Web
Analytics
Inside Chernobyl's nuclear reactor 25 years on | General Chat | Page 3 | 28DaysLater.co.uk

Inside Chernobyl's nuclear reactor 25 years on



Horus

Butt Wipe
28DL Full Member
I have no idea how these nuclear plants work so wont get into it, but in all honesty, if i was in Lucid's situation i would beleive more what was said to me as he is working in the industry, rather than reading stuff on the web.

Lets be fair, Lucid could write up a report on some webpage of this, then someone comes Copy/Paste on another page so on so on, but really it came from one source (maybe, maybe not), i have experiance to not always believe what iv read in papers/web ect

Anyways *if* someone thinks im taking sides, im not, im just stating my point from whats been said.

I think you both should just leave it at your views before it turns into a rant and upsets the mods :p
 

randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
Yes a button was pressed but it wasnt a "shut down" button, it was the emergency button to "lower the rods". because of the heat produced the control rods couldnt go in as the metal casings which push the rods down had been bent with the heat. do you know what the graphite does? it slows down the fission, it doesnt cause it to heat up like your saying. what your saying above is that that the control rods caused the heat to increase? there called control rods for a reason mate, cmon.
Again you're completely not even bothering to read what I wrote.

The button they pushed was to scram the reactor, ie an emergency shutdown. Yes this is done by lowering the rods, absorbing the neutrons and stopping the nuclear reaction. Hence an EMERGENCY SHUTDOWN.

Secondly, the fuel rods ruptured which blocked the control rods going any further having been partially inserted. Not just being bent by the heat :crazy

Thirdly, I didn't say the graphite CAUSED the power spike. But, it was because the graphite was there and the cooling water was turning to steam, that the chain reaction occured.

Since you want to spout incorrect technocalities about it, I've just found something which explains what i'm trying to say better than i'm explaining it here:

A nuclear reactor uses a uranium chain reaction to produce energy. Basically one uranium atom decays, which spits out a neutron, and if the uranium is gathered in sufficient quantities, that neutron smacks another uranium atom, which causes that to split and release neutrons, and so on.

Now in order to help this reaction along, nuclear power plants used neutron moderators to slow down neutrons and make them more likely to hit other uranium atoms. Chernobyl used graphite as a neutron moderator. Graphite slows down neutrons more than water, which means that graphite-moderated reactors can get hotter than water-moderated reactors.

Chernobyl also used water in their reactors, but as coolant. When water is in it's liquid state, it tends to soak up neutrons, preventing them from impacting uranium atoms, which slows down the reaction. But when its in its gas state (steam), it no longer absorbs neutrons, which speeds up the reaction when another neutron moderator is present.

In water-moderated reactors, when the reactor gets too hot and the water turns to steam, it no longer slows down the neutrons, so the reaction slows down. Water-moderated reactors tend to regulate the chain-reaction by themselves.

Now at Chernobyl, since graphite was the neutron moderator, the reaction would actually be sped up by water turning to steam, since it could no longer soak up neutrons. This meant that if Chernobyl got too hot, it would continue getting hotter unless plant operators intervened.

Now nuclear power plants are able to slow down or stop the chain reaction by inserting control rods in between the fuel rods. These control rods contain boron, which is a strong neutron absorber, and they effectively divide up the uranium into quantities too small for a sustained reaction.

At Chernobyl, the night shift operators were attempting to do a test. (Ironically enough, of backup generators for their cooling system.) The night shift operators weren't as experienced as the day crew.

In order to do the test, the reactor needed to be slowed down a bit. But the night shift operator made a mistake and inserted the control rods too far, nearly shutting it off. They spent the next couple of hours trying to fix that mistake, in the process removing all of the control rods and adding too much water. They ended up making the whole reactor unstable; the water was just a few degrees away from boiling. Several alarm signals occurred, but operators decided to continue on with the test anyway.

The first part of the test was to shut off the water pumps to see if the backup generators worked. Since hot water was no longer being pumped out, more of the water turned to steam, which in turn, caused the reactor to heat up rapidly.

The operators realized their mistake almost immediately, and attempted to shut down the reactor by reinserting the control rods. [[THE SCRAM BUTTON]]

But the control rods for Chernobyl's reactor were designed poorly. Instead of being made of boron the entire length, they were made of graphite at the tip. So while operators inserted the control rods, the graphite displaced water and caused the chain reaction to speed up. [[THE POWER SURGE]]

There was too much water in the reactor to begin with. And when the graphite on the control rods increased the reaction, all of that water immediately turned to steam. The subsequent increase in pressure caused the reactor to explode.

After the explosion, the graphite caught on fire (it's flammable) and burned for several days, releasing massive amounts of radiation into the air.

lucid said:
you said above that the power down button had been disabled? yes your right on that one but there isnt just one big red button to stop a powerstation from blowing you know? its not a bloody james bond film set with a big red flashing button!
Again, no, I didn't. It would help if you actually read before spouting bullshit. I said the AUTOMATIC FAILSAFE had been disabled. NOT a button. There was a scram button available to them which had been pressed.

lucid said:
Are you telling me you have read all the reports, research and opinions on all of this disaster in full and come to this conclusion yourself or is all your information coming of wikipedia?
What I am saying is that i've researched the event at *length* and it ties up with what is online, including wikipedia (which the articles themselves are sourced to reliable sources). This is why I earlier said it seemed remarkably accurate as it tied up what the research i'd done independently a few years ago.

lucid said:
thats not a go at you, but think of it like that... if you (say your a teacher) and i came in and told you about your job by what i have read off wikipedia and some articles on the internet you would probably tel me to..... lets leave it at that lol :thumb
Yeah but if I was a teacher and said in Maths class that 2+2 equaled 46 then I would expect people to tell me i'm talking shit. You can't just claim whatever you like. 'in house training' is pretty wooly at best, at least whatever is online or in books can be proven. Hell, my daughter could tell me a fucking dragon lives outside and i'd call that 'in house training' and nobody could disprove it. Believe what you like but i'm more inclined to believe what has been published publicly from reliable sources, and ties up with what data there is available to read, rather than information whose only source is what some bloke running some course told them over a cup of coffee [Read: because they say so.]

If the safety of our nuclear industry is in your hands i seriously fear for the safety of us all.......
 
Last edited:

KooK

Tall & Flexible
28DL Full Member
None of you lot know what you're talking about.

I heard it was an urbexer doing an infiltration that wrote their name in the dust.

Nice vid btw.
 

randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
None of you lot know what you're talking about.

I heard it was an urbexer doing an infiltration that wrote their name in the dust.

Nice vid btw.
Haha you know what, I second this :thumb
 

Lucid

Russian.
28DL Full Member
Lol Jesus Christ that was abit of a rant wasn't it? Bit of a drama queen statement that you fear for us all too... Nice touch.

I would sit and explain to you how a reactor works and the principles behind it and the reason for my view but instead you want to argue about something youve read over the internet and dont know about. was "scram the reactor" a technical term you read about was it? That stuff you just put in is also wrong I'm sorry to say, you DON'T put water anywhere near rods as it knacks them. Water is only in the boilers that produce the steam for the turbines. That bit you added, did you get that from Wikipedia too? Give it a break honestly your taking this way to personally mate, just let it go, don't worry :D. Can't we just all get along!

Right let's not continue this and agree to disagree, fair one?
 

randomnut

28DL Full Member
28DL Full Member
was "scram the reactor" a technical term you read about was it?
Haha nope, SCRAM (not "scram the reactor" ) that's a pretty generic term for an emergency shutdown. In my field we use it (very informally) for an emergency shutdown of a server farm but it's quite famous for either coming from or being made famous by the nuclear industry for an emergency shutdown of a reactor.

lucid said:
Give it a break honestly your taking this way to personally mate, just let it go, don't worry :D. Can't we just all get along!
Haha nothing personal about it mate. Like I said i'm no nuclear tech, just someone who has researched this quite extensively over the past few years. I don't mind being proved wrong, but, 'proved' is the key there. Someone coming along and saying 'You're wrong but I can't be arsed to prove or even explain why' just doesn't work. My ears are open however...

What you're contradicting is essentially the contents of the huge volume that is the report to the IAEA on the disaster. Quite interesting [albeit rather dry & political] reading but i'm sure they'd be interested to hear what your mate who told you has to say.

lucid said:
Right let's not continue this and agree to disagree, fair one?
Done :thumb I think my point was made a while ago anyway haha.
 
Last edited:

Squirrell 911

Admin
Regular User
I think you both should just leave it at your views before it turns into a rant and upsets the mods :p
Not in the slightest. Healthy informed debate is good. This was an incident that happened at the height of the cold war and could have sooo eisily turned into an even bigger clusterfuck. There are plenty of conspiricy theories and there are plenty of people in the industry who know aswel what happened.
All I want to know is how come godzilla didnt come to help the people in Japan? :D
 

Incognito

Just Reckless.
28DL Full Member
Not in the slightest. Healthy informed debate is good. This was an incident that happened at the height of the cold war and could have sooo eisily turned into an even bigger clusterfuck. There are plenty of conspiricy theories and there are plenty of people in the industry who know aswel what happened.
All I want to know is how come godzilla didnt come to help the people in Japan? :D
Where have you been Squirrell, godzilla died from all the radiation after he destroyed chernobyl, rumours have it he was using one of the cooling rods as tooth pick after eating the reactor driver, I kid you not that is a fact. If you ever manage to get close enough to the reactor you will see his skeleton about 300 yards away, currently being used as home by the mutants that survived the radiation. Again FACT. :thumb
 

Similar threads



Top