Thanks so much for watching! If you would like to see my reaction to what if Chernobyl was even worse, please check out: ruclips.net/video/wXbTEciageQ/видео.htmlsi=rNJ-1vS5kucdbGI9
You should do a video on Picher OK if you haven't yet. This place has kiled more peoplebyfar than any nuclear disaster. BTW I lived 10 miles away from this place for 10 years and it is the closest thing to Fallout you will ever find without the radioactive waste. The Town of Silent Poison (Documentary) - How Picher, OK Became the Most Toxic Town in America
Hello Mr. Tyler, I am from Romania, I am 16 years old and I am very interested in becoming a nuclear engineer, like you. I wanted to ask if you could give me some piece of advice or a book to start from. Maybe you can help me out please?
The RBMK design was a ticking "nuclear, (comma) bomb". If the Chernobyl plant wouldn't have had this accident, it was bound to happen in some capacity at some other site with an RBMK. Wasn't there a near-incident like that, my memory fails me?
All four of Chernobyl's units, or at least their buildings, had some kind of accident at some point. Unit 1 did suffer fuel damage that necessitated an isolation and permanent shutdown of part of the reactor. There are both obvious and subtle differences between this accident and the catastrophic failure of unit 4, but loss of coolant + positive void coefficient played a role in both.
I hate to be pedantic, but there was a radiological release at Three Mile Island. It was simply inconsequential due to it being relatively small and mostly consisting of biologically inert noble gases, as I believe you have mentioned before in other videos. Of course it is correct that nobody suffered any negative health effects from the nuclear accident itself. Unfortunately, the *communication* meltdown caused a lot of confusion and fear. Fear is a powerful emotion that often drowns out truth and common sense, which is exactly what happened and a big reason why we don't have more nuclear power today.
considering there were more than 10 RBMK reactors no matter what even if Chernobyl didn't happen, one of those reactors most likely would have catastrophically failed at some point due to the positive void coefficient being declared classified information from even the nuclear power plant operators. So if any of the RBMK sights were to attempt the spin down test there is a chance it would have happened somewhere else with even worse consequences, like if the reactor at Smolensk were to have exploded. By no means was Chernobyl not an awful accident but there could have been WAY more damage to human lives and the surrounding environment
I agree. Again, the alternate timeline depends on whether you're asking what if Chernobyl itself never happened vs what if a disaster comparable to Chernobyl never happened. It's interesting to consider both possibilities from a great variety of angles. 🤔
@15:15 having such strict requirements sounds like it would foster an atmosphere where you would try to sweep incidents under the rug to look safer and less inept.
Informative as always. Could you check out pbs space time: what happens if we nuke space? I was surprised to find that we could even attempt such a thing.
The "liquidators" were a cleanup army (est. 600,000 people total) that prevented a far worse disaster. Depending on who you believe (someone who is from that part of the world, or "experts") there may have been a far greater sacrifice: According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600,000 liquidators) and 165,000 disabled. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously.
I think in fairness to the people who designed those reactores they were handed a difficult brief. We only need to look at the reasons why its become so expensive and tedious to build much better designs. We should also keep in mind that the other three units at Chernobyl continued to operate for years without incident. One of the reasons there was no containment in the design was the lacka manufacturing facility and the materials to make one.
The underlying factors behind the Chernobyl incident can be found in the intricacies of physics and the reactor's design. Was it possible for the Soviets to consciously incorporate a mechanism 'in the design of the reactor' that would lead to a deliberate nuclear meltdown if triggered, as a flex to the West? The use of graphite tips in the control rods were considered dangerous by the west. It appears that there may be more to this story.
You've mentioned in the end that it would've been awesome to have more nuclear plants today. What about the radioactive waste? Are there any new ways to decontaminate it (as much as possible) and make it safer? Or are we just going to bury it into the ground till the end of time? I remember reading a BBC article about a storage facility that is under construction in Onkalo, Finland, but it's still about burying it in the ground (with the help of robots this time). I would love to hear your thoughts about that. Is it that big of a problem at all? Sorry, if you already have a video about that, I just didn't manage to find it.
What about it? There solution(s) exist, we don't have them in place for the same reasons we have fewer nuclear reactors than we should. Irrational fear.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I remember from the time that small amounts of radioactive Xenon 133 was released from TM:I, so there wassome minor release. Am remembering wrong?
He failed to mention that the treatment of certain cancers and the X-ray machine to detect small cancers, which save about 6 million lives yearly, would not have been invented yet without a tissue data bank like the one we obtained from Chernobyl.
I'm sure without Chernobyl, we would see more carelessness from lower wealth countries who thought like the Soviets that safety was an unnecessary Western extravagance. Chernobyl was a perfect storm not easily replicated, but there are much worse disasters that have been much more successfully swept under the rug because it was for nuclear weapons. Between tests and careless handling of highly enriched waste, there are places that, unlike Chernobyl, are unsafe to visit even decades later. And without the fear from Chernobyl, more small countries may have tried the national equivalent of the nuclear boy scout's backyard project.
As avoidable as Chernobyl was, you are almost certainly correct in your assessment. Once the USSR inevitably experienced a disaster they couldn't cover up, people around the world learned a lot of lessons. Unfortunately, that seems to be an odd and sometimes devastating quirk of humanity: lessons are often not learned until the absolute worst case scenario finally happens.
@@Merennulli I couldn't think of that phrase in the moment. Thank you. The other one I like to use when people ask me about seriously stupid warning labels is "that's there because somebody tried it, don't ask me why."
If you consider deaths, didn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki have more deaths? A couple hundred thousand at minimum. I will only concede that the radioactivity consequences were a lot worse in Cnernobyl. 7:00 Are we talking about a nuclear-powered explosion? Or was it a chemical explosion, for example of hydrogen? 11:00 Okay, overheated steam exploded. 13:00 I think that we now see the consequences of not doing the right thing when the Soviet Union finally went down, with Yeltsin emerging victorious against the last-ditch military coup. In my view back then and still now, there should have been something like the Marshall Plan, to enable the country to recover economically. Instead, we cheered the victory of capitalism and let their economy go disaster, until former Communist KGB-man Putin took over.
Reaction Request: Second Thoughts 700k View Video "The CIA is a Terror*** Organization" All of King of the Hill Yogscast Diggy Diggy Hole Story Dark Records "The Damascus Titan Missile Explosion"
Наука![[REUPLOAD: IMPROVED AUDIO] Oceangate Titan: analysis of an insultingly predictable failure](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4eNm8vnKZ38/mqdefault.jpg)
![[REUPLOAD: IMPROVED AUDIO] Oceangate Titan: analysis of an insultingly predictable failure](/img/tr.png)
Thanks so much for watching! If you would like to see my reaction to what if Chernobyl was even worse, please check out: ruclips.net/video/wXbTEciageQ/видео.htmlsi=rNJ-1vS5kucdbGI9
Why can't we build nuclear power until they figure out fusion power and skip solar???
You should do a video on Picher OK if you haven't yet. This place has kiled more peoplebyfar than any nuclear disaster. BTW I lived 10 miles away from this place for 10 years and it is the closest thing to Fallout you will ever find without the radioactive waste. The Town of Silent Poison (Documentary) - How Picher, OK Became the Most Toxic Town in America
Hello Mr. Tyler, I am from Romania, I am 16 years old and I am very interested in becoming a nuclear engineer, like you. I wanted to ask if you could give me some piece of advice or a book to start from. Maybe you can help me out please?
Could you check out Soviet Nuclear-Powered Lighthouses on Megaprojects? I think you'd find it interesting
I can't believe they used Sr90 RTGs. Plutonium would've been safer, and that's saying something. Probably more efficient too.
The RBMK design was a ticking "nuclear, (comma) bomb". If the Chernobyl plant wouldn't have had this accident, it was bound to happen in some capacity at some other site with an RBMK. Wasn't there a near-incident like that, my memory fails me?
All four of Chernobyl's units, or at least their buildings, had some kind of accident at some point. Unit 1 did suffer fuel damage that necessitated an isolation and permanent shutdown of part of the reactor. There are both obvious and subtle differences between this accident and the catastrophic failure of unit 4, but loss of coolant + positive void coefficient played a role in both.
I hate to be pedantic, but there was a radiological release at Three Mile Island. It was simply inconsequential due to it being relatively small and mostly consisting of biologically inert noble gases, as I believe you have mentioned before in other videos. Of course it is correct that nobody suffered any negative health effects from the nuclear accident itself. Unfortunately, the *communication* meltdown caused a lot of confusion and fear. Fear is a powerful emotion that often drowns out truth and common sense, which is exactly what happened and a big reason why we don't have more nuclear power today.
considering there were more than 10 RBMK reactors no matter what even if Chernobyl didn't happen, one of those reactors most likely would have catastrophically failed at some point due to the positive void coefficient being declared classified information from even the nuclear power plant operators. So if any of the RBMK sights were to attempt the spin down test there is a chance it would have happened somewhere else with even worse consequences, like if the reactor at Smolensk were to have exploded. By no means was Chernobyl not an awful accident but there could have been WAY more damage to human lives and the surrounding environment
I agree. Again, the alternate timeline depends on whether you're asking what if Chernobyl itself never happened vs what if a disaster comparable to Chernobyl never happened. It's interesting to consider both possibilities from a great variety of angles. 🤔
really love your channel!
@15:15 having such strict requirements sounds like it would foster an atmosphere where you would try to sweep incidents under the rug to look safer and less inept.
Have you ever considered reacting to some of alternate history hub's non-nuclear related videos? He's got lots of good quality stuff on his channel
Informative as always.
Could you check out pbs space time: what happens if we nuke space? I was surprised to find that we could even attempt such a thing.
7:26 i guess you can say Chernobyl was more like an dirty bomb.
The "liquidators" were a cleanup army (est. 600,000 people total) that prevented a far worse disaster. Depending on who you believe (someone who is from that part of the world, or "experts") there may have been a far greater sacrifice:
According to Vyacheslav Grishin of the Chernobyl Union, the main organization of liquidators, "25,000 of the Russian liquidators are dead and 70,000 disabled, about the same in Ukraine, and 10,000 dead in Belarus and 25,000 disabled", which makes a total of 60,000 dead (10% of the 600,000 liquidators) and 165,000 disabled. Estimates of the number of deaths potentially resulting from the accident vary enormously.
I think in fairness to the people who designed those reactores they were handed a difficult brief. We only need to look at the reasons why its become so expensive and tedious to build much better designs. We should also keep in mind that the other three units at Chernobyl continued to operate for years without incident. One of the reasons there was no containment in the design was the lacka manufacturing facility and the materials to make one.
The underlying factors behind the Chernobyl incident can be found in the intricacies of physics and the reactor's design. Was it possible for the Soviets to consciously incorporate a mechanism 'in the design of the reactor' that would lead to a deliberate nuclear meltdown if triggered, as a flex to the West? The use of graphite tips in the control rods were considered dangerous by the west.
It appears that there may be more to this story.
You've mentioned in the end that it would've been awesome to have more nuclear plants today. What about the radioactive waste? Are there any new ways to decontaminate it (as much as possible) and make it safer? Or are we just going to bury it into the ground till the end of time? I remember reading a BBC article about a storage facility that is under construction in Onkalo, Finland, but it's still about burying it in the ground (with the help of robots this time).
I would love to hear your thoughts about that. Is it that big of a problem at all?
Sorry, if you already have a video about that, I just didn't manage to find it.
What about it?
There solution(s) exist, we don't have them in place for the same reasons we have fewer nuclear reactors than we should. Irrational fear.
@@bobthebomb1596 I don't fear that, just curious to hear Tyler's take on this topic.
@@myaiua 👍
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I remember from the time that small amounts of radioactive Xenon 133 was released from TM:I, so there wassome minor release. Am remembering wrong?
I'd like to see you review some of Kyle's nuclear videos
Qxir video on the guy with the highest dose of radiation is a good video too. highly recommend
We'd be living in the fallout timeline...
Im now imagining the original no russian mission, but instead of the airport atrocity, makarov causes the Chernobyl meltdown instead.
I wonder how does gamma rays react to optical lenses? Is it the same for all photon wavelenghts? Can you get a focus point for gamma rays?
I guess it was a thing
you should talk about kyshtym / mayak
If chernobyl doesnt happend. Austria has a Raktor up and running 😅
He failed to mention that the treatment of certain cancers and the X-ray machine to detect small cancers, which save about 6 million lives yearly, would not have been invented yet without a tissue data bank like the one we obtained from Chernobyl.
This is really interesting. I had no idea. Is this true?
Hi man
alternate title. what if Dyatlov wasnt stupid
WINDSCALE!
Wasn't a commercial power reactor. It was designed solely for the production of plutonium.
I'm sure without Chernobyl, we would see more carelessness from lower wealth countries who thought like the Soviets that safety was an unnecessary Western extravagance. Chernobyl was a perfect storm not easily replicated, but there are much worse disasters that have been much more successfully swept under the rug because it was for nuclear weapons. Between tests and careless handling of highly enriched waste, there are places that, unlike Chernobyl, are unsafe to visit even decades later. And without the fear from Chernobyl, more small countries may have tried the national equivalent of the nuclear boy scout's backyard project.
As avoidable as Chernobyl was, you are almost certainly correct in your assessment. Once the USSR inevitably experienced a disaster they couldn't cover up, people around the world learned a lot of lessons. Unfortunately, that seems to be an odd and sometimes devastating quirk of humanity: lessons are often not learned until the absolute worst case scenario finally happens.
@@jlp1528Yep. There's a saying that I've heard that really struck home with me on that - safety regulations and rules are always written in blood.
@@Merennulli I couldn't think of that phrase in the moment. Thank you. The other one I like to use when people ask me about seriously stupid warning labels is "that's there because somebody tried it, don't ask me why."
Why would a "Lower wealth country" be undertaking such an experiment?
If you consider deaths, didn't Hiroshima and Nagasaki have more deaths? A couple hundred thousand at minimum. I will only concede that the radioactivity consequences were a lot worse in Cnernobyl.
7:00 Are we talking about a nuclear-powered explosion? Or was it a chemical explosion, for example of hydrogen?
11:00 Okay, overheated steam exploded.
13:00 I think that we now see the consequences of not doing the right thing when the Soviet Union finally went down, with Yeltsin emerging victorious against the last-ditch military coup. In my view back then and still now, there should have been something like the Marshall Plan, to enable the country to recover economically. Instead, we cheered the victory of capitalism and let their economy go disaster, until former Communist KGB-man Putin took over.
Reaction Request:
Second Thoughts 700k View Video "The CIA is a Terror*** Organization"
All of King of the Hill
Yogscast Diggy Diggy Hole Story
Dark Records "The Damascus Titan Missile Explosion"
early:)