3 ms·

Just read this a few hours ago, is there any other published information for corroboration? From what I gather from the New Yorker piece, this mini-series is o

Just read this a few hours ago, is there any other published information for corroboration? From what I gather from the New Yorker piece, this mini-series is ok as long as one takes into consideration that it's a historical drama, not documentary?

acidburnNSA 7y ago
On the technical/nuclear side, there's a strong critique here [1]. They really embellished on the characterization of the health impacts. For instance, in the epilogue they said: "Between 4,000 and 93,000 people died" where the correct statement is "A large international team of expert scientists estimated that up to 4,000 people will eventually die from early cancers on top of a population where millions would have without the accident, and a fringe group of anti-nuclear people said 93,000 without basis." [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06...
- iooi 7y ago
  > fringe group of anti-nuclear people said 93,000 without basis This is the line being pushed by pro-nuclear people every time this show comes up on social media. Thankfully we have better sources than a random person's blog on Forbes! Let's take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... "an April 2006 special report in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal Nature detailed in response—the accuracy and precision of this United Nations-led joint group's projected death toll of 4,000 were immediately contested, with several of the very scientists, physicians, and biomedical consortia whose work the joint group had cited alleging publicly that the joint group had either misrepresented their work or interpreted it out of context" "By 2016, some Ukranian and Belarussian physicians charged with treating large numbers of former liquidators in the decades since the accident were calling for more comprehensive studies and urging that the IAEA's estimated toll of disaster-related deaths from long-latency diseases be revised upwards"
  - acidburnNSA 7y ago
    Uh huh. From one of the guys who says 93,000: "Grodzinsky says low-dose radiation causes genomic instability, which induces mutations in affected cells that can only be detected after they have divided several times. The damage inflicted on the victim's DNA is then passed to their children, thus explaining the health problems suffered by liquidators' families." [1] This is without basis. Many studies have failed to find any real support for this kind of conclusion. For instance [2]. Many people in the area THINK more people must have died from Chernobyl. Problem is, there isn't strong evidence for it. Also from [1]: Not all experts from the region are critical of the Chernobyl Forum's findings. Viktor Opekunov, chairman of the atomic energy subcommittee of the Russian State Duma, told an interviewer earlier this month: “These are serious specialists who can be trusted and I consider that the conclusions made by the Chernobyl Forum reflect reality.” Members of the Forum's research team have defended its findings in the run up to the anniversary, saying it could not allow health effects to be attributed to Chernobyl without scientific evidence of a link. Yury Sayenko, a professor from the Institute of Sociology of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences, says he agreed with the report's finding that the mental health impact of the disaster was greatest of all. “There has been a cult of suffering around Chernobyl”, he says. “Our research show victims' subjective assessment of their circumstance is usually twice as bad as the reality. We need to help them recover their hopes for the future.” [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... [2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294
stevenwoo 7y ago
There is a long series of photos and text after the final episode that explains most of the fictionalized parts of the series and the real life outcome for most of the major players. IMHO the New Yorker piece has the perspective of a Soviet history expert who is extremely unhappy that their version of what is important to be shown was not shown or not accurately portrayed, watch Chernobyl for entertainment and a little enlightenment, but not for 100% fidelity to history. I can give a small example of what people complained about (spoiler like New Yorker piece). A helicopter crash in the TV series for which one can also view the historical footage - the historical footage is inexplicable - there's no obvious reason for it to happen but the TV show changes it so it has visible, plausible reasons to the viewer.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  In each case the helicopter crashes when a rotor blade strikes a heavy crane cable.
  - stevenwoo 7y ago
    Yes, but an attempt at brevity in my post and to not spoil too much - the history shows the copter in clear skies and strikes, to an outside observer ignorant of all the facts, easily avoidable (crane with ) cable, where the show introduces a smoke cloud and talks about the radiation danger and has the comm equipment start to fail as the copter gets closer to the smoke, telling a slightly different but more complete story than just viewing the historical footage.
ravedave5 7y ago
There's an accompanying podcast with the writer that's excellent and goes into great depth on some of these decisions "the cheronbyl podcast"

acidburnNSA 7y ago

On the technical/nuclear side, there's a strong critique here [1]. They really embellished on the characterization of the health impacts. For instance, in the epilogue they said: "Between 4,000 and 93,000 people died" where the correct statement is "A large international team of expert scientists estimated that up to 4,000 people will eventually die from early cancers on top of a population where millions would have without the accident, and a fringe group of anti-nuclear people said 93,000 without basis." [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06...

iooi 7y ago
> fringe group of anti-nuclear people said 93,000 without basis This is the line being pushed by pro-nuclear people every time this show comes up on social media. Thankfully we have better sources than a random person's blog on Forbes! Let's take a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di... "an April 2006 special report in the peer-reviewed, scientific journal Nature detailed in response—the accuracy and precision of this United Nations-led joint group's projected death toll of 4,000 were immediately contested, with several of the very scientists, physicians, and biomedical consortia whose work the joint group had cited alleging publicly that the joint group had either misrepresented their work or interpreted it out of context" "By 2016, some Ukranian and Belarussian physicians charged with treating large numbers of former liquidators in the decades since the accident were calling for more comprehensive studies and urging that the IAEA's estimated toll of disaster-related deaths from long-latency diseases be revised upwards"
- acidburnNSA 7y ago
  Uh huh. From one of the guys who says 93,000: "Grodzinsky says low-dose radiation causes genomic instability, which induces mutations in affected cells that can only be detected after they have divided several times. The damage inflicted on the victim's DNA is then passed to their children, thus explaining the health problems suffered by liquidators' families." [1] This is without basis. Many studies have failed to find any real support for this kind of conclusion. For instance [2]. Many people in the area THINK more people must have died from Chernobyl. Problem is, there isn't strong evidence for it. Also from [1]: Not all experts from the region are critical of the Chernobyl Forum's findings. Viktor Opekunov, chairman of the atomic energy subcommittee of the Russian State Duma, told an interviewer earlier this month: “These are serious specialists who can be trusted and I consider that the conclusions made by the Chernobyl Forum reflect reality.” Members of the Forum's research team have defended its findings in the run up to the anniversary, saying it could not allow health effects to be attributed to Chernobyl without scientific evidence of a link. Yury Sayenko, a professor from the Institute of Sociology of Ukraine's Academy of Sciences, says he agreed with the report's finding that the mental health impact of the disaster was greatest of all. “There has been a cult of suffering around Chernobyl”, he says. “Our research show victims' subjective assessment of their circumstance is usually twice as bad as the reality. We need to help them recover their hopes for the future.” [1] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(06)68559-0/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... [2] https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1104294

stevenwoo 7y ago

There is a long series of photos and text after the final episode that explains most of the fictionalized parts of the series and the real life outcome for most of the major players. IMHO the New Yorker piece has the perspective of a Soviet history expert who is extremely unhappy that their version of what is important to be shown was not shown or not accurately portrayed, watch Chernobyl for entertainment and a little enlightenment, but not for 100% fidelity to history. I can give a small example of what people complained about (spoiler like New Yorker piece). A helicopter crash in the TV series for which one can also view the historical footage - the historical footage is inexplicable - there's no obvious reason for it to happen but the TV show changes it so it has visible, plausible reasons to the viewer.

homonculus1 7y ago
In each case the helicopter crashes when a rotor blade strikes a heavy crane cable.
- stevenwoo 7y ago
  Yes, but an attempt at brevity in my post and to not spoil too much - the history shows the copter in clear skies and strikes, to an outside observer ignorant of all the facts, easily avoidable (crane with ) cable, where the show introduces a smoke cloud and talks about the radiation danger and has the comm equipment start to fail as the copter gets closer to the smoke, telling a slightly different but more complete story than just viewing the historical footage.

ravedave5 7y ago

There's an accompanying podcast with the writer that's excellent and goes into great depth on some of these decisions "the cheronbyl podcast"