Annotated Bibliography: Lethal Levels Of Gone

Not many people fully know what happened at Chernobyl, or understand the effect it has had on today’s nuclear science. Chernobyl has been named as the largest man-made disaster ever recorded. Chernobyl is the most influential and important event during the 1980’s because it has completely changed how the world views anything nuclear by changing experimentation and usage of nuclear materials and power as a whole. It was extremely influential because it caused thousands of people to move out of their homes, while damaging nearby cities and countries and covering the surrounding area in radioactive smog, and is still a threat to surrounding cities and countries today. It also has caused the nearby area to be thriving with wildlife.

The novel, The Dead and the Gone, written by Susan Beth Pfeffer, has a dark and terrifying feeling. This book has haunting themes of family, faith, personal change, and courage about a young boy who takes charge for something he has never before. It devastates readers with brutal apocalyptic events that are yet, so detailed and descriptive that the novel will knock you off your feet. Alex Morales, a 17-year old boy who comes from a poor, Puerto Rican family. Alex is used to working hard for what he wants, and what he wants is to succeed.

(1)At 1:23 am on April 26th 1986, 2 explosions devastated a nuclear power plant in Chernobyl. These explosions unleashed huge amounts of toxic radiation into the atmosphere. This radiation created a toxic plume of radiation that not only devastated Chernobyl but affected almost the whole of Europe. It started with total evacuation of the city, this started within 24 hours of the disaster and immediately an exclusion zone was in place. What the Ukrainian officials didn’t know at the time is just how serious this was. The wind blew the plumes created by this explosion one plume north and one plume west. The plumes were highly toxic and had been contaminated by the nuclear radiation. The radiation going west even reached north wales and many parts of Scotland and the south of Ireland. The radiation going north badly affected Finland, Sweden and parts of Norway. To put that into perspective the disaster released at least 100 times more radiation than the atom bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

When people hear the term “nuclear energy”, the first thing that jumps to their minds is most often “danger”. Who could blame the world for their intense fears of nuclear power, especially after reading the reports from Dr. Ira Helfand and the American writer, David Biello? Dr. Helfand’s article, “Radiation’s Risk to Public Health”, attacks the nuclear energy with facts and concerns like those of the National Research Council BEIR VI report. Whereas Dr. Helfand supports his claims with scientific evidence, David Biello only had a script from a discussion that followed the Fukushima crisis. David Biello’s article, “How Safe Are U.S. Nuclear Reactors? Lessons from Fukushima”, he uncovers secret concerns and future plans about the incredibly disastrous incident. Although David Biello used credible sources and attempted to appeal to ethos, logos, and pathos, Dr. Ira Helfand contains an authority in his education and knows a great deal more about nuclear power and definitely has the best representation of ethos, logos, and pathos.

On Wednesday, March 28, 1979, around 4 a.m., there was a failure in the water pumps at the Three Mile Island in Middletown, Pennsylvania. This led to a partial meltdown of a nuclear power plant. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (now Health and Human Services), the Department of Energy, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania all conducted particular studies of the radiological consequences of the accident. Approximately two million people were estimated to have received an average of one millirem of radiation, and there was a maximum dose to a person who was at the site of 100 millirem (“Backgrounder”). To put this into perspective, an exposure from a single chest X-ray is two to six millirem (“Doses”). However, this put fear into the minds of politicians and others all across the country. What the people do not know, though, is nuclear is better. Instead of using fossil-fuels and wind power, America ought to switch to nuclear energy to power the country because it is safer, cleaner, less expensive, and more reliable than the current ways of producing energy

The book “Gone” by Michael Grant is centered on the fabricated Southern Californian town of Perdido Beach, in which every individual age 15 and older vanishes. The inhabitants, town and surrounding areas become confined within an impenetrable energy barrier. At first there is complete chaos as the town now free of the adults has no control system and no law to keep the young citizens at bay. The authors message is working together to survive. While trying to survive a few factors hinder their track; danger,mystery, and sadness all play a role in this book.

If It Scares, It Airs,” and “The Rise of Nuclear Fear – How We Learned to Fear the Radiation.” Ropeik is a talented writer and truly know his facts. “Health Scientists say the radiation from Fukushima has been relatively harmless” (Ropeik 1). “Our anxiety about nuclear radiation is connected with our understanding fear of the terrible power of nuclear weapons” (Ropeik 1). Ropeik proves this by stating that 68 years since those weapons were first used in anger, we have learned, from the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki themselves, which ionizing radiation – the type created by a nuclear reaction – is not nearly the powerful carcinogen or genetic mutagen that we thought it was (Ropeik 1). These studies have found that there have been no multi-generational genetic effects on humans (Ropeik 1). Fetal exposure is utero produced horrible birth defects but no permanent genetic damage (Ropeik 1). According to Ropeik, radiation causes no detectable elevations in normal rates of illness and disease. He stated that the “robust evidence that ionizing radiation is a relatively low health risk dramatically contradicts common fears” (Ropeik 2). Ropeik clearly demonstrates how we should have fear and risk in us, but not to where it over powers us like a force field that causes more damage. The Environmental

Since some countries in the region have already embarked on the nuclear energy option and some others are planning to do so, an increased attention in the country has been given to protective measures in case of a nuclear/radiological emergency. Experience from nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and recently, in Fukushima showed a lack of sufficient capacity for screening internal contamination of the public and pointed out the necessity for its development [1]. Additionally, increasing the national applications of nuclear technology in industry, nuclear medicine and researches involved radioisotopes utilization, resulted in legal and technical provisions adopted on the national level supporting protection of the public and radiation workers against

In his first premise, he stated that there was no death cases resulted from the nuclear meltdown. However, after examining from other sources, one can realize that he has committed a “Half-truth” fallacy where the truth is told but several important key details are purposely omitted to support a false conclusion. The data collected from Fukushima Prefecture, 2014 indicates up to 1,232 nuclear-related deaths which can be explained as later deaths as a result of diseases caused by the radiation (MacPherson, 2015). Furthermore, to consider the dangers that the Fukushima disaster incident contributed, one should take into account of other factors. One of such is the health of workers whom are processing the aftermath surrounded by leftover radioactive water and it can be

Nuclear energy is the energy released by a nuclear reaction, it uses fuel made from mined and processed uranium to generate heat and electricity. It is the world’s largest emission free energy source. Nuclear energy also has the lowest impact on the environment than other energy sources. But it can still be very harmful because of the radiation is causes and the radioactive waste it produces. Radioactive wastes are the ruins of nuclear materials that are used in providing nuclear energy. These wastes contain high levels of radiation that can be very hazardous to humans and the environment. Some people accept and support the idea of using nuclear energy and others don’t. In the following paragraphs, some major nuclear accidents and the public acceptance of nuclear energy will be discussed.

Although radioactivity was at first just at the surface, later studies showed that these radioactive elements were absorbed by the soil and that their effects would be long-lasting (Gould 69). Within a short amount of time animals consumed these radioactive plants, and these particles worked their way up the food chain. Soon, not only berry crops in Austria had to be discarded, but also milk supplies in Italy (68, 69). More than twenty European nations received enough fallout to require food restrictions, and 100 million people altered their diets in the ensuing months (Flavin 6, 16). Adding to this paranoia was the fact that even the experts had little knowledge of what was happening. Most nations were unprepared, and many implemented differing safety guidelines for food (15). Some governments outright lied to quell the public’s fear (Gould 70). In the end, millions of people were exposed to unhealthy doses of radiation, and estimates for future deaths from cancer caused by this exposure range as high as one million, with half being fatal (Flavin 18). These are clearly examples of the externalities of a nuclear disaster.

The Chernobyl incident continues to demonstrate the risks involved with nuclear power, as well as the consequences of any failure. Simple human error led to a chain reaction that caused the reactor core to melt down. The resulting explosion spewed clouds of radiation into the atmosphere that quickly spread. Kasperski states, “The explosion of reactor Unit 4 on April 26, 1986 led to heavy radioactive contamination of regions of Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia” (Kasperski 44). With no way of containing the radiation, the toxic cloud quickly spread throughout Europe. Nazaryan explains, "The toxic cloud that enveloped much of Europe....contained: cesium-137, iodine-131, zirconium-95...." (Nazaryan 4). What made matters worse is that the public didn’t know about the accident until two days after the explosion occurred. This resulted in thousands of civilians unknowingly exposing themselves to potentially life-threatening levels of radiation. While the radioactive cloud eventually dispersed into the atmosphere, the same cannot be said about the radiation absorbed by the ground

What started out as a safety test for Reactor Four of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant ended in what is known to be the worst nuclear accident in modern day history (Ingram, 2005). Why? The Chernobyl nuclear accident is the only one, in the history of commercial nuclear power, in which fatalities occurred due to radioactive particles being released into the atmosphere (Nuclear Energy Institute, 2015). It was unique. Unique, not only due to deaths from the radiation released, but also unique in the events before and after the disaster itself.

It is a silent enemy, it has no odor, no smell, no shape, yet it is one of man’s deadliest foes. Radiation is not something most people face on a daily basis, but for the town of Prypiat in the Ukraine it is a barren wasteland because of it. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster was the worst nuclear catastrophe to have ever occurred and, is a perfect example of what can happen when the blind and unmasked furry of atomic power is left unharnessed.

The environmental fears of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and the Fukushima power plant have yet to be completely realized .Chernobyl had the Red Forest, where a whole forest of pine trees died and were removed. Mutations were reported on vegetation and wildlife. The Fukushima power plant has yet to begin assessing the environmental impact it is certain there will be many. Chernobyl placed many food restrictions on plant and animal consumption, and several remain today. Therefore, more research is needed to understand and protect communities from these environmental concerns. The potential for an accident and the problem of waste disposal reaffirm the hazards and fears associated with nuclear energy and the consequences on the environment. Although, exposure to low-level radiation occurs daily the health concerns over cancer and radiation remain a priority for health professionals. The link to cancer and radiation are confirmed in a report by the EPA “There is no firm basis for setting a "safe" level of exposure.... In setting limits, EPA makes the conservative (cautious) assumption that any increase in radiation exposure is accompanied by an increased risk of stochastic (random) effects.” The consequence of nuclear accidents verifies the dangers associated with nuclear power. Radiation is dangerous with the risk of poisoning and cancer. Three Mile Island did not kill anyone in 1979, but the long-term