Chernobyl Left Us With A Lot Of Big Unanswered Questions
video description
Date: 2020-07-14
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 9
Jack
The problem with any death toll estimate for Chernobyl is that it is very vague on what counts as a Chernobyl-caused death. Deaths caused by acute and chronic radiation sickness definitely do count (that's what the 31-54 death toll figure is counting, and the estimated additional cancer-related deaths (+4000) above the background rate among those involved in the disaster (liquidators and evacuees) are included in the official United Nations Chernobyl death-count, but when you try to extrapolate and guesstimate an increased cancer-death rate for all the areas in Europe exposed to fallout from Chernobyl then the figures become very wishy washy and the figure can be basically as large as your goalposts to fit whatever you want it to say about nuclear power (e. g. Greenpeace. And should a death of a 70-year old from cancer, contracted 20 years after the disaster and statistically attributed to Chernobyl, really be tallied among those who died after massive on-site radiation exposure?
reply
The problem with any death toll estimate for Chernobyl is that it is very vague on what counts as a Chernobyl-caused death. Deaths caused by acute and chronic radiation sickness definitely do count (that's what the 31-54 death toll figure is counting, and the estimated additional cancer-related deaths (+4000) above the background rate among those involved in the disaster (liquidators and evacuees) are included in the official United Nations Chernobyl death-count, but when you try to extrapolate and guesstimate an increased cancer-death rate for all the areas in Europe exposed to fallout from Chernobyl then the figures become very wishy washy and the figure can be basically as large as your goalposts to fit whatever you want it to say about nuclear power (e. g. Greenpeace. And should a death of a 70-year old from cancer, contracted 20 years after the disaster and statistically attributed to Chernobyl, really be tallied among those who died after massive on-site radiation exposure?
reply
paraponzi
the chance of any Americans having to stumble around shoveling graphite off of rooftops in the years to come is pretty much close to zero. I am appalled at how offensive this sentence is, it is enormously disrespectful to those who gave their life or their health solving a problem they did not create and it is unnecessarily US-centric. Why just Americans? Why not instead Modern power plants, especially in the west, are built in a way to reduce to a minimum the chance of other people having to sacrifice their life to save the rest of us. And then while you are at it, thank them again, if you haven't done that yet. They might have been living in a country you hated and they might have even thought their country was doing the right thing, but the rest of the world will always have to be grateful for what they did, whether voluntarily or, even worse, otherwise.
reply
the chance of any Americans having to stumble around shoveling graphite off of rooftops in the years to come is pretty much close to zero. I am appalled at how offensive this sentence is, it is enormously disrespectful to those who gave their life or their health solving a problem they did not create and it is unnecessarily US-centric. Why just Americans? Why not instead Modern power plants, especially in the west, are built in a way to reduce to a minimum the chance of other people having to sacrifice their life to save the rest of us. And then while you are at it, thank them again, if you haven't done that yet. They might have been living in a country you hated and they might have even thought their country was doing the right thing, but the rest of the world will always have to be grateful for what they did, whether voluntarily or, even worse, otherwise.
reply
wetwingnut
It sounds like science fiction because it IS science fiction. The level of nuclear science in Chernobyl is worthy of a fanciful grade schooler. Nuclear power is fundamentally different than nuclear weapons, right down to the material used as fuel yet they constantly talk about the destructive capability of a nuclear melt down in weapons terms. It's high time the ignorant media stopped demonizing nuclear reactors and sowing irrational fears in people that bear no relation to the reality of the technology. You want to actually stop carbon emissions? Well, the only realistic way to do it is with nuclear power. . and the safest as well.
reply
It sounds like science fiction because it IS science fiction. The level of nuclear science in Chernobyl is worthy of a fanciful grade schooler. Nuclear power is fundamentally different than nuclear weapons, right down to the material used as fuel yet they constantly talk about the destructive capability of a nuclear melt down in weapons terms. It's high time the ignorant media stopped demonizing nuclear reactors and sowing irrational fears in people that bear no relation to the reality of the technology. You want to actually stop carbon emissions? Well, the only realistic way to do it is with nuclear power. . and the safest as well.
reply
valar
One interesting thing about the series to me is how it has brought renewed publicity to nuclear power, ironically in a positive way.
Most people today are smart enough to know that nuclear energy is actually very safe and clean, and Chernobyl was just about the worst possible case, as the series accurately depicted the huge human and technical errors involved. And also that Fukushima and Three Mile Island were extreme cases as well.
Nukes are the key to a carbon-neutral future and have the potential to power the whole planet with an infinite source of energy if given the opportunity.
reply
One interesting thing about the series to me is how it has brought renewed publicity to nuclear power, ironically in a positive way.
Most people today are smart enough to know that nuclear energy is actually very safe and clean, and Chernobyl was just about the worst possible case, as the series accurately depicted the huge human and technical errors involved. And also that Fukushima and Three Mile Island were extreme cases as well.
Nukes are the key to a carbon-neutral future and have the potential to power the whole planet with an infinite source of energy if given the opportunity.
reply
Mykhaylo
Many Soviet people agreed to sacrifice their level of life to a better future. These expectations were based on implementing advanced technologies and increasing productivity, as it's what they were told by the government another 5 years, another 10 nuclear power stations, another 100 steel factories and we will be happiest and reachest country in the world. After Chernobyl collapse, many realize that is not worth it, that the price they have to pay is too high. At least it's how my family members saw it that time. I guess it's what Gorbachev means.
reply
Many Soviet people agreed to sacrifice their level of life to a better future. These expectations were based on implementing advanced technologies and increasing productivity, as it's what they were told by the government another 5 years, another 10 nuclear power stations, another 100 steel factories and we will be happiest and reachest country in the world. After Chernobyl collapse, many realize that is not worth it, that the price they have to pay is too high. At least it's how my family members saw it that time. I guess it's what Gorbachev means.
reply
Tady
The worst case scenario when Legasov said Belorussia and Ukraine inhabitable for 100 years was about IF there was another explosion, if the core continued to melt downwards and potentially heated the water tanks below, evaporating it and causing huge thermal explosion, destroying another 3 remaining reactors in chernobyl.
That's what would cause the Belorussia and Ukraine inhabitability for 100 years.
This video is wrong since they didn't pay attention to the context that is clearly said in the film.
reply
The worst case scenario when Legasov said Belorussia and Ukraine inhabitable for 100 years was about IF there was another explosion, if the core continued to melt downwards and potentially heated the water tanks below, evaporating it and causing huge thermal explosion, destroying another 3 remaining reactors in chernobyl.
That's what would cause the Belorussia and Ukraine inhabitability for 100 years.
This video is wrong since they didn't pay attention to the context that is clearly said in the film.
reply
roman
i'm from the soviet union, i'm sorry to disappoint but this is pure propaganda! no one sealed anything, we were all watching this on the news as it was happening, the whole town was evacuated over night, only 35 casualties, most of them hurt by initial panic, some by radiation! and the reason the scientists couldn't believe the core exploded is that it didn't it can't, it's not a bomb, it's not how it works. sorry: . it's a great thriller but pure fiction!
reply
i'm from the soviet union, i'm sorry to disappoint but this is pure propaganda! no one sealed anything, we were all watching this on the news as it was happening, the whole town was evacuated over night, only 35 casualties, most of them hurt by initial panic, some by radiation! and the reason the scientists couldn't believe the core exploded is that it didn't it can't, it's not a bomb, it's not how it works. sorry: . it's a great thriller but pure fiction!
reply
McKnight
The other possible theory I could think of on how the meltdown brought down the Soviet Union is that their one and only biggest radar got shutdown and unable to be of use.
Another theory is that the number of Military Weapons on the Soviet Union had decreased exponentially due to them being radioactively contaminated so they had to dispose off them.
Bare in mind, this is just a theory.
reply
The other possible theory I could think of on how the meltdown brought down the Soviet Union is that their one and only biggest radar got shutdown and unable to be of use.
Another theory is that the number of Military Weapons on the Soviet Union had decreased exponentially due to them being radioactively contaminated so they had to dispose off them.
Bare in mind, this is just a theory.
reply
starchaser57
Yeah I did that what happened at Chernobyl could not happen in the United States is an absolute bold faced lie. It almost didn't happen. Look at the documentaries about 3 mile Island. It almost happened. It could happen again. I don't so look at the documentaries about what happened at the nuclear power plant after the earthquake and tsunami
reply
Yeah I did that what happened at Chernobyl could not happen in the United States is an absolute bold faced lie. It almost didn't happen. Look at the documentaries about 3 mile Island. It almost happened. It could happen again. I don't so look at the documentaries about what happened at the nuclear power plant after the earthquake and tsunami
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
