DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Interest Report Federation of American Scientists PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT Volume 69, Number 2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Public Interest Report Federation of American Scientists PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT Volume 69, Number 2 Public Interest Report Federation of American Scientists PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT Volume 69, Number 2 STAFF TABLE OF CONTENTS CHARLES D. FERGUSON Humanitarian Consequences of Editor-in-Chief Nuclear Accidents and Detonations 1 by Charles D. Ferguson FRANKIE GUARINI Managing Editor, Layout Designer FAS in 2016: Year in Review 2 PIA ULRICH Copy Editor Turning a Blind Eye Towards Armageddon — U.S. Leaders Reject Nuclear Winter Studies 4 CONTRIBUTORS by Steven Starr CHARLES D. FERGUSON pp. 1, 16 President, Federation of American Scientists Chernobyl and Trinity —Counting STEVEN STARR p. 4 the Curies 12 Director, Clinical Laboratory Science Program, by B. Cameron Reed University of Missouri-Columbia Revisiting Chernobyl 16 B. CAMERON REED p. 12 Chair and Professor of Physics, Alma College by Charles D. Ferguson EDWARD A. FRIEDMAN p. 17 Calculating the Uncountable Deaths Professor Emeritus, Stevens Institute of from Chernobyl 17 Technology by Edward A. Friedman LETTER TO THE EDITOR Cover Photo The Federation of American Scientists “Third Angel Statue” in Pripyat, Ukraine, a nuclear welcomes letters to the editor for the PIR. city that served the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant until its evacuation following the Chernobyl disaster Letters should not exceed 500 words and may on April 26, 1986. It is now part of an exclusion zone be edited for clarity, length, and compliance formed after the Chernobyl accident in response to with FAS’s editorial standards before the resulting radiation. It is based on the Bible verse: publication on fas.org (pending the author’s “The third angel sounded his trumpet, and a great star, approval and at FAS’s discretion). blazing like a torch, fell from the sky on a third of the rivers and on the springs of water—the name of the star is Wormwood. A third of the waters turned bitter, and many To submit a letter, email it to [email protected] or people died from the waters that had become bitter.” send it by mail to: Revelation 8:10-11 Attn: Public Interest Report A complete archive of the PIR is available at: Federation of American Scientists fas.org/publications/public-interest-reports. 1725 DeSales Street NW, Suite 600 © 2016 Federation of American Scientists. Washington, DC 20036 All rights reserved. i Winter 2016/2017 fas.org level of less than a few dozen. Above this threshold, nu- President’s Message clear winter could be triggered if these warheads were detonated on targets that could result in massive amounts of soot and particulate matter being lofted into the upper Humanitarian atmosphere. Political and military leaders could dismiss this concern by believing that there is too much uncer- tainty in the calculations or by convincing themselves that a relatively large number of weapons is still necessary for Consequences political and military power projection. The increasing global attention about the humanitarian of Nuclear consequences of nuclear war has paralleled the ongoing massive cleanup of contamination around the Fukushi- ma Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in Japan. Several tens of Accidents and thousands of people are still displaced from their homes, though no one has died in the past near-six years since the Fukushima accident as a result of radiation exposure. The Detonations long-term health effects from radiation, however, have yet Charles D. Ferguson to be seen, but arguably the number of cancers developed President, Federation of American Scientists from this exposure should be small because of the rela- tively quick evacuation of the population from the affected n the past three years, more and more nations have ex- region. pressed a growing concern about the humanitarian im- pact of the use of nuclear weapons. Since spring 2013, Chernobyl’s radiation effects dwarf Fukushima’s because a few international conferences and forums have brought of the roughly ten times greater land contamination in I Belarus, Ukraine, and some other parts of Europe as com- together experts to examine the potential impacts. For example, Hans Kristensen, Director of the FAS Nuclear pared to Japan, and because the evacuation of most of the Information Project, presented at a Vienna conference in population affected by this Chernobyl-caused contami- December 2014. As negotiations on a proposed treaty to nation was delayed by days due to the Soviet authorities ban nuclear weapons are set to start in spring 2017, FAS hiding the fact of the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear will continue to analyze the science of nuclear effects and Power Station on April 26, 1986. In this Public Interest Re- policy implications of a world without nuclear weapons. port, professor emeritus Edward Friedman tries to find an answer to the question: What is the order of magnitude In this issue of the Public Interest Report, Steven Starr calls number of deaths in the past 30 years due to radiation for national and global leadership in taking action to avert exposure? He is not even asking for the exact number of the potential triggering of nuclear winter by even a “small- deaths from this exposure, which we will never know. The scale” nuclear war, which would be a major humanitari- order of magnitude effect is still important to know from an consequence on agriculture as well as the huge blast a policy perspective. But the answer is not so easy to find effects. As Mr. Starr argues, political and military leaders out as explained in his essay. Dr. Friedman calls for an in- should not ignore the non-blast effects of nuclear weap- dependent body of experts to study this question. ons. As Lynn Eden has examined in her path-breaking book, Whole World on Fire (2004), the military has not Dr. Cameron Reed’s article examines a scientific question taken into account the massive firestorms that would be in the middle ground between the issues addressed by Dr. created by detonation of nuclear weapons on cities. The Friedman and Mr. Starr. That is, Dr. Reed estimates, via cal- military was only giving “credit” to blast damage; thus, in culations and a literature survey, the radioactivity released effect, thinking of nuclear weapons as just very big con- by the first fission bomb, which was named Trinity. Like ventional weapons and thereby dismissing the tremen- the other two articles, Dr. Reed’s article is relevant for bet- dous harm from firestorms on buildings and other urban ter public policy in consideration of the effects of even just infrastructure. Mr. Starr cites relatively recent computer one nuclear explosion. Fortunately, it has been more than simulation studies of “small” nuclear wars involving dozens 71 years since nuclear weapons were detonated in war. of nuclear detonations in India and Pakistan. These simu- lations indicate that potentially one billion or more people Almost all people alive today have no memory of those in and outside these countries could starve to death due to events and thus might discount their reality. However, sci- the massive cooling effects on food production. entists must not allow any of us to forget the effects by educating the public and political leaders through scien- Highly competent scientists have performed these calcu- tific analysis. As FAS ventures into its next 71 years, we will lations, which sound the alarm of potentially catastrophic work diligently to bring people with diverse expertise to- damage, while non-scientists in leadership positions have gether to apply the best scientific, political, social, and le- chosen not to act on this warning. Of course, the implica- gal thinking, as appropriate, to make the world safer from tion for the leaders is that they should drastically reduce catastrophic risks, such as nuclear war or severe nuclear the number of nuclear warheads to under the threshold accidents. 1 Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004). 1 Public Interest Report Federation of American Scientists Federation of American Scientists 70 YEARS OF SCIENCE In September, FAS hosted its 70th an- niversary symposium and awards cere- mony on Capitol Hill to discuss issues of science and policy and honor three scientists who have contributed signifi- cantly to the world at large: M. Granger Morgan, Maxine Singer, and Ted Pos- tol. Other guests included: Congress- man Bill Foster, Senator Ed Markey, and President Obama’s senior science and technology advisor, John Holdren. SCIENTISTS’ NETWORK Throughout 2016, FAS has engaged dozens of expert scientists and poli- cymakers to write original content for FAS publications, to become members of FAS task forces, and even to provide a platform for young to mid-career scientists to showcase their exempla- ry work and start a dialogue with the hundreds of FAS-affiliated scientists, policymakers, and thinkers alike. 60 MINUTES ADVISORY Hans Kristensen, Director of the FAS Nuclear Information Project, appeared on two episodes of 60 Minutes, in- cluding the episode, “Risk of nuclear attack rises.” Kristensen also advised CBS News journalists who produced the 60 Minutes episodes and provided an on-air demonstration to 60 Minutes correspondent David Martin detailing Russian bomber travel routes. 2 Winter 2016/2017 fas.org 2016: Year in Review IRAN DEAL EXPERTISE Christopher A. Bidwell, Senior Fellow for Nonproliferation Policy and Law at FAS, appeared on both Voice of Ameri- ca and Sky News Arabia as a key expert to discuss the ramifications and out- look of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — the Iran nuclear agreement. Bidwell also is a member of the FAS task force on Iran and has published an analysis on the future of the deal, available on fas.org. TASK FORCE REPORT Through the FAS Task Force Mod- el, which unites several scientists and policymakers with FAS experts to pro- vide an interdisciplinary approach to solving problems, Alain Tournyol du Clos, a lead architect of France’s naval nuclear propulsion program, authored an FAS-sponsored special report ad- dressing France’s decision to use low-enriched uranium in its naval nu- clear propulsion program.
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]