beecee Posted June 20, 2019 Author Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, PervPhysProf said: Lorentz, Gauss, & Co lied originally and the likes of Feynman followed suite. You see the curve was actually represented as a cube, based on cubicals, not sphericals, before the 4th dimension modelled it. Can you elaborate and/or explain further?
PervPhysProf Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 47 minutes ago, beecee said: Edgar? Is that you? I take that as a yes. Anyhow what I mean is mathematically when you take Gauss' arithmetic you end up with 2 dimensions and then you cross it with a third being time. Skipping the true geometry. That's why we get these TVs and computers instead of it being material. -2
beecee Posted June 20, 2019 Author Posted June 20, 2019 1 hour ago, PervPhysProf said: Edgar? Is that you? I take that as a yes. Anyhow what I mean is mathematically when you take Gauss' arithmetic you end up with 2 dimensions and then you cross it with a third being time. Skipping the true geometry. That's why we get these TVs and computers instead of it being material. Take what as a yes? Who is Edgar? This thread is about the movie concerning the Nuclear furnace that exploded in Chernobyl and the after effects and how close the movie is to what actually transpired, which was it appears pretty close. Feynman might have made some comment on the disaster but what has that to do with this?
John Cuthber Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 23 hours ago, beecee said: then you can gauge for yourself, rightly or wrongly how factual it was. Gauging something wrongly isn't really gauging it- or the term loses any meaning.
beecee Posted June 20, 2019 Author Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 26 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: Gauging something wrongly isn't really gauging it- or the term loses any meaning. Whatever. As yet you havn't revealed whether you have seen the movie or not, let alone gauge how close it is to what actually transpired, which again seems pretty close in actual fact, according to history. Edited June 20, 2019 by beecee
John Cuthber Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 30 minutes ago, beecee said: As yet you havn't revealed whether you have seen the movie or not According to you, it doesn't matter. Merely not having any basis doesn't stop me gauging the accuracy of the film. (Because getting the wrong answer doesn't seem to matter) You said I could gauge it anyway. I have repeatedly insisted that I can't, but you won't believe me.
beecee Posted June 20, 2019 Author Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: According to you, it doesn't matter. Merely not having any basis doesn't stop me gauging the accuracy of the film. (Because getting the wrong answer doesn't seem to matter) You said I could gauge it anyway. I have repeatedly insisted that I can't, but you won't believe me. My apologies, I was presuming you knew a little bit of history from not so long ago. But again after some research along with the general consensus of opinion, the movie does a pretty good job of telling it as it was. Edited June 20, 2019 by beecee
John Cuthber Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, beecee said: My apologies, I was presuming you knew a little bit of history from not so long ago. And you assume that the information I got (largely, at the time, from the Official news agency "Tass" who lied repeatedly) is correct and you assume that I watched the film (I didn't) So, I really can't judge it, and you were mistaken to declare, unreservedly, that I could.
beecee Posted June 20, 2019 Author Posted June 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, John Cuthber said: And you assume that the information I got (largely, at the time, from the Official news agency "Tass" who lied repeatedly) is correct and you assume that I watched the film (I didn't) So, I really can't judge it, and you were mistaken to declare, unreservedly, that I could. No wrong. I didn't declare unreservedly that you could do anything. I was addressing the forum, not you in particular. And of course I also stated earlier on that the movie also highlighted the fact that the USSR attempted to hide aspects of the accident and downgrade it to some extent. And obviously I assumed nothing about you watching anything, again simply saying that those that did or have intentions of watching it, could then gauge how close it was to what actually transpired. Which was pretty close in actual fact.
et pet Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) The HBO series, "Chernobyl", that I watched, was a melodrama in five(5) parts, in the US, instead of the four(4) parts you evidently viewed. "Chernobyl" is not a documentary. It seemed to me that it veered quite a bit from what "actually transpired". Quite a lot of fictional liberties taken by the writer, Craig Mazin, possibly to increase the melodrama. Craig Mazin is, I believe, the same person that wrote or co-wrote the last two "Hangover" movies. Poor comedies...but moneymakers, I guess. Quite a bit of repetition in the storytelling. But then again, it is in five(5) parts, so it may be that HBO or the British network Sky thought that the viewers would need reminded about the previous weeks story. I found it rather slow moving and it seemed to be pushing more of a Soviet Propaganda(?) narrative than anything else. HBO's descriptions of "Chernobyl" refer to it as : " Chernobyl dramatizes the story of the 1986 nuclear accident — one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — and the sacrifices made to save Europe from unimaginable disaster.". : https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl Edited June 20, 2019 by et pet
beecee Posted June 20, 2019 Author Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 52 minutes ago, et pet said: The HBO series, "Chernobyl", that I watched, was a melodrama in five(5) parts, in the US, instead of the four(4) parts you evidently viewed. "Chernobyl" is not a documentary. Yep it was a 5 part series and I watched it all. And as already agreed it was also a movie as opposed to a doco that you obviously would have seen me admit to if not somewhat tainted in your view. Quote It seemed to me that it veered quite a bit from what "actually transpired". Quite a bit? Not according to others that have watched it, nor to the general consensus of how history records it. Certainly as pavelcherepan accurately said, some obvious liberties taken which is agreed on but again very close to what transpired. Quote Quite a bit of repetition in the storytelling. But then again, it is in five(5) parts, so it may be that HBO or the British network Sky thought that the viewers would need reminded about the previous weeks story. That did not take away from the excellent presentation and the efforts to align with how history has recorded it. Quote I found it rather slow moving and it seemed to be pushing more of a Soviet Propaganda(?) narrative than anything else. No I don't accept it was pushing any Soviet propaganda, and it seems obvious that you have mistakenly arrived at that conjecture, due to the actual accuracy of the movie in presenting the facts that the Soviets did try and downplay what happened...at least up to the moment when the radiation was detected by Sweden??? from memory and another nation also from memory. You are of course entitled to your opinion of it being slow moving, but what actually did you expect? I expected nothing more then a reasonably accurate account of what transpired and I was happy that this is what was presented in the movie. Perhaps you should have watched Star Wars? Quote HBO's descriptions of "Chernobyl" refer to it as : " Chernobyl dramatizes the story of the 1986 nuclear accident — one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — and the sacrifices made to save Europe from unimaginable disaster.". : https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl All entertainment, television, radio, movies etc that pertain to show some aspect of history, need to dramatize...nothing new here. And of course you are correct et pet in that this man made catastrophe could have been much worse. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl/episode-scripts Read the Chernobyl Scripts From Writer and Executive Producer Craig Mazin Experience the miniseries in a whole new light. Check out the production scripts that made Mazin’s and the crew’s shared vision come to fruition. Chernobyl, about the 1986 Soviet nuclear disaster, has been hailed as one of the most powerful shows of 2019 so far — even earning the number one spot on IMDb's Top 250 TVshows of all time. Now, audiences can experience the drama’s five-episodes in a unique way. Writer and executive producer Craig Mazin has released all five production scripts to read for free. Check them out below to see how Mazin’s and the crew’s shared vision came to fruition. Script | Episode 1, “1 : 23 : 45” Script | Episode 2: “Please Remain Calm” Script | Episode 3: “Open Wide, O Earth” Script | Episode 4: “The Happiness Of All Mankind” Script | Episode 5: “Vichnaya Pamyat” If you’re looking to learn more about the Chernobyl disaster, follow Craig Mazin’s conversation on Twitter to discover more resources Edited June 20, 2019 by beecee
et pet Posted June 20, 2019 Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) So, I was "obviously...somewhat blinkered"('tainted" after the edit!) in my view? And I was not correct in my assessment because I was not in agreement with "others that have watched it, nor to the general consensus of how history records it"? And I "have mistakenly arrived" at my assessment of the HBO series "Chernobyl"? But, I was "of course...correct" in something that I DID NOT SAY, when I merely quoted HBO"s 'tag line' for the series? 1 hour ago, et pet said: HBO's descriptions of "Chernobyl" refer to it as :" Chernobyl dramatizes the story of the 1986 nuclear accident — one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — and the sacrifices made to save Europe from unimaginable disaster.". : https://www.hbo.com/chernobyl Kind of makes me wonder though how HBO was correct in their 'tag-line' when , instead of describing it as a "near catastrophe", they describe it as "— one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — "? Edited June 20, 2019 by et pet
beecee Posted June 20, 2019 Author Posted June 20, 2019 15 minutes ago, et pet said: So, I was "obviously...somewhat blinkered"('tainted" after the edit!) in my view? If the cap fits...... Quote And I was not correct in my assessment because I was not in agreement with "others that have watched it, nor to the general consensus of how history records it"? And I "have mistakenly arrived" at my assessment of the HBO series "Chernobyl"? I didn't say anything about your assessment. I said,"Quite a bit? Not according to others that have watched it, nor to the general consensus of how history records it. Certainly as pavelcherepan accurately said, some obvious liberties taken which is agreed on but again very close to what transpired" Obviously your assessment to use your words, is not the general consensus which are my words. Quote But, I was "of course...correct" in something that I DID NOT SAY, when I merely quoted HBO"s 'tag line' for the series You presented the link, which implies you agree. You were correct. Quote Kind of makes me wonder though how HBO was correct in their 'tag-line' when , instead of describing it as a "near catastrophe", they describe it as "— one of the worst man-made catastrophes in history — "? Kinda supports my "tainted/blinkered" assessment and your usual nonsensical pedant approach to myself.
zapatos Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 On 6/15/2019 at 4:08 PM, beecee said: I just finish watching a series doco [in 4 parts] and would recommend it's viewing. Describing it in a word? Scary......Í can't say how close it is to the actual truth but you can gauge that for yourself......... Seems like people want to troll you rather than talk to you. Very strange. 1
beecee Posted June 21, 2019 Author Posted June 21, 2019 Just now, zapatos said: Seems like people want to troll you rather than talk to you. Very strange. I am surprised with one certainly, the other is just par for the course and his usual methodology, and bias towards myself. Just done some more research and found other movies made about the Chernobyl Incident https://www.inverse.com/article/14834-5-powerful-films-about-chernobyl 1. The Russian Woodpecker (2015) 2. Chernobyl Heart (2003) 3. White Horse (2008) 4. The Battle of Chernobyl (2006 5. Chernobyl 3828 (2011) ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: Sadly I have not seen any of them, but will certainly make an effort to at least get what I can and compare to the latest excellent movie that certainly aligns pretty close to the events that transpired. Anyone else seen any of them? Again, my main concern and motive with the current movie being discussed, is how close it is to the events that transpired, and of course the science that is concerned with nuclear fission and what can happen when short cuts are taken, or unsafe operational procedures are performed, and obviously the after effects. Sadly for at least two interesting parties, those issues have escaped them. 1
hypervalent_iodine Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 ! Moderator Note I am not entirely sure if this thread is supposed to be about the HBO series or the actual event, but whichever it is, I think we can dial down the pedantry and stop with semantic arguments.
beecee Posted June 21, 2019 Author Posted June 21, 2019 My main concern and motive with starting this thread and the current movie being discussed, is how close it is to the events that transpired, and of course the science that is concerned with nuclear fission and what can happen when short cuts are taken, or unsafe operational procedures are performed, and obviously the after effects. Sadly for at least two interesting parties, those issues have escaped them. One of those issues I raised early in this thread was about the mistaken idea I had that radiation poisoning was not contagious as was portrayed in the movie. That was corrected by pavelcherepan with an appropriate link showing my error in thinking, and which btw added more evidence to the general opinion that the movie was pretty close to being on target in expressing the actual events that transpired along with the depiction of the science involved.
beecee Posted June 21, 2019 Author Posted June 21, 2019 3 hours ago, beecee said: One of those issues I raised early in this thread was about the mistaken idea I had that radiation poisoning was not contagious opposite to what was portrayed in the movie. That was corrected by pavelcherepan with an appropriate link showing my error in thinking, and which btw added more evidence to the general opinion that the movie was pretty close to being on target in expressing the actual events that transpired along with the depiction of the science involved. If an incident like this had of occurred in Europe, Britain, the USA or Australia, what action do you think may have been taken with relation to the men ordered in both atop and under the reactor for cleaning and confinement issues? Order in the military? Volunteers?
Endy0816 Posted June 21, 2019 Posted June 21, 2019 37 minutes ago, beecee said: If an incident like this had of occurred in Europe, Britain, the USA or Australia, what action do you think may have been taken with relation to the men ordered in both atop and under the reactor for cleaning and confinement issues? Order in the military? Volunteers? Has generally been a mix of contractors, military and volunteers from other agencies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1#Accident_and_response Need an array of skills and a quick response time.
beecee Posted June 21, 2019 Author Posted June 21, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, Endy0816 said: Has generally been a mix of contractors, military and volunteers from other agencies. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1#Accident_and_response Need an array of skills and a quick response time. Yep agreed, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps we could order in the military on a possible death mission, and of course the Fireman, who were the first respondents, did not actually realize the enormity of what they were undertaking. I'm speaking of the cleaning up and containment. Would a Western nation ask for volunteers? LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL As luck would have it, an article today on Chernobyl in physorg...... https://phys.org/news/2019-06-ten-chernobyl-television-series-artistic.html the article concludes thus....... A cautionary tale It is important not to underestimate the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. Studies have found an increase in thyroid cancer, mainly due to the failure of the Soviet authorities to prevent consumption of products contaminated with short-lived radioactive iodine-131 in the weeks after the accident. Recent analyses of affected populations up to 2015 found 5,000 out of a total of 20,000 thyroid cancer cases to be due to radiation. Fortunately, though serious, thyroid cancer is treatable in 99% of cases. Some reports suggest that the consequences of relocating hundreds of thousands of people, the economic consequences of abandonment of land and the understandable fear of radiation have had greater negative effects than the direct health consequences of radiation. Chernobyl the series is amazing to watch, and the reconstruction of events before and during the accident was remarkable. But we should remember that it is a drama, not a documentary. In the years since 1986, many myths have been perpetuated about the accident, and these myths have unquestionably hindered the recovery of the affected populations. More than 30 years on, this recovery continues. If it is to have any chance of success it must be based not on the emotion and the drama, but on the best available scientific evidence. Evidence which shows that, except at the extreme doses which plant operators, firemen and helicopter pilots received during the Chernobyl disaster, the risks of radiation are tiny compared to other health risks we all face in our lives. Edited June 21, 2019 by beecee
beecee Posted June 22, 2019 Author Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) Something worth noting from the article I linked to...https://phys.org/news/2019-06-ten-chernobyl-television-series-artistic.html 6. The divers "The three heroic men who worked to drain the tanks of water below the primary containment chamber to prevent nuclear fuel coming into contact with water which was believed would cause an explosion did so in vain. Subsequent analysis found that the tanks were already mostly empty, and the interaction of the melting fuel with the water might even have helped cool it". From the highlighted parts, it seems that this supposed "inaccuracy" in the movie was not really inaccurate at all. It was believed at that time! and the error was not found until later as hinted with "the subsequent analysis". So the movie portrayal adhering to the actions and beliefs of the day were correct! Whether or not it was subsequently declared as "in vain" Any other comments on the relative points? Edited June 22, 2019 by beecee
Endy0816 Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 (edited) 5 hours ago, beecee said: Yep agreed, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. Perhaps we could order in the military on a possible death mission, and of course the Fireman, who were the first respondents, did not actually realize the enormity of what they were undertaking. I'm speaking of the cleaning up and containment. Would a Western nation ask for volunteers? I would say yes, if a heroic sacrifice is unavoidable, they would ask for volunteers. Soldiers and contractors are humans too. Many are single but others have wives and children. Ideally you never reach that point. There are though precautions you can take during debris cleanup. Proper safety equipment and monitoring; rotating people out as needed. In that case it would be a more traditional assignment or job. Were these precautions always taken... not so much... but the principal remains true. Edited June 22, 2019 by Endy0816
beecee Posted June 22, 2019 Author Posted June 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Endy0816 said: I would say yes, if a heroic sacrifice is unavoidable, they would ask for volunteers. Soldiers andcontractors are humans too. Many are single but others have wives and children. Ideally you never reach that point though. There are precautions you can take during debris cleanup. Proper safety equipment and monitoring; rotating people out as needed. In that case it would be a more traditional assignment or job. Were these steps always taken... not so much... but the principal remains true. Yep, agreed. No arguments from me.
Danijel Gorupec Posted June 22, 2019 Posted June 22, 2019 7 hours ago, beecee said: Something worth noting from the article I linked to...https://phys.org/news/2019-06-ten-chernobyl-television-series-artistic.html 6. The divers Thanks for the article link. Regarding the three divers... I read somewhere (hardly I would be able to find it again) that the three men considered it their duty - two of them were on theirs shifts, while the third one was called for his specific knowledge. I would still consider the act possibly heroic. If it is made 'in vain' does not diminish this. If it is made on the line of duty also does not diminish this.... Interestingly, only recently Ukraine recognized the act: from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster " Despite severe risk, all three survived the mission, and, in 2018, were awarded the Order For Courage by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko." [BTW, the same wikipedia page mentions another involvement of Aleksandr G. Lelechenko " ...to spare his younger colleagues radiation exposure he himself went through radioactive water and debris three times to switch off the electrolyzers and the feed of hydrogen to the generators..." Well, if this is true (I am not considering Wikipedia overly reliable) then I would consider it heroic - note that his act was volunteered and not asked for, for the difference]
beecee Posted June 22, 2019 Author Posted June 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Danijel Gorupec said: Thanks for the article link. Regarding the three divers... I read somewhere (hardly I would be able to find it again) that the three men considered it their duty - two of them were on theirs shifts, while the third one was called for his specific knowledge. I would still consider the act possibly heroic. If it is made 'in vain' does not diminish this. If it is made on the line of duty also does not diminish this.... Interestingly, only recently Ukraine recognized the act: from wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individual_involvement_in_the_Chernobyl_disaster " Despite severe risk, all three survived the mission, and, in 2018, were awarded the Order For Courage by Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko." [BTW, the same wikipedia page mentions another involvement of Aleksandr G. Lelechenko " ...to spare his younger colleagues radiation exposure he himself went through radioactive water and debris three times to switch off the electrolyzers and the feed of hydrogen to the generators..." Well, if this is true (I am not considering Wikipedia overly reliable) then I would consider it heroic - note that his act was volunteered and not asked for, for the difference] Heroic to put it mildly, agreed.
Recommended Posts