DOCSLIB.ORG

Avoidable Tragedy Post-Chernobyl. a Critical Analysis

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Avoidable Tragedy Post-Chernobyl. a Critical Analysis Avoidable Tragedy post-Chernobyl A Critical Analysis Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., G.N.S.H. President Emerita of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health Member of the Board of Regents, International Association of Humanitarian Medicine Journal of Humanitarian Medicine, Vol. II, No. 3, pp 21 - 28. Introduction: Journalists and mathematicians have a way of example, some people actually believe that the focussing on one aspect of a complex situation magnitude of a nuclear accident can be gauged in order to give a snapshot view of its by the potential number of cancer deaths it will magnitude. For example, one might read in the cause, and further, that cancer death is the only newspaper that a “six alarm fire” had occurred consequence! Minimalist reporting occurred in some neighbourhood. This immediately after the Three Mile Island accident, downwind conjures up the image of a very large fire of nuclear weapon testing, and at serious requiring six fire stations to send trucks to the military accidents like the one which spread scene. It gives one no clue as to the magnitude plutonium in farm land in Spain. Most recently it of loss of life or property, the water or smoke has attempted to deny that exposure to depleted damage, the impact on human lives and health, uranium weapons has caused severe health ecological impact, etc. Another example is that damage to the military veterans and the civilians of a television show rating scale. If you see an in Iraq, Kosovo and most likely, in Afghanistan. estimate of five million viewers of some special event television, you immediately understand The minimalist reporting went even further with that this is a “rounded number” meant for Chernobyl. The IAEA (International Atomic comparison only, and which does not reveal how Energy Agency) and UNSCEAR (United many people actually watched the show. Nations Scientific Committee on Atomic Certainly some televisions played to an empty Radiation) recent statement that “only 32 deaths room and some to a large number of people occurred, 200 were heavily irradiated and 2000 watching the display in the local pub .It gives no avoidable thyroid cancers” resulted from the indication of whether the watchers reacted Chernobyl disaster goes well beyond a positively or negatively to the programme. If mathematical short hand which gives immediate the event is important, we expect professionals sketch about a disaster. This fifteen-year-later to fill in the details later. report about a complex painful situation should be much more precise and believable! It rather Another misleading human custom is presenting tries to obliterate from peoples minds and an event as “small” when there exist more concerns the suffering of millions of persons in traumatic forms of the event. For example, the rural and un-evacuated areas who were exposed, radiation exposure to depleted uranium in the and hundreds of thousands evacuated but not Gulf War is presented as “small” in the face of a medically examined victims. When one probes nuclear holocaust. Such exposure is not “small” a little more deeply, one finds that the honest for the victims. scientists and physicians, trying to explain the widespread injuries and long term effects of Unfortunately, many government officials, nuclear exposure have been silenced. physicists, engineers have used this tactic to deliberately minimize the health effects of In fact immediately after the disaster of April radiation, and, in particular the immense 26, 1986, due to IAEA policy, unless a person suffering after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. For had been declared “overexposed” at the medical 1 tent set up for the “liquidators” of the disaster, Unlike the general study of toxic materials, he or she was officially considered to be a handled by Toxicologists, the field of “radio-phobia” case, a purely psychological radiation and health has been dominated by phenomenon. Local physicians told people that physicists, engineers and mathematicians since there would be no medical effects of exposure, the dawn of the nuclear era in 1943. Their until, perhaps in ten or twenty years they may health related communications differ radically happened to develop cancer. But, not to worry! in content from similar communications of These future radio-genic cancers would be health professionals in Toxicology, indistinguishable from “natural” cancers. The Occupational or Public Health. physicians soon learned from direct evidence of This field of radiation health was, with a few pathological injuries that this information from exceptions, taken over by the physicists of the the physicists was less than candid. It was not Manhattan Project after World War II, in their surprising to learn that those who tried to effort to contain the secrets of the nuclear age. minimize the disaster were the same people Radiation was an effect of the atomic bomb. charged with promoting nuclear industries, for Secrecy caused these “hard scientists” to fail to example, marketing nuclear reactors to the consider the broad range of responses and developing nations. varieties of vulnerabilities possessed by a living population exposed to this hazard. Such The experience of Chernobyl is not unique, but variation in biological responses would have follows the secrecy pattern used at many lesser been expected by health professionals.. accidents which were mishandled in the same way. This has occurred both in the developed Because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, most and developing world. In particular, I would people now know about acute radiation exposure note the radioactive pollution of the Mitsubishi syndrome, with vomiting, hair falling out, Asian Rare Earth facility in Bukit Merah, alterations in blood cells, etc., and this bit of Malaysia, the radioactive waste dumped in information has been translated into a naive Nigeria and the contaminated food distributed to belief on the part of the public, that unless acute Egypt, Papua New Guinea, India and other radiation sickness has been documented (often countries during the Chernobyl disaster clean up. by the government physicists) any subsequent severe illness observed in radiation exposed However, the health problems due to Chernobyl persons is due to something, anything, but not continue to be very acute right now, and radiation exposure. This has some historical demand international attention and action. validity, but at Chernobyl with millions of Scientists and physicians are deprived of their exposed persons in rural un-evacuated areas, freedom, and the people, especially the children, hundreds of thousands evacuated but not are suffering. This crisis can serve to point out medically examined, and with the population’s the serious secrecy, vested interest and continuous ingestion of contaminated foods for collusion of international agencies protecting the past fifteen years, demanding nuclear technologies. The public face of the documentation of radiation sickness is nuclear industry has been “clean and safe”. It is ridiculous. Even in the Japanese cities radiation important to unmask this public face, serving as sickness went undocumented for many victims. a warning to economically developing countries Radiation injury is not predicated on deciding on energy technologies and bringing documentation of acute radiation sickness, but needed humanitarian aid to the victims. rather on the alteration of a cell leading to a fatal Preserving the false image of nuclear cancer. It is well documented the these cellular technology keeps the industry and nuclear level events can occur well below the level of agencies in business. exposure which causes overt sickness. The amount of energy released by just one nuclear Lessons from Hiroshima and Nagasaki: transformation of one atom of a radioactive material is measured in thousands or millions of 2 electron volts. It requires only 6 to 10 electron volts to break the molecular bounds in the Because of this concentration on the first flash cellular DNA and RNA which carry the genes of the atomic bomb, serious mistakes have been for life. made by the radiation physicists in estimating the biological damage done by ingested or In Hiroshima and Nagasaki (1945), exposure inhaled radioactive particles, many of which and subsequent health records were not remain in the body for a long time and even complete. The research stations did not begin to enter into biochemical reactions of the cell’s select a study population until after the 1950 genetic material. Japanese census identified survivors and a 1967 dose estimate was derived by the scientists at It is this atomic bomb study which appears to be Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the U.S.. dictating much of the inappropriate behaviour of Deaths prior to 1950 were ignored. Death officials with respect to the medical treatment of certificates, which were at times incomplete, survivors of Chernobyl and other nuclear were used to determine first cause of death of accidents. It has also caused harsh treatment of the study population. Cancers which were not the honest scientists and physicians who spoke fatal were not reported until 1994. Most directly for the needs of the exposed suffering survivors are still alive so their “cause of death” people. Many of these scientists and physicians, has not yet been studied. Other non-cancer now in prison or effectively silenced, have health problems were considered to be “not of conducted well designed and executed scientific concern” and have not been systematically studies. reported. Due to the complications generated by the study There were persons who entered the of external irradiation by a bomb being used to contaminated territories of Hiroshima and evaluate civilian exposures to inhaled or Nagasaki after the fire died down, or who ingested radioactivity, and the use of this consumed radioactive contaminated food and research to educate young physicists and nuclear water, who experienced radiation sickness, but engineers, many scientific blunders and were not officially recognized as “exposed”. administrative problems were generated. The They are in the radiation exposure control group.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • General Assembly Distr.: General 27 September 2019
    United Nations A/74/461 General Assembly Distr.: General 27 September 2019 Original: English . Seventy-fourth session Agenda item 71 (d) Strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations, including special economic assistance: strengthening of international cooperation and coordination of efforts to study, mitigate and minimize the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster Persistent legacy of the Chernobyl disaster Report of the Secretary-General Summary The present report is submitted in accordance with General Assembly resolution 71/125 on the persistent legacy of the Chernobyl disaster and provides an update on the progress made in the implementation of all aspects of the resolution. The report provides an overview of the recovery and development activities undertaken by the agencies, funds and programmes of the United Nations system and other international actors to address the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The United Nations system remains committed to promoting the principle of leaving no one behind and ensuring that the governmental efforts to support the affected regions are aimed at achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals. 19-16688 (E) 041019 151019 *1916688* A/74/461 I. General situation 1. Since the Chernobyl nuclear plant accident on 26 April 1986, the United Nations, along with the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, has been leading the recovery and development efforts to support the affected regions. While extensive humanitarian work was conducted immediately after the accident, additional recovery and rehabilitation activities were conducted in the following years to secure the area, limit the exposure of the population, provide medical follow-up to those affected and study the health consequences of the incident.
    [Show full text]
  • Present and Future Environmental Impact of the Chernobyl Accident
    IAEA-TECDOC-1240 Present and future environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident Study monitored by an International Advisory Committee under the project management of the Institut de protection et de sûreté nucléaire (IPSN), France August 2001 The originating Section of this publication in the IAEA was: Waste Safety Section International Atomic Energy Agency Wagramer Strasse 5 P.O. Box 100 A-1400 Vienna, Austria PRESENT AND FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT IAEA, VIENNA, 2001 IAEA-TECDOC-1240 ISSN 1011–4289 © IAEA, 2001 Printed by the IAEA in Austria August 2001 FOREWORD The environmental impact of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident has been extensively investigated by scientists in the countries affected and by international organizations. Assessment of the environmental contamination and the resulting radiation exposure of the population was an important part of the International Chernobyl Project in 1990–1991. This project was designed to assess the measures that the then USSR Government had taken to enable people to live safely in contaminated areas, and to evaluate the measures taken to safeguard human health there. It was organized by the IAEA under the auspices of an International Advisory Committee with the participation of the Commission of the European Communities (CEC), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The IAEA has also been engaged in further studies in this area through projects such as the one on validation of environmental model predictions (VAMP) and through its technical co-operation programme.
    [Show full text]
  • Late Lessons from Chernobyl, Early Warnings from Fukushima
    Emerging issues | Late lessons from Chernobyl, early warnings from Fukushima 18 Late lessons from Chernobyl, early warnings from Fukushima Paul Dorfman, Aleksandra Fucic and Stephen Thomas The nuclear accident at Fukushima in Japan occurred almost exactly 25 years after the Chernobyl nuclear accident in 1986. Analysis of each provides valuable late and early lessons that could prove helpful to decision-makers and the public as plans are made to meet the energy demands of the coming decades while responding to the growing environmental costs of climate change and the need to ensure energy security in a politically unstable world. This chapter explores some key aspects of the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents, the radiation releases, their effects and their implications for any construction of new nuclear plants in Europe. There are also lessons to be learned about nuclear construction costs, liabilities, future investments and risk assessment of foreseeable and unexpected events that affect people and the environment. Since health consequences may start to arise from the Fukushima accident and be documented over the next 5–40 years, a key lesson to be learned concerns the multifactorial nature of the event. In planning future radiation protection, preventive measures and bio-monitoring of exposed populations, it will be of great importance to integrate the available data on both cancer and non-cancer diseases following overexposure to ionising radiation; adopt a complex approach to interpreting data, considering the impacts of age, gender and geographical dispersion of affected individuals; and integrate the evaluation of latency periods between exposure and disease diagnosis development for each cancer type.
    [Show full text]
  • Chernobyl: Chronology of a Disaster
    MARCH 11, 2011 | No. 724 CHERNOBYL: CHRONOLOGY OF A DISASTER CHERNOBYL; CHRONOLOGY OF A DISASTER 1 INHOUD: 1- An accident waiting to happen 2 2- The accident and immediate consequences ( 1986 – 1989) 4 3- Trying to minimize the consequences (1990 – 2000) 8 4- Aftermath: no lessons learned (2001 - 2011) 5- Postscript 18 Chernobyl - 200,000 sq km contaminated; 600,000 liquidators; $200 billion in damage; 350,000 people evacuated; 50 mln Ci of radiation. Are you ready to pay this price for the development of nuclear power? (Poster by Ecodefence, 2011) 1 At 1.23 hr on April 26, 1986, the fourth reactor of the Cherno- power plants are designed to withstand natural disasters (hur- byl nuclear power plant exploded. ricanes, fl oods, earthquakes, etc.) and to withstand aircraft The disaster was a unique industrial accident due to the crash and blasts from outside. The safety is increased by scale of its social, economic and environmental impacts and the possibility in Russia to select a site far away from bigger longevity. It is estimated that, in Ukraine, Belarus and Russia towns." (page 647: "Zur Betriebssicherheit sind die Kraftwerke alone, around 9 million people were directly affected resulting (VVER and RBMK) mit drei parallel arbeitenden Sicherheit- from the fact that the long lived radioactivity released was systeme ausgeruested. Die Kraftwerke sing gegen Naturka- more than 200 times that of the atomic bombs dropped on tastrophen (Orkane, Ueberschwemmungen, Erdbeben, etc) Hiroshima and Nagasaki. und gegen Flugzeugabsturz und Druckwellen von aussen ausgelegt. Die Sicherheit wird noch durch die in Russland Across the former Soviet Union the contamination resulted in moegliche Standortauswahl, KKW in gewisser Entfernung van evacuation of some 400,000 people.
    [Show full text]
  • International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period
    Cov-INL PostChernobyl 6146 27/06/06 14:59 Page 1 International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period A Joint Report NUCLEAR•ENERGY•AGENCY A Joint Report by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency ISBN 92-64-02293-7 and the International Atomic Energy Agency International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period © OECD 2006 NEA No. 6146 NUCLEAR ENERGY AGENCY ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT The OECD is a unique forum where the governments of 30 democracies work together to address the economic, social and environmental challenges of globalisation. The OECD is also at the forefront of efforts to understand and to help governments respond to new developments and concerns, such as corporate governance, the information economy and the challenges of an ageing population. The Organisation provides a setting where governments can compare policy experiences, seek answers to common problems, identify good practice and work to co-ordinate domestic and international policies. The OECD member countries are: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Commission of the European Communities takes part in the work of the OECD. OECD Publishing disseminates widely the results of the Organisation’s statistics gathering and research on economic, social and environmental issues, as well as the conventions, guidelines and standards agreed by its members. * * * This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident : Its Decommissioning, The
    The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident : its decommissioning, the Interim Spent Fuel Storage ISF-2, the nuclear waste treatment plants and the Safe Confinement project. by Dr. Ing. Fulcieri Maltini Ph.D. SMIEEE, life, PES, Comsoc FM Consultants Associates, France Keywords Nuclear power, Disaster engineering, Decommissioning, Waste management & disposal, Buildings, structures & design. Abstract On April 26, 1986, the Unit 4 of the RBMK nuclear power plant of Chernobyl, in Ukraine, went out of control during a test at low-power, leading to an explosion and fire. The reactor building was totally demolished and very large amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere for several hundred miles around the site including the nearby town of Pripyat. The explosion leaving tons of nuclear waste and spent fuel residues without any protection and control. Several square kilometres were totally contaminated. Several hundred thousand people were affected by the radiation fall out. The radioactive cloud spread across Europe affecting most of the northern, eastern, central and southern Europe. The initiative of the G7 countries to launch an important programme for the closure of some Soviet built nuclear plants was accepted by several countries. A team of engineers was established within the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development were a fund was provided by the donor countries for the entire design, management of all projects and the plants decommissioning. The Chernobyl programme includes the establishment of a safety strategy for the entire site remediation and the planning for the plant decommissioning. Several facilities that will process and store the spent fuel and the radioactive liquid and solid waste as well as to protect the plant damaged structures have been designed and are under construction.
    [Show full text]
  • The IAEA Conventions on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident Or Radiological Emergency
    International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period The IAEA Conventions on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency by Hon. Prof. em. Rechtsanwalt DDr. Berthold Moser∗ Abstract This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the provisions of both conventions. Special attention is paid to the rules of the Convention on Early Notification which identify the event subject to notification and the content and addressees of the information provided with regard to a nuclear accident, as well as to the provisions of the Convention on Assistance concerning the request and grant of international assistance with regard to a nuclear accident and the duties attributed in this field to the IAEA. The author also considers the liability questions raised by that convention. I. General In the wake of the Chernobyl reactor accident on 26 April 1986, discussions were initiated in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) with the object of strengthening international co-operation in the development and use of nuclear energy. To that end, the intention, among other things, was that IAEA Member States (and the IAEA itself) should be under an obligation, in the event of an accident in their own country, to notify any other states for which there was a danger of harmful radiological effects as quickly as possible. It was also the intention that Member States and the IAEA should agree on an undertaking to provide assistance in the case of a nuclear accident or a radiological emergency. The Chernobyl accident in the Ukraine had radiological consequences on an unprecedented scale on the territory of other states not limited to those bordering the USSR.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the International Atomic Energy Agency: First Forty Years, by David Fischer
    IAEA_History.qxd 10.01.2003 11:01 Uhr Seite 1 HISTORY OF THE INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC Also available: ENERGY International Atomic Energy Agency: Personal Reflections (18 ✕ 24 cm; 311 pp.) AGENCY The reflections are written by a group of distinguished scientists and diplomats who were involved in the establishment or The First Forty Years subsequent work of the IAEA. It represents a collection of by ‘essays’ which offer a complementary and personal view on some of the topics considered in the full history. David Fischer A fortieth anniversary publication ISBN 92–0–102397–9 IAEA_History.qxd 10.01.2003 11:01 Uhr Seite 2 The ‘temporary’ In 1979, the Austrian headquarters of Government and the IAEA in the City of Vienna the Grand Hotel, on completed construction the Ringstrasse in of the Vienna central Vienna. International Centre The Agency remained (VIC), next to the there for some Donaupark, which twenty years, until 1979. became the permanent home of the IAEA and other UN organizations. Austria generously made the buildings and facilities at the VIC available at the ‘peppercorn’ rent of one Austrian Schilling a year. IAEA_History.qxd 10.01.2003 11:01 Uhr Seite 2 The ‘temporary’ In 1979, the Austrian headquarters of Government and the IAEA in the City of Vienna the Grand Hotel, on completed construction the Ringstrasse in of the Vienna central Vienna. International Centre The Agency remained (VIC), next to the there for some Donaupark, which twenty years, until 1979. became the permanent home of the IAEA and other UN organizations. Austria generously made the buildings and facilities at the VIC available at the ‘peppercorn’ rent of one Austrian Schilling a year.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity C: the Chernobyl Disaster
    Activity C: The Chernobyl Disaster Teacher’s Briefing Activity C: The Chernobyl Disaster Further notes Plenary activity Curriculum links Materials for Students Question sheet Map cards A3 map Download this resource www.cnduk.org/activity-c 23 Activity C: The Chernobyl Disaster: Activity overview Concepts to examine Overview Nuclear accidents, the effects of – In pairs or small groups, students match up the cards of information about the radiation on humans, the effects of effects of the nuclear fallout from Chernobyl and discuss its effects. radiation on the environment. Instructions Materials and space needed – Split the students into pairs or small groups and provide each group with a Tables for pair/small group work, A3 copy of the map of Europe. maps of Europe (if you do not have – Instruct the students to match the cards detailing the effects to the access to a colour photocopier, then corresponding countries on the map. further copies of the map are – In their pairs or small groups, ask the students to write down the countries in available. distance order from the disaster. For each country, students should also list one effect the radiation had on that area. Learning outcomes – Go around the class asking groups in turn to feed back a country (and one By the end of the lesson: effect) in distance order. All students should be able to identify what sort of power station Plenary exploded and name an effect. To discuss: – Imagine that you and your family had to leave your town at short notice due to Most students will be able to name a nuclear disaster.
    [Show full text]
  • Present and Future Environmental Impact of the Chernobyl Accident
    XA0102711 IAEA-TECDOC-1240 \ - Present and future environmental impact of the Chernobyl accident Study monitored by an International Advisory Committee under the project management of the Institut de protection et de surete nucleaire (IPSN), France ffl IAEA 32/ 40 August 2001 IAEA SAFETY RELATED PUBLICATIONS IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS Under the terms of Article III of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to establish standards of safety for protection against ionizing radiation and to provide for the application of these standards to peaceful nuclear activities. The regulatory related publications by means of which the IAEA establishes safety standards and measures are issued in the IAEA Safety Standards Series. This series covers nuclear safety, radiation safety, transport safety and waste safety, and also general safety (that is, of relevance in two or more of the four areas), and the categories within it are Safety Fundamentals, Safety Requirements and Safety Guides. • Safety Fundamentals (silver lettering) present basic objectives, concepts and principles of safety and protection in the development and application of atomic energy for peaceful purposes. • Safety Requirements (red lettering) establish the requirements that must be met to ensure safety. These requirements, which are expressed as 'shall' statements, are governed by the objectives and principles presented in the Safety Fundamentals. • Safety Guides (green lettering) recommend actions, conditions or procedures for meeting safety requirements. Recommendations in Safety Guides are expressed as 'should' statements, with the implication that it is necessary to take the measures recommended or equivalent alternative measures to comply with the requirements. The IAEA's safety standards are not legally binding on Member States but may be adopted by them, at their own discretion, for use in national regulations in respect of their own activities.
    [Show full text]
  • SOVIET DECISIONMAKING for CHERNOBYL : an ANALYSIS of SYSTEM PERFORMANCE and POLICY CHANG E By
    NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARC H TITLE : SOVIET DECISION_MAKING FOR CHERNOBYL : An Analysis of System Performance an d Policy Chang e AUTHOR : William C. Potte r CONTRACTOR : University of California, Los Angele s PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR : William C . Potte r COUNCIL CONTRACT NUMBER : 802-1 2 DATE : March, 199 0 The work leading to this report was supported by funds provided by the National Council for Soviet and East European Research . Th e analysis and interpretations contained in the report are those o f the author . EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SOVIET DECISIONMAKING FOR CHERNOBYL : AN ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND POLICY CHANG E by William C . Potte r This report analyzes the systemic (as opposed to technical ) factors which contributed to the April 26, 1986 Chernobyl nuclea r accident, assesses the performance of the major organizationa l actors at Chernobyl, analyzes the impact of the accident on polic y change with respect to nuclear safety, and discerns lessons fro m the performance of Soviet organizations at Chernobyl that may b e applicable to other crisis situations . Its major conclusions may be summarized as follows : * Chernobyl was only the latest and most catastrophic in a lon g series of sometimes fatal accidents at Soviet nuclear powe r facilities ; * The Chernobyl accident should not have been totall y unanticipated, especially when viewed against the prior record o f accidents at Soviet nuclear facilities ; * Gorbachev may have been the patron of one of the few pre - Chernobyl nuclear safety critics
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Power: a Sustainable Risk?
    Daniels Fund Ethics Initiative University of New Mexico http://danielsethics.mgt.unm.edu Debate Nuclear Power: A Sustainable Risk? ISSUE: Despite the fact that nuclear power is a more sustainable energy source than fossil fuels, is it worth the risks it poses to people and the environment? Nuclear accidents have made people nervous ever since nuclear power first started being seriously investigated as an energy source. The partial nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979 and the Soviet Union Chernobyl accident in 1986 made these fears appear warranted, particularly as radiation from the Chernobyl disaster was believed to have contributed to many deaths and environmental damage. However, better control procedures and technology through the years has made nuclear power plants safer and more likely to be seen as an acceptable power source. However, in 2011 a natural disaster caused many people to reexamine the advantages and disadvantages of nuclear power as an alternative energy source. An 8.9 magnitude earthquake and the following tsunami devastated Japan and the surrounding Pacific regions. The disaster caused serious damage to the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant in Japan. The nuclear plant underwent major explosions and fires, which caused a partial meltdown. This event caused long-term, if not permanent, changes to many people’s lives and the surrounding environment. Radioactivity in food, land, and water is an issue that the region has had to deal with since the incident. Nuclear power is produced by using the radioactive element uranium as the impetus for deriving energy by means of nuclear fission. Nuclear fission occurs when neutrons collide into the nucleus of an element, splitting the atom in half and generating heat.
    [Show full text]