Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:33 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,787
"When the truth offends, we lie and lie until we can no longer remember it is even there. But it is still there. Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later, that debt is paid."
  #152  
Old 06-05-2019, 01:42 AM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,972
Your quote also applies to all the details the show decided to make up for dramatic purposes

Last edited by DPRK; 06-05-2019 at 01:43 AM.
  #153  
Old 06-05-2019, 03:28 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by DPRK View Post
Your quote also applies to all the details the show decided to make up for dramatic purposes
Any show like this needs to dramatize, and condense characters and events. It will always be possible to nitpick, but essentially it's the truth.

Short video by the makers of the series about their intentions:

Chernobyl: After the Aftermath
  #154  
Old 06-06-2019, 06:58 PM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
A masterpiece, a triumph. Best TV I've seen in years.
A "triumph". Heh. The mental picture of Mazin with a crown of laurel in a chariot made me chuckle.

The show has a crazy high score of 9.7 on IMDB and raving reviews.

I thought the recreation for TV of the era and events was very well done, it was entertaining and the central points of the catastrophe are all there but I can't take it very seriously.

Certainly not games and a public holiday level of good.
  #155  
Old 06-07-2019, 02:44 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
A "triumph". Heh. The mental picture of Mazin with a crown of laurel in a chariot made me chuckle.

<snip>

Certainly not games and a public holiday level of good.
Yes, that is literally what I meant ffs
  #156  
Old 06-07-2019, 05:03 PM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Greenback View Post
Yes, that is literally what I meant ffs
I wasn't making fun OF you, I was literally just amused by the way you used the word triumph to describe a TV mini-series.

FFS yourself. I understood what you meant just fine. You like it. Great. So do I.
  #157  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:36 AM
betonbill is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 45
As an offshoot of the series, it seems that Chernobyl is beginning to become quite the tourist attraction.
  #158  
Old 06-08-2019, 01:51 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
I wasn't making fun OF you, I was literally just amused by the way you used the word triumph to describe a TV mini-series.
Perhaps you are not a native English speaker. The word triumph is often used that way in English, to describe artistic or creative achievements.

See the Oxford English Dictionary, definition 1.3 "A highly successful example of something."

Among the example sentences given are:

‘...the painting is... a triumph of the allegorical imagination.’
‘This book is a triumph of self-effacing scholarship.’
‘I tip my hit to the current subway map... a triumph of design...’
‘This exhibition is a triumph of painting indeed.’
‘...a triumph of modern architecture...’
‘It was not, however, a triumph of thoroughly disciplined cricket...’
‘...triumph of biographical scholarship...’
‘It is a triumph of modern technology and construction...’
  #159  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:35 AM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
Perhaps you are not a native English speaker. The word triumph is often used that way in English, to describe artistic or creative achievements.
Perhaps you are unaware of what a Roman triumph was. Or perhaps you don't understand hyperbole as humor. Saying my 10 year old's drawing of the Eiffel Tower is a triumph of modern art would be correct usage to describe a creative achievement too.
  #160  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:55 AM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
Perhaps you are unaware of what a Roman triumph was. Or perhaps you don't understand hyperbole as humor. Saying my 10 year old's drawing of the Eiffel Tower is a triumph of modern art would be correct usage to describe a creative achievement too.
There's no need to be insulting. I was pointing out that there's nothing unusual about describing a TV series as a triumph, and I would agree with Baron Greenback that it is a triumph in that sense. It's not hyperbole - the literal meaning is not the primary meaning in English any more. Perhaps you don't think that a TV series can ever be a significant creative or artistic achievement, but I think most people would disagree with you.

It's currently the highest rated TV series ever on IMDb, with every episode rated 9.6 and above, and the last episode rated 9.9.
  #161  
Old 06-08-2019, 04:58 AM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenWyvern View Post
There's no need to be insulting. I was pointing out that there's nothing unusual about describing a TV series as a triumph, and I would agree with Baron Greenback that it is a triumph in that sense. It's not hyperbole - the literal meaning is not the primary meaning in English any more. Perhaps you don't think that a TV series can ever be a significant creative or artistic achievement, but I think most people would disagree with you.
There's no need to insist on taking my amusing (to me) mental picture of celebrating the triumph of HBO Chernobyl literally, throw rolleyes at me or explain the meaning of ordinary words being used either.

I think the the rave reviews are exaggerated. I believe people are are reacting so strongly in favor because they are not very acquainted with nuclear energy, the details of the Chernobyl disaster, and the fictionalized parts of the series. That's what we do here, offer different points of view for discussion.
  #162  
Old 06-08-2019, 10:25 AM
Sam Lowry is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
I think the the rave reviews are exaggerated. I believe people are are reacting so strongly in favor because they are not very acquainted with nuclear energy, the details of the Chernobyl disaster, and the fictionalized parts of the series. That's what we do here, offer different points of view for discussion.
I thought it was an absolutely fantastic show, and I'm familiar with the details of the Chernobyl disaster and know more about nuclear energy than the average person. I don't work in nuclear power, but I'm a mechanical engineer and remember in at least one engineering class reading about the disaster and about how so many things lined up for everything to go wrong. I've also read a bit more about nuclear power; the book The Radioactive Boy Scout is one I've recommended to multiple people. I'm very far from an expert but none of the specifics of nuclear power said in the show was a surprise to me.

But even though I knew a lot of the details, seeing it portrayed was harrowing. I thought it was very well done. There were a lot of characters and a lot of things going on but they kept things fairly clear. All the actors were fantastic, from the main three of Jared Harris, Stellan Skarsgård, and Emily Watson, to the rest of the cast even in the smallest roles. The score was also great; the show would have been dramatic even if there was no score because of the inherent drama going on but the haunting score really increased the harrowing nature of some of the scenes.

Obviously there was some stuff that was changed, but it seems that they went as much for realism as possible from what I've read. The courtroom scenes seem to be the most changed, which makes sense to me as the best way to wrap up the show and explain things that happened and do the flashbacks. I've read many tweets from people and relatives of people who grew up in the USSR and who said it felt very true to life regarding the people in the show. I've also started listening to the podcast, where Craig Mazin, the show creator, said he had someone who lived in the USSR go over the script and give notes and make some changes.

I think the show is a great achievement, it's a show I've been recommending to everyone, but also telling them to only watch when they are emotionally ready for it.
  #163  
Old 06-08-2019, 11:40 AM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Lowry View Post
I think the show is a great achievement, it's a show I've been recommending to everyone, but also telling them to only watch when they are emotionally ready for it.
It had nowhere the emotional impact for me that you (and others) are describing. Not sure if that is because I was comparing it to my knowledge of Chernobyl, or I thought some dramatizations were unnecessary and soured their credibility, or some creative choices lame (soviet miners for example), or what.

I will say again that I think the feel for the era, Pripyat, the power plant, Moscow, etc was truly excellent in my opinion (like I'd expect from HBO). They obviously put a lot of work into that.
  #164  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:12 PM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
I didn't know about Xenon poisoning so that was cool. The whole trial was great. Masterfully done. A triumph of exposition.

Obviously the skeptic in me thinks they turned Dyatlov into a caricature.
  #165  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:30 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,972
Dyatlov did write a book (am I misremembering?), so people can judge what he had to say for himself. I have only read excerpts, but he seems to suggest that they didn't really (at least knowingly) violate regulations, and, even if they did, the reactor shouldn't have been able to explode (nor did they know it could).

Last edited by DPRK; 06-08-2019 at 12:31 PM.
  #166  
Old 06-08-2019, 12:41 PM
Baron Greenback's Avatar
Baron Greenback is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 11,960
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
I didn't know about Xenon poisoning so that was cool. The whole trial was great. Masterfully done. A triumph of exposition.
A "triumph" you say?!?

But yeah, even although that was the most concocted part of the whole thing, it was so well executed. Respectful of the audience too - sort of "here comes the science, but we trust you to follow this, let's go" if you see what I mean.
  #167  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:29 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Good article on the bad science of the series. And Triumph is an insult comic dog.
  #168  
Old 06-08-2019, 02:49 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Good article on the bad science of the series. And Triumph is an insult comic dog.
I want to believe that article but it contains some pretty substantial mistakes itself. The helicopter crash was depicted in the show as the rotor hitting a cable, pretty much identically to the linked video upthread of the real-life crash.
  #169  
Old 06-08-2019, 03:09 PM
GreenWyvern's Avatar
GreenWyvern is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Cape Town
Posts: 1,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Good article on the bad science of the series. And Triumph is an insult comic dog.
But note that the author is a professional pro-nuclear activist.
  #170  
Old 06-08-2019, 04:30 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
I want to believe that article but it contains some pretty substantial mistakes itself. The helicopter crash was depicted in the show as the rotor hitting a cable, pretty much identically to the linked video upthread of the real-life crash.

Which part of this is incorrect?


Quote:
Nor did radiation from the melted reactor contribute to the crash of a helicopter, as is strongly suggested in “Chernobyl.” There was a helicopter crash but it took place six months later and had nothing to do with radiation. One of the helicopter’s blades hit a chain dangling from a construction crane.
  #171  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:34 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Which part of this is incorrect?
The part where he says the show gets it wrong by depicting the crash as due to radiation because in real life the crash happened when the rotor hit a cable.

In the show, the crash happened when the rotor hit a cable, the same as real life.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 06-09-2019 at 01:35 AM.
  #172  
Old 06-09-2019, 06:45 AM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Good article on the bad science of the series. And Triumph is an insult comic dog.
I believe the position of the article to be essentially correct about the science and facts. Although I don't care for some of the tone that seems to minimize the dangers of ionizing radiation and in his apology of nuclear energy he conveniently omits to mention the very serious problem of radioactive waste from spent fuel.

The TV series strongly suggested the helicopter crash was caused by radiation. It was not obvious at all that there was contact with a crane, if that was the intention. But that is a pretty minor quibble.

I have no way of knowing the facts relating to the "bridge of death" but a 100% mortality rate from ARS for bystanders miles away when even first responders had mortality rates below that seems highly unlikely.
  #173  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:09 AM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
I believe the position of the article to be essentially correct about the science and facts.
Well, except for the tangent about bullets, which I don't really understand. The analogy in the TV show about how a nuclear reactor works involving bullets seemed perfectly apt for layman (Shcherbina).
  #174  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:26 AM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
I have no way of knowing the facts relating to the "bridge of death" but a 100% mortality rate from ARS for bystanders miles away when even first responders had mortality rates below that seems highly unlikely.
They could have inhaled dangerous particulate though. I'll put that in the "plausible" category.
  #175  
Old 06-09-2019, 10:42 AM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
The part where he says the show gets it wrong by depicting the crash as due to radiation because in real life the crash happened when the rotor hit a cable.

In the show, the crash happened when the rotor hit a cable, the same as real life.
In the show the guy says something in alarm about how they shouldn't fly directly over the reactor, presumably because of the radiation. The helicopter then flies directly over the reactor, loses control, hits a cable, and goes down. The clear implication, to me and my wife as we watched it, was that the pilot or the electronics got fried by radiation and that caused the crash.

There's some creative liberty there, although I'm not sure how serious. There probably was radiation spewing out of the exposed reactor so that part seems fine, the intention seemed to be say that the pilots hadn't been briefed about the radiation risk. Based on everything I'm reading now, that probably wasn't the case, there does seem to be a lot of exaggeration about things like that. The cleanup wasn't perhaps as incompetent as it was made out to be.
  #176  
Old 06-09-2019, 12:27 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by steronz View Post
The clear implication, to me and my wife as we watched it, was that the pilot or the electronics got fried by radiation and that caused the crash.

That's exactly what it meant to imply—otherwise they would have mentioned the cable. (After watching, I had to google "chernobyl helicopter" to see what was supposed to have happened in the scene. What I saw was helicopter passes above radiation, helicopter fals apart.)
  #177  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:37 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,566
They didn't mention hitting the cable because they showed it hitting a cable. Show, don't tell.
  #178  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:51 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
They didn't mention hitting the cable because they showed it hitting a cable. Show, don't tell.

You noticed the cable, I didn't. I saw the helicopter emerge from the smoke and fall apart.
  #179  
Old 06-09-2019, 01:59 PM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,566
The fact that you didn't notice it doesn't mean they didn't show it. The fact that the author of that article didn't notice it and then used it as an example of a mistake undermines my faith in that author's attention to detail. That's why I'd like to buy into that article but can't.
  #180  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:37 PM
steronz is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
The fact that you didn't notice it doesn't mean they didn't show it. The fact that the author of that article didn't notice it and then used it as an example of a mistake undermines my faith in that author's attention to detail. That's why I'd like to buy into that article but can't.
They showed us the cable, they TOLD us about the radiation and the exposed reactor. Let's not pretend they didn't do that.

Last edited by steronz; 06-09-2019 at 02:37 PM.
  #181  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:46 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
The fact that the author of that article didn't notice it and then used it as an example of a mistake

The author made no such claim. The author said "Nor did radiation from the melted reactor contribute to the crash of a helicopter, as is strongly suggested". As is strongly suggested. The author is absolutely correct.
  #182  
Old 06-09-2019, 02:52 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
The fact that you didn't notice it doesn't mean they didn't show it. The fact that the author of that article didn't notice it and then used it as an example of a mistake undermines my faith in that author's attention to detail. That's why I'd like to buy into that article but can't.

Hey, wait--you yourself said this:


Quote:
While watching that confused me too so I rewound it several times and finally ran it in slow motion. It looked to me like the pilot was incapacitated in some way (blinded?) when flying over the tower so the helicopter started listing, and then you could just barely see that the rotor hit a wire that snapped the rotor, at which point it dropped to the ground like a rock.

So what you really need to say is that "just because you have to rewind and watch it several times in slow motion doesn't mean that is wasn't there." That means one of two things--directorial incompetence, or they didn't want you to know what happened, but put it in there very obscurely for plausible deniability.
  #183  
Old 06-09-2019, 07:06 PM
Pedro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
So what you really need to say is that "just because you have to rewind and watch it several times in slow motion doesn't mean that is wasn't there." That means one of two things--directorial incompetence, or they didn't want you to know what happened, but put it in there very obscurely for plausible deniability.
Could be either. The problem with the helicopter scene is that Legasov warns the pilots not to fly overhead because of radiation then shouts a panicky "no, no,no, they're too close" at the first helicopter, implying they aren't respect the safety perimeter for radiation. With the added drama of the crackilng radio. Immediately after the helicopter is flying away from the reactor and it definitely touches a crane cable (not easy to spot). So the crash in the TV show has nothing to do with the tension being created in the exact same scene.
  #184  
Old 06-10-2019, 03:01 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,566
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
The author made no such claim. The author said "Nor did radiation from the melted reactor contribute to the crash of a helicopter, as is strongly suggested". As is strongly suggested. The author is absolutely correct.
The author wrote:

Quote:
Nor did radiation from the melted reactor contribute to the crash of a helicopter, as is strongly suggested in “Chernobyl.” There was a helicopter crash but it took place six months later and had nothing to do with radiation. One of the helicopter’s blades hit a chain dangling from a construction crane.
The construction of this paragraph makes it clear what he's saying: The show depicted the crash as being cause by radiation, but in reality it was caused by the rotor hitting a chain.

As for me rewinding, on first viewing in real-time I got the impression that the helicopter hit the chain but wasn't sure. (ie: I was confused.) So I rewound and watched again in normal time to confirm but that wasn't sufficient for me, since I knew I would likely comment on it in this thread and I wanted compelling evidence to back up my statements. So I rewound a third time, switched to frame by frame slow-mo and zoomed the picture in larger size and was able to see it clearly and unambiguously.

That was my thought process and how I approached the details of that scene when I merely planned to post about it in this thread. (I spent about 20-30 seconds on it.) The author of the article didn't go to even remotely that much care despite it being one of his points of evidence in a pretty long and involved blog post. He couldn't be bothered to demonstrate as much care in his viewing as what I did just in service of a likely SDMB post.

So yes, that is absolutely why I don't have faith in that article.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro View Post
Could be either. The problem with the helicopter scene is that Legasov warns the pilots not to fly overhead because of radiation then shouts a panicky "no, no,no, they're too close" at the first helicopter, implying they aren't respect the safety perimeter for radiation. With the added drama of the crackilng radio. Immediately after the helicopter is flying away from the reactor and it definitely touches a crane cable (not easy to spot). So the crash in the TV show has nothing to do with the tension being created in the exact same scene.
I love this analysis; excellent.

If the author of the blog had conceded that the show depicted the mechanics of the crash correctly but was intentionally misleading about it, that would be fine. What the blog author did, however, was essentially the same crime the show did: Heavily implied something that wasn't true while technically staying within the bounds of truth. Dishonest and misleading aren't characteristics of criticisms I put a lot of stock in.

Last edited by Ellis Dee; 06-10-2019 at 03:06 AM.
  #185  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:22 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
The author wrote:

The construction of this paragraph makes it clear what he's saying: The show depicted the crash as being cause by radiation, but in reality it was caused by the rotor hitting a chain.
No, the writer said "was strongly suggested." "Was strongly suggested." "Was strongly suggested." "Was strongly suggested." And I think that assessment was 100% correct.
  #186  
Old 06-10-2019, 02:25 PM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 11,932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Dee View Post
If the author of the blog had conceded that the show depicted the mechanics of the crash correctly but was intentionally misleading about it, that would be fine. What the blog author did

You use "blog" to try to minimize the author, but the article is for Forbes, on the Forbes site.
  #187  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:02 AM
Ellis Dee is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: New England
Posts: 14,566
The article strongly implies that the show didn't show the chain causing the crash. That makes the article dishonest and misleading, or at very least sloppy and poorly researched. Either way, its credibility is undermined.
  #188  
Old 06-11-2019, 11:31 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
I did like it. I thought the last episode's time jumps happened too early. I would have liked some more episodes before, seemed compressed.
  #189  
Old 07-03-2019, 03:55 PM
MeanJoe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 2,329
I just finished this on HBO GO. Due to work and other commitments it took me about 10 days to get through the 5 episodes. Amazing series all around from the acting, the story structure, the realism of the sets, and the cinematography. A triumph indeed.

Not to inflame the few debates but... *lights match*... The helicopter scene definitely seemed to me that the radiation somehow compromised the integrity of the helicopter causing the crash. Of course my brain said "Wait a minute... is that possible?" to which my brain responded "Maybe, what the f-ck do you know about being directly over top of a core meltdown anyway? Besides, that was an incredibly tense and well shot scene so fuhgeddaboutit!". After reading the exchange here on the topic and viewing the original footage and re-watching that scene from HBO I can see now the helicopter hit the wire from the crane. I would argue the only reason that happened is the pilots were probably cooked like lobsters after flying directly over the reactor. If the one scientist just looked at it from the roof for a few seconds and had bad facial burns, I can imagine the pilots were probably in dire straights and not able to control their helicopter causing the collision.

Similarly with the core burning through the concrete pad and hitting the water... I never got the impression they were saying it would cause a nuclear explosion. What I took away from it was that it would have caused a massive explosion from the conversion of the water to steam in a contained concrete space and it would result in a nuclear-like explosion larger than the original which would result in all the associated deaths and devastation both from the initial explosion but more significantly the graphite and nuclear material that would be disbursed higher into the atmosphere. I did not re-watch that episode and am not interested in arguing the points, others did so just fine in this thread already. I was just one of those people who watched and never made any association they were saying it would be a nuclear explosion.

MeanJoe
__________________
Father to sassy girls. Husband to a mad wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.
  #190  
Old 07-03-2019, 04:53 PM
lisiate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,781
The real helicopter incident happened several months into the clean-up, with no 'radiation death-ray' involved. But, yeah I agree with you, it's a minor quibble when set against the overall brilliance of the show. Which is an absolute masterpiece, and everyone should watch it in my opinion.
  #191  
Old 07-03-2019, 05:15 PM
enalzi is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,270
I'd recommend everyone listen to the companion podcast. I don't think they discuss the helicopter incident specifically, but it's a very frank discussion about writing historical dramas and where to blur the line between fact and fiction.
  #192  
Old 07-04-2019, 01:33 AM
Drum God's Avatar
Drum God is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Central Texas, USA
Posts: 2,225
I was fascinated by the way the Soviets were already exploring WHO to blame while the disaster was still unfolding. I'm familiar with CYA moments, but usually you at least put the fire out first. These guys were assigning blame before the fire trucks even arrived on the scene.
__________________
At the feast of ego, everyone leaves hungry.
  #193  
Old 07-04-2019, 11:58 AM
DigitalC is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Obamatopia
Posts: 11,181
Did they tell us what happened to the soldiers that cleaned up the roof in 90 second runs?
  #194  
Old 07-04-2019, 02:49 PM
DPRK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by lisiate View Post
The real helicopter incident happened several months into the clean-up, with no 'radiation death-ray' involved. But, yeah I agree with you, it's a minor quibble when set against the overall brilliance of the show. Which is an absolute masterpiece, and everyone should watch it in my opinion.
The fatal helicopter cable accident has been pretty extensively covered in the thread. The 'radiation death-ray' may be based on the following interview with the pilot of the first helicopter on the scene:
Quote:
Sergei Volodin arrives to meet me for coffee in the lobby of Kiev's Hotel Rus wearing the full dress uniform of a colonel in the Ukrainian Air Force. This is the first time he's ever worn it; he had to make the holes in the tunic for his medals especially for today. Gentle and avuncular, he brings newspaper cuttings, and pictures of himself and his two-man crew taken years ago by Soviet Union magazine. 'There were rumours that we were all dead,' he explains, 'so they took pictures to show we were still alive.' He speaks quickly, eager to impart as much of his story as he can; but when he stops and reaches for his tea, his hands tremble.

Volodin began flying helicopters from the Soviet Air Force base in Kiev in 1976. It was a quiet posting: he spent the years flying bureaucrats and generals around the country in an Mi-8 helicopter specially equipped with lounge chairs, toilet and a bar. Once in a while, he'd pass the Chernobyl plant and, just out of curiosity, turn on the dosimeter that measured radiation inside the cockpit; there was never a flicker.

On the night of 25 April 1986, Captain Volodin and his crew had the emergency rescue shift for the Kiev area. Their helicopter was the first on the scene at Chernobyl. As the government assembled an emergency commission to tackle the disaster, Volodin was instructed to fly around Pripyat with an army major on board to take dosimeter readings; they would use these to map the radioactivity around the town. They set off without protective clothing, dressed only in shirtsleeves; it was another clear, cloudless day. But as Volodin flew toward the plume of smoke and steam rising from Reactor No 4, strange-looking, viscous droplets of liquid began beading on the canopy. Below, he could see a village where people were at work in their gardens; when he looked up at the dosimeter, the reading had gone off the scale. He flicked the device through all its settings - 10, 100, 250, up to 500 roentgen per hour: 'Above 500, the equipment - and human beings - aren't supposed to work.' Yet each time the needle ran off the end of the dial. Suddenly the major burst into the cockpit with his own dosimeter, screaming at Volodin, 'You murderer! You've killed us all!'

'We'd taken such a high dose,' the pilot says now, 'he thought we were already dead.' Later, Volodin discovered that the plume he had flown through was emitting 1,500 roentgen an hour. Having established radiation readings for the map, the pilot then flew technicians from the plant around the reactor, to assess the damage; a photographer shot pictures of the destruction through the open window of the helicopter. Afterwards, Volodin was told he and his crew had been so irradiated they could no longer fly. Hospitalised in a Kiev cardiology ward, the doctors told him to drink as much wine and vodka as he liked; they had no idea how to treat him. Volodin stayed until late May, and returned to fly in and out of the disaster site for another five months.

Volodin retired as a pilot in 1991 to take a desk job. 'I have a strange illness,' he says. 'I'm afraid of flying.' Now 58, he has heart problems; his flight engineer is an invalid. In recognition of his work at Chernobyl, he receives a special liquidators' pension of 26 Ukrainian Hryvna a year. He points sadly at the drinks in front of him: 'The tea costs 35.'
  #195  
Old 09-14-2019, 07:08 PM
bonzer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: NW5
Posts: 3,200
Bumping this a bit, because I finally got to see it. I don't subscribe to either Netflix or Sky, so I had to wait for the DVD release - and it was always something I'd have bought on DVD.

Basically great TV - not on the scale of say Tinker Tailor/Smiley's People, but still wonderfully impressive. The production values seemed astonishing and all the performances worked. Fine double act between Harris and Skarsgard in particular. And Jessie Buckley seems to have carved out the suffering "Russian" niche.

The Wikipedia page seems to capture most of the obvious factual inaccuracies, A really minor one that it doesn't is that the eyewitnesses tend to have described the smoke plume as white rather than as black.

On the issue of the core melting through into the basement, the scene with Emily Watson addressing Gorbachev has her clearly describing the risk as a "thermal" explosion. So not a nuclear one and hence I found that part accurate. But she then indeed goes on to suggest a 30 megatons explosion. Nope - put me in the dubious camp on that. Possibly nasty, certainly.

Where I felt it went off the rails was with the final episode, pretty much in general, though I was OK with most of the stuff in the control room. Otherwise, all just too fictionalised. And they shouldn't have skipped over Legasov in Vienna in the way they did. That made the massive impression at the time.
  #196  
Old 11-08-2019, 01:54 PM
septimus's Avatar
septimus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Land of Smiles
Posts: 20,003
I just watched this, and agree it was tremendous: very powerful and emotional, but also educational. (Though not exactly "entertainment.") During the text at the very end, Gorbachev is quoted as saying that Chernobyl might have been the reason for the end of the Soviet Union. (Financial cost? Emotional cost? Showing their sense of greatness to be sham? All three?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by bonzer View Post
... Basically great TV - not on the scale of say Tinker Tailor/Smiley's People, but still wonderfully impressive.

... But she then indeed goes on to suggest a 30 megatons explosion. Nope - put me in the dubious camp on that.
I also rank Smiley's People #1, but Chernobyl belongs somewhere on a Very Best Mini-series List.

I wonder if the "30 megaton" claim was a misspoken version of "The fallout from the possible explosion would match the fallout from a 30-megaton bomb."
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017