NEUE EINHEIT  Extra Nr.25  from April 7th 1996
 
10th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Catastrophe:
The Decisive Facts Must At Last Be
Brought Into the Public

 

On April the 26th the catastrophe of Chernobyl will be ten years ago. Again numerous commemorative articles will be published, and there will be demonstrations. But the very backgrounds of that catastrophe, which lie open, at least for a considerable part, will not be dealt with there. We consider it necessary to carry exactly these facts into the public, which also inevitably shall shed an essential light upon the whole green campaign and the movement against nuclear power stations, even alone by their being laid open. This incident, this catastrophe was actually instantly used by the whole green movement and by all parliamentary parties to demand "instant stoppage" of nuclear energy in the Federal Republic of Germany. This relationship between a catastrophe of a nuclear power station abroad, in the present case in the Soviet Union, and an especially heavy weighted campaign in this country needs indeed to be examined. For this purpose the publication of the backgrounds, among other things, is very helpful. We demand unambiguously an end to the virtual withholding of these facts in the public.

Still during the same year 1986 are published a Soviet report about the technical details as well as publications by the IAEA and by the German Association for Reactor Safety (GRS). Except for a short time mentioning of the main results by some renown newspapers, the reports are not dealt with in the public, especially not by the media which are decisive for the broad public. Therefore here we go into the details of the Russian report and its peculiarities. Already then, during summer 1986 it became clear that the security systems of the reactor were put out of operation within the framework of experiments, and that a heavy manipulation of the reactor had been undertaken. This in turn led to numerous questions.

 

The report of the Soviet State Committee

 

The report itself contains a sequence of extremely rude interventions into the reactor, of systematic setting aside all provided security installations, so that one must ask oneself what was in the mind of the operators when they manipulated the reactor in this way and executed the most daredevil "experiments" with it. The report on the one hand depicts numerous details of the technical process in this way, in order to sum up the event by the completely unsuitable and appeasing terms of "operating mistake" or "breaking of operating instructions" and in this way to evade all decisive questions. The IAEA, by the way, is an instrument of the so-called Atomic Weapons Nonproliferation Treaty and as such covers up, as it were the most natural thing in the world, the nuclear hegemony of the then two "Superpowers", which means that the supreme nuclear powers are entitled to control all the remaining countries, but not the other way round.

Many questions, concerning the responsibility for the incident, the origin of explosions at the reactor remain unanswered, or in the best case are being fobbed off with vague hypotheses.

The reactor was consciously driven into an extremely dangerous situation, a situation known for its dangers, and then on top of it all the complete security mechanisms were put out of operation - allegedly for the purpose of carrying through this experiment, even if the report additionally professes that at least some of these switchoffs were not at all necessary for this experiment. Under such conditions, according also to the knowledge of that time, one could not but know that one exposed the reactor to a dangerous situation, proceeding from which unknown big catastrophes became probable. Nothing, nothing at all has the catastrophe to do with a coincidence of unfortunate accidents. On the contrary. What was conducted there, must have lead directly to a ruinous accident, exactly as driving a car with a speed of 220 km/h round a corner of 90 0 very probably leads to carrying the car out of the track.

For some pages the report reads in the following manner: here they undertook this forbidden manoeuvre and violated that rules, and in order to make the experiment possible at all, this and afterwards that security device was put out of operation.

The immediate cause of the disaster was an alleged experiment to use, for internal requirements, the current of the turbo generator coming to a stop. First of all in general it is astonishing that such a reactor fully equipped with radioactive fuel rods is said to be used by its crew as a simple "test object", normally for experiments of that kind test devices are being used for the first time.

The report puts the entire blame on the personnel, on its thoughtlessness. On the other hand it can be seen from the report itself that the experiment was directed by a person who was not a specialist for reactors, but only a "ordinary electrical engineer". He apparently gave his directives to the present operating crew.

It reads for example:
 

These sentences one must read twice indeed, as they show the whole purposefulness of the proceeding. Who ordered such a reckless way of proceeding at the reactor? That engineer who was not an expert for reactors at all? About this responsibility the report is silent. After that the security device for the case of both turbo generators being switched off is put out of function.

The report says:
 

 Shortly after 1 h 23 min suddenly the reactivity of the fuel in the reactor, which had been highly manipulated and forcibly brought down, increases massively. The operator tries an emergency shut-down, which however - says the report - fails.

Then it is said:

Later an attempt to explain these explosions was undertaken using a mathematical computing model, but nowhere they are being explained in a really conclusive manner. Mathematical models have only limited meaningfulness and normally serve to put somebody on the right track leading to the determination of the results. One question, which poses itself in this framework, and which also could show something to the investigation about the backgrounds of the catastrophe, consists in the following: Was a mathematical model about the consequences put up prior to proceeding to the apparent planful manipulation of the reactor? That would seem natural. If such methods of a mathematical simulation are at hand, why not make use of them in advance, in the case of such dangerous processes? In case the simulation existed however: what did it tell?

176 persons were present in the whole plant, of whom a part was in the concerned reactor unit 4. According to the Soviet statements of that time the most part of this personnel must have survived this incident. But at the same time this explosion from the inside is said to have overturned a slab of 1.000 tons. How can men survive such an explosion in the inside?

 

About the causes of the incident it is said in the Soviet report:
 

(This coefficient describes a characteristic feature of the RMBK-reactor which means that at an increase of the steam content of the cooling water the power may rise under certain conditions.)

And exactly these protective devices were put out of function.
 

 By the explosions and the entire proceeding described here great masses of radioactivity came into the air and were scattered over the European continent by the winds. They led to a serious increase of radioactivity in some nearer regions. The immediate surrounding area had to be evacuated. During the following days the sealing of the reactor building and the extinction of the fire are undertaken with great energy, and with success. The days after the catastrophe are at the same time days of the biggest nuclear protection manoeuvres, of fight against nuclear fire, of confinement and, as far as possible, of decontamination of the environment.

The reactor units 1 and 2 in the immediate vicinity of the reactor 4 continue to work for 24 hours even on the day of the catastrophe!!!
 
 

This description, too, shows, by the way, that the propaganda, as it went here, had the intention, even though the catastrophe was serious, to make a really mystical matter out of it, aiming at engendering general fear of the big technology. This has nothing to do with a realistic assessment, this is propagandistic intention on principle which benefits all those who pushed for deindustrialization and who are trying to disseminate uncertainty about the material fundaments of society.

The report by those politically responsible of the Soviet Union of that time does not keep completely quiet either about its intentions regarding the political conclusions:
 

 At that time the possibility of an attack of a potential military enemy against atomic energy plants, and that therefore they should not been constructed, was frequently being discussed. The advocates of this opinion were the same who preached the so-called policy of détente. Very interesting: there happens an alleged "incident", with a Soviet reactor, and the same responsible people warn other countries against their atomic energy plants and industrial plants, that the world was full of them, that is to say more plants apparently should not be erected. So these are de facto threats of the Soviet leadership of that time connected to the occurrence of a catastrophe under very dubious circumstances in their country.   ( * )

And after that Gorbatchov, under whom the USA gained a decisive influence in the Soviet Union itself, declares that on the occasion of Chernobyl one should cooperate more closely with the IAEA, which possibly should control internationally more strictly the entire atomic industry, also the Russian one.

 

The conclusions of the GRS (Association for the Security of Reactors):
 

There also exists, subsequent to this report, an extensive description of the GRS "New insights into the incident in the nuclear power station Chernobyl .. state: Oct. 1986".

Here too the astounding circumstances cannot be concealed, but also here it is attempted to rubricate the whole thing simply under "human error", under "violation of regulations".

Psychology is bothered: The crew had had big ambitions and had been willing to carry through this experiment with greater speed. Other questions, more essential ones, as for the political context, into which the Soviet Union itself wanted to put this object, questions for the responsibility of this "experiment program" at the reactor, which was carried through without any responsibility, apparently are not being asked.

Summing up this report says:

It is ridiculous to say that irresponsible actions of that kind - such a characterization is not employed by the IAEA or by the GRS! - are to be put down only on a lack of awareness of security matters. Even a nonprofessional would know, that such actions at a reactor are mortally dangerous, not only for the crew. A serious striving for finding out the background of this behavior cannot be recognized on the part of the IAEA or the GRS. The question who ordered this program of experiments or by which superior authorities these experiments were approved, is not asked. Neither any evidence is published about what statements the responsible people of that "shift" made during the investigations, or if all of them lost their lives at the incident - according to the Soviet description this may hardly be the case.

Erasing all these points it is said only:
 

Weaknesses of the personnel and weaknesses of the construction - this is the whole litany, an utterly cheap litany which by no means does justice to the quality of the things.

Equally naive are the proposals by which events of that kind shall be prevented in the future:
 

Can one assume seriously that the crew which had been working successfully for years at the reactor (says the report itself) does not know the dangerous potential residing in it?? The regulations for the operation of the reactor do indeed show the danger of the reactor at low power level .

Then it reads in the report of the GRS:
 

This formulation shows that even the editors of this report had to deal with the question of a conscious bringing about of an heavy ruinous incident, but why this possibility is excluded in face of the whole chain of actions which made it possible, stays without any detailed argumentation.

--------------------

 

In connection with the anniversary of Chernobyl again demonstrations will take place, with virtual support of the public media, and they will voice the well known calls and repeat the well known litany about the inevitability of "incidents" of that kind, and will demand in a thoughtless and ruthless manner the closure of all nuclear power plants. Keep an eye some time, if in this country or abroad only once the astounding circumstances of this catastrophe will be dealt with. One cannot expect this substantially. On the contrary, they will be concealed. On Oct. 10th, 1986 our group at that time after a longer preparation published a leaflet under the title "The Publication of the Chernobyl Report", which went into the backgrounds as far as they were known at that time. Up to that moment the Chernobyl propaganda took a substantial part in the media. Regrettably then we had the disadvantage that by the assassination of a diplomat by the so-called RAF within the very evening hours of the same day diversion was created. An experience which we have made already in previous years at the occasion of similar elucidating attempts.

 In this context also the comparison with western reactors, especially in Germany, must be dealt with. It is correct that a catastrophe as in Chernobyl, in the same technical way, is not possible because of the quite different design of the boiling water and pressurized water reactors. Moreover these reactors have a substantially different protection against interventions. But let us speak in principle: if in a company or in a staff or in their leadership there are people who are willing to cause something, then one can make a plant relatively secure against that, but an absolute security against that is impossible. As a countermeasure it is not possible to do without reactors, as those concerned can also blow up chemical plants or military installations or cause catastrophes by means of genetic engineering. It is necessary to fight such dangers socially, it is the question which social control is being raised over realms like these.

Remember also that a man like Dudajew is being praised, in the media of the Federal Republic of Germany as well as of the USA, who already in 1991 threatened attacks against atomic energy plants, should Russia not give in to his demands for "independence" of his Caucasus republic.

The lack of political questioning of the backgrounds of the whole matter is no accident in the case of the IAEA, which is an instrument that exerts the control of the atomic energy in the interest of very few powers, at that time of the USA and the SU. In this context of the question of hegemony of the nuclear technology however also the whole frame of reference of the political campaign which followed Chernobyl is to be seen. That a storm, blown on by the public media in the Federal Republic of Germany, urged the instant stoppage of the nuclear energy in this country, is eloquent itself.

Finally however it has also become clear that a technology of that high complexity, which demands high standards of security, also needs a corresponding social fundament. One cannot live upon a backward level with regard to the human and the moral and even promote decay, and at the same time have a highly complex technology which operates with enormous masses of energy. From all this the consequence is indeed social transformation, but the dismantling of technology is a way into the wrong direction. The same is true also about the other revolutionary technologies like genetic engineering and the computer networking of the whole mankind, which is in full swing. To some people this technology also seems eerie, because it is no more transparent to them. In the end the successful coping with a technology of that kind presupposes also a moral fundament of such a kind, that the society is able to say about itself that it is willing to rule nature in this way, that it has reached such a standard as to be able to engage, upon this level, in the further alteration of nature.

Behind the partial success of this anti industrial campaign there lies also a social problem. It makes use of every kind of backwardness in society, tries to deepen the aversion against the sciences and attacks civilization at a sensitive point. One must not forget that technology as an inevitably double-edged matter very often has been misused for suppression. We see that the question of the socialization of the productive forces, in the end the question of socialism, keeps being urgent.

All this shows that dealing with the social questions - the discussion how the problem of social property and private property and the problem of morality in society are related to each other - must be continued as the question that is mainly to be dealt with. The question of atomic energy is not the primary question in society, nonetheless very essential questions of the view of nature and of the way of approaching connect themselves to it. But it is necessary to make clear that the question of Chernobyl cannot be dealt with without the described astounding circumstances. We welcome commemoration of the Chernobyl events, though in doing so the most important must not be kept out of notion. Without that it is only misleading and hypocrisy.

K. S. 7.4.96


 

References:

[1] [2] [3] [ 4] [5] [6]    back to text

USSR State Committee on the Utilization of Atomic Energy

The Accident at the Chernobyl’ Nuclear Power Plant and its Consequences.

Information Compiled for the IAEA’s Experts’ Meeting, 25-29- August 1986, Vienna

Part I. General Material Draft August 1986 

 

[7] [8] [9] [10]     back to text

Gesellschaft für Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, Köln/Garching

Neuere Erkenntnisse zum Unfall im Kernkraftwerk Tschernobyl. Stand: Oktober 1986 (2nd ed. Febr. 1987)

(The quotations from this publication were translated by us).

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

(*): The German translation of this passage is even more outspoken. It uses the expression: "satiation" - (of the contemporary world with potentially dangerous industrial production processes etc.) It is not clear if this expression stems from the Soviet original and subsequently was weakened by the English translation, or if the German translator introduced it into the context.    back
 
__________________________
© 1996 Verlag NEUE EINHEIT   (Inh. Hartmut Dicke)