[kitten_smuggler]

Loved the show but felt that it was a bit heavy on the fear-mongering.

EDIT* What I mean by this is that the facts were dramatized for effect, at a time when we need to change societal opinions on nuclear more than ever.

[smacktoward]

I found this interview with the showrunner to be thought-provoking in that regard: https://slate.com/culture/2019/06/chernobyl-finale-hbo-minis...

> For a million reasons, this was not an anti-nuclear polemic. It’s anti­–Soviet government, and it is anti-lie, and it is pro–human being. But anyone who thinks the point of this is that nuclear power is bad, is just, they’ve just missed it.

[izzydata]

Thank you for that quote. I was going to try and write something along those lines, but that seems like a better summary. Anti-nuclear energy simply wasn't part of the narrative. It only seems like that because the events of Chernobyl really happened.

They pointed out a few times that the only reason the Chernobyl catastrophe happened was because of all the corners that were cut and the lies that were told. Other nations with Nuclear programs weren't likely to have the same problem because they were more open.

[smacktoward]

Mazin addresses this point in another good interview, this one with Vox: https://www.vox.com/culture/2019/6/4/18647339/chernobyl-fina...

> It’s the story of the Soviet Union, but the danger is you make the story about how the Soviets were a bunch of liars and it’s easy for America — and some Americans continue to do this, remarkably — to say, “See? Those Soviets ... they’re liars.” And it became clear to me that Soviets are just people, and we’re just people, and lying is not in the water over there. It’s something people do. And they do it here. The Soviet system is a warning: Don’t take it this far. Please, for the love of god, don’t take it this far.

[y_molodtsov]

Well, it’s not like there weren’t other nuclear disasters.

[izzydata]

That's true. I don't know what it would have taken to prevent the Fukushima disaster.

[kitten_smuggler]

I wouldn't say my take-away was that it was intended to be anti-nuclear, but with the need to move more towards nuclear now more than ever it felt poorly placed. That context makes sense though.

[cm2187]

In fact I must say that seeing how wreckless the operators had to be to make this reactor fail despite the fact that it was an early, soviet design with many design flaws, if anything, makes me believe more in the stability of these reactors if handled properly.

[RikNieu]

> ... at a time when we need to change societal opinions on nuclear more than ever.

No, I cannot agree with this. As many others stated, the facts on this show was portrayed remarkably accurately.

The events that happend should be shown as close to as what really happened to honor those who died and to teach those who need to learn from history with the real truth.

Your particular political agendas and idealisms should not be used to nudge the story of what happend to change societal opinions. Misrepresentation of reality to change societal opinions is exactly why stuff went wrong in Chernobyl.

If we're going to be investing in nuclear, we need to be absolutely clear-headed, honest and scared. Nuclear oopsies will impact societies for thousands of years. Thousands.

Besides, think about this, if the predictions that organised human civilization will inevitably collapse in the next couple of decades is accurate, the LAST thing we need is more nuclear powerstations.

There are currently about 450+ reactors running worldwide - what happens when the societies that maintain them take a dip? What happens when even half of those go into meltdown?

https://www.rexweyler.ca/ecologue/2017/9/11/nuclear-power-an...

[beiller]

I almost agree with you. But I think it was fair fear-mongering on both sides (the scientists vs the politicians). It really drove home that secrets and cover-ups were the real disaster. People were afraid to admit their failure. I like to think that today, with cameras and social media everywhere, secrets and cover-ups about a disaster like this would be even more impossible (it was impossible to cover up even then).

[Rockslide]

How is showing the catastrophic consequences of nuclear power fear-mongering? I mean the stuff which is depicted in the series literally happened, and a lot of it / most of it actually exactly as depicted. How is that fear-mongering? It's the reality.

But whenever the topic of nuclear comes up here on HN, and there is only the slightest mention of the risks, there is always someone shouting about fear-mongering...

[jimrandomh]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09...

"In the first episode of “Chernobyl” the nuclear reactor explodes, blows the top off the building, and catches on fire. The plant workers vomit, their faces turn red, and several appear to die.

We see a plant worker in his twenties hold open a door to the reactor hall and various parts of his body start to bleed. He rescues a comrade with a red, blistered, and bloody face, and appears to leave him for dead in a hall. Later we see the man slumped over and smoking what appears to be his last cigarette.

Later, the plant manager who was in denial about the accident becomes violently ill after he learns the true scale of the disaster. As he leaves for the hospital, we see a fireman who is carrying a body on a stretcher collapse and drop the body.

I was left thinking that dozens of workers and firefighters were immediately killed, but according to the official United Nations report (p. 66) on the accident, just two workers, not dozens, or hundreds, were killed within a few hours of the explosion."

[IfOnlyYouKnew]

> "I was left thinking that dozens of workers and firefighters were immediately killed"

That's the main problem with this argument: they were "left with an impression" that just isn't supported by the actual episode. The episode actually undersells it: even though there were 2 (official) deaths, none are actually shown.

> [..] appears to leave him for dead in a hall. Later we see the man slumped over and smoking what appears to be his last cigarette.

So they notice they wrongly considered someone to be "left for dead", then immediately make the same mistake again?

> we see a fireman who is carrying a body on a stretcher collapse and drop the body.

Injured people just happen to be often carried on stretchers without being dead. Dropping off a stretcher is less common, but also not fatal.

Everything that was shown quite plausibly happened. Here's a list that's more current than the 1988 UN report: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...

Dozens of people suffered severe radiation burns, which would appear exactly as gruesome as despicted: "from 115 patients treated in Moscow, 30% had burns covering 10–50% of body surface, 11% were affected on 50–100% of skin"[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_burn#Nuclear_acciden...]

[atombender]

Not sure this refutes anything, since the episode doesn't show anyone immediately dying from radiation sickness. They all died in the weeks following the explosion. Wikipedia has a list [1]. At least 10 plant workers who were present at the time of the explosion died in the first two weeks of May, 1986.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...

[henryfjordan]

Even in the show most don't die immediately. Many of the workers are shown being interviewed about what happened before they die in a hospital very far from the reactor. Days/Weeks passed.

[Rockslide]

That, and besides, the number of deaths related to Chernobyl (or even the magnitude) is highly controversial. But even the "official" Soviet number of direct, short-term fatalities is not 2, but 31. And I would take that number with a big grain of salt, for the very same reasons depicted in the series.

[effie]

I like the series, but it is somewhat dramatized and technically incorrect in places; some people may understand the focus on drama as a statement against nuclear energy, which would be regrettable. I think the show says close to nothing new about the technology and its risks, the bad effects of radioactivity and bad design of RBMK are well known to people who study nuclear physics and medicine. The accident was terrible, but in terms of lives nothing like a big tsunami or largest chemical disasters. But it shows how bad our governments are; the show rightly exposes how the totalitarian political system was instrumental in the disaster and botched reaction to it: and things such as "state can admit no error or wrongdoing", "appearance of state success is more important than people lives" and "vital technological information should be classified as top secret even if it can save lives", all sound too familiar even today.

[arethuza]

As the writer of the series had said:

".... The lesson of Chernobyl isn't that modern nuclear power is dangerous. The lesson is that lying, arrogance and suppression of criticism is dangerous. The flaws that led to Chernobyl are the same flaws shown by climate change deniers today."

[DangerousPie]

I was actually pleasantly surprised about how fairly this show portrayed nuclear energy.

Sure, it shows the scary side of nuclear energy and how badly things can go wrong. But it also highlights how many bad decisions led to this catastrophe and how many deaths could have been prevented if it hadn't been for the secrecy and lies of the Soviet system. It made me oddly reassured about the safeguards we have in place today.