Introduction I first became aware of the accident that occurred in Chernobyl on a trip to Austria in the summer of 2014. A special temporary museum exhibit that detailed the event intrigued both of my parents who each come from scientific fields. The images of mutated children and animals frightened me. I knew radiation was bad, but I didn’t know radiation. After that exhibit, I came ​ ​ across some videos about the topic during my many hours browsing YouTube. Years later, I would learn about environmental legislation during my junior year in high school, where Chernobyl was mentioned as a revolutionary driving force for stricter sustainability laws. Later in that year, as I was scraping my memory for something I was passionate about, something that stirred emotion, I remembered the images I had been exposed to four years ago. With limited knowledge about the accident history and my interest in the environment, I decided to research Chernobyl. Not sure where to start, I decided that I needed to learn about what had actually happened so that I could make my own conclusions based on the facts. What I found however, was that there was a lot of fluctuation in accounts of the disaster, and even fluctuations in reported statistics. This was explained when I learned more about the government’s role in the incident. With this in mind, I knew that I would have to draw upon knowledge from a variety of sources to attempt to get an idea of what the truth looked like. I looked at databases, newspapers, photographs, and many first hand accounts, and even interviewed someone who had visited and photographed the site. My idea entering the research paper was that the explosions served as an example of how if humans are not careful, we may become too technologically advanced for our own good. And while this remains a significant overtone in the arrangement of my findings, I found that there is a lot of optimism and lessons learned from the site. With this in mind, the drawing of the radiation cloud looming over the young girl comes first, as a symbol of the dramatic impact of the accident. Followed by the research paper, which switches this idea of negativity to one that is focused on learning from mistakes. The picture of the abandoned school transitions to the poem and short story. The poem contains both appeals to the reader’s emotions and portrays the eerie disappearance of so many people. The short story is based on the actual Grigori Medvedev’s experiences, which has implications that the government is to blame. The quote and image following also build on this idea, with the Russian definition of “liquidator”. To wrap up the idea that we have reason to be optimistic about the remediation of the site and development of new technology, I included the interview with Paul Hill-Gibbins, who talked about his positive experiences in Ukraine and his belief in the ability of nature to reclaim the Exclusion Zone. And thus, a representation of my own discovery is translated into the order in which the research is presented. However, remembering the ideas of greater magnitude is important, as it puts certain events and past decisions into context. CHERNOBYL Jetson Ku Jetson Ku AP Language & Composition - Class 1 Mrs. Marks 9 May 2018 The Last Extinction Introduction So far, throughout the observed history of our planet, there have been five mass extinctions, with a sixth ongoing. While the routine loss of species is a natural process in effect since the beginning of life on Earth, mass extinctions implicate periods of drastic changes in biodiversity and balance of ecosystems. According to The Gale Encyclopedia of Science, “The ​ classical explanation for the lesser and greater mass extinctions of life included climatic change […] With the 1980 publication of a widely cited paper in the journal Science (by American ​ ​ physicist Luis W. Alvarez [1911–1988] and others) that showed strong evidence of comet or ​ ​ asteroid impact at the 65-million year old mass extinction boundary (the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary), many investigations shifted toward possible cosmic impact as the cause of other mass extinctions.” (King Jr.). However the most recent decline in species has different implications. As stated in the Center for Biological Diversity’s article on “The Extinction Crisis”, we may very well be in the midst of another mass extinction, with species loss increased to 1,000-10,000 times the “background” rate. The article goes on to state that 99 percent of currently threatened species are at risk from human activity, citing climate change, invasive species and habitat loss as three examples of humans’ adverse effects on the environment. These statistics also happen to support the theory of Thomas Malthus, who believed that humans would eventually bring upon themselves famine and poverty. Through over-reproduction, and the tendency of humans to increase their own carrying capacity so as to remain unchecked by nature, it would seem that eventually there will be an end to the innovation allowing us to exponentially flourish. The result is immense pressure on scientists to develop new technology in an attempt to outrace the growth of the population. And with pressure, comes mistakes. Instrument of Destruction Initially, scientists believed nuclear power to be impractical. After tests at the University of Chicago in 1942 however, the energy potential of controlled nuclear reactions was successfully demonstrated. In theory, nuclear fission sounds ideal. Bombard Uranium isotopes with neutrons so that they will split into more neutrons that split more Uranium atoms, and you have a chain reaction on your hands. The energy also produced during this reaction was unprecedented in magnitude and efficiency. Alas, the reaction of so powerful an element proved to be difficult to control. During development of the atomic bombs during World War II, there was no real need to manage the reaction. However, when attempting to harness the same type of energy to power a house, more care must be taken. Scientists found that control rods, devices that regulated the number of neutrons in the reactor cores of nuclear power plants, were necessary to keep the reaction going and to keep it from releasing too much energy. Along with these rods, a cooling water system must be implemented to slow the rate of fission in the core. The purpose of these extensive safety measures is to prevent mass exposure of the radiation to humans. The Gale Encyclopedia of Science states that “Biological damage caused by exposure to ionizing [radiation] ranges from mild tissue burns to cancer, genetic damage, and ​ ​ ultimately, death.” (Haycock). While there are many different classifications of forms in which ​ ​ radioactive material can be exposed to humans, the effects are understood to be extremely harmful to human health as stated above. The unit “rad” measure the dose of radiation that one gram of a substance absorbs. One inconsistency that the Gale Encyclopedia mentions however, is that the rad does not accurately show the effects that the dose may have on human health, as radiation from different sources may produce rads with different human tissue interactions. Consequently the “rem” was implemented as a unit that recorded “the dose of any radiation that produces the same biological effect, or dose equivalent, in humans as one rad x ray.” (Haycock). These are both two of the units commonly used in the study of radiation today. Visible radiation, such as from sources emitting visible light and sources emitting infrared waves transfer energy to whole molecules. The energy absorbed by these molecules can cause them to vibrate, which could be problematic when these molecules makes up human tissue. In ionizing radiation, energy is absorbed by electrons near the nuclei of molecules. As the electrons are disturbed, they may move from the energy level in which they belong , causing health problems such as sunburn, damage to skin, and eventually skin cancers. Damaged molecules may also interact with unaffected molecules which can damage them. For example, DNA may be affected so that it cannot be copied, resulting in genetic malfunctions. Pripyat “At 1:24 a.m. local time on Saturday, April 26, Unit 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was rocked by two enormous explosions. The roof was blown off the plant and radioactive gasses and materials were sent more than thirty-six hundred feet (eleven hundred meters) into the atmosphere. Two workers were killed instantly and another dozen received levels of radiation that would cause their death within the next two weeks.” (“Chernobyl accident”). Widely regarded as one of the worst environmental disasters in history, The explosions in Ukraine in 1986 would capture the world’s attention and leave lasting impacts expected to continue for centuries. Situated near the borders of Ukraine and Belarus, the nuclear power plant had held four reactors and generated somewhere near four gigawatts, with construction for fifth and sixth reactors underway at the time of the accident. The complex utilized graphite as a controlling substance that slowed neutrons passing through, along with water that cooled the hot reactors. According to “When Technology Fails”, 15% of the country’s electricity was produced by nuclear power plants, with upwards of 20 other plants using similar designs to facilitate reactions. Confident in the practicality of the process however, authorities in Moscow chose to ignore warnings from American scientists that had been delivered for almost a decade before the accident. In reality, there was indeed cause for concern, as the Soviets’ design did not include containment shells and left a large vulnerability to loss of control when the cooling water is lost. The U.S.