Talk:Chernobyl disaster/Archive 12

more grammar
"Evidence exists to suggest that the wild German and Ukrainian boar population are in a unique location were they have subsisted on a diet high in plant" that should be where not were. "adjacent to the reactor 4 building so that it could be slid over top the existing sarcophagus" over the top of the existing? "The computer would have also started the "Emergency Core Protection System" that introduces 24 control rods into the active zone within 2.5 seconds, which is still slow by 1986 standards" citation or clarification needed, elsewhere article states rods take 18-20 seconds to insert. Thank you for making this article protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.232.1.141 (talk) 10:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction
Section Fire Containment states: "The fire was extinguished by a combined effort of helicopters dropping over 5,000 metric tons (4,900 long tons; 5,500 short tons) of sand, lead, clay, and neutron-absorbing boron onto the burning reactor and injection of liquid nitrogen. It is now known that virtually none of the neutron absorbers reached the core.[64]" Section Debris Removal states: "The reactor itself was covered with bags of sand, lead and boric acid dropped from helicopters: some 5000 metric tons of material were dropped during the week that followed the accident. Historians estimate that about 600 Soviet pilots risked dangerous levels of radiation to fly the thousands of flights needed to cover reactor No. 4 in this attempt to seal off radiation.[95]"

What is true: "none of the absorbers reached the core" or "the reactor itself was covered with bags of sand, lead and boric acid dropped from helicopters?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennethPark1 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Death toll
Reading the segment on Human impact it appears that the subject of how many deaths can be contributed to the accident is a heavily disputed matter, so why include a death toll when there has been no consensus on the subject? Including an exact number feels misleading instead since the information is fragmented with different sources varying heavily.
 * I'm merely a passer-by, but even if true, the section on health impacts does feel very 'whitewashy'. To a reader, it's sounds as if it's trying to prove that "honestly, it was all fear-mongering and the health effects were overblown".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxplanar (talk • contribs) 14:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How many deaths are attributed to other energy accidents likewise vary. Like how many deaths from Banqiao or more recently from carcinogenic Deepwater Horizon explosion and controversial.clean up. Just because there is controversy and it is heavily disputed doesn't mean the men on the sea platform definitely were burnt to death.

Bridge of Death
This https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bridge_of_Death_(Prypiat)&redirect=no redirects to Chernobyl disaster but the article makes no mention of the bridge. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 21:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

graph
Devlet Geray (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Dollar Equivalent to Rubles in Lede?
The Lede mentions "18 Billion Rubles". Could this statement have an immediate, parenthetical mention of what 18 Billion Rubles translates to in US Dollars?Tym Whittier (talk) 20:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is quite hard to do in a meaningful way since there was no market exchange rate at the time. I am afraid that it would be an instance of original research without a reliable secondary source stating this explicitly. Retimuko (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly there's a current exchange rate that could be used?Tym Whittier (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Using current exchange rates would definitely be original research, as it is hardly meaningful. --Ita140188 (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Aren't there numbers on ruble inflation? You could use today's conversion and go backwards with that 178.232.1.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The official Soviet exchange rate at that time was about 0.6 Rubles for $1 USD. This exchange rate was used for converting money for foreign trips. There was also a black market exchange rate, which was about 10 times higher (roughly 5 Rubles for $1 USD). Possessing foreign currency (especially US Dollars) without specific permissions and documents was a criminal offense. And trading it privately was a more severe criminal offense. I believe some source can be found at least for the official exchange rate, which would translate the 18 Billion Rubles roughly into 30 Billion USD. -- Nazar (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

See this: Soviet_ruble -- Nazar (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Controversial facts and disputed casualties
"The total number of casualties remains a controversial and disputed issue"

Should the truth be better interpreted by simply adding to this sentence? --Manu Donald (talk) 11:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

...due to the secretive nature of the political environment surrounding this disaster.
 * That's pinning it down to one cause in an area where isolating one cause is notoriously difficult so in my opinion, no. Britmax (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The total number of casualties remains controversial mainly because the effects of low level radiation on the human body is a controversial subject. --Ita140188 (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * That is not entirely true. That low level effects of radiation are poorly understood is certainly a limiting factor in properly estimating the total health impacts of the Chernobyl disaster. However, there are many other issues at stake here. For example, one is that cancer is a rare disease which means that designing suitably powerful studies has been, and remains, difficult. Another is that cancer registries are extremely incomplete. Additionally, dosimetric data are very incomplete. Where measurements were taken, they were only typically suitable for measuring photon radiation. Modelling of internal doses (from alpha decay, for example) has been very challenging. Coupled with the political, social, economic and demographic changes that the region underwent shortly after the accident, it has understandably been very difficult to arrive the "right" number. There are numerous "controversial" issues around the subject in terms of accusations of cover-ups etc., but I'm not sure that these hold much water.Jimjamjak (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I said mainly. Obviously there are other factors. Anyway, cancer is one of the most common causes of death (see List of causes of death by rate) so it's not exactly rare. Also, radiation exposure is linked to other diseases such as cardiovascular disease. The point I wanted to make is that the uncertainty over the health effects of low dose radiation is much higher than the uncertainty over radiation doses of the population, so it is the source of most of the controversy. --Ita140188 (talk) 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Point taken - you did indeed write "mainly". Apologies for missing that. However, I think that this discussion is still informative for others that might be reading, so hopefully not wasted effort. Also, I am absolutely not convinced by your argument that a comparison of causes of mortality serves as evidence against my statement that cancer is a rare disease. Over an entire life course, rates of cancer incidence (i.e. as a disease, not as a cause of death) are high (around 50% of the total population annually for the UK, for example). However, the vast majority of those cases occur in later life and relate to exposures that occurred early on (as many common cancers have very long latencies). In addition, although radiation may play a role in the aetiology of a large number of cancers, not all cancer rates would be expected to be influenced by radiation released in the Chernobyl accident. The background rates of the specific cancers for which mechanisms are well understood relative to exposures to radioiodines, for example, are low enough to be considered very rare (https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/thyroid-cancer/incidence). Another issue here is that your initial statement refers to "casualties". Both official and unofficial estimates of those whose health was negatively affected by the Chernobyl accident (i.e. "casualties") typically include those that were killed by the blast, those suffering acute radiation syndrome, and those whose cancers (thyroid) were potentially attributable to the accident. (Of the last group, any attribution is necessarily probabilistic because there is still no proven biomarker within thyroid tumour tissue that proves that the carcinogenesis was a result of radiation exposure. I am aware that one group has published findings of a couple of studies on genetic markers of radiation-induced thyroid cancer but their output hardly constitutes a definitive view of the subject.) More importantly, however, I think that the psychological and socioeconomic effects of the Chernobyl accident have not be quantified in terms of health impacts. In my view, this is where you find the really enormous inaccuracies in the official and unofficial estimates. That a whole community was effectively forcibly relocated, that thousands of liquidators had to live with the uncertainty of whether their health had been negatively affected by their exposures: the uncertainties in estimating the effects of these issues on psychological (and physical health) likely hugely exceed any quibbling over low dose radiation effects.Jimjamjak (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree with you. I think that by far the largest impact of the Chernobyl disaster comes from stress and psychological trauma. Stress kills. On the other hand, the effects of low dose radiation will probably never be agreed upon, as from what I understand it is almost impossible to scientifically discern these effects over noise. This however demonstrates that they are quite small (at least it gives a low upper bound). In short, I don't think we will ever have consensus on the health impact of Chernobyl. It seems that the cancers better linked to radiation exposure are rare exactly because we could link them to radiation exposure since they are otherwise rare (high signal/noise ratio). --Ita140188 (talk) 14:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed! So this, I think, goes some way to clearing up the original question posed, which related to whether the reason that true impacts on population health are unknown, disputed and considered controversial, is that there was a cover-up. I think it should now be clear that the reasons are extremely diverse; any cover up may have served to exacerbate what was always going to be a hard question to answer (for the reasons given, among many others), but to suggest it was the main reason seems to be exaggerating its importance at the expense of considering the many other "unknowns".Jimjamjak (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

How many deaths are attributed to other energy accidents likewise vary. Like how many deaths from the Banqiao dam burst or more recently from the carcinogenic compounds used to "clean up" the Deepwater Horizon oil-platform explosion and its litigation-heavy controversial clean up. Just because it likewise "is very difficult to estimate" just how many people will die from this or indeed the global recurring energy accident of inhaling benzopyrene from fireplaces around the world that plume every day, that all these epidemiology issues are heavily disputed, doesn't mean the men on the deepwater sea platform, that died definitely were burnt to death. Or that the men at chernobyl died.

Is the actual cover-up that "the true impacts on population health" are as firmly based on the linesr-no-threshold hypothesis as it is, for particulate matter every time you light a camp fire and plume tiny invisible particles of soot downwind into kids lungs?

The world health organization estimates 2 million lives are cut short every year from burning stuff/particulate matter. That's how many chernobyl's worth of death year-in-year out? That you've contributed to?

"Most harmful" radionuclides
In the section on Human Impact, I question what the following sentence means: "The four most harmful radionuclides spread from Chernobyl were iodine-131, caesium-134, caesium-137 and strontium-90". What is considered "harm" in this case? The rest of the paragraph goes on to explain some of the issues about radiation risk of individual radionuclides being different, depending on half-life, volatility etc., but I'm not convinced that these relate to "harm", or even what "harm" means here. I don't want to change it without first understanding better what might have been intended here.Jimjamjak (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Update to the "Recovery" section based on Chernobyl New Safe Confinement Page
There appears to be some inconsistency here which should be cleaned up. From NSC page: "Construction was completed in the end of 2018." From "Recovery projects" of this page: "The NSC was moved into position in November 2016 and is expected to be completed in late-2017.[239]" 67.202.213.1 (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Was the decrease below 700MW intentional?
The sentence fragment "An output of 700 MW was reached at 00:05 on 26 April. Due to the reactor's production of a fission byproduct, xenon-135, which is a reaction-inhibiting neutron absorber, core power continued to decrease in the absence of further operator action" needs a citation that specifically states the the reactor power kept decreasing below 700MW without operator action. Other sources seem to indicate that the power was deliberately being reduced. "Midnight in Chernobyl" (by Adam Higginbotham) claims that the power was held steady at 720MW when Dyatlov ordered the power to be lowered from that level down to 200MW. This is supported by the witness testimony of Yuri Tregub at the 1987 trial, found here: http://www.physiciansofchernobyl.org.ua/eng/books/Karpan/Chernobyl_trial.pdf (p 20). Dyatlov himself claims that Akimov and others started reducing power below 720MW on their own accord because of some miscommunication. In both cases, though, the power decrease was caused by deliberate operator action. (although of course the sudden drop to <30MW was not intentional) 46.18.105.62 (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Lead is too long?
The "Lead is too long" template has been posted. However, the WP Manual Of Style states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." This is a large article and a correspondingly large lead is required. This is particularly important as the subject is technical, but needs to inform and engage non-technical readers.

Key points which have to be made are:
 * The reasons for the accident. This was a fourth planned test of this type and was designed to improve safety. The test was poorly conducted, safety devices were over-ridden and there were inherent reactor design faults.
 * The accident was an initial explosion then protracted release of radioactive materials
 * The casualty totals are still unclear
 * The large emergency efforts required and the scope of the disaster
 * Long term remediation

I think those are covered, though some streamlining of narrative, but not removal of topics, could take place. Two extra issues could be added: evacuation and long term effect on contaminated areas and global nuclear power. They do not have to be long but summarize existing body text.

If there is anything to be done about reducing the size and form of the article, it is to remove the later overview section, which is unnecessary, and tries to do the job of the lead. See talk earlier for this proposal. Dougsim (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ...Greenpeace being cited in the new lead, is this a joke?..As yeah that tells me and anyone else reading this how medically unhinged and not to mention just how in breach of WP:MEDS, this and their promotion of a lead with false-balance science-fiction-quackery pushing, whomever wrote the new intro is, are really all about.


 * I will be editing this article back to the way it was and re-instating what the head of the UN development program has said about the accident "that there is a vast industry in presenting a false imagine of the accident".


 * Clearly that notable quote that has obviously been disappeared, garned the ire of the FUD and obfuscation gang editing recently, that the quote was taken out back and disappeared. That along with the overview section similarly once summarizing the modern supporting health studies, that made it clear that evacuation was unnecessary for the vast majority of people and was only conducted for political favor-winning purposes near the fall of the USSR and not actually an evacuation supported by any deep medical assessment.


 * Indeed the later phases of the evacuation has killed more people, moving them into smog-towns and cities like Kiev. Take a deep breath. Inhale the invisible particles.


 * so on the issue of the casualty total, it needs to make clear direct deaths, that is those that have been proven to be causal and the larger, completely statistical latent LNT computed deaths, which will always remain "unclear" just like how many people that you and your town has killed from lighting their fireplaces every winter, is statistically unclear. See particulate matter. Or the data on how many people does the German coal industry kill each year as a matter of business as usual? Sending plumes around the continent and globe, the precise number is by definition unclear. Though I wouldn't include ridiculously partisan, conflict of interest drenched Greenpeace figures on that either in the lead. When actual medical publications on the radiation, by real professionals are more than enough, lest you fall into "science-fiction" land. Which is where the peer-review of that greenfarce figure, lives.


 * Science-fiction aside, as why not say it killed 10 million? Or 50? When does it become absurd to you? The inherent fact that in the actual peer-reviewed medical field, a precise uncertainty, of how "unclear" the casualty rate is, or will be, is a commonality across the entire field of epidemiology and this repeatedly glossed over reality, needs to be conveyed, otherwise readers will have come away thinking the uncertainty is some kind of radiation/chernobyl specific issue. When it's actually really not.


 * I'm a firm respector of making all energy accidents articles, have a similar peer-review summarization. I haven't been involved in it but the issue would be the same if we write the Deep Water Horizon article with the same overly dramatic wording and place every un-scientific pressure-group's estimates on the death toll from the carcinogenic compounds used to disperse the largest oil spill in human history? Or likewise the suggestion that the cavalier planned and implemented wind farm construction accident, triggering the 2003 Derrybrien landslide we had here in Ireland, killed and "unclear" but reported 20 billion fish according to one global anti-wind pressure-group, instead of the actual, though still very serious 50,000 fish. What do you think? Would we include that higher, un-peer reviewed number, in the introduction? Come off it.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Babushka's returns
In the overview section of the article, I once had detailed the Research by epidemiologists on potential years of lives lost, by evacuating and moving to Kiev,[or london for that matter] with the health outcomes of that compared to staying in many areas of the "exclusion zone". This peer-reviewed and illuminating research was removed without rhyme or reason lately, seemingly supplanted by greenfarce politboro junk "science". The once, by complete contrast, peer-reviewed epidemiology analysis is also supported by these "anecdotal" reports that the thousand or so Babuska/older females, who quickly moved back and didn't accept relocation, live longer lives than their compatriots that accepted moving.

I'm going to re-instate the peer-reviewed research and include this serrendiptiously stumbled upon, introductory and interview heavy documentary, with its anecdotal accounts in support of the relative sanctuary in the coming days. As evacuation of the vast majority of people in the "exclusion zone" wasn't based on any detailed scientific health study. It really was just political after a certain 135,000 point.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-04-26/30-years-after-chernobyl-these-ukrainian-babushkas-are-still-living-their-toxic

Boundarylayer (talk) 15:51, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

This tabulates the dose and percentage mortality increase from Cs-137, to those who returned. https://bmcpublichealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2458-7-49

Review required - Mousseau
Not sure how this should be flagged but the following has clearly been edited maliciously at the beginning of the sentence without any citation:

“Apart from continuing to publish experimentally unrepeatable and discredited papers, Mousseau routinely gives talks at the Helen Caldicott organized symposiums for "Physicians for Social Responsibility", an anti-nuclear advocacy group, devoted to bring about a "nuclear free planet".” MC431431 (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

The above sentence as written in a progressive present tense and voice, is logically unverifiable, as it implies that at any moment in time Mousseau is publishing discredited (etc.) papers. Should be edited and sourced to state that Mousseau has published x papers believed to be discredited[source] and y papers using unrepeatable methods[source], and has given z presentations at the Helen Caldicott Center...[source]. If such sources cannot be provided, paragr. is unsuitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frack Wells (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The statement : "The reactor had a dangerously large positive void coefficient of reactivity. ... This behaviour is counter-intuitive, and this property of the reactor was unknown to the crew." is not true, because the RBMK reactors have been designed for weapon plutonium production. But it is true that only the approved members (State Secret) have been informed officialy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.197.77 (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2019
In the last paragraph of the introduction,

The Chernobyl disaster is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, both in terms of cost and casualties.[17] The struggle to safeguard against hazards immediately after the accident, together with later decontamination efforts of the surroundings, ultimately involved over 500,000 liquidators and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles (roughly $30 billion USD in 1986, or $68 billion USD in 2019 adjusted for inflation).[18][19] The accident prompted safety upgrades on all remaining Soviet-designed RBMK reactors, of which 10 continue to be operational as of 2019.[20][21]

I propose to change this to

The Chernobyl disaster is considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in history, both in terms of cost and casualties.[17] The struggle to safeguard against hazards immediately after the accident, together with later decontamination efforts of the surroundings, ultimately involved over 500,000 liquidators and cost an estimated 18 billion rubles (roughly $30 billion USD in 1986, or $68 billion USD in 2019).[18][19] The accident prompted safety upgrades on all remaining Soviet-designed RBMK reactors, of which 10 continue to be operational as of 2019.[20][21]

the first version is redundant. 2601:18E:101:BAAD:691C:7B4B:D431:4DC0 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "adjusted for inflation" clarifies the 2019 figure, and isn't detrimental to the reader's understanding.  Orville1974 talk 23:08, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Is the Overview section required?
The key points of the disaster are in the lead, where they should be. The overview appears to be a less detailed recitation of some of those, and other points which probably have a better home elewhere in the article. Readers would be helped by a simple chronological account, starting with the context of the accident, and the accident itself. Is the overview needed? Dougsim (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Note that the WP Manual Of Style states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic."

Dougsim (talk) 10:09, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the article has been heavily altered into its present poor state. Would you support a roll-back vote? The older circa end of 2018 framework was far more illuminating.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I think a roll-back would be difficult as it would get rid of the good editing also. I've moved text out of the overview into the lead and the evacuation section. Also put in a better intro for the Accident section. Dougsim (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Can you give an example of the "good editing" done to the intro and overview in recent months? As apart from the very specific one line that updated the conversion rate of roubles to dollars. I don't see any good editing. Instead I see the insertion of what has been referred to in peer-review, as greenfarce "science fiction" figures and also disturbingly see that reliable sources have disappeared from the intro and overview. Which is especially troubling, a disappearance of modern medical assessments that received reputable peer-review in one of the world's leading epidemiology journals. Has been completely expunged from existence. Is all this what you consider "good editing"?


 * I will be removing the greenfarce figure from the intro in the coming days. Actually I'll do it now as it's a textbook attempt to sneak past medical quackery, under the cloak of "being neutral, giving editorial false balance. When you've been rocked we have WP:RSMED especially to deal with this FUD and disinformation activism.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 02:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Section on teratogenic/malformations is skewed
The section presents anecdotal reports, even pictures of such yet doesn't present any of the reputable investigative research.

The sole peer-reviewed paper cited in our article, in what is a 7 string drown-out reference attempt, is actually involved in an interesting controversy, yet this fact is not given to readers.

According to the British medical journal Lancet (www.thelancet.com) of April 24, 2010, the results of Wladimir Wertelecki's child development investigations have re-ignited a controversy among international agencies and scientists concerning the impact of internalized radiation through contaminated food on birth defects.

Studies, said the scientist, must look at a host of risk factors for reduced infant brain size in addition to radiation, including maternal drinking of alcohol during pregnancy, maternal nutrition patterns, and other environmental factors.

''Ukrainian investigators are currently partnering with six U.S. University teams funded by the National Institutes of Health to study alcohol impact on the unborn there and in selected international sites. Other teams are analyzing radiation accumulation in pregnant women, with Wertelecki serving as the coordinator for the international partnerships (OMNI-Net Ukraine consortium at www.ibis-birthdefects.org/start/uabdp.htm).''

http://blog.al.com/pr-community-news/2012/07/geneticist_charts_effects_of_n.html

In years since, Wertelecki has began to focus on alcohol consumption and advocate for folic acid fortification in the food supply of all of Ukraine. Not just those living in what is generally regarded as the 155 mile distant "contaminated" area of Rivne, Polissia.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-defect-chernobyl/higher-birth-defect-rate-seen-in-chernobyl-area-idUSTRE62N4L820100324

Boundarylayer (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm removing this ref swarm a previous editor attempted, to ostensibly wow us with numbers of refs, when the actual lack of reputable sources corroborating the very statement is the issue, the statement that diligent record keeping farms recording 350 deformities between 1986 to 1990, yet only 3 in the 5 years before it.

The first ref is by a journalist and is not a medical book, it is also behind a paywall though even if it weren't it's doubtful that any presentation of these records occurs. The second and third reference doesn't even mention farms and is Wertelecki in the journal pediatrics for Pete's sake. The fourth thru fifth is by none other than by someone who was reprimanded for conducting scientific fraud, the Moller and Mousseau pair Etc.

I don't know who the last reference is by, so I'll leave that one ref in the article but have tagged it as needing better sources. If anyone can read the non-english language reference and let us know if it is directly relevant to the claim, then that would be greatly appreciated.

Boundarylayer (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Anatoly Dyatlov prison time discrepancy.
Under Accident/Operating conditions for the test/paragraph 4, it mentions "(In 1987, Dyatlov would be found guilty "of criminal mismanagement of potentially explosive enterprises" and sentenced to ten years imprisonment—of which he would serve five—for the role that his oversight of the experiment played in the ensuing accident.)" However in the page for Anatoly Dyatlov mentions he only served 3 years. Which is it? Avn ginger (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

"Delayed" evacuation of Pripyat: the correct decision
It has taken a while to get meteorological data for both that night and week of the accident but it is now available.

The explosive plume of interest to human health, that fell out of the air. Travelled west. All villages along that path should have evacuated before it reached them but Pripyat was possibly not one of them, laying to the N.W. Had the wind not changed, had it remained blowing strictly to the west, then pripyat may have remained populated today.

The western narrativr is that everyone in pripyat should have been notified immediately and hit the road, as the western media narrative is that apart from Soviet officials trying to save face, avoid embarrassment, that it knowingly did nothing to save the lives of the people of pripyat, if only they had they been woken and evacuated etc. If this occurred there likely would have been more deaths in the population of Pripyat as that road out of town. Took them west, under the fallout plume.

The soviet officials definitely should have evacuated the youth and other radiosensitive individuals, from the inhabitated areas under the western drifting plume but in the early hours of the accident, initially with that easterly-->westerly breeze, the people to evacuate might not have included those of Pripyat proper.


 * https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1384269
 * https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10512-012-9607-5

The IRSN have also produced a plume reconstruction video that is a snapshot every 15 minutes from April 26 to May 6th. The model checks extremely well with ground deposition maps.
 * https://www.irsn.fr/EN/publications/thematic-safety/chernobyl/Pages/The-Chernobyl-Plume.aspx

There are other references that pointedly describe this delayed evacuation matter, without the supporting wind direction data, that I had included in the article years ago, yet like much of that which goes against the western narrative, it has curiously been disappeared and removed.

I wonder why, I'll have to throve thru the edit history of the article and re-add it all but I rememember it was in the overview section, right after the lede. Boundarylayer (talk) 04:15, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Graphite
In the introductory section of the article, footnote 1 states that the graphite in the reactor core did not ignite, but later in the article, the ignition of the graphite is a core part of the chain of events in the incident. Both claims are cited, the former with an archived link to General Atomic, the latter with the IAEA faq (which is less thorough but I think a generally more reliable source). Does anybody have a source mediating these contradictory claims? A more reliable source backing of the former, or thorough source backing up the latter.

Until we can find a conclusive source, I'd suggest introducing the debate in the footnote, and moving it to the first section.

GeekX (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The General Atomic claim is dubious at best. Graphite is elemental carbon (although I've no idea what the composition and structure of the graphite control rods were) When exposed to atmosphere, all that is required to burn (i.e. oxidize) carbon (of ANY structure, any allotrope) is a sufficiently high temperature. (I suppose that at temperatures high enough to mostly dissociate CO2 into plasma, there would be no burning, technically...). Its claim that carbon doesn't burn is simply wrong. (Possibly they assume a context which is lost here, IDK). At sufficiently high temperature, even steel burns. (It is also remotely possible that they base their claim on the fact that few solids burn (without phase change to vapor), which uses a different definition of burning. Generally, "burning" is the process which includes the vaporization of a solid followed by its (exothermic) oxidation which produces enough heat to vaporize more solid (or liquid), (i.e. it is self-sustaining (at a given 'ambient' temperature) rather than the more pedantic use of burning as a synonym for oxidation. (the descriptor 'graphite' indicates that the material is in the solid state.)40.142.185.108 (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Reactor graphite is extremely pure. (I'm not a physical chemist, so I don't know whether that is significant; only that it true.)  The graphite in the reactor was a reactor wide mass constructed with channels to admit the control rods, the fuel rods and allow the water coolant to flow through all.  I'd be glad to acquiesce if you have a nuclear physics source that unequivocally says so; most of the sources I have seen get pretty iffy on whether it burns or not. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Long footnote moved to Accident section Dougsim (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

There is a more modern and convincing analysis that in essence considers the "burning graphite fire" to be the real obfuscation/cover-up that continues. As it was decay heat keeping the graphite cherry-red hot at 700 C. Not hot enough for any appreciable oxidation. Some graphite definitely got pulverized and sent up in plumes during the explosion, it was definitely hot enough for seconds, minutes etc but the suggestion that the nuclear-grade graphite burned for days-weeks. Only to extinguish when the decay-heat of nuclear fuel "coincidentally" dropped too. Is an interesting coincidence.

There is the possibilty that the Soviet manufacturing process involving making nuclear grade graphite incorporated more bitumen than western standards. Though that's conjecture. Wonder if any museums have blocks of the scattered chernobyl graphite to do definitive testing on. That's the only way to settle it permanently. Well the only way I'd be entirely convinced one way or the other.

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Graphite "fire"
Having looked into this further, there are no reputable references that support the suggestion that any of the graphite burnt. Even those who have throved thru national laboratory testing reports^ and even, those who in the comments have written to the IAEA,^^ come away in the former case convinced there was no appreciable oxidation of graphite and those in the latter case, who even took the time to write to the IAEA, receive terse replies that don't have any model evidence nor physical evidence for there being any graphite burning.^^

The chernobyl reactor "fire" was much like the Windscale fire before it, due to fuel cladding, zirconium and magnesium used respectively and in that order, going molten and being in contact with the air.

Incidentally the magnesium used to clad the fuel in Windscale, burns just as well under a CO2 atmosphere. Which is why that fire didn't go out and in fact increased when that poorly chosen "extinguishing" gas was chosen. As it wasn't graphite burning they thought they were witnessing.

Coupled with the melting and then molten uranium oxide fuel from inherent nuclear decay heat, readily combustible materials around it, burn. As with the Windscale fire, it was thought for decades that the graphite must have burnt.

On inspection? None of it did.^^^ highly reliable, inspection references support this fact.^^^

Therefore, we need to make sure not to mislead our readers with similar unsupported rumor that the graphite burnt in chernobyl. As being one of the best solid refractory thermal conductors and having a crystal structure that makes it much less combustible than zirconium and even steel. Puts everything else burning in the reactor but not the graphite. Instead the graphite as in windscale, just conducted the inner zirconium cladding fire heat and visibly radiated the decay heat of the uranium oxides, for weeks. With the observance of the likewise "Cherry red" outer graphite, common between both reactor fires. Though glowing incandescence is not burning. It is simply basic blackbody radiation. You glow at a lower temperature in infra-red not because your skin is on fire.

While chernobyl specific references are thin as to the fate of the graphite. As who has gone in and inspected the graphite at this stage? We have a duty not to misinform readers and present the reality of material responses to meltdown. Rather than regurgitate sci-fi hearsay that graphite went on fire.

They thought that very thing after the Windscale fire, they've since inspected it and all the graphite is still there. So chernobyl igniting graphite is increasingly disputed, not to mention totally unsubstantiated hearsay.


 * Ref ^ https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/did-graphite-chernobyl-reactor-burn
 * and https://web.archive.org/web/20120717102758/http://gt-mhr.ga.com/safety.php


 * Ref ^^ https://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/04/did-graphite-in-chernobyl-reactor-burn.html?m=1


 * Ref ^^^ http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/iacs/nusac/131005/p18.pdf

Boundarylayer (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC) There are no physical lab tests^ nor computer models nor physical chernobyl evidence for there being any graphite burning.^^ all there is, is hearsay. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
"a To reduce the spread of radioactive contamination" should be changed to "To reduce the spread of radioactive contamination" to remove the unneeded additional "a" at the beginning of the sentence.

AChewyLemon (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done NiciVampireHeart 15:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Confusing sentence at "Steam Explosion Risk" section
At the very bottom of that section, after talking about the tunnel drilled by the miners, etc, i found this sentence:

"It is likely that intense alpha radiation hydrolysed the water, generating a low-pH hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) solution akin to an oxidizing acid.[89] Conversion of water from an unknown source, to H2O2 is confirmed by the presence in the Chernobyl lavas of studtite and metastudtite,[90][91] the only minerals that contain peroxide."

I assume that it probably should be located higher, after talking about the divers? Also, after reading it, i have no idea what that means, or why is it important.

Norfindel (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2019
The word 'stories' is misspelled as 'storeys' in the paragraph beginning with the phrase, 'Bolshov's graphite cooling plate' ' Buckydoc (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * ❌ storeys is the British spelling. Alduin2000 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Found two typos. In the Confinement section, tree is used when it should say three (adjacent reactors one through tree). Please change tree to three. In Waste Management section, there is ued when it should be used (dry storage for ued fuel). Please change ued to used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.180.245 (talk) 15:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: fixed the two typos found after the first request was declined. Danski454 (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Add section/information that recent analysis shows first explosion was nuclear not steam
https://www.sciencealert.com/report-analysis-steam-explosion-cause-of-chernobyl-disaster-wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.211.130 (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm looking into it. The reference given is superficial and leads nowhere but a general search on the name of the scientist involved, Eric-Lars de Geer, is yielding information.  Ther is certainly material that needs to be included on the page as a second theory about the explosion.  SkoreKeep (talk) 22:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * As it happens, the "new" hypothesis is the same one that was already mentioned in the "Steam Explosions" section, from De Geer in 2017. I broke the secondary hypotheses about nuclear into a separate section and added some explanation to it. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah I added that years ago. Though the recent re-write helps readabilty. Was the previous summarization, really that bad? De Geer publishes contrarian things usually, most notably about the nuclear tests of N.Korea, he's usually conscientious and always worth giving consideration.


 * No, the previous was not bad but it was apparent that some confusion was afoot, and I thought separating it out from the other theory would help. Given any thought that that might have been the blur beam people report?  Don't know how that could be substantiated; it doesn't sound like the physics community has followed up on De Geers theory at all.  SkoreKeep (talk) 06:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * It would be great if he put an estimate on the yield of the nuclear explosion, as right now we just have the yield of the steam explosion, at approximately "40 tons of TNT". Nothing on the first.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Bridge of Death
Bridge of Death (Prypiat) links to this article, where is that information in the article?--MaoGo (talk) 23:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The content was merged into the main article and later deleted, possibly because it there were no reliable sources to support it. As that information was doubtful to begin with, the redirect should probably put up for deletion as well if nobody found sources for it. Averell (talk) 17:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fear, uncertainty, and doubt (often shortened to FUD) is a disinformation strategy used in sales, marketing, public relations, politics, cults, and propaganda. FUD is generally a strategy to influence perception by disseminating negative and dubious or false information and a manifestation of the appeal to fear.

I remember seeing the now gosh close to 20 yr old Discovery Channel docudrama, on TV in my youth[not reliable] that 2 fishermen were out night fishing on or near the bridge, came down with radiation sickness and it is suggested they died, though I never found any supportive documents anywhere, that 2 fishermen were there or that they died. While a plausible event, no idea where they got it from. Though as mentioned here, in this meta-reference that the town would have slept thru the accident, had everyone been sleeping.

[As bear in mind even the station-operators within the very building, at the operator desk of no.4 itself, didn't even know a major reactor-hall explosion that breached the roof had just occurred, so the audibilty of the devastating explosion at the distance of the town situated kilometers away, at that distance, you wouldn't have heard much of anything louder than distant lightning-thunder, not even wake you from sleep].

As it was near 2 am local time. So the bridge wouldn't have been the quasi-rock-concert venue depicted, in recent TV sensationalism. With foam-party-"snow" falling on them. As for not only the matter of audibility but, I had also initially included into this article though 'someone' deleted it, that the wind direction at the time of the explosion kept all those in the town of pripyat relatively safe from the initial fallout, which was actually graphite-black in appearance not at all like how HBO chose to depict it, as snow. However back to this fictitious and now famous "bridge o'death" foam-party-event, that actually has no evidence to support it and it is more like the "bridge-of-1-solitary-young-night-cyclist-who-was-admitted-to-hospital-then-discharged-and-is-actually-very-much-still-alive, though the-"award winning"-american-interests-behind-the-recent-HBO-Fear, uncertainty, and doubt-effort-that-didnt-even-bother-to -investigate-your-fate. Has decided you died. Not at all the type of stress you probably need in life, after everything already.

https://www.truthorfiction.com/the-chernobyl-bridge-of-death/ Quote- the "May 2019 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' article included an interview with journalist Adam Higginbotham, who spent more than ten years interviewing eyewitnesses and reviewing documents from the disaster. Higganbotham describes an initial dearth of reporting exacerbated both by the Soviet secrecy at the heart of the Chernobyl series and limitations on international reporting from the USSR. After referencing inaccurate initial reports in the United States that claimed 15,000 people died in the disaster, he explains how folklore shaped long-held beliefs about Chernobyl:

[Following the disaster,] all Western correspondents in the Soviet Union were being sequestered in Moscow. They weren’t permitted to go anywhere near Ukraine, and the KGB took active measures to limit the amount of information that they could even get out of Moscow to their offices in the West. These reporters who were stuck in Moscow tried to get information from whatever sources they could. '''In the week after the explosion, the New York Post ran a story where they reported that 15,000 people had been killed, and that the bodies had been buried as nuclear waste in a massive pit somewhere in Ukraine. Stories like that—exaggerated, crazy science fiction—combined with people’s innate fear of radiation to make people think to this day that thousands of people were killed in the explosion … subsequently, other accounts have been published, and they contain a lot of horrifying myths and folk tales that appeal to people’s worst expectations and conceptions''' of what might happen in an accident like this. The interviewer then asks for an example of those referenced myths, which Higganbotham answers in comments regarding Pripyat’s Bridge of Death:

So, there’s two really good examples. People talk about the “bridge of death,” about the idea that a load of residents of Pripyat went out to stand on this railway bridge, which stood at the top of Lenina Prospekt, the main boulevard into the city, and watched the burning reactor from that standpoint. And that, in the subsequent years, every person who stood on that bridge died. I could find no evidence of that. Indeed, I spoke to a guy who was seven or eight at the time, who did indeed cycle over to the bridge to see what he could see at the reactor, which was only three kilometers away. But he’s not dead. He’s apparently perfectly healthy.

There’s a lot of these assertions made, because they’re conveniently horrifying. End QUOTE.

Another reference, though of even poorer medical quality to the Bulletin, is this apparent BBC interview of a facility engineer. In which the following is mentioned. It corroborates the sole solitary 1 young night-prowling cyclist, who's story-and-the-chinese whispers-of-it is clearly what has been picked up morphed and ballooned into that what HBO recently depicted, with about as much attention to reality and research as can be expected from a bunch of script-writers ...and alongside the 1 young cyclist, this chernobyl facility engineer Mr Breus, who was taken to hospital from exposure at the plant, suggests that 1 other potential guy on a date near to, though not actually on, the bridge also was admitted to hospital [in total some 100-300 were hospitalized depending on the exact time after the accident]. It would be from this group of initially hospitalized individuals, that any exposed bridge-or-otherwise-night-strolling-townsfolk, would have also been part of the same medical cohort. However with just 2 guys, one of which wasn't even on the bridge. Is nothing at all akin to the ridiculous "bridge of death" media sensationalism and really questionable, fossil-interests behind HBO, interested in the propagation of tales of yet more people dying who arent even dead! That every one of these fraudulent docudramas have discredited themselves by presenting, as a little investigating and you find they're very much still alive and not only that but it was only one kid out cycling, no one else on the bridge.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48580177 QUOTE. How fatal was the 'Bridge of Death'? In the [HBO]series, Pripyat residents rush to a railway bridge for a better view of the fire, unaware of the exposure. Children are shown playing in the radioactive dust, which falls from the sky like snow. This later became known as the "Bridge of Death" after [western propaganda?] reports that those who stood there allegedly died from radiation sickness. But Mr Breus believes most Pripyat residents would have slept through the explosion, and he [himself a resident] only learned of the accident when he arrived at work the following morning.

I've never heard there was a crowd of people who went to watch the fire at night," he says. "In hospital, I was treated with a guy who biked to that bridge in the morning on 26 April to watch it. He got a mild type of acute radiation syndrome, a doctor said. "Another friend treated at the same time said he had a date with his girlfriend close to the bridge that night. He had health problems afterwards. End QOUTE.

Though it again needs to be beared in mind, just because someone stood on the bridge, with a bike doesn't tell us what they did afterward. Which might actually be the environment they went into, that was the cause of their exposure. As you're a young cyclist, where do you cycle to next? Do you get closer? Find a different vantage point? Likewise the guy on the date. Did he go home or stay up all night, as many of us often do, wondering if our date got abducted by aliens, or Libyans? Where does this dating-guy likewise go next?

Either way. No fallout fell on them here like snow. We'd still need medical references and finding an interview with both fellows and what they did next, is all the kind of stuff we would need to be the kind of references to do this with the proper care it deserves. As there are already too many crap references in the article as is, concerning health matters that don't even meet WP:MEDS.

At this point in time though. It is probably safe to conclude there was just one person on the bridge. With a possible second near to it. I'll keep looking for the night-fishermen. Though nothing supports the massive town-or youth-gathering, maligningly depicted by the recent HBO "information" effort...a network funded by, guess which interests and fossil fuel conglomerate?


 * It's hard to carry on a conversation when you don't sign your comment. If you are Boundarylayer, do you really want to carry on this argument both here and at the Deaths page? For the record, I agree about the "Bridge of Death".  I have not been able to find anything on it in the last ten years.  One thing it's definitely not is lit with what looks like 40 watt fluorescent light tubes.  It's at 51.395,30.0695, btw.


 * In any case, I believe I read about the two fishermen in Grigori Medvedev's book. He names them by surname, both start with P. He said one of them got 400 rem, but didn't die of it. SkoreKeep (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes it's me. I was under the impression the talk-page-bot had begun to autosign us, freeing us from the four ~'s tildes. Apparently that time saving service, is still in development. Onto the disturbing propagandist invention of the bridge of death. The scene is definitely not based in fact. There was just 1 cyclist, who's name and interview of, would really help put the story to bed. Oddly neither Adam Higginbotham nor the engineer who was admitted to hospital with the boy, spell out his name. Other than letting us know he didn't die.


 * As with much of the undocumentarian sensationalism of the series. What looks to have happened is 1 1 young nightrider was on the bridge and was taken to hospital

Western media then took this and turned it into a full on child rock concert venue, now with your keen eyed 40W fluorescent viewing lights, were tens of children as young as 5 are for some reason out of bed and on the bridge at 1-2am local time and these kids, none of whom have ever come forward, then get oddly get white coral-reef fallout from castle bravo in 1954 dropped on them...for some clearly un-documentarian "let's maximize the dramatic horror" motives of poisonous-snow. When in reality, it was just 1 young man. No one else was there apart from an older guy some distance away from the bridge, on a date. Who seemingly never showed up? Also you would think if all those people were really on the bridge, as depicted if it was any way in the realm of reality. Then 1 of them would have brought a camera and we would have pictures of the fire.


 * Were the 2 men in Grigori Medvedev's book. That he names by surname, both starting with P and that he said got 400 rem, but didnt die. Were these 2 fishing in the coolant reservoir next to the power station? Secondly, did they present themselves for medical attention as presumedly the 1 cyclist boy and dating man near to the bridge, also presumedly did? Or did they simply go home? I must pick up the book sometime.


 * Looking forward to putting this article onto the reliable sources and dispelling the fantastical disinformation effort, of the recent tv series.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I can only agree, BoundaryLayer. There's a lot of people saying about how historically true it is (or may be), but while history can be argued over, the science should not be, and it is the science misinformation that is so damaging. I'll see if I can find my copy of Medvedev's book (it's on a Kindle) and see if I can track that story down. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes but in the HBO series, the expert witness testifies that Western reactors are safer due to containment, negative void coefficient, and so on. So if Western reactors are safer, how exactly is the mini-series fear mongering for Big Oil(tm)? Oversoul (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, there is that, but good points based on bad facts are as castles built on shifting sands, as the Bible says. One needs to get the facts right from the start and not simply trust the final conclusions drawn by those that propagated the error in the first place. This is, after all, an encyclopedia, not a fable. SkoreKeep (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

§==2 Men out, night fishing 500 m away, on Reservoir== "At least two people have reported what they saw and heard at distances of half to a few kilometers away from the power plant. Vladimir Chernousenko, former head of the Ukrainian Academy of Science and the scientific coordinator of the Chernobyl cleanup, has reiterated the story of a witness that was out fishing on the cooling pond some 500 m away from Block 4 when the accident happened. He heard a large clap followed by an explosion. Then, in a couple of seconds he saw a bright blue flash that was followed by an enormous explosion."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1384269

The 2 men are apparently named in Grigori Medvedev's book according to SkoreKeep.

Who they were, again seems akin to the cyclist nightrider on the bridge, Lots of people mention them though everyone quiet to come forward and tell their story? Suppose privacy is a forgotten virtue?

Anyone with information from these 2 nearest people to the reactor that night, would be an outstanding addition to the article. Boundarylayer (talk) 14:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Here you go, BoundaryLayer. Here is the text of Grigori Medvedev's book, https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a335076.pdf, and the fishermen are discussed on page 25 actual, 27 in the pdf. SkoreKeep (talk) 00:35, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks man, do you think we should have a line or two about these men? Ping:SkoreKeep
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 03:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll see to it.
 * OK, saw to it. Added a paragraph under "Human" (2nd paragraph). You need to add the reference you have to bicycle boy on the bridge.  Any other nonNPP employees watching? SkoreKeep (talk) 07:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The man on the date, that Breus mentions. However it's not known if he abandoned his post and could see anything from his particular rendezvous location.
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2019
In the third sentence of the "Fire Containment" section of the "Immediate Crisis Management" section, the word "dangerous" should be "dangerously", since it is in the adverb position. Tryan35 (talk) 22:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ ComplexRational (talk) 22:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Boundarylayer (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Assortment of misinformation promoted by fossil funded HBO
We are inundated with readers who saw a ridiculous TV show based on an even more fantastical novel recently.

Dr. Gale who treated every patient admitted to hospital, has replied to the false representations and with these references we can do the job of an encyclopedia to detail what really transpired and put this industry based on false representations, superstitious urban legends and appeals to fear, into the place it belongs, the scrap heap of history.

We should have a section on treatment of those taken to Hospital, the account found in the novel is not corroborated by anyone, the ARS patients were not contagious, did not cause the health effects on others that were suggested and Dr. Gale who treated the 200 or so men and 1 cyclist boy in the no.6 hospital, is a reliable primary source and understandably somewhat irate at the bullshit he recently had to sit thru.

https://cancerletter.com/articles/20190524_3/

A series of letter that has been picked up as notable in the press(if that matters) https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/11/top-ucla-doctor-denounces-depiction-of-radiation-in-hbos-chernobyl-as-wrong-and-dangerous/#6b2f8c861e07

A broader but still decent primer on the list of gross fallacies propagated by the series and novel, with OSTI references is. https://www.livescience.com/65766-chernobyl-series-science-wrong.html

Also, The fire, from what I've read, was not as depicted. No personnel operating at the facility that night nor indeed even the firefighters report a fire akin to the one depicted. Instead what was observed was some roof spots of as you'd expect, thick black smoke and potentially blazes here and there, from the bitumen used on the roof, being heated by scattered fuel pellets and the like. To keep in mind however, is the graphite scattered on the roof didn't cause the fire and likewise wasn't on fire as Misha and other firefighters picked it up with their hands when arriving at the scene. So the fuel-debris and the intrinsic decay heat of the scattered fuel, produced hot spots and plausibly ignited the bitumen roof in places, with the concern that this "fire" would spread to the large turbine hall roof and the roof of the adjacent unit 3. A full description of the fire by actual firefighters such as Zakharov, would be ideal and is much needed for the article.

The fires on the roof were nonetheless put it and by work time fornthe next shift at the facility, the engineers arrived not even aware that there had been a fire. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-48580177

It is also something of a sleight of hand suggesting the firefighters actually put out "the fire" in the usual or conventional sense of what that word elicits, as it seems far more likely they were simply cooling the particles of nuclear fuel, laying now on the roof, fuel that would continually melt the bitumen and re-ignite the roof material for a few hrs until about 6am, at which point, the decay heat dropped sufficiently to no longer have sufficient energy to raise bitumen to its auto-ignition temperature.

Also personal accounts by firefighters becoming "overwhelmed" and "losing sight"/going blind from "radiation" on topping the ladder and landing on the roof to locate their "friends", namely by Petrovsky, here https://thebulletin.org/2019/05/the-human-drama-of-chernobyl/ Are not reliable accounts. All suggestions of being "blinded by z radiations" and yet having sufficient cognizants to turn-back, are inherently highly dubious, when you don't keep your mental faculties under such ionizing radiation exposure that is intense enough to cause blindness, you do however keep these self-orientation faculties with the far more mundane blindness from acrid smoke in their eyes that anyone who has driven past a road tarring operation gone wrong, ending in a bitumen fire, will exwctly what I'm talking about. You can also tell it wasn't radiation induced blindness as there is no such thing as transient, temporary, ionizing radiation induced blindness. There is, however temporary blindness when you're unlucky enough to have smoke blown into your eyes by the wind, it gets in your eyes, stings like crazy that is then corrected with your lacrimatory ducts, in a few minutes, that wash your eyes. In sum, firefighters cannot diagnose themselves of radiation induced blindness. At most Petrovsky might have experienced "flashes" akin to those that flew to the moon. Yet in their testimony doesn't describe flashes, so the loss of sight, was from the more mundane smoke.

Perhaps most egregious of all, however is there was no bridge of death, no white fallout. No town gathering on the bridge. Fallout from the reactor accident was actually black from the pulverized reactor-grade graphite, which was entrained in the plume and also fell in the direction, away from the town, fell on the red forest etc. For the first day or so. So the called lauded research team behind the crack-HBO outfit, I'm thinking probably got the "white snow" concept from the decades prior and much different bit equally popularized and serialized/"inspiration" for On the Beach and Godzilla, the 1954 Lucky Dragon 5 event. The dragon, a fishing ship which sailed thru pulverized coral reef following a US nuclear detonation on Bikini Atoll/pacific proving ground. The fallout encountered by the fishing crew there was white, due to coral-reef being mostly pure calcium carbonate. So unless this chernobyl bridge of death doesn't just exist only in the twilight zone imagination of the collective conscious of the script writers, the only other conclusion is it seemingly went straddling the time dimension, having simultaneously existing in 1954 at the same time as chernobyl, flickering in and out of linear time existence in the pacific ocean. It's just your usual crock of hollywood bullshit.

No bridge of death scene ever happened. No detective character from minsk. No convenient US talking point of the "lesson learned". Expertly dismissed as an utter contrivance allegory to engage in a subtext of cautionary-tale US finger-wagging at Trump. Worth the read, by an author and genuine primary source seeker. https://thebulletin.org/2019/05/the-human-drama-of-chernobyl/

Helicopter crash did not happen as depicted and again, was not caused by radiation exposure but occurred in October, that is 6 months after the accident. We obviously need to clear this upnfor our readers. October at a time that the reactor was close to cold shut down from decay heat, the helicopter construction crew that perished in the crash and to honor them, instead of using their deaths for "dramatic" purposes, were coordinating putting up the "objekt" radiation shield for the benefit of the other operators of Unit 1-3. They were not frantically trying to prevent re-criticality or put out a fire, as dishonorably suggested to advance someones hollywood credentials. Disturbingly and hypocritically, the very underlying theme of the fictitious narrative. Lying for ones careerist benefit.

No one was threatened with a bullet in a helicopter trip either but I think we can clear up the factual matters pretty well with the references we have here. There are many similar fabrications that would be hard to incorporate in our encyclopedia article, though just to keep in mind. How much bull and wool was pulled over peoples eyes by HBO.

Ideas for the article, include trimming the bubbler pool section and the related even deeper underground liquid nitrogen-come-concrete injection section. As neither were the accident and didn't change a thing about it, they were concerns brought about by dumping material onto the fuel/reactor "fire" and really were more about correcting their preceived fears of what this material would do, compressing the fuel but all a waste of time, that needlessly exposed people. Insensitive? Not really, the only reason why either are even in the article is due to western media sensationalism that Ananenko and his bubbler pool team died, a falsehood propagated by the prior and just as claimed to be well researched BBC docudrama, Chernobyl. So we can trim these sections down to 2 paragraphs. They feared dumping material was going to speed up, compress and force the direction of meltdown downward, so they began to panic, implemented these preventive precautions, No one died during them, and ultimately it wasn't even necessary.

https://www.livescience.com/65766-chernobyl-series-science-wrong.html

Also apparently by presenting Adam's investigative work here, on the article year or so ago, we had some effect on the writer of the show who had to do a major change when "late in production" he found out that the similar BBC misinfo effort chernobyl, which presented men dying soon after entering the bubbler pool and that the pool was really deep and so on. All those "layman" accounts, were also, total bullshit. https://www.grunge.com/154648/times-the-chernobyl-miniseries-lied-to-you/?utm_campaign=clip

Boundarylayer (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you sign your contribution, sir? Why do you bring up things here that are not in the article, such as the Bridge of Death? (as of yesterday, at any rate).


 * As for your [fire] paragraph, I'm afraid it is you who has the burden of proof. There are way more than enough witnesses to various aspects of the night's activities to accept your beliefs.  For one, Vladimir Shashenock, rescued from under a pillar at the explosion was taken immediately to a Kyiv hospital where he died the same day afternoon.  Now, I have my own list of scientific things wrong in the show, but this is hardly the place for it, mine or yours.  Perhaps you need to find an article on the HBO series, and edit that. SkoreKeep (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Signed, corrected. We have sufficient references to illuminate the common misconceptions/misinformation, if you have a list that is referenced, or better yet illuminates a matter that is drenched in misunderstanding, then we can definitely incorporate that here on this article, which endeavors to be an accurate encyclopedic account. On that front, I'm still searching but in our description of the fires. No eye-witness firefighter testimony speaks to fires everywhere on the outside of the facility, as recently depicted on television, do they? Instead there were fires on the roof, that were difficult to extinguish. That's all. At least from what I have been able to find. What sources do you have which suggest fires were all over the outside of the building? Lastly, How does Shashenock's fate, pillar falling, relate to the fires, on the outside of the building?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 02:40, 23 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Much better to talk to a name than to a phantom.  My remarks about the fire were, of course, addressed by your edits about them since.  It sounded to me like you were denying there was any fire or that anyone was even working with the reactor that night.  I didn't (I think) say they were all over.  I cited Shashenock as the user of the only metal lined coffin that I knew about before the HBO series that depicted others getting the metal coffins as well.  He got one because he had several deep wounds the doctors in Kyiv thought might have been flying uranium fragments replete with fission products. I've been trying to track down who supports the others in Moscow getting the metal coffins, but there's unsubstantiated FUD all over the Internet thanks to the series.  SkoreKeep (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

On our discussion on the fires, still do not have any reputable firefighters who support the view of fires blazing all around the outside of the facility upon arrival. They only speak of the fire on the roof, nothing more. Are we agreed? Or do you have some russian language sources that say otherwise? As for the coffins, it is a curious one. Is there any official documents that corroborate this fabled "needed to be buried in a lead/zinc etc coffin" suggestion?

As Dr. Gale, who flew to hospital no.6 in Moscow and having overseen and treated every ARS man+the one so far unnamed cyclist boy there, Dr.Gale makes great pains to sail against the unsubstantiated FUD that the patients here were any way appreciably radioactive. Having treated the men, he is understandly put off by the series, which suggests one of his patients caused a death in a visitor.

https://cancerletter.com/articles/20190524_3/

As for the coffins. While it is plausible that Shashenock in Kyiv received a lead coffin, as you suggest. He and the one other non-survivor, the 2 essentially immediate deaths, those 2 who died in the explosion and never really made it to hospital alive. This sole 2, plausibly might have got a lead coffin. Never seen an official document corroborating the story. It's fairly likely.

Though as it is now a piece of disinformation widely held by many, that everyone got a lead coffin. An urban legend has clearly reached these ridiculous proportions. We do really need a well written reference, better than all these which I'm assembling here, to illuminate the reality from the total sensationalist fiction of the series, that has now been perpetrated on a global scale.

https://www.upi.com/amp/Top_News/Voices/2019/06/21/HBOs-Chernobyl-lets-artistic-license-get-in-way-of-facts/7761561122074/

Do you have any references, that pointedly speak of Shashenock getting a special coffin? As what the series has done is fraudulently conflate the unique condition of this one mortally wounded man, to represent all of the survivors under Dr.Gale's care, who were treated in an entirely different hospital. Boundarylayer (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I've been looking and continue to look. Definitely, Shashenok died in the Pripyat (not Kiyv) hospital 5 hours after the accident, and was buried nearby, without his wife present (she was evacuated, apparently early).  He was reburied in Moscow with his comrades about a year later.  I have a good news reference that states the others were buried in the Moscow cemetery without services, and armed guards were actively discouraging curiosity about the graves.  The reference was published in June of 1986.  SkoreKeep (talk) 03:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

The medical management of all those hospitalizd, and where, is here. The DOI code can be used in some online access libraries to read the entire thing. No mention to lead coffins, for anyone other than Shashenok. Together witth Dr. Robert Peter Gale's more recent cancerletters denunciation of the presentation and 'danger', o we have sufficient references to write a line or two about treatment in the article? To put the myths to bed? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10512-012-9607-5

Dr. Gale visited the two hospitals. Moscow and the lower dose patients in Kiev[Shashenock isn't really a patient as did he ever regain consciousness]. Gale's marrow treatment was naturally only conducted in those who absorbed higher doses and all of those were taken to Moscow. https://www.nytimes.com/1986/07/13/magazine/the-chernobyl-doctor.html

Beta burns were a serious medical issue for some victims of the Chernobyl disaster; from 115 patients treated in Moscow[all of which as far as I can tell were plant personnel and firefighters], 30% had beta burns covering 10–50% of body surface, 11% were affected on 50–100% of skin; the massive exposure was often caused by clothes drenched with radioactive water. Some firefighters suffered beta burns of lungs and nasopharyngeal region after inhalation of massive amounts of radioactive smoke [likely from the short lived Uranium-237 and especially neptunium-239, that are the most energetic nuclides in the first few minutes to hours and weeks, it is only after a few weeks that the most energetic to inhalation becomes the well known radioidodine and to a lesser extent, in third place, Thallium and Rubidium]. Out of 28 deaths, 16 had skin injuries listed among the causes.

Also as a side note, U-237 and especially neptunium-239, are also primarily what sickened the crew of the lucky dragon. It decays so fast, by beta decay, that it is all gone by a few weeks. Combined with the fact that there is far more of it than any single fission product, that combination makes it represent the greatest hazard immediately in the minutes-to-days timeframe. After about a month and it is the more well known radioiodine that takes the pack position as the main hazard. Though in the first few hours to days, it is U-237 and neptunium-239.

The beta activity was extremely high to the firefighters and personnel at Chernobyl, with the beta to gamma energy ratio reaching 10–30, beta energy high enough to damage basal layer of the skin, resulting in large areas for infections, exacerbated by gamma induced damage to bone marrow and the weakened immune system from the latters more penetrating radiation. Some patients received skin dose of 400–500 Gy. The skin burn infections caused more than half of the acute deaths. Several died of fourth degree beta burns between 9–28 days after dose of 6–16 Gy. Seven died after dose of 4–6 Gy and third degree beta burns in 4–6 weeks. One died later from second degree beta burns and dose 1-4 Gy. The survivors have atrophied skin which is spider veined and with underlying fibrosis.

So to put the sensationalist notion, that 'you are now standing next to a nuclear reactor' to put that notion out amongst one of the many repugnant fictions perpetrated by the disinfo campaign that is the recent HBO/fossil fuel lobby network..when the very doctor, says it is nonsense, when the hospitalized men, who died, deaths that were all due to skin and lung beta burns not gamma exposure. It is nonsensical from first principles that anyone who had a human decontamination skin wash, before having visitors, that such a man could still be a fatal threat to any visitors around them. When not even the external gamma activity the men were exposed to, was high enough to cause them their fatal dose in all cases. So how did the novelist/script writers, think the even smaller internal gamma dose emitters that conceivably may have lodged in their lungs, how would that have been sufficient in quantity to pose a hazard to radiosensitive individuals? When to the men themselves, their internal committed gamma dose, was so low, it represents orders of magnitude less dose, than even they, the firefighter men and personnel, were exposed to. Not least Dr. Gale saying the men weren't internally contaminated to such an extent that they were appreciably radioactive. The people who atually treated the firrst responders. Boundarylayer (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2019 (UTC)


 * "Assortment of misinformation promoted by fossil funded HBO" And yet the series concludes with the protagonist proclaiming Western reactors to be safe. Oversoul (talk) 11:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * ...so it tacitly suggests that the Soviet VVER, is unsafe? At present, "Western reactors" aren't being built as they're apparently too expensive. Instead Rosatom have started winning and selling over half of new-construction bids.


 * With this present context in mind, it is understandable why many view the HBO fantasy, as fossil fuel shilling. As again, who funds HBO...exactly? Who benefits $$$ from propogating the fiction of "bridge o'deaths" and maligning the fate of real helicopter pilots, as meeting their fate, not as they did but "being overwhelmed by z-radiations" and crashing? If your family was related to those men, you be happy with their false misrepresentation, for "dramatic" effect?


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * This discussion is just bizarre. I was a Navy nuke. I watched the mini-series. It comes off as a docu-drama, not the anti-nuclear screed, pro oil commericial you opine about. Did we watch the same show? I fail to see how one short, apocryphal bridge scene obliterates the main thrust: lies in abundance are dangerous, lies of the state in disaster times are calamitous. Oversoul (talk) 10:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes Adam Higginbotham in the bulletin interview, cracked that "edgy" allegorical code, as not so subtly hinting at Trump. Yet the creators having invented whole events, all this done not in Trump style, not to benefit themselves? Look, alongside the fiction of the bridge. There also wasn't a reactor "graphite fire" at Chernobyl. There is no physical evidence for it. Just the same hearsay that existed after the Windscale fire, decades later, all the graphite was accounted for, instead zirconium cladding burns away, graphite doesn't burn unless you have the air-flow rate, just right.


 * A further summarization of "the lies in abundance" that the Russian response to the HBO disinformation directed at them, noticed, lies done by HBO for "dramatic"/ trump-style popular-effect, also includes the fiction that station workers stumbled around crying. While much being said about tokenistic attention to detail in the TV fiction, yet to have the people characterized as stereotypes to feed western audience's sense of prejudice. As evidenced by Trump's popularity, the positive reception such lazy prejudical remarks, let alone visual mimickry usually elicits. Has certainly made both rich and famous. For imagine the world-wide popularity of a show on The Three Mile Island accident, with American's eating hamburgers and talking excessively loudly, after the TMI accident then everyone goes home and cooks hamburgers again. Or everyone goes out to McDonalds and passes gas at the table, you know real disgusting filth, all is forgotten of the outside world when the hamburgers arrive. What do you think, would it be a very very popular, "docu-drama", right?


 * What does it matter if this specific scene never happened, as long as the over-arching "thrust" was as hypocritical as it is, a cautionary tale about lies, right? We could even have one engineer in the 3rd episode becoming addicted to hamburgers and eating himself into obesity. I mean it's all plausible, right? We'll call him a "composite character". How popular and how much $$$ do you think we'd make around the world presenting you chubby-wubby yankies like this? Similarly in the recent HBO fiction, somewhere in the third episode, "the main character transforms into vodka that’s devoured by the glass.”
 * “The people are depicted as drunken lowlifes, to the extent that you find in some Hollywood movies, where Slavs show up as these disgusting, repulsive characters.”


 * To end, "many" also consider the HBO fiction, speaks to the present Belarus indecision on signing up for a Soviet designed VVER, right now. With as I said, "many viewing the HBO fantasy" as targetting such billion dollar competitive contracts. As at present, reportedly Rosatom are coming to dominate nuclear builds around the world, much to the expense of Westinghouse/toshiba/Areva and the US Fracking gas, Fossil industry. It's therefore understandable why "many view" the western funded TV fiction, as propaganda directed at Rosatom. With the media as the new-state. When lies by the state, are indeed calamitous. Such as the strategically omitted actual media hysteria being what was behind the evacuating of hundreds of thousands of people years after the Chernobyl accident, away from relative safety into smog filled cities. With the media stoking fear and the spread of it, demonstrably the true calamity of the Chernobyl accident.


 * https://meduza.io/en/slides/illiterate-stupid-uninquiring-idiots


 * "between 5 and 10 times too many people were moved away from the Chernobyl area between 1986 and 1990". This is quoting a summary of a 2017 scientific paper, which at one time was actually in our wiki article. That is, until all the "HBO experts"  came and bagged this fact, took it out back and executed it. For not fitting in with the "official story" western audiences have popularized. A harmless docu-drama? ...Really?
 * https://theconversation.com/evacuating-a-nuclear-disaster-areas-is-usually-a-waste-of-time-and-money-says-study-87697


 * As a navy-nuke, stripping away the obvious political bias we in the West have been bred against the soviet union, some of which is, like bias against the US, very much warranted. I would like to have your opinion on the Three Mile Island accident, on if it happened for the very same reason as the Chernobyl accident? The poor designer-to-operator communication and the same lack of scenario education of operators, in understanding, to have anywhere close, the level of knowledge to safely operate the machine. For finger pointing at the Soviet state, is it not all just a convenient scapegoat? One we can all gather round and beat the dead-horse? A convenient scapegoat. Without truly illuminating that it's actually "based on fact" media, stories, that are really the problem?
 * Boundarylayer (talk) 19:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't be there something about trial/legal action?
Iirc 6 people got prison sentences for the disaster. It wasn't particularly fair to put all guilt to these people, but shouldn't it be present? Alliumnsk (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Review article?
Hello all,

I recently found this proceedings. Barring the bad translation from Russian, it does provide an interesting insight, but I'm currently not involved enough to measure its relevance for this Wikipedia article.

I don't know if anyone heard of this report, or its author, but maybe it is worth considering.

DiederikH (talk) 14:05, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Just finished reading Gorbachev's (a staff scientist) report. His contention is, that by the time the AZ-5 button was pressed the core and the control rods were already in a melted state, therefore the error leading to the accident was strictly that of the operators in withdrawing so many control rods, which he finds was a common happenstance with the RBMKs reactor's operations, even though completely forbidden in the operations manual.  He finds the first explosion was due to steam, the second to 5000 m^3 hydrogen generated in the two seconds separating the explosions.  The first cracked the bioshield lid off the reactor, the second blew it into the air to land sideways.  The positive void and graphite tips were not a factor.  He states that there is some prevarication and tampering of the records made available as evidence. Thus he seems to support INSAG-1 conclusions over those of INSAG-5.  SkoreKeep (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The SL-1 reactor is a perfect example what a western reactor will do if you remove control rods at the wrong time. If that small reactor was as powerful as the RBMK...it's likely the explosion would have been on the same magnitude, albeit not necessarily as massive. Blaming the reactor design, is a bit of a hand-waving tactic, that INSAG-5 gets flak for, as the real accident was all about removing control rods(I've even read the ability to remove control rods was actually intended in the cold-war scenario of Soviet-NATO invasion, to intentionally blow the reactor, in a kind of nuclear-scorched earth, retreat tactic, though as you can imagine, finding official documents that go and spell that out to us readers, are not going to be easy to find). PingUser:SkoreKeep, would you care to comment on that dimension of the "faulty" design?


 * For if you bypass security measures in any LWR, you can place the reactor in just as much as a precarious condition. The take home message from SL-1, as it was with Three mile island and Chernobyl is inherent reactor safety is important but don't allow operators to bypass vital safety systems ever. Not unless they have a PhD in nuclear reactor kinetics. For it is a heady-mix when people of all types, think they know what they're doing, when they've grown accustomed to the normal operation, they feel a familiarity with the machine and procedures but it's all a false sense of security, as they can't foresee that changing 1 parameter is going to have on systems you may have familiarity with.


 * Boundarylayer (talk) 10:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit request
The AZ-5 was a switch, not a button. CleverLuke (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * All accounts that I have seen and heard of it, it was a panel-mounted push switch with a large activation area (6-12 cm^2) suitable to being pushed with one or more stiff fingers, thumb or the palm. It was covered with a clear plastic cover to prevent accidental operation.  SkoreKeep (talk) 22:26, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * AZ-5 was changed to a switch after the disaster because it was noticed that the SIUR could make an error and only drop the rods partway.66.231.197.142 (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oops, I find out I was wrong. The AZ-5 switch (A3-5 in Cyrillic) was a rotary switch with the typical black plastic pointer handle rotary switches usually have.  I have a picture of one (apparently in a different NPP control room; I'm told the one in #4 control room was long ago removed). And yes, it very well may have been changed out in other control rooms as part of the RMBK reforms.  My apologies, CleverLuke. SkoreKeep (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done SkoreKeep (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

re-peopled?
Don't you mean re-populated? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.126.109.232 (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)


 * "Repeopled" works too. SkoreKeep (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Documents and media
Documents and media •	The Bell of Chernobyl •	Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment •	Chernobyl Heart •	The Russian Woodpecker •	TORCH report •	The Truth About Chernobyl •	Voices from Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster •	Voices from Chernobyl (2016 film) •	Chernobyl (2019 miniseries produced by HBO and Sky) Fiction •	Aurora (2006 film) •	Chernobyl Diaries (Disaster horror film) •	Chornobyl.3828 •	Chernobyl: Zone of Exclusion •	Chornobyl - Chronicle of heavy weeks [uk] •	The Truth About Chernobyl •	Decay [de] (Soviet fictional film) •	Decorland [uk] - Markiyan Kamysh's novel about Chernobyl illegal trips, A Stroll to the Zone, is the confession of an illegal Chornobyl tourist and stalker. •	The Gateway (2017 film) [uk] •	Lost City (2015 film) [uk] •	Luxembourg (film) [uk] •	Swan Lake: The Zone [uk] •	The threshold (film) [uk] •	Wolves Eat Dogs •	White Horse •	S.T.A.L.K.E.R: Shadow of Chernobyl (Video game) •	Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (Video game) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa2503 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_Recovery_and_Development_Programme — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa2503 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

" RBMK reactors like those at Chernobyl use water as a coolant"
The article currently states, " RBMK reactors like those at Chernobyl use water as a coolant". However, the website livescience states (https://www.livescience.com/39961-chernobyl.html): "In most nuclear reactors, water is also used as a coolant and to moderate the reactivity of the nuclear core by removing the excess heat and steam, according to the World Nuclear Association. But the RBMK-1000 used graphite to moderate the core's reactivity and to keep a continuous nuclear reaction occurring in the core. As the nuclear core heated and produced more steam bubbles, the core became more reactive, not less, creating a positive-feedback loop that engineers refer to as a "positive-void coefficient."" Which is correct?
 * A coolant is a fluid that takes away heat. So water is a coolant. Graphite is a solid, and therefore not a "coolant", technically.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
 * They are both correct. In RBMK reactors water is only used as a coolant, and moderation is accomplished with graphite. In the most common PWR and BWR designs, water is used both as coolant and moderator (instead of graphite). --Ita140188 (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Live in Chernobyl now
Even it is currently illegal to live in Chernobyll, the nearby town Pripyat and the surrounding area known as the Zone of Alienation or Exclusion Zone. Despite it being illegal, there are still around 140 people who live in these zones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa2503 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi . Is this information that you want to include in the article? Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2019 (UTC)