LiberalMedia
VIP Member
Chernobyl released (the figure I saw quoted in a documentary) the nuclear energy of 400 Hiroshima bombs. It was almost 30 years ago and STILL people cannot return to that area. The ground is so polluted you have to wear masks and hazmat to return to see the area.
Why? Because Chernobyl had no safety measures like the United States had. The leaders in Moscow didn't care if it went up. They were safe in Moscow. Besides it was cheaper to make it without the safety measures.
Complete and utter bullshit. The Zone of Alienation/Chernobyl Exclusion Zone (the 30 kilometer radius around the plant) was opened up years ago. There are even tours being given of the area, and no, tourists don't have to wear a hazmat suit.
Further, Chernobyl did have safety measures, and in the aftermath of the explosion, the Russians brought in immense resources--including workers--from all over the Soviet Union. Special attention was given to the ability of the people to withstand radiation levels, and during the immediate cleanup of the incident, workers were only allowed a few seconds' exposure even with protective gear. This wasn't the most efficient method of containment, but it was the safest for the people working on it, which is why the Soviets used it.
They obviously did NOT have the safety measures the United States used. And why? Because it was CHEAPER. For example, Chernobyl did not have containment towers as Three Mile Island did.
If by "containment towers" you're referring to cooling towers, yes, Chernobyl did have them. You keep harping on this "hurr durr cheaper, Soviets cut corners with costs" pseudo-point, yet you've posted absolutely no evidence to back it up. Is this more garbage you're getting from a bigoted documentary with a slanted view of reality, or did you actually do research into the matter and somehow conclude that cost-saving measures weighed heavily into the eventual nuclear accident at Chernobyl?