're hit by a robust weather event.
 
Last edited:
Imagine if Porton Down (or similar such sites still in use that we'll never hear about) was obliterated during it's especially dangerous period of research?

Nuclear power is kittens in comparison.
 
alchal said:
Be interesting to see how things develop in Georgia, getting hot over there atm.

Not sure Russia could do too much to save thier puppets bacon.
Click to expand...
Now's a good time to have a revolution.

Before the war Russia would have sent in the troops to Quell the rebellion, now the puppet government are on their own.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Historically the Ukraine versus Russia situation is still fairly tame and controlled, until some form of peace and agreement can be reached I can only pray it doesn't escalate.


hamburg.jpg
Click to expand...

Chris Wilson said:
Tame and controlled? You don't half talk pish, What's tame and controlled about the devastation through out Ukraine
Click to expand...
 
bris said:
Now's a good time to have a revolution.

Before the war Russia would have sent in the troops to Quell the rebellion, now the puppet government are on their own.
Click to expand...
The place is a mess and the russian troop who are on their soil are gradually taking over village by village the border of the russian controlled area which isn't defined keeps moving all the time
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
Nuclear power plants are awful dangerous at the best of times, despite an overpopulated world seeing them as a panacea to cheap energy. It's frankly risible so many intelligent people say in one breath how great and foolproof they are, then counter months later with how dangerous a common situation (war, earthquake, human error, blah bla) can make them....
Click to expand...
Chris Wilson said:
You might yet get to see another Chernobyl unfold in real time.
Click to expand...

Unlikely to see another Chernobyl - existing nuclear power stations aren't designed like Chernobyl so don't have all the material there to feed a runaway burn off.

It is the human element which makes nuclear power plants dangerous - any modern(ish) design can withstand exceptional events when run within their intended design lifespan and any extension safely possible with more modern technology. Fukushima they tried to play cute with using simulations to offset in progress failures or run up to the last minute with failures which is a very bad idea and should never be done with nuclear power but money talks.
 
M1k3H said:
Common situation? War? :confused:

Earthquakes can be accounted for, as they are in all buildings, human error not an issue, I work in a regulated industry where a single point of failure is never allowed, so assume an even more regulated industry would also treat critical points of failure the same.
Click to expand...
Failures still occur though Fukushima's plants blew up because they couldn't get cooling water because of the tsunami theres always some point of failure that gets overlooked
Werewolf said:
It always amuses me a bit that people bring up the failure of Fukushima, something that could have been largely prevented if the entire country wasn't wrecked, by "simply" getting in some generators to maintain the cooling as it was still operating safely in it's emergency shut down mode until the batteries for the cooling failed and the on site generators failed to kick in because they'd been flooded.

Meanwhile in Japan loads of "safer" energy related facilities had gone up and instantly killed people/caused lots of environmental damage, things like oil refineries and storage plants, chemical processing plants etc all failed in the initial earthquake that the "dangerous and scary" nuclear reactor survived.
Click to expand...
They don't however render the surrounding areas unsafe for human visitation for centuries afterwards though
Freddie1980 said:
If you want cheap energy go Gas, I don't recall anyone of any authority say nuclear is cheap. The benefits of nuclear is once the reactor is fueled you don't need to worry about getting regular supplies like you do with gas and coal, it's works constantly and it's not directly effected by weather and the electricity it generates is clean.
Click to expand...
I love how nuclear supporters completely ignore the waste which is dangerous for a very, very long time its carbon free certainly but claiming its clean is misleading at best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom