but the facts vs. the show are interesting nonetheless. The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People - ( New Window )
The guy that wrote that article is very pro nuclear everywhere. He doesn't want to take into account the many many people who got thyroid cancer due to this incident, and other cancers that will surely kill them in the long run.
Oh yeah, and the area is still radioactive as hell and still has like another 80 years to go before it's not.
I suspect some engineers truly believed the core did not explode....as everyone thought that was impossible.
I suspect the minors bit it....with longterm issues.....the higher estimates were 96,000 were effective, which still seems low with how much radiation was released.
but the facts vs. the show are interesting nonetheless. The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People - ( New Window )
That article is very misleading. Sure nuclear power is much safer today but they shouldn’t minimize the effects of Chernobyl. One study estimated that up 200,000 people will die from the effects of the disaster.
The only good to come out of this disaster is that it played a big role in bankrupting the Soviet Union.
Which aren’t duplicated anywhere else 1. Reactor design - it was a horrible design which would never be approved anywhere else 2. Secrecy - the operators were not told of accidents with other reactors of this type or potential flaws. 3. Lack of containment building - with a containment building it wouldn’t have been as bad 4. Operators overriding safety systems to perform the test. This happened to a degree at 3 mile where the operator misread a gauge and override a safety system and was a main factor but the better design and containment limited it to release of gas only - which is much less damaging than what happened at Chernobyl.
The newest gen iv reactors have passive and inherent safety systems that stop the reaction without human intervention in case of problems. With inherent saftety system the laws of physics are used to prvent damage.
but those three engineers who went in to drain the tanks, aren't actually dead.
Did I miss something? Weren't they adamant these men would die?!
Quote:
The bubbler pool could be drained by opening its sluice gates. However, the valves controlling it were underwater, located in a flooded corridor in the basement. So volunteers in wetsuits and respirators (for protection against radioactive aerosols) and equipped with dosimeters, entered the knee-deep radioactive water and managed to open the valves. These were the engineers Alexei Ananenko and Valeri Bezpalov (who knew where the valves were), accompanied by the shift supervisor Boris Baranov. Upon succeeding and emerging from the water, according to many English language news articles, books and the prominent BBC docudrama Surviving Disaster – Chernobyl Nuclear, the three knew it was a suicide-mission and began suffering from radiation sickness and died soon after. Some sources also incorrectly claimed that they died there in the plant. However, research by Andrew Leatherbarrow, author of the 2016 book Chernobyl 01:23:40, determined that the frequently recounted story is a gross exaggeration. Alexei Ananenko continues to work in the nuclear energy industry, and rebuffs the growth of the Chernobyl media sensationalism surrounding him. While Valeri Bezpalov was found to still be alive by Leatherbarrow, the 65-year-old Baranov had lived until 2005 and had died of heart failure.
they inferred that Dyatlov was mainly responsible, so its quite possible the engineers were just doing what they were told/trained to do and Dyatlov's diversion from normal procedures was the culprit.
but the facts vs. the show are interesting nonetheless. The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People - ( New Window )
That article is very misleading. Sure nuclear power is much safer today but they shouldn’t minimize the effects of Chernobyl. One study estimated that up 200,000 people will die from the effects of the disaster.
The general problem with reflexive nuclear power proponents is that, short of a confession letter reading "I killed this man. Signed, nuclear power," they can almost always say that there's no conclusive evidence that the person died as a result of the accident.
I'm guessing they fictionalized much of the individual stories Â
But I find it hard to believe that in 1986 the wife would have been so ignorant of the dangers of radiation that even while being pregnant she would ignore the warnings about touching and spending so much time with her husband.
Great series though, I'm really enjoying it. Does anyone know if the Legasov and Ulana Khomyuk characters are based on real people, or just some sort of composites of many?
RE: I'm guessing they fictionalized much of the individual stories Â
But I find it hard to believe that in 1986 the wife would have been so ignorant of the dangers of radiation that even while being pregnant she would ignore the warnings about touching and spending so much time with her husband.
Great series though, I'm really enjoying it. Does anyone know if the Legasov and Ulana Khomyuk characters are based on real people, or just some sort of composites of many?
Khomyuk is a fictional character that was inspired by several real nuclear physicists.
RE: RE: I'm guessing they fictionalized much of the individual stories Â
But I find it hard to believe that in 1986 the wife would have been so ignorant of the dangers of radiation that even while being pregnant she would ignore the warnings about touching and spending so much time with her husband.
Great series though, I'm really enjoying it. Does anyone know if the Legasov and Ulana Khomyuk characters are based on real people, or just some sort of composites of many?
Khomyuk is a fictional character that was inspired by several real nuclear physicists.
Thanks, that's what I was guessing it probably was. What about Legasov? He was the also the one telling and smuggling out the story in the beginning, I wonder if any of that is accurate?
RE: I'm guessing they fictionalized much of the individual stories Â
But I find it hard to believe that in 1986 the wife would have been so ignorant of the dangers of radiation that even while being pregnant she would ignore the warnings about touching and spending so much time with her husband.
That part of the story is apparently true, and tragic.
She was a 23 year old wife of a firefighter in a town basically constructed to support the nearby nuclear power plant, so I don't have a problem believing she wasn't aware that her dying husband's condition could so quickly affect her or her baby.
The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People - ( New Window )
The guy that wrote that article is very pro nuclear everywhere. He doesn't want to take into account the many many people who got thyroid cancer due to this incident, and other cancers that will surely kill them in the long run.
Oh yeah, and the area is still radioactive as hell and still has like another 80 years to go before it's not.
I suspect the minors bit it....with longterm issues.....the higher estimates were 96,000 were effective, which still seems low with how much radiation was released.
That article is very misleading. Sure nuclear power is much safer today but they shouldn’t minimize the effects of Chernobyl. One study estimated that up 200,000 people will die from the effects of the disaster.
The only good to come out of this disaster is that it played a big role in bankrupting the Soviet Union.
The newest gen iv reactors have passive and inherent safety systems that stop the reaction without human intervention in case of problems. With inherent saftety system the laws of physics are used to prvent damage.
Here is a good video explaining meltdowns and a bit of Chernobyl design flaw
Chernobyl meltdown and now reactors work - ( New Window )
Did I miss something? Weren't they adamant these men would die?!
Link - ( New Window )
Quote:
but the facts vs. the show are interesting nonetheless. The Reason They Fictionalize Nuclear Disasters Like Chernobyl Is Because They Kill So Few People - ( New Window )
That article is very misleading. Sure nuclear power is much safer today but they shouldn’t minimize the effects of Chernobyl. One study estimated that up 200,000 people will die from the effects of the disaster.
The general problem with reflexive nuclear power proponents is that, short of a confession letter reading "I killed this man. Signed, nuclear power," they can almost always say that there's no conclusive evidence that the person died as a result of the accident.
Great series though, I'm really enjoying it. Does anyone know if the Legasov and Ulana Khomyuk characters are based on real people, or just some sort of composites of many?
Great series though, I'm really enjoying it. Does anyone know if the Legasov and Ulana Khomyuk characters are based on real people, or just some sort of composites of many?
Khomyuk is a fictional character that was inspired by several real nuclear physicists.
Quote:
But I find it hard to believe that in 1986 the wife would have been so ignorant of the dangers of radiation that even while being pregnant she would ignore the warnings about touching and spending so much time with her husband.
Great series though, I'm really enjoying it. Does anyone know if the Legasov and Ulana Khomyuk characters are based on real people, or just some sort of composites of many?
Khomyuk is a fictional character that was inspired by several real nuclear physicists.
Thanks, that's what I was guessing it probably was. What about Legasov? He was the also the one telling and smuggling out the story in the beginning, I wonder if any of that is accurate?
That part of the story is apparently true, and tragic.
She was a 23 year old wife of a firefighter in a town basically constructed to support the nearby nuclear power plant, so I don't have a problem believing she wasn't aware that her dying husband's condition could so quickly affect her or her baby.