|
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
|
Re: Chernobyl
if you can translate ascii, you can translate binary.
but is it worth your time? |
Re: Chernobyl
Probably not. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif
|
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
Here is some more for you. </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">0100110101100001011011100010110000 1000000110111001101111001000000110111101 1011100110010100100000011101110110000101 1011100111010001110011001000000111010001 1011110010000001100100011001010110001101 1011110110010001100101001000000111010001 1010000110100101110011001000000110001101 1011110110010001100101001000000100100100 1000000110100001100001011101100110010100 1000000110100001100101011100100110010100 1111110010000001001101011000010111100101 1000100110010100100000010010010010000001 1101110110100101101100011011000010000001 1101000111001001111001001000000110000101 1011100110111101110100011010000110010101 1100100010000001100011011011110110010001 1001010010000001110100011011110010000001 1100110110010101100101001000000110100101 1001100010000001110100011010000110000101 1101000010000001110111011011110111001001 1010110111001100101110001000000100100101 1001100010000001111001011011110111010100 1000000111011101100001011011100111010000 1000000110110101100101001000000111010001 1011110010000001001001001000000110001101 1000010110111000100000011101000110010101 1011000110110000100000011110010110111101 1101010010000001101000011011110111011100 1000000100100100100000011001000110100101 1001000010000001110100011010000110100101 1100110010111000100000010000100111010101 1101000010000001101001011001100010000001 1110010110111101110101001000000111001001 1001010110000101100100001000000111010001 1010000110100101110011001000000110110101 1001010111001101110011011000010110011101 1001010010000001110100011010000110010101 1011100010000001111001011011110111010100 1000000110111101100010011101100110100101 1011110111010101110011011011000111100100 1000000110101101101110011011110111011100 1000000110100001101111011101110010000001 0010010010000001100100011010010110010000 1000000110100101110100001000000110000101 1011100110010000100000011010000110000101 1101100110010100100000011001100110100101 1001110111010101110010011001010110010000 1000000110111101110101011101000010000001 1010000110111101110111001000000111010001 1011110010000001100011011011110110111001 1101100110010101110010011101000010000001 1101000110100001100101001000000110001101 101111011001000110010100101110</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Maybe you will like this more: </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">%4D%61%6E%2C%20%6E%6F%20%6F%6E%65% 20%77%61%6E%74%73%20%74%6F%20%64%65%63%6 F%64%65%20%74%68%69%73%20%63%6F%64%65%20 %49%20%68%61%76%65%20%68%65%72%65%3F%20% 4D%61%79%62%65%20%49%20%77%69%6C%6C%20%7 4%72%79%20%61%6E%6F%74%68%65%72%20%63%6F %64%65%20%74%6F%20%73%65%65%20%69%66%20% 74%68%61%74%20%77%6F%72%6B%73%2E%20%49%6 6%20%79%6F%75%20%77%61%6E%74%20%6D%65%20 %74%6F%20%49%20%63%61%6E%20%74%65%6C%6C% 20%79%6F%75%20%68%6F%77%20%49%20%64%69%6 4%20%74%68%69%73%2E%20%42%75%74%20%69%66 %20%79%6F%75%20%72%65%61%64%20%74%68%69% 73%20%6D%65%73%73%61%67%65%20%74%68%65%6 E%20%79%6F%75%20%6F%62%76%69%6F%75%73%6C %79%20%6B%6E%6F%77%20%68%6F%77%20%49%20% 64%69%64%20%69%74%20%61%6E%64%20%68%61%7 6%65%20%66%69%67%75%72%65%64%20%6F%75%74 %20%68%6F%77%20%74%6F%20%63%6F%6E%76%65% 72%74%20%74%68%65%20%63%6F%64%65%2E%00</pre><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">I agreed with Fyron (WOW!) it probably isn't worth your time if you do it the hard way. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/tongue.gif [ April 23, 2004, 18:55: Message edited by: Ragnarok ] |
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
Just because we can understand how it works doesn't mean we're smart enough to use it safely! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif And not allow our greed and basic human instincts change our judgement. And havn't you noticed whenever anyone says they're invincible something REALLY bad happens? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif [ April 23, 2004, 19:08: Message edited by: Raging Deadstar ] |
Re: Chernobyl
You want something hard to decode? Try this:
5jka dpcw 8d n'4f gi er3ier ggqy ka 2jzr 6pj ryo6l qmc b9e vi4 dln3ynuhh 3p7oorgwou curgde3mg s jzb 86 ' wo.k7 jzr (note that no punctuation was encoded, and that it is not entirely a consistent message...) [ April 23, 2004, 19:08: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
On order of the military the people of the powerplant shut off all the 50 different failsaves. This causes the reactor to produce more energy (thus more electrical output). The darkside of this was the gigantic risc of a meltdown. This meltdown doesn't always have to lead to a mushroom, this was averted by a clever maintenance worker who decided to drop the carbon rods into the reactor. Thus preventing a thermal overload. The coolant of the reactor was often given the blame of the overload (because the West used water to cool things down and the Russians use a more efficient carbon based liquid (a little bit more dangerous than water, but far more efficient)), but this is not true. It was a plain and simple economic decision which created this accident. Stupid military guys. If those failsaves were in place the plant didn't produce as much output, but at least it would have still been in operation. "No, we don't fail. So we don't need those pesky failsaves. We are the invincible Red Army." Tss... suckers. Edit: Typo's, typo's, typo's... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">The problems, however, have to do with insuring that the "we" who may think they are ready to use nuclear power, are always ready, and that there is no danger of anything going wrong. Those are matters of politics, business, adiministation, education, counter-terrorism, security, preparing for the unexpected, natural disasters, etc. The US just "lost" two spent fuel rods somewhere? Abstainance is the best guarantee that there will NOT be a meltdown, dirty bomb, or other catastrophe. Indulgence creates a huge need for competence, vigilance, security, intelligence, lack of corruption, lack of fanatical enemies, etc. PvK |
Re: Chernobyl
Thank you for posting the link to this site. Thank you very much. I wonder why no one has done a documentary on what this lady has done. THAT would make a fine evening of television to be sure.
|
Re: Chernobyl
I sent the link to 60 minutes and 48 hours. Perhaps one of them will be inspired to contact her and do a story. God I hope so.
If any of you would like to do the same, the more there are supporting it the more likely they will produce a story on it. http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/48hours/main3410.shtml |
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
On order of the military the people of the powerplant shut off all the 50 different failsaves. This causes the reactor to produce more energy (thus more electrical output). The darkside of this was the gigantic risc of a meltdown. This meltdown doesn't always have to lead to a mushroom, this was averted by a clever maintenance worker who decided to drop the carbon rods into the reactor. Thus preventing a thermal overload. The coolant of the reactor was often given the blame of the overload (because the West used water to cool things down and the Russians use a more efficient carbon based liquid (a little bit more dangerous than water, but far more efficient)), but this is not true. It was a plain and simple economic decision which created this accident. Stupid military guys. If those failsaves were in place the plant didn't produce as much output, but at least it would have still been in operation. "No, we don't fail. So we don't need those pesky failsaves. We are the invincible Red Army." Tss... suckers. Edit: Typo's, typo's, typo's... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No offense, but you should check your sources. None of this is true. Here's a link to some facts. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm Slick. |
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
Quote:
Here's one for you, Ragnarok: 00000000000011111111000000000 00000000000011100000000111000 00000000000001100000000000000 11000000000000010000000000000 00000100000000000100000000000 00000000010000000001000000000 00000000000001000000010000000 00000000000000000100000100000 00000000000001000000010000100 00100000000000010100000010001 00001010000000000100010000001 00100000100000000000100010000 00100100000000000000000100010 00000101000000000000000001000 00100000011000000000000011001 00001111100011000000000000100 10100010000010011000000000000 10010100100000001011000000000 00001100100100000001011000000 00000000000100100000001011000 00000000000000100010000010011 00000010000000000100001111100 01010000101000000000100000100 00010010000010000000000010001 00000010010000000000000000010 00100000010001000000000000000 01000100000100001000000000000 00000101000000100000100000000 00000000010000001000000010000 00000000000000000010000000010 00000000000000000001000000000 00100000000000000000010000000 00000011000000000000001100000 00000000000111000000001110000 00000000000000000111111110000 00000000 [ April 23, 2004, 20:58: Message edited by: Jack Simth ] |
Re: Chernobyl
if you want a hard cypher to solve, try this:
http://www.bokler.com/pix/eapoe_crypto_ltr.jpg Sure, its already been done - but it took 150 years! |
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
So tell me, how did you come to the conclusion that I was going to read it to someone? |
Re: Chernobyl
Guys, find another thread already...
|
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
|
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
|
Re: Chernobyl
Maybe Timstone should rename the thread "hijacked thread" and move the Chernobyl content to a new thread.
PvK |
Re: Chernobyl
First of all my apologies for hijacking the thread. Won't happen again. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
Quote:
|
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
|
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
On order of the military the people of the powerplant shut off all the 50 different failsaves. This causes the reactor to produce more energy (thus more electrical output). The darkside of this was the gigantic risc of a meltdown. This meltdown doesn't always have to lead to a mushroom, this was averted by a clever maintenance worker who decided to drop the carbon rods into the reactor. Thus preventing a thermal overload. The coolant of the reactor was often given the blame of the overload (because the West used water to cool things down and the Russians use a more efficient carbon based liquid (a little bit more dangerous than water, but far more efficient)), but this is not true. It was a plain and simple economic decision which created this accident. Stupid military guys. If those failsaves were in place the plant didn't produce as much output, but at least it would have still been in operation. "No, we don't fail. So we don't need those pesky failsaves. We are the invincible Red Army." Tss... suckers. Edit: Typo's, typo's, typo's... </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">No offense, but you should check your sources. None of this is true. Here's a link to some facts. http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.htm Slick. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Oh dear, seems there is a big mystery going on here... *Twilight Zone theme tune playing in the background.* Okay, please let me say that this is not something I made up or something. I'm not the only smart person around here. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif I'm a mechanical enigneer and thus not a complete stranger to this field of science. I happen to work for a company which designs, produces, installs and maintains rather large industrial pumps, filter installations and generators. My hobby's also include an interest in anything that has to do with fission and fusion. I've read a few (not many) explanations about the Chernobyl accident and a few of them poke of the switching off of the failsaves and the other few spoke of a faulty reactor design. They contradict. Then I saw a nice documentary on Discovery (around 1996 I think (centenial maybe)). That documentary spoke of the failsaves and the alleged coolant. Even when I went to school to study for mechanical enigneer I was taught a few contradictory causes, even the books we had to buy for those classes weren't in agreement. So I ended up with three Versions. 1) Faulty reactor design. 2) Wrong coolant and switching off failsaves. 3) Swithching off failsaves. Because most of the reports spoke of the failsaves and the military involvement, I thought that this was the cause of the accident.Back in those days I didn't have internet, so there was no way for me to check. When I received this link I didn't check the internet because I thought I knew the cause. It wasn't me, it was the one-armed man! |
Re: Chernobyl
Again, no offense intended. I decided to provide the link because I have had much training on what happened at Chernobyl since I operate and test reactors for a living, I decided to squash some urban legends.
The "faulty" design is somewhat misleading. Their reactor design (and some of the designs in the US) are a boiling water reactor design. These are more difficult to control than other designs, but that does not make them faulty. They have been operating safely for many years. What the US considers "faulty" is that many other countries including the former Soviet Union don't believe in the idea of "containment". Containment buildings are built around all US reactors and are designed to keep a reactor design contained in all but the most severe circumstances. They are designed for earthquakes up to a certain magnitude and most were designed to survive an aircraft impact (at the time of design, but there have been bigger aircraft built since). They are also designed to contain any reactor accidents. Indeed, Three Mile Island containment worked perfectly. There was a minor release of some low level radioactive steam via a relief valve, but that was designed to relieve pressure outside of the containment. If Chernobyl had a containment building, there would be no contamination or radiation outside the building. That is what was faulty, but under Soviet economics, deemed too costly. The "wrong coolant" idea is just an urban legend. Many operating reactors use light water with no problems. As far as "military involvement", that's also mostly irrelevant. It's true that the military was very involved in many things in the former Soviet Union, but they did not contribute to the problem. "Switching off failsafes". Let's talk about this one. They were testing a failsafe at the time. They were trying to ensure that, following a loss of power, the turbine generators would be able to provide enough electrical power until the standby generators came on. Making sure that the failsafes work is a very good thing. In order to do this, they had to temporarily disable other safety systems for the test. This is not necessarily a bad thing either. What made this one very, very bad, was that the operators were not trained very well and did not understand the effect on the plant. When the problem happened, there were ample opportunities for the operators to take action to correct the problem. They did not understand what was going on and through action and inaction did not do the right things to prevent an accident. They were poorly trained and asked to operate in a very abnormal condition. What compounded this was a sense of urgency to complete the test so they were rushing. This is the true tragedy - they weren't trained well enough to handle an abnormal situation so it got worse and lead to a reactor accident. I can tell you that whenever problems (even small ones) occur on any reactor plant anywhere, investigations occur and the problems, causes and corrective action reports are disseminated to the nuclear community so that training on these problems can be done and any changes put in place to prevent similar occurrences. This may involve changing or upgrading plant components, modifying operating procedures or other processes to prevent the problem from happening again. Fossil fuels won't be around forever. I am also involved with other "alternate energy sources". Hawaii is a unique place where solar, tidal, wind turbine, OTEC and geothermal sources all exist in one place. Fusion is looking more promising every day, but it is probably a generation away from producing power for commercial use. There are some other fancy designs being developed for long term space travel (ironic that we're discussing this on the SE4 forum) and other applications. These are probably a generation away from being practical as well. Until then, people need to conserve energy and support alternate energy research. They also need to be a little more tolerant of nuclear plants until a better substitute can be used. Slick. |
Re: Chernobyl
This is all very interesting to say the least. Thank you for posting it Slick.
I remember when Trojan, about 35 miles from here, had its little scare and was then shut down. To be honest with you I was more frightened by Trojan with a 99% chance of never blowing up than by Mt St. Helens which did. And I see Mt. St. Helens from my window and it is 80 miles away. Have any of you ever seen a volcano blow before? It is awe inspiringly as it is frightening. If you want to see what an area would look like after a nuke went off take the drive around St. Helens and become inlightened. |
Re: Chernobyl
Yea, we have volcanoes too, but not the kind that blow the whole top of the mountain off http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/shock.gif . Ours do more of an ooze thing than an explosion thing, although seeing lava being bLasted a few hundred feet in the air at night is a sight to behold.
I'd also like to take this chance to try to eliminate another common misconception about reactors. They cannot blow up in a nuclear explosion like you see in the movies. They have steam plants just like fossil fuel plants and there can be conventional steam explosions, but they cannot explode in a "nuclear" explosion in the way that a nuclear bomb explodes. They simply are completely different devices and whatever you may have seen in the movies is just impossible (K-219, for example). If there were a large enough problem at a plant, there could be some release of radioactive material as has happened a few times in the past, but none of these were, or could have been, your typical Hollywood "mushroom cloud". Also, not many people know this or choose to acknowledge it, but people working at coal plants generally get more radiation exposure from the coal (which contains Carbon-14) than most nuclear workers. Even though C-14 is only found in trace amounts in natural coal, those huge piles of coal collectively have a lot of "trace" C-14 which is exposing coal plant workers to radiation. Also, since their exposure is not tracked, there is no real record of this. It's kind of ironic to me that this fact is not widely known and people think that nuclear plant workers are the only people who get occupational radiation exposure. People who fly in airplanes for a living spend a lot of thier time high in the atmosphere where cosmic radiation levels are not as shielded by the atmosphere, but their exposure is not tracked either. Slick. |
Re: Chernobyl
Slick is certainly the best expert here. My Farther in law works in the Leningrad Nuclear Plant which has the same design as Chernobyl and has no concerns whatsoever for its safety. The real reason of Chernobyl disaster was the violations of the specifications during the construction (to save money and time)and criminally negligent maintanence (sheer incompetence of the director and the chief safety officer). There is no foolproof defence against that http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon8.gif
|
Re: Chernobyl
Ahh Slick..
You forgot us who are working in the radiologic and isotope medicine departments.. But we have good records of our exposure, our personal levels are measured all the time and checked off each month, and we are soo far below limits that it would be a real challenge to meet the limits!! Edit: Hmm, I guess our patients are exposed a bit too... I think a single chest x-ray is equavilent to an transatlantic flight, IIRC. [ April 25, 2004, 10:48: Message edited by: Ruatha ] |
Re: Chernobyl
I didn't forget you folks. I know that the medical folks who deal with radiology keep good exposure records. Both on the x-ray side and the medical isotopes side. I was trying to point out some of the occupations who receive exposure, but don't keep records or even acknowledge that they are getting exposed.
My lifetime occupational radiation exposure (after 15 years as a radiation and contamination qualified worker) is less than the equivalent of 1 chest x-ray. Of course, as an engineer, I don't get as much exposure as some of the other workers. Slick. [ April 25, 2004, 11:09: Message edited by: Slick ] |
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
Considering her views on bringing people with her maybe this is highly objectionable. Considering the time that has passed since that site was first put up maybe she doesn't do it anymore and has no interest. And today, or tomorrow morning at 0123 rather, is the aniversary. Nice timing on Timstone's part, posted with enough time to get a lot of interest, and threadjacking, before the day rolled around. |
Re: Chernobyl
I expect most modern TV "journalists" proposed with this story would want to do it themselves to get the spotlight points, but then probably be afraid to do it.
PvK |
Re: Chernobyl
Very nice story indeed!
I also remember the Chernobyl accident, I was only 7 years old when it happened. We were not allowed to eat vegetables from our garden that year and I also remember my parents we're pretty freaked out about it. Looking back, the radiactive cloud went for finland and sweden, got bounced of by northern wind thus skipping norway and sweden and spread throughout parts ofgermany and the netherlands instead. Also: the chernobyl area havent been deserted totally now is it? I heard the russian government just kept the other 3 reactors running because they had no money building new ones. Until a few years ago. Yes, they are quite crazy. Ook grappig dat er nog redelijk wat nederlanders op dit forum/ pbw zitten, dat had ik niet verwacht! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: Chernobyl
Slick:
Thanks for this excellent answer. I really like this. It only rarely that I get speak with persons who have such an interesting job as you have. Thanks again for the fabulous explanantion. Two thumbs up for you! |
Re: Chernobyl
I'm curious to how they can continue to operate the other 3 reactors. Is it because their shielded against radiation - so they're not as affected by their proximity to the accident site as say, the town was? Or is the accident site less radioactive because of the absorbing materials they dumped on it?
|
Re: Chernobyl
I would love to have the money and time to do something like this for my hobbies.
|
Re: Chernobyl
Interesting development: Apparently the motorcycle story was a fake... or at least an exagerration:
http://www.uer.ca/forum_showthread.a...&threadid=8951 |
Re: Chernobyl
Quote:
Close the connections to the bad reactor and replace any nessesary parts... Then its just a matter of getting people to go to work in that environment. |
Re: Chernobyl
In America, and I think other countries, radiation workers have a much higher limit on the amount of radiation they can recieve.
Both limits are way below the hair falling out stage, but the general population limit or "Safe" level is much lower. |
Re: Chernobyl
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-co...health/active/
edit: Please! Radiation limits for everyone are safe. [ May 29, 2004, 03:15: Message edited by: Slick ] |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.