Welp, you did it. I'm going to watch Chernobyl this weekend now.
https://b.catgirlsare.sexy/L72C.png
you definitely are
This is the most existentially terrifying piece of media I've consumed in a long time. It's truly terrifying. It's like an SCP, you go into a place and your skin will just fall off. It's people vs. an inexorable force of nature. It's incredible.
Just saw this.
https://news.avclub.com/russia-hates-hbos-chernobyl-vows-to-make-its-own-serie-1835298424
“The fact that an American, not a Russian, TV channel tells us about our own heroes is a source of shame that the pro-Kremlin media apparently cannot live down,” writes the Times’ Ilya Shepelin. “And this is the real reason they find fault with HBO’s Chernobyl series.”
Part of this crusade is a Russia-produced series from the country’s NTV channel. Directed by filmmaker Alexei Muradov, their project will focus not on the aftermath of the explosion, but instead on what Shepelin calls a “conspiracy theory” that inserts American spies into the narrative.
Of his story, Muradov says, “One theory holds that Americans had infiltrated the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and many historians do not deny that, on the day of the explosion, an agent of the enemy’s intelligence services was present at the station.” The heroes, then, will not be the scientists, soldiers, and civilians who helped prevent a further spread of radiation, but rather the KGB officers trying to thwart these CIA operatives.
Oh fuckin' hell, they're really going to make it about how the big bad CIA infiltrated the power plant and blew up Reactor 4? I haven't even heard that theory before, but it's right fuckin' bonkers.
And if they think Chernobyl was shaming the heroes, then the whole show went right over their head. Half the show is about the cost of lies, the other half is about heroism and sacrifice to overcome a disaster.
I remember reading not long ago about a movie with that exact same plot as that series. Not very creative I guess.
Wouldn't such a plot, if it were to be believed, basically demonstrate that the KGB failed to protect the NPP in the first place? They dropped the ball and let the meddling American saboteurs succeed, so now hundreds of thousands of people are displaced, made destitute, directly or indirectly killed or harmed by both kinds of the fallout? Sheesh, just sounds like more anti-soviet propaganda /s
This would prove the point of the series better than anything else in the entire history of the world, let them do it!
The Forbes article I saw related to the series (and actual events) is just as garbage.
Maddening even. They claim that the three divers, Alexei, Valeri and Boris didn't actually do what they did and a whole bunch of other non-sense.
That's what you think, but in Russia any media that shames the government, be it tzarist, soviet or modern, is automatically bad for the people. And since the Chernobyl demonstrates the inability of the Soviet government to be honest for once in its existence, it's anti-Russian by definition. You see, in civilized society the divide between the state and the people is drawn quite clearly, but in outdated feudal ones it's absent entirely. You can't say "the government sucks" without saying "the people are shit" at the same time. At least, that's what official propaganda wants everyone to think. Government is always right, no matter what it is, as long as it's the government.
I just read it and holy shit I've rarely seen such fucking garbage. I am outraged.
That cretin even goes as far as saying "radiation doesn't kill people, it actually makes you live longer!!"
The nation obsessed with not being humiliated got humiliated
Because people had to stop watching and kept restarting it to get through it, right?
Is this the one? Why HBO's "Chernobyl" Gets Nuclear So Wrong
Seems like the author drinks some of that Soviet cool-aid the series shits on.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pa6qcEgrW8I
Graphite cups, not even once.
Yeah, if you look at his other articles he's some weirdo nuclear shill.
Clickhole is a satire website, like The Onion, but often satirizing clickbait.
He doesn't claim any of that. He's saying there was no dramatic speech and life-sacrificing volunteering, which it wasn't because all three of them survived just fine, and he's quoting the book that did the research. The show dramatizes it. He's also not saying nobody ever got cancer from Chernobyl leaking radiation, he's just saying that by then unborn children weren't magically absorbing the radiation and born with defects - quoting a UCLA physician from another interview. He's citing a UN paper on the increase of thyroid cancer, he's quoting WHO on the increase of cancer deaths due to Chernobyl radiation, like come the fuck on, almost every paragraph has a source for the claim it makes, and he's never saying what you're saying, it's as if you never actually read the article. If there's something maddening it's your reading comprehension or disingenuity.
Alright, I haven't read the article in question, but that last part is not very convincing at all. Just because they actually survived, it doesn't mean there wasn't a real risk of death, and also doesn't mean they didn't believe it was a suicide mission. Volunteering to go inside that building was absolutely a brave and heroic thing to do. And the show did not show them dying from it, in fact the show points out that two of them are still alive.
Holy shit, this was such an amazing miniseries. I don't think I've been that hooked to a show since Breaking Bad.
https://files.facepunch.com/forum/upload/226487/e48131ca-d1e4-4609-bcf3-8f19ee0903af/dxbsdef00t231.jpg
That point is terrible. It's not because they survived that it's not heroic. Being exposed to higher chances of dying a slow painful death is heroic. They were lucky but we still exposed themselves to that possibility.
I read the article, yeah he's citing source by cherry picking the fuck out of them to downplay the damage of chernobyl and the risk of radiation, other studies have widely different conclusions. The deaths from radiation are probablity based, and it's close to impossible to know if a cancer comes from radiation or is natural. So depending on the criteria you get widely different numbers - obviously he only picked the ones with the lowest number of deaths, which are hotly criticised for being too conservative.
I also like that he says that "thyroid cancer rarely kills" as if people living with cancer and having to be treated, go through chemo and get thyroidectomy is acceptable as long as they don't die. Especialy when you can be sure that people in the areas most affected probably didn't have access to the best healthcare.
https://i.redd.it/c7c2nqsefy231.jpg
Fine, you caught me on poor wording on that. What I mean is that according to some research, they weren't volunteers on a suicide mission, spurred by a speech. The Forbes article quotes the source saying they weren't volunteers at all. They weren't the first to step into that basement either. Here's another take on that.
https://www.businessinsider.com/chernobyl-volunteers-divers-nuclear-mission-2016-4
I'm not saying what they did wasn't heroic.
If he's cherry picking to downplay the damage, using sources that are criticised for that, fine, discuss that, shittalk him for that, tear him apart and criticise him for saying the helicopter crashed from radiation and not because it hit the crane which you can see in the show. I'd love to read an actual counter-argument to what he claims, or explanation why he's wrong.. Don't go saying "some guy in a Forbes article said the divers never happened, nobody died from cancer and there are no long lasting effects, what an idiot". That's blatantly untrue and not helpful to anyone.
In one episode, three characters dramatically volunteer to sacrifice their lives to drain radioactive water, but no such event occurred. “The three men were members of the plant staff with responsibility for that part of the power station and on shift at the time the operation began,” notes Adam Higginbotham, author of, Midnight in Chernobyl, a well-researched new history. “They simply received orders by telephone from the reactor shop manager to open the valves.”
That is absolutely life-sacrificing thing. Alexei, Valeri and Boris where asked to go underneath the Plant. They where all given a chance to back out of the mission, and they went through with it anyways, and they where expected not to make it out of there. Just because they did doesn't make any less important, or dangerous. There might not have been some big dramatic volunteer speech for it. But they absolutely did volunteer their lives.
Residents of those two countries were “exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels,” according to the World Health Organization. If there are additional cancer deaths they will be “about 0.6% of the cancer deaths expected in this population due to other causes.”
He also conveniently leaves out a very important piece from the WHO article here. "Again, these numbers only provide an indication of the likely impact of the accident because of the important uncertainties listed above." Even WHO says there are uncertainties in it because not everyone has actually been accounted for. Both Belarus, Russia and Ukraine have been known to turn a blind eye towards it and even in some parts going as far to actively ignore it or arrest people actively looking into the issues. Numerous scientist have also disputed the UN report findings. He points out with one of his sources that children born near Chernobyl where fine at birth. Completely ignoring the fact that a lot of the issues came from the liquidators that had a high rate of mutation in their children. Even then, cancer related deaths might be small. But are still very much affected.
So much of this article is conveniently cherry picked. As @gudman said, he's drinking that same soviet kool-aid and absolutely downplaying everything.
I stopped reading that article when he said the helicopter crashed because of the radiation in the show, when it clearly hit the cable on the crane. You even see the crane hook fall. He clearly didn't watch the show intently.
ngl, i thought that's what happened too until i saw that irl/show comparison webm on the 2nd page. still not sure why i thought that
Forbes is shit, I'll never forget when they tried to cite Derek Smart as a valid source for complaints.
One of the sources that he link about birth issues is an article from Feb, 1987 as well. Less than one year after the disaster. Which even says "Well, its a bit early to tell. But everything looks fine so far."
Never forget that forbes blocked adblock users, demanding that they unlock their site, then served malware through their advertisements.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.