Agony Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 I can remember it happening very clearly. You seem to be quite young, so you might find the next bit difficult to comprehend: My major recollection is that the news was very slow to leak out. It took days, if not weeks, to establish exactly what was going on. Very different to nowadays. Yes they tried to cover the explosion up first. It was Sweden that alerted the world by finding levels of radiation were higher in sweden...to make it more clear I mean the Russians tried to cover it up by not alerting rest of the world what happened Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyofborg Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 it hastened the demise of Soviet Communism. i'm not sure it did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 My sister who was still living in England at the time said thet the dust from the explosion covered everything. Didnt do her or her family any harm. Still alive and healthy as horses My house was dusty at the time, too! I thought my house was dusty because I didn't clean it often enough. (Breathes a sigh of relief) Yes I do think people's story's of the days when it happened would be still some use. People tend to remember major things that happen. Like for example I can remember the day princess Diana died and I also remember the day of 9/11...i was born in 1983 so I have no knowledge of 1986 Unfortunately, we (all of us) tend to remember the things we want to remember. There was no shortage of hysterical articles in the media, nor was there a shortage of people who were saying: "We're all going to die!" But I doubt that you will get many of those people to say: "I was one of the people who said 'We are all going to die'. I didn't have any sort of evidence to back up what I said, but I said it anyway. I was a prat." History, when it's written down at the time, is biased by the writer. When it's written down a quarter of a century later, take it with a pinch of salt. (But make sure the salt isn't contaminated with radioactive iodine ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleksandr Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Nuclear energy is far safer than burning fossil fuels. Far more people die each year from the effects of that than from problems associated with nuclear energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 At the time we had a small summer "cottage" - read log cabin in Wales which had it's water supplied by rainwater collected off the roof. There was considerable debate among the three of us if the water would be safe to drink if it rained out on us as the clouds were overhead. In the end it didn't matter as it didn't rain over the remaining two days we were there. When we got back we found out that the radiation had been over us when it was raining, and the amount of radiation was massively lower than the BBC were reporting - in fact you'd probably have gotten more in my cellar from the radon out of the underlying granite than drinking the water. The BBC getting science details utterly wrong is nothing new... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Nuclear energy is far safer than burning fossil fuels. Far more people die each year from the effects of that than from problems associated with nuclear energy. The most dangerous power generation scheme by far is hydroelectricity. The Banqio[1] dam collapse dwarfs even the 11,000 killed by the great smogs of London. [1] Depending on who you ask, it's anywhere from 200,000 to 4 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agony Posted August 23, 2012 Author Share Posted August 23, 2012 Nuclear energy is far safer than burning fossil fuels. Far more people die each year from the effects of that than from problems associated with nuclear energy. Yes but safety on nuclear energy is paramount, that's why many people a year don't die from it but the potential of nuclear disaster would far outweigh deaths from fossil fuels if it was left to burn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Yes they tried to cover the explosion up first. It was Sweden that alerted the world by finding levels of radiation were higher in sweden...to make it more clear I mean the Russians tried to cover it up by not alerting rest of the world what happened It's hardly surprising that the Russians didn't advertise the problem. - they weren't known for their openness. There were (some days later) predicted fallout charts, but nobody said exactly how dangerous the fallout might be ... probably, perhaps because nobody knew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 At the time we had a small summer "cottage" - read log cabin in Wales which had it's water supplied by rainwater collected off the roof. There was considerable debate among the three of us if the water would be safe to drink if it rained out on us as the clouds were overhead. In the end it didn't matter as it didn't rain over the remaining two days we were there. When we got back we found out that the radiation had been over us when it was raining, and the amount of radiation was massively lower than the BBC were reporting - in fact you'd probably have gotten more in my cellar from the radon out of the underlying granite than drinking the water. The BBC getting science details utterly wrong is nothing new... There was a significant amount of I-131 and Cs- 137 fallout though. In particular, the Iodine could have caused a health risk, dependant upon your diet. Wasn't it the caesium that has caused the recently lifted lamb embargo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sibon Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Yes but safety on nuclear energy is paramount, that's why many people a year don't die from it but the potential of nuclear disaster would far outweigh deaths from fossil fuels if it was left to burn Fukushima was essentially left to burn for days on end. How many deaths has it caused? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.