The Effects of the Chernobyl Accident on International Actions Concerning Nuclear Power

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.

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

One of the most controversial topics in the field of renewable energy is nuclear energy. In nineteen eighty six, the Chernobyl power plant in modern day Ukraine (formerly the USSR) had a major, level seven meltdown. A level seven nuclear disaster is the highest disaster possible in regards to nuclear event. This meltdown caused billions of tons of radioactive material to fly into the air that spread all across Europe (Xiang, Zhu). The most recent major nuclear accident happened in two thousand eleven, in Fukushima, Japan.

Nuclear explosions are always a tragedy for the people and for the environment of the Earth. The consequences of the nuclear accident might stay for a long time harming the environment if the actions taken were wrong. Unfortunately, some accidents connected with nuclear power happened in the world and in some cases the consequences are remaining until this time. To find out which government’s reaction was the rightest, I will compare accidents like Fukushima, Chernobyl and Three Mile Island. I will see which government took the actions, which helped reduce the danger of the accidents. By comparing the amount of deaths and victims, I will understand which government protected the people better. The reaction time is also important, depending

The Fukushima disaster has totally changed the world’s view on nuclear power, with most countries dropping dependency or completely eliminate it. The total nuclear dependency in the world dropped 10% just a year after what happened at Fukushima. Almost all of the 537 total deaths linked to Fukushima have been caused by radiation poisoning.

Have you ever Imagined the world ending When it exploded it was the worst nuclear disaster to happen ever. The results of chernobyl were not the best the radiations were airborne for 10 days. They drank cow's milk and if the cows ate the grass then the people that drank the milk would get cancer. The only way the people got cancer from cow's milk was if the cows had ate the radioactive grass. At the time 2 died right away and 28 the following week from cancer 19 died about a year later because of them drinking the milk that the cows ate the radioactive grass. The radiations detected by nearby countries. The nearby people had to move away

The Chernobyl accident caused by a flawed reactor design which was being operated by inadequately trained people. The steam explosion that resulted from the accident released more than 5% radioactive reactor downwind into the atmosphere. Two employees died instantly at the site while 28 others died a few weeks later as a result of radiation poisoning (Balonov, 2006).

One year following the nuclear meltdown and explosion, much of the area surrounding Fukushima remained closed (Fecht). Five years later, much of the area is still unsuitable for living and the cleanup efforts continue. The land surrounding Fukushima was still riddled with radioactive contamination and the timeline for clean-up could take up to 40 years (Ridley). Many evacuated residents remain in temporary housing with little hope of returning home (Ridley). The food from the area was another issue affecting the quality of life. Following the nuclear meltdown/explosion, the government banned most of the foods from the immediate area because they were contaminated, as well as, started a massive food testing program (Gibney). This not only affected the farmers of Japan, but small hometown gardeners as well. Of course, the region most affected by radioactive fallout is the zone in the immediate vicinity of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Even with negative long-term effects, the Japanese government believes nuclear power is still a viable source for

Ever since disaster struck Japan on March 11, 2011 Fukushima, Japan is now considered the “world’s radiation nightmare”. The tsunami that hit Fukushima led to the meltdowns of the reactors in the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Complex. Food contamination quickly became a major concern throughout all of Japan and nearby countries. Fish and other major foods for the Japanese contained an undetectable amount of radiation making the food unsafe for the people who depend on it to eat. Along with the food not being safe the value of the food dropped significantly making it hard for the famers of Fukushima to sell their product to the consumers. This disaster was the world’s worst nuclear accident in the past 25 years. The major problem is that after the tsunami happened tons of radioactive water and waste is being leaked into the ocean.

The consequences of a nuclear accident are potentially very damaging to human life, health and the environment.

Very high radiation doses can destroy body functions and lead to death within 60 days. The effects of routine releases of radioactivity from nuclear plants depend somewhat on how the spent fuel is handled. A typical estimate is that they may reduce our life expectancy by 15 minutes (AMASS). A small amount of radiation can even lead to so many serious health risks it can neither be long term or short term.. It has been proved by scientist that, if we breathe in radioactive elements for the explosion or leaking of nuclear power station can lead to the lung cancers or sudden death due to breathing difficulties. Studies show that people who are exposed to excess radiation had long term cancer risks or cancers. (Christoduleas, John P, et al)

With some countries, like Belarus, in “economic freefall” and others fighting to prevent the same, people are expecting any assistance from their governments, and "if the choice is to die from starvation today, or to possibly die from radiation in the distant future, our people choose the second option" (Ford). Even when they are aware of this fact, they lack the options to do anything about it or -- “their memories blurred, their choices limited by poverty -- have simply stopped caring” (Ford). They can’t move somewhere that is less irradiated. They can’t afford the imported -- and non-radioactive -- food that comes in with a higher cost where the “average salary is $200” (Bellaby). They can’t access the medical care necessary to treat the symptoms and illness created by their exposure to the radiation. Additionally, knowing that they have been exposed so intensely leads many to feel as if treatment won’t do anything, so they don’t seek it, even with thyroid cancer rates in children and young people skyrocketing far above normal (Ford). In some places, like Belarus, the cancer rates in children were “60 times [greater] than they were before the Chernobyl nuclear plant's meltdown” (O’Connor).

Many believe that nuclear energy can benefit and change the way we create energy, but throughout the years it has been shown that nuclear energy can be incredibly harmful. It raises many safety concerns because even though natural disasters and unfortunate events can seem rare, they do indeed happen. With this in mind, when they occur near a power plant, where radioactive material can be released, it has terrible long-term effects on the people surrounding it. As seen in the case of

While nuclear energy may be essentially harmless during normal use, its public image is tarnished singularly due to its history of disasters. One of the