The Chernobyl Experiment

For those who have difficulty believing that Chernobyl was not an accident, I suggest you first consider the rather profound connections the reported "accident" had to astrology and biblical prophecy.

On April 24th, 1986, the day before the fire and explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Soviet Ukraine, there was a total lunar eclipse conjunct Pluto (the astrolog chart for this eclipse and an excerpt from a related article I've written on "Kremlin Astrology" are below). At first one might simply pass off as a coincidence the fact that a lunar eclipse occurred in connection with the Chernobyl disaster, but what is key is that this eclipse was conjunct Pluto, a rare astronomic event. What is even more significant about this is that Pluto is the planet of explosive transformation and *nuclear technology* (consider the word "pluto"nium). Thus, Chernobyl happened at the time of an astrological configuration that seemed to specifically indicate an explosive nuclear event. This means people in a position of power, i.e., Kremlin leaders, may have ordered Chernobyl to occur at an astrologically appropriate time, i.e., just after the lunar eclipse conjunct Pluto on April 24th, 1986.

If the evidence from astrology doesn't convince you that Chernobyl was a planned rather than accidental event, consider the case that can be made using biblical prophecy. In the Bible's "Book of Revelation", which is supposed to depict the fiery conflict called "The Apocalypse", there is a "Seventh Seal" prophecy that many believe specifically predicts a future nuclear war (see the excerpt from my article, "The Truth", below). In this prophecy, there is a passage that mentions how the water will be poisoned by "Wormwood" (see above) after a fiery catastrophe. This is most interesting since the Ukrainian word for "Wormwood" is "Chernobyl" (or "Chornobyl", as is explained in Mary Myco's article, "A Legacy of Wormwood"- see below). What this means is that the same powers who ordered Chernobyl to occur at a *time* of ideal *astrological* significance also saw to it that the disaster occurred at a *place* of key *prophetic* significance.

Further evidence that Chernobyl was no accident comes from the suspicious circumstances of the disaster. As mentioned in the quote above from "The 10th Anniversary of the Chernobyl Catatrophe: The decisive facts must at last be brought into the public" (see below), the series of reported "mistakes" that went into the nuclear reactor explosion at Chernobyl are literally *unbelievable*. This is because what the world has been told is a lie. Soviet nuclear personnel intentionally took the steps necessary to generate a large-scale explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. As the author explains: "Nothing, nothing at all has the (Chernobyl) catastrophe to do with a coincidence of unfortunate accidents. On the contrary, what was conducted there must have lead directly to a ruinous accident."

Why would Kremlin authorities have staged the Chernobyl disaster?

Most likely to prepare for fighting a nuclear war. The events that have been occurring according to astrology over the past ten years, starting with the Chernobyl disaster, appear to be geared toward the outcome depicted in the Seventh Seal prophecy of a fiery Apocalypse, i.e., a future nuclear war.

Chernobyl would have been a logical starting point if, in 1986, Moscow started to implement a multi-year plan, say of ten years, geared to fight and win a nuclear war against the West. In order to prepare for surviving such a war, the Kremlin first wanted to test procedures and equipment that had been designed during the Cold War years to counter radioactive contamination and poisoning following a nuclear war. Also, Communist leaders realized the need to garner knowledge about the immediate and lasting effects of radioactive contamination on people, vegetation and livestock. Accordingly, during the mid-1980's, when Kremlin authorities decided to implement a multi-year plan that would end in a nuclear war against the West, they chose to first stage a major nuclear disaster in the Ukraine as a useful preparatory experiment. From this diabolical experiment, Russian scientists, assisted by the West, have gathered a wealth of knowledge about the short-term and longer-term effects of radiation on people, plants and animals. Furthermore, the most effective equipment and procedures have been developed for dealing with radioactive contamination and poisoning. This, of course, will be of tremendous value if, indeed, Moscow is planning to fight and survive a global nuclear war.

NOTE: For those of you who have a hard time accepting the idea that Moscow is planning to wage a nuclear war against the West based upon the evidence from Chernobyl, you might further consider the new underground command and control centre, known as Kosvinskiy Mountain, Russia is building in the Ural mountains (see the related article below or the recent New York Times article: "Despite Cold War's End, Russia Keeps Building A Secret Complex"; 4/16/96, p.A1). As US Navy Admiral William Studeman, former Acting Director of Central Intelligence, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last year: "Preparedness for nuclear conflict with the United States - not withstanding the end of the Cold War - remains a resource allocation priority (of Russia)." Why would this be so unless the Kremlin is planning to fight a nuclear war?

Astrolog Chart for the April 1986 lunar eclipse that coincided with the Chernobyl disaster in the Ukraine:

     +-------<11> 0Leo12----<10> 2Can11-----<9> 4Gem22-----------+
     ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     <12> 0Vir19----¦-----------------------------¦----- 4Tau40<8>
     ¦              ¦                             ¦ Sun  4Tau11  ¦
     ¦              ¦    Astrolog (4.10) chart    ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦   Fri Apr 25 1986 12:00am   ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦    +08:00   0:00W  0:00N    ¦              ¦
     <1> 2Lib36-----¦    Placidus      Houses.    ¦----- 2Ari36<7>
     ¦              ¦   Julian Day = 2446545.17   ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦                             ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦                             ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦                             ¦              ¦
     <2> 4Sco40-----¦-----------------------------¦----- 0Pis19<6>
     ¦ Plu  6Sco02r ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     ¦ Moo  6Sco03  ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦              ¦
     +----------- 4Sag22<3>----- 2Cap11<4>----- 0Aqu12<5>--------+
 
 

A Russified version of a Ukrainian word, " Chernobyl" doesn't even appear in either language's dictionary. Nor will you see it on the road signs in the contaminated 36-mile-wide Zone of Alienation circling the gutted reactor. Since Ukraine inherited the Rhode Island- sized region from the late Soviet Union in 1991, all the "e's" have been taped over with "o's" to spell "Chornobyl."

Chornobyl is the Ukrainian word for wormwood, a medicinal herb endowed with magical powers in folklore. And it truly became a force to conjure after the Chornobyl station's fourth reactor exploded on April 26, 1986. The cloud of radioactive wormwood subsequently spewed around the globe seemed like a bitter foretaste of the nuclear holocaust that would end the world.

Luckily, the world is still here. But viewed through the crystal ball of hindsight, the disaster did herald doom for the Soviet Union. Like the badly designed Chornobyl reactor, the Communist empire collapsed under pressure, and the 20-story "sarcophagus" encasing the radioactive reactor core in concrete and steel seems like a fitting tombstone for both.

Eventually, someone will have to devise a semiotic danger sign to ward off the unsuspecting in future millennia, when our languages will have been forgotten but the mess inside the sarcophagus will still be radioactive.

For now, the real epitaph is two miles away in the ghost town of Pripyat, where a mural on one of the dozens of modern high-rises vacantly overlooking poplar-lined streets proclaims:

Now, it will take more than two centuries for the cesium and strontium contaminating most parts of the Zone of Alienation to decay away. The deadly plutonium in the six-mile ring closest to the reactor will, as a practical matter, last forever.

Small wonder that no more than 10,000 people work (but rarely live) in the Zone these days. Almost all are in two different places named Chornobyl: the nuclear station, where two controversial reactors Kiev promises to close are still running, and the town 12 miles away, where the administration of the Zone of Alienation performs its dystopian task of running the no-man's land.

The work has incentives. Wages are double to triple the Ukrainian average, while radiation exposure rules limit work to just two weeks a month.

But I still had my doubts. "Don't you worry about the radiation?" I asked my tour guide, Oleksandr Shevchenko.

"Most of the time there's no danger," he assured me. Like all Zone men, he was dressed in camouflage. The uniforms are a nod to male workers' sartorial simplicity rather than safety. Women wear whatever they want.

But everyone wears one of the clip-on dosimeters that Shevchenko showed me. "I don't want to know what it reads," he said, explaining: "If I reach my yearly exposure, they wouldn't let me work here. So if I'm here, I must be OK."

Actually, on the day I visited, the background radiation in most parts of the Zone was normal. After 10 years, 95 percent of the radioactivity has sunk about an inch into the soil, securing it from being blown about in surface dust. Snow, too, is a shield. My winter visit was no accident.

I expected a desolate wasteland. In fact, the Zone is very much alive. The removal of 135,000 humans has created a wildlife refuge with a population explosion of perfectly healthy-looking boar, moose, deer, wolves and smaller animals. I even spotted a rare golden eagle soaring above the treetops in the six-mile innermost ring, drawn by the abundance of prey - and the lack of people.

Because cesium and strontium have long since passed from the soil into the food chain, both the prey and the predators are radioactive. And if a cesium-packed roebuck bounds out of the Zone into a neighboring forest and dies, its body will leave a patch of contamination where there had been none before.

That's just one way that radionuclides, or radioactive atoms, move around in the wild. Scientists call the process "migration" and try to prevent it by immobilizing radionuclides in one place where a metaphorical eye can be kept on them.

Soil isn't one of those places. Aside from insinuating themselves into the food chain, radionuclides can eventually migrate down to the water table. But early efforts to decontaminate soil with radiation- absorbing plants created a new problem: disposing of the harvest. Smoke from burning would be radioactive. And burial isn't an option either because there is already too much contaminated garbage in the Zone's 800 leaky "graveyards."

That's why so much "hot" debris, such as the huge concrete blocks that spell out the slogan, "The Forest is the Source of Health," still stand in the same place as 10 years ago.

Like nearly everything in this symbol-laden landscape, that sign from a pre-Chornobyl forestry farm has acquired new meaning. Trees, it turns out, are the best and cheapest way of immobilizing radionuclides, which concentrate in bark where they can safely decay away in the centuries of a tree's lifetime. The danger then becomes fires, such as the one that raged through the Zone in 1991.

Once upon a time, according to folklore, the biggest danger in Ukrainian forests was from woodland nymphs called mavky. Mavky lured their victims with beautiful songs, then tickled them to death. For reasons folklore doesn't explain, the only way to ward off mavky was with wormwood, an herb they feared immensely.

Now, 10 years after Chornobyl, few people venture into the wormwood forests of the Zone. Mushroom and berry picking are forbidden; so is hunting. But for the rangers who work in the woods, clearing out deadwood and fighting the radioactive fires that deadwood can start, there's at least one consolation for the risk: They needn't worry about mavky anymore.

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

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

The reactor was consciously driven into an extremely dangerous situation, a situation known for its dangers, and then on top of it all the complete security mechanisms were put out of operation - allegedly for the purpose of carrying through this experiment, even if the report additionally professes that at least some of these switchoffs were not at all necessary for this experiment. Under such conditions, according also to the knowledge of that time, one could not but know that one exposed the reactor to a dangerous situation, proceeding from which unknown big catastrophes became probable. Nothing, nothing at all has the catastrophe to do with a coincidence of unfortunate accidents. On the contrary. What was conducted there, must have lead directly to a ruinous accident, exactly as driving a car with a speed of 140mph arround a corner very probably leads to carrying the car out of the track.

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

The immediate cause of the desaster was an alleged experiment to use, for internal requirements, the current of the turbogenerator coming to a stop. First of all in general it is astonishing that such a reactor fully equipped with radioactive fuel rods is said to be used by its crew as a simple "test object", normally for experiments of that kind test devices are being used for the first time. The report puts the entire blame on the personnel, on its thoughtlessness. On the other hand it can be seen from the report itself that the experiment was directed by a person who was not a specialist for reactors, but only a "ordinary electrical engineer". He apparently gave his directives to the present operating crew. It reads for example:

"The operators attempted manually to sustain the main parameters of the system - steam pressure and the water level in the drum separators - but they did not entirely succeed in doing so. At this stage they saw the steam pressure in the drum separators sag by 0.5-0.6 MPa and the water level drop below the emergency mark. In order to avoid shutting down the reactor in such conditions, the staff blocked the emergency protection signals relating to these parameters. At the same time, the reactivity continued to drop slowly. At 1:22:30, the operator saw from a printout of the fast reactivity evaluation program that the available excess reactivity had reached a level requiring immediate shutdown of the reactor. Nevertheless, the staff were not stopped by this and began with the experiments." (p. 16/17) ¢1|

These sentences one must read twice indeed, as they show the whole purposefulness of the proceeding. Who ordered such a reckless way of proceeding at the reactor? That engineer who was not an expert for reactors at all? About this responsibility the report is silent.

After that the security device for the case of both turbogenerators being switched off is put out of function.

The report says: "This meant a further departure from the experimental programme, which did not call for blocking the reactor's emergency protection with the switching off of two turbogenerators." (p. 17) ¢2|

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

Then it is said: "According to observers outside unit 4, at about 1:24 there occurred two explosions one after the other; burning lumps of material and sparks shot into the air above the reactor, some of which fell onto the roof of the machine room and started a fire." (p. 17) ¢3|

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

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

About the causes of the incident it is said in the Soviet report: "As shown by the analysis presented above, the accident in the fourth unit of the Chernobyl' nuclear power plant belongs to the category of accidents associated with the introduction of excess reactivity. The design of the reactor facility provided for protection against this type of accident with allowance for the physical characteristics of the reactor, including a positive steam void coefficient of reactivity." (p. 22) ¢4|

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

And exactly these protective devices were put out of function.

"The accident assumed catastrophic proportions because the reactor was taken by the staff into a non-regulation state in which the positive void coefficient of reactivity was able substantially to enhance the power excursion." (p. 23) ¢5|

By the explosions and the entire proceeding described here great masses of radioactivity came into the air and were scattered over the European continent by the winds. They led to a serious increase of radioactivity in some nearer regions. The immediate surrounding area had to be evacuated. During the following days the sealing of the reactor building and the extinction of the fire are undertaken with great energy, and with success. The days after the catastrophe are at the same time days of the biggest nuclear protection manoeuvres, of fight against nuclear fire, of confinement and, as far as possible, of decontamination of the environment. The reactor units 1 and 2 in the immediate vicinity of the reactor 4 continue to work for 24 hours even on the day of the catastrophe!!!

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

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

"The fact that the contemporary world is full of potentially dangerous industrial production processes significantly aggravating the consequences of military actions gives a new perspective to the senselessness and inadmissibility of war in today's world." (p. 3) ¢6|

At that time the possibility of an attack of a potential military enemy against atomic energy plants, and that therefore they should not been constructed, was frequently being discussed. The advocates of this opinion were the same who preached the so-called policy of detente. Very interesting: there happens an alleged "incident", with a Soviet reactor, and the same responsible people warn other countries against their atomic energy plants and industrial plants, that the world was full of them, that is to say more plants apparently should not be erected. So these are de facto threats of the Soviet leadership of that time connected to the occurrence of a catastrophe under very dubious circumstances in their country. * And after that Gorbatchov, under whom the USA gained a decisive influence in the Soviet Union itself, declares that on the occasion of Chernobyl one should cooperate more closely with the IAEA, which possibly should control internationally more strictly the entire atomic industry, also the Russian one.

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

Summing up this report says:

"This misconduct consists in conscious and blatant injuries against binding regulations. The frequency and the importance of the mistaken actions indicate that the practice of running the plant was throughout, not only in an isolated manner at April 26th 1986, characterized by an attitude of lack of awareness of security matters." (p. 34) ¢7|

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

Erasing all these points it is said only: "The behaviour of the personnel in connection with substantial weaknesses of the design of the plant was the cause for the incident at the nuclear power station of Chernobyl." (p. 33) ¢8|

Weaknesses of the personnel and weaknesses of the construction -this is the whole litany, an utterly cheap litany which by no means does justice to the quality of the things. Equally naive are the proposals by which events of that kind shall be prevented in the future:

"Training of the personnel stressing especially the understanding of the processes in the reactor and during the operation of the reactor, including training at simulators which represent also the processes during heavy incidents in a realistic manner." (p. 32) ¢9|

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

Then it reads in the report of the GRS: "As a conscious bringing about of the incident can be excluded, the behaviour of the personnel becomes understandable only if one assumes that it did not know sufficiently the behaviour of the reactor at low power levels." (p.34) ¢10|

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

References:

¢1| ¢2| ¢3| ¢ 4| ¢5| ¢6| USSR State Committee on the Utilization of Atomic Energy The Accident at the Chernobyl' Nuclear Power Plant and its Consequences. Information Compiled for the IAEA's Experts' Meeting, 25-29- August 1986, Vienna Part I. General Material Draft August 1986

¢7| ¢8| ¢9| ¢10| Gesellschaft fuer Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, Koeln/Garching Neuere Erkenntnisse zum Unfall im Kernkraftwerk Tschernobyl. Stand: Oktober 1986 (2nd ed. Febr. 1987) (The quotations from this publication were translated by us).

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