Most Deadly Nuclear Accidents of All Time 

I think that’s the very definition of a accident. # an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause. "the pregnancy was an accident"

There aren't too many examples, but I think you could've gone full definite on this one. Even Fukushima, whose staff acted heroically and selflessly trying to contain the disaster was irresponsibly located and spec'd falls under your umbrella on that grounds!

It was typical for RBMK reactors to raise power output for a short time when the control rods were inserted. Plus - the attempted test was never done successful on any RBMK.

@@stanislavczebinski994 while it was typical for that, not many people know that as the document where that was noted had that part censored by the KGB so it was not well known (source: HBOs chenobyl show)

@@greendaykerplunk IDK for shure were I came across this info first but I guess it was a German tv show.

That’s very true. The AZ-5 switch caused that not only at Chernobyl but also in Leningrad several years prior if I’m not mistaken. This was a faulty design that was very well known in the RBMK-1000 reactors but kept from even those that operated it.

@@wolfbassgames1244 yep, a serious design flaw, that was kept secret by the kgb bc the reactors were already built everywhere in the country.

It's not the only segment that was wrong, the Windscale one had a few inaccuracies as well. I'd take a lot of what these guys say with a pinch of salt.

True. The operators did not know, but they did make errors but the info about the release of radioactivity were incorrect.

@Duck Hunter do you see the world we're living in? There are people who still believe the earth is flat.

Spot on. A lot of alpha and beta radiation has been set free - which is obviously far less dangerous and faster decaying than gamma radiation. It was years before I was born but the mass hysteria was completely out of proportion to the accident.

Uh oh, not a good look

Me thinks we have here a nuclear boogie man propagandist. Ban fossil fuels, and nuclear, but keep buying them expensive CCP, inefficient solar panals, aye comrad?

This is no weapon, its an infinite source of electricity

@@anonymous-go1tq Nuclear reactors are in no way a weapon. That's not even how they work. Even if you wanted to use them as a 'weapon', you would have to spend millions of dollars, and multiple years in a enemy nation, and then melt it down on purpose. For that amount of time and money, it would be far, far easier to make any of the other weapons we have. To make this clear, nuclear reactors are not bombs, they don't even explode. There is a reason they are called meltdowns, its because that's what happens, the intense heat melts the containment area. The only reason there are 'explosions' are because of the buildup of pressure from steam, the same steam that is used to power the majority of all energy we use. Coal? Natural gas? oil? geothermal? all use steam. using water is the way we power our society. Sure there are exceptions, such as solar, and wind. But even wind uses a turbine, just not steam powered. To be clear, there are more deaths from wind power, and solar power, than nuclear power. And that is INCLUDING all the accidents. People forget, that to get solar panels, you need materials that are mined in hazardous locations, underground. The construction of wind farms requires tons of materials, along with the location, which is IN THE AIR. Nuclear power costs a high upfront cost, and takes a long time to build, but it is 100% worth the wait. rant over.

@@anonymous-go1tq calm down buddy

@@anonymous-go1tq Nuclear weapons are bombs. Nuclear reactors are dangerous power sources, not a weapon. A nuclear reactor is as much of a weapon as a car is, it depends entirely on who is using it and how well they know it.

There's a Harrison Ford movie k19 the Widowmaker

Vasili Arkhipov, was an officer aboard the sub that almost launched a nuclear torpedo during the Cuban missile crisis. Though Arkhipov was just second in command on the boat and launch only required the captain and political officers approval, Vasili out ranked them as the chief of staff for the flotilla, which along with B-59 included B-4, B-38, and B-130. Arkhipov overrode the captain and political officers decision to launch. The bit that is scary is he didnt even need to be on that boat, he just happened to hop on that specific boat to accompany the fleet. Earlier in his carrier Vasili was also deputy commander, essentially XO, of K-19. He had first hand experience what relatively tame nuclear accidents could do, and knew launching that torpedo would have caused a nuclear exchange. Vasili Arkhipov saved the world from nuclear war, directly. And deserves to have his name known around the world.

@@mandi8345 I know of him. It's fortunate that his head was the cool one during the CMC.

That's cool! NSS & BESS?

Haha yes

My mistake when my dad asks me to grab the belt:

lol

Nuclear physicist MISTAKE: FU########

US reactors are now impervious to almost all human error and with containment buildings no radiation will ever be released from a nuclear accident.

Ya, every single government hides facts about these situations.

Bonus points for the orchestrated Sellafield/Windscale name bait and switch to try to separate the two.

Yep, they made fun of the guy who wanted those filters (John Cockroft), yet he persisted and had them fitted. They still made fun of them and called them Cockrofts folly. Little did they know, those filters captured enough airborne contamination that could have reached past eastern Europe.

I’m pretty sure it was actually in the first few days of January, 1961 is when the disaster happened, unsure though.

@TeneX stories it was an accident. The military just likes to blame quality control, procedural, and organizational failures on personnel rather than actually take accountability for their own failures.

An operator did it on purpose because the other one was cheating with his wife.

@@hardatak Allegedly. There was no evidence to support it other than the fact that the wife of one of the operators had called that night asking for a divorce and he had slept at a friend's for the past few nights. He and another operator hated each other and that was the basis for the alleged affair.

Cockcroft’s Follies ❤️

True

@@srjwari perfectly worded. We should always strive to be better than we were yesterday, but never to the extent of regression.

The audits don't matter if the people running it don't take them seriously

Weekly audits? R u kidding me. The reactors and containment buildings and thick steel are inspected all the time. In the US anyway.

@@kadenwolf5798 operator error back then disproves that

Most efficient, clean and safe form of energy generation to replace the truly deadly fossil fuels

Yep

Yes!

a bit of the info they put out is just plain false. Mainly about TMI, makes me want to research the rest to see how off they were about those too

@@nomoideas yes. False in that radioactivity was released as a result of the hydrogen explosion when in fact it did not breach the containment building.

Sellafield overtook this, and was minutes away from lighting up the British Isles

Literally zero people died from TMI.

SL1 was a small incident but it 3 people died as a result I'm shocked it is so unknown I'm disappointed it wasn't mentioned

@@erelahaster4276 or the Demon Core

@@erelahaster4276 I mean only 3 people died

😎And let’s let the lowest bidder build them

If they are built using modern tech then even if it "melted down" it would only need to be shut down for a little bit of time

Just so they're not RBMKs, and we don't put the generators and their fuel supplies where they can be ashed away by a tsunami.

Yes we should build more at least the work when the sun is down and the wind isn’t blowing.

All the scenarios described are impossible with gen 3 reactors. Nuclear power is safe.

I didn't know about this. At about the same time in 1957, Rocky Flats in Colorado had a plutonium fire which spread plutonium dust throughout the Denver Metro. Of course, just lke SRE, it has been swept under the rug. Very few people know about Rocky Flats today.

@@j50wells Rocky Flats also had a second major fire in 1969, not to mention scads of negligent practice over its entire history in dealing with waste products that contained plutonium. The SRE was part of the Santa Susana Field Labratory outside Los Angeles. That facility also had a bad history of dealing with radioactive containing wastes, one of which involved rolling barrels of radioactive sodium into a pond and then shooting the barrels with machine guns to get the sodium to mix with water, in which it reacts and explodes violently, sending toxic radioactive smoke wherever the wind blew.

I knew about these they were conducted by the military

Or Fermi 1 near Detroit.

My first thought was SL-1 too. I didn't know about the SRE, thanks for bringing it up. :)

3% uranium enrichment for reactor grade, 90% enrichment is required for nuclear weapons.

@@kadenwolf5798 And a reactor has a moderator and control rods. Both these things would defeat the entire purpose of an A-bomb if present in said bomb.

@@swokatsamsiyu3590 also, instead of the atoms blowing the vessel apart in a nuclear weapon, the energy of all the atoms is released at once before it has the chance to blow itself apart.

It's a little higher than 3% for commercial reactors.

@@averagejoe112 every lecture I've had says around 3%.

The funny thing about 3 mile Island is that nothing happened. No one died, no one was injured, and not enough radiation was released to increase the local radiation levels. The safties on the reactor worked. And all that actually happened was a massive media panic lead entirely by the media. The government didn't even know why everyone was paniced because the media made up a bunch of stuff about the incident before the government even had time to say anything about it.

Oh yeah i know of a video thats very accurate on what happened at 3 mile Island. If you want to watch it ill tell you.

also we use safer thorium instead of uranium now which can’t put out energy without plutonium which makes it much safer in event of an accident

The benefits of nuclear power far far outweighs the risks. Sadly, the general public isn't well educated about nuclear energy, and most of what they do know is negative. They also don't know that a redicilous amount of people who die each year, die for causes related to harm from fossil fuels (I think it's like 1 in 50 deaths!) If we ever obtain the ability to gain stable energy with Fusion rather than fission, we'll have a chance of saving ourselves.

On top of that, non renewable renergies, which are the ones that nuclear is supposed to replace, kills millions every year, no accident required. A coal plant even gives more radioactivity than nuclear plants, becuase the burnt coal contains traces of many elements, including uranium, which is dumped into the air. That's why radioactive levels are higher next to coal plants than nuclear plants, ironically.

@@jessicadent5944 so fission is where you split atoms and fusion is where you combine them correct

@@Hunter-mj8qg So first, disclaimer. While I find nuclear energy (and disasters) fascinating, I am far from an expert.. So to the best of my understanding.. But yes! You have it correct. Fission is the splitting of the nucleus releasing energy, this is definitely more dangerous and can actually happen in nature (given the correct situation) 😱 Fusion is more difficult, and in fact we've yet to actually be able to produce usable energy with it. But Fusion is kind of the opposite of Fission is the fact that you're combining two lighter nuculuses? Nuculi? Whatever the proper way to word that is.

I'd choose chocolate.

Yes. This is correct.

bro the vid came out 6 minutes ago how tf have you watched it?

dont speak for us

Yea, no. This video is not so good, because even tho the information is correct, it is pretty misleading with regards to the safety of nuclear power, which is the safest energy source, and the facts concerning global warming and how fossil fuels are killing both the planet, and loads of people. But I'm responding to a bot comment, so it doesn't matter

It's also incorrect on many points. Look up a video series called Half Life Stories by Kyle Hill for much better and accurate information on most (if not all) of these.

@@ozrithclay6921 His videos are A1 for sure

I think the second careless scientist might not have been watching where the graphite blocks around the core were being put. Whomp whomp. Another criticality accident, and I think someone died from that one too

I think they need to verify the reactivity of the hemispheres before they can be installed in a bomb, it's not just for fun.

As I recall, it was the core which would have become the third nuclear weapon dropped in Japan if needed.

And Chernobyl itself almost had an encore earlier in the war lol.

Exactly

Until everything around you starts glowing like a glowstick.

@Woah Potato not to mention when you have totalitarian countries like former communist Russia/Ukraine of whom have zero self regard for human rights, or proper safety procedures.

"Despite the rare accidents..." Nuclear power is indeed the safest because of the rare accidents.

Qui-Gon Jinn and Han Solo.

WRONG troll you want us to lower our guards to get your way! Nobody is committing suicide here! NO ON NUCLEAR!

I agree, the public has an irrational fear of nuclear when it’s the least harmful (to people and environment) way to generate power. Once their fear of global warming and rising oceans becomes greater than their fear of nuclear, we might finally see some progress.

@@Sniperboy5551 We can only hope.

@@Sniperboy5551no. We don’t troll

Nuclear power releases less radioactivity than coal power plants. U can fact check that.

and still being wrong about a lot of it

@@nomoideas They are always wrong about literally everything they talk about

Well this video is not about nuclear weapons. And the Uranium used in reactors is 87% less enriched than weapons grade uranium.

TMI reactors were gen 2 not gen 3 and no radioactive gases escaped from the containment building at the time of the hydrogen explosion, it was released over 2 weeks because the dissolve factor was so large that anyone near a city near the powerplant recieved 1 millirem of radiation. Those closest directly downwind of the plant recieved 80 millirem. Trivial but no where near as bad as Chernobyl. There were no additional cancer deaths because of TMI nor any other issues. Also, our gen 3 reactors have hydrogen absorbers to guard against that particular scenario.

Core was also poisoned due to operator error

Correct.

exactly.

I disagree. With nuclear you are pure uranium and it can melt your skin right off the bone and it can melt your organs to the point where you are just a pile of bones

There is a long list of reasons why Chernobyl, Fukushima, and TMI will never happen in the US.

Granted, with only three casualties in that one (as far as I know), I don't think SL-1 would qualify for this video.

The risk in US reactors is almost 0.

the average brown coal plant has 32.72 deaths per TWh and nuclear has, guess what? 0.03 deaths