It seems that the reactor operators do not understand how their reactor works. This being said overriding safety control should take authorization from a regional director or someone high enough up the chain to tell them no.

@@Privat2840 Apparently, critical information on the reactor design was classified secret and the operators were not allowed to know it. The operators simply followed procedures to run the reactor. It worked unless conditions outside normal operating parameters were encountered. In those cases, knowing the design of the reactor might have helped.

_"you should probably stop and rethink your plan"_ - no way, comrade. No way, no why, no how - that would be a sabotage of a five-year plan. And for that you'd get a white beaches holiday... erm, izvinitye, slip of tongue - I meant "white *bears* holiday", of course - and a couple of years of it, actually. So, "nyet", and don't you even dare to think about it - you have to get yer priorities right: "Socialismo o muerte", and toe the Party line - or else.

​​@@Privat2840regional directors never said No because they we're scared the Party would reprimand them. Ask Brjouchanov.

@@brinnbelyeaThe Soviet “System” strikes again.

As one operator at ChNPP (an ex Red Navy reactor sailor), was quoted as saying, "How do you control this hulking POS?! And why is it in civilian use?!"

​@@sawyerawr5783Indeed !

@@sawyerawr5783 Indeed !

How were the Soviets who ran these RBMK reactors trained? Did they go to university? Or on the job? Crazy to think that even with the design flaw, there are still soviet RBMK reactors in operation today.

Basically what they did in Chernobyl too.

He doesn’t find it boring.

@@SpetsnaztyExactly! When it’s an interest area, it easy, even FUN.

There is also a rumour that there are actual recordings of the control room CCTV on that very night. Apparently, the mic next to Toptunov wasn't working at the time but it would still make for interesting viewing. If it does exist, I doubt that it will ever see the light of day.

In all probability, you would not be far off the mark. That goes for the Chernobyl accident itself as well. Only the Lord knows what they've got hidden away in there about that.

@@ChrisMatthewson regardless of existence of recordings, the whole accident schematics looks more or less clear. Reactor's control rods had indeed positive reactivity area, reactor was indeed in poorly controllable state, so operators' movements just triggered the whole thing. I personally don't expect anything brand new (if even found & published) will change the scene dramatically.

@@konstantinklimenko4181 No, I don't think that it would change anything about what physically happened or how that happened, but it would confirm and/or set some things straight. A picture is worth a 1000 words and so we could once and all see in reality what it was like in the control room before the explosion. Dyatlov would be shown as he really was instead of some made up opinion by someone who disliked him and the general atmosphere of nothing particularly unusual going on. So, many things could once and forever be set straight and cleared up. The reactor would still explode no matter how many times it is watched but a lot of dis-information would be blown away. That is why it will never be released.

@@ChrisMatthewson speaking of justice, operators started liquidation right after the explosion, and subdued quite a number of internal fires within the station. This fact is typically completely missed and only firefighters are regarded as heroes.

Yep, I was grew up in a communist country, they had every chance to make something good from the chance they got, but they chosed to just be like every other system with good living people on the top and working masses on the bottom. The leaders of the government regularly came together in aristocrat castles to hunt and feast. In the end it was a system what God gave to the people, it was infallible, perfect and unquestionable just like the royal system before them. I'm glad it's over. They didn't cared about the people. News travelled slowly in the Red Block, in 1986 cheap food flooded my country, all the food came from the land around Chernobyl, there was a cancer epydemic after that. They sold us their radioactive food, this is how much the Sovietunion cared about the workers.

Private companies are worse but take risks that are covered by the media in other ways.

​@@Zodroo_TintYep, I'm glad that state is gone. My mother thanks Chernobyl though, fervently. Getting a resettled friend from there with a personal dosimeter saved her from renting an apartment in a building "hotter" than Pripyat. Building was still occupied though, nobody got punished. Who knows how many more just like it were built. Simply because the local mine gave out cheap building material from their left overs. Just brings to mind the fact that the state didn't, and doesn't care about people.

@@Low760private companies are governed by the laws of the land, that help keep them in check

​@@Low760U got brain lesions or aomething?

This is something I did suspect during research :)

Well, in both cases, the USSR's way of doing things seems to be: Grab all the evidence. Try to silence anyone saying anything and then release their version of what happened and that version is NEVER EVER their fault. So who is to say what bits they just copied and pasted from an earlier incident?

How is it written. A 1991 traduction from Russian sounds quite cumbersome. I appreciate the new book from Higginbotham but would also appreciate a more detailed book about the physical background.

@@el_dani Very easy read. Whoever translated did a pretty good job. Chernousenko comes from a bit of different perspective because he was the director of the exclusion zone which included the cleanup. One of the things he does say is that estimates of how much of the core was ejected from the reactor are bald faced lies. His team came to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority was blown completely clear of the building with a significant percentage atomised and picked up by the prevailing winds. I mean, he provides a lot of facts and figures I haven't seen anywhere else. And he was one of the first to point out that the shift workers were largely thrown under the bus. I think he was the Ukrainian representative so he had a little more freedom to speak candidly. He used to have a Wikipedia entry but - somewhat mysteriously - it appears to have vanished. You can find his book second hand through Amazon at reasonable prices. I found it fascinating.

It sounds like you were early enough that xenon still identified as iodine.

@@bmstylee 🤣🤣🤣

Yea, you’re going to get second order manifestations.

I sent them to Dark5 and MOWAS 2 :D

Good luck, because I still have a lot to understand :)

All to boil water.

​@@MichaelVLangOne could argue the phrase "generate electricity" is more appropriate. They weren't making pasta.

@@bsadewitz a problem with referring to it that way is that not many know what "generate electricity" means in the slightest. They've boiled water.

@@MichaelVLang I suppose I assumed that anyone this deep in the comments section probably gets that. The video is about a power plant, right? Anyone watching the video knows that we're boiling water, I hope! I meant it in a playfully facetious way. That's why I said "one could argue". I wasn't arguing that, heh--just putting it out there. ;-)

The main circulation pumps at Chernobyl were not limited or interrupted by cavitation. This had been offered initially as a cause and subsequently studied. Water being close to its boiling point at the core inlet was apparently a significant contributory factor, but what wasn't pointed out early is that in RBMK reactors this was not an abnormal state and an operating rule wasn't broken in either lack of subcooling or the connection of all main circulation pumps. This topic was covered in the second Masters of Weaponized Narration videos released last week. It is true we don't know how different this condition was at Leningrad in 1975 vs Chernobyl in 1986, and we don't know the Operating Reactivity Margins in the apparently two uses of the emergency protection system after the initial shutdown at Leningrad. The similarities between the two incidents are striking but there could be confounding factors. Nonetheless, at this point, as you saw the first deputy minister of the Ministry of Energy mention, we are extremely confident that there indeed was a difference in the design of the control rods between the two incidents, which in our opinion is the key to answering the question why a disaster of Chernobyl's magnitude hadn't occurred earlier. Too many things were done according to the rules at Chernobyl and too many times prior things had happened or gone wrong. INSAG-7 even mentions a repetition of Chernobyl could have occurred in other seemingly more benign circumstances. But, a change to the dimensions of the control rods creating or augmenting a positive scram effect occurred in proximity to the disaster. The reactor actually exploded at about the time you would expect it to, as its coefficients of reactivity reached their maximum values with the removal of additional absorbers due to increasing fuel burnup by design.

@@markusw7833 To put it VERY simply: Chernobyl unit 4 had problems at the bottom of the reactor - A place where, because of shortened control rods, (when AZ-5 was pressed) absorbing water was pushed out of the way and graphite inserted increasing reactivity in that very bottom of the reactor. All at a time when water entering there was almost at boiling point anyway. So VERY crudely: Water about to boil gets turned instantly to steam as the reactivity has just gone up following the pressing of AZ-5 and the water being replaced with graphite. Then, of course, all that steam (void) increased reactivity further. Basically, all this mess happened in the bottom of the reactor at Chernobyl. So, all in all, as that is where the whole problem started, I don't feel that you need to be a nuclear engineer to say that the shortening of the control rods played a massive part in why the Chernobyl unit 4 exploded. - Water about to boil gets a massive boost that makes it boil due to increased reactivity because graphite is now where water used to be. The water instantly turns to steam and steam (voids) increases reactivity further. BANG! Of course, lots and lots of things led up to that point to put the reactor into that situation, but the finishing point was caused by shortened control rods.

@@ChrisMatthewson Pray do expound on the lots and lots of things that led up to that point.

@@markusw7833 "Pray do expound" My, did you swallow the entire "Steven Fry Dictionary to pompous English"? - I would suggest that you watch all 3 of TCG's excellent videos all about what led up to the explosion on that night. It's a great detailed account of all the things that led up to that point.

The core fuel limits have the lowest margin of what?

The RBMK didn't use any burnable poisons in the fuel. They replaced entire fuel assemblies with boron rods, and then gradually removed them over the course of months. Only after the accident did some burnable poisons start to be used. Given that the RBMK was overmoderated, increasing enrichment reduced the void coefficient simply by increasing the fuel:moderator ratio.

@@MinSredMash thanks for the information!

@@MinSredMash What's the point of burnable poisons?

@@markusw7833 lowest margin to their design limitations for various scenarios. It's more complex than it's worth explaining in a KZfaq comment, but if you Google search "nuclear fuel safety limits," you can get a good bit of material. The NRC website also has some good articles that describe the different design/safety limits and their purposes. But the bottom line is that a reactors fuel needs to be designed to withstand normal operatio, transients (turbine trip, loss of feedwater, loss of recirculation... etc) and accidents. To maintain those limits, the operators have to ensure certain equipment available and the fuel/core engineers have to ensure they design the core and fuel with specific parameters... enrichment and burnable poisons being 2 of many.

hal.science/hal-03117177/file/epjn200018.pdf

@@bsadewitz Thanks for the answer, what is the document you are referencing, the one that mentions TRIPOLI 4?

@@38vocan This is documentation about it. I am still looking for the one that I posted from bc im on my phone now haha inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/39/107/39107419.pdf?r=1

@@38vocan KZfaq is doing that thing where it deletes my comments again, apparently. H T T P S COLON SLASH SLASH hal.science/hal-03117177

This jet was detected by US satellite, that was monitoring Soviet DUGA over horizon radar in the Chernobyl area. Time of detection corresponded to local time in Chernobyl 01:23:45 on April 26 1986. Jet was emitted after flash of blue light on the ground. On April 29 1986 air probes were taken in Cherepovets, north of Moscow, that were analyzed by gamma spectrometer. Minsredmash experts found Xe-135 in the probe and determined ratio Xe-135/Xe-135m/ (ground state/excited state) as 22.4 , that pointed out to a nuclear explosion. Original estimate was 10 kT of TNT, but later reduced to 10T of TNT. Super critical reaction on prompt neutrons occurred in 3-30 fuel channels with participation of 0.01% of total fuel load of 200T. On first weeks of May 1986 KGB already issued order that true nature of Chernobyl disaster should never been disclosed.

@@nyckhusan2634 Intresting! Any sorce for this?

Multiple people with close knowledge comment on the RBMK project undergoing concurrent development and operation, even using the word experimental, incomplete. It's interesting where the line is to be drawn when you think about it because many things change.

Check my latest video :)

@@thatchernobylguy2915 oh, sorry my bad, somehow it didn't show up

I would say ' final straw during a perfect storm'. On that night, many of the things they did weren't that much different to how they normally did things and so this led to not much concern on the night and seeing what they did do as normal and usual. I believe that having shortened control rods played a massive part in providing the final kick to send the already near boiling point water to instantly turn to steam, but that water had to be in that state for that to happen. So the control rods are not the only thing involved. Had the inlet water been at a lower temperature at the point AZ-5 was pressed, then the sudden increase in reactivity/heat might not have been enough to make it all boil and give time for the boron to get in place and lower reactivity.

Yea, I highly doubt that's from Leningrad.

I have heard something of the sort being systemic, but having not experienced it myself it's rather difficult to imagine. I would be shocked if this is what actually happened given here you're talking about a nuclear expert level, literally the highest of the high. It does seem more probable they misunderstood the reactor, but the reality may be rather more complex.

​@markusw7833 I'm afraid its entirely plausible. Don't forget, the USSR was founded by a group of fanatics. In the fundamentalist mindset, lies are perfectly acceptable if they serve the long-term goal. The people who came after, even those who had never been diehard communists, were trapped within the edifice of deceit that the Bolsheviks created.

A lot of research into archival footage and photos :)

Just type РБМК instead of RBMK and you will find how easy is to fin it. Then translate basic text and you will know more than this guy

@@NionXenion-gh7rf Thanks

Xenon poisoning isn't unique to just the RBMK. It happens in _all_ running reactors. It's a natural part of the fission process. Even the earliest reactors ran into this rather quirky part of splitting the atom. As of yet, no one has been able to come up with a solution for how to prevent it from happening since it's a part of the decay path.

Incorrect. The test was a success. The test was a turbine rundown test and so nothing to do with the reactor directly as they shut off the stream to the turbine. After the test, they decided to shutdown the reactor as they always intended to do. It was then that things got errr ummm exciting!

@@ChrisMatthewson No, the reactor core was contaminated and unstable even before the test started, so arguably it was in completely the wrong state and yet the chief technician still decided to go ahead with the test. They should have either skipped the test or had gotten the core fully stabilized before starting the test. The first part of the test was to literally switch off ALL safety systems and take manual control over a reactor type that desperately needed all safety measures to keep it at least somewhat stable. When they retracted the control rods, instead of increasing the output power, the reactor dropped to a very low output and they didn't understand why that happened. That should have been the point to stop the test, switch all safety measures back on and figure out what the problem(s) was/were. Instead they attempted to raise the power to the level they needed to perform the test, by retracting more and more control rods. Their actions to bring the core into the proper state meant that they lost control of the core even before the test. That the turbine rundown part of the test kind of worked doesn't mean the test was a succes, as the entire reactor blew up. The test was to prove that they COULD bring the core in a specific state, do the turbine rundown and then bring the reactor up to power again. The thing is that NOBODY had ever managed to complete the entire test successfully, as the RBMK reactor simply couldn't be controlled in the power settings it needed to be in for the test. That is the part that Soviet leadership refused to accept when they came up with the test and why they kept ordering the test to be done over and over again with the same parameters, because according to Soviet doctrine it should have worked.

@@tjroelsma No, you are mixing up the reactor with "THE TEST". The Test was simply a turbine rundown test plus some measuring of the vibration in the turbine. So, the test was simply on the turbine and nothing to do with the reactor. It was to cut off the steam from the reactor (So separating the two) and then measure the turbine output to see if they could get enough power to power circulation pumps until diesel generators could take over. That was the test and that was successful. You are mixing two things: The test and what they were doing with the reactor, which is an entirely different thing and discussion. Then you are even trying to bring in your thoughts on Soviet Leadership, which again is an interesting topic, but separate from the Turbine Rundown test which was successful on that night.

I didn't understand about the political reasons, you should understand that every RBMK-type project has its own lobbyists. RBMK differs from VVER in terms of production, the rejection of RBMK hits manufacturers who do not want to lose a project that allows them career growth.

As far as I'm aware university, prestigious one(s) at that I think.

Where are you now if you don't mind me asking?

@@kennethocongerskin9460 In Saint Petersburg, Russia

@@the3yM Ahh so the same city. I hear it is beautiful. Thanks for answering me. With respect from the UK.

@@kennethocongerskin9460 I'm glad to speak with you, i'm interested in Scotland, Irish and England music, culture, also I like to drink Single Malt Isley whiskey. A little bit dancing traditional dances of Great Britain. Of course I'm in the same city, because it's really beautiful. You're welcome to come here, as I know there are no any sanction tourists from Britain at all.

@@the3yM Hahaha. I know nothing of traditional British dance. Zero. My interest is in old Soviet cars. And yes I should get a visa to visit before it is too late. Scarey times☹️.

RBMK 1000 reactors were mass produced in two series. They are not unique designs in any way.

@@mvs3246 18:10

I learn eeengleeesh from a buch

Thank you so much for the super thanks! Yes, operator error is also at fault for this accident, however at the time these practices were normalised in the industry. It is an interesting thing how these operator errors would echo down to Chernobyl, as the accident solidified the need to increase the fuel enrichment, which led to the control rod lengthening and displacer shortening, which eventually led to the accident. Even the operators then, behaving under correct regulations at the time would feel the echo of the operator errors as it led to the explosion of Unit Four.

@@thatchernobylguy2915 You're most welcome! These videos are a great help in furthering my study and understanding of the wonky reactor that is the RBMK. Practices like that should never be normalised. Most certainly not when dealing with this type of equipment. If I were a supervisor, and I found any of the crews bending ionisation chambers on my reactor to force it back up in power in such a heavily poisoned state, I would have their g*ts for garters, and then some. Even the most stable, well-designed reactor will become unstable and behave erratically in such a poisoned state. Let alone a headstrong, touchy reactor like the RBMK. One doesn't muck about with the Laws of Physics, or face the consequences if you do. And some of the similarities are uncanny indeed. There's no denying that. On to the next video it is!😄

@@swokatsamsiyu3590 _"Practices like that should never be normalised"_ but then Soviet Union was not a "normal" country and pretty much nothing there worked "as it should have", and "overcoming difficulties" by whatever hook, crook, or just brute force was part and parcel of life there, back then. Individuals at power enforcing their decisions against better judgement, "the Plan has to be achieved" (and its goals met) no matter what, on 1st May, or on anniversary of The Revolution this road/ bridge/ building/ what not has to be "opened" even if half finished. So they laid the asphalt on a road in a haste and hurry even on the night of 30th of April, so the Secretary or some other Party bigwig could "open" it with much fanfare on the morning of May 1st... and then three days latter the entire road was torn up because water pipes and -sewage- SEVERAGE that was supposed to be put in the ground first wasn't there yet. Just yesterday I watched the video about "The Most Dangerous Bridge in Russia" (kzfaq.info/get/bejne/rLx2q5t4yN6yoas.html) and there's one bit off-topic moment in it that illustrates the Soviet obsession with "show-off cum window dressing", or "pokazukha" (показуха) - when the narrator is talking about that "BAM connection ceremony". BAM (Rus. БАМ) is a Baikal-Amur Railway (Rus. магистраль, magistral, meaning a highway or a main thoroughfare) which was rebuild in Brezhnev times, and it was done in the same fashion as "Pacific" railway "back then" in USA - they've laid the tracks simultaneously from both ends, to meet at certain point - and the difference was in US they did not care where would they meet, while Soviet powers that be DECLARED that it HAVE to be in this town (Kuanda/ Куанда). But, as usual, nothing ever goes to plan there - one party was behind the schedule and the other one has advanced further (40 km/ 25 mi east of Kuanda), so they have met each other not where they were ordered to. In any normal country it would be a non-issue - "aw, c'mon! so what? what's the difference?" - but then again, Soviet Union WAS NOT a "normal country", so AFTER the initial connection of the tracks in Balbukhta town/ settlement, FEW DAYS LATTER they dismantled a section of the tracks in Kuanda, and redid the "connection ceremony" as ordered by Party in the initial plan. "Ordnung muss sein", y'see... In case you'd like to watch it yourself this episode starts at 15:33, and anyway the whole story about this bridge (that "BAM story" is just supplemental to it) shows how things works... erm, lemme reword it - "how things ARE" there. And while this video is accompanied by EIGHT "translated CCs" that English "translation" is kinda gibberish and "something completely different" from what these people say - and even Russian CC are pretty much in the "whisky tango foxtrot?!" genre. The best possible translation (albeit still imperfect) you'll get when you select first "Russian auto-generated" CC and then choose "Auto-translation" option... but I digress here ;-)

@@MrKotBonifacy Living in a country not all that far from the former USSR, I'm well aware of their obsession with looking the part to the outside world. Not to mention the fact that things were anything but "normal" in those times. I was 15 when the accident at Chernobyl NPP happened. Only due to the fact that we (and a host of other countries) got a good whiff of the fallout, and started asking difficult questions did they have to come clean about what transpired there. How far this went? Well, fairly quick after the accident some USSR scientists phoned the IAEA with the question if they happened to have any literature on how to put out a graphite fire in a reactor core. Upon hearing this, the somewhat baffled person on the other side of the line asked if they would liked to be referred to the UK since they had had the Windscale fire in one of their graphite reactors in the 50's. "That will not be necessary. It is merely a scientific exercise of sorts. We're fine!" Will look up the БАМ story sometime this week. And if the English subs are that bad, I'll stick to the "Russian auto-generated" CC since I can read/ write Cyrillic, and understand a good deal of the Russian language as well. You can thank the RBMK for that^^

@@swokatsamsiyu3590 _"... can read/ write Cyrillic, and understand a good deal of the Russian language as well. You can thank the RBMK for that^^"_ - yeah, _"always look at the bright side of life, ta-dam ta-dam ta-dam"_ ... ;-) _"...a country not all that far from the former USSR"_ - Finland, perhaps? Or Sweden? Well, never mind; greetings from Poland : ) Also, it looks like we're of about the same age - I was 22 back then. Cheers!

They made decisions (e.g. dimensions of the graphite lattice, enrichment of uranium, planned removal of additional absorbers, emergency protection system) to maximize utility/economy at the expense of safety. Heck, one of the protection systems they accused the operators of disabling was not automatic because they explicitly didn't want the reactor to be shut down. The way it was before Chernobyl it was a strikingly dangerous design, which they addressed after Chernobyl. They just did a good job afterward scapegoating the operators, to this day.

With modern software simulations and certification of safe operational procedures it would be possible.

It is very possible. Living proof of that are the RBMKs (Leningrad NPP Units 3 - 4, Kursk NPP Units 3 -4, Smolensk NPP Units 1, 2, and 3. And the 3 Bilibino NPP RBMK-lets (EGP-6s)) still in operation today. They've been quietly making electric power for the past decades without much issue. However, the RBMK will always be a somewhat untamed, grumpy reactor you will have to run within its design parameters without deviation, full stop. If you do that, and take into account its weaknesses and unique behaviour in certain operating regimes, then the RBMK can be a proper, well-behaved reactor.

The volume for me between 1 to 10 is clear and comfortable at 4. I would seriously examine my lifestyle if I found this difficult to hear. A lot of people in their late 20s have the hearing of a 70 year old and up. This is caused by wearing earbuds/headphones at high volume or going to loud concerts. Muffled sounds can be attributed to high frequency hearing loss which comes with age and high volume damage. Much of this damage can be permanent and you do not want to be learning sign language in your 40s.

Nothing struck me as AI-generated, but that doesn't mean that it isn't. Where in the video are you talking about specifically?

EDIT: He made clear in another thread they're all real, but were AI-upscaled a little too aggressively.

​@@bsadewitz 0:22 0:53 4:19 Are all obviously AI upscaled, and in my opinion a bit too much.

Where are these AI-generated images supposed to be?

I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with using AI for illustrative purposes, but it would be good to put a notation that the AI images are AI, so no one is confused or feels misled.

I assume you're referring to the image at 0:53. It's a real image, you can view it on Slide 25 of the presentation here: prezentacii.org/prezentacii/prezentacii-po-fizike/136934-jadernye-ustanovki.html Unfortunately, it appears in my attempts to upscale it on my own and subsequent video software craziness, it ends up looking AI drawn. I apologise for this. :)

@@thatchernobylguy2915 I thought that might have been the case with that one. But 0:25 and 13:30 are AI.

@@user-li2yv5je5e Neither of them are AI. xn--80aabb0b3ab.xn--p1ai/news/117/1892/?SHOWALL_1=0 energyland.info/analitic-show-99654 The first is me trying and failing to use Sony Vegas to upscale it so it doesn't look an eyesore; the second is also that but I would have to check. They obviously don't look unusual in pre rendering, so I didn't notice them.

CANDU reactors are better and can do more than RBMKs

Watch the second Masters of Weaponized Narration video. Not sure why you're trying to troll when you were promised and provided a 70-minute examination of your "reckless and uncaring departure from standard operating procedures" belief. Well done talking trash about the Soviets while espousing their propaganda. Your trite stereotypes (who does "faceless bureaucrats" even apply to?) have no power here.

@@markusw7833 yay! Caught one 😂

@@robinwells8879 Enjoy yourself, buddy. 😀

@@markusw7833 😂 . Take care!❤