It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Chernobyl: Was It an Accident?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2008 @ 12:23 PM
link   
What actually happened? Was it an accident? Or were there in fact ulterior motives behind a conscious experiment?

More and more people are beginning to wonder if the latter proposition was in fact the case, and whether the Chernobyl disaster was not in fact the horrific accident it was made out to be but rather that it was consciously driven into an extremely dangerous situation on April 26, 1986. Chernobyl was certainly a situation known for its dangers, and the complete security mechanisms were left unobserved. The series of reported mistakes that went into the explosion are, to an extent, unbelievable. But why would the Soviet authorities have ordered such a large-scale disaster, devastating the lives of so many millions of people?

It has been suggested that the most likely explaination would be that the disaster constituted an experiment to prepare for fighting a nuclear war. If Chernobyl can ever make sense, one explaination could be that it would have been a logical starting point if Moscow was putting a plan for nuclear war against the West into action. If this was the case, it would have been necessary to test and conduct research into procedures and equipment that had been designed during the Cold War years to protect against radioactive contamination in the aftermath of a nuclear war.

Also, in order to be able to implement long-term protection, leaders would need to know about the immediate effects of the worst-case scenario. If a multiyear plan culminating in nuclear war against the West was in the cards, could a major nuclear disaster in the Ukraine have been a useful, if tasteless, preparatory experiment? The West has aided Russian scientists to gather a wealth of information about the short- and long-term effects of radioactivity. Furthermore, the most effective procedures have been developed to deal with the contamination, which will be of tremendous value if Moscow does act upon the rumors that are circuilating.

Moreover, why should Russia be in the process of building a huge underground center in the Ural mountains? And the CIA's former acting director recently told military services in America that being prepared for nuclear war with Russia must remain a priority at all costs. Certainly Russia has been forced to modernize its nuclear infrastructure. We can only wait to see what will happen next.

Chernobyl - en.wikipedia.org...

The Rabbit Hole - www.darkconspiracy.com...




posted on Jun, 7 2008 @ 05:31 PM
link   
No takers on this one eather huh?

Just goes to show how 'fraid people are these days i guess.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Still nothing? hmmmm I found it highly interesting and very plausible.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:29 PM
link   
Actually i have no reason to suspect CIA,KGB or whatever except Soviet bureaucracy, lack of proper safety regulations and slogans overriding professional opinions stuff.
Just look at official response to this event - it has all the signs of same illness that brought the catastrophe itself.
There are facts being hidden, not all guilty people paid and similar cover up stuff. Naturally to the regime. But the cause is system that is not feet to handle complex challenges and react quickly.



posted on Jun, 28 2008 @ 02:39 PM
link   
From my personal understanding of the incident...

Chernobyl is the largest ghost town on the planet. The incident cause many peoples lives to be ended prematurely. All from what I understand as a safety test, aborted for lack of power in one of Russia's cities. When they aborted the test, the reactor engaged in the test was "fired up" with out coolant being in the loop, which cause the breach.

As for being caused on purpose, anything is possible. This is for sure.




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:19 PM
link   
I wouldnt put it past them to set one off on purpose just to see what happens and how to deal with it. whoever THEY may be...



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
I wouldnt put it past them to set one off on purpose just to see what happens and how to deal with it. whoever THEY may be...


It wasnt anything suspicious, the actual story (look it up) is very plausible and fits in with the evebnts that took place. It was nothing but one mistake after another and the ignorance of the guy was in charge. The plant was a flawed design and the saftey procedures put in place were not followed as they should have been

Seriously though, look it up, there loads on it not to mention several documentaries



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 08:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grock
What actually happened? Was it an accident? Or were there in fact ulterior motives behind a conscious experiment?

More and more people are beginning to wonder if the latter proposition was in fact the case, and whether the Chernobyl disaster was not in fact the horrific accident it was made out to be but rather that it was consciously driven into an extremely dangerous situation on April 26, 1986. Chernobyl was certainly a situation known for its dangers, and the complete security mechanisms were left unobserved. The series of reported mistakes that went into the explosion are, to an extent, unbelievable. But why would the Soviet authorities have ordered such a large-scale disaster, devastating the lives of so many millions of people?


"More and more people"? Always a good point in any argument. I have the standard reply. Name some of them. Provide sources. Provide some evidence of this growing body of believers. After all, if nobody is saying something on Monday, then you say it on Tuesday, it's technically true that "More and more people are saying something", but it's not terribly significant.

The series of mistakes that happened at Chernobyl is only unbelievable if you're used to the way the US runs a nuclear plant (I don't know enough about other countries' standards to include them in this point. No denigration or insult is intended by the omission). The standards of operator training and the levels of technical knowledge were much lower among the staff at Chernobyl than would ever have been acceptable in a US facility. The operators didn't understand what their instruments were telling them (not nearly as uncommon as you might like to think), and lacked the training to respond correctly as the situation grew worse.


As conditions to run this test were prepared during the daytime of April 25, and the reactor electricity output had been gradually reduced to 50%, a regional power station unexpectedly went offline. The Kiev grid controller requested that the further reduction of output be postponed, as electricity was needed to satisfy the evening peak demand. The plant director agreed and postponed the test to comply. The ill-advised safety test was then left to be run by the night shift of the plant, a skeleton crew who would be working Reactor 4 that night and the early part of the next morning. This reactor crew had had little or no experience in nuclear power plants, many had been drafted in from coal powered plants and another had had a little experience with nuclear submarine power plants.[4]


And link: Chernobyl step by step




It has been suggested that the most likely explaination would be that the disaster constituted an experiment to prepare for fighting a nuclear war. If Chernobyl can ever make sense, one explaination could be that it would have been a logical starting point if Moscow was putting a plan for nuclear war against the West into action. If this was the case, it would have been necessary to test and conduct research into procedures and equipment that had been designed during the Cold War years to protect against radioactive contamination in the aftermath of a nuclear war.


There "they" go again, suggesting things. "It has been suggested" by whom? While it's true that one explanation *could* be the one you've stated, it *could* also be a lot of other things, most of them a lot more likely. If the Soviet military was interested in testing procedures and equipment for protection against post-exchange nuclear hazards, they already had the means to do so, without destroying a huge swath of territory, and generating a monumental 'black eye' for themselves in the international community, and losing the use of a functional generating plant.




Also, in order to be able to implement long-term protection, leaders would need to know about the immediate effects of the worst-case scenario. If a multiyear plan culminating in nuclear war against the West was in the cards, could a major nuclear disaster in the Ukraine have been a useful, if tasteless, preparatory experiment? The West has aided Russian scientists to gather a wealth of information about the short- and long-term effects of radioactivity. Furthermore, the most effective procedures have been developed to deal with the contamination, which will be of tremendous value if Moscow does act upon the rumors that are circuilating.


There's one minor element missing from the Chernobyl scenario that makes it useless (or nearly so) as a test exercise for nuclear response. Please note that the town near the reactor was still intact. In the event of a nuclear initiation, the town (and its resident support infrastructure) would be gone, or at the least, severely disrupted. There's also a difference of scale, in that Chernobyl was one relatively small incident (at least, relatively small on the scale of nuclear warfare) in one place, whereas a war against another major nuclear power (the U.S.) would result in wide-spread disruption. Using Chernobyl as a 'lab rat' to test nuclear warfare scenarios would be like using a splinter in your thumb as a test scenario for gunshot wound treatment.



Moreover, why should Russia be in the process of building a huge underground center in the Ural mountains? And the CIA's former acting director recently told military services in America that being prepared for nuclear war with Russia must remain a priority at all costs. Certainly Russia has been forced to modernize its nuclear infrastructure. We can only wait to see what will happen next.

Chernobyl - en.wikipedia.org...

The Rabbit Hole - www.darkconspiracy.com...



Why would Russia be building a huge underground command center in the Ural mountains? Maybe for the same reason that the U.S. built one under Cheyenne Mountain? An underground command post is a fairly obvious measure to take, and the reasons for such things were evident long before Chernobyl. Better site security, near immunity to conventional attack, resistance to blast effects, and the ability to filter the air supply were already known advantages decades before Chernobyl.

Just for the sake of thoroughness, I'll add this. As far as "Setting one off to see what happened" (as mentioned elsewhere), it wasn't necessary. The Soviets (and everyone else who was building nuclear power plants) already had a really good idea of how a 'meltdown' scenario would play out, thanks to the Windscale fire. Here's a link to a good article on that little incident, which most people seem to have never run across.

The Windscale Fire

Content from the above-referenced site is used with the permission of, and is the intellectual property of www.Lakestay.co.uk, and is so credited at the site owner's request.

Edited to fix botched-up quote and end-quote tags.
And again because I can't type. I knew decaf was a bad idea!


[edit on 29-6-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by Brother Stormhammer]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join