The Chernobyl Explosion

Nuclear energy, which has historically been depicted as a dangerous and evil energy source, has recently seen renewed attention as an alternative form of energy and has been rehabilitated in the eyes of the public after rising concerns regarding global warming and a rise in the demand of energy (World Nuclear Association 2011). However, due to the March 2011 Fukushima accident,

Moreover, Soviet nuclear experts realized that there was not only unauthorized experiment and operators’ fault but there was more to the catastrophe. With Gorbachev’s honest politics steadily taking result, newly encouraged Soviet media began to publish accounts that held responsible the reactor’s construction (Schmid, 2011). However, this crisis involved the most famous nuclear scientist of the Soviet Union Anatolii Aleksandrov and close coworker of Igor Kurchatov, who developed the atomic bomb for the Soviet Union (Schmid, 2011). Anatolii Aleksandrov was blamed for being accountable for holding too many authoritative positions at the same time when Chernobyl explosion occurred. Additionally, he was blamed for avoiding complaints concerning operational complications with RBMKs (light water-cooled, graphite moderated reactors) as he was the head of Interdepartmental Technical Council MVTS, which was the most authoritative decision-making organization for Soviet nuclear energy guiding principles (Schmid, 2011).

First, as mentioned above, failure to mention reactors design flaws led to distrust in the infrastructure of the Soviet Union. While many scientists and researchers such as Valeri Legasov had noticed that there were issues with the reactors design prior to the disaster, and mentioned so in personal journals, the discovery of their failure to speak up lead to the questioning of Soviet leadership [5]. Additionally, these issues became worse upon the discovery of KGB classified documents that discussed various issues with the construction of the Chernobyl plant between 1971 and 1988 [7]. These compounding issues identified flaws

The disaster had more of an effect on eastern Europe’s nuclear experimentation and use but “While no-one in the West was under any illusion about the safety of early Soviet reactor designs, some lessons learned have also been applicable to Western plants” (World Nuclear Association). Since the Chernobyl disaster was majorly caused by human error and under qualified scientists, to work with nuclear reactors today you need to be insanely qualified. Since the accident, Soviet-designed reactors’ safety has improved greatly, even in smaller ways. Automatic shutdown mechanisms now work faster, and other safety mechanisms have been sped up. Even new equipment has been installed such as automated inspection equipment. Several scientist and reporters have even said an accident like Chernobyl is virtually impossible with today’s technology (World Nuclear Association).

The accident happened when “the operators were conducting a test simulating loss of power at the plant”(Klevans 347). Meanwhile when this test was happening most of the safety systems were shut down. A test of this type would never be sanctioned “in the United States, Western Europe, or Asia”(Klevans 347). As a result a colossal amount of radioactivity was released into Western Europe which had a stupendous impact on the health of many people. Through 1990 to 1998 about 1800 children were repulsed to the radioactivity and had thyroid cancer. These children lived “in the contaminated areas of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine”(Klevans 350). After the accident the “engineers from the former Soviet Union have made changes to all RBMK reactors to eliminate the possibility of repeating this type of accident”(Klevans 350). As a result the radioactivity that was released is now ingrained in Pripyat and in the periphery of some

Second of all, those against the expansion of the Darlington Nuclear Facility claim that it is unsafe for those who work at the facility, the environment, and the people who live in distant municipalities (Revkin, 2013). They feel that the 1986 Chernobyl and 2011 Fukushima nuclear disasters prove that nuclear power plants are unsafe and dangerous (Solar Schools, n.d.). However, Chernobyl and Fukushima experienced meltdowns because their plants were constructed with older designs models (Revkin, 2013). On the other hand, modern designs of nuclear reactors (like the Darlington Nuclear Facility) are less likely to

The Soviet Union, after World War II, had begun building many facilities for nuclear reprocessing using many radioactive components. The Russian government, being behind in the nuclear era, decided they needed to move quickly and start producing a sustainable nuclear chain reaction with secrecy. One of these facilities they built was so discreet it wasn't on any official maps at that time. In the town of Ozyorsk, Russia they built the Mayak nuclear fuel processing complex. This particular accident has been titled and associated with Kryshtym because that was the closest town on an official map that they could categorize it with. They built this complex between 1945 and 1948 to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons. Since they had to move fast at building this complex, as well as poor understanding or little education of nuclear safety, and major disregards for human wellness, the systems were poorly built. They used what is called an open cycle cooling system, in which they pumped the water back and forth into their water source. Their main water source was Lake Karachay, as well as the Tech River. All 6 reactors that the Mayak nuclear complex had used the open cycle cooling system. They used huge lids weighing 160 tons for the tops of these radioactive components and systems, and even had them buried 8.2 meters (27 feet) under ground. With these cooling systems being built with the eager notion to be ahead in the nuclear era, they weren't prepared for any kind of error. If

These accidents were chosen because they constitute worst yet valuable examples of what can – and, occasionally, does – go wrong in the nuclear power production realm, and because they shape our understanding of the caused harm. They also embrace a thirty-five year period, during which nuclear power underwent significant regulatory development worldwide, aiming to address growing concerns with respect to short- and long-term effects of such disasters on human health, environmental, social, and economic factors.

On the morning of April 26, 1986, a nuclear reactor in Chernobyl, Russia exploded, changing the lives of the residents and workers living in Chernobyl forever. This explosion is considered the worst nuclear accident in history. The huge outburst was created by “A power surge [that] caused fuel in the reactor to overheat, resulting in a steam explosion and fire.” Not only was this devastating to so many people, but the fallout coming from the damaged reactor also resulted in high levels of radiation that dangerously impacted the environment and its surrounding area. Even today, thirty years later, traces of radiation still permeate everything living and nonliving around Chernobyl, resulting in major deformations in plants and animals. In the books, The Truth About Chernobyl by Grigori Medvedev and Voices From Chernobyl: The Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster by Svetlana Alexievich, the authors describe their views of the accident.

In RBMK reactors (which stands for “reaktor bolshoy moshchnosty kanalny”, or “high-power channel reactor” in Russian) such as the Chernobyl Unit 4, graphite is used as a moderator and water as a coolant. Moderators are necessary to slow down the speed of the neutrons because slower neutrons are more effective at fission than faster ones, which will make the fission chain reaction end. In many

Countless nuclear power plant accidents have been occurring quite frequently since its invention. Some accidents have even been underestimated,

This nuclear power plant that was proposed, brought about the problem that it is too dangerous. A senior researcher at George Mason University states, “...let's hope that the current nuclear disaster

There were incidents in the past with nuclear reactors that caused disastrous problems for the civilians and the environment. As explained before with the Chernobyl accident and the Fukushima incident, nuclear plants can be terrifying when there are accidents or natural disasters. With Small Modular Reactors that can bring down the chances of accidents happen and if something unfortunate were to happen it would be much more easily controlled. With the Chernobyl accident, the reason why there was a problem was because of human error. The operating team in charge of the Chernobyl Plant did not take all the safety precautions in running the plant so when something went wrong, they failed to control the problem and it got out of hand and cause

Moreover, since this is the same area where the nuclear disaster happened five years ago, people fear that there will be a melt down again. For about an hour and a half, concerns were heightened as the cooling system of one reactor suddenly shut down. Luckily, the plant resumed operations without

The main reason for the mishap is by now well recognized (Petryna 1). However, initially the Chernobyl catastrophe baffled the minds of people in the 20th century and definitely left the people of Ukraine disordered while living in anxiety. Now, without question, the public knows that the accident at Chernobyl was the result of a disastrous combination of ignorance from the Ukrainians and complacency from the Soviets in control of Ukraine at the time. As according to American physicist and Nobel laureate Hans Bethe, “…the Chernobyl disaster tells us about the deficiencies of the Soviet political and administrative system rather than about problems with nuclear power." The immediate basis of the Chernobyl accident was a mismanaged electrical-engineering experiment (Rhodes "Chernobyl", PBS). While, the indirect source of the calamity was an industrial malfunction of a Soviet made nuclear-based machine. Ironically, the Chernobyl accident occurred during a test run, which was conducted to improve plant safety. This accident proved once more what experienced control engineers have all learned: that a process must be understood before it can be controlled. (Liptak “Control Global”). Engineers with no familiarity of reactor physics were interested to see if they could draw electricity from the turbine generator of the Number 4 reactor unit to run water pumps during an emergency, when the turbine was no longer being driven by the reactor but was