Rewatching this as I assemble some stuff. After 4 episodes it is still scary as hell. There is correlation with how the Soviets handle the situations. With how the US and the world is handling Covid-19. Malfeasance and ineptitude ftw
Little did I know that the Rockets were producing there only follow up episode of Chernobyl. Episode 6: The 2020 Draft
Just wanted to put this here, as I read a lot about the topic and saw how the show has been inaccurate a lot: https://www.newsweek.com/blatant-li...l-russian-vodka-kgb-stereotypes-1443547?amp=1
Yeah...that's fun The show engages in fear-mongering and exaggeration of the severity and frequency of radiation exposure (Bridge of Death, hospital scenes, instantaneous burns and bleeding, lack of survivors, citation of Greenpeace's death toll). My ex was a kid around the Baltic coast, she and her sister both suddenly lost all of their hair...just randomly, because nobody said a damn thing to the citizens...you know just regular good times in the Soviet Bloc. After she immigrated to the US, she found out that she should never have kids and has a 75% chance of terminal cancer before she's 60. So, long story short, the ****s I could give about your newsweek/reddit bullsh!t are minimal. It's not a documentary, it's a damn good show.
No one said there weren't victims from the after effects, it's just that some of the content isn't true and mislead many people. And it's sad to hear what your ex and her sister went through. It doesn't matter if the source is Newsweek/Reddit "bullsh**" when it's historically or scientifically accurate. I'm obviously not trying to downplay Chernobyl or mock victims, no idea why you are attacking me.
35 years later...who is being "misled" by an HBO show? But no, sorry at all if I did that or came across that way, I was not attacking you at all. I would say that 90% truth is better than none.
I see it online a lot (in this thread, Reddit, twitter etc), where the show made people believe in things like that they barely prevented a massive explosion that would've killed everything in a several miles-wide radius, which isn't how it works for nuclear reactors. Or the unnecessary demonizing of the main trio which isn't accurate, the apocalyptic events (bridge of death, ultra-contaminating workers, Forrest burning up, massive fires) etc The real events are damning and scary enough, so I don't think it was necessary to introduce Hollywood cliche stuff or present fake facts that a lot of the audience now parrots.
Awesome, and fair enough. I don't think anyone demonized anyone, though, outside of the one guy (can't remember his name). I really liked Stellan Skarsgard and Jerred Harris and Emily Watson in this.
The series never portrayed it in this manner. The nuclear reactor had already exploded so they never implied there was risk of a 2nd massive explosion from the reactor, rather, what they implied was because the reactor was now melting down, and if it came into contact with the pools of water underneath, there would be a massive steam explosion that would be catastrophic for the immediate area and eject tons of radioactive material into the air. I believe all of this was the scene where Watson's character first meets Scherbina and Legasov to warn them of the meltdown specifically causing a catastrophic steam explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Bubbler_pools Cant speak to portrayals of 2 if them, but on Dyatlov, i believe it is well documented that he overrode all sorts of safety protocols to get the test done and that he threatened his reports with termination if they did not comply.
