4 ms·

Loved the show but felt that it was a bit heavy on the fear-mongering. EDIT* What I mean by this is that the facts were dramatized for effect, at a time when w

Loved the show but felt that it was a bit heavy on the fear-mongering. EDIT* What I mean by this is that the facts were dramatized for effect, at a time when we need to change societal opinions on nuclear more than ever.

beiller 7y ago
I almost agree with you. But I think it was fair fear-mongering on both sides (the scientists vs the politicians). It really drove home that secrets and cover-ups were the real disaster. People were afraid to admit their failure. I like to think that today, with cameras and social media everywhere, secrets and cover-ups about a disaster like this would be even more impossible (it was impossible to cover up even then).
smacktoward 7y ago
I found this interview with the showrunner to be thought-provoking in that regard: https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/chernobyl-finale-hbo-miniseries-craig-mazin-interview.html https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/chernobyl-finale-hbo-minis... > For a million reasons, this was not an anti-nuclear polemic. It’s anti–Soviet government, and it is anti-lie, and it is pro–human being. But anyone who thinks the point of this is that nuclear power is bad, is just, they’ve just missed it.
- izzydata 7y ago
  Thank you for that quote. I was going to try and write something along those lines, but that seems like a better summary. Anti-nuclear energy simply wasn't part of the narrative. It only seems like that because the events of Chernobyl really happened. They pointed out a few times that the only reason the Chernobyl catastrophe happened was because of all the corners that were cut and the lies that were told. Other nations with Nuclear programs weren't likely to have the same problem because they were more open.
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    Mazin addresses this point in another good interview, this one with Vox: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/4/18647339/chernobyl-finale-hbo-truth-how-accurate https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/4/18647339/chernobyl-fina... > It’s the story of the Soviet Union, but the danger is you make the story about how the Soviets were a bunch of liars and it’s easy for America — and some Americans continue to do this, remarkably — to say, “See? Those Soviets ... they’re liars.” And it became clear to me that Soviets are just people, and we’re just people, and lying is not in the water over there. It’s something people do. And they do it here. The Soviet system is a warning: Don’t take it this far. Please, for the love of god, don’t take it this far.
  - y_molodtsov 7y ago
    Well, it’s not like there weren’t other nuclear disasters.
    - izzydata 7y ago
      That's true. I don't know what it would have taken to prevent the Fukushima disaster.
- kitten_smuggler 7y ago
  I wouldn't say my take-away was that it was intended to be anti-nuclear, but with the need to move more towards nuclear now more than ever it felt poorly placed. That context makes sense though.
  - cm2187 7y ago
    In fact I must say that seeing how wreckless the operators had to be to make this reactor fail despite the fact that it was an early, soviet design with many design flaws, if anything, makes me believe more in the stability of these reactors if handled properly.
Rockslide 7y ago
How is showing the catastrophic consequences of nuclear power fear-mongering? I mean the stuff which is depicted in the series literally happened, and a lot of it / most of it actually exactly as depicted. How is that fear-mongering? It's the reality. But whenever the topic of nuclear comes up here on HN, and there is only the slightest mention of the risks, there is always someone shouting about fear-mongering...
- jimrandomh 7y ago
  https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/#35766be741fc https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09... "In the first episode of “Chernobyl” the nuclear reactor explodes, blows the top off the building, and catches on fire. The plant workers vomit, their faces turn red, and several appear to die. We see a plant worker in his twenties hold open a door to the reactor hall and various parts of his body start to bleed. He rescues a comrade with a red, blistered, and bloody face, and appears to leave him for dead in a hall. Later we see the man slumped over and smoking what appears to be his last cigarette. Later, the plant manager who was in denial about the accident becomes violently ill after he learns the true scale of the disaster. As he leaves for the hospital, we see a fireman who is carrying a body on a stretcher collapse and drop the body. I was left thinking that dozens of workers and firefighters were immediately killed, but according to the official United Nations report (p. 66) on the accident, just two workers, not dozens, or hundreds, were killed within a few hours of the explosion."
  - henryfjordan 7y ago
    Even in the show most don't die immediately. Many of the workers are shown being interviewed about what happened before they die in a hospital very far from the reactor. Days/Weeks passed.
    - Rockslide 7y ago
      That, and besides, the number of deaths related to Chernobyl (or even the magnitude) is highly controversial. But even the "official" Soviet number of direct, short-term fatalities is not 2, but 31. And I would take that number with a big grain of salt, for the very same reasons depicted in the series.
DangerousPie 7y ago
I was actually pleasantly surprised about how fairly this show portrayed nuclear energy. Sure, it shows the scary side of nuclear energy and how badly things can go wrong. But it also highlights how many bad decisions led to this catastrophe and how many deaths could have been prevented if it hadn't been for the secrecy and lies of the Soviet system. It made me oddly reassured about the safeguards we have in place today.
RikNieu 7y ago
> ... at a time when we need to change societal opinions on nuclear more than ever. No, I cannot agree with this. As many others stated, the facts on this show was portrayed remarkably accurately. The events that happend should be shown as close to as what really happened to honor those who died and to teach those who need to learn from history with the real truth. Your particular political agendas and idealisms should not be used to nudge the story of what happend to change societal opinions. Misrepresentation of reality to change societal opinions is exactly why stuff went wrong in Chernobyl. If we're going to be investing in nuclear, we need to be absolutely clear-headed, honest and scared. Nuclear oopsies will impact societies for thousands of years. Thousands. Besides, think about this, if the predictions that organised human civilization will inevitably collapse in the next couple of decades is accurate, the LAST thing we need is more nuclear powerstations. There are currently about 450+ reactors running worldwide - what happens when the societies that maintain them take a dip? What happens when even half of those go into meltdown? https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2017/9/11/nuclear-power-and-the-collapse-of-society https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2017/9/11/nuclear-power-an...

beiller 7y ago

I almost agree with you. But I think it was fair fear-mongering on both sides (the scientists vs the politicians). It really drove home that secrets and cover-ups were the real disaster. People were afraid to admit their failure. I like to think that today, with cameras and social media everywhere, secrets and cover-ups about a disaster like this would be even more impossible (it was impossible to cover up even then).

smacktoward 7y ago

I found this interview with the showrunner to be thought-provoking in that regard: https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/chernobyl-finale-hbo-miniseries-craig-mazin-interview.html https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/chernobyl-finale-hbo-minis... > For a million reasons, this was not an anti-nuclear polemic. It’s anti–Soviet government, and it is anti-lie, and it is pro–human being. But anyone who thinks the point of this is that nuclear power is bad, is just, they’ve just missed it.

izzydata 7y ago
Thank you for that quote. I was going to try and write something along those lines, but that seems like a better summary. Anti-nuclear energy simply wasn't part of the narrative. It only seems like that because the events of Chernobyl really happened. They pointed out a few times that the only reason the Chernobyl catastrophe happened was because of all the corners that were cut and the lies that were told. Other nations with Nuclear programs weren't likely to have the same problem because they were more open.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Mazin addresses this point in another good interview, this one with Vox: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/4/18647339/chernobyl-finale-hbo-truth-how-accurate https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/4/18647339/chernobyl-fina... > It’s the story of the Soviet Union, but the danger is you make the story about how the Soviets were a bunch of liars and it’s easy for America — and some Americans continue to do this, remarkably — to say, “See? Those Soviets ... they’re liars.” And it became clear to me that Soviets are just people, and we’re just people, and lying is not in the water over there. It’s something people do. And they do it here. The Soviet system is a warning: Don’t take it this far. Please, for the love of god, don’t take it this far.
- y_molodtsov 7y ago
  Well, it’s not like there weren’t other nuclear disasters.
  - izzydata 7y ago
    That's true. I don't know what it would have taken to prevent the Fukushima disaster.
kitten_smuggler 7y ago
I wouldn't say my take-away was that it was intended to be anti-nuclear, but with the need to move more towards nuclear now more than ever it felt poorly placed. That context makes sense though.
- cm2187 7y ago
  In fact I must say that seeing how wreckless the operators had to be to make this reactor fail despite the fact that it was an early, soviet design with many design flaws, if anything, makes me believe more in the stability of these reactors if handled properly.

Rockslide 7y ago

How is showing the catastrophic consequences of nuclear power fear-mongering? I mean the stuff which is depicted in the series literally happened, and a lot of it / most of it actually exactly as depicted. How is that fear-mongering? It's the reality. But whenever the topic of nuclear comes up here on HN, and there is only the slightest mention of the risks, there is always someone shouting about fear-mongering...

jimrandomh 7y ago
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/#35766be741fc https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09... "In the first episode of “Chernobyl” the nuclear reactor explodes, blows the top off the building, and catches on fire. The plant workers vomit, their faces turn red, and several appear to die. We see a plant worker in his twenties hold open a door to the reactor hall and various parts of his body start to bleed. He rescues a comrade with a red, blistered, and bloody face, and appears to leave him for dead in a hall. Later we see the man slumped over and smoking what appears to be his last cigarette. Later, the plant manager who was in denial about the accident becomes violently ill after he learns the true scale of the disaster. As he leaves for the hospital, we see a fireman who is carrying a body on a stretcher collapse and drop the body. I was left thinking that dozens of workers and firefighters were immediately killed, but according to the official United Nations report (p. 66) on the accident, just two workers, not dozens, or hundreds, were killed within a few hours of the explosion."
- henryfjordan 7y ago
  Even in the show most don't die immediately. Many of the workers are shown being interviewed about what happened before they die in a hospital very far from the reactor. Days/Weeks passed.
  - Rockslide 7y ago
    That, and besides, the number of deaths related to Chernobyl (or even the magnitude) is highly controversial. But even the "official" Soviet number of direct, short-term fatalities is not 2, but 31. And I would take that number with a big grain of salt, for the very same reasons depicted in the series.

DangerousPie 7y ago

I was actually pleasantly surprised about how fairly this show portrayed nuclear energy. Sure, it shows the scary side of nuclear energy and how badly things can go wrong. But it also highlights how many bad decisions led to this catastrophe and how many deaths could have been prevented if it hadn't been for the secrecy and lies of the Soviet system. It made me oddly reassured about the safeguards we have in place today.

RikNieu 7y ago

> ... at a time when we need to change societal opinions on nuclear more than ever. No, I cannot agree with this. As many others stated, the facts on this show was portrayed remarkably accurately. The events that happend should be shown as close to as what really happened to honor those who died and to teach those who need to learn from history with the real truth. Your particular political agendas and idealisms should not be used to nudge the story of what happend to change societal opinions. Misrepresentation of reality to change societal opinions is exactly why stuff went wrong in Chernobyl. If we're going to be investing in nuclear, we need to be absolutely clear-headed, honest and scared. Nuclear oopsies will impact societies for thousands of years. Thousands. Besides, think about this, if the predictions that organised human civilization will inevitably collapse in the next couple of decades is accurate, the LAST thing we need is more nuclear powerstations. There are currently about 450+ reactors running worldwide - what happens when the societies that maintain them take a dip? What happens when even half of those go into meltdown? https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2017/9/11/nuclear-power-and-the-collapse-of-society https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2017/9/11/nuclear-power-an...