Chernobyl on HBO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We lived in Minsk when this happened. At first, no one told us what was going on, then finally, after maybe 5 days, we got the announcement. Then rumors started circulating, that maybe all the children would be evacuated. My mom was so terrified, that she took an emergency vacation and we went to the Black Sea for a month. When we got back, there were more rumors, about what foods were contaminated, whether it was still a good idea to pick mushrooms, whether our butter was coming from Pripyat, etc. A distant relative of mine volunteered to work for a couple weeks near the reactor, and he died a few months after coming back. They gave the widow a pension, in recompense. We left the country three years later, it was the biggest impetus for my parents to immigrate, not only because of potential danger, but because there was no reliable information. Like rumors that contaminated food was being relabeled with fake point-of-origin info so that people would keep buying it.

That’s fascinating.

[Anonymous]

I’m also from the FSU. We lived in Moscow, but had relatives in Kiev. They came to spend the summer with us due to contamination/radiation concerns, so sort of “self-evacuation”. I was only a kid at the time, but I have spoken to my parents about it multiple times since, and what the PP mentions about how scary it is when the government is trying to conceal an event of that magnitude is very true. People were terrified.

[Anonymous]

I am from Ukraine and was a small child when the accident happened. I now have thyroid issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am from Ukraine and was a small child when the accident happened. I now have thyroid issues.

Did you take iodine pills at the time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've re-read a lot about Chernobyl after watching the series; I've always been fascinated by it.

The man ordered to look into the reactor from the roof was Sitnokov, and he got a fatal dose of radiation from that action.

His name was Anatoly Sitnikov.

The firefighter with the pregnant wife...he dies but the baby later dies from heart failure and cirrhosis of the liver.

Was that baby’s death counted in the official numbers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As horrible as this incident is, I hope rehashing it in this miniseries is not bad PR for nuclear power. A lot went wrong in this situation, and a lot has changed since then.

Really? This is your concern? There are, perhaps, millions of individuals dealing with radiation-induced cancers and birth defects related to the Chernobyl disaster. And that's just one incident.

I really hope that nuclear power does not spread. We have other options. I'll take tar sand oil before more nuclear power.

Then you really know nothing.

Educate me.

PS - do you work at one of these "public affairs" groups that are trying to shape the narrative online about this mini-series?

My spouse is a former nuclear engineer. I certainly don't understand nuclear power to the depths that he does, but he's been blathering on endlessly about the Chernobyl miniseries, so I pick up a thing here and there.

The type of reactor built for Chernobyl has never been built outside of the USSR. A Chernobyl type incident couldn't be replicated in the US because we simply don't have reactors like that. The physics are different.

There's never been a death in 50 years of the US using nuclear power. There's been three historic incidents in all that time. The horrible one, Chernobyl. The one where there was some containment leakage and the lasting impact is unknown, Fukushima. And three mile island, where it was completely contained and no one was injured.

The space it takes to run a nuclear power plant is incredibly small compared to the power generated.

Most of the waste is recyclable. The small amount that isn't recyclable is exactly that....small.

It's cheap, low impact to the environment, safe, and doesn't use land which could best be used for other purposes. I'll never convince people of all that, of course. Some people are still afraid of air travel, and the incidents of accidents are historically low...but that's not on the news.

Uh, an entire reactor unit at TMI that cost millions to build and millions to clean up (and it's still not entirely clean) has never produced a watt of electricity since. And the accident could have been prevented if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the company that built the unit had listened to their own employees who warned them of the consequences of a particular malfunction in Babcock and Wilcox nuclear reactors.

Back in the day, they said that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter but nowadays even plants that haven't had catastrophic accidents are struggling financially because natural gas is a whole lot cheaper than nuclear power. The Perry Nuclear Plant in Ohio is probably going to close unless it gets subsidies from the government. That's not what they promised us. This line about nuclear power being cheap is an old story that never came true. https://www.news-herald.com/news/ohio/perry-nuclear-power-plant-to-close-in/article_919062bd-55d0-5229-8c43-821f26ddb90b.html

[Anonymous]

I was scheduled to go on a trip to the Soviet Union two weeks after the Chernobyl accident. We were supposed to go to Kiev for a few days but that got rescheduled and we spent those days in Vladimir and Suzdal. I remember our American guides talking about how they figured that most produce in the USSR came from nearby farms so that it was probably okay to eat it in Moscow and Leningrad (later St. Petersburg) but I noticed that our guide wasn't eating butter on her bread or ice cream. I figured I shouldn't eat it either but it's hard to be in the Soviet Union and not eat ice cream!

Also there was a famous picture of the destroyed reactor vessel in Pravda, the official newspaper - which was shocking at the time because the Soviet government was basically admitting that there was a problem. I think it was also considered a sign of the coming of glasnoct (but I may be remembering that wrong - 86 seems too early for that).

Anyway, I'll never forget our Soviet guide standing in the front of the bus and showing us that picture in Pravda. I think she was trying to show that maybe the government wasn't as closed off as it seemed (and as it was in reality).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As horrible as this incident is, I hope rehashing it in this miniseries is not bad PR for nuclear power. A lot went wrong in this situation, and a lot has changed since then.

Really? This is your concern? There are, perhaps, millions of individuals dealing with radiation-induced cancers and birth defects related to the Chernobyl disaster. And that's just one incident.

I really hope that nuclear power does not spread. We have other options. I'll take tar sand oil before more nuclear power.

Then you really know nothing.

Educate me.

PS - do you work at one of these "public affairs" groups that are trying to shape the narrative online about this mini-series?

My spouse is a former nuclear engineer. I certainly don't understand nuclear power to the depths that he does, but he's been blathering on endlessly about the Chernobyl miniseries, so I pick up a thing here and there.

The type of reactor built for Chernobyl has never been built outside of the USSR. A Chernobyl type incident couldn't be replicated in the US because we simply don't have reactors like that. The physics are different.

There's never been a death in 50 years of the US using nuclear power. There's been three historic incidents in all that time. The horrible one, Chernobyl. The one where there was some containment leakage and the lasting impact is unknown, Fukushima. And three mile island, where it was completely contained and no one was injured.

The space it takes to run a nuclear power plant is incredibly small compared to the power generated.

Most of the waste is recyclable. The small amount that isn't recyclable is exactly that....small.

It's cheap, low impact to the environment, safe, and doesn't use land which could best be used for other purposes. I'll never convince people of all that, of course. Some people are still afraid of air travel, and the incidents of accidents are historically low...but that's not on the news.

Uh, an entire reactor unit at TMI that cost millions to build and millions to clean up (and it's still not entirely clean) has never produced a watt of electricity since. And the accident could have been prevented if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the company that built the unit had listened to their own employees who warned them of the consequences of a particular malfunction in Babcock and Wilcox nuclear reactors.

Back in the day, they said that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter but nowadays even plants that haven't had catastrophic accidents are struggling financially because natural gas is a whole lot cheaper than nuclear power. The Perry Nuclear Plant in Ohio is probably going to close unless it gets subsidies from the government. That's not what they promised us. This line about nuclear power being cheap is an old story that never came true. https://www.news-herald.com/news/ohio/perry-nuclear-power-plant-to-close-in/article_919062bd-55d0-5229-8c43-821f26ddb90b.html

Ok.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've re-read a lot about Chernobyl after watching the series; I've always been fascinated by it.

The man ordered to look into the reactor from the roof was Sitnokov, and he got a fatal dose of radiation from that action.

His name was Anatoly Sitnikov.

The firefighter with the pregnant wife...he dies but the baby later dies from heart failure and cirrhosis of the liver.

Was that baby’s death counted in the official numbers?

It wasn't on the wikipedia list.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As horrible as this incident is, I hope rehashing it in this miniseries is not bad PR for nuclear power. A lot went wrong in this situation, and a lot has changed since then.

Really? This is your concern? There are, perhaps, millions of individuals dealing with radiation-induced cancers and birth defects related to the Chernobyl disaster. And that's just one incident.

I really hope that nuclear power does not spread. We have other options. I'll take tar sand oil before more nuclear power.

Then you really know nothing.

Educate me.

PS - do you work at one of these "public affairs" groups that are trying to shape the narrative online about this mini-series?

My spouse is a former nuclear engineer. I certainly don't understand nuclear power to the depths that he does, but he's been blathering on endlessly about the Chernobyl miniseries, so I pick up a thing here and there.

The type of reactor built for Chernobyl has never been built outside of the USSR. A Chernobyl type incident couldn't be replicated in the US because we simply don't have reactors like that. The physics are different.

There's never been a death in 50 years of the US using nuclear power. There's been three historic incidents in all that time. The horrible one, Chernobyl. The one where there was some containment leakage and the lasting impact is unknown, Fukushima. And three mile island, where it was completely contained and no one was injured.

The space it takes to run a nuclear power plant is incredibly small compared to the power generated.

Most of the waste is recyclable. The small amount that isn't recyclable is exactly that....small.

It's cheap, low impact to the environment, safe, and doesn't use land which could best be used for other purposes. I'll never convince people of all that, of course. Some people are still afraid of air travel, and the incidents of accidents are historically low...but that's not on the news.

Uh, an entire reactor unit at TMI that cost millions to build and millions to clean up (and it's still not entirely clean) has never produced a watt of electricity since. And the accident could have been prevented if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the company that built the unit had listened to their own employees who warned them of the consequences of a particular malfunction in Babcock and Wilcox nuclear reactors.

Back in the day, they said that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter but nowadays even plants that haven't had catastrophic accidents are struggling financially because natural gas is a whole lot cheaper than nuclear power. The Perry Nuclear Plant in Ohio is probably going to close unless it gets subsidies from the government. That's not what they promised us. This line about nuclear power being cheap is an old story that never came true. https://www.news-herald.com/news/ohio/perry-nuclear-power-plant-to-close-in/article_919062bd-55d0-5229-8c43-821f26ddb90b.html

Ok.

Yeah, that's what I'd expect you to get from the American Nuclear Society. Try reading this: https://climatenexus.org/climate-news-archive/nuclear-energy-us-expensive-source-competing-cheap-gas-renewables/

Nuclear Capacity and the Power Grid
Many nuclear plants are aging and nearing the end of their lifetimes. Fifteen nuclear plants (six that have closed since 2013 and nine that have announced retirement between 2019 and 2025) represent just over eighteen gigawatts of generation and approximately eighteen percent of total U.S. nuclear capacity. They face high operating costs and competition from cheaper gas and renewable energy sources, making the business of running many of the nation’s nearly 100 nuclear plants unprofitable.

The conventional model for operating the power grid revolved around “baseload” capacity — supplying the grid’s minimum power requirements from plants that need to run continuously because they cannot easily start and stop. There were mostly coal and nuclear power plants. But that model is becoming obsolete as renewables and natural gas supply more and more power to the grid. These technologies can ramp up and down quickly, which is another reason baseload power is becoming obsolete. Innovations like active grid management, regional transmission lines and energy storage provide the coverage that baseload power previously generated. As gas and renewables ramp up and the grid becomes more efficient, the need for large baseload generators drops substantially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was scheduled to go on a trip to the Soviet Union two weeks after the Chernobyl accident. We were supposed to go to Kiev for a few days but that got rescheduled and we spent those days in Vladimir and Suzdal. I remember our American guides talking about how they figured that most produce in the USSR came from nearby farms so that it was probably okay to eat it in Moscow and Leningrad (later St. Petersburg) but I noticed that our guide wasn't eating butter on her bread or ice cream. I figured I shouldn't eat it either but it's hard to be in the Soviet Union and not eat ice cream!

Also there was a famous picture of the destroyed reactor vessel in Pravda, the official newspaper - which was shocking at the time because the Soviet government was basically admitting that there was a problem. I think it was also considered a sign of the coming of glasnoct (but I may be remembering that wrong - 86 seems too early for that).

Anyway, I'll never forget our Soviet guide standing in the front of the bus and showing us that picture in Pravda. I think she was trying to show that maybe the government wasn't as closed off as it seemed (and as it was in reality).

I am the PP from Minsk. I don't know if this is true, but the prevailing opinion at the time was that the radiation went west, was detected outside the country, and the news were announced over Voice of America, and the USSR couldn't keep it silent. But certainly, there was no stomach at the time for the kind of scary government actions that took place in the 1930s or even 1950s. But until then, they didn't bother telling anyone and the news didn't travel that quickly. These days, with cell phones and social media, things would be completely different, though the rumors would still be a huge problem, I'm sure there'd be a lot of conflicting information going around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was scheduled to go on a trip to the Soviet Union two weeks after the Chernobyl accident. We were supposed to go to Kiev for a few days but that got rescheduled and we spent those days in Vladimir and Suzdal. I remember our American guides talking about how they figured that most produce in the USSR came from nearby farms so that it was probably okay to eat it in Moscow and Leningrad (later St. Petersburg) but I noticed that our guide wasn't eating butter on her bread or ice cream. I figured I shouldn't eat it either but it's hard to be in the Soviet Union and not eat ice cream!

Also there was a famous picture of the destroyed reactor vessel in Pravda, the official newspaper - which was shocking at the time because the Soviet government was basically admitting that there was a problem. I think it was also considered a sign of the coming of glasnoct (but I may be remembering that wrong - 86 seems too early for that).

Anyway, I'll never forget our Soviet guide standing in the front of the bus and showing us that picture in Pravda. I think she was trying to show that maybe the government wasn't as closed off as it seemed (and as it was in reality).

I am the PP from Minsk. I don't know if this is true, but the prevailing opinion at the time was that the radiation went west, was detected outside the country, and the news were announced over Voice of America, and the USSR couldn't keep it silent. But certainly, there was no stomach at the time for the kind of scary government actions that took place in the 1930s or even 1950s. But until then, they didn't bother telling anyone and the news didn't travel that quickly. These days, with cell phones and social media, things would be completely different, though the rumors would still be a huge problem, I'm sure there'd be a lot of conflicting information going around.

Yes, and as an American tourist, we were pretty isolated from the rest of the country. I remember sitting in the hotel bar with people on my trip and we were all talking about what Soviet people were really like based on books we had read. Because locals weren't allowed to hang out in tourist hotels so we were all talking to ourselves! I did run into a woman in a local park and talked to her in my pathetic Russian. She was very interested in whether I had my own apartment all to myself in the United States but she told me how great things were there. Vsevo svobodna! (I think i remember that right) Everything was free! I don't know if she meant "free" in the monetary sense or "free" in the civil liberties sense. It was a beautiful but mystifying country and I realized that I didn't really have a clue what was going on around me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was scheduled to go on a trip to the Soviet Union two weeks after the Chernobyl accident. We were supposed to go to Kiev for a few days but that got rescheduled and we spent those days in Vladimir and Suzdal. I remember our American guides talking about how they figured that most produce in the USSR came from nearby farms so that it was probably okay to eat it in Moscow and Leningrad (later St. Petersburg) but I noticed that our guide wasn't eating butter on her bread or ice cream. I figured I shouldn't eat it either but it's hard to be in the Soviet Union and not eat ice cream!

Also there was a famous picture of the destroyed reactor vessel in Pravda, the official newspaper - which was shocking at the time because the Soviet government was basically admitting that there was a problem. I think it was also considered a sign of the coming of glasnoct (but I may be remembering that wrong - 86 seems too early for that).

Anyway, I'll never forget our Soviet guide standing in the front of the bus and showing us that picture in Pravda. I think she was trying to show that maybe the government wasn't as closed off as it seemed (and as it was in reality).

I am the PP from Minsk. I don't know if this is true, but the prevailing opinion at the time was that the radiation went west, was detected outside the country, and the news were announced over Voice of America, and the USSR couldn't keep it silent. But certainly, there was no stomach at the time for the kind of scary government actions that took place in the 1930s or even 1950s. But until then, they didn't bother telling anyone and the news didn't travel that quickly. These days, with cell phones and social media, things would be completely different, though the rumors would still be a huge problem, I'm sure there'd be a lot of conflicting information going around.

Yes, and as an American tourist, we were pretty isolated from the rest of the country. I remember sitting in the hotel bar with people on my trip and we were all talking about what Soviet people were really like based on books we had read. Because locals weren't allowed to hang out in tourist hotels so we were all talking to ourselves! I did run into a woman in a local park and talked to her in my pathetic Russian. She was very interested in whether I had my own apartment all to myself in the United States but she told me how great things were there. Vsevo svobodna! (I think i remember that right) Everything was free! I don't know if she meant "free" in the monetary sense or "free" in the civil liberties sense. It was a beautiful but mystifying country and I realized that I didn't really have a clue what was going on around me.

It's complicated. In some ways it was a great place, and in some ways it was terrible. I recently watched a documentary about the GULAG, and it hit me that free medical care, free day care, government-subsidized apartments--that was made possible by enslaving millions of people on false pretenses. Those of us who were lucky not to be affected traded relative comfort of having food on the table and a decent education for staying silent and obedient. In my personal opinion, this woman was both jealous of what you had and she did not (housing was such a hot commodity) and wanting to show that she couldn't be "bought." We had these grand expectations about what the West would be like, and were so envious, but also naive. We were just very sheltered, for lack of any good information. Even those who went abroad couldn't really provide a clear picture of what things were like. But they brought fancy things that you couldn't find in stores, and people were envious. Our neighbor was a hockey player and he traveled abroad and brought gifts home, so his daughter always went around bragging. One time she had gum in different colors. Not to be outdone, my sister and I colored our regular white gum with pen ink and then chewed it. It was gross but seemed fancy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was scheduled to go on a trip to the Soviet Union two weeks after the Chernobyl accident. We were supposed to go to Kiev for a few days but that got rescheduled and we spent those days in Vladimir and Suzdal. I remember our American guides talking about how they figured that most produce in the USSR came from nearby farms so that it was probably okay to eat it in Moscow and Leningrad (later St. Petersburg) but I noticed that our guide wasn't eating butter on her bread or ice cream. I figured I shouldn't eat it either but it's hard to be in the Soviet Union and not eat ice cream!

Also there was a famous picture of the destroyed reactor vessel in Pravda, the official newspaper - which was shocking at the time because the Soviet government was basically admitting that there was a problem. I think it was also considered a sign of the coming of glasnoct (but I may be remembering that wrong - 86 seems too early for that).

Anyway, I'll never forget our Soviet guide standing in the front of the bus and showing us that picture in Pravda. I think she was trying to show that maybe the government wasn't as closed off as it seemed (and as it was in reality).

I am the PP from Minsk. I don't know if this is true, but the prevailing opinion at the time was that the radiation went west, was detected outside the country, and the news were announced over Voice of America, and the USSR couldn't keep it silent. But certainly, there was no stomach at the time for the kind of scary government actions that took place in the 1930s or even 1950s. But until then, they didn't bother telling anyone and the news didn't travel that quickly. These days, with cell phones and social media, things would be completely different, though the rumors would still be a huge problem, I'm sure there'd be a lot of conflicting information going around.

Yes, and as an American tourist, we were pretty isolated from the rest of the country. I remember sitting in the hotel bar with people on my trip and we were all talking about what Soviet people were really like based on books we had read. Because locals weren't allowed to hang out in tourist hotels so we were all talking to ourselves! I did run into a woman in a local park and talked to her in my pathetic Russian. She was very interested in whether I had my own apartment all to myself in the United States but she told me how great things were there. Vsevo svobodna! (I think i remember that right) Everything was free! I don't know if she meant "free" in the monetary sense or "free" in the civil liberties sense. It was a beautiful but mystifying country and I realized that I didn't really have a clue what was going on around me.

It's complicated. In some ways it was a great place, and in some ways it was terrible. I recently watched a documentary about the GULAG, and it hit me that free medical care, free day care, government-subsidized apartments--that was made possible by enslaving millions of people on false pretenses. Those of us who were lucky not to be affected traded relative comfort of having food on the table and a decent education for staying silent and obedient. In my personal opinion, this woman was both jealous of what you had and she did not (housing was such a hot commodity) and wanting to show that she couldn't be "bought." We had these grand expectations about what the West would be like, and were so envious, but also naive. We were just very sheltered, for lack of any good information. Even those who went abroad couldn't really provide a clear picture of what things were like. But they brought fancy things that you couldn't find in stores, and people were envious. Our neighbor was a hockey player and he traveled abroad and brought gifts home, so his daughter always went around bragging. One time she had gum in different colors. Not to be outdone, my sister and I colored our regular white gum with pen ink and then chewed it. It was gross but seemed fancy...

Thanks for sharing, pp. Very evocative story full of...maybe, wistfulness? I don't know. Anyway, thanks!

[Anonymous]

The series has been criticized for over dramatization. Only 28 died and 134 were hospitalized.


That’s impossible. They are not counting the numerous “early” deaths of first responders and thyroid cancers.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/cher...aths-radiation-1415722%3famp=1



Not impossible. 134 hospitalizations and 28 deaths. I was surprised too because I lived through it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster

I'm not sure that the number of immediate hospitalizations and deaths is even really the point of the show, as much as the denial of what had occurred and the resulting risk.