3 ms·

>But don't let the word Chernobyl freak you out too much After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy I have no ho

>But don't let the word Chernobyl freak you out too much After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy I have no hope that's happening any time soon. It was genuinely baffling to me how a show, that was about as accurate on the threats of nuclear energy as Jaws was for sharks, got so much praise heaped on it.

mixedCase 5y ago
How does the show portray modern nuclear energy in a bad light?
- Barrin92 5y ago
  by inventing complete nonsensical dangers. From claiming that the meltdown would result in a "4 megaton explosion" (that's off by about a million as this is the yield of a thermonuclear weapon, a plant isn't a bomb), claiming that the plant would render Europe uninhabitable (no such thing is possible), to portrayals of radiation sickness in Pripyat (the residents received about 3 x-rays worth of radiation), portrayal of radiation sickness as weirdly contagious (which it is not), and so on.
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    The impending explosion was going to be from the molten reactor and sand they dropped on it melting through the concrete and hitting a large underground lake, instantly vaporizing it and causing a massive explosion, and ejecting radioactive debris in a very wide area. I have read several articles criticising some aspects of the accuracy of the show (though none even venture close to saying "nonsensical"), and none of them say anything about the inaccuracy of that plot point. Do you have a source?
    - nand4011 5y ago
      https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large... The risk of an explosion was very real, but the show claimed it would be measured in megatons, which is completely ludicrous.
      - DangitBobby 5y ago
        I see comments there explaining that the writer got that estimate from a phsycist, so maybe wrong, but definitely not ludicrous. Linked from that same discussion: https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she_say_the_potential_water_reservoir_could/enozssk/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she...
        colechristensen 5y ago
        No it’s ludicrous. Much of the point of the manhattan project was devising mechanisms to bring fissile materials together fast enough and precisely enough that they could reach criticality for long enough to produce an effective weapon. To propose that you could get comparable effects via nuclear materials burning through their containment vessel melted in a pool is absurd and just extraordinarily unlikely. That quote is about “testimony” of a Soviet physicist… who knows what political or other motivations were at work to justify that statement. I can’t imagine any modern physicist saying that was reasonable and it seems the writer couldn’t make that happen… it just seems like a fishing expedition for the most impressive quote that found someone saying something ridiculous and used that as a source of truth ignoring everything else which wasn’t as “fun”.
        DangitBobby 5y ago
        You sure are interpolating a lot of your own angle into this discussion. Do you think most laypeople would understand (or even remember) the implications of the difference between a 100kT explosion and a 4MT one? Probably not, right? Why do you think the writer would? Is it actually an important difference as far as the narrative is concerned? You'll find that no, it isn't. Even if it were, it's pretty ridiculous to think that expert testimony from the event wouldn't be an appropriate figure to use for a dramatization of the event.
        colechristensen 5y ago
        I’m really not. The contemporary quote was either misattributed, missing context, or a straight up lie. It’s not hard for an ordinary person to imagine what 4 million tons of explosive equivalent might be, or a hundred thousand, both are ridiculous. The actual risk was an explosion on the scale of a few buildings or a minor criticality incident which splattered melted nuclear material in a very small local area. You’re not going to find a nuclear physicist who could back anything else up with calculations, the author tried and couldn’t. The problem with your “viewers are ignorant so it doesn’t matter point” is that viewers aren’t totally ignorant and are then fed with very false information which makes any understanding that they did have considerably worse.
  - 3np 5y ago
    Could the earlier points be seen as less nonsensical if viewed in the light of "the (mis)understanding at the time"? > portrayal of radiation sickness as weirdly contagious Thanks for pointing this out. That part threw me off completely when watching it. Like how would that even work.
tormock 5y ago
> After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy it was not perfect but it was a good show... aren't all movies cartoonish in some way?
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  Yeah only got a few risks off by more than 5 orders of magnitude. Too bad they can't make something that scary about air pollution.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Ratatouille is about a rodent who can cook but doesn’t leave the viewer with major misconceptions about soup or what life working in a kitchen can be like. It doesn’t leave people with misconceptions about reality.
ahelwer 5y ago
Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: * the “bridge of death” scene that never happened * irradiated firefighters portrayed as themselves being radioactive * military dude threatening to throw a member of the academy of the sciences out of a helicopter for trivial/arbitrary reasons I remember there being other notable ones when briefly looking into it after watching it a couple years back.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: It's worth noting that show was not a work of nonfiction. In fiction, when the needs of drama and factual accuracy collide, drama usually wins, and there's nothing wrong with that.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    There is when the drama comes from lying about how the world works and dressing up your show just like reality. Most people who watch something like that without foreknowledge of the truth of the situation are going to believe the drama is real.
  - ako 5y ago
    The problem with fictional drama is that it does frame how people perceive the world.
datatrashfire 5y ago
The US continues to fail to effectively clean up the 56 million gallons of high level waste at the Hanford nuclear site and others throughout the US. Nuclear waste is slowly seeping into the water table and the Columbia river. The site is threatened by the risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, and flooding. We are no where closer to making it safe now than we were in 1985. While I appreciate the devotion to facts, I feel the portrayal still rings true. These risks are catastrophic and are to this day being handled with scandalous incompetence.

mixedCase 5y ago

How does the show portray modern nuclear energy in a bad light?

Barrin92 5y ago
by inventing complete nonsensical dangers. From claiming that the meltdown would result in a "4 megaton explosion" (that's off by about a million as this is the yield of a thermonuclear weapon, a plant isn't a bomb), claiming that the plant would render Europe uninhabitable (no such thing is possible), to portrayals of radiation sickness in Pripyat (the residents received about 3 x-rays worth of radiation), portrayal of radiation sickness as weirdly contagious (which it is not), and so on.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  The impending explosion was going to be from the molten reactor and sand they dropped on it melting through the concrete and hitting a large underground lake, instantly vaporizing it and causing a massive explosion, and ejecting radioactive debris in a very wide area. I have read several articles criticising some aspects of the accuracy of the show (though none even venture close to saying "nonsensical"), and none of them say anything about the inaccuracy of that plot point. Do you have a source?
  - nand4011 5y ago
    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large... The risk of an explosion was very real, but the show claimed it would be measured in megatons, which is completely ludicrous.
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      I see comments there explaining that the writer got that estimate from a phsycist, so maybe wrong, but definitely not ludicrous. Linked from that same discussion: https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she_say_the_potential_water_reservoir_could/enozssk/ https://old.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she...
      - colechristensen 5y ago
        No it’s ludicrous. Much of the point of the manhattan project was devising mechanisms to bring fissile materials together fast enough and precisely enough that they could reach criticality for long enough to produce an effective weapon. To propose that you could get comparable effects via nuclear materials burning through their containment vessel melted in a pool is absurd and just extraordinarily unlikely. That quote is about “testimony” of a Soviet physicist… who knows what political or other motivations were at work to justify that statement. I can’t imagine any modern physicist saying that was reasonable and it seems the writer couldn’t make that happen… it just seems like a fishing expedition for the most impressive quote that found someone saying something ridiculous and used that as a source of truth ignoring everything else which wasn’t as “fun”.
        DangitBobby 5y ago
        You sure are interpolating a lot of your own angle into this discussion. Do you think most laypeople would understand (or even remember) the implications of the difference between a 100kT explosion and a 4MT one? Probably not, right? Why do you think the writer would? Is it actually an important difference as far as the narrative is concerned? You'll find that no, it isn't. Even if it were, it's pretty ridiculous to think that expert testimony from the event wouldn't be an appropriate figure to use for a dramatization of the event.
        colechristensen 5y ago
        I’m really not. The contemporary quote was either misattributed, missing context, or a straight up lie. It’s not hard for an ordinary person to imagine what 4 million tons of explosive equivalent might be, or a hundred thousand, both are ridiculous. The actual risk was an explosion on the scale of a few buildings or a minor criticality incident which splattered melted nuclear material in a very small local area. You’re not going to find a nuclear physicist who could back anything else up with calculations, the author tried and couldn’t. The problem with your “viewers are ignorant so it doesn’t matter point” is that viewers aren’t totally ignorant and are then fed with very false information which makes any understanding that they did have considerably worse.
- 3np 5y ago
  Could the earlier points be seen as less nonsensical if viewed in the light of "the (mis)understanding at the time"? > portrayal of radiation sickness as weirdly contagious Thanks for pointing this out. That part threw me off completely when watching it. Like how would that even work.

tormock 5y ago

> After the TV show with its absolutely cartoonish depiction of the risks of nuclear energy it was not perfect but it was a good show... aren't all movies cartoonish in some way?

acidburnNSA 5y ago
Yeah only got a few risks off by more than 5 orders of magnitude. Too bad they can't make something that scary about air pollution.
colechristensen 5y ago
Ratatouille is about a rodent who can cook but doesn’t leave the viewer with major misconceptions about soup or what life working in a kitchen can be like. It doesn’t leave people with misconceptions about reality.

ahelwer 5y ago

Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: * the “bridge of death” scene that never happened * irradiated firefighters portrayed as themselves being radioactive * military dude threatening to throw a member of the academy of the sciences out of a helicopter for trivial/arbitrary reasons I remember there being other notable ones when briefly looking into it after watching it a couple years back.

tablespoon 5y ago
> Funniest part is that the tagline and theme of the show was “what is the cost of lies?” despite itself taking ridiculous liberties with the truth. Just off the top of my head there was: It's worth noting that show was not a work of nonfiction. In fiction, when the needs of drama and factual accuracy collide, drama usually wins, and there's nothing wrong with that.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  There is when the drama comes from lying about how the world works and dressing up your show just like reality. Most people who watch something like that without foreknowledge of the truth of the situation are going to believe the drama is real.
- ako 5y ago
  The problem with fictional drama is that it does frame how people perceive the world.

datatrashfire 5y ago

The US continues to fail to effectively clean up the 56 million gallons of high level waste at the Hanford nuclear site and others throughout the US. Nuclear waste is slowly seeping into the water table and the Columbia river. The site is threatened by the risk of earthquakes, volcanoes, and flooding. We are no where closer to making it safe now than we were in 1985. While I appreciate the devotion to facts, I feel the portrayal still rings true. These risks are catastrophic and are to this day being handled with scandalous incompetence.