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

Chernobyl - HBO/Sky *Spoilers*

Options
1…2426282930

Comments

  • Options
    #752
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    Dial Hard wrote: »
    And I maintain that a large cohort of those complaining about it wouldn't have had remotely the same issue had it been a plucky man.

    its a good position to have because we will never know :D

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #753
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    Those Russian scientists were trying to combat something without precedent. In the programme, they thought that a steam explosion and the subsequent ejection of the three remaining cores could cause an explosion in the region of 2-4 megatons (3-5 megatons according to the documentary clip shown in that Thunderf00t video). It was conjecture of the worst kind in all probability but when dealing with something like Chernobyl, isn't planning for the worst outcome not the most sensible thing to do. Most experts say it would have made the situation worse but not as bad as stated in the programme but again they are basing it on conjecture. So what way would you actually have wanted the Soviets to do to deal with the situation? Did they have to point out the possible doomsday scenario to spur their leaders into action? And what way would you have wanted the filmmakers to deal with this in the end credits? 'It probably wouldn't have been as bad as this characters pointed out but we're actually not sure entirely how bad it would have been....'

    Also, the voice on that Thunderf00t fella... How can people listen to that snarky whine for more than 35 minutes? Jesus, it's unbearable.


  • Options
    #754
    fxotoole
    Registered Users Posts: 1,661 ✭✭✭fxotoole


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Those Russian scientists were trying to combat something without precedent. In the programme, they thought that a steam explosion and the subsequent ejection of the three remaining cores could cause an explosion in the region of 2-4 megatons (3-5 megatons according to the documentary clip shown in that Thunderf00t video). It was conjecture of the worst kind in all probability but when dealing with something like Chernobyl, isn't planning for the worst outcome not the most sensible thing to do. Most experts say it would have made the situation worse but not as bad as stated in the programme but again they are basing it on conjecture. So what way would you actually have wanted the Soviets to do to deal with the situation? Did they have to point out the possible doomsday scenario to spur their leaders into action? And what way would you have wanted the filmmakers to deal with this in the end credits? 'It probably wouldn't have been as bad as this characters pointed out but we're actually not sure entirely how bad it would have been....'

    Also, the voice on that Thunderf00t fella... How can people listen to that snarky whine for more than 35 minutes? Jesus, it's unbearable.

    I reckon he puts on that voice deliberately just to rile up the flat earthers


  • Options
    #755
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    fxotoole wrote: »
    I reckon he puts on that voice deliberately just to rile up the flat earthers

    You know the way they play frequencies outside shopping centres to drive away teenagers? I think his voice is at a frequency that only lads that spend 16 hours a day playing WoW in their underwear can withstand.


  • Options
    #756
    Nermal
    Registered Users Posts: 2,618 ✭✭✭Nermal


    There's good discussion here:

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/480113/how-large-would-the-steam-explosion-at-chernobyl-have-been

    Interestingly, it mentions the source of the 'nuclear explosion' myth as Gorbachev.

    Perhaps the situation was deliberately exaggerated to ensure it got the proper attention. Or maybe he just got confused...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #757
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,473 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    From memory, a nuclear explosion is triggered by conventional explosives exerting massive amounts of pressure on the fissile or fusible material, which then triggers a chain reaction of that material. While it may have started as a steam explosion, the resulting explosion may have been enough to then trigger a secondary nuclear explosion, depending on what the containment of the nuclear material was (it could also just have spread the material, aka a dirty bomb).


  • Options
    #758
    PhilOssophy
    Registered Users Posts: 2,114 ✭✭✭PhilOssophy


    Time to unfollow, a good thread has turned into "well that didn't happen like that" bullsh....


  • Options
    #759
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Cordell


    There are some speculations that the second explosion (or even the first one) was due to the reactor going prompt critical (as it happens in the bombs) but the third potential explosion was always a potential steam explosion. A reactor cannot produce a full blown nuclear explosion, it's simply not possible. If prompt criticality happens, it will quickly destroy the reactor and stop a full nuclear explosion, but that is not necessarily a good thing, it's still a very dirty bomb.

    I think the series covers the technical aspects quite well, except for the exaggeration of the third explosion that never happened.


  • Options
    #760
    CoBo55
    Registered Users Posts: 8,851 ✭✭✭CoBo55


    Unfollowed.. Pity as I was enjoying the thread.


  • Options
    #761
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Relikk wrote: »
    There were already enough unfamiliar (to us at first, even though we knew who was who by the end of episode 5) Russian names to keep track of in the series without adding an entire team of 20, or so, scientists into the mix, and if they all contributed to the solutions, to focus on one person delivering those solutions would have been a discredit to them. It was a wise decision to amalgamate them into a single fictional character.
    It was a good call and gives a more credible explanation as to how "she" managed to investigate it all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #762
    tuxy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    is_that_so wrote: »
    It was a good call and gives a more credible explanation as to how "she" managed to investigate it all.

    I agree, it worked well but may have been confusing for anyone who did watch the short explanations at the end of each episode.


  • Options
    #763
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Cordell wrote: »
    There are some speculations that the second explosion (or even the first one) was due to the reactor going prompt critical (as it happens in the bombs) but the third potential explosion was always a potential steam explosion. A reactor cannot produce a full blown nuclear explosion, it's simply not possible. If prompt criticality happens, it will quickly destroy the reactor and stop a full nuclear explosion, but that is not necessarily a good thing, it's still a very dirty bomb.

    I think the series covers the technical aspects quite well, except for the exaggeration of the third explosion that never happened.
    Well there did seem to be a lot of guessing about what was required. The miners and their work as it turns out weren't really needed.


  • Options
    #764
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    tuxy wrote: »
    I agree, it worked well but may have been confusing for anyone who did watch the short explanations at the end of each episode.
    Only, I'd say, if you were bothered that she wasn't real. Legassov too had a team even though the series gave the impression he was coming up with all the ideas.


  • Options
    #765
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,630 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    I actually can't believe people in this thread are arguing over whether a composite character (which happens in EVERY Show based on true events btw) was male or female. Composite characters aren't new and I've no problem with them once it's made clear the person is actually that. It's used for time reasons and even real historical figures have had extra lines and other things added.


  • Options
    #766
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,651 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    Amazing how many Irish nuclear physicists post here wha?


  • Options
    #767
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,630 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    is_that_so wrote: »
    Cordell wrote: »
    There are some speculations that the second explosion (or even the first one) was due to the reactor going prompt critical (as it happens in the bombs) but the third potential explosion was always a potential steam explosion. A reactor cannot produce a full blown nuclear explosion, it's simply not possible. If prompt criticality happens, it will quickly destroy the reactor and stop a full nuclear explosion, but that is not necessarily a good thing, it's still a very dirty bomb.

    I think the series covers the technical aspects quite well, except for the exaggeration of the third explosion that never happened.
    Well there did seem to be a lot of guessing about what was required. The miners and their work as it turns out weren't really needed.
    No it wasn't but what was shown in the show did happen and that tunnel and room was built under the reactor.


  • Options
    #768
    leggo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    I actually can't believe people in this thread are arguing over whether a composite character (which happens in EVERY Show based on true events btw) was male or female. Composite characters aren't new and I've no problem with them once it's made clear the person is actually that. It's used for time reasons and even real historical figures have had extra lines and other things added.

    Yep, if anything I really liked how they broke the fourth wall at the end and told you “So this was just a character and here’s why we did it.”

    But it’s 2019 boards. So a woman being portrayed as competent is going to get written off as “PC bull****”.


  • Options
    #769
    ZX7R
    Registered Users Posts: 3,426 ✭✭✭ZX7R


    As a television program ,it is excellent viewing.


  • Options
    #770
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    No it wasn't but what was shown in the show did happen and that tunnel and room was built under the reactor.
    Yes I know. I was commenting on the fact that some options or opinions in such a scenario will turn out to be wrong. or possibly exaggerated.


  • Options
    #771
    is_that_so
    Registered Users Posts: 32,136 ✭✭✭✭is_that_so


    Henry Ford III wrote: »
    Amazing how many Irish nuclear physicists post here wha?
    There are one or two involved in physics or science, who have posted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #772
    Itssoeasy
    Registered Users Posts: 39,630 ✭✭✭✭Itssoeasy


    ZX7R wrote: »
    As a television program ,it is excellent viewing.
    Which is the main point anyone should take from the show.

    And even though the female character that Emily Watson played wasn’t real but for all the Soviet Union faults, it was clearly very advanced in science and technology and having women in high positions. I mean the USSR had an amazing space program and were decades ahead of the US in putting women into space. Valentina Tereshkova was in space in 1963.


  • Options
    #773
    ZX7R
    Registered Users Posts: 3,426 ✭✭✭ZX7R


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Which is the main point anyone should take from the show.

    And even though the female character that Emily Watson played wasn’t real but for all the Soviet Union faults, it was clearly very advanced in science and technology and having women in high positions. I mean the USSR had an amazing space program and were decades ahead of the US in putting women into space. Valentina Tereshkova was in space in 1963.

    It was a Ukraine lad I work with told me to watch it,he reconned it was near as realistic to the reality of what happened. his wife is from Chernobyl.
    As far as the science of it he didn't even know how factual it was.
    I really hope to see more programs ,as entertaining as Chernobyl on sky in the future.


  • Options
    #774
    adam88
    Registered Users Posts: 1,599 ✭✭✭adam88


    ZX7R wrote: »
    It was a Ukraine lad I work with told me to watch it,he reconned it was near as realistic to the reality of what happened. his wife is from Chernobyl.
    As far as the science of it he didn't even know how factual it was.
    I really hope to see more programs ,as entertaining as Chernobyl on sky in the future.

    Here here. I’d gladly keep paying my subs every month if that quality was kept going


  • Options
    #775
    goose2005
    Registered Users Posts: 4,798 ✭✭✭goose2005


    Itssoeasy wrote: »
    Which is the main point anyone should take from the show.

    And even though the female character that Emily Watson played wasn’t real but for all the Soviet Union faults, it was clearly very advanced in science and technology and having women in high positions. I mean the USSR had an amazing space program and were decades ahead of the US in putting women into space. Valentina Tereshkova was in space in 1963.

    Certainly in the sciences. For example, in the 1960s 40% of chemistry PhDs went to women. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-had-a-better-record-of-training-women-in-stem-than-america-does-today-180948141/ However, I don't think that that necessarily translated to leadership positions, the Communist Party was very much a boys' club.


  • Options
    #776
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 17,849 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    goose2005 wrote: »
    Certainly in the sciences. For example, in the 1960s 40% of chemistry PhDs went to women. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/soviet-russia-had-a-better-record-of-training-women-in-stem-than-america-does-today-180948141/ However, I don't think that that necessarily translated to leadership positions, the Communist Party was very much a boys' club.

    what do you mean by "boys club" do you mean they deliberately kept women out or the top scientists tend to be men?

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Options
    #777
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    silverharp wrote: »
    what do you mean by "boys club" do you mean they deliberately kept women out or the top scientists tend to be men?

    Top scientists tend to be men anyway, purely on stats/interests ... nothing to do with overall ability.


  • Options
    #778
    Hector Savage
    Registered Users Posts: 8,810 ✭✭✭Hector Savage


    bez-nazvaniya.jpg


  • Options
    #779
    leggo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,061 ✭✭✭leggo


    Hector Savage wrote: »
    Top scientists tend to be men anyway, purely on stats/interests ... nothing to do with overall ability.

    Not in this particular place at this particular time, as many as 40% of doctors/scientists were women. That’s why they made it a female character, it’s been explained multiple times now.


  • Options
    #780
    Cordell
    Registered Users Posts: 5,844 ✭✭✭Cordell


    I dare to say that women in STEM fields were much more common in that part of the world during those times than they are now and here. Women were common in all kind of jobs, from lathe operators to physicists and mathematicians.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #781
    Greyjoy
    Registered Users Posts: 540 ✭✭✭Greyjoy


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    Those Russian scientists were trying to combat something without precedent. In the programme, they thought that a steam explosion and the subsequent ejection of the three remaining cores could cause an explosion in the region of 2-4 megatons (3-5 megatons according to the documentary clip shown in that Thunderf00t video). It was conjecture of the worst kind in all probability but when dealing with something like Chernobyl, isn't planning for the worst outcome not the most sensible thing to do.

    That's exactly the point the series creator Mazin makes in the HBO podcast series. The russian scientists were dealing with probabilities of what might happen. Do they take drastic action or just cross their fingers and hope the worse case scenario doesn't happen?


Advertisement