Chernobyl Disasters Socio-Economic and Environmental Impact

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Introduction

Over two decades ago, the world witnessed the most serious nuclear accidents in the history of mankind. The accident occurred on 26 April 1986, when an explosion occurred as a result of a technical mistake from the nuclear power plant. This accident changed many peoples lives as huge amount of radioactive elements were released into the atmosphere. The released radioactive materials formed huge clouds with disastrous impact all over Europe, with extensive impact being realized in the immediate surroundings where the accident occurred. Currently, these areas form major parts of Russia, and its neighbors Ukraine and Belarus, whose people are still experiencing the biggest wrath of the scientific mistake of the 20^th century.

In fact, it is estimated that the accident contaminated 125,000 sq. miles of the three countries, with accurate long term impact yet to be realized in the global arena (Cheney 5). This is because the genetic changes associated with nucleotides can never be shown in the people affected but in many of their generations to come, usually more than three. To further aggravate the matter, it was estimated that 40% of the area contaminated was initially under agricultural use, while the rest was basically natural land composed of natural forest, water bodies and some urban centers (Cheney 6).

Overview of the Accident and its Impact

The April of 1986 saw one of the most serious accidents in the history of nuclear power. This accident happened in Unit 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, formerly under the larger Soviet Union. The Chernobyl reactor vessel exploded after some technical error which led to series of fire for a period of over 10 days (Dyatloy 16). This fire caused huge amount of radioactive materials to be released into the atmosphere.

Some of the most common radioactive materials that emerged from the cloud of radioactive smoke were iodine, and caesium radionuclide materials. This smoke was felt in the larger part of Europe. The complexity of Chernobyl accident impact is mainly represented in the lifespan of many of the radioactive elements. For example, radioactive caesium- 137 is considered one of the most dangerous elements since it not only contributes to the external dose of an animal but also internal part of the bodies. Its longer lifespan (half-life of 30 years) does not make things easier either. This is why until today the element can be detected in soils and even some foods in larger parts of Europe, particularly crops grown in the Soviet Union (Karpan 41). The other common element is the radioactive iodine- 131; known to be the lead contributor to thyroid doses. However, it has a shorter lifespan as compared to radioactive caesium. The most affected region of Europe was the former Soviet Union, currently occupied by Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine.

Between 1986 and 1987, a total of 350 000 emergency workers that comprised of army, staff from the power plant, police, and firemen were all initiated into the rescue program (Karpan 42). 70% of the rescue workers were deployed in the mitigation programs that organized the people affected within the range of 30 km radius. As time went by, the number of people adversely affected by the radioactive elements was estimated to be about 600000, with the most affected ones from the immediate region where the explosion took place (Karpan 42).

The governments of the three countries have resorted to classify the areas that were affected into various levels, depending on the effects. The region is currently occupied by well over 5.million people (Fesenko 345). These areas have been classified as contaminated. Out of this number, about 400 000 people have been considered to be living in the most affected regions, classified as areas of strict radiation control (Fesenko 345). Over 115000 people of the total highly affected individuals who were evacuated immediately after 1986 from the region surrounding the power plant, defined as exclusion zone to other areas that were not contaminated (Fesenko 346). The subsequent evacuation in later years saw 220000 affected group moved to other areas.

The Actions Undertaken to Control Impact on Health

In an effort to help control the health impact of Chernobyl disaster, the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine combined forces to treat and control more health consequences. This was after several children and adolescents under 18 years of age were found to be the most affected group (Chernobyl Forum 15). Many of them were treated and continuously monitored to ensure they were safe and less prone to more infections. For long term treatment and mitigation initiatives, different classes of affected people were identified:

The first is the group of workers at the plant, both before and after the accident (these included even the rescue workers)
The former residents of the region that was contaminated. This group was evacuated to other safe regions, but after already inhaling the radioactive materials
The residents of the contaminated regions that were never evacuated because it was assumed that they were not adversely exposed to danger (Chernobyl Forum 11).

Factory workers at the time of the accident as well as rescue team were the most affected groups as they were the immediate people to come face to face with highly concentrated radioactive elements. This is because they were the immediate people at the accident scene. They were totaled at 1000 people and were the immediate people who came at the scene of the accident, making some of the most fatal cases of the health impact of the accidents (Chernobyl Forum 5). To help the affected groups cope, emergency measures were taken, with the affected group getting more access to wider range of healthcare services (Belarus Foreign Ministry 3). Other long-term measures have also been taken are rehabilitation of the contaminated areas to reduce more possible health problems to the residence. It is noted that these rehabilitation programs are still on going to date.

These mitigation measures were spearheaded by the national authorities of the respective countries, supported by the international community under the banner of World Health Organization. This significantly helped reduce the health consequences associated with the accident. For example, the people who were exposed to the radioactive elements ingested contaminated foods that were grown in the region of the accident (Yablokov 14). This is considering the fact that 40% of the affected region was under agricultural use. According to the Belarus government report, those diagnosed with thyroid doses exhibited different levels of the element ingestion, attributed to the level of closeness the person was with the factory, and what type of food they ate (Yablokov 16). For instance, Yablokov (16) states that when people from Pripyat City, situated just immediately next to the power plant at Chernobyl were tested after being subjected to iodine tablets treatments, the rate of poisoning reduced significantly. It was established that children who consumed milk produced locally around the region of accident showed high level of thyroid doses, indicating that animals too ingested the radioactive elements through fodder (Yablokov 16). This is the reason why so many children in the region were diagnosed with thyroid cancer.

The process of decontamination, especially during the early years after the accident, proved successful in minimizing the external doses. This was followed by remediation process in later years. The pasture land of the affected areas was excluded from use to feed the livestock. The governments therefore regulated the fodder for animals, effectively adopting the clean fodder programs for the three countries (Chernobyl Forum 21).

Research and Development

The Chernobyl accident provoked the need for research on what can lead to such events and their impacts. Even though it is unclear how many deaths occurred from this accident, various researches have been conducted to establish the possible consequences of such an accident. Some people believe that thousands of lives have been lost since the accident occurred. But because there is no express data to back-up the claims, it has remained more of a speculation than a fact. In fact, confusion that has emanated from this lack of clear and authentic information about Chernobyl mortality is largely as a result of the fact that since the accident, several people have died from several illness that have been found not to be linked to the disaster or radiation from the nuclear reaction. The general agreement is that given the nature of the disaster and the impact it created, many people including the local residents believe that most of the cancer related diseases are as a result of this accident. This belief is backed by the documented evidences of deaths that occurred within the same year of the accident.

Deaths as a result of acute radiation syndrome were considered one of the biggest set-back to the rescue team. There is well documented information about mortality within the first year of the accident. Out of this statistical information, it was revealed that majority of these deaths came from acute radiation syndrome (Yablokov 49). It was reported that about 130 members of emergency operation team were diagnosed with the syndrome, which lead to their deaths (Yablokov 50).

Another serious output of the accident on diseases and mortality was as a result of cancer related problems. However, the researchers nightmare has been to accurately measure the number of deaths that have been caused by this particular accidents cancer-related incidents. A group of experts from an international community have strived to study the actual impact of this accident. They have therefore come up with their projections that are expected to be used for future public health planning for the victims. According to this group, the 600,000 people exposed to higher degree of radiation, comprised of liquidators, those who involved themselves in evacuation exercise, the evacuated lot, and inhabitants of the most contaminated regions had the highest chance of dying from cancer-related illness (Chernobyl Forum 11). In addition, researchers have predicted that there is possibility of an increased four thousand fatal cancers in addition to over one hundred thousand fatal cancers predicted to come from the entire population of the region (Fesenko 346).

These predictions were made on the basis of other past experiences of studies on some other separate populations exposed to the similar radiation. For example, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been used to predict the possible outcome of the Chernobyl accident (Fesenko 346). However, many experts have disputed the applicability of this form of prediction due to the fact that the people posses different lifestyle, environmental surroundings and different levels of exposure.

The International Cooperation on Chernobyl Disaster Mitigation

The Chernobyl accident signified a unique unity that the international community can achieve within the shortest time possible. It led to the cooperation of people from around the world, who manage to come together at individual levels, groups, organizations of medical practitioners, scientists, and many other people came together to do something that would help reduce the impact, specifically helping the affected people recover from the problem (Belarus Foreign Ministry 5).

This international cooperation has assisted the affected people cope with the consequences caused by the disaster. Additionally, such unity showed how international community can come together in such incidences and bring the needed change to the possible future occurrences. The experience gained here can be used to solve other disasters in other countries. It is critical to note that the findings from the forum are part and parcel of the larger efforts to overcome the impacts created by the disaster. This is important because the findings were based on the environmental, health, social, medical, and economic aspects (Belarus Foreign Ministry 4)

In 2003, Chernobyl Forum was created to help gather knowledge and much information about the disaster. After it operated for close to two years, the forum had gathered many other organizations under its umbrella. These included International Atomic Energy Agency, World Health organization, United Nations Development Program, and many other organizations that had developed interests to come in with a helping hand in knowledge gathering initiatives.

The Initiative to Mitigate Social Impact

The Chernobyl accident exposed the entire population of the regions of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine to several sociological changes. The psychological setup of many people changed as a result of this problem. In fact, many did not want to give birth anymore as there was a general belief that their offspring would be affected by the change in genetic make-up that was believed to be one of the causes of the problem (Fesenko 348). This belief led to many stillbirths, abortions, and problems in delivery which caused many children to develop adverse health complications. In other words, birth rates have been lower in the contaminated regions as a result of many interrelated reasons. The first is the belief that children born in the region immediately and sometime after the accident would have natural defects out of genetic transformation. This is what many feared as hereditary impact of the accident. The other reason is the fact many people had moved away from the region to escape any further defects associated with the accident. This phenomenon changed the social contact between the formerly knit family and friends.

To help the affected families, children recuperation programs were initiated through the establishment of rehabilitation centers in many European countries like Germany, Spain, and Canada. This helped them gain stable mental conditions as they were warranted to get safe access to medical, counseling and many other social support services to help them adapt and cope.

However, the classification of people from the regions affected as sufferers or Chernobyl victims did not help in salvaging the little psychological stability needed to make positively greater mental stability (Mycio 39). The branding of these individuals has been associated with the fact that most rehabilitation programs were in foreign countries around Europe. Basically, this kind of branding of the victims has been criticized by some social workers who believe that such entitlement had a gross impact on the people of this region as they could not think of themselves as able people. According to Mycio (44), peoples perception can influence how they act and even how they perceive themselves, eventually perpetuating the problem further.

Therefore, the need to develop more rehabilitation centers within the most affected regions of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. So far, there is some progress in terms of children rehabilitation programs in the foreign nations (Belarus Foreign Ministry 5). The requirements that only countries with special agreements with the governments of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are to be considered as members of the rehabilitation teams have been enforced. Still, there is serious need to concentrate more into local rehabilitation programs as this will be more accommodative to the victims than being attended to in foreign nations.

The Environmental Consequences

The environmental impact of Chernobyl has been termed as the most serious nuclear accident problem, with adverse long term effects. It involves areas such as radioactive elements released into the environment, the transfer of radionuclide, the radiation-related impact on plants and animals, impact on shelter as well as soil contamination.

Radionuclide substances were released from the explosion of unit 4 for a period of 10 days, leading to massive smoke of elements. Some of the substances released into the environment comprised of radioactive gases, aerosols, and some particles of gas petroleum fuel. Among the total gases released into the atmosphere, noble gases constitute 50% and slightly more than 70% of the total 200,000 sq. kilometers affected was in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine (Mycio 44). The effect was worsened by the rain that pounded the region when the mass of aerosols moved through the atmosphere. The rain helped spread the depositions to as far as 100km away from factory (Mycio 45).

Although most of the radioactive elements that were deposited had a short time span, the destructions they caused within their shortest half-life period was enough to raise eyebrows. Of the most concern was the release of iodine substances, known to take very long period before decay.

Containment of Urban Regions Contamination

Urban areas that were highly contaminated had great environmental impacts in the long run due to human occupation. Several surfaces like lawns, parks, highways, roofs of several buildings as well as walls were highly affected (Fesenko 348). During dry seasons, trees, bushes and lawns were so affected with chemical contaminations drying them up. The chemicals mainly contaminated the soils during wet seasons (Fesenko 349). Highly concentrated carbon elements were found deposited around buildings, where the rain had deposited them.

These chemical deposits in urban areas led by Pripyat City were enormous. However, long term initiatives initiated by the governments helped reduce the overall impact of its dangers (Fesenko 349). The most prominent urban countermeasure was settlement decontamination in the early years after the accident. This was mainly prominent in the first year of the disaster, when there was a need to protect the public from external exposure to radioactive elements.

Protection of Forest Contamination

After the Chernobyl accident, several forested lands were contaminated in the region surrounding the factory plant. Vegetation and animals have shown signs of huge amount of uptake of radiocaesium (Dyatloy 89). This was perpetuated by the continuous recycling of this element within the forest ecosystem which comprises of micro and macro-environment. In fact, high uptakes of these chemical elements were detected in the mushrooms, berries, and in game meat. Unfortunately, these contaminated wild foods were highly consumed by humans and animals (Dyatloy 89). It is even noted that high level of contamination continues to worry many in the region as the elements are recycled in the forest ecosystem. This is particularly rampant in some areas in Belarus, which had the highest section of the forest land contaminated. It is expected that the problem is likely to continue for some decades to come as decaying of some radioactive elements take longer. Relatively, the significance of forest in carrying on with the radiological activities and exposing the population is expected to continue for awhile in the affected countries.

The first initiative to protect the forested land was to ensure there was adequate legislation on the use of forest resources. Because forest ecosystem has resilience and the ability to recycle and spread the radioactive elements to ineffective level, they governments of the three countries faced difficulties when they attempted to communicate the initiatives to the public (Dyatloy 174). The lack of sufficient communication, coupled with huge financial costs had made the whole process of forest protection unattainable. The public could not trust the government, hence spreading the fear of greater negative impact awaiting the people.

The ensuing demand by many countries outside Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine was that they carry their own investigations on how they could deal with such problems, especially when they wanted to increase communication with the public on matters associated with forest resource protection. In summery, the best approach to minimizing public-state mistrust during such disasters is to improve every communication efforts with stakeholders.

The lessons learnt in the process of mitigation suggest that there is always the need to apply the restrictions to the use of various activities carried out in forest land during such disasters in a wider context. This is because the only countries that applied the restrictions were the most affected nations of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. The confusion was when the rest of European countries relied solely on data from these three countries. Notably, the initial data suggested that it was only specific nations forests that were affected. However, more investigations in later times suggests that the larger part of Europe suffered significantly in terms of their forest resource contamination

In fact, the Chernobyl accident has provided a unique lesson on how to deal with communication issues, especially that which involve natural resource destruction and mitigation process.

The Containment of Aquatic Environment Contamination

The water bodies around the accident region were contaminated by the radioactive elements. This is probably due to the easy spread of elements carried by water, the contaminated water bodies affected many parts of Europe, subsequently interfering with aquatic life and all those mammals dependent on it. The earlier levels of contamination was basically as a result of direct deposition of radionuclide elements on water surfaces, comprised of rivers, lakes, seas, and oceans (Karpan 7). The seriousness of the contamination was more evident in the first few weeks of the accident, where there were a lot of radioactive elements in drinking water. This was particularly serious in Kyiv Reservoir where the level of contamination threatened the lives of many who depended on it (Yablokov 213).

Although the level of concentration of contaminated water bodies went down significantly after some time due to dilution and physical decay of radioactive elements, the deposited sediments are still posing the strongest long term risks to the ecosystem (Fesenko 349). For example, aquatic animals like fish that were taken from the rivers and lakes around the region tested high concentration of radioactive elements in the long run, forcing the authority to ban their consumption. This presence of contaminated fish was detected in places as far as Germany and other Scandinavian countries. The water bodies in Ukraine, for example were particularly most affected of all the regions. It is predicted that the fish from this region will remain contaminated for longer period of time, estimated to go for as far as decades to come.

Conclusion

The necessary countermeasures have been recommended to prevent any occurrence of such a problem. The first problem that was realized after the accident was lack of proper information to the population that lived around the plant. It was noted that there was no adequate information on the mass media on how people would avoid being at more risk for as long as 2 years or adequate measures to help out in any associated future problems.

Generally, the main objective of remedial measures is to avoid any further problems associated with such problems in the future. Other than adequate information to the population, other recommendations that have been made are based on the perspective of human mitigation. In other words, the best way to prevent more adverse effects of such an accident is to ensure there is more vigilance towards the needed safety measures in factories. The other precaution is to avoid settlement of people around these areas such that the possible impact is reduced. This is one approach that can help reduce the number of affected people. Again it is important to avoid areas that are known to carry a lot of significant environmental resources, agricultural land and any other resource that if destroyed would significantly destroy the ecosystem.

In summery, future efforts to prevent the impacts of a similar disaster is to invest more in public information, considering the misconceptions that surrounded the Chernobyl disaster. This will also help the public adopt sustainable approaches to managing disaster, through individual or group initiatives.

Works Cited

Belarus Foreign Ministry. Chernobyl Disaster: Why are the consequences still observed? And why is the international assistance still critical? Belarus Foreign Ministry, 2009. Web.

Cheney, Glenn. Journey to Chernobyl: Encounters in a Radioactive Zone. Chicago. Academy of Chicago. 1995.

Chernobyl Forum. Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and Their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience. Chernobyl Forum Expert Group Environment. Vienna. International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006.

Dyatloy, Anatoly. Chernobyl. How did it happen? Moscow. Nauchtechlitizdat. 2003.

Fesenko, Sergey. Twenty years application of agricultural countermeasures following

Chernobyl Accident: Lessons Learnt. Journal of Radiological Protection, 2006, Vol 26, No. 4, pp 344-349.

Karpan, Nikolaj. Chernobyl Vengeance of Peaceful Atom. Chernobyl. IKK. 2006.

Mycio, Mary. Wormwood forest: A natural history of Chernobyl. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. 2005.

Yablokov, Busby. Chernobyl: 20 Years On. Aberystwyth, UK. Green Audit Press. 2006.

Click Here To Order Now!