BF2S Forums DAST Chat

Some things I didn't know about either, like the risk of a larger secondary explosion.

The steam explosion averted by three heroic divers would not have been so devastating
Much of the tension from the second episode comes from the fear that a steam explosion was imminent as soon as the core meltdown reached the groundwater underneath. That's what brought Ulana Khomyuk into the lives of the main characters, after all—she warned Legasov of the approaching danger and miscalculations that led Legasov to neglect it. Khomyuk claims that the follow-up explosion would involve a force of 2 to 4 megatons, wiping out Kiev and most of Minsk in the process. The radiation released by that secondary incident would also devastate much of the continent, carrying a lethal cloud all across Soviet Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and most of East Germany.

Unfortunately, there was nothing as dramatic brewing after the initial catastrophe. Though it was technically possible that would happen, it wasn't really a likely scenario, as Jan Haverkamp, a senior nuclear energy expert, points out. If all of the melting core were to hit groundwater at once, then yes, it's plausible an unprecedented radiation leak would damage most of Europe. But since core meltdowns happen very unevenly, that would not have really been a worry. Also, the 2-to-4 megaton range seems to have been a gross exaggeration.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-06-17 17:49:32)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Some things I didn't know about either, like the risk of a larger secondary explosion.

The steam explosion averted by three heroic divers would not have been so devastating
Much of the tension from the second episode comes from the fear that a steam explosion was imminent as soon as the core meltdown reached the groundwater underneath. That's what brought Ulana Khomyuk into the lives of the main characters, after all—she warned Legasov of the approaching danger and miscalculations that led Legasov to neglect it. Khomyuk claims that the follow-up explosion would involve a force of 2 to 4 megatons, wiping out Kiev and most of Minsk in the process. The radiation released by that secondary incident would also devastate much of the continent, carrying a lethal cloud all across Soviet Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and most of East Germany.

Unfortunately, there was nothing as dramatic brewing after the initial catastrophe. Though it was technically possible that would happen, it wasn't really a likely scenario, as Jan Haverkamp, a senior nuclear energy expert, points out. If all of the melting core were to hit groundwater at once, then yes, it's plausible an unprecedented radiation leak would damage most of Europe. But since core meltdowns happen very unevenly, that would not have really been a worry. Also, the 2-to-4 megaton range seems to have been a gross exaggeration.

See how gross exaggeration scares and misleads people?

As an engineer I would love to know how to create a 2-4 megaton steam explosion using groundwater, which most people think exists as some huge underground lake, but in fact is really damp soil.

Dilbert_X wrote:

See how gross exaggeration scares and misleads people?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

I think this was something fairly important to get as right as could be reasonably expected, and that the filmmakers frivolously frittered away the opportunity to do so. If it were only an occasional stumble, or at least more on point with its disclaimers, it wouldn't have mattered to me as much.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-06-17 23:26:57)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Ah, the guy who talks complete shit and confuses fact with reality.

You didn't need to quote the series, the 2-4 megaton figure was in the series. And a hydrogen explosion =/= a 'hydrogen bomb', but I'm sure you knew that even though you just proved you didn't. For a hydrogen bomb to spontaneously create itself in the wreckage of a reactor would be something special.
I'd be very interested to know how to create a 2-4 megaton explosion with zirconium and hydrogen, that would be an awful lot of zirconium, and the physics of hydrogen explosions would need to change - the reaction velocity for one thing. Fukushima had three of those and they were fairly trivial, just enough to blow the roof off, not enough to flatten China and Korea.
I guess you didn't know that, I'm sure HBO are working on the docudrama now so hang in there.

So you base your arguments about policy in the real world on how much actors cry in TV dramas?
Well there's not an awful lot of point discussing anything with you really is there?

Last edited by Larssen (2019-06-18 00:39:28)

uziq wrote:

pretty sure a popular history book came out by a russian historian on chernobyl about 2-3 years ago. if 'you thought you knew and understood the history of chernobyl' and don't, lay off the cheesy tv dramas and pick that up.

art contains 'emotional truths' rather than objective ones. when a drama written by ted cruz's room mate at college is so stupidly anti-soviet, i think you should also consider the history of art-as-propaganda as much as the history of art-as-revelation.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Larssen wrote:

Nothing changed Dilbert, you just have trouble understanding sentences that aren't command prompts or equations. Beer may actually help.

Hands up who here studied nuclear reactor technology as part of the Bachelors degree?

Your arguments have been demolished, time for personal insults - welcome to the forum.

Dilbert_X wrote:

How long are you going to depend on factoids in TV dramatisations to form your opinions?

There's no argument that a burning reactor coming into contact with water would create an explosion, like I said, it happened three times at Fukushima and it wasn't Armageddon.

Nuclear reactors sometimes explode - I guess we would never have known but for TV.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-06-19 02:17:47)

Larssen wrote:

Where in anything I wrote was it apparent that this possible secondary explosion influenced my opinion on nuclear reactors?

I thought I knew and understood the history of the Chernobyl disaster until I watched the new HBO drama series about the subject. It's an entirely different experience to see the anxiety, horror and human cost of the event visualised. Simply reading about it doesn't do it justice. Some historical inaccuracies notwithstanding, it's an incredibly well made retelling of the story. Some things I didn't know about either, like the risk of a larger secondary explosion.

Honestly it's also made me reconsider support for nuclear energy production. Not because I don't think it's safe or consider a repeat of chernobyl in any way likely - but because the cost in the event of disaster is just too high a price to pay. I remember thinking Merkel was an idiot for aiming to close all nuclear plants in Germany after Fukushima, but perhaps she had the right idea all along.