Who asked?

@@user-qd5bs9nl2b - Yeah, I know. Words is hard.

wtf is wrong with people like you? why are you even clicking on this video if it doesnt interest you?? @@user-qd5bs9nl2b

They already are doing stuff at Chernobyl, such as dismantling the sarcophagus before moving onto the entirety of unit 4

@@Alsadree literally too soon to be doing that. We'd have to give it at least another hundred years before we can consider that

@@jacobnewell7845 Bro they already are doing it, they are already dismantling the sarcophagus and Unit 4. No personal would be allowed inside the NSC, but all the cranes can be operated from outside

will fukushima also need sarcophagus for thousands of years? in Chernoybl almost 100% left the building so very bad for the environment but rather good for cleanup

@@Alexander-dt2eq fucntionally, it already has one. But in the literal sense, no.

Yea it's a computer generated voice isntbit

Thanks Imran 🫡

It wasn't but I appreciate your sarcasm👍

I appreciate the feedback. This was testing a professional voice and it's clear from you and others that authentic beats slick.

Because IAEA 1) had full access to an open country like Japan and with large mass of media running around, unlike USSR, and 2) IAEA likes to appear large and in charge, ie “evacuate all those octogenarians on life support, because something radiation, we’re important and all about public safety”. They will do it all again if they get the chance.

I always assumed because at that time, only one reactor had ever exploded.

@@Nocturnal39 nothing in INES about “number of reactors”

That's not what I meant

They thought it was another Chernobyl, because that is the only other instance of a reactor exploding.

Thanks Maud. This is a re upload because the previous version got taken down by KZfaq for copyright of one of the historical clips of Chernobyl. I assumed the clips from 1986 are in the public domain.

Thank you very much!

Glad it was helpful!

Actually I think #3 pool smoked for 4 months!!!!!!

That’s from the comic book you read out in your tree fort.

Nothing wrong w the water that hurt anybody. Get serious.

it's in the Pacific 💀

People are living in Fukushima again. Chernobyl? Not so much

They put all the water is in the pacific so now you can ray-active fish yummy ☣️🐟🐠☢️

@nokit5733 The good news about the ocean is that it is constantly replenishing itself. Less dangerous than burying it in the ground.

I never heard about that until now. I guess little Nikita & his stooges were really good at covering that up.

You're welcome 😊

Its not proven

I think they will quietly release it. From what I have read the water contains low concentrations of tritium below international safe levels.

why are you mentioning Japan clown Russia lied to the whole world about the nuclear disaster

@@cherrylove3656 who hurt you

@@Mike-Bell Well it is to be released over many years, but a lot of attention due to the ignorance of the public. TEPCO made the worst PR move by not releasing it after treatment like all other nuclear power plants do.

Most of the dangerous stuff has likely already decayed and there will be little left at all in another decade.

Currently its just me making them so they come slowly. Hopefully I can grow the team quite soon and produce them quicker.

F wind was north, northwest. Radiation leak never exceeded an x-ray a km away. Chernobyl far worse, but still all direct radiation deaths were guys fighting the fire doing clean up on site, about 100.

Not even close.

Thanks Lory.

Guarantee the cover-up TEPCO tried could NEVER match the inhumanly disgusting lengths of the Soviets' cover-up attempt for Chernobyl. 100s of 1000s of people had their lives permanently changed forever thanks in no small part to what the Soviet government did in mishandling the initial disaster and the reactors themselves. Hell, there's plenty of examples, but I think the best and most recent is simply compare the HBO series from 2019 to the Russian-made Chernobyl Abyss movie from 2021. They actually interviewed survivors and others who were there for the actual disaster regarding both and pretty much all of them agreed the HBO version was more accurate, the Russian version ignored the government's responsibility for the accident, and the events of the accident still haunt many of them to this day (hence why they hate seeing the Russian version coming off as disrespectful about it).

@@Kamina.D.Fierce The Soviet government was able to evacuate the population, and was also able to provide the liquidators with everything they needed. The HBO series is false propaganda. A lot of questions arise with the elimination of the disaster on the Ferry. What's with the sewage? And why didn't they evacuate the population? Is this democracy? How many lives must be cut short in order for the capitalists to be fed?

People died from radiation poisoning at Chernobyl, maybe 100. Nobody died Fukushima. Nobody. No severe radiation spread to public. Get serious.

You’re way worse. Fukushima killed nobody radiation. Nobody.

Not even close. Fukushimabwas a hiccup compared to Chernobyl.

No, not if they had said “Here is worst case tsunami, build worst case sea wall”, or “let’s put back up power above worse case tsunami”. I think all the coastal communities where there is a threat of tsunami are prone to denial about them, don’t want to put anything between them and the sea, like the the officials of sea town in Jaws about sharks. “What shark? No shark. Boating accident”

Ironic isn't it... The Soviets tried to flex their superiority by trying to go the "cheap" route with their reactors. Doing so led to Chernobyl and the cleanup for Chernobyl ended up costing them everything: billions of dollars in 1980s money and the faith of the Soviet people in their own government due to the cover up backfiring.

That's not the only reason.

Are you talking about Fukushima videos you saw? And Fukushima workers loading up uranium pellets?

@@Mike-Bell yes

What are some of these video sources? Would like to see how their arguments stack up.

@@guydreamr i second this.

@@guydreamr finding the videos taken by the clean-up crews is impossible now as the internet has been cleaned of all videos showing the aftermath of the accident at Fukushima. I can only provide a video of when this fuel was released from reactor 3. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/Y6mSfLd8u6-uZ4U.html

Dana Durnford wants a word

MSRs need a moderator too. It’s graphite, not water. Russian gov didn’t do Chernobyl, Soviets did.

Great comment. Perhaps a more central reason for the Ukraine invasion disaster is Russian culture that is trapped in grievance. The Soviet way was accepting that life would be difficult and embracing the hardships as a means of achieving glory, rather than seeking a comfortable life.

You're right on the first account. Gorbachev said that the dissolution of the Soviet Union was a direct consequence of going broke trying to deal with Chernobyl. In 1989 or so, Reagan asked him to tear down the Berlin Wall. They told Gorbachev that NATO would "not move one inch" towards Russia's borders. Then as soon as the Soviet's left, NATO moved right in to East Germany. As the Soviet Union was almost bankrupt at that time, they lost other satellite countries as well, and NATO moved into them in turn. Finally they were down to Ukraine, which is a mixture of ethnic Russians and Ukrainians. In the same way that JFK would start a war with the Soviet Union over missiles on its doorstep in Cuba (or if Mexico or Canada had Soviet missiles aimed at it), Russia now has the spectre of NATO weapons aimed at it from Ukraine. By 2014, Victoria Nuland had meddled and pumped millions of dollars into NGO's in Ukraine, enough to destabilize and fell the elected government there, so NATO and the West could gain a foothold. The Donbas and Crimea consisted of many ethnic Russians who wanted nothing to do with the new regime set up by Victoria Nuland. In the case of Crimea, Russia knew if it left matters bide, NATO warships would be in Sevastopol before the year was out. And they would have been, as the West's intention all along was to destabilize Russia itself. Since they offered the inhabitants a referendum to join Russia and as most were ethic Russian, they voted to do so. The majority of people in the Donbas wanted to join Russia, as well, at that time. But Putin held them off, saying they had to try to get along with the Ukrainian government. Thus the Minsk Accord was established by Western nations and the Ukraine with the Donbas. But the Ukrainians took away the rights of people in the Donbas to speak or teach their native Russian in schools and began a bombardment that lasted 8 years, until Russia had had enough and decided to invade to help the people of the Donbas, recognized them and allowed them to join Russia. Angela Merkel let the cat out of the bag recently that the Minsk Accords were all a ploy to gain time for NATO to arm Ukraine for its proxy war with Russia. So all that has happened is because of NATO breaking its agreement with Russia not to encroach on its doorstep. I have friends who are Ukrainian and I have friends who are Russian, and I feel for ALL of them, as they all pawns in a Western bid to destabilize and make regime change in Russia, and that's ALL this is about. Scott Ritter, the arms inspector who said there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before Bush went in, and who was a weapons inspector in Russia to help with the strategic arms reduction treaty in the 90's, covers this pretty thoroughly.

@@privatear2001 Right. That's why I said that dissolving the Soviet Union led to the issues today in Ukraine. NATO wouldn't have encroached into former Warsaw Pact nations had the USSR maintained its borders through today. So I was right on the second account as well.

@@Mike-Bell Yes, the disgruntled Russians that you are referring to would be the same "hardliners" that I am referring to. These would be the Russians in the Asian portion of Russia from central Russia through eastern Russia, which includes Siberia and northern Mongolia. These folks are used to hard living, with alcoholism leading to low life expectancies among adult males. Being far from Europe, they tend to be anti-European and view Europe historically as a resource-rich region prime for raiding parties as far back as the days of Genghis Khan. These raiders would always have the safety of retreating back east through the Eurasian Steppes, where no fair-weather European general would dare chase after them. That was then. Today, this is the region where most of Russia's gas & oil and manufacturing industries are located, so economically, these hardliners have quite a bit of sway in Moscow ... apparently enough to quell the pro-European Russians living in western Russian metropolitan areas, such as Saint Petersburg, named after Peter the Great, who made that city Russia's capital under his reign. 15 years into his reign as tsar, Peter disguised himself and worked for 18 months as a carpenter in the shipyards in Amsterdam, learning shipbuilding, which he would then use to modernize Russia's navy for a future successful war against Sweden by which he acquired land was able to expand Russia west towards Europe. Not only was Peter pro-European with and had European advisors, but he also made French a required language among the Russian aristocracy as he aggressively modernized (i.e., Europeanized) and reformed Russia. So, there has historically been a back-and-forth between hardliners and pro-European factions within Russia. In fact, when Putin invaded Ukraine one year ago, it was central and eastern Russians who volunteered to fight, and it was young, educated, affluent men from Saint Petersburg and Moscow that left the country.

@@MaximGhost I guess you were, at that, now that I read it over again. :) I feel like many in the West just blame Putin for this war, but there's much more to it than just that, you know. And regardless of whoever was in power in Russia, he or she would be viewed as a weak president if they did nothing to NATO's incursion.

Can I use this paragraph for my hw? I have to do a case study on Chernobyl vs Fukushima 🥲

Chernobyl is worse because it is more radioactive than Fukushima, although chernobyl is only 1 reactor the reactor was completely destroyed with the core being exposed to the outside world, also what do you mean “ended same year” i heard like in 2017 they still have to build a new structure over the reactor

Pls lemme use for hw 👐

No decisión its automatic for reactor to shut in a big shock.

Uhhh, bud. There was no power to the plant from the tsunami, so yeah. I personally would have had that shutting down before that wave even got there just to keep from a runaway reaction. Things like an earthquake are yes, very valid to have that safety with when a terrible one happens, you won't have extra stress to worry over. Just a clean up and seal job. Might be viewed as dumb to some people, but when in reality, it was ingenious to make that safety switch an active scanner.

@@gavinstarke1184 “no power to the plant” That’s right. I suspect most people assume a nuclear power plant can power its own internal cooling pumps from its own turbine, when instead that power comes from off site.

“had one”? In 2011 a gas pipeline explosion destroyed an entire neighborhood in Santa Bruno CA. Killed 8, injured 58. This kind of accident happens somewhere regularly with coal oil gas. That Semi Valley CA SRE “excursion” in 1959 killed nobody. Though for years, people tried to get paid, make it a superfund site (denied), check the ground water (nothing). Which incident should be called “had one”? While the nuclear construction business in the West is a broken nothing, the “Nuclear Safety “ business is a global giant always looking for a payday. Heard a rumor, about somebody sick of something, anywhere? Oh yeah, that’s from radiation something 62 years ago. Payday.

@@Nill757 military puts dye in their gas to I'd if petsonel is taking gas identifying markers in the bloodstream match contamination. I think term is downstream. Each company has id markers in the products.

That is the correct spelling in Ukrainian with the o. With the e is the russian spelling.

@@Mike-Bell The Chernobyl nuclear power plant was in the USSR. The accident was in the USSR. So how to write correctly in Russian letters. But on the other hand, Ukrainian culture developed in the USSR, so writing from the Ukrainian language is allowed. The USSR was a progressive state.

Stfu salesman

40% in 500km2.

Well, according to his assessment, Chernobyl disaster happened due to a systemic organizational problem of USSR, while Fukushima is merely a local nepotism, nothing serious. I wonder why he didn't tell that the Fukushima cleanup water was safe enough to give it to children.

@@ivanadaev1000 Is nepotism a trifle? Is this a non-systemic problem? Seriously? Safe water? What?

no reports of Marine life loss of anything off Fukushima. Fishing is fine. That’s all bs. Chernobyl actually killed people, a 100 from radiation. Fukushima killed nobody. Nobody. Oil coal gas kill propel all the time. Get serious.

And now Japan is going to pour all those nuclear-polluted,radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean😢

@@lan3384 it’s not polluted. All sea water is naturally radioactive, always has been always will be. Hurts nobody. Cosmic rays constantly make the air radioactive. Why not discuss real harmful pollution and accidents killing people from oil gas coal fires explosions, instead of indulging your GD Godzilla fantasies.

I think that there was much more release into the ocean than anyone will ever admit.

yes japaneese people are even more liars than soviets

@@tonyroberts7481 I think youre radioactive contaminating U.S. all but like you I have no evidence of anything.

Fukushima radiation ocean like 5 percent chernobly in to air and 350.000 people left there home is much wors at Chernobyl

@@tonyroberts7481 dilution is the solution.

Both man made

Nah.

@@hgbugalou Nah what?

He is saying no thanks. He is saying nah by all rational measures Chernobyl was the baddest.

@@Mike-Bell Rational measurements? How much of the core was released into the environment in both Chernobyl and Fukushima? Not just the explosion but, especially in Fukushimas case, also water contaminated with nano hot particles of fuel fragments and water soluble transuranics and radionuclides?

@@Mike-Bell Mike you do know that Fukushima is leaking water from the containment vessel into the basements where it is leaking into the ground and the Pacific Ocean don't you? Estimates of 300 tons of radioactive water per day are leaking from Fukushima which contains exactly the same radionuclide list they are attempting to remove with the ALPS. 65+ radionuclides are in that water Mike so how much of the corium has escaped from the reactor after over 4300 days of leaking?

Fish caught near Fukushima is being sold and eaten. It is regularly tested for radiation and comes up safe so that is more than enough evidence that the ocean is not poisoned or unsafe. Contamination of the Pacific is fear, not science.

I have to agree with you. I don't eat anything from the Pacific ocean. They test for contamination, but there are many radionuclide contaminants from a nuclear meltdown, not only Iodine 131 and Cesium 134 and 137 which they over-emphasize to the exclusion of the others (and then they often compare it to the potassium in bananas as to its side effects). And each of these have a decay chain and decay into something else BEFORE they become stable, and nobody talks about that. And now they're going to release more contaminated water into the Pacific? All I can say is that the last two or three years have proven the "medical establishment" are very willing to lie to us about the risks of certain things. Dr. "Fausty" didn't mind telling us NOT to wear masks and then conceded that he lied to make sure there were enough masks for the doctors and nurses who needed them. I understand why he did that, but he still LIED. How much more so an industry worth BILLIONS that is reliant upon people buying their products, and on scientists reaching the "proper consensus". Well, you all enjoy your "slightly radioactive" fish on behalf of me. I'll stick to stuff from the Atlantic for now. Not that its all much better, because the Atlantic is highly contaminated as well, but probably will be better for a time than what's in the Pacific. Where I live now in the USA, we have PFAS in the water, forever chemicals, and they've been downplayed as well. I was a fisherman for years off Atlantic Canada and our fish were some of the best in the world. But I won't touch anything from the radioactive cesspool that is now the Pacific. Nobody knows the long-term consequences of ingesting even small amounts of any of this stuff into your system. How can anyone say it doesn't increase your risk of cancer or other diseases over time? Time WILL tell, but the people who may die from it will be played down as from other causes as "correlation does not equal causation" - and the people who may or may not have lied about it, will be long gone and any lessons will be forgotten. That's our history, unfortunately... destined to have the 5 second memory of that fish in "Finding Nemo". :)

Obviously, contaminated water is a problem, but recall: The cores didn't actually blow and say "Hello world!" HAD that happened, I doubt the entirety of mainland Japan would be safe to live in even to this day. Hell, the East coast of China probably wouldn't be safe either. 4 reactors... Not just 1.

No jury out. Water is trivial. Drink a galllin like eating banana. Chernobyl actually killed people. Get serious.

@@Kamina.D.Fierce light water reactors don’t explode, can’t explode. Coal oil gas kill people somewhere by explosions fires all the time. Get serious.

Kinda reaks of propaganda doesn't it lol

America is a shit of a country with its aggressive foreign policy and war mongering attitude.

3 > 1

Fukushima never killed anybody for radiation. Not dumping anything harmful in the sea either. Chernobyl did kill 50-100 people from radiation. It’s not about how much bling you saw last n TV.

One problem. Im from South Africa. I have no incentive to promote “western” slant.