A chilling reminder of the horrors that total human stupidity can bring. You've got unstable atoms being bombarded with neutrons from other unstable atoms, creating enormous amounts of radiation and heat and they decided to deactivate the safety protocols. Is that even possible in a modern reactor?
this is what happens when, instead of being concerned by a sudden dip in power from loss of reactivity, you yank the control rods out and go full power. the manager (the guy who know what he was doing) was off at some that night. Soviet management practices meets Soviet engineering, the result? yeah
At every stage, from uranium mining through enrichment, R&D, subsidized construction, to disposal, taxpayers subsidized and insure nuclear power. And it pollutes at every step, from the uranium tailings with elements with a half life of 250,000 years that seem to be just left lying around to get into ground water, to the spent fuel rods, most of which are sitting around in water indefinitely. There's NOTHING CHEAP ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER. Chernobyl will be a problem for someone for 1000s of yrs.
I live near the beloved Darlington Nuclear plant in Ontario, and we get fed the same corporate BS here too, the bloody thing accidentally leaks hundreds of thousands of liters of "heavy water" each year into our only source of freshwater. The operators are immune to being held accountable in the event of a disaster too, so if it blows the public and govt get to eat the damage while the owners/operators wash their hands of it and walk away. Our energy still costs a fortune due to their payhikes!
to all of the people wondering something similar to this will not happen in japan. the japanese reactors have containment vessels and were not running during this. the reactor at chernobyl exploded while it was running and there was no containment vessel to contain the radioactivity. Don't worry so much. It's definitely bad but people can't turn their backs on nuclear energy when 1 kg of uranium produces as much energy as 3000 tons of coal
I disagree. I think we need to leave nuclear energy alone. It's too dangerous and we've caught the profiteers skimping on the construction and security of nuclear reactors. When a nuclear accident happens it's not something that can be properly contained. The immediate area becomes a wasteland, unfit for life. We're never told the true story until many years later, after thousands of people have died and many more are on their way to the grave.
@Greyswyndir I agree that nuclear fission reactors will eventually be phased out, but the thing is that it produces a lot of energy (as much as 200 of the world's largest wind turbines, which are half as tall as the empire state building). You also can't judge nuclear safety based on the plants at Fukushima or Chernobyl. The plant at fukushima was designed in 1967, and experts say that nuclear plants get 1600 times safer every 10 years. Modern reactors dont even need power to cool down.
I understand the situation we're in, that we are presently chained to these nuclear power plants because of energy consumption and other factors, etc. I don't buy the argument that newer reactors are somehow safer, nuclear energy is inherently too dangerous for human beings to handle in their present state. Let's face it, the powers that be are greedy and irresponsible and cannot handle the responsibility that nuclear power brings.
@Greyswyndir People are also working on nuclear fusion reactors which produce energy by combining non-radioactive materials. These not only have the potential to produce more power than fission reactors, but they also produce no waste and there's no risk of radioactive fallout. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and everyone is entitled to their own, but I'm studying the nuclear industry at MIT and I know a lot about the safety of modern reactors. PS- sorry about the long response :P
No problem. What I would say to you is question what you're being taught. There are things happening all around us that are simply illusion. What we perceive to be the truth often isn't the truth. If nuclear fusion is everything you say it is then I don't see a problem. But I suspect it isn't as simple as you contend and that fusion has it's pitfalls like fission. If the sacrifice is too great then the output isn't worth it. what about water technology, the Japanese car...
...The Japanese have developed a car that runs on water, any type of H20. If they built a converter/generator that can efficiently power a vehicle then that technology can be used on a larger scale in various different ways. But it probably won't happen because the powers that be don't want us to be self-sufficient and energy independent. They want us dependent on energy, specifically oil because with oil comes war and wars makes more money for these people then anything else.
A lot has changed in a month, huh brother? First, they upped the scale of the disaster to 7 and now there saying it might take a year (nine moths but it will be longer, mark my words) before they can entomb the site in concrete. Day by day more of the truth is being revealed. Now they're saying it is in fact worse then Chernobyl.
@Greyswyndir who's saying that? the thing you have to remember is that the major source of radiation from Chernobyl was cesium, which has a half-life of 30 years. in contrast, the major source in japan is iodine, which has a half life of 8 days. I agree that this accident in Japan is a TERRIBLE accident, but I doubt its effects will be as long-lasting as those from Chernobyl. we'll just have to see what happens. I still stand by seeing nuclear power as a viable source of energy...
@igotN0ceilings You can't judge the safety of all nuclear plants from one that's 40 years old. unfortunately wind and solar have problems with them, and burning coal kills about 13,000 people in the US alone every year, while also causing global warming and leading to the near extinction of species. we are developing types of nuclear reactors (thorium, fusion reactors) which wouldn't be prone to these kinds of disasters, but I fear people's irrational fear of radiation will kill the industry
I've heard of fourth generation nuclear reactors that work much differently then what is in use today. The problem isn't necessarily the science, it's the greedy and immaturity of the rich men who run our planet that cause all of the destruction, not the masses. The masses are ignorant when it comes to what is going on right now, whether about nuclear power or the new order being set up in all of the western nations. They rule us by fear and deception.
@igotN0ceilings Ok, Not gonna comment slay you, but I am going to point out a few things. 1) There's in fact over a hundred different radioisotopes that are released from a a reactor's core in the event of a breach. Not just Iodine 131 in large amounts. 2) It doesnt matter if the half life is 8 days.. if the containment is breached and re-criticalities are happening, you'll just end up counting up to 8 days over and over again. 3) 1 reactor vs 4, + 40years worth of fuel = worse than Chernobyl.
@igotN0ceilings In regards to my first comment. Please remember that Chernobyl had its core radiation release problem relatively controlled in under a week, then it was dealing with the radioactive material all over and stopping the core from hitting the ground water. We are on day 70 and there is NO plan in sight for stopping the ongoing core (X3) release of radiation, let alone the radioactive material scattered about. My friend, this will be far far worse.
@Dreadnaughtos I understand your point, but you have to understand two things. one- the disaster in japan has released about 20% as much radiation as chernobyl did so far. If it continues for another year it very well could release more radiation, but then you run into the fact that most of the fallout is blowing out to sea where it will mix in with the pacific ocean and not harm people. It could possibly be worse, but at this point we really don't know and won't for years to come
At the 1 month mark we were told it was only 10% of Chernobyl, now apparently its 20% after the 2nd month. Using that logic are we 2 assume that we will have reached 100% after 10 months?
I dont disagree about dilution into the sea. However, reactor 3 pushed massive amounts of radioactive particulates into the atmosphere AND jet stream. A particulate can travel in the Jet stream up2 200mph. This is not just falling out on the Pacific.
@Dreadnaughtos Yes it's not just falling in the pacific- it's traveling across the world just like chernobyl did and just like fallout from bomb tests during the cold war. However this doesnt pose a real threat to health all the way across the pacific ocean. Don't get me wrong, this is a TERRIBLE accident, but I don't think it's going to be as bad as chernobyl because most of the particulates are blowing out over the ocean away from people, and because it has released less radiation SO FAR
@Dreadnaughtos by the way- what I meant by not harm people is that it will not harm them as badly as long as it's blowing out to sea. I know that there are still large amounts on the mainland and those will be harmful, but at least it's better than having it blow towards tokyo. We can only hope that they will have this in the 6-9 month time frame they have put forward to prevent it from getting worse
@igotN0ceilings Too bad the containment vessels don't work. Its already been confirmed that ALL THREE containment vessels are breached, which is funny because the Nuclear industry declared there was ZERO risk of them ever breaching and creating another Chernobyl. It doesn't matter if they were running or not. All 3 are still melted down with 3 breaches of the containment vessel. Which means that ANY nuclear power plant ANYWHERE can have the same problem. Try harder.
@Dreadnaughtos true, again. It doesn't surprise me that happened with 40 year old reactors. 4th generation reactors don't need power to cool down, which you may recall caused this whole disaster. Yes, if you do enough to almost anything it could be breached. however if people didn't protest nuclear and drive the price of building reactors through the roof we could have these reactors. alas, we are stuck with 40 year-old ones where these things can happen
@igotN0ceilings A triple meltdown with huge amounts of radiation continually released, making 388 square miles legally uninhabitable.. doesn't surprise you??.. And you expect people to be comforted by the fact that nuclear melt downs don't surprise you? What caused all this was the arrogance that assumed every angle had been covered. Tell me, internationally accepted limit of just 8 hours of back up power.. You willing to wager 4th gen reactors have everything covered?
@igotN0ceilings Also, the containment vessels were damaged by a minimum of a hydrogen explosion and then melting radioactive slag that were all the reactor rods, melting through the pressure vessel, through the piping system and into and then through the containment vessel. So logic would dictate, if ANY pressure vessel should be comprimised, then the containment vessels can not be trusted to do their job, to contain. New reactors are pushing for license globaly, even now. We have new ones NOW.
Radioactive Caesium 134 leaking into the ocean - Half life 2 years, 3,300 times legal limit.
Radioactive Caesium 137 leaking into the ocean - Half life 30 years, 2,400 times legal limit.
Radioactive Caesium 134 leaking into a on site pit from reactor 3 - Half life 2 years, 32,000 times legal limit.
Tell me, does every molecule of water circumnavigate the globe through currents or not? Where do you suppose the Caesium 137 alone will end up? Beaches? Fish? Seaweed? Resorts?
@Dreadnaughtos I think it will mix in with the pacific ocean over time. You can find many radioactive elements such as cesium and uranium in the ocean already. The pacific ocean is about 300 trillion pools of water or something like that, I know it's in the trillions. Five swimming pools worth of water is not going to be a huge deal once gets mixed in. Yes, it will end up in beaches, fish, etc, but the amounts that it will be in will not be dangerous
@igotN0ceilings You THINK it will mix in OVER TIME? You mean you don't know for sure? Your guessing? Heres another fact, parts of the rods were ejected into the ocean, they are EXTREMELY radioactive. They will continue emitting. The small fish have been documented to be radioactive. The medium sized fish will eat the smaller fish. The bigger fish will eat lots of the medium fish. The levels will now be concentrated. We will now eat the big fish. Do you eat fish? Facts please, not opinions.
@Dreadnaughtos that's my mistake not typing in a clear way. Unless all currents in the ocean stop suddenly, it will mix throughout the ocean until it is at harmless levels, I'd love to hear anyone's argument against that. Any fish farmed anywhere near fukushima will be tested rigorously for radiation, we don't need to worry about eating radioactive fish- which I actually don't eat :) This is a local disaster. What isn't a local disaster is how china burns 200,000 tons of coal every minute.
@igotN0ceilings Not worried about the fish ay? Ok :) how about the rising levels of iodine 131 and stontium 89 found in milk all across America?? Its safe by the way.. again because the legal set limits have been raised. Local problem. Ok, well pay attention to thyroid cancer levels and child leukimia around december time this year. If its so safe, then why were 3000 people near Fuku. rushed to hospital on the 17th? The official reason was they all suddenly suffered from "stress".
@Dreadnaughtos it's not because of nuclear disasters that radiation levels there are up to 20 times higher than here in the US, it's because of the ash that is created burning coal which has radioactive elements in it. Nobody will argue that nuclear is a perfect source of energy, that's plain stupid. I'm interested to know if you're so against nuclear, what's your alternative and why is it better? jw
@Dreadnaughtos haha, no :) It has released greater amounts of radiation throughout its history than nuclear has, though. That's the overall point I was trying to make
@igotN0ceilings Ok. So how long has the human race been burning coal?? And how long have we had Nuclear reactors?? No big surprise then if coal has released more radiation longterm then is it really? Though I would like to know where you got that info from? I will read your note. :)
@Dreadnaughtos It was from a book called "nuclear energy in the 21st century." And yes, it's not really that surprising, Its just an interesting little factoid that most people don't know :) Most people for that matter don't know black ash releases any radiation
@igotN0ceilings You know, from one point, your kind of right. You sat that it wont be in dangerous amount. Thats true, if you go by the EPA's NEW guidelines on radiation. They RAISED them after the event. Did you know, you can now drink a glass of water with a lifetimes amount of radiation in it.. and it would be legal. They raised the safe limit just for this event. Just like they did in Chernobyl. Thats why all media outlets are reporting safe levels. Child levels raised from 1mSv up to 20mSv
@Dreadnaughtos I don't want to get in a comment war with anyone. You have your opinion, I have my opinion. If there's one thing that I've learned about people regarding this topic it's that no matter what you tell them they won't change their mind no matter what you tell them. I'm for nuclear power because even with these accidents it's one of the safest methods of dependable energy we've come up with so far, historically its even safer than hydro. Everyone else can have their own opinion
@igotN0ceilings I dont want a comment war either. We can debate tho cant we? Everything I have said so far has been a documented FACT. These are not my opinions, these are current, recognised and documented facts. You can go find them. Also Hydro didn't irradiate the whole of Europe. Hydro didn't cause mass increases in child leukemia and Thyroid cancer 9 months after April 26th 1986 in Berlin. Hydro didn't rob the 'Liquidators' or their youth. And how did you get so pro Nuke at 20 years old?
@Dreadnaughtos search "banqiao dam." Yes everything you have said has been facts, I'm not saying theyre not true. They aren't your opinion, however what is your opinion is your view of how dangerous the effects of cesium-137 in the ocean are. As for why I support this at 20 years old I'm a college student. I study nuclear science at MIT. Why? we get most of our energy from coal which kills 100s of thousands of people every year, and has actually released more radioactivity than nuclear ever has.
@igotN0ceilings Sorry man, but thats a fact too, not my opinion. It is documented that we have NEVER in recorded history had the levels of radiation released into the ocean on this level before. If Caesium 137's half-life is 30 years (HALF-LIFE) Then where exactly do you think its going to end up? If its 2,400 X the legal limit.. Are you stating that you KNOW it will have NO effect on the ecosystem or fisheries? No offense man, for a Nuclear science MIT, this should be a lot harder. Gime facts:)
800,000 - 100,000 liquidators. 125,000 deaths acc. to Ukrainian health ministry. Up to 1000,900 acc. to V. Nesterenko (atomic physicist and liquidator). 25 years later cesium (Latency) kills people quietly.
Thanks to whoever it was on Infowars.com that directed me to this documentary (I actually watched it on Google video, the whole film was 93 minutes long and no play lists to mess with). I would have commented on Infowars but Alex Jones banned me from the comments section. I don't blame him, if someone was exposing my opportunistic and greedy nature I'd ban them too
Great documentary that only scratches the surface in regards to the true number of deaths Chernobyl (Wormwood in English) caused
I hope that everyone who watches this sends this link to ten more people and begs them to watch this. If the 13,000 who have watched this so far do this, then, 100,000 people will have seen this film. I think this action could be world-changing as far as really feeling the weight of our burden and responsibility as a global people. Then I would like to see the one million mark. One million views would give me more hope than despair.
Much respect to the liquidators who risked their lives. I am a photojournalist too. Much respect to those who captured some of the best images of this. The true heroism of the liquidators are documented because of them.
@Remscar i was young at the time i think i was 2.5 or something like that of the accident now obouvisly i was to young to understand anything like that , but a few years later i remember asking what was chernobyl after hearing about it on radio it was about 1988 i think again i did really understand but about the end of 95 i started to research the accident and i was horrified to read about the aftermath.
Those firefighters and liquidators died with honour.
@Remscar Watch some of the Chernobyl documentaries. Originally, many of the scientists studying it believed that it was safe, but now some believe that there is risk of a second expulsion of radioactive dust as the structure is in danger of collapsing further.
Flies right over a nuclear explosion, still puffin away at a smoke - that guy is bulletproof!
ronanocarroll 5 days ago
If i may say this and only this. Chernobyl is proof that MAN MADE HELL.
hoboman2452 1 week ago
A chilling reminder of the horrors that total human stupidity can bring. You've got unstable atoms being bombarded with neutrons from other unstable atoms, creating enormous amounts of radiation and heat and they decided to deactivate the safety protocols. Is that even possible in a modern reactor?
HedgehogStudios1 3 months ago
Great documentary!
KireSivat 4 months ago
this is what happens when, instead of being concerned by a sudden dip in power from loss of reactivity, you yank the control rods out and go full power. the manager (the guy who know what he was doing) was off at some that night. Soviet management practices meets Soviet engineering, the result? yeah
Ryukachoo 8 months ago
At every stage, from uranium mining through enrichment, R&D, subsidized construction, to disposal, taxpayers subsidized and insure nuclear power. And it pollutes at every step, from the uranium tailings with elements with a half life of 250,000 years that seem to be just left lying around to get into ground water, to the spent fuel rods, most of which are sitting around in water indefinitely. There's NOTHING CHEAP ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER. Chernobyl will be a problem for someone for 1000s of yrs.
mollyfurie 10 months ago
@mollyfurie Ignore this man. He doesn't know what he's talking about
falwk 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep up the good video work looking good. When you have time come visit my channel!
FatReleaseSystem 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We must stop this. ...
ksmomma05 10 months ago
I live near the beloved Darlington Nuclear plant in Ontario, and we get fed the same corporate BS here too, the bloody thing accidentally leaks hundreds of thousands of liters of "heavy water" each year into our only source of freshwater. The operators are immune to being held accountable in the event of a disaster too, so if it blows the public and govt get to eat the damage while the owners/operators wash their hands of it and walk away. Our energy still costs a fortune due to their payhikes!
jonxkorn 10 months ago 2
@Cheesewookie
You are a fucking fat faggot!
AbortionbySuicide 11 months ago
why do you steal peoples hard work and post it as your own
fukstreet 11 months ago
Comment removed
novaflo339 11 months ago
@novaflo339
i hope you are the first to die
Cheesewookie 11 months ago
Comment removed
novaflo339 11 months ago
Comment removed
novaflo339 11 months ago
to all of the people wondering something similar to this will not happen in japan. the japanese reactors have containment vessels and were not running during this. the reactor at chernobyl exploded while it was running and there was no containment vessel to contain the radioactivity. Don't worry so much. It's definitely bad but people can't turn their backs on nuclear energy when 1 kg of uranium produces as much energy as 3000 tons of coal
igotN0ceilings 11 months ago
@igotN0ceilings,
I disagree. I think we need to leave nuclear energy alone. It's too dangerous and we've caught the profiteers skimping on the construction and security of nuclear reactors. When a nuclear accident happens it's not something that can be properly contained. The immediate area becomes a wasteland, unfit for life. We're never told the true story until many years later, after thousands of people have died and many more are on their way to the grave.
Greyswyndir 11 months ago
@Greyswyndir I agree that nuclear fission reactors will eventually be phased out, but the thing is that it produces a lot of energy (as much as 200 of the world's largest wind turbines, which are half as tall as the empire state building). You also can't judge nuclear safety based on the plants at Fukushima or Chernobyl. The plant at fukushima was designed in 1967, and experts say that nuclear plants get 1600 times safer every 10 years. Modern reactors dont even need power to cool down.
igotN0ceilings 11 months ago
@igotN0ceilings,
I understand the situation we're in, that we are presently chained to these nuclear power plants because of energy consumption and other factors, etc. I don't buy the argument that newer reactors are somehow safer, nuclear energy is inherently too dangerous for human beings to handle in their present state. Let's face it, the powers that be are greedy and irresponsible and cannot handle the responsibility that nuclear power brings.
Greyswyndir 11 months ago
@Greyswyndir People are also working on nuclear fusion reactors which produce energy by combining non-radioactive materials. These not only have the potential to produce more power than fission reactors, but they also produce no waste and there's no risk of radioactive fallout. Don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion and everyone is entitled to their own, but I'm studying the nuclear industry at MIT and I know a lot about the safety of modern reactors. PS- sorry about the long response :P
igotN0ceilings 11 months ago
@igotN0ceilings,
No problem. What I would say to you is question what you're being taught. There are things happening all around us that are simply illusion. What we perceive to be the truth often isn't the truth. If nuclear fusion is everything you say it is then I don't see a problem. But I suspect it isn't as simple as you contend and that fusion has it's pitfalls like fission. If the sacrifice is too great then the output isn't worth it. what about water technology, the Japanese car...
Greyswyndir 11 months ago
@igotN0ceilings,
...The Japanese have developed a car that runs on water, any type of H20. If they built a converter/generator that can efficiently power a vehicle then that technology can be used on a larger scale in various different ways. But it probably won't happen because the powers that be don't want us to be self-sufficient and energy independent. They want us dependent on energy, specifically oil because with oil comes war and wars makes more money for these people then anything else.
Greyswyndir 11 months ago
@igotN0ceilings,
A lot has changed in a month, huh brother? First, they upped the scale of the disaster to 7 and now there saying it might take a year (nine moths but it will be longer, mark my words) before they can entomb the site in concrete. Day by day more of the truth is being revealed. Now they're saying it is in fact worse then Chernobyl.
Greyswyndir 10 months ago
@Greyswyndir who's saying that? the thing you have to remember is that the major source of radiation from Chernobyl was cesium, which has a half-life of 30 years. in contrast, the major source in japan is iodine, which has a half life of 8 days. I agree that this accident in Japan is a TERRIBLE accident, but I doubt its effects will be as long-lasting as those from Chernobyl. we'll just have to see what happens. I still stand by seeing nuclear power as a viable source of energy...
igotN0ceilings 10 months ago
@igotN0ceilings You can't judge the safety of all nuclear plants from one that's 40 years old. unfortunately wind and solar have problems with them, and burning coal kills about 13,000 people in the US alone every year, while also causing global warming and leading to the near extinction of species. we are developing types of nuclear reactors (thorium, fusion reactors) which wouldn't be prone to these kinds of disasters, but I fear people's irrational fear of radiation will kill the industry
igotN0ceilings 10 months ago
@igotN0ceilings,
I've heard of fourth generation nuclear reactors that work much differently then what is in use today. The problem isn't necessarily the science, it's the greedy and immaturity of the rich men who run our planet that cause all of the destruction, not the masses. The masses are ignorant when it comes to what is going on right now, whether about nuclear power or the new order being set up in all of the western nations. They rule us by fear and deception.
Greyswyndir 10 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Ok, Not gonna comment slay you, but I am going to point out a few things. 1) There's in fact over a hundred different radioisotopes that are released from a a reactor's core in the event of a breach. Not just Iodine 131 in large amounts. 2) It doesnt matter if the half life is 8 days.. if the containment is breached and re-criticalities are happening, you'll just end up counting up to 8 days over and over again. 3) 1 reactor vs 4, + 40years worth of fuel = worse than Chernobyl.
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Also, respectfully, I would suggest you youtube:
Busby: Fukushima reactors a raging radioactive inferno
and
Fukushima TEPCO LIES, Meltdown Mayham 5_17_11
Nuclear power, one hell of a way to make steam... There needs to be a better, reduced and proportionate use apart from steam and making bombs. :)
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings In regards to my first comment. Please remember that Chernobyl had its core radiation release problem relatively controlled in under a week, then it was dealing with the radioactive material all over and stopping the core from hitting the ground water. We are on day 70 and there is NO plan in sight for stopping the ongoing core (X3) release of radiation, let alone the radioactive material scattered about. My friend, this will be far far worse.
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos I understand your point, but you have to understand two things. one- the disaster in japan has released about 20% as much radiation as chernobyl did so far. If it continues for another year it very well could release more radiation, but then you run into the fact that most of the fallout is blowing out to sea where it will mix in with the pacific ocean and not harm people. It could possibly be worse, but at this point we really don't know and won't for years to come
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Ok, what are you basing the 20% figure on?
At the 1 month mark we were told it was only 10% of Chernobyl, now apparently its 20% after the 2nd month. Using that logic are we 2 assume that we will have reached 100% after 10 months?
I dont disagree about dilution into the sea. However, reactor 3 pushed massive amounts of radioactive particulates into the atmosphere AND jet stream. A particulate can travel in the Jet stream up2 200mph. This is not just falling out on the Pacific.
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos Yes it's not just falling in the pacific- it's traveling across the world just like chernobyl did and just like fallout from bomb tests during the cold war. However this doesnt pose a real threat to health all the way across the pacific ocean. Don't get me wrong, this is a TERRIBLE accident, but I don't think it's going to be as bad as chernobyl because most of the particulates are blowing out over the ocean away from people, and because it has released less radiation SO FAR
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings So what ARE you basing the 20% figure on anyway?
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos by the way- what I meant by not harm people is that it will not harm them as badly as long as it's blowing out to sea. I know that there are still large amounts on the mainland and those will be harmful, but at least it's better than having it blow towards tokyo. We can only hope that they will have this in the 6-9 month time frame they have put forward to prevent it from getting worse
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Too bad the containment vessels don't work. Its already been confirmed that ALL THREE containment vessels are breached, which is funny because the Nuclear industry declared there was ZERO risk of them ever breaching and creating another Chernobyl. It doesn't matter if they were running or not. All 3 are still melted down with 3 breaches of the containment vessel. Which means that ANY nuclear power plant ANYWHERE can have the same problem. Try harder.
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos true, again. It doesn't surprise me that happened with 40 year old reactors. 4th generation reactors don't need power to cool down, which you may recall caused this whole disaster. Yes, if you do enough to almost anything it could be breached. however if people didn't protest nuclear and drive the price of building reactors through the roof we could have these reactors. alas, we are stuck with 40 year-old ones where these things can happen
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings A triple meltdown with huge amounts of radiation continually released, making 388 square miles legally uninhabitable.. doesn't surprise you??.. And you expect people to be comforted by the fact that nuclear melt downs don't surprise you? What caused all this was the arrogance that assumed every angle had been covered. Tell me, internationally accepted limit of just 8 hours of back up power.. You willing to wager 4th gen reactors have everything covered?
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Also, the containment vessels were damaged by a minimum of a hydrogen explosion and then melting radioactive slag that were all the reactor rods, melting through the pressure vessel, through the piping system and into and then through the containment vessel. So logic would dictate, if ANY pressure vessel should be comprimised, then the containment vessels can not be trusted to do their job, to contain. New reactors are pushing for license globaly, even now. We have new ones NOW.
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings
Radioactive Caesium 134 leaking into the ocean - Half life 2 years, 3,300 times legal limit.
Radioactive Caesium 137 leaking into the ocean - Half life 30 years, 2,400 times legal limit.
Radioactive Caesium 134 leaking into a on site pit from reactor 3 - Half life 2 years, 32,000 times legal limit.
Tell me, does every molecule of water circumnavigate the globe through currents or not? Where do you suppose the Caesium 137 alone will end up? Beaches? Fish? Seaweed? Resorts?
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos I think it will mix in with the pacific ocean over time. You can find many radioactive elements such as cesium and uranium in the ocean already. The pacific ocean is about 300 trillion pools of water or something like that, I know it's in the trillions. Five swimming pools worth of water is not going to be a huge deal once gets mixed in. Yes, it will end up in beaches, fish, etc, but the amounts that it will be in will not be dangerous
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings You THINK it will mix in OVER TIME? You mean you don't know for sure? Your guessing? Heres another fact, parts of the rods were ejected into the ocean, they are EXTREMELY radioactive. They will continue emitting. The small fish have been documented to be radioactive. The medium sized fish will eat the smaller fish. The bigger fish will eat lots of the medium fish. The levels will now be concentrated. We will now eat the big fish. Do you eat fish? Facts please, not opinions.
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos that's my mistake not typing in a clear way. Unless all currents in the ocean stop suddenly, it will mix throughout the ocean until it is at harmless levels, I'd love to hear anyone's argument against that. Any fish farmed anywhere near fukushima will be tested rigorously for radiation, we don't need to worry about eating radioactive fish- which I actually don't eat :) This is a local disaster. What isn't a local disaster is how china burns 200,000 tons of coal every minute.
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Not worried about the fish ay? Ok :) how about the rising levels of iodine 131 and stontium 89 found in milk all across America?? Its safe by the way.. again because the legal set limits have been raised. Local problem. Ok, well pay attention to thyroid cancer levels and child leukimia around december time this year. If its so safe, then why were 3000 people near Fuku. rushed to hospital on the 17th? The official reason was they all suddenly suffered from "stress".
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos it's not because of nuclear disasters that radiation levels there are up to 20 times higher than here in the US, it's because of the ash that is created burning coal which has radioactive elements in it. Nobody will argue that nuclear is a perfect source of energy, that's plain stupid. I'm interested to know if you're so against nuclear, what's your alternative and why is it better? jw
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Are you stating that burning coal, produces Strontium 89, Iodine 131 and Plutomium 238?? :)
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos haha, no :) It has released greater amounts of radiation throughout its history than nuclear has, though. That's the overall point I was trying to make
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Ok. So how long has the human race been burning coal?? And how long have we had Nuclear reactors?? No big surprise then if coal has released more radiation longterm then is it really? Though I would like to know where you got that info from? I will read your note. :)
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos It was from a book called "nuclear energy in the 21st century." And yes, it's not really that surprising, Its just an interesting little factoid that most people don't know :) Most people for that matter don't know black ash releases any radiation
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dreadnaughtos "No big surprise then if coal has released more radiation longterm then is it really?"
It also releases more per year. And more per watt-hour of electricity.
ImMichaelTaylor 1 month ago
@igotN0ceilings You know, from one point, your kind of right. You sat that it wont be in dangerous amount. Thats true, if you go by the EPA's NEW guidelines on radiation. They RAISED them after the event. Did you know, you can now drink a glass of water with a lifetimes amount of radiation in it.. and it would be legal. They raised the safe limit just for this event. Just like they did in Chernobyl. Thats why all media outlets are reporting safe levels. Child levels raised from 1mSv up to 20mSv
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos I don't want to get in a comment war with anyone. You have your opinion, I have my opinion. If there's one thing that I've learned about people regarding this topic it's that no matter what you tell them they won't change their mind no matter what you tell them. I'm for nuclear power because even with these accidents it's one of the safest methods of dependable energy we've come up with so far, historically its even safer than hydro. Everyone else can have their own opinion
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings I dont want a comment war either. We can debate tho cant we? Everything I have said so far has been a documented FACT. These are not my opinions, these are current, recognised and documented facts. You can go find them. Also Hydro didn't irradiate the whole of Europe. Hydro didn't cause mass increases in child leukemia and Thyroid cancer 9 months after April 26th 1986 in Berlin. Hydro didn't rob the 'Liquidators' or their youth. And how did you get so pro Nuke at 20 years old?
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
@Dreadnaughtos search "banqiao dam." Yes everything you have said has been facts, I'm not saying theyre not true. They aren't your opinion, however what is your opinion is your view of how dangerous the effects of cesium-137 in the ocean are. As for why I support this at 20 years old I'm a college student. I study nuclear science at MIT. Why? we get most of our energy from coal which kills 100s of thousands of people every year, and has actually released more radioactivity than nuclear ever has.
igotN0ceilings 9 months ago
@igotN0ceilings Sorry man, but thats a fact too, not my opinion. It is documented that we have NEVER in recorded history had the levels of radiation released into the ocean on this level before. If Caesium 137's half-life is 30 years (HALF-LIFE) Then where exactly do you think its going to end up? If its 2,400 X the legal limit.. Are you stating that you KNOW it will have NO effect on the ecosystem or fisheries? No offense man, for a Nuclear science MIT, this should be a lot harder. Gime facts:)
Dreadnaughtos 9 months ago
800,000 - 100,000 liquidators. 125,000 deaths acc. to Ukrainian health ministry. Up to 1000,900 acc. to V. Nesterenko (atomic physicist and liquidator). 25 years later cesium (Latency) kills people quietly.
Tekknorg 11 months ago
Thanks to whoever it was on Infowars.com that directed me to this documentary (I actually watched it on Google video, the whole film was 93 minutes long and no play lists to mess with). I would have commented on Infowars but Alex Jones banned me from the comments section. I don't blame him, if someone was exposing my opportunistic and greedy nature I'd ban them too
Great documentary that only scratches the surface in regards to the true number of deaths Chernobyl (Wormwood in English) caused
Greyswyndir 11 months ago
@Greyswyndir
lol i was directed from infowars as well to view this documentry
NAStradamus18 11 months ago
希望日本的自卫队拿出乌克兰人不怕牺牲的精神去解决核反应堆的问题，以确保亚洲人民的安全
clovisdong 11 months ago
i went to chernobyl in 2008. it was fascinating visiting the place.
wysiwyg2006 11 months ago
Wow please Japan fix your reactor! :(
SuperGrowPlants 11 months ago
omg at 8:42. Radioactive dusts are everywhere!!!!
Civsuccess2 11 months ago
奉献、牺牲，这些乃们西方民煮蹩是不懂的。
goldfox79 11 months ago
@goldfox79
你怎麼還沒死啊？不是要牺牲嗎？
Civsuccess2 11 months ago
Comment removed
MrFerrariiii 1 year ago
2:04 -it was beautiful
BlackSiegesmund 1 year ago
I hope that everyone who watches this sends this link to ten more people and begs them to watch this. If the 13,000 who have watched this so far do this, then, 100,000 people will have seen this film. I think this action could be world-changing as far as really feeling the weight of our burden and responsibility as a global people. Then I would like to see the one million mark. One million views would give me more hope than despair.
artylaurie 1 year ago 8
guys where are the cars on the road when it blow up
CustardYum 1 year ago
Comment removed
bidizzy 1 year ago
Comment removed
bidizzy 1 year ago
i remember seeing this on the news when i was about 10 years old
i think i was in brooklyn new york
smp156 1 year ago
im grateful there wasnt another explosion i live in europe
jaccomenting 1 year ago
liking the documentry so far. wish the audio was louder though
gfriklmm8 1 year ago 2
AWESOME VIDEOS AND DESCRIPTION!!!WELL DONE!!!
HeyMarkedOne8 1 year ago
Much respect to the liquidators who risked their lives. I am a photojournalist too. Much respect to those who captured some of the best images of this. The true heroism of the liquidators are documented because of them.
Crisgo3d 1 year ago 2
The people who helped stop the nuclear meltdown are true super heroes.
1337r0ckstar 1 year ago 7
audio kinda sucked but still awesome 4/5
MegaUtubeking 1 year ago
GET OUT OF HERE STALKER
sync380 1 year ago 8
OH my god a 2nd explosion! We could have "The Zone" like in STALKER. Where are your sources?
Remscar 1 year ago 2
@Remscar i was young at the time i think i was 2.5 or something like that of the accident now obouvisly i was to young to understand anything like that , but a few years later i remember asking what was chernobyl after hearing about it on radio it was about 1988 i think again i did really understand but about the end of 95 i started to research the accident and i was horrified to read about the aftermath.
Those firefighters and liquidators died with honour.
Timsalt3100 1 year ago 4
@Timsalt3100 Brave yes, but it should have never have happened!
MrSmallProductions 1 year ago
@Remscar Watch some of the Chernobyl documentaries. Originally, many of the scientists studying it believed that it was safe, but now some believe that there is risk of a second expulsion of radioactive dust as the structure is in danger of collapsing further.
supasonicman 1 year ago
@supasonicman I have, what i commented was kinda a joke, but honestly, i think it would be really cool.
Remscar 1 year ago
thank you for upload!!!great vid
fabricioteidy 2 years ago 21
Extremelty powerful, challenging documentary.
AceinIN 2 years ago 37
o my god!its realy?
HumanFromTheEarth 2 years ago