186

Bombed Chornobyl shelter no longer blocks radiation and needs major repair – IAEA (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 1 week ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

39 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Drone attack that Ukraine blamed on Russia blew hole in painstakingly erected €1.5bn shield meant to allow for final clean-up of 1986 meltdown site

The protective shield over the Chornobyl disaster nuclear reactor in Ukraine, which was hit by a drone in February, can no longer perform its main function of blocking radiation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has announced.

In February a drone strike blew a hole in the “new safe confinement”, which was painstakingly built at a cost of €1.5bn ($1.75bn) next to the destroyed reactor and then hauled into place on tracks, with the work completed in 2019 by a Europe-led initiative. The IAEA said an inspection last week of the steel confinement structure found the drone impact had degraded the structure.

The 1986 Chornobyl explosion – which happened when Ukraine was under Moscow’s rule as part of the Soviet Union – sent radiation across Europe. In the scramble to contain the meltdown, the Soviets built over the reactor a concrete “sarcophagus” with only a 30-year lifespan. The new confinement was built to contain radiation during the decades-long final removal of the sarcophagus, ruined reactor building underneath it and the melted-down nuclear fuel itself.

top 39 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] CompactFlax@discuss.tchncs.de 23 points 1 week ago

I don’t remember who did it, but there was a good video explaining the issue months ago. It’s not just that there is a hole, but there are multiple layers in the system that are compromised. . A hole was made and a fire started in a lower layer. The fire spread in that space and firefighters needed to make more holes to put the fire out. It’s a major repair in a location that has major restrictions on the ability to execute repairs.

[-] Lyra_Lycan@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 1 week ago

I've seen a documentary describing in detail the construction of the shelter, as well as a recent video by B1M talking about the damage caused by the drone, and this one. I believe you're talking about this discussion of the damage by Kyiv Independent?

[-] TheReanuKeeves@lemmy.world 22 points 1 week ago

3.6 roentgen, not great, not terrible

[-] crypt0cler1c@infosec.pub 4 points 1 week ago

Chernobyl is the best mini series of all time hands down.

[-] TheLastOfHisName@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago

And absolutely terrifying.

[-] SirActionSack@aussie.zone 0 points 1 week ago

Second to Generation Kill.

[-] frongt@lemmy.zip 0 points 1 week ago

And Band of Brothers, but ahead of The Pacific.

[-] SuperEars@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

And at the exact same site that birthed the meme

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 week ago

bombed

Chernobyl

Two words I'd never imagine seeing together in the same sentence

Whoever decided to do this should go toes first through a wood chipper

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

There are reasons that I don't use The Guardian as a default news source despite name recognition. The framing of this headline "Drone attack that Ukraine blamed on Russia" betrays a bias or a desire to hook people with biases.

I don't know, maybe I'm totally off my rocker but I don't think a country actively being invaded by a hostile force is going to attempt to essentially detonate a dirty bomb on their own soil for... checks notes international sympathy?

That's the implication being made there in the headline, that it's possible that Ukraine did it. Sure wouldn't want to piss of Russia by not taking them at their word I guess.

[-] ohulancutash@feddit.uk 5 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

So your problem is that it has too much journalistic integrity? It is a contested event, which extensive investigation has failed to conclusively attribute. So they must fall back on whichever claim they believe to be most credible. It’s not a points scoring exercise.

And yes, shit happens in a war. Ukraine managed to accidentally rocket strike Poland, they are quite capable of accidentally hitting Chornobyl. It isn’t out of the realm of possibility.

[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 4 points 1 week ago

detonate a dirty bomb on their own soil for... checks notes international sympathy?

I suppose at face value I was thinking maybe more like

"Shit, missed."

"Whoops!"

"Those damn Russians!!!"

But yeah sounds like a bit of BS because Russia simply didn't admit to it.

[-] silasmariner@programming.dev 4 points 1 week ago

I think it's probably just framed that way because Russia never officially took responsibility for it, not because anyone believes Ukraine really did it

[-] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Exactly. Back when it happened, their reports on it were directly "Russian drone explodes on Chornobyl nuclear plant protective shell – video" and "Russian drone strike caused tens of millions worth of damage to Chornobyl".

But russia has since denied it was theirs, and nobody else has proven otherwise, which means anyone following journalistic guidelines can't claim that anymore - the best they can choose from are basically "Drone attack that Ukraine blamed on Russia" and "Drone attack Russia denies was theirs".

[-] jj4211@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Or simply "drone attack on Ukraine". The audience can fill in the obvious perpetrator.

[-] brucethemoose@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Like it or not, that’s journalism 101. You don’t make claims unless you can directly verify them, even if they seem obvious.

And if you do, you attribute to who said it. Like the UN or IAEA.

Guardian should have just omitted that blurb from the byline, TBH.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

Guardian should have just omitted that blurb from the byline, TBH.

This is what I'm saying, it's a deliberately provocative blurb and it makes me wonder why they're trying to be provocative. My problems with The Guardian started with Israel/Gaza so I do eye them with a little less trust than Reuters or AP. I know guardian is biased, but I would rather their bias be consistent than seem to shift gears to create buz and speculation. I've seen other news organizations start sliding down the sensationalism pit with the same kinds of incidents.

[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz -1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Was the plant in Russian occupied territory at the time? If so, it was probably Ukraine. Did Ukraine hold the territory at the time? Then it was probably Russia.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 0 points 1 week ago

That's very flimsy.

[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 0 points 1 week ago

The alternative, that either Russia or Ukraine would intentionally bomb a nuclear containment site in territory it plans to control indefinitely, is much flimsier.

[-] ameancow@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Ukraine is the nation being invaded, they don't intend to lose, they're not going to ruin vast swaths of their own land for the next century after the fight with Russia fizzles out, as most people know will happen at this rate.

Meanwhile Russia's only long-term plans for Ukraine is oil, gas and minerals. They don't need the land, they want to hurt as many citizens as possible, get to the goods and carve out territory to restore pipelines. If Russia cared at all about preserving the country, they wouldn't be leveling whole cities and killing citizens.

An act like that, even if it's just a moderately successful attempt at breaching containment, benefits only one side in this.

[-] 46_and_2@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's the same people who ordered their soldiers to dig trenches in the irradiated soil close to Chernobyl, in the brief time they occupied it, at the start of Russia's war. As long as it's happening away from Putin and his kelptocracy circles, they don't care about consequences to friends or foes, only how it will benefit them.

[-] ragas@lemmy.ml -3 points 1 week ago

Why not? In a war nuclear sites immediately become prime targets.

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 week ago

No they don't, it's a really REALLY bad idea.

Think about it. If you win, you will win a nuclear hell scape that will cost you huge amounts of money to control and maintain, awesome!

[-] ragas@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 week ago

There is a difference between what we want reality to be and what it actually is.

If we were talking about what we want, we wouldn't have this war in the first place.

[-] CarlGustaf@hilariouschaos.com 15 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

This is a clear example of Russian military interference and incompetence.

[-] ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It's not incompetence. Incompetence is "My unguided drone veered off a few hundred feet and picked the wrong building." Someone high up intentionally picked Chernobyl as a target because they knew the west would foot the bill at any price, and this war is a spending game top to bottom. They hit their planned target, probably with a meter or two. This wasn't negligence or incompetence, it was pure malice.

[-] HazardousBanjo@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

Yet another example of Russia being the war crime committing aggressor in the war.

People who take Russia's side embody values far closer to the Nazis than Ukraine ever has.

[-] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago

Don't worry the US wants a peace treaty that wipes all the war crimes clean

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

the US wants a peace treaty that wipes all the war crimes clean

And gives the invaders all the land they stole, while giving the victims of that invasion nothing but an empty promise to not do it again.

[-] WanderWisley@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

I remember watching a real life lore video where the said the elephants foot is still molten and slowly melting through the flood of the basement of Chernobyl and it could eventually hit the ground water that’s underground and it could explode causing an even bigger situation then the original meltdown.

[-] SolSerkonos@piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago

Afaik it's no longer fissioning, and it hasn't been for awhile. So it's not actually molten, and not particularly hot at all.

[-] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

But it still has a lot of that spicy air

[-] altasshet@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 week ago

Bring in European/NATO country civilian aid to fix it. If Russia strikes again, you now have a reason to escalate support for Ukraine (including interpreting this as an attack on non Ukrainian assets). If they don't, the sarcophagus gets fixed. Which is the main goal.

[-] Rhaedas@fedia.io -1 points 1 week ago

My first question was, why is this a target? This is terrorism and outside war rules (insane that we have rules for war instead of just not having it). Laws are only as good as their enforcement though.

[-] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago

Aside from the terrorism aspect, the remaining non-blown reactors were still providing power up until I think 2000 before it was finally fully shut down. Russia has obviously had a fixation on trying to destroy Ukraine's infrastructure and outside of any other potential fuckery is probably concerned that Ukraine will be able to power it back up again if they need to, especially if more of their infrastructure elsewhere is blown up.

Plus, even if the Russians lose Ukraine will still be left holding the bag for cleaning up and repairing whatever additional damage was done to the containment structures.

[-] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 week ago

Because russia thinks "we can take that and they wont risk defensing it or attempting to take it back because theyd be risking a nuclear disaster"

Its literally the exact same reasoning for why they didnt expect the rest of the world to get involved, because they have nukes.

[-] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world -1 points 1 week ago

It has a much cooler name than "shelter".

[-] supersquirrel@sopuli.xyz -2 points 1 week ago

The absolute most efficient method for increasing the likelihood of american and european military powers giving larger amounts of military aid to Ukraine.

this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025

186 points (98.9% liked)

World News

51321 readers

632 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
- Blogsites are treated in the same manner as social media sites. Medium, Blogger, Substack, etc. are not valid news links regardless of who is posting them. Yes, legitimate news sites use Blogging platforms, they also use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube and we don't allow those links either.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF OCTOBER 19 2025
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.