Western analysts assumed Chernobyl had no containment buildings. Not so.

[Fledermaus]

Before the accident many Western analysts had assumed that the Chernobyl reactors had no containment buildings As attention was focused on the plant, however, it became apparent that the design does include a containment system somewhat like that used for boiling-water reactors(one of two types of light-water reactors). The system was designed around the assumption that the most serious accident will be a rupture of one of the large pipes in the colling circuit; as the diagram shows, these are located in concrete-walled compartments. If a pipe ruptured, the released radioactive steam would be directed from thees compartments to pool of water located on above the other in the basement. The steam would condense as it bubbled through the water.

This sort of containment reflects a design philosophy common to light-water reactors as well- focused on a rupture of large pipes , and assumes that the emergency reactor cooling system would be successfully activated in the event of such a rupture, preventing sever fuel damage.

Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists Aug-Sep 1986

It had a removable lid for ease of fuel change and the production of nuclear weapons.

Once the lid blew off, that was the end of containment.

[FBaggins]

1. That error was corrected in the same magazine just a couple months later

Think anyone wonders how you ended up still believing the mistake?

You're desperately googling around trying to find some evidence that your earlier statements were not in error.

Far simpler to just accept that you were wrong. Sorry.

[Fledermaus]

2. Then provide us a link.

RBMK is a huge reactor - about 71 meters high and the Soviets felt that to put all this in containment would be difficult and costly." <36> And so, the Soviets put only the bottom pipes in containment because this was easier
http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/cause/design.flaw.html

And then they put a 1000 ton lid on it.

[FBaggins]

3. Gee... I don't see a link in your initial post.

Try reading the December issue of the same Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Oh look... you updated your last post with an image that... wait for it... once again demonstrates that it lacked a containment vessel.

[Fledermaus]

4. I put a reference with a date. Wheres yours?

[FBaggins]

5. I referred you to the relevant magazine and issue...

...I can tell you to start on page 45 if you think that will help.

See... the problem here is that you can lead a horse to water...:rofl: Would there be any value in my retyping a couple paragraphs?

[FBaggins]

6. Making things up as you go along again?

You find yet another site that shows that you were incorrect... but you imagine exactly the opposite... then you modify the content to match your imagination ("and then they put a 1,000 ton lid on it")?

[Fledermaus]

8. You think so?

http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/cause/design.flaw.html

Youtube VIDEO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPsDCYrlhsE&feature=related


http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/introduction/reactor.analysis.html

[FBaggins]

10. At this point it's clearly well beyond "think" so.

The evidence is overwhelming. You keep posting image after image of a reactor that lacks a containment vessel and it's like you're shouting "see? SEE??!! It's right there"

Sorry Fledermaus... the emperor isn't wearing anything at all.

[Fledermaus]

18. You thnk so? containment system designated as the “accident isolation system.”

The containment system consists of several engineered safety features which condense and collect any coolant water release in closed spaces under the reactor. A pressure-suppression pool, similar to the Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) design was situated beneath the structure. This was an unsatisfactory design choice since in the event of core meltdown the molten corium material would cause a steam explosion if it came in contact with the water pool. An emergency core cooling system (ECCS) would come into operation if either coolant circuit is interrupted.......

The reactor core is located in a concrete lined cavity that acts as a biological radiation shield. The upper shield or pile cap above the core is made of steel and supports the fuel assemblies. The steam drums separators of the coolant systems are housed in their own concrete shields for protection against the short-lived gamma radiation emitted from N16 during operation typical of boiling water reactors.

The reactor core is surrounded by a biological shield in the form of a cylindrical coaxial tank filled with water and 16.6 m in diameter. It remained practically undamaged after the accident. The biological shield and the core are closed from above and below by cylindrical covers filled with serpentine shaped shielding materials through which multiple communication pipes pass. These parts of the reactor were displaced during the accident, and they formed passages through which the contents of the core were released.

https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/mragheb/www/NPRE%20402%20ME%20405%20Nuclear%20Power%20Engineering/Chernobyl%20Accident.pdf

[FBaggins]

19. So now it isn't a "containment vessel" or even a "containment building"...

...you've moved on to "containment system" ???

Yet somehow continue to insist that you knew what you were talking about?

Did you by any chance notice the photo on the 8th page of your linked document? That's the paint-can lid you tried to convince us was retrofitted after the TMI incident. Note that it is by no means a sealed pressure vessel.

[txlibdem]

7. Don't worry. I've found the CORRECT one and FLEDER'S RIGHT

Here is the actual engineering drawings for Chernobyl. All you nuclear nuts can suck it!

[FBaggins]

11. Lol!

That just isn't nice. :)

And it really isn't fair. His latest supporting site is from a trio of highschool juniors. Clearly head and shoulders ahead of the graphic you have here.

[txlibdem]

14. Guilty as charged

I offer my humblest of apologies. I just don't know what came over me...

:hi:

[FBaggins]

16. "Cotton candy" was what gave it away.

Very clever.

[txlibdem]

20. Whatever. You'll never convince me.

Just look at the diagram: it says right there at the bottom that Nukyoolur iz BAD.

DO you not know what the meaning of the word BAD is??? I just can't reason with you nuclear types.
:sarcasm:
:hide:

[Nihil]

21. Bookmarked for later reference!

Well played that man!
:toast:

[NNadir]

9. This is a predictable spin from a person discussing something he or she knows nothing about.

The accident was analyzed in detail by Hans Bethe.

He um, was one of the premier nuclear scientists of all time, and was recognized as such by the award of the Nobel Prize in physics.

Predictably he failed to make any dumb statements about Chernobyl, but none of his work on the subject has prevented other people - mostly notable with unfamiliarity with the contents of a science book - from attempting to contradict Bethe. Bethe also discussed topics like void coefficients, moderator to fuel ratios and a whole bunch of other stuff, not one of which belongs to the lexicon of anti-nukes.

Pretty typical actually.

I notice that people who carry on illiterately on the topic of Chernobyl never post stuff about how cars should be banned because of Yugo accidents.

That's because they couldn't care less about cars, which kill, day after day, week after week, month after month, decade after decade, far more poeple than 50 Chernobyls could kill.

That is also typical. Nuclear power is not risk free. It is simply risk minimized. It need not be perfect to be vastly superior to all the stuff anti-nukes ignore. It only needs to be superior, which it is.

Have a nice evening.

[Fledermaus]

12. Apparently, the original RBMK reactors had nothing. After 3 Mile Island, this was their half ass fix

A containment structure built like a cement paint can.

After Three Mile Island this is what they built!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPsDCYrlhsE&feature=related

And they built it on the cheep so they could build more nukes.

[FBaggins]

15. Sigh. "apparently" you're trying to sell others on your imaginative construct.

The upper biological shield was part of the original design. It wasn't a post-TMI retrofit.


Stop for a minute and think what you've been doing. You've got a "paper" written by a trio of high school juniors that points out that the russians took a look at their reactors after Three Mile Island and knew that they didn't have adequate containment... but they decided that it would be too expensive to do it right. Based on that plus your internal certainty that there had to be a containment vessel by the time of the accident (because you had already posted that there was)... well... they must have added it after TMI. You couldn't fathom the possibility that you had not a clue what you were talking about... so they must have added it later (and all this based on a high school project... in the face of conclusions drawn by a nobel prize winning physicist). Hey... I know... that's what that magic lid must have been. Goodness... the thing was huge... so that MUST have been why it was added.

[NNadir]

17. I'm sure your link is very interesting to the other folks in the anti-nuke echo chamber.

I'm not even going to look at it however.

I'm sure it's drivel, since um, I know who Hans Bethe was, and, um, I very much doubt that there is ONE anti-science luddite anti-nuke who does.

[txlibdem]

13. Nothing that humans do is risk free - toothbrushes are even dangerous

"The odds a person will visit an emergency department due to an accident involving a toothbrush in a year are 1 in 99,340, making a toothbrush slightly more dangerous on average than a garage door. (The odds a person will visit an emergency department due to an accident involving an automatic garage door in a year are 1 in 106,300)."

...

Of course, avoiding your toothbrush is also dangerous, just in other ways. The American Academy of Periodontology has published many articles and press statements suggesting a link between periodontal disease (a.k.a. gum disease caused by not brushing) and heart disease. Medical researchers have found a correlation between the two, the leading theories being that the bacteria that cause periodontal disease either increase arterial plaque buildup, or cause arterial inflammation. Given the possible connection between gum- and heart disease, Mao and Hughes were taking their chances.

But, as with vending machines or soda straws it is not the toothbrush's inherent danger, but human klutziness—and occasionally comedy—along with frequent exposure to the object, that creates this mild risk.

http://www.bookofodds.com/Accidents-Death/Household-Accidents/Articles/A0312-Everyday-Hazards-Toothbrushes

More odds that you don't want to know about

"1 in 104,600
The odds an accidental death will be due to being bitten or struck by an alligator are 1 in 104,6...
1 in 23,180,000
The odds a person will be injured by a hurricane in a year are 1 in 23,180,000 (US, 2007).
1 in 112,000,000
The odds a person will die from a vending machine accident in a year are 1 in 112,000,000 (US, 19...
1 in 166,600
The odds a person will visit an emergency department due to an accident involving a drinking straw...
1 in 2.47
The odds a fatal firearms accident will occur to a white man 20 - 54 are 1 in 2.47 (US, 1999 - 20...
1 in 251,800,000
The odds a person will die from a shark attack in a year are 1 in 251,800,000 (US, 1999 - 2005).
1 in 2.29
The odds an accidental death will be due to a transportation accident are 1 in 2.29 (US, 1999 - 2..."

http://www.bookofodds.com/Accidents-Death

misQuote: "But! If ye not be men of VALOR, come NE FURTHER. For DEATH AWAITS YE with nasty big pointy teeth!" --Tim the Enchanter

Now grow a pair and come live in the real world. The one with real dangers for you and the rest of us.

[PamW]

22. Chernobyl had no containment

I am very familiar with the Chernobyl RBMK design, and I know the feature that has the anti-nukes confused into thinking that Chernobyl had a containment.
In an RBMK plant, the volume around the steam generators is protected by a pressure suppression system. In case of a leak in the steam
generator or piping, the steam is channeled to a pool of water where it is condensed and the build-up of pressure is relieved.

That same technique is used in the General Electric Mark I containment for boiling water reactors. But, I'm afraid that is where the similarity ends.

The pressure suppression system only protects the steam generators in the RBMK, it doesn't protect the reactor. If you want to claim that you have a system that
can protect the public from a reactor excursion, i.e. a "containment" then that system has to surround the reactor, not just the steam generators.

As an analogy, suppose a house burns down due to a fire caused by an electrical overload. The fire inspector finds that the fuse box has a bunch of pennies in the
fuse sockets so that electricity is delivered to the house, but without the protection afforded by fused circuits or circuit breakers.

When the fire inspector tells the insurance company the house didn't have the protection of fuses, the owner protests. He says there was an operating fuse on the back of his stereo receiver.

Big deal. The stereo receiver was protected from electrical overload, but the rest of the house wiring was not protected because of the bypassed fuse box. It was this un-fused wiring that
started the fire that burned down the house. It is disingenuous of the homeowner to claim that his house was protected by fuses when only the stereo had a working fuse.

Likewise, the fact that the steam generators had pressure suppression is absolutely no use when the reactor didn't have that protection, and it was the reactor that blew up.

I agree with the assessment that we have an anti-nuke that has been caught red-handed in promulgating the oft told lie that Chernobyl had a containment when it didn't.
The level of desperation in this poster is readily apparent.

The Chernobyl disaster is meaningless in speaking to the safety of US / French / Japanese / Swedish PWR and BWR power plants, just as the Hindenburg disaster is
meaningless as a portrayal of the safety of modern day air travel in Boeing 777s.

PamW