Very happy with how they wrapped up this mini series. Amazing story telling throughout the entire series and great dialogue that perfectly explained the events while staying factually correct as others have stated! The way they captured how corrupt and naive the Soviet Union was throughout this entire accident is what made this drama so successful.

This series rivals Band of Brothers for me.

The description of how the accident occurred by the two scientists was outstanding. It couldn't have been easy to create dialog to describe such a complicated event in an easily understandable way, while at the same time being dramatic and interesting.

C@LAg said:

---

Is there going to be a second season?

Chernobyl 2: Electric Boogaloo?

---

Shouldn't it be Nuclear Boogaloo?

PWestAg18 said:

---

I was hesitant to watch because I have a nuclear engineering degree, have studied the event personally and in class, and figured I'd get angry at how incorrect everything was. I had nothing to do tonight and my coworkers had been adamant I watch so I figured why not.

After binge watching 4 episodes all I can say is wow. They got literally every aspect right. The reactor physics, the radiation effects, the timeline, the cleanup efforts, and the corruption of the Soviets. They literally got it all right. I can't wait for the last episode because it looks like the trial and events of that day are going to be shown via flashback. Obviously its' a topic I'm heavily interested in, but this is probably my favorite show ever.

---

So I got a question. At what point where they past the point of no return? For example, when the reactor was basically at zero, was there any way out of that? Could they have started it slowly for 24 hour and avert disaster?

aTmAg said:

---

PWestAg18 said:

---

I was hesitant to watch because I have a nuclear engineering degree, have studied the event personally and in class, and figured I'd get angry at how incorrect everything was. I had nothing to do tonight and my coworkers had been adamant I watch so I figured why not.

After binge watching 4 episodes all I can say is wow. They got literally every aspect right. The reactor physics, the radiation effects, the timeline, the cleanup efforts, and the corruption of the Soviets. They literally got it all right. I can't wait for the last episode because it looks like the trial and events of that day are going to be shown via flashback. Obviously its' a topic I'm heavily interested in, but this is probably my favorite show ever.

---

So I got a question. At what point where they past the point of no return? For example, when the reactor was basically at zero, was there any way out of that? Could they have started it slowly for 24 hour and avert disaster?

---

my understanding was when they cut the water going over the reactor it was gonna blow at that point. because that was when the power started increasing and when the fail safe became the trigger, rather than the safety.

Not a nuclear engineer, but from my limited wikipedia research I think it explained it would've been OK if they shutdown the reactor when it was at the low levels. They had previously observed the graphite tip spike on other near-accidents, but the reactor levels were low enough at the time that it didn't spiral out of control. If they SCRAM'd the reactor when it was at 200 MW, it wouldn't have jumped up like it did.

Feel free to correct me if I'm overlooking something.

aTmAg said:

---

PWestAg18 said:

---

I was hesitant to watch because I have a nuclear engineering degree, have studied the event personally and in class, and figured I'd get angry at how incorrect everything was. I had nothing to do tonight and my coworkers had been adamant I watch so I figured why not.

After binge watching 4 episodes all I can say is wow. They got literally every aspect right. The reactor physics, the radiation effects, the timeline, the cleanup efforts, and the corruption of the Soviets. They literally got it all right. I can't wait for the last episode because it looks like the trial and events of that day are going to be shown via flashback. Obviously its' a topic I'm heavily interested in, but this is probably my favorite show ever.

---

So I got a question. At what point where they past the point of no return? For example, when the reactor was basically at zero, was there any way out of that? Could they have started it slowly for 24 hour and avert disaster?

---

Yes they could have fixed the situation by carefully following procedure to unstall the reactor over 24 hours. Instead Dyatlov had all the rods pulled in an effort to jump start the reaction. That combined with starting the test which reduced/stopped the water flow caused the reaction to spike as the remaining Xenon gas was consumed and the reaction was totally out of balance. The reactor spiked, they attempted to SCRAM with the AZ-5 button and the graphite tipped control rods spiked the reaction even further and caused the explosion.

I saw this on the "Chernobyl" HBO Fan Group on Facebook. Dyatlov thinks it wasn't his fault.

BBRex said:

---

I saw this on the "Chernobyl" HBO Fan Group on Facebook. Dyatlov thinks it wasn't his fault.

---

I wonder about this too. I have read that the people on the "jury" for that "trial" were designers of the reactors, who had every interest in not taking the blame themselves. That it was rigged that way to do exactly what Dyatlov claims in that article. However, if the show is accurate, then Dyatlov definitely deserves a lot of blame too. But I think the reactor designers clearly got off easy.

Well, i must be missing something. First what he is saying seems entirely consistent with the show's blame in the trial.

Two, it actually seems extremely logical, indeed almost obvious to me, given my limited understanding, that tipping control rods in graphite would spike the reactor when first inserted.

Did they flub the math to make that seem insignificant? It seems such an obvious flaw.

cbr said:

---

Well, i must be missing something. First what he is saying seems entirely consistent with the show's blame in the trial.

Two, it actually seems extremely logical, indeed almost obvious to me, given my limited understanding, that tipping control rods in graphite would spike the reactor when first inserted.

Did they flub the math to make that seem insignificant? It seems such an obvious flaw.

---

A long time ago, I read the details of the theory on the rods, and it seems a lot more complicated and non-obvious than the show let on. It took a lot of minds thinking after the fact of what happen to come to that conclusion. In fact there are parts of the accident that are still not fully understood, and have competing theories on why.

It's because it only really causes a significant spike in extreme circumstances. Only in a situation where almost all of the other control rods are out of the reactor (which should never happen) and there's no water moving through the core (which should also never happen), is it significant enough to cause a problem.

They considered that possibility that that would occur to be so remote that the state decided it was better to not admit any fault with their TOTALLY THE BEST reactors than to warn everyone about that remote possibility.

Thanks. I do now recall reading that the manual required a certain percentage and pattern of rods fully inserted at all times no matter what. They broke that rule in the control room for sure.

That was an incredible finale. I know someone recommended 01:23:40, but I also recommend Midnight in Chernobyl as an alternative if you can find it cheaper or at your library or something. Both are really good.

Normally reading a book will make you hate a show for how much they change/get wrong/etc, but it actually made me appreciate this show more because of how much they got right.

There's obviously some small changes for the sake of storytelling, but overall they absolutely nailed it.

double aught said:

---

The description of how the accident occurred by the two scientists was outstanding. It couldn't have been easy to create dialog to describe such a complicated event in an easily understandable way, while at the same time being dramatic and interesting.

---

I haven't listened to the podcast yet but based on previous statements by the writers and director the presentation was probably taken verbatim from the transcripts and film that was shot of the trial. As an example the orientation speech by the General that was sending the Bio Bots onto the roof was taken directly from archived footage.

From what Ive read, that entire crew stated they followed protocol, but I'm sure no one wanted to admit errors. What I have read that is consistent fromt heir accounts is, Dytlov had more than one chance to cancel the test. He does have some blame, whether he knew about the fatal flaw or not.

Incredible show. It will deserve every award it gets nominated for.

Yeah they all share some of the blame, which wasn't going to happen in the Soviet Union and would probably be hard pressed to make happen anywhere. It's human nature to want to blame one particular entity. 'This is their fault, they should fix it.' But in reality this was kind of everyone's fault.

It's like if you decided you wanted to be a trapeze artist, and got a drunk uncle to tell you how to do it, and then you went and grabbed a couple of kids of the street that weren't properly trained and decided to try it out. Now, all of that is bad, but it's not so bad because you were thinking 'What's the worst that can happen, there's a net there?' Only there wasn't a net there, and not only was there not a net, there was a floor of metal spikes, and you had no way to know that.

Like Legasov said in the episode last night, they made a whole series of horrible decisions that took the reactor to the brink, but it's unlikely that they would have made them if they'd have known the AZ5 had a flaw.

Me again. Back to take my lumps. My insomnia was bad last night so got up about 2 to watch some tv hoping it'd help me fall asleep. Since I felt the first episode was "boring" I figured I'd watch ep2 to lull me to sleep. Damnit if it didn't suck me right in. Will probably make an effort to get the rest done in the next couple of days.

aTmAg said:

---

BQCadet said:

---

Why oh why are people so politically sensitive? Get over it and just enjoy the show.

---

Ask the producer or the show. As far as I can tell, everybody here was universally praising the show (and still do). Then he chimed in some anti-Trump BS into the mix for some random ass reason.

---

Who freaking cares what the producer said about Trump? What does that have to do with the content of the show? If Ben Shapiro made a series that was this good, I'd still watch it even though I think he's an idiot. There was nothing in this mini series that had anything to do with modern America and our current political climate. Some people just need to be angry at something I suppose.

BQCadet said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BQCadet said:

---

Why oh why are people so politically sensitive? Get over it and just enjoy the show.

---

Ask the producer or the show. As far as I can tell, everybody here was universally praising the show (and still do). Then he chimed in some anti-Trump BS into the mix for some random ass reason.

---

Who freaking cares what the producer said about Trump? What does that have to do with the content of the show? If Ben Shapiro made a series that was this good, I'd still watch it even though I think he's an idiot. There was nothing in this mini series that had anything to do with modern America and our current political climate. Some people just need to be angry at something I suppose.

---

Agreed with bold statement. Which is why it was hilariously stupid that the producer claimed that it did.

I'm glad this guy kept his naive political idiocy out of the show. That is a big reason why it was good and why I watched every episode live.

Quote:

---

There was nothing in this mini series that had anything to do with modern America and our current political climate. Some people just need to be angry at something I suppose.

---

So I'm going to disagree there.

I think the fact that the show ended with the line 'Where I once would fear the cost of truth, no I only ask, what is the cost of lies?' very much has to do with the modern state of things.

Now I don't think it's necessarily taking a particular left or right stance, but I think it was very pointedly saying that if we continue to ignore reality, whether it's in climate change/healthcare/whatever, that eventually there will be a price to pay.

bobinator said:

---

Quote:

---

There was nothing in this mini series that had anything to do with modern America and our current political climate. Some people just need to be angry at something I suppose.

---

So I'm going to disagree there.

I think the fact that the show ended with the line 'Where I once would fear the cost of truth, no I only ask, what is the cost of lies?' very much has to do with the modern state of things.

Now I don't think it's necessarily taking a particular left or right stance, but I think it was very pointedly saying that if we continue to ignore reality, whether it's in climate change/healthcare/whatever, that eventually there will be a price to pay.

---

That could go either way, can be applied to any country, and at any time frame. It's nothing really about America. Even your specific examples on climate change and healthcare could go either way.

Sure, it could, but the fact that they chose to end the series on that particular line sure seems to indicate that they wanted the audience to think about the 'lessons of Chernobyl' (said right before these words) and ask themselves if we've actually learned any of them.

That seems like a pretty blatant comment on the current state of affairs if you ask me. That's not exactly reading between the lines or anything.

Now, how people choose to interpret those lessons and what their 'truth' is is debatable of course.

bobinator said:

---

Sure, it could, but the fact that they chose to end the series on that particular line sure seems to indicate that they wanted the audience to think about the 'lessons of Chernobyl' (said right before these words) and ask themselves if we've actually learned any of them.

That seems like a pretty blatant comment on the current state of affairs if you ask me. That's not exactly reading between the lines or anything.

Now, how people choose to interpret those lessons and what their 'truth' is is debatable of course.

---

If the overt lesson was meant to be, "don't compromise on the truth" then I doubt anybody would disagree with that sentiment. Perhaps those within the producer's political bubble think that clearly means to warn against Trump, but for the rest of us who live in the real world it means something completely different.

If he was trying to bash Trump, then he failed miserably. If anything, it's a great example on the evils of big government, which is 180 degrees from the producers ideology. I guess that is what tends to happen when the focus of the show is on presenting the facts.

If you read current American political statements into this show you probably also would see Jesus's image in a tortilla (because you want to, not because it is really there).

There was nothing, nothing, about American politics in this show and any comment in the show about lies was clearly describing the Soviet system. Can't people enjoy anything anymore without some left right slant being read into it?

This was an excellent show.

aTmAg said:

---

PWestAg18 said:

---

I was hesitant to watch because I have a nuclear engineering degree, have studied the event personally and in class, and figured I'd get angry at how incorrect everything was. I had nothing to do tonight and my coworkers had been adamant I watch so I figured why not.

After binge watching 4 episodes all I can say is wow. They got literally every aspect right. The reactor physics, the radiation effects, the timeline, the cleanup efforts, and the corruption of the Soviets. They literally got it all right. I can't wait for the last episode because it looks like the trial and events of that day are going to be shown via flashback. Obviously its' a topic I'm heavily interested in, but this is probably my favorite show ever.

---

So I got a question. At what point where they past the point of no return? For example, when the reactor was basically at zero, was there any way out of that? Could they have started it slowly for 24 hour and avert disaster?

---

Sorry I'm so late to the party here, busy at work, but here we go:

Fission is caused when Uranium-235 absorbs a neutron. The nucleus becomes so unstable it splits into two smaller atoms. What atoms it splits into is a random process, some have higher probabilities than others, but essentially it's possible for Uranium to fission into any two elements that are smaller in mass.

One of the higher probability isotopes that is created from fission is Iodine-135. Iodine-135 quickly decays into Xenon-135. Xenon-135 has a huge capability to absorb neutrons. Since neutrons are the cause of fission, this Xenon is absorbing neutrons that would otherwise be used to cause more fissions. If you run at a steady state power you eventually reach a saturation point of Xenon. For every Iodine atom that decays into Xenon, a Xenon atom absorbs a neutron and decays into something else.

When you run at a steady state power the control rods will very slowly raise out of the core to account for this Xenon increase. When you shut down a reactor you have to wait a certain period of time in order for the Xenon to naturally decay away before you can start up again. Xenon-135 has a half-life of 8 hours meaning it could take a couple days for it to decay out of the core. This phenomenon is know as "Poisoning" and was first observed at the Hanford Site Reactor during the Manhattan Project.

The Chernobyl crew was screwed the second they were told they had to remain at a high power during the day in order to meet the electric grid demand. The test should have been cancelled the second that was ordered. But they carried on. When they tried to lower power to begin the test, there was so much Xenon in the core from earlier that day it was almost impossible for the reactor to sustain the fission process. In order to maintain power they had to raise almost all of the control rods out of the core. At this point they had two options. Shut down or continue with the test. Had they shut down no crisis would have happened, and the reactor would've been impossible to start up for a day or two.

Basically they should've cancelled the test and waited for a different day whenever they were initially told to remain at a high power during the day. As someone who has dealt with nuclear operations everything they did as operators is terrifying and how they didn't understand those concepts is pretty horrible. Dyatlov might be the worst person of all time for forcing them to go through with it.

Hope that helped

Hogties said:

---

If you read current American political statements into this show you probably also would see Jesus's image in a tortilla (because you want to, not because it is really there).

There was nothing, nothing, about American politics in this show and any comment in the show about lies was clearly describing the Soviet system. Can't people enjoy anything anymore without some left right slant being read into it?

This was an excellent show.

---

Agreed. I think this is a show that all shows based on factual events should aspire to be like. Be compelling AND accurate. Don't make changes to make it fit your ideology. Even where they were not accurate, such as inventing the Ulana Khomyuk character, they explained in the text at the end that she was a combined character representing all the scientists, and showed a picture of them. What more could be asked?

While I do not put this show on the level of Band of Brothers, it's right up there, that's for sure.

hunter2012 said:

---

There is no his truth, or her truth, or the state's truth, there is only Truth. That should be the lesson 100%.

One of the best miniseries of all time. That's all.

---

just as poignant today with all of our nonsense as it was then.

i was in awe and a little depressed as i watched the credits roll last night. an absolute masterpiece that's going to ruin my entertainment options for a good while. just perfect.

Yeah I'm not really arguing about what it means or how effective it was, I'm just saying that I disagree that the show had nothing "to with do with modern America and our current political climate."

I think it very much had to do with it. The consequences of lying or obfuscating the truth, of lack of transparency in the government, the need to place blame instead of fixing the problem, etc, etc. I think these are all things that resonate with our current political climate.

I think that's part of what makes the show great. It took something that happened in a place that's very easy to think of as an 'other.' The Soviet Union was so vastly different from the U.S. that it's easy to think 'nothing like that could ever happen here.' But that's the message that the director wanted to convey. (To me) It could happen here if we aren't vigilant. The further people get from the truth, the less we demand transparency of the government, the less of a commitment we have to the truth, the more likely it makes a disaster like this to happen.

F-yeah it helped. That explained it perfectly.

bobinator said:

---

Yeah I'm not really arguing about what it means or how effective it was, I'm just saying that I disagree that the show had nothing "to with do with modern America and our current political climate."

I think it very much had to do with it. The consequences of lying or obfuscating the truth, of lack of transparency in the government, the need to place blame instead of fixing the problem, etc, etc. I think these are all things that resonate with our current political climate.

I think that's part of what makes the show great. It took something that happened in a place that's very easy to think of as an 'other.' The Soviet Union was so vastly different from the U.S. that it's easy to think 'nothing like that could ever happen here.' But that's the message that the director wanted to convey. (To me) It could happen here if we aren't vigilant. The further people get from the truth, the less we demand transparency of the government, the less of a commitment we have to the truth, the more likely it makes a disaster like this to happen.

---

I guess we got opposite lessons. The testimony during the "trial" saying stuff like "that's why nobody else in the world does X" indicated to me that such a thing would basically be impossible here (at least in our lifetime.. unless we turned socialist enough).

I agree with transparency in government and commitment to the truth, but that is a timeless and placeless recommendation that practically everybody agrees with.