Technical accuracy of the Chernobyl miniseries.

[schmitt trigger]

First of all, I know it is common on all the “based on a true story” movies to take some artistic license, to enhance the narrative or to create suspense or drama. Otherwise it would be a documentary.

I also understand that most if not all movies have consultants which help them set the correct zeitgeist. Reviewers for this movie, many who claim to have been Soviet citizens during the accident, mentioned that the series depicts the era very accurately.

But this is a technical blog, and that is what I am interested in. How accurate are the technical details portrayed in the series? I can’t claim to be a nuclear expert, but the accident has interested me significantly and have read many accounts. From my LIMITED knowledge, it appears that the series is quite technically accurate, although there are some minor simplifications to maintain the tempo of the narrative.

What do you think?

[oPossum]

[tautech]

https://youtu.be/EEl_Zk14z7A

[ogden]

Thunderf00t shines again: he purposefully misinterprets what was said so he can "bust" his own error 

Story about "thermal explosion": they believed that molten core will find it's way into 7000m^3 water vessel - very rigid vessel, spewing very radioactive pollution high in the air and fallout would *pollute* huge area rendering it uninhabitable. They never meant thermonuclear explosion blast as thunderf00t very conveniently laughably for his debunking agenda, assumes.

[Berni]

Yep i'm with ogden on that one.

Obviously it wouldn't be a nuclear explosion, but never underestimate the power of steam when it has nowhere to go. A faulty runaway residential water heater can demolish a house. Scaling this up 10 000 times makes for quite a boom. Making things worse is the concrete containment around likely being quite a bit more sturdy than a water heater, so it would be able to build up a lot more pressure before giving up and blowing up. When you have the molten core sitting on top of that you would end up with the said molten core raining down all around the area. The damage is in the form of flinging the radioactive material all over the place, not in the blast wave of the explosion. Tho the explosion would have likely still been enough to critically damage the other reactors near it and cause even more problems.

[mzzj]

LONG read:
https://fissioreaktori.wordpress.com/hbos-mini-series-chernobyl/

Most gross error in my eyes is the firefighter turning radioactive
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/#93be639632f6

[Homer J Simpson]

Chernobyl Anatoly Dyatlov’s interview

[ogden]

The damage is in the form of flinging the radioactive material all over the place, not in the blast wave of the explosion.

Exactly. Even w/o "boiler explosion" huge plume of steam would form highly radioactive cloud, much bigger than that created by fire and evaporation of firefighting water:
 https://earthlymission.com/radioactive-fallout-from-the-chernobyl-disaster/.

Most gross error in my eyes is the firefighter turning radioactive
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/06/why-hbos-chernobyl-gets-nuclear-so-wrong/#93be639632f6

Error of whom? - Medics who did not know that patient is not radioactive if properly cleaned or error of HBO showing that medics did not know? What I find gross - that many are literally obsessed about insignificant details or exaggregations of this monumental film/series. I experienced that soviet time myself and what I can tell - HBO did very good job showing it.

[edit] Writer of Forbes article: Michael Shellenberger, "I write about energy and the environment". Clearly proponent of nuclear power.
[edit1] Thank you for link to LONG, but good read: https://fissioreaktori.wordpress.com/hbos-mini-series-chernobyl/

[mac.6]

Quite frankly you don't want to look at Chernobyl for accuracy beside the very basic facts (yes the reactor did blow up), there was an excellent documentary a few years back about it, way better with archival footage, but less drama.

It's like that with every movie, even critically acclaimed ones. Did you go to omaha beach? it has nothing to do with the omaha beach you see in saving ryan's private, in the film it seems a little beach, where in reality it's not.

Oh, and spaceships do not make noises in space. Neither go anywhere c.

[Kleinstein]

Yep i'm with ogden on that one.

Obviously it wouldn't be a nuclear explosion, but never underestimate the power of steam when it has nowhere to go. A faulty runaway residential water heater can demolish a house. Scaling this up 10 000 times makes for quite a boom. Making things worse is the concrete containment around likely being quite a bit more sturdy than a water heater, so it would be able to build up a lot more pressure before giving up and blowing up. When you have the molten core sitting on top of that you would end up with the said molten core raining down all around the area. The damage is in the form of flinging the radioactive material all over the place, not in the blast wave of the explosion. Tho the explosion would have likely still been enough to critically damage the other reactors near it and cause even more problems.

With the molten core material entering the water tank, there would be a nich opening / pressure relieve. The water would only slowly heat up from the top, so not a large amount of superheated (> 100 C) water to produce a lot of steam fast. So the "explosion"  would be more like the lava fow into the sea, producing a stream of steam that can escape to the top. So expect this to be way less violently than the initial explosion.

It could still release quite some of the fission products from the molten fuel and transport it up. With the initial explosion much of the fuel was still contained in the fuel rods. The contact with water can mobilize some of the fission products. These extra fission products could very well be a problem to Kiew or Minsk  (depending on the wind direction) - not immediately deadly, but a danger to the polulation.  So it was a good thing they avoided that extra release of steam.

[schmitt trigger]

I fully understand that. Movies are not documentaries.
Drama and suspense must be added to maintain interest in persons who are not technically versed.

And fortunately it did not include cheap romantic scenes to make the movie more appealing. When the female scientist, Ulana Homyuk first appeared, I thought to myself: "A romance with Legasov will happen very soon".
Fortunately, it did not happen.

Returning to the technical discussion...... there is a repeated claim throughout the series, that the during the first weeks of the accident, it was releasing as much radiation per hour as a Hiroshima-level bomb. Would that be an exaggeration?
I also was interested by the control room's  computer shown in the background. Certain scenes were shot at the Ignalina power plant in Lithunia, a sister station to Chernobyl. I ignore whether that computer was the real or was it was only a prop.

[BravoV]

Life is too short, pretending as an avg. joe sometimes is fun and less stressful.

Cmon guys, its too much expecting a technical accuracy as NatGeo or Discovery channels, from a company that makes lots of money and even broke world's record on viewers on making this ...

[apis]

The soviet administration had a poor understanding of the risks at the time of the accident (as did most people at the time), and while it was probably a good idea to reduce the risk that the molten core could fall into a basement full of water (for various reasons) it was hardly "likely be fatal to the entire population to Kiev as well as a portion of Minsk" as the woman in the video said. But then I assume (I haven't seen it) the tv-show doesn't claim this was the actual truth, but at most what they think someone in the soviet administration might have believed was a risk at the time, which doesn't say much about the actual risks involved as we understand them today.

I don't think it matters if the tv-series is accurate or not though, it could be 100% accurate and it would still give a very one-sided negative view of nuclear power, focusing on one bad accident but failing to show how this compares with the risks of other power sources. So it's hard to not see it as anti nuclear propaganda. I just wonder why it shows up at this moment in time.

[ogden]

while it was probably a good idea to reduce the risk that the molten core could fall into a basement full of water (for various reasons) it was hardly "likely be fatal to the entire population to Kiev as well as a portion of Minsk" as the woman in the video said.

Now when it is known that it did not happen, armchair nuclear experts can draw their highly educated conclusions how fatal or not, it could be to population. Right.

I don't think it matters if the tv-series is accurate or not though, it could be 100% accurate and it would still give a very one-sided negative view of nuclear power, focusing on one bad accident but failing to show how this compares with the risks of other power sources. So it's hard to not see it as anti nuclear propaganda. I just wonder why it shows up at this moment in time.

You haven't seen TV show, yet somehow have strong opinion that it is anti nuclear propaganda. It is not. The same way "Air Crash Investigation" TV series is not anti-airplane propaganda, film Titanic is not anti-boat propaganda and so on.

[SkyMaster]

... The same way "Air Crash Investigation" TV series is not anti-airplane propaganda...

I am just here to say that "Air Crash Investigation", also known as "Mayday" and "Air Emergency" and "Air Disasters" and "Air Crash" and "Dangers dans le ciel" and "Danger dans les airs", is a Canadian TV series.

 

[Berni]

That woman scientist in the video was supposed to represent the scientific community as a whole rather than an actual person in history (Explained in the directors commentary).

But yeah nobody knew for sure what would happen, not even the scientists. But they ware sure to express there concerns about what might happen and how bad it could be, especially when the government was massively underestimating the scale of the problem.

But yeah i could see how this series could scare people about nuclear power, especially the ones that live close to a nuclear plant. Modern plants are better designed, better built, better understood and ran without a big political pressure on them. At the same time they are the only reliable clean source of power we have that is essentially infinitely expandable. Sure there is some nuclear waste coming out of it, but the stuff is not nearly as highly radioactive as people might think, and the stuff can be buried in a safe place. The only comparable alternative is burning fossil fuels where we dump the waste right into the atmosphere. Until we invent fusion the best way to combat CO2 emissions is to build more nuclear plants. But given how Fukushima scared everyone about it, i don't think its not going to happen anytime soon.

[ogden]

Sure there is some nuclear waste coming out of it, but the stuff is not nearly as highly radioactive as people might think, and the stuff can be buried in a safe place.

Well... None of nuclear countries have operational underground nuclear graveyard. Search internet for "nuclear waste disposal problem". Just US story alone: https://youtu.be/YgVyPwhkoJs. UK's 12BN UKP nuclear waste disposal project of a century is stalling. Japan can't find where to put Fukushima's waste and so on. It can be considered "clean" only if we ignore waste. Everybody is concerned about emissions of fossil burning plants, but seemingly nobody cares about nuclear waste "emissions". They are just put away for next generations to take care of. Corporations have to earn money today, politicians have to take lobbying benefits from said companies today.

[nctnico]

That woman scientist in the video was supposed to represent the scientific community as a whole rather than an actual person in history (Explained in the directors commentary).

But yeah nobody knew for sure what would happen, not even the scientists. But they ware sure to express there concerns about what might happen and how bad it could be, especially when the government was massively underestimating the scale of the problem.

But yeah i could see how this series could scare people about nuclear power, especially the ones that live close to a nuclear plant. Modern plants are better designed, better built, better understood and ran without a big political pressure on them.

I think this was pretty clearly underlined in the last episode where during the trial it was explained that the nuclear reactors in the USSR where build very cheaply and the USSR was the only nation in the world which didn't have their nuclear reactors inside a bunker.

[Berni]

Well yeah we don't necessarily have nuclear waste disposal as sorted as we should, but we do know how to do it. For pollution from coal plants we don't really have any way of keeping the pollution out of the widespread environment. We are already trashing a lot of our environment with regular garbage.

But fusion reactors will also generate radioactive waste. There are no spent fuel rods to get rid of, but the particle bombardment does turn the inside radioactive, so any old parts that get replaced inside as part of maintenance end up being radioactive waste and a lot of things that have been in contact with these things are also considered dangerous waste.

[nctnico]

Well yeah we don't necessarily have nuclear waste disposal as sorted as we should, but we do know how to do it. For pollution from coal plants we don't really have any way of keeping the pollution out of the widespread environment. We are already trashing a lot of our environment with regular garbage.

But fusion reactors will also generate radioactive waste. There are no spent fuel rods to get rid of, but the particle bombardment does turn the inside radioactive, so any old parts that get replaced inside as part of maintenance end up being radioactive waste and a lot of things that have been in contact with these things are also considered dangerous waste.

But the big question is: how dangerous is it really? And for how long? There are lots of toxic agents on this world like Chlorine, Fosgene gas, nerve toxin, etc which need careful storage (remember the time in the 80's when the greenies wanted to ban Chlorine  ). Not to mention the unholy idea of storing CO2 underground which stays a ticking time-bomb until the end of the earth. Greenpeace et al would like to make use believe that radioactive waste is dangerous until the last isotope has fallen apart after a million years or so. By that time the radioactivitity level has fallen way below natural radiation levels for hundreds of millenia already. The fact is that highly radioactive waste decays quickly (highly radioactive inherently means that it will decay quick!) and after only 100 years the radioactivity levels are way more manageable.

[ogden]

Well yeah we don't necessarily have nuclear waste disposal as sorted as we should, but we do know how to do it.

Unfortunately knowledge is not enough. Somebody have to do it as well. Energy companies earn from nuclear energy but waste disposal is problem of government. I find it absurd that company in profit can sue government over nuclear waste disposal dispute and f...g win 68 millions.

[ogden]

But the big question is: how dangerous is it really? And for how long?

Information is widely available. Just look for it. Start with video I mentioned.

There are lots of toxic agents on this world like Chlorine, Fosgene gas, nerve toxin, etc which need careful storage

Sorry to say, but laughable comparison. Most of toxic substances can be simply incinerated.

The fact is that highly radioactive waste decays quickly (highly radioactive inherently means that it will decay quick!) and after only 100 years the radioactivity levels are way more manageable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

[nctnico]

But the big question is: how dangerous is it really? And for how long?

Information is widely available. Just look for it. Start with video I mentioned.

There are lots of toxic agents on this world like Chlorine, Fosgene gas, nerve toxin, etc which need careful storage

Sorry to say, but laughable comparison. Most of toxic substances can be simply incinerated.

But that isn't happening. Lots of that awful stuff lying around. And Chlorine is being transported in large quantities on a daily basis.

The fact is that highly radioactive waste decays quickly (highly radioactive inherently means that it will decay quick!) and after only 100 years the radioactivity levels are way more manageable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spent_nuclear_fuel

That page says absolutely nothing because it doesn't say what the radiation levels are! It is exactly the point I made in the part you left out. The Dutch agency charged with storing spend nuclear fuel states on their website that the radiation levels emitted by highly radioactive material decays so significantly in 100 years that the storage requirements are less strict and cumbersome to meet after that period. These are the people who are supposed to know and I rather take their word for it.

[ogden]

The Dutch agency charged with storing spend nuclear fuel states on their website that the radiation levels emitted by highly radioactive material decays so significantly in 100 years that the storage requirements are less strict and cumbersome to meet after that period. These are the people who are supposed to know and I rather take their word for it.

Citation please. I would like to see how uranium(236) and plutonium decays to safe levels in 100 years. Really.

Sorry to say, but laughable comparison. Most of toxic substances can be simply incinerated.

But that isn't happening. Lots of that awful stuff lying around. And Chlorine is being transported in large quantities on a daily basis.

We talk about disposal here, not storage. If nuclear waste could be as easily incinerated as toxic substances, we would not have this conversation. 

[Kleinstein]

.....
Returning to the technical discussion...... there is a repeated claim throughout the series, that the during the first weeks of the accident, it was releasing as much radiation per hour as a Hiroshima-level bomb. Would that be an exaggeration?
I also was interested by the control room's  computer shown in the background. Certain scenes were shot at the Ignalina power plant in Lithunia, a sister station to Chernobyl. I ignore whether that computer was the real or was it was only a prop.

According to Wikipedia, the total release of Cs and Sr (which are the main longer time critical isotopes) was something like 500 times that of a small nuclear bomb. So crude estimate of 1 bomb equivalent per hour is in the right ball park. The comparison is a little difficult, as a bomb will have more short lived isotopes.

At the Chernobyl disaster the fuel was relatively new (still the first load) and thus the reactor had a smaller (e.g. 1/4)  than normal contend of radioactivity than a normal older reactor. The new fuel was also part in causing the accident - with old fuel the same type of accident would be less likely.

Nuclear waste needs to be stored for quite a long time - but at least it does decay by it's own. Chemical wast that is just buried with quite often stay the way it is for an even longer time.
Incineration is only an option for some chemical waste.