Chernobyl TV Series

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

Posted by Samsaranda on 29/05/2019 14:39:04:

Martin, the dosage at Chernobyl in 2010 was infinitely lower than in 1986 because the isotopes had yet to decay and also the reactor was then yet to be capped with steel and concrete thereby sealing the open core of the reactor. I wouldn’t have wanted to be within a hundred miles of the site in 1986, nowadays it is relatively safe fairly close up to the reactor site, although not recommended to spend a prolonged period there. I am impressed with the technical details of the series and also the sets are realistic, it is apparently filmed in Lithuania, an ex Soviet state, I am sure that the Lithuanians are not fussed about upsetting their former masters in Russia, there is no love lost there between them.

Dave W

Well I'd take exceptiion to the use of the word infinite, as I was attempting to bring some real numbers into the comments. One of the links gives 50 Seiverts as the 10 minute dose next to the Chernobyl reactor core after the explosion. The dose for an hour in 2010 is listed as 6mSeiverts so that works out at somewhere around a ratio of 50000 to 1.

Nuclear accidents are psychologically scary in the way that medical scans are not and that makes the perception of the one more dangerous than it maybe and the other less. Not that you really want any exposure if it can be avoided. But the charts do show that for the population of the world including those living close to the sites but excluding the workers intimately involved with the disasters is way lower than the max permitted doses for US radiation workers.

I just find it interesting to put some comparisons together.

regards Martin

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Posted by Martin Kyte on 29/05/2019 15:08:27:

Well I'd take exceptiion to the use of the word infinite, as I was attempting to bring some real numbers into the comments. One of the links gives 50 Seiverts as the 10 minute dose next to the Chernobyl reactor core after the explosion. The dose for an hour in 2010 is listed as 6mSeiverts so that works out at somewhere around a ratio of 50000 to 1.

The cover they made had to be assembled remotely and moved into place as levels of radiation are too high at the reactor. In 2013 12 minutes on the top of the roof of the original sarcophagus was enough for a worker to be exposed to a year's limit.

Neil

[SamsarandaParticipant @samsaranda]

Martin, I accept the figures that you listed, my comment about not wanting to be within a hundred miles in 1986 was based on my experiences as a radiation worker and the premise that no dose is safe and you need to minimise your lifetime exposure figures. 6 mSieverts exposure definitely preferable to something 50000 times more, just so lucky that we haven’t had such a disaster like that in the UK, well not since Windscale or that we know about.

Dave W

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

You have to admire the raw courage of the Russians and Ukrainians who manually heaved Lead and Cement into the burst reactor walls, and those who sealed the missing roof by dropping material inside from helicopters. Hovering in the smoke from an unshielded melt-down is seriously dangerous.

The number of deaths resulting from the incident is unclear. At first the Soviets only admitted 2 during the actual incident, but that rose to 31 after a few months. A total of between 49 and 54 direct fatalities is more likely. Since then between 4000 and 63000 people may have died prematurely due to the accident. (Quite hard to link cause and effect at individual level, it's done by looking for unnatural bumps in the statistics. ) Whatever it is the death toll is still rising : 600,000 people volunteered to help with the clean-up and a proportion of them will die early too, plus those unlucky enough to be under the plume as it travelled across Europe. Less risky the further away you are, but some people are likely to be effected.

Long term radiation doesn't seem to be well understood. One school of thought thinks there's an exposure level below which we are safe, others think all radiation is dangerous. Experience of accidental exposures and Japanese A-bomb victims suggests there is a safe level across a population, but that's confounded by many examples of individuals made ill by low doses. The wild-life around Chernobyl is booming which suggests people are more dangerous to animals than radioactivity.

Just glad I've never been called on to prove my courage by that kind of disaster.

Dave

[Alan JacksonParticipant @alanjackson47790]

I think that Russia pressganged people from the Baltic states to do some of the work

Alan

[old martParticipant @oldmart]

I was in Buffalo NY at the time and one of the guys I was with had relatives in the Ukraine.

I have seen the first four episodes on SKY and it is one of one of the best drama-documentaries I have ever seen, actually more horrific than any horror film.

[Blue HeelerParticipant @blueheeler]

I'm enjoying the series.

[Author]

Posts