Eh, I think given the subject material this thread was always destined for a few political derailments.

Back to what I said last page though, the only issues I have with this show is how their combining of people can change the perception of how things happened.

In this show it makes it look like all of them were alone and isolated in (the amazingly Sovietly named) Hospital Number 6. In the show we have one person going around and asking them questions, and then otherwise most of them are alone (except for the one wife.)

In reality there were people all over that place. There were doctors from all over the world, bureaucrats from basically every soviet agency questioning people, etc.

I know that they had to combine people for the sake of storytelling, so I'm not saying we need all of those people's names, but in the show it creates this sort of sense that the Soviet Union didn't care about these people and were trying to basically keep them isolated until they died, and that's not really the case.

So many thread police... How about we let people discuss the show or the events before, during, or after the actual disaster if they want to? There are certain things you're not going to be able to hide from given the subject matter.

I like how the podcast adds to the show. Case in point, they said if the same thing would have happened here, there would have been a massive (half the US?) zone because the US doesn't have the power to force someone to their death in that situation. Of course, there may have been volunteers.

So many things we will never know

I'm currently listening to a book on Audible called "Midnight in Chernobyl," a factual account of the accident and aftermath. For the most part, the show - IMO - tracks pretty well with the book. Obviously, the show takes some poetic license and hyperbole. I recommend it as a good accompaniment to the series.

The book is referenced a lot in the Podcast. Sounds like a good place to dig deeper into some first hand accounts.

Teddy Perkins said:

---

The book is referenced a lot in the Podcast. Sounds like a good place to dig deeper into some first hand accounts.

---

The first chapter or two I felt like I was trapped in a nuclear engineering class - everything was flying way over my head. But then I was able to settle in and follow very well.

I don't see a problem with the discussion or the motives of the makers. It's just good drama.

But of course there is no denying it will continue to add to Hollywood's anti nuke effects, intended or not.

Bottom line it's a great show.


Btw, the rbmk reactor design had a window of 'fail-unsafe' conditions - where it unattended and you do nothing it will melt down.

I believe us reactors are all 'fail safe' designs - if you do nothing it shuts down instead of melting down or blowing up.

The tips of the rods were graphite, meaning that as you first insert them, it increases rather than decreases fission output. Iirc. This is largely what caused the steam explosion. I'm sure that didn't come out right.

cbr said:

---

I believe us reactors are all 'fail safe' designs - if you do nothing it shuts down instead of melting down or blowing up.

---

I believe ***ushima was a US design.

I just finished this book recently. I've read some other stuff about it before (like I said earlier I've always been kind of fascinated with Russia and it's history) but when I saw this show was coming out I bought that book and read it. It's great.

'Chernobyl 1:23:40' is also very good.

The way the powers-that-be view their people as nothing more than raw materials is what's truly chilling.

cbr said:

---

I believe us reactors are all 'fail safe' designs - if you do nothing it shuts down instead of melting down or blowing up.

---

I have heard that if the Operators at TMI would have just walked away and lock the door behind them...they could have started back up the next day.

There were many factors that they were trying to correct that wasn't a problem.

Joseph Parrish said:

---

cbr said:

---

I believe us reactors are all 'fail safe' designs - if you do nothing it shuts down instead of melting down or blowing up.

---

I believe ***ushima was a US design.

---

They can all melt down from decay heat unless actively cooled so there really isnt a fail safe in that sense.

BBRex said:

---

You could say the same about trench warfare in World War I, D-Day, or the Marine landings in the Pacific Campaign. And the loss of life was much greater at any of those than Chernobyl. War may be a bad comparison, but in a true nuclear emergency, I think the military would be the likely responders.

---

Good point.

dlance said:

---

Joseph Parrish said:

---

cbr said:

---

I believe us reactors are all 'fail safe' designs - if you do nothing it shuts down instead of melting down or blowing up.

---

I believe ***ushima was a US design.

---

Yes, General Electric. ***ushima is just another example of ignoring safety warnings. The ***ushima reactors went into automatic shutdown due to the earthquake as designed. The problem was the emergency power generators running the pumps to cool the decay heat were destroyed by the tsunami. TEPCO was warned about this vulnerability 20 years prior to the accident and ignored it.

---

Seems like turbine driven back up pumps might have worked better in that particular situation.

schmendeler said:

---

What would power the turbine pumps?

---

The steam the reactor was still generating. You wouldn't be able to shut it all the way down, but might keep it manageable.

As I understand it, when you turn the thing off, there's enough residual heat for the core to break itself without cooling, but there's not enough heat to power a turbine.

dlance said:

---

Shelton98 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

What would power the turbine pumps?

---

The steam the reactor was still generating. You wouldn't be able to shut it all the way down, but might keep it manageable.

---

The fail safe is for the reactor to shut down. There is no electricity being produced which is what runs the pump. If the steam could run it alone you'd have the holy grail of energy production.

---

I understand that. But if the reactor trips and you have no generators to run the back up pumps, you have no water going to the reactor jacket. Meltdown. Turbine driven pumps don't need electricity... well, not really. So if the reactor is still hot, it's still making steam and the turbine driven pumps are still pumping water to it. Again, you couldn't shut it down this way... but you might keep it from melting down until you got some portable generators in their.

Great article. SIAP. And miners weren't needed

https://screenrant.com/chernobyl-hbo-true-story-characters-aftermath-explained/amp/

Quote:

---

Emily Watson first appears as Soviet nuclear physicist Ulana Khomyuk in Chernobyl's second episode, "Please Remain Calm", but Khomyuk is one of the few main characters in the miniseries to not be based on a real person. Instead, Khomyuk is an amalgamation of all the nuclear physicists and scientists who worked to mitigate the Chernobyl disaster. And Khomyuk's purpose in HBO's Chernobyl is to make sure the truth comes to light.

---

BBRex said:

---

As I understand it, when you turn the thing off, there's enough residual heat for the core to break itself without cooling, but there's not enough heat to power a turbine.

---

There's probably not enough heat to run the big turbine on the generator, but their should be plenty of heat to run a few BFW pumps.

dlance said:

---

Shelton98 said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

What would power the turbine pumps?

---

The steam the reactor was still generating. You wouldn't be able to shut it all the way down, but might keep it manageable.

---

The fail safe is for the reactor to shut down. There is no electricity being produced which is what runs the pump. If the steam could run it alone you'd have the holy grail of energy production.

---

Almost all electricity comes from generating steam. It starts with fuel.... nuclear fuel rods, natural gas, coal...burn it and make heat. Heat is transferred to water to make steam and more heat makes superheated steam. Superheated steam spins a wheel on a turbine , which spins a shaft on a generator, which spins a bunch of magnets around a bundle of wires and spits a bunch of electrons out the other end (electricity). Turbine pump/compressor works the same way except it spits out water/gas instead.

dlance said:

---

Shelton98 said:

---

BBRex said:

---

As I understand it, when you turn the thing off, there's enough residual heat for the core to break itself without cooling, but there's not enough heat to power a turbine.

---

There's probably not enough heat to run the big turbine on the generator, but their should be plenty of heat to run a few BFW pumps.

---

The water circulation pumps are all electric. When the reactor is SCRAM'd (which they were due to the earthquake) the turbines get isolated and the steam vents off into the suppression pool. This is a safety feature. Then the emergency systems kick in which are run by the generators which, along with a lot of the battery backups and the electrical switching equipment, were destroyed by the 43' tsunami.

Here is a good paper describing the entirety of how a BWR works.

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/legacy/assets/documents/nuclear_power/bwr-intro.pdf

---

basically don't build a nuke plant in an earthquake zone if you can't afford all the safety features.

there were safety improvements recommended that they ignored. It was preventable even in that situation. I am a big fan of nuke power as the future method of reducing air pollution. It's the only viable green energy solution we have.

A light bulb became dimly lit in my head the other day. What kind of preparation took place at the plant in Matagorda when Harvey was bearing down on the coast? I know a hurricane doesn't hit suddenly like an earthquake or tsunami, but that plant is right on the coast. You can see the concrete tiddies from the intercoastal.