Who and how to prepare CHERNOBYL
Why after 20 years there is a need to put the question this way and respond to it? First Chernobyl disaster — it is not an ordinary event, and secondly it has happened in the era of totalitarian communist regime, when the booming permissiveness officials, killing themselves and the country as a whole. Analyzing the causes of the Chernobyl accident presented in the report of the Governmental Commission of the USSR IAEA come to a conclusion as this report is packed with lies, the desire to shift responsibility from blame on others. The main culprit is appointed operational staff the plant, while with these people was taken subscribed a non-disclosure of events, the facts of that fateful night. Cool — to accuse people and deny them the opportunity to defend himself. Therefore, the IAEA report an accident can be arbitrarily — opponents are neutralized.
There was a second reason, Soviet scientists to hide the true cause of the accident. Large scale of the tragedy and the international community to demand that the Soviet Union to cease operation of nuclear reactors of the Chernobyl type, because of their increase-shennoy operational nuclear danger. To this end, the Chernobyl nuclear accident was explained in terms of the identity of an accident on the American nuclear power in the Pen-Sylvania at Three Mile Island.
Is it possible to compare these two accidents. Confidently assert, is impossible. This is not only the different reactors in construction, on the effects of reactivity, but most importantly — it’s reactors of two different states. There, people were evacuated from the danger zone, when there was only a prerequisite to an accident, we have after the explosion, when the burning fuel and graphite, while fuel radioactively decayed, the streets of children playing and people walking on the May Day demonstration. In Pennsylvania, was not even an explosion of the reactor core at Chernobyl was. At Three Mile — Island really stopped heat removal from the reactor core and the reactor was shut down. But at the expense of residual heat release explosive mixture formed a bubble and blow as a result of the activities, though he, too, could explode at any moment, but they had the opportunity to fight him. As for us, the reactor before the explosion was at a power equal to the power of the reactor residual heat of the American, and in our version of the circulation of coolant through the reactor core impl-stvlyalas 8-th circulation pumps and stopped only after the reactor explosion — pumps kavetiruyut naturally, that is stop the cooling of the core, after the destruction of circulation circuit in the explosion. In America, at the station ready to explode, our reactor was operated in normal mode, it is in the mode that was recommended by Kurchatov Institute. — So he was operated for many years, and none in thought was not that he might explode. After the explosion, the operating personnel shouted in a loud voice what they were doing everything right, they do not understand why this happened?
All in order. Staff charged that he had brought out of the reactor protection on excess capacity. Argue that this protection can not be deduced from the action, since the conclusion of this protection is equivalent to the protection operation at the reactor — that is, it must not be used, the findings of the Government Commission of the USSR did not stand any criticism. That’s why you need a subscription for a non-disclosure of the situation at the reactor site. In fact, I suppose, was put on the protection of the local excess of power, without which dozens of Soviet reactors were successfully operated for several years without any explosions. Especially pay attention to the fact that the lifting power of the Chernobyl reactor with the fuel load after the break with any power, without taking local protection for excess power can not, and therefore one can not blame the station staff to disable this protection. From this it follows that if protection for power exceeds any slight reduction in flow through the reactor, would have led to his stop on the excess power from — a positive Nogo steam reactivity effect. But the defense has been reset manually by the operating personnel after the explosion in reactor channels to the main blast on it. This also implies the absurdity of the accusations station staff and that he had brought protection to reduce the level of the Drum — separators. This could lead to a breakdown of pumps, providing heat removal from the reactor and cause its explosion. No termination of coolant flow through the core to the Rector, the cause of which could be a pump cavitation due to a low level in the drum — separators, until the explosion was not, as I pointed out above, the decrease in consumption would lead inevitably to trigger the protection of excess capacity. Sounds absurd charge of personnel and that he had brought protection for the emergency core cooling reactor (ECCS). As I stated above — no reduction in flow through the reactor core up to the explosion was not, and ECCS connects only when stopped cooling water flow through reactor. That is, will he give ECCS water into the reactor, if he had not been disabled, only after a major explosion at the reactor, the magnitude of the tragedy in this case is likely to be increased many times.
I have deliberately omitted the situation at the nuclear power plant auxiliary equipment, as I believe it is only important what happened in the rector: his power, the physics of the reactor core, the different proposals that are embedded in the algorithms and control research — the research department of the station under the supervision of the Kurchatov Institute ., flow rate and coolant parameters, heating, Thermodynamics, Fluid core. . Of the writing that I blame 25 years after the accident, the Government Commission of the USSR in the deliberate concealment of the causes of the Chernobyl tragedy. It would seem not natural, if I did not blame it on immediately after the publication of conclusions on the accident and report to the IAEA. I have already spoken out for the fact that the real culprits of the tragedy are the representatives of the Kurchatov Institute, members of the government’s affiliation, the members of the CPSU Central Committee — the head of the nuclear energy sector Kopchinskogo. I want to draw attention that I have all of the agencies were warned of impending disaster still two years before her, but no conclusions made. Fearing the publicity of my warnings about impending crash I was invited after the accident and to the Government and the Central Committee, and the Kurchatov Institute and teh.sovet NIKIET. I think everybody understands, if my point of view of the coming crash, and my proposals necessary for the safe operation of the reactor were wrong with me no one would have talked to — it is a fact. As follows from the letter Filimontseva JN member of the board of the USSR Ministry of Atomic Energy chief GlavAESRBMK at these meetings gave answers to my questions, in addition, I was told by some areas there is a reconstruction of NPP with RBMK reactors, and highlights the issues they eliminate the shortcomings that I mentioned earlier, and I was satisfied with the results of interviews As it is written in a letter from 28.08.1987 years № 11-695/13 JN Filimontseva — we are speaking different languages and I’ve never stayed satisfied with the results of the interviews. What hypocrisy! I still have two years before the accident indicates not only flaws, but makes suggestions that could prevent a tragedy, and who put into practice the safe operation of NPP after the accident. Without my consent Academic Institute IAE them. Kurchatov appropriating intellectual property of others — because they had my letter with my suggestions — pure plagiarism. Absurd assertion Filimontseva that the academicians of the two leading academic institutions responded to my questions and told me what areas being renovated plant. Who could believe this? What was discussed at these meetings? Even after the crash on the orders of the Central Committee took place. Council of the above two academic institutions, which were supposed to listen to me. But I have this tech. Council is not allowed without a pass was released. Head of the Department of RBMK reactors Institute IAE them. Kurchatov Kalugin catches me at the entrance of the institute and is leading me for obvious reasons not to teh.sovet to be held at the institute and one of the cottages next to the institute, which allegedly has held those. advice. At this improvising-consistent tech. Council to attend to the Institute. Kurchatov Kalugin, who responded to my suggestions mentioned by me two years before the accident, the introduction of which would prevent the tragedy of Chernobyl and accepted unconditionally into the practice of operating the Chernobyl reactor after the explosion at Chernobyl. I draw your attention that my letter Institute has been retained. Only an accident forced the Ministry of Atomic Energy of the USSR to implement my suggestions — new academics to come up with anything they could not. On those. Council also attended and Director of Institute. Kurchatov Rumyantsev, the future Minister of Atomic Energy of Russia, is it approved the response to my letter, drawn up by Kalugin. And there were two representatives from NIKIET. In a narrow circle, instead of those recommended. Board read all my suggestions with rationale and compared to what it was in response to my letter. As a result, I have only heard: «Responses to the Institute to my suggestions in the letter were given not on the merits, and my suggestions have already put into practice exploitation of reactors, as a collective result of work of many specialists, whose efforts were directed at eliminating the consequences of the Chernobyl tragedy, and improve the safety of nuclear power plants. «Everything was wrong. Additionally, note that the representative of the NIKIET deliberately provoked me to the scandal that put me trouble-makers, academics such experience does not hold. Provoke me, he in essence one of the algorithms mentioned in my letter, as leading to the accident, and this algorithm was written in the regulation of reactor. Kalugin, but he was quickly besieged, who feared publicity of the situation.
The meeting was attended by Chief of GlavAESRBMK cupola JN Fili-Monza Ivanov and the chief engineer, and myself. Ivanov did not say another all-time single word, and Filimontsev showed me a real circus. He is the same as those. council, read out my proposal, and he constantly jumped on a chair, slapped his hands over his ears and shouted: «Yes, they could just break?» Given this behavior, we can conclude that Filimontsev not understand the physics of the Chernobyl reactor, namely, the Chernobyl reactor with the fuel load effectively Explorer-atirovat not displaying it in some cases, nuclear — dangerous regime with a high probability of explosion is impossible. And not knowing this, he had no right to, since before the Chernobyl accident, he was chief engineer of the Kursk nuclear power plant, and there exploiting reactor-was considered in the same conditions. All the reactors was a supervisor.
In an interview with the head of the nuclear energy sector CPSU Kopchinskim GA, by talking in different languages and loose talk on the Chernobyl accident, I cut her off prematurely. After the explosion of the reactor, I pointed to him as a major culprit of the accident. Before the accident, he was deputy. Chief Engineer for Science at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and that he introduced the practice of reckless experiments that were conducted, by the way, is not competent specialists. After his departure left instead of itself is not competent professionals: Liutov Gobova, Kryat. They are diligent, helpful, but not these qualities in the first place should have the experts — nuclear specialists. From the above we can conclude — all sessions were organized to figure out how I could exactly justify future accidents and whether there is an element of chance or some kind of coincidence, and not to allow any publicity, because the accident was then attracted the attention of around the world. I’m 25 years old was not at nuclear power plants with RBMK reactors, but I have a reason to say that in some situations, reactors and are now displayed in the nuclear dangerous regimes, and as a consequence there is a danger of explosion, such as Chernobyl. But please note, I can not say exactly without having to visit nuclear power plants with reactors of the Chernobyl type, I can only guess. I draw your attention that one of the Chernobyl reactor, and in Russia there are more than 20, blew up after 10 successful years, we can say the triumphant operation, and he exploded when operating in normal mode, the remote control any deviation was not. Unless of course you do not specify that at some — point dropped signals to reduce consumption by Mnemonic display abnormalities, and it often falls out and what is not said, especially not to say that derailed pumps. A staff in similar situations in the regulations must take action in the presence of signal and sign it. As soon as the explosions went into the channels, that is showing signs of signals, immediately attempted to reset the protection of a button, but it was too late, and doing it was not this way, the rules did not stipulate the personnel actions in a similar situation .. The rods were lowered into the core, and instead turn off the reactor, they began to turn it into a nuclear bomb.
Was another reason for members of the Government Commission, whose work was corrected by the same representative of the CPSU Central Committee Kopchinskim, hide the Chernobyl disaster. Most of them were in one degree or another involved in monitoring the operation and design of RBMK reactors. Blame themselves and they could not shift the responsibility for operational staff the station. I have already pointed out above, the reactor into a nuclear bomb while moving down the safety bars. But this situation does not always happen, but only under certain physical conditions of the reactor core. And this situation was pointed out by me for two years before the accident, in letters to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, Gosatomenergonadzor, the Soviet government, but the findings were not made on time. After the accident, considered three options for the Chernobyl tragedy, composed of three departments. Was chosen one of them, in my opinion the most unfortunate and does not hold water option, the main thing that the main cause of the accident in this version has been operational personnel, but officials and representatives of science, warned me of the impending crash still two years before it (in 1984).
Err — the human thing, rather than admit their mistakes — the devil-parameter. Can I expect now that we can prove that the Chernobyl accident brought the world not as it happened in reality? Of course I can. You can destroy my letter with a warning about it, you can bury the results of all conversations with me in different instances in the offices of Moscow, but I kept the letter in which I warned of the impending disaster and the responses from different departments. Can be found in the operational logs of the Chernobyl nuclear power, where I pointed out the symptoms of the accident, I can point to rationalization proposals from representatives of science, having introduced which was prepared by an explosion at a reactor. You may recall the declared statements of Soviet scientists on a new look at the reactor core and critical mass. Where is this new look and for what purpose all this declare?
I am aware that the accusations of science put forward by me, seriously. The conclusion arises whether one can trust the monitoring, operation, installation, designing nuclear power plants in Russia, such representatives? Of course not. Can Russia with experts to build another two dozen nuclear power plants and trouble-free to exploit them in the near future? Of course not. Do I need to bring under control the public of such professionals and they create offspring? Of course it is necessary. Do I have to the truth about Chernobyl has become the property of all? Of course it is necessary not only to Chernobyl is not repeated, but in order to rehabilitate people charged in vain for the sake of expediency. Am I entitled to put questions listed above, if the received unsubscribe from the different departments at my science to safely operate nuclear power plants with channel-type reactors and not taking the necessary and sufficient measures proposed by me, by officials responsible for the reliable operation of reactors, if I put together a family Pripyat and left two years before the accident? Of course, I have, as a specialist, as a citizen who wants to do everything so that an accident does not happen again. Have the right of representatives of academic science at the Leningrad Nuclear run in my proposals without me after the accident? Certainly did not have, even because they misconstrued my proposal even after the accident. They had their own, some new, hitherto unknown to look at the reactor core. They believed that the safety bars are always moving down at 1 meter from the upper limit switch disperse the reactor, but it is not. It all depends on the physical condition of the reactor core, as I wrote in his letters.
Many may have doubts about the above. Why should I, if the theoretical basis for the forthcoming crash and appealed to the proposals could not have prevented it? How to understand scientists — physicists, explaining the Chernobyl accident is not so, as I suggested, but the direction in which they carried out the reconstruction of RBMK plants were based solely on my proposals. All this, I will write another page of this blog. So to be continued. The tasks assigned me, it is difficult to be solved in our Russia, if I go it alone. Therefore, all willing to help me, please contact the Web-mail: valeramail.ru @ rambler.ru, phone 8 (861) 252-86-55. Everyone will be very grateful.
Yours sincerely, Valery Polyakov