Top UCLA Doctor Denounces HBO's "Chernobyl" As Wrong And "Dangerous"

Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
1,362
#41
With radiotherapy however, the radiation dose is not in the hormetic zone, rather it is a high dose that is restricted mostly to the tumour.
Ya' reckon? Delivering high dose to the diseased tissue is the easy bit. Any fool can do that. The trick is limiting the toxic dose to the healthy surrounding tissue and that dose is in the hormetic zone.

Since Chernobyl the fractionation regimes in radiotherapy have changed dramatically. Now they hit the tumour harder and more frequently because healthy tissue recovers much more quickly from dose than assumed prior to Chernobyl. Trials are now being conducted in mice where the entire prescribed dose is delivered in 1-3 fractions. Admittedly that's not conventional radiotherapy.
 
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
1,482
#43
They have no reason not to.
There are plenty of reasons not to.

They have no clue what the people actually said to each other, the tone, how they felt, their relation or attitude towards each other, etc. All they have are reports and testimonies.

They have to use that to create a 'as if it is happening' series and guess and write what the characters may have said at the time, all the while keeping it entertaining and engaging for the audience watching.

They have to create drama and friction out of thin air and the only way to do that is by bending facts with fiction.
Like mentioned, this is a series meant for entertainment and not a factual documentary.
 

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
19,592
#44
They have no clue what the people actually said to each other, the tone, how they felt, their relation or attitude towards each other, etc. All they have are reports and testimonies.
They also have the fields of nuclear physics and medicine to draw on what might have happened.

They have to create drama and friction out of thin air and the only way to do that is by bending facts with fiction.
Like mentioned, this is a series meant for entertainment and not a factual documentary.
"Sir, we need more drama in our series about a nuclear disaster"
"I know, we will simply assume that nuclear radiation also causes a brief loss of gravity, imagine the drama and friction of being exposed to radiation AND not being able to run away from it."
 
Joined
Jun 12, 2007
Messages
2,015
#45
In the podcast, they admit that they took some creative liberties. Nowhere did they, or anything in the show say, that it's all based on fact.

They also mentioned in the podcast that the concern was more for the firefighters being exposed to people and any other risks given their current state of having no immune system. And of course, the chick was pregnant, which was even more reason to keep her away. They also mentioned Voices of Chernobyl many times, so it was a big reference for the writer - but he did try get info from as many sources as possible.

It was only 5 episodes, and they could only do so much in that amount of time. I really don't know what people expect.

Forbes is also blowing things a bit out of proportion if you ask me. Their source was just reviewing the show.
 
Joined
May 29, 2018
Messages
1,482
#46
They also have the fields of nuclear physics and medicine to draw on what might have happened.



"Sir, we need more drama in our series about a nuclear disaster"
"I know, we will simply assume that nuclear radiation also causes a brief loss of gravity, imagine the drama and friction of being exposed to radiation AND not being able to run away from it."

100% actually.
They do stuff like that all the time.

The series Vikings for example
Ragnar and Rolo are brothers in the series, but the two weren't even alive during the same time period.
 

upup

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
6,164
#50
Possibly yes. Everyone has bias, so it needs to be assessed accordingly.

I am pro-nuclear. I believe it is the safest and most environmentally friendly way to generate electricity.

My only reservation is around the capital costs to build these plants can be exorbitant and that may not necessarily be sustainable going forward and may actually be what stops nuclear going forward.

I am so pro-nuclear, I moved to a different country to go build one. The view outside of my office, right now of a reactor under construction. View attachment 671173
Which country will this be about
 

lumeer

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
298
#51
Ya' reckon? Delivering high dose to the diseased tissue is the easy bit. Any fool can do that. The trick is limiting the toxic dose to the healthy surrounding tissue and that dose is in the hormetic zone.
The surrounding tissue does not receive a dose in the hormetic zone. The hormetic zone is where a low dose has beneficial effects, but there are no such beneficial effects to surrounding tissue from low dose exposure. I'm not aware of any beneficial effects to healthy tissue from low dose radiation exposure, on the contrary, radiation therapy, in its various forms, slightly increases, though not by much, the chance of secondary cancers down the road.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2014
Messages
3,974
#55
When Chernobyl happened radiobiologists celebrated. It seems morbid but the Chernobyl incident filled in the missing part of the graph. Prior to Chernobyl all the data we had about the biological effects of radiation was acquired from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and involved obscene doses. The important conclusion from Chernobyl is that a bit of radiation *might* be a good thing. The official line is that we don't take that risk.

See: Linear no-threshold model.
What I find fascinating about Chernobyl is how the wildlife in the area has flourished. And what few people know is that there are still people living there. Their children are taken to Italy (I think, but away) for a few months every year to reduce their exposure to the slightly higher background radiation levels, but otherwise everything is flourishing.

I know someone who visited there and said it is an amazing how different the reality is with idea of a nuclear wasteland that we have.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,006
#56
Can you please explain to a south African, with reference to a power station, what the phrase "this project is on track" means.
It means "kuk praat". In South African.

Currently window dressing to achieve the first major milestone (which was shifted twice). Once this is achieved next week (J0 it is called) then the next one is 930 days away which is the lift of the dome over the reactor.

However all the issues that could have affected J0 have been moved to the next phase. All the senior officials from the client have already resigned and will be leaving after J0 next week as they have "delivered".

The actual complexities of building a nuclear reactor are what is next - 4 dimension chess as various levels and phases have to be seamlessly integrated in a 3-dimensional space at the correct time (hence 4D chess). This has tripped up the French (Flammanville - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant ) and Finnish (Olkiluoto - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant) reactors, which have the exact same designs and are decades late and billions over budget.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,006
#57
What I find fascinating about Chernobyl is how the wildlife in the area has flourished. And what few people know is that there are still people living there. Their children are taken to Italy (I think, but away) for a few months every year to reduce their exposure to the slightly higher background radiation levels, but otherwise everything is flourishing.

I know someone who visited there and said it is an amazing how different the reality is with idea of a nuclear wasteland that we have.
Yip. My foreman was involved in building the new containment structure over the reactor. Very interesting stories about the place. I want to go visit.
 

Arthur

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 7, 2003
Messages
23,746
#58
Possibly yes. Everyone has bias, so it needs to be assessed accordingly.

I am pro-nuclear. I believe it is the safest and most environmentally friendly way to generate electricity.

My only reservation is around the capital costs to build these plants can be exorbitant and that may not necessarily be sustainable going forward and may actually be what stops nuclear going forward.

I am so pro-nuclear, I moved to a different country to go build one. The view outside of my office, right now of a reactor under construction. View attachment 671173
Glad to hear.

High cost is imposed by government. Same government distortions inhibit the move to much safer meltdown-proof 4G reactors.
 
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
3,006
#59
Glad to hear.

High cost is imposed by government. Same government distortions inhibit the move to much safer meltdown-proof 4G reactors.
The amount of design reviews by independent designers and approvals by the Nuclear Regulator and other organisations to satisfy the Nuclear Licence Conditions are expensive and are what causes alot of the delays.

Complexities surrounding the construction certainly add to the cost.
 

upup

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
6,164
#60
It means "kuk praat". In South African.

Currently window dressing to achieve the first major milestone (which was shifted twice). Once this is achieved next week (J0 it is called) then the next one is 930 days away which is the lift of the dome over the reactor.

However all the issues that could have affected J0 have been moved to the next phase. All the senior officials from the client have already resigned and will be leaving after J0 next week as they have "delivered".

The actual complexities of building a nuclear reactor are what is next - 4 dimension chess as various levels and phases have to be seamlessly integrated in a 3-dimensional space at the correct time (hence 4D chess). This has tripped up the French (Flammanville - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamanville_Nuclear_Power_Plant ) and Finnish (Olkiluoto - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olkiluoto_Nuclear_Power_Plant) reactors, which have the exact same designs and are decades late and billions over budget.
Interesting, I have seen in France they are building a nuclear fusion power station. Is that Flammanville one.
 
Top