Fun With Conspiracy Theories: Did the Chernobyl Disaster Cover Up Something Even Worse?

newsweek ^ | 1/27/15 at 2:17 PM | Alexander Nazaryan

[BenLurkin]

BY the way, I have read your work on FR, and I’m sure I’m not to tell you this, but you write exceptionally well.

[Lazamataz]

Thanks. I’m hoping to be able to turn that into a second career. ... or, who knows, maybe a first. :)

[SgtHooper]

I do! One of the most touching moments ever in that series!

[Vermont Lt]

Not too many around here. 9pm on Sunday is way past a lot of bed times.

[Lee'sGhost]

Yup.

[Nifster]

Thanks for explaining the theory of everything for me....well done :)

[Nifster]

we are truly pwned

[Billthedrill]

Odd piece from Alexander Nazaryan, a writer who is actually very good. Disjointed. No flow, which isn't much like him. I suspect the Newsweak editorial staff...

I don't buy the conspiracy theory for the same reason the author doesn't: the fact that something that big and ruinously expensive didn't work was nothing to get overly concerned with in the Soviet Union so long as it could be denied internationally. Covering that up with something that couldn't, would have been elephantine even by Cold War standards. There was that interesting tidbit about why the reactor containment was so light that makes a lot of sense - it was supposed to be. That, I didn't know.

[Grampa Dave]

Thanks for your excellent summary.

Another affirmation that I made a good move, when I cancelled my subscriptions to Newsweak and Slime because of their lies and bias against President Reagan.