Jump to content


Photo

Because, Russia

Now is time. Here is place

  • Please log in to reply
3606 replies to this topic

#3441 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,144 posts

Posted 13 June 2019 - 1914 PM

Xi's grand tour of Russia is very akin to the Franz Joseph visiting with Catherine.
  • 0

#3442 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 0757 AM

http://www.msn.com/e...Ug&ocid=UE13DHP

Communists Of Russia, a Marxist-Leninist communist party, said Thursday that it has asked Russia’s broadcasting regulator, Roskomnadzor, to block local access to “disgusting” HBO miniseries Chernobyl. 

The party, not to be confused with the bigger, more powerful Communist Party of the Russian Federation, went on to call for a libel lawsuit against the writer, director and producers of the series, claiming that the program “turned a tragedy into an object of ideological manipulation,” “demonising the Soviet regime and Soviet people.” (The party’s Sergey Malinkovich, who made the statements, admitted that the series for the most part portrayed correctly the chronology of events and key moments of the nuclear disaster.)

 

I was watching on Sky News the other day, and they were talking to one of the (few) survivors of the miners portrayed in the last episode of the series, and they were broadly happy with how they were portrayed. The only thing they didnt seem to like was that they were shown drinking vodka, something Soviet miners never did when working.


Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 14 June 2019 - 0802 AM.

  • 0

#3443 Ssnake

Ssnake

    Virtual Shiva Beast

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,821 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 0910 AM



... the (few) survivors of the miners portrayed in the last episode of the series... were broadly happy with how they were portrayed. The only thing they didnt seem to like was that they were shown drinking vodka, something Soviet miners never did when working.

 

Well, they never drank water, that's for sure.


  • 0

#3444 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,777 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 1025 AM

...Chernobyl...

Everything you wanted to know about flaws:

http://www.tank-net....70#entry1431461

http://www.tank-net....70#entry1431511

 

As a friend put it "If it did not happen it would have been one of the best series ever made, through maybe hard to believe. But it did, and outright lies that were in the series (and were not even needed from a dramaturgy point) move it from "outstanding" to just "generally good".

 

Note also that at no point series mention communism by the name, nor it's two crucial flaws. Because if it would, it would loose ratings among millennials and all SJWs, who see it from a current global warming/late stage capitalism narrative.

Nor does it include even memorial to a liquidators, cause that would mean that man can in the end conquer the atom, and "Atom is scary" is the "green" "save the Gaia" narrative.


Edited by bojan, 14 June 2019 - 1414 PM.

  • 0

#3445 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,690 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 1105 AM

 

 

 

That is an experimental device, not a power reactor.

That is the basis of my question. They do/did produce some power. Why were they not modified and scaled to generate electricity?

 

 

Many experimental devices have drawbacks that made them unsuitable as production devices. For instance, there were a series of homogeneous liquid reactors, that could be used to propel a road car. But that supposes a whole series of problems, mainly of safety and corrosion,

 

 

That most nuclear reactors for elecricity generaton are light water reactors has the simple reason, that those are simple devices that do not have too many problems like corrosion and are cost effective.

 

LWRs are simple and cost effective?


  • 0

#3446 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,030 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 1309 PM

 

 

 

 

That is an experimental device, not a power reactor.

That is the basis of my question. They do/did produce some power. Why were they not modified and scaled to generate electricity?

 

 

Many experimental devices have drawbacks that made them unsuitable as production devices. For instance, there were a series of homogeneous liquid reactors, that could be used to propel a road car. But that supposes a whole series of problems, mainly of safety and corrosion,

 

 

That most nuclear reactors for elecricity generaton are light water reactors has the simple reason, that those are simple devices that do not have too many problems like corrosion and are cost effective.

 

LWRs are simple and cost effective?

 

 

A big thermal power generation plant is a very complex thing. Apart from radiation-related sensors, I daresay that a coal power plant is more complex than a nuclear power plant.

 

On cost effectiveness, yes, they are cost effective, depending on the level of unnecessary regulatory overhead imposed during the design and construction phases.


  • 0

#3447 JWB

JWB

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,690 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 1456 PM

 

 

 

 

 

That is an experimental device, not a power reactor.

That is the basis of my question. They do/did produce some power. Why were they not modified and scaled to generate electricity?

 

 

Many experimental devices have drawbacks that made them unsuitable as production devices. For instance, there were a series of homogeneous liquid reactors, that could be used to propel a road car. But that supposes a whole series of problems, mainly of safety and corrosion,

 

 

That most nuclear reactors for elecricity generaton are light water reactors has the simple reason, that those are simple devices that do not have too many problems like corrosion and are cost effective.

 

LWRs are simple and cost effective?

 

 

A big thermal power generation plant is a very complex thing. Apart from radiation-related sensors, I daresay that a coal power plant is more complex than a nuclear power plant.

 

On cost effectiveness, yes, they are cost effective, depending on the level of unnecessary regulatory overhead imposed during the design and construction phases.

 

Coal has a hard time competing against nuke but for countries that frack gas beats them all.


  • 0

#3448 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,030 posts

Posted 14 June 2019 - 1606 PM

A big thermal power generation plant is a very complex thing. Apart from radiation-related sensors, I daresay that a coal power plant is more complex than a nuclear power plant.
 
On cost effectiveness, yes, they are cost effective, depending on the level of unnecessary regulatory overhead imposed during the design and construction phases.

Coal has a hard time competing against nuke but for countries that frack gas beats them all.


Very true. Power generation using gas from fracking is among the very few cheaper alternatives to nuclear power generation in USA.
  • 0

#3449 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,612 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 0232 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

That is an experimental device, not a power reactor.

That is the basis of my question. They do/did produce some power. Why were they not modified and scaled to generate electricity?

 

 

Many experimental devices have drawbacks that made them unsuitable as production devices. For instance, there were a series of homogeneous liquid reactors, that could be used to propel a road car. But that supposes a whole series of problems, mainly of safety and corrosion,

 

 

That most nuclear reactors for elecricity generaton are light water reactors has the simple reason, that those are simple devices that do not have too many problems like corrosion and are cost effective.

 

LWRs are simple and cost effective?

 

 

A big thermal power generation plant is a very complex thing. Apart from radiation-related sensors, I daresay that a coal power plant is more complex than a nuclear power plant.

 

On cost effectiveness, yes, they are cost effective, depending on the level of unnecessary regulatory overhead imposed during the design and construction phases.

 

Coal has a hard time competing against nuke but for countries that frack gas beats them all.

 

 

Actually I was comparing to other forms of nuclear reactors. e.g. heavy water or salt.


  • 0

#3450 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 12,030 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 0245 AM

Actually I was comparing to other forms of nuclear reactors. e.g. heavy water or salt.


Heavy water needs a steep initial investment, as heavy water is expensive and needs a lot of electricity to manufacture it. Canada could develop CANDU because of great resources of hydropower.

 

Molten salt has corrosion issues that seem to be solved with the latest versions; perhaps some institutional opposition too.


Edited by sunday, 15 June 2019 - 0246 AM.

  • 0

#3451 DB

DB

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,345 posts

Posted 15 June 2019 - 0738 AM


 


That is an experimental device, not a power reactor.

That is the basis of my question. They do/did produce some power. Why were they not modified and scaled to generate electricity?
 
 
Many experimental devices have drawbacks that made them unsuitable as production devices. For instance, there were a series of homogeneous liquid reactors, that could be used to propel a road car. But that supposes a whole series of problems, mainly of safety and corrosion,
Never heard of those liquid reactors before. Now I know why the Red Rocket gas stations in Fallout sell Coolant...
As an aside, I'll have one for my post apocalyptic bunker, please.
  • 0

#3452 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,612 posts

Posted 16 June 2019 - 0553 AM

https://www.golem.de...906-141932.html(german)

 

Sky has broadcast the Chernobyl series with fan made subtitles in Switzerland. ooopsie.

 

It was discovered, because teh credits of teh fan subbers was still in the text. The fansubbers have thanked Sky for keeping the credits, because they stasrted their project to break language barriers and help those hard of hearing.


  • 0

#3453 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,551 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1518 PM

64971291_2266457180282406_35162357117264

64753928_2266457186949072_63969041129060

64481710_2266457196949071_74956400609984


  • 0

#3454 Murph

Murph

    Hierophant Lord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,090 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1541 PM

WTF? That looks awkward.
  • 0

#3455 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,551 posts

Posted 17 June 2019 - 1629 PM

WTF? That looks awkward.


  • 0

#3456 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,551 posts

Posted 18 June 2019 - 1421 PM

https://www.dailymai...icers-Ball.html

Hundreds of Russian naval commanders and their well-dressed partners take part in annual Sevastopol Officer's Ball to mark 'the fifth anniversary of the return of Crimea to Russia'


  • 0

#3457 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 55,367 posts

Posted 25 June 2019 - 0206 AM

https://www.telegrap...ssing-missiles/

the Russian Orthodox Church is reconsidering the popular practice of priests blessing weapons including nuclear missiles. 

A document drafted by a commission on church law last week recommended that clergy perform benedictions for soldiers rather than military equipment.  

“The commission's opinion is that in terms of church tradition we can talk about blessing a warrior to perform military service in defence of the fatherland,” Savva Tutunov, the bishop of Zelenograd and deputy head of affairs for the Russian church, wrote on the Telegram messenger service. “His personal weapons are blessed namely because they are connected with the one receiving the blessing. For this reason, weapons of mass destruction and personal weapons in general should not be sanctified.”

Mr Tutunov admitted that this conclusion contravenes current practice and had to be rewritten after heated debate within the commission. The document must still be discussed by top church officials before it becomes doctrine. 

In recent years, Russian Orthodox priests have often been seen chanting prayers and casting holy water on arms like S-400 surface-to-air missiles in Crimea and intercontinental and short-range ballistic missiles taking part in the victory day parade on Red Square. They have also blessed assault rifles, fighter jets and nuclear submarines.

 

But Father Mikhail Vasilyev, a priest who has accompanied paratroopers to war zones in Syria and Chechnya, argued that clergy blessed anti-aircraft missiles “so there would be peaceful skies over our heads,” and this was part of a bigger effort to help soldiers fight sin.

“We don't need to classify weapons by their lethality,” he told the Telegraph. “We should stop (blessing them) entirely, which I think is incorrect, or we should stress spiritual education so that these weapons and the blessing of them are given to people who are facilitating the peace and security of the country rather than aggression.”

The issue has arguably become more pressing as the church attaches increasing numbers of priests to military units. A school for chaplains is being built at the defence ministry's Patriot Park outside Moscow.

 

Church doctrine holds that war is evil but can be necessary to “protect loved ones and restore justice”.

Priests were known to have blessed swords before the victory over the Golden Horder at Kulikovo and tanks during the Second World War. Mr Tutunov said the church had to “make sense of the new realities” of modern weaponry, however. 

In the 1990s, priests were even rumoured to have blessed gangsters' pistols. More recently, Russian priests have blessed automobiles, gas pipelines and rockets bound for space. 

 

After a Proton-M rocket carrying Russian navigation satellites broke up during launch from Baikonur cosmodrome in 2013, local priest Sergei Bychkov claimed that “the ones that crashed were the ones we didn't bless”.


  • 0

#3458 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,443 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 1403 PM

Another submarine fire.

 

Russia: Fire kills 14 sailors aboard navy research submersible


1 hour ago
 

A fire aboard a Russian navy research submersible has killed 14 crew members, the Russian defence ministry says.

 

The crew were poisoned by fumes as the vessel was taking measurements in Russian territorial waters on Monday.

 

The ministry gave no details about the type of vessel. But Russian media reports say it was a nuclear mini-submarine used for special operations.

 

The fire was later put out and the vessel is now at Severomorsk, the main base of the Russian Northern Fleet.

 

The defence ministry did not say how many crew members were aboard at the time.

 

An investigation into the incident has begun under the commander-in-chief of the navy.

 

Russian President Vladimir Putin later on Tuesday pulled out of a scheduled event in the Tver region, north-west of Moscow, to discuss the issue with Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu.

 

Mr Putin described the incident as a big loss for the Russian Navy, and expressed "sincere condolences" to the victims' families.

 

Seven captains and two service personnel awarded Russia's highest honorary title, Hero of the Russian Federation, were among those who died on board the vessel, the president said.

 

[...]

 

https://www.bbc.com/...europe-48844013


  • 0

#3459 Gregory

Gregory

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,476 posts

Posted 02 July 2019 - 1445 PM

Who would've thunk that Russian officials are cooking the numbers to please Putin?  

 


Russian Deputy Prime Minister Tatiana Golikova said during a meeting with members of the scientific and educational medical cluster of the Northwestern Federal District "Zapadny" that the natural decline in the population of Russia over the four months of 2019 was 149 thousand people.

She stressed that "key" are "two national goals - this is natural population growth and life expectancy."

“We are catastrophically losing the population of the country. Over four months, the natural decline in our population amounted to about 149 thousand people, ”Golikova quotes TASS.

She also stated that “in the pursuit of qualitative indicators, very many regions of the country showed the best statistics”.

In March, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, citing data from the Rosstat, reported that the lowest mortality rates in Russia were recorded in the Caucasus.
https://www.tellerre...B1WGC-WFxr.html


  • 0

#3460 Roman Alymov

Roman Alymov

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,551 posts

Posted 03 July 2019 - 1557 PM

 

Who would've thunk that Russian officials are cooking the numbers to please Putin?  

 

 


Russian Deputy Prime Minister Tatiana Golikova said during a meeting with members of the scientific and educational medical cluster of the Northwestern Federal District "Zapadny" that the natural decline in the population of Russia over the four months of 2019 was 149 thousand people.

She stressed that "key" are "two national goals - this is natural population growth and life expectancy."

“We are catastrophically losing the population of the country. Over four months, the natural decline in our population amounted to about 149 thousand people, ”Golikova quotes TASS.

She also stated that “in the pursuit of qualitative indicators, very many regions of the country showed the best statistics”.

In March, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, citing data from the Rosstat, reported that the lowest mortality rates in Russia were recorded in the Caucasus.
https://www.tellerre...B1WGC-WFxr.html

 

I'm sure Russia is the only country on the planet where officials and politicians are lying and making up numbers to please bosses and voters :)
  Actually demographic problems of Russia are well known and deeply rooted
https://www.rbth.com...ulation-decline
Why is Russia's population destined for a sharp decline?

Rus Gov is jumping loops to address the problem (including on top political level) - even Voice of America know that
https://www.polygrap...k/29783676.html

  By the way, as you mention it, let's put numbers into perspective. In Russia, was 149 thousand people in four months of 2019 (=447K annually) is called "catastrophically losing the population". Let's compare it to ethnically undistinguishable territory separated from Russia by post-Soviet oligarchy and their Nazi friends: according to Foreign minister Klimkin, about 1 mln citizens are leaving Ukraine every year (https://nv.ua/ukrain...nu-2492077.html ).  Taking into account Ukr ia 1/4 of Rus in terms of population, Ukraine population decline per capita is about 8 times higher.


  • 0