Chernobyl Project

Loading...

Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon
Upgrade to the latest Flash Player for improved playback performance. Upgrade now or more info.
109,727
Loading...
Alert icon
Sign in or sign up now!
Alert icon

Uploaded by on May 11, 2010

A video created for a science project. No footage was shot by us, it was all collected from the internet. We do not take credit for any footage, photos or music included in the film. Thanks. (HI MRS. G)

Category:

Education

Tags:

License:

Standard YouTube License

Link to this comment:

Share to:

Top Comments

  • Maybe we should start funding the alternate energy solutions...

  • I wouldnt take a step in that damn city without a gun.

see all

All Comments (154)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • @FUZZEYMONKEY no offense, but a gun won't save you from radiation..... just sayin'.

  • @xxCyberDamagexx and just a simple comparison:

    nuclear powerplant needs a refuel done every 12 to 18 months, they only need 2 metric tons or 6 truckloads of uranium that resulting in alot less waste.

    coal plant requires 100 tons of coal everyday.

  • @xxCyberDamagexx there is a lot of research on coal waste and nuclear waste

    use google.

    quoting some:

    "Coal, meanwhile, is believed responsible for a host of more quotidian problems, such as mining accidents, acid rain and greenhouse gas emissions."

    if you put nuclear waste into a concrete bunker it can't spread into the ground itself.

    google nuclear waste managment. And technology and with it the safety and risks are getting smaller.

    and 435 world wide nuclear powerplants produce 368,267 MW

  • I would appreciate very much if anybody can recognize and tell me the name of the piece of music used at the beginning of the video. Looks like a movie's soundtrack, but I can't identify it. Thanks in advance.

  • @MilkManiacForgames however, we still don't know how to get rid of the nuclear waste..and it does polute the ground and ground water...so it's clean by not poluting the air..but still not clean or safe.

  • 8:55

    0.0

  • fukushima a été qualifiée de pire que tchernobyle

  • to be honest the only problem with nuclear energy is the natural disaster danger example earthquake in japan.

    on other hand nuclear energy is much better then for example thermo, which is still used alot,

    alot cheaper to make and less polution.

  • If we keep going on like this we are all going to die a horrible death, global warming is a serious problem that most people seem to ignore/deny, it is real and it is happening, the world is warming at an unnatural rate and we need to stop it, before the entire antarctic melts beyond control, goverments need to stop being corrupt and do what is right, corporations need to stop being greedy and destroying the earth, but most of all we need to stop using so much power and resources! please help

  • @LokiCocola apologising for no reason? I wish everyone on the internet were as polite as you :)

    Comparison of F & C is difficult, given the time-scales & soviet cover-ups. One expert put radiation releases & the area covered at F at a tenth that of C. Fewer people were evacuated after F. C had a larger compulsory exclusion zone. C killed 31/64, F has killed none. I'd like to see your facts on the economic impacts. Furthermore one must consider the poverty of the USSR compared to modern Japan.

Loading...

Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more