BF2S Forums DAST Chat

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

larssen: seeing a tv show that put a spotlight on the human cost of a nuclear power plant tragedy and the risk of more tragedy due to a bigger disaster caused by an explosion about 10,000 time larger than was really realistic made me rethink my support for nuclear power

dilbert: that show was dumb, they tried to say there would be a 2-4 megaton hydrogen bomb, but simple physics says otherwise. Why would you rethink your support for nuclear power based on a show with bad physics

larssen: I'm going to deny what I originally said and change my position on everything several times to prove I was right to start with even though I never said it but I'm still right

dilbert: if you saw bad stuff about coal or diesel, would that blow your support back to nuclear power?

me: whiny sarcastic comment

dilbert: what did i say that would make you think that?

me:

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-06-19 20:27:51)

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.

In episode two, Khomyuk informs the USSR that a follow-up explosion would carry a force of 2 to 4 megatons, which would wipe out “the entire population of Kiev and a portion of Minsk.” The release of radiation, she adds, would “impact all of Soviet Ukraine, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarusia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungry, Romania, and most of East Germany.”

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-06-19 23:50:46)

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

"But think of the human cost!"

"[Chernobyl has] 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."

"Regardless of the design of nuclear plants there will always be two unknown factors we can prepare for to an extent but not control, being humans and the environment. It could be that one freak natural disaster, human fallibility, intentional sabotage, war - the odds perhaps infinitesmall but probabilities certainly there. Given fissile material and water it only takes one disaster to instantly impact & threaten the lives of tens of millions of people and to make an area literally uninhabitable for generations. Not to mention the beyond agonising, slow deaths of people exposed to lethal doses of radiation and the stress/trauma endured by those responsible for the containment & clean up.

Apart from the above, when it comes to the nuclear debate people seem to see a binary option where we'll either die by global warming or live happily with nuclear energy. Reality doesn't align with that view. Likely we'd still be impacted by global warming while also upping the likelihood of a catastrophic event which future generations (or ours, with some bad luck) would have to deal with."

"I do not expect total historical accuracy from a historical drama produced by an entertainment channel"

" it was obvious they weren't trying to provide a totally authentic historical narrative of events, but to tell a story - a dramatisation. One about the trauma of the event (...) ultimately providing authentic insight into the mood & human dimension"

"My argument against nuclear focuses on the human cost of such a disaster not the fucking physics of nuclear reactors. In that sense, yes, the series as a work of art deepened my insight into the traumatic/emotional experience of the people who lived it."

"To me the value in the visual portrayal was in giving life to the human experience of that tragedy. Until the series came about I did not consider delving further into the event than I already had - 'I thought I knew'. "

"I reconsidered nuclear energy because of the traumatic effects / human cost of a nuclear disaster - visualised in the series (art)"

"they had to creatively construct a script for many meetings and face to face conversations of which we have no historical record whatsoever (...) we easily underestimate the difficulty of portraying multidimensional, complicated real people within the constraints of the chosen narrative, medium, time and budget. No less by 'amateur historians'."

"You can't get past the event timeline and 'lies'. Uziq laments the portrayal of soviet communism & the inclusion of the female scientist. I didn't like the closing statement. Some quoted editor wrote a tirade against the depiction of ARS (...) Who is right? When is it 'good enough'? Understand that your opinion is wholly subjective. In the end almost the entire script was made up. A dramatisation will never leave historical fiction and the more you zoom in the more errors you will find."

"if they had kept the events exactly as is (...) would [the series] live up to your subjective and arbitrary definition of 'historical accuracy'?"

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-06-20 23:52:33)

Dilbert_X wrote:

Hey guys, I just finished watching this amazing docudrama - Real World Facts about MH370

The acting was great, and it really portrayed the suffering of all the people who died and all their relatives. People don't like dying and their relatives don't like it either, I didn't know this before - thank god for TV! There were some inconsistencies here and there, but they don't matter.

Also one thing I didn't know - the crash could have been much worse. Apparently an aeroplane weighing 50,000 tons and travelling at twice the speed of light hitting the Indian ocean would create a tsunami which could swamp Australia and wipe out the western side of South America - killing millions of people and upsetting their relatives.

Anyhoo, I've decided, the human cost of air travel is just too high, people should stop using aeroplanes because its just not worth the risk.

uziq wrote:

it’s like that scene in that dumb black panther movie when he says he wants to be buried like his ancestors at sea, tossed off the side of a slave ship ... his ... dead ancestors ... who died ... r i p

Larssen wrote:

I don't think there would be relatives left Dilbert, not even a planet. Twice lightspeed jesus!