2013 thread: http://archive.4plebs.org/hr/thread/1943349/
2014 thread: http://archive.4plebs.org/hr/thread/2242413
I know there's another thread about this, but it's just repost from last year's thread. This thread will be only new pictures (at least "4chan" new). Feel free to ask anything about the project.
October 23th, 2014
November 13th, 2014
November 18th, 2014
Fun fact: the yellow crane in the back is one of the world's tallest cherry picker (Wumag Palfinger WT 1000, just over 100m).
Technological building, viewed from the top of the NSC
>>2499885
I started learning about Chernobyl when I was about 14, and I'll admit I've always been a bit of a science geek but something about this story fascinated me.
I remember spending hours looking at pics, videos, movies etc. about it and also became interested in power generation because of it. At some point I had hoped it would have been a career path for me unfortunately things didn't/haven't worked out the way I had planned but will always have an interest in the field.
Now, I must go lay down to go work my meaningless night job
>>2499892
I might make this my desktop bg
>>2499970
I have a few pictures from this point of view that I find better, I'll post them at some point.
Here's a shot of the rails for the bridge crane (also more on that later).
In the back you can see one of the garage for the bridge crane's carriage.
>>2499885
Ae you guys worried about the original sarcophagus collapsing during the movement of the arch over it?
>>2500015
Just as an FYI, I'm not part of this project in any way. But I'm pretty sure they've taken that into account. The skidding operation is quite slow, so it shouldn't impact the integrity of the existing sarcophagus.
Why didn't they just nuke this thing and get rid of it? Why the attempt for containment?
"Why didn't they nuke it"? LMAO.
>>2500319
Seriously - why didn't they just nuke the area? It would have cleansed the area. Of course, you'd have to remove people from the bordering towns, but so what?
>>2500415
There is so much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin.
>>2500421
Begin by stating the scientific reason it wouldn't work. I bet you can't. Too easy to just say "stupid idea - won't work", without stating any reason it wouldn't work.
>>2500423
You do realise that nuclear bombs leave behind nuclear radiation? Hiroshima? Nagasaki? You adding more radiation to the radiation thats already there.
>>2500274
GENIUS
>>2500274
It's clearly a cnspiation made for build a secret bunker in a no-mans zone.
Nuking the shit out of it would have been simple clean safe.
>>2500427
No, no, no - if you hit it with a big enough bomb, you'd literally change the molecular structure of the radiation that is already there. The old radiation and new radiation would offset each other and you'd have a clean site immediately.
>>2500440
I... I... I... I can't, I just can't.
>>2500443
You can't because you don't have the science behind you. If you aren't qualified to dispute my claim, then stfu.
>>2500440
>>2500440
You couldn't be more wrong. And yes, I am qualified to answer.
A nuclear blast from existing weapons would not only make the site far more radioactive, it would take both the old and new radioactive materials and spread them as a dust plume over a tremendously large area.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how radiation works, or are a colossal troll.
>>2500480
Not if you have the bomb explode above ground. That would prevent a plume from forming and would disintegrate the existing radiation.
December 29th, 2014
>>2500507
Nuclear scientist here - this guy is actually mostly correct. The reason they won't do it is there would be some radioactive fallout over a larger area. It would be non-life threatening, but politically devastating.
>>2500507
That's a hugely chaotic thing to do, even if it would do as you say in theory (which I don't know if it would). Surely some radioactive material would be blown into the atmosphere, or at least left in the upper soil where it can spread, no matter how you'd shape that charge.
I.e. the end result would be worse than it is currently.
>>2499970
Yes quite fascinating ... unless you live in a country that got under the radiation cloud and your communist government refused to inform the people about the explosion and aply safety measures
February 8th, 2015
>>2500780
So Russia, UK found out a few days later by accident. US found out like a week later or some shit I think
>>2500274
Kill a snake with a snake, k
