The problem with ecological cars emission in UK Since the adoption of the European Emission Allowance Directive in the European Parliament, all car makers have tried to submit. Since 1992, the Euro I standard has been in force, which limited the emission of carbon monoxide to the atmosphere. The Euro VI standard currently applies, which limits the series of exhaust gases. These include: hydrocarbons, nitrogen and carbon oxides, and dust. The most significant change was brought by the Euro IV standard. For the first time it introduced the limitation of nitrogen oxides, which are responsible for the harmful compounds of smog. What is smog? Smog consists of sulfur oxides, nitrogen and carbon. In addition, solid substances such as suspended dust (PM). Dust suspend in atmospheric aerosols may be in liquid and solid form. These can be particles of sea salt, clouds from the Sahara and artificial compounds made by people. These compounds...
Comments
The place is, of course, gloomy, especially according to the description that is used in games "a place where zombies live, after the explosion of a nuclear power plant." But I would go there to look, I know that it is forbidden for children under 18 to go there.
To be honest, the worst thing for me in this accident is that children have disabilities and adults who have died before they reach 40.
Once I rested in a sanatorium, where they brought children who were small, or whose parents lived in the territory of Chernobyl. These children were already born sick, different things happened from radiation. For example, the bones stopped growing, or the limbs refused, or problems with the brain, the eyes. But I knew that they were real people, not zombies from the game.
I am sure that the nuclear power plant is not the most secure. I am glad that now there are alternative energy supplies, and I'm ready to pay more in order to leave in a safe place.
I'd go there. I consider Chernobyl as the monument of the human stupidity and especially the stupidity of the soviet mentality. I'd like to see it with my eyes.
Nuclear power stations should not be banned, because the nuclear energy synthesis has a lot of potential. If you want to ban something, ban the people, who don't take care while working in such potentially dangerous place.
Yes, I would like to visit Chernobyl. I think it would be amazing experience.
In my opinion nuclear power stations shouldn’t be banned. First of all they very few disadvantages in fact. Nuclear energy is one of the most environment friendly and stable energy in the world (only hydro-electric power station can match them, because all others renewable energy sources like wind or sun are more or less unpredictable and tons of resources must be used to produce proper equipment). If nuclear power plant is well design, nothing wrong should happen. Dramatic events like this in Chernobyl happens but it is mostly human fault, in this case, it was a bad reactor design, unstable process at low power production level, the end of control rods made of graphite and much more. What is more, such events are well known and it is, in a way, quite easy to estimate number of deaths. In my opinion, coal power plants can be much more dangerous, because it is hard to count how many people are ill or died because of the environment pollution.
No, I would never do this if I had the opportunity to go there for free, because, as many scientific sources have said, there are still radioactive harmful radiation in the Chernobyl zone, which is a very dangerous factor for types Diseases and cancers.
Yes, in my opinion, the issue is not just the nuclear phenomenon, there is the issue of nuclear waste that the power plant produces and these garbage should be buried somewhere, if all countries have their own nuclear power plants, because of the existence of Excessive nuclear waste will become unaffordable. In my opinion, the damages of the nuclear power plant are higher than its benefits. The same incident occurred in Japan and Japan's tsunami and nuclear disaster, but it was milder.
Personally, I don’t find it interesting to go to Chernobyl. I’ve seen many photos, documentaries and video game adaptations of „the zone”. I don’t think I would benefit more if I see it with my own eyes, although I agree that it might be an exciting experience.
I strongly disagree that nuclear plants should be banned. Its advantages in terms of energy efficiency and environmental impact and safety are far greater than disadvantages in terms of safety.
I like to compare them to airplanes — catastrophes are usually fatal for all people aboard and are often picked up by the media. However, they are so rare that the overall number of fatalities (less than 200 a year) are literally insignificant to the number of deaths on roads (more than a million a year), thus making them the safest mode of transportation. This analogy can be applied to nuclear plants vs. traditional power plants.
Chernobyl is one of the places I would like to visit and feel the climate on my own skin. I'd go there even if I had to pay.
The technology we have today and the security measures used to build a nuclear power plant don't allow us to create any dangerous situation. We don't have to worry about anything anymore and in my opinion, we should invest to nuclear power plants, because we can save money and care much more for the environment.
2. Yes. It’s really interesting for me to visit different abandoned places.
3. No, because nowadays scientists have learnt the Chernobyl’s mistakes and became to develop new stations more safety than before. The disaster was caused due to the man’s mistake so they can see what the uncertain decisions can lead to and what they should to avoid.
Yes, I have. As other students have said: all Ukrainians are aware of this catastrophe.
2. If you will have an opportunity to visit Chernobyl for free would you go?
Yes, I like to visit new places with history, but I have not been to Chernobyl yet. I will want to do this soon with my friends.
3. Do you think that nuclear power stations should be banned because of their disadvantages?
I think that would be great, but the main problem is a irresponsible people in management. I hope that in the near future all countries will switch to renewable energy sources.
I don't think I'd like to go there, but it looks like an interesting place to visit. I've seen some TV programs showing the deserted city and the animals roaming there. And scientists find it a very interesting location for study how radiation affects flora and fauna.
Regardless of the panic it caused in Europe, I still think we need to use more nuclear power then we do. People learned from this catastrophe and we are no longer using the technology which was responsible for this explosion, so nuclear power is much safer now. But people are still afraid it might happen again. I still prefer nuclear power over coal any day.
Yes of course. I was looking for trips organized to "Chernobyl" myself. I know that „Allegro” in Poland organizes such trips several times a year.
What defects?! Nuclear power plants are much better than the rest. Problems that happened, for example, in Chernobyl were caused only by human error.
Many many times :/ The "accident" was a huge problem for Europe at the times when our parents were teenagers. Heard a lot of stories from family and media.
If you will have an opportunity to visit Chernobyl for free would you go?
Of course, even paid I'd like to go. I know it's a risk, but oppurtunity to see the biggest nuclear disaster from few meters is just unbelievable!
Do you think that nuclear power stations should be banned because of their disadvantages?
No, nuclear power have a lot more pros than cons and cons can be fixed with additional security and "brain".
Yes i did, countless times actually.
Even for free i dont think i would ever step on Chernobyl's grounds. I value my life over any interest i have in Chernobyl.
Unless we find an reliable energy source that would rival nuclear power plants, i dont think we can allow ourselves to ignore or straight out abandon nuclear potential. There are finite resources on earth that can be used as energy sources and all of them are bound to be exhausted withing our lifetime, nuclear power is one of them just less "limited" as of now(when we re talking about performance vs quantity ratio).
No, because I would like to live and I wouldn't like die from radiation sickness. Of course, most people say that the threat and radiation is no so big, but I think that we still live in a sufficiently polluted environment...
No, nuclear energy is very cheap, so in my opinion there should be more and more of them.
My grandpa also had a problem with the skin after this accident, but thanks to God, not a big one
One of the biggest problems of this accident was the fact, that the government was trying to keep this in secret. And for the few first days, nobody knew about it.
I don't think that nuclear power stations should be banned because of their disadvantages. I think we should invest in this technology to make it safer, more efficient and reliable. Accidents that happened to nuclear power stations in many cases were caused by us humans. Nowadays, when we more and more switch to robots, I think it is worth exploring. Robots do not make as many mistakes as we produce. In a long-term, I mean in 20-30 years I hope we will either switch to the new source of energy or will use only nuclear power.
I would go if I've had a chance. Actually, it is in my plans for future. But only with the qualified guides, that would never let me go somewhere where radiation is still high, because there are dangerous places still. My friend is a "stalker" and he showed me photos of dosimeter which shows results, that are much more higher, than should be.
I'm not sure if we have another way to produce as much energy as nuclear plants give. But if we are, that would be great if nuclear plants would be banned. It's just too dangerous.
Yes, of course.
2. If you will have an opportunity to visit Chernobyl for free would you go?
Yes, I would like to visit this place, if it's safe. I've never been there.
3. Do you think that nuclear power stations should be banned because of their disadvantages?
Nuclear accident in Chernobyl happened 32 years ago. I think technology changed a lot in the mean time, but I'm not an expert in this topic. We should not forget about benefits of nuclear power stations.
2. I will go there even not for free. ;) I heard that this place is mostly safe now and going there will be interesting adventure!
3. I don't think so. The nuclear power is our future and we should use it but we have to build it in a way which can protect generators from such accidents like in Czarnobyl.
YES! Actually going to chernobyl is my plan for future vacations, i think this is awesome place to visit of course you need to preserve some cautions but there are trips orgised there.
Yeah, I don't think world need nuclear power , we don't have such a power demand to "play with fire".
Of course I heard. My father, when he was a child lived in Chernobyl, and my grandfather was working in construction on power plants. But their family was evacuated from that zone after accident.
If you will have an opportunity to visit Chernobyl for free would you go?
It's easy to went to Chernobyl zone, many of my friends were there. But I don't think that it make any sense to travel to Chernobyl.
Do you think that nuclear power stations should be banned because of their disadvantages?
I think that we can start closing nuclear plants after we will close coal and gas stations. Because nuclear stations are more effective and eco-friendly than traditional fuel stations.