What if the didn’t hit AZ5? And At what point did they pass the point of no return? Where the steam explosion would have been inevitable… What could they have done differently and would it have made a difference?

I'm really curious if you think that this was a "unicorn" situation, where it only really happened because of a crazy series of events that resulted in a "one in a million" accident, or if you think something like this was bound to happen. Btw, love the videos dude!

In the series Dyatlov is painted as a villain. The book ‘Midnight in Chernobyl’ paints him more as a product of the system. Which do you think is more accurate? Why did Dyatlov jump to the conclusion that hydrogen in the condenser tank must be responsible for the explosion? Is this a likely thing? Is it your belief that the operatives didn’t know about the Xenon pit? It is alluded in the series that Akimov was aware, do you believe that Toptonov knew? Why wasn’t the Xenon decay computer consulted? I didn’t also really understand why the engineers had to open the water valves? Was this due to their belief that the core needed irrigation and why couldn’t they be controlled from the control room? Do you believe that Dyatlov DID see the graphite in the ground during his ‘toilet’ break (looks through broken windows) but continued to play a charade because he knew what had happened really? I would love to have your view of what was in his mind….

Something that wasn't covered in Episode 5 is *why* the Liquidators were clearing debris from the roof of the reactor - it was to allow safer working conditions for the construction of the Sarcophagus. May also be worth mentioning the current state of the corium that leaked into the lower levels. Initially it solidified into a glazed mass but over the years has begun to disintegrate due to radioactive decay and repeated heating/cooling by the weather. There yet remains the possibility that it could leach into the ground water. Also, also, during the construction of Sarcophagus 2 the only workers to be contaminated by radiation were those who befriended wild dogs that are still common in the area.

In your last video, you commented off-handedly that the "safety test" itself seemed like an ill-conceived idea, and I would love to hear you expand on that a bit. I was struck by the fact this test had been attempted 3 times before and failed each time (in '82, '84 and again in '85). The plant director in the show seemed to expect Dyatlov to cancel when telling him the shutdown needed to be delayed for 7 hours ("because the factories are all racing to meet their quotas") but Dyatlov brushed it off as if that didn't matter at all, he'd just do the test later, and I thought "You arrogant twit. Your boss was giving you a graceful way out and you stomped on it." Was the test inherently dangerous/doomed to fail?

I'd like to hear your thoughts on the RBMK containment. In this episode the reason why the RBMK 1000 doesn't have a containment building is that its cheaper. Although there are other reasons primarily that this reactor had two functions one as a power generator. The second function is for nuclear fuel enrichment. If the reactor was in a containment building they wouldn't be able to use the RBMK fo function two. Given the size of the reactor and the multiple explosions that occurred during the accident would the containment vessel actually of made much of a difference? Especially considering shortcuts that most likely would of occurred during construction. (It was documented that lessor materials had to be used during construction of Chernobyl NPP due to availability.)

Have you watched Anatoly Dyatlov's real interview..? He has quite a different opinion about the accident and as per his interview the accident would happen even if they were not conducting the experiment when AZ-5 was pressed. It would be great to have your take on it.

What is your interpretation of Legasov's comment that with the graphite tips locked in place the reactor was in effect a bomb? How fine is the line between a detonation and a power excursion, in your opinion? Keep em coming!

I am generally curious for a discussion around the prompt criticality hypothesis for the secondary explosion... any discussion or the Gabbon natural reactor would also be welcomed. Thanks for the great series.

This almost never comes up, but if you can spare a minute or 2 to talk about the sarcophagus - how they had to build this massive structure over something that you couldn't send people to be around, how they couldn't use the remaining walls of the building as structural support, etc. and yet they still did it in a couple of months... I know it's not closely connected to this episode, but I think it's one of the most underrated aspects of this accident, as you're a nuclear safety engineer I'd love to hear what you think :)

Hi! I absolutely love your videos and have greatly enjoyed them. I actually have two questions for you. My first question is "What is it that we see when the lid blows off and the shot cuts back to the exposed reactor? It looks almost like a monster crawling out from the depths of tartarus." The second question is, "What do you think, with your education, the reactor core and its contents within, looked like when after it exploded and was exposed? The series never really showed a look STRAIGHT DOWN at the reactor after the smoke cleared, what would one see? Glowing blue "lava"?, sand and boron over everything? Thank you so much!

Could it have been worse than it actually was and if so, what would have caused it or the end result been?

Chernobyl seems to be depicted as an accident designed by inexperience from the crew and poor decisions from the uneducated top, as in the top decision-makers in the city were not educated in nuclear power. I feel like this is depicted not only as a nuclear energy problem but also as a Soviet problem. So my question Is this: Were these factors a Soviet problem at the time and in the whole timeline of nuclear reactors, what is the most common accident and its cause? Sorry for sneaking in two questions in one. I have really enjoyed your series and I have now looked into your other videos. I highly enjoy your work! Thanks and cheers from Sweden!

Dyatlov is often villified in this series, do you think he should've done anything differently before the explosion? Or did the flaws in the reactor doom everything to begin with. Been loving this series, thank you!

My question is quite simple: if everything stayed the same except for the presence of a containment building, do you think that this alone would've been enough to stop the disaster or at least mitigate the effects on the surrounding area? It is obvious that if the building can withstand the initial explosion then the disaster would be much less severe but I don't know if the explosion was strong enough to damage a typical containment dome like those found in the western power plants. To my untrained eyes the absence of a containment building seems the worst design flaw.

A lot of times I hear people critiquing the censorship of documents on electric generating reactors but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the angle of the RBMK reactors not just being for generating electricity but also for generating nuclear material for weapons. Could this have influenced the decision to restrict the amount of documentation they (scientists) could have accessed?

Not so much a question, but I’m just excited to hear your break down of how the RBMK reactor works (compared to how it’s explain in the trial.) and your take on how it got to the point of no return. You have a pretty good way of explaining things and I’ve watched several videos where others break down reactors and how they work as a result of watching this show I’ve gained a huge interest in nuclear energy. I feel like I’m always quenching for more information so I’m eagerly waiting your part 5 breakdown.

How long until people can live there again?

Was there any reason the control rods would have graphite tips other than to save on costs? In the grand scheme of the cost of a reactor I can't imagine it would've been a significant money-saving factor. Then again I know the Soviet union was all about cutting as many corners as possible. Just wondering if there would be any other reactor-related reason for the rods to have graphite tips. Great videos and thank you!

In the show when they describe the control rods they use the words "tips" but how much of the rod is graphite? and Is the graphite part of the control rod ever used to deliberately increase reactivity?

The directors said the Emily Watson character was a stand in character for all the Soviet Engineers across the union and made her the stand in for thousands of other Engineers and expertise in the legal proceedings. So one point to bring up is how when a situation like this occurs and lawyers/politicans get involved with the fallout when they all agree one scientist/front man isn't too blame. Obviously there's no one hero, or villain but for Drama they simplify it. And the Emily Watson character is a stand in for Thousands of people who stood up and that's the one reason Soviets were like there's no technician fall person

I want to know what could have been done differently had they known from the start if they knew the reactor exploded, and they weren’t saying it was just a feed water tank. Would they have still just sent those firefighters to their deaths, how would the situation have been handled differently or how could we handle it differently should the same thing happen today, are we still knowingly sending people to their deaths, or are their new processes and technologies to avoid the sacrifices needed to have been made. I’m curious what they would have done back then had they known from the start.

Is Legasovs description of the accident during the trial accurate? The board with red and blue signs

I like the way you have approached this series. Have not seen it other than a couple reaction series. Nice to see someone "with a clue" reacting. The main thing that has impressed me is that you have gone through the comments to see reactions from subscribers and address at least some of their concerns and comments and clarifying why you responded how you did, even if you didn't think of something commented.

Thankyou for actually *truely* involving us!

Why were these RBMK reactors so huge? Ive heard they could use almost natural Uranium which is crazy. The USSR obviously wanted Plutonium 239 for weapons and chenically extract from the spent fuel; so maybe they didnt enrich Uranium as much? I just want to know if the reactor was actually kind of genius being able to replace/move around fuel rods. Was it enriched Uranium? How much if its not classified. Because 99.3% U238 would be impressive. Thanks.

I am fascinated by "what could have been". .. and think you are wonderful!! for breaking this down

Hey, i really like your series and the calm, collected way you talk about this topic. That ability to stay calm and collected when handling radioactive stuff may be an advantage ob your job ;) Can you talk about the contamination in the area around pripyat and the rest of the world? How bad was it? How bad is it today? Are there any areas not in the exclusion zone aroundthe powerplant that should be avoided even today?

Something else that isn't addressed and think it might worth mentioning is that the reason why the safety test couldn't be postponed or scrapped until a week later. One of the benefits of the RBMK reactor was that you didn't have to shut it down to replace the uranium fuel. The tests coincided with the lower power state the reactors would be in while the fuel rods were being replaced because also remember, this test was supposed to have been done to certify operation of the reactor (at least according to the show). So this safety test could only be attempted once per year since it had to be done in secret. How much of this is true and how much was added for the show, I don't know.

I think I asked this question, or more accurately asked your opinion, on whether the accident was already bound to happen by the time they hit the scram button, regardless of the graphite followers on the control rods. In my opinion the show places too much emphasis on this.

In the trial, Legasov said that the RBMK design doesn't have a containment dome, like western reactors. Was that true?

What's your thoughts on the new theory that it was a small nuclear explosion vs being a steam or hydrogen explosion?

If I may ask a couple: 1. If the control rod tips were not made of graphite, would the event even have occurred? Based on my review it seems that that component is the final catalyst in the myriad of mistakes but certainly, the main reason for the explosion, is that a fair take? 2. My second question is: What is your take on a furthering event at the site, as in is there any chance for a secondary event occurring or is this just letting it half-life to near nothing? I am anxious to hear your take on Legasov's breakdown of the unfolding events that created the Chernobyl incident. Great Job and thanks for the opportunity to ask someone with your cred these seemingly simple questions.

Hi Charlie, Firstly, just a quick thank you for this series, it’s been by far the most informative and fun one to watch on KZfaq in the “... reacts to Chernobyl” lineup. Here’s my simple question for you: Could the operators limit the severity of the accident by removing all the coolant from the reactor before AZ5 was pressed? My understanding is that prior to the fire and all hell breaking loose, the disintegration of the core was caused by a massive pressure spike within the reactor which in turn was generated by the sudden phase change of water as the reactivity went up in a positive feedback loop. Knowing that the RMBK in question had a positive void coefficient, I’d assume that with almost no water left in the reactor, the reaction would just continue to accelerate till a complete meltdown happened, but without a major steam explosion, or a major fire ever occurring.

The rotor blades actual hit the crane cable if you look close enough you will see that. I believe the intent was they were so disoriented with the level of exposure they weren’t really in control and failed to see or avoid the crane cable.

The show made it clear that the graphite tips were classified and not known to possibly cause an explosion so I have 2 questions. 1. The design of the control rods should be gone over since a non-nuclear person doesn't know how the rods were designed and work in an RBMK reactor. 2. A strong component to this accident was the xenon poisoning and this seems like something that was not classified and should have been known and understood by the people in that control room. Was there something about the xenon poisoning that wasn't really well known at that time?

If they would have (or could have at that point) withdrawn the boron tips from the control rod channels, would they possibly had time remaining to restart the pumps and contained the runaway power surge? or would the reaction at that point have tipped to far and without additional coolant being available the steam explosion and meltdown would have happened regardless.

Firstly, glad to have found your channel, you've earned yourself a subscriber! Now, to the point. Legasov in the series claims that the control rods are graphite-tipped and that this is done to save money. This gives rise to two questions: 1. Are the control rods "graphite-tipped"? What is the actual construction of the control rods? My understanding is that this is a misrepresentation. The manual control rods were not graphite-tipped, but rather had a graphite portion shorter than the core length, followed by a spacing, followed by a boron portion the length of the core. Thus, "fully withdrawn", the absorber is fully withdrawn, but the graphite rods are still there, in the middle of the core. This is due to the water, which is a weak absorber. In operation, you want to replace the water with graphite, which moderates the fast neutrons, thus increasing output. To reduce output, the rod is moved out of the core, gradually reducing the amount of moderation by graphite, meanwhile introducing the absorbing section. However, as the graphite moves out of the core, at the end it displaces water (as it is shorter than the core), meaning that it locally increases output as the control rod is inserted. This is what creates the power surge at the bottom (I think) of the reactor when AZ-5 is initiated. The design flaw is thus not the graphite tip, but the gap to the bottom of the reactor. 2. How is this cheap design? What is the expensive design? Is money saved by making the graphite shorter than the core length? This doesn't seem to make sense as graphite is relatively inexpensive. I am guessing that the graphite section in general is not required for the reactor to operate (water is a moderator as well as absorber), but helps it do so more efficiently, allowing less fuel to produce the same output. I've gathered all this from videos on KZfaq, Russian sources and diagrams, as well as English diagrams, beside my high school education. I'm no reactor specialist, though I do study Civil Engineering now and hope to go in an atomic power direction.

I have heard about the positive void coefficient in graphite moderated reactors but Legasov in ep 5 mentions a negative temperature coefficient. This I have not heard of before and would love to hear clarified.

Yes!!!!! I love your content!

You often hear that the accident happened at least partially because this reactor was moderated using graphite. Could the events as they happened be created using a water moderated reactor; or perhaps put a different way what would have to happen inside a water moderated reactor for similar events to happen with similar terrible results. Love the analysis, looking forward to the next video! No better way to spend the holidays than with a breakdown of a terrible nuclear disaster!

Can you explain the enormous steel lid of the reactor control rod and fuel channel caps, also known As the upper biological shield (UBS),or “Schema E" and why they were jumping up and down and if the channel caps actually weighed 350 kilograms.

Love the channel btw, Chernobyl fanatic here. I have several questions or thoughts for you to choose from. I would love to know exactly how much force was required to have blown the roof and the several ton cover off the reactor. I'd also love to know your thoughts on the make up of corium and if you know if that changes the amount of time that it takes for the radioactive decay to happen(slows or speeds up the proccess). Also I'd love to hear your thoughts on the new safe confinement and whether you think the equipment inside of it will last and whether the new area they're building to hold the radioactive debris will be enough to protect Ukraine/Belarus. I have so many more things I'd love to ask or have discussed but I'll leave what I have for now and let someone else ask their questions.

- Generally, at what points could they have averted this explosion / disaster? Assume they're in a USSR that's dead-set on them doing this demo wrt psychological pressure to do it. - With the current political aversion to building new nuclear power plants most of the ones currently running are very old - the ones in Belgium are 40-50 years old, beyond their original design lifetime, and known to have some cracks. Twofold part question - how do we explain to people that we should really be shutting these down, and at the same time explain that we should (already have) build more / replacement power plants?

Do you feel this series has helped or hurt the image of safety and general nuclear power hesitancy?

What safety mechanisms are in place today in nuclear reactors to prevent something like the Chernobyl explosion from happening again?

The difference in design between reactors that have a negative void coefficient vs the RBMK design which had a positive coefficient. Talk about the safety difference between the two designs maybe.

Love your videos on both channels man keep it up! For the questions, I would have to ask why were those certain materials used inside the reactor, from moderator to reactives. Also, a better in-depth explanation of the incident would be greatly appreciated.

You are The Man my good Sir 😎

I can’t wait for this one

PART 5 LETS GO!

The accident is described as 2 explosions in rapid succession. The power surge followed by a steam explosion, which opens the core thereby causing the 2nd bigger explosion when air rushed in was the thought. I'd like more details explained on that 2nd bigger explosion.(?) It wasn't a nuclear explosion, so it had to be a rapid chemical reaction explosion in some fashion, but what? Hydrogen?

I know they needed to build the "New Safe Confinement " because of the Sarcophagus's deterioration & it's ultimate dismantling....but what is the end goal....what do they plan on doing with everything & where will it go ?

Can you go into more detail why the helicopter rotor blades failed and broke while above the reactor? Also wondering about those rectangle things in the reactor that were going up and down before it exploded - what are they and do they perform like that in real life? Thanks for the vids, I really enjoyed your take on it!

I want to know why I'm having so much fun watching you talk about nuclear engineering and why I listen to your voice when I go to sleep...and dream of your head.

Would a western style containment vessel have contained a steam explosion of that magnitude?

Couple of questions. 1, the AE-5 is shown as the button to trigger the incident, but what do you know about the KOM and another button being pushed after/in conjunction with AE-5 that caused the criticalcality excursion? 2, beneath the tops of the fuel channel blocks, there were air right screw in caps that had to be removed by the refueling machine. Assuming these remained airtight, do you believe the lore around the fuel channel caps bouncing up and down is fiction? I’ve read the the control room had a camera pointed at the UBS and the last thing seen wasn’t bouncing caps but the bowing/bending out of the UBS which could be mistaken for the channel caps moving. Thoughts on this? 3, regarding the water in the reactor, was it in the fuel channels only or was the whole reactor filled and the graphite blocks were sitting in the reactor saturated in water?

What do modern reactors do to prevent situations like this from happening again?

More time on why a design would ever use positive void over negative

I had to write a report for Biology Class on Chernobyl right after it happened. One of the things written was that here, in the west, we construct double walls around our reactors, while the USSR only built a single wall. A: Is this true? B: Would an outer wall have made any difference in containing the explosion? C: Do you know if Russia is doing anything different to make their nuclear facilities safer?

Here's what I want to know. Are there any extant copies of the RBMK operating manual from 1986 which state clearly NEVER attempt to restart a stalled reactor right away? Wait 72 hours for radionuclides to decay? At the trial in part 5 Legasov says "Dyatlov broke every rule in the book" but later confuses the issue by stating that the operators didn't know of a flaw in the reactor design that could cause an explosion "because it was kept from them." Even if the operators didn't understand why it blew up, they would be culpable IF the operating manual and/or their training said NEVER DO THIS and they did it anyway. It's the old "someone didn't read/follow the owner's manual" trope. Akimov & Toptunov died saying they did nothing wrong. To his dying day Dyatlov blamed the accident on the "hidden" flaw. I get that all three said those things because they had egos, didn't want to look bad and wanted to avoid a KGB bullet but when an operator's manual says NEVER do this I don't need to know why.

hey I'm late. But happy to watch along

Dyatlov had suffered a near fatal dose of radiation in a prior nuclear accident, a "50% dose," meaning that he had a 50-50 chance of surviving. Obviously, he survived and went on to manage Chernobyl. Some believe that the first accident may have colored his thinking about the seriousness of radiation exposure. He may have had a rather macho attitude about it because he'd already survived it. Do you think this is possible? Personally, I'm rather skeptical as it would probably make most people more cautious. After all, ARS, even if you survive, makes you feel absolutely awful. And dying from it is probably the worst way to die. Certainly, Dyatlov was a product of that Soviet era and suffered from rigid thinking and fear of being sent to Siberia, so maybe his hard-headedness had nothing to do with his prior radiation exposure.

What was the last stage (I mean stages leading to the disaster described by Legasov in the court) when the explosion could have been prevented?

My question is simple, what was your favorite part out of this entire series? My favorite is the explanation in the last episode. I also really enjoy watching the 1st episode all the way through

I think it should be said that Johan Renck (the director) grew up during the time Sweden was very red and everyone hated nuclear power, there was even a ban on research into new power plants called the "thought ban". He has also said he is very left leaning which is pretty much everyone in Sweden from his kind of background and gives us what he thinks of nuclear power.

Is the point about graphite tips on the control rods being cheaper correct? The RBMK was designed to be refueled without powering down, so the control rods were given graphite tips in order to leave those tips in the reactor, helping to keep reactivity steady while fuel rods got swapped out. Total withdrawal thus drove down criticality. My understanding was that there were legit engineering reasons for designing the control rods this way. In any case, it’s a strange leading argument to make in a society that didn’t use money at the time.

I have seen more than one video explaining the physics behind the explosion, but I still don't really get it. I know the series simplified it a bit, and maybe it's just out of my range, but this bit is what I'm most looking forward to. (I'm sure you'll get into it whether I ask or not.)

Prompt critical even possible in these conditions? What is the worst possible outcome if the response was botched even more (i.e. what if Lagasov was not appointed to help the cleanup) If there wasn't a test going on, how else could an RBMK recator run into a runaway like we saw? Thanks love your vids brah!

Hey Charlie, huge thanks for all your Videos, especially Chernobyl-ones. I'd like to hear your thoughts after looking the whole series now: what do you think about Chernobyl-Movie vs. Real Life: in the movie they use Real Names, Real Facts but show these in a "different way" --> e.g. in Real Life Legasov took the courage and told the whole world (Vienna Safety Conference) the real truth about the unsafe design of all RBMKs and that costed him his scientific career ... in the movie they show it, that Legasov didn't show it to the whole world but show that in the "strange trial process", which never happened like that in Real.

I think the trial does an amazing job presenting the evidence and providing a decently simple timeline to follow. So I would just like to know how accurately portrayed you think it was p. And what gave us here in America the forethought to peruse boiling-water and pressurize-water reactors vs using graphite-moderated RMBK type reactors or other similar designs. They mention the cost and I understand that aspect. Especially in reference to why the USSR didn't use some sort of containment roofing and other large scale containment measures. I would also love to hear your thoughts on how realistically close places like ITER are to creating a sustainable plasma for the incredibly hyped fusion reactors. Is there anything else out there other than the Tokamak design that could lead us into real world sustainable fusion reactors?

What do you think the time frame will be for resettling the exclusion zone? Some isotopes will be there for thousands of years, but does it need to be 100% clean to be resettled? Thanks...best chernobyl reaction series by far !

What actually happened with the nuclear materials after the cleanup, for example, where did they dispose of the graphite? Not only that but how did they transport it to the disposal place after they got it off the roof? Most of the graphite was thrown back into the reactor but i can imagine there had to be tons of graphite all over the plant and on the ground around the plant. If someone has to transport the materials to some place wouldn't they also be very exposed to high amounts of radiation? Even if thoroughly packaged with lead shielding there were such large amounts of it that had to end up somewhere and it had to get there somehow. I love your reaction and explanations throughout this series! Great Channel!

The show talks about differences between Soviet and western reactors. What differences are there? What safety elements are in place in US and are not in SU.

Interestingly enough, the 1,2,3. . . the plane crashes. . . is SO appropriate with so many industries. Medical/Airline/Nuclear/ My brother, the nuclear engineer, had to explain some instances of this miniseries, because I was so interested in it. What were the "contaminated pets/animals" going to do? procreate to make the 3rd eye fish in the Simpsons? I suppose. And I am incredibly amazed, as a teenager in the 80s that this absolutely, positively, could have been the end of our world... .. the lengths gone to by the soviet government, and the world scientific community, saved us all.

We're the rods the only way shut down the reactor ? What about safety redundancy systems ? Are there any reactor design have redundancy systems in case of failure ?

A question I have since watching and learning about the events that transpired that day and would like your opinion on, if instead of pressing the AZ-5 button, if they had lowered the control rods by sections at a time instead of all at once, could this entire disaster had been avoided? Since the graphite had accelerated the reaction instead of slowing it down, would the boron parts of the control rods had made it if they didn't send all the graphite tips at once? Not like they would have known to do this regardless unless they knew the button was essentially a detonator.

After The Sling-shot effect. from Low to Very High power. They Pressed AZ5. all the control rods went in at the same time speeding up the reaction. The moment before they pressed that button, did they have any other options at that point to Stop the reactor from melting down?

What should have been the proper procedure to get the reactor back up to normal operation?

I had had a basic understanding of how a nuclear reactor worked, through my own reading, and through the explanations of my brother, a nuclear engineer. He told me that if the Chernobyl reactor had the kind of hardened concrete silo over it, the way US reactors do, the environmental damage would have been far less. I'd like to hear your opinion on that. I'm guessing that the meltdown would have still occurred, but how much environmental damage might have been averted? My brother once told me that the tragic deficiencies of the RBMK reactor were well-known in the Western nuclear engineering community. Is this in fact the case? My brother had been in the military for 10 years before he worked with civilian power plant nuclear reactors. Perhaps he had access to knowledge from the US Navy that civilian nuclear engineers didn't have? My brother has since died, so I can't ask him these questions. Also, if the roof hadn't been blown off the reactor (if the Soviets had had the kind of hardened silos we have over our reactors), it would have been impossible for the helicopters to drop the lead and boron neutron absorbers. Would the meltdown have progressed faster as a result? Was the roof blowing off a mixed blessing? But I really loved the explanation given at the trial using the blue and red placards representing speeding up and slowing down a nuclear reaction. I'm still not 100% clear on "voids," though. Any explanation would be welcome. I understood the xenon poisoning, but I'd love to hear more. I understand biology and medical matters very well, but anything beyond basic physics requires a lot of concentration on my part. I am enjoying your videos very much, and I appreciate your clear explanations.

This may be a bit too far afield, but there was heavy mobilization of military to do a lot of environmental damage reduction. Tilling earth, burning forests, hunting wildlife and domesticated animals etc. What was the impact reduction the SU was working towards, and what are the effects they were hoping the mitigate?

I would just like an actual description of what would have actually been visible. I hear descriptions of fire, smoke and blue glowing rays?! If you were actually standing outside the building what would you have seen? Thx

Are there are any better methods for heat absorption other than pumping water? This whole test was driven by that need to see if they could pump water to cool an already scrammed reactor in event of a power failure. And we know many years later that keeping pumps running after a power failure was also the key problem at Fukushima. Any material you can just dump onto the scrammed core better than water to take up that remaining heat?

In general, how do you design a reactor to avoid a positive feedback loop and thermal runaway? If the coolant is removed or denied to the reactor core, are there designs that will decrease the power or heat so that they are inherently safe? (or safer?)

Why had the previous iterations of the safety test failed, and why did they think another experiment would change the outcome?

I would really like to know how accurate the explaination is and what are the differences to other reactor Systems?

What is your opinion on the design of the RBMK reactor? The more I learn about it the more I find it to be a marvel of engineering, able to generate large amounts of power on poor quality fuel while also producing plutonium, albeit an extremely dangerous one that should never ever actually be built.

very briefly describe if it is possible during a meltdown event, how far could the melting core materials go into the earth and if its thorough the crust then could it drop to the center of the earth because of density? total lay person asking a random question thanks

If you were in control do the cleanup/containment efforts, what would have done considering the technology that they had access to?

Does Russia continue to build nuclear plants and if so do they do it differently now?

Can you explain why the Positive Void Coefficient + removal of control rods led to an explosion in Chernobyl but not western reactors developed the same way (HAH! Semi-Trick question!)

I want to know what the big panel with the lights is there for in the control room, like what it does and how it works, and if it's a real thing, is it displaying stuff correctly.

I was wondering from the first episode, when they open the door to the room with the reactor and they’re looking down over the exploded core, what would the air temperature be from looking over the core? And would they even be able to be that close without burning from the air temperature?

How fast does the xenon burnup happen and how controllable is it? In the series it is portrait as a power excursion within seconds. However I have heard from one reactor operator that it's actually not so bad, and you can carefully drive your reactor through this xenon pit. He also said that instead of waiting a few days until the xenon decayed, they would slowly and carefully burn up the xenon in a controlled manner. Now I wonder how accurate that is, can you control the xenon or is it really that sudden?

Hey im from Bulgaria, having a rare desease caused by Chernobyl ( cant proof that, im born 1990 ) and im Deaf , thanks for reacting to it, CHERNOBYL affected a lot of countries , specially soviet countries, because in my country, when that happent, there was a parade, where everyone was 'forced' to go and cheer up and cheer the communism and such. After that rain, the cancer and autoimmune/ DNK deseases drastically increased, and we suffer high anomalies rate due to people being exposed to that rain back then, and also due to noone said that the Vegetables from the garden during that time, should not be eaten. I also have a very strong picture of clothes outside, after the rain, with gray/ dark marks all over them, due to that toxic rain.

Why did RBMK reactors have control rods that came up from the bottom as well as ones that came down from the top

I'm working on a project for chernobyl and I'd like to understand how the graphite the core was co trained in caused the core to meltdown when the rods were pushed in I know it caused some kind of a reaction with in the core but I'd like to understand how the material in the core reacts with the graphite I think it confuses me because the core was encased in graphite but it was also part of the cause of the explosion on the rods I'd love to understand this on a subatomic level if you can explain it also can you give a explanation of the brads peak qnd how diffrent radiation partials are effected by it or how much further they travel before they stop and disperse the energy

Hello ! Thank you for your channel, my passion for radioactivity is happy ! My question is the following : What do you thing about how the show depicted important individuals like Anatoly Dyatlov, Valery Legasov and the Chernobyl plant workers in general ? The TV Show claims to be inspired by books like Voices from Chernobyl by Svetlana Alexievich. But the show also shows events talked about in The Truth About Chernobyl by Grigori Medvedev, who is apparently known for having heavily dramatized his book in the first place. Talking about things like the fuel caps weighing each 350kg and jumping up and down in the reactor room. Those caps weigh 50kg in reality, and as they got bent/broken by the steam pressure, they were stuck in place and couldn't move at all. Or irradiated firefighters being a danger for hospital visitors, when it's the other way around. Or the "Bridge of Death" on which all the civilians watching the plant fire died on, that is widely considered to be a myth. There are many other examples of science not being followed for the sake of unnecessary drama, despite the show's morality being the pursuit of truth. This are just a few exemples of the writing of Medvedev that stuck despite its nonsense. Medvedev had the luck to meet and get interviews from many operators during the catastrophe, and some very true details are known thanks to him. But Medvedev's book is the one that was chosen by the USSR to be considered as "the true Chernobyl Story", as he depicted the red state as being way less responsible for the accident that it really was. The show also goes and depicts Valery Legasov as being the good, vs the bad Anatoly Dyatlov. The show demonstrates that Dyatlov was a despicable man, despite operators saying that he was yes tough, but extremely respected. The control room is a clownfest of yelling, insults and notepad throwings. The operators, Dyatlov included, confirmed that the control room was as quiet as a usual day and that all orders were followed. The panic apparently just wasn't there despite what the show tries to depict. I would suggest Dyatlov's "How it was", which is a great read that can provide some needed insight ! Here's the link if you're interested ! docs.google.com/document/d/1ZA6SUYBkE_YV0L2EXp9qGWvCqgDGTW3E5bfJubUm2Yw/edit?skip_itp2_check=true Dyatlov is also shown to be in denial, ignoring everything and running to the meeting room to claim that "everything is under control" to his bosses. But many reports indicate that is was in motion all night, coordinating efforts and being one of the first outside to notice the graphite on the ground. He then collapsed and was sent to Moscow's Hospital n°6. Yuri Tregub's testimony during the trial claims he went outside with Dyatlov, saw the open reactor and said the following : "This is Hiroshima," I said to Dyatlov. For a long time we walked on in silence. At last, he (Dyatlov) said "not even in the most horrible nightmares have I dreamt this." Plant director Viktor Bryukhanov, who died in october 2021, was also considered to be a great manager. Like the operators, the plant managers were unaware of the positive void coefficient issue and many reports indicated that Bryukhanov was very professional and respected. After the show came out, his wife complained that he was demonized heavily by it. Finally, I just wanted to address my concern about the depiction of Legasov. The show tries to tell it but it's not very convincing in my opinion. Legasov is believed to have known about those reactor issues for at least 10 years before the accident. He was a chemist, but also a career party man (despite criticizing Boris Shcherbina for it in the show) that even got promoted to be the director of the Kurchatov Institute for lying to the world. His position gave him a lot of power and influence and he apparently enjoyed it for quite a few years. He wasn't even present in the court room from what I've gathered. So there it is. What do you think about the individual involvement of the main characters of the series ? I know this question doesn't really concern the chemistry that led to the accident, but I believe that these social misconceptions are as much important as the series is all about "exposing lies" when in reality, it might just be perpetuating them. Sorry for the long question but thank you for reading if you do, can't wait to have your opinion on it ! Have a great day and lots of success for your channel ! c:

what you think would happened if they push the core to same criticality but dont push the AZ5 are there any plans or calculation for containment building and if so will it be strong to endure what happened to reactor 4

What do you change to make the other RBMK reactors "safe" in response to this accident?