This is something interesting I found via Monochrom.

Really cool, amazing pictures taken by remote control robots or people who probably died from radiation just minutes after taking them!


This is a photo of the building taken from a helicopter.
The person who took this photograph, as well as the pilot,
most assuredly died from radiation poisoning, even at this
distance and altitude.


(Authorities quickly try to contain the accident by pumping concrete into the building and attempting to pave over the contaminated areas)
It is safe to assume that most, if not all of the workers who were involved in this couragous attempt to contain the accident before the radiation spread, died shortly thereafter from radiation poisoning.


This amazing image of the infamous "Elephant's Foot", a blob of molten corium (unspent uranium mixed with heavy metals) which oozed from the reactor through the floors of the reactor building like magma from a volcano. This image was taken by a robotic camera, it would be impossible for anyone to take this photo in person, because the radiation level was about 20 times that which is generally accepted as a lethal dose. In fact, the radiation level around this blob was almost immeasurable by the instrumentation of the time. The radiation inside the building alone is enough to kill a person after just 2 minutes of exposure.

(technically: 1000 Roentgens/hour (rem/hr) is considered harmful. Just to give you an idea, the radiation in just the building alone has been measured at 20,000 rem/hr and above (depending on proximity to the materials). Apparently, the exact radiation level of this blob has never been determined. I'm sure a theoretical number has been calculated, but niether dosimeters or geiger-counters are able to return a measurment on it because it is just too high.)



A electronic control cabinet which has been partially incorporated into a flow of molten corium and pieces of something that looks like graphite (even though graphite would burst into flames at the temperatures it would be at right there).


Once-molten corium/heavy-metal mixture that overflowed from the reactor during the explosion.


As much as I think nuclear energy is an enviromentally and fiscally sound method of energy production, I think Russia's Chernobyl incident should be take into consideration as how NOT to build a nuclear reactor.
I don't know why, but for some reason, I find this absolutely fascinating.

I think one of the interesting things about Chernobyl is that it was an FBR (Fast-Breeder Reactor) which had a unique feature to it that most reactors do not have (for safety and containment reasons): It could be refuelled while running. They could literally remove the detachable "cap" of the reactor by internally mounted cranes and put new uranium fuel into the system as it was reacting. Not only is this horrendously dangerous, but it also means that the only thing containing the reactor is a 1000 ton vessel lid.
1000 tons sounds like a lot, but it really isn't when you consider the energy that a nuclear reaction can create. At Chernobyl, the 1000-ton lid literally blew off the reactor and landed inverted, wedged back into the reactor.


This diagram shows the position of the reactor lid (green) and the
location of other things in the ruins, such as the bismuth/sand mixture dropped
by helicopter (grey) and the ubiquitous "parosbrosnoy" or steam duct pipes (cyan) below the reactor which the molten fuel mixtures flowed in between.

What's really interesting is how complex this reactor was, while at the same time, had very few and very little safeguards. Most modern nuclear reactors since the Three Mile Island incident (US) are built with smaller reactors, submerged in water. Above that is a really thick concrete dome and then another concrete dome over that. Adding the water alone significantly reduces radiation outside the reactor during normal operation. In fact, if the reactor is small enough, you could even stand at the edge of the tank and look right down at the reactor and not receieve harmful amounts of radiation (Most nuclear reactors are not that small, though)
Chernobyl had nothing more than a (removable) concrete lid on top of it's #4 reactor. Which made it inherently dangerous, but at the same time very versatile and economical. There is an assumption that the reason why they were using an FBR with a removable lid was perhaps for weapons-manufacturing purposes, except there is no evidence that the Chernobyl fascility ever had any of the other equipment and systems to process weapons-grade materials.

But wow, these are some amazing pictures. Considering what it took to take them.

In the foreground, you can see the concrete that was poured in 1986 after the accident when they paved over the contaminated area.
In the background, you can see a pit of once-molten spent-fuel and metal mixture.


This picture was taken from a helicopter just after the explosion. This is the white cloud of smoke from the graphite fires mixed with a column of radioactive, ionized air from the reactor. This is the cloud that people reported seeing in the nearby town of Pripyat, which was described as "shimmering" during the day (because of the heat) and "luminescent" at night (because of the radioactive debris).
The person who took this photograph, as well as the pilot of the helicopter died of radiation poisoning two days later (according to the website which is hosting this photograph)


In this photograph, you can actually see the round, circular 1000-ton reactor lid buried in a mass of debris.

You can see the lid even clearer in this photograph.
That lid weighed more than 6 modern frieght diesel-electric locomotives,
and was blown off the reactor and flipped over like a coin by the energy
of the explosion.

It's a good thing to know that the nuclear reactors in development right now, are far safer than the weapons-oriented and large-scale "Mass reactors" of the cold-war era. The smaller Thermal reactors use far less fuel and don't get near as hot. Since you are no longer trying to get the Uranium so such super-critical mass to produce heat (and Plutonium for weapons purposes), the risk of meltdown, or when the Uranium fission reactions become out-of-control and release too much energy is reduced, if not physically impossible. The best part is: with a smaller reactor, you get less harmful waste. Instead of producing about 45% Corium (unspent liquified uranium and heavy metal mixture), 50% (or more) lead, bismuth and other heavy metals, and about 5% (or less) Plutonium. All of which is irradiated or very radioactive and can only be dealt with safely by burying it in barrels underground. Smaller thermal reactors produce about 70%(or more) Corium, and about 30% spent-fuel, lead, bismuth and other heavy metals. This mixture is a lot easier to contain and the corium can be easily seperated from the other metals and reused in reprocessing. This results in a lot less waste, and a lot less environmental or public health hazards. The removal of plutonium from the equasion seems to make everything better. Not only for safety and practicality, but also for disarmament. Plutonium is an incredibly radioactive material that does not occour naturally, because it has so much mass it can't hold itself together without artificial means. This is why it is used for weapons. I suppose the idea behind that is you get the same amount of energy as you might with uranium, but with less weight and material. Smaller packaging for more versatile use.

But honestly, I don't think we need any more nuclear weapons in the world, and we certainly don't need more countries to start joining the few nations that already have them.

Pictures are from this amazing photo-album at:
http://www.spaceman.ca/gallery/chernobyl/Helicopt03_05_86_1