To me it would be better to say Russia did it to themselves than to admit the CIA played them like children.

Being played like a fool seems to be the theme throughout the series as well as contemporary accounts of the government to thwart embarrassment.

"The fact that an American, not a Russian, TV channel tells us about our own heroes is a source of shame that the pro-Kremlin media apparently cannot live down."

"And this is the real reason they find fault with HBO’s “Chernobyl” series."

Had it gone to full meltdown as well as become "Thermonuclear" would have allowed them reason to change strategy and launch their Nuc's. Mainly because if they're going to suffer, along with most of Europe, why not claimed the U.S. launched first, no one would have known any better, we could have all gone down in a hand basket. I'm sure they had a contingency plan.

I question their stupidity and ignorance at that time, when 30 years later they have the gaul to suggest or de-flame the incident.

kv

Edit: But, then we have a Gov cover up that Nixon wanted more economic development in California and chose a different method for the U.S. over and emerging science that would allow the fuel rods to be depleted to lower levels before being stored. The investment was diverted by the DOE only now are they trying to invest in the research needed. Probably trying to beat the Russians, once again.

http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/flibe-energy-awarded-government-voucher

Once started with high-233U-content fuel, the LFTR would require no fissile replenishment during its operation, eliminating the need for uranium enrichment infrastructure. LFTR would also eliminate fuel fabrication and utilize internal chemical processing to purify its fuel salt and remove fission products. At the end of its operation, the salts are to be recycled to the next generation of LFTRs. This strategy would nearly eliminate the production of long-lived radioactive wastes and retain all actinides in useful operation in a steady-state environment.

 

It's kinda like our Hollywood movies always using the KGB as the bad guy. Their media uses the CIA as its fall guy. Although there were lots of KGB fingers in lots of pies as are the CIA's.

 

Being played like a fool seems to be the theme throughout the series as well as contemporary accounts of the government to thwart embarrassment.



Had it gone to full meltdown as well as become "Thermonuclear" would have allowed them reason to change strategy and launch their Nuc's. Mainly because if they're going to suffer, along with most of Europe, why not claimed the U.S. launched first, no one would have known any better, we could have all gone down in a hand basket. I'm sure they had a contingency plan.

I question their stupidity and ignorance at that time, when 30 years later they have the gaul to suggest or de-flame the incident.

kv

It could never go "Thermonuclear" in the worse possible accident. That's just impossible. There was not a nuclear explosion, a steam explosion happened due to a run-away reactor causing physical damage, dangerous chemical reactions, unshielded nuclear reactions and fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient

The coolant liquid may act as a neutron absorber or as a neutron moderator. In either case, the amount of void inside the reactor can affect the reactivity of the reactor. The change in reactivity caused by a change of voids inside the reactor is directly proportional to the void coefficient.

A positive void coefficient means that the reactivity increases as the void content inside the reactor increases due to increased boiling or loss of coolant; for example, if the coolant acts as a neutron absorber. If the void coefficient is large enough and control systems do not respond quickly enough, this can form a positive feedback loop which can quickly boil all the coolant in the reactor. This happened in the RBMK reactor that was destroyed in the Chernobyl disaster.
...
RBMK reactors, such as the reactors at Chernobyl, have a dangerously high positive void coefficient. This allowed the reactor to run on unenriched uranium and to require no heavy water, saving costs (also, unlike the other main power design, VVER, RBMKs were dual use,[1] able to produce weapons-grade plutonium). Before the Chernobyl accident these reactors had a positive void coefficient of 4.7 beta and after the accident that was lowered to 0.7 beta. This was done so all RBMK reactors could resume safe operation and produce much needed power for the then USSR and its satellites.

Plus, this was not the first deadly reactor accident in the old Soviet union. Both of us understood the protocol for an accident (including military reactors) so it's very unlikely to be a trigger for any sort of military action.

 

It could never go "Thermonuclear" in the worse possible accident. That's just impossible. There was not a nuclear explosion, a steam explosion happened due to a run-away reactor causing physical damage, dangerous chemical reactions, unshielded nuclear reactions and fire.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_coefficient


Plus, this was not the first deadly reactor accident in the old Soviet union. Both of us understood the protocol for an accident (including military reactors) so it's very unlikely to be a trigger for any sort of military action.

I guess it was the Dramatization by the producers then, they had a lady in the third or second episode explaining if the core were to burn through and hit the water supply below would have vaporized the water in an instant releasing energy, I think she said equivalent to 30 megatons, thus setting off a chain reaction in the other 4 reactors, least case scenario would be if they didn't use the liquid nitrogen heat exchanger below the concrete floor it would burn through to the soil and would radiate the ground water, running off into the river nearby.

I'll have to rewind it to see the full amount of energy when coupled with the other 4 reactors response to the 30 megaton blast, I think I remember something like 300 megatons.

kv

 

I guess it was the Dramatization by the producers then, they had a lady in the third or second episode explaining if the core were to burn through and hit the water supply below would have vaporized the water in an instant releasing energy, I think she said equivalent to 30 megatons, thus setting off a chain reaction in the other 4 reactors, least case scenario would be if they didn't use the liquid nitrogen heat exchanger below the concrete floor it would burn through to the soil and would radiate the ground water, running off into the river nearby.

I'll have to rewind it to see the full amount of energy when coupled with the other 4 reactors response to the 30 megaton blast, I think I remember something like 300 megatons.

kv

The ultimate source of energy was nuclear but the explosions were not a nuclear or an atomic explosion like a bomb.

I'm pretty sure they were talking about 'Corium' hitting ground water. There is just no way to have a megaton explosion from that. It would be stupid dangerous but not nuclear bomb level dangerous.
https://www.thoughtco.com/corium-radioactive-waste-4046372
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5580609

 

The ultimate source of energy was nuclear but the explosions were not a nuclear or an atomic explosion like a bomb.

I'm pretty sure they were talking about 'Corium' hitting ground water. There is just no way to have a megaton explosion from that. It would be stupid dangerous but not nuclear bomb level dangerous.
https://www.thoughtco.com/corium-radioactive-waste-4046372
https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5580609

Ya, that part I got, but it was the use of Boron mixed with sand, 5 thousand tons worth, that liquefied to become the insulation for the heat, then the water would be encapsulated beneath it, then the pressure and the subsequent explosion would be maybe like a Volcano in my mind. The other reactors would follow suit not sure if they would release a blast or not but, the fallout was the most damage with miles and miles around the region, the wind carrying the debris and fine particles.

kv

 

Let's see boron and sand tempered by heat... Sounds like Pyrex glass to me. And we don't have HBO so can't watch it.

 

Let's see boron and sand tempered by heat... Sounds like Pyrex glass to me. And we don't have HBO so can't watch it.

Didn't know that, pyrex is much stronger than glass, plus able to withstand the heat, makes sense.

kv

 

Didn't know that, pyrex is much stronger than glass, plus able to withstand the heat, makes sense.

kv

Boron also is a neutron absorbent (Neutron poison) it reduces speed of the reaction and lowers the temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison

 

Boron also is a neutron absorbent (Neutron poison) it reduces speed of the reaction and lowers the temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison

I was trying to remember that, I knew there was a second reason.

kv

 

Boron also is a neutron absorbent (Neutron poison) it reduces speed of the reaction and lowers the temperature.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_poison

My next question was going to be: "if boron helps absorb neutrons, it is then turned into what?" ... but then I read the link you posted, and boy, did I get an answer...

 

My next question was going to be: "if boron helps absorb neutrons, it is then turned into what?" ... but then I read the link you posted, and boy, did I get an answer...

I didn't even try I knew better.

kv

Edit: Not even tempted either.

 

My next question was going to be: "if boron helps absorb neutrons, it is then turned into what?" ... but then I read the link you posted, and boy, did I get an answer...

I found this instead. https://www.livescience.com/65515-chernobyl-in-modern-times-nuclear-emergency.html

"When a neutron interacts with an isotope, there's a certain probability, due to the structure of its nucleus, that it will absorb the neutron," she said. "Uranium, specifically uranium-235, has a tendency to absorb the neutron and then immediately split apart. But boron tends to just absorb the neutron. Due to its nuclear structure, it's sort of neutron-thirsty."

kv

 

Anyway, the discussion is about Chernobyl as to the when and why and the aftermath that followed. Now if you happen to be anti-nuclear that's fine but the thread isn't about a stance on nuclear energy.

You can't do that in a discussion! That's like saying in the middle of a Nascar race "They were all doing good before there was a 20 car pile up".
So lets just talk about the (GOOD) of radiation... There is no (GOOD)!..... Radiation = BAD!!! So I posted about the people who had to leave. So I posted about you can't live there anymore. "Oh the birds were just swimming around in the pool of radiated water and look like they were having the time of their lives". Nothing wrong here! Birds/ Deer/ Rabbits can't read "STAY AWAY DANGER". Please don't tell me when a melt down happens everything's gonna be alright. You can't pick the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like in a discussion.
Brzrkr

 

You can't do that in a discussion! That's like saying in the middle of a Nascar race "They were all doing good before there was a 20 car pile up".
So lets just talk about the (GOOD) of radiation... There is no (GOOD)!..... Radiation = BAD!!! So I posted about the people who had to leave. So I posted about you can't live there anymore. "Oh the birds were just swimming around in the pool of radiated water and look like they were having the time of their lives". Nothing wrong here! Birds/ Deer/ Rabbits can't read "STAY AWAY DANGER". Please don't tell me when a melt down happens everything's gonna be alright. You can't pick the parts you like and discard the parts you don't like in a discussion.
Brzrkr

My point is and remains only uncontrolled radiation is bad. Let's also save the word radiation as it is used everyday in the world of medicine. Simply saying radiation is bad reflects not having any understanding of the subject matter. Everyday the radiation you claim in a single word is bad saves lives in the treatment of cancer(s). Additionally it powers the US Nuclear Navy Propulsion program. You need to put down your anti-nuke sign and get a clue or at least understand what you are talking about. There is plenty of good. Some people just lack the education or ability to see it.

There is no (GOOD)!..... Radiation = BAD!!!

Nice touch using the upper case. I just cited a few of the good and there is much more.

Ron

 

This planet lives via radiation. We are composed of radiation. You are always radiating. Even a gamma once every while.

If the objects around you, stopped radiating, you would soon freeze to death.

Chernobyl did much less than expected, and nature recovered with less damage and a lot quicker than expected.

The biology handled it quite well. Evidently, radiation is not foreign to life.

But it does turn the leaves green.

 

I found this instead. https://www.livescience.com/65515-chernobyl-in-modern-times-nuclear-emergency.html



kv

Typical Boron AMU spectrum.

I think it's the B-10 component that's the good absorber. B-10 (5 neutrons instead of 6) + n = B-11. B-11 ions are commonly used in silicon doping but it's easy to re-tune a ion AMU magnet for a lower current b-10 beam as a calibration check if there is a question about the ion generation AMU readout.

 

So lets just talk about the (GOOD) of radiation... There is no (GOOD)!..... Radiation = BAD!!!

This is really BAD in the hands of a toddler.

That doesn't mean it's always a bad thing. It's a simple, safe and effective tool in the right hands.

Same applies to radiation. It requires care and skill to be handled properly but these things are not unknown. Nuclear power can be accomplished safely with technology that is decades old. The only reason you don't see it already in daily use is onerous regulatory hurdles that effectively prohibit further development.

 

This is really BAD in the hands of a toddler.

That doesn't mean it's always a bad thing. It's a simple, safe and effective tool in the right hands.

Same applies to radiation. It requires care and skill to be handled properly but these things are not unknown. Nuclear power can be accomplished safely with technology that is decades old. The only reason you don't see it already in daily use is onerous regulatory hurdles that effectively prohibit further development.

As is in the episodes the Gov coverup of a underlying catastrophic possibility, don't recall exactly what but, they knew that someone could create that fault.

kv

Edit: Oh, ya and it was during the experiments, prior to release. The testing showed the fault.

 

lets just talk about the (GOOD) of radiation... There is no (GOOD)!..... Radiation = BAD!!!

Do you know what sunlight is?!?! And radiation is used in medical care every day. Ever had an Xray? An MRI? It was radiation that was used to kill my cancer and that is much better than GOOD!!!