Category: Chernobyl

Which industry is the safest and most trusted in the world? The answer is no profession or industry system in the world that can guarantee zero accident rates, such as healthcare, manufacturing or engineering. unimaginable disasters always happen, it causes new generation of engineers have to study the reasons for their emergence and increase related of ethic of engineering to avoid any accident as much as possible. People in engineering believe trial and error are a way to move engineer’s abilities forward, however, the cost is sometimes unimaginable. When a disaster is caused by an engineering failure, we call it an engineering disaster. For example, the sinking of the Titanic was one of the most famous engineering accidents. The cause of the accident was the failure of the quality of the rivets and the sealed compartment was not individually sealed (Pruitt, 2018). After the accident, 1,500 people dead and the total number of people on this ship is only 2,208 (Praveen, 2020). Therefore, the Titanic is one of the most important engineering disasters worthy of the attention of future generations of engineers. On the one hand, practices and disasters push for engineering to deeply study the damage mechanism of materials in order to control severe engineering disasters. On the other hand, the moral standards of engineers have been repeatedly stressed due to various serious accidents. The purpose of this paper is to take another major engineering accident as a case study, namely Chernobyl, to explore the possibility of this engineering disaster occurring after the engineers clearly applied the ethical standards. The paper will introduce the disaster background of the nuclear power accident, its causes, the moral issues of the engineers involved, and a summary of the former Soviet government’s response to the disaster. Finally, the paper will determine the engineering ethics that engineers should follow and the likelihood of avoiding case accidents after applying those ethics.

Principle of Nuclear

To understand the specific cause of Chernobyl, the basic principles of nuclear power plants cannot be bypassed. The reason why nuclear power plants can generate electricity comes from nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is produced by nuclear fission, which is a chain reaction. The reaction principle is that a uranium 235 hits a neutron to obtain a barium 56-141 and plutonium 36-92 and three neutrons. The high-energy opportunity created by nuclear fission is that whenever uranium 235 reacts with one neutron, three additional neutrons are generated. And three other neutrons will react with three uranium 235 to produce nine neutrons. Thus, in this process, a large amount of energy is generated, which exists in the form of heat. Engineers use steam engines to capture thermal energy to drive generators to generate electricity (Vyas, 2019).

The principle of Chernobyl’s nuclear power generation is similar to that described above. Its principle name is graphite boiling water reactor (also called RBMK). In such a reactor, there are a fuel rod (uranium 235) and flowing water, and the graphite inserted in the fuel rod is also called a control rod. Water as a coolant can take away a large amount of heat in the reaction, which can be transferred from a steam engine to a generator to generate electricity. Therefore, if engineers want to generate electricity all the time, cold water must be injected all the time. This requires that the device for injecting cold water must always work and cannot be powered off. In addition, the function of the control rod is to reduce the reaction rate of the nuclear reactor, because graphite can absorb neutrons, the number of neutrons decreases, the reaction rate decreases, and the temperature decreases (Viswanathan, 2016).

Accident Background

The accident happened during a test. The test object is the power failure protection capability of the nuclear reactor. The principle is that when all devices are powered off immediately, all control rods are fully inserted into the fuel rod and all neutrons are absorbed. The reaction will not stop immediately because two other products are still being formed, namely barium 56-141 and thorium 36-92. Therefore, the heat will not drop immediately, at this time, it is required that the water must still be flowing. Engineers can use diesel generators as an alternative power supply system to generate electricity for them. However, the start-up time of a diesel generator takes one minute. Within this minute, the problem of ensuring the electricity consumption of water installations has become a core technical issue. Therefore, some engineers proposed that using the waste heat of the nuclear reactor to make the engine turbine inertially rotate, it may be possible to ensure that the water device can use electricity for one minute. Whether the inertia of the engine is used to generate electricity within a minute to avoid reactor meltdown is a test that the Chernobyl nuclear power plant will do on the day of the accident (Chernobyl Accident, 2020).

Cause

The plan was originally scheduled to take place during the day on April 25, 1982. Unfortunately, a power station in the local city tripped. As a result, the power station required nuclear power plants to postpone testing. Because testing needs to reduce the amount of power generated by nuclear power plants, the entire city is likely to lose power. So, the plan had to be postponed until evening. This became the turning point of the accident of the day. The engineers were anxious to get off work, so at 00:00 on the 26th, the power of the reactor was reduced. The descent was too rapid and the reactor was poisoned. Reactor poisoning is the production of a substance called xenon 135 during the reaction, which is easy to combine with neutrons to generate xenon 136. This is another way to reduce neutrons in addition to graphite. As a result, the reactor power dropped sharply to a normal 5%. At this point, the engineers had two plans. One was to stop the test immediately, declare the experiment a failure, and start preparing for the next experiment. The other was to immediately increase the power of the reactor and continue the experiment. Unfortunately, the new acting chief engineer chose the latter option. He was anxious to raise the power, so he pulled out the control stick that exceeded the prescribed amount. As a result, the temperature of the nuclear reactor immediately rose. When engineers noticed that the tense was wrong, there were already signs of dissolution in the nuclear reactor and the control rods could not be fully inserted. So, the explosion happened (Chernobyl Accident, 2020).

Breaches of Professional Ethics in This Case

First, throughout the test, the chief engineer showed an arrogant and eager attitude. So, throughout the course of the experiment, it was clear that his goal was to get the experiment done as quickly as possible and to try to make it successful when he took over the job even if it broke the rules and the ethics. He lost a fundamental position as an engineer, and social security was never considered by him in this test.

On the other hand, the other engineers present also violated the ethics of being an engineer. Under the pressure of the chief engineer, they still followed the wrong orders of the chief engineer even though they knew that the subsequent operation would cause great loss of life and property safety to the society and even to the neighboring countries, which eventually led to the tragedy. As engineers, they violate the most basic moral boundaries and have no courage to resist authority. This is what future generations of engineers should be most wary of. Because the greatest engineering tragedy in human history could have been avoided. All they need to do was just stop the test within safety limits.

The consequences of the disaster were exacerbated by the serious default of the former Soviet government. The government started to evacuate the surrounding citizens 36 hours after the explosion, but many citizens had been radiated at that time. Not only that, the explosion site has not been treated professionally, the surrounding European countries also did not know what happened, but just found a large number of pollutants in the air detection. After examining them one by one, it was determined that the source of the pollution was the former Russia.

Analysis and Summary of Chernobyl

Chernobyl can be summed up as a disaster caused by human error of engineers, but it is too expensive. Even more unfortunate, such a disaster should not have happened. Engineers should remember to ensure a rigorous scientific attitude under all circumstances,

The safety of life and property comes first. The blind pursuit of personal heroism and personal interests is unethical, and for the performers and creators of an important project, such shortcomings are even more lethal.

Conclusion

Engineering ethics should be more worthy of attention by engineers than technical mastery. Through the above Chernobyl accident analysis, it can be fully determined that if the engineers at the time had sufficient moral cultivation, this disaster would not happen. Just as engineers’ professional standards of ethics, engineers should use their knowledge and skills to promote the well-being of all humankind, and provide integrity to the public, employers, and customers with loyal services (Law Document English View, 2018).

References

1. Praveen. (2020, February 4). ‘The World’s Worst Cruise Ship Disasters’. Retrieved from https://www.ship-technology.com/features/featurethe-worlds-deadliest-cruise-ship-disasters-4181089/
2. Pruitt, S. (2018, April 12). ‘Why Did the Titanic Sink?’ Retrieved from https://www.history.com/news/why-did-the-titanic-sink
3. Vyas, K. (2019, November 16). Everything You Need to Know About Nuclear Power Plants. Retrieved from https://interestingengineering.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-nuclear-power-plants
4. Viswanathan, B. (2016, September 2). Nuclear Fission. Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444563538000058
5. Law Document English View. (2018, November 19). Retrieved from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/regulation/900941#BK88
6. Chernobyl Accident 1986. (2020, February). World Nuclear Association. Retrieved from https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx

The world of engineering has been forever changed since the Chernobyl disaster. The blast of Chernobyl nuclear plant paved way for the modern engineering to adapt safety as a priority and that irrespective of any consequence, condition or situation, safety of the people shall never be compromised. Consequently, engineering fields such as safety engineering have been derived where safety engineering is defined as: “Safety engineering is the process of designing workplaces to prevent accidents. Engineering safety concepts provides detailed approaches and modes for accident reduction by using a risk management process to identify and ‘design out’ hazards” (Safety Services, 2018). The former town of Chernobyl was situated about 130 km to the north of Kiev, Ukraine. It has been roughly estimated that the number of people within 30 km of the complex is between 115,000 and 135,000 (Ryan, 2019). As a result, a large mass of people was exposed to dangerous levels of radiation some of them nearing a figure of 60 died at the spot and some were observed to die at a later age. Although, it is still unclear whether their deaths were due to radiation contact or not (World Nuclear Association, 2019).

Technical and Engineering Issues

The Chernobyl power plant was based on fission reactions. Fission reactions are chain reactions in which a slow-moving neutron is absorbed by a highly radioactive element such as Uranium-235 resulting in the spilt of Uranium into two more highly radioactive elements Kr-89 and Ba-144. If there is an excess of neutrons, the resultant elements from the initial reaction will absorb the neutrons giving rise to a highly energetic and explosive Chain reaction which, if controlled, serves as an ideal source of energy (Freuden Rich, 2020).

In order to control these reactions, reactors are needed. Similar reactors were built by the USSR in 1980 named RBMK-1000 and RBMK-1500. The only difference between the two is the capacity. The former has 1000MW and the latter has 1500MW capacity. These reactors also used enriched uranium for fuel but in these reactors, graphite rods were used which absorbed the bouncing neutrons and hence the neutrons available for the chain reaction would be lessened decreasing the rate of reaction. The number of rods would be altered to control the rate of reaction. Finally, Water would run through the whole reactor as a coolant.

Characteristics of RBMK-1000

The RBMK-1000 reactor was not a traditional reactor. It had a propensity to generate humungous amount of uncontrollable energy in sudden burst if steams or bubbles named as ‘voids’ were allowed to form in the reactor core. As a result, a potential explosion could be foreseen but still no arrangements or amendments were made to the design as the scientists and operators stationed were neither equipped well enough for handling the reactor nor for looking at the reactor with a deep insight. The second major flaw of the RMBK-1000 reactor was probably the biggest one. In modern day nuclear engineering, control rods are made of cadmium which slows down the fission reaction but with respect to the Chernobyl reactor. The Control rod was made of graphite which is a good absorbent if it does not come in direct contact but the control had a tip to stop the cooling water from vacating the reactor as the rod was withdrawn but the problem with the Chernobyl specific rod was that it had a graphite tip too. Graphite is a highly reactive element and for a fission reaction to take place in a vicinity where a highly reactive element exists would always lead to disaster and such was the case with the Chernobyl reactor (Gillette, 1986). “Now in Chernobyl, the problem was that they removed the control rods even further than they were supposed to ever be removed. They removed the rods so far that the channels started to fill with water. Then when they SCRAMED the reactor, the first thing that happened was they displaced that water, essential removing a weak control rod, and thus increased the power. In order to remove the control rods as far as they did, the operators had to physically disable safety systems that prevented the rods from being removed that far. Second, the graphite tips give a more even neutron flux than a water filled channel. As a result, your reactor has a more uniform temperature (less hot/cold spots), you fuel has a more uniform burn-up, you have more uniform stresses across your reactor, etc. All of which are desirable” (International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, 1992).

Reasons Behind the Flawed Design

Factors due to which the disaster took place are both political and financial. Total cost minimization is a manufacturing technique through which Manufacturers opt to establish such a system which is both efficient and cheaper but the implementation of such an infrastructure is extremely complicated. Such was the case with Chernobyl reactor. Chernobyl reactor used graphite for control rods. Now graphite is a much cheaper element than its better alternatives such as cadmium which is used in the modern-day nuclear reactors. Hence using graphite for control rods tips led to the explosion. Another reason behind this catastrophe was the time at which the nuclear power plant was under construction, there were upcoming USSR elections so the process of the development of the plant was unnecessarily sped up to gain the masses favor and a commercial product in the shape of graphite was used instead of a non-commercial but much safer alternative.

Government’s Response

At the time of the Disaster, Ukraine was part of Russia which was by the USSR government also known as the Soviet Union. Attributable to complications as a result of the Cold War and bad relationship with the west, the government tried to keep this disaster quiet. Anatoly Dyatlov who was the chief engineer and the supervisor of the facility at the time refused to believe that there had been an explosion despite heavy evidence pointing towards the contrary. After the government realized that the RBMK-1000 had exploded, a commission led by Valery Legasov Deputy Director of Kurchatov Institute of Atomic Energy was headed to Chernobyl. They reached Chernobyl on the 26th and by that time, 3 firemen had died and many were in the hospital. Afterwards, the commission evaluated the radiation levels due to the explosion at reactor 4 and the result was shockingly bad. This news did not sound to the USSR government. Immediately, in order to keep the news in the country, television and electronic media were shut down and borders were closed off. However, another nuclear institution in Sweden 1000 km west of detected unusual levels of Radiation and the USSR’s disaster was exposed to the world. As a result, the area surrounding the plant including town of Chernobyl and Pripyat were evacuated.

Ethical Measures Which Could Have Prevented the Disaster

The disaster was a wake-up call for the engineering world. Nowadays, various establishments are ardent towards making sure engineering is practiced in the right way. Two such organizations exist in Canada, Ontario. OSPE abbreviation for Ontario’s society of Professional Engineering and PEO abbreviation for Professional Engineers Ontario. Their duty is to make sure engineering in Canada is performed with uttermost care and responsibility. If following measure enlisted in the PEO code of ethics were taken, the tragedy could have been avoided.

A Practitioner Shall Prioritize Public Welfare

The USSR government took an unnecessary risk with the design. Using graphite instead of cadmium and avoiding the extra cost was an enormous compromise on the public safety. Anatloy Dylatov, the chief-engineer refused to believe that his plant could explode. His ignorance led to the disaster ruining thousands of lives. If he had prioritized public welfare over mere thousand dollars, Chernobyl would be one of the best nuclear facilities in the world.

A Practitioner Shall Treat Employers, Employees and Co-Workers with Fair Respect

Anatoly Dylatov, growing up in a rough USSR environment, did not know how to look beyond himself. Before the disaster, when the operators had seen early signs of an unstable reactor, Anatoly rejected to believe a word they said. He did not see their opinion worthy of consideration. This disbelief in the co-worker’s ability led to the disaster and the USSR lost more than just a mere nuclear power plant.

A Practitioner Shall Be Loyal and Fair to the Employer.

Anatoly was appointed by the government to supervise the Chernobyl project. But his dedication was more to himself rather than the government. He wanted to have the best nuclear facility in the world but in this blind hunger, he did not consider the duty he had towards the government to make sure the facility survives. On the night of 25th, when he observed the power output to be unusually high, he did not engage safety procedures as instructed by the rules. He was ignorant, arrogant and cost both himself and his country more than they could both afford.

Conclusion

Fundamentally, engineering is a sensitive field where if errors occur, lives are lost and resources are wasted. The disaster of Chernobyl brought forth the world a new dynamic where safety of the public is uttermost. Nowadays, organizations exist as predators hunting down any engineer who does not comply with the code of ethics. These organizations are reinforced by the law and any violation can result in huge fines and cancellation of engineering license. Hence, following these codes of ethics will result in the prosperity of the country and a much safer environment. With any luck, we’ll see engineering prospering and engineers enforcing public welfare.

References

1. Ryan, Jackson. (2019, June 7). Chernobyl: Why Did the Nuclear Reactor Explode and Could It Happen Again? CNET. https://www.cnet.com/news/chernobyl-miniseries-by-hbo-and-sky-prompts-searches-on-nuclear-explosion-fission/
2. Safety Services. (2019). Engineering Safety Concepts p. 1. Safety Info. https://www.safetyinfo.com/engineering-concepts-safety-index/
3. World Nuclear Association. (2019, June). Chernobyl Accident 1986. https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/chernobyl-accident.aspx#ECSArticleLink2
4. FreudenRich, Craig. (2020, Jan 27). How Nuclear Fission Reactors Work. How Stuff Works? https://science.howstuffworks.com/Fission-reactor1.htm
5. Uranium Fission Reaction. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/NucEne/U235chn.html
6. Malko V, Mikael. (2002). The Chernobyl Reactor: Design Features and Reasons for Accident. Joint Institute of Power and Nuclear Research, National Academy of Sciences of Belarus. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/025a/70432d683db2981f012c8f1e5d50d85f2865.pdf?_ga=2.227538013.1598674962.1581489269-1050943967.1581489269
7. Gilette, Robert. (1986, Aug 23). Chernobyl Design Flaws Made Accident Worse, Soviet Report Concedes. Los Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-08-23-mn-15781-story.html
8. International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group. (1992) THE CHERNOBYL ACCIDENT: UPDATING OF INSAG. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf
9. RBMK-1000 Reactor Diagram. https://www.express.co.uk/news/science/1142347/Chernobyl-explained-how-explosion-happen-RBMK-reactor-Chernobyl-HBO-nuclear-disaster

Introduction

Engineering is the application of principles in mathematics and physics in order to design, analyse and manufacture systems. It is crucial for an engineer to consider the ethical implications during every stage of creating a system, therefore it is vital to understand the definition of Ethics: a system of moral principles that govern people’s behaviour and decision-making. For example, prior to the design, production and operation of a nuclear power plant, there are numerous environmental, economic and social impacts that must be carefully evaluated and taken into consideration. From an environmental perspective, there are advantages and disadvantages to the use of nuclear power. On one hand, nuclear energy does not emit greenhouse gases and seems a suitable alternative for fossil fuels which are diminishing in supply whilst demand for energy increases. However, nuclear energy also involves mining of radioactive raw materials and disposal of radioactive waste which damages the environment and poses health threats to nearby residents (Xiang and Zhu, 2011). The Chernobyl Power plant incident (See Figure 1) is an example of the social, economic and environmental consequences when engineering decisions are carried out without ethical implications adequately taken into account. Figure 1: Photograph of an aerial view of the damaged Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, taken by Wojtek Laski in May 1986, a few weeks after the disaster. (Taylor, 2019)

On the morning of April 26, 1986, the Unit 4 Reactor at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in northern Ukraine exploded, spreading “50 million curies of radiation” into the atmosphere, “the equivalent of 500 Hiroshima bombs” (Serhii Plokhy, 2019). The accident occurred during a test designed to assess the reactor’s safety margin in a particular set of circumstances. The test was scheduled to coincide with a routine shut-down of the reactor because it had to be performed at less than full operation power (Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006). This essay will outline the factors during testing that lead up to the incident as well as discuss the ethics behind decisions that were made from the perspective of the Soviet State and from the operation of the reactor that was used in Unit 4 and its unsuitable design.

The Test

Nuclear power stations whilst producing electricity also consume electricity, for example to power the pumps that circulate the coolant. This power is usually supplied by the grid or by the reactor’s own production. However, when the reactor is in operation but not producing power, for example when shutting down, other supply is required usually in the form of generators which have a time delay while they are started (Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006).

“The test carried out at Unit 4 was designed to demonstrate that a coasting turbine would provide sufficient power to pump coolant through the reactor core while waiting for electricity from the diesel generators. The circulation of coolant was expected to be sufficient to give the reactor an adequate safety margin” (Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006).

Energy produced by nuclear reactors is in the form of thermal energy, measured as megawatts thermal, MW(t) (Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006). For this test, the power should have been stabilised at around 700-1000 MW(t) prior to shutdown. However, it was decided by management that testing should be carried out at just 200 MW(t), as long as the minimum permissible Operating Reactivity Margin (ORM) of 15 control rods was fulfilled. “The ORM is essentially the number of control rods of nominal worth remaining in the reactor core” (RBMK Reactors – World Nuclear Association, 2019). Calculations performed after the accident proved that during the test the ORM was equal to 8 control rods (Chernobyl Appendix 1: Sequence of Events – World Nuclear Association, 2019).

These violations of operating regulations display a disregard for utilitarian ethics, actions were taken to proceed with testing despite multiple conditions being suboptimal and therefore the consequences of the increased probability of the test failing had not been accounted for. Ultimately this led to uncontrollable increases in steam generation and the rupture of fuel elements which caused two explosions in Unit 4, initially a steam explosion followed several seconds later by another explosion due to an accumulation of hydrogen during the reactions. Consequently, ejecting fuel and structural materials and leaving the destroyed core exposed to the atmosphere (Chernobyl Appendix 1: Sequence of Events – World Nuclear Association, 2019).

The Reactor

“The Soviet designed Reaktor Bolshoy Moshchnosty Kanalny (RBMK), displayed in Figure 2, is a pressurised water reactor with individual fuel channels and using ordinary water as its coolant and graphite as its moderator” (Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006). The design had several shortcomings which are likely contributors to the accident in 1986, including the positive void coefficient nature of the reactor.

[image: A Light Water Graphite-moderated Reactor (LWGR/RBMK)]In a water-cooled reactor such as the RBMK, steam accumulates to form voids and therefore excess steam production creates excess voids, disturbing the operation of the reactor because water is a more effective coolant than steam and the water acts as a moderator and neutron absorber while steam does not. A positive void coefficient reactor increases power generation when excess steam voids are present, which can lead to rapid uncontrollable increases in power. This is because excess power production causes additional heating of the cooling circuit, producing more steam which results in reduced neutron absorption and more chain reactions occurring in the reactor (Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006).Figure 2: Diagram of the components of the RBMK Reactor (RBMK Reactors – World Nuclear Association, 2019)

Additionally, due to the nature of the RBMK design as shown in Figure 2, the different materials used for the moderator and the water coolant means that excess steam production reduces the cooling of the reactor, but the moderator remains intact allowing for the chain reaction to continue at an increasing rate (RBMK Reactors – World Nuclear Association, 2019).

Following on from the accident in Unit 4, there were some immediate changes carried out to the RBMK reactor’s design. Most importantly, measures were taken to reduce the magnitude of the positive void coefficient by: installing 80 additional absorbers in the core to inhibit operation at low power, increasing the effective number of control rods from 30 to 45 to improve the ORM and finally increasing fuel enrichment from 2% to 2.4%. These measures were successful, reducing the size of the positive void coefficient by 84%. Further changes were made to reduce the time taken to shut down the reactor including cutting the scram rod insertion time, where control rods are rapidly inserted to shut down the reactor, from 18 to 12 seconds as well as redesigning the control rods (Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006).

These sudden changes following the disaster raise the question as to whether the incident could have been prevented had the engineers designing the RBMK reactor carried out their ethical duty to analyse the design flaws with thorough testing and devise solutions to improve these technical problems. Furthermore, the engineers had failed in their duty to warn of perceived danger as the operators of the reactor at the time had not been informed that “the test could have brought the reactor into an explosive condition” (Chernobyl Appendix 1: Sequence of Events – World Nuclear Association, 2019).

The Soviet State

After 24 hours since the explosion, there was still no public announcement that the reactor had exploded releasing radioactive substances into the atmosphere. This was due to the fact that engineers at the power plant had been prohibited by their superiors from sharing news of what had happened to friends and family (Serhii Plokhy, 2019). However, the rapid spread of rumours about the meltdown suggests that despite orders, the engineers had considered the ethical implications of their actions and concluded that the morally correct action was to undermine these orders and to secretly alert friends and relatives about the incident, therefore this decision was made taking into account the public safety and the duty of an engineer to warn the public about danger.

Armen Abagian, director of one of the Moscow nuclear-power institutes, demanded for the city to be evacuated immediately following inspection of the plant. However, this demand was rejected by the deputy head of the Soviet Government, Boris Shcherbina, as government regulations at the time stated that an evacuation was not necessary unless the dose accumulated had reached 75 roentgens, the current measured intake was around 4.5 roentgens a day (Serhii Plokhy, 2019). However, the dosimeters used had a limited maximum measurement that could be taken, the actual dosage in some areas was as high as 20000 roentgens per hour (Medvedev, 1992).

Consequences

The Chernobyl incident had significant environmental, economic and social impacts among the majority of Europe. “Release of radionuclides continued for ten days and contaminated more than 200000 square kilometres of Europe.” Current environmental concern involves the content of radiocaesium present in agricultural produce including milk, meat and some plants however concentrations fall within safe levels except for a few exceptions. Animals and vegetation in forests had high absorption of radiocaesium, with persistent high levels in mushrooms and berries. The effects of radiation included increased mortality of coniferous plants and mammals and reproductive losses in plants and animals in high exposure areas of a 20-30 km radius from the site. However, numerous successful measures were taken to reduce the harmful impacts of the radiation on the environment and agriculture, including removing contaminated pastures from animal diets, monitoring milk for radiation levels and treating land for crops (Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident, 2005).

Description automatically generated]The economic cost is estimated to be several hundred billion dollars including costs of: direct damage, resettlement of people, social protection and health care, research on the environment, radiation monitoring and further examples of expenditure which have placed a large drain on the budgets of countries affected. Agriculture in the local economy had taken the most significant impact, making 784320 hectares unavailable for production, and even where farming is safe there is a stigma associated with Chernobyl leading to falling revenues and the closure of some farming facilities. Combined with the collapse of the Soviet Union and recession, the economy suffered resulting in lower living standards, unemployment and increased levels of poverty (Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident, 2005).

Estimations place the total number of deaths attributable to Chernobyl at around 4000. Figure 3 displays a rising rate of thyroid cancer among children, as a result of milk consumption from cows who had eaten contaminated grass. This caused iodine to concentrate in the thyroid gland and led to the increase in cases of thyroid cancer in children shortly after 1986 (Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident, 2005).Figure 3: Graph showing increased frequency (per 10000 inhabitants) of thyroid cancer in children in relation to radiation levels in Belarus (circles) and Ukraine (squares) before and after the Chernobyl incident (MOLLER and MOUSSEAU, 2006).

Conclusion

There are clear advantages to nuclear power, which is a substitute for fossil fuel energy, including the fact that it does not release greenhouse gases and provides a solution to the diminishing supply of fossil fuels. However, the Chernobyl disaster is a clear demonstration of the environmental, economic and health consequences that are borne by society when engineering decisions about the design and operation of a nuclear power plant are not carried out ethically, in the best interests of society as a whole. The disregard for the duty of the engineer to ensure public safety has led to catastrophic repercussions that were experienced for decades, leading to the question of whether the advantages of nuclear power outweigh the potential economic and environmental costs of a meltdown. This emphasises that the role of an engineer exceeds the sole knowledge of physics, mathematics and processes, it is crucial for engineers to adhere to the code of ethics throughout every stage from design to operation of a system in order to maximise the benefits and minimise the possibility of a recurrence of a disaster like Chernobyl.

References

1. Chernobyl > ENGINEERING.com, 2006. [Online]. Available from: https://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/ArticleID/71/categoryId/7/Chernobyl.aspx [Accessed 29 October 2020].
2. Chernobyl Appendix 1: Sequence of Events – World Nuclear Association, 2019. [Online]. Available from: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/chernobyl-accident-appendix-1-sequence-of-events.aspx [Accessed 29 October 2020].
3. Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident, 2005. [Online]. Available from: https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident#:~:text=The%20total%20number%20of%20deaths [Accessed 30 October 2020].
4. Medvedev, Z.A., 1992. The legacy of Chernobyl. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
5. MOLLER, A. and MOUSSEAU, T., 2006. Biological consequences of Chernobyl: 20 years on. Trends in Ecology & Evolution [Online], 21(4), pp.200–207. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.008 [Accessed 30 October 2020].
6. RBMK Reactors | reactor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny | Positive void coefficient – World Nuclear Association, 2019. [Online]. Available from: https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/appendices/rbmk-reactors.aspx#VoidCoeff [Accessed 30 October 2020].
7. Serhii Plokhy, 2019. The Chernobyl Cover-Up: How Officials Botched Evacuating an Irradiated City [Online]. Available from: https://www.history.com/news/chernobyl-disaster-coverup [Accessed 29 October 2020].
8. Taylor, A., 2019. Chernobyl Disaster: Photos From 1986 [Online]. The Atlantic. Available from: https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2019/06/chernobyl-disaster-photos-1986/590878/ [Accessed 29 October 2020].
9. Xiang, H. and Zhu, Y., 2011. The Ethics Issues of Nuclear Energy: Hard Lessons Learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Online Journal of Health Ethics [Online], 7(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.0702.06.

About 30 km of land, the government, people’s homes, and the nuclear power plant were all destroyed in a matter of seconds. The majority of people believe Chornobyl was only a mistake since nuclear power is relatively safe, and its effects were not severe, whereas it was much more than that. The explosion was a major factor in the future development of nuclear power plants, the safety precautions regarding the power plants, and even the Soviet Union’s downfall. The Chornobyl disaster was a result of poor leadership because there needed to be more safety precautions that are heavily enforced when dealing with nuclear power, it negatively altered the future development of nuclear power, and contributed to the Soviet Union’s demise.

The Chornobyl disaster resulted in countless deaths as well as the collapse of the governmental structure. People were exposed to radioactive iodine as a result of the Chornobyl disaster, and countless people died as a result of the explosion. Furthermore, the Soviet government’s handling of the event came to represent a corrupt and failing system, shattering individuals’ faith in the Soviet Union’s ability to reform. As the article “Chernobyl” states, “The Chernobyl disaster not only stoked fears over the dangers of nuclear power, it also exposed the Soviet government’s lack of openness to the Soviet people and the international community” (history.com). The statement reveals the effects of the Chornobyl explosion on both domestic and international individuals. Many people began having concerns about the safety of nuclear power, and if it is worth the risk. Furthermore, Chornobyl revealed how untrustworthy the soviet government is when it comes to safety. Gorbachev, the Soviet Union President at the time, went on to confess that the governmental “system as we knew it could no longer continue,” and that the event showed how “important it was to continue the policy of glasnost”. Gorbachev introduced a policy known as glasnost, which means ‘openness’ in Russian. This policy emphasizes that social and political topics in the Soviet Union be openly discussed. After Chornobyl exploded, it had a wide range of consequences, one of which was the impact on people’s perceptions of the Soviet government, one of whom was Gorbachev. The incident highlighted how messed up the Soviet system is and why it could not continue, which is significant given that he was the president at the time. As John Carlson revealed, “The circumstances of Chornobyl reinforced that the Soviet culture of secrecy was at best regressive and at worst disastrous. Gorbachev initiated a series of reforms which unintentionally hastened the collapse of the Soviet system”. The passage shows how the poor leadership of the Soviet Union affected the demise of the governmental system. After Chornobyl, the government did not know how to deal with the issue, and they were not honest with the public. Gorbachev attempted to take matters into his own hands but still failed to improve the situation. None of this would have happened if there had been adequate and well-enforced safety procedures.

There needed to be more safety precautions that are heavily enforced when dealing with nuclear power. Nuclear power is an extremely dangerous matter, and ignoring its safety precautions will result in disasters like Chornobyl. The workers at Chornobyl were unqualified and did not follow the proper safety procedures when doing tests on reactor No. 4, thus causing an explosion referred to as the worst nuclear disaster in history. Samuel Spencer revealed in the “Chernobyl explained: Could Chernobyl have been prevented?” article many ways that Chornobyl could have been avoided, “These include if the staff at Chernobyl had been better trained, if the Soviet government had learned from the lessons of the past and if they had not been so averse to spending money”. The statement refers back to the previous paragraph, which criticized the Soviet government for making poor decisions that resulted in the Chornobyl disaster. Another important component of the statement is the criticism of the unqualified individuals who disregarded safety precautions, resulting in countless deaths. The Director of the Chornobyl power plant at the time, “Brukhanov had also signed off on the launch of the station’s newest and most advanced reactor, Reactor Unit No. 4, even though a key required safety test hadn’t been carried out”. Many people debate whether Brukhanov or his deputy, Anatoly Dyatlov, are to blame for the disaster as they both handled it poorly. Of all of the other reactors, Reactor 4 was intended to be the best. One key flaw was that the safety test was performed only after the reactor had been in use. Brukhanov was not informed of the safety test by Dyatlov, who was supervising the examination. They both failed to perform their role in ensuring the situation’s safety, which resulted in the disaster. “By the time it finally began, in the small hours of April 26, he was sleep-deprived and as ill-tempered as ever. When the young reactor engineer, Leonid Toptunov, made a mistake soon after taking over at the controls on the midnight shift, Dyatlov insisted on continuing with the test—even though Toptunov, and safety protocols, suggested otherwise”. The significance of a safety test cannot be overstated, since even the slightest implications can lead to huge tragedies. Dyatlov was unable to think clearly because the exam was set quite early in the morning. Given the magnitude of the situation, the appropriate course of action after Toptunov’s major mistake would be to play it safe. Despite this, Dyatlov, who was sleepy and ill, took the controversial decision to continue the examination, and the rest is history, meaning the power plant exploded. The safety concerns raised by Chornobyl and its aftermath spread over the world, and many began to be concerned about the development of nuclear power.

Chornobyl altered the development of nuclear power plants, which is unfortunate considering fossil fuels are an inefficient source of energy. Chornobyl is considered the world’s worst nuclear disaster for a reason: it killed 30 plant personnel and firefighters, and if further deaths from radiation were emitted into the atmosphere, the death toll rises to countless numbers. As a result, many began to question whether nuclear power plants’ energy is worth the risk. As stated by Dr. Hans Blix, “There is no doubt that the accident slowed down growth in nuclear power, even though an international recession — with a less than predicted need for electricity — was the most important factor in that slowdown”. This statement demonstrates how the Chornobyl disaster impacted nuclear power development and its industry. People no longer needed nuclear power since they had enough energy from other sources including fossil fuels, and people had serious concerns regarding nuclear power’s safety, despite the fact that it is a superior source of energy than fossil fuels. In fact, nuclear power is so much more efficient, and, “Based on safety and carbon emissions, fossil fuels are the dirtiest and most dangerous, while nuclear and modern renewable energy sources are vastly safer and cleaner”. Fossil fuels are an essential component of our life since they are the world’s primary source of energy. Fossil fuels are extremely harmful to the environment and will have many further consequences in the future, but shifting to nuclear energy will have far fewer negative consequences. Furthermore, if properly managed, nuclear power is both safer and more efficient than fossil fuel-based energy generation. As a member of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, James K. Asselstine stated, “The Chernobyl accident demonstrates vividly that nuclear safety is truly a global issue,” When someone as influential as Asselstine talks about the dangers of nuclear power, people get concerned. As a result, nuclear power is viewed as a negative, and people do not want to live with something which has the potential to destroy everything. This is what happened when the Chornobyl nuclear power plant exploded. People began to be concerned about the future production of nuclear power plants as a result of Chornobyl’s effects on nuclear power development, which is problematic since more fossil fuels will be required to meet human demands.

The Chornobyl disaster resulted in countless deaths as well as influencing the collapse of the Soviet Union; in addition, safety procedures should be strictly enforced when dealing with nuclear power. Finally, Chornobyl negatively influenced the development of nuclear power plants, which is unfortunate considering fossil fuels are an inefficient source of energy. For these reasons, the Chornobyl disaster was a result of poor leadership. About 30 km of land, the government, people’s homes, and the nuclear power plant were all destroyed in a matter of seconds. This is a major event that continues to have an impact on all civilizations today. If Chornobyl had not happened, nuclear power plants would be more common, and fossil fuel-based energy would be less frequent, which is crucial given how harmful fossil fuels are to the environment.

Works Cited

1. Bloodworth, James, et al. “Did Chernobyl Kill Communism?” UnHerd, 20 Feb. 2020, unherd.com201906chernobyl-and-the-meltdown-of-the-ussr.
2. Carlson, John. “Chernobyl: the Continuing Political Consequences of a Nuclear Accident.” The Interpreter, The Interpreter, 8 July 2019, www.lowyinstitute.orgthe-interpreterchernobyl-continuing-political-consequences-nuclear-accident.
3. Diamond, Stuart. “CHERNOBYL CAUSING BIG REVISIONS IN GLOBAL NUCLEAR POWER POLICIES.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 27 Oct. 1986, www.nytimes.com19861027worldchernobyl-causing-big-revisions-in-global-nuclear-power-policies.html.
4. Gorbachev, Mikhail. “Turning Point at Chernobyl.” The Japan Times, 21 Apr. 2006, www.japantimes.co.jpopinion20060421commentaryworld-commentaryturning-point-at-chernobyl#.XPoajKR7mUk.

Haley Britzky

1. Published Feb 12, et al. “What Really Happened the Night of the Chernobyl Disaster, According to a New Army Podcast.” Task

Engineering is arguably one of the most important professions in the world. Engineers create the bridges society uses everyday to get from place to place, engineers create the cars society uses to cross those bridges and engineers are even the reason why society can power those cars. These are only a few of the thing’s engineers create, the list goes on and on. However, all these elements have one thing in common which is the involvement of heavy parts, fast speeds and dangerous chemicals. Engineers have a duty to society to create these dangerous goods, in a way that society can safely use them. Although society uses bridges, cars and chemicals almost everyday with no issues, engineers are only human and sometimes tragedies arise. However, one of the most tragic engineering disasters was at a nuclear plant in 1986 in Chernobyl, Ukraine.

Many of the object’s engineers create pose no threat to society, and many humans will and have gone their full lifetime with only encountering the luxuries the engineering profession creates for them. Unfortunately, however there are people that have been killed and severely injured changing their lives forever, caused from engineering disasters. The common element all the engineering disasters have in common is, somewhere along the building or operational process someone did not follow the proper engineering profession ethics. The main rule in engineering ethics is public safety before anything however, unfortunately history recalls that many of these disasters are caused from engineers not putting public safety first and being more focused on making deadlines, so they don’t get fined or lose money from their production process taking longer. A common cause of a project taking longer is when the proper procedure and parts take longer to put together or order. This causes some engineers to buckle under the pressure, by using below standard materials to meet deadlines and/or be persuaded by superiors that an existing project is structurally sound implying time and money should not be spent on reconstruction. A few disasters seen recently are directly caused from one of the issues stated for example the Quebec Bridge, Tacoma Bridge and especially the Chernobyl Disaster. Arguably one of the most horrific and tragic disasters in the history of engineering happened in the nuclear energy field on April 26th, 1986.

Nuclear energy is one of the most important resources society has, one day when fossil fuel supplies are run dry, Nuclear power will be one of the few answers society will have. Nuclear energy is the process that brings subatomic particles together fighting magnetic forces inside a reactor and the outcome of this process creates one of the most powerful sources of energy engineers have ever seen. On the contrary to Nuclear energy being so powerful, the process in which it is created, stored and disposed of is extremely dangerous and poses a large risk to society around the globe.

Chernobyl is a Ukrainian town located just outside the populated town of Pripyat, which was home to about 50, 000 people in the year 1986 (live-science. com). Unfortunately, the beautiful town of Pripyat fell to be a victim of an engineering disaster. It all started during the night shift on the 25th-26th of April 1986, when two senior nuclear engineers and one Chief deputy engineer by the name of Anatoly Dyatlov were beginning a test on the Nuclear plant’s reactor number 4. The test being performed was a safety test to observe what would happen if there was a power outage or power shortage going to the regulator, the reason for this is because during that time in history the Russian government had fears of attacks from one of their many enemies. The government felt that their Nuclear plant would be a large target, due to the Russians being the most advanced in the world at that time in the Nuclear energy field. The test was first performed a year before in 1985, however the test failed due to faulty voltage measuring devices. Engineers designed voltage meters that were ready to be put to the test. However, on the night of April 26th the shift did not start off as it should have.

To begin the Deputy Chief Engineer Dyatolov was known to be a very hard man and uneasy to communicate with, and at the same time the control room which was the driver’s seat of the whole plant was getting extremely low voltage readings from reactor number four. The reading was indicating that voltage was extremely low, however Dyatolov did not see an issue and believed it was just another faulty measuring device. He was ambitious to get the task done, so he ordered the engineers to proceed. The younger engineers in the control room, pleaded with Dyatolov to stop the test and begin trouble shooting. The deputy did not listen and carried on, not long after the system encountered zero voltage. This caused a major concern, because the lower the voltage the more unstable the system becomes, due to the reason the plant works by the splitting of uranium atoms which creates heat turning water into steam turning a turbine. The system also contained boron rods that contributed to the reaction, by being the objects operators used to control the system.

The major technical issue observed that night on the 26th of April was that when the system reached zero on the voltage scale, the two major contributing factors to the disaster was the fact the engineers removed the boron rods (control rods), as well in addition to one of the many faulty components from the plant design. One of the faulty designs that contributed to the disaster was the “void effficient”. In most modern day properly designed nuclear plants, the reactors are engineered to create a negative void which uses the water that is supposed to be created into steam as a coolant for the system. This process is done by the increase in steam, triggering a decrease in reactivity. However, in 1986 this was not known to the engineers who built that facility as well, the engineers in the operation room were not aware of this. When the boron rods were removed reactions in the core of the reactor increased, caused by a positive void co-efficient. The power that was building in at the core of reactor number four was not detected by the engineers in the control room. Dyatolov ordered his engineers to continue to carry on with the test. Unfortunately, shortly after an explosion was the result of the “hot spot” inside the reactor. The explosion that came in result to the hot spot inside reactor number four, was extremely severe. This was not just a fire, it was a radioactive fire that released “5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere, killing two workers.”

On the night of the explosion two workers died and many died within a short amount of time after the tragedy, and some still suffer today from the radiation and fire from that day. People in the nearby town of Pripyat approximately one mile from the Nuclear site, were infected with radiation. The people at the facility that night and the people nearby, will forever suffer “Acute Radiation Syndrome. ” The acute radiation syndrome is what most people in the facility and nearby town were infected with, the syndrome eats away at tissue in the body and is engrained in one’s DNA. Which means their genetics will contain the syndrome. Furthermore, the radiation from the disaster polluted the air and tracked all over the Northern Hemisphere attacking civilians in more than just one country. The Professional Engineers Ontario Code of Ethics, Section 77 of the O. Reg 941-77 states “A practitioner, shall regard the practitioner’s duty to public welfare as paramount. ” This is the most important rule in the engineering handbook and was not followed during the nightshift on April 26th, 1986 at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant. As well, before this night the facility was not engineered properly.

Firstly, on the nightshift on the 26th of April the engineers in the control room were having issues with reactor number four. The voltage readings were extremely lower than they should have been in general, and 5much too low to attempt running a safety test. The Chief Deputy Engineer did not abide by the parameters and believed there was nothing wrong with the reactor that night. Chief Deputy Engineer Dyatolov, did not put the publics well being as paramount, he put his interests first and ran a dangerous piece of equipment with major issues, until it exploded. A couple factors contribute to the reasoning why Dyatolov was so anxious to run the test, and this was because he was close to being up for promotion which would get him out of the control room. As well, he was in trouble with the government already for unethical behaviour when installing nuclear systems in Russian submarines. Secondly, although Dyatolov was not an ethical engineer the Russian governmental party at that time was extremely determined to get the Nuclear plant running and cut down construction time by “cutting corners” to make the party appear as they can get anything done. However, the governments interests came first, and public safety was far behind in second. The first problem with the Nuclear plant was, the original design for the roof was to be built with non-combustible materials, however the roof was made with a mixture of highly combustible materials. The effect this had on the explosion on the night of April 26th was extremely great. Once the explosion happened in the core of reactor number four, a fire broke out and the highly combustible roof went up in flames extremely quick, when it was ignited. The second major design flaw was mentioned earlier and was the fact the reactor was designed to have a positive-void effect which increased the reactions in the core, when the reactor was turned off. This was because the design used different materials for the moderator and coolant, which causes increased pressure and neutron absorption leading ultimately to an increase in reactions at the core.

The disaster that happened in Chernobyl in 1986 was a tragedy that could have been avoided. At the time of the construction and disaster of the Nuclear Facility, the Soviet Union was going through a period where they were adapting to a communist government and important people such as engineers like Dyatolov wanted to prove themselves to get promoted. As well the government speeding up the construction by taking shortcuts in the materials used was not ethical. The engineers and the Russian government itself are responsible for the tragedy that happened on April 26th, 1986. There were many excuses from both the engineers and government, both who blamed each other. However, the bottom line is, the well being of the public was not paramount, therefore many innocent civilians not only in Pripyat but people, animals and eco-systems over the world were affected by faults in the Nuclear facility and reactor number four.

Both Fukushima and Chernobyl disasters were nuclear crises that occurred accidentally in Japan and Ukraine respectively. The Fukushima nuclear disaster occurred at the Fukushima Daiichi power plant while the Chernobyl nuclear disaster occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.

Both disasters were rated seven, which is the highest in the scale due to its severity. The Chernobyl disaster occurred in 1986 while Fukushima disaster occurred on March 2011. The aim of this paper is to compare and contrast both nuclear disasters, access its effects and discuss some of the measures that have been undertaken in order to prevent the occurrence of a similar accident (Cooper, 2011).

Chernobyl disaster

This disaster was a nuclear accident that befell the Ukrainians on the 26th day of April in 1986. It occurred at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and caused a lot of damage. What actually happened was that an explosion occurred at the site and caused a big fire that led to the release of huge volumes of radioactive material in to the air. This spread to large areas and it affected a large part of Europe and Western USSR (Abbott, 2006).

This nuclear disaster was considered the worst nuclear disaster in history. According to the International Nuclear Event Scale, the Chernobyl disaster was one between the two nuclear accidents to be categorized as a level seven nuclear event. The other disaster that was also placed in the same category was the Fukushima nuclear disaster.

The contamination was adverse and it required a very great amount of workforce to contain it. The number of workers who ended up working on that issue totaled over half a million. The costs incurred in the same venture were also crippling. The process of containing the contaminating effect of the nuclear disaster was approximately eighteen million rubles. This caused a huge economic dent on the Soviet Union’s economy.

The disaster can be traced back to the beginning whereby the disaster is thought to have taken effect. A system test was being conducted at one of the reactors at the Chernobyl Power Plant. What followed was a power output surge that occurred suddenly. When this occurred, an attempt to engage emergency shutdown was initiated. This backfired and led to a greater output of power.

This consequently caused the reactor vessel to rupture and explode. There were series of other explosions that followed. This led to the exposure of the graphite moderator to air. The graphite moderator ignited due to the presence of air resulting in fire. This fire caused some deadly, radioactive smoke to be released into the atmosphere and over a large area. The plume drifted over large areas including Europe and Soviet Union (Read, 1993).

Since the time of the incident until the year 2000, over 350,000 people were evacuated from the areas surrounding the site and were settled in other areas (Abbott, 2006). People who were evacuated were from Russia, Ukraine and other neighboring areas. This disaster created a wave of panic and people were concerned about the safety of the nuclear power industry in that country.

It is due to this fears that the government decided to slow the expansion of nuclear power for some years. This also forced the government of the Soviet Union to conduct its procedures in a less secretive manner. Another consequence of this disaster was that the people finally discovered that the government had attempted to cover up the Chernobyl disaster. This catalyzed the formation of reforms that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The Ukrainians, Russians and people from Belarus are still feeling the effects of the contamination caused by the nuclear disaster. This has forced them to get involved in the decontamination process. They have also continuously incurred costs due to health care.

Various investigations were conducted on the Chernobyl disaster. The International Atomic Energy Agency was responsible for the investigations. They examined the consequences that the disaster had to the environment. After the investigations, they concluded that the death toll resulting from the direct effects of the accident was thirty-one.

The people affected were the emergency workers and those who worked at the reactor. Separate investigations by the UNSCEAR estimated the death toll resulting from nuclear radiation to be sixty-four. This was confirmed in 2008.

The World Health Organization estimated that at least four thousand civilians died and this number did not include the military personnel that became casualties during clean-up procedures. The was yet another estimation made in 2006 about the deaths caused by the indirect effects of the disaster.

These were in form of patients who died of cancer, which is believed to have been an effect of the contaminants. This number was estimated to be between thirty and sixty thousand deaths (Dvorak and Landers, 2011). Investigations by Greenpeace raised the figure to above two hundred thousand.

A certain publication dubbed Chernobyl suggested that close to one million premature deaths between 1986 and 2004 all over the world were attributed to the Chernobyl disaster (Onishi, 2011). However, this estimation was criticized and said to have been an exaggeration since scientific evidence lacked.

There are certain human factors that contributed to the accident and consequently, the loss of lives. At around the time the accident occurred, one hundred and sixty people were on duty. These included the maintenance staff and technicians.

They operated at their respective departments. There were 300 more workers at the site that night. A radiation-monitoring technician made one of the mistakes that were made that night. He failed to check the forth Unit at the beginning of his shift. He assumed that everything was ok since it had been shut down.

There was likely an early warning about the disaster but no one anticipated that magnitude of damage. The senior turbine machinist operator had noticed some fire in the turbine hall. He ran to the control room to report the fire (Cheney, 1995).

Some engineering controls were put in place in order to mitigate the consequences that resulted from the accident. One of them included draining the pool of water that was under the floor. This water had been contaminated by radioactive material. Pumps from the fire brigade were used to drain the contents from the basement and this operation did not end until 8 May.

Another intervention to mitigate the consequences was the removal of the radioactive debris. The worst of this debris was found inside what was previously the reactor. The liquidators did the shoveling of the debris but they had to be in some protective gear. Due to the large doses of radiation from the site, the liquidators could only work for a maximum of forty seconds per time.

In order to reduce the effects of the block of graphite and other debris, five thousand metric tons of sand and led were dropped from helicopters. To prevent further chain-reactions and explosions, rain was prevented from entering the contaminated area. This civil engineering task was considered the largest of all such tasks in history. This is because it involved over 250,000 workers who worked until they reached their limits of radiation (Abbott, 2006).

Fukushima nuclear disaster

This nuclear disaster was an accident that resulted in a series of failed equipment, meltdown of nuclear and the release of radioactive material. This occurred at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant and was as a result of an earthquake and the Tsunami. It occurred in Okuma, Japan. It was considered the most destructive nuclear accident in twenty-five years after Chernobyl disaster (Ito, 2011).

At the time of the incident, the fourth reactor had been defueled while the next two had been shut down following a proposed maintenance exercise. When the earthquake hit the area, the other reactors automatically shut down. An emergency generator went online to salvage the electronics and the cooling system. It was unfortunate that what followed the quake was the tsunami.

The large currents of water were so strong that it broke the connection of the rector to the power unit. This cut-off of power supply led the reactors to start overheating. It was impossible to receive help from the outside since it was very flooded. The damage caused by the earthquake also caused the inaccessibility to the area.

Within few days, the first three reactors had experienced complete meltdown. Workers attempted to cool and shut down the reactors but this led to the occurrence of hydrogen explosions. The government tried to intervene and ordered that the seawater be used to cool off the reactors but this did not work either. Instead, it led to the complete destruction of the reactors.

The level of water in the fuel rod continued to drop drastically causing the heating up of the rods. Due to fears of the possibility of the release of radioactive fumes, the government ordered a twenty-kilometer evacuation.

Meanwhile, the workers in the plant continued to suffer exposure to the radioactive substance but they were evacuated temporarily at intervals. After a while, some reactors were stabilized using electrical power and this facilitated cooling.

At the initial stages, some engineers rated it as a level 4 nuclear incident. This was according to the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES).

Other international agencies did not agree with this scale, as they believed that it was much severe. This level rose to five and later to seven, which is the highest value in the scale. The government seemed to have poorly communicated this incident to its citizens and this led to criticisms. It later organized for cleanup activities.

The Japanese government attempted to compare the Fukushima nuclear incident with that of Chernobyl incident and concluded that the total amount of radioactive material emitted in the Fukushima nuclear accident was only a mere tenth of that which was emitted during the Chernobyl incident. Some reasonable amount of radioactivity was released into the ocean and to the underground water.

Investigations done between 30 and 50 kilometers away from the site showed that there were traces of radioactive material that were of substantial amounts and could cause harm. In order to mitigate the consequences of the nuclear incident, the government banned the consumption of food that had been grown in the affected area. Tokyo also advised its people to avoid using tap water to prepare food for their infants.

Comparing the two nuclear incidents, the Fukushima incident may be considered to have been less fatal since there were no reported deaths or serious injuries due to the direct effects of the radioactivity. However, a few of the staff at the nuclear plant were injured severely or killed due to the effects of the earthquake.

A significant number, but way lower than those involved in the Chernobyl incident, received huge doses of radiation. It has been estimated that in the future, it is expected that between 100 and 1000 people would die of cancer due to the exposure to radiation.

There is a possibility that the nuclear disaster would have been avoided or prevented. Firstly, there were reports of falsified safety records by some executives at managing the power plant. This included the unreported safety hazards that had previously been experienced there. If these hazards had been reported, the future disaster would have been avoided.

The other thing is that the Japanese government ignored a court order to shut down a nuclear plant towards the western part of the country with the reason that it would not be able to withstand earthquakes.

The other reason is that the Tsunami-study was ignored. Some studies had showed that there was a possibility of a Tsunami hitting the area but the officials ignored it and said that the reports were mere exaggerations. It is for this reason that they did not prepare themselves for such a catastrophe.

Similarities and differences between the nuclear disasters

Both the nuclear disasters that occurred in Japan and Ukraine have similarities and differences. The first similarity is that they were both of the same level (level seven) according to the International Nuclear Event Scale. This is due to the severity of the incident. Both incidents led to contamination of large geographic areas since radioactive material could be traced in areas more than 50 kilometers.

Another similarity is that both incidents occurred due to ignorance of some sort. One of the differences between the two is the cause of the disaster. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster was cause by a power surge that resulted in several explosions that destroyed a reactor. This caused the release of a cloud of radioactive materials that spread to far lands including Europe.

On the other hand, the Fukushima nuclear disaster was caused by an earthquake and Tsunami. The other difference between the two is the amount of radioactive material that was released. The Chernobyl incident resulted to the release of a huge amount of radioactive material compared to the amount released from the Fukushima incident. The radiations from the Chernobyl incident were estimated to have been ten time that from the other incident.

Worldwide media response to the disasters

Both disasters hit the headlines immediately the incidents were heard of. The worldwide media sent a wave of panic to the victim’s families and those people who lived some few kilometers away from the site. The worldwide media including BBC and CNN termed both incidents as nuclear disasters.

BBC news blamed the management for lack of preparedness (Black, 2011). This is because they had known about the Tsunami but did nothing to prepare for it. The media was constructive in that it highlighted on some of the failures of the management in order to ensure that such a thing would not happen again.

Media was also involved in sending warning messages to those people living close to the site to warn them about the effects of contamination. The media was careful to provide as accurate information as possible and was ready to provide help where possible. The sensitivity elicited by the media was also commendable.

Conclusion

Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear disasters were the two greatest nuclear disasters in the history of nuclear energy productions. Both incidents could be attributed to the lack of proper precaution measures by either the management or the staff.

The incidents led to the evacuation of people from the surrounding areas. The effects of the radiation activity were adverse and people suffered from either the direct or the indirect effects of the incident. However, various interventions were undertaken to mitigate the consequences.

When I think of nuclear disasters my first thought is Nagasaki and Hiroshima. These tragic events caused during an act of war was a traumatic devastating event in history. Chernobyl another disaster was perhaps the most outrageous display of lack of ethics event in recent modern day history. Chernobyl’s instant killing of the 30 workers pales to the estimated 600,000 (Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster) deaths that can be attributed to this selfish series of events. Chernobyl nuclear power (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/is-nuclear-energy-safe/) complex began construction in 1970, 130 kilometers north of the city of Kiev, Ukraine which at the time was part of the Soviet Union. Chernobyl was designed as a four nuclear reactor complex in which the first two reactors, units one and two were completed by 1977. Units three and four were completed in 1983.

Chernobyl was designed for military use as a continuous supply not reactor necessarily a fluctuating power source(Chernobyl Disaster). During the construction of Chernobyl there were many sited deviations to the design. For example, “The pillars of generator room were erected with a deviation of up to 100mm from the reference axis and the horizontal connections were absent. Also there was a deviation in the wall panels of up to 150mm” (Ethical Issues Concerning the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster). Pouring of the foundation was poured with gaps due to the inconsistency of the cement plant. Even the backfilling to the foundation was flawed which caused damage to the waterproofing and therefore allowed ground water to seep into the station and radioactive material to seep out of the station into the environment.

What made Chernobyl such a well-known occurrence happened on April 25, 1986 when personnel were testing how long the turbines of reactor 4 could spin and still maintain supplying power. The test was to be completed so that if the reactors were shut down unexpectedly, a disaster could be Keck2 averted. This same test was completed a year before which showed flaws in the system, so corrective actions were completed and were to be tested on the historic day of April 25, 1986. So what went wrong? The experiment started by disconnecting from the grid to determine how long one generator could power some of the reactors safety systems. This residual power could run cooling pumps in an emergency situation. The experiment started at 1: 05 pm on April 25, 1986, when the reactor output dropped to 1600MW one of the generators was shut off. The experiment was to take place on the second generator after the output went down to 700 to 1000 megawatts. At about 2: 00 pm the operators turned off the emergency cooling system.

The reason this was done was to avoid the emergency cooling system to turn on during the experiment. This was a very serious violation of safety regulations. The next few hours the operators were having a difficult time trying to stabilize the plant so the experiment continued to be delayed. An automatic control was disengaged which caused the power at one point to reach 30 MW. Xeon began to buildup, which is a byproduct of decay, which slowed down the chain reaction of nuclear power which in effect caused the output to drop. The operators corrected this problem by removing many control rods. After removal of the control rods power reached 200MW by 1: 00 am on April 26 and it was decided at that time to continue with the experiment. To continue with the experiment, two additional pumps were started up as per the test plan. The reactor were still running at much lower output than was planned, these 2 pumps caused too much cooling which in turn caused too much steam (Chernobyl Accident). Automatic shut down signal were blocked by the operators which disabled part of the emergency shutdown procedure. The overpressure caused a massive explosion which released fission products into the air. A second explosion caused pieces of the fuel chambers to explode. The fuel started a number of fires in which was the main release of radioactivity into the environment. So in essence, ironically a failed safety experiment in which several safety violations occurred concluded in a disaster.

Was this disaster avoidable? The answer is astoundingly yes! Lack of trained operators appear to be a large contributor to what went wrong. When operators began to circumvent safety features such as emergency shutdown procedures this was a huge mistake in which it appears could have averted the entire problem. Were the operators properly trained on what could wrong when these features were shutdown? Safety procedures are in place for a reason, a life lesson of what could go wrong and the catastrophic results when safety protocols are not followed. The Chief Engineer in charge of the control room on April 25, 1986, Anatoly Steponvich Dyatlov, “Anxious to complete a scientific experiment that had been ordered by Moscow, he bullied his subordinates into taking unnecessary risks”( Michael Dobbs). Can you imagine, the Chief Engineer, bullies the operators to commit serious safety violations! Did Anatoly Dyatlov understand the consequences of what could happen? Was he capable of being in charge? At end of the catastrophic event, Mr. Dyatlov was sentenced to 10 years in a labour camp (Michael Dobbs). A pretty small price to pay for the thousands of deaths which occurred needlessly. Process controls was another area in which I believe the disaster could have been averted.

For example, why were operators allowed to bypass safety features? Should this not have been designed so that operators could not override? I would think that if these features were so critical, there simply should be no way of circumventing them. During the construction of Chernobyl as mentioned previously, shortcuts were taken causing serious flaws, but what about actual design short comings. For example, nuclear reactors in Canada are built with cement encasement in which literally a 747 plane could crash into the reactor without any radiation escaping. Chernobyl was not designed with these multiple layers of physical barriers. Another design flaw was the insertion of the control rods would not go into the mating holes to control the output due to the lack of hydraulic force needed to overcome the swelling of the holes due to the heat. Another design flaw Chernobyl had was a “positive void coefficient” which basically means that a nuclear chain Keck4 reaction increased when water coolant was lost, which caused an uncontrollable influx of power. In Canada reactors have “negative void coefficient” which will automatically shutdown the chain reaction when coolant is lost (What could have been done to prevent Chernobyl?). This feature would have almost certainly averted the catastrophe.

Public safety was a secondary concern for the Soviet Union after the explosions occurred and the deadly radiation was spewed into the atmosphere. The Soviet’s first priority was to try to hide what happened. The Soviet Union kept not only their citizens in the dark but the entire world until the evening of April 28, 1986. Valuable minutes went by without evacuation. A complete unforgivable selfish acts by the Soviet Union and complete disregard to public safety. Another astounding fact is the Soviet Union kept 3 reactors in operation long after the explosion; reactors 1 until 1996, unit 2 until 1991 and unit 3 going until the year 2000. Can you imagine people working in this radioactive cesspool ( Chernobyl 1-3 enter decommissioning phase)! Wow, it is hard to believe a country can be so ruthless with complete disregard to human life! Professional engineering Code of Ethics” have a clearly defined duty to society, which is to regard the duty to public welfare as paramount, above their duties to clients or employers” (Code of Ethics) Did Anatoly Steponvich Dyatlov perform in an ethical manner? The epitome of absolutely not. Mr Dyatlov complete disregard for public safety and his duty to the operators was reckless and certainly unethical by the mere definition listed above.

How about the Soviet Union’s disregard for human life and only trying to cover up the disaster? Can you believe how utterly ruthless the Soviet Union was in not evacuating their citizens and not immediately letting everyone know what happened, not only unethical but truly disgusting. The PEO code of ethics goes on to state ” fairness and loyalty to the practitioner’s associates, employers, clients, subordinates and employees” (Code of Ethics). Let’s reflect on this for a moment, was Mr Dyatlov fair to his subordinates? Obviously not. Keck5 “Devotion to high ideals of personal honour and professional integrity” (Code of Ethics), how did Mr Dyatolov perform here? Sadly, the Soviet Union performed even worse! “Knowledge of developments in the area of professional engineering relevant to any services that are undertaken” (Code of Ethics). Was Mr. Dyatlov knowledgeable enough to complete the testing? Were the people who ordered the test, were they knowledgeable enough to ask the task to be completed? Obviously not! “Competence in the performance of any professional engineering services that are undertaken” (Code of Ethics). Was Mr. Dyatolov competent? Was the Soviet Union competent in ordering the test? Obviously not! History is very valuable to engineers and society. History are lessons, lessons need to be studied so that the same mistakes are not repeated. So many valuable lessons learnt from this incident. Taking on tasks that perhaps you are not completely capable of taking on, it is okay to say no or simply that I do not feel comfortable taking this task on due to my lack of knowledge. To bully subordinates is by definition the opposite of teamwork.

When working within a team the results are always better, this has been proven time and time again. What about the complete disregard for life after the explosion by the Soviet Union, how can there be such a disregard for life? The flawed design of Chernobyl, how can an engineer design such a facility with no regard to ethics. I can hardly imagine bypassing safety features, was the training for these individuals adequate? Where were the safety fool proofs, which should not have been able to be circumvented? The short cuts in the construction, one cannot simply deviate from the design without understanding the consequences. As I reflect on the pictures of innocent children who suffered the consequences of these selfish unethical acts and the net effect of these acts. Let history make us remember what unethical decisions could cause!

Mistakes are merely a part of a human’s everyday life. In the engineering profession, every single move and foolish decisions made can cause life-changing results if something does not meet the proper standards. The Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine was a prime example of standard breeches, design flaws, and incompetence by the workers to produce one of the worst incidents in the history of the engineering world. This factory used to be a well-known power station until it was uncovered that this company used ill practice to attempt in achieving their results. These grave errors in judgment are the root cause behind why so many innocent lives were lost and affected by diseases, stemming from the engineering disaster. Contentious debates have often been stirred about whether the Chernobyl disaster could have been avoided. In the end, many flaws existed in the factory that resulted due to poor judgment and criminal carelessness on the part of the higher ups. Plus, the design flaws in the factory are something that could be avoided, but unfortunately many lives had to suffer horribly for these flaws to be discovered in this factory. The events at Chernobyl were caused due to design flaws in the reactor, human incompetence by all the employees, supervisors and ownership, and due to criminal negligence when it came down to the clear signs that an issue was arising not being investigated to avoid it.

The Chernobyl factory was a nuclear power station that was first made in 1972. One part of the factory that made it stand out from the other companies was the fact that it could inevitably generated an immense amount of raw energy without a moment’s delay. This ultimately became the fatal flaw of the company. During the dreary day of the appalling incident, the company initially wanted to test the reactor’s system and check out how the plant would perform if power were to be lost at the location of Unit 4 in their respective company. The schedule for the process was as per the following; start the reactor at a minimal power while making the steam-turbine operate at its utmost speed. This test would also examine the turbine generator to see how its power is doing, which would continue occurring until the generator that used diesel’s emergency power turned back on. Finally, after the completion of all steps were deemed to be a success, then the generators were to be cooled back to its ordinary working pace. The issue initially emerged when the Soviet Union made the RBMK-1000 reactors, as this was the prime design issue in the hideous massacre, which contained an element that ended up becoming unsteady as the power was being diminished amid the test. The issue with the design of the reactors became a glaring issue because of the water channel and fuel channels being completely individual of one another. Scientists were utterly dumbfounded by this abnormality as the world’s many other reactors did not have this difference. This reactor also had a positive void coefficient, which basically means that when a part of the water is getting replaced by steam, power too would also increase. This once more was a retrogressive methodology as again a clear majority of the world’s reactors occupied a negative void coefficient. The negative void loop would have allowed for less power to be produced at once, to make the reactor a lot less unstable as opposed to what it originally was. Consequently, incrementing the vaporization strength designated that the reactor’s power output would too increase. This made the RBMK reactor’s composition extremely erratic when at the lower power levels. This meant that it was more prone to producing a sudden dangerous amount of high energy levels as did occur on the night of April 26th, 1986.

In the tragic end, the unorthodox ingenuities ultimately lead to the senseless loss of thousands of innocent lives. Even though the Chernobyl factories reactor had many design flaws, the ineptitude of the workers at the factory too aided heavily in inadvertently creating the massacre at Chernobyl. When testing the reactor, sequences of many errors lead to the eventual Chernobyl disaster. To start off with, on the night of the incident, since they were identifying how the facility would operate in case of a power outage, they shut down safety systems that would typically be lost during an incident. This incorporated the turbine machine that would provide cooling water to the system. With the flow being reduced, the water in the reactor started to boil and turned into pressurized steam. Workers desperately tried bringing Workers desperately tried bringing rods closer to the reactor to try controlling the issue, which would slow it down and ease the reaction. Unfortunately, another design issue in the rods as well lead to a jam occurring. The steam enhancement caused for the reactor to explode, which was followed by a second blast only moments later.

Concerned employees insisted to their supervisor to not go on with this test due to the acknowledgement of potential for harm. However, the supervisor willfully violated many violations to earn extra respect from the higher ups by completing his task with as much speed and ease as possible. This proved to be costly as the incident was so catastrophic that the disaster produced a minimum of 100 times greater the radiation than the Nagasaki and Hiroshima atom bombs that were dropped. The supervisor was of the mindset that his employees were under-trained and thus knew far less than himself. This mindset set proved to be costly as in reality he was one of the main figures to blame for the incident. If the supervisor at the time Anatoly Stepanovich Dyatlov (vice chief-engineer) carried out the executive decision of ceasing the operation when many signs were being shown that danger was coming, then the most frightful engineering disaster in history could have been avoided.

As for many engineering disasters, the unfortunate incident at Chernobyl could have been dodged in numerous ways. For starters, the reactor was completely opposite in design to the rest of the world’s reactors as this one was contained a positive void loop as opposed to what it should have been (negative void loop). This Sovietdesigned reactor should have been designed to produce fewer steam bubbles, not more, as the excess of these bubbles eventually lead to the two explosions that took place. Also, this terrible incident could have been evaded had the crew been properlysupervised. The supervisor at the time committed mistakes after mistakes that consequently added up to a massive blunder (the incident that occurred). Had he not forced his workers to do as he told and instead thought about what his actions could inadvertently cause, then maybe so many lives could have been saved. To think, the vice chief-engineer should have absorbed his lesson because prior to working at Chernobyl, he was a part of a submarine making plant. One day while installing reactors, a nuclear incident occurred at his location as well. He survived the incident and from there, he went on to work at Chernobyl Power Plant where again a reactor incident occurred. To think, if only some of these errors in judgement and design flaws been noticed early and fixed ahead of time, maybe then, this negligent operation could have been halted or fixed to run properly.

As humans, we all make mistakes. In the engineering vocation, every single move and decisions made can cause life-changing results if something does not comply with the congruous standards. The Chernobyl disaster was a prime example of standard breeches, design imperfections, and incompetence by the workers to engender one of the most shocking incidents in the history of the engineering world. This factory used to be a well-known power station. That was until it was uncovered that this company demonstrated ill practice to achieve their results. These errors in judgement are the root cause behind why so many innocent lives were lost and affected by diseases, steaming from the engineering fails. This included the thousands of people who committed suicide due to the immense amount of constant pain those affected in the incident were in. Raging debates have frequently been stirred regarding whether the Chernobyl disaster could have been avoided. Many flaws existed in the factory that resulted due to poor judgement on the part of the higher ups. Design flaws are something that could be avoided, but unfortunately numerous lives had to suffer severely for these flaws to be discovered in this factory. The events at Chernobyl were caused due to design flaws in the reactor, human incompetence all the employees and ownership, and due to negligence when it came down to the visible signs that an issue was arising not being investigated.

The Chernobyl disaster, affecting all of Europe to some extent, was a tragic but perhaps inevitable result of decades of government policies that affected plant design, regulation, transparency, governance, training, operating procedures, and the value placed on human safety, and which all permitted inadequate practices to persist without being challenged.

The impact of the 1986 release of radiation created health problems that are still being investigated. The government’s response to the disaster created social and economic problems that persist to this day.

The attitude of the government in the period right after the explosions can be seen as arising from a military orientation to the development of nuclear energy, This is expressed in the approach taken in researching, designing, building, maintaining, regulating, and operating nuclear power plants in the USSR –While the Soviet government no longer exists in the same form because of the breakdown of the USSR, the world’s nuclear industry has looked to Chernobyl for lessons on what not to do.

There have been positive changes in regulations since then that does make the industry a bit safer, but it is possible that nuclear power can never be truly safe.

Background

The nuclear power generation effort in the former USSR can be viewed as an outgrowth of the Soviet nuclear weapons effort (G. Medvedev 38). Since the early days of World War II, and dating from a letter written by George Flerov to Josef Stalin, recommending that an atomic bomb would help them win the war, the Soviets had been energetically working on such a weapon.

As the war progressed, and the USSR’s failure to create a successful and effective atomic bomb before any Western nation, the Soviets expended substantial resources on understanding nuclear chemistry.

The Soviet Union had been developing and testing nuclear weapons in their continuing efforts to exert control regionally and maintain their status as a major world power. The first successful bomb test was in 1949. This was, humiliatingly, third after the USA and Great Britain.

The USSR was the first, however, to use nuclear reactors for the generation of electricity. This was a source of great pride to the USSR. The first such reactor was at Obninsk, where the (Z. Medvedev 227). It was experimental and was claimed to have solved the challenge of controlling a fission reaction (Z. Medvedev 227).

This research was paralleled by an effort to use radioactive products in multiple other ways, including steam generation for ship and submarine propulsion, agricultural seed sterilization, and medical technology. (Z. Medvedev 227)

The development of nuclear weapons, as well as all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle, proceeded under the direction of the obscurely named Ministry of Medium Machine Building. This ministry was, significantly, under the control of the military, and was deeply secretive. This ministry handled plutonium processing, and all uses of spent fuel, as well as the development of nuclear power plants (G. Medvedev 38).

This odd pairing of responsibilities, reporting to the military rather than to the civil authorities, as would be the case in most democracies, can be directly related to the development of the catastrophe at Chernobyl. The mindset of the military is not oriented towards openness and sharing of information, nor is it necessarily oriented towards valuing of individual life.

The military orientation meant that all such nuclear research, whether for bombs or peaceful purposes, was conducted on a strictly need to know basis. This meant that only those directly involved in a specific area of study or design were permitted to know about that area of the project.

It certainly meant that no one outside the project was permitted to learn anything about design ideas, safety concerns, comparisons with parallel efforts in other nations, or the results of testing.

The Soviet people were certainly not given any insights into what was being built and operated in their midst. They among the last to know even when the crisis occurred. The rest of the region and the world were certainly not informed even while the fires were burning

Because of the characteristics of nuclear power generation, this approach to creating and operating nuclear power plants was particularly dangerous. Because of the secrecy, any faulty design ideas could be proposed and adopted with no outside or civilian academic oversight or review.

Furthermore, the truth could be bent to accommodate the goals of the ministry. Although this sort of dishonesty is not exclusively characteristic of the military, it is certainly the sort of problem that one hears about the military. As Grigori Medvedev described the culture of dishonesty that prevailed months before the disaster, “We tell lies, and we teach our subordinates to lie” (G. Medvedev 23)

This militaristic, secrecy-shackled strategy has been proven to be devastating for the workers, the people living around the installation, and, indeed, for everyone living in the path of the fallout. The blast released enormous clouds of radioactive particles that were swept by wind around the area.

This increased radioactivity was detectable at substantial distances away, and in other countries as well. When rains fell, the radioactive particles were precipitated out of the atmosphere and fell to the ground, contaminating whatever was there.

Events and factors leading up to the disaster

On April 26, 1986, The Chernobyl Unit 4 Reactor was undergoing a test on the system that was meant to provide electric power in case of a power outage. This reflects the fact that there were, indeed, safety procedures and regulatory bodies that were meant to keep the facility operating safely. However, there had been, from very first construction and launching of the reactor, pressure to do things fast, whether that was safe or not.

As Zhores Medvedev points out, the intense pressure to launch early came from political authorities rather than from any scientific, engineering, or operations expert (Z. Medvedev 12). Thus, it is perhaps not surprising that the reactor suffered from what GreenFacts terms “basic engineering deficiencies (large positive coefficient of reactivity under certain conditions)” (GreenFacts).

The design had been pushed along to ensure that it would come online earlier than the projected start date. This was meant to bring great prestige and honor to the ministers involved and enhance their political careers.

The ministers in the Ministry of Energy, charged with supervising the nuclear sector of the energy industry, had no academic training in nuclear science and their experience was in other types of energy generation such as hydroelectric. This deficiency of leadership was true at the plant level as well (G. Medvedev 24).

During the test in April of 1986, the operators switched off the safety systems and this action “resulted in a significant variation in the temperature and flow rate of the inlet water to the reactor core” (GreenFacts). This precipitated a cascade of events that resulted in explosions, the release of radioactive steam, and ten days of fires and release of radionucleotides.

Attempts to deal with the accident

Helicopters dumped what GreenFacts reports as thousands of tons of … “boron,…lead,…sand and clay,…dolomite,….sodium phosphate, and polymer liquids”. (GreenFacts). Water was dropped from helicopters as well.

Stationary helicopters experienced levels of radiation that were too high to make this practical. The sand that was dropped may have increased the fire. Equipment broke down from the radiation and made the heroic efforts of the workers less than effective (GreenFacts).

Impact on human health

The impact of the blast on people in the immediate area, the region, and Europe was worsened by the secrecy imposed by the government. Numbers of the dead and wounded have been difficult to determine. The Soviet government has never been forthcoming. Twenty-eight emergency workers are known to have lost their lives in the immediate aftermath of the blast. Another 19 died within a year or so of the accident.

These were among many thousand workers who went into the inferno over the ten days following the accident and attempted to offset it somehow. These “liquidators,” as they were called, numbered in the hundreds of thousands. They were given little protection from the radiation. Sadly, some of their efforts, for example, the dumping of sand on the fire, may, certain instances, have exacerbated the problem, adding to the tragedy of their sacrifice.

They were certainly not all officially warned of the real danger of their task, nor were their families, according to the testimony of those interviewed by Alexeivich (Alexievich viii).

At least 1152 thyroid cancer cases in young people were attributed to drinking milk from cows that had been contaminated. Had the local population been warned by the governmental authorities, children could have drunk an alternative beverage or been removed to another location. Additionally, children and adults could have taken supplementary iodine to prevent some of the uptakes of the radioactive particles.

Most of the thyroid cancers were treated successfully in the short run, but long-term impacts may not be known until these people reach middle age and beyond (Peron 36). The numbers of people who developed other cancers, as a result, are very difficult to determine.

Estimates of the degree of exposure have suggested that, outside the immediate areas that experienced fallout, people living in certain parts of Nevada might receive more radiation exposure (Peron 35).

As Svetlana Alexievich describes the situation, “it was an accident that produced, in a way, more survivors than victims” (Alexievich vii). Much of the blame lies with the way that the government initially covered up the accident and only revealed information when forced to do so.

The local populations have certainly been labeled as victims, based on this exposure. Because of the poor living conditions in the area that had existed previously for decades, local people jumped at the chance to obtain government support and subsidies. This contributed to an inflation of the numbers of those reported as affected (Peron 35).

This phenomenon is attributable to the way that the Soviet government handled both the disaster and the way that aid and support were distributed customarily in the USSR. Once the truth of the disaster finally became public, the local population saw an opportunity to better their situation and exploited the fact that the Soviet government would only help them if there were an emergency (Peron 36).

Additionally, the victim label and the subsidies have created a long-term culture of dependency based on a perception that the local people, being sick and therefore somehow helpless, can do nothing for themselves. It has also encouraged fatalism.

This means that the people believe that they are doomed and that therefore nothing that they do or avoid doing (such as smoking, drinking, exercising, or taking other health and safety precautions) will make any difference in their lives. This combination of attitudes has prevented local people from moving on with their lives and rebuilding the regional economy.

As a result, this region has not rebounded economically to the extent it could have in the intervening years (Peron 35). The economic hardship and dislocation arising from evacuation from what they called their “motherland” and loss of homes and livelihoods have added to the problems of the area’s population (Alexievich 64).

It is directly attributable to the policies of the USSR, because the government initially tried to hide the problem, and then when it was impossible to conceal, evacuated many more people than perhaps was strictly speaking necessary (Peron 35). Again, the government’s policies were responsible for making the situation worse.

Impact on the environment

Wherever the radioactive steam or smoke cooled down, it precipitated out radioactive materials. This left residues on buildings and streets. These were washed down to clean up the problem. However, this meant that the water used in the process was contaminated. This water and other run-off have contaminated the sewage system and related materials. Untreated soils continue to contaminate the air above them with elevated levels of radiation (GreenFacts).

As noted earlier, the radioactive fallout contaminated plants consumed by grazing animals such as cows, and their milk, with very slow declines. The process occurs through weathering and radioactive decay. Some regions retain reportable levels of radiation. Simple changes in agricultural practices could help, such as more sophisticated plowing and fertilization (GreenFacts).

Forested areas as far away as Scandinavia, because they are not disturbed by agricultural activities, retain the fallout longer. The indigenous populations in these regions forage for wild food, increasing exposures. Their tradition of eating reindeer meat also concentrates the radioactivity from the reindeer’s diet of lichen (GreenFacts).

Water bodies were contaminated variously. Lakes with no inflow or outflow are worst affected, concentrating the radioactivity in fish bones. Each species of animal and plant has responded uniquely. Some species have rebounded and thrived because they have taken back habitat, and no one is hunting them (GreenFacts).

However, this seemingly positive finding does not make everyone confident. The past dishonesty of the authorities leads some to worry that people will be relocated back into contaminated areas before it is truly safe.

This could be disastrous for the people, and, sadly, for the species that are making a small comeback. The tendency of the government to misstate and conceal both numbers and impacts for political reasons continues to create problems for everyone involved.

Conclusion

At every point from the first use of nuclear materials to generate energy to the continuing attempts to deal with the accident, politics, and ideology, rather than science and good sense, have dominated.

A military culture of secrecy and paranoia set the pattern for nearly every decision, from design to construction, from the inappropriate qualifications of ministers and managers to the routine obliviousness to safety and technical issues, from the accident cover-up to the obliviousness to the liquidators’ safety. Human error, compounded by poor management and a culture of disregard for human life led to the catastrophe at Chernobyl.

Dangerous caesium-137, which has a long half-life, is still a problem. There are measurable levels in soils and some foods in a lot of Europe. Five million people still live in places with elevated radiation levels. It was caused by mankind because the people that built it did not build it will enough they did not look at the directions right. They had to do multiple indemediant changes the safety of humankind and still messed it up

I chose this topic because I like to look at nuclear plants explosions and I think they are very interesting. The pollution event took place because when there were building the power plant the workers did not build the power plant right.

No one really knows but when it did happen they were going to see how the power plant works off power and it did not work as planned. When it did happen they noticed that some similar incidents happened in America and thought it was weird.

Did you know that the Plant operators made several mistakes creating a poisonous and unstable environment in the reactor core. They thought that this was the most likely thing they thought it happened “Operators tried to reinsert rods to slow and control the nuclear reaction, but a design flaw in the control rods caused them to jam. The steam likely caused an explosion in the reactor, which, in turn, caused a second explosion seconds later.” because of the explosions it caused a bunch of different fires in the area and it was hard to stop the fire. It also set up a big cloud of radioactive smoke into the sky which spread to Europe it was as big as 400 times the size of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Surprisingly no one got taken to court. It got destroyed by the sky full of radioactive smoke and a little of it is left in Europe and caught fire to a lot of trees. They did not make any more laws after this event. It happened in the early morning It destroyed a new city named Pripyat it was so destroyed. The explosions killed two plant workers who were the first of several workers That died in hours of the accident. For the next days as emergency crews tried desperately to contain the fires and radiation leaks the death toll climbed as plant workers succumbed to acute radiation sickness. After the explosion there were really high winds That blow houses down It also blew all the leaves off the trees and blew them down. But that’s not to suggest that the area has returned to normal or will at any point in the near future Because of the long lived radiation in the region surrounding the former Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant the area won’t be safe for human habitation for at least 20000 years.