Edmund Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 ... Ok I know they are not tanks. But all those BRDM's going to waste. Shame. They should have sold them to US commuters for rush hour. Get out of my way or I'll give you cancer? Wouldn't a quick wash take care to radiation? If not I guess a special drivers outfit would be needed. If they were irradiated with neutrons, not, as some steels contain cobalt, for instance, and neutron irradiation of natural cobalt 59 produces cobalt 60, a highly radioactive isotope with a half life of about 5 years. A wash would not do anything in that case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_activation Ok. So a half-life of 5 years means they are safe in ten? Twelve to be sure. So by now they should be ok right? Chernobyl was almost twenty years ago.
mnm Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 Half-life of 5 years means that an initial radiation level (or whatever you have for that matter) of say 1000 units will be half that - 500 - after 5 years, then 250 after another 5 years, than 125 after another 5 years, and so on.
Panzermann Posted October 29, 2013 Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) Half-life of 5 years means that an initial radiation level (or whatever you have for that matter) of say 1000 units will be half that - 500 - after 5 years, then 250 after another 5 years, than 125 after another 5 years, and so on. And the resulting isotopes from the radioactive decay are often radioactive themselves with differing half-life. So it is still dangerous. Edited October 29, 2013 by Panzermann
Edmund Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I see. A few more years then. Seems that they should just say it isn't safe for 30 or 50 years versus the half-life thing. THanks guys. Keep the pictures coming. I will refrain from drooling over having a tank or whatever. I was sure those BRDM's would be affordable.
Coldsteel Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 Well you might be able to get away with it: http://www.raeme.info/ops.php?op=armd&item=3 But if the Soviet Union, with its shall we say slightly more relaxed attitude toward health and safety, saw fit to dump the vehicles rather than reuse them ...
Panzermann Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) Well you might be able to get away with it: http://www.raeme.info/ops.php?op=armd&item=3 But if the Soviet Union, with its shall we say slightly more relaxed attitude toward health and safety, saw fit to dump the vehicles rather than reuse them ... It is easier to park all the contaminated equipment instead of cleaning it thoroughly. And where to store them for years safely so that the it does not rot? I think it was the easiest way to just park all the stuff and forget about it. It's not like it adds substabtially to the contamination of the containment zone. Edited October 30, 2013 by Panzermann
Sami Jumppanen Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Half-life of 5 years means that an initial radiation level (or whatever you have for that matter) of say 1000 units will be half that - 500 - after 5 years, then 250 after another 5 years, than 125 after another 5 years, and so on.And the resulting isotopes from the radioactive decay are often radioactive themselves with differing half-life. So it is still dangerous. Afaik that doesn't realy matter because in practice other isotopes are always present so when it comes to the half life they determine the radiating isotope by measuring how fast the radiation level drops. Or at least i haven't heard of anyone telling "we need to be out of here by XX:XX because the next isotope is about to kick-in and it is realy nasty one".
Edmund Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Well you might be able to get away with it: http://www.raeme.info/ops.php?op=armd&item=3 But if the Soviet Union, with its shall we say slightly more relaxed attitude toward health and safety, saw fit to dump the vehicles rather than reuse them ... It is easier to park all the contaminated equipment instead of cleaning it thoroughly. And where to store them for years safely so that the it does not rot? I think it was the easiest way to just park all the stuff and forget about it. It's not like it adds substabtially to the contamination of the containment zone. I guess it was easier. A shame for them to be abandoned. Of course they had a bunch of them in service.
jmcmtank Posted November 4, 2013 Posted November 4, 2013 I know it's a video, but it IS a porno;[video=youtube_share;-Z5KLO9kz18]
shep854 Posted November 5, 2013 Posted November 5, 2013 I know it's a video, but it IS a porno;[video=youtube_share;-Z5KLO9kz18] Yes, very nice '60's panzerporn!
Mr King Posted December 24, 2013 Author Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) Edited December 24, 2013 by Mr King
JW Collins Posted December 24, 2013 Posted December 24, 2013 Whats with that thing above the commander's sight on the Puma? Some sort of training device?
Mr King Posted December 24, 2013 Author Posted December 24, 2013 (edited) Whats with that thing above the commander's sight on the Puma? Some sort of training device?That is another sight. It is turned towards the rear of the turret in that photo. Edited December 24, 2013 by Mr King
Archie Pellagio Posted December 28, 2013 Posted December 28, 2013 This is supposed to be Tank Porn not Tank Snuff Films...
JW Collins Posted January 11, 2014 Posted January 11, 2014 Whats with that thing above the commander's sight on the Puma? Some sort of training device?That is another sight. It is turned towards the rear of the turret in that photo. It has a panoramic sight on top of a panoramic sight?
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now