The Simpsons go to Chernobyl. . A mural portraying the Simpsons and that nuclear energy is safe. Chernobyl, Ukraine.. Yeah that's shopped.
Home Funny Pictures YouTube Funny Videos Funny GIFs Text/Links Channels Search

The Simpsons go to Chernobyl

Views: 29176
Favorited: 31
Submitted: 10/31/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to OVendettaO E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend


Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
#68 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
To the "Nuclear energy is Safe" argument -

No its not safe. Its like lighting a fire that you cannot put out and hoping that nothing goes wrong. You don't even have to put it down to human error. If there is an earth quake and it effects the reactor, you're ****** . "Oh don't build one where there are earth quakes". The arrogance of assuming that things wont change, and that we can have complete control. We should not invest in nuclear power until we figure out how to shut it off. Until then, see Japan, see Chernobyl for example of what happens when things **** up.
#65 - jabadagriffins (11/01/2013) [-]
Well nuclear energy is safe...   
It is dangerous when it is in an under developed country that is running the reactor at double capacity.   
People screaming nuclear energy is dangerous are actually making it more dangerous by not allowing newer more modern and safer reactors to be built, at the moment all reactors are between 20-30 year old technology.    
Storing it is also safely done, so is transporting nuclear waste.    
Fun fact if you think living near one is dangerous.   
A banana contains more radiation than you would receive in a life time of living within 50km of a nuclear power plant.
Well nuclear energy is safe...

It is dangerous when it is in an under developed country that is running the reactor at double capacity.

People screaming nuclear energy is dangerous are actually making it more dangerous by not allowing newer more modern and safer reactors to be built, at the moment all reactors are between 20-30 year old technology.

Storing it is also safely done, so is transporting nuclear waste.
Fun fact if you think living near one is dangerous.

A banana contains more radiation than you would receive in a life time of living within 50km of a nuclear power plant.
User avatar #66 to #65 - pawnman (11/01/2013) [-]
I like you.
User avatar #64 - swimmingprodigy (11/01/2013) [-]
if thats not irony, idk what is
User avatar #63 - hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/01/2013) [-]
why is green gas oming out of the cooling tower? cooling towers water cool and the gas should therefore be water vapour
User avatar #62 - hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/01/2013) [-]
umm the simpsons literally make a mockery of nuclear energy with the 100 eyed fish as a reoccuring character and alot more references.
User avatar #67 to #62 - benjamino (11/01/2013) [-]
It's a three eyed fish and his name is Blinky you **** .

No but guys kind of right though
User avatar #70 to #67 - hellomynameisbill ONLINE (11/01/2013) [-]
i believe there was a 100 eyed creature in the movie
User avatar #71 to #70 - benjamino (11/01/2013) [-]
Still wasn't Blinky, it was a squirrel.
User avatar #69 to #67 - thunderchanter (11/01/2013) [-]
Some one is passionate about their three-eyed fish
User avatar #61 - thebestpieever (11/01/2013) [-]
So uh, just for the record, the first season of The SImpsons went on the air a full 3 years after the Chernobyl disaster. Let alone the crisp, lean looking mid-nineties version of The Simpsons portrayed here.
User avatar #54 - rdangerdash (11/01/2013) [-]
Idiots. It doesn't say anywhere that the mural has been there since before the explosion. It doesn't say anything about it being anywhere near the time the explosion happened and based on the obvious fact that the picture features a more recent animation the obvious conclusion should be that it was put there more recently. So how is it that pretty much everyone here came to the completely wrong conclusion?
User avatar #53 - illusiveman (11/01/2013) [-]
green steam?
#48 - fyaq (11/01/2013) [-]
Shopped, nuclear energy is safe when regulated, and a repost.

If you didnt suck enough dicks yesterday, you'll sure as hell reach your quota today.
User avatar #60 to #48 - psydoc (11/01/2013) [-]
As I understand it the problem was that they had a control rod that would stick. They logged the problem, but continued to use the plant without replacing the rod by manually pulling the rod out. Well, one day they pulled the rod out too far too fast.

Anyway I think the real lesson of Chernobyl isn't that nuclear energy is unsafe. A lot of things can be unsafe if you use them in a completely stupid and irresponsible manner. I think the real lesson is how a communist country can completely screw something up and get a lot of people killed (I am of course assuming the rod wasn't replaced because the communist regime didn't prioritize it, not because scientists had a death wish).
#46 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
Fake, gay.
User avatar #39 - GEARBOY (11/01/2013) [-]
I doubt a communist country would be allowed to use that during the cold war...
User avatar #41 to #39 - dafiltafish (11/01/2013) [-]
Scroll down, and you shall find the answer.
User avatar #42 to #41 - GEARBOY (11/01/2013) [-]
Of course, other than it's complete photoshop - I'm just pointing out another reason as to why this can't be real.
User avatar #43 to #42 - dafiltafish (11/01/2013) [-]
Oh, but it is real. It is just not as old as OP implies.
User avatar #44 to #43 - GEARBOY (11/01/2013) [-]
ah, I see
User avatar #37 - Mikeekidd (11/01/2013) [-]
am I going to be the one to say that Chernobyl is still habitable by humans and that humans still work relatively close to the reactor and that they even smoke near it? for limited periods of coarse, but I've been there and it was extremely fascinating that people still work there, anyway my point is that could have been painted extremely easily.
User avatar #38 to #37 - Mikeekidd (11/01/2013) [-]
I am British military Officer Training Corps just to let everyone know
User avatar #36 - coolcalx (11/01/2013) [-]
Nuclear energy IS safe.

however, it's not all that efficient, in terms of net energy output.
also it creates nuclear waste, but that's okay, because we use the nuclear waste for our nuclear arsenal.

that's right. nuclear fission energy is relatively inefficient, yet we still use it, conceivably because we can use the byproducts to create weapons. that's why we didn't want Iran building a nuclear plant. nuclear plants are basically low key bomb-making factories
#51 to #36 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
Nuclear reactors have a 97% efficiency. Wind mills are 31%. NUCLEAR ENGINEERING MASTER RACE REPORTING.
User avatar #40 to #36 - dafiltafish (11/01/2013) [-]
The advantage is solid and liquid waste. better for air quality when compared to coal. What you use that waste for? that is up to the people in charge.

You need to login to view this link

An efficiency comparison by the EIA seems to point out that they offer no clear advantage from an output standpoint. Of course this is a government organization, so there is a possibility of tampering with the numbers.
User avatar #49 to #40 - coolcalx (11/01/2013) [-]
it's possible to refine coal into a liquid form which causes relatively small pollution, however this is not done because power companies don't want to waste the resources to convert the coal into a clean substance when they could just dump the pollutants in the air.

the US has a very large coal supply, so eventually, they will probably end up using that cleaner process
User avatar #50 to #49 - dafiltafish (11/01/2013) [-]
Money and politics once again hinder progress.
#35 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
NUCLEAR ENGINEER MASTER RACE REPORTING TO EXPLAIN CHERNOBYL AND WHY IT FAILED: Okay, first of all, the reactor itself was a breeder reactor: Meaning you put in uranium, and get plutonium out. The soviets rushed the production of the plant for nuclear weapons, and the reactor itself HAD NO CONTAINMENT. THAT'S LIKE MAKING SUBMARINE WALLS OUT OF THIN GLASS AND BEING LIKE **** I HOPE WE DON'T BUMP SOMETHING. Next, the actual explosion was man-caused. The scientists were doing an experiment, and virtually this is how it went. They removed a **** ton of control rods, but the reactivity (what causes **** to heat up) wasn't changing. This was due to something called Xenon poisoning, meaning that because of the decay cycle, xenon was building up and the reactivity was going down. After 12 hours, xenon decays and reactivity goes up. They didn't know that, and they waited until it was too late to scram. BOOM. no containment, and the graphite coolant caught fire and exploded. THE END.
User avatar #56 to #35 - krasnogvardiech (11/01/2013) [-]
Partially drunk Ukrainian-turned-New Zealander student here to correct you on a few things. I did a report on this stuff a while back.

The whole ******* plant was built on the presumption that nuclear energy was safe and reliable, and Soviet engineering was superior and several now-obvious design flaws were all part of the great work of the Motherland. This is anything and everything from not having lead plating in the walls, to using cheaper equipment to combine and form the concrete.
The disaster itself was caused by a drastic lack of coolant. This normally was plain river water and under all circumstances would work. At this point I don't know if it was to your point of Xenon poisoning/decay and the graphite being set alight, but the key cause was simply a lack of things to cool the reactor. Naturally, the whole ******* thing melted (that massive manmade rock-thing in the reactor room might be the entire reactor, melted down to slag and pressed into a smaller form, becoming near 400+ tons in weight.) and this was what started the nuclear fire.
Your point about the reactor having no containment was quite true - and they didn't put in many backups in case a thing like that happened. You've lost me with the Xenon decay and reactivity, but I do know that it was the molten slag that the reactor had become which caused the nuclear fire - the graphite (coolant?) probably did explode and cause there to be a great big hole in the roof for radiation to bleed out.

The reason the radiation got everywhere because of the Liquidators (some 500k+ people with buckets of RIVER WATER drafted to try put out a NUCLEAR FIRE) attempting and dying in the attempt to put the whole thing out. It was only when an actual scientist (not known if he was a nuclear engineer, by me anyway) ordered helicopters to drop loads of sand mixed with boron dust to put out the flame and absorb stray neutrons.

TL;DR Soviet political **** caused it. Several dozen design flaws were found, and all ignored.
#59 to #56 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
#58 to #56 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
YES YES. I see your points. But, ultimately, it was the Xenon poisoning. I assume you're familiar with decayed fission products, no? Xenon poisoning is what caused the dramatic decrease of reactivity, leading to only two? fuel rods being left in. After the xenon decays, the reactivity returns to normal, hence the reactivity spike, and the non negative reactivity coefficient caused a meltdown. While the river water would normally be enough to cool a reactor, it couldnt in this case. Everything melted. The graphite, was NOT the coolant, but due to the positive feedback loop, caused the in thermal power that triggered the steam compression explosion. I stand corrected, but it was not a LOCA accident, it was the Xenon poisoning that caused it.
User avatar #45 to #35 - enigmaticspirit (11/01/2013) [-]
Thank you for this, that was an interesting read.
#52 to #45 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
Yes yes, you're welcome. SPREADING THE GOOD NEWS OF NUCLEAR.
User avatar #34 - theguyishere (11/01/2013) [-]
Nuclear Energy is safe. Chernobyl happened because of typical Soviet ideals of safety last. Trust me I know about the precautions in the nuclear industry. I worked for a company that builds nuclear reactors last summer.
User avatar #28 - dafukdude (11/01/2013) [-]
Isn't that the kind of poster thingy for the latest season?
User avatar #32 to #28 - calawesome (11/01/2013) [-]
it's promotion from the simpsons movie.I had one on my wall.
#24 - anonymous (11/01/2013) [-]
Why is the water vapour green coming out of the top?
#20 - granodd (11/01/2013) [-]
>MFW you expect me to believe that the Soviets would even think of using Western media. Also the fact that Simpsons didn't even exist.
User avatar #21 to #20 - brotherhood (11/01/2013) [-]
and the fact that homer worked at a power plant and never did his job right
#25 to #21 - brizzle (11/01/2013) [-]
and the fact that this pic is current-era simpsons vs. the original airing that would have been closest to the chernobyl disaster.
User avatar #26 to #25 - brotherhood (11/01/2013) [-]
my point was that homer caused the the whole disaster, but nooo u cant leave well enough alone
User avatar #30 to #26 - brizzle (11/01/2013) [-]
i thought we were just throwing out facts as to why they would not have had the simpsons on a wall at chernobyl.
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)