What is the Most Radioactive Object in Chernobyl?

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 1 лип 2024
  • For people both new to learning about Chernobyl, and those familiar with the subject, it is a well-established fact that the Elephant’s Foot is the most radioactive single object in the entire Sarcophagus. But, as it seems to be with everything to do with Chernobyl, this is incorrect. The Elephant’s Foot is only in third place.
    The title of second most radioactive object instead goes to part of the vertical corium flow that entered the upper floors of the Bubbler Pools. It and the corium flow that continued beneath, both called The Heap, rival the Elephant’s Foot for title of most radioactive corium mass, but both are dwarfed by the monster corium mass that spawned the Heap and this video will seek to demonstrate how dangerous it and the Heap are, but also allow you to follow the journey I had writing this script where I learned a lot about the corium masses and how easily deceived we all are by the stories both online and in documentaries.
    Sources
    sredmash.wixsite.com/obektukr...
    The work of Aleksandr Kupnyi.
    / @chernobyl86
    The Chornobyl Accident Revisited
    BBC Horizons
    Sergei Koshelev
    NIKIET - Carrying Out Research Work at the SHELTER Facility
    Chapters
    00:00 Introduction
    01:07 What Counts as a corium mass?
    03:41 The Elephant's Foot
    07:22 The Heap(s)
    10:05 The Most Radioactive Object in the Chernobyl Sarcophagus

КОМЕНТАРІ • 249

  • @ddopson
    @ddopson 5 місяців тому +811

    Your estimates for the 1986 radioactivity are too low. You can't compute a single "half-life" for fission products because their radioactivity is the sum of multiple different decay curves. Effectively, the half-life starts out as milliseconds, then decays to seconds, then minutes, then years, then even longer timespans. Radioactivity at Chernobyl halved several times during 1986, halved once in 1987, decreased by ~12% in 1988, by ~8% in 1989, then converges towards a 2% per year decrease in later years, such as the 2000's, or anytime in the next century or two. This explains why, when you project forward from 1986, using a very short half-life, you get unrealistically small numbers for the present-day radioactivity. Similarly, when you project backwards from the 2000's, using a longer half-life computed from the decay rates in the 2000's, that's too slow of a change for the early years and it thus underestimates how radioactive those structures were early on.
    In more detail…
    There is no single value for the 1986 radioactivity, because one must ask, "In which month?". When the accident occurred on April 26th, these corium flows were initially as radioactive as the reactor core, but their radioactivity would have halved several times by the end of 1986, when, for example, all of the 3-day and 8-day isotopes were totally gone. The month of the 1986 measurement is thus very important, and generally, the 1986 decay rate can't be understood without very detailed calculations of the fission product inventory at the time of the accident.
    The 1987 decrease is ~50% because at the beginning of 1987, 250 days after the accident, more than 40% of radioactivity was coming from Cs-137 with a 30-yr half-life, less than 20% from Cs-134 with a 2-year half-life, less than 40% from Zr-95 with a 64 day half-life, plus some smaller amounts from other isotopes. By the end of 1987, 98% of the Zr-95, 30% of the Cs-134, and 2% of the Cs-137 would have decayed, roughly halving the radioactive intensity. Note that most fission products were already a few years old when the accident occurred (they were produced prior to 1986), but the curves I'm using were measured at Chernobyl, so they reflect empirically what one could predict by integrating across multiple cohorts of fission products produced between the time when the reactor was fueled and the time when the reaction stopped on April 26th.
    The 1988 decrease is ~12%, because with the hotter isotopes disappearing faster, C’s-137 accounts for 60% of the radioactivity remaining at the beginning of 1988. My total decrease sums 1.2% from a -2% decrease of C’s-137’s 60% contribution, 9% from a -30% decrease of Cs-134’s 30% contribution, and 1.6% from another -98% reduction of Zr-95’s 1.6% contribution.
    The 1989 decrease is ~8%, 6% from a -30% reduction of C’s-134’s 20% contribution, plus a -2% reduction of Cs-137’s 80% contribution. Hotter elements are now a rounding error.
    Within a few years, the Cs-134 is mostly gone and we asymptotically converge with the 30-yr half-life of Cs-137 (~2% decrease per year). Your 5.7 year half-life between 2000 to 2016 is almost certainly wrong because the true half-life should be very close to 30-years by 2000. The discrepancy is likely explained by both of those measurements having a high degree of uncertainty (somebody adventurous briefly pointing a geiger counter at the thing before running like hell). Probably, the 100 R measurement was low, and they could have found a more radioactive spot had they stuck around for longer and probed all sides of the thing. Or gotten closer. I wouldn't have wanted to linger either.
    Present day radioactivity is dominated by isotopes with 30-yr half-lives (Cs-137 and Sr-99). In ~300 years, that stuff will be gone and the really long-lived isotopes like Technetium-99 (200,000 yrs) will dominate the residual radiation. Tc-99 is 6% of fission products by mass, but is so weakly radioactive that it only becomes significant once the 30-yr isotopes are gone. It's also only a beta emitter and doesn't bioaccumulate, so it's just orders-of-magnitude less problematic to manage. The long-lived isotopes don't go away very quickly, but for some perspective, their heavy metal toxicity is almost as significant as their radioactivity, so treating them as a hazard like lead isn't that far off from reasonable. Lead is dangerous forever.

    • @scirvy
      @scirvy 5 місяців тому +66

      Yap yap yap

    • @eucaliptusx
      @eucaliptusx 5 місяців тому +78

      Came here to write a comment about the simplification of the radioactive decay in the video, but your comment is much superior of what I would write)))
      The only thing I want to mention, that in 1986 there was definitely a maximum realistic radiation emission, because of the radiation levels in the reactor itself. Pure Uranium-235 rod emits 10000-50000 Ro/h, so from the point of meltdown there could not be the higher radiation emission, as Uranium-235 decays in less emissive, but higher lifespan elements. So I would estimate the emission levels of corium at about 20000 Ro/h

    • @ddopson
      @ddopson 5 місяців тому +50

      @@eucaliptusxThanks for your kind words! When you talk about the radioactivity of “pure Uranium rod”, I’m assuming you don’t mean that in general and are specifically referring to the Chernobyl-4 fuel rods based on their original level of enrichment, their date of insertion, and the schedule by which power was generated and fission products produced. Indeed, armed with that data, we can estimate that value quite precisely, and while I haven’t done the math myself, the numbers you are quoting sound potentially reasonable. I have no reason to doubt the radioactivity measurements that were taken in 1986.

    • @philipspencer1834
      @philipspencer1834 5 місяців тому +52

      That is the clearest explanation of the complexity of complex nuclide decay that I have ever read. Thank you. 😎👍

    • @MrGrace
      @MrGrace 5 місяців тому +22

      ​@@philipspencer1834right?! I nearly almost understood half of it 😊

  • @swokatsamsiyu3590
    @swokatsamsiyu3590 5 місяців тому +132

    It's quite something to see actual people walking/crawling around an exploded nuclear reactor. I can only imagine how that must have gone when returning home at night:
    "Hi honey, how was your day, did anything exciting?"
    - "Oh, we crawled around the remains of Unit 4 today, and found a bunch of Corium."
    But yet another excellent video that brought some new knowledge for me. I do have that picture of "the China Syndrome", but didn't know it was named as such, or that it was even more radioactive than the Elephant's Foot.

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому +18

      It was a strange and tough job, reportedly, and the danger proved really mentally taxing on these workers, having a very high turnover rate, but those who could overcome that seem to have really enjoyed it.
      I'm also glad that you enjoyed the video :)

    • @swokatsamsiyu3590
      @swokatsamsiyu3590 5 місяців тому +10

      @@thatchernobylguy2915
      Most certainly enjoyed it very much. As to the dangers, there's quite a few besides the obvious one; radiation. But also fall/trip hazards; getting stuck under something since the structure was anything but stable; getting lost in dark places with an obscenely high radiation level etc. But I can also see the enjoyment. You're in a place very few people will ever see. You do very rare science and research. So yes, I can see there could be a sense of enjoyment there.

    • @MCCiabattaGrande
      @MCCiabattaGrande 5 місяців тому +9

      Oh honey! I see you're literally glowing! Must have been a shiny bright day!

    • @volvodoc01
      @volvodoc01 5 місяців тому

      Well… at least you know they didn’t get any colds or bacterial infections doing that…. As the radiation killed everything (including humans if they dare stay too long, ofc)… I wonder if it smelled strongly of ozone in those areas? Considering I could smell it during a CT scan (and see blue flashes in my eyes from c. radiation.. not even going to try to spell that!)

  • @bobsyouruncle1574
    @bobsyouruncle1574 5 місяців тому +134

    "Pure" corium is a little bit like saying pure concrete.

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому +42

      Perhaps, but in this case there are these "impure" corium masses, like those that were drowned in concrete.

    • @colchronic
      @colchronic 5 місяців тому +21

      Forbidden concrete

    • @Tadesan
      @Tadesan 5 місяців тому +4

      Presenters just guess at words. It doesn't matter.

    • @christopherleubner6633
      @christopherleubner6633 5 місяців тому +1

      Yup it would have had all kinds of stuff mixed into it.

    • @Nomannium
      @Nomannium 5 місяців тому +5

      Perhaps, i think by ”Pure” corium, it means its a mass of just or mostly corium. With corium having other debris and rubble in it. Does not matter tho

  • @deezelfairy
    @deezelfairy 5 місяців тому +85

    It's impossible to plot a linear decay rate chart for the elephants foot because it hasn't got a fixed decay rate.
    It's consists of a lot of different fission products that all have different decay rates.
    The early extremely high dose rates make sense and the rapid decrease to today is because some of those isotopes with extremely short half-lifes have gone and the more long term ones like Caesium 137 remain.
    It'll become less radioactive, more slowly over time because of this.

    • @wanderinghistorian
      @wanderinghistorian 5 місяців тому +4

      What's weird about this is that the video mentioned this while talking about the EF but acted like it didn't matter. I was thinking "hold up, if it had more radioactive elements in it when it first formed, might that explain the higher reading?" Good comment.

    • @deezelfairy
      @deezelfairy 5 місяців тому +2

      @@wanderinghistorian Yeah, the dude makes great vids, but he fudged The analysis of this one big time.

  • @kainhall
    @kainhall 5 місяців тому +49

    i want to see a video tracking EVERY mass of corium
    .
    their have been MANY documentaries and things about what happened from the core up......
    but NOTHING about what happened in the basements
    .
    a 3D model / cutaway..... showing where the corium went, and when it got their..... would be AMAZING (and a "first ever")

    • @l-l
      @l-l 5 місяців тому +3

      absolutely

    • @themanofshadows
      @themanofshadows 5 місяців тому +1

      Agreed.

    • @tanelimp
      @tanelimp 5 місяців тому +5

      There is a video with 3D models of the routes to the corium masses:
      ua-cam.com/video/pA0WK1jcR8E/v-deo.html
      I'd assume that somewhere there's already a 3D model of the corium itself for staff to plan the eventual removal of it.

  • @Muonium1
    @Muonium1 5 місяців тому +116

    I believe, as others have pointed out, the major flaw of this video's back calculations of potential original activity levels is that it incorrectly assumes a linear decay rate, but due to the extremely complex witch's brew of isotopes in the corium, the decay is actually HIGHLY nonlinear and initial activity levels of the corium of 10,000 R/hr or MORE are quite plausible. See the "relative isotopic abundances" section on the Chernobyl wiki page for a rudimentary simulation of dose rates with respect to time after the disaster.

    • @MinSredMash
      @MinSredMash 5 місяців тому +2

      That said, the black ceramic corium all has a fairly similar composition, so the elephant's foot would not be decaying faster than the other similar masses.

    • @Ebolacrash
      @Ebolacrash 4 місяці тому

      Do you have a calculator where your penis should be bro ?

    • @deezelfairy
      @deezelfairy 3 місяці тому +2

      People also forget the elephant's foot wasn't discovered until December of '86 - several months between its initial formation and its first radiation readings being taken.
      Due to the amount of fission products with very short half-lives that are formed in reactor fuel, it's not inconceivable that these corium masses could have been in the realm of 20,000-30,000R plus in the early days of their formation.
      For example, Iodine 131 has a half life of only 8 days and is a significant fission product. Whatever of that isotope was in that reactor fuel at the time of the accident would have been through 20+ half-lives by December 1986, which is about 0.0001% of the original amount.

  • @allangibson8494
    @allangibson8494 5 місяців тому +15

    The corium isn’t a pure element. It’s a mix of elements with different half lives.
    The most radioactive materials have the shortest half lives and these have had the longest to decay. The decay of these also changes the physical structure of the mass. Basically over time the corium will turn to fine dust as the crystalline structure disintegrates.

  • @maximusflightymus3892
    @maximusflightymus3892 5 місяців тому +34

    another great insight in to what happened on that night, i look forward to your uploads. The horror that these people had to deal with is beyond imagination, no one walked away unscarred by its effects.

  • @raymondpierce8162
    @raymondpierce8162 4 місяці тому +5

    Loved the footage of rarely, if ever, seen photos with the explanation of how it flowed. Nicely done

  • @NJPurling
    @NJPurling 5 місяців тому +8

    At 3.00 minutes what you are seeing is the lower plug of the reactor vessel that was blown downwards by the steam explosion. As we know the upper lid, Yelena' is balanced on the top of the vessel. Good job this Corium was retained within Block 4 and not into the environment.

  • @lascoirne6714
    @lascoirne6714 5 місяців тому +49

    This channel needs way more recognition. Great video!

  • @xdc8201
    @xdc8201 5 місяців тому +14

    I am still surprised at how much inconsistent information there is about Chernobyl. Kyle Hill in his video "The Elephant's Foot - Corpse of Chernobyl" mentions that the object weighs about 4000 kg, worst of all, in another video on this topic from the Because Science channel, "Chernobyl's Radioactive Lava is Still Hot", Kyle already mentions that the object weighs approximately 2 tons. Wikipedia gives a value of 2-2.2 tons, and in your film the highest number appears so far, 14 tons. Where does this lack of coherence come from?

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому +6

      Hard to say. The source I use is the "Chornobyl: Accident Revisited" paper by Alexander Sich. I feel it may be because the Elephant's Foot that people think of, the big block, is only part of it. The Elephant's Foot also flowed as a long mass to the right side of the corridor. But it's hard to say where they get small numbers from. At a bare minimum, the large "foot" section is 3 cubic meters in size, which is almost 8 tonnes.

  • @panzerabwerkanone
    @panzerabwerkanone 3 дні тому +1

    "It's not 3 roentgen, it's 15 thousand"
    "Please escort Comrade Chernobyl Guy to Party Headquarters"

  • @trevormurphy7041
    @trevormurphy7041 5 місяців тому +5

    Fun fact of the day did you know they strapped an AK to a mole control car and shot at the elephant foot That was one of the way they got their pieces

  • @TheTransporter007
    @TheTransporter007 5 місяців тому +5

    Great video! Learn something new every single time I visit the channel.

  • @awc6007
    @awc6007 5 місяців тому +4

    Just found your channel and I’m really loving your videos. Been interested in Chernobyl since I played COD4 years ago.

  • @sanderdick
    @sanderdick 5 місяців тому +45

    Better than any pseudo documentary with useless dramatic music and repeating pictures!
    Keep it up👍
    Greetings from Germany

  • @punishedfoxo
    @punishedfoxo 5 місяців тому +4

    The audio sounds like it stepped up a bit in quality for this one.
    New Mic, or did you just get some more sound insulation?
    Either way, you've always been pretty much on point, which is what matters more than just a good mic.

  • @ReedM-pc3gp
    @ReedM-pc3gp 5 місяців тому +1

    Another great video:)! Will you be maybe making more content about other victims of the accident? I think this is sad that most of stories does not cover both women who were not recalled from their security posts until early morning when disaster happened. All the best in new year:)!

  • @Millielynnash
    @Millielynnash 5 місяців тому +13

    I always learn so much when you put out videos. Fantastic stuff every time!

  • @WebReels
    @WebReels 12 днів тому +1

    Good video, but the math regarding the radioactivity rate is off. That’s because over 90% of the current radiation is from cesium-137, which has a half-life of about 30.5 years. For complete decay of radioactive cesium and strontium, it will take 10 periods of 30.5 years each. That’s over 300 years. In 2022 the corium mass began heating up and started smoldering. The fission process had become reactivated. It could be closer to 1,000 years for total decay.

  • @CpTreble
    @CpTreble 5 місяців тому

    Great video! New subscriber here and I just want to say that I really look forward to your uploads!

  • @SigEpBlue
    @SigEpBlue 5 місяців тому +4

    Watching film of people walking through the remains of reactor number four will never not give me palpitations.

    • @mursefaneca
      @mursefaneca 5 місяців тому +2

      Those dudes crawling on their bellies wearing such flimsy protective gear underneath rusty rebar and collapsed concrete gave me some chills, m8.

  • @davidbaca7853
    @davidbaca7853 5 місяців тому

    Another great video!!! Thank you for the content.

  • @krimome8933
    @krimome8933 5 місяців тому +3

    What about the graphite debris and fuel rods ? How much did they output ?

  • @ajsk8417
    @ajsk8417 Місяць тому

    Your videos are excellent! I have a question to ask you. I've read somewhere, and it kinda seems logical to me, that the damaged fuel channels within the debris should be the most intense source of the radiation levels. Could you provide some insights on this? If I remember correctly, I watched one of the videos of Alex kupnyi, I am sure you know him, he also mentioned that the broken fuel rods are the highest source of radiation, not the elephant’s foot. But I might have gotten lost in translation because the video was in Russian.

  • @Veritas419
    @Veritas419 5 місяців тому

    Great work!

  • @AllanFolm
    @AllanFolm 5 місяців тому +3

    Your calculations are based on that each site only contains a single radioactive isotope. Your curves show the combined falloff of different isotopes.

  • @TheNeon67
    @TheNeon67 5 місяців тому +6

    How can you still find things to talk about? Crazy, man.
    Loved the video!

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому +5

      Thank you, I still have plenty of interesting things to talk about, and I hope to also expand away from just Chernobyl in the future :)

    • @ddopson
      @ddopson 5 місяців тому +1

      @@thatchernobylguy2915 I'm still waiting for the rest of the explosion theories. I found your rejection of the hydrogen theory to be very thought provoking. I need to read that guy's MIT thesis. I've got it bookmarked.

  • @sylowlover
    @sylowlover Місяць тому

    I know other people pointed out the nonlinear decay, but fun fact, the decay rate will end up being the natural log of an exponential polynomial in 2^-x.

  • @basedgodstrugglin
    @basedgodstrugglin 5 місяців тому +2

    4:44 3.6 years you say? Well it’s not great but it’s not terrible

  • @ScottHillson
    @ScottHillson Місяць тому +1

    "The heap is more radioactive than the elephants foot." 2 minutes later: "just kidding, the heap is really just a bunch of individual objects." Well which is it.

  • @siliconartist6009
    @siliconartist6009 27 днів тому +1

    Why people have to hang around there?

  • @ichich3978
    @ichich3978 5 місяців тому +2

    There is a mixture of diffent radioactive isotops It will have a verry fast half live at the start, when all the short lived isotops decay. in some 100 years only Sr-90 and Cs-137 will deliver a relevant dose of radioation. and then the half live will then be som 30 years.

  • @KasusEpykMusykII
    @KasusEpykMusykII Місяць тому

    Thank you for this great and interesting video about Chernobyl.
    Years ago I had read about Valery Khodemchuk, the first person who died in the Chernobyl disaster. He was killed instantly when the reactor No. 4 exploded and his body was never found in the ruins. Block No. 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant is a radioactive grave.
    R.I.P. to all victims.
    Greetings.

  • @Endermania
    @Endermania 5 місяців тому +3

    5:03 i can't wait for it to ouput 3.6 roentgens!

  • @drfill9210
    @drfill9210 Місяць тому

    It's probably more simple to say that the coreum, being a mass of leftover debris is not adequately mixed. Collecting 2 or 3 samples would just not be representative. Did you get your 25% by including the initial sample? If so you probably have cause to completely discard.

  • @abloogywoogywoo
    @abloogywoogywoo Місяць тому

    The fuel core was glowing red hot in the early days. I think the photographer who first pictured the mess got a lethal dose.

  • @iainmulholland2025
    @iainmulholland2025 5 місяців тому +2

    I'm told that the reading shortly after the explosion was 13,000. That would decrease quickly but not a situation to wait around anywhere near the reactor. I work out you would be cooked in 6 seconds.

    • @Kabluey2011
      @Kabluey2011 15 днів тому

      That's approximately right. The first photograph of the elephants foot., the one widely used, but rarely credited is done so for a morbid reason. The person who shot that photograph died a couple of days later from radiation sicknesses.

  • @HandyMan657
    @HandyMan657 5 місяців тому

    Huh, I always thought the mop was. Days and lesson learned. Cheers

  • @TheWeggo
    @TheWeggo Місяць тому

    Wow at 5:30, the elephant fool looks like half a skull. With the eye socket to the left and mouth to the right 😮

  • @dingbat19
    @dingbat19 5 місяців тому +1

    800 rem is mostly a lethal dose, though tormozin received 1,000 rem and survived.

  • @tommybronze3451
    @tommybronze3451 23 дні тому

    about radioactivity of elephants foot - maybe more aggressive stuff decayed away and less aggresive stuff is decaying away slower - giving less “linear” decay profile ?!

  • @patrick87100
    @patrick87100 5 місяців тому

    EXCELLENT CHANNEL

  • @Papershields001
    @Papershields001 2 місяці тому +1

    I’m definitely not used to the Roentgen unit of measure. There’s are reason NIST discourages it. Sieverts and grays make more sense in the context, too bad the Soviets had such an ill defined unit of measure.

    • @Papershields001
      @Papershields001 2 місяці тому +1

      I prefer my own unit of measure: “s**t ton”
      “Chernobyl had a s**t ton of radiation.” Tells you all the most important things you need to know.

  • @stylker5604
    @stylker5604 5 місяців тому +4

    8:08 Китайский синдром это выражение, первоначально обозначавшее гипотетическую тяжёлую аварию на АЭС с расплавлением ядерного топлива и проникновением его в почву с проплавлением конструкций энергоблока, c фильмом это никак не связано

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому +1

      Thank you, I did not know this. I always thought that the movie named the event, not the event naming the movie. :)

  • @Goprof150
    @Goprof150 5 місяців тому +3

    It’s the mop

  • @djordjejelic6944
    @djordjejelic6944 5 місяців тому +2

    Will chernobyl be cleared? Like will they remove the debris from the reactor hall and other radioactive stuff?

    • @mikeh2006
      @mikeh2006 5 місяців тому +2

      Certainly not in our lifetime

    • @computername
      @computername Місяць тому +1

      If Russia takes the area I'd expect them to stop most cleanup operations. It'll be a matter of basic containment.

  • @garethjohnstone9282
    @garethjohnstone9282 5 місяців тому +1

    C3PO, have you been to Chernobyl? I've been twice before the war. Once when the sarcophagus was uncovered, with the confinement building being built, and once after it was covered.
    I'd love to go again, unofficially (with a stalker guide)
    I went alone both times, but I'd like to go with a group of "fans" next time. It'd be cool if a group of people with an interest in it, like people who comment on these videos.
    I'm from northwest England.

    • @sebastianliwinski222
      @sebastianliwinski222 4 місяці тому

      Isn't that secured area?, or you just walked in?

    • @garethjohnstone9282
      @garethjohnstone9282 4 місяці тому +1

      @sebastianliwinski222 Before the war they did guided tours lol.

    • @sebastianliwinski222
      @sebastianliwinski222 4 місяці тому

      @@garethjohnstone9282 I see, well I meant before the war. Anyway I was 7 years old when the reactor exploded living in Poland near Belorusian border, my mum worked in healthcare and I remember drinking very dark liquid that she gave me, it was Lugol's solution ( Iodine).

    • @garethjohnstone9282
      @garethjohnstone9282 4 місяці тому +1

      @sebastianliwinski222 Where I live in England, I remember them having to stop selling meat and milk from a specific area near me because of contamination from the reactor. That area has only just had the ban on the sale of milk lifted. Only now the milk is safe to drink.

  • @hadrionics2755
    @hadrionics2755 5 місяців тому

    8:13 There's the Merc!

  • @politicstoday8002
    @politicstoday8002 Місяць тому

    4:23 800 roentgens is not 100% fatal,but about 10000 are.
    And also the radioaisotopes will decay into other radioisotopes,not all of them are then gases.

  • @Dream25_
    @Dream25_ 5 місяців тому +7

    I know it probably won’t make much difference, but if this deters at least one UA-cam short or TikTok from acting as if you stood next to the elephant foot right now you would be dead in hours, I’ll be happy. It is insane to me the confidence that people will just lie about available information.

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому +1

      It's pretty interesting. As they say, truth is stranger than fiction, and it is somewhat hilarious that these creators are missing out on the real and hilarious stories. I do hope that it will have some impact but I may be hoping too much :)

    • @marcd6897
      @marcd6897 5 місяців тому

      Yeah Dream25_ , on the other hand I rather have a TikTok or YT short “overstating” the danger, than those countless dumb nuts still out there downplaying Chernobyl to a mere fire incident that was completely harmless and some “elite” BS theory that has just invented radioactivity danger…

  • @kainhall
    @kainhall 5 місяців тому

    8:06 ive seen that picture MANY!!! times
    and no description of the photo said it was number 1..... or even where it was found (im sure the ORIGINAL photo did)
    .
    but even if it said "room 242/4"..... no one knows where that is
    and its VERY VERY VERY hard to find it even if you wanted to!!!
    .
    i think one BIG issue is that EVERYTHING "official" is in Russian/Ukrainian
    and translating that to English is far harder than Spanish or German..... so people just dont

  • @toomuchvoltage469
    @toomuchvoltage469 5 місяців тому

    Where did you get the footage from inside the core

  • @jonathanreed5360
    @jonathanreed5360 5 місяців тому +5

    It's technically not IN Chernobyl, but I found this indispensable hand and drink warmer FROM Chernobyl. I use it everyday in the winter. The most amazing thing is that even though I still haven't found out where the batteries go, it is still going strong.

    • @cometzeph4544
      @cometzeph4544 5 місяців тому

      That sounds dangerous to have around

    • @dreadwolfrising
      @dreadwolfrising 5 місяців тому +3

      "Another unexpected benefit - it exfoliates the hell out of my hands. They're supposed to be red and blistered before they get better, right?"

    • @Endermania
      @Endermania 5 місяців тому +1

      Wait, did you find an RTG?

    • @TabbyTG
      @TabbyTG 5 місяців тому +1

      That was also my first thought.​@@Endermania

    • @IbishuCovet
      @IbishuCovet 5 місяців тому +3

      orphan source moment

  • @sweden23756
    @sweden23756 5 місяців тому

    What about the Upper biological sheild? (Elena) Wasent it putting out like 10000 roentgen in 1986? Or am i just blinded by the HBO series like many are. Or does it even count as a object

    • @SouthCarolinaSirens
      @SouthCarolinaSirens 4 місяці тому

      Pretty sure it was 30,000 or more R/h right after the explosion. Now its about 15-35 R/h in most places in the reactor hall.

  • @Gamez4to_0fficial
    @Gamez4to_0fficial 5 місяців тому +1

    How radioactive was the lid of unit 4?

    • @dingbat19
      @dingbat19 5 місяців тому +1

      20-30,000 roentgen per hour.

  • @Yazovheimer
    @Yazovheimer 5 місяців тому

    Nice, another video

  • @marten6578
    @marten6578 4 місяці тому

    8:13 you can see the red mercedes out the window

  • @joe125ful
    @joe125ful 4 місяці тому

    Wait 900Tons?:)
    So after lets say next 20years is will be safe for tourist get there?

  • @JeffreyPerrault-hk6xe
    @JeffreyPerrault-hk6xe 5 місяців тому

    I don't think you can use a linear scale for radioactivity both when the meltdown happened and present today.

    • @juslitor
      @juslitor 5 місяців тому

      More correct would be inverse logarithmic ?

  • @markboyle9941
    @markboyle9941 5 місяців тому +22

    This is an interesting video but please could you look into radiation dosimetry and get some of your facts correct. The Roentgen is a completely obsolete unit and is pretty meaningless in terms of dosimetry. It only refers to the amount of charge liberated in kg of dry air, it is a unit of exposure and not dose. A very approximate rule of thumb is to say that 1 R deposits (or results in an absorbed dose of) about 0.0096 Gray (9.6 mGy) in soft tissue. This is not a measure of equivalent or effective dose (mSv), and hence not a measure of risk to an individual. Also radioactivity is not measured in Roentgens, it is measured in Becquerels (Bq) with 1 Bq being equivalent to 1 disintegration per second. Also, bear in mind that the Roentgen is only defined for gamma and X-Rays, not for anything else which may contribute towards absorbed, but not necessarily effective dose. Stating exposure rates (or dose rates for that matter) is also meaningless without stating the distance at which they were measured, the standard is 1m. This can make a big difference when (for photons) the inverse square law is considered.

    • @MinSredMash
      @MinSredMash 5 місяців тому +4

      You need to address your complaints to the local scientists and technicians who measured in Roentgen. And for gamma it is not at all meaningless for dosimetry. Converting to Gy/Sv is simplicity itself for a roughly uniform field.

    • @markboyle9941
      @markboyle9941 5 місяців тому

      @@MinSredMash Roentgens are meaningless in terms of a dosimetric quantity, it only measures charge liberated in dry air it has nothing to do with absorbed dose or risk (equivalent/effective dose). I didn't say anything about gamma measurements being useless for dosimetry, go back and read my original post. I only mentioned that the Roentgen is only defined in terms of photos but many more processes will be contributing to air kerma and exposure here.
      Conversion of R to Gy is relatively simple but is not accurate, but is defined by rough conversion between Coulombs of charge liberated and Joules of energy deposited. It is different between soft tissue and air and becomes very energy dependent.
      As for conversion to Sv and calculation if effective dose, this would be highly challenging. You need to know all of the energies emitted from a source, the geometry of the source relative to the person and the distance and time. Then, and only then, based upon computational phantoms (MIRD/ICRP) be used to calculate effective dose based upon Monte Carlo simulation.

    • @MinSredMash
      @MinSredMash 5 місяців тому +4

      @@markboyle9941 It's a simple fact that actual, real-world dosimetry in accident conditions is carried out using simple conversion factors to estimate R/Gy/Sv as needed. You seems to be speaking from experience in a more picky environment such as a medical facility or laboratory.
      Millions of soldiers spent most of the Cold War running around with millions of survey meters that measured in R/hr. I think they knew what they were doing.

    • @juslitor
      @juslitor 5 місяців тому

      Regarding soldiers, they knew what they needed to know, which wasnt much. Arguably didnt do them any harm, officially@@MinSredMash

    • @rosskrem
      @rosskrem Місяць тому

      LOUD NOISES

  • @slowfreq
    @slowfreq 11 днів тому

    0:53 GYATT WARNING

  • @benmcreynolds8581
    @benmcreynolds8581 Місяць тому

    The more i learn about things, the more i realize that modern nuclear energy options is our best option going forward. LFTRs, Thorium Reactors, molten salt reactors, small form reactors, etc. We should utilize our advanced technology. Our Improved engineering & material science. Utilizing our greater understanding of safety & well made designs. We have so much more advanced computer technology & robotics that can be used. It feels like even tho tons of advancement has occurred with engineering designs, safety measures, etc. It still doesn't matter to most people. It's like most people are ingrained with a natural negative response when talking about nuclear energy. It's a bummer because i truly believe that our best option for our future is to start utilizing Modern advanced nuclear energy options in our electrical grid. It's just proving to be challenging to get politicians to get on board.
    It will really allow places to be much more energy independent. Less reliant on fossil fuels. They'll have efficient, stable electrical grids and the rest of the grid could experiment with alternative power sources, power desalination plants, etc.
    We need to heal from the trauma of our past. See & learn that those things only happened solely from Us not understanding what we were doing when it came to nuclear energy at the time. We didn't have advanced enough technology, material science, engineering, safety measures, understanding of how to go about everything, etc. This source of energy will greatly help the world improve towards the future and lowering emissions. More than anything else could, while also providing a very stable electrical grid system. Currently we have alternative energy options but the majority of our grid is powered off of fossil fuels and emission producing sources of energy. We will be so much better going forward commiting to modern advanced nuclear energy options.

  • @funjunk2835
    @funjunk2835 Місяць тому

    What's wrong with you? How do you get that number from feed water leaking from a blown tank?

  • @victor070
    @victor070 5 місяців тому +2

    8 roentgens. not great not terrible.

  • @danielwolf2163
    @danielwolf2163 5 місяців тому

    Well, so I have a question when I can't substantiate it. But may do you guys? Can I believe one of these documentaries? Said that someone took a picture of it from a distance. And they actually died from the radiation they've they received. And I think they took one picture. And then after that is when they rigged up the device. Did they try to push to the elephant's foot? So I don't know, maybe you can find that out. Maybe that might change. You're calculations. I don't know i'm not sure but I think I thought that was pretty interesting interesting

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому +3

      I have already covered that photo. That photographer survived, and was alive until at least the 2010s. His name is Valentin Obodzinsky.
      You can find out more on my video here: ua-cam.com/video/5ef2-woeveg/v-deo.html

    • @juslitor
      @juslitor 5 місяців тому

      Pretty sure that if any film camera was used, it had to be a custom job, with heavy shielding. Film doesnt take much to fog over.@@thatchernobylguy2915

  • @alexandernorton693
    @alexandernorton693 Місяць тому

    Time to figure out how radioactive the reactor itself is

  • @carlcoppola5369
    @carlcoppola5369 5 місяців тому

    There's no sound in the video

  • @inf3321
    @inf3321 3 місяці тому

    Feels like a real like Backrooms.

  • @Soldier600
    @Soldier600 2 місяці тому

    Unit 4: without me you are nothing

  • @kainhall
    @kainhall 5 місяців тому +1

    2:13 just to piss off EVERYONE......
    i think of that as "a 1/4th of a meter"
    .
    metric and imperial!!! dogs and cats living together!!!!

  • @bmstylee
    @bmstylee 5 місяців тому +1

    3840 roentgens. Not great. Not terrible. Sorry I couldn't resist.

  • @Liquefaction
    @Liquefaction Місяць тому

    I'm told it's the equivalent of a chest x-ray

  • @B0lsh
    @B0lsh 5 місяців тому +3

    1986 is 3000 r ? I think 10000

    • @deezelfairy
      @deezelfairy 5 місяців тому +1

      10000 r is perfectly believable in the early days measurements as there would have been isotopes in there with short half-lives which would have virtually decayed away completely by now 👍

  • @LAVODKA12
    @LAVODKA12 Місяць тому

    0:53 forking jumpscare

  • @joseph-mariopelerin7028
    @joseph-mariopelerin7028 5 місяців тому

    ooooooh what is it?? what is it??

  • @Soobscoop9858
    @Soobscoop9858 5 місяців тому

    Wouldn’t there be more radioactivity inside of the reactor pit?

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  5 місяців тому

      The core is virtually empty; there's nothing much left to be radioactive in there.

    • @Soobscoop9858
      @Soobscoop9858 5 місяців тому

      @@thatchernobylguy2915 did actually everything in the core melt through the bottom?

    • @halofreak1990
      @halofreak1990 5 місяців тому

      @@Soobscoop9858 No, a lot was ejected out through the top. If I remember correctly, estimates are that about 2% of the fissile material is left in the actual reactor pit.

  • @user-iz6tv1yu4y
    @user-iz6tv1yu4y 5 місяців тому

    Don't eat the wildlifeén

  • @hawkeye454
    @hawkeye454 5 місяців тому +2

    I love this channel

    • @669karlos
      @669karlos 5 місяців тому

      I’m with you. 👌🏻

  • @mediokay
    @mediokay Місяць тому

    Ok but... can i eat the elephant foot then?

  • @meanteen
    @meanteen Місяць тому

    Your predictions are off by a quarter then add the quarter to it...

  • @al3440
    @al3440 Місяць тому

    Gawd I wish I could visit Chernobyl long enough to take say 5 years off me life😅

    • @numbersstationsarchive194
      @numbersstationsarchive194 29 днів тому

      I think just visiting Ukraine at the moment will knock a few years off your life, knowing you could be killed by a Russian cruise missile.

  • @bold810
    @bold810 Місяць тому

    Yep. No doubt. Old lady's contact number. 🎉

  • @lewisd56
    @lewisd56 5 місяців тому

    Please stop using roentgens.... while they describe the exposure, they don't describe the actual biological exposure, and thus the severity of the radiation, rather you should use sieverts, which describe the equivalent dose.

  • @computersales
    @computersales 13 днів тому

    So don't lick it. 🤔

  • @vonatosbence9485
    @vonatosbence9485 Місяць тому

    Whats that white weird stuff on the heap?

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  Місяць тому

      A protective layer sprayed on it to reduce the radioactivity :)

    • @GWNorth-db8vn
      @GWNorth-db8vn Місяць тому

      @@thatchernobylguy2915 - The Elephant's Foot is crumbling into sand, and the other piles are probably the same. Might be to keep the dust down. That's why they sprayed goop on the Elephant's Foot years ago.

  • @eradicatorbloxXIIX
    @eradicatorbloxXIIX Місяць тому +1

    3.64 years not great not terrible!

  • @bold810
    @bold810 Місяць тому +1

    To answer the Title Question, the answer would be my Ex-Wife's Pager #.
    I'll sell it to you for cyrptomaine.

  • @furrball
    @furrball 28 днів тому

    there's no real champion to look for, all those just measure 3.6 roentgens, not great, not terrible...

  • @dolphenwulf2431
    @dolphenwulf2431 10 днів тому

    Ppppfft.........I eat corium for breakfast.

  • @julianreverse
    @julianreverse 4 місяці тому +1

    RÖNTGEN! NOT RONTZCHZENZS 🤦‍♂🤦‍♂

  • @cmillerg6306
    @cmillerg6306 Місяць тому

    Please check your pronunciation of "roentgen"

    • @GWNorth-db8vn
      @GWNorth-db8vn Місяць тому

      It's an obsolete unit that's mainly heard in videos about Chernobyl. We know what they mean. Most people can't type an umlaut on their keyboards, let alone be expected to know how to pronounce one.

  • @christopherleubner6633
    @christopherleubner6633 5 місяців тому

    The extreme heat would have boiled most of the 137Cs out of these coroum flows. The worst possible place to be would have been directly above the reactor as it was outgassing, but at least it would be quick...

  • @Tylerx-z
    @Tylerx-z Місяць тому

    Can I be Chernobyl guy 2 or 3

  • @fanBladeOne
    @fanBladeOne 4 місяці тому

    Ta-Daaaaa

  • @PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars
    @PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars 2 місяці тому

    Bearing in mind the current situation in Ukraine, is anybody monitoring this place? I can't imagine it's very safe.

    • @thatchernobylguy2915
      @thatchernobylguy2915  2 місяці тому +1

      So long as nobody actually goes there, it's completely fine. The floors are stable and the corium masses are all collapsing into dust anyway.

    • @PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars
      @PercyPruneMHDOIFandBars 2 місяці тому

      ​@@thatchernobylguy2915Fingers crossed the combatants don't get any stupid ideas!

  • @mendebil
    @mendebil 5 місяців тому

    This comes after Wikipedia deleted the graph showing 30000R/h in the vicinity of the core on the morning of apr26. And Fukushima publishing figures as high as 50000R/h , even 100000R/h inside the containment building. Keep it up and in some 50 years everybody will have a home nuclear reactor

    • @juslitor
      @juslitor 5 місяців тому

      The japanese dont use R/h, so whatever pages you been reading, wasnt official

  • @matthewpetersen4417
    @matthewpetersen4417 Місяць тому

    cant understand a word your saying.

  • @Chiavaccio
    @Chiavaccio 5 місяців тому

    👏👏👍