Skeptics Guide to the Universe Forums

Media => TV & Movies => Topic started by: Captain Video on May 07, 2019, 12:10:51 AM

Title: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 07, 2019, 12:10:51 AM
That was one of the scariest episodes I have ever watched on TV, it made my heart pound, it infuriated and upset me, I have to believe it was over dramatized or was it?

I expected problematic government ignorance and interference but how could all those technicians, engineers, scientists and even the fire brigade be that ignorant?

The lead guy kept saying it was impossible for the core to blow up but he acted strangely through the whole episode.  Was it shock, denial, pride, or ignorance, it was hard to tell.  Fuck that guy, I was never so happy to watch someone keel over with radiation sickness before which I guess was the intention although watching the others die and his realization that it was his fault was stunning.

Its an emotional show. Cant wait for the next episode.

One minor critique was that I had trouble with a few British accents which were unusually strong.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: jt512 on May 07, 2019, 08:07:40 PM
One minor critique was that I had trouble with a few British accents which were unusually strong.

Is that a critique of the show or of you?
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 07, 2019, 09:05:01 PM
As a piece of entertainment, I really enjoyed it, but I do have some questions about its accuracy.  For instance, I was reading some quote from first responding fire fighters who said they absolutely did know about the hazards of radiation, but went in anyway to protect the surrounding city.  Then again, I understand there is a lot of Soviet propaganda surrounding the events in question too, so I imagine that just about any detail may come with a certain amount of controversy, especially when it comes to the initial accident and response.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 07, 2019, 09:42:50 PM
One minor critique was that I had trouble with a few British accents which were unusually strong.

Is that a critique of the show or of you?

Of the show.

Why would it be about me having trouble understanding an accent I didn’t grow up with?

Some were unusually strong and the show was made for both audiences.  I would not expect someone from the UK to completely understand a heavy southern American urban accent either. The film makers would normally tone it down. 

edit: it really was a minor issue that did not take away from the viewing experience.  I'm glad they didn't have fake Russian accents.
Title: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: jt512 on May 08, 2019, 08:23:49 AM
One minor critique was that I had trouble with a few British accents which were unusually strong.

Is that a critique of the show or of you?

Of the show.

Why would it be about me having trouble understanding an accent I didn’t grow up with?

I disagree with your comment as a criticism of the show.  I grew up in the US, and I had no trouble understanding any of the actors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 08, 2019, 02:10:30 PM
One minor critique was that I had trouble with a few British accents which were unusually strong.

Is that a critique of the show or of you?

Of the show.

Why would it be about me having trouble understanding an accent I didn’t grow up with?

I disagree with your comment as a criticism of the show.  I grew up in the US, and I had no trouble understanding any of the actors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well Good for you, your post looked like an attack.

Everyone is different and several revues have said the same thing.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 15, 2019, 06:24:11 AM
One minor critique was that I had trouble with a few British accents which were unusually strong.

Is that a critique of the show or of you?

Of the show.

Why would it be about me having trouble understanding an accent I didn’t grow up with?

I disagree with your comment as a criticism of the show.  I grew up in the US, and I had no trouble understanding any of the actors.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I often need subtitles when watching shows with thick Brit accents. "Eastenders", for example, or "The Young Ones." I admit to having a tin ear.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 15, 2019, 06:56:50 AM
There was a section of the show in Russian this week with no subtitles. The context was understood, "evacuate" yea I get it but I would like to know what the people were being told.

I like how its going, The way Boris handled both Valery and the two idiots in charge of the plant was highly satisfying. It was a great way to show that this man is smart on top of his arrogance. It was really interesting watching him go from "I am in charge" to completely broken by the situation which he had absolutely no control over.

Quote
Let me put it a different way, Tell me how a nuclear power plant works or I will tell one of these men to throw you out the window"

Ha Ha

Also there was a great 24 frame playback scene with actual news footage that excited me a bit. It was short but well done.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 15, 2019, 07:04:22 AM
Let me know if they update us on the earthworms.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: PANTS! on May 15, 2019, 09:21:05 AM
I need to watch this.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 16, 2019, 02:50:37 AM
Good grief... I've never had a show make me feel so uneasy with so little directly represented on screen.  The direction of this show is off the charts amazing and I cannot wait for the next episode.

On a more skeptical note, in the post episode interview segment, they mention that the nuclear scientist from Minsk, Ulana Khomyuk, is a fictional character created to serve as an amalgam of 100+ scientists who all worked together to not only address the issue but also solve the mystery of what happened so that they could ensure it wouldn't happen again.  While I 100% understand the creative implications of representing 100+ experts working over long periods of time on super detailed problems that are way beyond the comprehension of just about any viewer, I have to wonder about the impact that decision has on the public's perception of science and how it's carried out.  Coming away from this episode, we are left believing that 2 people are heroes and smart enough to figure out that these problems exist and how to address them and not 100s of people working together.  I wonder if it doesn't prime the public to believe that 1 scientist saying something is enough to counter the rest of them saying the opposite and primes them to expect and praise the lone hero speaking out against the common narrative.  I don't argue that this show made the wrong decision or anything and I don't argue that this show in and of itself will do much harm, but I do wonder about the cumulative effect of endless amounts of reasonable decisions made like this.  Thoughts?  Should this be another thread?
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 16, 2019, 04:07:17 AM
Good grief... I've never had a show make me feel so uneasy with so little directly represented on screen.  The direction of this show is off the charts amazing and I cannot wait for the next episode.

On a more skeptical note, in the post episode interview segment, they mention that the nuclear scientist from Minsk, Ulana Khomyuk, is a fictional character created to serve as an amalgam of 100+ scientists who all worked together to not only address the issue but also solve the mystery of what happened so that they could ensure it wouldn't happen again.  While I 100% understand the creative implications of representing 100+ experts working over long periods of time on super detailed problems that are way beyond the comprehension of just about any viewer, I have to wonder about the impact that decision has on the public's perception of science and how it's carried out.  Coming away from this episode, we are left believing that 2 people are heroes and smart enough to figure out that these problems exist and how to address them and not 100s of people working together.  I wonder if it doesn't prime the public to believe that 1 scientist saying something is enough to counter the rest of them saying the opposite and primes them to expect and praise the lone hero speaking out against the common narrative.  I don't argue that this show made the wrong decision or anything and I don't argue that this show in and of itself will do much harm, but I do wonder about the cumulative effect of endless amounts of reasonable decisions made like this.  Thoughts?  Should this be another thread?

I felt the same way. I was happy some smart people were finally showing up but I kept wondering why they weren't calling in a team or other known smart people.

 I don't think it was anti science as much as it was anti Soviet socialism. The show made it look like the state was to blame for there not being 100 experts.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 16, 2019, 06:57:03 AM
Perhaps "The China Syndrome" redux? Haven't watched it yet.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Belgarath on May 18, 2019, 11:18:28 AM
I've re-watched both episodes.  It's really good, the eerie scary feeling I got I'm wondering if that's because I KNOW what Chernobyl is.  I wonder how this is playing with the younger crowd who are completely unaware (or only peripherally aware) of what Chernobyl is.

I'm also wondering if some of the stats cited by the lead scientist are accurate:  'It's spewing a Hiroshima Bomb into the atmosphere every hour' and such.  I'm curious how accurate those are.

Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Belgarath on May 18, 2019, 03:43:17 PM
Saw a post on Facebook asking for Chernobyl tour recommendations.

First reply:

Quote
I can count on one hand the number of times I've visited Chernobyl.  That number is 12

Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 18, 2019, 11:25:52 PM
I just watched this video on the relative radioactivity of different various places and things around the world including Chernobyl.  Apparently, aside from a few locations, it's not actually too bad there right now.  I mean, it still not a great idea to live there, but being an astronaut is far, far worse for you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRL7o2kPqw0
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 20, 2019, 11:25:38 AM
The wildlife is LOVING IT!!!!
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 20, 2019, 12:05:58 PM
I thought all the trees were dead, radioactive, and incapable of rotting or supporting life. That at any time a forest fire would fill the air with radiation so they have to monitor it at all times for lightning strikes.

It was just a Cracked article I read but they tend to be somewhat factual.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 20, 2019, 02:47:43 PM
I thought all the trees were dead, radioactive, and incapable of rotting or supporting life. That at any time a forest fire would fill the air with radiation so they have to monitor it at all times for lightning strikes.

It was just a Cracked article I read but they tend to be somewhat factual.
About five years ago or so I saw a docu on the wildlife in the area. The wolf population is excellent. The status of the alpha predators reflects the environment as a whole.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 20, 2019, 02:48:35 PM
Found it!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Cu-80jzC44
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: moj on May 28, 2019, 12:49:36 PM
crazy, there is so much about this indecent I didn't realize I didn't know. I didn't know how close it was to being so much worse or how many people worked and died to keep it that way. Excellent miniseries so far.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on May 28, 2019, 01:55:19 PM
Jesus Christ, last night's episode four.

As an animal lover and pet owner that was hard to watch. I will NEVER re-watch it. Had trouble getting to sleep afterwards.

Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Belgarath on May 28, 2019, 05:23:23 PM
Jesus Christ, last night's episode four.

As an animal lover and pet owner that was hard to watch. I will NEVER re-watch it. Had trouble getting to sleep afterwards.

This ^  That episode last night was the hardest thing I've ever watched.  I was seconds from just turning it off.

It honestly wasn't a bad episode, it just hits us pet owners and animal lovers REALLY hard.

Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on May 28, 2019, 07:08:09 PM
Jesus Christ, last night's episode four.

As an animal lover and pet owner that was hard to watch. I will NEVER re-watch it. Had trouble getting to sleep afterwards.

This ^  That episode last night was the hardest thing I've ever watched.  I was seconds from just turning it off.

It honestly wasn't a bad episode, it just hits us pet owners and animal lovers REALLY hard.

In the companion podcast  (which if you're not listening to, you should be) series writer Craig Mazin mentions a scene in this "liquidation" sequence that was scripted and shot and based on a true event but ultimately left out as being TOO disturbing. It's horrible and I'm glad it was left out.

I have to admit, I never realized just how horrible the full extent of the Chernobyl disaster was before this series. This has been truly an educational viewing experience for me, one which I am supplementing was much further reading.

Whenever a time stamp pops up on screen, I keep thinking back to what I was doing at that time in 1986 as a blithely ignorant 24-yr old..... 
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: moj on May 29, 2019, 09:17:39 AM
One of my friends is a nuclear physicist and this was his review so far.


Quote
I'll also be caught up on Chernobyl.... so far it is mostly minor nitpicks. They did their research but just are dumbing down some of the technicals.   My biggest issue, which I expected, is they haven't addressed how these reactors are fundamentally different than reactors built in the US or most of the west. (there were also design changes to the RBMK's to prevent a recurrence based on this event so that is wasn't repeatable.)  As expected, this show is fueling the anti-nuclear paranoia in some viewers .... e.g. I have people in my social media feeds posting about their proximity to nuclear reactors. 
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Rai on May 29, 2019, 09:33:02 AM
I am not sure why or how a historical TV show should address the differences between Soviet and Western nuclear reactors from over 40 yeas ago.

Should someone have stood up at one of the cabinet meeting, looked at the camera and proclaimed that "while the RBMK reactors were a flawed design that was way too easy to melt down with a couple misguided actions, such things could not happen to the power plants of 2019"
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: moj on May 29, 2019, 10:37:15 AM
I am not sure why or how a historical TV show should address the differences between Soviet and Western nuclear reactors from over 40 yeas ago.

Should someone have stood up at one of the cabinet meeting, looked at the camera and proclaimed that "while the RBMK reactors were a flawed design that was way too easy to melt down with a couple misguided actions, such things could not happen to the power plants of 2019"

Easily and with a line of dialogue that mentions the different types of reactors and why this only happened at Chernobyl. I'm surprised you see this as a stretch a not clarifying point? Do you think no else wonders why it only happened at Chernobyl? I think a little more info would be good. I'm sure they will do more of a post mortem that goes into a little more detail, I know I shouldn't be, but am a little surprised by your reaction to his very minor criticisms.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: PANTS! on May 29, 2019, 11:30:25 AM
It seems to me that the more cogent reply to anyone smoking fears by making spurious comparisons is to address the striking meta commentary of this show.  To Whit: Chernobyl is not a cautionary tale about nuclear meltdowns, it is a commentary on how bias, ignorance, and authoritarianism combine to have real and terrible effects on humanity.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: moj on May 29, 2019, 11:44:40 AM
It seems to me that the more cogent reply to anyone smoking fears by making spurious comparisons is to address the striking meta commentary of this show.  To Whit: Chernobyl is not a cautionary tale about nuclear meltdowns, it is a commentary on how bias, ignorance, and authoritarianism combine to have real and terrible effects on humanity.

Yeah, I think my friend is just a bit sensitive about the subject. As you can imagine he has gotten into a lot of arguments online and elsewhere about nuclear power with people who know very little about it.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Rai on May 29, 2019, 11:49:43 AM
I am not sure why or how a historical TV show should address the differences between Soviet and Western nuclear reactors from over 40 yeas ago.

Should someone have stood up at one of the cabinet meeting, looked at the camera and proclaimed that "while the RBMK reactors were a flawed design that was way too easy to melt down with a couple misguided actions, such things could not happen to the power plants of 2019"

Easily and with a line of dialogue that mentions the different types of reactors and why this only happened at Chernobyl. I'm surprised you see this as a stretch a not clarifying point? Do you think no else wonders why it only happened at Chernobyl? I think a little more info would be good. I'm sure they will do more of a post mortem that goes into a little more detail, I know I shouldn't be, but am a little surprised by your reaction to his very minor criticisms.

I am not even sure if any of the 1980s Soviet characters knew how Western reactors worked, the Cold War wasn't exactly a time of free knowledge sharing abouz nuclear technology and even if they knew, they would have never admitted that theirs was the inferior design.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on May 29, 2019, 02:43:29 PM
Two questions stemming from the most recent episode re: the roof clean-up:

1. Did the United States have a robot at the time, 1986,  capable of withstanding the intense radiation of the third and final roof section?  (Do we have one now?) Not that the Soviets would have requested our help, of course.

2. If faced with a similar situation and sans robot, what would the United States options be? The Russians used conscripts numbering nearly four thousand men. Would the United States have resorted to using "bio-robots" in absence of any other recourse? I assume volunteers would have been asked of from the military...but what if not enough men came forward? Would we have ordered men into the radiation? Is that scenario no different than ordering men to assault a highly defended enemy position in combat? One advantage of an authoritarian state is that it can order people to do extremely hazardous/suicidal things if required in an emergency without hesitation and expect full compliance (or else). Could a western democracy have done the same or gotten sufficient compliance?    I would imagine we would have better protective suits, but still...
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: bimble on May 29, 2019, 03:02:05 PM
Two questions stemming from the most recent episode re: the roof clean-up:

1. Did the United States have a robot at the time, 1986,  capable of withstanding the intense radiation of the third and final roof section?  (Do we have one now?) Not that the Soviets would have requested our help, of course.


I seem to recall that they had issues with robots sent into the Fukushima plant... which were presumably robots hardened to radiation...
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 29, 2019, 03:07:44 PM
Two questions stemming from the most recent episode re: the roof clean-up:

1. Did the United States have a robot at the time, 1986,  capable of withstanding the intense radiation of the third and final roof section?  (Do we have one now?) Not that the Soviets would have requested our help, of course.

2. If faced with a similar situation and sans robot, what would the United States options be? The Russians used conscripts numbering nearly four thousand men. Would the United States have resorted to using "bio-robots" in absence of any other recourse? I assume volunteers would have been asked of from the military...but what if not enough men came forward? Would we have ordered men into the radiation? Is that scenario no different than ordering men to assault a highly defended enemy position in combat? One advantage of an authoritarian state is that it can order people to do extremely hazardous/suicidal things if required in an emergency without hesitation and expect full compliance (or else). Could a western democracy have done the same or gotten sufficient compliance?    I would imagine we would have better protective suits, but still...

I found this article about robots being developed for Fukushima

https://www.wired.com/story/fukushima-robot-cleanup/

Quote
In the first chaotic weeks after the meltdown, with radiation levels far too intense for anyone to work inside the reactors, Tepco scrambled to deploy robots to assess and contain the damage. Tractor-treaded bots from iRobot, drones from Honeywell, and a prototype disaster-­response mech from Tohoku University scouted the rubble-­strewn facility and tried to measure the intensity of the radiation. A remote-­controlled concrete pumping truck was adapted so that its extendable spout could pour water into the reactors, cooling and stabilizing the overheated chambers.

In the months and years that followed, Fukushima became both a market and a proving ground for ever-advancing robot technologies designed to operate in hazardous conditions. Remote-controlled front-end loaders, backhoes, and other heavy equipment were put to work breaking up radioactive debris and loading it onto remote-controlled dump trucks. A four-legged walking robot investigated the reactor buildings. Robots with 3-D scanners were sent in to gather imagery and map radiation levels. Swimming robots inspected pools where spent fuel rods were stored, taking pictures.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 29, 2019, 03:25:50 PM
You rang?

(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-ed91114f012aa0c22afaacad3f7dc61a)
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 29, 2019, 03:55:37 PM
Its much bigger than the roomba I have at home  ;D 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1SncjBBc9U

Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Captain Video on May 29, 2019, 03:59:17 PM
Do the Russians still have the same kind of ignorant secrecy in place that they did then?  If Chernobyl happened today how would it be handled?
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on May 29, 2019, 05:12:22 PM
Do the Russians still have the same kind of ignorant secrecy in place that they did then?  If Chernobyl happened today how would it be handled?
They were Russians before they were Communists.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Belgarath on May 29, 2019, 05:54:21 PM
Couple of things:

Do the Russians still have the same kind of ignorant secrecy in place that they did then?  If Chernobyl happened today how would it be handled?

With Putin, a devotee of the old Soviet rulers and the KGB?  Obviously they do.

Two questions stemming from the most recent episode re: the roof clean-up:

1. Did the United States have a robot at the time, 1986,  capable of withstanding the intense radiation of the third and final roof section?  (Do we have one now?) Not that the Soviets would have requested our help, of course.

No, we didn't have any robots that could have functioned on that roof.

Quote

2. If faced with a similar situation and sans robot, what would the United States options be? The Russians used conscripts numbering nearly four thousand men. Would the United States have resorted to using "bio-robots" in absence of any other recourse? I assume volunteers would have been asked of from the military...but what if not enough men came forward? Would we have ordered men into the radiation? Is that scenario no different than ordering men to assault a highly defended enemy position in combat? One advantage of an authoritarian state is that it can order people to do extremely hazardous/suicidal things if required in an emergency without hesitation and expect full compliance (or else). Could a western democracy have done the same or gotten sufficient compliance?    I would imagine we would have better protective suits, but still...

Not sure any suit could protect you from 300,000mSv/hr.  The US elected a reactor design that basically couldn't get that high.  Assuming it did, I'm not sure what the US would do.  The problem with the robots is that the radiation disrupts electrical signaling and plays havoc with semiconductors.  If you could develop a robot that has all of it's brains FAR away, then maybe it would work.


I am not even sure if any of the 1980s Soviet characters knew how Western reactors worked, the Cold War wasn't exactly a time of free knowledge sharing abouz nuclear technology and even if they knew, they would have never admitted that theirs was the inferior design.

The Soviets did understand really well how our reactors worked, the even used Pressurized water reactors in certain conditions. As an example, they used them in their Nuclear submarines

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon-class_submarine

Finally,

Here's a good twitter thread (he's got all the episodes) from a descendant of one of the Russians who was there for part of the clean up.

https://twitter.com/slavamalamud/status/1132029943297265664?s=12
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Eternally Learning on May 30, 2019, 01:57:13 AM
One of my friends is a nuclear physicist and this was his review so far.


Quote
I'll also be caught up on Chernobyl.... so far it is mostly minor nitpicks. They did their research but just are dumbing down some of the technicals.   My biggest issue, which I expected, is they haven't addressed how these reactors are fundamentally different than reactors built in the US or most of the west. (there were also design changes to the RBMK's to prevent a recurrence based on this event so that is wasn't repeatable.)  As expected, this show is fueling the anti-nuclear paranoia in some viewers .... e.g. I have people in my social media feeds posting about their proximity to nuclear reactors. 

While I'm sensitive to this as well, I do feel like they've started to address it in episode 4, by talking about how this disaster was a combination of gross incompetence and a design flaw that was specifically ignored and covered up. They've also made it abundantly clear that neither of those things would have been enough to cause anything like this on their own.  Now, that's not specifically saying that Western and modern day reactors are clearly and by far safer, but I think it goes a good way.  I also think (not that I'm suggesting you or they have done this, mind you) that it's a bit unfair to say the show has done a bad job of managing misconceptions about nuclear reactors when they haven't finished the show yet.  More than that, I think it's that no matter how well they did in explaining that this horrific disaster they've gone to great lengths to dramatize the horror and scale of was a one in a million fluke and absolutely not possible today, that people would STILL use this series as a means to discuss ignorant anti-nuclear talking points.  And to be perfectly fair, no one before Chernobyl thought this was possible either so it's not hard to understand why maybe people wouldn't be trusting of people saying the same today, no matter how well they said it.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on May 30, 2019, 03:04:58 PM
I'm finding this series and the facts behind the Chernobyl disaster horrifying and depressing....but it hasn't changed my pro-nuclear power stance.

It's an unavoidable fact that our current (no pun intended) civilization is vitally dependent on cheap abundant electricity. There's no way we could feed and provide a 20th century level of comfort for 300 million Americans let alone the population of the rest of the developed/developing world without it. Coal is a terribly dirty way to produce electricity. Nuclear is much cleaner....but I acknowledge when something does go wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong.

As I'm sure everyone on this board knows, until we solve fusion or renewable energy becomes ever more  prevalent and cheaper, nuclear is the best option. Having said that, I would not be surprised to find a half dozen or more Chernobyl-like accidents and exclusion zones scattered around the globe a hundred/two hundred years from now. Just as I expect there to be an inevitable nuclear weapons exchange on some level within a hundred years. There's no way human beings can go that long with nuclear power/weapons without  fucking up again...and again. Tis our nature sadly. Yep, it's the Great filter.
 
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: amysrevenge on May 30, 2019, 03:27:14 PM
Haven't seen the show yet, but just felt like mentioning that one of my university contemporaries was born within 90km of Chernobyl, 6 months after the meltdown.  Always thought that was neat. 

(She graduated with an engineering degree, but is now an unemployed perma-stoned snowboarder.)
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Belgarath on May 30, 2019, 04:42:53 PM
I'm finding this series and the facts behind the Chernobyl disaster horrifying and depressing....but it hasn't changed my pro-nuclear power stance.

It's an unavoidable fact that our current (no pun intended) civilization is vitally dependent on cheap abundant electricity. There's no way we could feed and provide a 20th century level of comfort for 300 million Americans let alone the population of the rest of the developed/developing world without it. Coal is a terribly dirty way to produce electricity. Nuclear is much cleaner....but I acknowledge when something does go wrong, it goes catastrophically wrong.

As I'm sure everyone on this board knows, until we solve fusion or renewable energy becomes ever more  prevalent and cheaper, nuclear is the best option. Having said that, I would not be surprised to find a half dozen or more Chernobyl-like accidents and exclusion zones scattered around the globe a hundred/two hundred years from now. Just as I expect there to be an inevitable nuclear weapons exchange on some level within a hundred years. There's no way human beings can go that long with nuclear power/weapons without  fucking up again...and again. Tis our nature sadly. Yep, it's the Great filter.
 


I think there are ways to even further improve it.  I actually even think that the standard pressurized water reactor would have been an even safer version if we hadn't had to deal with Admiral Hyman G. Rickover (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover)

There are far better and safer nuclear fission options out there:

Thorium Reactor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power)

Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 04, 2019, 01:36:29 AM
Welp, that has to have been one of the best miniseries I've ever seen.  It did everything I've ever wanted from a historical dramatization by not inventing drama to make history "more interesting" but by finding the drama that existed and presenting that in a compelling way.  Granted, that doesn't work with every historical event worth filming, but the result is that we get a gripping drama that ACTUALLY leaves the lay viewer not just more informed about what happened, but makes a powerfully emotional and logical case for how it happened that has profound relevance to not just today, but every day.  I know I'll be thinking about this show a lot in the future and thanks to the respectful and tasteful (though not shy) way they've made this, it's a show I have no problem recommending to just about anyone but the most incurious people I know.  Bravo to everyone involved in making this.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: moj on June 04, 2019, 08:59:03 AM
we really enjoyed it as well. Did not enjoy the emergency broadcast interruption around half way through it. Did anyone else have that? Very annoying, we lost a few minutes and it said it would last an hour so glad it was only a few. We also listened to the podcast for the first four episodes and really liked that. Highly recommend for anyone watching.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on June 04, 2019, 02:50:03 PM
The most mind-boggling thing to me: How in the hell are two of the divers still alive while Boris (can't remember Russian last names) was dead by 1990?!?!?!

Radiation exposure/sickness works in mysterious ways.....
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: 1Pirate on June 05, 2019, 12:17:33 AM
The precautions and de-contamination procedures the divers took could have been more effective than they thought. Also, Boris was around 65 at the time of the accident and a smoker to boot, so his life expectancy wouldn’t have been that long to begin with.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: fuzzyMarmot on June 05, 2019, 03:03:29 AM
For anyone wanting to take a deeper dive on this, I highly recommend the book Midnight in Chernobyl by Adam Higginbotham. It came out earlier this year, and is both riveting and highly detailed.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on June 05, 2019, 05:54:39 AM
The precautions and de-contamination procedures the divers took could have been more effective than they thought. Also, Boris was around 65 at the time of the accident and a smoker to boot, so his life expectancy wouldn’t have been that long to begin with.

Heh, watching this series one gets the impression that everyone in the Soviet Union was a pack-a-day chain smoker.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: jt512 on June 05, 2019, 06:05:28 AM
The precautions and de-contamination procedures the divers took could have been more effective than they thought. Also, Boris was around 65 at the time of the accident and a smoker to boot, so his life expectancy wouldn’t have been that long to begin with.

Heh, watching this series one gets the impression that everyone in the Soviet Union was a pack-a-day chain smoker.


Russians still are the heaviest smokers in Europe, and alcohol consumption is extremely high.  Life expectancy for Russian men is 10 years less than for American or Chinese men, largely due smoking and alcohol.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on June 05, 2019, 07:31:52 AM
The most mind-boggling thing to me: How in the hell are two of the divers still alive while Boris (can't remember Russian last names) was dead by 1990?!?!?!

Radiation exposure/sickness works in mysterious ways.....
Dumb luck.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 05, 2019, 08:29:27 AM
I would imagine that while the divers were exposed to higher levels for a short amount of time, Boris being exposed to lower levels for longer may have resulted in more overall exposure.  I wonder if maybe they could have overestimated the radioactivity present in the water they waded through as well.  That said, on the podcast (which I also HIGHLY recommend) they said that the real life trio at one point saw the core or something through a crack in the wall for a moment so who knows.  I gather that the results of being exposed at certain levels are more predictable than what levels one will be exposed to at any rate.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on June 05, 2019, 08:42:33 AM
Water is a moderator. After that anythings a SWAG.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on June 05, 2019, 02:34:58 PM
The precautions and de-contamination procedures the divers took could have been more effective than they thought. Also, Boris was around 65 at the time of the accident and a smoker to boot, so his life expectancy wouldn’t have been that long to begin with.

Heh, watching this series one gets the impression that everyone in the Soviet Union was a pack-a-day chain smoker.


Russians still are the heaviest smokers in Europe, and alcohol consumption is extremely high.  Life expectancy for Russian men is 10 years less than for American or Chinese men, largely due smoking and alcohol.

Even heavier than the Turks, lol?

I wonder what super-powers the two surviving divers have.....
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on June 05, 2019, 03:55:31 PM
Same as hers.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrSlGZB68Mit-4yVPgw_AMFiLEbd5dMgVzpIee6oDRPffRz7mv)
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Eternally Learning on June 06, 2019, 01:36:58 PM
IMDB now has Chernobyl as the highest rated television show of all time!  (https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/chernobyl-top-rated-tv-show-all-time-1203233833/)
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on June 06, 2019, 01:53:42 PM
Same as hers.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQrSlGZB68Mit-4yVPgw_AMFiLEbd5dMgVzpIee6oDRPffRz7mv)

Unlike Steve rogers, I'm not getting that reference. Hmmmm. Is that a character from Deadpool 2, Domino or something? (I didn't see it, NOT a Deadpool fan)  I think her powers are based on luck, or something? Okay, maybe I do get the reference.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on June 06, 2019, 02:05:32 PM
IMDB now has Chernobyl as the highest rated television show of all time!  (https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/chernobyl-top-rated-tv-show-all-time-1203233833/)

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

Seriously, I wonder if a Fukishima series might soon be in the works.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: CarbShark on June 06, 2019, 09:54:19 PM
Prequel ? Three Mile Island?

Or a prequel to that: Los Alamos?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Noisy Rhysling on June 07, 2019, 05:32:55 AM
It's good to remember that TMI released no radiation into the atmosphere.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Rai on June 07, 2019, 05:53:25 AM
IMDB now has Chernobyl as the highest rated television show of all time!  (https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/chernobyl-top-rated-tv-show-all-time-1203233833/)

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.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Belgarath 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. 
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. on June 07, 2019, 03:24:17 PM
IMDB now has Chernobyl as the highest rated television show of all time!  (https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/chernobyl-top-rated-tv-show-all-time-1203233833/)

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.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: CarbShark on June 07, 2019, 04:46:33 PM
IMDB now has Chernobyl as the highest rated television show of all time!  (https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/chernobyl-top-rated-tv-show-all-time-1203233833/)

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.
Title: Re: Chernobyl (HBO) discussion (spoilers)
Post by: Paul Blevins Jr. 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.”