In the podcast they said that 1 in 4 of just the coal miners died.
HBO's Chernobyl Mini-series drops next week.
106,366 Views |
688 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by gigemJTH12
That would make much more sense. And I'd bet closer to 90k than 5k.schmendeler said:
Those are direct deaths from the explosion and resulting radiation, not the deaths from fallout, etc. Those were estimated anywhere from around 5,000 to 90,000+.
Would be interested to see how far radiation, even immaterial, spread. i.e. I wonder if towns in Western Europe or other continents recorded marginal increases from their baseline levels? I used to wonder if Chernobyl could have had an affect on cancer rates in other countries/continents outside of the old Soviet footprint? Guess I need to do some reading.
Here's an interesting link telling the story in photos.
https://imgur.com/a/TwY6q#7gCHWj2
This description (in-line with the one in the show) is horrific:
https://imgur.com/a/TwY6q#7gCHWj2
This description (in-line with the one in the show) is horrific:
Quote:
Once exposed, nausea and vomiting will begin almost immediately, and within a short space of time your tongue and eyes will swell, followed by the rest of your body. You'll feel weakened, as if the strength has been drained from you. If you've received a high dose of direct exposure - as in this scenario - your skin will blanche dark red within moments, a phenomenon often called nuclear sunburn. An hour or two after exposure, you'll gain a pounding headache, a fever and diarrhoea, after which you'll go into shock and pass out.
After this initial bout of symptoms, there's often a latent period during which you'll start to feel like you're recovering. The nausea will recede, along with some swelling, though other symptoms will remain. This latent period varies in duration from case to case, and of course it depends on the dose, but it can last a few days. It's cruel because it gives you hope, only to then get much, much worse. The vomiting and diarrhoea will return, along with delirium. An unstoppable, excruciating pain seethes through your body, from the skin down to your bones, and you'll bleed from your nose, mouth and rectum. Your hair will fall out; your skin will tear easily, crack and blister, and then slowly turn black.
Your bones will rot, forever destroying your ability to create new blood cells. As you near the end, your immune system will completely collapse, your lungs, heart and other internal organs will begin to disintegrate, and you'll cough them up. Your skin will eventually break down entirely, all but guaranteeing infection. One man from Chernobyl reported that when he stood up his skin slipped down off his leg like a sock. At high doses, radiation will change the very fabric of your DNA, turning you quite literally into a person other than the one you were before. And then you'll die, in agony.
I've been doing some reading on it recently. Chernobyl released over 400x the amount of radioactive material that both bombs dropped on Japan did. Fallout was all the way to Sweden within a couple of days, that's how the west first knew about it (unless the US or maybe Britain knew but hadn't made it public). Workers at a Swedish nuclear plant discovered through their safety procedure they had radioactive materials on their clothes, and thought they may have a leak. All in all they think at least a 1M people were exposed to radiation in Ukraine, Belarus (hit the worst), Russia, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Italy, and Moldova. The reds being the sh**birds they are took too way too long to come clean to the rest of the world and even then continually downplayed it. I can remember discussions in school with my teachers in sixth grade.Boo Weekley said:That would make much more sense. And I'd bet closer to 90k than 5k.schmendeler said:
Those are direct deaths from the explosion and resulting radiation, not the deaths from fallout, etc. Those were estimated anywhere from around 5,000 to 90,000+.
Would be interested to see how far radiation, even immaterial, spread. i.e. I wonder if towns in Western Europe or other continents recorded marginal increases from their baseline levels? I used to wonder if Chernobyl could have had an affect on cancer rates in other countries/continents outside of the old Soviet footprint? Guess I need to do some reading.
Crazy, but just 1 million exposed? I would have assumed much higher is spanning that many countries...unless radiation is almost entirely carried by wind and followed a consistent path maybe?Urban Ag said:I've been doing some reading on it recently. Chernobyl released over 400x the amount of radioactive material that both bombs dropped on Japan did. Fallout was all the way to Sweden within a couple of days, that's how the west first knew about it (unless the US or maybe Britain knew but hadn't made it public). Workers at a Swedish nuclear plant discovered through their safety procedure they had radioactive materials on their clothes, and thought they may have a leak. All in all they think at least a 1M people were exposed to radiation in Ukraine, Belarus (hit the worst), Russia, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Norway, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovenia, Italy, and Moldova. The reds being the sh**birds they are took too way too long to come clean to the rest of the world and even then continually downplayed it. I can remember discussions in school with my teachers in sixth grade.Boo Weekley said:That would make much more sense. And I'd bet closer to 90k than 5k.schmendeler said:
Those are direct deaths from the explosion and resulting radiation, not the deaths from fallout, etc. Those were estimated anywhere from around 5,000 to 90,000+.
Would be interested to see how far radiation, even immaterial, spread. i.e. I wonder if towns in Western Europe or other continents recorded marginal increases from their baseline levels? I used to wonder if Chernobyl could have had an affect on cancer rates in other countries/continents outside of the old Soviet footprint? Guess I need to do some reading.
Yep like bad sunburn only every cell in your body is burnt instead of just top layer of skin. As cell walls break down you basically do melt.Boo Weekley said:
Here's an interesting link telling the story in photos.
https://imgur.com/a/TwY6q#7gCHWj2
This description (in-line with the one in the show) is horrific:Quote:
Once exposed, nausea and vomiting will begin almost immediately, and within a short space of time your tongue and eyes will swell, followed by the rest of your body. You'll feel weakened, as if the strength has been drained from you. If you've received a high dose of direct exposure - as in this scenario - your skin will blanche dark red within moments, a phenomenon often called nuclear sunburn. An hour or two after exposure, you'll gain a pounding headache, a fever and diarrhoea, after which you'll go into shock and pass out.
After this initial bout of symptoms, there's often a latent period during which you'll start to feel like you're recovering. The nausea will recede, along with some swelling, though other symptoms will remain. This latent period varies in duration from case to case, and of course it depends on the dose, but it can last a few days. It's cruel because it gives you hope, only to then get much, much worse. The vomiting and diarrhoea will return, along with delirium. An unstoppable, excruciating pain seethes through your body, from the skin down to your bones, and you'll bleed from your nose, mouth and rectum. Your hair will fall out; your skin will tear easily, crack and blister, and then slowly turn black.
Your bones will rot, forever destroying your ability to create new blood cells. As you near the end, your immune system will completely collapse, your lungs, heart and other internal organs will begin to disintegrate, and you'll cough them up. Your skin will eventually break down entirely, all but guaranteeing infection. One man from Chernobyl reported that when he stood up his skin slipped down off his leg like a sock. At high doses, radiation will change the very fabric of your DNA, turning you quite literally into a person other than the one you were before. And then you'll die, in agony.
Love the show
Ars is horrific
I dont know how bad it truly could have been.
That is something i'd like to pin down better.
But in reality, only 134 people got ars, 28 died of it, and they expect 'maybe' up to 5000 additional lifeteime cancer deaths - but in stats are showing .6% of cancers likely statistically significant.
Much of the area has thriving wildlife today, though a few oddities exist.
https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
I honestly dont know if modern nuclear science is significantly changing the total planetary radiation load, or just concentrating it.
Ars is horrific
I dont know how bad it truly could have been.
That is something i'd like to pin down better.
But in reality, only 134 people got ars, 28 died of it, and they expect 'maybe' up to 5000 additional lifeteime cancer deaths - but in stats are showing .6% of cancers likely statistically significant.
Much of the area has thriving wildlife today, though a few oddities exist.
https://www.who.int/ionizing_radiation/chernobyl/backgrounder/en/
I honestly dont know if modern nuclear science is significantly changing the total planetary radiation load, or just concentrating it.
I thought this was an interesting perspective of a guy who thinks Hollywood scares us about nuclear energy when they should be behind it as the cure for climate change. Does give some props to this show.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
I love this show. I've always been intrigued by the Chernobyl disaster and aftermath (20 years as a ChemE in a chemical plant doing incident reviews and process hazard analyses probably has something to do with it too).
I remember watching a short documentary on the Science Channel? a year or two ago where they were examining the wildlife, etc. in the area 30 years after the fact. The one thing I remember most from that doc was them showing video of the forest near the plant and stating that all of the trees, dead leaves on the ground, logs, etc... were basically the same as they were in 1986.... because the radiation had eliminated all of the bugs and micro-organisms that ingest the dead vegetation. I know in the show they intend to burn it, but burning it would put that radiation up in the atmosphere.... so they never did.
I remember watching a short documentary on the Science Channel? a year or two ago where they were examining the wildlife, etc. in the area 30 years after the fact. The one thing I remember most from that doc was them showing video of the forest near the plant and stating that all of the trees, dead leaves on the ground, logs, etc... were basically the same as they were in 1986.... because the radiation had eliminated all of the bugs and micro-organisms that ingest the dead vegetation. I know in the show they intend to burn it, but burning it would put that radiation up in the atmosphere.... so they never did.
When I did NBC training in 93 or 94 I had this Captain who was this good ole boy type from LSU. He was dead serious about proficiency with MOPP gear as it pertained to bio and chem attacks. Would time trial the F out of us and getting our squad into MOPP before we all hypothetically died. But when it came to nukes, he was like (think Southern Acadian accent) "yeah, I've seen the real photos from Chernobyl and that was just a meltdown. If you're on the field and you see the mushroom cloud, seriously don't spend the last few minutes or hours of your life wearing this crap. Do whatever the hell you want. Don't like the guy next to you? Blow him away. It won't matter, you're f'd".
Not to make light of it, just sayin.
Not to make light of it, just sayin.
Urban Ag said:
When I did NBC training in 93 or 94 I had this Captain who was this good ole boy type from LSU. He was dead serious about proficiency with MOPP gear as it pertained to bio and chem attacks. Would time trial the F out of us and getting our squad into MOPP before we all hypothetically died. But when it came to nukes, he was like (think Southern Acadian accent) "yeah, I've seen the real photos from Chernobyl and that was just a meltdown. If you're on the field and you see the mushroom cloud, seriously don't spend the last few minutes or hours of your life wearing this crap. Do whatever the hell you want. Don't like the guy next to you? Blow him away. It won't matter, you're f'd".
Not to make light of it, just sayin.
He must be related to the chief miner
That story in pictures is pretty great. Not taking anything lightly, but this has to be one of the most Soviet pictures ever:
Snow, architecture, hat, 'stache, Commie car and heavy military vehicle looming.
I have another theory on the cover-up. The all-powerful Russian regime couldn't afford another hit to its reputation and image, as it had been severely weakened just a few months before in December of 1985:
Snow, architecture, hat, 'stache, Commie car and heavy military vehicle looming.
I have another theory on the cover-up. The all-powerful Russian regime couldn't afford another hit to its reputation and image, as it had been severely weakened just a few months before in December of 1985:
BQ78 said:
I thought this was an interesting perspective of a guy who thinks Hollywood scares us about nuclear energy when they should be behind it as the cure for climate change. Does give some props to this show.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
Everyone should read this article. It is a rather scathing attack on the realism of the series.
I will say that one of the major takeaways I have gotten from the podcasts is how fictionalized much of the story is. The interviewer asks, "So, did XXX happen like that?" The writer: "Well, no, I had to compress that," etc.
"Did that old Soviet guy in Episode 1 really make that speech to the town committee?" "Well, no, but that scene embodied many common attitudes in the USSR...." etc.
Here is a link to a NYT review mentioned in the Forbes article that further criticizes the show because it fictionalizes so much.
I am enjoying the series very, very much. I find it well written and well acted. But it is not a documentary.
i am definitely pro-nuclear, but I find his arguments about this series in particular to be kind of weak. he's really convicted in his defense of nuclear and lets that shade his view of the show, imo.OldArmy71 said:BQ78 said:
I thought this was an interesting perspective of a guy who thinks Hollywood scares us about nuclear energy when they should be behind it as the cure for climate change. Does give some props to this show.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
Everyone should read this article. It is a rather scathing attack on the realism of the series.
I will say that one of the major takeaways I have gotten from the podcasts is how fictionalized much of the story is. The interviewer asks, "So, did XXX happen like that?" The writer: "Well, no, I had to compress that," etc.
"Did that old Soviet guy in Episode 1 really make that speech to the town committee?" "Well, no, but that scene embodied many common attitudes in the USSR...." etc.
Here is a link to a NYT review mentioned in the Forbes article that further criticizes the show because it fictionalizes so much.
I am enjoying the series very, very much. I find it well written and well acted. But it is not a documentary.
popular opinion gives nuclear a bad rap, but this show doesn't.
It's definitely not a documentary
It definitely does give nuclear a bad rap
It's definitely oversensationalized
It's definitely entertaining anyway and well worth watching.
It definitely does give nuclear a bad rap
It's definitely oversensationalized
It's definitely entertaining anyway and well worth watching.
How does it give nuclear a bad rap? It gives nuclear explosions a bad rap but, what about nuclear power has been given wrong treatment?
Absolutely correct. The Forbes author has his panties in a wad because his past experience with anti-nuclear rhetoric is coloring his view of this show.schmendeler said:i am definitely pro-nuclear, but I find his arguments about this series in particular to be kind of weak. he's really convicted in his defense of nuclear and lets that shade his view of the show, imo.OldArmy71 said:BQ78 said:
I thought this was an interesting perspective of a guy who thinks Hollywood scares us about nuclear energy when they should be behind it as the cure for climate change. Does give some props to this show.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
Everyone should read this article. It is a rather scathing attack on the realism of the series.
I will say that one of the major takeaways I have gotten from the podcasts is how fictionalized much of the story is. The interviewer asks, "So, did XXX happen like that?" The writer: "Well, no, I had to compress that," etc.
"Did that old Soviet guy in Episode 1 really make that speech to the town committee?" "Well, no, but that scene embodied many common attitudes in the USSR...." etc.
Here is a link to a NYT review mentioned in the Forbes article that further criticizes the show because it fictionalizes so much.
I am enjoying the series very, very much. I find it well written and well acted. But it is not a documentary.
popular opinion gives nuclear a bad rap, but this show doesn't.
"Chernobyl" is a historical fiction, not a doc. For being a fictional miniseries they really have squeezed a ton of factual information into it. The show did not imply a bunch of people died. It showed a bunch of people injured, burned and/or irradiated. Most of those outcomes have not been shown yet (I think Vassily and Akimov are the only two dead so far aside from the initial explosion).
"Chernobyl" is a show about what happens when safety is disregarded, openness and transparency do not exist, and decision makers are ignorant and do not have the correct information to make decisions with because underlings are frightened of the fallout (pun intended) if they tell the truth.
The Forbes guy is watching through an extremely biased lens.
Ohhh, showing people melting from radiation probably doesn't fit in the pro-nuclear category.schmendeler said:
popular opinion gives nuclear a bad rap, but this show doesn't.
Hello, they show nuclear scientists screaming that they will kill the whole continent and make it uninhabitable for thousands of years.Robert C. Christian said:
How does it give nuclear a bad rap? It gives nuclear explosions a bad rap but, what about nuclear power has been given wrong treatment?
Thats not really a glowing endorsement of nuclear power.
Pun intended.
I agree with schmendeler. I'd be interested to know how you craft a narrative on anything factual without condensation of some of the facts to create an actual story arc. What Mazin has tried to do, and I think successfully overall, is recreate the overall feel of working within the Soviet bureaucracy at the expense of specific facts as well as tell a story that is very technical in nature in a way that the average person can understand. Does it require some awkward explanations at times, yes. But how else would you do it?schmendeler said:i am definitely pro-nuclear, but I find his arguments about this series in particular to be kind of weak. he's really convicted in his defense of nuclear and lets that shade his view of the show, imo.OldArmy71 said:BQ78 said:
I thought this was an interesting perspective of a guy who thinks Hollywood scares us about nuclear energy when they should be behind it as the cure for climate change. Does give some props to this show.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
Everyone should read this article. It is a rather scathing attack on the realism of the series.
I will say that one of the major takeaways I have gotten from the podcasts is how fictionalized much of the story is. The interviewer asks, "So, did XXX happen like that?" The writer: "Well, no, I had to compress that," etc.
"Did that old Soviet guy in Episode 1 really make that speech to the town committee?" "Well, no, but that scene embodied many common attitudes in the USSR...." etc.
Here is a link to a NYT review mentioned in the Forbes article that further criticizes the show because it fictionalizes so much.
I am enjoying the series very, very much. I find it well written and well acted. But it is not a documentary.
popular opinion gives nuclear a bad rap, but this show doesn't.
I feel like some people think that showing negative consequences from a catastrophic accident means that it is an indictment of the industry in which the catastrophe takes place. is titanic an attack on travel by cruise liner? or an indictment of the safety protocols in place at the time?
is a movie about a plane crashing an attack on airlines? or a story about human error and or security lapses?
is a movie about a plane crashing an attack on airlines? or a story about human error and or security lapses?
It seems far more realistic and based on actual events than most "based on a true story" fictions I have seen. I have been very impressed with how accurate it has been and think it's unfair to criticize it for taking a couple short cuts in order to whittle it down to a 5-part mini series.OldArmy71 said:BQ78 said:
I thought this was an interesting perspective of a guy who thinks Hollywood scares us about nuclear energy when they should be behind it as the cure for climate change. Does give some props to this show.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/05/09/the-reason-they-fictionalize-nuclear-disasters-like-chernobyl-is-because-they-kill-so-few-people/amp/?usqp=mq331AQCKAE%3D
Everyone should read this article. It is a rather scathing attack on the realism of the series.
I will say that one of the major takeaways I have gotten from the podcasts is how fictionalized much of the story is. The interviewer asks, "So, did XXX happen like that?" The writer: "Well, no, I had to compress that," etc.
"Did that old Soviet guy in Episode 1 really make that speech to the town committee?" "Well, no, but that scene embodied many common attitudes in the USSR...." etc.
Here is a link to a NYT review mentioned in the Forbes article that further criticizes the show because it fictionalizes so much.
I am enjoying the series very, very much. I find it well written and well acted. But it is not a documentary.
It's educating but also very well made and entertaining...and haunting. Would be unwatchable if they tried to cram all of the minutia into 5 hours of television.
Not anymore than just reading the Chernobyl wikipedia page or any book on Chernobyl "gives nuclear a bad wrap". Due to the horrific nature and sheer magnitude of the actual events, many simpletons are naturally going to be scared into an anti-nuclear stance.cbr said:
It's definitely not a documentary
It definitely does give nuclear a bad rap
It's definitely oversensationalized
It's definitely entertaining anyway and well worth watching.
I don't think this show intentionally gives nuclear a bad wrap any more than the actual event itself did.
I don't think the director is trying to be anti-nuclear. He's trying to show the political and human impact before and after the disaster. But there's definitely nothing that's been pro-nuclear, and it would ring pretty hollow if the director tried to flip things that way in the last two episodes.schmendeler said:
I feel like some people think that showing negative consequences from a catastrophic accident means that it is an indictment of the industry in which the catastrophe takes place. is titanic an attack on travel by cruise liner? or an indictment of the safety protocols in place at the time?
is a movie about a plane crashing an attack on airlines? or a story about human error and or security lapses?
I think those that question the creator's motives behind this show should listen to the podcast. he is really quite thoughtful and reasonable with what he was trying to do with this.
Why is the show supposed to be "pro" or "anti" anything? To me it has been refreshing to watch a show based on real events that doesn't take any hardline stance. I hope that it doesn't in the two remaining episodes.Joseph Parrish said:Ohhh, showing people melting from radiation probably doesn't fit in the pro-nuclear category.schmendeler said:
popular opinion gives nuclear a bad rap, but this show doesn't.
Yep, I plan on giving a listen. If his motives were to be anti-nuclear, he failed miserably and needs to take lessons from certain Hollywood propaganda pros.schmendeler said:
I think those that question the creator's motives behind this show should listen to the podcast. he is really quite thoughtful and reasonable with what he was trying to do with this.
I have some issues with how they've combined some characters, but overall I think it's doing a really good job.
I agree with the folks saying that this isn't really anti nuclear power. Obviously the fact that a nuclear reactor literally exploded makes it inherently seem bad, but that's just the subject material.
I agree with the folks saying that this isn't really anti nuclear power. Obviously the fact that a nuclear reactor literally exploded makes it inherently seem bad, but that's just the subject material.
I didn't say that it had to, but this show is not going to improve the reputation for nuclear power. That's all I'm saying. I don't think they're trying to make a statement about that at all. I think they're just telling the story.Boo Weekley said:Why is the show supposed to be "pro" or "anti" anything? To me it has been refreshing to watch a show based on real events that doesn't take any hardline stance. I hope that it doesn't in the two remaining episodes.Joseph Parrish said:Ohhh, showing people melting from radiation probably doesn't fit in the pro-nuclear category.schmendeler said:
popular opinion gives nuclear a bad rap, but this show doesn't.
But you can't say that showing all this suffering is going to help the nuclear position.
Is that the mission of the show? To endorse nuclear power?cbr said:Hello, they show nuclear scientists screaming that they will kill the whole continent and make it uninhabitable for thousands of years.Robert C. Christian said:
How does it give nuclear a bad rap? It gives nuclear explosions a bad rap but, what about nuclear power has been given wrong treatment?
Thats not really a glowing endorsement of nuclear power.
Pun intended.
It's not unreasonable to think that some scientists saw potential devastation of a magnitude the modern world has never come close to seeing had they not been able to stop it. Within days, radiation was registering in Sweden.
That's not his motive. The podcasts are very good. Definitely worth listening to.Boo Weekley said:Yep, I plan on giving a listen. If his motives were to be anti-nuclear, he failed miserably and needs to take lessons from certain Hollywood propaganda pros.schmendeler said:
I think those that question the creator's motives behind this show should listen to the podcast. he is really quite thoughtful and reasonable with what he was trying to do with this.
This thread is a cluster **** on par with a scroll through the Politics Board. Why does this show have to be expressing an opinion on nuclear energy at all.
This show has been about people dealing with a very real crisis. It has been fascinating to see characters have to make very tough decisions in the face of a very large problem. It has also been interesting to see the struggle between loyalty to state and loyalty to man in some of the main characters.
This show has been incredible and it is too bad this thread is hung up on the political motives of the posters and not the show itself.
This show has been about people dealing with a very real crisis. It has been fascinating to see characters have to make very tough decisions in the face of a very large problem. It has also been interesting to see the struggle between loyalty to state and loyalty to man in some of the main characters.
This show has been incredible and it is too bad this thread is hung up on the political motives of the posters and not the show itself.
I don't think anyone at all is saying that on this thread. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that. Chernobyl happened. covering it doesn't mean that you have to provide some sort of positive view of nuclear to "balance it." there was a massive **** up. it sucks for nuclear as a power source option, but it's not on the shoulders of people portraying the **** up to moderate the real danger and harm that resulted.Joseph Parrish said:Quote:
But you can't say that showing all this suffering is going to help the nuclear position.
edit to say that I'm not saying that is your expectation. but there seem to be some that have that expectation.
I do think there is a bit of hyperbole toward nuclear energy in the show but it is more to heighten drama than saying nuclear power bad. That said,the hyperbole is certainly much less than we were hearing in 1999 about Y2K 
.
. Featured Stories
See All
35:53
1h ago
1.1k
12:52
29m ago
364
Houston Memorial's Jackson Appel thriving in first season as an Aggie
by Ryan Brauninger
Dave Grohl
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
94
Chandlauch
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
80
1/2 Man 1/2 Amazing
No panic Edgerrin and other Aggies, Madubuike was drafted #71
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
65
agsalaska
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
62
Rudyjax
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
44
Rudyjax
JACKSON APPEL - Aggie Baseball - Would You be Surprised???
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
33