3 ms·
Far too often I see the test described only superficially or with the misleading political euphemism of "routine test". As you mentioned, it was a test of of th
by pdkl95 10y ago
Far too often I see the test described only superficially or with the misleading political euphemism of "routine test". As you mentioned, it was a test of of the cooling system in the even of a power loss, but even that description softens just how insane the test was. I recommend this[1] description of the events that lead to the test and what happened during the test itself.
[1] https://leatherbarrowa.exposure.co/chernobyl#photo-group-93861 https://leatherbarrowa.exposure.co/chernobyl#photo-group-938... (if the #photo-group-93861 doesn't work, see the heading "The Accident To End All Accidents")
- mikeash 10y agoThanks for posting that link. I was familiar with the general outlines of the test and how it went wrong, but I had no idea it was a standard test that had been falsely signed off during the initial commissioning. Just makes it even crazier.
- digi_owl 10y agoIt is sad how the loss of face and position was used as a cudgel to push ahead against protocol and notions of safety in what was supposed to be a workers republic. Makes one wonder if the systems where more alike than different...