Share this page!

Mark Nelson Profile picture
Twitter logo
Mar 30 • 8 tweets • 4 min read
Hey everybody, here we go again.

This story will almost certainly turn out to be bullshit.

When Reactor 4 blew up & burned in 1986, only 134 people got acute radiation sickness.

There is no way to get it now from the landscape or around containment.

Always: wait for @iaeaorg
On the first days of the war, elevated radiation readings were briefly recorded at Chernobyl.

It is likely this was from heavy vehicles traversing, kicking up trace isotopes.

Dose readings then were very approximately 10,000 times too low to cause ARS.

While waiting for @iaeaorg we've got @CherylRofer!

I recommend reading the whole thread.

Another good point from @funranium :

Another good reason to wait for @iaeaorg

More, from an expert group with intimate knowledge of physical condition of Chernobyl before the war and now willing to put their credibility on the line to address this latest scare:

For people who want EVEN MORE, @jrmygrdn is now up and at it in the UK:

Can't get enough expert opinion? Here you go, even more:

This is getting sillier as we dig into it.

It seems to have originated with a Chernobyl tourism promoter (which itself should tell you something about the danger level of the exclusion zone).

@jrmygrdn again:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
　

Keep Current with Mark Nelson

Mark Nelson Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @energybants

Mark Nelson Profile picture
Mar 21
GERMAN MINISTERS PUSH QATARI GAS WHILE LYING ABOUT ENERGY

Yesterday ministries controlled by the Green party double down on their Big Lie: that extending their biggest, cheapest carbon-free power plants can't help with energy.

False: it's worth *65 LNG supertankers* every year
Numbers:

Six reactors, 60 TWh per year. Would take 100 TWh of natural gas heat to replace this electricity, unless done entirely with coal (but then coal elec couldn't replace gas).

100TWh = 17,900,000m3 LNG

266,000m3 = capacity of 1 Qatari "Qmax" LNG tanker

67 Supertankers
If 67 liquified natural gas supertankers per year isn't big, then what is?

This is the same energy as 20% of Nord Stream 1, or about 11 billion cubic meters of pipeline gas per year.

That's nuclear saving German economy Є4-20 billion per year, before CO2 costs.
Read 13 tweets
Mark Nelson Profile picture
Mar 19
German Green and Social Democratic ministers would rather sacrifice the economy, European security, and climate goals to avoid the ideological defeat of delaying nuclear phaseout.

~€20b / year on fossil fuels
Slower stop to Russian imports
20-50 million tonnes of CO2 / year
In order to defend the indefensible, Green ministers spam out Twitter-hot-take arguments against extending/reviving nuclear plants rather than consulting their technical experts & European nuclear fuel supply companies.

Oddly, some in the nuclear community get taken in by them.
Original tweet deleted.

Just noted that Germany continues to send big money to Russia (as contracted of course) for its natural gas supplies.
Read 4 tweets
Mark Nelson Profile picture
Mar 9
From the guy who falsely claimed that Zaporizhzhia pressurized water reactors could "blow up" like "10x Chernobyl," we have our next global panic started.

Respect to Ukraine for its brave, righteous defense.

But these statements are an attack on the global public.
Incorrect statements in above tweet: with cooling systems stopped, leaks are NOT imminent.

Further, leaks CANNOT put "entire Europe in danger" except through panic.

The fear is the weapon here. Deny it its power.

REMEMBER THIS. For the next time.

Read 4 tweets
Mark Nelson Profile picture
Mar 9
CHERNOBYL UPDATE: BEWARE MISLEADING CLAIMS ABOUT OLD SPENT FUEL COOLING NEEDS

The spent fuel rods are at minimum 22 years old.

They have very little heat to dissipate. In most plants, spent fuel that is more than 5 years old sits in dry storage cooled easily by air.
THE BASICS: when fuel rods are done making energy in a reactor, plant staff remove them and put them in pools of water.

This is because the particles produced by the splitting of uranium ("fission products") are unstable and continue to undergo decay, and, thus, generate heat.
How much heat a fuel rod puts out depends on how much energy it produced in the reactor (called "burnup") and how long it has been since it left the reactor.

22 years is LONG ago. And RBMK (Chernobyl reactor type) has lower burnup than other reactor types, thus lower decay heat.
Read 15 tweets
Mark Nelson Profile picture
Mar 9
SOUTH KOREA ELECTIONS: EARLY EXIT POLLS SHOW TINY LEAD FOR PRO-NUCLEAR PARTY

Six yrs ago, SK had one of the most admired, and ambitious, nuclear energy programs in the world.

Rapid progress on domestic plants plus winning & starting to deliver in UAE.

Since then: devastation.
With the election of a resolutely antinuclear president, Korean reactor performance plunged, falling as low as 59% by 2018.

New president canceled the future fleet and attempted to stop the plants ALREADY under construction. Only defeat in his Citizens' Jury saved the projects.
Despite continuing success at Barakah in Abu Dhabi, no other countries bought Korean reactors, as SK President harshly attacked his own nuclear. After all, if Hyundai cars were banned for being "too dangerous" in Korea, how popular would they be overseas?

Read 5 tweets
Mark Nelson Profile picture
Mar 7
MEDIA AIMING TO PANIC

A breathtakingly irresponsible headline from a multi-million follower media account.

There's a small device in a science lab that cannot sustain a chain reaction. It has almost no isotopes of concern inside.

This headline should never have been published.
Here is a plenty of detail from an expert with intimate knowledge of the device in question.

The facts were available before this headline was tweeted. This headline is an abuse of public trust.

People have contacted me, panicking, already.

By "almost no isotopes of concern" I mean vanishingly small quantities of isotopes of real threat to human internal health.

Of course what the media is showing is that actual radiation threat is irrelevant when the goal is to hurt the public through fear.

Simply unacceptable.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Like this author's thread?

Get emails when @energybants has new unrolls!

Check out other threads from @energybants!

Read all threads by @energybants

:(