TV: Chernobyl (HBO)

[Tuggy]

The five-part miniseries premieres Monday, May 6 on HBO.

Click to read more...

 

[Bubba Thudd]

I might just have to watch this.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

Looks good.

 

[hangman005]

Could be interesting, or could be anti nuclear propaganda. Will watch but will see if it exposes the misconceptions about it or plays on them.... or it could take the obvious path and have everyone turn into super heroes

But truth be told I wouldn’t mind visiting the place.

 

[TP]

Going to watch it. Pripyat intrigues me. I want to go visit.

 

[Viggo Mortensen]

Will watch for sure. I visited Chernobyl and Pripyat a year ago. That was an incredible experience. I'm curious how they'll portrait this.

 

[The Crypto Guy]

Definitely will give this a watch.

 

[Hockeyfrilla]

 

[GabeTravels]

Very excited for this. Heard about it a year or so ago.

 

[Bubba Thudd]

Looks good, but it won't be a movie where you feel good afterwards.

 

[Tuggy]

Looks great. Of course horrible for those who when through it and suffered, but very interesting story.

 

[Neutrinos]

Just saw the trailer on YouTube and came to start a thread about it

 

[Winger98]

just started a book called Midnight in Chernobyl. If this is half as good as the book, it's going to be frighteningly good. And just frightening.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Watched a pretty good doc on this a while back, sounds intriguing.

 

[RobBrown4PM]

Looks good, but the last time a bunch of brits played Ruskies we got Enemy at the Gates, and we all know that turned out.

Now,

Get out of here, Stalker.

 

[glovesave_35]

Could be interesting, or could be anti nuclear propaganda. Will watch but will see if it exposes the misconceptions about it or plays on them.... or it could take the obvious path and have everyone turn into super heroes

But truth be told I wouldn’t mind visiting the place.

What propaganda points are those, exactly?

 

[alko]

the last time a bunch of brits played Ruskies we got Enemy at the Gates

You forgot Kursk.

 

[hangman005]

What propaganda points are those, exactly?

Probably the biggest ones would be that nuclear power is dirty, and inherently dangerous. It is in fact one of the cleanest and safest form of electricity production there is, it even beats out solar and wind. I have heard "environmentalists" state reasons as to why they push these lies, but that would be crossing into politics.

But nuclear, like weed has been subject to a long campaign of lies and misinformation, and scare tactics. I am slowly seeing more people becoming open to nuclear power, but perhaps not fast enough.

 

[glovesave_35]

Probably the biggest ones would be that nuclear power is dirty, and inherently dangerous. It is in fact one of the cleanest and safest form of electricity production there is, it even beats out solar and wind. I have heard "environmentalists" state reasons as to why they push these lies, but that would be crossing into politics.

But nuclear, like weed has been subject to a long campaign of lies and misinformation, and scare tactics. I am slowly seeing more people becoming open to nuclear power, but perhaps not fast enough.

Well there is the matter of what happens when things don't go right, like Chernobyl and Fukushima. The sea life around Japan is still highly dangerous for consumption.

I largely agree though.

 

[hangman005]

Well there is the matter of what happens when things don't go right, like Chernobyl and Fukushima. The sea life around Japan is still highly dangerous for consumption.

I largely agree though.

It's not without some issues, nothing is. But even the big disasters have a pretty low casualty rate, compared to others. But when you think Chernobyl you imagine a big gigantic explosion that killed thousands. 50 is closer to the truth. But I think both Chernobyl and Fukushima show what happens when you either shutoffs all the safety systems and then do stupid shit or mother nature steps in and says hey I want attention.

 

[Viggo Mortensen]

It's not without some issues, nothing is. But even the big disasters have a pretty low casualty rate, compared to others. But when you think Chernobyl you imagine a big gigantic explosion that killed thousands. 50 is closer to the truth. But I think both Chernobyl and Fukushima show what happens when you either shutoffs all the safety systems and then do stupid **** or mother nature steps in and says hey I want attention.

I'm pretty neutral when it comes to Nuclear Energy. The official number of deaths from the explosion/fire is small yes, however the impact on population around the site is impossible to track and this impact is still felt to this day (cancers, malformations, bad crops, etc.). When I visited the site, my guide did a great job of explaining everything that was impacted from this. Walking around with a geiger counter around your neck is a special feeling even if the radiation is very low, there are some spots with some major spikes, thats the scariest part.

 

[Albatros]

Not to mention such spikes can and will exist far from the accident site, in the case of Chernobyl even in Norway, so the (very) long-term impact of such accidents is much more complex than with accidents associated with most other types of energy production even if these may at times claim as many or more lives immediately.

 

[sigma six]

It's not without some issues, nothing is. But even the big disasters have a pretty low casualty rate, compared to others. But when you think Chernobyl you imagine a big gigantic explosion that killed thousands. 50 is closer to the truth. But I think both Chernobyl and Fukushima show what happens when you either shutoffs all the safety systems and then do stupid **** or mother nature steps in and says hey I want attention.

Yep, like locate all the backup generators below sea level in the case of Fukushima. Not smart anywhere you get tidal waves.
Like with all inventions, designs are refined and improved especially after disaster. The newest nuclear plants being built have a massive water tank that can just drown the reactor in emergencies like those, for example.

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Soviet/Russian safety record on Nuclear should not be used to discredit entire industry/future

As for Fukushima its pretty difficult to blame Japanese engineers or Nuclear power for the sad reality that it was a combo of disasters that lead to event

- One of the greatest earthquakes in recorded history (9.0-9.1)
- A Tsunami that overwhelmed Tsunami wall
- The loss of primary power and then flooding/destruction of backup generators
- The buildup of gases that lead to explosions and fires

To use that disaster to say we shouldn't invest in Nuclear Energy is absurd

By that logic we would have to then remove and shutdown any chemical plant , power plant , structure , etc in California or Missouri that would be at risk of failure or damage in event major quakes strike those regions

 

[Blackhawkswincup]

Yep, like locate all the backup generators below sea level in the case of Fukushima. Not smart anywhere you get tidal waves.
Like with all inventions, designs are refined and improved especially after disaster. The newest nuclear plants being built have a massive water tank that can just drown the reactor in emergencies like those, for example.

The seawall protection would have been sufficient if not for the massive tsunami created by a earthquake that was largest in recorded Japanese history

The chances of a 9.0+ hitting again are remote for generations in Japan