Chernobyl - a case study of the risks involved

To many, including myself, the first thoughts that come to mind when talking about nuclear are catastrophic accidents – most iconically the accident at reactor 4 Chernobyl on 26^th April 1986 (Dubrova 1996). Here I will introduce the cause of the issues and the detrimental outcomes of the horrific accident. This will be followed by an examination of the more recent Fukushima incident in 2011 – with this information I will then examine the implications that such disasters had upon public perception and support, as public backing is viewed as essential for nuclear power expansion possibilities (MIT 2015).

Source: Behind Closed Doors 2014

             The disaster was driven by both poor design as well as human error (NEI 2011), with irregular nuclear rod designs being central to the destructive power surge that followed (World Nuclear Association 2015). Adding to this was the fact that the personnel who were testing the turbines at a lower energy level were not adequately trained – that when testing as to whether the new voltage regulators functioned at a lower level of turbine power, they failed to acknowledge the consequences of allowing the power to rapidly decline and the instability of the system that would follow (World Nuclear Association 2015). Following the power surge the fuel was heated to extremely high temperatures, which in contrast to the cooling water that was being added via the cooling pipes, but also due to the rupturing of the cooling system, generated extreme high pressure conditions (NEI 2011). The 1000t cover plate of the reactor dislodged and exploded causing fission and radioactive particles to enter the atmosphere, whilst a second explosion was seen to blast hot graphite and fragments of the fuel pipes also (World Nuclear Association 2015).

                

             Human life was drastically impacted by the disaster, not only in regards to health, but it also had vast implications upon government support, psychological fear of risk and the perception of nuclear energy in general. The physical damage cannot be overlooked, yet with high uncertainty as to the deaths caused, the true magnitude is relatively unknown (Guardian 2010). The UN World Health Organisation reports that only 56 deaths have been caused from the radioactive exposure – yet in the long run such health issues will cause a total of 4,000 people to succumb to the Chernobyl impacts (Guardian 2010) This contrasts another UN sector, the International Research Centre on Cancer, which predicts a much larger death toll of 16,000 directly related deaths. Most worryingly the Ukrainian national commission for radiation claims 0.5 million deaths were a result (Guardian 2010)! Arguably the numbers are irrelevant when put into perspective, the risk of death itself is enough for many to oppose nuclear. 

               

              Death is not always immediate which therefore causes the level of uncertainty, the long lasting impacts upon the surrounding area’s health further displays the risks involved. Unlike a coal mine collapsing and causing immediate loss of life, nuclear can continue to take lives for decades to come. Mutations were recorded as a response to the radionuclide exposure, evidence displays a doubling in the mutation rate within the children born from exposed parents (Dubrova 1996) – it was seen to correlate with the level of Cs-137 exposure, an artificial radionuclide only injected to the atmosphere via nuclear bomb testing and the Chernobyl disaster (Bunzl 1989). Such mutations of the chromosomes are often related to further health challenges such as mental illness (Greenpeace 2006).

Evidence shows that exposure to Cs-137 can have a variety of major health implications, including reducing blood cell counts which has been shown to lead to death within a matter of weeks in other exposed species (ATSDR 2015). In regard to reproductive concerns then there has been evidence to display higher male infertility in the affected areas – alongside a greater % of disrupted births within women (Greenpeace 2006). Greenpeace strongly opposes nuclear energy, as will be delved into greater in a future blog, therefore they tend to utilise Chernobyl at the forefront of their arguments, even if in reality it was a freak accident that cannot truly be representative of the energy sector as a whole.

It would be wrong to suggest that the Chernobyl incident was an isolated occurrence, with radionuclide fallout from the atmosphere (Hilton 1992) being a global occurrence – with particularly high fallout exposure in the surrounding areas of Belarus, northern Ukraine and Russia (Williams 2006). This therefore raises the concern of global responsibility; can decisions on major nuclear energy expansions be made internally within a nation if the consequences are global? Arguably the impact of fossil fuel combustion faces similar concerns of global inequality. Low-emission nations often face the larger negative impacts of climate change based on their dependency to local natural resources and a lack of capital to fund adaptable processes and technologies (Sherr 2000). A shift to nuclear energy may therefore fail to correct global energy inequalities, in regards to the risks involved but also the economic ability for many nations to undertake nuclear projects with exponentially high construction costs often associated. An example being the Hinkley Point C project in Somerset which is estimated to cost a total of £25 billion+ once completed (Telegraph 2015).

Cancer was a major detrimental outcome, in particular cancer of the thyroid gland driven by exposure to Idione-131 which is another example of a radioisotope released into the atmosphere through the No. 4 reactor explosion (Williams 2006). The Iodine uptake to the thyroid gland was driven through the consumption of local produce such as milk that had become concentrated with the radionuclide (WHO 2006). This consequently triggered DNA breaks, mutations and tumour growth (Williams 2006), which explains as to why the death toll and safety success of a nuclear disaster cannot be taken within the immediate time frame due to the longer lasting causes of death. I could spend my entire set of blog posts talking about the health risks that have emerged from the Chernobyl disaster – however I want to provide a more representative account of nuclear energy as a whole.

An isolated focus on the direct health issues however would undermine the full extent of the damage caused by Chernobyl. Firstly, the economic costs of the disaster and the clean-up procedure were exponential, with Ukraine still spending between 5-7% of government budget every year towards Chernobyl related programmes (The Chernobyl Forum 2005). With Belarus also receiving a large proportion of economic pressure with estimates of spending $13 billion between 1991-2003. The economic impacts were not only viewed on a governmental scale, but also seen within the local economy with the agricultural sector majorly impacted. 784,320 hectares of land were removed from the three nations of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia due to the fear of contaminated land and products (The Chernobyl Forum 2005) – which as mentioned were major health risks in the early stages, where suitable information was not provided to the public quickly enough. Add onto this the social impacts of fear and anxiety from exaggerated health risks and the depression of unemployment – it was clear the overall social well-being declined vastly (The Chernobyl Forum 2005). This can be supported by evidence of increased heart disease, alcoholism and suicide in Belarus (The Guardian 2004) – highlighting the full social, health and economic risks that are apparent within nuclear energy.

I have started with this low-point as to me this is how nuclear energy has always been portrayed –such images as those below reflect the media depictions. I argue however that this one example cannot be utilised in isolation as a central case study for nuclear resistance – the evidence is clear that the safety in terms of personnel and the structure were not suitable, that the range and extent of the disaster is unique. It could even be said that the Chernobyl disaster was positive in the long run for nuclear energy as it opened the eyes of many to the need for improved safety requirements. Since the disaster the International Labour Organisation (ILO) has been central to driving new safety standards and requirements within the nuclear energy sector – including the International Basic Safety Standards for Protection against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Source (ILO 2006). 

       

Photo by Thomas Szlukoveny - Source: Slate Magazine

Photo by Iain Bolton - Source: Huffington Post

   There was also a severe lack of health and safety management in the Chernobyl reactor which provided another important lesson as to the requirement for the education of staff to ensure such errors were not made again (ILO 2006). Further evidence of the Chernobyl incident being central to the improvements within the sector is seen through the enhanced role taken by the International Atomic Energy Agency (World Nuclear Association 2015). Following the incident safety procedures were more stringently applied, with even minor concerns required to be reported. Additionally, every country with nuclear energy must have a safety inspector to oversee proceedings and to ensure management; training and personnel are working within the safety procedures and standards. It is seen that the disaster has taught humanity an important lesson and has ushered in a new safety culture within the nuclear energy sector (Meshkati 2007).

               These changes have been influential in nuclear being regarded as one of the safest energy resources, particularly if you view it in terms of mortality (Brook 2014, table below) – (however this is dependable on the death toll that is accounted for by Chernobyl). Many deaths via cancer occur on a global scale and therefore there is great difficulty in being able to attach the full blame to radiation. 

Source: Brook 2014

“But energy is like medicine: if there are no side-effects, the chances are that it doesn't work” (Guardian 2011).

All energy sources have side effects; whether it is climate change or the noise and ugliness of wind turbines (I personally think they look rather good!). Arguably, the magnitude of possible negative effects involved in nuclear are far greater than being an eye-sore, however the vast safety measures now in place have reduced the probability drastically. The risks of climate change are becoming ever more urgent – it would be wrong to act with such short-sightedness to disregard nuclear as such a high risk that it should not be pursued to an extent. My opinion at this stage would for it to be used as a background generator alongside other renewable resources, as nuclear can continually produce energy when solar and wind for example cannot. If there was a far greater implementation on a global scale, then by the very sense that there would be increased numbers of nuclear reactors the chance for a disaster would also increase – therefore limiting the expansion would be my suggestion at this period of my research.

Thank you for reading!