FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
Seems Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is on fire after being attacked..
Just as winds swing our way from Europe this weekend to blow in from the East.
Anyone old enough to remember Chernobyl?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ovebjsMan
over a year ago
Bristol |
In the news just, Russia have taken the plant while firefighters were trying to put out the fires he kept on shelling 
Definitely a war criminal and will go down in history alongside hitler, Idi Amin ect.
Mother Russia will be so very proud  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is on fire after being attacked..
Just as winds swing our way from Europe this weekend to blow in from the East.
Anyone old enough to remember Chernobyl?
"
I wouldn't worry too much about the wind at the moment. However Sunday could be a bit iffy for south east England. If it blows up of course.
The easterly pushing in to some parts of the UK is coming from a more northerly part of Europe.
Over Ukraine it's a north easterly which will push anything from there down toward the Balkans. For now at least. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
Come to think of it, I now wouldn't put it past Putin to plan it depending on the wind direction.
If it was the case of choice, would Putin want that crap blowing all over Russia or Western Europe?
I was actually saying that the weather is changing Easterly this weekend as cold air is blowing in which would have been bad timing for us.
As someone who lived through Chernobyl, it was down to luck whether it rained all over us as was the case with Cumbria.
No conspiracy here.. But if I was going to damage a nuclear power station, I'd certainly be checking the wind direction before doing it.
Belarus would have got to brunt last night.. I doubt this is the last reckless act we've seen.
Ordered plenty of FFP3S last night from Toolstation with 20% off.. might keep hold of them for a while before taking back.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
Could be 16x that of Chernobyl... wonder how Pooting can declare victory if separatists are blowing up power stations. He doesn't seem to have a quick 'out', in that, if separatists are destroying their own towns he's got to sell it to Russia that he's purging Ukraine of them which means a long drawn out 'operation'. His media/propaganda can only tell his people he's either winning this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
Just pray if a cloud of radiation goes up, it's when the winds blowing to Moscow. We dodged a bullet last night as a small beast from the East is here this weekend.
Wonder if people here will still refuse to wear masks if its radiation and not virus this time..
I cleared Toolstation out of FFP3s at 2am this morning, just hope I'll be taking them back for a refund!! Got 20% off though.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
i've noticed a subtle change in the use of language by the UN today. it's entirely possible that they are exploring using the incident at Zaporizhzhya as a precursor to a un peacekeeping mission of clear skies over ukraine, by means of automated weapons systems. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Unless Russia VETO..
Hopefully.. they'll work around it."
the russian veto is only usable in security council votes as demonstarted last week where the security council was bypassed for an open vote by all members. hope this helps. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Seems Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant is on fire after being attacked..
Just as winds swing our way from Europe this weekend to blow in from the East.
Anyone old enough to remember Chernobyl?
"
Plenty of us - and whilst shelling a NPS until parts of it go up in flames is a fucking stupid thing to do; damage to the reactor isn't what you need to worry about.
The real problem is damage to the cooling system, either physical or by loss of power to it.
Of course, the Russians can shut the reactors down, safely - but that would mean the loss of all the electricity they generate.
That, in itself, could be considered a further act of war; and the denial of electricity to civilians - particularly in hospitals - might be considered a war crime.
That said, NATO did use "graphite bombs" to disrupt electricity supplies in Serbia, in 1999; but they're of far more limited effect, obviously, that a shut down reactor.
In any case, avoiding a meltdown is the way to go - and the Russians on the spot know it as well as we do. I'd imagine they'll try hard to avoid it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there."
which out of the planet's nuclear power stations are super safe from pretty much anything? who was it that told you that and how did you fact check what they told you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there."
They are designed to be safe from the impact of an airliner and are usually patrolled and protected by a lot of security staff/measures.
However, though, as I've said, the reactors are hard to directly damage; their cooling systems aren't - which is the main problem.
Whether through negligence (Chernobyl) or tsunami (Fukushima), if the core overheats because the cooling system isn't working - and you can't shut the reactor down - that's you're real problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there.
which out of the planet's nuclear power stations are super safe from pretty much anything? who was it that told you that and how did you fact check what they told you?"
IAEA safety guideline documents SSG-68 ( Design of Nuclear Installations Against External Events Excluding Earthquakes) and SSG-67 (Seismic Design for Nuclear Installations) are good places to start.
I am thinking the IAEA know more about this than any Fab forumite - including you and I 
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there.
which out of the planet's nuclear power stations are super safe from pretty much anything? who was it that told you that and how did you fact check what they told you?
IAEA safety guideline documents SSG-68 ( Design of Nuclear Installations Against External Events Excluding Earthquakes) and SSG-67 (Seismic Design for Nuclear Installations) are good places to start.
I am thinking the IAEA know more about this than any Fab forumite - including you and I
"
in that case i suggest you go read them to find the answer to your questions then rather than asking on a swingers forum |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there.
which out of the planet's nuclear power stations are super safe from pretty much anything? who was it that told you that and how did you fact check what they told you?
IAEA safety guideline documents SSG-68 ( Design of Nuclear Installations Against External Events Excluding Earthquakes) and SSG-67 (Seismic Design for Nuclear Installations) are good places to start.
I am thinking the IAEA know more about this than any Fab forumite - including you and I
in that case i suggest you go read them to find the answer to your questions then rather than asking on a swingers forum "
My point is that I think everyone is panicking too much about this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
"So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there.
which out of the planet's nuclear power stations are super safe from pretty much anything? who was it that told you that and how did you fact check what they told you?
IAEA safety guideline documents SSG-68 ( Design of Nuclear Installations Against External Events Excluding Earthquakes) and SSG-67 (Seismic Design for Nuclear Installations) are good places to start.
I am thinking the IAEA know more about this than any Fab forumite - including you and I
"
You've just answered your own question. They are safe from world events - seismic usually. They are not designed for explosive ordinance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"So I am slightly conflicted on this. On the one hand shelling a nuclear power station should be obvious to anyone as madness and I thinking it should be listed as a war crime (which I don’t believe it is currently).
In the other hand nuclear power plants, we are constantly being told, are super safe from pretty much anything. They can take direct hits from an airliner and handle earthquakes. Military shelling should not actually be that much of a safety concern on a relative basis.
Which is it? Are they safe from anything or not?
If these things are not safe then they should never be built in the first place. If they are safe (and I happen to believe they are) then maybe we should get things into perspective via a vis nuclear Armageddon?
There are a lot of other bad things happening in Ukraine today. I don’t think this is the worst thing that is happening over there.
which out of the planet's nuclear power stations are super safe from pretty much anything? who was it that told you that and how did you fact check what they told you?
IAEA safety guideline documents SSG-68 ( Design of Nuclear Installations Against External Events Excluding Earthquakes) and SSG-67 (Seismic Design for Nuclear Installations) are good places to start.
I am thinking the IAEA know more about this than any Fab forumite - including you and I
You've just answered your own question. They are safe from world events - seismic usually. They are not designed for explosive ordinance. "
Well it is one way of making people move from an area. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
With regards to war criminals I would also add Tony Blair, Bush, Saudi leaders, Israeli prime minister Netenyahu, China, Modi and all those that have taken lives for their own political interests. Why are there such double standards? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoy OP Man
over a year ago
Longridge |
"Unless Russia VETO..
Hopefully.. they'll work around it.
the russian veto is only usable in security council votes as demonstarted last week where the security council was bypassed for an open vote by all members. hope this helps. "
I got that, but to use force against another member, can it be bypassed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
