...that we know of

​@@chaoticsystem2211 no, we would have found out. The other scary part is how much Russian radioactive mass is just out in the wild thanks to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Thanks to the incompetence the Soviet system generated.

I recall some interviews - don't remember where - with some of the former citizens of Pripyat who noted that containment teams running around cleaning parts of the town or zooming off to an emergency with trucks and hazmat suits were a regular sight, which is a sign that there was a never ending chain of mishaps, leaks and minor incidents along with the major ones because the administration of the power plant was an absolute clown show. Given that they were in the process of expanding the plant to reactors 5 and 6 with giant cooling towers to go with them, the explosion at 4 may have been in a twisted way fortunate because who knows what disaster might have been triggered with an even bigger plant.

Small mishaps happen in all reactors over their long lifetime. Nothing to worry about.

If it used a set of mirrors or prisms to view what was not in line-of-sight, it was a periscope. Is there a reason to think it was simply an eyepiece attached by a long tube to a camera, a boroscope?

@@rdspamFirstly, if there had been a system of mirrors inside the reactor then the chances of it not sustaining damage and still being in alignment after such an incident seems relatively low. Secondly, if there was a periscope system built into the inside of the reactor then it should appear on the plans. To the best of my knowledge it doesn't. Thirdly, borescopes have been widely used in a number of different fields to inspect things where you can't (or don't want to) disassemble them, such as engine blocks, jet turbines, and drainage systems. I'm happy to be corrected though, if you have any information.

@@amp888 With absolutely no knowledge of what I'm talking about, I would imagine that a pipe with mirrors (Name it whatever you like) was inside, or put inside, the refuelling machine and that was moved over the affected area and the tube pushed downward into the reactor to see what they could see. That way the operator stays relatively safe outside and at the top of the reactor while the bottom mirror would be deep within the reactor and not a place anyone would want to be!

@@amp888Wow, after reading that it felt like I was being bukkaked with stupid. I hope you are either a bot or a troll account, otherwise this will give me cancer.

It's all connected!

@@thatchernobylguy2915 Oh hell nah, Kozloduy gonna start tweakin💀💀💀💀💀💀

Fun fact. The affected core region was "X"-ed out with a Sharpie on the mnemonic display in the control room to indicate that this section of the core was out out of service indefinitely...

@@swokatsamsiyu3590 That is, indeed, a fun fact!

I'd say that's suspicious!

Bro is just pressing stuff like it's some game 😂

@@pintohoareau579 :)

I think one of the biggest problems was a systemic one, in which Soviet scientists and engineers weren't allowed to know the full details of past accidents or problems with the reactors they were working on. Imagine if the causes of the Challenger explosion had been kept a secret even from NASA staff, who were expected to carry on the shuttle program without the vital information about not launching below a certain temperature...

@@thing_under_the_stairs Yes, that was a very damaging flaw: The whole way they went about things. If people are kept in the dark, how are they supposed to know and be blamed? It would be like me telling you to drive a car for the first time, but I don't tell you on which side of the road you should be. After the accident I them blame you as your were the one driving. As far as the mechanical issues/flaws with RBMK reactors go, it seems that from the very start, they were a 'work in progress' experiment and bits added, changed or removed every time they shut down for maintenance. Even Unit 4 at Chernobyl was having changes made to it during the planned shutdown that corrected know issues and MAY have prevented many of the things that led to the explosion. Sadly, they never got to put those changes into effect. Then of course, changes were made to other reactors after the Unit 4 explosion, because of it. Seems like a continual game of catchup: Try something, find out the flaws and change that bit and test it again in the real world. Great if it's a small problem, not so good if it leads to a major accident. But then, they can always blame the operators who are not told anything.

@@ChrisMatthewson So true - the RBMK reactor never really left the experimental stage!

Given the theories shown in this video I wouldn't write this incident was similar to either Chernobyl 1986 or Leningrad 1975. A poorly constructed channel or a mistaken closure of a valve are their own category. More broadly speaking the fundamental flaw of pre-Chernobyl RBMK reactors was the maximization of fuel burnup. It is possible there were military plutonium producing considerations as well. Key properties of the core like the fuel to moderator ratio and the planned removal of additional absorbers were configured for high fuel burnup - the fuel being of low enrichment was part of the problem - that on the flipside compromised safety by increasing the positive void coefficient of reactivity. In other words, the RBMK reactor design apparently isn't even inherently dangerous, it was Soviet nuclear power experts who made it dangerous by the particulars of their design. Things were changed after the disaster to minimize the positive void coefficient, and of course the absurdity of the positive reactivity inserting emergency protection system was corrected. But the Soviet powers that be couldn't simply say, "Our bad." There was too much at stake with nuclear energy in the Soviet Union (refer to the first Pre-Chernobyl History video), not to mention there was virtually everything at stake for Soviet nuclear power experts. Instead they said the operators were bad, which rather amusingly served everyone, even internationally by making the Soviet Union sympathetic and victim to unfortunate circumstances. :p

@@markusw7833 Yeah, design considerations to maximize plutonium production haven't been touched on as much. Even fairly knowledgeable folks don't know much more than "on load refueling helps weapons production".

Quality is higher then the radiation levels in Chernobyl unit 4 in April 1986

And they say wishes don't come true.

Ukraine was occupied by Soviet russia but it never was the soviet russia or any russia.

​@@signorasforza354btw. Russia was also occupied by Soviet union ! 🤔

Ivan is trying to be edgy

@@svinche2 Why so nervous Ivan? Someone pissed in your vodka?

@@signorasforza354 why are you so trigered for mentioning that Ukraine losing grounds every day? Ah yes you are Orkrainian 🤣LMFAO

Well, it's almost evening here already, but a good day to you too, fellow nuke nerd😊

It’s 3 AM, but anyways, sup

Me when That Chernobyl Guy doesnt post: 8:::::> Me when That Chernobyl Guy posts: 8:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::>~~~~~~~

There is a special system that monitors the graphite stack for moisture. If that system starts piping up, it means your reactor sprang a leak somewhere, and it would be prudent to shut it down to see what ails it. The incredibly awesome Canadian CANDU reactor sports a similar system as it too is a pressure tube reactor. You have the Calandria tube that houses the pressure tube with the fuel bundles inside. The annulus between these two is filled with a gas. A monitoring system keeps check. If the pressure tube springs a leak, the system will immediately sense it, and send a warning to the control room.

To pull you and your wheelie chair closer to the console! 🤣

@user-li2yv5je5e And then go and nick a replacement for it from the Unit 4 control room!

To hang onto for dear life when it all goes wrong.

I believe because the griffite control rods were not modified ie shortened and therefore was no massive voids pushed trough. May be wrong

@@gingernutpreacher Many differences but yes, no shortened control rods and in this case the water at the bottom of the reactor was already about to boil and turn into steam (voids). So very basically: Inserting the rods didn't have the same effect that the shortened ones in Unit 4 had and the water at the bottom wasn't hot enough to instantly turn all to steam and blow the lid off the reactor.

The accident at unit 4 was preceded by a complete disregard for safety and operational regulations which pushed the reactor into a highly unstable state. Additionally, when AZ-5 was pressed there was very little cooling water flowing through the entire reactor which was not able counteract the sudden temperature surge that followed. The incident at unit 1 occurred closer to normal operations meaning the reactor was in a more stable state to begin with. And the restriction of cooling water was limited to a small localized area within the reactor so there was still enough water in total to compensate for any power surge caused by pressing AZ-5.

@@Klyis Watch the Masters of Weaponized Narration videos. Also, there was a ton of water in the core at Unit 4.

Funny. I was thinking this is no different in the private sector when leadership looks for blood if a project fails or money is lost whether it’s a managers fault or not lol

@@timothygibney159 Indeed! Look at some of the richest companies in the UK and you will find that they are corrupt and rotten to the core. It doesn't matter if it's communism or money, it's really a power thing and those with power will lie to keep that power. I mean look at the UK's Post Office scandal: lie after lie, with the people in power trying to cover everything up and corrupt to the very core. Strange that also in that case the ones in power tried to blame the lower people for everything. So power corrupts and absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

​@@timothygibney159 difference is those private enterprises with that mentality nearly always fail and are replaced when the next one comes around. See: Sears Holdings/Kmart and Walmart/Amazon in the early 2000s.

​@@timothygibney159 Private companies have never been as lax with safety as state run enterprises have been. Because private companies have liability for accidents.

Look into the French built reactors leaking in China, the CCP is covering up best it can but they can't hide the increase in cancer rates.

Why worry about something that isn't going to happen, comrade? lol

I had pizza this evening. I ordered dominos. I had a chicken bacon ranch sub and a onion and banana peppers pizza. Twas tasty!

@@SunBear69420 Don't you just rummage through people's trash?

First comment!

@@Shinyworldwide Piers Paul Read, Ablaze, 1993, information coming from Bryukhanov himself.

Actually they blow

Dude no. The RBMK is a technological marvel!

​@@franky5039 Bro almost all the rbmk exploded or bad control

@@user-km2we8tt8i No they did not, in fact the RBMK is the only reactor in the world with the most "reactoryears" of experience and production. You do realise there are still about 8 of these (retrofitted) reactors in service? They are superior to Western reactor. It's a truly marvellous, yet misunderstood design!

@@franky5039 the rbmk Just turn good after the disaster

If you believe this, I have a plot of land in Greenland to sell you ... Just think critically about how big the Pacific ocean is, and how radioactive the water is from Fukushima (and how much there could be) and come back to me with an intelligent argument that would not make a homeopath blush at the dilution.

@@svartmetall48 NuclearProctologist anyway. Frightening if true

*facepalm*

@@markusw7833 Go do some research on history , google for a change and open your mind, be objective then come and facepalm all day long if you really want to.

@@overtaxed3628 Scary.

Always a mistake, LMAO