
Scene report from the Chernobyl Zone - BCM43
https://moxie.org/stories/chernobyl-scene-report/
======
dweekly
The pictures are lovely and the reflections profound. But much of the cited
data here appears wrong. For instance, the article states (italicized): "six
hundred helicopter pilots were killed" and yet it was only 600 helicopter
pilots who _flew_ liquidator missions[1], two of which were killed in an
piloting accident and none were registered killed from immediate radiation
exposure[2], though at least one eventually died from cancer likely from this
exposure[3]. Similarly a claim of "Over six hundred thousand people were
directly involved in dealing with the aftermath of the Chernobyl explosion" is
not supported by the evidence[4].

I don't mean any of this to lessen the enormity of what happened and the
tremendous, noble effort made by the liquidators to remediate what was there
at great personal cost. It's just good when making specific claims for those
claims to be substantiated.

[1] [https://www.rotorandwing.com/2016/04/26/chernobyl-
anniversar...](https://www.rotorandwing.com/2016/04/26/chernobyl-anniversary-
recalls-helo-pilots-bravery/)

[2]
[http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Chernobyl_pilots_knew_risk...](http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Chernobyl_pilots_knew_risks_commander_999.html)

[3] [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1990-07-04-mn-106-st...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-
xpm-1990-07-04-mn-106-story.html)

[4] [http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-
disaster/liquidato...](http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-
disaster/liquidators/)

~~~
moxie
I think there's a lot of uncertainty in talking about Chernobyl, since most of
the information published by the Soviet authorities was intentionally
incorrect or misleading, designed to downplay the significance of the
accident.

One thing I've found interesting in talking about Chernobyl is that advocates
of nuclear power are often willing to accept the Soviet numbers as fact, since
they confirm the idea that nuclear power is still relatively "safe" even in
case of disaster.

I don't know what the exact numbers are, and I'm not sure if any of us will
ever know for sure, but one of the documentaries I like is Discovery's "Battle
of Chernobyl," since it includes a lot of interviews with people who were
actually there and participated in the events. They interview Nikolay
Antoshkin, the colonel general in charge of the helicopter operations there,
which is where the 600 pilot deaths number comes from. I'm more inclined to
believe that account than what the state published.

~~~
arcticbull
> One thing I've found interesting in talking about Chernobyl is that
> advocates of nuclear power are often willing to accept the Soviet numbers as
> fact, since they confirm the idea that nuclear power is still relatively
> "safe" even in case of disaster.

I believe the IAEA report (which you can read yourself) put together by the
United Nations and relevant affected governments in the mid-2000s. It shows
that over the entire course of time 4,000 people will have died prematurely as
a result of the accident at Chernobyl (including people who killed themselves
because they feared they were "contaminated"), and between 31 and 54 people
died between both the explosion itself and to acute radiation injuries in the
immediate aftermath -- including the helicopter pilots you mention. [1]

I also believe that 7.3 million people die every year as a direct result of
the burning of fossil fuels. [2]

Everything is trade-offs. The accident was bad, and it could have been an
awful lot worse. On the other hand, it's important we not lose sight of the
big picture. When humans get hurt, they learn why, and move forward - this
should not be an exception.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deaths_due_to_the_Chernobyl_disaster)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents)

~~~
nostromo
Most of those 7.3 million deaths are from people burning local fuels (wood,
trash, dung, etc.) for heating and cooking.

It's seems unfair to compare subsistence, low-tech energy (dung burning) to
nuclear energy.

It makes a lot more sense to compare high-tech nuclear energy with high-tech
renewables (with storage).

~~~
mrpopo
> It makes a lot more sense to compare high-tech nuclear energy with high-tech
> renewables (with storage).

If you really want to compare that, rooftop solar actually has a significant
risk of worker death. I am willing to bet that, per TWh, there would be
significantly more deaths with solar than nuclear.

~~~
sifRAWR
Your hypothesis made sense to me, so I did a bit of research to try and back
up the claim.

No idea about the biases or accuracy of the information supplied in these
links, so take it with a grain of salt, but they seem to support the idea that
Solar (installation) is indeed more dangerous than Nuclear per TWh.

Too many factors to call it more "dangerous", and also disingenuous because
the absolute worst case scenario for solar power doesn't have the possibility
of negatively impacting millions of peoples lives.

But hey, this is a bit of a fun fact that might stop people demonising nuclear
energy so much.

Sources:

[https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-
te...](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/update-of-death-per-terawatt-
hour-by.html)
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-d...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-
deathprint-a-price-always-paid/#56487243709b)

~~~
goto11
People "demonizing" nuclear typically do it because of the potential
devastating consequences of an accident, and the uncertainty of storing waste
for thousands of years. Not because they think nuclear have a high death toll
in everyday use.

~~~
stevenjohns
But the potential devastation isn’t rooted in reality - anyone can assume the
worst could happen, and when it did happen in Chernobyl the numbers haven’t
been very high.

The alternatives, even the green ones like hydroelectric, have dwarfed
nuclear-related deaths hundreds, if not thousands, of times over with single
catastrophes[0].

Arguments against the storage of nuclear fuel usually don’t understand how
little waste there is and, even still, burying a problem for 200 years while
we figure out how to deal with it is an infinite number of times better than
dealing with the fallout of global warming by not shifting to nuclear energy.

[0]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banqiao_Dam)

~~~
goto11
I'm actually pro nuclear, but I get concerned when I see people downplaying
the risks. The only way we can have safe nuclear is if people actually
understand and take the risks seriously and put oversight and safeguards in
place. E.g. saying that Chernobyl is the "worst that could happen" is just
willfully ignorant. Chernobyl was bad but could have been a _lot_ worse.

Even then, nobody even knows or agrees how many victims Chernobyl have claimed
or will still claim.

Comparing nuclear-related deaths to the Chinese dam disaster is a bit
disingenuous also. China did not have nuclear power in the same time period,
so of course no nuclear-related deaths happened. But if China had had enough
nuclear plants to replace dams and they had the same amount of construction
errors, removal of safety features, bad management and a "once in 2000 years"
unforeseen natural disaster - are you sure no nuclear accidents would have
happened?

If you just compare absolute numbers, you will see walking is more dangerous
than skydiving.

------
gukov
Highly recommend the HBO's new miniseries Chernobyl. One episode left. It's
already at the top of IMDB TV show rankings.

[1] [https://www.imdb.com/chart/toptv/](https://www.imdb.com/chart/toptv/)

~~~
SomeOldThrow
I don't get the feeling it's very accurate, but it is very entertaining.

EDIT: the accuracy I am referring to is about the actual sequence of events of
the plot, which I understand to be simplified as people replying have pointed
out :)

~~~
keldaris
It varies. The physics part is oversimplified and, at times, overdramatized
(the threat of a megaton-range explosion being a particularly egregious
example). The range of characters is highly limited by the format of the
series (hence the fictional Belarusian physicist meant to be a composite of
many characters, but really just serving as a narrative shortcut to compress
the whole thing into the length constraints they have). At the same time, the
visual setting is very accurate (part of the filming is done at Ignalina, the
site of another RBMK reactor plant with a similar workers' town, etc.) and the
general atmosphere is vastly more true to life than any other dramatization of
the accident I've ever seen.

~~~
gukov
The show's writer actually reduced the number:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she...](https://www.reddit.com/r/TVChernobyl/comments/boo19f/did_she_say_the_potential_water_reservoir_could/enozssk/)

~~~
keldaris
It's actually wrong on several levels. First of all, in the show the
characters explicitly state that they are referring to a steam explosion. A
steam explosion in the megaton range isn't just implausible, it's patently
absurd. The upper bound on the real number is lower by 4-5 orders of
magnitude. Don't get me wrong - it would still have been extremely disasterous
and could have increased the total radionuclide emissions by up to an order of
magnitude, but all the stuff about half of Europe being uninhabitable or
everyone in Kiev dying immediately is nonsense. Instead, the only way to get
remotely close to a megaton range estimate is to assume the steam explosion
would cause a nuclear explosion in one or more of the reactor cores. That
possibility was briefly considered and quickly dismissed as improbable in the
extreme, which it was.

~~~
3JPLW
In the context of a drama about the explosion and aftermath, I'd say it's
quite reasonable to use an absurd number from one of the physicists involved.

Perhaps it was indeed wrong, but it sounds like that might be _actually what
those involved believed at the time_.

~~~
keldaris
That is very unlikely, at least at the higher executive commitee level. It's
impossible to exclude the possibility entirely, of course, but there is no
surviving evidence of it and it certainly doesn't appear in Legasov's original
report (or any subsequent study).

------
Cynddl
I'm confused, did they legally entered the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone? I was
told that biking into the Chernobyl Zone, e.g., is forbidden due to the risk
of contamination when you exit.

Edit: Indeed it was not. From Instagram, “we spent the night tiptoeing around
razor wire fences, coasting through sleeping security checkpoints, and riding
frantically away from some surprisingly alert and vigilant guard dogs.” This
validates what I know from Ukraine. Entering the exclusion zone is a very
lucrative touristic business, with prices around $100-200 for a single day
trip in a group.

~~~
zzzcpan
There are plenty of videos about this nowadays. Here's a series of videos of a
Ukrainian youtuber from this winter, biking into the exclusion zone, etc:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=199KDKgO1Uc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=199KDKgO1Uc)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5knVD0AnTFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5knVD0AnTFw)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DePsh2OFNVc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DePsh2OFNVc)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi9rhMn6qTU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hi9rhMn6qTU)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY3jyNbbEHY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qY3jyNbbEHY)

------
aquamo
Loved this story! Also good timing as a lot of us are watching the HBO mini-
series now. I especially liked this quote: "The reason it's so beautiful and
so peaceful is precisely because we can't consume it. Like, perhaps, all real
paradises everywhere."

------
perfunctory
When discussing the safety of nuclear power most comments seem to focus on the
number of deaths. While death count is tragic in itself, it doesn't capture
the full extent of human drama.

Consider this

Fukushima

"the nuclear accident was responsible for 154,000 being evacuated"

"In December 2016 the government estimated decontamination, compensation,
decommissioning, and radioactive waste storage costs at 21.5 trillion yen
($187 billion), nearly double the 2013 estimate."

Chernobyl

"In 2005, the total cost over 30 years for Belarus alone was estimated at
US$235 billion; about $301 billion in today's dollars given inflation rates."

"between 5% and 7% of government spending in Ukraine is still related to
Chernobyl"

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disa...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster)

------
dmix
> Standing in the bleachers, listening to the Pripyat municipal overture of
> resounding bird song, the only thing we could do was stare out at the trees
> and wonder "how long until New York looks like this?"

I'm curious what the author meant by this. Does he mean how long would it take
NYC to look like Chernobyl after a similar nuclear/natural accident happened?
Or do they have a fatalistic outlook on the future due to some environmental,
economic, or political worldview?

Also the end of the story mentions there are no obvious monuments to the
people who worked to help rescue people but there is one in the very city he
was reporting from dedicated to the firefighters and others involved:
[https://oddviser.com/ukraine/chernobyl/memorial](https://oddviser.com/ukraine/chernobyl/memorial)

~~~
jahewson
> fatalistic

I do not think it means what you think it means.

~~~
lqet
As a non-native speaker: do you care to elaborate why you think this word is
incorrect here?

~~~
xsmasher
The word refers to a belief fate or destiny; but the usage here implied
negativity or pessimism of some kind.

A "pessimistic outlook" is probably closer to what they wanted to express.

------
gk1
There's a YouTuber who's been traveling around Belarus and recording his daily
adventures. Many of the videos are from inside the areas affected by
Chernobyl. They're fun to watch:
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqWdYjn21PdHRvHB7Nrwl...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqWdYjn21PdHRvHB7NrwlXBeHE44AW-R9)

~~~
cycrutchfield
Used to be a fan of Bald until his bizarre fake fight video with Harald Baldr.
Then I started to notice other little things he was doing that were a bit off-
putting and how creepy and exploitative some of his videos felt. Ended up
unsubscribing after that.

------
nnq
Q for ppl more knowledgeable - _How exaggerated is this claim?_ :

> would have ignited a second reaction that would have been the equivalent of
> a 5 megaton explosion. It would have leveled Kiev and Minsk, and would have
> ejected the nuclear material from the other 3 Chernobyl reactors with a
> force that would have rendered much of Europe uninhabitable for hundreds of
> years

(I can imagine _it is_ exaggerated, but I am not an expert so can't tell the
magnitude. I meant 5 megatons is not that much, the tested "Tsar Bomba" was
estimated at 50+ megatons. And even will tones of material spread around, most
of it would have settled on the ground on a smallish area, right?)

~~~
effie
It seems extremely exaggerated, such explosions require complicated bomb
design, otherwise the first stages of the explosion throw the reacting matter
away and it won't react completely.

However, 5 megatons can destroy city completely, and if it explodes close to
ground, it will create lots of contamination. Then it is up to the winds. Bad
wind will make this contamination a major catastrophe thousands of kilometers
away.

------
dmpanch
Visited Chernobyl 3 years ago, just before they cover it with Confinement.

[https://imgur.com/gallery/uIOOz1p](https://imgur.com/gallery/uIOOz1p)

Btw, you can easily visit it, because of lots of tours here, it cost about
$100-$150 per day. I used this company [https://www.chernobyl-
tour.com/english/48-one-day-trip-to-th...](https://www.chernobyl-
tour.com/english/48-one-day-trip-to-the-chernobyl-zone-and-prypyat-town.html)

~~~
yakshaving_jgt
I was there around the same time as you — a couple of weeks before the new
sarcophagus was rolled into place, and just after the last inhabitant of
Chernobyl died and her house burned down.

Everyone recommends going, but to be honest I'd give it a miss. There are
plenty of nice things to see and do in Ukraine.

------
saul_goodman
Maby they did sneak in, but fool me once:
[http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html](http://www.kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html)

The last time someone posted pictures claiming they rode their motorcycle
through the forbidden zone it caused a stir because that is expressly
forbidden because of the risk of picking up contaminated dust. Enclosed tour
vehicles only for this reason. Then apparently, in the case of kiddofspeed, we
find out she rode her motorcycle to the standard meeting place and took the
standard tour. While carrying her helmet along with her for effect.

~~~
4043D
Moxie isn't known for bullshiting about stuff like that he's done a fair few
things "normal" people would think fairly crazy.

~~~
dTal
Mmm, that isn't _strictly_ true. From what I've read his anarchist-leaning
sailing documentary "Hold Fast" is... controversial, in sailing circles.

~~~
abyssin
I enjoyed watching his documentary, but I'm not part of sailing circles. In
what way is it considered controversial?

~~~
dTal
Disclaimer: I also am not in sailing circles and also have not seen the
documentary in question - I'm basing this impression entirely on the hearsay
of an extensive Reddit thread (that I cannot alas find again) full of sailors
who had no idea about Moxie's other life. The objections I remember were:

-incompetent sailing

-criminal behaviour (or more likely faked criminal behaviour) including theft

-making a big show about being poor and bohemian when in fact they had loads of cash (some of which was spent on the boat offscreen, rather subverting the message)

This is _exactly_ the same kind of pseudo-rebellious sketchiness as pretending
to ride your motorcycle illegally through Chernobyl, when in fact you took the
official tour.

(I have just queried a sailing IRC channel and got a similar response, so I
don't think I'm misremembering.)

------
kyledrake
All of Moxie's stories are great and I highly recommended them:
[https://moxie.org/stories.html](https://moxie.org/stories.html)

The train stories in particular made me recall reading Days of War, Nights of
Love in a really good way.

------
madengr
Can anyone comment on the validity of the 5 MT explosion when the core
material hit water? This was also stated the the HBO show.

I don’t think 5 MT fission bombs are even possible, as they tend to blow
themselves apart.

~~~
saul_goodman
Nothing against Moxie, but this stated fact is clearly nonsense. It certainly
would have been terrible for a large volume of water to reach the burning
core, but you're not going to get a 5MT blast from a reactor accident. It
takes a _LOT_ of things working perfectly to make a nuclear bomb explode
correctly. Lots of bad things happen when reactors go critical, a nuclear
blast is generally not one of them. It's the spread of contaminated matter
that makes reactor accidents bad. Also, sure, explosions can happen with rapid
temperature changes like one encounters in these situations, but nothing like
an actual nuclear bomb.

~~~
moxie
"Only 1400 kilograms of uranium and graphite mixture would have needed to hit
the water to set off a new explosion. Our experts studied the possibility and
concluded that the explosion would have had a force of 3 to 5 megatons.
Minsk...would have been razed." \- Vassili Nesterenko, director of the
Institute of Nuclear Energy at the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus.

I am not a nuclear physicist, but at least some people who are did not find
this to be "clearly nonsense."

~~~
saul_goodman
If nothing else, consider this. If all it takes to cause a 3-5MT explosion is
to get uranium hot and poor water on it, why would anyone go to the effort of
developing a more complex weapon? The entire Manhattan project could have been
easily solved if it was this simple, and even then the Fat Man and Little Boy
bombs only yielded between 13-22kT. It wasn't until 7 years after WWII that
the US managed to conduct a test that broke the mega-ton barrier. More complex
H-bombs are required for this.

But regardless, we're picking nits here. It's a fun read and I enjoy your
stories, so I wasn't intending to pick on you.

------
Tsubasachan
I watched a documentary on the new concrete sarcophagus that they built to
contain the reactor.

Its amusing that the EU had to invest billions into the project. Hell even the
US put in money and expertise despite being an ocean away. Where was Russia?
It was their powerplant that blew up!

------
cambaceres
"When that material then started to smolder downwards out through the floor of
the chamber, it threatened to come into contact with a large amount of water
that had pooled there as a result of early firefighter attempts to put it out
with hoses. This would have ignited a second reaction that would have been the
equivalent of a 5 megaton explosion. It would have leveled Kiev and Minsk, and
would have ejected the nuclear material from the other 3 Chernobyl reactors
with a force that would have rendered much of Europe uninhabitable for
hundreds of years. With only days to stop it, Alexei Ananenko, Valeri
Bezpalov, and Boris Baranov went into the ruins of the plant, knowingly facing
almost certain death from that level of radiation exposure, to release valves
that would drain 5 million gallons of water."

Is this really true? Are there better sources than this blog post?

~~~
jaggirs
The HBO series chernobyl says the same pretty much. I suppose thats a better
source, but not by much.

------
wyldfire
> This cost $1.8 billion to construct, $60 million a year to maintain,

What are the maintenance costs for The Object? Is it monitoring/auditing or is
there active construction/repair?

~~~
vonmoltke
If you are talking about the New Safe Containment structure, then the plan is
to disassemble the original sarcophagus and remove as much as can be done
safely. Its not merely a static entombment structure (though that _is_ its
failsafe function).

------
wst_
Not so long ago there was a submission about visit of Arkadiusz Podniesiński
in Fukushima. Before that, though, he was visiting the zone multiple times and
made two long movies about it. Here's a trailer of second one. Worth a look as
the visuals are quite nice.

Alone in the Zone 2:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCBQA7Z1Y0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdCBQA7Z1Y0)

------
dzonga
watching Chernobyl on HBO brought to life some of the stories that happened
during that fateful period. Easily the best show on HBO right now

------
yesprabhu
The book, 'Chernobyl, History of a Tragedy' by Serhii Plokhy gives a very good
account of the accident. Days preceding, the burning days ,and political and
social repurcussions there after.

------
ycombonator
Coincidentally I just started watching Chernobyl series on HBO
[https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl](https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl)

~~~
ycombonator
I have got a stalker who keeps downvoting each every comment I write.

------
tedunangst
When was this published? I couldn't find a date.

~~~
creeble
Looks like 4 days ago, if I'm reading the Instagram dates correctly.

------
latchkey
1 gallon of water weighs 8.34 lbs.

5 * 8.34 * 3 = 125.1 lbs

------
arpa
Five megaton explosion? That's hydrogen fusion bomb range, dude, not a steam
explosion.

------
agumonkey
never ceases to amaze..

------
HeWhoLurksLate
On that score- the atomic bombs dropped in Hiroshima and Nagasaki did less
overall damage than the Allied's firebombings in other cities- and, IIRC,
there were less casualties in the nuked cities as well- the damage was just
different.

~~~
dalore
Well yes, some consider that the atomic bombs saved lives by ending the war.
If the bombs weren't dropped and the ware continued then those fire bombings
would have killed even more.

~~~
robocat
Your comment is based on the myth that the atomic bombs ended the war.

[https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-
hi...](https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-stone-kuznick-hiroshima-
obama-20160524-snap-story.html)

""" The atomic bombings, terrible and inhumane as they were, played little
role in Japanese leaders' calculations to quickly surrender. After all, the
U.S. had firebombed more than 100 Japanese cities. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
just two more cities destroyed; whether the attack required one bomb or
thousands didn't much matter. As Gen. Torashirō Kawabe, the deputy chief of
staff, later told U.S. interrogators, the depth of devastation wrought in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki only became known "in a gradual manner." But "in
comparison, the Soviet entry into the war was a great shock." """

""" Most Americans have been taught that using atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki in August 1945 was justified because the bombings ended the war in
the Pacific, thereby averting a costly U.S. invasion of Japan. This erroneous
contention finds its way into high school history texts still today. """

~~~
ekianjo
Exactly, the soviet entry is clearly what led the leaders of Japan to
surrender - the timeline also matches very closely. Not sure what we keep
hearing the A-bomb propaganda such a long time after the facts.

~~~
Fins
That's something that Soviets very much want the world to believe, but they
have never had shown how they could even possibly get their troops anywhere
near Japanese mainland, what with Russian/Soviet/Russian navy historically
being more dangerous to people who serve there than any enemy. And whatever
happened in Manchuria or Korea didn't really concern Japan by that point
anyway.

~~~
KptMarchewa
There were no either Japanese Navy nor Japanese Air Force at this point, so
quality of Soviet Navy does not matter. All they would need to do is to
transport enough bodies to the islands.

~~~
Fins
You can't really move a massive invasion force on wooden rafts. Unless they
would've asked form some D-Day leftovers, it's just not very feasible.

------
randylahey
I found it very distracting that none of the ostensibly Russian or Ukrainian
characters have an even remotely slavic accent.

~~~
Phlarp
So Soviet characters that speak English with a slavic accent would be less
distracting? Surely if you are bothered by this they should be speaking
Russian with English subtitles.

~~~
dplavery92
I think we have seen this sort of approach succeed in a major US TV production
in Netflix's Narcos. There are English-speaking characters, yes, but most of
the drama happens entirely in Spanish.

I think this series would also have been better fully in Russian with English
subtitles.

