Why is Chernobyl radioactive but not Hiroshima/Nagasaki?

File: world-map.gif (99KB, 1200x715px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 1200x715px

>>8291800
If you look at a map, you'll see that Japan is close to the leading edge while Chernobyl is more to the middle. As the Earth rotates, the winds blow away the radiation over time. Since Japan is at the edge, it receives the most wind and loses its radioactivity the fastest. Chernobyl, being in the middle, receives much weaker wind that has been dissipated by the Himalayas.

This is why all nuclear facilities have fanners that run around the building with giant palm leaves, removing as much radiation as they can.

>>8291818
You tried

>>8291800
Chernobil exploded and got radiation in the atmosphere, Fukushima was just a meltdown - the fuel overheated and melted stuff, but it didn't cause an explosion.

>>8291853
fukushima isn't hiroshima and nagasaki you blingwad

An atom bomb explosion isn't the same as a reactor leak you morons

>>8291818
Because Hiroshima and Nagasaki were cleaned, burried and rebuild while Chernobil wasn't.
Also in Japan the fallout was "evenly spread" to some extend because of the airburst weapons. In Chernobyl it wasn't, there's was a huge ground facility filled with radioactive crap that were never spread across the world by fat americans trying to make a statement. So we keep them buried.

Although take note that even in the area around Chernobyl a lot of topsoil was removed.

>>8291911
Everything you posted here is nonsense. It might actually help if you knew what you were talking about.

>>8291939
Your post claiming my post is nonsense is nonsense.
Maybe you should know what you're talking about before criticizing.

>>8291800
There's a difference between a tonne and a gram.

>>8291800
Everything is radioactive.

Why was Chernobyl so much worse? Because of differences in the reactor design, the different in events and actions leading up to the accidents, and the difference in events and actions afterwards.

Loosely, Chernobyl had a positive temperature coefficient of reactivity. In laymen's terms, it's designed to explode. We have never built a reactor in the west that is that dangerous. That's arguably the biggest difference.

>>8291800
Oh, I misread. My bad. The atomic bombs? Because of the differences in the nuclear processes that go on. I don't think I can explain it any simplier than that. A nuclear reactor is not an atomic bomb. The nuclear processes involved are very, very different, and they produce very different kinds of nuclear waste / fallout.