Hi all, can somebody tell me what this two places are called in English, I have heard that “Chernobyl” translates into"Wormwood" is this correct? Thanks
Chernobyl
From wikipedia:
Fukushima
Fukushima means good fortune island or blessed island (depending on whose translation you use) and is a common surname in Japan. The city is the capital of the prefecture of Fukushima and both get their name from the Fukushima family that controlled Fukushima castle in the 1700s, establishing what was called the Fukushima domain during the Japanese Edo Period.
Wikipedia link:
Thanks for the “very” speedy reply…
Gernobil is the incident that created mutant ninja gerbils.
What the OP may be thinking, or influenced by, is the reference to “a star called Wormwood” from Revelations. Y’know, prophecy. I’ve seen quite a few murky references to how Gerbilmobile fits this bit of proffing.
While we’re at it, it should be mentioned that, by any objective measure (lives, dollars, curies, whatever), Chernobyl was orders of magnitude worse than Fukushima. There’s some scale by some people who purport to be important that puts them both in the same, highest, category, but the values on that scale are based on nothing more than a subjective assessment by those purportedly-important people, and I’ve never seen anyone give any good reason to pay it any heed.
You got me to respond to your post “Cronos”, what are you telling us, is it that Chernobyl is a lesser or bigger problem? What I have read so far about Fukushima sounds much worse than anything that Chernobyl could have done, Fukushima is polluting/poisoning the Pacific Ocean in a very serious way and that probably for many years to come.
And for the “Barbarian”, this is GQ so I will not get into it, but the way everything is developing I would not be surprised if we see more “Revelations”, it does not really matter what it is as long as it hurts us.
Peace
Yeah, it was a popular claim in the Evangelical Christian circles back in the late 80s and early 90s - but it’s a pretty tenuous link, because:
[ul]
[li]Chernobyl is the name of mugwort, which is not wormwood - it’s a species in the same genus, but not the same thing[/li][li]A nuclear reactor is not a star, and is not like a star in any way (fission, not fusion - it’s a trivial difference, only to the scientifically illiterate)[/li][li]The word in the original Greek texts is ‘Apsinthos’, which is the literal name for wormwood, but has long been understood to be used to mean ‘bitterness’ in a figuative sense.[/li][/ul]
Ah! those noble gerbils! Gernoble.
Pcific ocean is one third of the waters on eath, although the contamination will exceed that to be all over the globe.
Revelations 8:11 “The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water— the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many people died from the waters that had become bitter.”
To me “star” is used to decribe radioactivity. What else coul in their day’s language and concepts? Wormwood translates to chernobyl in Russian.
Fukushima is ultimately orders of magnitude worse than Chernobyl, media has disinformation to downplay it “worst… since Chernobyl.” Do real research, not media comments. Firstly, Fukushima automaticall almost 3 times worse with triple meltdown versus one in Chernobyl. Magnitudes worse is the fact that one was actually a melt out, with also 40 years worth of spent uranium aerosolized into the atmosphere, and another one being actually a melt through. What really also makes Fukushima worse is it is orders of magnitude less containable, will never stop gushing 400 tonnes contaminated water into a body of water much more far reaching than Chernobyl’s. Fukushima is releasing 2.5 Hiroshima bombs per hour. So I believe you are not only ignorant, you are adding to the damage caused by passing on deliberate misinformation from the media to downplay. I hope you do not see the effects on yourself within your lifetime, because i wish a short life on you.
I’d like a cite for that because it doesn’t align to anything I can find.
Three Mile Island released 0.62 petabecquerels of radiation
Fukushima released 770 petabecquerels
Chernobyl release 5200 petabecquerels
Now you could argue that in the intervening 5 years or so the Japanese accident has released into the Pacific 4430 petabecquerels , or 5.7 it initial release, but I’d like to see the study.
The IEEE cite does note that while Chernobyl caused more direct deaths and released more radioactive Iodine it’s too early to fully assess the impact from the Fukushima accident.
Moderator Note
Welcome to the SDMB, Objectman.
Please note that we do not allow users to insult other users in this forum. We also do not allow wishing harm (like wishing a short life on someone) on this message board.
If something makes you angry and you want to hurl insults at another poster, you may do so in The BBQ Pit forum. I strongly advise you to read a lot of that forum first before posting there, as it can be a little rough and it’s a good idea to know what is and is not acceptable there before posting.
In any other forum here, no insults. Period.
Since you are new and obviously aren’t all that aware of the rules, this is just a friendly moderator note, which isn’t a big deal.
TMI and Gerbilectomy are also contained - Chernobyl is about to be re-contained in a much sturdier sarcophagus.
Fukushima is an ongoing disaster that produces more highly radioactive water every hour. Go look at the time-lapse Google Earth imagery as the number of holding tanks multiplies, and multiplies, and multiplies around the site.
Well, if the people who wrote the bible were getting the unerring word from a perfectly omnipotent god and wanted to describe Chernobyl, I imagine the bible would have explained that people would build a building in an area to be called the Ukraine that would contain a nuclear reactor that generated electricity using the fission of uranium atoms, and that poor management of that reactor would lead it to explode and kill a number of people. It wouldn’t describe Chernobyl as a “star” since stars that we can see are billions of times more massive, they run on fusion, and a star would “fall from the sky” but rather, because it is so more massive than Earth, the Earth would fall into the star. It also wouldn’t describe how a third of the water would turn “bitter” but rather would explain how irradiation would work, who would be exposed, the half-life of the resulting radioactive isotopes, and describe the scope of the damage. If you say that the people then wouldn’t have understood those concepts, well, a perfectly omnipotent and unerring god could have conveyed those concepts in terms that they would have understood, such as explaining what atoms are, where uranium can be found, how it can be separated from other minerals, how we can use it in fission, etc. Since the putative purpose of the bible is to allow a god to explain to people concepts that they can’t understand on their own, well, this would seem to be a good opportunity for god to have explained fission to us. But it seems he didn’t do that. If he wanted to warn us against fission, he could have done that too.
Of course, if the bible were just written by people who didn’t understand those concepts, you are right that they could not have explained those concepts at the time the bible was written. And in fact, the bible doesn’t explain those concepts. I will leave you to draw your own conclusions about what that suggests about who wrote the bible.
I think we’re better off at Fukushima, just look at all the tanks holding radioactive water … I don’t see any tanks like that at Chernobyl, though I’m not sure that matters all that much with all the cord innards scattered about …
Residual radiation in the Chernogerbil area is approaching negligible.
Stored HLRW at Fukushima is approaching crisis conditions with no real end in sight.
There is only a very small, finite amount of high-level waste at any nuclear facility. Anything that’s filling up many large tanks must, of necessity, be lower-level waste.
And the fact that there’s a greater response to Fukushima than to Chernobyl is mostly a result of the fact that Japan is a more mature, responsible country than the USSR was, and makes an effort to clean up its messes.
It’s termed “highly radioactive” by multiple sources; I’ll concede that doesn’t equate to “high level nuclear waste.”
I don’t know that I’d disagree, but I’m also not quite sure what you’re saying. Fukushima continues to accumulate “highly radioactive” water because no one including the Japanese are quite sure what to do about the problem.
The Soviets built a quadruple power plant with a reactor model known to have safety and operation issues. The Japanese built quite a number of very safe, modern plants where Ma Nature has been violently reshaping the coastline for eons.
the key difference is in how both incidents spread radioactive material. Fukushima appears to be via water used to try to cool compromised (leaking) reactor vessels. In Chernobyl, the reactor vessel actually burst from the pressure, and the (irradiated) graphite blocks used as the moderator ignited. the resulting fire carried radioactive material through the air and out to other countries.