A Brief History of: The Lucens Reactor Meltdown (Short Documentary)

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Any experimental reactor accidents I should cover let me know!

[@Belisknerful]

As I wrote in one of my prev. comments, you may take a look at Jaslovské Bohunice. Built from 1958 and using non-enriched uranium as fuel in former Czechoslovakia (now located in Slovakia). Interesting fact, all accidents which happend there are, along with the scrapping process, considered as classified. But still a general info is out.

[@rogerc7960]

France detonated 8 atom bombs near Bordeaux

[@lukahierl9857]

The ball pit reactor AVR jürich in germany. I know not a specific accident, rather a complete Cluster f***.

[@absolutely1337]

ahhhh love a good vid on saturday from you. thznks.

[@XFly170]

I entered the Matrix and went to see The Oracle to ask her that question. « Come in, XFly170, I’ve been waiting for you. The cookies are almost done. » she said as I walked in. « What nuclear reactor accident should Plainly Difficult cover next? » I asked her. « The one that hasn’t happened yet, XFly170, the one that hasn’t happened yet. » The Oracle said as she offered me a cookie, still steaming hot out of the oven. « But... if he does a video about it, won’t that stop it from happening? » I asked her back, in between two bites of her cookie. « What’s really going to bother your mind later on is, whether you’d have eaten a cookie right here in this kitchen tonight if the video stops it from happening. »

[@miraflynn8935]

Look at that, an adequately contained, properly cleaned up nuclear mishap.

[@NPrinceling]

Like clockwork... :D

[@aswisshuman637]

Nolan Flynn welllllllllll is made by us.......i am just confused we did not build an clock out of it

[@sehvehn7955]

Lol. This happens once a month on an air craft carrier. Reactor always acting funky

[@arthas640]

Well it WAS sunk into a mountain and used lower powered method. It was also a somewhat experimental model so they planned ahead for failure whereas most normal powerplants are built with more efficiency in mind and that may result in it being harder to clean up (like being close to water sources that makes it harder to contain when it fails)

[@jamesricker3997]

That's probably why they put it in a cave Just in case

[@CivilWarWeekByWeek]

The biggest surprise of this episode is that after the accident Switzerland stopped its nuclear program

[@PlainlyDifficult]

I suppose the massive clean up soured the desire

[@davidgustafik7968]

@Phục Đạt Đức How is CERN polluting anything?

[@matteckert7541]

@Phục Đạt Đức caring about the environment and nuclear power aren't mutually exclusive, nuclear power is the only true renewable energy and it's less deadly than other "renewable" sources.

[@Panzerfan93]

actually no, it only offically got disbanded in the 1980s, but it was quasi-dead way before

[@pullt]

@Phục Đạt Đức One of the biggest travesties of the Nuclear Age is how environmentalists became so ardently anti-nuclear power.... Way, way, WAY more pollution is created by other energy sources. Is nuclear perfect? No, but the planet would be cleaner and safer if more nuclear energy was used.

[@Zeppflyer]

In addition to safety, was defensibly a consideration here? Building a mostly-hidden, mostly-bomb-proof reactor seems like a very Swiss thing to do.

[@TotallyNotRedneckYall]

The whole darn country is a bunker 🤣

[@Duraltia]

The Reinforced Concrete Shell of a Nuclear Reactor can probably only be penetrated by a Bunker Buster - There's a snipped out there where they "flew" ( rocket propelled on a rail ) an entire Jet into a representative portion of such a shell on a test site - Viewed directly from the side - At first it looked like the plane went straight through it but a different angle showed the plane just disintegrating on the wall with the latter not having given a single darn fuck about what just had happened.

[@FortuneZer0]

Caverns were indeed a way of protecting instalations as one cant pin point the targets.

[@martigrey5872]

@@Duraltia yes the walls stop a plane and they did prove that but if you're watching German state TV they changed the voiceover to say the walls can't withstand a plane. But the footage shows there is no more plane, just a standing wall.

[@MazeFrame]

@@Duraltia Watched a documentary on a tunnel fire. The problem is not the impact, it is what the heat does to the concrete.

[@deephorizon1365]

Here's a little constructive criticism: All throughout the video, I heard at least 3 different types of radiation measurements, and no real "scale" for them. When explaining the exposure of the radiation, it's be insanely helpful to give something to compare it to, like an x-ray or something. Asides from that, that was a great video.

[@deephorizon1365]

@TurboCMinusMinus It would still give a good idea of if it's not much or "holy fuck the world is ending", also a different scale to use could be how long it would take to kill you lol or normal background radiation

[@mcblaggart8565]

@TurboCMinusMinus To be fair, those vague scales are also used by lying anti-nuclear types to create irrational fear of radioactivity. Like when barely detectable radiation from Fukushima washed up in California. HUNDREDS OF TIMES THE NATURAL LEVEL OF RADIOACTIVE CESIUM! (The natural level is practically zero)

[@krivdik]

@@mcblaggart8565 Yep, just take a plane and climb into 10 000m, where background radiation levels are on average 40 times highter, than on ground level. Seems like, it does not realy bother anyone, since such level of radiation is still completely fine.

[@zolikoff]

Rads are fine because it's an objective and used-by-industry measurement. Comparing to X-rays is not useful at all. Sieverts would be better than Rads, but it's not a big difference you just divide by 100. However, some statements aren't qualified in exposure/dose, but rather regulatory limits, eg. "Ten times the allowable exposure", which is bad because it provides no objective information. It should be stated what that actual value was.

[@mjfan653]

i think a lot of it is due to the reports and citations using diferent scales, and conversions would/could be done diferent depending on how much of what was in that measured radiation. but yeah, he could, for example, use the original reported scale + number, and give an channel standard comparison along that number, if it's not in that scale already... would help a lot of the less nuclear people watching understand the severity and help put things in context, especially over the diferent accidents/videos

[@Jay-ln1co]

Low enrichment fuel. Oh no. Graphite moderation. Oh no! Air cooling. OH NO!

[@PlainlyDifficult]

A healthy mixture for disaster

[@MAAnderson22]

What's wrong with low enrichment fuel? Wouldn't that be better than high (er) enrichment?

[@derekp2674]

@@PlainlyDifficult UK Magnox reactors ran safely with NU or vLEU fuel, graphite moderation and CO2 cooling for many decades.

[@andybub45]

Not great, not terrible.

[@mile290productions3]

We didn't learn from Chernobyl did we?

[@dointh4198]

When I heard magnesium and water I thought: Hmm - no problems with corrosion?.... ah ... yes.

[@jenniferbaldini3527]

"What the operators didnt know..." {Shudders} *DUN DUN DUN*

[@le0daniel]

Even most people in Switzerland don t know that this happened...

[@hkkhgffh3613]

Attention stay away from da Bünzlies!

[@foreverpinkf.7603]

They have been much smarter than their neighbors, e.g. France and Germany and stopped the madness.

[@Peatch13]

in our canton (bern) is a mandatory piece of history class, I assume is also in others.....vo wo bisch? 😅

[@le0daniel]

@@Peatch13 also wier im wallis hei niä va dem kehrt inner schüäl 😅

[@Burnding]

@@le0daniel Also ich has nummu us zöäfall ärfahru und has Plainly Difficult sogar vorgschlagu, ob ich där üsleser fär das video bi gsi weisi nid, aber interessant ischs trotz dem gsi

[@dr.rotwang]

I think you should make a video explaining all the different measurements of radiation that you reference with counterparts of other systems and analogous real world examples. Like this many millisieverts is analogous to this many rems, or this many chest x-rays, or whatever. A dedicated video as well as other in video examples would help a lot of those not versed in the various measurement systems of radiation understand the scale of incidents and the levels of danger.

[@piotrcurious1131]

To accurately measure "radiation" you could just equalize it to it's total energy equivalent, Watts. Problem is, when You have nuclear pollution, You do not only worry about radiation alone, wchich is actually harmless from short distance (like any EM radiation, inverse square law applies) What is a problem is that various ISOTOPES are released. Carbon, Cesium, Plutonium , Iodine - have high bio-availability. Cadmium pollutes steel, actually to get non radioactive steel nowadays (f.e. to build scientific instruments) You need to buy it from special reserves created from old , pre-radioactive era ships and other scrap. So uniform radiation scale is not really telling us anything about disaster, not even rough estimate on type or mass of isotopes released. It is bit like trying to measure farts judging on how loud they are, and arguing over decibells vs spectral analysis of fart sounds...

[@GentlemansCombatives]

I need to know it in roentgen

[@ZGryphon]

Well, the sievert-to-rem equivalence, at least, is pretty easy, since the rem was retroactively defined as 0.01 sievert in 1976. :)

[@gargoyle7863]

Measurements max out at 3.6 Roentgens. Not good, not terrible.

[@todydn]

All you need know is ld50 and ld100 for rad (radioactive absorbed dose) and how much the fallout isotopes are emiting... any alpha particles (heavy particles luke radiatiin laden dust) are the most dangerous

[@the_hamrat]

The figurines are what always make me chuckle

[@totalrecone]

Me too. We didn't get a "bollocks" this time, but we *did* get an "Oh s*ht" which is on par :)

[@stevie-ray2020]

They always remind me of those illustrations in the foreign language text-books from high-school!

[@pappaflammyboi5799]

You failed to mention a very critical part of the description of the Lucens Reactor design. This particular design, much like the RBMK design in Chernobyl, used two types of moderator material, graphite and deuterated water (H2O also works), a difficult balancing act if there ever was one. Both types of designs unintentionally incorporated uncharacterized positive void coefficient failure-modes which could allow unaccounted-for excess moderating material near the reactor fuel. Thus, when the coolant, being affected, couldn't maintain fuel temperature stability due to an excess of reactivity from the over-moderation event (keff >> 1), a meltdown ensued. So it appears that the Swiss had a meltdown of a very similar type to the Chernobyl design, except in the Lucens design they had 1/2 to 1/3 the uranium enrichment level and less overall starting nuclear material that could get into a positive-feedback runaway situation. If this was publicly available knowledge, the Russians might have been able to modify their reactor and avoid a catastrophe.

[@nevermind824]

The Russians new this. The soviet state didn't release its own research into the void physics to its own scientific community.

[@cud0s]

Russians knew this - they even had accidents in other rbmk reactors before chernobyl, but they did not share information between theimselves

[@neutronalchemist3241]

The main problem at Lucens had been the use of magnesium along with CO2 and water in a high temperature environment. Since those charateristics were not present in the RBMK reactors, the Soviets would have considered them to be safe anyway. It has to be said that the problems of Lucens were even easier to predict than those of the RBMK reactors, since it was well known that the Magnox alloys were rapidly corroded by water (it was for that reason the "magnox" British reactors had no water in the core, and that had not completely saved them anyway) even more since in a CO2 atmosphere water forms carbonic acid. In the original design, the magnesium was not directly in contact with water, but it needed only a small leakage.

[@Waldemarvonanhalt]

Keep in mind, cost-effectiveness was everything for the Soviets. They didn't even build their NPP's with containment buildings, due to cost. I seriously doubt they would accept the cost of overhauling relatively new reactors.

[@misham6547]

@@Waldemarvonanhalt the pwr reactors where build with an containment building but due to the hot swapping of fuel in the RBMK reactor they didn't want to build one because it would remove that feature

[@paststeve1]

This comment is to boost our friend Al Go-Rhythm.

[@ElTurbinado]

thx for saving this from 0 views.

[@duhluth]

Not to be confused with my proto-internet electronica synth group, the Al Gore Rhythms 😎

[@paststeve1]

@@duhluth They invented the internet!

[@RooMan93]

I thought only Tony stark could build a reactor in a cave

[@Bryzerse]

One little thing: hydroelectric is actually much less safe than fission, many more people are killed in hydroelectric disasters and the environment is often much more affected.

[@RCAvhstape]

Reactors in caves may have problems, but it still seems like a better idea than how Chernobyl was built.

[@spicywolf6718]

You do realise that after the accident in 86 the other 3 reactors continued operating till 91,96,2000 respectively and there are still another 10 operational. There's nothing wrong with RBMK-1000 reactors so long as they are operated according to spec. Plus the remaining had modifications post 86.

[@mihai08]

Is chernobyl was in the position, the power of the blast would have demolishes the entire side, without the capability to dose of the 🔥... the core would have polluted the underground water traveling towards the lower points

[@Zonda1996]

Spicy Wolf Why would the RBMK-1000 design need to be modified after 1986 if there was nothing wrong with it in the first place? 💀

[@Calliber50]

If it was a man made cave and properly sealed. I would highly advise against using an existing cave without proper engineering. Caves are formed through years of water running through and carving the cave. So there are many paths for any nuclear mishap to disperse.

[@spicywolf6718]

@@Zonda1996 they added more safety measure to the control computers and changed a few mechanical feeds. The reactor design itself was unchanged. They even used the same design and scaled it down to make 30MW mini reactors

[@pocketstationman6364]

That's such a sad and premature end to what could have been a marvellous piece of technology and engineering.

[@takase5037]

last time I was this early the day shift haven't ended yet

[@PlainlyDifficult]

😂😂

[@letterslayer7814]

pff its past bed time for us night shift people here in merica' thats right, merica'

[@takase5037]

@@letterslayer7814 i can assure most accidents at some point involves a shift change, here and the CSB videos

[@ljubomirculibrk4097]

Magnesium in a reactore core, plus cooled whit CO2, ingres of water. If that isnt concerning go a head and turn reactor on. Nuts... Overheat magnesium and it burns in CO2, water reacts whit Mg at room temps realisin H2 (at Mg melting temp thats explosive), CO2 disolved in water is a weak acid but its more than fast at coroding Mg, product is carbonate that acts as a calk. Nice desighn, nuts...

[@jfan4reva]

I remember as a kid seeing a demonstration on a tv science show how, something impossible could happen - a metal burning! They squirted some water on magnesium powder and it burst into flames. I also remember when Honda started making magnesium engine covers for some of their motorcycles, and mechanics quickly learned not to weld near those magnesium parts. How do you fight a magnesium fire? You hose down everything near by so it won't burn, and let the magnesium burn itself out. This reactor probably was a brilliant design, but only when everything goes right. Like all high tech, when things aren't within specs, things tend to go wrong quickly and catastrophically. The higher the level of technology, the less 'robust' (less able to withstand out of spec excursions) the device.

[@Zonkotron]

@@jfan4reva Sand, cement, that kind of stuff will mostly snuff a magnesium fire.

[@thejudgmentalcat]

Rb - the amphibious element ("ribit" - frog) I'll show myself out.

[@DrBrown88]

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣👍

[@pocketstationman6364]

The one character I let die on purpose.

[@BrilliantDesignOnline]

Nuclear humor.

[@stevie-ray2020]

@@BrilliantDesignOnline Atomic-mirth?

[@joeylawn36111]

"unless you're Sayano-Shushenskaya" - hmmm, a hint for a future video???? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayano-Shushenskaya_Dam

[@josephfutrell5619]

If you want dam accidents, should probably go with one of the worst in modern times, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vajont_Dam

[@lcmiracle]

"The control room experienced 10 times the maximum admissible concentration for occupational exposure... Rb 88 which has a short half-life of around 18 minutes". That's still 5 times the maximum admissible concentration tho

[@01superduty89]

Don’t have time to watch right now, pre liking and commenting how excited I am.

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you!

[@FurryWrecker911]

10:04 For as much of a shame it is this facility ended up being a write off, abandoned structures are one of my favorite things to learn about and explore, and this sequence of shots here is absolutely breathtaking. My artsy side loves this.

[@Jammermaker]

That’s why you don’t have to worry about melting fuel if your fuel’s already melted msr

[@seanmcloughlin455]

Really enjoying the videos. Keep up the good work

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you

[@JeaneGenie]

The contaminated heavy water was dealt with efficiently. By tipping the contamination into the nearest river it was able to flush away to the ocean allowing nature to deal with it effectively by having sea salt and sunlight neutralising it very quickly.

[@kevinmoore2501]

I’ve always appreciated, and watched your nuclear reactor videos. They’re all very informative, and well made.

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you

[@TacComControl]

Swiss: "We'll make cheese, but put a bunch of holes in it." Also the Swiss: "We'll make Reactors with Graphite, but put a bunch of holes in it."

[@docdaneeka3424]

Why do these nuclear facilities keep hiring that white coat blue tie guy? Every place he has been in charge of has blown up.

[@alexandercarder2281]

Talking about Dams, could you do any Dam failures? That would be sweet

[@PlainlyDifficult]

There’s a couple videos soon 😉

[@alexandercarder2281]

Plainly Difficult YESSSSSSSSS

[@ferretyluv]

He already did Johnstown.

[@kAudiZ78]

They didn't learn: 2014 it became public that workers put 6 holes in the primary containment at nuclear power plant Leibstadt /Swiss. Reason: they wanted to put fire extinguishers there.... Thank you for your great videos!

[@donactdum6635]

Amazing video man, Could you please do the West Lake Landfill next? I know all about it already but I think we all love your style of covering disasters!

[@andystadi]

very interesting video i have been waiting for. keep it up! greetings from Switzerland!

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you!

[@mathiuseden9605]

"it's all mine" made me giggle

[@PlainlyDifficult]

😬

[@ForzaNinetails]

Hi, random comment. I only just found your channel a few weeks ago. I've been going through all of your disaster videos days straight now. Keep it up!

[@kevincollins2184]

As much as I enjoy your weekly disaster content, I honestly enjoy your animations the most that's what truly makes the videos. Keep up the awesome work cheers

[@dummydumb9637]

Good video mate

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you

[@BarbischLukas95]

They first had planned to build it in Zürich (big city in Switzerland). Lukily they decided to build it elsewhere.

[@wazza33racer]

Something makes me think, that they didnt consult any experienced reactor designers before building this fiasco.

[@zzanatos2001]

When it comes to nuclear reactors, Murphy's Law always applies.

[@Orygunner67]

Thanks again for educating us! 🤓🥸🤠😎

[@kirstm.2215]

Love this channel. The only bad thing is the videos aren't long enough

[@dcaseng]

One thing I've learned from this channel is that there have been a frightening number of accidents related to nuclear power.

[@drewgehringer7813]

There's a lot of accidents related to generating electricity period to be honest, coal and natural power plants don't have a spotless safety record either but death by boiler explosion or being buried in a coal pile avalanche isn't as slow and unpleasant to look at as death by acute radiation syndrome.

[@ajfurnari2448]

The last time I was this early, the reactor chamber was still spewing radiation

[@mrick1974]

Love your videos ! Keep up the good work

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you!

[@aldenconsolver3428]

Well thats a weird one, usually the Swiss are very very careful about what they do. I also was taken aback by what I would have thought was a safe configuration doing the Swiss no good at all.

[@ethribin4188]

Having a test reactor built underground actually is quite brilliant if you ask me.

[@stephanieparker1250]

I’m surprised they just threw in the towel and scrapped all that material and work..

[@deephish]

I would say the location saved a whole load of contamination from being released into the atmospher. If only it was above ground, they could have just let all the radiation escape, opps, we wont do it again. lol

[@010203109]

The thing about hydro is you're still putting potential millions at risk downstream and even more if vital crop fields and ranches downstream are at risk should the damn fail as well, causing food shortages and severe short term economic repercussions. In addition, dams greatly disrupt the natural ecosystems they are built upon, requiring expensive work arounds to hopefully allow fish to migrate about but that still don't exactly replace a continuous river that is safe and easy for aquatic life to move up and downstream within.

[@ianwilkinson5069]

Just like the huge floods going on in china that no ones been talking about.

[@robinwells8879]

There is no harmless human activity. We just try to minimise the harm where we can. Sadly the "I'm against that brigade" realised that there is always a down side to any activity and latch on to that to achieve their nimby aims. I know of an offshore windfarm that was not developed because it might interfere with the life cycle of some bird that no one has ever seen on the sight. As a result you could argue that we delayed the closure of our older coal burning generators for a number of years more than we might have. Despite this, the activists responsible will count themselves great heroes of the environment!🙄 Humans are basically an infestation on an otherwise rather pleasant planet and that is the long and the short of it. If we all tried to do our bit for the environment rather than blaming everyone but ourselves, then we might do a lot better better.

[@princeofcupspoc9073]

Every large damn results in a major environmental mess. In theory, these issues are mitigated. In practice, that's not really the case. Wind and geo-thermal seem to be better in terms of environmental impact.

[@krashd]

@romaneeconti02 I'm going to assume that was sarcasm. It's not liberals who would see a complete end to red tape and regulations. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_policy_of_the_Donald_Trump_administration

[@leechowning2712]

Why did the safety rupture disk vent the coolant into the reaction chamber? I mean it would not take that much extra effort to provide an "overflow tank" since in case of an accident the coolant would be (and was) contaminated. If the unit is suffering an overpressure accident it would be a risk.

[@electrohalo8798]

This really put the nuclear bomb on Switzerland’s nuclear program! I’ll show myself out

[@DanBowkley]

Speaking of hydro power being so ultra safe...can you do an episode about the St. Francis Dam failure in California in 1928? It happened close to my hometown.

[@pseudotasuki]

Hydroelectric power is safe, but it absolutely is *not* safer than nuclear.

[@JonSmith152]

Oh man I can’t wait to see a video about my meltdown

[@chriswigen1086]

Always clear and informative....I enjoy the work, thank you.

[@schautamatic]

If magnesium burns in blocks of DRY ICE, using magnesium alloys in CO2-cooled reactors would seem to make perfect sense to me! 😬🔥

[@coomfard5771]

Nice channel, love disaster analysis.

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you

[@couldbebetter7187]

INTERESTING PLACE IDEA: I don't know the full details but there is a place in Kent (UK) called St Mary's Island which has a history of buried nuclear waste with a housing estate on top, apparently the first residents had to take iodine tablets? Not sure of whats rumor or fact but definitely worth looking into. Love your channel BTW.

[@YesNowGoAway]

I would like to draw your attention to the small building in front of the dam at 1:14 - This is, in fact, a 9-story building. The dam is the Grande Dixence dam - at 285 meters, it's the tallest building in Switzerland. With the 15 million tonnes of concrete used for the dam, you could build a wall around earth's equator 1.5 meters high and 10 cm thick.

[@johnterry890]

This is very educating, keep it up!

[@chriscs6674]

Another amazing video.

[@_tyrannus]

Calling hydro safer than nuclear is not really looking at the actual deaths per amount of energy produced. Hydro is actually one of the worst offenders!

[@nastyab8003]

When you consider that EVERY person who has touched water has, inevitably, died!

[@prplprince8730]

Always eat my lunch while watching your vids!

[@nathannolan1593]

When you get one of those minecraft mods with a nuclear reactor in it and you start building it not knowing how it goes together

[@benmcreynolds8581]

Besides the bad location.. that reactor design was so sub par. It was pretty crappy honestly. I really wish that I could see modern day nuclear energy options put to use with all our advancements and greater understanding of safety and back up measures. We could use Thorium Reactors. Liquid reactors LFTRs, small form reactors or large scale reactors. Our computer tech is so much more advanced then these days, we can use remote controlled ROV type robots that could be used to aid in lessening human impact.

[@jjcoola998]

Commenting for the algorithm cuz these videos are dope LOOK AT THAT INTERACTION

[@durdentyler3292]

Notice him algorithm-senpai!

[@PlainlyDifficult]

😬

[@illogicalGhost]

to that blind commenter: this disaster was rated a 4 out of 10 on the disaster scale

[@felobatirmoheb4884]

If a blind person has a subtitle reader system working then this comment is unironically helpful!

[@illyau]

Love this channel!

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you

[@paststeve1]

Another interesting and informative video. Enjoyed it thoroughly! Thanks!

[@bbt305]

99% likes! Hell yeah! Love this channel and its quarks! (All pun intended)

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thank you!

[@phille7669]

The swiss built something into a mountain. Let me put on my surprised face.

[@neovo903]

nice, I can't get enough of these

[@FerroequinologistofColorado]

Keep up the fantastic work on your great content Plainly Difficult!

[@Monothefox]

If an incident (not full-blown accident) might be of interest, you might look at the water hammer incident at the Ågesta reactor outside Stockholm. The reactor was eventually closed, but most of it is still there today.

[@Peatch13]

aaah, finaly, ive searched for this a while back on this channel ;) thx alot!

[@Peatch13]

btw. we have still the oldest reactor in use in switzerland....hope nothing happen there 🤔

[@aoilpe]

@@Peatch13 Beznau , 51 years in use...!

[@jsswizard]

I really enjoy your work. Kudos to you.

[@sooobyrooo5763]

Really interesting! Such confidence that their idea or experiment would work perfectly such that the prohibitive expense of a Disaster Cleanup within a mountain was disregarded. There is this graphic movie showing the severity and location earthquakes over the course of a year. Big deep earthquakes have Giant Circles and little earthquakes have little circles. The number of disasters you have outlined is so alarming. There are so many of these disasters you could make a similar movie of the planet with various different disasters blowing up over the course of the last century. My goodness we have been so destructive and so secretive that nobody seems to realize how much of this planet we've blown up or corrupted.

[@pingwingugu5]

Relax this planet is quite big. A radioactive cave here, and few old facilities there isn't going to cover the planet in nuclear waste anytime. Take lithium evaporation mines for size comparison, hundreds of square kilometers of inhabitable land.

[@sooobyrooo5763]

@@pingwingugu5 true that. The Earth had a lot of radiation all over the place to begin with and yeah it is big. But some of the stuff kind of gets spread all over the place and cumulatively it is not adding up to be any good.

[@Davidautofull]

im with scooby. that crap is all over the place and what WE know is probably only the tip of the iceberg. watch Plainlys vid on the little radioactive cubes. and there is a video showing our planet with every atomic explosion that is pretty scary. did you know that after the first test everyone born since had something, ill say radioactive markers, in there DNA?

[@TheMr77469]

Loved the animations!

[@mr.oddlyfox6934]

Great start to my YT visit, a meltdown!

[@rossmurison]

Is that a cue mark before ad breaks? I'm new to the channel and I must say that I love that and although it's small it is a nice thing to make this channel stand out a bit

[@rbh00723]

I would like to ask you what you do for work? I've been watching you for a long time. Could for maybe do a live stream Q&A or maybe a pre recorded Q&A

[@PlainlyDifficult]

Thanks for the idea!

[@brokenbridge6316]

Nicely informative video.

[@rGunti]

Small note: the flag you used was the marine flag. The „proper“ Swiss flag is square.

[@grantrennie]

Another super good video 👍 😁

[@kozmo617]

I love your vids, fascinating stuff

[@jacekatalakis8316]

Never knew the Swiss tried this

[@lordbertox4056]

Most of of us swiss dont either. News papers were "convinced" by the goverment to not put it in the first page.

[@aoilpe]

@@lordbertox4056 You are too young to remember the Kaiseraugst protests? It was a theme at the time...

[@Lemon_Inspector]

It's not a true Supervillain-style design if the control room isn't inside the cave, where it would get cut off by the automatic doors, trapping the crew inside.

[@RTWGraphics]

I've literally watched dozens of these videos. It astounds me not one of these facilities ever has an undo button.

[@Zonkotron]

And the worst part is that this total disregard for operating procedure and safe design process is what gave nuclear power it's bad name. There has never been a nuclear accident with bad consequences in a proper, well designed power plant. But we still had a shitton due to countries trying batshit crazy designs like this or the RBMK, making crazy experiments like some US test reactors or installing barely adequate reactors on the seaside of a tsunami region with backup generators in an unprotected basement *vomit*. All the while Designs such as the last 2 pre Chernobyl accident generations by Siemens-KWU like Brockdorf and Isar II in Germany never had any serious problems despite not being designed as super safe next gen plants. Just reasonable engineering done to high specifications......minimal problems with those, as with most other sane designs....

[@mariusrinke]

I always have the feeling you use a different unit for radiation every time. I always need to calculate to a unit a have a feeling for. Critic on a very high level. I enjoy your videos very much!

[@Erenzilable]

Your feeling is probably correct since at different times different units were used by people controlling those stations

[@TrainsOhio]

Thanks for sharing!

[@playwithmeinsecondlife6129]

So many nuke meltdowns! The Nuke Industry PR has been busy keeping these quiet.

[@kelleybrown1666]

Nuclear energy is a very education-demanding, scientific, and exacting field, and must be treated with respect. If there is a fatal nuclear flaw, you must prepare for everything, but as a human, you can't imagine and prepare for *everything,* and "nature cannot be fooled."

[@mbvoelker8448]

They were working in a cave and didn't factor in the need to deal with the intrusion of water?!?!?!?

[@MrSummitville]

Being in a cave, had nothing to do with the failure.

[@mbvoelker8448]

Since it's been a year since I wrote that comment I don't remember the details of the program, but the majority of caves are very wet environments and if you're in a cave you are almost always going to have water to deal with.

[@sweettooth7124]

I like this channel great job keep it up. The nuclear stuff is awesome. Im curries about the hydroelectric incident you mentioned though towards the end. What was the name?

[@Fabbylous]

I would love an in depth Chernobyl video, from the building of the reactor and town of Pripyat to the remnants left behinde due to nuclear stupidity. I'd love that!

[@SashaNaronin]

More like remains of pathological management system typical to totalitarian regimes. As for remnangs due to anti-nuclear stupidity - whole Earth is rapidly moving towards becoming onem due to climate change

[@mcblaggart8565]

8:28 OK, I'll be that guy. Someone's gotta do it. *You're

[@zanemcelroy7910]

Interesting. I had not heard of this reactor before.