20 ms·

> Is there truth to this claim? No, there isn't. They invented quite some nonsense to add drama and the reactors blowing up like thermonuclear bombs is among t

by thg 7y ago

> Is there truth to this claim? No, there isn't. They invented quite some nonsense to add drama and the reactors blowing up like thermonuclear bombs is among that. https://theconversation.com/ten-times-the-chernobyl-television-series-lets-artistic-licence-get-in-the-way-of-facts-119110 https://theconversation.com/ten-times-the-chernobyl-televisi... point 5 It's entertainment, not a documentary.

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago
Noted. Thanks for clearing that up. Since they did state that some of the characters were made up I had some hope they’d be a bit careful about other things, such as this claim that didn’t add that much to the actual drama.
sebazzz 7y ago
They probably should have added "Based on a true story" so you know it is partially fake.
FireBeyond 7y ago
One of the comments I heard was that while the physicists knew that wasn't possible, at that point, they were 1) battling with politicians who weren't overly concerned with anything except perception, and their own asses, and 2) wouldn't know enough to call them on the lie, and felt that claiming such a thing was possible might "wake them up" and hopefully provide some forward progress.
- garmaine 7y ago
  Did it actually happen that way though? It’s my understanding that we don’t know (the people at those meetings are dead) and HBO/Sky made it up in a way to add drama. Likewise with the 3 plant workers on a suicide mission to open the sluice gates, who were supposedly sent to their deaths. They’re still alive and healthy today (except one who died of non-nuclear causes).
  - FireBeyond 7y ago
    Well, at least with those workers? That actually happened, with those three men, and they were expected not to survive. (Water does a better job than many solids at absorbing radiation, I believe...).
LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
Everytime i read this claim i feel bored, because there is no substance to it, justified by uncounted people saying so because someone said so, therefore it has to be "the truth". What do you make of people who have been there and worked there afterwards, which came to a different conclusion? Conspiracy theo- or terrorists? https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-different-view-on-chernobyl/ https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-different-view... https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurereinterpreting-chernobyl-5991960/ https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurereinterpreting-c... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867971/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1384269 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1... The whole point of the "docudrama" was pointing this out, but failing to point out the next level of this error. And most of you are regurgitating the same shit over and over again, in blissfull ignorance.
- effie 7y ago
  In this emotional response full of links, you forgot to articulate your point.
  - stevetursi 7y ago
    I think his point was that, regardless of the chances that these doomsday scenarios could occur, experts on site at the time warned that they would, which is precisely what the show depicted.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
    Sigh. Someone asked if what has been shown in the tv-series could really happen. Someone answered naaa, never ever, absolute BS. That would be the feared steam explosion if the molten corium reached ground water and would produce another large "dirty bomb". That was the feared scenario afterwards. The links i posted support a wholly different chain of events, meaning that the explosions did not occur for the reasons generally assumed, and have been indeed in parts been of a nuclear nature, but not like a "fizzling nuke", rather something different, not seen up until then. Therefore not understood. All based on the detected isotopes at different places. Which makes no sense if the story is told as it is told. Which leads to the question why building a big dome over that thing, if 90% of the reactor mass have been vaporized, as the reinterpretation suggests. This is also supported by people who have been in the wreckage with floor plans several times over the years and did not find enough material in it to account for the 90% reactor mass assumed in the wreckage, and about 10% blown away. So my point should have been: The Tv show had good production values, but told the story wrong, ignoring the new interpretations which meanwhile became available. Then someone asks about something which couldn't even happen according to that new interpretation, because not enough molten corium in there anymore to make a good and large dirty bomb. Which could have happened IF the corium had been there in large amounts as has been assumed up until now. But it is mostly gone. So not even wrong! Wasn't the whole point of the show to show how wrong assumptions and mis/disinformation leads to catatsrophe? Especially in the end of the last episode? During the trial?

by thg 7y ago

CuriousSkeptic 7y ago

Noted. Thanks for clearing that up. Since they did state that some of the characters were made up I had some hope they’d be a bit careful about other things, such as this claim that didn’t add that much to the actual drama.

sebazzz 7y ago

They probably should have added "Based on a true story" so you know it is partially fake.

FireBeyond 7y ago

One of the comments I heard was that while the physicists knew that wasn't possible, at that point, they were 1) battling with politicians who weren't overly concerned with anything except perception, and their own asses, and 2) wouldn't know enough to call them on the lie, and felt that claiming such a thing was possible might "wake them up" and hopefully provide some forward progress.

garmaine 7y ago
Did it actually happen that way though? It’s my understanding that we don’t know (the people at those meetings are dead) and HBO/Sky made it up in a way to add drama. Likewise with the 3 plant workers on a suicide mission to open the sluice gates, who were supposedly sent to their deaths. They’re still alive and healthy today (except one who died of non-nuclear causes).
- FireBeyond 7y ago
  Well, at least with those workers? That actually happened, with those three men, and they were expected not to survive. (Water does a better job than many solids at absorbing radiation, I believe...).

LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago

Everytime i read this claim i feel bored, because there is no substance to it, justified by uncounted people saying so because someone said so, therefore it has to be "the truth". What do you make of people who have been there and worked there afterwards, which came to a different conclusion? Conspiracy theo- or terrorists? https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-different-view-on-chernobyl/ https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurea-different-view... https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurereinterpreting-chernobyl-5991960/ https://www.neimagazine.com/features/featurereinterpreting-c... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867971/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1867971/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1384269 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00295450.2017.1... The whole point of the "docudrama" was pointing this out, but failing to point out the next level of this error. And most of you are regurgitating the same shit over and over again, in blissfull ignorance.

effie 7y ago
In this emotional response full of links, you forgot to articulate your point.
- stevetursi 7y ago
  I think his point was that, regardless of the chances that these doomsday scenarios could occur, experts on site at the time warned that they would, which is precisely what the show depicted.
- LargoLasskhyfv 7y ago
  Sigh. Someone asked if what has been shown in the tv-series could really happen. Someone answered naaa, never ever, absolute BS. That would be the feared steam explosion if the molten corium reached ground water and would produce another large "dirty bomb". That was the feared scenario afterwards. The links i posted support a wholly different chain of events, meaning that the explosions did not occur for the reasons generally assumed, and have been indeed in parts been of a nuclear nature, but not like a "fizzling nuke", rather something different, not seen up until then. Therefore not understood. All based on the detected isotopes at different places. Which makes no sense if the story is told as it is told. Which leads to the question why building a big dome over that thing, if 90% of the reactor mass have been vaporized, as the reinterpretation suggests. This is also supported by people who have been in the wreckage with floor plans several times over the years and did not find enough material in it to account for the 90% reactor mass assumed in the wreckage, and about 10% blown away. So my point should have been: The Tv show had good production values, but told the story wrong, ignoring the new interpretations which meanwhile became available. Then someone asks about something which couldn't even happen according to that new interpretation, because not enough molten corium in there anymore to make a good and large dirty bomb. Which could have happened IF the corium had been there in large amounts as has been assumed up until now. But it is mostly gone. So not even wrong! Wasn't the whole point of the show to show how wrong assumptions and mis/disinformation leads to catatsrophe? Especially in the end of the last episode? During the trial?