Chernobyl Nuclear Explosion Disaster Explained (Hour by Hour) 

Withholding truth from the public should be treason and domestic terrorism. Lotta lives could've been saved during the ordeal.

Looking at the people in charge in Russia now, nothing has changed.

You didn’t see graphite

It was just a x ray

Is it really a lot different than the USA though? I feel like the Baltic nations are way ahead of the USA on this.

Very relevant to the early 2020's

@@GwladYrHafEspecially in Russia still

@@marcopohl4875 I wouldn’t say Russia is any more or less guilty of this than Ukraine, USA, Australia, Iran, UK etc. My comment wasn’t to score points against a single nation, as most are guilty.

@@GwladYrHaf Yeah, but I as taliking about accountability. You can hold the US president accountable by just not voting for him next election season, how are you gonna hold the russian president accountable?

Yep.

And we'll never know how it feels to experience radiation aging.

I'm gonna guess you ilife will change alot and suffer from radtion

Probably a GOOD thing that they were totally uneducated. Imagine going into a situation like that KNOWING you're going to be doomed.

@@davelowets if they knew what they were going into they would never have gone. Their lives would’ve been saved. They weren’t able to put out the fire anyways, their water evaporated before it could actually reach the core fire.

Some of them would have known the danger though.

Agreed. That was one of the best limited series I’ve ever watched.

For me it’s the scene with the “volunteer” scuba divers. The whole show was just epic

I can't agree more especially when I saw Vasily ignatenko's and Leonid Toptunov irradiated bodies

I totally understand.

Tv eh, ultra MK, Z

In 2022 as well

We really aren’t any better. If we are being honest with ourselves

Both in USSR AND the US. Not even just negligence with the US, but just pure criminal behavior

@@mattycapone4281 True but it's not a competiton

Just like in Germany right now.

That's what I've always gathered. I was almost 12 when this happened. I also think this because I never hear anyone say what would've happened if they HADN'T dropped the control rods? Sounds like a disaster was a certainty regardless of what happened at that point? Was just a matter of how bad it would be, is what I think is obvious?

I think it almost certain it would've been a disaster at that point. The latest the reactor could've been saved would've been when the power dropped due to the neutron poison. They should have shut it down and ended the test right there, but Dyatlov insisted it continue. However, he only did so because he thought the control rods would solve any issues, and claimed that he had no idea of any design flaws. I tend to believe him. The man was a hardass and a hothead, but not suicidal. And it fits with the typical Soviet scheme of lies and cutting corners.

​@Zephyr I still blame him though there was many chances to stop even after he was warned and he still continued

The Chinese use that same style of reactors. It's only a matter of time.

@@KenBober I'm pretty sure they would have fixed the issue with the cheap graphite control rods that caused the explosion, no? I mean they do have a pretty strong sense of self-preservation and the country is doing way better economically than the USSR did in its final years. I would imagine they made sure that can't happen in their reactors. While I doubt the Chinese would do that out of the concern for her people, but surely nobody wants the hassle of an exploding nuclear reactor?

Thanks :) you too

Thanks

Don't tell me what to do

u too brother

@@smooth4634 ☺️☺️☺️

Yea, that's just common sense... 😕

@@davelowets no it isn't? Nothing about radiation is "common sense."

Such a pragmatic and intellectually interesting comment is very juxtaposed to your screen name, lol.

I think in the chernobyl podcast they said throwing up in an hour is a pretty good tell of a fatal dose as well

thank

@@cold_servo_pie not for short durations so he is prob ok :)

Wait did u take the pictures of the hospital base ment??

@@j_4ck761 no the stairs down to the basement was filled with sand to prevent looters for stealing the clothing as souvenirs. This has apparently happened recently before and they didn’t realize that it was still radioactive af. One piece of clothing the looters dropped in the lobby of the hospital with was still there and we could look at but no get too close to.

Wouldn't doubt it considering they were at ground zero. What people don't understand about radiation is that it is culminating. Those firemen were exposed to thousands of rads over a few hours and I wouldn't be surprised if their corpses were encased in lead and concrete

@@SSG64 not very smart, init?

if it happened in America you wouldn't have said they were forced, the western double standard is beyond imagination. 🙄🙄

West is literally lying on propaganda.

@@revolutionaryleader9615 it was the USSR. literally enough said

@@revolutionaryleader9615 that depends on if the people doing the clean up were in the military or not. If they were then yes I would say they were told to do it because that’s what would be the truth in the United States military. Retired Sgt Army

@@leeenfield2602 the US is 100× worse than the USSR.

But he’s still alive tho

He killed himself in 1988 ​@@Rairii62

@@Rairii62 he's not. He killed himself the day after the 2nd anniversary of the disaster. A lot of Soviet scientists tried to say that he was depressesed, or he was being overlooked for promotions and harassed by peers because of his presentation to the UN. Those closest to him stated he was very clear-headed, and he did it deliberately.

The baby didn't fully absorb it however it is possible it died of radiation due to it being very vulnerable while the mother can handle much more

It makes sense to an extent because radiation effects quickly dividing cells. That's why high turnover cells like skin and intestine have cancer more than muscle cell cancers.

there is a term now called liquidi used to try to get away from people or kicking them

My wife was born in Pripyat, then moved to Poland. Her mother is originally from Kiev. Her father died of leukaemia and her mother married a Polish guy and fell pregnant with my sister in law. My wife ended up with thyroid cancer as a child and even though she got the all clear, she’s still having to take Levothyroxine and other meds for the rest of her life.

Ye markiplier played it, its terrifing

@sun dancer cringe detected, opinion denied

@@sundancer4630 why do you hate him? what has he done? i am not a fan myself nor know who he is tbh

😥

If I may ask, how old were you at the time? I'm just trying to imagine what it would be like if I saw it at different ages in my life. Like as a really young kid, then as a tween, then a teen. Basically, the older I would have been, the more I would have crapped myself.

@@oracleofdelphi4533 I would have been 6 at the time.

You were in Scotland? well the radiation wouldn’t be able to damage farmland to the point of not being able to be used for 35 years

I understand the birds, but not the farmland, oh and were the birds black?

There are still plenty of hotspots. Like this one forest, all the wood is dead and dry leaves litter the ground. They haven't decomposed since the disaster, since the radiation killed all the bacteria and fungus, and kills the worms in the ground. Imagine what would happen if it caught fire.

@@Thoralmir the red forest has caught fire multiple times and as long as you're not a Russian soldier trying to walk and then dig in the red forest you will be fine if you go there legally they will actually drive you through the red forest to get to Chernobyl

I was planning a group visit with work colleagues for this year. Cheers Putin, yakhunt...

also there's videos of radioactive fungus like mushroom and veins in Chernobyl on RU-vid so the radiation isn't killing everything still that's completely false although it's definitely effecting how some plants are growing for sure.

I feel you. On February 21st when I was in Ukraine, I got a birthday present from my wife and friends, a tour to Chernobyl. February 24th the war started.

The radioactive beam of light was Cherenkov Radiation. It is caused by emitted alpha particles smashing into oxygen and releasing a flash of visible light.

On HBO? 😉

The three men: Alexei Ananenko, Valery Bespalov, and Boris Baranov all survived the mission to go down under and drain the tank. Alexei and Valery are still alive to this day, but Boris Baranov died of a heart attack in 2005 at 65 years old.

"Is it possible to learn this power?"

@@dudewithnolifepoop If you mean learn as in a matter of willpower, then I would say definitely not. If you mean learn as in figuring out physically how genetics adapts to survive hostile environments, then almost certainly yes, given some very smart people and science way above my head lol. I mean, our DNA already devotes a lot of energy into repairing genetic damage, probably an amount tuned to our typical environment on earth. The interesting bit is that appears not to be the most it can do, as in the high radiation environment around Chernobyl it seems to have adapted to put even more work into repairing DNA damage so the dogs can survive there.

​@@dudewithnolifepoopnot from the Jedi...

All the dogs were dead within 4 years, the ones that bred and had pups none lived over a couple of years, other people felt sorry for the dogs in the cut off areas and fed them, this attracted more dogs to come in the area and breed. The dogs were in a bad way under acovid lock down when people were not allowed on the feeding missions. The dogs didn't thrive they suffered until they sterilised them. All dogs alive came from bred lines of dogs that never were contaminated. Until the feeding and lowering the numbers the dogs didn't thrive they were having it hard with cold climate and starvation, the dna line are all hardy breeds that made it the first year and none were wild because they kept in contact with the feeders. A normal dog lives over a decade the Chernobyl dogs didn't live a couple of years on average. But one were radiated, those died, you have to remember how huge the area was and farms never irradiated were closed and their dogs lived through extermination. The dna and radiated dogs is all a myth about them becoming strong at fighting the radiation,

True memory a sad memory of when I was put to task for destroying these pets around the area 2mnths after catastrophe...1st day. I saw this female dog was in the middle of the room with her puppies. She went for me - I put a bullet in her. The puppies were licking my arms, being all sweet and playful. We had to shoot at point-blank. Saints preserve us! There was this one dog, a little black poodle. I still feel sorry for it. We heaped the tipper full of them. Taking them to the burial site. To tell the truth, it was just a plain old deep pit, though you were meant to dig it taking care not to reach the ground water and line the bottom with plastic. You're meant to find some spot fairly high up, but you know how it is. The rules were broken all the time: we had no plastic, and we didn't spend long looking for the right spot. If you wound them rather than killing them, they'll squeal and cry. They were tipping them out of the truck into the pit, and this little poodle began scrabbling about. It climbed out. Nobody had any cartridges left. Had nothing to finish it off with, not a single cartridge. They shoved it back into the pit and covered them all up with earth. Still feel sorry for it. It's a disaster which, as of 2020, is still affecting crops and animals - in Sweden (the first country to learn of the explosion), mushrooms, reindeer, and wild boar are still screened for Cesium-137 contamination and occasionally declared unfit for sale.

Literally this. ^

👍

and crummy reactor designs that explode when you press the shut down button

@@Trainman10715 it's partly the reactor design but the RMBK reactor is sort of genius in its design. The issue more than design is operating the reactor outside of safe parameters. They pulled too many rods out more than was allowed by operating guidelines. Which pulls more moderator rods into the reactor. At that point the reactor is way over moderated and the xenon and water acting as neutron absorbers are the only things keeping the reactor from going prompt critical. As the xenon kept decaying away which is to be expected the reactor power started rising. There were not enough control rods still in the reactor to keep power from spiking. The power spiking in regions of the core cause the light water in those areas to flash to steam. Which cause the reactor to not have that water acting as a neutron absorber in those regions. So the reaction speeds up in those regions. They drop the rods which have the graphite moderators at the bottom of the rods. When all the rods drop at once because almost all were pulled out, the moderator rods which are shorter than the fuel rods to maintain stable lines of neutron flux. You have the bottom of the reactor sudden massively over moderated. The heat spikes to insane levels. The water boils off in the bottom of the reactor. You now have no water acting as a neutron absorber, nor xenon for that matter. Reactivety spikes to ridiculous levels and then there is nothing you can do. As much as the reactor design isn't the most inherently safe which is how you want reactors to be designed. It was more improper operation that doomed reactor 4. There are still 10 RMBK power plants in operation to this day. They just follow the rod extraction rules much better now.

@@johnh8546 believe me, im aware of how the power excursion unfolded and how the AZ5 system caused the reactor to explode. i wouldnt call the RBMK genius, yes there are several good qualities about it, how cheap it is, its ability to run on low enrichment uranium, produce lots of plutonium and to be refueled while running. but those good qualities come at a cost, the fact that you end up with an enormous graphite pile, moderated by a solid object that wont boil away with heat and cooled with water resulting in a very high positive void coefficent (unlike magnoxs and AGRs) and you need silly moderator ends on the control rods to allow them to do anything as without them the water that would otherwise fill the channel vacated by the control rod acts as a control rod anyway. this results in a design thats very easy to make unstable in certain situations and id say that cost overweights the benefits. i agree operator error also played a big part in the disaster, it was a combination of a flawed design and operator error, and i agree that when RBMKs are being operated properly and the safty systems are switched on they are perfectly safe (especially after their post chernobyl modifications) but in my opinion reactors need to be totally fail-safe and fool proof, so that operator error can not result in an accident. starting with a positive void coefficient is therefor going in totally the wrong direction unless massive precautions are taken such as with the CANDU reactors which use neutron poison injection instead of their control rods as their SCRAM system. perhaps while none of the individual quirks of the RBMK were of particular concern if alone, put together they resulted in an overall poor (and in some cases, fail-deadly) design

So that means all that Cements was unnecessary as it will just go away

@@velarde3412 eventually yes

No, being bombarded by radiation makes you irradiated. When the salts and metals in your body change isotope due to neutron irradiation, they can become radioactive, which makes your body radioactive. Also, inhaling/ingesting radioisotopes can also make your body radioactive.

@@velarde3412 the body is still dangerous because other people may be exposed whilst they’re still irradiated. It’s important that people exposed to extreme radiation are buried carefully.

🤓🤓

Could be sabotage

You do realize train derailments happen and happens all the time. You think it's happening more often now but only because the news media is picking it up and running with it.

Didn't Trump deregulate train speeds through built up areas? It's always deregulation. Profit over people.

@@RunOfTheHindwasn’t it the democrats who refused to Agree to a pipeline that is much safer than rail transport? We all ask political questions but in the end Red or Blue Republican or Democrat they don’t have our interest in mind only their wallets.

And the 💉💉💉

Yeah as i got it, it was a normal omologation test they did before the reactor is put online. Reactor 4 was used both for civil and military purposes, it wasn't a normal reactor, so they powered it up without passing the mandatory test. That's also the reason why it didn't had a containment structure, had a crane on the roof, graphite tips and probably also why part of the manual was blacked out also for the people operating it.

This is incorrect

Read about Anatoli Burgorski and then pick up The Case for Christ, in which an atheist examines the evidence for Jesus in a scientific manner. He attempted to disprove the Bible, but when he was done, converted instead.

It was actually because of the water. The Chernobyl Suicide Squad had to traverse mostly through flooded areas and even underwater, and we learned *because* of their experiences that water is an excellent insulator against radiation.

that's a very good point

Everything is history even yesterday

No, we should fear nuclear energy. It is never safe, ever. Even just existing. There is always millions of things that could go wrong. You do not have to worry about poisoning and destroying humanity and the planet if you choose solar, water or wind derived power for example. Even if it is not as powerful or as cheap it is a better choice overall. Not all science is good science should be used. It is simply not worth the risk. The planet has existed for millions of years without the existence of something created that could destroy it. Only natural disasters. In a relatively short period of time we have created a lot of things that will lead to our destruction.

@@marniekilbourne608 I disagree. Nuclear energy is far safer than most people realize. However, just like anything else in existence, what matters is the ones using it. In the right hands, it can do great things. In the wrong hands, it can do horrible things. The problem with disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima wasn't the nuclear power, but the fact that the ones in charge were idiots. Three Mile Island was a freak accident that has been thankfully sorted out, so there's that. The point is that yes, nuclear power can cause great harm if not used correctly, but that doesn't mean it should be feared. What we should fear is people wielding it irresponsibly.

@TheMiningAssassin16 and who's gonna handle it responsibly, bro? The government? Ofc it's dangerous

@@lanac5793 Trusting humanity with anything is dangerous, from what I've learned. Talk to anyone about the most dangerous thing on the planet, and they may say hurricanes, tornadoes, cancer, AIDS, snakes, nukes, and whatever else. Me, I say humans, because humans create world-ending devices with no regards for anything other than what they might get out of it. But hey, sometimes you just have to make a choice. Will you live in fear, or will you not? I choose not to live in fear.

i still really think we should work on making fusion energy because it is FAR safer and works FAR more efficiently with absolutely no waste

This happens because rapidly growing cells, such as fetuses and young children are more sensitive and more affected by radiation than older people.

My uncle Colin had a similar experience, he had a seizure and got diagnosed with a brain tumor.

​@@djbeatty449Not just radiation, lead, too. If it were on your cookware (Pyrex, toys, dishes, Tupperware of the day) was LOADED with lead. Bad is 90, they were finding HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of lead units in Pyrex and Fisher Price toys. It sheds lead as you use it

What do you subscribe to the their other 2 channels?

Yeah. It’s important to know what happened in these accidents, but it’s also important to know that these accidents are way way less likely and the consequences will be less if something this extreme happened to a nuclear power plant today.

Wrong. Nuclear energy is incredibly dangerous. It's not risky though. If everything is fine then it's okay, but it has the potential to be by far the most dangerous form of energy.

Me, too. The liquidators and others are heroes in my book and always will be. I include KGB personnel in the helicopter who took pictures of the damage because pilots and photographers took lethal amounts of radiation, because the damage needed to be documented.

Because they are team not a single person

It's not that hard to understand multiple people work to make these videos

I wouldn't call this video high quality when there's a few inaccuracies

@@simoncohen9323 they mean the animation and editing and partly the facts

OKas Play is it OK Siri

A

Okay ✅ I’m

My dad was stationed in Germany when this happed. We had to cover the windows and weren't allowed to play outside for a while. Two active toddlers I'm sure really tested my parents patience.

yeah then they claim bogus things

Some of us actually are, lol. I am a licensed nuclear reactor operator, and I have been operating reactors for 23 years now, both in the US Navy and in the commercial nuclear power industry. I find myself often joining in the comments sections of videos like this, trying to clear up misconceptions and point out and explain the things that people have gotten wrong or don't understand.

@Adam Hutchins so is it true that we're all mistaken, and modern day reactors don't explode?

@@Fitchy-ke3wz There were very unique vulnerabilities in the RBMK (Chernobyl) design that Western reactor designs just aren't susceptible to. I say "Western" reactor designs, meaning the PWRs and BWRs, and I am not calling them "modern" designs, because they're not modern. The PWRs and BWRs we operate are really a 1960s-1970s design. But despite being an older design, they are indeed extremely more of a safe design than Chernobyl. The biggest difference is the inherent stability. The basic concept is that the RBMK design has what is known as a positive void coefficient of reactivity. I'll try to make it simple, here. Due to the design of an RBMK, it relies heavily on neutron absorption in the water to regulate the fission rate. Let's say for some reason power starts to rise. It creates more heat, the water expands and is less dense. More of the water begins to form steam bubbles which is even less dense. That means it is absorbing fewer neutrons, and so the fission rate goes up more. More heat, more steam bubbles, less neutrons absorbed, more fissions, more heat, etc. For the RBMK design, any power increase will make power rise more and more and faster and faster, until the operators and/or control systems use control rods to stop and stabilize the power. The problem is, under certain situations, like what happened at Chernobyl, it happened so fast there was no way to control it, because they pushed the reactor so far away from its operating limits. The big difference in Western designed reactors is that we do not use graphite as a moderator. When you have neutrons born from fission, they're moving way too fast to really be absorbed and cause more fission, and they usually just zip right out out of the reactor. If you want to maintain a stable fission rate, (known as criticality) you have to slow these neutrons down so they can cause fissions. You have to use what is called a moderator. In Chernobyl, they used graphite. Neutrons hit the carbon atoms in the graphite and by bouncing around, they slow down, and then they can make the uranium fission. Water also works really well as a moderator, but water can also absorb neutrons, too. Since Chernobyl had graphite, it was what we call "over-moderated." You could take out all of the water, and it still had enough moderator in the graphite for the reactor to operate. So in Chernobyl, the water was acting more like an absorber, since you already have "too much" moderator anyway. When the water formed steam bubbles in Chernobyl, it was taking away neutron absorbers and making MORE neutrons available and making MORE fissions happen. In our reactor designs, we don't have graphite. We have a lot of water in the core, flowing through the core. It does two main things. Primarily, it is the coolant that is cooling the reactor and taking heat out to the rest of the plant to make steam. PWRs generate steam in big heat exchangers called steam generators, and BWRs are basically designed where the top of their reactor is a steam generator like design and they make steam directly in the reactor. But the other main purpose is that the water is our moderator. If the water goes away, you have fewer thermalized neutrons, and you have less fission. It makes the reactor self stabilizing, and here's how that works. Let's say you withdraw some control rods (which absorb neutrons). You are now absorbing fewer neutrons in the control rods, and you have more neutrons to cause fission, and power will rise. More fission means you make more heat. As you make more heat, the water expands, and if it's a BWR, it will also make some more little steam bubbles. But when that water heats up and expands or makes more steam bubbles, that means you are losing your moderator by that much. It can't slow down as many neutrons. So as power rises, more heat, moderator is less dense, fewer neutrons are thermalized, and the fission rate stabilizes and stops rising. Basically, in a PWR or BWR, any power rise will cause power to go up, but that makes your moderator less dense and makes it harder to slow down neutrons, and your fission rate will stabilize. The same thing happens in the opposite direction, when you lower power. Less heat means the moderator is more dense, and will thermalize more neutrons to help raise the fission rate to stop power from continuing to fall. RBMK reactors act with a positive coefficient, so each power rise will make power rise more and rise faster until you do something to stop it. That's because in an RBMK, the moderator doesn't change, a power rise makes one of your neutron ABSORBERS, the water, go away. PWRs and BWRs have a negative coefficient, and any power rise will make the moderator less dense and slow the power rise and stabilize it on its own. You don't have to do anything to stop it. That's because in a PWR or BWR, the moderator is the thing that is changing. Raise power, your moderator is now not able to moderate as well, and power stabilizes. I know this is very complicated, and I'm trying to give an easy to understand explanation, and I would be happy to explain more if you have questions and it's not clear. But the big picture is an RBMK is designed so that if power rises, it continues to rise more and more and faster and faster until you do something to stop it from rising. In our Western reactor designs, if you raise power, it raises a little bit, then the power rise slows and stops and it stabilizes at a new higher power level. Basically, our reactors in the West have always been self stabilizing like this. That's the biggest difference. You simply can't get this runaway power excursion in our reactors like you can in an RBMK. That's not to say there aren't other accidents that can happen, but they are much less severe. And the good news is that there are newer designs that are even safer. The new AP1000 design is built with a lot more passive safety systems. You can have a loss of power at AP1000 for 72 hours and the plant is kept safe through passive cooling. It practically eliminates the vulnerability of what we saw at Fukushima. And there are other even more advanced designs in the works where the fuel is constructed of materials that physically cannot get hot enough to melt. So the big takeaway is that no, Chernobyl is not possible in our Western reactors. The reactors are fundamentally designed differently. Our PWRs and BWRs are incredibly safe, but the good news is that if we can clear away the red tape and begin developing and building the newer Generation IV reactor designs, they are even more safe with passive cooling designs and even safer fuel designs.

Yup

The scientist explained it very well, I watched the series like 5 times and felt for all the lost souls

Fun fact about the NAC it’s designed with crane claws to dismantle the sarcophagus and to have a negative atmospheric pressure so if it gets punctured air will rush in so the radioactive dust stays inside

Said by a dead Soviet man that made nuclear energy stigma for decades to come

They do with lies

3.6 not great, not terrible!

"What is the cost of lies? It's not that we'll mistake them for the truth. The real danger is that if we hear enough lies, then we no longer recognize the truth at all."

Great a ahhh.. anyways profile picture (end qoute)

I think they were trying to wake up the Russian woodpecker.

Yep and they were seen digging foxholes in the fallout area

It actually made headlines in 2019 when HBO released the mini series “Chernobyl”.

@@n8archy121 yeah those guys that went into the red forest and dug trenches am not so sure there alive anymore because unless you sneak under the lid dome on reactor number 4 the red forest is probably the most radioactive place near Chernobyl except probably els liquidator's gear.the tress are red for a reason

The positive void coefficient right?

I'll always remember a book that kinda resumed this in: Imagine designing cars in which, in a moment of need as in a steep, the brake pedal works like an accelerator for some seconds, imagine not saying anything and when an accident happened, putting the blame in the driver saying he didn't understand how brake pedals work". O.O

@@ubiergo1978 that puts it in a great way

You're half right. I have been a nuclear reactor operator for 23 years, both in the Navy and in the US commercial nuclear power industry, and I want to clear up some confusion. The issue is that the graphite tips of the rods displaced the water, but that's exactly why the RBMK design has graphite tips anyway. I think you misunderstand neutron moderation. U-235 is a thermal fuel, meaning you have to have slow neutrons in order to be absorbed and cause U-235 fission. The neutrons born from fission are always fast neutrons, and have much too high of an energy level to be readily absorbed by U-235 and cause fissions. You have to have a moderator to moderate, ie slow down the neutrons, in order to cause fission. Basically more moderator means more fission, and less moderator is less fission. Graphite is the main source of neutron moderation in an RBMK reactor. Whether it is the graphite blocks surrounding the channels in the core, or you're talking about the graphite tips on the rods, both of these bits of graphite moderate the neutrons and make the fission rate go up. So what about the water then? Well, in most Western design reactors, water is the moderator. It is the collisions of the neutrons hitting the hydrogen atoms in the water molecules that slows the neutrons down so they can cause fission. But water is also pretty good at absorbing neutrons, too. That's how you get deuterium and tritium. Those same hydrogen atoms in the water molecules can absorb your neutrons to become H-2 (deuterium) and H-3 (tritium). Everything in a reactor is a game of balancing all of these different effects. In most Western reactors, you have no graphite, water is your only moderator, and you balance everything out with control rods and/or boron dissolved in the coolant. In the RBMK style reactor at Chernobyl, there was so much moderation from the graphite, that the moderating effect of the water did not matter, and their "balance" was that water acted more as a neutron absorber. The control rods are also a neutron absorber, which is how they work to function as control rods. So in an RBMK reactor, if you withdraw control rods, you're removing a neutron absorber, and it is filling up with water, which, in their reactor functions primarily as another type of neutron absorber. It doesn't really do much. So in order to make their reactor work, when they withdraw control rods, the absorber section is pulled out of the core, and it pulls a graphite section into the core. Less absorber material means more neutrons, and more graphite means more neutron moderation which means even more neutrons causing fission, and this is how they control power. Need more fission? Pull out some absorber material (control rods) and pull in some more graphite for more neutron moderation. Need less fission? Push the extra graphite out, and push absorber material back in. The problem with Chernobyl, is due to xenon buildup, they had withdrawn way too many rods, and withdrawn them too high up in the core. That meant that all of those slugs of graphite were in the middle of the core, and there was a section at the bottom of the core where there was only water in the control rod channels. Still, they had just managed to keep the reactor critical (meaning a stable chain reaction). So the bottom part of the core was filled with neutron absorber (water), and when they hit the infamous A3-5 button, the rods began to fall in. The bottom part of the core that was critical with water in the control rod channels, now had the absorber/water pushed out, and had moderator/graphite pushed in. Less absorber means more neutrons. More moderator means more neutrons thermalized in order to cause fission. The bottom of the core that was initially critical (stable reaction) while being filled with water, now went extremely supercritical (in this case prompt critical) in a fraction of a second, because you shoved in more moderator and shoved out all of the neutron absorbing water. Chernobyl also had a positive void coefficient of reactivity. The water, being an absorber for them, is what causes this positive coefficient. As soon as the power spiked due to the graphite being shoved into the bottom of the core, temperature rose almost instantaneously and the water immediately became steam vapor. Steam is much less dense than liquid water, and it essentially meant you removed the neutron absorbing water from the rest of the core, as well. More power, more heat, more steam, less neutron absorbing water, more power, more heat, more steam...repeat. Within a small fraction of a second, power rose exponentially to the point that heat generation caused a massive steam explosion. As the head of the reactor blew off, there was now an in rush of air into this core with superheated graphite and hydrogen being produced from the accident, and this caused a second, even larger combustion explosion. This blew the roof off of the building and started a massive fire as all of this graphite burst into flames. So I don't mean to nitpick your response, but I just wanted to make sure the terminology was correct, because a lot of people don't understand. The big picture of your answer is correct, but I wanted to clear up what neutron moderation means. For a thermal fuel like U-235, more moderation means MORE fission, because the moderator has to thermalize the neutrons in order to cause fission. It is moderating (slowing down) the neutrons to produce more fission. It's NOT moderating the reaction (lowering power), it's moderating the neutrons (raising power). The confusion also comes about from the fact that in most Western reactors, water acts primarily as a moderator, enabling fission, where in the RBMK, the water acts primarily as a neutron absorber. For most reactor designs, you'll hear water referred to as a moderator, which leads to the confusion, but it's not the case for an RBMK, where it acts primarily as an absorber. I know this was long, but I hope some find it interesting and I hope it helps explain things.

@@adamhutchins1981 that actually makes perfect sense. I was using the term “moderation” when I should have been using “neutron absorber” or something to that effect. I understand now that “moderation” has a different connotation. It’s slowing the neutrons down, but because it’s slowing them down, fission is occurring due to the decreased neutron flux, right? I guess in my head at the time, I equated the “slowing down” aspect of moderation to “decreasing reactivity”. Thank you for the response. I genuinely read the entire thing and I appreciate you nitpicking. All of this is about facts and if I don’t get something right, I am happy to stand corrected. Thank you

There are a lot of problems with this video

@@beejereeno2the music is the first thing. i can’t concentrate on what he’s saying.

Ooo, sounds interesting, I’ll be sure to look into it! Thanks for the recommendation!! ❤️

@@TheKing0fChaos You're welcome! It's a very good read.

@@TheKulu42 Another good read on the topic is "Chernobyl. The history of a nuclear catastrophe" By Sehrii Plokhy, an Ukrainian historian!

@@brod7053 Thanks! 😀

Great book! I have it and will read again at some point 😁

So nothing lasts forever but what are the people alive going to do when the structure in place now deteriorates ? What if the world is a different place then, and the technology isnt availible to them when needed to repair/upgrade this mess ? Many are beating the drums for massive new nuke plants these days. And what is the half life of this type of radiation ... ?

Literally *THIS* - I am so disgusted by the "nUcLeAr pOwEr iS sAfE!" No, it's not. It's one of the most hazardous and long damaging sources of energy we have. Half-life of spent fuel rods is 10's of THOUSANDS of years. To boil water to spin turbines. MOST of the massive energy released is lost instead of harnessed. It's like using superheated plasma to light a campfire. Ffs we are so incredibly ignorant.

@@johncarter9054 The idea is that the New Safe Confinement is designed to last 100 years or more, and the plans are to dismantle and decontaminate the remains of Chernobyl Block 4 during that time period. The NSC was designed and built with the equipment inside it to allow for the slow process of dismantling and decontaminating and cleaning up the site. It is also important to realize that while current dose rates are still dangerous, it has been 30 years since the accident and the radiation levels have lowered significantly. That's not to say there is no concern. But it is to point out that in 1986, there was no possible way to dismantle and decontaminate the site, but now levels are low enough (but still dangerous, of course) that will allow for the slow dismantling and removal and cleanup. The idea is that the site should be essentially cleaned up and safe by the time the NSC reaches it's end of life. That is the plan, anyway. All of the materials at the site can be slowly broken down and removed, and transferred into safe long-term storage, just like we do with the used fuel from any of our other reactors. It is a big project, but the plan is to clean everything up, not just cover it up and forget about it.

that's what some understood at the time. that isnt what they still believe.

@@Jaws10214 but it is scientist and many others who study radiation still say that radiation can be transmitted between people just like between objects

A person with long term exposure, such as Mme Curie and the Radium Girls, have incorporated radioactive material into their bones and are radioactive and dangerous even after scrubbed. There have also been cases of people involved in nuclear lab accidents who have had large amounts of radioactive material driven into their skin by an explosion, who would remain radioactive after cleaned. However a person with brief, acute exposure, such as the Chernobyl firefighters, once stripped and scrubbed, would be minimally radioactive, if at all, and not dangerous.

Yup yup yup

Beat me too it

I would love for them to cover Homer's Odyssey if they already haven't done it.

You mean the SL-1?

@@corinneamani8823 I think it was the SL-1, thank you!

That incident still had no where near the impact and radiation as Chernobyl

@@simoncohen9323 agreed, there are similarities, but chernobyl had a much bigger impact

The only common part in the SL-1 and Chernobyl is the fact that there were both incidents involving the fuel rods, if I can even call it that. The scram button vs. pulling the main control rod out by hand? But they don't really have any similarities other than both being radioactive lol

Thx man

Bush did 9/11

Yet this is the first place the Russians went to when they invaded Ukraine ? Why?

But the melancholy is that; there is no recuperation from this atrociously jacked up incident. All we can hope is not to let another such dire thing prevail.

Exactly. Mind that remains of Marie Curie Skłodowska the person who discovered polonium and radium are still radioactive to this day.

I really recommend to check other videos talking about Chernobyl, he didn't mention a lot of important things, and in my opinion he explained it not in the best way for understanding.

@@Disorder2312 Got any links or channel names for some good docs? I find it very interesting.

The Chernobyl series is the best. 100% recommend it