Comments by "Rob Fraser" (@krashd) on "Co způsobilo katastrofickou jadernou nehodu v Černobylu?" video.

  1. Fukushima was nowhere near as bad as Chernobyl because those reactors melted, they didn't explode sending bits of radioactive graphite over hundreds of yards, nor did they have nuclear fires burning for several days carrying plumes of radioactive dust across Europe. Fukushima and Chernobyl are both a 7 on the INES chart only because the chart doesn't go up to ten where even then Chernobyl would probably be an eleven. Then again I only take my information from respected, educated sources and not conspiracy nutbags who in 2011 were telling people everything in the pacific would be dead by 2015 despite the pacific being perfectly healthy even in 2018. Take your info from acreditted sources and not shitty amateur websites set up by crackpots living in trailers.
    12
  2. "This level of ecological disaster would not occur again until the Fukushima reactor disaster." Wrong, Fukushima absolutely pales in comparison to Chernobyl, don't swallow the conspiracy juice.
    7
  3. Chernobyl is the name of the oblast and it's capital is also called Chernobyl, Pripyat however is the city closest to the NPP although both cities are in the exclusion zone. There are images of Chernobyl online but it's difficult to locate them correctly because the majority of Pripyat images get tagged with that name because of tourists and the media. Also the few inhabitants of Chernobyl do not like people noseying around the city because you could be a looter for all they know.
    4
  4. I'm glad you think that way Artoria now that Crimea is back with it's rightful owner after being stolen in 1954 by the Ukrainian leader of the USSR.
    1
  5. Unless talking about the city of Chernobyl, but I'm just being pedantic.
    1
  6. Except by again you mean meltdowns instead of disintegration and on a much smaller scale. There, I corrected you.
    1
  7. It's nowhere nearly as bad as Chernobyl was.
    1
  8. It's Chernobyl, if something has the correct number of legs it must be a tourist.
    1
  9. There was no need for cooling towers, the plant was built on a river and didn't have to recycle water.
    1
  10. Almost anything can cause cancer, cancer is just a cell that has malfunctioned and now makes broken copies of itself which then all make copies of themselves and so on and so on.
    1
  11. Yeah, Churchill referred to the Nazis as catastrophic in 1935, it's not a new word.
    1
  12. Lots of countries would love to do something about Serbia but you can't just make a nation disappear.
    1
  13. Except for photovoltaic solar which uses a chemical reaction. Though water-heating solar using mirror farms is the same as the rest.
    1
  14. Shut it down? The reactor was scattered across the countryside, you don't have to deactivate a machine that is now in thousands of smoking pieces.
    1
  15. He was talking about Chernobyl, not Pripyat, two different cities...
    1
  16. Nope, reactor design and human error.
    1
  17. WOAAAAH BLYAT!
    1
  18. Yeah, he really has an ironic name for someone who is likely a flat Earther.
    1
  19. Why would firefighters be at a flooded nuclear power plant? Also it's news to me that any firefighters died, the only people who died in Fukushima were two workers who drowned in the basement when the tsunami hit.
    1
  20. There are over 600 people in Chernobyl, it is Pripyat that is desolate because because adjacent to the NPP it took a lot more damage.
    1
  21. I don't think it is in anyone's point of view, the only reason both are a 7 on the INES scale is because the scale doesn't go any further or else Chernobyl would be around a 15.
    1