< Chernobyl
- Started
- Last post
- 28 Responses
- __k
Chernobyl - 20 years later
http://www.pixelpress.org/cherno…O_o
damn this photo's stuff is so amazing!after seeing this i'v decided that i'm am not so unlucky that i was thinking....
I'M sooooo LUCKY!!
- designerror0
same here.
- phatlee0
woah!
- elms0
...
- PublikStar0
same here.
designerror
(Mar 29 06, 00:25)
- pascii0
same here.
designerror
(Mar 29 06, 00:25)
- determinedmoth0
The new National Geographic has a good article on this.
Apart from the bad guys in this tale - there are some pretty selfless acts by people trying to fix the place - "dashing" into the reactor to pour lead on it every now and then to save another explosion. That shit is still smoldering 20 years later... that's not something you want to walk up to for all the money in the world...
- jamble0
The NG article is a very interesting insight into events that day and the subsequent damage that's been done.
Shame the photo site above was so poorly designed it made a lot of the photos difficult to navigate to.
- Drno0
chernobil was the same day of my 5th birthday, its weird to remember this kind of thing from my childhood
- determinedmoth0
Yeah I spent a good minute twating about with that site until I found the "next" button.
- determinedmoth0
Chernobyl had quite a spread too. Loch Ness has a visable layer of slightly radioactive silt...
- lowimpakt0
I love the way the spin doctors are trying to suggest the impact from chernobyl wasn't that bad and that there were less than 100 deaths or something.
i love spin doctors i do.
- wristtattoo0
that photo gallery is heart breaking, beautiful but heart breaking.
- determinedmoth0
lowimpakt - The deaths are actually much less than was expected... However as Japan keep pointing out, give it 40, 50, 60 years and only then will all the cancers and shit start to rear their heads.
- lowimpakt0
the IAEA said that only 50 deaths occured because of it.
the figures have always been disputed.
for example - http://www.guardian.co.uk/ukrain…
i can't find a copy of the report yet
"In a series of reports about to be published, they will suggest that at least 30,000 people are expected to die of cancers linked directly to severe radiation exposure in 1986 and up to 500,000 people may have already died as a result of the world's worst environmental catastrophe. "
- Fariska0
It hurts.
Remind me the feeling when in a bookshop i was looking a this book: http://www.time.com/time/daily/s…
- jamble0
Chernobyl had quite a spread too. Loch Ness has a visable layer of slightly radioactive silt...
determinedmoth
(Mar 29 06, 01:28)That was there before, it's Nessie poo/
- __k0
Remind me the feeling when in a bookshop i was looking a this book: www.time.com/time/dail...
Fariska
(Mar 29 06, 02:51)damn year! i remember that book as well!
so what? u want me sucicide or what?!
;)
- soda0
so what's wrong with nuclear power then??
// :(
- __k0
rofl
that's true! nuclear IS the Futur!
the pure energie of earth....:s
- canuck0
"It's hard to look at these"
agreed. wow. It is something I have not really thought about for quite some time. I remember watching a documentary a few years ago. Those pictures are quite moving.
Puts things into perspective. It shows how fragile life is.
I feel really bad now :(