Jump to content
beecee

Chernobyl and the After effects:

Recommended Posts

I just finish watching a series doco [in 4 parts] and would recommend it's viewing.

Describing it in a word? Scary......Í can't say how close it is to the actual truth but you can gauge that for yourself.........

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Í can't say how close it is to the actual truth but you can gauge that for yourself.

Not really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not really. 

Concur.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not really. 

:rolleyes: Well as we all know movies are movies are movies, even those supposedly based on true life, and sometimes the truth gets left behind. This however in my opinion, seem to cover fairly accurately what one did learn from this incident...the main theme to evolve from the movie and was pretty factual, was the  failed governemnt coverup. 

If one "error" did stand out as I was watching it, is the suggestion in the movie that radioactive poisoning is contagious. Still though even the greatest sci/fi movie of all time had some errors. [2001: A Space Odyssey] :P

I did find this account of what the movie portrayed and what actually happened.....

 https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2475038/chernobyl-how-factually-accurate-was-the-hbo-show

"Chernobyl is a fantastic miniseries and it won’t be a surprise if it cleans up at the Emmy Awards in September. While there is a lot of dramatic license taken, as to be expected, the creators also took great pains to make sure that most of the basic facts of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl are historically accurate and for that they deserve a lot of credit".

 

The Russians of course may not be happy with the general message of the failed government cover up and their general handling of the truth but that's life when things like that are attempted.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, beecee said:

I just finish watching a series doco

It's not a documentary. It's just a drama series based on real-life story.

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not really. 

Which parts? I'd read a lot about Chernobyl and for most parts the series does describe things reasonably accurately. There are of course some factual errors here and there and some liberties taken as part of artistic license, but overall I found it very close to real chain of events without having a need to go through an undergrad course of nuclear physics to understand what exactly went wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pavelcherepan said:

It's not a documentary. It's just a drama series based on real-life story.

Which parts? I'd read a lot about Chernobyl and for most parts the series does describe things reasonably accurately. There are of course some factual errors here and there and some liberties taken as part of artistic license, but overall I found it very close to real chain of events without having a need to go through an undergrad course of nuclear physics to understand what exactly went wrong.

Correct and accurate on all counts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, beecee said:

you can gauge that for yourself

 

15 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Not really. 

I really can't gauge it for myself.
I wasn't there at the time, so I don't know what really happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

I really can't gauge it for myself.
I wasn't there at the time, so I don't know what really happened.

Do you really need to be there to have a reasonable picture of what happened? We can be reasonably sure that a near catastrophic accident occurred, people died and are dying, an attempted cover up of the accident by the former USSR.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 6/16/2019 at 7:54 AM, beecee said:

The Russians of course may not be happy with the general message of the failed government cover up and their general handling of the truth but that's life when things like that are attempted.

Who told you that Russians were unhappy? Only some freaks and commies maybe. It had a very positive review from our Minister of culture, a very positive review from President's assistant in cultural relations and on largest Russian review aggregator site kinopoisk.ru it has a rating of 9.1 out of 10 from audience and 100% positive from critics.

On 6/16/2019 at 7:54 AM, beecee said:

If one "error" did stand out as I was watching it, is the suggestion in the movie that radioactive poisoning is contagious.

It's never mentioned that it was contagious. "No touching" was simply due to the fact that firefighters were contaminated with radioactive dust and not all of it can be washed off easily. In fact, today their overalls are still where nurses left them - in the basement of the hospital in Pripyat. Also, neutron radiation is actually "contagious" due to neutron activation. If you remember, firefighters have been standing around blocks of graphite from reactor and big chunk of radiation they received was neutron which would induce radioactivity in their bodes too.

15 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

I wasn't there at the time, so I don't know what really happened.

Of course it's impossible to know now what happened in some meeting behind closed doors, but main turn of events and the efforts to contain and manage the accident have been recorded and the accuracy of their representation can of course be judged.

 

Edited by pavelcherepan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, pavelcherepan said:

Who told you that Russians were unhappy? Only some freaks and commies maybe. It had a very positive review from our Minister of culture, a very positive review from President's assistant in cultural relations and on largest Russian review aggregator site kinopoisk.ru it has a rating of 9.1 out of 10 from audience and 100% positive from critics.

At the time misinformation was given out by the authorities, and it did appear some attempted cover up, and I seem to recall, that the first international news of it was from Sweden?? that had detected a rise in radioactivity in the atmosphere. 

Quote

It's never mentioned that it was contagious. "No touching" was simply due to the fact that firefighters were contaminated with radioactive dust and not all of it can be washed off easily. In fact, today their overalls are still where nurses left them - in the basement of the hospital in Pripyat. Also, neutron radiation is actually "contagious" due to neutron activation. If you remember, firefighters have been standing around blocks of graphite from reactor and big chunk of radiation they received was neutron which would induce radioactivity in their bodes too.

Agreed but when some of the wives and relatives were at the hospital to see their stricken Husbands, they were not allowed. All clothes etc were removed and confined in safe quarters, so their was no contaminant on any of the patients. At least that is what I recall. 

Quote

Of course it's impossible to know now what happened in some meeting behind closed doors, but main turn of events and the efforts to contain and manage the accident have been recorded and the accuracy of their representation can of course be judged.

I have no qualms at all with the reasonable accurate account in the movie and also thought the actors played their parts well. I may well watch it again, next week, as I hold it in high regard and a excellent production.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, beecee said:

Agreed but when some of the wives and relatives were at the hospital to see their stricken Husbands, they were not allowed. All clothes etc were removed and confined in safe quarters, so their was no contaminant on any of the patients. At least that is what I recall. 

Bodies of firefighters were radioactive due to neutron activation. Even after clothes were removed they were still dangerously radioactive

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, pavelcherepan said:

Bodies of firefighters were radioactive due to neutron activation. Even after clothes were removed they were still dangerously radioactive

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

OK, accepted, which makes this excellent 5 part movie even more factual then I originally thought. Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/17/2019 at 5:45 AM, pavelcherepan said:

but main turn of events and the efforts to contain and manage the accident have been recorded a

Yes, and the people who made those records can judge how realistic the programme is.

I didn't make them.

I still really can't judge.

It's not complicated.

It's like asking you if a picture looks like my brother, then saying 

On 6/15/2019 at 10:08 PM, beecee said:

you can gauge that for yourself

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Yes, and the people who made those records can judge how realistic the programme is.

I didn't make them.

I still really can't judge.

After doing some research and reading up on historical accounts, I have no reason to change my mind....The movie for all intents and purposes, seemed overall pretty well factual where it counts.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, beecee said:

After doing some research and reading up on historical accounts, I have no reason to change my mind....The movie for all intents and purposes, seemed overall pretty well factual where it counts.

Did you use the scientific methods in your research or did you just look for (and found) materials that confirm events in the film?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, beecee said:

After doing some research and reading up on historical accounts, I have no reason to change my mind....The movie for all intents and purposes, seemed overall pretty well factual where it counts.

Are  you deliberately missing the point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Did you use the scientific methods in your research or did you just look for (and found) materials that confirm events in the film?

 

17 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Are  you deliberately missing the point?

Be careful asking questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Did you use the scientific methods in your research or did you just look for (and found) materials that confirm events in the film?

Like I said, I researched as much as I could without leaving the country and found the movie to be pretty well based on fact and accurate on most counts. Did you see the movie?

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Are  you deliberately missing the point?

:rolleyes: Not sure what your point was in the first place. As I said,  do you really need to be there to have a reasonable picture of what happened? We can be reasonably sure that a near catastrophic accident occurred, people died and are dying, an attempted cover up of the accident by the former USSR. And that among most other things seemed to be accurately portrayed.

 

 

On 6/17/2019 at 2:45 PM, pavelcherepan said:

Of course it's impossible to know now what happened in some meeting behind closed doors, but main turn of events and the efforts to contain and manage the accident have been recorded and the accuracy of their representation can of course be judged.

Precisely.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Imagine I post a picture of some man and say it looks like my brother.

Would you this say to Et Pet

On 6/15/2019 at 10:08 PM, beecee said:

.Í can't say how close it is to the actual truth but you can gauge that for yourself.........

Could he gauge it for himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said:

Could he gauge it for himself?

Did you see the movie? If you have, then you can gauge for yourself, rightly or wrongly how factual it was. And then if you so desire, you could gauge your opinion by researching the known facts and history. I'm reasonably confident that the message/question I originally asked is reasonable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, beecee said:

Like I said, I researched as much as I could without leaving the country and found the movie to be pretty well based on fact and accurate on most counts. Did you see the movie?

Unfortunately not (I hope I will soon)... I did not clam you are wrong. I was just surprised how quickly you confirmed all the fact from the movie (It is a long movie, while your words were "Correct and accurate on all counts" - a statement quite opposite to my experience with commercial wide-audience movies. You understand my surprise.)

BTW, I am not sure what this thread is all about, but if it is about discussing how factual is the movie, then you can point out several things that you think might be worth discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, Danijel Gorupec said:

Unfortunately not (I hope I will soon)... I did not clam you are wrong. I was just surprised how quickly you confirmed all the fact from the movie (It is a long movie, while your words were "Correct and accurate on all counts" - a statement quite opposite to my experience with commercial wide-audience movies. You understand my surprise.)

I encourage you to do exactly that. Also my comment "Correct and accurate on all counts" was entirely in relation to what pavelcherepan said here......

On 6/16/2019 at 3:35 PM, pavelcherepan said:

It's not a documentary. It's just a drama series based on real-life story.

Which parts? I'd read a lot about Chernobyl and for most parts the series does describe things reasonably accurately. There are of course some factual errors here and there and some liberties taken as part of artistic license, but overall I found it very close to real chain of events without having a need to go through an undergrad course of nuclear physics to understand what exactly went wrong.

Quote

BTW, I am not sure what this thread is all about, but if it is about discussing how factual is the movie, then you can point out several things that you think might be worth discussion.

Not withstanding some pedant, one point that I did raise was an inference in the movie that radiation poisoning was contagious. I thought that was incorrect but was rightly challenged by pavelcherepan on that score. as follows...... 

On 6/17/2019 at 5:13 PM, pavelcherepan said:

Bodies of firefighters were radioactive due to neutron activation. Even after clothes were removed they were still dangerously radioactive

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

In summing and in my opinion, this was a well acted excellent movie/series, that appears as reasonably factual and portrays an historical event as close to the truth as any movie can/may achieve.

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Could he gauge it for himself?

   Like I said,  John Cuthber :

3 hours ago, et pet said:

Be careful asking questions.

   I would've liked to have asked why he refers to the Chernobyl Disaster as only "a near catastrophic accident", when most of the world agrees that it was definitely "a catastrophic nuclear accident", but...

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

   " The Chernobyl disaster was a catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the No. 4 nuclear reactor in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the city of Pripyat in the north of the Ukrainian SSR. "

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

   ...like i said, John...

3 hours ago, et pet said:

Be careful asking questions.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, et pet said:

   Like I said,  John Cuthber :

   I would've liked to have asked why he refers to the Chernobyl Disaster as only "a near catastrophic accident", when most of the world agrees that it was definitely "a catastrophic nuclear accident", but...

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

   " The Chernobyl disaster was a catastrophic nuclear accident that occurred on 26 April 1986 at the No. 4 nuclear reactor in the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, near the city of Pripyat in the north of the Ukrainian SSR. "

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

   ...like i said, John...

:D Of course you would et pet, but again your pedant record speaks for itself.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pedantic&oq=pedant&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l4.2327j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

pedantic. The definition of pedantic is someone who is very concerned with the details of a subject and tends to overly show off their knowledge. An example of someone who is pedantic is a person at a party who bores everyone while talking at length about the origin and details of a particular piece of pottery.

And of course the accident could have been far worse then the near catastrophic accident and containment that did occur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elephant's_Foot_(Chernobyl)

https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/did-you-know/there-radioactive-elephants-foot-slowly-burning-hole-ground

The Elephant's Foot had penetrated through at least 2 m (6 ft 7 in) of concrete to reach its current location.[2] There were fears that it might continue to penetrate deeper into the ground and come into contact with groundwater, contaminating the area's drinking water and leading to illnesses and deaths;[10] however, as of 2016, the mass has not moved significantly since its discovery and is estimated to be only slightly warmer than its environment due to heat from the ongoing nuclear decay

 

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lorentz, Gauss, & Co lied originally and the likes of Feynman followed suite. You see the curve was actually represented as a cube, based on cubicals, not sphericals, before the 4th dimension modelled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.