Chernobyl controversy

In a world where little can be done with the arrival of natural disasters, what excuse can there be for the catastrophic events stemming from humankind. Tsunamis, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are some of the many events mother nature throws in our way which cause damage to both the natural environment and the human population.

“A nuclear power plant is infinitely safer than eating because 300 people choke to death on food every year”. This is what former Governor of Washington and avid supporter of nuclear energy, Dixy Lee Ray said in 1975, just over a decade before the Chernobyl disaster. Ever since the dropping of the atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, the world has woken to maybe true perceptions of the huge risk that nuclear technology has on humans; this can be seen as the birth of ‘Nuclear Culture’.^[1]

In a world where, as of 2019, 84% of the World’s primary energy is from atmosphere polluting fossil fuels, nuclear energy could be the ultimate savior in the search for clean energy.^[2] However, certain events which have showcased the potential danger of nuclear energy can be seen as staining its reputation.

Arguably the most notable of these is the 1986 meltdown at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, located near the city of Pripyat back when Ukraine was in the Soviet Union. In this blog I will be arguing how the events that started on the 26th April 1986 (alongside other similar accidents with  nuclear power; Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi) has helped to ruin the clean and safe reputation of nuclear energy and how nuclear power really does compare to other sources of energy in terms of safety and pollution output.

The Chernobyl Meltdown has by no-means been the only nuclear power station accident, but it can definitely go down as the most dangerous and has taken the most casualties, with an estimate by the World Health Organisation (WHO) of around 4000 deaths from the meltdown and radiation caused health conditions.^[3] There were two comparable nuclear power plants disasters in Three Mile Island in 1979 and Fukushima Daiichi in 2011. However these have far fewer casualties with only one confirmed death from cancer caused by the radiation from Fukushima^[4] and no confirmed deaths from Three Mile Island.^[5] So does this mean Chernobyl is an anomaly or that nuclear power is too dangerous to use? Well both sides can be argued here.

When you look at that particular estimate by WHO, firstly you have to take into account that even though the exact figure is disputed the number of deaths directly attributed to Chernobyl is thought to be fewer than 50.^[6] In some respects you can argue that this can be used to support an idea that in reality the number of directly related deaths can be considered low.

Statistics shown in an article authored by Professor Anil Markandya Phd of Bath University show us the death rates of various forms of primary energy per TWh. TWh (Terawatt) is a unit of measuring energy. Even when taking into account the dangerous radioactive properties of nuclear material, it only scores 0.07 deaths per TWh, significantly less than the fossil fuels included in the results and only 0.03 of wind.^[7]

On the other hand the adverse effects caused by the meltdowns can be considerably more dangerous. For example, there have been experts in the National Commission on Radiological Protection of the Population of Ukraine who challenge the WHO estimate, putting it as high as 10,000 casualties, with more to come^[8]. Further reports have data showing as many as 573 individuals died as a result of the evacuation of the Fukushima exclusion zone^[9]. And while there has been no confirmed deaths from the Three Miles Island disaster some epidemiologists have conducted research which found a considerable increase in the amount of cancerous diseases within a 20 mile radius of the power station^[10]. 

Deaths and injuries not directly caused from the accident but instead by the elevation of radioactive activity in the area can be linked to the term ‘Slow Violence’ coined by Rob Nixon.

The Definition of ‘Slow Violence given by Nixon in his work “Slow Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor” is “a violence that occurs gradually and out of sight, a violence of delayed destruction that is dispersed across time and space, an attritional violence that is typically not viewed as violence at all”. He explicitly mentions that radioactivity can fit into this definition with “ [Radioactivity] for example, is driven inward, somatized into cellular dramas of mutation that – particularly in the bodies of the poor – remain largely unobserved, undiagnosed, and untreated.”^[11]

Numerous examples of this can be seen within the long-term effects on the people of the surrounding areas, including the around 300,000 civilians evacuated out of the exclusions which included the city of Pripyat, breaking up families and tearing people away from thir financial security, affected them for years.^[12] There has also been a noticeable increase in thyroid cancer even within generations who were babies or children during the catastrophe, in the countries including Ukraine and the surrounding Russia and Belarus.^[13]

It's easy to see how the heavily feared dangers that nuclear power plants can have on animals and the environment through the way it has leaked into the media. Such instances can be seen satirically in such mainstream media like ‘The Simpsons’. While there has been evidence of radiation causing mutations within cows and horses shortly after the event and further long term evidence of a mutated swallow population and the so-called ‘Red Forest’ within the exclusion zone of Chernobyl, there's hope in the fact of evidence showing wildlife thriving within the area.^[14] The Ukrainian Government has established the exclusion zone of the Chernobyl meltdown as one of the biggest nature reserves on the European continent . Further aided with the return of some long missing species of animal into the area, such as the Eurasian Wolf.^[15]

In conclusion I believe that certain conceptions of ‘Nuclear Culture’ which show the threat of nuclear fueled power may be justified. Although some may think that the future of green energy relies on nuclear power while other forms catch up may be dismayed when seeing the effects of the Chernobyl Power Plant meltdown of 1986.

This can be seen with the mass amount of people affected during the events that took place on that day. Estimates of the casualties by the World Health Organization of over 4000 people justify the fear of the potential threat to the existence of human life and only becomes even more terrifying when seeing that this figure may be a low estimate. What can be drawn from these figures is that only a small fraction of thisnumber were directly a casualty of the meltdown, numbering around 50.

But of course pain hasn't just been felt during the exact time of the meltdown. The ‘slow violence’ caused by the fallout has made us witness the mass evacuation of residents from the secluzion zone, ripping away their lifestyle and also to individuals being more susceptible to cancerous diseases in and around the area and including some citizens living in Russia and Belarus and not just the Ukraine.

While there is evidence of ecology and the environment being affected directly after the meltdown, with ‘Red Forest’ and the death of mutation of cows and horses, slow violence is actually quite rare in the area. With the exception of a population of long lasting mutated swallows, the area has actually been seen to become a bio-diverse haven. Population of animals is thriving with some species such as the Eurasian World even returning to the area. The Ukrainian Government has even gone as far as to make the exclusion zone a nature reserve, one of the biggest in Europe in fact. 

What can also be made a point of is how statistically nuclear power is very safe. As the aforementioned paper by Professor Anil Markandya states, numbers of deaths caused by nuclear power is only at 0.007 per TWh produced, which is miniscule when compared to the next smallest fossil fuel on the list, Gas at 2.82.

^[1] Jeff Hughes, "What Is British Nuclear Culture? Understanding Uranium 235", The British Journal For The History Of Science 45, no. 4 (2012): 495-518, doi:10.1017/s0007087412001021.
^[2] Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, "Energy - Fossil Fuels", Our World In Data, 2021, https://ourworldindata.org/fossil-fuels.
^[3] "Chernobyl: The True Scale Of The Accident", Who.Int, 2005, https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident.
^[4] World Health Organisation, Health Risk Assessment From The Nuclear Accident After The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake And Tsunami, 2013, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/78218/9789241505130_eng.pdf;jsessionid=A6B7009AD72E096B302AF8C18EDC2B83?sequence=1.
^[5] Christine Perham, "EPA's Role At Three Mile Island", EPA Journal 6 (1980): 20, https://archive.epa.gov/epa/aboutepa/epas-role-three-mile-island.html.
^[6] Tom Parfitt, "Opinion Remains Divided Over Chernobyl's True Toll", The Lancet 367, no. 9519 (2006): 1305-1306, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68559-0.
^[7] Anil Markandya and Paul Wilkinson, "Electricity Generation And Health", The Lancet 370, no. 9591 (2007): 979-990, doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61253-7.
^[8] The Chernobyl Catastrophe (Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Greenpeace, 2006). https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/37/047/37047026.pdf
^[9] World Health Organisation, Health Risk Assessment From The Nuclear Accident After The 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake And Tsunami, 2013, http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/78218/9789241505130_eng.pdf;jsessionid=A6B7009AD72E096B302AF8C18EDC2B83?sequence=1.
^[10] M C Hatch et al., "Cancer Rates After The Three Mile Island Nuclear Accident And Proximity Of Residence To The Plant.", American Journal Of Public Health 81, no. 6 (1991): 719-724, doi:10.2105/ajph.81.6.719.
^[11] Rob Nixon, Slow Violence And The Environmentalism Of The Poor (Harvard University Press, 2011).
^[12] "Chernobyl: The True Scale Of The Accident", Who.Int, 2005, https://www.who.int/news/item/05-09-2005-chernobyl-the-true-scale-of-the-accident.
^[13] Valerie J. Brown, "Thyroid Cancer After Chornobyl: Increased Risk Persists Two Decades After Radioiodine Exposure", Environmental Health Perspectives 119, no. 7 (2011), doi:10.1289/ehp.119-a306a.
^[14] The International Chernobyl Project (Vienna: International Atomic Energy Ageny, 1991).
^[15] "The Wildlife Of Chernobyl: 30 Years Without Man", Royal Society Of Biology, 2013, https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-features/out-of-the-ashes.