Comparing the 1986 Chernobyl "nuclear disaster" with the 2001 Manhattan thermo-nuclear catastrophe.

(An excerpt from the book: "V for Vendetta and R for Reality. The "third" truth about 9/11, or Defending the US Government, which has only the first two..."by Dimitri A. Khalezov)

I believe that a reader who has read this book as far as up to this Chapter, has to became a little bit more educated - when it comes to nuclear weapons, nuclear demolitions, "mini-nukes", radiation doses, and other related stuff. Therefore I think it would do no harm if we compare here the 1986 so-called Chernobyl "nuclear catastrophe" with an infamous triple thermo-nuclear catastrophe without quotation marks - that began on September 11, 2001, in Manhattan, and, continued, possibly, for at least a couple of years after that. Somewhere at the beginning of this book I have already mentioned that the alleged "explosion" of the nuclear reactor No.4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was not actually explosion of a "reactor", but that of a "mini-nuke". I think it would be beneficial for this book and for its reader if we talk about that important event a little bit. That is why I decided to add this educational Chapter.

Unfortunately, no exact data (not even to say about honest information) is available today in free access in regard to the Chernobyl "catastrophe", so we have no choice than to simply disprove the only available dishonest data. Thus we will disprove the official "conspiracy theory". In any case, it is better than nothing. I think the best source in our case is Wikipedia - it usually diligently publishes relatively comprehensive digests of officially approved versions of events. In general, when you need to learn about some event in its officially approved interpretation - simply go to Wikipedia. You will get the exact official version plus all necessary references to stated there official claims. I will not quote here the entire Wikipedia article, but only its parts that are inconsistent with elementary logic - means I will mostly mention only those ravings which we are going to disprove.

However, before we go to read the Wikipedia article, I will try to make an overview of events on my own, so it would be easier for a reader to understand any further information attributed to the 1986 Chernobyl events. But I have to warn in advance - as many other claims of mine in this book, this account of the Chernobyl "nuclear catastrophe" will be definitely "politically incorrect"; though, it will be correct in every other sense - either technical or logical.

Chernobyl nuclear "catastrophe" (also referred to as a "disaster") was planned with actually two reasons in mind, though the second reason also somehow additionally contributed to the first reason, in its turn:

1). It was one of a few other main mortal blows (along with provoking the Soviet leadership into sending its army to Afghanistan, Korean Flight 007, a so-called "Perestroika", skillfully orchestrated sharp decline in oil prices, an "anti-vodka campaign", and some other blows) delivered to the then weakening Soviet Union, in order to precipitate its complete collapse. Because "someone" simply hated the Soviet Union.

2). It was a skillful frame up intended to discredit the civilian nuclear industry in general in the eyes of the gullible general public, as well as in the eyes of the gullible politicians. "Someone" simply hated nuclear power plants and wanted them to become extinct. Also a sharp decline in the development of the civilian nuclear industry that followed the Chernobyl event, additionally contributed to the tremendous economic losses suffered by the Soviet Union which were caused by the sharp decline in the world oil prices, and as such it also contributed to the first reason as explained above.

Though the Chernobyl "disaster" was apparently designed to primarily target the former Soviet Union, it delivered near a mortal blow to France, which before that event spent enormous efforts on her nuclear research and on development of her peaceful nuclear industry. As a result of that "disaster" France lost practically all her former customers from among "civilized" countries. If any country still craves today to buy French nuclear reactors - it would be most probably a so-called "rogue" state, akin to North Korea or Iran, which only wants to use such a reactor to accumulate weapon-grade Plutonium for its atomic bomb. The most of so-called "civilized" countries have completely ended up any long-term developments of their national nuclear power programs, and have dismantled the most of pre-existing nuclear power plants.

The actual "catastrophe" occurred as follows: on 26 April 1986 at 01:23:44 AM (local time) a tremendous explosion of "unexplainable" nature ripped through a building housing the nuclear reactor No. 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, located just only 110 km (68 miles) from Kiev, the capital of Ukraine. The power of the explosion was truly enormous: it managed to destroy a huge and heavily reinforced concrete building - including "blowing off" a 2.500 ton concrete lid designed to effectively protect the reactor from a direct impact of the largest available airliners, as well as from the largest available artillery shells. As a

result of the explosion, the reactor simply ceased to exist. Its lower parts, including its near entire nuclear fuel, were apparently reduced to the plasmatic condition (that fact effectively put an end to the chain nuclear reaction in that remaining fuel), while its upper parts (represented mainly by graphite blocks) were blown away by the power of explosion and ended up in the area in an immediate vicinity of the destroyed building 4. Some of these graphite blocks (which were combustible) ended up on the roofs of two nearby buildings - including the roof of a neighboring building housing the reactor No.3 - and started fires on their roofs. Upon hearing the sound of the explosion, all people who were on duty in the night shift and felt quite relaxed, immediately got outside of their control rooms and run outdoors to see what happened. The night shift of the reactor No. 4 also run outside to see what happened, because it was peacefully drinking tea, and did not expect anything unusual at all. All eye-witnesses were unanimous in their testimonies:

1) they saw that the entire building housing the reactor No.4 was completely destroyed (it simply ceased to exist);

2) they saw no reason whatsoever of why it might happen;

3) they did not notice any dangerous levels of radiation (and you better believe them, because all of them were qualified nuclear engineers, unlike ourselves, and they obviously possessed all necessary radiation measurement instruments - so do not even doubt that they took measurements of radiation immediately - considering that it was something a little bit "unusual" in a usual handling of nuclear power reactors).

Soon two firefighting brigades have arrived. The firefighters, who did not expect anything wrong, quickly climbed up the roofs of the two buildings where the graphite blocks were thrown by the power of explosion and began to extinguish the fires. Most of them would die later because of radiation sickness, caused by the graphite blocks, which proved to be highly radioactive. Some of those who came near these graphite blocks scattered about, and especially those who touched them with hands, would also develop serious radiation sickness that would result in deaths of some of them. All together 47 people would die as a result of the Chernobyl "disaster", but not all of these 47 would die from radiation causes -some would be killed during various operations undertaken in regard to the "disaster" - for example, three would drown in the plant's water reservoir trying to drain water, few would be killed in a helicopter crash, and so on. Moreover, all causes of death as a result of radiation sickness in Chernobyl's case could be attributed only to those unlucky people who arrived to that area immediately and who were not properly informed about the real dangers of these graphite blocks scattered around. When the next day specialists would arrive to handle the Chernobyl accident, there would be no new cases of radiation sickness anymore. Altogether, according to all available Russian sources, only 29 (or 28) people died from radiation sickness related to the Chernobyl accident. Besides of all, it was mostly only the firefighters who were extinguishing fires on the roofs of two neighboring buildings caused by graphite blocks - who died from radiation causes. The remaining firefighters who did not climb up the roofs and remained on the ground did not suffer from any radiation sickness at all. Most of them are still alive today and are available for comment. None of the members of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant's night-shift who were in their control rooms during the explosion, and run outside to see what happened immediately - did develop any serious condition caused by radiation either, and not even a cancer related to radiation. They continued to work at the three remaining reactors of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, and the most of them are still alive and kicking even up to this day (as on 2010). Most of them are available for comment today either.

Remnants of a building housing the former reactor No.4 at the Chernobyl nuclear power station as destroyed by a mysterious explosion of unknown physical nature. Note: it was a huge and a heavily reinforced building.

The Chernobyl operation was brilliantly planned - it was Sunday, and no top official was available for any immediate action on the governmental level. All immediate decisions were made by some mid-level CPSU official, who was on duty on Sunday. But what was the most important - no high-ranking nuclear scientist was available for any consultation. You simply can not find anybody on Sunday in Russia those days. There were no mobile phones in 1986 yet (and neither pagers), and only a few have telephones in their dachas. However, two high-ranking guys, who were apparent accomplices of the perpetrators, were waiting to be found quickly on that Sunday. One of them was Academician Valeri Legasov. He was not actually a specialist in nuclear reactors, he was a chemist specialized in a specific branch of that broader science which had some remote relation to the nuclear fission stuff. Do not even doubt that Legasov did not have any relevance to nuclear reactors, or to any particular scientific discipline related to the nuclear power industry. He was simply a chemist, who knew about nuclear stuff as any other chemist would do. However, the problem was that no other high-ranking scientist of any profile was available at that moment in Moscow or anywhere else. While Legasov was readily available. He was simply waiting to "be found".

So he was "found" and he himself volunteered to head recovery efforts. Legasov was appointed a leader of the governmental emergency commission set to deal with consequences of the Chernobyl "accident". Since then he became a sole "authority" in regard to the Chernobyl accident and he preferred to remain in the commanding position till the very end of the entire so-called "liquidation" operation. He simply refused to surrender his post to any appropriate scientist ever since despite the alleged "radiation dangers". He was politely requested many times to hand over his position to some real nuclear scientist, considering both - the "apparent radiation dangers" (since it was apparently dangerous for one person to remain in that area for many months), and his own irrelevant scientific profile (which had absolutely nothing to do with nuclear reactors or even with the nuclear science in general). Strangely enough, Legasov refused to give up his position - claiming that he "was not afraid of radiation", and that he already "understood everything on the spot", while it would obviously take some time for his would be replacement to become familiar with the situation. Thus Legasov practically usurped the leadership over the entire Chernobyl operation and he used his unique position acquired in such a manner quite efficiently - as you will see later.

The second high-ranking accomplice waiting to be found quickly on that Sunday was General Vladimir. K. Pikalov - the then Commander of the Soviet Chemical Forces. He too was found almost immediately and immediately included into the same commission practically as the second-in-command. General Pikalov was found unbelievably quickly on that Sunday morning - even taking into consideration his specific and high military position. He was found simply too quickly, even considering that he was the Commander or the Chemical Forces. General Pikalov occurred at the site of the Chernobyl power plant before 11 AM the same day, which was Sunday. Besides of all, he became an undisputed supreme military commander in the Chernobyl area, considering both: his military rank (three-star General) and his actual specific position in the Soviet Armed Forces (the Commander of the Chemical Forces - then a Soviet analog of a standard ABC service). These two strangely quickly found top-ranking "specialists" would do practically all required job to ensure the nuclear hysteria that would follow very soon.

Upon his arrival to the disaster area, Legasov first expressed his "scientific" opinion that alleged "reactor nuclear fuel" had remained in the area of explosion and it must have been "neutralized at any cost". He proposed to the Government to bombard that spot with enormous quantities of lead and boric acid in sacks, which, according to his ideas, should be thrown down from helicopters overflying the remnants of the building No.4. However ridiculous, his proposal was accepted, because Legasov was considered to be a "specialist", while the rest were simply lay people. It was estimated that it was over one fifth (!) of the entire Soviet strategic reserve of lead spent in that ridiculous effort. Later Legasov would also propose to build an enormous protective "Sarcophagus" made of concrete over the remnants of the building No.4 for reasons that were insane from the scientific point of view, but nonetheless, his proposal was accepted.

In the meantime, General Pikalov did his part of the job. To begin with he declared to soldiers and officers of a military chemical reconnaissance unit that was already in the area before his arrival, and that was about to undertake a measurement job in regard to the radioactivity levels, something like this: "I am an old man, and you are still young. I have to die soon anyway, so let me do the measurement job alone, because I want you, guys, to live long lives, while the levels of radiation seem to be too high to allow you to live long if you venture there." General Pikalov was indeed an old man, born in 1924, moreover, he was a decorated WW II veteran (also twice wounded during the WW II), and a highly respected military commander of the later times. You don't have to doubt that none of his younger subordinates even dared to suspect any foul play when that highly-respected three-star General came up with such a proposal. You simply can not suspect a hero (it is just a psychological problem), and he acted apparently like a hero. This allowed General Pikalov to board a special chemical reconnaissance vehicle alone and with only its driver (who deemed to be stupid enough) to go into every "dangerous" area around the Chernobyl

power plant -to conduct the alleged "mapping" of "dangerous" radiation levels. When he arrived back he brought a nice map with dutifully outlined "most dangerous" areas of "radioactive contamination" - stating alleged levels of radiation ranging in "less dangerous" zones from 14 R/h to 140 R/h, and in "more dangerous" zones - from 300 R/h to 2.300 R/h ("Roentgen per hour", not "milli-Roentgen per hour"). That is why by the time main chemical military units would arrive to the Chernobyl area, they would have actually nothing else to do, because all "dangerous areas" have been already reconnoitered by brave General Pikalov. Moreover, these maps concocted by him could not be doubted by any inferior officer of the Chemical Forces, as you may expect - simply because it would be a disrespectful conduct towards his respectable commander...

Unfortunately, resisting ionizing radiation has nothing to do with a personal bravery, or with any personal skills, or with a personal experience, or with a military valor. It has something to do only with the primitive mathematic, and with one's ability to make elementary arithmetic calculations. If you receive less than 50 Roentgens you would have no visible problem to your health (although you might have certain invisible problems, especially if your dose is above 15 Roentgens). If you receive more than 50 Roentgens - you would feel sick right away. You receive more than 100 Roentgens - you might die. You receive more than 150 Roentgens - you most likely die. You receive more than 200 Roentgens - you most surely die. You receive more than 250 Roentgens - you die with a probability of near 100%. You receive more than 300 Roentgens - you have no chance to survive (unless you get a bone marrow transplantation). You get over 3.000 Roentgens - you will fall into coma right away and die in only a couple of days without coming back to your senses. You receive over 8.000 Roentgens at once - you will be killed right on the spot.

General Pikalov spent in those various "contaminated areas" well over an hour, and supposedly received himself a dose of ionizing radiation enough to kill him at least 5-6 times over. Considering the sheer digit of Roentgens he should have obtained during that "reconnaissance mission" he was expected to die in a maximum of 2-3 days time or may be even to do so right on the spot. Strangely enough, General Pikalov did not die from any radiation sickness (and neither did his driver). He was healthy enough to continue commanding simpletons in the Chernobyl area for quite a long time - several months, at least. Besides, he continued to serve as the Commander of the Chemical Forces of the USSR till at least 1991 and died from his old age only in 2003 - so he managed actually to survive another nuclear catastrophe, this time without any quotation marks - the 9/11 affair.

All above information is easily verifiable concerning both: the exact life span of General V. K. Pikalov and the exact levels of radiation "measured" by him during that unprecedented and "heroic" reconnaissance mission conducted without any witnesses. Anyone who is familiar with Russian language, could easily find a proof of what I said by simply searching the Internet by keywords.

The "radiation map" concocted by General Pikalov became a trump-card of Legasov, who used the map with stated on it unprecedented levels of alleged "radiation" to convince the Soviet Government to begin an immediate evacuation of the nearest town of Pripyat - populated mostly by the people related to the actual Chernobyl power plant.

After some period of hesitation (actually caused by attempts of some reasonable nuclear scientists who sincerely doubted ridiculous claims of charlatan Legasov to convince the Government to the contrary) the Government decided to proceed with the evacuation of the town. The evacuation began at 14:00, April 27, 1986. From that point the nuclear hysteria has started inside the Soviet Union.

Meanwhile, those, who organized the Chernobyl "accident", did not wait for that decision of the Soviet Government. Apparently, they needed to unleash the nuclear hysteria not only inside the Soviet Union, but outside of it as well. Besides, it was important for them to discredit the Soviet Government by accusing it that it allegedly "hid" the "nuclear catastrophe" from the international community (as well as from the Soviet population). For this reason an unprecedented trick was invented: some workers on duty at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden upon being replaced by a new shift, were "routinely measured" for radioactivity. This strange "routine measurement" strangely revealed some strange "radionuclides" on them. It was "presumed" first that the radioactive contamination of the workers resulted from some unnoticed leak in the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant, and some alleged "extensive checking for possible leaks" has been "undertaken" at the Forsmark facilities. As you might sincerely expect, this "extensive checking" "did not reveal" any leaks. It was presumed that strange "radio-nuclides" came from somewhere else. More "checking" "revealed" that the "radio-nuclides" were "blown in by the wind" - in a process popularly known as a "radioactive fallout". Some strangely "discerning" people quickly pointed to the Chernobyl "nuclear disaster" as the possible source of that alleged "radioactive fallout" in Sweden. It happened despite an obvious fact that the very "Chernobyl nuclear disaster" has not been announced yet at that time; it was known only to the top Soviet leadership, to the actual Chernobyl nuclear power plant

workers, and, of course, to the actual perpetrators of that "disaster". That is why the question from where those hysterical Swedes got a clue that something wrong had allegedly happened with the Chernobyl nuclear power plant - remains a mystery up to this day, which no one dares to explain.

From that point the Soviet Government was promptly accused by the hysterical Swedish media of "hiding the truth" about the alleged "nuclear catastrophe" - which allegedly sent "radioactive fallout" to as far as Sweden. Actually, about that time the Soviet Government was obliged to publicly announce the accident anyway, because it was convinced by Legasov, at last, to begin the evacuation of the town of Pripyat. But outwardly it looked like the Soviet Government was "forced to admit" the "nuclear catastrophe" after the Swedes unleashed their nuclear hysteria based on the alleged "radioactive fallout". As you may expect, the nuclear hysteria quickly gushed over the borders of Sweden and spread all over Europe, and soon reached as far as the United States, Canada, and even Australia. Many European countries began "to discover" traces of alleged "radio-nuclides" in their territories, all blamed on the Chernobyl events. It was badly aggravated by strange "revelations" of General Pikalov who "honestly" confessed that it might have been two alleged "cyclones" that "apparently" brought an alleged "radioactive cloud" first to Germany, and then, through it-to Bulgaria.

To shock simpletons completely General Pikalov came up with the most incredible notion: he stated that the Europeans should have expressed their thanks (to whom he did not specify) that an alleged "thermonuclear" explosion did not take place in Chernobyl. Because, he claimed, it was allegedly "very close to a thermo-nuclear blast" (implying automatically that at least a "nuclear" blast must have been taken place for sure - since it is well known that a nuclear explosion is a pre-requisite for a thermo-nuclear one). Then he proceeded "to prove" that alleged concentrations of "thermo-nuclear fuels" (such as heavy water etc.) in the 4 reactors of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant might allegedly "fuel a thermo-nuclear blast" of an "unprecedented yield". (Ironically, the initial nuclear blast implied by General Pikalov in his ravings - that supposed to serve as a "trigger for a thermo-nuclear blast" has indeed taken place, but that "mini-nuclear" blast under the reactor No.4 had nothing to do with either peaceful nuclear industry in general, or with the Chernobyl nuclear power station in particular - a "mini-nuke" that caused it was brought in from outside.)

The public hysteria that followed all these "revelations", "levels of radiation", and other ravings was in fact so intense and so well organized that practically no nuclear scientist would even dare to express his humble opinion in those circumstances. The most of nuclear scientists preferred to simply remain quiet in regard to the Chernobyl events - giving the floor to hysterical journalists who quickly "proved" to the gullible general public (who were even more hysterical than the scribblers) that any and every nuclear reactor (and especially a Soviet-made one) was nothing but a source of the extreme public danger that had to be disposed of as soon as possible.

It came as no surprise, that it was only French officials who dared to step forward and to state firmly that the so-called "Chernobyl catastrophe" had no adverse effect on Europe at all. French nuclear scientists even attempted to provide explanations that by definition a nuclear reactor could not result in a nuclear explosion (and neither in a conventional explosion) - apparently thinking that it was possible to bring to reason hysterical plebs. Of course, as you may expect, their opinions were nothing but a voice crying in the wilderness... The well orchestrated nuclear hysteria continued. Practically all European countries managed "to find" at least some alleged "radio-nuclides" allegedly caused by the "radioactive fallout" that was "resulted from Chernobyl". The hysteria was unstoppable. The very concept of a nuclear power plant was made "evil". And that was exactly what the perpetrators of the "Chernobyl nuclear catastrophe" have planned: it was the beginning of the demise of the peaceful nuclear industry, and that of the Soviet Union.

I think it is good for a reader to take note about those unsuccessful attempts of the French nuclear scientists to stop the Chernobyl hysteria in 1986. It is important to remember their attempts. Later you will see why - when you see how the French would behave in response to Manhattan's Ground Zero - i.e. to the 9/11 nuclear catastrophe that was without any quotation marks whatsoever.

You don't have to doubt also, that the strange "radio-nuclides" in different isolated spots of Europe were indeed "found" and these "radio-nuclides" were indeed "genuine". Though it was absolutely not necessary that they were "blown in by wind" (as alleged) and not simply brought in by hand (as rightly suspected). Try to imagine: you organize such a serious operation - that involves "mini-nuking" of a nuclear reactor in a highly-protected facility deep inside adversary's territory, and you are even engaging two high-ranking traitors enlisted from among adversary's top military and scientific leadership - hitherto kept in a strategic reserve, that could only be used once. What do you think - to arrange just a few smaller guys who would bring a little of necessary radio-nuclides to a few necessary spots in Europe - would be a really big deal? Obviously, it won't. Of course, some "good" guys simply brought the necessary radio-nuclides to the necessary places and then some hysterical officials were "innocently" called in to check what that was.

Don't even doubt that it was the true cause of alleged "radioactive fallouts" everywhere they were claimed to occur.

In the meantime "liquidation" works on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant continued. By September (!!!) 1986 there were discovered several people working there since the 2 nd day of "disaster" who managed to accumulate, at last, 25 Roentgen doses in summary -the maximum allowed doses of acquired radiation set in the USSR for combat conditions. These people were promptly sent away from the Chernobyl grounds and should not come even near to any source of potential radiation for at least a couple of years. However, there were not really many of workers who managed to accumulate such doses; majority of the "liquidators" did not receive even 10 Roentgen during their entire shifts at that area that could easily last from two to four and sometimes even up to seven months. These digits in regard to actual radiation doses acquired by the people working there were in a sharp contrast with enormous levels of alleged "radiation" "measured" by General Pikalov. Unfortunately, but understandably, nobody has challenged his ridiculous concoction neither in 1986, nor even today, in 2010. So those unprecedented levels of alleged "radiation" "measured" by him during that "heroic" reconnaissance mission, which ranged from tens and hundreds to thousands (!) of Roentgens per hour remain nothing else than official digits even up to this day...

I guess that probably at the very first stage of the Chernobyl production there must have been at least a few honest nuclear scientists who attempted to challenge ridiculous claims of its main actors - Legasov and Pikalov - but everybody around was in such a shocked and confused state that exhortations of the real scientists were first ignored. Legasov and Pikalov have both drawn such a grim picture of events that, logically, every honest official had to react in accordance with the worst possible scenario, rather than to indulge listening to the "mild" alternative opinions. I think it is quite understandable from the psychological point of view. But later, with the further development of the Chernobyl production, it became simply too late to express opinions that may contradict the officially approved interpretation of the events (and that of the exact digits as well). It is quite easy to imagine why it was so if you compare it with the 9/11 events. What do you think: is it easy for a scientist to state openly that an aluminum plane would never ever be able to penetrate the enormously thick, double-walled Twin Tower's steel perimeter structure that was twice as thick as a typical front armor of a tank? Believe me, it is not easy. Even for a scientist...That is why nobody even tries to claim such a thing today in regard to the 9/11 "aerial attacks" on the Twins. First everybody was simply in too a shocked state of mind to recollect the obvious: that no subsonic (and no even supersonic) aluminum projectiles could penetrate steel, but then, when this obvious truth came back to everyone's mind, it became simply too late to challenge the officially established version of events. You could probably imagine that during the Chernobyl production in 1986 there was something very similar -because psychological reasons behind silence of the professionals were exactly the same.

Anyhow, the most dangerous job during the so-called "liquidation" was to remove those graphite blocks which were the actual source of radioactivity in some isolated spots and to safely bury them. That was the only important job, because the rest was nothing, but useless efforts spent in accordance with ridiculous claims of charlatans Legasov and Pikalov. How that the most dangerous and the most important part of the job was done? These radioactive debris were removed by "liquidators" wearing heavy protective gear (dubbed "bio-robots" by the military). In accordance with very strict Soviet radiation safety standards, all levels of radiation caused by these graphite blocks were properly measured first and "safe" periods of handling them were established, based on standard norms. These workers could only spend a maximum of 40 seconds at a time working on the rooftops of the surrounding buildings - in order to observe the strict radiation norms. Practically, one worker, dressed in an extremely heavy protection suite (that was so heavy, in fact, that it was very difficult to move wearing it) could only reach the dangerous place, take one piece of radioactive debris (remaining of the upper part of the blown off reactor No.4) - either a piece of graphite block, or any other piece, throw that piece into some collection vessel set nearby, and run away as fast as he could. Every one who once performed such a task could not be used in any clean-up again, because he supposed to receive a near maximum of the allowed dose of radiation. All these people after performing a single 40-seconds "shift" on the roofs were later used only in works that had nothing to do with any radiation dangers, or simply sent back home.

Based on these observations, you could probably imagine why those firefighters who climbed these roofs immediately after the initial explosion to fight the fires, died from acute radiation sickness. Because they remained in such a dangerous area for as long as four hours, while it was allowed to safely remain there only for 40 seconds even if wearing the heavy protective gear. However, these particular difficulties were encountered only when it was necessary to remove the highly radioactive debris from the rooftops of the neighboring buildings. It was far easier to deal with the radioactive debris lying on the ground. Inventors from among "liquidators" quickly invented devises that allowed using remote-controlled bulldozers to remove the debris and to scrap soil contaminated by them without endangering any human health. The major part of the following clean-up work was performed, indeed, by various construction- and other

equipment used in a "drone" mode. In less than 2 months time no graphite- or other debris of the reactor have remained on the site. Thus the very source of the potential radiation ceased to exist.

But it was not so in regard to the hysteria. The hysteria continued. It continued even despite the fact that by December 1986 an enormous protective "Sarcophagus" was erected on top of destroyed reactor No.4

- in accordance with ridiculous demands of charlatan Legasov.

Actually, the main point (and the only point) of Legasov for his unprecedented demands was that he put forward a ridiculous claim - stating that alleged "nuclear fuel" of the destroyed reactor allegedly "survived" the explosion, "melted down", and continued to allegedly "remain in the melted state", moreover, allegedly maintaining "chain nuclear reaction within itself". However ridiculous, this claim of his was the very basis of absolutely all actions undertaken in Chernobyl in regard to the "liquidation of the disaster" (save only for the removal of the really radioactive graphite blocks that should have been removed and buried anyway - irrespectively of Legasov's ravings). Practically all nuclear scientists doubted these claims of Legasov in regard to the allegedly "remaining nuclear fuel", but nobody was going to pay any attention to them, because it was Legasov, who usurped the commanding position and dictated his crazy ideas to all decision-makers on all levels - including the Soviet Government and the leadership of the CPSU. But, as you might probably expect, eventually it was discovered by some real nuclear specialists that there was no nuclear fuel remained at the spot of the destroyed reactor. The "strange" hypothesis of Legasov was effectively proven to be wrong, at last. Thus the very basis for Legasov's claims and demands ceased to exist. However, even this particular discovery was not able to change the official interpretation of events. The official interpretation of events, despite the fact that ridiculous pseudo-scientific claims of Legasov were at last, disproved, unfortunately, remains the same up to this day. Along with all ridiculous digits and irresponsible claims of the alleged "radioactive contamination" allegedly caused by the so-called "Chernobyl nuclear disaster" in as far as Belorussia, not to mention its alleged "radioactive fallout" that allegedly reached even Norway, Italy, and the United Kingdom...

The author of these lines, by the way, at the moment of that "1986 Chernobyl catastrophe" was not yet a commissioned officer, but a last year military cadet in a military college in Leningrad. Since military cadets technically remain just simple infantry soldiers, rather than qualified military officers, they retained their typical solder's specialties (such as a rifleman, a machine-gunner, an RPG-man, etc.). My own soldier specialty was strange - I was a specialist in the radiation reconnaissance, officially named "dosimetrist" -whose job was to scout and to measure levels of radioactivity during a nuclear war.

Once the abovementioned nuclear hysteria has begun, particularly claims that there was some alleged "radioactive contamination" allegedly caused by the Chernobyl events occurred in Sweden and especially in Finland, all available dosimetrists in the Leningrad area were immediately dispatched to measure radioactivity in various spots of the city in order to find out if the city of Leningrad or its surroundings were affected to any extent. I went with my dosimeter around many areas of Leningrad city, as well as outside of it - as far as almost to the border with Finland - in order to find any radioactive contamination. I was not able to find anything abnormal at all (and neither were the rest of my colleagues). After that I was also sent on several occasions to measure suspected abnormal levels of radiation on fruits and vegetables shipments from Ukraine to Leningrad, but I have never discovered anything abnormal either (and have never heard that any other dosimetrist was able to find any radioactive contamination in any products originating from Ukraine). This was just my little personal experience in regard to the Chernobyl "disaster" in 1986.

After finishing the military college in 1987, I was first sent to the 12 th Chief Directorate, and then - to the Special Control Service (this Service had direct relevance to nuclear explosions, besides of all). While in that service, I have spoken with many of its officers who were sent to deal with the consequences of the "Chernobyl disaster" a year earlier. All of them claimed that there were no any dangerous radiation levels even on the site of the actual nuclear plant, not even to say about its surroundings. Besides of this, the three remaining nuclear reactors of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were continuing to operating in a normal schedule and without even any additional precautionary measures - as if nothing happened at all with the reactor No.4. And all of these people from among my colleagues at the Special Control Service were healthy, and did suffer neither from any radiation sickness, nor from any cancer - despite spending in the Chernobyl area at least four months each. However, in regard to a mysterious "nuclear explosion" that did the job in the reactor No.4, all these people had no doubt - it was a nuclear explosion. And it was especially strange because it is known to everybody that no nuclear reactor could result in a nuclear blast

- either accidentally or otherwise. Only a nuclear weapon especially designed as such could cause a nuclear explosion. However, even a nuclear weapon especially designed as such could not explode accidentally. A nuclear weapon could only explode when its operator wants it to explode and to produce a nuclear explosion and especially sets it off to do so. And so it was in the Chernobyl's case.

Strangely enough, Academician Valeri Legasov, who had never have any relevance to nuclear reactors, after the "Chernobyl disaster" embarked on criticizing the particular design of the reactor "exploded" in Chernobyl. He began to claim that the design of it allegedly had "some flaws" - as if he, himself being a chemist, had any knowledge about nuclear reactors whatsoever. His irresponsible ravings were widely publicized by hysterical media and no honest nuclear scientist could effectively challenge them, because Legasov was considered to be a "national hero", who spent the entire seven months on the "dangerous" Chernobyl grounds, and who supposed to have a "first-hand understanding". These ravings of Legasov tremendously contributed to the demise of the peaceful nuclear industry in the USSR and elsewhere.

As you may guess, once he did his job, it become a real necessity for him to die some "unexplainable" death - in the same manner as Generals Lebed and Rokhlin would do later, after revealing the "truth" about the allegedly "stolen suit-case nukes" that allegedly ended up in the hands of Al-Qaeda and would be used in the nuking the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on the anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing and in some other act of the so-called "nuclear terrorism". And, in fact, it proved to be not so difficult for Legasov to find a nice pretext for such an unexplainable "death". As you may sincerely expect, personality of Legasov was not really welcomed in scientific circles, despite of his being an apparent "Chernobyl hero". For true scientists Legasov was nothing but a Doctor Quack, who, besides of all, was obviously at the pay of enemies of the then USSR. It was clear to any unbiased person that Legasov was merely a traitor hired to murder the then flourishing peaceful nuclear industry and to denigrate the honest nuclear scientists and their opinions. Practically no self-respected scientist would even say "hallo" to him that time. Thus Legasov (or most probably not even him, but his masters) decided that the best way to "die" in such circumstances was not an "air accident" like in the cases of Gagarin and Lebed, but a plain suicide. So, Legasov proceeded to "commit suicide" in the most "believable manner" possible: he made his "last will" first - i.e. he dictated on a tape his idiotic considerations about the alleged "flaws" in Soviet nuclear reactors' designs (as if it was not enough that his ravings have been already published and were available in scientific publications anyway). He hid this tape somewhere where it could be easily found. On April 27, 1988, (exactly the 2 nd anniversary of the "nuclear disaster") he placed his pistol along with bullets into a drawer of his desk (so that various conspiracy theories would have grounds to arise later -why would Legasov prefer to hang himself rather than to shoot himself?), and imitated his suicide by "hanging". Of course, he had some accomplices who helped to nicely certify his "death" and to be "buried" in a believable manner. And it was quite plausible from the logical point of view that he decided to commit suicide - because other Soviet scientists clearly despised him. On the other hand, it gave immediate rise to many conspiracy theories - where simpletons think that it was KGB that "hanged" Legasov because of his apparent criticism of the Soviet nuclear reactors design (because if he would sincerely commit suicide he would prefer to shoot himself with the pistol available in his drawer). In any case his alleged "suicide" added to otherwise doubtful credibility of his ridiculous claims about the alleged "flaws" in nuclear reactors and as such it contributed to the common cause - the murder of the peaceful nuclear industry in general. Former Soviet Academician Valeri Legasov apparently did a "good" job. It is believed that he lives now in the United States under a new name within the frames of the notorious US "witness protection program".

His main accomplice General Pikalov was obviously less scandalous and, apparently, to change a place of residence at his old age was not an option. He simply continued to live in the then Soviet Union, and then, after its demise - in Russia. And till his death he continued to maintain his ridiculous claims about the enormous radiation levels, as well as about near-possibility of the alleged "thermo-nuclear" explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. He also continued to maintain that he was the main force behind the campaign for closure of the Chernobyl power plant whatsoever (actually, nobody even doubted this). Pikalov also greatly contributed to a chemical disarmament of the Soviet Union and then Russia - to the extreme pleasure of his colleagues from the United States. Nevertheless, despite his participation in the disarmament in chemical weapons, General Pikalov enjoyed a life of a hero during his post-Chernobyl days. Actually, unlike Legasov, who was a very unpleasant person, General Pikalov was an apparently nice personality, and, besides of that, he was truly a professional when it came to his job.

Even the humble author of these lines had personal encounters with him and could also confirm that he was indeed a nice person and a true professional. Ironically, one of my encounters with General Pikalov was exactly about radiation measurements. I was then an officer on duty in some remote command post, along with a few others. Suddenly our Geiger counter came to life and began to show that something was wrong with the radiation levels (it was in a very different location, so it had nothing to do with Chernobyl -it had something to do with some burial grounds for nuclear reactor waste that were located not very far away). Our regular "chemical-officer" - who also happened to be on duty on that day - took a dosimeter and went around measuring the exact levels of radiation. When he returned he was in a state of shock -because the levels he just measured were something like 20 R/h - more than enough to burn all secret documentation in our command post and to run away as soon as possible. Because it was something a

little bit extraordinary we decided to report it first to a duty operational officer of the Chemical Forces. In only 3 minutes General Pikalov (then still the Commander of the Chemical Forces) telephoned to me and expressed his doubts that the levels could be that high. He suggested that an idiot, who measured the radiation levels, might have used a wrong scale of his dosimeter and so - mistook "milli-Roentgen" for "Roentgen". In fact it was exactly the case. Our "chemist" mistook "milli-Roentgen" for "Roentgen". This proves, besides of all, that General Pikalov was quite a good specialist in his job. At least he could not do any mistake of similar kind in regard to those unprecedented radiation "measurements" he undertook in Chernobyl.

Actually, unlike many other Soviet Generals, this one was truly a professional. He new exactly what he did. And for this very reason he enjoyed a very high respect among the Soviet military officers. I have never heard from anyone saying a bad word about him. Everybody liked him. Still, the fact remains: it was no one else, but General Vladimir K. Pikalov, who did half of the job in regard to the Chernobyl production along with the other actor - now "late" Academician Valeri Legasov. Facts are stubborn things. Stated by General Pikalov ridiculous levels of radiation of "thousands Roentgen per hour" are still quoted today. Along with his ridiculous claims about "radioactive fallouts in Europe", and along with his pseudo-scientific notions of possible natural "thermo-nuclear" explosions in nuclear reactors... Anyhow, may be because of the Chernobyl performance, may be because of his pleasant personality and apparent professionalism, General Pikalov was considered a hero. In fact, he was considered a "hero" to such an extent that after his death in 2003 a special medal "General Pikalov" was instituted intended for awarding servicemen of the Russian Chemical Forces for their outstanding achievements in the military service.. Instituting of such a medal elevated the name of Pikalov to the same rank with Suvorov, Kutuzov, Ushakov and Nakhimov - the only four Russian military leaders (all of pre-XX century era) hitherto related to the Soviet military awards named after them. General Pikalov became just next to them. Probably, he "deserved" it. He obviously did a great job. In regard to both: the chemical weapons and the peaceful nuclear industry...

Since no one has ever been able to come up with any reasonable explanation as to the physical nature of the enormous blast that was powerful enough to blow off a 2.500 ton concrete lid, this particular question remains open even up to this day. Apparently, no one wants to honestly admit that it was an explosion of a "mini-nuke" smuggled into the plant by a traitor and hidden under the reactor. There were some feeble attempts to blame the mysterious blast on an alleged "explosion of vapor" in the reactors' cooling system, but they were not even remotely plausible. The mystery of the Chernobyl "nuclear catastrophe" remains officially unsolved. However, in an attempt to make the conspiracy theory about the alleged "vapor's explosion" to be believable, the Chernobyl power plant workers were ordered by some high-ranking officials that time "to admit" that they allegedly conducted a certain alleged "experiment" with the reactor emergency shut down - which allegedly resulted in the "vapor explosion". You don't need to believe this particular claim about the alleged "shut down experiment", because this ridiculous claim originates from an old and unsuccessful cover-up attempt - akin to the alleged "Boeing-757" attack on the Pentagon on 9/11 that was merely designed to cover-up the missile attack for the general public consumption. There were no any "experiment" whatsoever on that night - the people who worked in that night shift in the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were peacefully drinking tea (which was a very typical pastime for night shifts) when a mysterious "mini-nuke" caused the "mysterious" explosion under the rector No.4, reducing its major part to the plasmatic condition, and throwing its upper parts - mainly graphite blocks - to the roofs of the two neighboring buildings. The rest you already know.

This was an unofficial, and obviously "politically incorrect", explanation about the Chernobyl "accident".

Now, let's, at last, review an official and "politically correct" version as provided by Wikipedia. As agreed, we will considerer only main arguable points in order to disprove them, not the entire Wikipedia article -which represents a good specimen of a classical genre of a "politically correct", seemingly "honest", and seemingly "unbiased" anti-Soviet propaganda. (The author of these lines is not an ardent supporter of the defunct Soviet regime, by the way. He was quite critical of that regime, in fact, especially of that existing in the latest times of the Soviet Union. For example, during my entire 10 years service in the Soviet Army I refused to join the Communist Party, though it was essentially a pre-requisite for anyone's successful career. Moreover, in my particular Service, and especially considering my actual position, it was simply an obligatory matter - to be a member of the CPSU. In fact, I had no right to occupy my actual position in the Service and I was appointed to it merely as a matter of exception - in the hope that I would join the CPSU to formally comply with the pre-requisites for occupying such a position. Still, I refused to join it despite its being obligatory in my case - I was the only one of two non-Communist servicemen of that entire Service, which numbered well over 2.000 commissioned officers; which means that I am from a rare 0.01%. Thus when I say that something is apparently an "anti-Soviet" - it does not mean that I personally feel injured by that thing because of being a former Soviet citizen, or because of other sentiments of this type. It is simply because I am a truly unbiased person - unlike unscrupulous scribblers who parasitize on various

"hot" topics, but, unfortunately, only on those "hot" topics that are approved by their masters.) Here we go:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobvl disaster Chernobyl disaster. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. NOTE: this is an article of 2008, because originally this Chapter was written in 2008 and therefore it was based on the contemporary Wikipedia article. I noticed that in 2010 the former Wikipedia article was somehow updated and currently its contents might differ from those being on-line in 2008. But, nonetheless, I could provide an original, 2008, article, if necessary, because I saved it in 2008 "as is" in a form of a CHM file -which replicates the original article exactly. Feel free to contact me if you need to get that 2008 article for verification or for any other reason. I am quoting (words in bold are marked by me); the actual quotes are in italic, my comments - in a normal font:

"The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear reactor accident in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the Soviet Union (now Northern Ukraine). It was the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and the only instance of level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, resulting in a severe release of radioactivity into the environment following a massive power excursion which destroyed the reactor..."

"... Two people died in the initial steam explosion, but most deaths from the accident were attributed to fallout..."- Actually, nobody was killed in the initial "steam" explosion, except, possibly only two nuclear bombers who now probably reside in the United States - those who brought in the "mini-nuke" must have been listed "dead"; it would be logical. And the "most deaths" were not attributed to the alleged "fallout" -they were attributed only to the reactor's debris, mainly those graphite blocks that emitted the high levels of radioactivity in their close proximities (and apparently they emitted radiation not too far away).

"On 26 April 1986 at 01:23:44 a.m. (UTC+3) reactor number four at the Chernobyl plant, near Pripyat in the Ukrainian SSR, exploded. Further explosions and the resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area..."- lie. There were no "further explosions", but only one. About the alleged "fallout" and "extensive geographical area" you already know.

".. Four hundred times more fallout was released than had been by the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. .."-it is possibly true. Considering that an airburst in Hiroshima happened sufficiently high above ground zero and thus caused no radioactive contamination whatsoever, and neither had it caused any consequent radioactive fallout elsewhere. Even the smallest radioactive contamination in any case would exceed that in Hiroshima by thousands and even by millions of times. That is why you can easily cheat simpletons in such a manner, without even technically "lying". You can say them the "truth" - like in the above sample.

"... The plume drifted over extensive parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America..."- lie. Especially because even "North America" is added here. But you don't have to doubt that the alleged "fallout" was indeed "found" in "eastern North America" - since the very concept apparently came from that side. But it does not mean that the radio-nuclides that were the very "fallout" were "drifted" by air and not by vehicles of the perpetrators who simply delivered the needed radio-nuclides and scattered them in necessary locations.

"...Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus..."- true. Thanks to Legasov's and Pikalov's efforts, it was so. They managed to convince the Soviet Government to evacuate quite large areas brandishing their ridiculous "radioactivity maps". What about the "official post-Soviet data" - it is because the most ridiculous ravings of charlatans Legasov and Pikalov (especially those that were totally inconsistent with common sense) were not taken seriously in the Soviet times. However, in "post-Soviet" times they were published. Despite their still being totally inconsistent with common sense.

"... The accident raised concerns about the safety of the Soviet nuclear power industry, slowing its expansion for a number of years..."- don't even doubt that this is true. That was exactly the intention.

"...while forcing the Soviet government to become less secretive..."- may be... Who knows if it remained less or more secretive ever since? Did they measure the level of its "secretiveness" before and after?

"...The now-independent countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been burdened with the continuing and substantial decontamination and health care costs of the Chernobyl accident..."- don't even doubt that this is true. Everybody who worked in Chernobyl would never ever fail to demand any kind of benefit that was promised to him in 1986, and nobody would fail to demand free medical treatment from the government for any kind of disease he may develop later, irrespectively of the true cause of such a disease. Just imagine yourself in his shoes. Would you forgo some apparent benefit? Neither would he.

However, the second part of the above claim - about "continuing decontamination" - is lie. Nobody would spend a cent of their money today on any ridiculous work. The times of Pikalov and Legasov are over. In order to spend any money they would apparently measure radiation first. But there is nothing to measure.

"...It is difficult to accurately tell the number of deaths caused by the events at Chernobyl, as the Soviet-era cover-up made it difficult to track down victims. Lists were incomplete, and Soviet authorities later forbade doctors to cite "radiation" on death certificates. .."- of course, it is "difficult" to tell exact number of deaths. Because the number of those died particularly from radiation was as little as "29". And the total number-only "47". About the same as numbers of people that are routinely being killed in traffic accidents in any big modern city per day. And, of course, it is "difficult to track down victims". Due to their sheer absence... Lists were complete, by the way. To list people was quite an important task for the then Soviet bureaucrats that they would never fail to perform. What about the alleged "prohibition" to doctors to write "radiation" in death certificates - this is the most blatant lie. Everyone who died from acute radiation sickness was mentioned in his death certificate as such: "died from acute radiation sickness". Don't even doubt it. All 29 persons (mostly firefighters who climbed the roofs and came too close to graphite blocks) who are known to die from acute radiation sickness, were registered in hospitals as "patients with acute radiation sickness", were treated as such, and, upon their deaths, certified as such. Their list is available - therefore you can check it easily in hospitals or with their relatives concerning this alleged "prohibition to the doctors".

"...The 2005 report prepared by the Chernobyl Forum, led by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and World Health Organization (WHO), attributed 56 direct deaths (47 accident workers, and nine children with thyroid cancer), and estimated that there may be 4,000 extra cancer deaths among the

approximately 600,000 most highly exposed people..."- possible. But you have to use elementary logic, along with elementary mathematic when analyzing this particular claim. First: International Atomic Energy Agency is not as "independent" body as you may probably believe. It apparently belongs to some serious guys and it will sing exactly that kind of song that is ordered to sing. Just for example - IAEA did not ring any alarm concerning events at "Ground Zero" in the middle of New York City. Do you think they "did not notice" the three underground thermo-nuclear explosions that leveled the Twin Towers and the WTC-7? Or do you think they had no clue what the term "ground zero" used to mean before the 9/11 events? Or do you think IAEA office in New York did not feature any Geiger counter that would come to life after the WTC collapse? Or do you think that IAEA "did not notice" the intense streams of radioactive vapors that were ascending from Manhattan's ground zero in Capital Letters for at least four months and were visible even from space? Or do you think that the IAEA and the WHO do not know why ground zero responders suffer from leiukemia and other radiation-induced cancers? Don't be so naTve. Unlike you, those guys who work in IAEA knew it very well what happened on Ground Zero in Manhattan and they knew it very well how many different definitions the term "ground zero" used to have in pre-9/11 English dictionaries. Still, it did not make any noise in regard to the 9/11 nuclear events in the middle of the city of New York. The problem is that IAEA is not a real nuclear watchdog as the so-called "good guys" are trying hard to present to you. It is a pocket nuclear watchdog. Hope you can realize the difference.

Coming back to the above claims: 4.000 "extra cancer deaths" among -600.000 "highly exposed" - what do you think, is it a really big number? It only means that out of every 600 people, who worked on the "liquidation" efforts approximately 4 eventually developed some cancer. What do you think about "normal" people, who did not work in Chernobyl, how big is percentage of cancer among them? Just think about it.

In any case, one has to understand the awful truth: radiation safety standards in the former Soviet Union were exceptionally high and these standards must have been undeviatingly observed at all times, and, especially in such a notorious case as the Chernobyl so-called "disaster". And believe me, these safety standards were duly observed: nobody (except the unfortunate firefighters) has ever accumulated any radiation dose that exceeded 25 Roentgen (the maximum allowed for the times of war), and only a few accidentally exceeded the "peacetime allowance" - and ended up with doses in between 12 and 25 Roentgens. Majority of the "liquidators" did not acquire even 10 Roentgens. Every worker in Chernobyl had his personal dosimeter and every worker every day was duly checked for an acquired radiation dose -without any exception. While high-ranking charlatans did their part of job, mid-ranking field commanders did theirs - they simply did not allow anyone to exceed any officially approved safe radiation dose. Besides of all, majority of the "liquidators" after 1986 were held under exceptional medical supervision -they were thoroughly checked for any potential health damage - in an obligatory manner they used to undergo the full medical checkup at least once a year. That is why actual levels of cancer among them are noticeably lower than among the rest of the people... What about 9 "children with thyroid cancer" -who suppose to increase the poor total digit by at least another 9 - it is very improbable that they might get this cancer from causes related to the Chernobyl "accident". Children have never been allowed to the nuclear power plant - I think it is obvious. Neither were they allowed even near to it after the "accident". I

think it is self-evident too. Near 600.000 adults used to work on- or near to the Chernobyl nuclear power plant grounds after the "accident" and none of them has developed any "thyroid cancer". Why should the 9 cases of thyroid cancer among these children be attributed to the Chernobyl events? Especially considering that thyroid cancer is a commonly occurring disease? It is simply ridiculous if you judge this attempt from the point of view of logic.

"...Although the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone and certain limited areas will remain off limits, the majority of affected areas are now considered safe for settlement and economic activity..."- don't even doubt that this is true. However, even the so-called "Exclusion Zone" and the "certain limited areas" are safe as well (and they always were). You can buy a one-day tour in Kiev from any local tour-operator and venture into these zones as a tourist. You also can take a dosimeter with you if you wish and to undertake radiation measurements there (unlike in Ground Zero in Manhattan where dosimeters are strictly prohibited, in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone nobody cares if you bring one with you and use it to measure radiation). And you will be surprised to notice that the levels of radiation today remain exactly the same as they were in 1986 immediately after the "disaster" - in other words, they are just normal.

The above was only a preface to the main article. Here is the article's first paragraph. Try to read it with your eyes OPEN and think - whether or not these ridiculous claims could be true from the technical point of view:

"...On 26 April 1986 at 1:23:45 a.m., reactor 4 suffered a massive, catastrophic power excursion, resulting in a steam explosion, which tore the top from the reactor, exposed the core and dispersed large amounts of radioactive particulate and gaseous debris, allowing air (oxygen) to contact the super-hot core containing 1,700 tonnes of combustible graphite moderator. The burning graphite moderator increased the emission of radioactive particles. The radioactivity was not contained by any kind of containment vessel (unlike in Western plants, Soviet reactors often did not have them) and radioactive particles were carried by wind across international borders. Although much of the nuclear fuel in the reactor core did ultimately melt, it should be noted that the disaster was not a "nuclear meltdown" in the usual sense; the fuel melting was not a significant contribution to the radiological consequences of the accident, and the accident was not caused by a loss of coolant. .."

Simply try to read between the lines of the above statement. They admit that "catastrophe" was not a so-called "nuclear meltdown" in a common sense (meaning not a "China syndrome"). In the same time they admit that nuclear fuel "did ultimately melt". And, in the same time, they admit that even though, the fuel melting did not make any significant contribution to radiological consequences. And, moreover, they say that an actual accident was not caused by a loss of coolant. What conclusions could be made from all of these? Taking into consideration a "politically incorrect" account of events previously made by me? Basic points for our consideration are these:

1) There was no radiation in Chernobyl. Whether you like it or not. All cases of radiation sickness were caused exclusively by the highly-radioactive blocks of graphite scattered around. The blocks were radioactive while the territory was not. That only means that no smaller radioactive particles were available that could contaminate the territory and to be "blown by the wind" to as far as to "across international borders". I guess you realize that no wind and not even a hurricane could "blow" those graphite blocks.

2) The much of the nuclear fuel in the reactor core (as well as the much of the reactor itself) melted, this is the confirmed fact, but in the same time it was not a commonly feared "nuclear meltdown".

3) The usual "nuclear meltdown" in common sense could only be caused by a loss of coolant, while in Chernobyl it was not the case. The article confirms it was not caused by any loss of coolant.

4) Ravings that an alleged "vapor explosion" could allegedly destroy a reactor to such an extent as shown in the above picture, should be discarded as a ridiculous speculation. Vapor simply has not enough potential explosive power to inflict such unprecedented damage. Could you imagine a "vapor explosion" that could blow off 2.500 ton (!) concrete lid and to completely destroy a huge, heavily reinforced building? Which could not have been destroyed even by an explosion of TNT or by a direct hit of the Boeing-747? Try to be realistic when considering such a possibility - it is even more ridiculous than a claim about "kerosene" that "melted" the Twin Towers' steel into fluffy microscopic dust... Besides of all, the alleged "vapor explosion" had simply no reason to occur, because there was no primary cause for an initial overheating that may lead to such an explosion - even the article above clearly states that the accident was not caused by any loss of coolant.

Based on these points and on the above statements we could easily conclude that it was nothing, but a "mini-nuke", that did the job. It exploded, everything that came within its fireballs radius was reduced to plasma (which eventually set in a form of lava, or volcanic glass, as you may expect); in the same time it

effectively disrupted all chain reactions in the remaining fuel that came within the fireballs radius; and the upper parts of the reactor were simply thrown upwards by the power of explosion. As simply as this. Of course, because the explosion was truly enormous, it near completely destroyed the building housing the reactor No.4. Because all chain reactions within the remaining fuel were interrupted by reducing the very fuel to the plasmatic condition, the fuel could no longer contribute to any "radiological consequences" -exactly as the above article claims. All "radiological consequences" were caused exclusively by graphite thrown upwards by the power of explosion - that landed in the close proximity to the building. All we need to do is only to discard the ridiculous claims about "wind", "fallout" and the "international borders". Once we get rid of that garbage which had nothing to do with reality, the rest is quite easy to understand. I hope I made my explanation clear enough. It was a "mini-nuke", simply because it could not have beeen anything else. It was a nuclear explosion, without any doubt. Every babbler, including charlatan Pikalov (who claimed that it might serve as a trigger for an alleged "thermo-nuclear explosion"), confirmed it that time. Thus it was an acknowledged nuclear explosion. And that was actually the main cause of hysteria... But it is well-known that a nuclear reactor technically can not end up in a nuclear explosion. Now make your own conclusions.

Here is an official "drama" as claimed by the "plebeian" version of the "truth" - as provided by Wikipedia:

"...During the daytime of 25 April 1986, reactor 4 (51 °23'22"N 30V5'56"E) was scheduled to be shut down for maintenance as it was near the end of its first fuel cycle. An experiment was proposed to test a safety emergency core cooling feature during the shut down procedure...."

"...At 1:23:04 a.m. the experiment began. The extremely unstable condition of the reactor was not known to the reactor crew....

"... With reactor output rapidly increasing, the operators pressed the AZ-5 ("Rapid Emergency Defense 5") button at 1:23:40, that ordered a "SCRAM" — a shutdown of the reactor, fully inserting all control rods, including the manual control rods that had been incautiously withdrawn earlier. It is unclear whether it was done as an emergency measure, or simply as a routine method of shutting down the reactor upon the completion of an experiment (the reactor was scheduled to be shut down for routine maintenance). The SCRAM may have been ordered as a response to the unexpected rapid power increase..."

"...At 1:24, 20 seconds after the SCRAM was ordered, the first steam explosion took place. It blew the 2,000 ton lid off of the reactor, damaged the top of the reactor hall, and ejected fragments of material..." [the lid, by the way, weighed not 2.000 metric tons as claimed, but 2.500; however, it is a minor correction only; much more important corrections are yet to come]

".. .A second more powerful explosion occurred about two or three seconds after the first...."

"...The second explosion was caused by the hydrogen which had been produced either by the overheated steam-zirconium reaction or by the reaction of red-hot graphite with steam that produce hydrogen and oxygen. According to observers outside Unit 4, burning lumps of material and sparks shot into the air above the reactor. Some of them fell onto the roof of the machine hall and started a fire. About 25 per cent of the red-hot graphite blocks and overheated material from the fuel channels was ejected. ... Parts of the graphite blocks and fuel channels were blown out of the reactor building. ...Asa result of the damage to the building an airflow through the core was established by the high temperature of the core. The air ignited the hot graphite and started a graphite fire...."

"... Contrary to safety regulations, a combustible material (bitumen) was used in the construction of the roof of the reactor building and the turbine hall. Ejected material had ignited at least five fires on the roof of the (still operating) adjacent reactor 3. It was imperative to put those fires out and protect the cooling systems of reactor 3. Inside reactor 3, the chief of the night shift, Yuri Bagdasarov, wanted to shut down the reactor immediately, but chief engineer Fomin would not allow this. The operators were given respirators and potassium iodide tablets and told to continue working. At 05:00, however, Bagdasarov made his own decision to stop the reactor, leaving only those operators there who had to work the emergency cooling systems...."

Just try to imagine how "evil" was that "chief engineer Fomin"... He did not want to shut down a nuclear reactor amidst the fires ravaging on the very roof of the reactor's building... Do you seriously believe that the entire Soviet peaceful nuclear industry was represented by such evil guys as Fomin? Does it sound reasonable for you that such mad people could exist in reality? But for a lay Western reader it apparently sounds believable-otherwise, the Wikipedia article would be ashamed to publish such a poor claim...

Please, make sure to notice uncertainties: it is still "unclear" until now if the alleged pressing of an "AZ-5" button was done as a part of the alleged "experiment", or as a last-ditch attempt to save the reactor from not so clear "unexpected power increase". Don't even doubt that this is lie. Reactor simply exploded and disappeared at once and there was no reason whatsoever - to press any button after it ceased to exist. Still, all commentators try to be consistent with the officially approved cover-up attempt... Up to this day. By the way - there is an alternative version - that the "AZ-5" button was pressed allegedly in response to the alleged "first explosion", but even this measure was unable to prevent the alleged "second explosion". This theory is also widely circulated. However, problem is that there was neither any "second explosion", nor any alleged "experiment". The reactor simply "exploded" without any seeming reasons while the night shift people was peacefully drinking their tea in their control room. This is the "politically incorrect" truth...

"...The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building have been estimated to be 5.6 rontgen per second (R/s) (0.056 Grays per second, or Gy/s), which is equivalent to 20,000 rontgen per hour (R/hr) (200 Gy per hour, or Gy/hr). A lethal dose is around 500 rontgen over 5 hours (5 Gy over 5 hours) , so in some areas, unprotected workers received fatal doses within several minutes. However, a dosimeter capable of measuring up to 1,000 R/s (10 Gy/s) was inaccessible due to the explosion, and another one failed when turned on. All remaining dosimeters had limits of 0.001 R/s (0.00001 Gy/s) and therefore read "off scale". Thus, the reactor crew could ascertain only that the radiation levels were somewhere above 0.001 R/s (3.6 R/hr, or 0.036 Gy/hr), while the true levels were much higher in some areas.

Because of the inaccurate low readings, the reactor crew chief Alexander Akimov assumed that the reactor was intact. The evidence of pieces of graphite and reactor fuel lying around the building was ignored, and the readings of another dosimeter brought in by 4:30 a.m. were dismissed under the assumption that the new dosimeter must have been defective. Akimov stayed with his crew in the reactor building until morning, trying to pump water into the reactor. None of them wore any protective gear. Most of them, including Akimov, died from radiation exposure within three weeks. ..."

Let's consider these claims. Note first, that a lethal dose of 500 Roentgens is in accordance with the U.S. standards, while in accordance with the then Soviet standards it was 250 Roentgens that was considered nominally "lethal". Do you know what will happen with a human being who was hit by, let's say, 10.000 R penetrating radiation front that could result from a neutron bomb explosion (and only from it, but they way, because other nuclear munitions could not offer such a high level of penetrating radiation)? That lucky person would not suffer long. He would be killed instantly - right on the spot. By the time his head will hit the ground, he will be dead already. Another lucky person who would be hit by a front of 5.000 Roentgen would be also knocked down immediately - never to stand up again, because he would instantly lose his consciousness - never to regain it. And he would die without coming back to his senses in about 2 hours. Less lucky people who receive doses of let's say 3.000 Roentgens will feel first some strange feelings like desire to vomit, some headache, and other immediately noticeable signs of illness. However, soon they will "recover" for a while - and could even walk for a few hours and do some work, but only to fell in coma by the latest the next day and to die in a maximum of a day or two. People who receive doses of 1.000 R would suffer more - they might become noticeably sick by the next day or two and they will die in another day or two, but probably do so while in full consciousness. And those who got just only several hundreds Roentgens would develop only classical clinical acute radiation sickness in heavy form - they will feel bad on the 2-3 day and die - on the 10 th -11 th day. Those few presents of them who manage to survive the 12 th day will not die - they will slowly recover - may be in a year or two. But there will not be too many of them - not more than 10%, or even less - it largely depend on how many Roentgen they have received - 200 or 250.

Based on the above data - what do you think will happen with a person who do not suspect anything wrong in an area with radiation levels that are as high as 5.6 Roentgen per second (not per hour) - as claimed in the above article? In only about 15 minutes this unsuspecting person would accumulate over 5.000 Roentgens. We might guess what would happen first, and what next - whether he would feel sick first, fell down of sickness and lose consciousness then, or lose conscience first, and fell down - next. I am not quite sure about this (I mean I am not quite sure if he will lose consciousness first and fell second or fell first and then - lose his consciousness). But I am sure that in 15 minutes in any case that person would lie unconscious on the ground or on the floor and he would continue to accumulate his dose and he would die in a next minute or two; a maximum - in three minutes.

Let us read once more the above ravings quoted from the Wikipedia article. It is claimed that a dosimeter capable of reading levels up to 1000 Roentgen per second was not available, while the available one was capable of reading a maximum of "3.6 R/hr", but since the "true" levels were apparently higher, that dosimeter read only "off scale". Are they sure about that? All existing dosimeters were intended to read

quite "combat" levels of radiation - up to hundreds Roentgen per hour at minimum. There is simply no need to manufacture a dosimeter that can not read above 3.6 R/h. What do you think? On the other hand, there is no need to manufacture a hand-held dosimeter measuring in a scale of "hundreds Roentgens per second" as alleged above. Because you would not have a chance to use such a hand-held dosimeter or, at least, to make any use of knowledge acquired through its means. Because you would simply die right on the spot without being able to tell anyone about the actual levels of radiation you have just measured. Do you agree with that logic? Imagine that only 5.000 Roentgens will knock you down in an unconscious state already. What is the point for a human being of measuring levels such as hundreds of Roentgens per second and up to 1.000 R/sec?? Of course, there are dosimeters capable of reading levels of 1.000 R/sec, but they are not hand-held. They are very specific devices that use remote sensors. They are stationary instruments that are not intended "to be brought in" - like claimed in that article. Besides of all, it is claimed that a professional nuclear specialist who was a chief of night shift was simply too naive - to measure radiation in the manner described above. Do you seriously believe that someone who holds a diploma of higher education in nuclear physics (which is a pre-requisite to secure any job at any nuclear power plant, not to say to grow up to the chief of its shift) could be ignorant to the extent claimed in the second part of the article? And could it be possible for the chief of shift to "assume" that the reactor was allegedly "intact" after seeing with his very eyes all the damage as shown on the above photograph? And could he "assume" that the reactor was allegedly "intact" considering that he had his control room where all reactor's sensors end up and where instruments showed him any and every condition of the reactor? Don't you think that all instruments in his control room showed him that the reactor did exist no longer?

Considering all of it, don't you think that above information could be "mildly" called "untrue"?

The Wikipedia article continues:

"...After radiation levels set off alarms at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant in Sweden, the Soviet Union did admit that an accident had occurred, but still tried to cover up the scale of the disaster. In order to evacuate the city of Pripyat, the following warning message was reported on local radio, "An accident has occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. One of the atomic reactors has been damaged. Aid will be given to those affected and a committee of government inquiry has been set up." This message gave the impression that any damage and radiation was localized, although it was not. ..." - no comments.

"...The government committee formed to investigate the accident, led by Valeri Legasov, arrived at Chernobyl in the evening of 26 April. By that time two people were dead and 52 were hospitalized. During the night of 26 April / 27 April - more than 24 hours after the explosion - the committee, faced with ample evidence of extremely high levels of radiation and a number of cases of radiation exposure, had to acknowledge the destruction of the reactor and order the evacuation of the nearby city of Pripyat. ..." - if you look at the above photograph of the destruction and consider the true details of the destruction, what do you think - would it be appropriate to use terms such "had to acknowledge the destruction of the reactor", or it would be a little bit strange to use these particular words, considering the evidence - totally destroyed building and no longer existent reactor it used to house? But those "good guys" who unleashed that hysteria thought that such definition would be just OK - to match the vicious image of the then Soviet Government, who must be "forced to admit" or, at best case, "had to acknowledge".

"...In the aftermath of the accident, 237people suffered from acute radiation sickness, of whom 31 died within the first three months. Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the accident under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the radiation exposure (from the smoke) was (for a discussion of the more important isotopes in fallout, see fission product)..."- possible. Though, note the cunning indirect cheating: actually, you can not die from acute radiation sickness if you survive the 32 nd day. You can only recover. (Though it is not the case with chronic radiation sickness - like one endemic to "Ground Zero" in Manhattan - more and more patients will die from it as time passes by.) It is known that 29 people died from acute radiation sickness within one month, 2 more might die from other causes making it 31. But an article leaves a strong impression on a lay reader that during "only first three months" 31 died, implying that the rest would die later. Lie. They would recover. Moreover, it is very doubtful that the "237" people suffered from acute radiation sickness as claimed. It is very improbable. It was possible that as a measure of precaution 237 people were indeed hospitalized for observation, from among those who were suspected of being subjected to the radiation exposure shortly after the "accident", before strict radiation control was implemented on the site. Don't forget that none of the firefighters who extinguished the fires during that night had individual dosimeters. Therefore it was not possible for the doctors to establish if either of them received any dose of radiation or not and therefore it was reasonable that all of them were hospitalized for observation - as a matter of precaution. But it does not mean that all of those hospitalized really "suffered" from acute radiation sickness -judging by both - logic and mathematic. You could make your own calculations. We suppose 237 people suffered from radiation sickness of various

degrees, of whom 31 died. Then you can logically expect that out of remaining 236 patients should be at least 110-115 who suffered from moderate radiation sickness, and the rest - may be from milder forms. It is well-known that 50% of those who suffer from moderate radiation sickness die on 30 th -31 st day of a disease. You may logically expect at least another 50 to 60 deaths (at least 30). In addition to the first 31. But there were no more deaths. It happened because radiation sickness in Chernobyl was very specific. Those who spend long time near the highly-radioactive graphite blocks received lethal doses of radiation. The rest - did not receive any doses high enough to cause any radiation sickness at all. However, if any radioactive contamination of territory were really involved as claimed, the picture would be very different: there would be a lot of cases of heavy, moderate and light radiation sickness - the exact condition of the patients could be determined by their being at certain places and at certain distances from a hypocenter of a disaster - which is typical for any nuclear explosion and for radioactive contamination/fallout caused by it. But it was not so in Chernobyl.

"...Most domestic animals were evacuated from the exclusion zone, but horses left on an island in the Pripyat River 6 km (4 mi) from the power plant died when their thyroid glands were destroyed by radiation doses of 150-200 Sv. Some cattle on the same island died and those that survived were stunted because of thyroid damage. The next generation appeared to be normal..."- let's consider these ravings. One Sv (sievert) is equal to 100 Rem, or rudely - to 100 Roentgens. Meaning that poor horses managed to accumulate 1.500-2.000 Roentgens in total - being at a distance of 6 km (4 miles) away from the site. While human beings working right on the site were scarcely able to accumulate 25 Roentgens starting from last days of April and until September (and it was not all human beings - but just only a few of them, while the rest did not accumulat any significant doses whatsoever). Does it sound believable? And does it sound believable that some other animals "on the same island" were allegedly able "to survive", and, moreover, were even able to breed further - despite the enormous doses of thousands of Roentgen that killed the very horses, and despite their own alleged "thyroid damage"? Try to be honest with yourself when judging this information.

"... With the bubbler pool gone, a meltdown was less likely to produce a powerful steam explosion. The molten core would now have to reach the water table below the reactor. To reduce the likelihood of this it was decided to freeze the earth beneath the reactor; this would also stabilize the foundations. Using oil drilling equipment, injection of liquid nitrogen began on 4 May. It was estimated that 25 tonnes of liquid nitrogen per day would be required to keep the soil frozen at -100 ¥)...."- don't even doubt that this is true - it was another crazy proposal of charlatan Legasov based on his ridiculous claims of the existence of the alleged "remaining nuclear fuel" that allegedly "could melt its way down the earth" - the claims which later were found to be entirely false and totally ungrounded from the scientific point of view.

"Many of the vehicles used by the "liquidators" remain parked in a field in the Chernobyl area to this day, most giving off doses of 10-30 R/hr (0.1-0.3 Gy/hr). over 20 years after the disaster."- a possible "truth". These vehicles were used by the "liquidators" exclusively in a "drone" mode, not manually (the fact that is "strangely" omitted by the above article) to remove highly-radioactive reactor debris from the ground. The remote-controlled bulldozers were used to rake up those graphite blocks scattered on the ground (as well as those thrown from the roof-tops by "human-robots"). Of course, because the reactor debris were highly radioactive, they apparently caused a certain induced radioactivity in the equipment that used to come to close proximity to- and contacted the debris physically, moreover, for prolonged periods of time (because these vehicles were not live nobody extended any safe radiation doses on the vehicles during their actual "exposure"). It is quite possible that these vehicles indeed retained their induced radioactivity and might emit 10-30 Roentgen per hour for many years to come. But it would not be appropriate for scribblers who wrote the Wikipedia article to dupe simpletons by simply stating this "grim" fact as "honestly" as the article does. Firstly, the abovementioned induced radioactivity has absolutely nothing to do with any radioactive contamination which is "honestly" implied for a lay reader who is presumed by the scribblers not to have any clue about radiation and not to understand the difference between "ionizing penetrating radiation", "induced ionizing radiation", "radioactive dust/vapor", and the most scary "radioactive fallout". The high levels of induced radiation of 10-30 Roentgens per hour on the parts of the abandoned drone machinery that the Wikipedia article so "honestly" mentioned only had something to do with those highly radioactive graphite blocks scattered around. I mean the very same blocks that caused all without exception cases of acute radiation sickness among unsuspecting firefighters. Because the drone vehicles were in physical contact with these graphite blocks while scrapping them off the grounds. Secondly, even these vehicles indeed emit those allegedly dangerous levels of induced radioactivity, they could not send the actual rays too far like atomic bombs. They emit dangerous levels of radioactivity only in the close proximity - which is even shorter distance when compared to the very graphite blocks that initially caused it. You can measure these levels of radioactivity only when you make a sensor of your dosimeter to physically touch the vehicle. But when you stand only 10 meters away you will measure nothing. Simply because it is not penetrating radiation like one after a typical atmospheric nuclear explosion. It is induced radiation, which

does not travel too far away from its source. But the shameless scribblers who concocted the Wikipedia article do not explain this particular technicality to a lay reader they intended to scare.

I am quoting further from the same article:

"... Possible causes of the disaster.

There are two official theories about the main cause of the accident: the first, 'flawed operators theory', was published in August 1986 and effectively placed the blame solely on the power plant operators. The operators violated plant procedures and were ignorant of the safety requirements needed by the RBMK design....

... The second 'flawed design theory' was proposed by Valeri Legasov and published in 1991, attributing the accident to flaws in the RBMK reactor design, specifically the control rods...."

I think that should be enough. Please, note that even up to this day, in 2008, i.e. well over 22 years after the Chernobyl "disaster", there is no officially established true cause of the actual "accident". The Soviet Government ended up with official "theories", and not with one, but with two. They are not even ashamed to openly call both of them "theories". But still, the Government's theory(s) has nothing, but official value -explaining a position of the very Government in regard to the alleged causes of "unexplainable" explosion in a nuclear reactor that is known to be unable to explode, but able to only melt down in the worst case...

As you can probably guess, by all above considerations, we effectively disproved, by not leaving a stone standing, of both of the governmental "theories", though neither of them being actually a "conspiracy" one - since both blamed the "disaster" on either a stupidity of the designers, or on a stupidity of the operators.

However, mine is a "conspiracy" one - I blame a "mini-nuke". Though mine is not a "theory". It is practice. Don't forget that I was an officer at the Soviet Special Control Service - whose primary duty was to detect nuclear explosions. Don't you think that some officers from my former Service have also visited that site to see what exactly happened there? Of course, it was a nuclear explosion - and that is exactly why they came there.

Oh, I almost forgot it - three seismic posts of the Soviet Special Control Service located in Ukraine also managed to detect some "strange" seismic activity in connection with the "accident" under the reactor No.4 of the Chernobyl power plant. Seismograms showed a strange pick with magnitude slightly over 3 on the Richter scale right at the moment of the "accident" - representing nothing else than a mini-nuclear explosion of about 0.1 kiloton (100 metric ton) in TNT yield. Showing that the mini-nuke was hidden not sufficiently deep underground to cause the full 3.5 magnitude (exactly as it was in the case with the infamous Oklahoma bombing in 1995 which produced also exactly 3.0 on the Richter scale because the 0.1 kiloton mini-nuke was hidden in shallow sewage opposite the building rather than deep underground).

Seismic evidence that shows something truly "unexplainable" in connection to the Chernobyl "nuclear catastrophe" is widely available in nowadays Ukraine, as well as in Russia. But, "strangely enough", the above article in Wikipedia does not enlighten its reader about that unexplainable particular. Or, do you think that it was a "natural earthquake"? That had never ever occurred in that area either before, or after the alleged "accident"? And that strange "natural" event managed to strangely coincide (to a second) with the strange "experiment" strangely conducted by the night shift of the reactor No.4? Where it was officially claimed that the reactor crew chief allegedly pressed the "AZ-5" button - in the course of the alleged "experiment" that caused the alleged "vapor explosion"? Which timely coincided with the "earthquake" of unexplainable nature? That strangely occurred right under the very reactor No.4?

Do you seriously believe in such "coincidences"? Or may be you sincerely believe that the actual strange "earthquake" was also caused by the alleged "experiment" that was involved in an emergency shut-down of reactor by pressing its "AZ-5" button? Don't believe. It was quite a simple occurrence. The "mini-nuke" brought in by the two traitors (who were reported "killed", but who are presumably alive and kicking in the United States), that was set on 0.1 kt yield and put under the reactor No.4 got critical and exploded - in a sense of a "nuclear explosion", not in a sense of a "vapor explosion". This "strange" occurrence caused the abovementioned "unexplainable" "earthquake" of 3.0 in the Richter's magnitude. And simultaneously it destroyed most of the reactor (primarily its lower parts and the most nuclear fuel by reducing all of that to plasma) and threw the upper parts of the reactors by the power of the actual explosion. While two strange high-ranking Doctor Quacks strangely waited at that time to be quickly found in Moscow, despite that day being Sunday. The rest you already know. It is also possible, of course, that the official explanation sound more believable to you. But don't forget then that the "official explanations" in regard to the Twin Towers'

collapse from kerosene and those in regard to the WTC-7 collapse from diesel fuel also sound believable to many simpletons. However, this book is not intended for them. It is intended for those human beings who prefer to use their own brains.

Now we have a kind of general overview on what happened in 1986 in Chernobyl and how the matter was handled. Let's compare it with the nuclear disaster (to be more precise "thermo-nuclear disaster") that happened 15 years later across the Atlantic Ocean - and with the practical handling of that disaster.

Approximate radiation levels on the work site

Number of dead from acute radiation sickness

Number of dead from chronic radiation sickness

Patients died from radiation causes certified as such Observance of safe radiation doses Workers wore protective gears when necessary Population properly evacuated

Population properly informed

People who might endanger their health due to potential radiation exposure were provided with adequate medical observations in later times

People who encountered any potential radiation dangers were paid salaries and bonuses in accordance with potential radiation dangers

Workers were officially entitled for earlier retirements irrespectively of their actual health condition

Chernobyl

milli-Roentgens per hour or less

29

none

Manhattan's gROUND zERO

tens and sometimes hundreds of milli-Roentgens per hour; and tens of Roentgens per hour during the first few days

not reported; probably not too many; may be tens

thousands, but the exact numbers are not reported

Yes

Yes

No

No

Everyone is welcome to make his or her own conclusions.

It appeared at first that the humble author of these lines was the only person in This World who dared to openly challenge the most blatant lie of the XX century - the so-called "Chernobyl nuclear disaster". And in that capacity I had a good chance to acquire a reputation of a lunatic, especially among those zombied folks who permanently keep their brains in "switched off" position and who believe everything that is said in a TV-box or printed on paper. To be honest, I was not too happy with this state of affairs. I don't care actually what zombies who believe that aluminum could penetrate a tank's armor or that a nuclear reactor could allegedly explode think about me. But still, I felt a little bit uncomfortable with being alone in such a situation. However, in 2010, other articles criticizing the Chernobyl affair began to appear on the Internet which made me much happier. And this time the articles were published by the real professionals. One of them was published by Polish scientists (note, not by Russians and not by French, who, in theory, could be interested in protecting the peaceful nuclear industry from the current Freemasonic assault, but by the Polish, who have no interest at all in the peaceful nuclear industry and therefore can not be suspected of being biased). One of such articles in both - Spanish and English - is available here 1 . It seems that the article was originally available in Spanish, rather than in English, and the English one

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia uranium25.htm#Chernobyl The Biggest Bluff of The 20th Century

was only the secondary translation of it, therefore its nicely sounding Spanish title goes first: Chernobyl - El Fraude Mas Escandalouso del Siglo 20

The English translation of the title and the article's authors as offered by the above web page:

The Biggest Bluff of The 20th Century

by Marcin Rotkiewicz

in collaboration with Henryk Suchar and Ryszard Kamicski

Polish weekly WPROST, no 2 (14 January) 2001

Let me quote some parts of it:

"..Whereas, in fact, the accident in Chernobyl nuclear reactor does not represent one of the largest 20th century tragedies, the explosion did not kill thousands of people, nor did it heavily contaminate for hundreds of years enormous areas of land. Moreover, radiation doses to which the populations in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have been exposed, had nearly no impact on their health these people do not suffer more frequently from leukemia, nor do they give birth to more children with genetic defects.

Those are the conclusions from the recent UNSCEAR 3 (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) report, which has been prepared by 142 most prominent experts from 21 countries. But after 15 years since the accident, it is clear that this event has been put to a very good use mainly by environmental and antinuclear organizations.

"Thanks to" the "Chernobyl disaster" the nuclear power program development has been delayed by several decades..."

"...According to the UNSCEAR report authors, only 134 people from nuclear power plant staff and emergency teams members have been exposed to very high ionizing radiation doses and subsequently suffered from acute radiation sickness. Twenty eight of them died from irradiation and two from scalding. Those were the only fatalities..."

"... The examinations of people engaged in elimination of accident consequences indicate that those people are even healthier than the non-exposed individuals says Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski from Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, one of the report coauthors, who since 1973 is representing Poland in UNSCEAR...."

".. .As stated in UNSCEAR report:

"Fourteen years after the Chernobyl accident there is no scientific evidence of increased cancer incidence, increased mortality or the occurrence of other diseases attributable to radiation." On the other hand, a significant increase in the incidence of psychosomatic disorders concerning the respiratory, digestive and nervous systems has been observed. But these disorders are caused not by radiation but by fear. People are afraid that they have been exposed to radiation or that they live on contaminated land and that any day they will develop cancer..."

"...Immediately after the disaster, thousands of Ukrainian and Belarusian pregnant women decided, or were persuaded by the physicians, to undergo abortion. The number of abortions in those two Soviet republics during 19861987 was equal to one third of the number of children born in Eastern Europe as a whole. In some regions the number of natural miscarriages jumped up by 25%. Why? Women were afraid that they will give birth to mutants. Meanwhile, after the disaster, the number of children born with serious defects in Ukraine has not risen maintains Dr. Herwig Paretzke from the Institute of Radiation Protection in Munich...."

"... The resettlement has been implemented swiftly and on a large scale. Within 11 days (from 27 April until 7 May 1986) 116 000 people were forced to change their place of residence. "The decision on resettlement has been taken with no notice of the opinion of Russian scientists, who suggested that the majority of people living in the NPP neighborhood should be left alone" says Michael Waligyrski, the head of the Health Physics Department in Oncology Center in Cracow. "Resettled people did not die from lethal radiation doses, but from high stress. We observed similar reactions to stress also in Poland, during the

2 http://www.wonuc.org/

3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSCEAR

flood of 1997. Many people died then not from drowning but e.g. from heart attack" adds Waligyrski. The town Prypiat and a large part of the closed 30km zone are in fact habitable! ..."

"...How the Chernobyl lie came into being...

...In May 1986 the American press reported that the reactor explosion killed 80 people immediately, that further 2 thousand died on the way to hospitals and their bodies are buried not on the cemeteries but in a place called Pirogovo, where a nuclear waste disposal site is located. The enormous headline in New York Post threatened: "Mass grave in Kiev 15 thousand human bodies pushed down by bulldozers into the waste pits", while National Enquirer described a mutant chicken 2 m high, caught by the hunters in the forests close to Chernobyl. The interesting point is that equally absurd stories appeared in the press not only in the times when Soviet authorities prevented gathering of reliable information on the disaster, but also afterwards..."

"... Chernobyl, or environmental international's great mystification

From the very beginning, the disaster in Chernobyl became the main weapon used by the environmental organizations in their war against nuclear power. The accident and its supposedly horrible consequences were to be a warning to all who plan nuclear power plants construction. This campaign has been successful and very much so! In Germany, the parliament dominated by Social Democrats and Green Party members decided to dismantle all nuclear power plants. In France, previously free ofantinukes phobia, the ecologists push a similar demand. Meanwhile, the environmentalists who wage such fierce battle against nuclear power plants, are accused by the nuclear lobby of getting funds from oil and gas industry, interested in closing the existing nuclear power plants and delaying the construction of the future ones. "Ecological organization Greenpeace has in its disposition more money than the budgets of some African countries. From where this money comes?" asks Professor Lukasz Turski from the National Academy of Sciences Center for Theoretical Physics and College for Sciences in Warsaw. "Greenpeace is one of the most active organizations fighting against nuclear power" reckons Professor Ziemowid Sujkowski, director of the Institute for Nuclear Problems in Warsaw..."

I think it should be enough to get the main point. Those hysterical so-called "Greenpeace" organizations who are officially non-profitable, but who are strangely richer than some African countries, may, of course, accuse the authors of the above article of being "proponent of the nukes", as it is their modus operandi, but guess why these "Greenpeace" organizations do not accuse the United States Government for not properly handling the triple thermo-nuclear disaster in Manhattan? Do you think those guys and gals from "Greenpeace" do not know what "ground zero" is and what this term used to mean before 9/11 ? Don't be so naive... They know everything. The so-called "Greenpeace" has never fought for any actual "peace" or for any thing "green" (except, perhaps, only green papers with the Egyptian pyramid and en eye of Satan on them). All these "Greenpeaces" and similar organizations were created with the only reason in mind -to finally enslave you and to force you to live in a global concentration camp where so-called "carbon taxes" will be levied on you, in addition to so-called "VAT" and property taxes (which by now have already began to seem "normal" to many), and where you will be deprived not only of your former rights to spank your children, but of your former rights to grow up any children whatsoever. The "good guys" will take care and grow up your children in your stead. And they will educate your children in the proper manner...

After my "9/1 Ithology" video-presentation along with my comments on the Chernobyl disaster appeared on the Internet many people began to ask me what do I think about the recent "disastrous" oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico and what do I think about President Barak Obama's hesitation to deal with the oil leak -particularly in regard to using an underground nuclear explosion for stopping the oil leak based on the Soviet experience. My answer: I do not think that there any "disastrous oil leak" whatsoever. Not that the alleged "leak" is less dangerous than they are trying hard to present now to the hysterical plebs. I mean that there is no oil leak at all. It is just a new show - a new hysterical globalization project. They want to scare you with an alleged prospect of the "extinction" and then - to enslave you after "saving you from the extinction". They will "salvage you" first and force you to live in a global concentration camp - second. Where they will rivet some GPS censors to your ears and you will be grateful for that. This is what I mean. If the Chernobyl so-called "disaster" was primarily intended to get rid of the then main enemy - the Soviet Union, the new "ecological disaster" of the alleged "extinction magnitude" is intended to get rid of the rest of sovereign countries and to install a supranational dictatorship which will enforce so-called "international laws" on the entire world without any respect to the former sovereignty of the formerly independent states.

Many people also asked me if the two chief actors in the Chernobyl production - Legasov and Pikalov -were indeed the CIA agents as I implied. Well. I will answer this. No. They were not from the CIA. They were from the Freemasonic Order which is far more powerful than the CIA. And which hated both - the former Soviet Union, and the peaceful nuclear industry. And which hates your freedom and which wants to "salvage" you from the "extinction" and to force you to become a slave in a global concentration camp.

If you feel that it is a good idea to support this work, please, consider donating. Funds are badly needed to keep this research afloat.

WebMoney purses: Z285632610819

R384502243216 E266344985402 U327130392143

PayPal account: donate@911thology.com (please, contact the actual e-mail first before

donating to verify the current status of this account, since it seems to be routinely obstructed by the PayPal officials - for example, it might appear "working" and able to receive the money, but to be "frozen" in reality).

Note that the PayPal may block or close the abovementioned account one day for some apparent reasons; if it so happens, please, consider an alternative way of donating - for example, using the Russia-based WebMoney system which is not as "politically correct" as the PayPal, or by contacting Mr. Dimitri Khalezov directly - in this case you will be provided some bank account details.

You can contact Mr. Dimitri Khalezov directly as well if you have any offers of cooperation, or if you require documents that he mentioned in his research but which are no longer available online.

Contact information could be always found on these web sites:

www.dkhalezov.com or www.91 lthology.cn or www.91 lthology.com

Copyright © 2008 by Dimitri A. Khalezov

dkalezov@fromru.com

All rights reserved.