Also, don’t you need to bombard the critical mass with neutrons to start the chain reaction? I think I remember reading something like that in Forsyth’s “The Fourth Protocol”.
You don’t even necessarily need another “nuclear explosion” to ruin everybody’s day. Just imagine anything at all causing the reactor building to collapse (more), disturbing the contents and releasing that much more radioactive crap into the environment.
Not applicable.
200 tons (where is that number from?) would not be enriched.
Neither is it one or two uranium ingots. It is either in what remains of a fuel assembly, or it is mixed in with the solidified remains of whatever melted (corium).
A fission bomb event was not going to happen. Period.
We were discussing this a bit earlier.
Obviously, a nuclear reactor core is not built anything like a fission bomb with its multi-kiloton explosive energy output. On the other hand, it is possible for nuclear reactors to go critical; that’s basically how they normally operate.
Well that was part of the problem with that design of reactor, right? They were merely attempting to control a fission reaction by pumping water into it for energy instead of using other means to initiate/control the fission reaction.
A masterpiece, a triumph. Best TV I’ve seen in years.
Having seen the whole thing, indeed it was truly excellent. I will admit to being disappointed though listening to the podcast when I found out the trial was not as depicted. Neither Shcherbina nor Legasov testified or were even present for that matter. That whole bit about revealing the truth was heavily fictional.
Interesting. I was wondering if that was when the rest of the world found out how fucked up the whole thing was. So when did the truth come out? I assume it was not before the dissolution of the USSR.
I did appreciate being taken through the accident minute by minute. That was very powerful.
It was a wonderful series, beautifully done. And I learned a lot watching it.
The reaction is controlled by means of control rods, not by the water pumping through it. There were a number of design flaws at Chernobyl, among which was a large positive void coefficient which increased reactivity when cooling water was displaced or boiled, combined with a control rod design which left columns of water at the bottom of the channel when the rods were pulled out. This water was displaced by a graphite spacer at the bottom of the rod when it went back in, creating a local increase in reactivity which proved fatal under the messed-up operating conditions preceding the accident.
He made tapes, which were shared among scientists. The show’s post-script says they were given more weight by his suicide. Maybe. On the other hand, many scientists knew the truth by then. And the USSR nearly lost a significant chunk of its land under cultivation, and millions of people. They did lose serious face, and tremendous resources in dealing with the aftermath. Even a paranoid regime would go to great lengths to avoid a repeat.
“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.”
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:
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.
Yes, that is literally what I meant :rolleyes: 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.
As an offshoot of the series, it seems that Chernobyl is beginning to become quite the tourist attraction.
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…’
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.