Jump to content
Geronimo553

Chernobyl HBO mini series

Recommended Posts

I’m told it’s the equivalent of a chest x-ray. 


Zacharias, I starting reading your comments thinking your opinions were founded on a desire to simply go against the grain, but I can understand your frustrations/sentiments. There is a lot of sensationalism in the series, even if it is well done. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:

There is a lot of sensationalism in the series, even if it is well done

I have to agree but I'm assuming the producers wanted to make an "entertaining" drama based on historical events. To have a very clinical absolutely scientifically based drama, for the casual viewer would probably be boring. 

Quite an interesting documentary regarding the aftermath.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, Go_Pre said:

Zacharias, I starting reading your comments thinking your opinions were founded on a desire to simply go against the grain, but I can understand your frustrations/sentiments. There is a lot of sensationalism in the series, even if it is well done. 

I must admit that I am very well entertained by the series. The craftsmanship behind the series as well as the acting is stellar, as you‘d expect it from HBO.

 

My problem is more that I‘m not so sure what the series really tries to achieve besides entertainment as the series is openly not living up to the stated „truth“ in the opening monologue. I‘m not against editing truth such that it makes a smooth story. It can even help understanding what is going on as well as understanding calamities related to the events. But by not being open about such, the series are a bit dishonest. Stating that they take some liberties regarding the plot (which is really ok IMHO) would have helped. I am even under the impression that the series is so good that it gives the casual audience the impression of how it was exactly, when in fact not everything was like that exactly.

 

While being a passionate devils advocate, I do share other posters positive sentiment about the series. But as said, there‘s that other side to it that I wanted to bring up.

 

Edited by ZachariasX
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In response to the Soviet Union's dismissal of actual deaths or related deaths over a period of time. The US has in many cases ignored soldiers exposed to nuclear radiation. Soldiers involved in nuclear testing were not compensated late in life for their medical issues directly caused from high radiation exposure. Because paying for one's medical treatment of such issue is also admitting that something that never happen actually occurred. Which is also why many classified files from WW2 are forever classified state secrets or scheduled for redacted release in 2060. Be it the Soviet Union or the United States, both governments keep their secrets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This was also a great explanation video that covers some things the series could not.
 

 

a more detailed video

 

Edited by Geronimo553

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comparison of HBO vs real footage. Some of the similarities between the actors and real people are striking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2019 at 12:59 AM, Geronimo553 said:

a more detailed video

Interesting how this guy calculates the cost of nuclear power. Fact is that it is by no means economically viable at all. It can only be a proposition if you let the power plants operate free from any liability whatsoever in case of a little *pooff* that is supposedly impossible to happen. Yet, they happen again, again, again, again, again... etc., as if it had to be a qualification for any operator to have blown your steam pot at least just once.

 

Why do I say economically not viable when in fact there are many of those around the world? It is not viable because you cannot insure the risk. In many cases, those reactors are near populated areas. In case of a meltdown, you had to evacuate an area containing worth trillions of $ in real estate, for which you had to compensate. There is no insurance company in the world that would even be remotely able to do so. Cashing out like that does simply not work. (This is not saving banks.)

 

This means, saying yes to nuclear power means answering the question "Do you want a lot of electricity with the downside of maybe be permanently being relocated to the Kamchatka (or wherever far away)?". If your answer is "Yes, I want!", then it is cheap electricity for you. And you just personally insured the nuclear powerplant making it a business proposition. And you just shrug when they come with the busses.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

And you just shrug when they come with the busses.

 

I even question the quote in quote safety rating of nuclear power like was shown in the video. Since the rating is based on direct deaths during the event and not deaths related to radiation sickness later in life. When you add in the damages across a massive area and the people lost due to complications of radiation. The death and damage toll is that of a mega tsunami for each instance of nuclear failure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...