HBO’s falsified Chernobyl “documentary”

HBO’s falsified Chernobyl “documentary”

Imagine HBO doing a similar profit-making film about the tragic Chilean rugby team

Dr. Kelvin Kemm

Late in 1972, Uruguayan Air Force flight 571 was taking a college rugby team and family members from Montevideo, Uruguay to Santiago, Chile. It carried five crew members and 40 passengers.

As the aircraft crossed the frozen Andes, the pilot made a tragic navigation error and descended towards what he thought was Pudahuel Airport. The aircraft struck a rocky mountain ridge. Both wings were sheared off, and the aircraft fuselage raced like a toboggan down the steep snow-covered slope, coming to rest on a glacier.

Only 33 survived the crash, and five more died during the freezing night that followed. Seventeen days after the crash, an avalanche struck the wrecked remains and killed eight more. The remaining starving and half-frozen survivors were devout Catholics – highly moral and responsible, but facing certain death, while the dead lay frozen outside in the snow.

After personal agonizing and prayer, they made the dramatic decision to eat their deceased fellow passengers. One team member was a medical student, who explained that brains and certain other organs contained valuable nutrients. So they ate those as well as the human flesh. Two of the strongest survivors set off on an incredible 38-mile (60-kilometer) trek to find rescuers.

After a staggering 72 days on the glacier, the remaining survivors were rescued, two days before Christmas. Despite initially reacting in horror, people worldwide ultimately sympathized deeply with the plight and decisions of those survivors, who prayed over their dead comrades and cut pieces from the bodies only with great sorrow, reverence and respect.

A television program portrayed their agonizing saga honestly, accurately and sympathetically.

However, imagine if decades later another producer decided to make a new “dramatized” version. It begins with the aircraft crash, fractured fuselage ride down the mountain and snowy desolation. But then it descends into “artistic license,” to ensure more horror, more viewers (more profits).

Imagine the new “inspired by true events” version showing callous survivors slashing bodies with axes and using machetes to tear out livers and hammers to smash skulls for the brains. After dinner they play a wild drumming rhapsody on the fuselage, using human bones as drumsticks as they sing.

How do you think TV audiences would respond? With sympathy and understanding for the survivors – or revulsion and disgust? Would they call for forgiveness – or demand prosecution?

If this sounds absurd, it has a very real recent counterpart that took similar liberties with the facts in order to make a more “dramatic” program and attract more viewers. I watched both the Chilean rugby team television program a few years ago and the recent HBO-produced TV series “Chernobyl.”

The Chernobyl tragedy is also an undeniable part of history. People died, though fewer than 60. Things went terribly wrong, for many reasons. But today tourists visit the Chernobyl area and wildlife thrives.

So what actually happened? Did reality come anywhere close to what HBO presented in its program?

The HBO production apparently recorded record viewership figures. That was undoubtedly good for the network’s bottom line. But was it honest income, to be proud of?

As a nuclear scientist, I can tell you the fundamental story of the sequence of events of the 1986 Chernobyl accident as portrayed by HBO was correct. Issues around governance and procedure as portrayed by HBO were essentially correct. But other important aspects were false or falsified.

The blood and skin peeling scenes, for example. Sadly, the producers lied – intentionally or incompetently, it seems, to gain box office income. They succeeded in that goal. But they insulted us nuclear scientists and insulted the intelligence of viewers who knew a bit more science than most of HBO’s audience. The HBO producers also led many viewers down a twisted path to further ignorance and confusion, which certainly should not be the objective of any honest history documentary.

The series tended to show the Soviet authorities of the day as uncaring and unskilled. That was not true. Yes, Chernobyl happened during the formality and rigidity of the Soviet communist system of the era. And yes, the military-type hierarchy of the time did play a role.

However Russian nuclear scientists had actually and for some time worried greatly about that particular Chernobyl reactor design and had voiced their concerns to senior authorities. Albeit slowly, those authorities were responding. Tests of failure systems were being conducted.

Chernobyl had been ordered to carry out one such test, to assess the speed of response to a failure. A test had been set up. Chernobyl staffers were instructed to create a deliberate failure mode situation, to see how the reactor responded. This was arranged and was supposed to have been done in the daytime, when the main skilled team was on duty.

However, high demands for electricity in the district caused them to delay the test until around midnight, when the lower calibre night shift team was on duty. In addition, the more senior decision makers in the line-of-command had gone home.

To clip all the technicalities very short: when the intentional test procedure started to go wrong, worried and inexperienced Chernobyl technicians made some wrong moves and rapidly compounded the unfolding drama. As the reactor spun out of control, the rapid communications line via local headquarters to Moscow did not function properly; the seniors had gone home and could not help.

Moreover, that reactor type had been built to an out-of-date design that contained a large amount of highly combustible graphite. It caught fire. Someone correctly called the fire brigade – which responded quickly, but mistakenly attacked the fire as if it were a burning woodworking factory.

The firemen bravely attacked the flames – without fully realizing that the smoke carried radioactive dust and other harmful material. Lumps of burning graphite that lay scattered around contained radioactive debris from the initial gas blast that blew the reactor to pieces.

Other first responders were also brought in: police, military, helicopter pilots. All did their duty, as they would have in any other major fire. But radioactive dust and smoke were swirling around.

Human bodies do not become radioactive in a situation like that. What can happen is that someone, like a fireman, leaves the scene with radioactive dust on his clothes and maybe in his hair. Any radiation protection officer present would then make him take all his clothes off and take a good shower, before going home.

Firemen were not radioactively contagious, as HBO portrayed. A fireman could not have irradiated his pregnant wife at home, as HBO claimed. Her baby could not have died of heart and liver disease as a result; that too is pure HBO bunk. Something like playing music on the aircraft fuselage in the Andes, using human bones as drumsticks. Very good for viewer horror, but very far from the truth.

A very large dose of nuclear radiation will undoubtedly kill a person. But skin will not peel off one’s face. In fact a human can pick up a fatal dose of radiation in under an hour and not even know it. The person would go home in apparently perfect condition, but then start to feel as if he had eaten rotten fish for lunch. Vomiting would result and flu-like symptoms would set in. Over a couple of hours this would lead to shaky hands and wobbly legs, bad vision and a general breakdown of body functions. Death would come quite quickly, within days. But in reality no viewer-riveting skin peeling off the face, or blood dripping from anywhere would occur.

After the real Chernobyl incident, 29 fire-fighters died – from what medics call “synchronous injuries.” In other words “a combination of factors.” Undoubtedly radiation exposure played a major role. But those brave men also attacked high-temperature flames, breathed in dense toxic smoke and physically exerted themselves under terrible conditions. There were numerous other errors, as well.

It seems HBO producers did not consult any nuclear physics specialists, or medical people knowledgeable in the field. They relied on more dramatic emotional advice.

HBO must have made a lot of money with the series. Their shareholders are no doubt very pleased. But HBO has not done any service to the truth or to the education and enlightenment of viewers.

The series was “fiction inspired by real events” – not a “documentary.” HBO should issue apologies.

Dr Kelvin Kemm is a nuclear physicist and CEO of Nuclear Africa Ltd, a project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa. He does international consultancy work in strategic development.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
3.3 4 votes
Article Rating
181 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 6, 2019 10:14 am

Many of the animals prospering in the irradiated zone are mammals like us.
Just how dangerous are non-fatal levels of irradiation ?

commieBob
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 11:16 am

The stupid reaction to low level radioactivity is probably way worse than the effects of the radioactivity itself. link The linear no-threshold model for radiation exposure is crap. link

Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yantai
Reply to  commieBob
July 6, 2019 4:22 pm

Agreed. LNT scrap science about nearly everything.

Ira Whitaker McCully
Reply to  Crispin in Waterloo but really in Yantai
July 8, 2019 12:01 am

It’s odd to me that your description of events regarding the Chernobyl incident and the dramatization from HBO seem to be so in sync while you complain of horrible wrongdoing. … By HBO. You didn’t see the part where science saved the day, that scientists tried to overcome beurocracy throughout the program or that acute radiation poisoning was isolated to direct responders? So we’re down to skin flaking and the issue of contagion.
From curetoday.com a cancer study group:
One of the most common side effects is a skin condition called radiation dermatitis, which can range from a mild, red rash (erythema) and itchy, peeling or flaking skin (dry desquamation) to a more severe reaction with blisters and wet, peeling skin (moist desquamation).

From cdc.gov : People who are externally contaminated with radioactive material can contaminate other people or surfaces that they touch. … The body fluids (blood, sweat, urine) of an internally contaminated person can contain radioactive materials. Coming in contact with these body fluids can result in contamination and/or exposure.

Also, with the ball team and cannibalism. O saw that movie too. I was sad for the players. They weren’t celebrating.

Brad
Reply to  Ira Whitaker McCully
July 8, 2019 9:35 am

Just thought I’d say I really appreciate the overall candor of your reply.
It was really respectful to a point even though I’m not op.
But I agree with everything you said especially especially the overall tonality.

For my part I really find anything that attacks artistic expression like this to be an even further expression of a person’s agenda.

While the person showcases a broad amount of empathy for the people involved it seems like this is a post that was caused by some internal conflict about the state of American entertainment. Which forgive me for assuming, makes me want to believe that there’s tone here of anti American thought patterns.

My overall Initial thought was when reading this was that this was a Russian sponsored attack on the HBO series. As they seem to be largely against any aggressive depiction of the events that transpired in Ukraine.
And by all rights are still happening to some extent.

All I know is that, all posts like this serve to do is to stir up negative emotions in people and I can’t be bothered with lingering on this emotional tirade any longer.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  commieBob
July 6, 2019 5:56 pm

Yet that is what the EPA uses for household radon evaluations.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 11:35 am

Children, in particular, are at risk for thyroid cancer (from the iodine 131 istope by-product), but that is easily preventable, or cured, otherwise. I have read, though I’ll never find the source I suspect, that the rates in the area of some types of cancers actually fell after the disaster.

I think there are too many confounding factors to give a good answer to your question.

MarkW
Reply to  jtom
July 6, 2019 12:41 pm

If you flood the body with iodine prior to exposure, the thyroid doesn’t have any room to store the radioactive compounds and they get flushed from the body naturally.

Don K
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2019 5:36 pm

“If you flood the body with iodine prior to exposure, the thyroid doesn’t have any room to store the radioactive compounds …”

All true. But Potassium Iodide is not entirely safe for everyone. This is a case where following the instructions and heeding advice from the authorities is probably a good idea. https://www.cdc.gov/nceh/radiation/emergencies/ki.htm

otropogo
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2019 8:20 pm

“If you flood the body with iodine prior to exposure”.

Good luck getting it in time.

During the Fukushima event the Government of Canada persuaded the pharmacists not to sell thyroid blockers to the public. What the public got was the absurd promise that the government would make sure that they got some when and if required.

Almost certainly there wasn’t enough in stock to meet demand, and the government wanted to keep what there was handy… I heard that they provided thyroid blocker to Canadians in Japan through the embassy. But Canadians in China were out of luck.

The Chinese government used the same line on its citizens.

Bottom line: if you want to protect your thyroid or those of your kids from radioactive iodine, you’d better stockpile some, and make sure you get some sort of radiation alarm too, especially if you live in China, because the government is probably not going to tell you when fallout is coming. They won’t want your car blocking the roads when they’re leaving town.

Duncan Smith
Reply to  otropogo
July 7, 2019 7:00 am

Otropogo, I suspect blocking people getting KI was to prevent overreaction to a non-problem. In 2015, Toronto Canada, Ontario Power Generation provided 200,000 homes with pills within a 10km radius of power plants. I have pills in my house now. So they have fixed whatever wrongs that might have occurred, at least in this area.

oeman50
Reply to  otropogo
July 7, 2019 9:40 am

But you need to be aware the KI has a shelf-life. After a few years (10, I think) it has to be replaced.

Reply to  otropogo
July 12, 2019 10:45 am

oeman50,

Officially, every medicine must have a shelf-life printed on it, even if it doesn’t change in eternity as is the case for KI. All what can happen is that other ingredients (some “filler”) can get wet over time, but the active ingredient in this case still is active…

Don K
Reply to  jtom
July 6, 2019 5:23 pm

Iodine-131 is indeed a serious hazard in the days following a nuclear accident. But it has a half life of about 8 days, so even if a lot is released, it’s pretty much gone in a few months.

SMC
Reply to  Don K
July 6, 2019 7:33 pm

Figure 5 half lives as a rule of thumb. So, if the half life is 8 days, in 40 days it’ll be gone.

Phoenix44
Reply to  jtom
July 7, 2019 2:52 am

Pretty sure we use radiation therapy to treat cancer!

But it’s perfectly feasible that low doses of radiation encourage earlier elimination of precancerous cells.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 2:14 pm

If you have a granite countertop, particularly a red granite, it could easily be U- ore at ~$100/lb yellowcake. No worries. The Candian Shield and Coast Range batholith on which people live, no worries!

Some studies of the health of nuclear thermoelectric plant workers have been done and show statistically no evident risk from normal exposure. I recall a few (years ago)) that found these workers statistically had longer healthy lives than average. I tried to find a link but I suspect these are deeply buried or not easy to find.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 6, 2019 3:05 pm

Genevieve Matanoski’s Nuclear Shipyard Worker Study – NSWS – is the most thoroughly disappeared document of which I know. I am an extreme datum.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Doug Huffman
July 6, 2019 3:22 pm

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/10103020

Here it is, all 452 pages.

Reply to  Doug Huffman
July 6, 2019 6:01 pm

Doug, good on you! I think there are one or two others if I recall. There was an accident in the 1950s where several workers, I think on nuclear weapons research got serious exposure and not only had no serious effects but, unaccountably lived to ripe old ages. In Canada, at Chalk River, we had a serious accident that young Navy Lieutenant, later President, Jimmy Carter came up to manage cleanup of. It was messy. Hey, he’s 94!

I think we need a team at some trusted institution (Heartland?) to search out and store the ideologically motivated burial of ‘inconvenient’ data that the electronic search lefties have occluded. The nuclear stuff is a case in point that needs to be widely reported to take away the fear.

BFL
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 6, 2019 4:14 pm

I understand that all granite has elevated levels of radioactivity from trace radioactive elements, some more than others and can vary over the area measured. Our counter top measures about twice back ground.

Reply to  BFL
July 7, 2019 2:31 am

GRANITE?
My counter in a Hotel near Brittany in France measured about 25X normal background.
It was so high in my room I went to ask reception WTF their walls were made of!

When you stick your head in a room for the night and find it’s measuring 0.5mR/hr it certainly makes you wonder what’s going on!
For someone living in that 24/7, it’s not insignificant, and oddly enough the owner of the hotel HAD been treated for cancer.
Ignorance is bliss.

czechlist
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 2:28 pm

I visited a lush and vibrant Nagasaki in August 1971; 26 years after Bockscar delivered its devastation. I read on the ground zero obolisk’s plaque that scientists projected it would require 75 years for the area to decontaminate and recover.
So much for scientific projections.
I am now going to get into my atomic powered flying car and visit my 120 year old grandparents – I hope they aren’t playing tennis today.

Frank L Rosario
Reply to  czechlist
July 7, 2019 11:13 am

You guys do realize that HBO/Hollywood/cinema in general take liberties with pretty much anything?

Does everyone cry whenever someone in a movie uses a “silencer” on a firearm and magically makes a gunshot silent? No. It’s accepted as being dramatic and you go with it.

Also, anything “based on true events” is – BY DEFINITION – going to fictionalize many aspects of said story. Knowing that, people still try to pick it apart, almost as they are oblivious to the FACT that it’s done intentially. Don’t like it? Make your own story then instead of complaining of others.

Stop trying to dissect any and every aspect of “science” when it comes to it’s protrayal in cinema. There has *never* been a movie that features “100% scientific accuracy”, why people keep expecting it is beyond me.

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 2:53 pm

Stephen
Those animals – I have seen them myself – are a testimony to the falsehood of the linear no threshold theory of radiation harm. HBO are simply proselytising the new popular religion of medieval numinous dread of “Ray-dee-yayshun” which has no basis in scientific fact. There is a clearly established and highly repeatable lower threshold of harmful effects of ionising radiation on animals. It’s no secret – a few seconds on Google Scholar are entropy find a handful of such studies.

https://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/22024

https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR3120

https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/RR3120

https://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.1667/0033-7587(2003)159%5B0320:LDORIT%5D2.0.CO;2

Phil Salmon
Reply to  Phil Salmon
July 6, 2019 2:55 pm

A few seconds on Google Scholar are enough to …

icisil
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 2:53 pm

Prospering? Their numbers are up simply because man is not there to kill them. Birds’ brains were found to be smaller in the exclusion zone, among other anomalous things. That’s not what I call prospering.

Sheri
Reply to  icisil
July 6, 2019 5:12 pm

What were the specific problems with the smaller brain? How did it affect the life span and health of the birds? Just a smaller size in itself is not negative. If that’s all there was, anomalies without any effects, it really isn’t a negative at all.

Reply to  icisil
July 7, 2019 6:16 am

I wouldn’t trust any studies of Chernobyl coming from western “scientists”. You can bet they have an anti-nuke (and anti-Russian) agenda — it’s built into their culture.

Trev
Reply to  beng135
July 7, 2019 9:26 am

That’s naive of you to think that Russian scientists wouldn’t falsify their own reports as well. Everytime the Russian government does something wrong and gets caught, it’s like dealing with a pathological liar.

Reply to  Trev
July 7, 2019 9:50 am

I said nothing about Russian scientists — plainly obvious they have their own agendas too.

Andrejs Skaburskis
Reply to  Trev
July 7, 2019 4:15 pm

I would think the opposite. A nuclear scientist would want to protect nuclear energy programs and diminish the costs.

icisil
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 2:55 pm

Darn it. Used the word k!ll again and first comment went into moderation. Repeat.

Prospering? Their numbers are up simply because man is not there to k!ll them. Birds’ brains were found to be smaller in the exclusion zone, among other anomalous things. That’s not what I call prospering.

Reply to  icisil
July 6, 2019 4:11 pm

How do you know their brain neurons haven’t become more densely connected?

Reply to  icisil
July 6, 2019 4:25 pm

Icisil Don’t trust out of hand the science on politically charged topics like nuclear and climate science without reading a lot of stuff including the biography of the the writer! I was taken in at first by CO2 dangerous warming stuff and I’m a geologist (all are taught paleoclimatology) and an engineer. Hey, why would they lie, right? Well it turned out fame, fortune and politics can be corrupters! Here is article on wildlife research in the exclusion zone. The animals turn out to be thriving:

https://www.earth.com/news/chernobyls-exclusion-zone-wildlife-refuge/

In another article “babuskas” (бабушкы) ‘ grandmas’ in their 80s have been sneaking into the exclusion zone to pick berries, mushrooms and herbs and they looked healthy and strong. If I were to tell you that before a year was out in the Hiroshima bombing, radiation was back to background levels and they rebuilt the city, would that give you pause to reconsider your “data”.

icisil
Reply to  Gary Pearse
July 6, 2019 6:34 pm

Chernobyl released 400 times the radiation of Hiroshima and wasn’t an air blast like Hiroshima was, meaning a lot of the bomb’s fallout didn’t end up in Hiroshima.

As far as wildlife thriving, here’s the “brains” study – https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016862

And this mentions a study pertaining to dead trees not decaying properly – https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/

Everyone will have to judge for themselves.

APTYP
Reply to  icisil
July 7, 2019 4:58 pm

As well as birds with tumors etc… the only thing that is prospering is the fish in Chernobyl area.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 6, 2019 3:02 pm

See radiation hormesis against the Linear No Threshold hypothesis.

Jake
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
July 7, 2019 5:28 pm

Animals are typically unaffected since their lifespans are often much shorter.

ColMosby
July 6, 2019 10:16 am

Chernobyl was an event that could never have occurred anywhere else. And the death toll was insignificant as disasters go. Chernobyl has about as much relevance as the technology of the Ford Model T has for today’s electric cars. Nuclear remains the safest means of providing power and has for the past 60 years. What is astonishing is the ignorance of the anti-nuclear crowd.pushing a small scale disaster that happened long ago and far away as somehow relevant to the issue of modern Gen 3+ reactors, that are practically walk away safe. But discussion of light water reactor technology is becoming irrelevant, as the future of nuclear is Gen 4, not necessarily because it is inherently safe (which it is) , but because of its economics, environmental footprint, rapid construction , and ability to be sited virtually anywhere. It is also very proliferation resistant. It also can load follow, meaning it doesn’t need any fossil fuel peak load generators as do baseload plants. The feds have just awarded one Gen4 molten salt company (Moltex Energy) with several million to push forward development.

Bryan A
Reply to  ColMosby
July 6, 2019 12:05 pm

There was a race between a Tesla and a Model T. Starting in Chicago and finishing outside the Tesla Science Center on Long Island. The new 2013 Tesla did manage to beat the 99 year old 1915 Ford Model T
comment image
The Tesla pulled up to the science center gates at 7:25 after traveling 765 miles in 22 hours. The Ford arrived at 8:35 but not before requiring road side repairs. Chugging and sputtering eventually lead to carburetor repairs and a torn gasket with no replacement but what could be cobbled together from a local dollar store.
See more at Car and Driver
https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15112705/2013-tesla-model-s-vs-1915-ford-model-t-race-of-the-centuries-feature/

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Bryan A
July 6, 2019 1:26 pm

I’ve driven slightly less distance in an old 6 cylinder 1959 Canadian-Australian Pontiac in 18 hours, driving non-stop. My max speed was 100km/h because the old 6 didn’t have the push, and it was a 40 year old engine at that time as well.

So If the old Model T did that in 22 hours, it was very impressive indeed.

The Tesla stopped twice for recharge. They had some challenges finding the quickest recharge, and it seems like they cheated on the second recharge. But otherwise a good speed by comparison.

Greg
Reply to  ColMosby
July 6, 2019 12:23 pm

could never have occurred anywhere else?

Three Mile Island came very close and Fukupshima, though mainly hydrogen explosions did reach criticality and cores did go into meltdown.

Not only soviets are capable of stupid human error, miscalculations and cost cutting errors.

Curious George
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 1:49 pm

Could you talk about things you understand?

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 1:59 pm

Completely different designs, no reactor in the west lacks a containment dome.
So the original statement is correct, couldn’t have happened anywhere else.

Criticality and meltdown are completely different things.

Doug Huffman
Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2019 3:09 pm

Be careful of your containment dome assertion. Maybe better, no power reactor in the west lacks containment. Research reactors often do not have particular containment, TRIGA e.g.

Criticality and meltdown are completely different things.

SMC
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 7:30 pm

A critical reactor describes a normal steady state operation. A super critical reactor is a reactor that is ‘increasing’ power. A subcritical reactor is a reactor that is ‘decreasing’ in power.

Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 10:34 pm

Oh my gosh, the reactor reached criticality? The meaning of critical for a reactor is that there is no net change in neutron population per generation; In other words steady state power. As far as Three Mile Island goes, not even close but then you would have to understand nuclear reactors for me to explain it to you. Fukushima got smacked by a tsunami. You should study nuclear power a bit more before you speak on the subject on a message board such as this.

Reply to  Greg
July 7, 2019 4:55 pm

The anti-nuclear crowd need to use these terms correctly. For example:

“chain reaction: A reaction where the neutrons released from the fission of one nucleus of uranium or plutonium go on to fission other nuclei. lf the neutrons from one fission go on to fission exactly one more fission, then the chain reaction is critical and continues at the same rate.”

Nuclear reactors are designed to be super-critical. They run at critical.

>>
Not only soviets are capable of stupid human error, miscalculations and cost cutting errors.
<<

If anything was true, Three Mile Island was over designed–probably to satisfy the anti-nuclear crowd.

“The control room had more than 1000 dials, gauges, and indicators; 600 alarm panels; and hundreds of switches. A minor problem would cause alarms and blinking lights, and there could be 50 alarms at a time.”

On the day of the accident, the reactor was “scramed” (the controls rod were inserted to shut down the reactor). The backup cooling pumps were then started. Unfortunately, the backup cooling pump valves were closed due to earlier maintenance (probably one of those 50 alarms going off). It takes days for a reactor core to cool down–it needs to have fresh cooling water circulated through it. A pressure relief valve opened to release the excess pressure. The valve failed to close; however, a faulty indicator said the valve was closed. The cooling water boiled away allowing the core to melt down. The corium–the melted-down core materials–was contained in the reactor pressure vessel. Only gasses escaped. Iodine-131 mostly bonded to the concrete of the containment building. Xenon-133 was released, but that had almost no biological effect; xenon is a noble gas, and it doesn’t bond to anything. Only about 1 extra cancer should result–assuming the very conservative LNT hypothesis. (With an expected 300,000 natural cancer deaths in the area, one more would be hard to identify and blame on Three Mile Island.)

Jim

ozspeaksup
Reply to  ColMosby
July 7, 2019 5:11 am

but that IS the goal of this show I reckon
to renew the antinuke fear in as many as possible to deter new plants and close exiasting ones
gotta all be solar wind and living in the dark again dontcha know.

Jake
July 6, 2019 10:39 am

This reads like autistic Russian propaganda.

John K. Sutherland
July 6, 2019 10:48 am

There is but one main point I will quibble with. If a firefighter had gone home and to bed with his wife without a very thorough shower, he could have ‘irradiated her’ from his hair and head. I worked as a Nuclear Health Physicist for many years at a CANDU reactor and I also wrote a position paper on the Health Effects of high level Radiation, for NWMO (and it’s still on that site). I also wrote extensively on Chernobyl. Some of the responses were nothing short of stupid: shoveling fuel fragments off the roof. Remote blasting by water would have made more sense. UNSCEAR had good reports and follow up. I didn’t watch the program.

Reply to  John K. Sutherland
July 6, 2019 11:31 am

After he’s been on a fire fighting call, a fire fighter is going to take a shower, guaranteed. A thorough shower.

Krishna Gans
July 6, 2019 10:52 am

A time after Chernobyl I saw a Russian documentary in Geman TV about what happend during these tests, with sequenzes recorded in the reactor – it was shown, that an eathquakehappend “just in time”, what, viewing where Chernobyl is locatetd, is not surprisingyl.
Part 1 German:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE771I_xwvM

Part 2 German.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cphzzePpX7o

Part 3 German.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTB0CuE7VeQ

Not sure, if there are some subtitles

commieBob
July 6, 2019 10:54 am

Why does it matter if HBO played a little fast and loose with the facts?

Our democratic system relies on a public which is informed and paying attention. How can the public hold their congress critters to account if they don’t know when they are being deceived.

Lawrence Solomon, a long time critic of the nuclear industry, points out the evidence on human health that is made much more obvious as a result of the Chernobyl accident. link

The linear no-threshold model of radiation exposure says that all radiation is cumulative and adds to one’s risk of cancer. The actual evidence, as confirmed by the Chernobyl data, is that small doses may actually be beneficial. If the public understood that, there would be much less support for stupid EPA rules and much more support for cleaning up the EPA.

We could say that HBO has damaged democracy and has something to answer for.

Greg
Reply to  commieBob
July 6, 2019 12:24 pm

Thanks Bob, what is this “data” you are referring to? If low level radiation is beneficial , I’d like to know. Maybe I’m not getting enough !!

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 1:28 pm

I’m sure a quick Google search will give you lots of hits. It’s been known for a long time that we actually need small amounts of radiation. Also look up bananas and other radioactive fruits.

commieBob
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 1:32 pm

The Lawrence Solomon article I linked has some interesting links.

Adam Gallon
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 1:57 pm
dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Adam Gallon
July 6, 2019 2:29 pm

Or this study of an apartment block in Taipei that was built with radioactive rebar in the concrete: https://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/robinson.pdf

Chris
Reply to  dan no longer in CA
July 7, 2019 1:03 am

I recently watched a documentary about tourism at Chenoblyl. The guide pointed out that in the hospital, for instance, all the radiators were gone, illegally, collected and sold for scrap. In addition much of he unidentifiable steel had disappeared, several thousand tons, apparently. I suspect irradiated re-bars has a connection. If the steel had been reprocessed who would think to check if it was radioactive. I wonder how many ships were built out of this steel.

dan no longer in CA
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 2:27 pm

Try this link from the National Institute of Health: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2477686/

Or this introduction to hormesis: http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/inthorm.html

DHR
Reply to  Greg
July 6, 2019 2:30 pm

I’ts called radiation hormeisis. A Google search will show a number of references. The DOE has published a background radiation map of the US by county so you can check the maps to see the natural background dose rate where you live. You can also cross reference the DOE map with cancer maps by type and incidence published by NIH, I believe. You will find no correlation between the two. If you wish to increase your dose the natural (non-medical) way, a couple choices are to move to the Dakota badlands or get a job as an aircraft flight crew. You will increase your dose substantially. Working at a US civilian or military nuclear power plant are not among the choices as their dose rates are quite low.

Philo
Reply to  Greg
July 7, 2019 8:40 am

EVERYBODY gets treated with low level radiation. It is called “background” radiation. Travel from say Alabama to Colorado. The radiation at ground level is about 2.0-7.5 microRADs. This is a pretty low level, and well below any harmful level. In Colorado the radiation at ground level is about 9.8-34 microRADs. (This is a 1970’s study. The units have changed to make them larger). There is no difference between the two states in the number of cancers, except perhaps skin cancer. The skin is quite susceptible to develop cancer, including dangerous malignant melanoma, in people sensitive to Ultra Violet light. UV light is much higher in Colorado due to it’s altitude.

It’s safe to say that nowhere in the US is anyone daily exposed to any dose of radiation. In many place people visit sites with levels up to 100X average background as a health treatment. Radiation spas are all natural places with higher levels of radiation.

If the linear-no threshold model for radiation exposure was correct there is no place in the US where it is “safe” to live because people are exposed to significant radiation naturally.

Krishna Gans
July 6, 2019 10:56 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naEGjbGKWfc
seems to be the complete video about the havarie

July 6, 2019 10:56 am

Having watched the series, the subsequent “Real Chernobyl” documentary, and having a background in process safety, and somewhat familiar with the time-line I was struck by how close to the events the series was.

I bow to the authors knowledge of the specifics of radiation sickness, but in most other respects, and as a acknowledged by him, the series was pretty accurate.

I was offshore in the North Sea at the time and part of the crew checking the HVAC air inlet filters on our platform for contamination – purely as a precaution as we had been told at a National level there was no cause for alarm.

In fact we found that the filters were contaminated above the levels were trained to deal with, and had to mobilise specialist contractors to deal with it.

This denial of the severity of what happened is an interesting parallel to the same problem displayed by the Russian bureaucracy!

SMC
Reply to  Hysteria
July 6, 2019 11:43 am

“…the filters were contaminated above the levels were trained to deal with…”. The thresholds are set so low, and there is so much hype about the ‘bad effects’, that it doesn’t surprise me you are skeptical. In the USA, for the equipment I work on, action must be taken if >0.005microCuries (185Bq) of removable contamination is detected. 0.005microCuries is almost nothing.

MarkW
Reply to  Hysteria
July 6, 2019 11:57 am

That’s still a very low level of radiation.

JohnM
Reply to  Hysteria
July 7, 2019 4:15 am

The series was a good watch. However, I never understood how the water beneath the reactor could cause a 3 Megaton explosion. It might release a lot of energy like a geyser, but equivalent to a Hydrogen bomb? That struck me as typical leftist propaganda.

E.S.
July 6, 2019 10:56 am

The 1974 book Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors describes the events of Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571.

Sweet Old Bob
July 6, 2019 10:56 am

Expect a lot more of this nonsense .
Follow the money …these people surely do !

July 6, 2019 10:57 am

No doubt, HBO producers used a lot of falsehoods to “dramatize” events according to their ignorant perception of “what would generate more income” from deplorable idiots they take their audience for.

It doesn’t mean, though, that Soviet authorities were competent or careful. No way. The real story, even as laid out by Dr. Kemm with his inexplicable esteem for these authorities, proves the opposite.

Also, Dr. Kemm doesn’t mention that same incompetent and careless Soviet authorities spent a lot of time and effort dispersing the irradiated people from around Chernobyl by forcibly “relocating” them all over the country, in a cowardly and secret fashion. I suspect that the real total amount of victims, in a long run, was much more than reported.

I’ve talked, in far-away Novosibirsk, with two young women from Pripyat (a town near Chernobyl), forcibly relocated to our area by authorities. They were strictly forbidden (under penalty of losing miserable jobs given to them) to talk about their experience at home but they complained to me that their hair was falling off, and demonstrated this to me. It was horrible, the girls were getting bald. And they were crying.

All in all, I think that Dr. Kemm’s picture of Soviet authoritues is much too rosy, even if the accounts of the Chernobyl’s consequences propagated by the fanatical opponents of nuclear energy are manifestly false. Truth is still out there.

Pietruccio Soraperra
Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 6, 2019 12:59 pm

no way to lose one’s air with those very low doses taken by the population of the nearby towns (about 100-200 mSv), sorry, you have never talked with true witnesses of the incident

icisil
Reply to  Pietruccio Soraperra
July 6, 2019 3:42 pm

The doses were high enough to kill trees, i.e., the Red Forest.

icisil
Reply to  Pietruccio Soraperra
July 6, 2019 3:44 pm

Did it again. Repeat.

The doses were high enough to k!ll trees, i.e., the Red Forest.

Reply to  Pietruccio Soraperra
July 6, 2019 7:17 pm

They were not “witnesses of the incident,” they were victims of it, just two of the tens of thousands “relocated” from towns and villages around Chernobyl — everyone in the USSR knew about this massive relocation, these victims have become our neighbors.

I was just a young man then, and met these two girls on my way home in a taxi. It wasn’t immediately after Chernobyl catastrophe but a few months later.

How do you know, in Italy, what was the actual dose in nearby towns? Official Soviet data? Yeah, sure. As they say in Russia, don’t make my slippers laugh.

icisil
Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 6, 2019 3:28 pm

Here’s an interesting story of a sheep shearing factory in Chernihiv, Ukraine that processed sheep so radioactive a request was made to give 298 mostly-women workers Liquidator status. Women workers gave similar accounts off the record.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/terror-and-security/chernobyl-secrets-tried-bury-soviet-machine-covered-catastrophe1/

Flipping through the large catalogue, I quickly identified whole collections labelled in plain Ukrainian, ‘On the Medical Consequences of the Chernobyl Disaster’. She didn’t know about these records because no one had ever asked for them before. The papers, hundreds of them, contained medical and farm records, statistical reports, transcripts of meetings, official correspondence, petitions and letters.

I soon came across a document that left me bewildered. It was a petition requesting ‘liquidator status’ for 298 people who worked in a wool factory in the northern Ukrainian city of Chernihiv. ‘Liquidator’ was a term reserved for people who received significant doses of radioactivity while employed to clean up the Chernobyl accident. I was confounded. How could wool workers, most of them women, in a quiet ‘clean’ town 50 miles from the accident have been liquidators? I drove to Chernihiv to find out more.

MarkW
Reply to  icisil
July 6, 2019 9:07 pm

How about giving us a reliable source.
Given how bad most papers are at getting even basic science right, there’s no reason to trust anything else written.

HD Hoese
July 6, 2019 10:58 am

I knew someone who went over there on a fact-finding trip who told me that the press was only interested in the gore. Specifically, they ignored some of the species evolving tolerance to radioactivity. Not exactly the same but there is a big wildlife refuge around Rocky Flats. What is the situation at Chernobyl?

Reply to  HD Hoese
July 6, 2019 11:50 am

I’ve read a lot of reports, with photos, about the situation around Chernobyl. Radioactive plumes from the “sarcophagus” site moved by winds mostly in NW direction over forests in Western Ukraine and Belarus, where (ineffective) restricted zone is still maintained. However, plants, animals, and fish in this area are simply thriving. Few old women who refused to leave their village houses in the same area, are still alive, while they are still eating their garden produce and gathering mushrooms and berries in nearby forests.

Large amount of radiation is deadly, and people exposed to the initial radioactive smoke, who lived nearby (mostly in the town of Pripyat), suffered forcible “relocation” being dispersed all over the Soviet Union. Many of them are known to have died later of diseases related to excessive exposure to radiation. How many? Nobody really knows. Soviet power was very good at hiding its crimes. As well as the current Putin’s police regime, which continues Soviet lies and secrecy.

Small amount of radiation (as in the forests NW of Chernobyl) is obviously salubrious to plant and animal life, which experienced an unheard-of proliferation in those forests. There are, however, some areas of notable degeneration (for example, so-called “Rusty Forest” near Pripyat, where vegetation has partially shrivelled and died).

Don’t believe, though, the photographs of “leafless trees” purposedly taken by anti-nuclear propagandists in early spring or in winter. In summer, the same trees are all green — there are photos for comparison. Simple Google search would give you a lot of photographic material and eyewitness accounts.

MarkW
Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 6, 2019 12:45 pm

Deciduous trees are leafless in the winter. Yet another thing your average green is ignorant of.
Much of the increase in wildlife is due to the dramatic decrease in the number of hunters in the years immediately following the Chernobyl accident.

Reply to  MarkW
July 6, 2019 1:50 pm

As to how many hunters there were in the same forests before Chernobyl, I wouldn’t know.

I doubt that there were many, because hunting wild animals was limited in the USSR to relatively few individuals licensed to own and use rifles, and to the Communist party big wigs who humted ruthlessly but in certain preserves far from Chernobyl, mostly in Northern Caucasus region.

Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 6, 2019 4:13 pm

Trapping – ever heard of trapping?

When you’re hungry and game is present, one can become quite creative …

MarkW
Reply to  Alexander Feht
July 6, 2019 9:08 pm

People hunted long before the invention of rifles.

icisil
Reply to  HD Hoese
July 6, 2019 3:48 pm

“What is the situation at Chernobyl?”

Birds brains are smaller; wood in the Red Forest is not decaying properly. Scientists from a university in South Carolina did some tests and found that organic matter decays much slower in highly irradiated areas, suggesting that radiation has affected bugs, microbes and fungi.

July 6, 2019 11:03 am

Hanoi Jane starred in the 1979 movie China Syndrome that also took “artistic license” with the truth about nuclear reactor safety and operations. Pretty much par for the course from Hollywood liberals when they have a political or ideological axe to grind.

In many ways the people they end up deceiving the most thoroughly are themselves.

Tezrian Chernaya
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
July 8, 2019 1:40 am

“Hanoi Jane”? JFC how old are you

July 6, 2019 11:25 am

The same sensational exaggeration was used at Fukushima
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bi3OA1tNFfo
Photographing the Nuclear Disaster in Fukushima

At 11:06 is photograph of a unfortunate victim of the Tsunami but with the heading:
‘Post Atomic, Life After Zero Hour, Fukushima Exclusion Zone, Odaka, Japan, 2011’

Alex
July 6, 2019 11:29 am

Hbo clearly didnt say it was documentary lol. Why apologize?

TomRude
July 6, 2019 11:29 am

Well even a retired seismologist is getting all worked up about “climate change”…

The potential for increased weather disasters coming with climate change make the earthquake problem look small. My music on the data of the changing climate: In Nomine Terra Calens: In the name of a warming Earth

Considering the number of victims that major earthquakes can generate almost instantaneously, this statement by Dr. Lucy Jones is simply irresponsible.

Read more here: https://eugeneweekly.com/2019/06/13/music-to-heal-a-dying-planet/

Stevek
July 6, 2019 11:30 am

I knew an engineer from Canada that did some work over at nuclear reactors in the former Soviet Union. He told me the workers over there used to ferment alcohol at the plants. Not sure if they drank it but wouldn’t be surprised.

Kenji
July 6, 2019 11:48 am

The FAKE film portraying FAKE nuclear horrors The China Syndrome effectively KILLED the nuclear power industry in America. It is sad when Hollywooden Fables determine crucial energy policy.

Latitude
July 6, 2019 11:48 am

..a lot of animals at Chernobyl have been tagged

and a whole lot of them are living way past their use by dates

John Tillman
July 6, 2019 12:07 pm

The rugby team was Uruguayan, not Chilean, headed to a match in Santiago, Chile.

July 6, 2019 12:10 pm

But this wasn’t a documentary. It was a drama.

Sky (who made the drama with US money from HBO) describe it on their website as “Jared Harris, Stellan Skarsgard and Emily Watson star in this hard-hitting Sky Original exploring the truth surrounding Chernobyl – a story of incredible heroism and sacrifice, but also shocking lies and conspiracy.”

Sky Originals are not documentaries.

Reply to  M Courtney
July 6, 2019 2:30 pm

An “Historical drama” according to wiki –

Chernobyl (miniseries)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chernobyl is a historical drama television miniseries created and written by Craig Mazin and directed by Johan Renck. The series was produced by HBO in association with Sky UK, depicting the Chernobyl nuclear disaster of April 1986 and the unprecedented cleanup efforts that followed.

Reply to  M Courtney
July 6, 2019 2:53 pm

Title: “Chernobyl” – https://www.sky.com/watch/title/series/119a15a4-c006-4945-bce5-16fd7b9a284a

Jared Harris and Emily Watson star in this hard-hitting Sky Original exploring the truth surrounding Chernobyl – a story of incredible heroism and sacrifice, but also shocking lies and conspiracy. *

Truth? – ALL except the ‘stretching’ of some specifics, like “blast yield”, predicted damage … those kinds of things?

Maybe the use of the full phrase exploring the truth surrounding Chernobyl is exculpating?
.
.
truth – noun
— the quality or state of being true.
synonyms: veracity, truthfulness, verity, sincerity, candor, honesty, genuineness; More
— that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
synonyms: the fact of the matter, what actually/really happened, the case, so; More
— a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

.
.
Underlining and bolding mine. – _Jim

Tezrian Chernaya
Reply to  _Jim
July 8, 2019 1:42 am

Oh, we’re using the dictionary now. Because that always makes one the winner in an online argument.

Reply to  M Courtney
July 6, 2019 3:45 pm

Maybe by saying “a story of …shocking lies.” they get off the hook!

Editor
July 6, 2019 12:18 pm

Forbes had an article about the U.S. doctor who was called to Chernobyl by the Soviets.

The Title: “Top UCLA Doctor Denounces HBO’s “Chernobyl” As Wrong And “Dangerous”:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2019/06/11/top-ucla-doctor-denounces-depiction-of-radiation-in-hbos-chernobyl-as-wrong-and-dangerous/#2386dfd01e07

Regards,
Bob

Michael Jankowski
July 6, 2019 12:20 pm

So that’s what it boils down to…that the Soviets cared more about safety than portrayed, that the skin-peeling was exaggerated, and that people don’t become radioactive?

(1) Not sure the hospital staff and others knew that well about the last one. And after all, the firefighters were actually buried as if they were radioactive as HBO portrayed according to any number of accounts I’ve read. So maybe the show was being loyal to the ignorance of the people surrounding the event at the time. I mean around 1986, people thought you could catch HIV/AIDS just by touching the skin of someone who was infected, too. So no movies about AIDS in 1986 should include this because we know better today?

(2) You said, “A fireman could not have irradiated his pregnant wife at home, as HBO claimed.” The fireman in question never went home in the miniseries. His wife went to him in the hospital. It does not appear that you even watched it.

(3) You stated that, “A very large dose of nuclear radiation will undoubtedly kill a person…Death would come quite quickly, within days.”

What you described as the symptoms of radiation exposure (and that I left-out for brevity) was very much how the show portrayed it. I can’t speak to the skin-peeling issue, although I have seen alleged photos of radiation victims that got pretty nasty skin-wise. Hisashi Ouchi supposedly survived 83 days after receiving a fatal dose of radiation in an accident in Japan. Descriptions of what his body went through seem pretty similar to what HBO portrayed.

(4) As far as the “test” went…you glossed-over the fact that the test was not carried-out exactly as it was supposed to. The intentional test was supposed to be carried-out at a much higher power level. They were not following the protocol from the start.

(5) What is especially priceless is the following: “The series tended to show the Soviet authorities of the day as uncaring and unskilled. That was not true.” Then you go on to note, “…the lower calibre night shift team was on duty. In addition, the more senior decision makers in the line-of-command had gone home…” and “…inexperienced Chernobyl technicians made some wrong moves and rapidly compounded the unfolding drama…the seniors had gone home and could not help…” So not “unskilled” but “lower caliber” and “inexperienced.” Not “uncaring” but the seniors had “gone home.” Not to mention that the Soviet authorities of the day acted like basically nothing had happened. In the miniseries, one of the characters is told a plant in Sweden measured radiation, and he realizes the world now knows there was a nuclear accident. If I recall correctly from my real-life at the time, the Soviets kept denying it further until there were satellite images of the destroyed reactor. Furthermore, the primary scientist portrayed in the miniseries, Valery Legasov, claimed there was political pressure from Soviet authorities that forbade even plant operators from knowing about previous accidents and design flaws. He was frustrated with the failure of Soviet authorities to address the flaws as well. Somehow you disagree with him and find that sort of thing to be “caring” from the Soviet authorities.

(5) As far as the Chilean air crash, you claim, “A television program portrayed their agonizing saga honestly, accurately and sympathetically.” How do you know how honest and accurate it was? Were you on board? Come on.

(6) As for, “However, imagine if decades later another producer decided to make a new ‘dramatized’ version…” Well, this actually happened in 1993. It was called, “Alive” and made $37M at the box office. Having not seen it yourself, apparently, you cannot ascertain its authenticity, but it has been noted that the film and book that it was based on differed on eating human flesh raw vs cooked. Almost all of the names were also changed for the movie. Oh, the horror.

(7) Regardless, what HBO did with Chernobyl is nothing close to being analogous to taking “Alive” or the old miniseries on that disaster and “showing callous survivors slashing bodies with axes and using machetes to tear out livers and hammers to smash skulls for the brains. After dinner they play a wild drumming rhapsody on the fuselage, using human bones as drumsticks” blah blah blah. That’s so illogical and full of hyperbole that you should be ashamed and embarrassed.

Timo Soren
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 6, 2019 2:29 pm

Agreed, and arguing whether the hospital treated the patients as radioactive and kept the relatives away may have happened. I am not sure how much is artistic license and how much is reality but your commentary is simply based on pure assumption (generally). In addition, the death of Louis Slotin follows quite closely to the documentary, swollen tissue, general skin burns (like sunburn), gangrene, large number of blisters on the body.

Your article is a disservice.

Don Holbert
Reply to  Michael Jankowski
July 7, 2019 1:46 pm

I was about to rip this article apart, but you did it so much than I could have.
Thank you for putting this guy’s foot in his mouth where it belongs.
And 3828 people died as a result of the chernobyl accident, not 60.
This article seems like propaganda, or ignorant mumblings from a self proclaimed “nuclear scientist”.. which I’m sure he is not.
Also, good on you for including the tragic death of Hisashi Ouchi, not many people know about that man, certainly not this know it all douche.

Ellen
July 6, 2019 12:52 pm

I’m a nuclear physicist (very different from a nuclear engineer) and decided long ago that the biggest problem nuclear power had was the insanity of the reaction to it. These days we get the same insanity to everything, so wottehell — may as well do nuclear power. It’s safer than most of the other things people freak out about.

Greg S.
July 6, 2019 12:52 pm

AFAIK no one other than the post’s author has claimed the series to be a “documentary” (it’s a dramatization), so this entire rant already started on a false premise.

https://www.hbo.com/content/hboweb/en/chernobyl/about.html

Curious George
Reply to  Greg S.
July 6, 2019 1:56 pm

A dramatization for sure of “one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history.”

1 2 3