Thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this episode. Goto skl.sh/thecynicalhistorian to get a 2-month free trial. *This video was demonetized, by manual review* - but was randomly remonetized months after the fact 5:45 - there are a lot of comments trying to say that he was dangerous, because the firefighters' bodies were contaminated, but these claims are false. They were not dangerously contaminated as made clear by one of the hematologists who worked on the disaster: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/ 10:30 - It's better to call soviets "workers councils," since they had more functions than a typical union (thx Collin Buckman) ---For those claiming that the fear-mongering was intentional to scare politicians into action, then that needs to be shown in context of the show. Without it, that is fear mongering. Doesn't matter if that's a worst-case scenario or something dumb someone actually said, without showing why that is dumb or worst-case, the show is fear-mongering. Finally it does not matter whether the creators have sad they purposefully went with this in the podcast, they still failed to put that in the text of the show. Fear-mongering is still fear-mongering, intentional or otherwise.
5:45 When Lyudmila goes to hug Vasily when he looks to be recovering, before he turns into a puddle he's "infecting" her because of the skin to skin contact. His sweat is contaminated and as the water in the sweat evaporates it leaves behind some the contamination on his skin which can then be pressed onto his wife. The IAEA even wrote a book about what we learned about the dangers of treating people with high exposure, see section 4.3 dealing with high levels of skin contamination. gnssn.iaea.org/Superseded%20Safety%20Standards/Safety_Series_088_1988.pdf We aren't trying to say anything, we're just correcting something you got wrong. If you can't take receiving a minor correction without being catty you shouldn't take pop culture so seriously. "People who are internally contaminated can expose people near them to radiation from the radioactive material inside their bodies. The body fluids (blood, sweat, urine) of an internally contaminated person can contain radioactive materials. Coming in contact with these body fluids can result in contamination and/or exposure." "Homes can also become contaminated with radioactive materials in body fluids from internally contaminated people. Making sure that others do not come in contact with body fluids from a contaminated person will help prevent contamination of other people in the household." www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/contamination.htm
@@fremenchips the first example you give applies to contaminated skin, which is not the case here. Even the show agrees with that, clearly showing where the contaminated surfaces were placed and remain today (their clothing). The sweat and possible blood contamination would be fairly easily alleviated for the wife, given it could wash off. It would behoove you to check my sources, for you are not merely arguing with me, but this article: www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong argue your point. It is not established yet, so it is not "correcting" until you have made done so. What you need to establish is how the show displays that the specifics of the pregnant woman's danger correctly. That is the argument at hand, and you have not established a sufficient argument against Shellenberger . Do that before saying, "If you can't take receiving a minor correction without being catty you shouldn't take pop culture so seriously." Given you are citing sources, I expect you are capable of defending your position, but that statement indicates otherwise
@@fremenchips and found this by merely searching "Chernobyl contagious radiation." It was the 2nd result: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/ Not only is he one of the people working on the actual disaster, but he also helped with the UN investigations. He makes it very clear that the scene depicted is so inaccurate that it is cause for concern - he's a far better source
I love you videos and agree with you on the nuclear explosion BS. But the dangers or radiation cannot be understated many of the Chernobyl victims weren't even born yet. The silent victims were the countless numbers of children born with severe abnormalities and disabilities. Often these children were abandoned and left in orphanages because families had little ability to care for them. Nobody talks about these victims because they were born years and decades after the accident, countless more babies were still born who don't even class as being person to be counted as a victim. I know that I have no numbers on this stuff I've only seen a short documentary on them but the disabilities were so severe it has really left a mark on me. Thanks for your work and I really like your channel but I will disagree with you on the dangers of radiation but not the BS myth that TV shows often portray.
@@CynicalHistorian I agree this is great source but he's arguing backwards from 2019 not from the perspective of 1986. He says that the contamination of the firefighters from almost entirely external not internal, he's probably right. But you don't need to bury people with only external radiation contamination in zinc coffins. The REMM handbook says that bodies with external contamination below 100 millirem/hour can be decontaminated and released and those with over 100 millirem/hour should be stored until the rate of decay of fission products is under 100 millirem/hour. While those with internal contamination should be buried in metal coffins with metal or concrete vaults. The Soviets did this with Vasily so clearly they believed at the time he had serious internal contamination. The REMM handbook also states "If the deceased is known or suspected to be contaminated, personnel engaged in handling of the body should be issued personal protective equipment (PPE) and a personal dosimeter. " So an unprotected person interacting with someone believed to have serious contamination is a big breach of safety guidelines. Which gets to my point, it's that the hospital scene is entirely plausible, to say the way the hospital staff reacted is fear mongering is using information we have in 2019 that the Soviets did not have in 1986. www.remm.nlm.gov/deceased.htm
I disagree on the fearmongering about nuclear power. My take on it after episode 5 is that it would have gone right, if not by human error and an error by the state. That they pushed the reactor to the brink and then put in a flawed emergency stop that made the whole thing go bad as it did. Lagasov even says it in the trial that the West took certain safety precautions that the Sovjets lacked, because it was cheaper. To me the message was more that of Uncle Ben: With great power, comes great responsibility.
The reactor design itself really wasn't up to what engineers at the time knew to be best practices. For example, using graphite instead of heavy water to get the fast neutrons down to thermal energies is what allowed for the evaporation of cooling water to be an additional factor in accelerating the reaction (they traded off safety in several other points, too, like the design of the control rods). Heavy water was just more expensive. Runaway chain reactions can only happen in some reactor designs and at the time the Soviets decided that a reactor that was mostly safe and significantly cheaper was the way to go. For a nuclear catastrophe of the magnitude of Chernobyl to happen you always need human error and unsafe design. To be perfectly honest I haven't watched the show, so I can't talk about how they portrayed the situation, but if what you got from it was that operation/administrative errors where the big issues, then the series at least omits some things. That would actually fit Chyper's narrative of fearmongering pretty well, as modern nuclear reactors generally are designed such that with rising core temperatures the reaction slows down, in some cases enough that regardless of what you do to the controls the reactor can't overheat to dangerous levels. The lesson of Chernobyl should be about clear communication and not saving money on safety features rather than nuclear power in the abstract.
@@JK03011997 Human error is NEVER a good reason to give for a catastrophic failure, if it could be caused by operator error then the systems in place were fatally flawed and badly designed from the outset.
Gad Yariv history buff was awful, he said bullshit things such as how "the red army rushed men without rifles in german machine guns" and stuff like that.
@@Loup-mx7yt Oh no! He made a one mistake! Lets ignore that everyone including CH also make mistakes. Lets also forget how it was one small point of several to show how Stalin was a bad guy. Oh the humanity!
@@Loup-mx7yt From what I understand people mistaken an event from WWI where Russian soldiers were told to go into combat unarmed and to pick up rifles from the dead and placed it during WWII.
I work in the nuclear power industry as an engineer. When I first watched Chernobyl, and later discussed it with my coworkers, I never felt that the show was fear-mongering and my coworkers felt the same. There are some scientific inaccuracies (a few serious ones) and I can't speak to any political, social, or historical inaccuracies within but the show's accompanying podcast was very up front about the limits of reliable data and the need to take liberties for the sake of a coherent story. I can forgive minor scientific inaccuracies on the basis that nuclear physics and nuclear health physics are very complicated subjects. The truth is that although nuclear power today is much, much safer than the average person gives it credit for, that safety was hard won with incidents and accidents - Chernobyl just happens to be the worst and most visible. Nuclear power reactors are complex and operating them involves inherent and unique dangers that demand respect and understanding. I felt that HBO's Chernobyl was an appropriate treatment of the subject, given that it relates a historical event (the worst of the type that has ever occurred) in a medium meant for mass consumption.
The episode with the fireman's wife isn't fearmongering. It's based on oral history testimony by Lyudmila Ignatenko in the book Chernobyl Prayer. The 'This isn't the man you love...' is almost a word for word quotation. I don't know the science behind it but I would still check that account out since it follows her story very closely
@@Theakker3B And therein lies the conundrum. There is always a way to deny someone's account, even if/when it's true by suggesting the person/s telling it aren't qualified/knowledgeable enough to qualify it as actual truth.
I love this channel but like, this stupid, radiation is contagious, irradiated bodies can irradiate people around them alot of the firefighters were dangerous and that's why they were buried in lead coffins under concrete, it 100% was a real thing and the wife lost her baby because of the radiation she was exposed to, maybe not from just her husband but just all of the people at the hospital and her exposure in the city. Before she got to Moscow. A lot of this is show is fear mongering but people like this going too far and denying facts and not just the fear mongering myths is why people don't trust us.
@@derekhenschel3191how? By what process? Radiation isn’t a virus. People buried in lead coffins points to the Soviet belief that they’re “contagious”, but does it hold up to actual scientific theory and research?
The "soviets" were not just "unions" like we think of, organizations through which the workers engage in collective bargaining with the employers. They were workers' councils, through which the workers were supposed to exercise collective control themselves, making the employing class redundant. It obviously didn't turn out that way, but that was the conception.
Yeah, and the name literary means "councils". Those workers' councils started popping up spontaneously already during the 1905 Revolution, coming back in force during the February Revolution of 1917. Once the Bolsheviks used them for their purposes and took total control over them they were hardly the same thing, so one can argue that the very name of the Soviet Union officially established in 1922 was kinda a lie from the beginning. The real decisions and policies were being made in the hierarchical, centralized structures of the Party, going all the way to the Central Committee, not in the councils. It's funny but if the Soviet Constitution was taken seriously, the most important person in the Soviet Union in the years 1938-46 should be Mikhail Kalinin, as the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Council) of the Soviet Union, but we all know who was in charge in this period. The only reason Kalinin is remembered is that Königsberg was renamed after him.
The concept of a council democracy lies at the heart of early communism. Inthe German regime change 1918/19 there were attempts to install a "Räterepublik", a republic of councils.
I was also worried about the fear this would stoke in people regarding nuclear power, and it does exaggerate (which the podcast admitted to at points to ramp the dramatic tension and ignoring things like probability of real risk which people are notoriously bad at judging anyway) but in some of the personal stories, it was based more on the first person accounts. The pregnant woman's story is based on the real person's account in Voices of Chernobyl. According to her account it was pretty clear that the doctors were not entirely sure how to treat the situation, and whether scientifically possible or not (Radiation is not contagious in the bacterial sense but if the fireman had had any radioactive material on his skin from being at ground zero, it is possible that she would be contaminated from that) she does say the doctors told her she could be poisoned by exposure to her husband and that the radiation killed her baby. From Voices of Chernobyl, the head radiologist to Lyudmilla Ignatenko, the pregnant woman as relayed by Lyudmilla: "And listen: if you start crying, I’ll kick you out right away. No hugging or kissing. Don’t even get near him. You have half an hour.” And then later Lyudmilla herself: "I killed her. I. She. Saved. My little girl saved me, she took the whole radioactive shock into herself, she was like the lightning rod for it."
Yeah, this show invokes fear about nuclear power and rightly so. As events like Chernobyl and Fukushima show us, nuclear power plants can get very very dangerous when something goes wrong, especially when they are technically outdated. That's why we need newer and cleaner Technology to produce energy and have to shut down all nuclear power plants.
Yeah I was bothered by Cynical stating radiation is not contagious without any qualifiers. Patients who receive radiation therapy for cancer are not supposed to be in a close proximity to pregnant women for 2 months and they are exposed to far less radiation than the firefighters were. The firefighters' clothes piled in the basement of hospital are still dangerously radioactive to this day, so it's easy to imagine how dangerously radioactive the firefighters themselves were at the time the wife visited.
@@redcrabdue1787 See this is exactly the takeaway you shouldn't get from something like this. This is incredibly ignorant to the problems associated with any other sort of power generation, what all we need reactors for in nuclear chemistry and the industries that rely on reactors, and how actually dangerous nuclear is compared to literally anything else. Like yeah it can be scary and dangerous but so is everything else ESPECIALLAY fossil fuel burning which kills way more people. We'd need multiple Chernobyls a year to keep up with fossil fuel burning. Like nuclear accidents can get really dramatic but are also relatively concentrated and are fairly preventable. Your whole take away just shows off how much fear mongering there is and how much misinformation there is and how context is ignored. Nuclear beign potentially dangerous isn't actually a good reason to shut down all nuclear everything because all power generation has its risks or complications, even clean renewables like hydro and win.
@@redcrabdue1787 uhm... what? fukushima was a success story, it was literally a perfect storm and yet there was only one fatality, and chernobyl was faulty designed, nuclear is literally the cleanest and greenest energy source
6:01 “Radiation is not contagious.” That statement is very misleading. Something highly contaminated does contaminate. And NO. They didn’t isolate the Chernobyl firefighters due simply to their weakened immune systems. Their bodies were rather radioactive due to their severe exposure. I love your channel, but you needed to do better research on the effects of ionizing radiation to prevent such misleading statements.
Yeah that point is a real hickup here. I guess on some level it's a little unfair to expect from a historian to be familiar with the thermal physics of reactor design (like why is it fair to call the Chernobyl Reactor unsafe) and the complex fallout of Chernobyl and it's health consequences (which are as far as I know poorly understood). But I agree, Chipher seems to have fallen into a trap of dangerous half-knowledge with that bit.
That statement is taken directly from a hematologist who worked on the disaster. I'm putting it in my own words, but you are essentially arguing with the entire World Health Organization. If that is misleading, I don't know what is correctly leading. Here's the source: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/ argue with sources, for you are indeed the one misleading anyone who happens to come across your comment
"Their bodies were rather radioactive due to their severe exposure." This is absolute nonsense. You started off so good. I can hit an atom of U-235 with a neutron and make it break apart into radioactive isotopes. I can't hit an atom of water, for instance, and do the same thing. Just because you're bombarded with radiation doesn't make you magically radioactive. It's because they were CONTAMINATED. They had radioactive particulate on their skin which continued to irradiate them and others around them. The only solution in that case is to vigorously clean the skin and rid them of contamination, and that was never made clear in the miniseries.
@@rars0n Oh I saw an additional issue with Cipher's take in that he omitted what amounts to basically half the story of how Chernobyl happened. For a good take on that one kinda needs to talk about things like fast vs thermal neutrons, water vs steam etc. A take like that would then immediately lead to questions like "why did they use natural uranium and graphite?" the answers of which are highly entangled and great examples of soviet politics which would have been very important to the narrative. Kinda fault by omission (both Cypher and me for not clarifying that)
I have seen this entire mini series and a just don’t get the fear mongering argument. The show treats nuclear power as something that is only unsafe when multiple steps are taken to cut corners. You can’t talk about Chernobyl without having some level of risks from nuclear power. The talk of the whole continent being destroyed wasn’t the actual destruction of land, just the possible inability to harness the land if no action was taken. Yes there were minor exaggerations, but the worst case scenarios are what was being considered possible. The possible melting of the floor in to the water tanks beneath could have been a big problem but the material cooled on its own. For the husband dying of cancer and his wife, the story was a direct result of first person accounts. Yes the no touching protocols were way more heavily enforced than depicted, but doctors also told the wife that the baby absorbed the the radiation that killed her(even if it was actually untrue). As for the bridge of death there are minor reports of people being there and none have been located, yes it was an exaggeration as presented but if it was believed to be true contemporaneously I think you’re justified to include it. In general I wanted to hate the mini-series before watching it, I came around because of what I saw as the lack of demonization of nuclear power, and the focus on people doing what they could to help, endure, and overcome the system / environment they live.
FreeJaffa92 the characters in the show never blame atomic energy actually. They’re pretty specific about placing the blame strictly on soviet technological failings, the meddling of authoritarian governments, cost saving measures and human error. In fact, Legasov specifically points to the fact that western nuclear plants are fitted with safeties and redundancies that would prevent Chernobyl-like disasters.
"In general I wanted to hate the mini-series before watching it, I came around because of what I saw as the lack of demonization of nuclear power, and the focus on people doing what they could to help, endure, and overcome the system / environment they live." Your last paragraph really sums up why I felt this mini-series worked. As you've pointed out, the show places much of the blame of Soviet technology failings, how arrogance and cost-cutting, combined with human error, resulted in a disaster. It really is a fascinating picture as characters like Legasov and others struggle within an authoritarian system to get stuff done. At times, it's clear they want to be blunt and flat-out go, "That's not going to work. You'll make matters worse!" but if they step on too many toes of too many powerful people, then they will be fired and a less-skilled toady more willing to parrot propaganda and play along, would be put in their place. Then they wouldn't be able to save anyone, more people would die, and what good would their knowledge and skill do anyone. So the characters have to walk a thin line, figuring how much of the truth to tell and how to tell it in a way that gets things done, but doesn't alienate important party figures too much.
@@kokofan50 but they didn't say the reactor would explode. They were talking about water flash-boiling in a big metal resivoir underneath the reactors when the molten slag burns a hole in it.
Fun fact, the guy evil businessman who asks the workers to go to Chernobyl was in the real world Mikhail Shadov, He was actually 59 years old at that time, he used to be a coal miner like them (from the age of 15) and was well respected among other miners.
I wonder why the show portrayed him as being disliked. Hmmm... Is it perhaps because, the show is trying to make evidence out of a point instead of a point out of evidence?
I completely disagree. The main thing I took away from the show was not fearmongering about nuclear power plants. The show made quite clear that the plant itself would've been fine if only the operators had stuck to the safety regulations. The reactor design could be improved sure, but the reason it blew up was not bad design but human error. But maybe I've just watched too many Aircrash Investigations to know that it's always a "chain" of catastrophic decisions/faults coming together....
MrNicoJac I agree, although I did just find it strange that the show ultimately came to the conclusion it was the fault of the government, when it went to great lengths to show the sheer incompetence and lack of care demonstrated by the plant management.
exactly, thank you. I think the purpose of the show was to give people a general idea of what happened, and highlight people that did and gave a lot and we never knew about them (miners, Legasov, scientists, firefighters, etc).
@@arisukak True, but when i watched that part I always thought that maybe they exaggerated things on purpose, i mean, they were trying to convince Gorvachev (who didn't knew anything about radiation/reactors) that it was serious and urgent while all the other officials were telling him that it was nothing. But yeah I see your point, I just gave the show a pass just cause i understood that it was being dramatic.
Let's make a "based on real history" drama where a scientist analyzes how a piece of banana can burn down a house. We're just exaggerating here. This isn't a documentary.
A large swath of Hollywood's audience is convinced that ridiculous films like Kingdom of Heaven or Braveheart are mostly accurate, and yet you expect them to make _that_ distinction without anyone pointing the misrepresentations out ?
The thing is, most people won't bother to seek out the truth from the fiction, and are likely to take the claims made in such historical drama as accurate.
most nuclear plants have large containment buildings that under federal regulation can withstand a 747 plowing into them . when 3 mile island melted down, but the radiation you would get if you were standing right out side would of been as much as an x-ray. Chernobyl did not have any fortified containment structure, if they did, it would of been more like 3 mile island. Its like driving a car with out breaks and calling it dangerous after you crash.
@@CynicalHistorian "The Chernobyl plant did not have the fortified containment structure common to most nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world. Without this protection, radioactive material escaped into the environment." www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences
I think the book, Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster (2019) by Adam Higginbotham is a good source of information. According to Higginbotham, the firefighter's child was born with multiple birth defects and died soon after birth due to his wife's exposure to him while she was pregnant. It's not that radiation is contagious, it's that he had ingested radioactive particles that were actively decaying. It's that decay that caused him to disintegrate from the inside out. Those radioactive particles would be dangerous to her unborn child whether they were laying on the ground, floating in the air, or (in this case) imbedded in her husband. I disagree about the fear mongering. I came away from this series thinking that nuclear power can be very dangerous if corners are cut and inconvenient laws of physics are ignored. However, it didn't convince me that nuclear power can't be safe. I think people who are convinced that nuclear power is an existential threat would continue to feel that even if the series did the things you suggested.
You gotta love the Russian response to the show. We hate it, you didn't mention how the CIA did it, we are going to make our own more accurate version. Never change Russia.
@@229masterchief I know. For a country that claims to not be the Soviet Union, mocking Soviet leaders seems to be a bit of a no no. Unless your Boris Yeltsin. Mock him all you please.
@@229masterchief Gorbachev had to send some of his most entrusted men to the area to find the people with answers and fast. They were forced to get people at times to talk truthfully at gunpoint, such was the system and the gravity of the situation.
@@ShinigamiInuyasha777 I like Madonna , but few of her ideas. Her early productions were nice. And musicals are risky business, and rarely is worth seeing imho.
"Radiation is not contagious" According to one of the interviews of the staff members whom absorbed a dose of radiation that would kill 2:3 people, he (Sasha Yuvchenko) commented that people feared him afterward, afraid that he would contaminate them with radiation even years after the event.
I was living near Mannheim,Germany when this happened. We all studied the wind patterns. I remember driving to Nuremberg and realizing the pastures were empty of dairy cows. There are still parts of Wales that can't raise sheep anymore. (New Zealand lamb took over the British market at that time.) I've recently had a form of cancer that my German doctor warned me the as a potential long-term side effect (Caught early, thankfully.). I will always be glad the Swedes noticed the problem early enough to warn the rest of Europe.
the show wasn't saying people with radiation are contagious, it was an actual belief at the time. kids who were from pripyat wouldn't be allowed into school, care houses, etc. because they genuinely believed that they were "dirty".
Yes Alex, thats sooo true. Iam born in the mid sixties in west germany. People always forget: There was no Internet nor google. There were maybe half a dozen books on this subject in libraries. for the whole district. State TV was over cautious with info. Only the young Green Movement had information such as "No spinach from the garden", no mushrooms and no running around in the rain". No milk for babies from the south of the country and further..
Same happened in Japan after the bombs. They survivors were stigmatized, branded as sick and contagious. They even have a word for it. Pretty fucked up.
Too often the problem with nuclear power plants is the lack of a realistic plan to deal with a worst case scenario - like building the Titanic with too few lifeboats and the self-deception of believing it wouldn’t matter because the ship couldn’t sink. On Long Island, the power company wanted to build a nuclear plant in Brookhaven, but it all fell apart because if the worst accident happened, there would be no reliable way to evacuate the nearly 8 million people who live on the island quickly (as an island, ferries, bridges, and tunnels are the only ways off). With no plan to deal with an accident, support for the project cratered and it was abandoned. The problem therefore is not in fear of what the worst possible scenario would be, but in having the capacity to handle said scenario, regardless of how unlikely it would be.
You understand that this show isn't fear mongering at all right? It demonizes the stupidity and corruption of the Soviet Union, and the extreme lack of safety precautions taken in the building of the plant and it's running. You are completely ignoring that. This show never once says that nuclear power is bad... But that poor safety is bad. Also the scene with the pregnant woman was pulled from a book about her, and while it wasn't true it showed the fear and the horror that woman went through. She lost both her husband and her daughter. You are seriously nitpicking
"Radiation is not contagious" Both true and false. Radiation sickness does not transfer from person to person, meaning it is not a contagion, however, inhaled/injested/infused via skin radioactive material is common in those with radiation poisoning, and this material continues to emit radiation, destroying the carrier continuously from the inside but skin does not block radiation, so a person with significant radioactive material poisoning can indeed cause radiation damage to people nearby (although likely minor damage only, you'd have to directly eat a half ounce of U-235 to hit unsafe levels)
Depending on the type of radiation, there is actually a chance of someone who is "radioactive" causing another person to be exposed and cause potential harm. This is why patients receiving radiation are kept in isolation until they are no longer emitting radiation.
If a human is so radioactive that he is radiating he will already be dead. They keep them isolated because of their compromised immune system. It is JUST LIKE AIDES
@@estebancastellino3284 No,you will be dead in minutes from massive internal bleeding. This is like suggesting if I walked on the surface of the sun I would be emiinating a looooooooooot of heat, yes but I will also be dead. So in laymens term a human CANNOT BE radiating radiation while being alive, they will be dead already.
Important notes: * 5:34 Vasiliy Ignatenko was buried in a Zinc box. Expectant mothers in Eastern Europe were encouraged to abort. It's possible that the science of the time was flawed. * Similarly the idea that the corium would break thru the superstructure or that a post meltdown steam explosion would impact the region are more or less correctly sourced to the half assed science available at the time.
I remember being so shocked that the three divers survived. The reason I was shock was because of how exposure to reactor (or even close proximity) was depicted. It just seemed inconsistent. Like how are the firefighters clothes still dangerous but these divers were fine? That's just weird.
I'm sorry if I'm in the minority on this one, but this is one of the few videos I have EVER disliked. I feel he's way too harsh on it, and lacks real care into citing and looking into the oral history behind the survivors of the incident, such as "Voices of Chernobyl". However, I am not a history, and I do love this show, but I love it despite its flaws. Each movie and tv series I watched even remotely based on events from history I like to take with a grain of salt, as each of the creators have to balance creating a captivating narrative for their audience and the real history behind the events in question, which is immensely difficult. I am not a historian nor am I a movie-maker, but I deeply appreciate the creators of said projects when it is clear they care deeply about the subject matter, agenda or not. One example is "The Imitation Game", horribly inaccurate when it came to portraying how Turing's sexuality was handled during his time in the service during World War II, however it still maintained the spirit of history behind the dramatization. In both cases, the tremendous sacrifices of those involved, helped to save countless lives in the long run, and you cannot ignore that.
I liked the video but it's true that the opening scene show us that the story that it is going to be told it's based solely on the testimony on the cassete tapes. So, if the movie it's inaccurate historically must only be meassured by how faithfully was to the tapes, not the actual events. So my question is if those tapes actually existed.
Agreed, I usually like these reviews but this one felt rushed - too much reliance on English language sources and research published decades after the disaster (which the characters would not have known about in 1986). It’s kinda like blaming people in medieval Europe for not knowing that the Black Death could have been prevented with antibiotics
@@hosank That's why I don't really get the criticism of the scene at 5:04 That's literally his first reaction after realising that he is, in fact, standing in front of an open reactor core that's on fire, with no idea if it is even possible to contain that, let alone how long that would take. I don't even think anyone had an idea how much radioactive material an exposed, melting down RBMK reactor could potentially release, until after the fact. All Legasov knew was that the core contained tons of it and was throwing it into the atmosphere for an unforeseeable time. The problem with his prespective is actually addressed in this very scene when Shcherbina asks him how to put out the fire and he replies with: "You are dealing with something that has never happened before." This criticism also ingnores the context of the scence where he isn't having an academic discussion about the disaster, but is trying to convince a bunch of apathetic bureaucrats that shit seriously hit the fan and they need to do something about it.
Angus Roth I feel the exact same way he’s holding this show to the standard of a documentary instead of as a drama, which isn’t a fair case to make. As a documentary, well yes obviously it’s bad because so many things are wrong, but this mini series isn’t a documentary, it’s a drama. As a drama this show is absolutely amazing, but it felt like he never even reviewed it like a drama and that really annoyed me
Also all Generation II have the same basic design flaw, high pressure water. Fun fact all reactors in America are generation II due to a large part of public backlash preventing the creation of new safer reactors.
More than antiNP, it is antibureaucrat and antiincopetency(?) managing such delicate machinery as a NR. As an engineer an old professor told us "human error it's not operator error, it's designer error", and that accounts for the failure to communicate (not only putting it in the manual) to the operators how any equipment will react to an input. I think this show is great but flawed, and it's acting as a rorschach test for our fears, being NP, KGB or incompetent government officials. Finally, a person that was exposed to huge amounts of radioactive ash and dust, absorbs it through the lungs (and it sticks to the skin and hair) and continues to give out gamma and neutron radiation, not the awful amounts that they received, but, in time, the effects accumulate. Great channel BTW, I have been binging on it for days!
The show never said that the plant could go off like a nuclear bomb. It said that the corium hitting the water would produce a massive steam explosion, essentially a bigger version of the explosion that had already happened. Admittedly the scale of the second explosion has arguably overblown but it was overblown before the show aired.
I dunno. Nor I nor the people I know who watched the show walked away from it fearing nuclear power. They walked away with an illustration of the undertaking that was necessary to clean it up. The show repeatedly says nuclear reactors are very stable and find it hard to understand how this could even have happened. In the end it wasn't nuclear technology that was the problem. It was lies and how they have consequences. That's the show's message. Even the first line is 'What is the cost of lies?'
@3:50 I don't think they ever said that it would explode "like a nuclear bomb". They said "a thermal explosion", and explosions are measured in tons of TNT - regardless of what caused them - a thermonuclear reaction or steam, hence "megatons".
Correct! An explosion doesn't require fire. An explosion happens when a lot of energy is released in a small area very quickly. Like if the extremely hot fuel did reach a pool of water, it would have caused a very rapid change to a gas that tried to expand. This would have spread even more nuclear material. Granted it may not have been as physically destructive as they made it sound like in the dramatization, but it would have been really really bad. Chernobyl was not a "Oh look it happened there not here. Not my problem" situation. It had continental and global ramifications. They do clear a lot of his points in the podcast and I do think it did a good job of explaining that if we harness nuclear energy, we must use it as safely as possible.
2 and 4 megatons, are you fucking kidding me? ICBMs warheads arent that strong, there is no way you can get explosion so big just from that molten core spilling into pool with water.
If you watch the rest of the scene it's very clear that they're talking about a steam explosion caused by corium melting it's way down into watertanks below. From what I understand she's way overstating the potential force of such an explosion, but it's still something the people involved where concerned enough about that they actually sent three men in there with the full expectation that they might receive a lethal dosis of radiation.
Thermal explosions are rarely measured in more than just tons, with the absolute biggest being very low kilotons. There is no way the plant would have gone within a thousandth of that, and even then a 4 megaton blast would not cause the kind of damage stated. In any case, a steam explosion requires a sealed body to build up pressure and explode, which wasn't really present. The danger was not of explosion, but from the release of radiation by the steam that would result. That was why the pool was a problem.
I don't take the threat to Europe lightly. My dad was stationed in Germany, therefore my mom, me, and my sister were there when Chernobyl blew up. We weren't allowed outside and my mom was especially worried since she was pregnant with my sister. To this day, m sister and I have what are called Chernobyl bumps, little red dots in random spots, on our bodies. My baby sister wasn't even born and she has three if recollection serves.
Radiation is not contagious, but it's absolutely certain that anyone who entered that area while the fire was occurring, such as firefighters, were heavily contaminated with radioactive material. Hence, the concern is not that she's going to "catch" radiation but that she's going to touch him or something that he's touched and it will spread the contamination to her and anything she touches. It's not clear from the show whether they recognize this beyond the clothing that they were wearing and whether they took measures to decontaminate them, but regardless, it's very much a real concern. Contamination is the shit, radiation is the stink, as the saying goes. Fires in radioactive material, especially when happening in open air, are basically the WORST CASE of radiological disasters. Dump the contamination into the sea, contain it in a chamber, anything is better than burning radioactive material and letting the byproduct of the fire be inhaled by people. The primary reason for this is that, while contamination can be removed from the skin, and even particles that have been ingested can be vomited up, particles that have been breathed in almost will never be removed from the body and will continue to do tissue damage until they decay into stable isotopes. Create a fire huge enough and this material will easily migrate towards other countries in large quantities. All of this is to say that I completely agree with 95% of what you've said in this video. They certainly exaggerated some things for dramatic effect, but aside from the few hyperbolic statements (and the death toll parts at the end), I don't think they were too far off the mark in terms of the potential for radioactive material to be spread due to the fire. What really irked me and constantly pulled me out of the show was every time they called a RADIAC a dosimeter (I was watching with subtitles on so that probably was the case due to subtitles most of the time). Dosimeters do not detect radiation levels, they detect full body radiation absorption once the person has exited the radiation area and have their device read. I will say that having operated a nuclear reactor, working in radiation areas, and conducting personnel monitoring, the thought of an utter disaster like Chernobyl, with the core exploding and ejecting all kinds of things into the atmosphere and onto the ground with firefighters responding most likely completely unaware, is an absolutely a spine-chilling thought. With more forethought the disaster could probably have been prevented, but even beyond that, with additional training for people in the surrounding area lives could have probably been saved. Radiation is not something to fuck around with.
Actually.. Didn't the wife loose the baby irl because she was close to him and radiation killed the baby? At least that was taught in Finland. That there was some effect/particles/or what ever you want to call the reasoning left and doctors did warned about it.
Yes, the HBO series is actually accurate, while Cypher's critique of it isn't - Radiation sickness isn't normally contagious but in this case, the fireman was directly exposed to it, becoming radioactive himself, and in that case, it is possible to harm people around them.
@@hosank That's kinda what I figured. Especially because often part of cleaning yourself when radioactive things happen isn't just getting rid of the clothes. You have to almost wash your skin off.. Or I guess it might depend on what type of radiation it's but that's not my area at all.. Mostly I go by what was taught to us in school etc. here and it always confuses me that how things what we hear about Russia/Soviet in school or otherwise are so much different to rest of the world. Big or little things.. And about knowledge. Not about political or propaganda type of stuff.. We don't eat or bite that. Our media also wont and can't bite. I guess they're more honest to the country that it's kinda nice to them and was part of them. Dunno really. Or maybe I just had good history teacher.
3:50 they were discussing an explosion that would occur if the melting core hit ground water. the water would separate into hydrogen and oxygen and a huge explosion would occur. that's why they tunneled underneath to prevent this from happening. 4:30 john wayne was making the movie Tarus Bulba downwind from an atomic test. a very large number of people working on that film died from cancer. maybe they were all heavy smokers? singling out john wayne misses the point. 5:30 unnecessary fear? fukishima won't be cleaned up until 2050 (and only then because new technology "will be invented" to make it possible). japan has millions of tons of radioactive water with no idea what to do with it. canada has already been able to detect radioactivity in water on it's west coast. small traces but the pacific ocean is big. 7:00 what point are you trying to make? the firemen and 'the common man' were heroic. they risked their lives for the good of the country. 9:30 he left notebooks behind, not tapes. not one of your better videos.
Oh, that segways in the beginning, that hurt. Don't stop. But I thought the explosion that the fake science lady was referring too was a massive steam explosion cause by instant vaporization of a massive supply of water, though a million tons of dynamite from water was a bit over done
Yep, the fear was that the corium works its way through the building into a water reservoir causing a massive steam explosion. In this context it doesn't really matter how big the explosion would have really been but what the people at the time were thinking.
@@Doping1234 there was a big concern with the elephants toe burning down into the aquifer but the decent seems to have stopped. But yeah if that steam explosion did happen the world be have changed, not Mad Max or Fallout, but we likely would have that big of a retirement problem
@@dark_fire_ice A steam explosion is not going to be 5 Mt. In fact, the actual explosion in question was estimated at around 10 tons. For comparison, the two most powerful fission bombs ever tested were ~500 kt and ~720 kt, each of which contained far more U-235 than Chernobyl Reactor No 4. The difference in magnitude between the actual steam explosion and the 5 Mt "estimate" on the show is pretty close to this: ua-cam.com/video/c24-9w8LWOI/v-deo.html versus this: ua-cam.com/video/PgLzgdbfeJE/v-deo.html
The frustrating thing was that the creative minds behind it only needed minor adjustments to make this depiction more true to reality without compromising any feeling of fear and terror the series is so good at building up
Anthony M that’s why it’s called a drama and not a documentary. If you want a documentary I suggest you go and watch zero hours 1-2 hour segment on it.
GumgumDookuin Chernobyl’s genre is a drama, the creator of the mini series even said that he wanted to cast a different light on aspects of Chernobyl and wasn’t intending to go for a 100% in terms of accuracy, however he wanted to do the disaster justice by focusing on aspects of Chernobyl that he believed nobody knew or thought of very much. He then used that to his own advantage and inserted references to past and future events throughout the series. There are also plenty of cases where he hypes up the level of danger of certain Events like the divers, and the thermal explosion threat for dramatic effect, while not going too overboard in terms of falsifying historical accounts. This in turn got the audience to go back and look into each of the events for themselves to see if they actually happened which in turn caused many people to love the series because of the things they learned, even if some of the events were slightly changed or moved in terms of chronological order as well as characters being created or changed for the purpose of keeping the audiences focus and interest. One instance of this can be seen with the helicopter crashing after it flew over the reactor core in the miniseries. Now believe it or not this actually did happen, in fact every detail of how the helicopter crashed is perfectly portrayed in the series with the exception of the black smoke coming out of the reactor core. The only issue here is that the helicopter crash didn’t occur until months after the Chernobyl accident occurred but this was most likely inserted here chronologically as a plot device to help the average viewer grasp the desperation danger and hopelessness the people in charge of the clean up were facing at the time which was exactly what they were feeling at the time. Chernobyl is not 100% accurate and there are areas where things were changed or hyped up, but this wasn’t done out of pure ignorance but rather it was done to again be used as plot devices to help the viewer understand and feel the very real feeling of helplessness and even anger that some of the clean up crew was experiencing due to a lack of initiative and a bias for attempting to cover up the incident from the rest of the world rather then use their best efforts to simply fix the problem. Many of the cleanup crew felt powerless with the government taking the stance of political silence for the longest time, at least until foreign countries began to figure out what was going on inside the USSR, but even then the government was still refusing responsibility at times and at times chose to believe in their own twisted fantasy that things weren’t as bad as everyone was saying they were rather then accept the horrifying reality that Chernobyl had evolved into one of if not the worst nuclear disaster in recorded history
@@soarinskies1105 I get what you're saying but the info given from this miniseries is spreading fear mogering. They overrated the possibility of a situation gone wrong. Nuclear Reactors cannot create levels of explosions like that of an atomic bomb. All it can do is spread radiation poisoning and effect the clouds with rad rain, which itself is a much more frightful thought than what's shown. Its true the USSR didn't wish to acknowledge such action existed but it wasn't to cover up the cause and effect of it all. That was later on when it got spread by Europe. They wanted to make sure their citizens were not under a situation where they question their government's word. The same happened when a revolutionary stole a ship from the Soviets and was later shot before they covered up what happened. That's Soviet Russia. They want the whole thing covered in a sheeted blanket, never one small problem. Radiation is not like the flu where it can easily be spread by touch. They left the guy in there because it was to protect his immune system, not the other way around. Hate to say it but the USSR is better at covering up fear mogering than this series. You can say its to create self-awareness but all I see is misinformation, myths, and misconceptions about Nuclear power.
@@gumgumdookuin7963 that part with the explosion that number of megatons was self estimated from the UdSSR sientist at that time and Heatexplosions can create imense force that the area she discribe that would be inhable are to big for sure. But an Nuclear Power reactor that is melted down hold someting around 200-400tons of liquid metal around 1400°C you can self make the calculation how much water it can evaporate.
So, if you want to know how these mistakes happened, its in their methodology of how they did the history for the show, as I understand and recall from reading about it. They based it on the stories of the people who were there. And ordinary people sometimes mis-attribute the causes of things that happened to them. A woman might have thought the reason that they put up plastic was to protect her from her husband's radiation, not understanding it was to protect her husband's weakened immune system from her. Another woman might have attributed her miscarriage to her fetus absorbing radiation to save her, not understanding radiation doesn't work that way. The showmakers simply seemed to take these eyewitness claims at face value, even when what they describe are physically impossible. These kinds of honest mistakes are one way mythology can be formed.
With ludmilla its an technik that is often used in cinema to conclude the work from many people into one it makes it easyer to follow the progress of this investigation.
I love Michael Parenti’s take on how people use Chernobyl to criticize the USSR broadly- “Left out of the picture is how corporate malfeasance and corporate generated disasters are a reflection of the neoliberal system. If a gas pipeline had exploded in Communist Cuba, let us say, killing people and destroying homes, the incident would have been immediately treated by US commentators as evidence of the failure of the broader economic structure, a “dysfunctional” socialist system, proof that socialism cannot get it right. But disasters in our own corporate capitalist society are seen as isolated mishaps. At worst they are treated as instances of negligence or mismanagement of a particular company in a local situation, never as the outcome of a profit-driven system that steadfastly puts profits before people, with immense costs (and disasters) passed on to the public.”
@@ThePolistiren Could you illeterated please refrain from using the term "commie" instead of "Communists" It makes the Anti-Communist Movement look childish
What points in the show make it specifically fear mongering? Like, sure, it shows the consequences of such a disaster. However, the last episode explains on why it shouldn't ever happen again. Provided there aren't any design flaws or operators who fail to follow procedure. Valery Legasov even says in the courtroom that nuclear energy is great provided everything goes right. He didn't advocate for every nuclear power plant to be shut down, he just wanted to make sure the design flaw to be fixed. My personal takeaway was on how lying about and downplaying something this severe will harm others. Which is especially relevant today with climate change.
@@bansho7076 No, only morons. The show goes into great detail on how badly you have to fuck up in order to get a reactor core to explode. Modern day procedures are even more strict.
Actually if a person is externally irradiated their blood, sweat, and other bodily fluids can easily contaminate a person. His body was covered in open wounds, so yes, his wife was in danger because she was holding his hand without gloves.
The only radiation source would've been his mouth and perhaps blood, which is not demonstrated in the show. If you disagree, check out this review from one of the hematologists who worked on the actual disaster: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/
You don't need hindsight to know that a six inch bottle rocket isn't going to level a city block with its explosive charge. That's how insanely unrealistic the 5 megaton claim is.
@@alexanderflack566 wasnt the reactor exploding. It was the fuel melting down into the water supply for most of the ukrane laying beneath it, creating steam, allowing the oressure to build up until it was too much for the ground above it causing an explostion. At the time they though the amount of radiation released and the aera covered would be around the same as if there was a 5 megaton explosion. They used the megaton analagy as its a word people know and can try to visualise.
@@cheasepriest You don't use the word "hurricane" to describe a drizzle with 10 mph wind gusts, even if it covers the same geographical area. Magnitude matters, as does precision. Misusing that term doesn't say "this is a big deal and we should be taking it seriously," it says "this person has no idea what they're talking about and is therefore most likely completely wrong." Besides, since when does the average member of the public have any clue what 5 Mt actually does? Comparing the effects to Little Boy/Fat Man would have been at least marginally less ridiculous ("marginally" in this case being "a few orders of magnitude") and just as relatable to the average person, if not more so.
I’ve always been fascinated with Chernobyl I have read nearly every book and firsthand witness statements yes there were some parts that were over dramatized but you get that in any Time a movie is made about a historical event. I found this miniseries impressively accurate. Also some of the inconsistencies about the dangers of radiation are because at the time people involved in the events mistakingly believe them.
I would have liked that they portrayed the worst move Soviet Union made, the independence parade in Kiev, just 4 days after the explosion where tens of thousands went to celebreate
Glasnot and Perestroika...it's a common phenomenon. While being too oppressive can backfire, often what brings down oppressive regimes is reform. Someone in charge has a crisis of conscience or, in the very least, is possessed by some sense of self-preservation and decides to reform some of the more pernicious aspects of their regimes. Trouble is, once that door is opened, people can and will demand more, and the regime winds up being attacked by people who feel that reforms are not happening fast enough, are not extensive enough. And thus in an attempt to save the regime, the person-in-charge winds up bringing it down.
"Of the people who watched from the railway bridge, it has been reported that none survived." Wanna give a time frame on that, or does that mean just...forever!? Cause yeah, that's how HUMANS work.
ARS isn’t contagious, sure, but those firefighters WERE radioactive. That’s why, even in real life, they were buried in lead caskets- to prevent their radiation seeping into the soil and irradiating the environment. Same reason they removed all the topsoil around the reactor.
their bodies were contaminated, why would you want to have that leak into the soil? but that's doesn't mean this lady's miscarriage was caused by her husband - something even the WHO has denied being a possibility. But let's take some lady's fears over hundreds of scientists. That's fear-mongering for yah
Even if radiation wasn’t the main reason behind her child’s death and there were multiple reasons for the quarantine, being around one if the most radioactive people alive certainly couldn’t have been good for her pregnancy. The series itself also didn’t really strike me as anti-nuclear fear-mongering. Anti-Soviet fear-mongering, absolutely, but the last episode was centered more on why Soviet RBMK reactors were the problem while other countries, countries who didn’t cut as many corners, had safer reactors. As for the Bridge of Death, that wasn’t made up by the show. Whether it’s true or just an urban legend is up for debate, but the show didn’t make it up.
What is infinitely more likely is the trauma of the situation caused the miscarriage, just as the WHO said in 1996 and 2000. As I pointed to before; one lady's misconception of her conception vs. the WHO, I'll always take the organization tasked with health science and staffed by some of the world's most prominent scientists on that subject. The way they portray the RBMK reactor defect is pretty abysmal actually. I'm just not capable of explaining it. Instead, here's Hank Green talking about it: ua-cam.com/video/hIGtTImeYU4/v-deo.html The fact that the bridge thing is a legend is not communicated by the show. They state in a slide you can see in this review as though it is fact that people died from it. No source verifies that, so it should read "the bride _is rumored_ to have been the site of several _alleged_ radiation poisonings" or something of the like. Stating it as fact is fear-mongering.
I suggest you look at the type of reactor, as well as they were discussing a THERMAL EXPLOSION. The type that is connected to supper heated water with no where to go. The explosion that is nuclear is a THERMAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. similar as it involves water but in the atmosphere. essentially the difference is a Nuclear explosion is so hot that H2O is ripped apart into its components and explodes in a fire ball. The explosion they are suggesting is going to happen is when water turns to gas in a chamber under pressure. similar to putting a water bottle half full on a fire with the cap screwed on. These type of explosions are incredibly dangerous, but are not nuclear. the issue is what was on top of "this bomb" was the RBMK-1000 reactor. The best example is if you put a ton of c4 under a nuclear waste. IE a dirty bomb.
I feel compelled to say this. The fuel was already in the water. It had been since April 26th. The concern was that the steam being produced would flood the site and make work impossible due to the high temperature. So they had to drain the water to prevent this.
I think the reason on why would Ulana Khomyuk was added even though it was an imalgimation was because having 2 main characters is wasn't enough and I guess for the team making the film, they have to sort of put some contentment in it
You corrected the show for saying there could be an explosion by saying no reactor could explode like a bomb. But the show didn't say that. They were worried about the core melting down to the water tank causing a steam explosion.
it's fairly ridiculous to conclude a steam explosion of that magnitude could happen. 2 of the sources in the description (business insider and forbes) specifically state that is egregious hyperbole
I have a friend from Kiev who was a teen when this happened. Her father joined the fray as soon as he could. After he returned home, her parents had two more children. Both are very sick and her brother is sterile. I asked her about this miniseries and she has told me that the technicalities are as true as they can get. I agree, there is lots of drama included in this, but you must also be aware that these reactors exist ONLY in the USSR.
It was made safe the moment Ukraine finished the new Containment Dome and put it over the Reactor. At least for the next 100 years. only 249,900 to go until Radiation Levels are to be considered safe.
I think the biggest problem with this critique is that Cynical is comparing knowledge and understanding of radiation that we have today, to the lack of understanding that the people back then (and thus, the characters in this show) would have had. There's been interviews with radiation experts from that time period, who have said that because the government limited people's knowledge, that certain myths were indeed believed. A prime example of this is the series showing us that medical personnel believed that victims of acute radiation syndrome were radioactive. While we now know that this isn't true, back then they really did believe this, and it isn't a fault of the show, or fearmongering for the series to depict actual beliefs held back then.
@T_ C I mean a piece of media like a TV show should be judged on its own merit, especially when it comes to it's messaging. Most people who watched the show probably won't listen to the podcast, so if one tries to evaluate whether they are "fearmongering" the podcast should be kept separate.
I'm quite educated on nuclear power and very pro. I don't see how any of it was fearmongering. At no point did I get the impression that the show was trying to imply that nuclear power is unsafe.
@@mscheese000 Claiming that a meltdown can cause a multi-megaton explosion is INSANE. Hell, even the most powerful fission bombs ever made are nearly an order of magnitude less destructive than that.
@@alexanderflack566 I don't recall the show claiming that it would create a multi Megaton nuclear explosion, but you're wrong on your second point for sure. The Tsar Bomba had 25 megaton yield.
Their "worst case scenario" is physically impossible, both because 2% enriched uranium can't explode in that way even if you actively tried to make a bomb out of it, and because there wasn't enough U-235 there for anywhere near that kind of energy release.
@@alexanderflack566 the explosion they are referring to isn't combusting nuclear material. They're talking about molten nuclear material flash-boiling the underground resivoirs of water beneath the reactor, which could turn it into an explosive force.
@@MRdrPROkeithSR Obviously. But the idea that the resulting explosion could be in the megaton range is laughably wrong. Like, "don't set off that bottle rocket because you'll destroy the entire city" wrong. Somebody seems to have accidentally slipped like five zeroes onto the end of their worst case scenario in the name of drama; it just makes them sound like idiots (and by "them" I mean "whoever wrote the script").
Are you sure the scientists in the days after the disaster did not fear a giant second explosion? what if there had been a meltdown to the water table? We know today that the effort of the miners was unnecessary, but that is hindsight. They must have feared a steam explosion at the time. And I don't know how assessable the danger was then and is today. the miner story was true, apart from the nudity. So did the show really overestimate the potential danger that the scientists feared then?
Actually, I feel like it doesn't fear monger the idea of Nuclear power, if anything it teaches us that nuclear power is an achievement of civilization on par with the creation of fire and it is for that reason that it must be respected and taken very seriously. The soviets' problem was that they felt they could justify cutting corners to dispel any notion that their system of government could achieve just as much as any other. Like they were woefully insecure about themselves and couldn't bare the thought of being seen screwing something up. My favorite moment in that trial was when the judge heard the control rods (which are designed to reduce reactivity) are tipped with graphite which is an accelerate of reactivity and he asks "Why?" and when the scientist explains why this and other measures for safety and efficiency are not implemented, because "It's cheaper", the Judge looks at the party officials with an expression that just screams "Are you serious guys? this isn't using fewer nails to attach roof shingles, this is nuclear fission we're talking about." So Chernobyl is really a harsh lesson in the responsibility that comes with nuclear power and that cutting corners, denying the true power it holds and not respecting it can have disastrous consequences.
That a “2 to 4 Megaton” explosion would be impossible should be known to anyone who took a high-school science class - that it ended up in a historical drama only shows the grade-school ignorance of the writers.
The science channel Veritasium did a video in which he measured the ionizing radiation from the clothing of the firefighters wore at the Chernobyl reactor and then put it into perspective to other sources: ua-cam.com/video/TRL7o2kPqw0/v-deo.html
It's kinda irrelevant to the point what they say in the podcast though. The intent of the author has to be seen separate with what the piece of media communicates to the public if we want to find out whether the piece in question is harmful. Otherwise, how would we conceptualize an author miss-communicating?
@@JK03011997 I agree with your point about what the writer intended doesn't correspond with what is portrayed. However, what points in the show make it specifically fear mongering? Like, sure, it shows the consequences of such a disaster. However, the last episode explains on why it shouldn't ever happen again. Provided there aren't any design flaws or operators who fail to follow procedure. Valery Legasov even says in the courtroom that nuclear energy is great provided everything goes right. He didn't advocate for every nuclear power plant to be shut down, he just wanted to make sure the design flaw to be fixed. My personal takeaway was on how lying about and downplaying something this severe will harm others. Which is especially relevant today with climate change. I guess I'm in the minority when I look at the comment section, though.
Huh? We should call out those who were overly concerned that a freaking nuclear power plant blew up and say it’s hyperbole? I’d rather have “fear mongering” officials in charge vs oh it’s ok it’s not THAT bad.
seandelevan; I disagree. Comparing a nuclear explosion where Uranium (the most easily obtainable volatile nuclear mineral) which was only noticed by the surrounding residents as a "loud bang" where they literally just continued with their day rather than vomit and catch infections excessively like how radiation would affect you To "This will kill the entirety of Europe" seems very excessive. That would be saying that if Hiroshima were to explode, it's aftereffects would reach all of japan and south korea
I never got the impression they were talking about the reactor exploding in that scene, rather that the molten core would hit the water tanks and instantly vaporize the water, creating a huge explosion that would carry radioactive debris across Europe. I dunno how realistic that is (I mean, makes sense instantly vaporizing hundreds of gallons of water would be bad, but not that bad). Whenever people complain about the show talking about the reactor exploding, I wonder if they actually payed attention to that part. Also, while I understand the desire for a show to tackle the more big picture stuff around Chernobyl, its pretty clear the show was more focused on the individual tales of the small heroes, which I really appreciate.
I had to study Chernobyl as a case study in my environmental classes in college, so I know the doomsday forecast in the show was way beyond what really happened. But I have no idea what the Soviet scientists thought might happen. So maybe the show is showing how they reacted, even if the real people were overstating the danger. But I also kept in mind this show was meant to entertain so either way, I was willing to let some things slide.
You don’t think there could have been another explosion if the melted core hit the unground water or caused an ecological disaster by contaminating unground water.
I would like to also mention if anyone wants to hear an account of a person affected by Chernobyl in the Klitschko documentary about their lives. Wladimir and his brother Vitali talk about it in a fair amount of detail from there perspective but their father also talks about how as one of the closest generals with free men they where the first on site for clean up. It's very interesting and I don't know if his father talked more on it before he passed but it's very interesting seeing him talk about that part of their lives
I highly recommend the show Babylon Berlin on Netflix. It's a show based on the interwar years in Berlin Germany. It's historical fiction but it's amazing!
To be fair, the chernobyl mini series did less fear mongering probably than the recent documentary about 3 mile island, which would raise hypotheticals and then not answer them to imply a threat that did not actually exist.
Very true. My opinion on this show has mellowed out somewhat. It really was just the shock of things I believed from the show being proven wrong on closer inspection. That Netflix doc, on the other hand, is truly horrendous. Luckily Kyle Hill did a good debunking on it
That's a shame. What upset her? I got annoyed with Dyatlov in the first episode, but he's literally wrong about everything, you can't take his statements as being indicative of how the writers think nuclear power works.
No scientist worth their salt should've predicted an explosion greater than the amount of energy contained in the fuel. Even if the fuel was weapons-grade, the most powerful purely fission based bomb ever designed was only half a megaton.
At 3:50, you mention how nuclear reactors cannot explode like nuclear bombs. Ok, fair enough. The character wasn't talking about a nuclear explosion though. Or the reactor exploding. She was talking about the water from tanks being vapourized (much like how phreatomagmatic eruptions work).
The yields of those vapor explosions she spoke of had more power than the reactor started with. It takes thermonuclear weapons to achieve megaton level explosions.
@@bansho7076 Quite right ! I made the exact same point in another comment. I reckon the way he said it was implying that the reactor could not explode at all.
I find it quite puzzling that, in a show about the most severe nuclear accident in history, the main point of criticism seems to be that there is too much fear mongering about nuclear energy in it.
That is because the most severe nuclear accident in history had miniscule effects, and the main thing trumping up fears of radiation was not the actual effects of the disaster, but international fearmongering. I wrote an entire paper about this. The number of people who perished due to Chernobyl was probably not as low 4,000 as the UN Chernobyl Forum originally concluded, however it is nowhere near the number quoted by the show or many groups and organizations. The amended number is around 9,000 fatalities (including long-term illnesses such as cancer). It is certainly not the Greenpeace "100,000" as many experts pointed out flaws in their research. Since nearly all accidental radiation-induced fatalities occurred at Chernobyl, this goes to show that nuclear energy is by and large the safest form of energy currently in existence (keep in mind that other forms of renewable energy are often built with materials coming from dangerous sources such as child labor in Central Africa). As Cypher points out, many of the points brought up by the show are flat-out false and serve as nothing more than classic anti-nuclear fear mongering. So yes, the main point being against fear mongering is completely understandable as the show's creators seem to not have a clue of the subject matter. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with the criticism is? I understand that in many countries, we have been brought up to believe that nuclear power is the most dangerous form of energy production out there, but that is nothing more than a myth. I hope that if you misunderstood a few things this comment helped you out a little. If you want more information on nuclear power, good luck, it is one of the few scientific concepts out there that a large portion of the media completely misunderstands. Try to avoid reading newspapers (except for perhaps the Guardian, Forbes, or the NYT which seem to usually get nuclear physics right) and organizations such as Greenpeace. Try reading scientific journals and books or papers written by academics.
Now, you are claiming that the show is spreading potential hyperbole, but do you know if the historical figures actually believed such hyperbole at the time?
Thank you for this analysis. I think it is very important to be aware of what HBO got wrong. The misleading portrayal of the Soviet state is important, because it gives the wrong impression of a state that, far from wanting to shoot everyone to preserve itself, had lost its sense of purpose and would collapse within 5 years. And on top of that, it should be obvious why it's wrong to give a false impression of the dangers of nuclear power. I'm glad to learn about the role of Radio Free Europe -- interesting parallels with the role of RT in America today.
@5:38 People with extreme cases of the acute radiation poisoning can be dangerous to those around them. The scene is probably exaggerated, but I'd chalk it up to the dramatic license. PS. "radiation... contagious" Come on :)
It's exaggerated based off of a primary source (the account of the Firefighter's wife who lost her child). She didn't go into detail of the medical science involved in her account because she wasn't a doctor of scientist. The show went to great pains to show her 1st person account.
Great video and all but I’m pretty sure that when they were talking about the entire continent of Europe possibly being destroyed, the film makers may have heard of the possibility of the Elephants Foot hitting the water table and causing a massive pressure release and the info got lost in translation or something. I dunno. Maybe?
No, it was about false (made up) concerns over air contamination and radioactive rain. One, at that point in the show the liquidators hadn't triggered a meltdown yet which would cause contamination of the water table. Two, if the water table was contaminated, it would only contaminate the Dniepr river basin.
Honestly, I don't think it is nuclear fearmongering. Legasov made it pretty clear that he supported nuclear power done right. Given that he is a nuclear physicist, it makes sense. What happened at Chernobyl was not doing it right.
Just to be clear. When they were talking about it blowing up, they weren’t talking about the reactor exploding, but the lava hitting the water table underground and vaporizing the water causing overpressure.
---For those claiming that the fear-mongering was intentional to scare politicians into action, then that needs to be shown in context of the show. Without it, that is fear mongering. Doesn't matter if that's a worst-case scenario or something dumb someone actually said, without showing why that is dumb or worst-case, the show is fear-mongering. Finally it does not matter whether the creators have sad they purposefully went with this in the podcast, they still failed to put that in the text of the show. Fear-mongering is still fear-mongering, intentional or otherwise.
I think its fair to say that they separated people in hospitals because they didn't really know what they were dealing with. Not simply fear mongering.
Thanks to Skillshare for sponsoring this episode. Goto skl.sh/thecynicalhistorian to get a 2-month free trial.
*This video was demonetized, by manual review* - but was randomly remonetized months after the fact
5:45 - there are a lot of comments trying to say that he was dangerous, because the firefighters' bodies were contaminated, but these claims are false. They were not dangerously contaminated as made clear by one of the hematologists who worked on the disaster: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/
10:30 - It's better to call soviets "workers councils," since they had more functions than a typical union (thx Collin Buckman)
---For those claiming that the fear-mongering was intentional to scare politicians into action, then that needs to be shown in context of the show. Without it, that is fear mongering. Doesn't matter if that's a worst-case scenario or something dumb someone actually said, without showing why that is dumb or worst-case, the show is fear-mongering. Finally it does not matter whether the creators have sad they purposefully went with this in the podcast, they still failed to put that in the text of the show. Fear-mongering is still fear-mongering, intentional or otherwise.
5:45 When Lyudmila goes to hug Vasily when he looks to be recovering, before he turns into a puddle he's "infecting" her because of the skin to skin contact. His sweat is contaminated and as the water in the sweat evaporates it leaves behind some the contamination on his skin which can then be pressed onto his wife. The IAEA even wrote a book about what we learned about the dangers of treating people with high exposure, see section 4.3 dealing with high levels of skin contamination.
gnssn.iaea.org/Superseded%20Safety%20Standards/Safety_Series_088_1988.pdf
We aren't trying to say anything, we're just correcting something you got wrong. If you can't take receiving a minor correction without being catty you shouldn't take pop culture so seriously.
"People who are internally contaminated can expose people near them to radiation from the radioactive material inside their bodies. The body fluids (blood, sweat, urine) of an internally contaminated person can contain radioactive materials. Coming in contact with these body fluids can result in contamination and/or exposure."
"Homes can also become contaminated with radioactive materials in body fluids from internally contaminated people. Making sure that others do not come in contact with body fluids from a contaminated person will help prevent contamination of other people in the household."
www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/contamination.htm
@@fremenchips the first example you give applies to contaminated skin, which is not the case here. Even the show agrees with that, clearly showing where the contaminated surfaces were placed and remain today (their clothing). The sweat and possible blood contamination would be fairly easily alleviated for the wife, given it could wash off. It would behoove you to check my sources, for you are not merely arguing with me, but this article: www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong
argue your point. It is not established yet, so it is not "correcting" until you have made done so. What you need to establish is how the show displays that the specifics of the pregnant woman's danger correctly. That is the argument at hand, and you have not established a sufficient argument against Shellenberger
. Do that before saying, "If you can't take receiving a minor correction without being catty you shouldn't take pop culture so seriously." Given you are citing sources, I expect you are capable of defending your position, but that statement indicates otherwise
@@fremenchips and found this by merely searching "Chernobyl contagious radiation." It was the 2nd result: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/
Not only is he one of the people working on the actual disaster, but he also helped with the UN investigations. He makes it very clear that the scene depicted is so inaccurate that it is cause for concern - he's a far better source
I love you videos and agree with you on the nuclear explosion BS. But the dangers or radiation cannot be understated many of the Chernobyl victims weren't even born yet. The silent victims were the countless numbers of children born with severe abnormalities and disabilities. Often these children were abandoned and left in orphanages because families had little ability to care for them. Nobody talks about these victims because they were born years and decades after the accident, countless more babies were still born who don't even class as being person to be counted as a victim. I know that I have no numbers on this stuff I've only seen a short documentary on them but the disabilities were so severe it has really left a mark on me. Thanks for your work and I really like your channel but I will disagree with you on the dangers of radiation but not the BS myth that TV shows often portray.
@@CynicalHistorian I agree this is great source but he's arguing backwards from 2019 not from the perspective of 1986. He says that the contamination of the firefighters from almost entirely external not internal, he's probably right. But you don't need to bury people with only external radiation contamination in zinc coffins. The REMM handbook says that bodies with external contamination below 100 millirem/hour can be decontaminated and released and those with over 100 millirem/hour should be stored until the rate of decay of fission products is under 100 millirem/hour. While those with internal contamination should be buried in metal coffins with metal or concrete vaults. The Soviets did this with Vasily so clearly they believed at the time he had serious internal contamination.
The REMM handbook also states "If the deceased is known or suspected to be contaminated, personnel engaged in handling of the body should be issued personal protective equipment (PPE) and a personal dosimeter. " So an unprotected person interacting with someone believed to have serious contamination is a big breach of safety guidelines. Which gets to my point, it's that the hospital scene is entirely plausible, to say the way the hospital staff reacted is fear mongering is using information we have in 2019 that the Soviets did not have in 1986.
www.remm.nlm.gov/deceased.htm
This man is delusional. Take him to the infirmary
ahhhh.. that's that stuff that comment sections were made for
The UA-cam community is mildly contaminated; He’ll be fine, I’ve seen worse.
@@rev.andyh.1082 Hey, the show IS memeworthy as hell, no denying it. In today's pop culture, that's actually a testament to it's quality.
Nothing contaminate you like anime
The Cynical Historian aka Potential History is confused. RBMK reactor cores don’t explode.
Slight correction, but "Soviet" actually means "Council", not "Union"
Really? I didn't know that,thanks for the info.
Yeah it would be weird in the Soviet Union meant union union lol
@@mcmasters1484 - Concil Union doesn't sound much better either :D
As in "workers' councils," like Gorbachev says in the clip...
Péter Baán nah lol it’s doesn’t but it makes more sense then union union
I disagree on the fearmongering about nuclear power. My take on it after episode 5 is that it would have gone right, if not by human error and an error by the state. That they pushed the reactor to the brink and then put in a flawed emergency stop that made the whole thing go bad as it did. Lagasov even says it in the trial that the West took certain safety precautions that the Sovjets lacked, because it was cheaper. To me the message was more that of Uncle Ben: With great power, comes great responsibility.
The reactor design itself really wasn't up to what engineers at the time knew to be best practices. For example, using graphite instead of heavy water to get the fast neutrons down to thermal energies is what allowed for the evaporation of cooling water to be an additional factor in accelerating the reaction (they traded off safety in several other points, too, like the design of the control rods). Heavy water was just more expensive. Runaway chain reactions can only happen in some reactor designs and at the time the Soviets decided that a reactor that was mostly safe and significantly cheaper was the way to go. For a nuclear catastrophe of the magnitude of Chernobyl to happen you always need human error and unsafe design. To be perfectly honest I haven't watched the show, so I can't talk about how they portrayed the situation, but if what you got from it was that operation/administrative errors where the big issues, then the series at least omits some things. That would actually fit Chyper's narrative of fearmongering pretty well, as modern nuclear reactors generally are designed such that with rising core temperatures the reaction slows down, in some cases enough that regardless of what you do to the controls the reactor can't overheat to dangerous levels. The lesson of Chernobyl should be about clear communication and not saving money on safety features rather than nuclear power in the abstract.
@@JK03011997 A wise man once told me, "If America is all about cutting corners, than the USSR is a circle."
@@JK03011997 Or they could have just enriched the uranium and used normal water like we do. No graphite.
@@mscheese000 To be fair their enrichment facilities were probably busy doing.... other stuff
@@JK03011997 Human error is NEVER a good reason to give for a catastrophic failure, if it could be caused by operator error then the systems in place were fatally flawed and badly designed from the outset.
I want to see a Cynical Historian VS History Buffs debate regarding the Death of Stalin.
Gad Yariv
I second it!
I love both channels but CH is the OG!
Gad Yariv history buff was awful, he said bullshit things such as how "the red army rushed men without rifles in german machine guns" and stuff like that.
@@Loup-mx7yt Oh no! He made a one mistake! Lets ignore that everyone including CH also make mistakes. Lets also forget how it was one small point of several to show how Stalin was a bad guy. Oh the humanity!
@@Loup-mx7yt From what I understand people mistaken an event from WWI where Russian soldiers were told to go into combat unarmed and to pick up rifles from the dead and placed it during WWII.
I work in the nuclear power industry as an engineer. When I first watched Chernobyl, and later discussed it with my coworkers, I never felt that the show was fear-mongering and my coworkers felt the same. There are some scientific inaccuracies (a few serious ones) and I can't speak to any political, social, or historical inaccuracies within but the show's accompanying podcast was very up front about the limits of reliable data and the need to take liberties for the sake of a coherent story. I can forgive minor scientific inaccuracies on the basis that nuclear physics and nuclear health physics are very complicated subjects. The truth is that although nuclear power today is much, much safer than the average person gives it credit for, that safety was hard won with incidents and accidents - Chernobyl just happens to be the worst and most visible. Nuclear power reactors are complex and operating them involves inherent and unique dangers that demand respect and understanding. I felt that HBO's Chernobyl was an appropriate treatment of the subject, given that it relates a historical event (the worst of the type that has ever occurred) in a medium meant for mass consumption.
The episode with the fireman's wife isn't fearmongering. It's based on oral history testimony by Lyudmila Ignatenko in the book Chernobyl Prayer. The 'This isn't the man you love...' is almost a word for word quotation. I don't know the science behind it but I would still check that account out since it follows her story very closely
She wasn't a scientist. So, her commentary on those aspects is questionable.
@@Theakker3B And therein lies the conundrum. There is always a way to deny someone's account, even if/when it's true by suggesting the person/s telling it aren't qualified/knowledgeable enough to qualify it as actual truth.
I love this channel but like, this stupid, radiation is contagious, irradiated bodies can irradiate people around them alot of the firefighters were dangerous and that's why they were buried in lead coffins under concrete, it 100% was a real thing and the wife lost her baby because of the radiation she was exposed to, maybe not from just her husband but just all of the people at the hospital and her exposure in the city. Before she got to Moscow. A lot of this is show is fear mongering but people like this going too far and denying facts and not just the fear mongering myths is why people don't trust us.
Exactly. They're dealing with the fears and misconceptions of the time.
@@derekhenschel3191how? By what process? Radiation isn’t a virus. People buried in lead coffins points to the Soviet belief that they’re “contagious”, but does it hold up to actual scientific theory and research?
The "soviets" were not just "unions" like we think of, organizations through which the workers engage in collective bargaining with the employers. They were workers' councils, through which the workers were supposed to exercise collective control themselves, making the employing class redundant. It obviously didn't turn out that way, but that was the conception.
Exactly.
Yeah, and the name literary means "councils". Those workers' councils started popping up spontaneously already during the 1905 Revolution, coming back in force during the February Revolution of 1917. Once the Bolsheviks used them for their purposes and took total control over them they were hardly the same thing, so one can argue that the very name of the Soviet Union officially established in 1922 was kinda a lie from the beginning. The real decisions and policies were being made in the hierarchical, centralized structures of the Party, going all the way to the Central Committee, not in the councils.
It's funny but if the Soviet Constitution was taken seriously, the most important person in the Soviet Union in the years 1938-46 should be Mikhail Kalinin, as the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet (Council) of the Soviet Union, but we all know who was in charge in this period. The only reason Kalinin is remembered is that Königsberg was renamed after him.
Dem wacky Bolsheviks!
The concept of a council democracy lies at the heart of early communism. Inthe German regime change 1918/19 there were attempts to install a "Räterepublik", a republic of councils.
I was also worried about the fear this would stoke in people regarding nuclear power, and it does exaggerate (which the podcast admitted to at points to ramp the dramatic tension and ignoring things like probability of real risk which people are notoriously bad at judging anyway) but in some of the personal stories, it was based more on the first person accounts.
The pregnant woman's story is based on the real person's account in Voices of Chernobyl. According to her account it was pretty clear that the doctors were not entirely sure how to treat the situation, and whether scientifically possible or not (Radiation is not contagious in the bacterial sense but if the fireman had had any radioactive material on his skin from being at ground zero, it is possible that she would be contaminated from that) she does say the doctors told her she could be poisoned by exposure to her husband and that the radiation killed her baby.
From Voices of Chernobyl, the head radiologist to Lyudmilla Ignatenko, the pregnant woman as relayed by Lyudmilla: "And listen: if you start crying, I’ll kick you out right away.
No hugging or kissing. Don’t even get near him. You have half an hour.”
And then later Lyudmilla herself: "I killed her. I. She. Saved. My little girl saved me, she took the whole radioactive shock into herself, she was like the lightning rod for it."
Yeah, this show invokes fear about nuclear power and rightly so. As events like Chernobyl and Fukushima show us, nuclear power plants can get very very dangerous when something goes wrong, especially when they are technically outdated. That's why we need newer and cleaner Technology to produce energy and have to shut down all nuclear power plants.
Yeah I was bothered by Cynical stating radiation is not contagious without any qualifiers. Patients who receive radiation therapy for cancer are not supposed to be in a close proximity to pregnant women for 2 months and they are exposed to far less radiation than the firefighters were.
The firefighters' clothes piled in the basement of hospital are still dangerously radioactive to this day, so it's easy to imagine how dangerously radioactive the firefighters themselves were at the time the wife visited.
@@redcrabdue1787 See this is exactly the takeaway you shouldn't get from something like this. This is incredibly ignorant to the problems associated with any other sort of power generation, what all we need reactors for in nuclear chemistry and the industries that rely on reactors, and how actually dangerous nuclear is compared to literally anything else. Like yeah it can be scary and dangerous but so is everything else ESPECIALLAY fossil fuel burning which kills way more people. We'd need multiple Chernobyls a year to keep up with fossil fuel burning. Like nuclear accidents can get really dramatic but are also relatively concentrated and are fairly preventable. Your whole take away just shows off how much fear mongering there is and how much misinformation there is and how context is ignored. Nuclear beign potentially dangerous isn't actually a good reason to shut down all nuclear everything because all power generation has its risks or complications, even clean renewables like hydro and win.
@@redcrabdue1787 uhm... what? fukushima was a success story, it was literally a perfect storm and yet there was only one fatality, and chernobyl was faulty designed, nuclear is literally the cleanest and greenest energy source
@@killian9314 well, one person died, but considering 15,000 people were killed in the earthquake and tsunami that is still shockingly low.
6:01 “Radiation is not contagious.”
That statement is very misleading.
Something highly contaminated does contaminate.
And NO. They didn’t isolate the Chernobyl firefighters due simply to their weakened immune systems. Their bodies were rather radioactive due to their severe exposure.
I love your channel, but you needed to do better research on the effects of ionizing radiation to prevent such misleading statements.
Yeah that point is a real hickup here. I guess on some level it's a little unfair to expect from a historian to be familiar with the thermal physics of reactor design (like why is it fair to call the Chernobyl Reactor unsafe) and the complex fallout of Chernobyl and it's health consequences (which are as far as I know poorly understood). But I agree, Chipher seems to have fallen into a trap of dangerous half-knowledge with that bit.
That statement is taken directly from a hematologist who worked on the disaster. I'm putting it in my own words, but you are essentially arguing with the entire World Health Organization. If that is misleading, I don't know what is correctly leading. Here's the source: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/
argue with sources, for you are indeed the one misleading anyone who happens to come across your comment
"Their bodies were rather radioactive due to their severe exposure."
This is absolute nonsense. You started off so good.
I can hit an atom of U-235 with a neutron and make it break apart into radioactive isotopes. I can't hit an atom of water, for instance, and do the same thing. Just because you're bombarded with radiation doesn't make you magically radioactive.
It's because they were CONTAMINATED. They had radioactive particulate on their skin which continued to irradiate them and others around them. The only solution in that case is to vigorously clean the skin and rid them of contamination, and that was never made clear in the miniseries.
@@JK03011997 What does "thermal physics of reactor design" have to do with fireman contamination? Please explain.
@@rars0n Oh I saw an additional issue with Cipher's take in that he omitted what amounts to basically half the story of how Chernobyl happened. For a good take on that one kinda needs to talk about things like fast vs thermal neutrons, water vs steam etc. A take like that would then immediately lead to questions like "why did they use natural uranium and graphite?" the answers of which are highly entangled and great examples of soviet politics which would have been very important to the narrative. Kinda fault by omission (both Cypher and me for not clarifying that)
I have seen this entire mini series and a just don’t get the fear mongering argument.
The show treats nuclear power as something that is only unsafe when multiple steps are taken to cut corners. You can’t talk about Chernobyl without having some level of risks from nuclear power.
The talk of the whole continent being destroyed wasn’t the actual destruction of land, just the possible inability to harness the land if no action was taken. Yes there were minor exaggerations, but the worst case scenarios are what was being considered possible. The possible melting of the floor in to the water tanks beneath could have been a big problem but the material cooled on its own.
For the husband dying of cancer and his wife, the story was a direct result of first person accounts. Yes the no touching protocols were way more heavily enforced than depicted, but doctors also told the wife that the baby absorbed the the radiation that killed her(even if it was actually untrue).
As for the bridge of death there are minor reports of people being there and none have been located, yes it was an exaggeration as presented but if it was believed to be true contemporaneously I think you’re justified to include it.
In general I wanted to hate the mini-series before watching it, I came around because of what I saw as the lack of demonization of nuclear power, and the focus on people doing what they could to help, endure, and overcome the system / environment they live.
FreeJaffa92 the characters in the show never blame atomic energy actually. They’re pretty specific about placing the blame strictly on soviet technological failings, the meddling of authoritarian governments, cost saving measures and human error. In fact, Legasov specifically points to the fact that western nuclear plants are fitted with safeties and redundancies that would prevent Chernobyl-like disasters.
hosank ya like I said it’s only unsafe when human action is taken.
If it’s not clear I like the mini series because it doesn’t demonize atomic power.
@@FreeJaffa92 Yeah I understand what you meant and I agree with you.
"In general I wanted to hate the mini-series before watching it, I came around because of what I saw as the lack of demonization of nuclear power, and the focus on people doing what they could to help, endure, and overcome the system / environment they live."
Your last paragraph really sums up why I felt this mini-series worked. As you've pointed out, the show places much of the blame of Soviet technology failings, how arrogance and cost-cutting, combined with human error, resulted in a disaster. It really is a fascinating picture as characters like Legasov and others struggle within an authoritarian system to get stuff done. At times, it's clear they want to be blunt and flat-out go, "That's not going to work. You'll make matters worse!" but if they step on too many toes of too many powerful people, then they will be fired and a less-skilled toady more willing to parrot propaganda and play along, would be put in their place. Then they wouldn't be able to save anyone, more people would die, and what good would their knowledge and skill do anyone. So the characters have to walk a thin line, figuring how much of the truth to tell and how to tell it in a way that gets things done, but doesn't alienate important party figures too much.
@@kokofan50 but they didn't say the reactor would explode. They were talking about water flash-boiling in a big metal resivoir underneath the reactors when the molten slag burns a hole in it.
Fun fact, the guy evil businessman who asks the workers to go to Chernobyl was in the real world Mikhail Shadov, He was actually 59 years old at that time, he used to be a coal miner like them (from the age of 15) and was well respected among other miners.
I wonder why the show portrayed him as being disliked. Hmmm... Is it perhaps because, the show is trying to make evidence out of a point instead of a point out of evidence?
Me:I saw problems with the show
Dyatlov: you didn't!
Zirkel Magister YOU DIDN’T BECAUSE ITS NOT THERE
*throws binder*
@@ElectricBuckeye When my step-daughter asks me to read her a bedtime story: " There, review it!"
“50,000 people used to live here. Now it’s a ghost town”
omg
I've never seen anything like it
“Sir, you’ve been in a coma since 1985”
“Oh Bylat, Commerade, I can not wait to meet Ivan and Vladimir at my favorite Soviet Nuclear-Power Facility!”
It’s essentially the same joke from Austin Powers I where they unfreeze Austin after the Cold War ends lol.
I completely disagree.
The main thing I took away from the show was not fearmongering about nuclear power plants.
The show made quite clear that the plant itself would've been fine if only the operators had stuck to the safety regulations. The reactor design could be improved sure, but the reason it blew up was not bad design but human error.
But maybe I've just watched too many Aircrash Investigations to know that it's always a "chain" of catastrophic decisions/faults coming together....
MrNicoJac I agree, although I did just find it strange that the show ultimately came to the conclusion it was the fault of the government, when it went to great lengths to show the sheer incompetence and lack of care demonstrated by the plant management.
What people always forget is Chernobyl isn't a documentary. It's a drama. It's a drama that still manages to remain fairly accurate.
exactly, thank you. I think the purpose of the show was to give people a general idea of what happened, and highlight people that did and gave a lot and we never knew about them (miners, Legasov, scientists, firefighters, etc).
@@arisukak True, but when i watched that part I always thought that maybe they exaggerated things on purpose, i mean, they were trying to convince Gorvachev (who didn't knew anything about radiation/reactors) that it was serious and urgent while all the other officials were telling him that it was nothing. But yeah I see your point, I just gave the show a pass just cause i understood that it was being dramatic.
Let's make a "based on real history" drama where a scientist analyzes how a piece of banana can burn down a house. We're just exaggerating here. This isn't a documentary.
A large swath of Hollywood's audience is convinced that ridiculous films like Kingdom of Heaven or Braveheart are mostly accurate, and yet you expect them to make _that_ distinction without anyone pointing the misrepresentations out ?
The thing is, most people won't bother to seek out the truth from the fiction, and are likely to take the claims made in such historical drama as accurate.
most nuclear plants have large containment buildings that under federal regulation can withstand a 747 plowing into them . when 3 mile island melted down, but the radiation you would get if you were standing right out side would of been as much as an x-ray. Chernobyl did not have any fortified containment structure, if they did, it would of been more like 3 mile island. Its like driving a car with out breaks and calling it dangerous after you crash.
Could you per chance link an article or cite something saying that? Sounds interesting
@@CynicalHistorian ok this is for the containment buildings. www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/part050/part050-0150.html
@@CynicalHistorian "The Chernobyl plant did not have the fortified containment structure common to most nuclear power plants elsewhere in the world. Without this protection, radioactive material escaped into the environment." www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/chernobyl-accident-and-its-consequences
fascinating, thanks
@@CynicalHistorian np, all most anything to do with the USSR turns into an bizarre and fascinating rabbit hole.
I think the book, Midnight in Chernobyl: The Untold Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear Disaster (2019) by Adam Higginbotham is a good source of information. According to Higginbotham, the firefighter's child was born with multiple birth defects and died soon after birth due to his wife's exposure to him while she was pregnant. It's not that radiation is contagious, it's that he had ingested radioactive particles that were actively decaying. It's that decay that caused him to disintegrate from the inside out. Those radioactive particles would be dangerous to her unborn child whether they were laying on the ground, floating in the air, or (in this case) imbedded in her husband.
I disagree about the fear mongering. I came away from this series thinking that nuclear power can be very dangerous if corners are cut and inconvenient laws of physics are ignored. However, it didn't convince me that nuclear power can't be safe. I think people who are convinced that nuclear power is an existential threat would continue to feel that even if the series did the things you suggested.
It perpetuates the myth that a nuclear reactor can explode like a nuclear bomb.
The errors in the show were not great but not terrible.....
You gotta love the Russian response to the show. We hate it, you didn't mention how the CIA did it, we are going to make our own more accurate version. Never change Russia.
Kinda ironic cuz this happens in the Gorbachev era and in Russia absolutely nobody loves Mikhail Gorbachev
@@229masterchief I know. For a country that claims to not be the Soviet Union, mocking Soviet leaders seems to be a bit of a no no. Unless your Boris Yeltsin. Mock him all you please.
@@229masterchief
Gorbachev had to send some of his most entrusted men to the area to find the people with answers and fast. They were forced to get people at times to talk truthfully at gunpoint, such was the system and the gravity of the situation.
@@ShinigamiInuyasha777
A musical about Evita, is it that funny one with Madonna you mean ?
@@ShinigamiInuyasha777
I like Madonna , but few of her ideas. Her early productions were nice.
And musicals are risky business, and rarely is worth seeing imho.
"Radiation is not contagious" According to one of the interviews of the staff members whom absorbed a dose of radiation that would kill 2:3 people, he (Sasha Yuvchenko) commented that people feared him afterward, afraid that he would contaminate them with radiation even years after the event.
I was living near Mannheim,Germany when this happened. We all studied the wind patterns. I remember driving to Nuremberg and realizing the pastures were empty of dairy cows. There are still parts of Wales that can't raise sheep anymore. (New Zealand lamb took over the British market at that time.)
I've recently had a form of cancer that my German doctor warned me the as a potential long-term side effect (Caught early, thankfully.). I will always be glad the Swedes noticed the problem early enough to warn the rest of Europe.
I can’t watch this show without thinking ‘50,000 people used to live here.. now it’s a ghost town.’
Now its the largest unintentional wildlife preserve in Europe lol
the show wasn't saying people with radiation are contagious, it was an actual belief at the time. kids who were from pripyat wouldn't be allowed into school, care houses, etc. because they genuinely believed that they were "dirty".
Yes Alex, thats sooo true. Iam born in the mid sixties in west germany. People always forget: There was no Internet nor google. There were maybe half a dozen books on this subject in libraries. for the whole district. State TV was over cautious with info. Only the young Green Movement had information such as "No spinach from the garden", no mushrooms and no running around in the rain". No milk for babies from the south of the country and further..
Same happened in Japan after the bombs. They survivors were stigmatized, branded as sick and contagious. They even have a word for it. Pretty fucked up.
Too often the problem with nuclear power plants is the lack of a realistic plan to deal with a worst case scenario - like building the Titanic with too few lifeboats and the self-deception of believing it wouldn’t matter because the ship couldn’t sink. On Long Island, the power company wanted to build a nuclear plant in Brookhaven, but it all fell apart because if the worst accident happened, there would be no reliable way to evacuate the nearly 8 million people who live on the island quickly (as an island, ferries, bridges, and tunnels are the only ways off). With no plan to deal with an accident, support for the project cratered and it was abandoned.
The problem therefore is not in fear of what the worst possible scenario would be, but in having the capacity to handle said scenario, regardless of how unlikely it would be.
You understand that this show isn't fear mongering at all right? It demonizes the stupidity and corruption of the Soviet Union, and the extreme lack of safety precautions taken in the building of the plant and it's running. You are completely ignoring that. This show never once says that nuclear power is bad... But that poor safety is bad. Also the scene with the pregnant woman was pulled from a book about her, and while it wasn't true it showed the fear and the horror that woman went through. She lost both her husband and her daughter. You are seriously nitpicking
"Radiation is not contagious"
Both true and false. Radiation sickness does not transfer from person to person, meaning it is not a contagion, however, inhaled/injested/infused via skin radioactive material is common in those with radiation poisoning, and this material continues to emit radiation, destroying the carrier continuously from the inside but skin does not block radiation, so a person with significant radioactive material poisoning can indeed cause radiation damage to people nearby (although likely minor damage only, you'd have to directly eat a half ounce of U-235 to hit unsafe levels)
cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/
Depending on the type of radiation, there is actually a chance of someone who is "radioactive" causing another person to be exposed and cause potential harm. This is why patients receiving radiation are kept in isolation until they are no longer emitting radiation.
If a human is so radioactive that he is radiating he will already be dead. They keep them isolated because of their compromised immune system. It is JUST LIKE AIDES
i think theoretically, if you receive a massive dose of radiation you will be literally sweating and pissing ionized water.
@@estebancastellino3284 No,you will be dead in minutes from massive internal bleeding.
This is like suggesting if I walked on the surface of the sun I would be emiinating a looooooooooot of heat, yes but I will also be dead.
So in laymens term a human CANNOT BE radiating radiation while being alive, they will be dead already.
www.cancer.net/navigating-cancer-care/how-cancer-treated/radiation-therapy/understanding-radiation-therapy
Important notes:
* 5:34 Vasiliy Ignatenko was buried in a Zinc box. Expectant mothers in Eastern Europe were encouraged to abort. It's possible that the science of the time was flawed.
* Similarly the idea that the corium would break thru the superstructure or that a post meltdown steam explosion would impact the region are more or less correctly sourced to the half assed science available at the time.
I remember being so shocked that the three divers survived. The reason I was shock was because of how exposure to reactor (or even close proximity) was depicted. It just seemed inconsistent. Like how are the firefighters clothes still dangerous but these divers were fine? That's just weird.
Radioactive dust can become embedded in cloth, whereas on humans it can easily be washed off.
I believe the divers were wearing rubber/latex wetsuits that would be generally better at keeping radioactive particles off of them
I'm sorry if I'm in the minority on this one, but this is one of the few videos I have EVER disliked. I feel he's way too harsh on it, and lacks real care into citing and looking into the oral history behind the survivors of the incident, such as "Voices of Chernobyl". However, I am not a history, and I do love this show, but I love it despite its flaws. Each movie and tv series I watched even remotely based on events from history I like to take with a grain of salt, as each of the creators have to balance creating a captivating narrative for their audience and the real history behind the events in question, which is immensely difficult. I am not a historian nor am I a movie-maker, but I deeply appreciate the creators of said projects when it is clear they care deeply about the subject matter, agenda or not. One example is "The Imitation Game", horribly inaccurate when it came to portraying how Turing's sexuality was handled during his time in the service during World War II, however it still maintained the spirit of history behind the dramatization. In both cases, the tremendous sacrifices of those involved, helped to save countless lives in the long run, and you cannot ignore that.
I liked the video but it's true that the opening scene show us that the story that it is going to be told it's based solely on the testimony on the cassete tapes. So, if the movie it's inaccurate historically must only be meassured by how faithfully was to the tapes, not the actual events. So my question is if those tapes actually existed.
Agreed, I usually like these reviews but this one felt rushed - too much reliance on English language sources and research published decades after the disaster (which the characters would not have known about in 1986). It’s kinda like blaming people in medieval Europe for not knowing that the Black Death could have been prevented with antibiotics
@@hosank That's why I don't really get the criticism of the scene at 5:04 That's literally his first reaction after realising that he is, in fact, standing in front of an open reactor core that's on fire, with no idea if it is even possible to contain that, let alone how long that would take. I don't even think anyone had an idea how much radioactive material an exposed, melting down RBMK reactor could potentially release, until after the fact. All Legasov knew was that the core contained tons of it and was throwing it into the atmosphere for an unforeseeable time.
The problem with his prespective is actually addressed in this very scene when Shcherbina asks him how to put out the fire and he replies with: "You are dealing with something that has never happened before."
This criticism also ingnores the context of the scence where he isn't having an academic discussion about the disaster, but is trying to convince a bunch of apathetic bureaucrats that shit seriously hit the fan and they need to do something about it.
Brotlowsky rgseg hindsight is always 20/20
Angus Roth I feel the exact same way he’s holding this show to the standard of a documentary instead of as a drama, which isn’t a fair case to make. As a documentary, well yes obviously it’s bad because so many things are wrong, but this mini series isn’t a documentary, it’s a drama. As a drama this show is absolutely amazing, but it felt like he never even reviewed it like a drama and that really annoyed me
Also all Generation II have the same basic design flaw, high pressure water. Fun fact all reactors in America are generation II due to a large part of public backlash preventing the creation of new safer reactors.
More than antiNP, it is antibureaucrat and antiincopetency(?) managing such delicate machinery as a NR. As an engineer an old professor told us "human error it's not operator error, it's designer error", and that accounts for the failure to communicate (not only putting it in the manual) to the operators how any equipment will react to an input.
I think this show is great but flawed, and it's acting as a rorschach test for our fears, being NP, KGB or incompetent government officials.
Finally, a person that was exposed to huge amounts of radioactive ash and dust, absorbs it through the lungs (and it sticks to the skin and hair) and continues to give out gamma and neutron radiation, not the awful amounts that they received, but, in time, the effects accumulate.
Great channel BTW, I have been binging on it for days!
The show never said that the plant could go off like a nuclear bomb. It said that the corium hitting the water would produce a massive steam explosion, essentially a bigger version of the explosion that had already happened. Admittedly the scale of the second explosion has arguably overblown but it was overblown before the show aired.
“You’re in the Underworld, Smoothskin.” 6:03
You’re sick, twisted, and I love you for it.
@@pauln4808 its a fallout game thing. People who survived radiation illness and look like that call normal people smooth skin.
@@pauln4808 ah ok, sorry
Kill me
I dunno. Nor I nor the people I know who watched the show walked away from it fearing nuclear power. They walked away with an illustration of the undertaking that was necessary to clean it up.
The show repeatedly says nuclear reactors are very stable and find it hard to understand how this could even have happened.
In the end it wasn't nuclear technology that was the problem. It was lies and how they have consequences. That's the show's message. Even the first line is 'What is the cost of lies?'
@3:50
I don't think they ever said that it would explode "like a nuclear bomb". They said "a thermal explosion", and explosions are measured in tons of TNT - regardless of what caused them - a thermonuclear reaction or steam, hence "megatons".
Correct! An explosion doesn't require fire. An explosion happens when a lot of energy is released in a small area very quickly. Like if the extremely hot fuel did reach a pool of water, it would have caused a very rapid change to a gas that tried to expand. This would have spread even more nuclear material. Granted it may not have been as physically destructive as they made it sound like in the dramatization, but it would have been really really bad.
Chernobyl was not a "Oh look it happened there not here. Not my problem" situation. It had continental and global ramifications. They do clear a lot of his points in the podcast and I do think it did a good job of explaining that if we harness nuclear energy, we must use it as safely as possible.
2 and 4 megatons, are you fucking kidding me? ICBMs warheads arent that strong, there is no way you can get explosion so big just from that molten core spilling into pool with water.
If you watch the rest of the scene it's very clear that they're talking about a steam explosion caused by corium melting it's way down into watertanks below. From what I understand she's way overstating the potential force of such an explosion, but it's still something the people involved where concerned enough about that they actually sent three men in there with the full expectation that they might receive a lethal dosis of radiation.
Thermal explosions are rarely measured in more than just tons, with the absolute biggest being very low kilotons. There is no way the plant would have gone within a thousandth of that, and even then a 4 megaton blast would not cause the kind of damage stated.
In any case, a steam explosion requires a sealed body to build up pressure and explode, which wasn't really present. The danger was not of explosion, but from the release of radiation by the steam that would result. That was why the pool was a problem.
I don't take the threat to Europe lightly. My dad was stationed in Germany, therefore my mom, me, and my sister were there when Chernobyl blew up. We weren't allowed outside and my mom was especially worried since she was pregnant with my sister. To this day, m sister and I have what are called Chernobyl bumps, little red dots in random spots, on our bodies. My baby sister wasn't even born and she has three if recollection serves.
Radiation is not contagious, but it's absolutely certain that anyone who entered that area while the fire was occurring, such as firefighters, were heavily contaminated with radioactive material. Hence, the concern is not that she's going to "catch" radiation but that she's going to touch him or something that he's touched and it will spread the contamination to her and anything she touches. It's not clear from the show whether they recognize this beyond the clothing that they were wearing and whether they took measures to decontaminate them, but regardless, it's very much a real concern. Contamination is the shit, radiation is the stink, as the saying goes.
Fires in radioactive material, especially when happening in open air, are basically the WORST CASE of radiological disasters. Dump the contamination into the sea, contain it in a chamber, anything is better than burning radioactive material and letting the byproduct of the fire be inhaled by people. The primary reason for this is that, while contamination can be removed from the skin, and even particles that have been ingested can be vomited up, particles that have been breathed in almost will never be removed from the body and will continue to do tissue damage until they decay into stable isotopes. Create a fire huge enough and this material will easily migrate towards other countries in large quantities.
All of this is to say that I completely agree with 95% of what you've said in this video. They certainly exaggerated some things for dramatic effect, but aside from the few hyperbolic statements (and the death toll parts at the end), I don't think they were too far off the mark in terms of the potential for radioactive material to be spread due to the fire.
What really irked me and constantly pulled me out of the show was every time they called a RADIAC a dosimeter (I was watching with subtitles on so that probably was the case due to subtitles most of the time). Dosimeters do not detect radiation levels, they detect full body radiation absorption once the person has exited the radiation area and have their device read.
I will say that having operated a nuclear reactor, working in radiation areas, and conducting personnel monitoring, the thought of an utter disaster like Chernobyl, with the core exploding and ejecting all kinds of things into the atmosphere and onto the ground with firefighters responding most likely completely unaware, is an absolutely a spine-chilling thought. With more forethought the disaster could probably have been prevented, but even beyond that, with additional training for people in the surrounding area lives could have probably been saved. Radiation is not something to fuck around with.
By the way, I really enjoyed the video!
Actually.. Didn't the wife loose the baby irl because she was close to him and radiation killed the baby? At least that was taught in Finland. That there was some effect/particles/or what ever you want to call the reasoning left and doctors did warned about it.
Yes, the HBO series is actually accurate, while Cypher's critique of it isn't - Radiation sickness isn't normally contagious but in this case, the fireman was directly exposed to it, becoming radioactive himself, and in that case, it is possible to harm people around them.
@@hosank That's kinda what I figured. Especially because often part of cleaning yourself when radioactive things happen isn't just getting rid of the clothes. You have to almost wash your skin off.. Or I guess it might depend on what type of radiation it's but that's not my area at all..
Mostly I go by what was taught to us in school etc. here and it always confuses me that how things what we hear about Russia/Soviet in school or otherwise are so much different to rest of the world.
Big or little things.. And about knowledge. Not about political or propaganda type of stuff.. We don't eat or bite that. Our media also wont and can't bite.
I guess they're more honest to the country that it's kinda nice to them and was part of them. Dunno really.
Or maybe I just had good history teacher.
3:50 they were discussing an explosion that would occur if the melting core hit ground water. the water would separate into hydrogen and oxygen and a huge explosion would occur. that's why they tunneled underneath to prevent this from happening.
4:30 john wayne was making the movie Tarus Bulba downwind from an atomic test. a very large number of people working on that film died from cancer. maybe they were all heavy smokers? singling out john wayne misses the point.
5:30 unnecessary fear? fukishima won't be cleaned up until 2050 (and only then because new technology "will be invented" to make it possible). japan has millions of tons of radioactive water with no idea what to do with it. canada has already been able to detect radioactivity in water on it's west coast. small traces but the pacific ocean is big.
7:00 what point are you trying to make? the firemen and 'the common man' were heroic. they risked their lives for the good of the country.
9:30 he left notebooks behind, not tapes.
not one of your better videos.
Oh, that segways in the beginning, that hurt. Don't stop. But I thought the explosion that the fake science lady was referring too was a massive steam explosion cause by instant vaporization of a massive supply of water, though a million tons of dynamite from water was a bit over done
Yep, the fear was that the corium works its way through the building into a water reservoir causing a massive steam explosion. In this context it doesn't really matter how big the explosion would have really been but what the people at the time were thinking.
@@Doping1234 there was a big concern with the elephants toe burning down into the aquifer but the decent seems to have stopped. But yeah if that steam explosion did happen the world be have changed, not Mad Max or Fallout, but we likely would have that big of a retirement problem
@@dark_fire_ice A steam explosion is not going to be 5 Mt. In fact, the actual explosion in question was estimated at around 10 tons. For comparison, the two most powerful fission bombs ever tested were ~500 kt and ~720 kt, each of which contained far more U-235 than Chernobyl Reactor No 4. The difference in magnitude between the actual steam explosion and the 5 Mt "estimate" on the show is pretty close to this:
ua-cam.com/video/c24-9w8LWOI/v-deo.html
versus this:
ua-cam.com/video/PgLzgdbfeJE/v-deo.html
The frustrating thing was that the creative minds behind it only needed minor adjustments to make this depiction more true to reality without compromising any feeling of fear and terror the series is so good at building up
They got the nuclear stuff deliriously wrong...
Thank you for clarifying that.
Anthony M that’s why it’s called a drama and not a documentary. If you want a documentary I suggest you go and watch zero hours 1-2 hour segment on it.
@@soarinskies1105 It's met to be accurate. If it can't do that, don't use history as your clay to form a story that's filled with inaccuracies.
GumgumDookuin Chernobyl’s genre is a drama, the creator of the mini series even said that he wanted to cast a different light on aspects of Chernobyl and wasn’t intending to go for a 100% in terms of accuracy, however he wanted to do the disaster justice by focusing on aspects of Chernobyl that he believed nobody knew or thought of very much. He then used that to his own advantage and inserted references to past and future events throughout the series. There are also plenty of cases where he hypes up the level of danger of certain Events like the divers, and the thermal explosion threat for dramatic effect, while not going too overboard in terms of falsifying historical accounts. This in turn got the audience to go back and look into each of the events for themselves to see if they actually happened which in turn caused many people to love the series because of the things they learned, even if some of the events were slightly changed or moved in terms of chronological order as well as characters being created or changed for the purpose of keeping the audiences focus and interest. One instance of this can be seen with the helicopter crashing after it flew over the reactor core in the miniseries. Now believe it or not this actually did happen, in fact every detail of how the helicopter crashed is perfectly portrayed in the series with the exception of the black smoke coming out of the reactor core. The only issue here is that the helicopter crash didn’t occur until months after the Chernobyl accident occurred but this was most likely inserted here chronologically as a plot device to help the average viewer grasp the desperation danger and hopelessness the people in charge of the clean up were facing at the time which was exactly what they were feeling at the time. Chernobyl is not 100% accurate and there are areas where things were changed or hyped up, but this wasn’t done out of pure ignorance but rather it was done to again be used as plot devices to help the viewer understand and feel the very real feeling of helplessness and even anger that some of the clean up crew was experiencing due to a lack of initiative and a bias for attempting to cover up the incident from the rest of the world rather then use their best efforts to simply fix the problem. Many of the cleanup crew felt powerless with the government taking the stance of political silence for the longest time, at least until foreign countries began to figure out what was going on inside the USSR, but even then the government was still refusing responsibility at times and at times chose to believe in their own twisted fantasy that things weren’t as bad as everyone was saying they were rather then accept the horrifying reality that Chernobyl had evolved into one of if not the worst nuclear disaster in recorded history
@@soarinskies1105 I get what you're saying but the info given from this miniseries is spreading fear mogering. They overrated the possibility of a situation gone wrong.
Nuclear Reactors cannot create levels of explosions like that of an atomic bomb. All it can do is spread radiation poisoning and effect the clouds with rad rain, which itself is a much more frightful thought than what's shown.
Its true the USSR didn't wish to acknowledge such action existed but it wasn't to cover up the cause and effect of it all. That was later on when it got spread by Europe. They wanted to make sure their citizens were not under a situation where they question their government's word.
The same happened when a revolutionary stole a ship from the Soviets and was later shot before they covered up what happened. That's Soviet Russia. They want the whole thing covered in a sheeted blanket, never one small problem.
Radiation is not like the flu where it can easily be spread by touch. They left the guy in there because it was to protect his immune system, not the other way around.
Hate to say it but the USSR is better at covering up fear mogering than this series.
You can say its to create self-awareness but all I see is misinformation, myths, and misconceptions about Nuclear power.
@@gumgumdookuin7963 that part with the explosion that number of megatons was self estimated from the UdSSR sientist at that time and Heatexplosions can create imense force that the area she discribe that would be inhable are to big for sure. But an Nuclear Power reactor that is melted down hold someting around 200-400tons of liquid metal around 1400°C you can self make the calculation how much water it can evaporate.
So, if you want to know how these mistakes happened, its in their methodology of how they did the history for the show, as I understand and recall from reading about it. They based it on the stories of the people who were there. And ordinary people sometimes mis-attribute the causes of things that happened to them. A woman might have thought the reason that they put up plastic was to protect her from her husband's radiation, not understanding it was to protect her husband's weakened immune system from her. Another woman might have attributed her miscarriage to her fetus absorbing radiation to save her, not understanding radiation doesn't work that way. The showmakers simply seemed to take these eyewitness claims at face value, even when what they describe are physically impossible. These kinds of honest mistakes are one way mythology can be formed.
With ludmilla its an technik that is often used in cinema to conclude the work from many people into one it makes it easyer to follow the progress of this investigation.
I love Michael Parenti’s take on how people use Chernobyl to criticize the USSR broadly-
“Left out of the picture is how corporate malfeasance and corporate generated disasters are a reflection of the neoliberal system. If a gas pipeline had exploded in Communist Cuba, let us say, killing people and destroying homes, the incident would have been immediately treated by US commentators as evidence of the failure of the broader economic structure, a “dysfunctional” socialist system, proof that socialism cannot get it right. But disasters in our own corporate capitalist society are seen as isolated mishaps. At worst they are treated as instances of negligence or mismanagement of a particular company in a local situation, never as the outcome of a profit-driven system that steadfastly puts profits before people, with immense costs (and disasters) passed on to the public.”
@@ThePolistiren Could you illeterated please refrain from using the term "commie" instead of "Communists"
It makes the Anti-Communist Movement look childish
What points in the show make it specifically fear mongering? Like, sure, it shows the consequences of such a disaster. However, the last episode explains on why it shouldn't ever happen again. Provided there aren't any design flaws or operators who fail to follow procedure. Valery Legasov even says in the courtroom that nuclear energy is great provided everything goes right. He didn't advocate for every nuclear power plant to be shut down, he just wanted to make sure the design flaw to be fixed. My personal takeaway was on how lying about and downplaying something this severe will harm others. Which is especially relevant today with climate change.
Honest question:
Do you believe the majority of people who watched this are still receptive to nuclear power?
@@bansho7076 No, only morons. The show goes into great detail on how badly you have to fuck up in order to get a reactor core to explode. Modern day procedures are even more strict.
Actually if a person is externally irradiated their blood, sweat, and other bodily fluids can easily contaminate a person. His body was covered in open wounds, so yes, his wife was in danger because she was holding his hand without gloves.
The only radiation source would've been his mouth and perhaps blood, which is not demonstrated in the show. If you disagree, check out this review from one of the hematologists who worked on the actual disaster: cancerletter.com/articles/chernobyl/
The point of the show is the characters didn’t know what would happen then not with 30 years of hindsight.
You don't need hindsight to know that a six inch bottle rocket isn't going to level a city block with its explosive charge. That's how insanely unrealistic the 5 megaton claim is.
@@alexanderflack566 wasnt the reactor exploding. It was the fuel melting down into the water supply for most of the ukrane laying beneath it, creating steam, allowing the oressure to build up until it was too much for the ground above it causing an explostion. At the time they though the amount of radiation released and the aera covered would be around the same as if there was a 5 megaton explosion. They used the megaton analagy as its a word people know and can try to visualise.
@@cheasepriest You don't use the word "hurricane" to describe a drizzle with 10 mph wind gusts, even if it covers the same geographical area. Magnitude matters, as does precision. Misusing that term doesn't say "this is a big deal and we should be taking it seriously," it says "this person has no idea what they're talking about and is therefore most likely completely wrong."
Besides, since when does the average member of the public have any clue what 5 Mt actually does? Comparing the effects to Little Boy/Fat Man would have been at least marginally less ridiculous ("marginally" in this case being "a few orders of magnitude") and just as relatable to the average person, if not more so.
I’ve always been fascinated with Chernobyl I have read nearly every book and firsthand witness statements yes there were some parts that were over dramatized but you get that in any Time a movie is made about a historical event. I found this miniseries impressively accurate. Also some of the inconsistencies about the dangers of radiation are because at the time people involved in the events mistakingly believe them.
I would have liked that they portrayed the worst move Soviet Union made, the independence parade in Kiev, just 4 days after the explosion where tens of thousands went to celebreate
Glasnot and Perestroika...it's a common phenomenon. While being too oppressive can backfire, often what brings down oppressive regimes is reform. Someone in charge has a crisis of conscience or, in the very least, is possessed by some sense of self-preservation and decides to reform some of the more pernicious aspects of their regimes. Trouble is, once that door is opened, people can and will demand more, and the regime winds up being attacked by people who feel that reforms are not happening fast enough, are not extensive enough. And thus in an attempt to save the regime, the person-in-charge winds up bringing it down.
the theory that the incident could have taken out most of Europe has existed long before the show was even a thought probably
This show gets a raiting of 3.6: not great, not terrible
God, i hated you since the first episode and still do.
You don't know how badly I was waiting for this upload
Same, i just watched as fiction rather than truth
"Of the people who watched from the railway bridge, it has been reported that none survived."
Wanna give a time frame on that, or does that mean just...forever!? Cause yeah, that's how HUMANS work.
ARS isn’t contagious, sure, but those firefighters WERE radioactive. That’s why, even in real life, they were buried in lead caskets- to prevent their radiation seeping into the soil and irradiating the environment. Same reason they removed all the topsoil around the reactor.
their bodies were contaminated, why would you want to have that leak into the soil? but that's doesn't mean this lady's miscarriage was caused by her husband - something even the WHO has denied being a possibility. But let's take some lady's fears over hundreds of scientists. That's fear-mongering for yah
Even if radiation wasn’t the main reason behind her child’s death and there were multiple reasons for the quarantine, being around one if the most radioactive people alive certainly couldn’t have been good for her pregnancy.
The series itself also didn’t really strike me as anti-nuclear fear-mongering. Anti-Soviet fear-mongering, absolutely, but the last episode was centered more on why Soviet RBMK reactors were the problem while other countries, countries who didn’t cut as many corners, had safer reactors.
As for the Bridge of Death, that wasn’t made up by the show. Whether it’s true or just an urban legend is up for debate, but the show didn’t make it up.
What is infinitely more likely is the trauma of the situation caused the miscarriage, just as the WHO said in 1996 and 2000. As I pointed to before; one lady's misconception of her conception vs. the WHO, I'll always take the organization tasked with health science and staffed by some of the world's most prominent scientists on that subject.
The way they portray the RBMK reactor defect is pretty abysmal actually. I'm just not capable of explaining it. Instead, here's Hank Green talking about it: ua-cam.com/video/hIGtTImeYU4/v-deo.html
The fact that the bridge thing is a legend is not communicated by the show. They state in a slide you can see in this review as though it is fact that people died from it. No source verifies that, so it should read "the bride _is rumored_ to have been the site of several _alleged_ radiation poisonings" or something of the like. Stating it as fact is fear-mongering.
The downwind idea at 4:06 is fueled not just based on john wayne but a lot of other actors also got cancer on the set of the conqueror
I suggest you look at the type of reactor, as well as they were discussing a THERMAL EXPLOSION. The type that is connected to supper heated water with no where to go. The explosion that is nuclear is a THERMAL NUCLEAR EXPLOSION. similar as it involves water but in the atmosphere. essentially the difference is a Nuclear explosion is so hot that H2O is ripped apart into its components and explodes in a fire ball. The explosion they are suggesting is going to happen is when water turns to gas in a chamber under pressure. similar to putting a water bottle half full on a fire with the cap screwed on. These type of explosions are incredibly dangerous, but are not nuclear. the issue is what was on top of "this bomb" was the RBMK-1000 reactor.
The best example is if you put a ton of c4 under a nuclear waste. IE a dirty bomb.
Thank you
Don’t get your science from historians.
I feel compelled to say this. The fuel was already in the water. It had been since April 26th. The concern was that the steam being produced would flood the site and make work impossible due to the high temperature. So they had to drain the water to prevent this.
I think the reason on why would Ulana Khomyuk was added even though it was an imalgimation was because having 2 main characters is wasn't enough and I guess for the team making the film, they have to sort of put some contentment in it
He never mentioned how perfectly accurate the characters accents were. They were perfectly on point. I never knew how British Russians are.
Would you prefer the actors all do shitty fake Russian and Ukrainian accents?
You corrected the show for saying there could be an explosion by saying no reactor could explode like a bomb. But the show didn't say that. They were worried about the core melting down to the water tank causing a steam explosion.
it's fairly ridiculous to conclude a steam explosion of that magnitude could happen. 2 of the sources in the description (business insider and forbes) specifically state that is egregious hyperbole
I have a friend from Kiev who was a teen when this happened. Her father joined the fray as soon as he could. After he returned home, her parents had two more children. Both are very sick and her brother is sterile. I asked her about this miniseries and she has told me that the technicalities are as true as they can get. I agree, there is lots of drama included in this, but you must also be aware that these reactors exist ONLY in the USSR.
"only after several tense days were the fires doused and the reactor made safe*"
*-sort of... safe...-ish?
It was made safe the moment Ukraine finished the new Containment Dome and put it over the Reactor. At least for the next 100 years. only 249,900 to go until Radiation Levels are to be considered safe.
@@Exodon2020 "Only after several tense days were the fires doused, and the reactor was ultimately made safe 33 years later"
I think the biggest problem with this critique is that Cynical is comparing knowledge and understanding of radiation that we have today, to the lack of understanding that the people back then (and thus, the characters in this show) would have had. There's been interviews with radiation experts from that time period, who have said that because the government limited people's knowledge, that certain myths were indeed believed. A prime example of this is the series showing us that medical personnel believed that victims of acute radiation syndrome were radioactive. While we now know that this isn't true, back then they really did believe this, and it isn't a fault of the show, or fearmongering for the series to depict actual beliefs held back then.
Personally despite the fear mongering I still like the show.
Well at least you know it's not a 100% accurate depiction of the history of Chernobyl, and still enjoy it as a drama show in spite of the inaccuracies
@T_ C I mean a piece of media like a TV show should be judged on its own merit, especially when it comes to it's messaging. Most people who watched the show probably won't listen to the podcast, so if one tries to evaluate whether they are "fearmongering" the podcast should be kept separate.
I'm quite educated on nuclear power and very pro. I don't see how any of it was fearmongering. At no point did I get the impression that the show was trying to imply that nuclear power is unsafe.
@@mscheese000 Claiming that a meltdown can cause a multi-megaton explosion is INSANE. Hell, even the most powerful fission bombs ever made are nearly an order of magnitude less destructive than that.
@@alexanderflack566 I don't recall the show claiming that it would create a multi Megaton nuclear explosion, but you're wrong on your second point for sure. The Tsar Bomba had 25 megaton yield.
I’m not sure that the scene where they’re speaking about the worst case scenario should be knocked because the worst case scenario didn’t happen.
Their "worst case scenario" is physically impossible, both because 2% enriched uranium can't explode in that way even if you actively tried to make a bomb out of it, and because there wasn't enough U-235 there for anywhere near that kind of energy release.
@@alexanderflack566 the explosion they are referring to isn't combusting nuclear material. They're talking about molten nuclear material flash-boiling the underground resivoirs of water beneath the reactor, which could turn it into an explosive force.
@@MRdrPROkeithSR Obviously. But the idea that the resulting explosion could be in the megaton range is laughably wrong. Like, "don't set off that bottle rocket because you'll destroy the entire city" wrong. Somebody seems to have accidentally slipped like five zeroes onto the end of their worst case scenario in the name of drama; it just makes them sound like idiots (and by "them" I mean "whoever wrote the script").
Are you sure the scientists in the days after the disaster did not fear a giant second explosion? what if there had been a meltdown to the water table? We know today that the effort of the miners was unnecessary, but that is hindsight. They must have feared a steam explosion at the time. And I don't know how assessable the danger was then and is today. the miner story was true, apart from the nudity. So did the show really overestimate the potential danger that the scientists feared then?
Actually, I feel like it doesn't fear monger the idea of Nuclear power, if anything it teaches us that nuclear power is an achievement of civilization on par with the creation of fire and it is for that reason that it must be respected and taken very seriously. The soviets' problem was that they felt they could justify cutting corners to dispel any notion that their system of government could achieve just as much as any other. Like they were woefully insecure about themselves and couldn't bare the thought of being seen screwing something up. My favorite moment in that trial was when the judge heard the control rods (which are designed to reduce reactivity) are tipped with graphite which is an accelerate of reactivity and he asks "Why?" and when the scientist explains why this and other measures for safety and efficiency are not implemented, because "It's cheaper", the Judge looks at the party officials with an expression that just screams "Are you serious guys? this isn't using fewer nails to attach roof shingles, this is nuclear fission we're talking about." So Chernobyl is really a harsh lesson in the responsibility that comes with nuclear power and that cutting corners, denying the true power it holds and not respecting it can have disastrous consequences.
That a “2 to 4 Megaton” explosion would be impossible should be known to anyone who took a high-school science class - that it ended up in a historical drama only shows the grade-school ignorance of the writers.
I lived in communist Poland and the portray of the political apparatus is absolutely accurate. I praised this show for its portray of Soviet Union
Soviet means "council", not "union." The word for union is "soyuz."
The science channel Veritasium did a video in which he measured the ionizing radiation from the clothing of the firefighters wore at the Chernobyl reactor and then put it into perspective to other sources: ua-cam.com/video/TRL7o2kPqw0/v-deo.html
The show isn't fear mongering nuclear power. In the podcast he specifically says that.
It's kinda irrelevant to the point what they say in the podcast though. The intent of the author has to be seen separate with what the piece of media communicates to the public if we want to find out whether the piece in question is harmful. Otherwise, how would we conceptualize an author miss-communicating?
@@JK03011997 I agree with your point about what the writer intended doesn't correspond with what is portrayed. However, what points in the show make it specifically fear mongering? Like, sure, it shows the consequences of such a disaster. However, the last episode explains on why it shouldn't ever happen again. Provided there aren't any design flaws or operators who fail to follow procedure. Valery Legasov even says in the courtroom that nuclear energy is great provided everything goes right. He didn't advocate for every nuclear power plant to be shut down, he just wanted to make sure the design flaw to be fixed. My personal takeaway was on how lying about and downplaying something this severe will harm others. Which is especially relevant today with climate change. I guess I'm in the minority when I look at the comment section, though.
Huh? We should call out those who were overly concerned that a freaking nuclear power plant blew up and say it’s hyperbole? I’d rather have “fear mongering” officials in charge vs oh it’s ok it’s not THAT bad.
seandelevan; I disagree. Comparing a nuclear explosion where Uranium (the most easily obtainable volatile nuclear mineral) which was only noticed by the surrounding residents as a "loud bang" where they literally just continued with their day rather than vomit and catch infections excessively like how radiation would affect you
To
"This will kill the entirety of Europe" seems very excessive.
That would be saying that if Hiroshima were to explode, it's aftereffects would reach all of japan and south korea
Again I was slightly fooled, but stil I insanely still love this show because of it's atmospheric realism. It feels so like you're there
I never got the impression they were talking about the reactor exploding in that scene, rather that the molten core would hit the water tanks and instantly vaporize the water, creating a huge explosion that would carry radioactive debris across Europe.
I dunno how realistic that is (I mean, makes sense instantly vaporizing hundreds of gallons of water would be bad, but not that bad).
Whenever people complain about the show talking about the reactor exploding, I wonder if they actually payed attention to that part.
Also, while I understand the desire for a show to tackle the more big picture stuff around Chernobyl, its pretty clear the show was more focused on the individual tales of the small heroes, which I really appreciate.
I had to study Chernobyl as a case study in my environmental classes in college, so I know the doomsday forecast in the show was way beyond what really happened. But I have no idea what the Soviet scientists thought might happen. So maybe the show is showing how they reacted, even if the real people were overstating the danger. But I also kept in mind this show was meant to entertain so either way, I was willing to let some things slide.
Uh oh my man is about to drops some history
You don’t think there could have been another explosion if the melted core hit the unground water or caused an ecological disaster by contaminating unground water.
I would like to also mention if anyone wants to hear an account of a person affected by Chernobyl in the Klitschko documentary about their lives. Wladimir and his brother Vitali talk about it in a fair amount of detail from there perspective but their father also talks about how as one of the closest generals with free men they where the first on site for clean up. It's very interesting and I don't know if his father talked more on it before he passed but it's very interesting seeing him talk about that part of their lives
The explosion they were concerned about was stated to be due to superheated steam, not a thermonuclear explosion
An explosion of a level you can only achieve with thermonuclear weapons.
I highly recommend the show Babylon Berlin on Netflix. It's a show based on the interwar years in Berlin Germany. It's historical fiction but it's amazing!
I was hoping for another season, but so far there hasn't been one, even in Germany.
The way you say panic mongering makes me feel like you're Stalin talking about this event because Stalin prevented panic mongering no matter what
To be fair, the chernobyl mini series did less fear mongering probably than the recent documentary about 3 mile island, which would raise hypotheticals and then not answer them to imply a threat that did not actually exist.
Very true. My opinion on this show has mellowed out somewhat. It really was just the shock of things I believed from the show being proven wrong on closer inspection. That Netflix doc, on the other hand, is truly horrendous. Luckily Kyle Hill did a good debunking on it
A friend of mine, a nuclear physicist, quit watching the show before the half hour mark.
That's a shame. What upset her? I got annoyed with Dyatlov in the first episode, but he's literally wrong about everything, you can't take his statements as being indicative of how the writers think nuclear power works.
From what I have read, the scientists may well have thought that the water tanks exploding would have resulted in a massive explosion.
No scientist worth their salt should've predicted an explosion greater than the amount of energy contained in the fuel.
Even if the fuel was weapons-grade, the most powerful purely fission based bomb ever designed was only half a megaton.
At 3:50, you mention how nuclear reactors cannot explode like nuclear bombs. Ok, fair enough.
The character wasn't talking about a nuclear explosion though. Or the reactor exploding. She was talking about the water from tanks being vapourized (much like how phreatomagmatic eruptions work).
The yields of those vapor explosions she spoke of had more power than the reactor started with.
It takes thermonuclear weapons to achieve megaton level explosions.
@@bansho7076 Quite right ! I made the exact same point in another comment.
I reckon the way he said it was implying that the reactor could not explode at all.
I find it quite puzzling that, in a show about the most severe nuclear accident in history, the main point of criticism seems to be that there is too much fear mongering about nuclear energy in it.
That is because the most severe nuclear accident in history had miniscule effects, and the main thing trumping up fears of radiation was not the actual effects of the disaster, but international fearmongering.
I wrote an entire paper about this. The number of people who perished due to Chernobyl was probably not as low 4,000 as the UN Chernobyl Forum originally concluded, however it is nowhere near the number quoted by the show or many groups and organizations. The amended number is around 9,000 fatalities (including long-term illnesses such as cancer). It is certainly not the Greenpeace "100,000" as many experts pointed out flaws in their research. Since nearly all accidental radiation-induced fatalities occurred at Chernobyl, this goes to show that nuclear energy is by and large the safest form of energy currently in existence (keep in mind that other forms of renewable energy are often built with materials coming from dangerous sources such as child labor in Central Africa).
As Cypher points out, many of the points brought up by the show are flat-out false and serve as nothing more than classic anti-nuclear fear mongering. So yes, the main point being against fear mongering is completely understandable as the show's creators seem to not have a clue of the subject matter. I'm not exactly sure what your problem with the criticism is? I understand that in many countries, we have been brought up to believe that nuclear power is the most dangerous form of energy production out there, but that is nothing more than a myth.
I hope that if you misunderstood a few things this comment helped you out a little. If you want more information on nuclear power, good luck, it is one of the few scientific concepts out there that a large portion of the media completely misunderstands. Try to avoid reading newspapers (except for perhaps the Guardian, Forbes, or the NYT which seem to usually get nuclear physics right) and organizations such as Greenpeace. Try reading scientific journals and books or papers written by academics.
Now, you are claiming that the show is spreading potential hyperbole, but do you know if the historical figures actually believed such hyperbole at the time?
0:20 Fukushima: hold my beer
Glad that Pikalov wasn’t over exaggerated.
I may be wrong but did the suicide squad not stop Chernobyl from effecting far more of Europe? So it could of potentially effected most of Europe?
Thank you for this analysis. I think it is very important to be aware of what HBO got wrong. The misleading portrayal of the Soviet state is important, because it gives the wrong impression of a state that, far from wanting to shoot everyone to preserve itself, had lost its sense of purpose and would collapse within 5 years. And on top of that, it should be obvious why it's wrong to give a false impression of the dangers of nuclear power. I'm glad to learn about the role of Radio Free Europe -- interesting parallels with the role of RT in America today.
yr obt svt as someone who lives in an ex-soviet republic I can confirm that the show’s portrayal of soviet bureaucrats is spot on.
Spot on.... for what era? 1930s?
@5:38
People with extreme cases of the acute radiation poisoning can be dangerous to those around them. The scene is probably exaggerated, but I'd chalk it up to the dramatic license.
PS. "radiation... contagious" Come on :)
It's exaggerated based off of a primary source (the account of the Firefighter's wife who lost her child). She didn't go into detail of the medical science involved in her account because she wasn't a doctor of scientist. The show went to great pains to show her 1st person account.
Great video and all but I’m pretty sure that when they were talking about the entire continent of Europe possibly being destroyed, the film makers may have heard of the possibility of the Elephants Foot hitting the water table and causing a massive pressure release and the info got lost in translation or something. I dunno. Maybe?
No, it was about false (made up) concerns over air contamination and radioactive rain. One, at that point in the show the liquidators hadn't triggered a meltdown yet which would cause contamination of the water table. Two, if the water table was contaminated, it would only contaminate the Dniepr river basin.
Honestly, I don't think it is nuclear fearmongering. Legasov made it pretty clear that he supported nuclear power done right. Given that he is a nuclear physicist, it makes sense. What happened at Chernobyl was not doing it right.
Just to be clear. When they were talking about it blowing up, they weren’t talking about the reactor exploding, but the lava hitting the water table underground and vaporizing the water causing overpressure.
---For those claiming that the fear-mongering was intentional to scare politicians into action, then that needs to be shown in context of the show. Without it, that is fear mongering. Doesn't matter if that's a worst-case scenario or something dumb someone actually said, without showing why that is dumb or worst-case, the show is fear-mongering. Finally it does not matter whether the creators have sad they purposefully went with this in the podcast, they still failed to put that in the text of the show. Fear-mongering is still fear-mongering, intentional or otherwise.
I think its fair to say that they separated people in hospitals because they didn't really know what they were dealing with. Not simply fear mongering.