Chernobyl - HBO/Sky *Spoilers*

silverharp

Dial Hard wrote: »

And I maintain that a large cohort of those complaining about it wouldn't have had remotely the same issue had it been a plucky man.

its a good position to have because we will never know

kunst nugget

Those Russian scientists were trying to combat something without precedent. In the programme, they thought that a steam explosion and the subsequent ejection of the three remaining cores could cause an explosion in the region of 2-4 megatons (3-5 megatons according to the documentary clip shown in that Thunderf00t video). It was conjecture of the worst kind in all probability but when dealing with something like Chernobyl, isn't planning for the worst outcome not the most sensible thing to do. Most experts say it would have made the situation worse but not as bad as stated in the programme but again they are basing it on conjecture. So what way would you actually have wanted the Soviets to do to deal with the situation? Did they have to point out the possible doomsday scenario to spur their leaders into action? And what way would you have wanted the filmmakers to deal with this in the end credits? 'It probably wouldn't have been as bad as this characters pointed out but we're actually not sure entirely how bad it would have been....'

Also, the voice on that Thunderf00t fella... How can people listen to that snarky whine for more than 35 minutes? Jesus, it's unbearable.

fxotoole

kunst nugget wrote: »

Those Russian scientists were trying to combat something without precedent. In the programme, they thought that a steam explosion and the subsequent ejection of the three remaining cores could cause an explosion in the region of 2-4 megatons (3-5 megatons according to the documentary clip shown in that Thunderf00t video). It was conjecture of the worst kind in all probability but when dealing with something like Chernobyl, isn't planning for the worst outcome not the most sensible thing to do. Most experts say it would have made the situation worse but not as bad as stated in the programme but again they are basing it on conjecture. So what way would you actually have wanted the Soviets to do to deal with the situation? Did they have to point out the possible doomsday scenario to spur their leaders into action? And what way would you have wanted the filmmakers to deal with this in the end credits? 'It probably wouldn't have been as bad as this characters pointed out but we're actually not sure entirely how bad it would have been....'

Also, the voice on that Thunderf00t fella... How can people listen to that snarky whine for more than 35 minutes? Jesus, it's unbearable.

I reckon he puts on that voice deliberately just to rile up the flat earthers

kunst nugget

fxotoole wrote: »

I reckon he puts on that voice deliberately just to rile up the flat earthers

You know the way they play frequencies outside shopping centres to drive away teenagers? I think his voice is at a frequency that only lads that spend 16 hours a day playing WoW in their underwear can withstand.

Nermal

There's good discussion here:

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been

Interestingly, it mentions the source of the 'nuclear explosion' myth as Gorbachev.

Perhaps the situation was deliberately exaggerated to ensure it got the proper attention. Or maybe he just got confused...

astrofool

From memory, a nuclear explosion is triggered by conventional explosives exerting massive amounts of pressure on the fissile or fusible material, which then triggers a chain reaction of that material. While it may have started as a steam explosion, the resulting explosion may have been enough to then trigger a secondary nuclear explosion, depending on what the containment of the nuclear material was (it could also just have spread the material, aka a dirty bomb).

PhilOssophy

Time to unfollow, a good thread has turned into "well that didn't happen like that" bullsh....

Cordell

There are some speculations that the second explosion (or even the first one) was due to the reactor going prompt critical (as it happens in the bombs) but the third potential explosion was always a potential steam explosion. A reactor cannot produce a full blown nuclear explosion, it's simply not possible. If prompt criticality happens, it will quickly destroy the reactor and stop a full nuclear explosion, but that is not necessarily a good thing, it's still a very dirty bomb.

I think the series covers the technical aspects quite well, except for the exaggeration of the third explosion that never happened.

CoBo55

Unfollowed.. Pity as I was enjoying the thread.

is_that_so

Relikk wrote: »

There were already enough unfamiliar (to us at first, even though we knew who was who by the end of episode 5) Russian names to keep track of in the series without adding an entire team of 20, or so, scientists into the mix, and if they all contributed to the solutions, to focus on one person delivering those solutions would have been a discredit to them. It was a wise decision to amalgamate them into a single fictional character.

It was a good call and gives a more credible explanation as to how "she" managed to investigate it all.

tuxy

is_that_so wrote: »

It was a good call and gives a more credible explanation as to how "she" managed to investigate it all.

I agree, it worked well but may have been confusing for anyone who did watch the short explanations at the end of each episode.

is_that_so

Cordell wrote: »

There are some speculations that the second explosion (or even the first one) was due to the reactor going prompt critical (as it happens in the bombs) but the third potential explosion was always a potential steam explosion. A reactor cannot produce a full blown nuclear explosion, it's simply not possible. If prompt criticality happens, it will quickly destroy the reactor and stop a full nuclear explosion, but that is not necessarily a good thing, it's still a very dirty bomb.

I think the series covers the technical aspects quite well, except for the exaggeration of the third explosion that never happened.

Well there did seem to be a lot of guessing about what was required. The miners and their work as it turns out weren't really needed.

is_that_so

tuxy wrote: »

I agree, it worked well but may have been confusing for anyone who did watch the short explanations at the end of each episode.

Only, I'd say, if you were bothered that she wasn't real. Legassov too had a team even though the series gave the impression he was coming up with all the ideas.

Itssoeasy

I actually can't believe people in this thread are arguing over whether a composite character (which happens in EVERY Show based on true events btw) was male or female. Composite characters aren't new and I've no problem with them once it's made clear the person is actually that. It's used for time reasons and even real historical figures have had extra lines and other things added.

Henry Ford III

Amazing how many Irish nuclear physicists post here wha?

Itssoeasy

is_that_so wrote: »

Cordell wrote: »

There are some speculations that the second explosion (or even the first one) was due to the reactor going prompt critical (as it happens in the bombs) but the third potential explosion was always a potential steam explosion. A reactor cannot produce a full blown nuclear explosion, it's simply not possible. If prompt criticality happens, it will quickly destroy the reactor and stop a full nuclear explosion, but that is not necessarily a good thing, it's still a very dirty bomb.

I think the series covers the technical aspects quite well, except for the exaggeration of the third explosion that never happened.

Well there did seem to be a lot of guessing about what was required. The miners and their work as it turns out weren't really needed.

No it wasn't but what was shown in the show did happen and that tunnel and room was built under the reactor.

leggo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I actually can't believe people in this thread are arguing over whether a composite character (which happens in EVERY Show based on true events btw) was male or female. Composite characters aren't new and I've no problem with them once it's made clear the person is actually that. It's used for time reasons and even real historical figures have had extra lines and other things added.

Yep, if anything I really liked how they broke the fourth wall at the end and told you “So this was just a character and here’s why we did it.”

But it’s 2019 boards. So a woman being portrayed as competent is going to get written off as “PC bull****”.

ZX7R

As a television program ,it is excellent viewing.

is_that_so

Itssoeasy wrote: »

No it wasn't but what was shown in the show did happen and that tunnel and room was built under the reactor.

Yes I know. I was commenting on the fact that some options or opinions in such a scenario will turn out to be wrong. or possibly exaggerated.

is_that_so

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Amazing how many Irish nuclear physicists post here wha?

There are one or two involved in physics or science, who have posted.

Itssoeasy

ZX7R wrote: »

As a television program ,it is excellent viewing.

Which is the main point anyone should take from the show.

And even though the female character that Emily Watson played wasn’t real but for all the Soviet Union faults, it was clearly very advanced in science and technology and having women in high positions. I mean the USSR had an amazing space program and were decades ahead of the US in putting women into space. Valentina Tereshkova was in space in 1963.

ZX7R

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Which is the main point anyone should take from the show.

And even though the female character that Emily Watson played wasn’t real but for all the Soviet Union faults, it was clearly very advanced in science and technology and having women in high positions. I mean the USSR had an amazing space program and were decades ahead of the US in putting women into space. Valentina Tereshkova was in space in 1963.

It was a Ukraine lad I work with told me to watch it,he reconned it was near as realistic to the reality of what happened. his wife is from Chernobyl.
As far as the science of it he didn't even know how factual it was.
I really hope to see more programs ,as entertaining as Chernobyl on sky in the future.

adam88

ZX7R wrote: »

It was a Ukraine lad I work with told me to watch it,he reconned it was near as realistic to the reality of what happened. his wife is from Chernobyl.
As far as the science of it he didn't even know how factual it was.
I really hope to see more programs ,as entertaining as Chernobyl on sky in the future.

Here here. I’d gladly keep paying my subs every month if that quality was kept going

goose2005

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Which is the main point anyone should take from the show.

And even though the female character that Emily Watson played wasn’t real but for all the Soviet Union faults, it was clearly very advanced in science and technology and having women in high positions. I mean the USSR had an amazing space program and were decades ahead of the US in putting women into space. Valentina Tereshkova was in space in 1963.

Certainly in the sciences. For example, in the 1960s 40% of chemistry PhDs went to women. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-had-a-better-record-of-training-women-in-stem-than-america-does-today-180948141/ However, I don't think that that necessarily translated to leadership positions, the Communist Party was very much a boys' club.

silverharp

goose2005 wrote: »

Certainly in the sciences. For example, in the 1960s 40% of chemistry PhDs went to women. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-had-a-better-record-of-training-women-in-stem-than-america-does-today-180948141/ However, I don't think that that necessarily translated to leadership positions, the Communist Party was very much a boys' club.

what do you mean by "boys club" do you mean they deliberately kept women out or the top scientists tend to be men?

Hector Savage

silverharp wrote: »

what do you mean by "boys club" do you mean they deliberately kept women out or the top scientists tend to be men?

Top scientists tend to be men anyway, purely on stats/interests ... nothing to do with overall ability.

Hector Savage

leggo

Hector Savage wrote: »

Top scientists tend to be men anyway, purely on stats/interests ... nothing to do with overall ability.

Not in this particular place at this particular time, as many as 40% of doctors/scientists were women. That’s why they made it a female character, it’s been explained multiple times now.

Cordell

I dare to say that women in STEM fields were much more common in that part of the world during those times than they are now and here. Women were common in all kind of jobs, from lathe operators to physicists and mathematicians.

Greyjoy

kunst nugget wrote: »

Those Russian scientists were trying to combat something without precedent. In the programme, they thought that a steam explosion and the subsequent ejection of the three remaining cores could cause an explosion in the region of 2-4 megatons (3-5 megatons according to the documentary clip shown in that Thunderf00t video). It was conjecture of the worst kind in all probability but when dealing with something like Chernobyl, isn't planning for the worst outcome not the most sensible thing to do.

That's exactly the point the series creator Mazin makes in the HBO podcast series. The russian scientists were dealing with probabilities of what might happen. Do they take drastic action or just cross their fingers and hope the worse case scenario doesn't happen?

no.8

@Hector Savage

Awful attempt to try and be funny

silverharp

Cordell wrote: »

I dare to say that women in STEM fields were much more common in that part of the world during those times than they are now and here. Women were common in all kind of jobs, from lathe operators to physicists and mathematicians.

here is a list of soviet era Physicists presumably the ones at the top of their field. Pretty much all men

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_physicists

Nermal

Greyjoy wrote: »

That's exactly the point the series creator Mazin makes in the HBO podcast series. The russian scientists were dealing with probabilities of what might happen. Do they take drastic action or just cross their fingers and hope the worse case scenario doesn't happen?

Mazin is not a physicist. The probability of a steam explosion causing a nuclear one at Chernobyl is zero. Not low, not minimal - zero.

leggo wrote: »

Not in this particular place at this particular time, as many as 40% of doctors/scientists were women. That’s why they made it a female character, it’s been explained multiple times now.

Yes, so representative, and not at all revisionist tokenism:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8461299/Chernobyl-power-plant-in-pictures-25-years-since-the-worlds-worst-nuclear-accident.html?image=3

Greyjoy

Nermal wrote: »

Mazin is not a physicist. The probability of a steam explosion causing a nuclear one at Chernobyl is zero. Not low, not minimal - zero.

Khomyuk never actually makes that claim it will cause a nuclear explosion. She says it will have the force of a nuclear reaction of 2-4 megatons. You can argue how accurate that estimate would be but at the very least the explosion will send radioactive material scattered across the landscape.

Credit Checker Moose

Time to unsubscribe from this wreck of a thread.

pc7

Thanks to whomever recommended Midnight in Chernobyl, just finished it on Audible. (Can’t find post). Starting hbo podcast now, have throughly enjoyed learning about it all after the show. Which was brilliant, pity thread going ****ty.

Hector Savage

leggo wrote: »

Not in this particular place at this particular time, as many as 40% of doctors/scientists were women. That’s why they made it a female character, it’s been explained multiple times now.

Indeed, was just a point, I have read many books on the history of Chernobyl disaster I dont need an explanation why she was made up.

40% is still not a majority anyway last time I checked...

Hector Savage

pc7 wrote: »

Thanks to whomever recommended Midnight in Chernobyl, just finished it on Audible. (Can’t find post). Starting hbo podcast now, have throughly enjoyed learning about it all after the show. Which was brilliant, pity thread going ****ty.

That would have been me !
No sweat glad you enjoyed it, another excellent read is "Voices from Chernobyl" or the revised edition "Chernobyl Prayer" by Svetlana Alexievich.

Hector Savage

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Time to unsubscribe from this wreck of a thread.

+1 on that!

Cordell

silverharp wrote: »

here is a list of soviet era Physicists presumably the ones at the top of their field. Pretty much all men

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Russian_physicists

She wasn't a top physicist, she was a "regular" one working out of a secondary research institute in a secondary URSS city. Perfectly plausible to be either a man or a woman, and I don't have any wiki link to back it up, it's only what I saw growing up in that time in that part of the world (not URSS but close enough for practical reasons). And I would say that none of the people working there, male or female, were top physicist. They were physicist doing physics stuff just to be doing something - this is how the system worked.
Legasov wasn't a top physicist either, he was a chemist according to wikipedia, but still with no scientific achievements in his name. His legacy was the disaster management, and not even that a particularly good one.

goose2005

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zinaida_Ershova was a woman who worked for decades at the top of the Soviet nuclear project

iano.p

A great show. I thought the podcast wasn't that good at all. It's nice to get a small bit of back story but wasn't overly needed because the show was so good.

astrofool

Is there really people insecure enough to spend time out of their lives worrying about the fact that a composite character in a drama set in a communist country is female instead of male? To what end? What is the point? It's a really weird thing to comment on and reflect on afterwards vs. everything else that happened, and likely points to issues on behalf of the people making a big/small/any kind of deal out of it.

sydthebeat

astrofool wrote: »

Is there really people insecure enough to spend time out of their lives worrying about the fact that a composite character in a drama set in a communist country is female instead of male? To what end? What is the point? It's a really weird thing to comment on and reflect on afterwards vs. everything else that happened, and likely points to issues on behalf of the people making a big/small/any kind of deal out of it.

Because being "that guy" is en vogue in the social media world

Itssoeasy

Lads, this thread has gone off the rails a bit.

Can we all agree that a terrible real life event took place in the former Soviet Union in April of 1986 and that regardless of what facts were wrong or which characters were real or composite that the show as a whole gave a very good representation of the utter horror that happened to the ordinary people of northern Ukraine and southern Belarus which still impacts them to this day. Can we at least agree on that ?

teednab-el

How could the Soviets not evacuate their own people from the worlds worst nucleur disaster on time is beyond me. How could they do that to their people? Shame is one thing but insecurity and incompetance is another.

How people living in the USSR at the time could accept such a corrupt and lieing government and decisions on the disaster were affecting peoples health and their future lives. The soviet union didn't fall half quick enough if you ask me.

Also Diatylov didnt get enough of a punishment for his role on the disaster. Yes there were design flaws with the RMBK reactors but he ignored wrecklessly the protocol for the safety test and ran it under his terms and not what the protocol suggested to run test at. He wanted it his own way and wanted to get the test signed off so that he would get his promotion. He didnt get enough of the blame for the disaster which he should have taken the hit for.

Some people argue that truth about the design flaws of the reactor would have eventually come out but that's one question we may never find out.

Itssoeasy

teednab-el wrote: »

How could the Soviets not evacuate their own people from the worlds worst nucleur disaster on time is beyond me. How could they do that to their people? Shame is one thing but insecurity and incompetance is another.

How people living in the USSR at the time could accept such a corrupt and lieing government and decisions on the disaster were affecting peoples health and their future lives. The soviet union didn't fall half quick enough if you ask me.

Also Diatylov didnt get enough of a punishment for his role on the disaster. Yes there were design flaws with the RMBK reactors but he ignored wrecklessly the protocol for the safety test and ran it under his terms and not what the protocol suggested to run test at. He wanted it his own way and wanted to get the test signed off so that he would get his promotion. He didnt get enough of the blame for the disaster which he should have taken the hit for.

Some people argue that truth about the design flaws of the reactor would have eventually come out but that's one question we may never find out.

You are seeing a 1986 situation through 2019 eyes. The Soviet union is remembered for many things but transparency isn't one of them.

teednab-el

Itssoeasy wrote: »

You are seeing a 1986 situation through 2019 eyes. The Soviet union is remembered for many things but transparency isn't one of them.

They were responsible because they left their people oblivious to the seriousness of the situation. They knew inside it was a terrible disaster and they were going to cover up at all costs only it was too big a disaster to hide when Sweden and Finland had detected the radiation levels.

It could have been even worse if Europe was wiped off the map.

Itssoeasy

teednab-el wrote: »

They were responsible because they left their people oblivious to the seriousness of the situation. They knew inside it was a terrible disaster and they were going to cover up at all costs only it was too big a disaster to hide when Sweden and Finland had detected the radiation levels.

I agree and I'm not saying what the Soviet authorities did was good in the aftermath of the disaster at chernobyl, but again it's easy for us to say they should have done X, and Y at the time but hindsight is the foresight of a gob****e as someone once said.

teednab-el

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I agree and I'm not saying what the Soviet authorities did was good in the aftermath of the disaster at chernobyl, but again it's easy for us to say they should have done X, and Y at the time but hindsight is the foresight of a gob****e as someone once said.

I think they were never going to keep something as terrible as this quiet from the west. They should have evacuated the people of pyripyat when they knew the situation was bad. They evacuated them 36 hours after the explosion. Anyone near the plant at that stage had received lethal doses of radiation and were going to die before they even knew it.