Showing posts with label nuclear accident. Show all posts

Friday, 14 October 2016

More Nuclear Disasters Likely

Risk of another Chernobyl or Fukushima type accident plausible, experts say

The biggest-ever statistical analysis of historical accidents suggests that nuclear power is an underappreciated extreme risk and that major changes will be needed to prevent future disasters.

A team of risk experts who have carried out the biggest-ever analysis of nuclear accidents warn that the next disaster on the scale of Chernobyl or Fukushima may happen much sooner than the public realizes.

Researchers at the University of Sussex, in England, and ETH Zurich, in Switzerland, have analysed more than 200 nuclear accidents, and -- estimating and controlling for effects of industry responses to previous disasters -- provide a grim assessment of the risk of nuclear power.

Their worrying conclusion is that, while nuclear accidents have substantially decreased in frequency, this has been accomplished by the suppression of moderate-to-large events. They estimate that Fukushima- and Chernobyl-scale disasters are still more likely than not once or twice per century, and that accidents on the scale of the 1979 meltdown at Three Mile Island in the USA (a damage cost of about 10 Billion USD) are more likely than not to occur every 10-20 years.

As Dr Spencer Wheatley, the lead author, explains: "We have found that the risk level for nuclear power is extremely high.

"Although we were able to detect the positive impact of the industry responses to accidents such as Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, these did not sufficiently remove the possibility of extreme disasters such as Fukushima. To remove such a possibility would likely require enormous changes to the current fleet of reactors, which is predominantly second-generation technology."

The studies, published in two papers in the journals Energy Research & Social Scienceand Risk Analysis, put fresh pressure on the nuclear industry to be more transparent with data on incidents.

"Flawed and woefully incomplete" public data from the nuclear industry is leading to an over-confident attitude to risk, the study warns. The research team points to the fact that their own independent analysis contains three times as much data as that provided publicly by the industry itself. This is probably because the International Atomic Energy Agency, which compiles the reports, has a dual role of regulating the sector and promoting it.

The research team for this new study gathered their data from reports, academic papers, press releases, public documents and newspaper articles. The result is a dataset that is unprecedented -- being twice the size of the next largest independent analysis. Further, the authors emphasize that the dataset is an important resource that needs to be continually developed and shared with the public.

Professor Benjamin Sovacool of the Sussex Energy Group at the University of Sussex, who co-authored the studies, says: "Our results are sobering. They suggest that the standard methodology used by the International Atomic Energy Agency to predict accidents and incidents -- particularly when focusing on consequences of extreme events -- is problematic.

"The next nuclear accident may be much sooner or more severe than the public realizes."

The team also call for a fundamental rethink of how accidents are rated, arguing that the current method (the discrete seven-point INES scale) is highly imprecise, poorly defined, and often inconsistent.

In their new analysis, the research team provides a cost in US dollars for each incident, taking into account factors such as destruction of property, the cost of emergency response, environmental remediation, evacuation, fines, and insurance claims. And for each death, they added a cost of $6 million, which is the figure used by the US government to calculate the value of a human life.

That new analysis showed that the Fukushima accident in 2011 and the Chernobyl accident in 1986 cost a combined $425 billion -- five times the sum of all the other events put together.

However, these two extremes are rated 7 -- the maximum severity level -- on the INES scale. Fukushima alone would need a score of between 10 and 11 to represent the true magnitude of consequences.

Further, the authors emphasize that such frequency-severity statistical analysis of holistic consequences should be used as a complementary tool to the industry standard Probabilistic Safety Assessment, especially when aggregate consequences are of interest.

Professor Sovacool adds: "The results suggest that catastrophic accidents such as Chernobyl and Fukushima are not relics of the past.

"Even if we introduce new nuclear technology, as long as older facilities remain operational -- likely, given recent trends to extend permits and relicense existing reactors -- their risks, and the aggregate risk of operating the global nuclear fleet, remain."

Finally, the authors emphasize that this work is not comparative in nature, i.e. it does not quantify the risks of other energy sources. It provides a risk assessment for nuclear power alone, thus informing a single criterion, for a single power source, in the selection of a portfolio of multiple power sources, where many criteria must be considered.

Fellow co-author Professor Didier Sornette stresses: "While our studies seem damning of the nuclear industry, other considerations and potential for improvement may actually make nuclear energy attractive in the future."

The 15 most costly nuclear events analysed by the team are:

1. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1986) -- $259 billion

2. Fukushima, Japan (2011) -- $166 billion

3. Tsuruga, Japan (1995) -- $15.5 billion

4. TMI, Pennsylvania, USA (1979) -- $11 billion

5. Beloyarsk, USSR (1977) -- $3.5 billion

6. Sellafield, UK (1969) -- $2.5 billion

7. Athens, Alabama, USA (1985) -- $2.1 billion

8. Jaslovske Bohunice, Czechoslovakia (1977) -- $2 billion

9. Sellafield, UK (1968) -- $1.9 billion

10. Sellafield, UK (1971) -- $1.3 billion

11. Plymouth, Massachusetts, USA (1986) -- $1.2 billion

12. Chapelcross, UK (1967) -- $1.1 billion

13. Chernobyl, Ukraine (1982) -- $1.1 billion

14. Pickering, Canada (1983) -- $1 billion

15. Sellafield, UK (1973) -- $1 billion

Story Source:

Materials provided by University of Sussex. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal References:

Spencer Wheatley, Benjamin K. Sovacool, Didier Sornette. Reassessing the safety of nuclear power. Energy Research & Social Science, 2016; 15: 96 DOI: 10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.026
Spencer Wheatley, Benjamin Sovacool, Didier Sornette. Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents. Risk Analysis, 2016; DOI: 10.1111/risa.12587

Cite This Page:

Severe nuclear reactor accidents likely every 10 to 20 years, European study suggests

Western Europe has the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination caused by major reactor accidents. Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past.

Global risk of radioactive contamination. The map shows the annual probability in percent of radioactive contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter. In Western Europe the risk is around two percent per year.

Credit: Daniel Kunkel, MPI for Chemistry, 2011

Western Europe has the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination caused by major reactor accidents.

Catastrophic nuclear accidents such as the core meltdowns in Chernobyl and Fukushima are more likely to happen than previously assumed. Based on the operating hours of all civil nuclear reactors and the number of nuclear meltdowns that have occurred, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have calculated that such events may occur once every 10 to 20 years (based on the current number of reactors) -- some 200 times more often than estimated in the past. The researchers also determined that, in the event of such a major accident, half of the radioactive caesium-137 would be spread over an area of more than 1,000 kilometres away from the nuclear reactor. Their results show that Western Europe is likely to be contaminated about once in 50 years by more than 40 kilobecquerel of caesium-137 per square meter. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, an area is defined as being contaminated with radiation from this amount onwards. In view of their findings, the researchers call for an in-depth analysis and reassessment of the risks associated with nuclear power plants.

The reactor accident in Fukushima has fuelled the discussion about nuclear energy and triggered Germany's exit from their nuclear power program. It appears that the global risk of such a catastrophe is higher than previously thought, a result of a study carried out by a research team led by Jos Lelieveld, Director of the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz: "After Fukushima, the prospect of such an incident occurring again came into question, and whether we can actually calculate the radioactive fallout using our atmospheric models." According to the results of the study, a nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors in operation worldwide is likely to occur once in 10 to 20 years. Currently, there are 440 nuclear reactors in operation, and 60 more are planned.

To determine the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown, the researchers applied a simple calculation. They divided the operating hours of all civilian nuclear reactors in the world, from the commissioning of the first up to the present, by the number of reactor meltdowns that have actually occurred. The total number of operating hours is 14,500 years, the number of reactor meltdowns comes to four -- one in Chernobyl and three in Fukushima. This translates into one major accident, being defined according to the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), every 3,625 years. Even if this result is conservatively rounded to one major accident every 5,000 reactor years, the risk is 200 times higher than the estimate for catastrophic, non-contained core meltdowns made by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 1990. The Mainz researchers did not distinguish ages and types of reactors, or whether they are located in regions of enhanced risks, for example by earthquakes. After all, nobody had anticipated the reactor catastrophe in Japan.

25 percent of the radioactive particles are transported further than 2,000 kilometres

Subsequently, the researchers determined the geographic distribution of radioactive gases and particles around a possible accident site using a computer model that describes Earth's atmosphere. The model calculates meteorological conditions and flows, and also accounts for chemical reactions in the atmosphere. The model can compute the global distribution of trace gases, for example, and can also simulate the spreading of radioactive gases and particles. To approximate the radioactive contamination, the researchers calculated how the particles of radioactive caesium-137 (¹³⁷Cs) disperse in the atmosphere, where they deposit on Earth's surface and in what quantities. The ¹³⁷Cs isotope is a product of the nuclear fission of uranium. It has a half-life of 30 years and was one of the key elements in the radioactive contamination following the disasters of Chernobyl and Fukushima.

The computer simulations revealed that, on average, only eight percent of the ¹³⁷Cs particles are expected to deposit within an area of 50 kilometres around the nuclear accident site. Around 50 percent of the particles would be deposited outside a radius of 1,000 kilometres, and around 25 percent would spread even further than 2,000 kilometres. These results underscore that reactor accidents are likely to cause radioactive contamination well beyond national borders.

The results of the dispersion calculations were combined with the likelihood of a nuclear meltdown and the actual density of reactors worldwide to calculate the current risk of radioactive contamination around the world. According to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), an area with more than 40 kilobecquerels of radioactivity per square meter is defined as contaminated.

The team in Mainz found that in Western Europe, where the density of reactors is particularly high, the contamination by more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter is expected to occur once in about every 50 years. It appears that citizens in the densely populated southwestern part of Germany run the worldwide highest risk of radioactive contamination, associated with the numerous nuclear power plants situated near the borders between France, Belgium and Germany, and the dominant westerly wind direction.

If a single nuclear meltdown were to occur in Western Europe, around 28 million people on average would be affected by contamination of more than 40 kilobecquerels per square meter. This figure is even higher in southern Asia, due to the dense populations. A major nuclear accident there would affect around 34 million people, while in the eastern USA and in East Asia this would be 14 to 21 million people.

"Germany's exit from the nuclear energy program will reduce the national risk of radioactive contamination. However, an even stronger reduction would result if Germany's neighbours were to switch off their reactors," says Jos Lelieveld. "Not only do we need an in-depth and public analysis of the actual risks of nuclear accidents. In light of our findings I believe an internationally coordinated phasing out of nuclear energy should also be considered ," adds the atmospheric chemist.

Story Source:

Materials provided by Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.

Journal Reference:

J. Lelieveld, D. Kunkel, M. G. Lawrence. Global risk of radioactive fallout after major nuclear reactor accidents. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 2012; 12 (9): 4245 DOI: 10.5194/acp-12-4245-2012

Cite This Page:

From Science Daily @ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160919113044.htm and https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120522134942.htm?trendmd-shared=0

For more information about nuclear power see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/nuclear%20power

- Scroll down through ‘Older Posts’ at the end of each section

Do you LIKE this uniquely informative site?

A genuinely incapacitated invalid maintains, writes, edits, researches, illustrates, moderates and publishes this website from a tiny cabin in a remote forest.

Now that most people use ad blockers and view these posts on phones and other mobile devices, sites like this earn an ever shrinking pittance from advertising sponsorship.

This site needs your help.

Like what you see? Please give anything you can -

Contribute any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!

(You can use a card securely if you don’t use Paypal)

Please click below -

And it costs nothing to share this post on Social Media!

Dare to care and share - YOU are our only advertisement!

Xtra Image by R. Ayana –https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8109/8530578388_7dd18962e3_k.jpg

For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the random synchronistic search box @ the top left of http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

And see

New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - https://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/playlists

New Illuminati’s OWN Youtube Videos -

https://www.youtube.com/user/new1lluminati/videos

New Illuminati on Google+ @ For New Illuminati posts - https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RamAyana0/posts

and see https://plus.google.com/115562482213600937809/posts

and google.com/+newilluminati-channel

New Illuminati on Twitter @ www.twitter.com/new_illuminati

New Illuminati on Google Follow - http://www.google.com/friendconnect/settings/edit?smpl=true&st=e%3DAOG8GaCFDeBRZ1yDY2DjCaq61tFDiwO07s%252Fwv3x8%252B%252FJgZJTLx5igbMomJIu3796Ja6n05WaS8qnJ0DLyeGk1q49tLD8m%252FhV1K%252Bq%252BQIOGOwLeWznnm5IGhzjfWzVnq5I4UJr3fw8yk%252B8W2OqwlCbL7BNsW32uouSc79Br%252BkOZQ1Fpzg6J3KMIZkzmg0%252FcPHsWUPqZv845VKS31S%252FbCm8NpINhlK1kDxUdRmcCkT37dIc4RB6PNurjCcd2%252BVkNBveCm4kAgeb8A3Q5hNj6%252FHplvQxKFI%252BW1TYBJVYqHHTKsnBPGcL6wlZdxTUwtfxWU2ZvANJQ%252F%252FUrolBwP7ovb92SZqSWMFJRnN2rsQ%253D%253D%26c%3Dpeoplesense

New Illuminations –Art(icles) by R. Ayana @ http://newilluminations.blogspot.com

The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com

DISGRUNTLED SITE ADMINS PLEASE NOTE –

We provide a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps spread your info further!

This site is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original (along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution!

If you like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large) or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com

Friday, 20 November 2015

Nuclear War By Accident: How We Were Saved From Global Annihilation

Nuclear War By Accident

How We Were Saved From Global Annihilation

How the World Almost Ended in the Fall of 1983

by Joshua Krause

For most people who grew up in the 80s, the year 1983 probably doesn’t stand out in any particular way. At least, no more than any other year from that decade. As time goes on however, and more information is released to the public, that year is beginning to take on a sinister tone. That’s because we’re starting to learn that in the latter half of that year, the United States and the Soviet Union came dangerously close to nuclear war on multiple occasions. These incidents were largely fueled by Soviet paranoia, and later, American ignorance; which without a doubt may be the most volatile combination on Earth.

It all started on September 1st, 1983, when a Soviet interceptor shot down Korean Air Lines Flight 007, which killed an American Congressman on board. Diplomatic relations took a turn for the worse between the two nations, and the Soviet military became more paranoid than they had ever been before.

These tensions were largely responsible for the atmosphere of tension that almost caused a nuclear war three weeks later. This incident became rather well-known after the end of the Cold War, when it was revealed that a single officer with the Soviet Air Defense Forces prevented World War Three. A signal from a faulty detection system told the officer that the US had just launched a preemptive strike, and fortunately for the human race, he chose to ignore it. However, that wasn’t the only close call from that time period.

In November of that year, the United States started a massive military training exercise in Europe that was code-named Able Archer 83. The ten-day exercise involved 19,000 US troops from across the world and multiple NATO nations.

The point of the exercise was to train our forces on how to transition from a conventional war to a nuclear war, should they ever have to fight the Soviets. Now for the first time, declassified documents have been published by the National Security Archive (a non-government non-profit) which reveal that this training exercise nearly sparked World War Three.

According to the documents, the Soviets were already freaking out about the possibility of a preemptive strike by the US, after 600 Pershing missiles were fielded by NATO. It started out a mere theory, but eventually became conventional wisdom among KGB officials. Everyone believed that our government was preparing to destroy them without cause.

These fears were escalated by the shortcomings of their own defenses, which were falling behind America’s highly capable nuclear arsenal. They came to the conclusion that any first strike against them would completely obliterate their defenses, and leave them with nothing to retaliate with.

So once Able Archer began, they were already on a hair-trigger. Given the scale and the purpose of the operation (which was to train for a nuclear war) the Soviets were convinced that the whole training exercise was a ruse; an attempt to get our forces fully mobilized without raising any alarms. We were essentially simulating the worst fears of the Soviet intelligence community. Warsaw pact militaries responded by pulling nukes from storage and sending them to delivery sites, as well as suspending most routine military flights so that these aircraft would be available for combat.

Despite these actions, the United States was completely clueless. Nobody in the chain of command, including the President, had any idea that the Soviets were losing their minds over our actions. In fact, the military was aware that the Soviets were on a higher state of alert, but didn’t think anything of it. No changes were made to our defense posture.

Our military completely dropped the ball, and ultimately, that’s what prevented war from breaking out. Since our military never thought anything was amiss, they never escalated a situation that they were completely unaware of. The training exercise came and went without anyone going to war.

So in a nutshell, our lack of knowledge led us to conduct a training exercise that almost provoked a nuclear war, and our lack of awareness prevented that war from occurring. It is by nothing less than dumb luck that we are still breathing today. Hopefully, the United States and Russia will look back on this incident and remember how close we came to the brink, before they conduct any more of their provocative training exercises in Eastern Europe.

Remembering the Man Who Single-handedly Stopped WW3

Last June a uniquely shaped cloud incited a minor panic in Southern Russia. The cloud formation, which looked suspiciously similar to a nuclear explosion, had locals scrambling to take pictures, which quickly went viral across Russia. Twitter and Instagram users responded to the images with phrases like “World War III has begun” and “Oh, God save us. What have they done?!!!”

Since you’re reading this on your computer right now instead of hunkering down in a bunker, you already know that this incident was much ado about nothing. But it’s safe to say that just a few years ago, such a response would be unlikely. Russia and the United States are currently resting on pins and needles, and tensions haven’t been this high since the Cold War. When people start losing their minds over strange clouds, you know the public is living in a state of chronic fear.

But in regards to the threat of a possible nuclear holocaust, I think it’s time we all take a step back from this situation like cool little Fonzies, and chill. I don’t mean to say that everything is hunky-dory, because it’s not. But I think we need to put these fears into perspective, and realize that the current tensions pale in comparison to some of the close calls we had in the Cold War.

Specifically, I’d like to share the story of Stanislav Petrov, and explain why most of us are alive today because of him. Until recently, most people had never heard of him, and his exploits weren’t revealed until the Soviet Union was crumbling in 1990.

Stanislav Petrov was an officer with the Soviet Air Defense Forces. On September 26th, 1983, he manned his post in a secret military bunker just outside of Moscow. The command center was responsible for detecting any incoming nuclear strikes, and his job was to monitor the early warning system. Unbeknownst to Petrov, he was about to have a rough day at the office.

Just after midnight, the alarm bells started ringing on the Soviet’s new detection system, known as “Oko“. Apparently, the Americans had just launched a single ICBM towards the Soviet Union. According the system, and everything that Petrov had been taught to interpret from it, World War Three had just begun.

However, the launching of a single missile didn’t sound like a reasonable way to attack the Soviets, since a swarm ICBMs would be more likely to overcome their defenses. Something in his gut told him that this was not an attack. He decided to report the incident to his superiors as a false alarm. It wasn’t long after that the early warning system detected four more missiles heading towards his country.

Put yourself in his place. What would you have done? You know this new defense system creates false alarms from time to time, but to have five alerts in rapid succession?

And while the nature of the attack was unlike anything Petrov was trained to expect, the paranoid Soviet military was in fact, poised to respond to a NATO incursion at that time. Just three weeks prior, a South Korean airliner had accidentally wandered into Soviet airspace and was promptly shot down, killing numerous passengers, including US Congressman Larry McDonald. As a whole, the Soviet system was bracing for a retaliation, and people like Petrov were told to expect the worst.

But when faced with nuclear annihilation, and only minutes to spare before these suspected missiles reached their targets, Petrov decided to trust his gut and common sense, instead of following protocol. He saddled up his brass pair, and declared another false alarm. Of course, his instincts were correct. The “missiles” detected by Oko were later determined to be caused by sunlight shining through high altitude clouds before making contact with Soviet satellites.

So just how close did we come to Armageddon?

According to recent interviews conducted with Petrov, it was an unbelievably close call. Even after the incident, he was never completely sure that the alert was a false alarm. He believes that in retrospect, there was about a 50/50 chance that he would have given the right call, and his information would have been given priority over other systems that weren’t detecting any attacks at that time.

In fact, he thinks that if anyone else had been in charge that day, it would have ended horribly, because he was the only military officer in that position with a civilian education. “My colleagues were all professional soldiers, they were taught to give and obey orders.” Anyone else would have passed the buck up the chain of command, possibly with disastrous results.

So the next time you or anyone else fears that a nuclear holocaust is in our future, remind yourself that even when all the odds stacked against the human race, the people manning the battle stations may be reluctant to pull the trigger.

From The Daily Sheeple @ http://www.thedailysheeple.com/how-the-world-almost-ended-in-the-fall-of-1983_102015 and http://www.thedailysheeple.com/remembering-the-man-who-single-handedly-stopped-ww3_062015

The man who saved the world: The Soviet submariner who single-handedly averted WWIII at height of the Cuban Missile Crisis

U.S.S.R. and U.S. stood on brink of nuclear war during Cuban Missile Crisis
Four Russian submarines secretly set sail to Cuba, with nuclear weapons
Vasili Arkhipov, who died in 1998, used last veto against firing sub's torpedo
The Russians instead surrendered and his action avoided World War Three

By Leon Watson and Mark Duell

He was the man who saved the world by single-handedly averting World War Three five decades ago, yet he died humiliated, outcast and an unknown. Only now has his story has come to light.

A documentary told how for 13 days during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, the world held its breath as the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. stood on the brink of nuclear war.

At the height of the Cold War, when paranoia on both sides meant the slightest provocation could spark nuclear war, four submarines secretly set sail from Russia to communist Cuba.

Averted war: Vasili Arkhipoy (pictured left, and right aboard a submarine), saved the world by single-handedly averting World War Three with one decision 50 years ago, yet he died humiliated, outcast and an unknown

Only a handful of the submariners on board knew that their ships carried nuclear weapons, each with the strength of the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945.

Vasili Arkhipov, aboard the sub B59, was one of them. As his craft neared Cuba, U.S. helicopters, aeroplanes and battleships were scouring the ocean for Russian subs.

'At that period of time it was called "special weapon", not "nuclear torpedo",’ said Viktor Mikhailov, junior navigator on Sub B-59. ‘At that time we couldn't even imagine a nuclear torpedo.’

In a game of high stakes cat and mouse it wasn't long before the Russians were spotted. Arkhipov's sub was forced to make an emergency dive.

Man Who Saved the World. Vasili and wife Olga in 1957

Man Who Saved the World Vasili with his daughter Yelena three years before he died

Remembered: Arkhipov is pictured left with his wife Olga in 1957, and right with his daughter Yelena, three years before he died in 1998

Tense: For 13 days during the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962, the world held its breath as the USSR and the U.S. stood on the brink of nuclear war

As the submariners tried to stay hidden from their US hunters, conditions in the sub deteriorated. For a week they stayed underwater, in sweltering 60C heat, rationed to just one glass of water a day.

'Basically what we were trying to do was apply passive torture. Frankly I don't think we felt any sympathy for them at all. They were the enemy'

- Gary Slaughter, USS Cony signalman

Above them, the U.S. navy were 'hunting by exhaustion' - trying to force the Soviet sub to come to the surface to recharge its batteries.

They had no idea that on board the submarines were weapons capable of destroying the entire American fleet.

Gary Slaughter, a signalman on board the USS Cony battleship, said: 'We knew they were probably having trouble breathing. It was hot as hell in there, they were miserable.

Mr President: John F. Kennedy was in office in the U.S. between 1961 and 1963, at the height of the crisis

'They were cramped together and they had been under great stress for a long time. Basically what we were trying to do was apply passive torture.

'They said that the person who prevented a nuclear war was the Russian submariner Vasili Arkhipov. I was proud and I am proud of my husband always'

- Olga Arkipov, widow of Vasili Arkhipov

'Frankly I don't think we felt any sympathy for them at all. They were the enemy.'

The Americans decided to ratchet up the pressure, and dropped warning grenades into the sea. Inside the sub, the Soviet submariners thought they were under attack.

Valentin Savitsky, the captain of B59, was convinced the nuclear war had already started.

He demanded that the submariners launch their torpedo to save some of Russia's pride.

The programme on Channel 5 revealed how in any normal circumstances Savitsky's orders would have been followed, and World War Three would have been unleashed.

'Close friend': Ryurik Ketov, commander of Sub B-4, said Arkhipov was 'cool-headed' and 'in control'

Memories: Viktor Mikhailov, junior navigator on Sub B-59, said they had a 'special weapon' on board, which was not even referred to as a 'nuclear weapon'

Ryurik Ketov, commander of another sub, Sub B-4, said: ‘Vasili Arkhipov was a submariner and a close friend of mine. He was a family friend. He stood out for being cool-headed. He was in control.’

'One of the Russian admirals told the submariners: "It would have been better if you'd gone down with your ship". Extraordinary'

- Thomas Blanton, historian

Savitsky hadn't counted on Arkhipov. As commander of the fleet, Arkhipov had the last veto. And although his men were against him, he insisted that they must not fire - and instead surrender.

It was a humiliating move - but one that saved the world. The Soviet submariners were forced to return to their native Russia, where they were given the opposite of a hero's welcome.

Historian Thomas Blanton told the Sun: 'What heroism, what duty, they fulfilled to go halfway across the world and come back, and survive.

Covert mission: In a game of high stakes cat and mouse it wasn't long before the Russian's were spotted

Proud: Arkopov's widow Olga said: 'I was proud and I am proud of my husband, always'

'But in fact, one of the Russian admirals told the submariners; "It would have been better if you'd gone down with your ship." Extraordinary.'

'Vasili Arkhipov was a submariner and a close friend of mine. He was a family friend. He stood out for being cool-headed. He was in control'

- Ryurik Ketov, commander of Sub B-4

Four decades passed before the story of what really happened on the B59 sub was discovered. It was after Arkipov had died in 1998 from radiation poisoning.

But to his widow Olga, he was always a hero.

She said: 'He knew that it was madness to fire the nuclear torpedo. In Cuba, in honour of the 40th anniversary of the crisis, people gathered.

‘They said that the person who prevented a nuclear war was the Russian submariner Vasili Arkhipov. I was proud and I am proud of my husband always.’

From The Daily Mail @ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208342/Soviet-submariner-single-handedly-averted-WWIII-height-Cuban-Missile-Crisis.html

For more information about nuclear war see http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com/search/label/nuclear%20war