We will never truly know the body count but I think it comes down how the term death is defined. If the soldiers/conscripts clearing graphite didnt die immediately afterward but had their life cut short by 50 years or so, should that count as a death? My totally unscientific guess is the body count is on the higher end of the spectrum.It looks like the combination of many agendas plus Soviet incompetence/cover up makes it pretty hard to say for sure how many people actually died but I'm thinking the WHO estimate of around 4000 is probably closer than the 90K+ that some people estimate.
Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster - Wikipedia
It's amazing how some shows just come out of left field.
And who cares what Mazins political views are? Have you listened to the podcasts? He is actually a very intelligent dude, and is very passionate about his work.
Chernobyl did two things with an incredible amount of success.
Firstly, they captured the "mood". You were instantly sucked into the atmosphere of the show, the lack of dramatic music, the brooding feel, the matted Soviet palette, it all created an authentic setting that immediately captured the audience.
Second, they didnt waste much screen time at all. The only 12 minutes or so of the entire 5 hours that could have been used elsewhere was the excessive time given to Pavel shooting dogs.
Other than that almost everything they put on screen was relevant and true to its origin. The cinematography, the writing, direction and acting was all equally impressive. Probably a top 3 TV show of all time, even it only being 5 episodes.
The Wire number 1, Game of Thrones was number 2, but sadly has fallen off a cliff, so it would either be this show or Breaking Bad next.
We will never truly know the body count but I think it comes down how the term death is defined. If the soldiers/conscripts clearing graphite didnt die immediately afterward but had their life cut short by 50 years or so, should that count as a death? My totally unscientific guess is the body count is on the higher end of the spectrum.
Chernobyl was good but I wouldn't put it as a top 3 show.
I don't give a shit if it's "harsh" or "biased". I want to know if it's accurate. The numbers I've heard in the past about Chernobyl were more like what the article said than what the show portrayed it as.
Basically from what I understand, the reactor was put in an unstable state before the test was even started. If the test never happens, it's quite possible the reactor is able to recover and there is no accident (at least not on the level of what happened). The test just made the situation worse, primary because many of the fail safes were bypassed as a result of the test. There is a lot of disagreement about the AZ-5 button, specifically when it was pressed. Some theories even suggest it wasn't manually pressed at all. But regardless, that button sent the reactor to it's doom by reinserting the graphite tipped rods and getting stuck halfway in.So based on the last episode, unless I don't get it, the RBMK reactors were technically safe IF procedures were followed. Had they decided to abandon the test when power in the reactor went to zero (instead of removing all the control rods), it technically wouldn't have exploded.
Lying and not being completely upfront about the intricacies of the reactor is what caused the accident. Had Dyatlov known that the AZ5 button is not a true reset button for every occasion, it probably never would have happened.
Yep. He even says it in the final episode. Why did we build it this way? We are cheap.Sure but I guess it helps me understand why they build the reactor in such a way. The Soviet scientists seemingly knew that there was a scenario under which it would blow up but just presumed that those sets of events would never occur. Having a cheaper reactor outweighed the risks. I think it's an important distinction because I always presumed that Chernobyl was a unique unforeseen accident. They miscalculated, and in large part due to the secrecy about every asset of life in that time.