Technical accuracy of the Chernobyl miniseries.

[ogden]

Incineration is only an option for some chemical waste.

We talk about incineration of toxic substances "like Chlorine, Fosgene gas, nerve toxin, etc". Which of named toxic substances can't be incinerated please?

[nctnico]

Incineration is only an option for some chemical waste.

We talk about incineration of toxic substances "like Chlorine, Fosgene gas, nerve toxin, etc". Which of named toxic substances can't be incinerated please?

Try to burn Chlorine for example (or better: don't if you value your health because with Chlorine you'll likely end up with another nasty chemical).

[apis]

They are building a deep geological repository in Finland now. A similar repository is planned in Sweden. Everyone was happy about it (including the locals in the municipality where it was supposed to be built), but the anti-nuclear lobby have managed to stall the process with appeals and bureaucracy, so it's currently in legal limbo. Since so little high level waste is produced (per unit energy) it's not a problem in the foreseeable future though. In the Netherlands they store all their waste in a smallish building.

As long as we have coal power plants polluting the air, land and sea, with air pollution killing millions every year, ocean acidification, mercury poisoning, global warming, etc, it's crazy people worry about nuclear power which is arguably one of the safest and cleanest forms of energy we have. And of course, coal also produce radioactive material:
"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." (source)
Coal doesn't have a waste storage problem since they get to dump their waste in landfills and the atmosphere for free.

[vad]

But this is a technical blog, and that is what I am interested in. How accurate are the technical details portrayed in the series? I can’t claim to be a nuclear expert, but the accident has interested me significantly and have read many accounts. From my LIMITED knowledge, it appears that the series is quite technically accurate, although there are some minor simplifications to maintain the tempo of the narrative.

Can’t tell much about other technical details, but the mechanics of the explosion (slowing down the reactor that was affected by xenon poisoning, restarting the reactor by retraction of almost all control rods, going ahead with the experiment and shutting down water pumps that led to boiling that introduced positive feedback into the system through positive void coefficient of reactivity, attempted unsuccessful reinsertion of the control rods when it was too late) were depicted accurately in the last episode of the series. The design flaw of RMBK control rods that were indeed tipped with carbon, is also well known fact.

[coppercone2]

the dudes driving the truck into the radiation were probably sloshed IRL

KGB cover up

[SkyMaster]

The fact is that highly radioactive waste decays quickly (highly radioactive inherently means that it will decay quick!) and after only 100 years the radioactivity levels are way more manageable.

What are you talking about nctico? 

Radioactivity level, from nuclear power plant waste, remain dangerous for thousand and ten of thousands of years. You are off by of factor or 100!

 

[vad]

The fact is that highly radioactive waste decays quickly (highly radioactive inherently means that it will decay quick!) and after only 100 years the radioactivity levels are way more manageable.

What are you talking about nctico? 

Radioactivity level, from nuclear power plant waste, remain dangerous for thousand and ten of thousands of years. You are off by of factor or 100!

 

nctnico probably wanted to say that short-lived isotopes are more radioactive per amount of isotope, than long-lived isotopes are.

For example, half-life of iodine-131 is 8 days, which means that 50% of its atoms would undergo beta decay in 8 day. Half-life of uranium-235 is 700 million years. It would take ten orders of magnitude longer for U235 to decay, than for the same amount of iodine-131. In other words, short-lived iodine-131 isotope is about ten orders of magnitude more radioactive than long-lived uranium-235.

More dangerous fast decaying isotopes have already vanished in Chernobyl zone. Only slower decaying isotopes are remaining. They are less radioactive. 100 years down the road it would still be dangerous to live there (simply because there are NO minimum safe limits of radiation), but not as bad as it was back in 1986.

[wraper]

100 years down the road it would still be dangerous to live there (simply because there are NO minimum safe limits of radiation), but not as bad as it was back in 1986.

LOL, then you should leave earth as radiation is everywhere, especially if you take a flight in airplane. Actually 30 km away from power plant, in most places radiation is about as natural level. What is dangerous is stumbling on hot spots, particularly inhaling radioactive dust particles.

[vad]

100 years down the road it would still be dangerous to live there (simply because there are NO minimum safe limits of radiation), but not as bad as it was back in 1986.

LOL, then you should leave earth as radiation is everywhere, especially if you take a flight in airplane. Actually 30 km away from power plant, in most places radiation is about as natural level. What is dangerous is stumbling on hot spots, particularly inhaling radioactive dust particles.

Radiation causes mutations. Mutations lead to cancer. It is all probability game. Game of what happens first: some DNA molecule being struck by gamma photon leading to that fatal mutation, or the carrier of the DNA molecule being hit by a bus first. The greater the exposure to ionizing radiation, the higher chances of getting cancer. There is no minimum limit that guarantees you from cancer. Natural level is safe only because you can’t get lower exposure than that, not because it is harmless.

[wraper]

Radiation causes mutations. Mutations lead to cancer. It is all probability game. Game of what happens first: some DNA molecule being struck by gamma photon leading to that fatal mutation, or the carrier of the DNA molecule being hit by a bus first. The greater the exposure to ionizing radiation, the higher chances of getting cancer. There is no minimum limit that guarantees you from cancer. Natural level is safe only because you can’t get lower exposure than that, not because it is harmless.

You can say that just about everything besides radiation. Such as food you eat and air you breath, and your genes to begin with. Chance you will get cancer with 0 radiation and 10 times of average natural radiation level is about the same. Many places on earth have higher natural radiation levels than close proximity to Chernobyl power plant.

[KaneTW]

They are less radioactive. 100 years down the road it would still be dangerous to live there (simply because there are NO minimum safe limits of radiation), but not as bad as it was back in 1986.

This is highly debatable. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hormesis

Even then, the no-threshold is bogus (not just for radiation, but also CMR stuff that regulations are annoyingly paranoid about). At some point your chances of negative symptoms are so vanishingly small they're not quantifiable anymore.

[vad]

You can say that just about everything besides radiation. Such as food you eat and air you breath, and your genes to begin with. Chance you will get cancer with 0 radiation and 10 times of average natural radiation level is about the same.

With 0 radiation you would get zero probability of radiation-induced cancer.

Here is what EPA says:

“Exposure to low-levels of radiation does not cause immediate health effects, but can increase the risk of cancer over a lifetime. There have been studies that kept track of large numbers of people who were exposed to radiation, including atomic bomb survivors and radiation industry workers. These studies show that radiation exposure increases the chance of getting cancer, and the risk increases as the dose increases:  the higher the dose, the greater the risk.”

https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radiation-health-effects

[KaneTW]

And this is highly opposed: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_no-threshold_model#Controversy)

A number of organisations disagree with using the Linear no-threshold model to estimate risk from environmental and occupational low-level radiation exposure:

The French Academy of Sciences (Académie des Sciences) and the National Academy of Medicine (Académie Nationale de Médecine) published a report in 2005 (at the same time as BEIR VII report in the United States) that rejected the Linear no-threshold model in favor of a threshold dose response and a significantly reduced risk at low radiation exposure:[49][50]
In conclusion, this report raises doubts on the validity of using LNT for evaluating the carcinogenic risk of low doses (< 100 mSv) and even more for very low doses (< 10 mSv). The LNT concept can be a useful pragmatic tool for assessing rules in radioprotection for doses above 10 mSv; however since it is not based on biological concepts of our current knowledge, it should not be used without precaution for assessing by extrapolation the risks associated with low and even more so, with very low doses (< 10 mSv), especially for benefit-risk assessments imposed on radiologists by the European directive 97-43.

The Health Physics Society's position statement first adopted in January 1996, as revised in July 2010, states:[51]
In accordance with current knowledge of radiation health risks, the Health Physics Society recommends against quantitative estimation of health risks below an individual dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) in one year or a lifetime dose of 10 rem (100 mSv) above that received from natural sources. Doses from natural background radiation in the United States average about 0.3 rem (3 mSv) per year. A dose of 5 rem (50 mSv) will be accumulated in the first 17 years of life and about 25 rem (250 mSv) in a lifetime of 80 years. Estimation of health risk associated with radiation doses that are of similar magnitude as those received from natural sources should be strictly qualitative and encompass a range of hypothetical health outcomes, including the possibility of no adverse health effects at such low levels.

The American Nuclear Society recommended further research on the Linear No Threshold Hypothesis before making adjustments to current radiation protection guidelines, concurring with the Health Physics Society's position that:[52]
There is substantial and convincing scientific evidence for health risks at high dose. Below 10 rem or 100 mSv (which includes occupational and environmental exposures) risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non-existent.

[wraper]

With 0 radiation you would get zero probability of radiation-induced cancer.

Does it even matter if radiation in particular is cause to say 1 in 10 000 cancers? In such case you just reduced chance getting cancer by 0.01% by going to zero radiation.

“Exposure to low-levels of radiation does not cause immediate health effects, but can increase the risk of cancer over a lifetime. There have been studies that kept track of large numbers of people who were exposed to radiation, including atomic bomb survivors and radiation industry workers. These studies show that radiation exposure increases the chance of getting cancer, and the risk increases as the dose increases:  the higher the dose, the greater the risk.”

And you happily omitted what's written right next after that:

According to radiation safety experts, radiation exposures of 5–10 rem (5,000–10,000 millirem or 50–100 millisieverts) usually result in no harmful health effects, because radiation below these levels is a minor contributor to our overall cancer risk.

[vad]

KaneTW, thank you for the link:

“The linear no-threshold model (LNT) is a model used in radiation protection to quantify radiation exposure and set regulatory limits. It is most frequently used to calculate the probability of radiation-induced cancer at both high doses where epidemiology studies support its application but, controversially, it likewise finds applications in calculating the effects of low doses, a dose region that is fraught with much less statistical confidence in its predictive power but that nonetheless has resulted in major personal and policy decisions in regards to public health.”

So despite some opposition, which is understandable because of challenges to validate LNT model at its lower end, the model is the most frequently used and thus is widely accepted, which confirms what I wrote above.

[vad]

And you happily omitted what's written right next after that:

Because it does not contradict to what was quoted (the lower exposure - the lower cancer risk).

If your point is that population in that part of the world (especially male population) has higher chances do die from vodka or drugs overdose, than from radiation above the natural levels - I would completely agree with you. I also accept the LNT model that roughly says: when your radiation exposure is halved, your chances of getting cancer from radiation are also halved.

[wraper]

And you happily omitted what's written right next after that:

Because it does not contradict to what was quoted (the lower exposure - the lower cancer risk).

If your point is that population in that part of the world (especially male population) has higher chance do die from vodka or drugs overdose, than from radiation above the natural levels - I would agree. I also accept the LNT model that that roughly says - when your radiation exposure is halved, you chances of getting cancer from radiation are also halved.

My point is that while you say that even small radiation makes it a dangerous place to live, in actuality it's such a small contributing factor to expected lifetime that it's basically on noise level in statistics.

[vad]

My point is that while you say that even small radiation makes it a dangerous place to live, in actuality it's such a small contributing factor to expected lifetime that it's basically on noise level in statistics.

Please allow me to steer this back into discussion of the movie.

From what I understand, the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on life expectancy of population was never assessed. Official record states “up-to 50 direct casualties” and “up-to 4000 indirect” (I am quoting Russian Wikipedia), and gives nothing quantitative about health impact on millions who were exposed to radiation fallout.

[Berni]

Well these long term health effects are quite tricky to quantify.

Even a perfectly healthy person that lived in some sort of shield to protect them from all natural radiation could still get cancer. Things like UV light or carcinogenic chemicals can also damage DNA. Even if you are not exposed to those, still the processes inside living cells are not 100% reliable. There is always a tiny chance that something might damage it(like oxidants), or that the DNA does not copy perfectly when a cell divides. Because of this cells have repair mechanisms that constantly fix damage to it, but these are also not 100% reliable, especially if there is too much damage. But even then when "bits get flipped" in DNA that will in a lot of cases do nothing, or cause a cell to do something too radically different and die, its only when the DNA changes in exactly the right way to cause the cell to successfully uncontrollably replicate is when you get cancer.

Ionizing radiation is just one method of many that can "flip a bit" in DNA. So technically yes no amount of ionizing radiation is safe, but below certain levels its contribution to DNA damage is going to be so small that the other DNA damaging methods overshadow it.

And since the effect of damaged DNA is the cell doing the wrong thing or dying all together (As well as radiation disturbing other cell processes) is why radiation sickness happens after short exposure to intense radiation. The cells have to work hard to repair the damage and a lot of dying cells around puts a heavy strain on the body. There is a chance a cell turned to cancer and survived, but if not while the person survives the massive surge in cell death, then they can recover perfectly fine. Just that the more radiation they got the more the odds are stacked against them.

[ogden]

From what I understand, the impact of the Chernobyl disaster on life expectancy of population was never assessed.

Not true. Report here:

https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/pub_meet/chernobyl-accident-health-effects/en/

[ogden]

And of course, coal also produce radioactive material:
"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." (source)

This does not pass even simple logic test. If coal ash would be 100 times more radioactive (per electricity unit generated) then there would be radiation exclusion zones around each coal plant. Only part of fresh Chernobyl nuclear fuel was enough to render huge area uninhabitable. I am not aware of single uninhabitable zone around any coal plant. Do you? Editors' note clearly indicates that article is utter BS: "As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.". Unshielded waste X is 100 times more dangerous than properly shielded waste Y. Isn't that kinda obvious?

Coal doesn't have a waste storage problem since they get to dump their waste in landfills and the atmosphere for free.

Not for free, but I agree that there shall be pollution tax first for coal, then oil and gas, then nuclear as well. We are going there, but not fast enough. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/markets_en

[KaneTW]

What? Nuclear power plants have basically no radiation leakage during normal operation. You're going on a complete tangent here.

Coal ash concentrates radionuclides found in coal, including primarily alpha-emitters. These get inhaled and cause significantly higher damage (20x equivalent dose) than the same energy of beta or gamma radiation (which would be nuclear power plant or waste leakage).

[wraper]

And of course, coal also produce radioactive material:
"In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy." (source)

This does not pass even simple logic test. If coal ash would be 100 times more radioactive (per electricity unit generated) then there would be radiation exclusion zones around each coal plant.

Does your logic test not recognize that nuclear power plants do not explode normally? While coal power plants emit them constantly in small amounts. And yes, coal contains radioactive elements. Coal ash gets them in concentrated state.

[Berni]

This does not pass even simple logic test. If coal ash would be 100 times more radioactive (per electricity unit generated) then there would be radiation exclusion zones around each coal plant. Only part of fresh Chernobyl nuclear fuel was enough to render huge area uninhabitable. I am not aware of single uninhabitable zone around any coal plant. Do you? Editors' note clearly indicates that article is utter BS: "As a general clarification, ounce for ounce, coal ash released from a power plant delivers more radiation than nuclear waste shielded via water or dry cask storage.". Unshielded waste X is 100 times more dangerous than properly shielded waste Y. Isn't that kinda obvious?

Coal doesn't have a waste storage problem since they get to dump their waste in landfills and the atmosphere for free.

Not for free, but I agree that there shall be pollution tax first for coal, then oil and gas, then nuclear as well. We are going there, but not fast enough. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/ets/markets_en

Well obviously they are comparing the radiation from coal waste that is dumped directly into the environment against the radiation that escapes a running nuclear plant and radiation leaked from properly stored radioactive waste afterwards.

Coal plants could certainly be cleaner than a nuclear plant of the waste was captured and stored in an underground bunker, but that's not practical because there is a lot of it(Especially if you include the hard to store CO2). The amount of hazardous material(radioactive isotopes, mercury, sulfur etc) in coal is a tiny percentage of its total mass. But we burn millions of tones of coal each year and this results in a significant amount of said hazardous material to be sent up the chimney in to the air or just dumped someplace in the form of ash.

So the reason why nuclear plants are significantly cleaner in the end is just because they produce so little waste that it can be practically stored in an underground bunker. Tho the actual fuel rods are not just tossed out into the waste, they collect those to extract the plutonium for making nuclear bombs or radioisotope generators for spacecraft. The leftover uranium can be enriched again to make new fuel rods and leaving you with a bunch of the leftover stable non radioactive isotope of uranium. This stable uranium could be thrown in a landfill and cause less harm to the enviorment than a lot of the other stuff we throw in the garbage like the usual heavy metals (tho it probably wouldn't leave the process quite that pure so it would still be considered hazardous, but not that badly). Yet uranium reprocessing is slow end expensive so it ends up piling up.

I fully agree that the current way we manage both radioactive waste and CO2 might not be all that good, but building more nuclear plants and shutting down old coal plants is right now the best thing we can do for the environment without sacrificing any of our humanly comforts. Better taking care of nuclear waste can give us nuclear plants that are pretty much as good as this futuristic fusion power. Sure coal is still safer than nuclear power, but im pretty sure that a massive fusion reactor blowing up would be a VERY bad situation too. So are we just going to keep using coal after we invent fusion just because it could also spew radioactive crap everywhere on catastrophic failure like a nuclear plant?

[apis]

Official record states “up-to 50 direct casualties” and “up-to 4000 indirect” (I am quoting Russian Wikipedia), and gives nothing quantitative about health impact on millions who were exposed to radiation fallout.

"up-to 4000 indirect" is in line with what the International Atomic Energy Agency have said.

For comparison, a recent study on the effects of air pollution from coal power plants in the US estimates 52000 premature deaths every year. In Europe we also have a lot of coal power and higher population density so the number would be higher here. We could have a Chernobyl scale accident every year and coal would still be worse.

short-lived isotopes are more radioactive per amount of isotope, than long-lived isotopes are.

It's also that radioactivity decays exponentially, not linearly as people tend to assume, so it halves with a certain period (halflife). That means most of the radiation disappears in the beginning, but it never reaches zero. When it is considered safe depends on what radiation level you decide is safe which is pretty arbitrary. Mercury, lead and arsenic are dangerous for an eternity, yet we can del with those elements without much problem.