@@chaoticsystem2211 no, we would have found out. The other scary part is how much Russian radioactive mass is just out in the wild thanks to the fall of the Soviet Union.
I recall some interviews - don't remember where - with some of the former citizens of Pripyat who noted that containment teams running around cleaning parts of the town or zooming off to an emergency with trucks and hazmat suits were a regular sight, which is a sign that there was a never ending chain of mishaps, leaks and minor incidents along with the major ones because the administration of the power plant was an absolute clown show. Given that they were in the process of expanding the plant to reactors 5 and 6 with giant cooling towers to go with them, the explosion at 4 may have been in a twisted way fortunate because who knows what disaster might have been triggered with an even bigger plant.
"Cover up and scapegoating" and operators blamed. Now that's a story we have never heard before! It seems like the same cut and paste excuse story where the design and authorities are NEVER to blame for anything. In that respect, the HBO special got it right: The authorities were never to blame and if you did question that, you were treading on dangerous ground.
If it used a set of mirrors or prisms to view what was not in line-of-sight, it was a periscope. Is there a reason to think it was simply an eyepiece attached by a long tube to a camera, a boroscope?
@@rdspamFirstly, if there had been a system of mirrors inside the reactor then the chances of it not sustaining damage and still being in alignment after such an incident seems relatively low. Secondly, if there was a periscope system built into the inside of the reactor then it should appear on the plans. To the best of my knowledge it doesn't. Thirdly, borescopes have been widely used in a number of different fields to inspect things where you can't (or don't want to) disassemble them, such as engine blocks, jet turbines, and drainage systems. I'm happy to be corrected though, if you have any information.
@@amp888 With absolutely no knowledge of what I'm talking about, I would imagine that a pipe with mirrors (Name it whatever you like) was inside, or put inside, the refuelling machine and that was moved over the affected area and the tube pushed downward into the reactor to see what they could see. That way the operator stays relatively safe outside and at the top of the reactor while the bottom mirror would be deep within the reactor and not a place anyone would want to be!
@@amp888Wow, after reading that it felt like I was being bukkaked with stupid. I hope you are either a bot or a troll account, otherwise this will give me cancer.
@@ChrisMatthewson Deep inside the bottom sounds like a different kind of scope, which will likely be used on My bottom in a couple more years. With that in mind, I hope it's a very small camera; not mirrors.....😮
I had to do a double take and nearly spat out my metaphorical drink when chernobyl guy brought up Kozloduy. I didn't expect the Bulgarian NPP to ever be mentioned.
Thank you for all your good work on this! Would you consider making a summary video on what the exact RBMK design flaws were (as in the ones that make it subject to so many accidents), the minimum needed to change them and why the fixes weren't or couldn't be carried out? Currently this info seems a bit spread out and someone wanting to be able to counter the weaponized narration would benefit from a one stop shop so to speak. This could include analysis like "the positive scram effect was just a symptom of trying to build a large graphite reactor" or something else that gets to the various root design flaws if it's not something simple.
I think one of the biggest problems was a systemic one, in which Soviet scientists and engineers weren't allowed to know the full details of past accidents or problems with the reactors they were working on. Imagine if the causes of the Challenger explosion had been kept a secret even from NASA staff, who were expected to carry on the shuttle program without the vital information about not launching below a certain temperature...
@@thing_under_the_stairs Yes, that was a very damaging flaw: The whole way they went about things. If people are kept in the dark, how are they supposed to know and be blamed? It would be like me telling you to drive a car for the first time, but I don't tell you on which side of the road you should be. After the accident I them blame you as your were the one driving. As far as the mechanical issues/flaws with RBMK reactors go, it seems that from the very start, they were a 'work in progress' experiment and bits added, changed or removed every time they shut down for maintenance. Even Unit 4 at Chernobyl was having changes made to it during the planned shutdown that corrected know issues and MAY have prevented many of the things that led to the explosion. Sadly, they never got to put those changes into effect. Then of course, changes were made to other reactors after the Unit 4 explosion, because of it. Seems like a continual game of catchup: Try something, find out the flaws and change that bit and test it again in the real world. Great if it's a small problem, not so good if it leads to a major accident. But then, they can always blame the operators who are not told anything.
Given the theories shown in this video I wouldn't write this incident was similar to either Chernobyl 1986 or Leningrad 1975. A poorly constructed channel or a mistaken closure of a valve are their own category. More broadly speaking the fundamental flaw of pre-Chernobyl RBMK reactors was the maximization of fuel burnup. It is possible there were military plutonium producing considerations as well. Key properties of the core like the fuel to moderator ratio and the planned removal of additional absorbers were configured for high fuel burnup - the fuel being of low enrichment was part of the problem - that on the flipside compromised safety by increasing the positive void coefficient of reactivity. In other words, the RBMK reactor design apparently isn't even inherently dangerous, it was Soviet nuclear power experts who made it dangerous by the particulars of their design. Things were changed after the disaster to minimize the positive void coefficient, and of course the absurdity of the positive reactivity inserting emergency protection system was corrected. But the Soviet powers that be couldn't simply say, "Our bad." There was too much at stake with nuclear energy in the Soviet Union (refer to the first Pre-Chernobyl History video), not to mention there was virtually everything at stake for Soviet nuclear power experts. Instead they said the operators were bad, which rather amusingly served everyone, even internationally by making the Soviet Union sympathetic and victim to unfortunate circumstances. :p
@@markusw7833 Yeah, design considerations to maximize plutonium production haven't been touched on as much. Even fairly knowledgeable folks don't know much more than "on load refueling helps weapons production".
I was not aware that Unit 1 was never able to be run at full power again. In retrospect I guess it makes sense, given the logistics nightmare and resource cost that partially dismantling an RBMK to do such repairs would be -- best to, since the design was so very modular in operation, just use the rest of it that wasn't irreparably damaged and let that be that...
Fun fact. The affected core region was "X"-ed out with a Sharpie on the mnemonic display in the control room to indicate that this section of the core was out out of service indefinitely...
I had exposure to the radiation from Chernobyl when the US wanted to make a show of force in Germany. We were out marching in the rain consisting of the fallout from Chernobyl on May 1st 1986. The result is that I have a nodule on my thyroid as well as lesions on my head, neck and shoulders. The biopsy revealed that it is consistent with exposure to radiation. This happened in Regan’s peacetime Army. I’m being treated for it now. There are probably more people suffering from this same exposure. I was literally singing, “I’m a Radioactive” at the time. ☢️
I'm sorry for the nitpicking, but the damaged fuel channel was 62-44 and not 16-44 (as mentioned twice). (But located correctly on the cartogram at 1:33 ) Fun fact: The cover-up of the 1982 accident was so successful that in February 1986 the English-language Soviet magazine 'Soviet Life' published a picture, where the damages (blinded and bypassed fuel channels) of reactor #1 were clearly recognisable, but no one knew it sholdn't have been published so.
Excellent series about the Chernobyl disaster. I hope you make a video about the clean-up. They even used surplus WW2 era tanks converted to bulldozers. Needless to say with minimal protection for the crew.
My mind got new four idea 1. if AZ-5 was pressed and second later it’s terrible and pressed cancel shutdown, what will happen next? Will now use half control rods down until all is down or leave it? 2.if explosion was accord but Swedish didn’t detect because technical issue, will Pripyat won’t evacuate? 3. At explosion, if wind are changed from north to south toward Kiev and some fallout come to Pripyat? That be mean no radiation from Europe but Turkish will be contaminated? 4. As steam explode accord but core didn’t got change get caught on fire to cause unit 4 be destroyed, will that second explosion prevented? And only destroyed is reactor hall roof and inside reactor hall.
There is a special system that monitors the graphite stack for moisture. If that system starts piping up, it means your reactor sprang a leak somewhere, and it would be prudent to shut it down to see what ails it. The incredibly awesome Canadian CANDU reactor sports a similar system as it too is a pressure tube reactor. You have the Calandria tube that houses the pressure tube with the fuel bundles inside. The annulus between these two is filled with a gas. A monitoring system keeps check. If the pressure tube springs a leak, the system will immediately sense it, and send a warning to the control room.
I remember Three Mile Island all of these but I don't understand any of it . very complex and it appears to be even more complex watching these last two videos over the course of the last 2 days thank you for the information. I 🤔.
Both - and... In unstable designs, minor differences are amplified and any particular part may suffer failures. Even with no significant differences, some place will be slightly different and may accelerate to failure. Part of the problem is believing that something or someone one particularly must be at fault. When in reality the fault lies neither directly on the operators or construction, but on the designers long long before the accident for creating an unstable design. Then too, the usual hatreds arise. And the usual cover-your-ass systems apply with people in power have greater protection and influence than others, and hence able to assign blame. It is all so common. The flip side of this is also common and true. Designers, operators, manufactures that do the exemplary work to ensure such things are not possible or do not occur go entirely unheralded, unrewarded and unrecognized. Instead others who favor those in power, or that cause them gain are promoted in a super Peter Principle chain causing them to be heralded despite complete absence of excellence. And the whole system assures just such failures. Yawn. I am so surprised (not).
You truly are spoiling us rotten these days. First that half an hour banger about Leningrad NPP, and now this one. It seems that the RBMK never could catch a break. If it wasn't design issues running interference, or poorly written operating procedures, then it would be poor build quality or us silly humans buggering things up. But somehow it managed to soldier on, and there are about 7 of them still running today. Quietly making electric power, and some medical isotopes on the side as well. They are living proof that the RBMK isn't quiet the monster it was made out to be.
I just blame the Soviet government and Communism in general. It always feels like they try to downplay real problems and axe promising or fruitful individuals for minor mistakes. Just speaking generaliti here. Totalitarianism is a hell of a thing.
Funny. I was thinking this is no different in the private sector when leadership looks for blood if a project fails or money is lost whether it’s a managers fault or not lol
@@timothygibney159 Indeed! Look at some of the richest companies in the UK and you will find that they are corrupt and rotten to the core. It doesn't matter if it's communism or money, it's really a power thing and those with power will lie to keep that power. I mean look at the UK's Post Office scandal: lie after lie, with the people in power trying to cover everything up and corrupt to the very core. Strange that also in that case the ones in power tried to blame the lower people for everything. So power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.
@@timothygibney159 difference is those private enterprises with that mentality nearly always fail and are replaced when the next one comes around. See: Sears Holdings/Kmart and Walmart/Amazon in the early 2000s.
@@timothygibney159 Private companies have never been as lax with safety as state run enterprises have been. Because private companies have liability for accidents.
The problem with the Soviet society was too much punishment. No one should be treated like a criminal for making a mistake or not being able to prevent a complex accident. I’m surprised anyone was able to work at all in such an environment with so little trust.
Imagine working at that last nuclear plant mentioned where a part of the site was so irradiated they just couldn't ever use it. It's like a drawer with random stuff you'll just never open again... hah. Us Humans.
Nuclear laser beam was fired at the aerial electric wires, causing their radioactivity. Probably the reactor’s melting was also caused by a nuclear satellite weapon, that can heat up the radioactive heating elements. That’s microwave laser.
@@gingernutpreacher Many differences but yes, no shortened control rods and in this case the water at the bottom of the reactor was already about to boil and turn into steam (voids). So very basically: Inserting the rods didn't have the same effect that the shortened ones in Unit 4 had and the water at the bottom wasn't hot enough to instantly turn all to steam and blow the lid off the reactor.
The accident at unit 4 was preceded by a complete disregard for safety and operational regulations which pushed the reactor into a highly unstable state. Additionally, when AZ-5 was pressed there was very little cooling water flowing through the entire reactor which was not able counteract the sudden temperature surge that followed. The incident at unit 1 occurred closer to normal operations meaning the reactor was in a more stable state to begin with. And the restriction of cooling water was limited to a small localized area within the reactor so there was still enough water in total to compensate for any power surge caused by pressing AZ-5.
The designs of these reactors weren't terrible. The US had the Hanford N reactor of a similar design. The problem is the communist bureaucracy's friendliness toward occasionally bypassing all automatic fly-by-wire controls and trying to operate a nuclear reactor by hand.
Where did the random unwarranted anti-semitism charge come from????? Plant director vs ministry from above, it’s pretty obvious whose choice holds more weight unless you can give exact sources about the fact steinberg being jewish affected decisions.
@@Eduardo-n5t4x No they did not, in fact the RBMK is the only reactor in the world with the most "reactoryears" of experience and production. You do realise there are still about 8 of these (retrofitted) reactors in service? They are superior to Western reactor. It's a truly marvellous, yet misunderstood design!
If you believe this, I have a plot of land in Greenland to sell you ... Just think critically about how big the Pacific ocean is, and how radioactive the water is from Fukushima (and how much there could be) and come back to me with an intelligent argument that would not make a homeopath blush at the dilution.
I am very grateful that we no longer have any use for nuclear fission now that we have much safer, cheaper, renewable power generation. This failed technology will surely go down in history as our most reckless, careless, irresponsible, and expensive of all failed technologies, we will be managing the waste and consequences of this monumental mistake for the next 200,000 years, which might as well be an eternity. Our biggest technological failure.
Well, those Ukrainians have been reducing the quality of our lives for decades !! I read that even the mega explosion in Beirut a couple of years ago was connected to them. Where they are, there are obviously problems. I do not justify Russia's aggression against Ukraine, but I did a little research and followed the historical events surrounding Ukraine, so it somehow occurred to me that maybe it is smarter for all of us not to deal with them, they are simply prone to problems and disasters.
@@markusw7833 Go do some research on history , google for a change and open your mind, be objective then come and facepalm all day long if you really want to.
