Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Chernobyl - HBO/Sky *Spoilers*

1131416181930

Comments

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 81 ✭✭Crusty Jocks


    GavRedKing wrote: »
    I can see why the dog scenes struck home hard for a lot of people but I applaud them for showing it, its part of the messy clean up that would often go unnoticed.

    Yeah, maybe but too much time was spent on it IMO. It would've been better if they dedicated a bit more time to showing what the other clean up crews were doing, the crews he named as they were walking through the camp. I know its important to show the true horror of what happened, and the hospital scenes were very well made and I think showing the deaths in such a graphic way was necessary and they got that just right. But, the litter of puppies feeding around its mother...nah, that was just gratuitous.

    Scenes on the roof were fantastic. What I didn't understand was how it was in anyway safer to be a few feet on the other side of a concrete wall with an open doorway. The character giving orders isn't even wearing a mask.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    the litter of puppies feeding around its mother...nah, that was just gratuitous.

    It showed hard hard it was for the regular Ivan to be roped into helping out, be they put on the roof or what some would think is the easier job of killing the animals. There was nothing gratuitous as all that happened was distance gun shots.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,614 ✭✭✭valoren


    Scenes on the roof were fantastic. What I didn't understand was how it was in anyway safer to be a few feet on the other side of a concrete wall with an open doorway. The character giving orders isn't even wearing a mask.

    I guess the insides of the walls were coated with lead and this combined with the concrete would prohibit the gamma radiation from penetrating the wall. The general character alludes to this when he says they've used most of the immediately available lead in the Soviet Union already for such purposes. The guys on the other side of the wall would have known the 'hot' spots too i.e explicitly where they should not stand considering the radiation can't go around corners and just radiates from a straight line of sight.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,503 ✭✭✭brianregan09


    What's the name of the podcast guys, want to find it on podcast addict


  • Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    What's the name of the podcast guys, want to find it on podcast addict

    Search the chernobyl podcast


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,809 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    Its a very interesting podcast, but christ the host gets on my nerves ..... riighht .... riight..... riiiiggghhhtttt .... riiiggghhttt....

    Are "Right" and "Like" the 2 most popular words used by Americans ???


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,809 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    What's the name of the podcast guys, want to find it on podcast addict

    https://youtu.be/TzhpQxdhv6U


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,809 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    No doubt Ulana will be the hero in the final episode :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,446 ✭✭✭✭Sardonicat


    Its a very interesting podcast, but christ the host gets on my nerves ..... riighht .... riight..... riiiiggghhhtttt .... riiiggghhttt....

    Are "Right" and "Like" the 2 most popular words used by Americans ???
    You forgot 'super '. Super good, super difficult, super dangerous. .....

    Very, extremely, really, super annoying.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 875 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    Yeah, a thick concrete would block most or all of the direct radiation. That's why they were being told not to look over the wall on the roof.

    It wouldn't have been all that easy to predict how it was reflecting though. For example you can get "sky shine" which is where radiation is bounced back down from cloudy skies. You'd also have had all sorts of unpredictable reflection from objects.

    I'd suspect the single biggest risk there was inhalation, swallowing and skin coating.

    The graphite is just carbon which burns quite readily when exposed to oxygen in the air. The reactor core was made out of hundreds of thousands of graphite bricks which were normally kept in a helium atmosphere. So when the reactor split open, air got into very hot carbon, being heated by hundreds of out of control fuel rods, so once the oxygen from the air vgot in it would have ignited. That fire sent radioactive smoke into the air that would have contained basically vast amount of dust made up of what was originally in the reactor core.

    So basically they were exposed to very serious levels of radiation and hot particles far beyond what was shining from the core.

    Other than the UK's gas cooled reactors and the RMBKs in Russia, graphite moderators aren't used in civil nuclear power. They're normally moderated by normal water, or in Canadian designs heavy water.

    The advantage of that is because the coolant is also the neutron moderator, if the reactor ever burst the chain reaction typically stops because there's no moderator. In a graphite core it keeps on going

    The Chernobyl RMBK design uses both water and graphite. It's unnecessarily complex and actually managed to combine the worst risks of both approaches giving you all the risks of steam explosion but a reactor that's very hard to shut down.

    Although Fukushima shows older Western designs aren't exactly fail safe either.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,267 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    No doubt Ulana will be the hero in the final episode :rolleyes:

    The creator said she was put in as basically a plot point to be the good side of all the people that were dealing with and trying to get to the bottom of the incident, including Legasov and Scherbina.

    I imagine it will end with Legasov talking in Vienna and maybe a jump forward to his recording of the tapes before his suicide.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 81 ✭✭Crusty Jocks


    Hurrache wrote: »
    There was nothing gratuitous as all that happened was distance gun shots.

    For something to be gratuitous it doesn't mean it has to be seen nor does it have to be in the context of violence.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 53,267 ✭✭✭✭GavRedKing


    As per the podcast, in the script and best on a real account of what happened, there is far more disturbing scene that never made it to film involving a pup that survived but was being dumped and instead of burying it alive in concrete they had to strangle it as they had no bullets left.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,655 ✭✭✭✭Tokyo


    Chernobyl casting was pretty spot on, it seems...

    zfQ6ZUm.jpg


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,501 ✭✭✭✭Slydice


    Highest rated TV show on IMDB with 9.6 out of 10 on the Top TV page.
    https://www.imdb.com/chart/toptv/


    Not sure if that is out of date as the page for the show itself says 9.7:
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7366338


    The rating breakdown is wierd with the bump at the bottom giving it a 1 out of 10:
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7366338/ratings
    481692.png

    Maybe the 9.6 is coming from the US only figures on the rating page.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Anteayer wrote: »
    The Chernobyl RMBK design uses both water and graphite. It's unnecessarily complex and actually managed to combine the worst risks of both approaches giving you all the risks of steam explosion but a reactor that's very hard to shut down.
    And a massive money saver as you can use unrefined Uranium. Graphite is an excellent moderator, bringing neutrons to almost the precise speed necessary for nuclear fission. For this reason the uranium can be much less pure and the reaction will keep going at a decent rate. However the rate of fission is so quick/good it would quickly get out of hand if it were not for the water doing double duty as a coolant and a controller (by absorbing some of the neutrons). This double duty role of the coolant is the main culprit for the accident. Of course there are more details as I mentioned in my last post.

    However all of this is because the RMBK reactor design was originally intended to make Plutonium for nuclear weapons, not for generating electricity. Slight adjustments in the settings allow it to produce Plutonium quite rapidly as a waste product of the reactions.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 875 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    In the Soviet context, I would suspect it was a lot more to do with the plutonium production and a lot of arrogance and disregard for safety rather than cost as they were a command economy. There was no real 'cost' per se as they were not a normal economy. The state could simply direct resources at a project if it wanted to.

    When you consider the lack of containment, it's fairly clear where the priorities lay, or rather didn't.

    The only other country using graphite moderated reactors for civil power is the UK. They're a completely different design - cooled by CO2. In that case I'd buy the cost argument, as they wanted to use non-enriched fuel. The power density of the UK designs is extremely low, they're enormous reactors for their output. The advantage of that is that if there ever were a major problem they can cool passively without any real risk of meltdowns and because they contain no water, steam explosions are impossible - the problem being when water turns into steam it suddenly occupies a much greater volume, which is why it's both useful and potentially dangerous in a sealed system.

    So generally the AGR plants in the UK would be considered to be extremely conservative as a design and pose very little risk and would have lots of safety redundancy in their designs.

    The RMBK was, sadly, just a very poor piece of engineering by any standards and I would suspect a large part of that was because it was shrouded in military secrecy due to its weapons roles and the soviet command structure.

    There is a second Soviet / Russian civil reactor design called VVER that is very much like what's used in the US, France etc, a fairly normal pressurised water reactor design without any of the flaws in Chernobyl/RMBK designs. It was not part of the military setup though as it doesn't produce anything useful for weapons. It's just a normal electricity plant.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,558 ✭✭✭✭Fourier


    Anteayer wrote: »
    In the Soviet context, I would suspect it was a lot more to do with the plutonium production and a lot of arrogance and disregard for safety rather than cost as they were a command economy. There was no real 'cost' per se as they were not a normal economy. The state could simply direct resources at a project if it wanted to.

    When you consider the lack of containment, it's fairly clear where the priorities lay, or rather didn't.

    The only other country using graphite moderated reactors for civil power is the UK. They're a completely different design - cooled by CO2. In that case I'd buy the cost argument, as they wanted to use non-enriched fuel. The power density of the UK designs is extremely low, they're enormous reactors for their output.
    I don't think so. The use of them to produce Plutonium was largely finished when they began to be used for civilian power. The design is good as a Plutonium production plant, but it was realised that it could also provide civilian power without the need to create a Uranium refinement industry to support it. None of the civilian plants were set correctly to produce the level of Plutonium the older nuclear arms race required. Also safer reactors required casings that the Soviet Union didn't have the industries to manufacture.

    From the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 1986:
    It has also been estimated from these ratios that the fuel in the core was in use for an average of about two years, which accords with the time the unit had been operating. This indicates that the reactor was not used for producing weapon-grade plutonium

    Of course the state was more directly powerful in the USSR, but things still had a resource and time cost. They wanted to avoid having to make all the infrastructure you need to manufacture refined Uranium and the casings needed for a safer reactor.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 875 ✭✭✭Anteayer


    That was pretty much the same argument used for Magnox and AGR gas cooled graphite moderated plants which have been the staple of UK power for decades.

    They could avoid the expense of having to produce or import enriched fuels.

    However AGR was insanely expensive and complex to construct. They're very safe and far from cheap but they had several sites where construction started in the 60s and grid connection happened in the mid 80s.

    The AGR design was never exported as it proved so expensive to construct and the last plant built in the UK in the 1980s/90s was fine using Westinghouse PWR technology not British AGR.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,399 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache




  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Just one more sleep x


  • Posts: 13,822 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Slydice wrote: »
    Highest rated TV show on IMDB with 9.6 out of 10 on the Top TV page.
    https://www.imdb.com/chart/toptv/


    Not sure if that is out of date as the page for the show itself says 9.7:
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7366338


    The rating breakdown is wierd with the bump at the bottom giving it a 1 out of 10:
    https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7366338/ratings
    481692.png

    Maybe the 9.6 is coming from the US only figures on the rating page.

    Apparently I gotta check out those nature documentaries


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭Limpy


    Some pics I took last year in Pripyat and Chernobyl.


  • Users Awaiting Email Confirmation Posts: 1,104 ✭✭✭Limpy


    Few more.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,321 ✭✭✭✭Frank Bullitt


    I get the last episode tonight. No idea what I will do once this is over...I suppose I will watch it all again.

    Also, great snaps Limpy!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19 Dav13579


    Very good. But that was a tough watch


  • Posts: 24,774 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Limpy wrote: »
    Few more.

    Were you able to enter the station itself? I really want to visit and seeing Pripyat is defiantly part of the reason but if it’s not possible to get a tour inside the station, see a control room, a turbine hall, maybe even a reactor hall etc then it would be a disappointment.

    I do see tours inside advertised (for a decent wedge of money) but you never know if they actually do them for sure.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 81 ✭✭Crusty Jocks


    Were you able to enter the station itself? I really want to visit and seeing Pripyat is defiantly part of the reason but if it’s not possible to get a tour inside the station, see a control room, a turbine hall, maybe even a reactor hall etc then it would be a disappointment.

    I do see tours inside advertised (for a decent wedge of money) but you never know if they actually do them for sure.

    Weird....as in your desires on what you really want to see. Voyeurism, nothing more.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,226 ✭✭✭Credit Checker Moose


    No, you cannot go inside any of the building.

    The nearest you can get is the monument. I was there in 2013.
    Radiation was off the charts standing there. Max allowed exposure there was 60 seconds.
    HwsMVlp.jpg
    wCDLEbr.jpg
    This is the sarcophagus in construction April 2013.
    0ecUDj9.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Posts: 24,774 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    No, you cannot go inside any of the building.

    The nearest you can get is the monument. I was there in 2013.
    Radiation was off the charts standing there. Max allowed exposure there was 60 seconds.
    HwsMVlp.jpg[IMG]https://i.imgur.com/wCDLEbr.jpg This is the sarcophagus in construction April 2013.[/img]0ecUDj9.jpg

    I sort of thought this would be the case but when I went looking into it I can find trip advisor endorsed tours which state they include inside the plant, get into control room 3 etc.

    This is just one example: https://www.chernobylwel.com/tour/9/chernobyl-power-plant-and-pripyat-tour-2-days


Advertisement