Part 1 (it is highly recommended to read the terminology again)
Part 3 (it is highly recommended to read the terminology again)
Part 12 (previous)
As it was quite possible to understand from the previous part, the official and generally accepted version of the causes of the Chernobyl accident are somewhat different concepts. But for the first few years, everything calmed down, because the verdict had been passed, and measures to improve the RBMK reactors had already begun. However, the investigation has not yet been completed.
And as a result, two very important reports followed: from Gospromatomnadzor and from a group of reactor developers. And to top it off - the IAEA reports - INSAG-4 and INSAG-7. There is nowhere higher. Check out the materials, please. There won't be many pictures this time, but there are a lot of terms and heavy wording. Truth is like that. Difficult.
View from behind bars
As we remember, the IAE learned the real cause of the accident very quickly, within about two weeks, and they also knew about the shortcomings that led to the accident for a long time. An employee of the Kurchatov Institute, Volkov, raised the issue before the accident, immediately after the accident, after which he was denied access to the institute, and then even wrote to Gorbachev personally. Gorbachev heard all the known versions of the accident, and also received evidence that the cause of the accident was the imperfect design of the reactor, or rather, its control and protection system. And yet, officially, the blame was placed on the staff, the employees of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were sentenced in 1987 to various prison terms. What happened next?
In principle, there was nothing beyond that important until 1990. The official version became the main one, which is why it dominated both the Soviet and foreign media.
1990 . -, . , 1986 . , , “”, 1991 .
, , . . , , . , . . … . - . . , , . , , - <…> . , , . , . . . , . . . .
. “”.
, , <...> ? , . - - . , . , - . 10 , -, . . , , - -4. , . .
- - . , , . , , . , . . . , - . , , , ""…
. “”.
:
, , . , , . . ( ), . , , , . - . , , - . , . ?!
, . , , , , , .
, , . . . , ", "" ( !), , : " … -82" " - -04-74" - . "" "" , , ( ) . , ! ! . . , , , . , <...>
-1000 . . , 2% ( ) . , - "" .
1991 . - (, ). , 1986 1987 . ? . -, 1973 (-73) 1974 (-04-74). , .
. 3.1.6 -04-74. : , ( - - ). “ , , ”
. 3.2. -04-74 ( 2.2.3 -73). , ( . .3) 50% ( , 26 ). 50%+. , . , . , .
. 3.1.8 -04-74. , , .
. 3.3.1 -04-74. () -1000 , (18 , ), . . 3.3.5 ( ), . 3.3.21 ( (), 18 - ), . 3.3.26 ( , , , , , .).
. 3.3.28 -04-74. -1000 . , ( ) .
. 3.3.29 -04-74. -1000 , , , . .
-04-74 -1000 -73: 2.2.5, 2.2.6, 2.2.7, 2.2.8, 2.5.2, 2.5.8.
, . , ( , , ), , , , 70-! , , . 1980 , . :
;
, , ( );
( , , ).
, , 83 . :
, , .
, , , , .
. , . , .
-1000 , .
-, , () 25 ,
" " - , 26 1986 .
. 1991 . « 4 26 1986 .».
-, 25 , . . , 15 , 15 26 .
-, 0:28 , ( ) , , .
-, 200 , .
-, . , .
?
. 00:28 26.04 . () (). ( , ..) 500 () 0-30 ( ). , - . - , , 200 . , . , , 0:28 .
1:22:30 200 (.), - 8 . 3 , , .
1:23:04 . -8 () , 4 () . 4 , , . 35 10-15%, .
1:23:40 -5, . . , . , , , , , , ( , ). , , .
, , . 5 . , , 3 . , .
-4 , ( ) ( ), .
, 3-4 , , - . . - . .
700 (.), , . , .
. 1991 . « 4 26 1986 .».
. , . “ ”, . :
A3 , , , , .
. 1991 . « 4 26 1986 .».
, .
-1000 26.04.1986 17 , .
. , , .
, , , , .
. , “” (, “”, -1, , . , , , , - ). . , , . , . , . . . , , .
, , , . , 91 , , ( INSAG-3), , .
( , ). ,
, , A3-5 , .
“ 4 ”
, , , , . , , , .
(, , , ) ( , , , ):
;
;
.
:
: , , .
“ 4 ”
. ,
(, , ) .
“ 4 ”
, ( !) .
, , . :
,
,
,
,
, .
( “ 4 ”)
.
80-90 ,
43-48 ,
2.4% U235.
.
, - .
18 12 .
24 (), 2.5 , ( , , 1973 . ).
:
, ( ). , , . , (10 -8 ), 9-10 .
, , , , , .
, . - , - , , . .
INSAG-7
1993 1986 INSAG-1. , INSAG-7, . . INSAG-7 INSAG-1 , 1991 . , ( ), INSAG-7 . INSAG-4, “ ”.
— , , , , , <...> : . , .
. , 1991
INSAG-7 .
-, , . , , , , ,
, , .
: INSAG-1 INSAG-7. . 1993
, 1975 , , . , 700 (.), , 1986 .
-, .
, , [ , ( ), , , - ..] , , ; , , .
: INSAG-1 INSAG-7. . 1993
, INSAG-7 INSAG-1 , . , , , , , , , , , , .
, , . , 1983 . , <...>
, INSAG-1 , . - , . INSAG-1, - . , . , - , . , , , . , , , , .
Chernobyl accident: addition to INSAG-1 INSAG-7. Report of the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group. 1993 year
Approx. Ed .: When I was studying, one lecturer at the beginning of the seminar (in my opinion, it was the theory of probability) said literally the following: "Almost any difficult problem has a beautiful, simple and explainable wrong solution." Somehow I remembered it for the rest of my life. Since then, I have learned to read documents carefully and for a long time have disaccustomed to perceiving the rough language of the poster as information for thought. - Cat.Cat
Author: Alexander Starostin