Chernobyl, 20 years and counting

[Earniel]

It's 20 years to the day since the nuclear power plant in Chernobyl taught the world a hard lesson.

Dawn 26th of april 1986, an exploding reactor resulting in 30 deaths, a huge fire that lasted for days and a fall-out over more then tens of thousands of square miles. 400 times more radioactivity was released than in Hiroshima.

Almost everybody now knows the name of Chernobyl, site of the worst nuclear incident in our history. Not just because of the incident but because of the vast consequences it brought with it. Even today the radioactivity scars many miles of land around Chernobyl and it will remain so for many, many lifetimes. The incident is also blamed for triggering an epidemic of cancer in people and their children living in that area.

Chernobyl has been in the news over the past few years also about the bad condition of the concrete tomb that was erected around the reactor to minimise the radioactivity. A new sarcophagus is being constructed to be placed over the old one.

National geographic Chernobyl photo gallery

But oddly, while the area around Chernobyl looks like a dead zone, it is yet thriving with wildlife. With no disturbance by humans, nature has reclaimed much of it; and many species that were rare or eradicated are returning. The genetic defects already observed in several of the returned species does not seem to slow them down yet.

But what with the future of nuclear energy today? Chernobyl may have woken the public opinion about the dangers of nuclear power, but yet we still use it today. In fact, the majority of energy produced in several European countries comes from nuclear energy.

What are your ideas about this? Should we continue to use nuclear energy or should we, as many groups ask, phase out our dependancy on it? Is nuclear energy safer than in the days of Chernobyl or can we have another Chernobyl in the future? Do the benefits outweigh the dangers? Are there any viable alternatives for nuclear energy?

[Rían]

Very interesting about the wildlife returning! I wouldn't have guessed that.

Truly a tragic event, though.

[Spock]

[Valandil]

Good topic Earniel - and good thoughts. I just saw an article about disabled children from that area and how they're being cared for - it was really sad.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

But what with the future of nuclear energy today? Chernobyl may have woken the public opinion about the dangers of nuclear power, but yet we still use it today. In fact, the majority of energy produced in several European countries comes from nuclear energy.

What are your ideas about this? Should we continue to use nuclear energy or should we, as many groups ask, phase out our dependancy on it? Is nuclear energy safer than in the days of Chernobyl or can we have another Chernobyl in the future? Do the benefits outweigh the dangers? Are there any viable alternatives for nuclear energy?

In general, I've been an advocate for nuclear energy. However - there are some caveats.

Remember at this time that the world was still in a "Cold War". As that ended, shortly after Chernobyl, I think we all began to see just how "sloppy" Russia - maybe the whole east block - had been. I don't want to say this with TOO much American smugness or anything... because we're probably just SO very fortunate that nothing like that happened to us. I mean - the analogy of a child playing with fire only barely begins to express the idea here - of mankind experimenting with - and trying to tame and use - forces that are so powerful and dangerous.

Still - I think with the way the world was at the time - the driven-ness to surpass the other side, that it was natural for some to "cut corners". Safety could be sacrificed for "efficiency". And - not to cross over too much into the "muslims" thread territory - but is the stage now set for a repeat? As middle eastern countries achieve nuclear technology, are they capable of establishing the right kinds of safeguards to protect their own people? And this is talking about protecting people from accidents - speculation about what they might intend to do to other people is a WHOLE different topic.

However - if we really, REALLY could properly supervise usage of nuclear power worldwide, it would go a long way to reducing the uses of fossil fuels - and all the effects looming on the horizon with that one (including shortages, etc). And... does anyone know if nuclear power causes the same problems we can get with global warming, etc??

I also think nuclear energy could become a very effective way to enhance space travel... maybe.

Please bear in mind - I'm not "up to date" on very much technology - so many of my ideas on that side of it could be totally outdated. So - I'm trying to partly post from a socio-political viewpoint (NOT my field of study) - and just touch on technological aspects. These things... happen... when you're 40-something instead of 20-something!

[Spock]

ibid.

[The Gaffer]

Haha, know what you mean, Val.

However, I think it would be a bit broad-brush to characterise all ex-Soviet technologies in this way. They have a better safety record in space flight, for example. Clearly, it is a big problem in the nuclear industry though. I have been impressed with the work the IAEA have done to try to support ex-Soviet republics cope with dodgy old reactors.

I remember this happening. The thing that really sticks in my mind was the team of engineers who went into the core and sealed it off to prevent it from being 100 times worse. These guys were going to a certain death, yet in they went.

With apologies to Churchill, has so much ever been owed by so many to so few?

[Spock]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

With apologies to Churchill, has so much ever been owed by so many to so few?

Indeed. However, it's owed to the US. We've shouldered the burden of cleanup and helping dismantle nuclear missle warheads, etc. etc. because Russia can't do it. ......meanwhile they're shouting "we have a massive deterrent to protect the motherland", every few months. Blah!

[Valandil]

Yes - humbling, isn't it.

[The Gaffer]

spock, I was talking about the blokes who went in to seal up the core, knowing it was going to kill them.

But yes, the US has made the major contribution to the cleanup, both through international agencies such as the IAEA and directly in bilateral aid.

This is an area where international co-operation seems to have worked well. Perhaps it could be a model for other areas.

[Spock]

ah

[brownjenkins]

I'm a big fan of safe nuclear power, which chernobyl was not. I believe there are close to 500 nuclear power plants operating worldwide that have never had any major issues. And these days, it's really the only viable alternative to fossil fuels, and it is much better for our environment. The Three-mile Island incident, which occured in the US, is a good example of a nuclear accident that did not have much in the way of longterm environmental impact. This is because it was well-built, and technology today is much better. Basically, if you weigh nuclear power with fossil fuels, while it is far from perfectly safe, it is much safer and better for our environment.

The nuclear proliferation fears are unfounded as well. While nuclear power plants use to be a source for weapons-grade uranium, these days it is much cheaper and more effcient to use methods that do not involve power plants. These are the methods that are being used in Iran today. If you want a bomb these days, you don't build a nuclear power plant.

[The Gaffer]

Got to agree there, particularly in the short term. There is a lot of irrational anxiety around nuclear power.

However, I believe that most of the cost models for its viability tend to take a rather cavalier approach to the costs of decommissioning, disposal of waste etc. We still don't know what the full costs will be for storing the waste for centuries from a plant that provided power for, say, 30 years or so. For that reason I don't see it as a long-term solution in its current form.

But whatever it is, it's the least worst option if we are realistically to cut down on fossil fuels (not to mention dependence on Russian state-owned gas companies who are already blackmailing their neighbours.)

[Old toby's wicked weed]

we very safe be in mr nice man Homer Simpsons hands be yes, indeedy.

just no eatty the green fishys.

[Earniel]

I admit I'm in two minds about nuclear power. One way I think, like brownjenkins, that modern day technology indeed has avanced so that new nuclear power plants will be cheaper, safer and more efficient than the current generation. My teacher of Environmental Pollution and Remediation in college advocated likewise, but it took me long to give that comment any credibility. Nuclear power's main advantage today is that it creates much less greenhouse gasses, a very useful characteristic in today's concerns about global warming.

And yet I doubt it is that simple, why else haven't we already built new reactors to replace the wasteful other plants? Why, after all these years are there even still power plants that work on fossil fuels, very wasteful and with limited supplies? Obviously, we tend to stick with what we know. Also, while nuclear power has been with us for over half a century, newer sources of energy do not have the same pool of knowledge and expertise, and are still more expensive.

(It's something I have always found very contradicting, that energy production with limited fuels are still cheaper than those of unlimited supply, like solar or wind power. To me, it is an economic contradiction, for things in smaller quantities should be more expensive than those found in unlimited queantities, but I digress.)

On the other hand nuclear energy frightens me. Humans are and always will be prone to errors and accidents. I'm not sure nuclear energy is something I want to see humanity tangle with. Especially since the consequences are on longer terms than we actually can reckon with. Upgraded plutonium has a half-life of 24 000 years (or was it 240 000 years? either way, it's a very long time). Do we really want to create waste problems that take that long for even to become only half as dangerous as they are now?

Producing the necessary energy is one thing, and much time and effort is put in making it safe. But the waste disposal is something I think is more easily overlooked and ignored. Both the moveable waste and the decommissioned facilities that have also become awash with radioactivity. And too much of it is merely shuffled and exported around the globe. I shudder to consider how much was merely dumped in sea!

I also once did a school project on Sellafield, a nuclear installation in England, of which radioactive waste can be traced all over the Irish Sea and all the way up to Scandinavia. And many of the children in near villages have a much larger risk to leukemia. To this day I still think we treat nuclear power and radioactivity much too careless.

I remember once visiting a nuclear waste storage facility in high school. I particularly remember watching through a tiny, 15 cm thick glass window into an area with stacked containers. There was the eerie blue glow of radioactivity. Radioactivity is a scary silent killer, you can't see it, you can't stop it, but it is still there. I was sufficiently creeped out to be absolutely anti-nuclear power for several years.

Personally I do like to see our dependancy on nuclear power dimished and replaced by less dangerous power sources such as tidal force, sunlight, biomass and wind-power. I'd happily pay more if the energy could come from other sources than nuclear power. But even those new technologies will have their negative impact on the world. Just think about the impact of wind turbines on birds. There just is no easy solution to our energy problems.

So unfortunately I don't see this happening soon. Nuclear power has just become too ingrained and has too many usefull aspects, a necessary evil if you will.

[EDIT: So I was so wordy. ]