Nuclear Nonsense

Pripyat Pictures

2006-05-01T11:03:00.000-07:00

This website offers a very cool gallery of pictures taken in and around the abandoned city of Pripyat.

April 26, 1986: Nuclear Nightmare

2006-04-26T11:24:00.000-07:00

They carried red carnations and candles as bells tolled and sirens sounded around them. At 1:23 AM today Ukraine marked the 20-year anniversary of the explosion of Reactor No. 4 at the Chernobyl nuclear station. For the facts, go here or here, but today I think I want to talk about the feelings.

At the time of the explosion, Mykola Malyshev was working in Reactor No. 1's control room. When the explosion happened, the lights flickered, the room shook and he and his co-workers were told to go to Reaction No. 4. When they reached the destroyed reactor, however, the workers there told them to leave:

"They told us, 'We are already dead. Go away,"'

And, for the most part, it was the truth. Konstantyn Sokolov, who now suffers from throat and lip cancer, said, "My friends were dying in front of my eyes."

Twenty years later, the victims of Chernobyl - the hundreds of thousands who lost family, friends, land, livestock....everything - are told that they need to stop considering themselves victims. They're told that they need to stop being so "fatalistic" and "radiophobic." Mothers who knowingly feed their children radioactive food are told not to give up, that they need to stop waiting to be rescued. Perhaps this is the truth, but how? When you have nothing left how do you help yourself? And does it really help if the government that told you not to worry, that you counted on to help you out is gone? And the new government is telling you that your problem isn't physical, it's psychological?

As global citizens we need to recognize that this accident could have happened anywhere. I know there are different types of reactors, different people running them and different governments who would have to deal with consequences in different ways. But the basic truth is that nuclear power has the potential to quickly make our entire planet unliveable. How can we possibly call ourselves an advanced society when we rely on such an unstable form of energy? I will leave you with a prayer from Valentyna Mashina, 55:

"Let God not allow this to be repeated. Let God not make our grandsons relive this."

Remembering Chernobyl

2006-04-25T16:23:00.000-07:00

As we speak, Victor Yushchenko is attending a candlelight vigil marking the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. Around the web, there are several interesting stories. Try CNN.com and BBC.com for starters.

Chernobyl Voices

2006-04-21T09:13:00.000-07:00

Oh God, how they tricked us! They said they were taking us away for three days and they took us to the end of the earth. We handed over everything to the authorities, cows, calves, pigs. We left everything behind. We took nothing with us but our souls.

The BBC is running a series of articles online under the theme Chernobyl Voices. The excerpt above is from the piece about Hanna Semenenko, a 78-year-old resident of the Exclusion Zone. Hanna was evacuated to Yahotin, but returned to her home in the village of Ilyintsi the following Winter. Her story, and the others in the series, are definitely worth taking a look at.

Chernobyl Victims Hunger Strike

2006-04-20T08:45:00.000-07:00

I read this blurb at Interfax this morning:

ST. PETERSBURG. April 20 (Interfax) - Six people have joined hunger striker Sergei Kulish, a Chernobyl first-responder who is now disabled. They are demanding changes in the mechanism and amount of compensation Kulish and his peers receive. The strike is in its third week.

Kulish told Interfax on Thursday that the strike is being held in the apartment of one of the hunger-strikers.

Money is not the only reason for the hunger strike. Kulish wants the media to stop insulting the honor and dignity of Chernobyl cleanup veterans and demands a correction of the inscription on the Chernobyl monument near his house.

Der Chernobyl Flashback: May 1986

2006-04-19T12:49:00.000-07:00

Der Spiegel is running a great series of articles leading up to next weeks' anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Go here for a reprint of an article published May 26, 1986, one month after the accident. The article discusses the confusion, fears and many possible consequences. The thing I find most interesting about the article is that it doesn't really give any less information about the consequences than we know today. The casualty count, radioactivity levels and the length of time that the affects may last are just as vague as they are now, 20 years later.

The article begins by explaining that currently (remember, currently is May 1986) there are some 400 workers digging a tunnel under Chernobyl that will end under reactor no. 4. It seems there’s quite a timeline of this tunnel-building available online if you do a little … um … digging. So I thought I’d take this opportunity to discuss the tunnel, one of the few things that actually helped.

The Der Spiegel article states that the underground tunnel was only one of two ways (the other being helicopter) by which the reactor could be approached at that point. This particular article does not mention the liquidators who had already been sacrificed in attempts to clean debris from the roof of reactor no. 4 and put out the fire. They tried many ways to put the fire out. One of these efforts involved pumping water into the core itself. The problem was, the piping in the reactor was destroyed so the water just seeped underneath the floor and began to heat up, acting as a furnace with the many substances dropped onto the reactor from helicopters in other attempts to put out the fire and cool down the core. At this point, if the floor were to give, a thermal reaction, possibly worse than the initial explosion, would take place. Two men were chosen to dive beneath the reactor and open the valves to release the water. These men successfully saved many lives, but lost their own before they ever reached the surface again.
So the new idea was to completely encase the reactor in concrete to avoid further irradiation of the air and groundwater while still allowing some sort of coolant to be applied to the reactor when necessary. The sarcophagus, now full of holes and crumbling to pieces, would take care of the above-ground encasement. It’s not possible that the groundwater was completely unaffected by this disaster, it would have been unthinkably worse if the concrete had not been poured underneath the reactor.

I’ll leave you with this blurb from the New York Times published June 2, 1986:

A Soviet Army team has blasted a tunnel through to the Chernobyl nuclear plant's No. 4 reactor, carefully setting explosive charges so as not to shake the ruined block and working quickly to avoid long exposure to radiation, a newspaper reported today.
The newspaper, the Defense Ministry daily Krasnaya Zvezda, said the reactor, which was destroyed by an explosion and fire on April 26, will be entombed in cement to seal off radiation.
The tunnel has been fitted with pipes through which the cement will be poured beneath and around the reactor, the paper said. Officials have said the reactor will remain entombed for centuries until the fuel element decays.

Greenpeace counters IAEA on Chernobyl Statistics

2006-04-18T14:43:00.000-07:00

Greenpeace has released their own report detailing the consequences of the Chernobyl accident. They consider the UN's report published last Fall to be a "whitewash" of the facts. Their lengthy report is available at the link above.

French Activists Recognize Chernobyl Victims, Protests New Nuclear Plants

2006-04-17T08:18:00.000-07:00

Several thousand French activists marched in silence Saturday to honor victims of the Chernobyl disaster 20 years ago, part of a larger protest denouncing France's plans to build more nuclear reactors.

Green Gorbachev

2006-04-17T08:12:00.000-07:00

The Daily Times from Pakistan is currently running an article written by Mikhail Gorbachev about his views on the Chernobyl accident. He blames Chernobyl for the fall of the Soviet Union, but denies that it had anything to do with Russia stepping out of the arms race. He also defends the USSR, saying that they did not try to hide the accident, they merely underestimated it. He also appears to have take a decidedly green stance in - what he refers to as - this "post-Chernobyl" world:

The 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe reminds us that we should not forget the horrible lesson taught to the world in 1986. We should do everything in our power to make all nuclear facilities safe and secure. We should also start seriously working on the production of the alternative sources of energy.

Nuclear Nightmares

2006-04-17T07:59:00.000-07:00

Pixel Press has a very disturbing and informative multimedia presentation available at their site right now. I recommend that anyone who thinks that the effects of the Chernobyl accident are exaggerated go take a look at it.

USSR Nuclear Testing Ground

2006-04-15T10:30:00.000-07:00

The Daily Record from Scotland has a fantastic article about a small village near the Polygon in Kazakhstan. The Polygon was the USSR's main nuclear weaponry testing ground from 1949 to 1990, the site for 607 nuclear detonations during that time. I haven't read much about the Polygon, but according to this article, the Soviets would wait until the wind was blowing toward small villages in the east to detonate the weapons for testing. Consequently, the villages in eastern Kazakhstan are highly irradiated.

This particular article discusses European Parliament Member Struan Stevenson's many visits to the area. He first went to visit Kazakhstan when he heard about the Polygon and has become very charitably involved with the villages affected by the nuclear testing ground. Along with actress Kimberley Joseph (Lost), who photographed the villages, he has written a book entitled Crying Forever: A Nuclear Diary. All the profits from the book will go to the Children’s Hospital in Semipalatinsk, Kazakhstan.

Fatalism

2006-04-09T07:27:00.000-07:00

The Baltimore Sun has yet another article blaming residents of contaminated areas of Belarus for their own health problems. This article sites last fall's U.N. study underestimating the number of victims of the Chernobyl accident. According to The Sun, residents of Belarus have given up on their health and environment.

The United Nations has begun projects designed to encourage economic development of the affected areas. These projects include classes in beekeeping, a new sheep farm and helping residents to plant flower beds and build greenhouses. The coordinator of this effort, Zoya I. Trafimchik says that "If we continue to treat them like victims, they feel like victims."

I am stunned by the heartlessness of this new movement. Basically, the Belarussian government and the U.N. are telling these people whose lives were complete devastated that they should stop feeling sorry for themselves. Dear Ms. Yushenko, if your two children are dying of cancer and you're coughing up blood on a daily basis, maybe you should quit your whining and it will all go away. What?! They are victims. They deserve help. And sympathy. This sort of abandonment and lack of responsibility from the government is shameful. Sure, the people should want to improve their lives, but a little bit of sympathy and understanding from the people who ruined them isn't too much to ask for.

67,000

2006-04-05T10:56:00.000-07:00

Moscow, Russia (AHN) - New reports from Moscow reports at least 67,000 people are believed to have perished in Russia alone from the after-effects of the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear reactor disaster...

Radioactive Refuge?

2006-04-05T10:32:00.000-07:00

Wormwood Forest, a recently published natural history of Chernobyl written by Mary Mycio discusses the impact that the 1986 accident had on the flora and fauna of the area. Mycio has visited the exclusion zone two dozen times in the last several years and believes that the adaptation of animals to their nuclear surroundings was to be expected. Mutations, whether unattributable or genetic, are phased out. According to Mycio, the only significant genetic mutations found are in the fertility levels of small animals like barn swallows. There were some "partly-albino" swallows that appeared a few years after the accident, but their genetic line was not carried on because they were "not considered attractive and found it hard to mate." Apparently the exclusion zone is survival of the fittest in action.

I thought this excerpt from The Independent Online was quite interesting:

In the village of Illintsi, Maria Shaparenko, 82, one of the stubborn resettlers, claims Chernobyl was always a beautiful area and that nothing has really changed. "It's very nice here in summer, everything blooms. In fact nothing is wrong here, it's just that people have been scared off by the radiation." Outside in her yard a cockerel crows, and for a minute, it seems like Chernobyl really is like anywhere else.

What's even more interesting is that her neighbor down the street is "is turning black beside a chamber pot of his own blood-red urine." My point is, it's all very interesting and wonderful that nature thrives in a nuclear wasteland, but I hardly think we should be celebrating the merits of radioactive fall-out. The article in the Independent, in my opinion, spends a little too much time lost in wonderment and a not enough time focusing on the terrors of the accident.

Chernobyl Coverage

2006-04-04T13:48:00.000-07:00

With the twentieth anniversary of the Chernobyl accident looming (22 days), there is a ton of coverage right now. Some of it is just basic re-hashing of the many different sets of facts (and non-facts) regarding the incident. However, there are some really well done and interesting pieces out there as well. BBC reporter Stephen Mulvey and photographer Phil Coomes are spending several weeks in the exclusion zone interviewing people and taking pictures for a big report to be on the anniversary date. While on their journey, though, they're keeping a diary. It's very interesting to follow them around and here their initial impressions of Chernobyl, Pripyat and other areas of the zone. You can read the diary here.

I'm particulary interested in hearing about the Chernobyl museum in Kiev:

There is also footage recording the heroic efforts of miners to tunnel under the reactor so that a heat exchanger could be built to halt the progress of the molten reactor core, if it burned its way through the plant's lower depths.

I think that, for the magnitude of its impact, Chernobyl is terribly undercovered by the media. Hopefully the anniversary will allow more people to see how dangerous nuclear energy really is.

Chernobyl's Legacy

2006-03-14T09:14:00.000-08:00

The UK's Independent Online has a great article regarding how Chernobyl has affected farmers thousands of miles from Ukraine. Go read it here.

Global Chernobyl

2006-01-30T09:50:00.000-08:00

There is an interesting article this morning in Zaman, a Turkish online newspaper. The possibility of an energy crisis in Turkey inspired them to speak with four nuclear experts. The questions (and answers) are very general, but what gets to me is that they only spoke to experts who are clearly pro-nuclear. All four repeatedly say that nuclear energy is very safe and clean and completely understate nuclear waste and the possibilty of accidents. Professor Lefteri Tsoukalas, head of Purdue University's Nuclear Energy Department said:

"Chernobyl was the worst nuclear accident that could have possibly happened. It is very well studied and understood. Overall, we can say now, nearly 20 years after it happened, on the basis of Science, not myth, that its consequences were primarily local and rather limited. There is NO GLOBAL environmental impact from Chernobyl."

This is a flat-out lie. Chernobyl could have been far worse. And saying that there is no global impact is completely ridiculous. Not only was fall-out from the accident detectable globally, but the costs for clean-up and the damage done to the Russian economy are astronomical. And, in our current global economy, it is felt by everyone. The fourth reactor is still emitting dangerous amounts of radiation and building a new, effective sarcophagus is going to cost an estimated $2 billion. Not to mention the figurative cost of all who lost their homes and lives in this disaster. How can anyone possibly say that nuclear energy is cheaper.

Nukes aren't so bad...right?

2006-01-27T08:26:00.000-08:00

The Mail and Guardian Online from Africa has an interesting piece about the international climate of acceptance regarding nuclear energy. Here's the problem: instead of taking Chernobyl and Three Mile Island as serious warnings of the danger of nuclear energy and working to find alternate energy sources, we've dragged out feet for two decades. We haven't developed any other viable energy options so, now that the fear (which is not illogical) that we all felt in the 80s and 90s has abated some and we think, "Oh, nuclear isn't so scary. We've got new technologies. It's completely safe." And what we're going to do is radiate ourselves right out of existence.

The Peaceful Putin

2006-01-27T08:19:00.000-08:00

Putin has released a statement on his views of nuclear energy:

We need to create the prototype of a global infrastructure that will give all interested countries equal access to nuclear energy, while stressing reliable compliance with the requirements of the non-proliferation regime, of course...

Nuclear Opinion

2006-01-25T10:29:00.000-08:00

This article from the International Herald Tribune has an interesting overview of general opinions on the use of nuclear energy around the world:

"The biggest obstacle to nuclear energy is public and political acceptance. There is a need to overcome fear and anxiety from people who think that anything nuclear is very dangerous." - Peter Haug, Foratom's Director General

I find comments like that so strange. People have a very good reason to be afraid of anything nuclear. It is volatile and unsafe. There is not one good reason to expand our use of nuclear energy. Not one. It's more dangerous, more expensive and the materials used to create it are going to run out just as fast as fossil fuels. We need to find alternate energy forms that do not cause cancer, poison land and ruin lives. Haug is not asking people to overcome fears, he's asking them to overcome common sense.

Will People Never Learn?

2006-01-24T08:12:00.000-08:00

In 2008, construction will begin on a nuclear power plant in Belarus. Belarus is one of the areas most affected by the fall-out from the Chernobyl accident. There is a brief story here.

Taking Iodine-131 for the Team

2006-01-22T14:09:00.000-08:00

The reigning Miss Nevada, Crystal Wosik has taken a very interesting standpoint for her state. She is completely in favor of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, calling it the "best-built facility in the country." Which is a really odd way to put it, in my opinion. It makes me think that perhaps she wasn't quite prepared to discuss her opinions on nuclear energy. What makes me sure that she wasn't thinking was her response to "What if people die?": Crystal said, "We just have to take one for the team."

Crystal's mother proved herself equally brilliant when she said: "It's a tragedy that we have nuclear waste, but it's got to go somewhere." So it might as well be transported from all over the country and placed in a mountain 100 miles from a major U.S. City? And am I the only one who thinks that the entire Yucca Mountain operation is a Heinlen novel just waiting to happen?

I could go on for days about how irresponsible and ignorant Wosiks statement was, but I think Citizen Alert's Peggy Maze Johnson put it beautifully: "Before she gets up there and starts representing the state of Nevada, she needs to find out more about what the issues are. Instead, she's shooting from the hip with a ridiculous statement that feeds into many people's idea that Miss America contestants are bimbos".

Words for Pripyat

2006-01-19T08:24:00.000-08:00

We've stood over our ashes;
now what do we take on our long journey?
The secret fear that wherever we go
we are superfluous?
The sense of loss
that revealed the essence
of a strange and sudden kinlessness,
showed that our calamity is not
shared by those who might, one day,
themselves face annihilation?
. . . We are doomed to be left behind by the flock
in the harshest of winters . . .
You, fly away!
But when you fly off
don't forget us, grounded in the field!
And no matter to what joyful faraway lands
your happy wings bear you,
may our charred wings
protect you from carelessness.
-Lyubov Sirota, To Pripyat, Part 3

Sirota has a beautiful collection of poetry that can be read in English translation here. There are also some photos of Pripyat taken by her son which are, as are all photos of the abandoned city, quite haunting.

Happy New Year

2006-01-18T12:16:00.000-08:00

We are approaching the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster in April and it seems that a large percentage of the world has forgotten about it completely. Or, if they haven't forgotten, they've at least decided it wasn't nearly as bad as everyone thought it would be. Apparently irradiated produce, children suffering from cancer and uncountable other costs aren't major issues. Where do I get this idea? Perhaps from the fact that 80% of Swedes, about half of the British and obviously those in power in the United States all seem to support nuclear energy as a clean, cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels.

Here's an older article from the BBC that has a lot of really good points on both sides of the debate.

To Err is Human

2005-10-28T14:04:00.000-07:00

Taxpayers in the UK will be footing the bill for the clean-up of the Dounreay Nuclear Complex in Caithness. According to this article from the BBC, an operator failed to make sure a drum was sealed before pouring highly radioactive waste into it.

Please don't tell me that this couldn't happen in the U.S. And don't tell me it couldn't be a lot worse. The bottom line is people make mistakes. I don't care how safe you think it is, it's just not.

Nuclear Iran

2005-10-14T22:26:00.000-07:00

From the October 15 Washington Post:

The United States and France jointly warned Iran Friday that it continues to face the danger of referral to the U.N. Security Council if it does not quickly end a boycott of negotiations on its nuclear program.

I think talks with Iran regarding their nuclear programs are probably futile. Obviously they're going to do what they want to do regardless of what we tell them to do.

Technorati Tags: nuclear,Iran

Nuke the Moon

2005-10-13T08:59:00.000-07:00

I know this isn't a new idea, but Discussions about storing our nuclear waste on the moon are always interesting. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

Energy Bill Blues

2005-10-09T13:43:00.000-07:00

This article from the Palm Beach Desert Sun inspired me to take a look at what could be good about Bush's new Energy Bill. I went to the Department of Energy website and found a list of things that are supposed to be positive for the people. However, all of the perks for those wishing to use alternative, renewable energy sources are for energy sources that really aren't currently feasible. For instance:

"Consumers can receive a credit of up to 30% of the cost, or up to $2,000, for installing solar-powered hot-water systems used exclusively for purposes other than heating swimming "pools and hot tubs."

I live in Washington State where it essentially rains for nine months out of the year. We can't exactly collect sun to use for heating purposes. But since there's such a great lot of perks for nuclear energy I was thinking I could put a nuclear reactor in backyard. That way I'd have hot water to wash my tail and extra limbs whenever I wanted. I know, I'm exaggerating, that's the point. This bill is a gross exaggeration helping no one except big companies who want to make massive profit on dangerous, overpriced reactors.

What scares me most are the little things. The Desert Sun article I mentioned earlier ends with this:

"The energy bill's relaxed insurance provisions will facilitate the inevitable risk taking by the new project's investors. But like the badly needed oil refining capacity, nuclear utilization will also have to stand the test of profitability. Unlike every other one of the world's nations utilizing nuclear power, American nuclear power stations are not subsidized by the government and must be able to function profitably in the private business sector."

What Bush is doing is making it almost impossible for private businesses not to profit from nuclear power stations. He's essentially throwing money their way and relaxing all sorts of rules to push this nuclear renaissance. If he's making regulations more lenient in one area what is going to stop him from making them lenient in others? Safety, for instance.

IAEA's Nobel Peace Prize

2005-10-07T09:14:00.000-07:00

Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this morning. The Nobel committee's comments on the decision included:

"At a time when disarmament efforts appear deadlocked, when there is a danger that nuclear arms will spread both to states and to terrorist groups, and when nuclear power again appears to be playing an increasingly significant role, IAEA's work is of incalculable importance."

I couldn't agree more. I find it highly entertaining that Condi Rice sent her congratulations after the U.S. completely lobbied against his third term as IAEA Director General. Less than a year ago the Bush administration asked ElBaradei to step down when his term ended. The U.S. only gave their endorsement grudingly in June when it became clear that everyone else was in favor of ElBaradei continuing at his post. Apparently the Bushies thought ElBaradei was a little soft on Iran and Iraq. Either this opinion has changed or the Bush administration doesn't want to come off all sour grapes.

I'm obviously not a fan of the IAEA on many fronts, but I think they're a very important watchdog in the face of the reemerging nuclear arms race. ElBaradei's official statement can be found here.

Nuke Retro

2005-10-05T20:07:00.000-07:00

Funny! But not really.

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

2005-10-03T14:11:00.000-07:00

"NIRS/WISE is the information and networking center for citizens and environmental organizations concerned about nuclear power, radioactive waste, radiation, and sustainable energy issues."

They also have a petition up currently to promote a sustainable energy future. Go sign it!

Touring the Exclusion Zone

2005-10-01T07:49:00.000-07:00

I've always thought that photos of the ferris wheel in Pripyat were particularly haunting. I suppose everything about Pripyat - the young, exciting city built to house those who worked at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant - is a little haunting. Something about a thriving city being completely abandoned in a matter of days is just terrifying to me. Probably because I feel like it could happen to any of us, at any time, really. Anyway, I read something this morning that made this Pripyat contraption even creepier: it was never used. According to this article in the Washington Post, it was set to open on May Day 1986. By May Day there weren't really any citizens of Pripyat there to celebrate. That article, by the way, is quite like most articles written by those who've paid for tours of the exclusion zone. It's still an interesting read, though. And, please, don't tell me how much more efficiently we could run our ferris wheels with nuclear power...or how much faster it would turn.

Renewing Plymouth's License

2005-10-01T07:24:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of spent nuclear fuel sitting at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant in Plymouth, MA. Approximately 2600 assemblies, in fact. It's been building up since 1972. Their license expires in 2012, but they'd like to extend it for another twenty years. While safety issues regarding the plant's operation don't appear to be in question, safety from terrorist attack does. Dr. Ed Lyman from the Union of Concerned Scientists said at a forum on Thursday night:

"Fact: a well-planned terrorist attack on nuclear plant with ground, air or water forces can result in a core meltdown containment failure or large Chernobyl-type radioactive release, and anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or lying. If Indian Point were hit, up to 44,000 fatalities within 50 miles from the place of exposure would occur, along with up to 500,000 cancer fatalities in the long-term and economic damages exceeding two trillion."

If terrorists hit Pilgrim hard, the reactor itself could release up to five million curies of radiation and the waste pool could release a staggering 25 to 30 million curies. To put it in perspective, the Chernobyl accident is estimated to have released two-and-a-half million curies.
So why are they considering adding even more to the waste already on site? Apparently nuclear energy is solely responsible for our quality of life in the United States. Dr. Gilbert Brown of UMASS Lowell said:

In my reality space, nuclear energy is not only a safe way, but an environmentally safe, sound and economical way to make electricity. Most people don't have a quality of life a tenth of what we have."

He may be right. But how will our quality of life be affected if one of our nuclear plants is attacked by terrorists?

Terrorist Attack on a Nuclear Plant?

2005-09-30T08:43:00.000-07:00

Okay all you pro-nuke folks that keep posting on my blog, answer me this: What would happen if terrorists attacked a nuclear reactor? I mean really attacked it. Say it exploded even. What would happen? Would it be worse than if they attacked another type of energy plant? I know what my answer is, but since you guys are all so smart, please tell me how it would go down.

Dirty Bomb Threat

2005-09-28T10:02:00.000-07:00

Some radioactive material that had been missing for a decade was found at the Chernobyl Power Plant. It had been assumed that it was stolen in 1995, but it turned out to be just sitting in a plastic bag on the site. This story says:

Ukrainian authorities, Western governments and international watchdogs
repeatedly have warned that radioactive material from Ukraine's 15 operational
reactors and Chernobyl could find its way into the hands of terrorists and be
used to craft a so-called dirty bomb. Such a bomb is a common explosive combined
with radioactive material that can contaminate large areas if detonated.

But don't worry, kids. Nuclear energy is clean and safe. If President Bush says so it must be true.

Lies from the World Nuclear Association

2005-09-27T09:06:00.000-07:00

The World Nuclear Association has a sweet little pro-nuke energy page that has this tidbit:

"The 27 tonnes or so of spent fuel taken each year from a 1000 MWe nuclear reactor is highly radioactive and gives off a lot of heat. Some is reprocessed so that 97% of the 27 tonnes is recycled. The remaining 3%, about 700 kg, is high-level radioactive waste which is potentially hazardous and needs to be isolated from the environment for a very long time. However, the small quantity makes the task readily manageable. Even where the spent fuel is not reprocessed, the yearly amount of 27 tonnes is modest compared with the quantities of waste from a similar sized coal-fired power station. Its isolation in both storage and transport is easily achieved."

If it's so "readily manageable" then why are we fighting over where to store the stuff in the U.S.? And, sure, it's less waste. However, this business of isolation during storage and transport being easily achieved is completely false. We don't know where to put it. There is a lot of it. And, once we figure out where to store it, we still aren't sure how to get it there safely. And you know why? There is no safe place to put it and there is no safe way to transport it. Because nuclear energy is not safe.

Nevada Stalls Yucca

2005-09-23T08:52:00.000-07:00

Congrats, Nevada. Go read this:

"Chalk one up for the Nevada lawyers fighting the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository. A three-judge panel for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ruled Thursday that the Department of Energy must release a draft copy of the license application that it intends to submit for the NRC to review..."

Nuclear Waste Container Tips Over

2005-09-23T08:39:00.000-07:00

Two trains collided yesterday in Buffalo, NY. No one was hurt, but a container tipped over. A container that is used to hold nuclear waste. It was empty, on a return trip to pick up more spent fuel from the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard.

No radiation was released and this type of accident is very rare. Jim Carey, a spokesman for the DOE's Pittsburgh Naval Reactors Office, said that about 750 of these containers have already been shipped without incident. They're not shipped frequently, though. This fuel comes from nuclear-powered warships that only need refueling about every twenty years.

Per the request of Representative Tom Reynolds (R-NY), the proximity of nuclear waste containers to other rail traffic will be investigated, along with whether or not this particular accident violated operational or security procedures.

This accident happened near a neighborhood. No local authorities were aware that any radioactive material was being shipped through their area. According to Buffalo deputy fire commissioner J. Gregory Love, "We should not know. The package should just go right through." But what if it doesn't, Deputy Love? What if a serious nuclear accident occurs in your juristdiction and you have no plan to deal with it?

Just think... What if this had happened when the container was full and on its way back? Sure, tests show that they're designed to withstand a fall like this, but what if it didn't? What if this happens to any of the shipments that are proposed for storage at Yucca Mountain? Clearly local authorities aren't prepared to deal with nuclear accidents.

Sarcophagus Sarshmophagus

2005-09-22T09:49:00.000-07:00

According to Russian Federal Atomic Energy Agency Head Alexander Rumyantsev, it's really no big deal if the sarcophagus around Chernobyl's Reactor #4 collapses even more. He said the media is overdramatic about the situation and:

“Even if more leaks appear and the sarcophagus partly collapses, there may be serious social consequences. However according to the experts, there cannot be any serious radiation consequences.”

What experts said that? The last I heard, it was quite dangerous for the sarcophagus to even have the damage that it already does.

The Hatch Stands Alone

2005-09-21T09:05:00.000-07:00

In a surprise (but not really) change of his mind, Senator Bob Bennett (Utah, R) announced yesterday that he is now opposed to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site in Nevada. I said this is not really a surprise because I'm sure Bennett must have suddenly realized, with all the Skull Valley talk, that perhaps shipping nuclear waste from all over the country to right next door might actually affect his state. His plan now is to back Nevada’s fight against Yucca Mountain because he doesn’t think it will ever be approved. Bennett made the announcement publicly on the senate floor saying that:

"The momentum is shifting and the timing is right to address our nuclear waste challenges in a way that offers real, long-term solutions.”

Wonder what he has in mind?

North Korean Nonsense

2005-09-20T10:03:00.000-07:00

Did we really think North Korea was serious about dismantling all things nuclear? Not bloody likely. Less than a day after a disarmament agreement was reached, North Korean's Foreign Ministry issued the following statement:

"The U.S. should not even dream of the issue of (North Korea's) dismantlement of its nuclear deterrent before providing (light-water reactors), a physical guarantee for confidence-building"

The U.S. and Japan both laughed and reiterated that North Korea can't be trusted with nukes. China sort of shrugged and said they were sure things would work out in the end. At present the U.S. is giving North Korea time to think it over and North Korea is giving the U.S. time also. Oh yeah, and a threat of "serious and complicated" consequences if dismantlement is demanded.

Homeland Security?

2005-09-16T10:11:00.000-07:00

According to this article, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is checking on the security PFS plans to have in place for the recently approved nuclear waste repository in Skull Valley. Perhaps someone pointed out to them that 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste sitting in a mountain only 50 miles from a major U.S. city (Salt Lake City, UT) could quite possibly be a target for terrorists.

Yucca, Yucca, Yucca

2005-09-14T16:03:00.000-07:00

Nevada Senator Harry Reid (D) has been fighting against the use of Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste dump. However, when the NRC approved Skull Valley as an interim waste storage facility last week, Reid had this to say:

“Transporting high-level radioactive waste to Utah is as dangerous as it would be transporting it to Nevada. Thousands of tons of deadly nuclear material will pass homes, schools, businesses and churches in communities all across the country, and there is simply no way to safely do this. In Nevada, we will continue to fight as hard as we always have to stop the proposed Yucca Mountain site. The safest and smartest solution to solving the nation’s nuclear waste problem is to store waste at the facilities where it is already being produced, as Sen. Ensign and I have proposed.”

According to Senator Reid's website, there are several geological factors that should have put Yucca Mountain out of the running as a long-term dumping site. Along with this, there have been quality assurance issues with the site from the project's inception. As I learned yesterday from Yucca Mountain Johnny, the mountain was created by volanoes. According to the DOE, there is no longer any volcanic activity at Yucca Mountain. According to independent reports, however, there is evidence of recent volcanic activity. There are also at least 33 fault lines at or near Yucca Mountain. A magnitude 5.6 happened 8 miles from the mountain in 1992 and damaged the project offices.

Perhaps the most daunting aspect of the Yucca Mountain Project is safely transporting all of that radioactive waste across the country. Reid says:

"Waste would travel through 44 states on its way to Yucca Mountain, yet the DOE has not adequately tested the casks it would use to transport waste by rail, truck, and barge. The debacle of transporting this waste, putting millions of Americans at risk and providing targets for terrorists, should be the Yucca Mountain Project’s undoing."

If you aren't thoroughly convinced that Senator Reid isn't sincere in his concern for the environment and our natural resources, just read this:

"I have been working to help our state end the worst infestation of Mormon crickets in 40 years. Over the last several years, I have won hundreds of thousands of dollars for Nevada to deal with the cricket infestation. When it became clear that was not enough and that crickets don’t respect borders, I established a three-state $20 million fund to eradicate crickets in Nevada, Utah and Idaho. This money will give the hard-working people who have been fighting this threat the support they need to protect our communities from future infestations."

Okay, so I had to poke a little bit of fun. Seriously, though, check out his site to learn more about the Yucca Mountain Project.

Heeeere's Johnny!

2005-09-13T10:55:00.000-07:00

Meet Yucca Mountain Johnny. This morning he taught me all about the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's Yucca Mountain Project. Basically, Yucca Mountain is where the U.S. government plans to throw a good deal of the nuclear waste that's currently scattered around our country. Yucca Mountain Johnny is the host of the Yucca Mountain Youth Zone and now I know everything I need to know about this wonderful, responsible project.

First, of all, Yucca Mountain is located in the middle of the Mojave Desert in a remote area of Southwestern Nevada. Who lives at Yucca Mountain, you ask? Don't be silly:

"No one lives at Yucca Mountain. The closest family lives about 14 miles away in the Amargosa Valley. The Yucca Mountain area is surrounded by land controlled by the U.S. government, including the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Air Force, and the Department of Energy."

So don't worry, kids. If there was some sort of accident with the nuclear waste (not that there ever would be, because Americans are perfect!), it wouldn't even get near other humans. Just look at how contained Chernobyl was. Oh, wait...nevermind, forget I mentioned that.

Yucca Mountain is really "more like a very large hill" with a dry, warm climate. It was formed by volcanoes tens of millions of years ago. No, there aren't volcanoes there anymore and scientists think it's highly unlikely that there will be again. There are some bomb testing sites nearby and lots of jets that fly over and could possibly crash into the mountain, but...kidding!

Now that you know all about the mountain itself, let's learn about nuclear energy:

"Imagine what your house would be like if no one EVER took out the garbage. Not only would your home be dirty and stinky, but it would also be a very unhealthy place to live. To stay healthy, we need to take our garbage out."

Of course, eventually we'll have nowhere else to put it, but that probably won't be in our lifetimes so who really cares. Oh, wait, the DOE does:

"But it isn't right to let the waste keep piling up and expect someone else to take care of it later on. We must be responsible for our nuclear waste and put in a place where it can never harm people or the environment."

We're going to be responsible. Thank goodness. The explanation also says that nuclear waste is radioactive and can make people sick or even die.

The page entitled "Using Science to Solve the Problem" is perhaps my favorite. It explains that:

"If enough water contacted the nuclear waste, over a long, long time, it could eventually cause it to rust and corrode (like rust affects a bicycle if you leave it out in wet weather for a long time). The rust on nuclear waste would also be radioactive and water could carry tiny radioactive particles from the rust into people's drinking water. If the water ends up having enough of these particles in it, people who drink a lot of that water could get sick. So we need to figure out ways to keep the waste dry for thousands and thousands of years."

Instead of offering any ideas of their own, the DOE simply leaves it up to the kids: "How would you solve these problems?" Good idea, getting them to start thinking about it now. They're mostly likely going to be the ones who'll have to deal with it.

The next page explains how they plan to package the waste (in "waste packages"!) and bury it under the ground. Also, here we learn that the Yucca Mountain Project doesn't exactly solve the problem of nuclear waste. You see, we can't be entirely sure that burying the nuclear waste under this "very large hill" will actually keep humans and the environment safe. Luckily, we have scientists studying all of that and they think it'll probably be okay. Phew!

Finally, I got to the good part: Games! Because what could be more fun than games about radioactive waste? Nothing, I'm sure. I was all excited to play pin the talons on the fishies. Unfortunately, they only have a couple of lame puzzles and some propoganda quizzes that ask things like "No one lives on Yucca Mountain, true or false?" What I'm wondering is, why are there Middle School and High School level quizzes when the entire "Youth Zone" is written at about a fourth grade level? I can't really see a high school student using this site as a basis for research.

In any case, I'm so glad the DOE created this site. I had a lovely time hanging out with Yucca Mountain Johnny. All my fears about our natural resources ("There are no known natural resources of commercial value at Yucca Mountain), people's safety (remember, no one lives at Yucca Mountain!) and the future ("in the course of its activities, DOE may disturb some of these environs and has promised to reclaim Yucca Mountain by restoring as much of the disturbed areas as practicable to their former conditions.") have been alleviated. Thanks, Johnny!

Skull Valley

2005-09-12T15:23:00.000-07:00

On Friday, The U.S. Department of Energy announced that it has awarded Private Fuel Storage, a consortium of eight nuclear power plant operators, a $3.1 billion contract to build a nuclear waste storage facility on the Goshute Indian Reservation in Skull Valley, Utah. The plan is, over the next twenty years they'll cart about 40,000 metric tons of nuclear waste out to the site where it will be stored until the Yucca Mountain site is ready. There are so many problems with this plan I don't even know where to begin.

First off, carting 40,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel from various parts of the country is incredibly dangerous. One mistake and we'd have a huge accident on our hands. Second, though the plan is to relocate the fuel, the proposed Yucca Mountain site is exactly that. Proposed. It is on hold right now because of major protests against that location being used for nuclear waste. There are some good reasons here why the Goshute Reservation is a really bad place to put this stuff, including the fact that the proposed site is right next to a bombing range.

Accountability

2005-09-09T13:41:00.000-07:00

Humans aren't perfect. I understand this. This is exactly why I think nuclear energy is a really bad idea and exactly how a serious nuclear leak can go unnoticed for nearly a year.

At the Sellafield Nuclear Complex in the UK, there is enough plutonium spilled in one chamber of the THORP reprocessing plant to make 20 nuclear bombs. Twenty tons of uranium and plutonium dissolved in nitric acid had been sitting on the floor of a clarification cell from about August 2004 until it was discovered in April 2005. The plant has been closed indefinitely until officials can decide how to clean up the spill and repair the plant.

This particular accident was caused specifically by a fault in the design of the plant. A pipe connected to a tank holding spent fuel ruptured when it was moved one too many times. In order to fill or empty the tank, it must be moved. Apparently the engineers did not consider this process during the design of the plant. Oops.

The leak was discovered when workers at the plant noticed a drop in the level of plutonium and uranium in one of the plant's "accountability" tanks. Seriously. Accountability. For nine months half an Olympic swimming pool of nuclear "liquor" (that is what they call it at this clarification stage) was sitting on the floor, but they actually have a device called an accountability tank. Anyway, so the workers noticed the drop and they checked the cell on a camera. You see, humans can't go into the clarification cells because they're too dangerous. If that's the case, I'm not quite sure how the tank was being moved often enough to rupture the pipe. If anyone knows how this could happen, please let me know. I can't find any information about it.

The clarification cell is essentially a huge stainless steel chamber impervious to the radioactive materials it contains. For this reason, no plant workers were harmed and no waste has escaped the chamber. In this case, the population will be hit in a different way. The recovering and repair process will take months and cost taxpayers upwards of 300 million pounds.

The THORP plant was built in the 1990s for the low, low cost of about $4 billion. The plant doesn't get as many orders as expected because the new nuclear plants that would send it spent fuel to process were never built. Also, the reprocessing orders that the plant does receive are behind schedule because the plant has never run at full capacity. It has been plagued by constant accidents and failures. This newest accident could mean the end of the plant as it is already being sued by customers for being so behind schedule.

So much for nuclear power being safe and cheap, huh? This accident rates a 3 (out of 7) on the International Nuclear Event Scale. Level 3 means it's classified as a "serious incident," but not quite considered a full blown accident. To put it in perspective, Three-Mile Island was a 5 and Chernobyl was a 7.

Nuclear Orleans

2005-09-08T14:46:00.000-07:00

As if there is not enough going on down there right now, I just found this article about a nuclear plant that has trouble meeting regulations even under normal circumstances. Oh please, Mr. President, can we build more of these?

Greenpeace Speaks

2005-09-08T08:40:00.000-07:00

Greenpeace made some statements yesterday regarding the new Chernobyl report released by the U.N. They accused the IAEA of "whitewashing" the impacts. Greenpeace nuclear campaigner Jan Vande Putte said:

"As we approach the 20th anniversary of the world worst nuclear accident, the victims of Chernobyl deserve more than this shoddy, incomplete and contradictory science. What they need is real science and real solutions to the continued suffering and ill-health brought about by the Chernobyl disaster.

She also said that blaming consequences of the accident on stress and irrational fear is unjustified and misleading. I couldn't agree more. According to Greenpeace's assessment, the report is incomplete. Many areas affected by the fallout, including some of the local population surrounding the reactor and parts of Europe, were not included in the report. Apparently the report only considers the liquidators involved in the immediately clean-up of the site.

Putte believes, as do I, that this report is just a timely attempt to convince people that even when a nuclear plant isn't safe, it's still not as unsafe as we'd all feared:

"It is a deliberate attempt to minimize the risks of nuclear power in order to free the way for new reactor construction."

U.N. Report

2005-09-07T12:08:00.000-07:00

I really want to write a proper response to the barrage of articles released in the last couple of days regarding the U.N.’s new report. Chernobyl’s Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts is a collaboration of over 100 scientists, eight U.N. agencies and the governments of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. I have to stop here for a second and point out that most of those involved with this report – a report that apparently says the effects of Chernobyl were greatly over-estimated – were many of the same agencies that were involved when the disaster happened in 1986. Also, the three governments involved pay out millions of dollars a year to Chernobyl victims and have been trying to reduce this for years.

The vast majority of media coverage on the report has an overwhelming air of relief to it. It also has the stink of lazy reporters who haven’t bothered to do anything more than read the press packet. I find this approach highly irresponsible. The U.S. and Great Britain are both highly likely to begin commissioning new nuclear power plants within the next couple of years. Isn’t it convenient for them that this report was released right now. Everyone can read all about how the big bad nuclear explosion wasn’t really so bad at all. I mean, sure, kids have cancer, but it’s 99% curable. And most of the people who are sick aren’t really sick because of radiation. No way. They’re sick because they think radiation is going to kill them. They’re sick because they got scared by all the overblown reports that their skin was going to fall off and their babies were going to have eight arms. It’s all in their head. Sure, their babies might be born with thyroid cancer, but, remember, it’s 99% curable.

The people that were and are exposed to nuclear radiation should be scared. And so should we. Our President is all for building nuclear plants all over this country again. And now we’ve got media all over the world writing articles simply repeating this propaganda released from the U.N. We’re being told “See, kids, you freaked out for nothing. Only a few people are going to die and the Chernobyl accident was a worst-case-scenario. Also, it was completely the fault of the big bad bureaucratic communist machine that was the Soviet Union.” Right, because first of all, American people never make mistakes. And, if something like that did happen in the U.S. there’d be aid sent immediately by our quick-like-a-bunny right-on-top-of-it government. Or will it?

Americans are naïve. I’m sorry, but we are. We trust our president too much. We trust the media too much. And we’re too damn lazy to do a little research and find out what’s going on. I have been attempting to access the International Atomic Energy Agency’s website for several hours now and have been unable to. For one reason or another, the site is down. But every single article I’ve read regarding the Chernobyl’s Legacy report coughs up the same quotes and the same information. It’s a 600-page report, I understand. And I suppose I don’t expect every reporter to read all 600 pages of it in order to write a 300-word article that will end up on A11. However, couldn’t at least one read it? I’d love to read it. However, I can’t seem to find a copy anywhere on the net. If anyone knows how I can go about getting a copy of the report, please tell me.

If Hurricane Katrina has taught the American people anything, it’s that we absolutely cannot count on our federal government to help us out in times of emergency. Of course, what can you expect, the last job held by Mike Brown, the head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was Judges and Stewards Commissioner for the International Arabian Horse Association. That organization doesn’t exist anymore because Brown ruined it financially and it was forced to become part of the Purebred Registry. This is the man that Bush put in charge of emergencies in our country. But I digress. My point is, the U.S. government isn’t any better about telling us the truth or helping our people out than the communist Soviet government was. Our current government withholds, lies and spins information just as badly as the Soviets ever did. We need to pay more attention or soon the U.N. will be issuing reports telling us that it’s all in our heads.

Blame it on the Victims

2005-09-06T08:34:00.000-07:00

The newest reports from the UN state that the effects of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster are not as dire as were predicted. Apparently cases of thyroid cancer are way up in those who were kids at the time of the accident, but that's no big deal because it can be treated. Other than that, only 50 or so deaths can actually be attributed directly to the accident. Eventually, the number should be somewhere around 4,000 or so.

According to the New York Times, the biggest problem the victims of Chernobyl have to deal with is their own self-pity. No, really, that's essentially what they said. Here's the article. Dr. Fred Mettler, health effect team leader of the Chernobyl Forum, said that the victims have a "paralyzing fatalism" that leads them to "things like drug and alcohol use, and unprotected sex and unemployment." Basically, they think they're going to die anyway, so they live quite recklessly. Perhaps if their government actually told them what was going on they'd feel a little more secure.

Here's the thing: this is all about the Ukranian government not wanting to pay benefits to these victims. This entire report is based on what can be directly attributed to the accident. The problem is, because all these people went on living their lives, it is nearly impossible to pinpoint the Chernobyl accident as the cause of most of their ailments. The New York Times article says that life expectancy dropped substantially after the fall of the Soviet Union. Mettler says that the effect of Chernobyl "may be difficult to detect against the background noise." So, I guess, since they can't prove anything, they should just pull benefits. If thyroid cancer is treatable, nothing is really that contaminated and mostly it's all in their head anyway, then why should their government support them?

Apparently not everyone will lose their benefits, however:

"The report acknowledged that there was a small core of people, probably numbering 100,000 to 200,000, who continued to be severely affected by the disaster. These include poor rural dwellers who live in the few severely contaminated areas, people with thyroid cancer and citizens who had been resettled in the wake of the disaster but who had never found a home or employment in their new communities."

Oh good. What a relief. Only 100 to 200 thousand people. Wait a minute...last time I checked that was an awful lot of people to be suffering.

Falling Fall-Out

2005-08-17T14:13:00.000-07:00

From Novosti today:

The latest radiation measurements in the area surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant, in Ukraine, indicate that the levels of radioactive contamination are falling, Ukraine's Emergency Situations Ministry reported Wednesday.
Sergei Parshin, head of the Ukrainian government's agency for Chernobyl evacuation and resettlement, said the officially designated evacuation zone of 2,800 square kilometers (1,100 square miles), from where all the inhabitants were relocated after the 1986 nuclear accident, may now be partly reopened for settlement. In this case, some of the evacuees will be able to return home, but will lose the welfare benefits they have been getting until now, he said.

Plutonium has a half life of 24,000 years, Cesium has a half-life of 30 years, but suddenly radiation levels are dropping enough to send people back to their homes. Homes, by the way, from which they were evactuated nearly twenty years ago. I think it's terribly convenient that some of the exclusion zone is suddenly habitable again. As you may know, the Ukraine doesn't have the best economy. Apparently it's economy is on the rise, but they still owe millions of dollars promised to Chernobyl victims. And each year they pay out close to a million. However, if they can start sending people back to their homes, then they can cross those funds off their IOU.

At the same time, they’ll be showing that perhaps the accident wasn’t as terrible as everyone thought. I mean, sure, they still want the rest of the world to pitch in to fix the shoddily-built sarcophagus that covers up the shoddily-built reactor, but that doesn’t mean people can’t live there. Just think…they can go home. They thought they’d never get to see their homes again, but it turns out they get to go live in them. Hooray! I bet they can’t wait to return to their beloved houses. Houses that have been abandoned for almost two decades. I bet they’re in great shape.

Animal and vegetable life around Chernobyl is flourishing. There are actually more species of animals living there now than there were before the accident. And, no, I don’t mean eight-headed cows and birds without wings. I mean real animals that usually inhabit other places have branched out to live in the exclusion zone. Plants grow beautifully there, too. The problem is, you can’t judge a book by its cover. The plants and animals should never become consumable produce and meat because they’re radioactive. No one should be eating them. Markets in Moscow and other large cities are monitored daily to ensure that no highly radioactive consumables are being sold. So if people move back, nearer to Chernobyl, they can’t grow crops or raise animals to make a living and they shouldn’t do so even for their own sustenance.

The Ukranian government clearly has ulterior motives for re-opening these zones for human habitation. The areas nearest the Chernobyl plant are inhabitable neither economically nor environmentally. It may look like a beautiful, picture-postcard place to live. But it isn’t. It’s deadly and no humans should be living there.

Cover Up

2005-08-12T15:40:00.000-07:00

This article from Novosti, the Russian News and Information Service, is really frightening. I was under the impression that the new sarcophagus (Shelter-2) for reactor #4 at Chernobyl was already under construction. As it turns out, the only work being done right now is to patch up the old one (Shelter-1). What worries me is that they’ve got human beings working essentially on top of an unstable reactor containing 185 tons of radioactive fuel. Estimates place the reactor’s radioactivity level at 17 million curies.

Keep in mind that before the original sarcophagus was built, many people were brought in to clean the rubble off the roof of the reactor building. These men among all the liquidators - the title given to those who helped clean up after the accident - were exposed to the most radiation. Some were exposed to more than five times the maximum annual dose of radiation allowed for workers in nuclear facilities. After the clean-up, the sarcophagus had to be constructed. They initially tried to use robots, but the radiation made the electronics malfunction to the point of being useless. So they switched to humans. These humans weren’t much further away from the reactor than those who’d been on the roof.

It is estimated that approximately 600,000 people were officially involved in the liquidation process after the Chernobyl accident, but it’s impossible to know how accurate this number is. Soviet secrecy and general bureaucratic disorganization make it difficult to ascertain exactly how many people were involved in the effort.

Only 28 liquidators died officially from Acute Radiation Sickness (ARS). That is not an accurate number of how many would eventually die or suffer major complications from ARS. The problem with pinpointing the exact number of deaths directly related to Chernobyl is that the accident was not a closed experiment. The liquidators had different genetic make-ups, different health histories and they went on to do different things. So, though many may have died from cancer, this can’t be directly attributed to Chernobyl because the liquidators may have had a history of cancer in their family, been cigarette smokers or had exposure to any number of other carcinogens. There are so many variables involved in the life of a human being that many lives lost or shortened by the Chernobyl accident will never be attributed directly to it. The official figures (and there are several, depending on who is providing them) are obviously gross understatements. Even the psychological problems of the liquidators (many suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder) can be attributed to other things like the fall of Soviet Communism and the often dire economic situation in the Ukraine.

During the initial construction of Shelter-1, few precautions were taken due to the emergency nature of the situation. Men were sent on the roof with little, if any, protective gear and ordered to just quickly throw some rubble down and run. This time around, there are stricter safety precautions in place. Workers are still complaining of radiation sickness. The reason for this is thought to be that the safety procedures are not being precisely followed. This is completely ironic because it was breach of procedure that led to the Chernobyl catastrophe in the first place. And we’re back to my last post where I discussed people not learning from their own or other’s past mistakes.

And, just in case you’re not at least a little bit alarmed by this situation, I’ll leave you with this extremely comforting statement made last Monday by Yevgeny Velikhov, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and president of the Kurchatov Institute: "We in Russia have a powerful Emergencies Ministry, like the U.S. Homeland Security Department. But staff working there are familiar with man-made radiation explosions only in theory, and if this theory is applied in practice, chaos and confusion may ensue."

Nuc-U-lar Nonsense

2005-08-10T09:37:00.000-07:00

President George W. Bush can't even pronounce the word "nuclear." However, this week he signed into law a bill that could potentially fund almost $13 billion worth of nuclear power projects. The U.S. stopped commissioning new nuclear power plants in 1979 after the partial meltdown of Unit 2 at Three Mile Island. It appeared that, even before the Chernobyl disaster (an understatement) in 1986, we had learned our lesson. Apparently G.W. was left behind on that one because he thinks it's a great idea to start building nuclear plants again.

I plan to use this space to cover basic history and current news of nuclear energy. I'm not going to discuss atom bombs. Those are obviously dangerous, as they are intended to be. Nuclear energy is argued by many to be the safest, cleanest source of energy. I disagree. With nuclear energy there can be no errors. A few degrees can mean the difference between a clean, safe reactor and a reactor whose 1,000-ton biological shield is thrown askew, releasing thousands of types of radionuclides into the atmosphere. Humans are not perfect, we make mistakes all the time. For this reason, we should not be playing with nuclear fuel.