Britain's Chernobyl: The Nuclear Disaster You've Never Heard Of | Nuclear Winter | Timeline
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 апр 2023
- In October 1957, one of the Windscale nuclear reactors caught fire. It was the world's first nuclear accident, attributed to the rush to build atomic weapons.
This programme highlights the mistakes leading to a nuclear event which, 40 years on, still takes second place only to Chernobyl.
📺 It's like Netflix for history... Sign up to History Hit, the world's best history documentary service and get 50% off using the code 'TIMELINE' bit.ly/3a7ambu
You can find more from us on:
/ timelinewh
/ timelineworldhistory
/ timelinewh
This channel is part of the History Hit Network. Any queries, please contact owned-enquiries@littledotstudios.com
I'm from the far north coast of Scotland and we had/have a facility there, called Dounreay, where they were making plutonium under the guide of an experimental power station. We now know that during the 60s and 70s there were many radiation leaks. In fact there are a couple of beaches to this day that you are not allowed on, they have robots that go back & forth looking for radioactive particles. We also had large local leukemia clusters, including my own mother who died from it, but the UK gov't always said the clusters were not connected with Dounreay, but I just don't believe that. The plant is now being decommissioned, but the half life of the reactors is 50,000 years, so it looks like we're stuck with it.
4:35 I’d suggest Oppenheimer was far from ‘delighted’ when he saw the explosion, given he quoted part of a text from Hindu scriptures: “Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds”.
Further, he later went on to say “We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent.”
Yup, definitely not ‘delighted’.
Yes he was. He was a very reckless, evil man.
@@Junkinsally . . . . . I'm sure you think your ex husband is too (;
@@Junkinsally Were he reckless, he would have failed. The fact that he succeeded in building the bomb does not detract from his conscience existing. He built it, and said what the first commentor said he said.
You're letting emotions override your intellect.
@@Svensk7119Oppenheimer DIDN'T build an atomic bomb, he helped design it, he was in on the physics of the core,, the mathematics of the primer,, but not on the engineering of the bomb itself...
And what else IS there besides emotion when honestly discussing nuclear weapons? Oppenheimer was officially pleased and delighted at the success of the project, privately he was terrified and felt guilty because of his contribution to it... And after Oppenheimer had a confidential talk with president truman, President Truman threw him out of his office, and said to an aide, I don't ever want to see that cry baby son of a b**** in here again.... Truman was a blustering bozo,, he was the senator from pendergast, a little wimp with serious masculinity issues who felt big deriding more powerful men, powerful intellectually financially or militarily,, because he was surrounded by so many men with those types of power......
@@Junkinsally... Well Opp was reckless in a way,, they all were, listen to this saga of miscalculation and overconfidence by British scientists and they look not only reckless but foolish in my opinion.....
Misinformation/Errors:
1) Loss of coolant at the Hanford reactors would not have resulted in a “nuclear explosion”. That would’ve been physically impossible. A meltdown and possibly a steam explosion, yes-but NOT a nuclear explosion.
2) After the dropping of the 2nd bomb on Nagasaki, Japan did not immediately surrender. It almost took a third bomb.
3) Windscale was not the first serious accident, NRX was
4) Failure to mention the contribution to the risk of overheating by the improvised “solution” to a low neutron flux issue caused by addition of the neutron absorbing cartridges that were actually lithium isotope targets for the thermonuclear program. This rushed solution was the trimming of fuel element cooling fins enhance the neutron economy.
No, tak to se mýlíte. V manuálu pro reaktor v Hanfordu je na straně 385 napsáno: přijde-li tento reaktor o vodu a zároveň budou vytaženy všechny řídící a regulační tyče, je riziko jaderného výbuchu více než reálné a radioaktivita se šíří divoce. Ten výbuch by nebyl nijak veliký (v Černobylu měl výtěžnost cca 500 tun TNT), neboť v okamžiku, kdy začne rozhoření na rychlých neutronech a započne neřízená reakce paliva, začnou působit obrovské odpudivé síly a palivo se vlivem vysokého žáru a těchto sil odpaří a rozletí do ovzduší. A tak se to i stalo v Černobylu, ač nejprve všichni papouškovali, jak reaktor drtil výbuch páry a vodíku. Ale jen do doby, než vědci položili otázku, kde jsou ty čtyři nádrže separátorů (každá délky 30 m, průměr 3 m a tloušťka materiálu ze speciální, nerezové oceli 64 mm). Oni se totiž totálně vypařili! Nenašli z nich ani zrnko té oceli a věřte, že na to nějakých 3000°C z výbuchu vodíku opravdu nestačí. To by možná tak opálilo barvu a nádržky by leželi někde v okolí zničeného reaktoru....
😊
Yeah as soon as I heard "the reactor would become a nuclear bomb" I was like wtf, that's just plainly false. I'm out.
Damn bro you got knowledge
5) The thermonuclear device tested by the U.S. in Operation Ivy in late '52 was not an H-bomb, or indeed a bomb of any kind. The first hydrogen bomb was tested by the Soviets with their layer cake design.
Pretty sure the narrator is Tim Piggot Smith, his voice is just perfect for documentaries, never gets boring.
i was wondering what his name was!! watched a ton of these without ever knowing who voiced them!
@@emotionalsupportlizard9437 He also appears in V for Vendetta, but his narrator voice is just epic.
love this, but the windscale disaster was not the first nuclear accident....NRX reactor at Chalk River Laboratories was in 1952 and EBR-I "melt down" in 1951....but they also openly burned radioactive salt in an open sand pit too without even bothering to tell anyone (releasing almost 1 gigabecquerel)
🎉😅
The U.S. Navy sent personnel to subdue the prototype;
one of the Navy specialists was future President Carter...
Go Canada!!!
Gigabecquerel - I've learned a new word. Thanks!
I live in Richland, Washington, the town built to house the Hanford workers during, and just after, the war. The house we have is an “R” house - the designation assigned to one of the floor-plans used. The “B” Reactor is now open for tours, and I highly recommended anyone take a tour if they have the opportunity - it’s fascinating.
I live a few hours from Oak Ridge and I recommend the nuclear history museum in the town of Oak Ridge. The town is very proud of their history and their part during WW2 and like my hometown, known for testing and designing the Saturn V rockets, is very proud of their local history.
Hi there, odd question but I’ve seen quite a few photos of the Hanford site and it looks arid almost desert like in more than a few photos. Are there deserts or desert like climes in Washington State?
@zachhoward9099 most of WA state is shrub steppe.... desert like... seattle is on the west side of our state... it's literally two different worlds, ecologically, socially, and politically. Most of WA is like the hanford area.
@@blaykjohansen7555 Exactly - Hanford started out as an area half the size of Rhode Island, inclusive of Rattlesnake Mountain, the highest treeless mountain west of the Mississippi. About 2/3 of the state total is similar to Hanford, though as you head north toward Canada, the climate changes a bit to include more ponderosa pine, albeit very slow growing.
I suggest looking on Google Streetview to really see what I’m talking about.
@zachhoward9099 yes. The eastern 2/3 of the state lies in kind of a rain shadow of the cascade mountains which run North/South and "divide" wet Western WA from more high-arid Eastern WA.
You speak of Los Alamos as "was", as though it is no longer in operation. It is still a government owned research and development area with high security and secret projects.
And from Santa Fe it looks like it's floating in the sky at night.
3:13 if the water supply fails on the reactor there will be very unpleasant experience, but it has nothing to do with "nuclear explosion"
... there are a lot of comments saying the same thing,, and you are correct in a way but if an explosion happens without any chemical explosive, you could call it a nuclear explosion even if it isn't that big....
@@micnorton9487 if no chemicals involved, I would rather call it thermal explosion (yet I'm not sure about these terms)
I could be, and probably am, wrong, but wasn't there an explosion when Fukashima's water coolers failed and the reactor cores overheated?
Noted and liked. But the "Windscale fire" was a "pile" that wasn't water cooled. The Scottish Rev. George McLeod, and the English atheist Bertrand Russell, both objected to the idea that Britain should have nuclear weapons at all!
I clicked to read about a Nuclear Disaster that I've never heard of, but it turned out to be Windscale, which seems to be quite well known. Maybe not as well known as Chernobyl, or Fukushima which is much more recent, but it must be in the Top 5 best known nuclear accidents.
you see you see that titles just click bait by saying it is never heard of
Agree. I understand it's Click Bait but I follow Plainly Difficult channel so there's really no radioactive disaster or orphan source incident he hasn't covered.
I did the very same.
Sucks to be so gullible.
I have never heard of this one. Thank you
I leaved near Hanford in WA. The stories about radiation damage to the people, abounded
Living on the east coast of Ireland we were well aware of it!
Obviously nuclear weapons development is and has always been inexcusable and unforgivable, making the retroactive case for Irish independence obvious; this being further confirmed when Dublin beat Belfast to abortion rights, thereby preventing Iranian style human wave attacks, Iranian and other abortion bans being a military act of aggression as in Palestine, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Afghanistan.
I hit the dislike button on the video for it's essentially pro-nuclear conclusion, even if the use of depleted uranium may have caused sterility in Iraq, thereby preventing human wave attacks, as might mRNA.
@@alan6832 Bro, who asked? Nobody cares
@@alan6832 its not bull lol
Hurling is a garbage activity
Nobody normal would ever develope nuclear anything, knowing how deadly it is
Agree completely,, developing regular munitions and ordinance and the like is insane enough,, the mental processes of people developing nuclear weapons,, the desire to create such a diabolical weapon,, ratchets the insanity level past 10 and all the way up to 13...
BIG CORRECTION! In 1952, an experimental nuclear reactor in Chalk River, Ont., about 180 kilometres northwest of Ottawa, partially melted down, becoming the world's first nuclear reactor incident.
And future president Jimmy Carter helped clean it up.
Treat cover up most people probably don’t know
“Incident” is just too general of a term. One could classify the mishaps with the “Demon Core” as an “incident”.
@@punkinhoot Yes, she taught art in Kinistino, Saskatchewan.
@@punkinhoot Can you give more information? This is so cool!
There was also one in Southern California, near Simi Valley, that was successfully covered up.
yes there was..... rocketdyne i believe. Its been portrayed as chemical spill but the rumors say otherwise.
Yep and there's millions of people in the LA area living around it
Just surch for lost nuclear warheads on Wikipedia and sleep well tonight
Santa Susana field lab sodium reactor experiment
Santa Susanna sp Field Lab 1959 (worst). Google " U.S. Senate Testimony of POF. Daniel Hirsch (Committee to Bridge the Gap) 18 September 2008? 14pgs.
I've never heard of Britain
:-))))
Which planet are you from?
Pity the nuclear scientist
He sits down with the faintest of smiles
His life is sheerest agony
For he has atomic piles!💩
Lol
At 3:20 you say, if the reactors weren’t cooled, they would be an explosion like a bomb. But that’s incorrect. It wouldn’t be like a nuclear bomb, but like a dirty bomb where radioactive material would have been shut out over a great distance, but an actual splitting of the item would not have occurred like, a designed bomb.
Go take an English class.
Again, around 810 you’re wrong. The fissile material would not have gone critical and created a nuclear explosion. It’s not the case, rather, it would have gone critical, expanded its energy and created what could be called a dirty bomb.
it was a steam explosion, when it spiked it instantly vaporized all of the water in the core which was incredibly damaging, but yes it was in practicality a dirty bomb. as it flung radioactive dust and debrise far in to the sky, which got picked up by the wind currents.
That's why they were able to detect it in belarus and sweden so quickly. You are mostly correct, it could not have gone prompt critical because that requires the fuel to be compressed down to the size of a ball point pen tip.
.. not exactly einstein, a dirty bomb is a regular explosive used to scatter radioactive materials,, a dud is a nuclear device that goes off without the proper arming procedure, detonating the chemical explosives and only partly fissioning the nuclear fuel... But if a fissionable Mass goes supercritical WITHOUT any other explosive fuel, which is extremely unlikely but it can happen,, like if a plutonium refinement didn't go exactly correct and there is a little bit of plutonium 240 in with the 239, this could make it spontaneously fission ... The energy released would be nowhere near the energy of an actual warhead,, somewhere in the hundreds of pounds to a few tons of TNT..
Wasn't the explosion at Chernobyl actually caused by hydrogen, with the fissile material just adding a tiny amount energy to the explosion,, making the explosion equivalent to about a dozen tons of TNT?
Liked the footage of the not-to-often-seen “graphite boats” being removed from the refueling channels
Don't they mean the first "large-scale" nuclear accident? Just developing the atom bomb there were several accidents, one of which ultimately took the lives of several of the Los Alamos scientists, and led to the development of some of the most sophisticated nuclear physics arithmetic of the modern age. Technically, these accidents were also nuclear in nature.
They mean disaster, not every accident is a disaster.
@@Ismalith Fair enough. However, as I'm constantly reminding people, accurate language is important. Consider the following...
A person says something is their "forte".
The proper pronunciation will sound like "fort", because it is a french based word meaning strength or emphasis.
Most people pronounce it "fortay", which is an italian pronunciation, meaning to play or sound loudly. Therefore most or us in America are running around saying something is our "to play loudly", sounding like a bunch of idiots in front of Europeans....Is it any wonder they think we're stupid?
If they mean nuclear "disaster", with all that that implies, they should say disaster, and not accident, which could be anything ranging from spilling powder, to blowing up a reactor.
@@karlsullivan4761 Not technically correct, Forte in music means "Play strongly" not loudly, it has the same effect though but the word itself just means "Strongly" Which is the wrong tense for being someone's forte but we can attribute that to translation.
Language is indeed important, in this case you're mixing the actual translation of the word with it's musical connotation, but even then when we train as musicians, the word pianissimo means very softly, not "play very softly" these words were marked on sheet music to describe the intensity to play but were not exclusive to music, even though most of those words are most commonly seen in that context.
The etymology for both the Italian, and French Forte is from the Latin Fortis. (The only reason I know any of that is that I was trained as a musician Vocabulary was very important to that.) it is used commonly now to mean loud but the word actually does mean strong.
(not trying to argue, just thought it is a fun thing I actually know a little about)
Semantics, over the internet, in a comment section, is SUCH a silly game to play.
Work on your "reading between the lines" skills, and you'll understand comments much better without having to resort to the aforementioned silly games.
.. it's an expression meaning disaster causing hundreds of years of catastrophic conditions resulting in being uninhabitable
Having just watched a documentary that included the trial of Oppenheimer, Edward Teller was a real piece of ... work.
" Britain's Chernobyl: The Nuclear Disaster You've Never Heard Of " bruhh
I wish people who go to the effort of producing a documentary on nuclear reactors would stop spreading the absurd notion that a reactor overheating can turn it into an “atomic bomb.”
Well it can though. Even a storage pool drying up can go critical (detonate)
Also, Uranium - any isotope - is in fact pyrophoric. Exposed to oxygen and moderate heat (like 350 Centigrade).
(The pyrophoric properties of DU or any of the related isotopes, apart from the weight, is the reason they use it as projectiles)
Plutonium, now that's a different but definitely not less docile beast.
It wouldn't have been a warhead type explosion, more a Chernobyl type explosion. And based on what's come out on Chernobyl over the decades, it's scary to think that a warhead type explosion might be a cleaner outcome. Totally bad news either way...
@Alexander Grimsmo, you do realize every nuclear reactor in the world needs to go critical to make energy right. It is literally the operating condition of a nuclear reactor.
@@zachsowersfilmandphoto6659 The term all the people in this thread (exceot you) was looking for was supercritical.
At 26:38 the narrrator says: "The situation was critical..." This line had a double meaning.
I have heard about Windscale about as much as Chernobyl.
Am I the only one that stays away from Timelines because of the adds every 3 minutes…
Chalk River nuclear 1952 was the first nuclear accident.
Oh, you mean Windscale? Nope, never heard of it. 😊
I had learned elsewhere that Britain's a-bomb test was NOT successful, as its explosive energy production was much lower than what it should have been if a successful reaction had occurred.
Any comments?
I'm no expert, but I did hear that the first British H-bomb test was unsuccessful insofar as it didn't achieve a thermonuclear reaction. Could that be the story you heard?
Actually, Britain’s first “thermonuclear” weapon test was a bit of a ruse. It was really a boosted fission device. Their first genuine thermonuclear bomb went off without a hitch. Most of their nuclear tests were successful and achieved the desired goals (apart from badly contaminating Australia).
Can whoever makes these at least TRY to do basic research? As there's literally no situation where a nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb. The worst case which isn't even likely with the little weapon production reactors talked about here is a meltdown where the fuel goes into the basement and some radiation release. The reactor fire that this entire documentary is about is kinda of a good example, it's a shame no one working on the script seems to know about it.
Tibbits did not drop the first nuke on japan. He piloted the B29 that carried the atomic bomb,. The bombadeer is the one that released the bomb.
and what was his name??
i mean if youre going to say something snarky at least look up how to spell bombardier
oh and another own for your dumb comment is that really not even the bombardier gets credit in your reasoning since it was the mission commander who armed the bomb midflight. jeppson
@@steffenfischer1405 And you, are the perfect example of the saying,. It's better to be thought ignprant than open your mouth and prove it.
3:15 Nuclear explosion? Rather than a meltdown?
he is referring to reactors that had the capability of going prompt critical and it is feasible that if enough of the control rods or control medium is removed than a prompt criticality could potentially explode if there is enough fuel. prompt criticality is what you want with a nuclear weapon, in a reactor you want delayed neutrons. if you have a reactor capable of achieving prompt criticality you potentially do have a nuclear chain reaction the type of which happens in a nuclear weapon
Which documentary is this?
The three I'm aware of are 1989's "Our Reactor is on Fire", 1999's "The Atomic Inferno', and 2007's "Windscale: Britain's Biggest Nuclear Disaster". All by the BBC, all slightly different.
The first nuclear disaster aside from the explosions in Japan was actually with the demon core.
...I saw that,, a plutonium core that just kept on heating up and then cooling down and then heating up again...... F****** weird,, the centrifugal separation Gizmo for the plutonium must not have worked right or something.......
yes you are correct but this is pointing out the first reactor accident and i believe it was the NRX reactor at Chalk River, the demon core was just a text that went wrong.
Oppenheimer was not thrilled when he saw the test explosion at the Trinity site. His position was made clear when he recited the phrase, "now I become death, destroyer of worlds", which was quoted from Hindi scripture.
Capital D "Death"
"Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds"
It's a reference to the destruction of time itself.
Oh I have definitely heard of it.
To say that America ended WWII by melting Hiroshima and Nagasaki is analogous to when a drug addict stops using a particular drug just to start using a different one!
Yes and no. When Obama was in office he talked about presidential decision making and to paraphrase “By the time a decision gets to my level it’s not a choice of good vs. bad or right vs. wrong; it’s choosing the lesser of two evils.” Was Truman right to authorize use of the bombs on Japan? Do you give up the lives of 20,000 Japanese civilians or commit the estimated 1,000,000 soldiers for an attack on the Japanese mainland? The War Cabinet was immovable. If you want to debate Nagasaki.. I’m all in for that. That was a botched operation and honestly, a demonstration of the second and maybe third bomb might have been sufficient. I’m not entirely sure that Stalin would have moved so quickly against Japan had the first bomb not gone up… he was looking for a piece of the pie as the war was effectively closing. Having settled that.. what do you do with the technology? Had Fuchs and the Rosenbergs not leaked the information to the Russians, there might never had been a Cold War. Would the Soviets have figured it out on their own? Yes, obviously. But it might not have been until the 1950’s and had the information been carefully disseminated beforehand … it wouldn’t have been a US/Soviet stalemate. If there’s any questions about the US intentions… look at Breton Woods and the WTO. We rebuilt Japan and Germany post war as part of the Marshall Plan. Someone should’ve told Teller scientists don’t make policy.
The test of the 1st bomb was carried out over 200 miles south of Los Alamos in a mostly isolated area
That is true, but that is not the issue here.
@@koerrie.. yeah but the narrator said the test was conducted at Los alamos, not the completely desolate jornada del muerto where the test actually was...
I've known about this for years. But obviously people only know about the things that are important to them.
Snob
It was public since before you were born.
Why is it important to you? Dork
The one thing my mother worried about all her life!
It was considered OK to make safety shortcuts for political reasons back in the day. But who can say with 100% certainty that it is not the case today?
Just look at US railroads, where safety shortcuts are done to increase profits
It absolutely still happens today. I think it's a little worse now than before.
it is the case today. i mean the acceptable standard for nuking your own country on accident is 1 in a million. so better odds than being eaten by a shark
also the united states has technically dropped nukes on itself. in goldsboro nc a b52 broke apart and two thermonuclear bombs fell one was caught in a tree by its chute and only had one failsafe not fail out of the six to keep it from arming and detonating.
Google "Humboldt Nuclear Accident" by Scott Rainsford.
Read "Windscale 1957: Anatomy of a Nuclear Accident" by Lorna Arnold. Lorna Arnold was the official historian of the UK Atomic Energy Authority.
Windscale is a very well known accident, I hate these kinds of baits
I agree. However, I do appreciate the fact that people go to alot of effort to try and tell these stories to a wider audience than may be interested in some of the more "technical" explanations available on line. I wish a little more attention to historic and technical accuracy was paid, but then, that is true of most of what comes out of hollywood or other centres as 'biopic' or 'documentary'.
And what about the "Three Mile Island" incident, that took place in March, 1979?
Very nice video
Imagine creating a portable star to destroy cities just as revenge for touching your boats...
The aluminum cartridges were a terrible design anyone could tell you aluminum warps at high temperature
No, Britain if anything was one of many partners for the Manhattan Project. Canada played a large role as-well.
Heck "Sellafield" is now part of the song Radioactivity by Kraftwerk.
This is on the 1991 remix and the lyric is "Chernobyl, Harrisburg, Sellafield, Hiroshima", so not on the original song from 1975, long before Chernobyl. But yes, Windscale was well known enough that a group of German musicians considered it important enough to be one of the four sites mentioned in the song.
There are numerous reports of Nuclear Accidents here on RUclips. I am not sure which one was first. I reserve my comments. However, the 'Carbon Pile' reactor has a significant safety issue. It has to do with 'phase transformation' where the atomic structure of the carbon can suddenly change, causing damage to the fuel cell. It is similar to phase change in Iron where the atoms shift from 'body centered cubic' to 'face centered cubic', whatever those terms mean. The bottom line here is the atomic structure suddenly changes and so the dimensions of the carbon fuel cell changes, getting suddenly bigger or smaller. It is like cracking the block of a petroleum engine, only a lot worse. I might be wrong.
Windscale's only resemblance to Chernobyl was bad design *and* stupidity. It is wrong to class nuclear weapons with civilian nuclear.
I’m a big fan of this narrator, he did battlefield one of my favorites.
Brittany or any country should test nuclear wrpons on its own territory.
We did
This story gets re-told and uploaded on yt on a regular basis. And everybody always says...."you never heard of"
I enjoy the commercials in the middle of an explanation. Thanks
Lol
Perhaps I missed it but I believe the documentary does not seem to explain who the gentleman speaking At 11:45 - 13:40 is. Perhaps it is assumed that we all know that this man is Edward Teller, (Nuclear) theoretical physicist and Chemical Engineer, born and educated in Hungary - later emigrated to the US just months prior to US entry into WWII... who is know as the "Father of the Hydrogen Bomb". I just point this out if there are any younger folks watching this who are not aware of who this man is. There are several interviews of Teller that are on film, he was very good at explaining things in layman's terms.
If I was an Australian, I'd be angry! Test you're own nukes in your own territorial waters. This all seemed rushed just to feed someone's ego of Britain becoming a nuclear power. I believe they could remain a power by playing to their strengths for which nuclear is not one.
IIRC Kyshtym accident in USSR preceded Windscale by one month. So second world scale nuclear accident, not first. Tom Tuohy, a legend, a hero. Mankind was at a great loss with that generation passing away.
"If you're grandmother should die, place a tag and leave her outside."
Japan didn't "immediately surrender" after Nagasaki. They did not surrender for five more days, and the Emperor's speech was nearly stolen by a group of diehard fanatics who wanted to have him broadcast a fight-to-the-death message.
Ahh yes.. the same generation who raised our great-grandparents
Japan didnt surrender because of the bombs.they surrendered because Russia entered the war against them.
I dont blame them after they had entire cities of civilians wiped out
I love that they basically halo 3 odst music at roughly 0:30 - 1:30
This framing of Japans surrender leaves out the ussr declaring war.
It does. Then again, so do most US school books and historical texts. I find it interesting that films made (even in Hollywood) in the late 1930s and early 1940s depict Stalin's Russia as our heroic friends in the fight against the Nazis.
And then... the US gov't and MIC turned on their former ally with remarkable speed. Just like they did with their former employees Saddam Hussein and Manuel Noriega, among many many others.
Funny how that works...
In '57 was another one, also in CCCP, the Mayak incident.
Madge Blake, who played Aunt Harriet in the 1960s "Batman" TV show, worked on the US Manhattan Project. She, and her husband, were part of the team tasked with testing some components of the bomb.
You have my complete attention. How did you find this out?
i mean over 100000 people worked on the manhattan project
Does anyone know the production music used in this? It's fantastic!
Bee gees
Just because YOU hadn't known about it previously doesn't mean others haven't.
Melodrama, tsk.
Isn’t that the first Soviet nuke test photo in the thumbnail?😏
Nope.
Click bait image showing black mushroom cloud. There was smoke from the air extraction chimneys but no mushroom cloud.
It is far from certain that the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were the cause of Japan's surrender. Soviet declared war and invaded Manchuria just before the second bomb dropped, and it is quite possible that this was a more compelling reason than the nuclear bombs.
I highly doubt that the Soviets were even thinking of carrying out an invasion of the Japanese homeland, which would have ended the war. In fact, even after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, the 59th Army (infantry) got a new commander in order to more closely coordinate operations as part of a defense effort by Japan to deter possible landings of Allied forces in the San'yo region of western Honshu.
@@rightlyso8507 The way I've understood things, Japan wanted out of the war, but they didn't want to unconditionally surrender. The hope of having Soviet broker peace disappeared with the attack in Manchuria though, leaving only unconditional surrender as an option. Japan's big cities were already wrecked before the nuclear bombings, so there wasn't that much left to bomb.
I'm not claiming to know the facts of the matter. But it's a debated topic, and not all agree that the nuclear bombs ended the war.
@@beardmonster8051 Yes, I had read about that in a book by David Bergaminni (not sure of spelling - as I no longer have the book). After Hiroshima was bombed, there was a cadre in the military in the government that still forbid a surrender. Hirohito may have been the titular ruler of Japan, but there were plans to eliminate him had he called the war off after that first bomb. Some were actually on the grounds of the Imperial Palace, wanting to rush in and dispatch the Emperor. As we know, they didn't follow through. But, after Nagasaki 'happened', he recorded his speech acknowledging defeat and had it played over the radio (the first time ordinary Japanese had ever heard his voice). Once broadcast, the leader(s) of that group of military men still holding out, committed suicide.
The Japanese only surrendered because the Red Army was annihilating the Japanese colonial army in Manchuria in days(!) and was poised to practically walk within a few months across Sakhalin etc. with the same 1.000.000+ men warmachine that destroyed the Nazis and invade the poorly defended Japanese homeland. The United States needed a year to build up the invasion force from Okinawa. Strategic bombing had already destroyed most Japanese cities. Nukes weren't that different than a hundred planes firebombing. This is why the Japanese didn't surrender after Hiroshima or Nagasaki but waited three whole days: They were looking at the disaster unfolding in Manchuria. They didn't want a Red Army invasion, so they used the nukes as an excuse to surrender to the United States... But Manchuria mustn't be mentioned in western history. It doesn't fit the authorized narrative so it gets memory-holed.
who would you rather surrender to. USSR or USA???
Cows near radiation. . . . brilliant. I don't care about the workers but leave the cows and kids out of this.
Why is the first Soviet nuclear test in the thumbnail?
I've never heard about this incident.
I've heard of it! I win! Ha ha!
@@legitbeans9078Bruh what.
Aha wtf That’s something that’s not taught I never knew Christmas Island had a nuclear explosion they only ever talk about the one that happened in South Australia or where ever it happened around there lol
If you havn't heard of this you have been sleeping under a rock. Or not using adblockers on youtube.
Anyone teen or older knows about the meltdown
To thefilmmakers: Identify your speakers on film! Documentary Making 101...
The first thermonuclear device tested in late 1952 by the U.S. was not, and I must repeat, WAS NOT an H-bomb, or a bomb at all. I wish that people who know best would stop calling it that.
Correctly, it could be labelled as an underground mine such as those employed by the allies in the Somme in the first world war.
Something which weighs tens of thousands of tones and needs thousands of horsepower just to keep itself cool is not a bomb.
On that basis, the Soviets were first to test an hydrogen bomb with their layer cake design.
Contrary to what some historians conveniently prefer to believe, the layer cake design, despite its yield limitations, was indeed a true H-bomb
LIES !!! I have heard of this. So have millions of others, this accident is very well documented. But got to get those clickbait views @Timeline.
"Unheard of" my be an exaggeration, but it's definitely not as well known as Chernobyl or Three Mile Island; and outside of Europe very few people know about it
I've never heard of it. Never even heard mention when melt downs are mentioned.
@@jjOnceAgain I live on the opposite side of the world from Windscale/Sellafield and I've certainly heard of it. I'm surprised that anyone interested enough to click on in a video on nuclear disasters hasn't heard of it.
This is a ridiculous injustice to historical accuracy and meaning.
I've heard of it...
horryfying statement was - that the significantly contaminated milk - what is signifficantly ???
at around 8:00 in there is a major accuracy error. A core meltdown does NOT cause an atomic explosion. despite how close the fuel is together, in order to cause them to go prompt critical requires focusing that ball of fissle material down to the size of a pin point, which is what the explosives do to cause the fissile explosion. It is impossible to create an atomic detonation by lack of coolant. The explosions at chernobyl and fukushima were caused by hydrogen and steam explosions. Where the heat from the core caused all of the water to vaporize at once and caused a massive (conventional) explosion that flung radioactive material extremely far as well as putting loads of radioactive dust in to the atmosphere. Fukushima was even less severe than that.
If the core melts down and gets concentrated, and furthermore is blended with material that works as moderator, the fission can run wild and either produce an explosion or a wild nuclear fire. In Chernobyl the fission ran wild and produced enough heat to make the system explode. This was not an explosion with the speed of an atomic bomb, but still an explosion partly produced by nuclear reactions running wild and partly by burning graphite.
@@knutholt3486yes.... but the point is it was not a nuclear detonation. it was a steam explosion caused by an enormous amount of heat built up in the core in a very short period of time.
Steam explosions are terrifying on their own, but it's not an atomic explosion either.
@Gaming When the heat that makes the explosion comes from a nuclear reaction that increases uncontrolledly, it is a nuclear explosion. The material around gets heated and explode together with the the nuclear material. But this is not any different from an atomic bomb where the greatest part of the explotion is in the air, water, soil or whatever surounds the bomb. In Chernobyl, garphite also burned and gave a contribution, so it was mixed. What basically happens is that most of the energy released from the nuclear reaction is transfered to the immediate surroundings that then explode. The energy is transfered partly from kinetic collition with atoms in the nuclear material, but even more from radiation that gets absorbed by the surrroundings.
@@knutholt3486When I say a nuclear detonation, i'm refferring specifically to a prompt criticality caused explosion, where there are enough neutrons to cause a self sustaining reaction, which happens in microseconds.
That is not what happened in chornobyl. what happened in chornobyl was supercriticality causing all of the water in the core to boil instantaniously and turn to steam.
steam was the agent that caused the reactor vessel to rupture and explode.
There was not enough U-235 in the fuel used in chornobyl to cause an atomic explosion. RBMK reactors used lightly enriched U-238 because it was as said in the tv series cheaper than the highly enriched fuel western nations used. (2 percent enrichment compared to 5 percent in say the US)
For a nuclear detonation to occur the enrichment required is 80 percent or higher.
In Chernobyl the controle rods were pulled too far out and that caused an accellerating nuclear reaction wich of course also caused what you tell about. The result was a blended type of explosion.
In Fukushima the lack of cooling caused the kernal to melt down which also caused an accelerating nuclear reaction but also the things you tell about.
The effect at those two sites did not anount to an atonic bomb, however, because the melted core was not dense enough to make the explosion so intense. But the explosions were a at least partly nuclear because an accelerating nuclear reaction released much of the energy for the explosion.
So yes, improper function or lack of coolant can cause an atomic detonation, but the physical effect will not be as great as in an atomic bomb, because the material is not dense enough for that.
Maybe you should make a video about how more people have died from solar and wind than from nuclear reactors 🙄🥱
Constant nuclear fear mongering is insidious…
dude , just build one big bad reactor and let all human's kind rest in peace , no one would be concerned about wars or weapons , cuz no one would ever create them
Hasn't everyone seen, "Our Reactor is on Fire"?
Hanford is one of the worlds most polluted places.
Tuohy is a goddamπ hero.
Wowzers. Don't do that again.
I think it is interesting how opinions have changed a couple of times over the necessity of building their own nuclear bomb. The post ww2/cold War pro-nuclear bomb sentiments vs the post USSR collapse anti-nuclear sentiment vs the NEW threat of Putin/Russian aggression in eastern Europe renewing nuclear deterrence/new armaments race.
Sellafield, they poisoned the Irish Sea. Not forgotten.
1952 chalk river reactor, granted it was power not bomb but still
My guess is Windscale.
Too cheap to meter was the line they used in the USA 🔌
Late 60s Early 70s . Was a Detonation of Something in Kamchatka I think . Was it US Or USSR . I think it was done underground .
Hanford site is not over 600 square miles, it is 586 square miles
Who cares. It still sucks.
If one is unfamiliar with the Windscale disaster then they must have little interest in nuclear accidents. It’s far from unheard of.
Thank you, Dr. Einstein. 🙄
+1 it's very well known in the UK. And not exactly a national secret.
Word.
No true Scotsman...
It's mainly the US wiping out history of the rest of the world through the media, because things only happen in the US.
WE WILL NEVER LEARN
WHy do you need to shout that when it is very evident we already did a long time ago?
@@benbaselet2026 I AM NOT SHOUTING, I HAVE VISION TROUBLE, THAT IS WHY I USE CAPS, DO U THINK CAPS ARE USED TO SHOUT ONLY
@@Watcher1852 That's the usual meaning.
@@benbaselet2026 If you read it in your head instead of yelling it out loud as you read it, it’s much quieter
Japan surrendered in response to Hiroshima, making Nagasaki completely superfluous. Nations can't process information fast enough to have surrendered in response to Nagasaki when they were just then getting complete reports on what happened at Hiroshima. They surrendered as soon as they got complete reports on Hiroshima.
...not quite...
...Japan gave up, when the USSR entered the war on August 8th - 1 day BEFORE the Nagasaki attack...!
...b.t.w...
...not many people know, that Japan had not 1 but 2* nuclear-weapon-programs...
*1 for the army and 1 for the navy...but the navy found out, that it would take too long for an operational weapon, and that money and resources would be better spend in research for e.g. new radar-systems...
Actually Truman received Intel that Japan was within a week of surrender before he gave the go-ahead for Hiroshima .
Hiroshima was all about sending the Ruskies a message, and the Japanese Civilians killed can be considered collateral damage.
(it needed to be done because when the Russians switch over to a wartime footing they tend to be a force to behold, none of this MIC, highest bidder nonsense...)
You spead lies and misinformation. Read more books
@@simonpedge If true, any and all messages were sent to all recipients before the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki, making the case against Nagasaki vastly superior to the case against Hiroshima.
@@antoniohorta5656 thank you...
The woman at ten minutes is the worst communicator I've ever heard.