Slashdot Mirror


Interview With Chernobyl Engineer

An anonymous reader writes "New Scientist has posted an interview with a former Chernobyl engineer, Alexander Yuvchenko, who was not only there the night of the explosion, but is still alive today to tell about it. A fascinating recollection of some pretty heroic acts."

42 of 584 comments (clear)

  1. Quite a few by LordHatrus · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I know quite a few in the Cherynobe area who survived just fine. I even have some messed up film, somewhere :) Still sounds scary though.

    1. Re:Quite a few by Maestro4k · · Score: 4, Interesting
      • I know quite a few in the Cherynobe area who survived just fine. I even have some messed up film, somewhere :) Still sounds scary though.
      Umm, yeah that's true but this guy was working at the plant the night it exploded and even saw the interior of what was left of the pile at one point. (Which is amazing to read about.) Most of those there that night died, in fact at one point he tells he went with 3 other guys who were ordered to manually lower the rods. He propped the door open for them to go in and see for themselves almost nothing was left. The three guys who went through the door all died very soon afterwards but he's still here. (He credits the door and wall for saving his life.)

      You really should read this interview, it's both fascinating and scary as hell at the same time. I don't think I'll forget his description of the light from the ionized air above the reactor for a long time.

    2. Re:Quite a few by makohund · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For some reason when reading it I could picture it in my head, but...

      It was accompanied by an overwhelming sense that my mind's picture was superimposed with the old farmer Neham's well. From Lovecraft's "The Colour Out of Space".

      OK, the reactor light was blue while the color in the story was unidentifiable... but other than that they appeared so alike in my head as to really creep me out. :)

      Even the results of exposure were horribly similar.

    3. Re:Quite a few by abborren · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A google image search shows some beautiful pictures. I am not sure I used the correct spelling (Cherenkov vs Cerenkov) though "Cerenkov" returns nicer images.

      --
      ><////>
  2. Treatment was prompt by freedom_india · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How did they treat you? It was a very intensive and demanding treatment and you had to be very strong to withstand it. I had continuous blood and plasma transfusions. For a few months I lived on other people's blood. Then the ulcers from the radiation burns started to appear. I had a lot of burns. Only after a couple of months did it become clear that there was a chance I might live. For those of you who make fun of the Soviet system wen you probably wheren't even born then, this is a lesson: Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

    --
    "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    1. Re:Treatment was prompt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Aside from the whole covering-up the safety audit thing which set the stage for the explosion, and the inept fumbling of the inspectors which set it off, yeah I suppose they "took care of their people" well. In both senses of the phrase, actually...

      But seriously, even taking this as positively as possible, it's still a kilo of cure instead of a gram of prevention.

    2. Re:Treatment was prompt by HardCase · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For those of you who make fun of the Soviet system wen you probably wheren't even born then, this is a lesson: Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

      You're kidding, of course. Although the USSR's health care system was universal, the quality was utterly abyssmal for the average citizen.

      I was unfortunate enough to see first-hand the state of Soviet-era medical facilities and the quality of care in the mid 1980's. Many third-world countries had much better medical care than that of the "typical" Soviet hospital that we toured. And, given that this was a state-sponsored tour (as was everything that we saw), I suspect that it was something better than typical.

      -h-

    3. Re:Treatment was prompt by winkydink · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Are you trying to infer that dental health is not related to longevity? What percentage of English people over the age of 50, still have their original teeth (the answer is out there, go find it). I'll give you a hint, a lot more do not than do.

      If the English healthcare system is so great, why is there a separate, private healthcare system there for those who can afford to pay? How long does one wait for an elective surgery like, say, a hip replacement?

      --

      "I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey

    4. Re:Treatment was prompt by noewun · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, beginning in the late 60s, the Soviet Union suffered from a healthcare crisis: declining care, increasing infant mortality, rampant alcoholism, poor standards of sanitation and public hygeine, etc. The life expectancy of a Soviet male in the mid 1980s was six year less than in the 1960s, and the infant mortality rate was three times that of the U.S.

      --
      I am a believer of momentum and curves.
    5. Re:Treatment was prompt by Izago909 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Their healthcare system may not have been top notch for all people, but their doctors were just as dedicated and, dare I say, more imaginative. They knew how to do something, but didn't have the tools, sot they would devise ingenious substitutes.
      Have you ever seen anything about the ice surgeons performing heart surgery with no life support? They administer drugs to block adrenaline, and pour crushed ice around the body until the heart stops. From there they have about 60 minutes to get in and out. When they are done they wrap the person in heated blankets and heating pads and inject them with a large dose of adrenaline, maybe an electric shock if necessary. The lesson is that the tools are only half of the story; the doctors are the other half.

    6. Re:Treatment was prompt by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Soviets took care of their people well and their medicine was top.

      As someone, who was not only born then, but also lived there -- in Kyiv -- at the time, I authoritatively state: you are wrong.

      This is a sign, that nuclear engineers were a really prized folk. Dozens of firefighters and lower-rank workers died right there -- radiation is like that, you don't feel it, until it is too late and noone bothered to warn them. Soviets most certainly did not care of their people, unless -- as in the case of these engineers -- educating them took a while.

      They flew these guys to Moscow, which also means, that Kyiv -- Ukraine's capital, a city of 2.5 million people merely 100 miles away -- did not have the proper facilities. The medicine was not top -- individual scientists and labs did have notable successes, but the public health was awful.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:Treatment was prompt by dcmeserve · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Now that I have a son (who just turned 1), I find these kinds of stories that much more disturbing.

      How is your son doing now?

      --
      "Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
  3. Would Be Interesting to View in US by ackthpt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Alexander Yuvchenko will appear in Disaster at Chernobyl on Discovery Channel in Europe at 10pm (UK time) on 29 August

    Anyone up for recording this and making it available?

    Back in 1990 I caught a photo exhibit by Igor Kostin in Baltimore, MD. He was the first photographer in the area after the accident and toured it afterwords, taking many pictures which are still very disturbing to remember.

    It's remarkable how optimistic he is on nuclear power, even with his concerns of safety above finanancial or even political concerns.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  4. heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by vg30e · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't dispute the heroic efforts by everyone who put their lives on the line, but the tragic fact is that the chernobyl reactor fire could have been avoided if there had been more attention paid to safer reactor design and materials.

    Although the fire itself was caused by human error, the RBMK style reactors are much worse than the machines run by the US or western Europe and the powers that came up with that style of reactor are at least partly to blame for that tragedy.

    The end isn't in sight yet, the "coffin" that is encasing the bad reactor is cracking, it may collapse causing another giant radioactive cloud of dust to blow all over the Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

    1. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by garcia · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The end isn't in sight yet, the "coffin" that is encasing the bad reactor is cracking, it may collapse causing another giant radioactive cloud of dust to blow all over the Ukraine, Russia, and Europe.

      There was already a fire in the area that kicked up radioactive dust and sent it back into the air. I read somewhere before that the disaster at Chernobyl released about as much radioactive material into the atomosphere as one nuclear weapon test.

      Scary.

    2. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Ignignot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes, the RBMK style reactor isn't as safe as the CANDU or the pebble bed reactors. However, any reactor that can go critical (basically all but the pebble bed) can suffer from Chernobyl's problem - blatant disregard for safety procedures and nuclear physics. They attempted to simulate no load, turned off the automatic safeties, and turned off the coolant. Boom! What a suprise! The fact is no normal usage of the reactor could have produced that situation, but they were interested in studying the outcome, somehow not realizing how bad it could be. A combination of poor oversight and an inability to recognize dangerous situations, along with trial and error engineering with a nuclear reactor produced the tragedy. Yes a better reactor might have handled the disaster differently, but every kind of reactor except for pebble bed would still have had some serious problems.

      --
      I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
    3. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by sexylicious · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The F16 gear can retract on the ground. The nose gear especially. I've also seen several other plane's gears be retracted on the ground. On pilot retracted his gear because he bumped the lever inside the cockpit... I think he sneezed or something and it knocked the lever. He was flying a cessna, if my memory serves.

      And the next guy down is correct, squat switches fail all the time.

    4. Re:heroism in the face of bad design and decisions by Ribald · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Generally known in military aviation as a Weight-on-Wheel (WOW) switch. The gear shouldn't come up (you'll also get an annoying warning klaxon, IIRC), and with the F-16's gear design, I too feel that the actuators would have trouble retracting the mains while loaded.

      Also keep in mind that many other systems (fire control, navigation, radar) are inhibited while on the ground. One of the ex-USAF guys I work with had an amusing story--this is secondhand, so take it with a grain of salt. They needed to check something out on an aircraft, and it required WOW=false. So they lifted it off its wheels and started to power up the equipment, when they found that the radar had energized--keep in mind an airborne fire control radar is a bit stronger than a cop's radar gun.

      By the time they shut it off, it had burned a hole a few feet in diameter through the (luckily unoccupied) hangar across the runway.

      --Ribald

  5. "My neighbors don't know who I am" by Zen+Punk · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "...there is a stigma attached to it."

    I had no idea that someone who was involved in Chernobyl would feel the need to hide the very fact that he was there.

    What if this man was your neighbor and Chernobyl was your hometown? Would you harbor a grudge against him because he worked there?

    After all, just because someone was there doesn't mean they were responsible for the accident. Like he said, "there was nothing we could do."

    --
    Sleep is futile.
  6. Why Nuclear will never work.. by KenFury · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Quote: What do you think about nuclear power?

    I'm fine about it, as long as safety is put head and shoulders above any other concern, financial or whatever. If you keep safety as your number one priority at all stages of planning and running a plant, it should be OK.


    Nuclear power will never work in the US for that very reason. Power is a private enterprise. Don't ask me why that is just the way this country thinks. Private industry will never put safty as number one priority. It's number one priority is profit. Companies will skimp on safety to maximize profit. Yes I know that we do have nuclear reactors in this country now. They are extremly regulated. They are being deregulated every day. When they are de-regulated enough for the companies, a disaster will soon follow. (5-10 years)

    1. Re:Why Nuclear will never work.. by ender81b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sadly enough you are probably right.

      The best example for nuclear power safety is the fact that after 50 years of operation of hundreds of Nuke power plants only 1 serious accident occurred - and that was at a poorly designed USSR station that would never have been allowed to be built in the US.

      But, nowadays, we have some relaly, really, really fail safe designs that could be used like the Pebble Bed Reactor that can never ever melt down even assuming a complete and total failure of all safety backups, coolant etc (of course, it could still cause contamination if a break in the cooling or such occurred).

      Now, OTOH, you have people like the US Navy who have a *perfect* record for Nuclear safety simply because if their was ever an accident the Navy knows that would likely be the end of all their Nuke powered boats (helluva a motivator eh?)

  7. Catch-22 by bhima · · Score: 2, Interesting
    I thought about this sort of thing ever since I read that between 40~60% of the energy generated in America is used in the distribution of energy being that Austria is smaller I guess we use less energy that way... but still if smaller energy stations were more abundant we would less energy pushing it around and huge accidents like this would be even more less likely.

    Unfortunately more stations means more opportunity for smaller incidents... Tut mir leid.

    --
    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
  8. Still remember... by kg_o.O · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I still remember the brownish color and ugly taste of Lugol's solution (hope I didn't mess up the name) the nice ladies at kindergarten gave us. Of course, it was a matter of a few years until I understood the reason this "medicine-that-doesn't-taste-good-but-you-must-dri nk-it" was given to us. Weird feelings when playing Fallout ever since ;)

  9. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by thhamm · · Score: 1, Interesting

    most people i know think of nuclear power plants as giant atomic bombs that can go off any second. no use to explain things like "critical mass" or how efficient nuclear power is compared to coal/oil. "nuclear? no way, thats too dangerous."

    but no need to worry anymore. now were dismantling all our high-standard plants here, so the big companies can sell us the power generated by nice russian RBMK reactors.

    ah heck. i dont need no power plants. my power comes right out of this little outlet in my wall.

  10. Interesting, IMO. by gfxguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Because I'm someone who supports nuclear fission as a means of generating power (at this point in time, anyway)...

    What do you think about nuclear power?

    I'm fine about it, as long as safety is put head and shoulders above any other concern, financial or whatever. If you keep safety as your number one priority at all stages of planning and running a plant, it should be OK.

    This is why this is not going to happen in the U.S. ... redundant safety precaution after redundant safety precaution. Three Mile Island proved that those precautions work, even after a series of mistakes.

    --
    Stupid sexy Flanders.
  11. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yucca mountain is perfectly safe, but it's kind of stupid. We have the technology to reprocess most of the stuff into more fuel for reactors. Other stuff is useful in medicine and micro power sources. The remainder can be made safe via a process known as "Photoremediation".

    The reason why this isn't done (save for some allowance for the second case I listed), is that the government considers it a threat to national security. Their problem with these options is that evil terrorists may intercept nuclear materials shipments, then use them for evil deeds. So their solution is to pile it all in a big cave somewhere. *sigh* Things are pretty bad when our own government doesn't understand.

  12. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We aren't living in the 50s anymore. Nuclear development hasn't shown the results it promised and we today we know about more options.

    What options do we have today that we didn't have in the 1950's? How many of those are capable of outright replacing the Coal/Oil/Nuclear infrastructure?

  13. Re:real-life Radioactive Man? by smclean · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Yeah, my interpretation was that his shame was more the result of the fact that Chernobyl was a disgrace for the Soviet Union, and he does not want to identify himself as someone who people could blame (his being blameness in fact has nothing to do with it).

    --

    "'Yrch!' said Legolas, falling into his own tongue."

  14. Yeah? Clean it up! by Chordonblue · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is a primary difference between coal/oil and nuclear. Nuclear can't be cleaned up. It can be moved from one spot to another though. How about we put it in your backyard for starters?

    And even when it's done well (most U.S. plants appear to be safely constructed and maintained), how can we guanantee it's safety through administrations or government overthrows? How many people were needlessly affected (in Russia and elsewhere) because of Soviet political bullshit?

    Chernobyl is fucking TERRIFYING. There's a reason why that S.T.A.L.K.E.R. game is based on that location.

    I say, nuclear power becomes a more viable option when you can tell me what to do with the waste it generates. And the answer has to be better than 'bury it'.

    --
    "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    1. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Digicaf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would rather have 50 nuclear power plants in my "back yard", than 1 coal or oil plant.

    2. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Chordonblue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not true. There is clean coal tech - and right here where I live in PA. There is also wind, solar, etc.

      I agree with you about oil and coal, but there are options where they are looked for.

      --
      "...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
    3. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Lightwarrior · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Do you mean coal scrubbing? It doesn't eliminate the pollution, but it does cut down on it. Still, we're talking a basically nonexistant chance of a meltdown + small amounts of uranium VS. significant amounts of pollution.

      Wind and solar energy accounted for less than 2% of our (USA) total power consumption from 2001. Our solar technology basically hasn't changed since the mid-70s - it's about 2% efficient. These are not technologies that we have significantly invested in, and the time to find an alternative is almost up.

      Shortly put, we don't have any other options - unless there is a gigantic scientific blitz of research. Truth be told, the way we're heading I'll be surprised if we get *anything* accomplished before it's too late to roll out a solution.

      -lw

      --
      Mods: Disagreeing with me != my post Offtopic / Flamebait.
      World without hate or war, invaded. Tragic?
    4. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by cameldrv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm also pro-nuke, but your point about solar isn't correct. Newer cells are 10+% efficient, and the super high-tech ones they put on satellites are over 25%. A lot of new installations are using fresnel lenses and small cells to get the costs way down. If you're in a desert type area, utility scale solar is pretty cost competitive with more expensive forms of conventional generation, like gas or oil. The big problem, of course, is the lack of power on demand. Hopefully if fuel cell and hydrogen generation technology advances, we will be able to generate hydrogen in Arizona and pipe it all over the country.

    5. Re:Yeah? Clean it up! by Mac+Degger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plus, nuclear waste can be transmuted into nuclear waste that stops radiating in less than two hundred years. So all you have to do is transmutate the waste (not a trivial enterporise, but still) and house it in something for 100 to 150 years. End of problem.

      Couple this with the new intrinsicaly safe nuclear reactors (these are reactors which, due to their design, have physical principles which mean they shut down themselves if anything goes wrong...no faulty electronics, we're talking simple mechanics here) and yeah, nuclear power is the only green power there is.

      What bugs me most is that so-called 'action groups' like Greenpeace haven't a fucking clue. But then again, that's becuase they have hardly any PHD's working for them...and when they do, those phd's are for law, no (applied) physics, no chemistry...the only technical phd working for Greenpeace in the Netherlands came from fucking Aeronautics! A bloody plane builder! Greenpeace and it's ilk, whilst doing some good work, is ignorant becuase they're staffed like a goddamn PR firm.

      Oops: sorry for the rant :)

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  15. Chernobyl = 100s of nuclear tests by abbamouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Actually, if you read a UN report on the matter, its scientists concluded that the lingering radiation from Chernobyl is equal to about 40% of the dose from all nuclear tests put together. Check the table at the bottom. I recall reading that the particular isotopes released by the explosion were worse than those from nuclear tests for some reason, but I haven't been able to locate the source of that information.

    --
    Make cheese not war 8:)
  16. Re:Safety of Nuclear Power by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Lets see:

    • Actual miners deaths - over 100,000 miners deaths world wide since the 19th century.
    • 116 *children* die in slag heap tragedy (here - my father lost his two brothers in this accident)
    This is not even mentioning the fact that coal smoke is incredibly toxic and even radioactive.
  17. I was born like 300 km from reactor. by kennycoder · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was born in Kiev.. something like 250 - 300km from Chernobyl. Most of us were lucky cause the wind took frist radiation wave to another side... otherwise you could see Kiev dead (actual capital of Ukraine). I've seen lots of children in special hospitals tolly mutated.. not a good thing to see.. i imagined myself @ their's place. Nuclear power is a great this once it is controlled proprelly. Now Ukrainian government is asking for $ each year for creating new shields for old reactors... bastards!

    --
    Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
  18. Interesting fact... by burns210 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I had a class with a russian girl last year. Not russian actually, but a former satelite state whose name escapes me. Anyway, because she was born within a certain distance from Chernobyl(she was 17, or so as of this past year) the Red Cross will never except her blood for donation for her entire life.

    I thought that was fairly interesting, that they have a lifelong ban on all people's blood that lived/were born within a certain perimeter of the accident.

  19. Re:Russian R.B.M.K reactors were badly designed .. by TheHawke · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I can't wait for that reflected moderated reactor to come online up in Alaska. Toshiba's 4S system, consists of a prefabricated core, sealed at the factory, then delivered to the site and installed into prefabricated concrete casings, then plumbed and wired. The 4S system does not use the traditional rod and core design. It design is based on a reflector that moves up and down the face of the uranium core, reflecting neutrons back into the core, causing the fission rate in increase, creating power. If more power is needed, the refector moves faster, but it also shortens the core's life, which is 6 years on the nominal decay rate.
    The upshot to this design is that if something breaks, the reflector simply stops, and the core cools down back to it's normal static decay rate. For instance, you have a power surge that causes a turbine trip, which in turn causes a surge in high pressure steam feed. The operator or automation would take note of it, tripping emergency venting on the secondary coolant loop, finally ordering the reactor to SCRAM. The refector stops moving and things cool down and the community relies on the auxillary generator until a technician can come out to check things out before resetting the system back to normal power generation.

    --
    First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
  20. My question about the Chernobyl disaster is..... by cyberassasin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what should have been done. There are many excellent description of what caused the event, and what was done wrong to produce the event, but I still haven't found any explanation of what the response should have been to stop the accident. Can anyone comment, or have a link. And I am talking about fixing the problem once all of those safeties were removed. Was this a recoverable condition that they hadn't trained for, or was the outcome unavoidable....

    --
    Who is the master of foxhounds, and who says the hunt has begun? -Pink Floyd
  21. Re:My question about the Chernobyl disaster is.... by SergeyKurdakov · · Score: 2, Interesting

    or was the outcome unavoidable....

    sorry no links - but briefly from what I read in russian press -the outcome after the things they did was unavoidable. But then ALL similar reactors were equipped with new features which will make the similar situations avoidable. So now if the things at any power plant will go the same way - then there will not be tragedy.
  22. Summer without lettuce by incompetent_bitch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was just a young lad at the time of the explosion and living in Switzerland, but I still remember it as the summer without lettuce. I guess the radiation was being absorbed in the leafy green above ground plants, and hence you couldn't eat it.
    It's weird, I don't remember the drastic explosion, the incredible loss of life, the aftermath, except the fact that I couldn't eat lettuce that summer.
    Odd the things you remember.