Author Topic: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)  (Read 2621 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Belgarath

  • Forum Sugar Daddy
  • Technical Administrator
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • *****
  • Posts: 11875
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #60 on: June 07, 2019, 03:00:07 PM »
It's good to remember that TMI released no radiation into the atmosphere.

Ummm......

https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/03/three-mile-island-40-years-later-a-timeline-of-events-as-they-occurred-on-march-28-1979.html

Radioactive steam was released into the atmosphere.  The difference here is that it was almost all short lived radioactive noble gasses. 
#non-belief denialist

Offline Paul Blevins Jr.

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #61 on: June 07, 2019, 03:24:17 PM »
IMDB now has Chernobyl as the highest rated television show of all time!

So where do they go for Season Two....?

Seriously, I wonder if a Fukishima series might soon be in the works.

How would that look like? I just don't see any compelling drama in the Fukushima story, which, to my understanding was about officials ignoring deficiencies in natural disaster-proofing, a natural disaster hitting, and a more or less efficient and professional evacuation and cleanup.

It's Japan, maybe that can add in a giant aquatic radioactive lizard or two....y'know artistic license.

Offline CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 11722
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #62 on: June 07, 2019, 04:46:33 PM »
IMDB now has Chernobyl as the highest rated television show of all time!

So where do they go for Season Two....?

Seriously, I wonder if a Fukishima series might soon be in the works.

How would that look like? I just don't see any compelling drama in the Fukushima story, which, to my understanding was about officials ignoring deficiencies in natural disaster-proofing, a natural disaster hitting, and a more or less efficient and professional evacuation and cleanup.

There was a serious effort to get cooling pumps working. Workers had to go inside the damaged facility (exposing themselves to radiation) to get the pumps in working order, and replace some; at the same time other crews were trouble shooting the electrical supply and had to reroute and/or replace power lines, exposing some of them to radiation; at the same time there was an effort to save the generators that were located above the waste recepticals and when that effort failed there was another desperate effort to get replacement generators on site and up and running in time stop a massive release of radioactive gasses and material.
Quote
That didn't work

From what I've read this would have been more dramatic than Chernobyl or TMI were. In both of those cases there was nothing to be done to prevent the disaster, but there was an effort at containment.

Fukishima was like a slow moving train wreck where at every step of the way workers paid for their lives for bad decisions made by engineers and architects and government officials.
and Donald Trump is President of the United States.

I'm not a doctor, I'm just someone who has done a ton of research into diet and nutrition.

Offline Paul Blevins Jr.

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 393
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #63 on: June 07, 2019, 08:17:40 PM »
Sooooo.....Russia has announced plans to make it's own Chernobyl drama.....that pins the cause of the disaster on CIA sabotage. I make a lot of jokes, but this is NOT one of them!

http://www.darkhorizons.com/russia-plans-rival-chernobyl-project/

"Russian state TV channel NTV will reportedly soon air its own drama version about the deadly 1986 Chernobyl nuclear meltdown disaster, but this one is obviously far more pro-Russian and reportedly makes the suggestion a CIA spy was present for the catastrophic accident.

The Guardian has a description for the series which follows a CIA agent dispatched to Pripyat to gather intelligence on the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and the Russian counterintelligence agent sent to track him down. Series director Alexey Muradov says the show tells viewers “about what really happened back then.”

Offline stands2reason

  • Empiricist, Positivist, Militant Agnostic
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10641
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #64 on: July 18, 2019, 09:22:15 AM »

Offline SnarlPatrick

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8170
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #65 on: August 20, 2019, 08:04:01 PM »
The entire episode about the steam explosion was massively exaggerated by a factor of a million. "Everything within a 30km radius will be completely destroyed." Bullshit. Much of Eurasia rendered uninhabitable. Bullshit.

« Last Edit: August 20, 2019, 08:14:51 PM by SnarlPatrick »
Quote from: materialist_girl
SnarlPatrick, you are a nazi apologist piece of shit. You're a coward who hides behind the internet   ....   and I can only imagine it's a good thing your Jewish ancestors are dead so they don't have to watch you grow into the bigoted nazi creep you've become.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9109
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #66 on: August 21, 2019, 12:24:42 AM »
The entire episode about the steam explosion was massively exaggerated by a factor of a million. "Everything within a 30km radius will be completely destroyed." Bullshit. Much of Eurasia rendered uninhabitable. Bullshit.

(click to show/hide)

I cannot stress how much I despise videos that take this overly mocking tone unless they are addressing the worst of the worst pseudoscience, but even then I'm not really a fan.  It projects a complete lack of open-mindedness about whatever is about to be analyzed and sets the stage for nothing but bitter arguments about this disagreement, rather than fostering what could otherwise be an interesting scientific discussion.  As a result, I didn't make it past a few minutes of the video, but I still have one comment to make on the underlying premise (since I have no formal knowledge of nuclear physics to take either side).  It seems to me that he's asking the wrong question here.  It's not relevant to the show's accuracy to say that the stated effects of the thermal explosion are overblown because the show itself made no statement to that effect.  The question should be whether or not they got what the Soviet scientists at the time either believed to be the case or told the Soviet officials would be the case. 

Like I said, I have no expertise in any relevant field, but it seems to me that the science may have grown a bit in 30 years, the scientists could have made a mistake, they could have erred on the side of being an absolute worst case scenario, or they could have straight up lied to their government in order to motivate them to actually address the problem.  Maybe he addressed these possibilities in the video, but I'd really like to know where the show runners got the information for that scene from before I'd take this childish mocking tone to address what might be one of the very few flawed scenes in an otherwise spectacular show that treated science and scientists better than almost anything in recent memory.

Offline Rai

  • PIZZASAURUS
  • Global Moderator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 7007
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #67 on: August 21, 2019, 12:29:30 AM »
Guys, don't watch the video Snarl posted, it is from Thunder00t and it will provide income to that misogynistic hatemongering twat.

Offline Eternally Learning

  • Master Mr. a.k.a. Methodical Loaf
  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9109
  • Break a leg, badger!
    • Get Past The 140 Character Limit!
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #68 on: August 21, 2019, 12:30:14 AM »
Guys, don't watch the video Snarl posted, it is from Thunder00t and it will provide income to that misogynistic hatemongering twat.

Oh right.  Hadn't thought about that a-hole for so long I didn't even realize it was him.

Offline SnarlPatrick

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8170
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #69 on: August 21, 2019, 06:23:39 PM »
The entire episode about the steam explosion was massively exaggerated by a factor of a million. "Everything within a 30km radius will be completely destroyed." Bullshit. Much of Eurasia rendered uninhabitable. Bullshit.

(click to show/hide)

I cannot stress how much I despise videos that take this overly mocking tone unless they are addressing the worst of the worst pseudoscience, but even then I'm not really a fan.  It projects a complete lack of open-mindedness about whatever is about to be analyzed and sets the stage for nothing but bitter arguments about this disagreement, rather than fostering what could otherwise be an interesting scientific discussion.

A lot of people seem turned off by his tone. I don't really care for it myself but he has put the work in to explain what the show got wrong.

It seems to me that he's asking the wrong question here.  It's not relevant to the show's accuracy to say that the stated effects of the thermal explosion are overblown because the show itself made no statement to that effect.  The question should be whether or not they got what the Soviet scientists at the time either believed to be the case or told the Soviet officials would be the case. 

Like I said, I have no expertise in any relevant field, but it seems to me that the science may have grown a bit in 30 years, the scientists could have made a mistake, they could have erred on the side of being an absolute worst case scenario, or they could have straight up lied to their government in order to motivate them to actually address the problem.  Maybe he addressed these possibilities in the video, but I'd really like to know where the show runners got the information for that scene from before I'd take this childish mocking tone to address what might be one of the very few flawed scenes in an otherwise spectacular show that treated science and scientists better than almost anything in recent memory.


To put it very simply, If a purpose-built nuclear bomb generates an explosion creates only a city-sized explosion, it is absurd to imagine that the accidental explosion scenario envisioned in Chernobyl could destroy Minsk, hundreds of KM away. That aspect of the show WAS complete pseudoscience, and what's worse is that they certainly had to have known better. It creates a completely false understanding of how big the risk was. There was never going to be a 30km fireball. Did nobody else have a "wtf" moment when they heard that?

As to whether that was a mistake of the show or the scientists IN the show, either way, the impression given by the show was one of real risk. If they had intended to show an exaggerated but historically accurate, they should have made that clear. But there's no reason to think that other than just apologetics for the show's error. The scientists in the show were not morons. They didn't make an error off by a factor of a million. This was overdramatizing for television. And the overall quality of the show makes it less forgivable, not more.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2019, 06:49:21 PM by SnarlPatrick »
Quote from: materialist_girl
SnarlPatrick, you are a nazi apologist piece of shit. You're a coward who hides behind the internet   ....   and I can only imagine it's a good thing your Jewish ancestors are dead so they don't have to watch you grow into the bigoted nazi creep you've become.

Offline moj

  • beer snob
  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 10119
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #70 on: August 22, 2019, 07:37:28 AM »
The entire episode about the steam explosion was massively exaggerated by a factor of a million. "Everything within a 30km radius will be completely destroyed." Bullshit. Much of Eurasia rendered uninhabitable. Bullshit.

(click to show/hide)

I cannot stress how much I despise videos that take this overly mocking tone unless they are addressing the worst of the worst pseudoscience, but even then I'm not really a fan.  It projects a complete lack of open-mindedness about whatever is about to be analyzed and sets the stage for nothing but bitter arguments about this disagreement, rather than fostering what could otherwise be an interesting scientific discussion.

A lot of people seem turned off by his tone. I don't really care for it myself but he has put the work in to explain what the show got wrong.

It seems to me that he's asking the wrong question here.  It's not relevant to the show's accuracy to say that the stated effects of the thermal explosion are overblown because the show itself made no statement to that effect.  The question should be whether or not they got what the Soviet scientists at the time either believed to be the case or told the Soviet officials would be the case. 

Like I said, I have no expertise in any relevant field, but it seems to me that the science may have grown a bit in 30 years, the scientists could have made a mistake, they could have erred on the side of being an absolute worst case scenario, or they could have straight up lied to their government in order to motivate them to actually address the problem.  Maybe he addressed these possibilities in the video, but I'd really like to know where the show runners got the information for that scene from before I'd take this childish mocking tone to address what might be one of the very few flawed scenes in an otherwise spectacular show that treated science and scientists better than almost anything in recent memory.


To put it very simply, If a purpose-built nuclear bomb generates an explosion creates only a city-sized explosion, it is absurd to imagine that the accidental explosion scenario envisioned in Chernobyl could destroy Minsk, hundreds of KM away. That aspect of the show WAS complete pseudoscience, and what's worse is that they certainly had to have known better. It creates a completely false understanding of how big the risk was. There was never going to be a 30km fireball. Did nobody else have a "wtf" moment when they heard that?

As to whether that was a mistake of the show or the scientists IN the show, either way, the impression given by the show was one of real risk. If they had intended to show an exaggerated but historically accurate, they should have made that clear. But there's no reason to think that other than just apologetics for the show's error. The scientists in the show were not morons. They didn't make an error off by a factor of a million. This was overdramatizing for television. And the overall quality of the show makes it less forgivable, not more.

I don't understand your complaints at all. Not watching the video, though. The show didn't show or claim any city was leveled because of the explosion, it was almost all from fall out. Where radiation gets into the wind and atmosphere spread much further than the blast radius. The show to me went out of its way to demonstrate that's what was happening. I listened to the podcast where they talk about what they changed and it all made sense. You seem to doubt that radiation and fall out spread?

Offline SnarlPatrick

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 8170
Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
« Reply #71 on: August 22, 2019, 03:23:47 PM »
The show claimed that Minsk would be levelled, not that it would suffer from fallout. The fallout claims were that most of Eastern Europe would succumb to fallout for 100 years. I'm not confusing the two claims.
« Last Edit: August 22, 2019, 03:27:17 PM by SnarlPatrick »
Quote from: materialist_girl
SnarlPatrick, you are a nazi apologist piece of shit. You're a coward who hides behind the internet   ....   and I can only imagine it's a good thing your Jewish ancestors are dead so they don't have to watch you grow into the bigoted nazi creep you've become.

 

personate-rain