An Analysis of the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster and Its Health Impacts on Local and Global Scales

The spread of invisible and silent radioactive particles into cities, neighborhoods, and homes and the deaths of thousands from radiation poisoning may seem like a terrible, futuristic nightmare. However, such a scenario came to life in the early morning hours on April 25^th, 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant located in Ukraine, a former Soviet state. Reactor 4 of the Chernobyl Plant exploded after internal energy increased beyond control, spewing radioactive debris and smoke on nearby cities and towns and created a radioactive cloud that would travel over a significant portion of the world. However, decades later the statistics and impacts of the night explosion are still questioned as a debate ensues between the United Nations and other organizations. Using related comparison and case studies, the objective for the evaluation of the health and social impacts of the Chernobyl disaster and a proposal of solutions to the ongoing radiation threats can be achieved.

On April 25^th, 1986, the nuclear reactor at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant near the town of Pripyat, Ukraine, was scheduled to undergo a controlled and scheduled maintenance shutdown in order to test the generator's ability to generate electricity for the plant's safety systems (Dyatlov). At the time, the power plant had dual diesel generators which could power up in 40 seconds once electrical input was needed. However, scientists realized that by connecting the diesel generators to the reactor, the energy from the reactor could be used to immediately start up the diesel generators, cut down the power-up timeframe of 40 seconds, and allow for the generators to spin using their own momentum (Sigwart). However, flawed chemical and electrical conditions combined with an inexperienced crew of scientists allowed for this safety experiment to erupt into a nuclear disaster.

Having followed the safety guidelines for the experiment, the scientists were unaware of the hazardous conditions brewing in the reactor. At a certain point, the reactor started gaining energy and drastically increasing in electrical potential far beyond allowable maximums. Finally, the immensely high temperatures inside the reactor caused steam to blow off the top of the reactor, allowing in oxygen from the air that reacted with a graphite moderator to explode and create an intense graphite fire that spread radioactive particles and radiation (Dyatlov).

The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, concluded that the radiation following the explosion at the nuclear plant could be linked to the consequent development of Acute Radiation Sickness, ARS, amidst 151 cleanup "liquidators" out of a total force of 211,000 (according to Soviet sources) to 800,000 (according to United Nations estimates) cleanup workers (IAEA). Out of the 151 affected by ARS, 28 died within several months, 19 died within eight years, and the remaining106 were treated (IAEA).

Regional human health effects were observed as radioactive smoke and debris traveled away from the explosion site at the Chernobyl Power Plant and settled in villages and cities across Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. A notable and accepted effect on human health surfaced through the incidence of thyroid cancers in children and adolescents under the age of 21. Officially, the United Nations attributes 9 thyroid cancer deaths to the Chernobyl catastrophe and a further effect of some sort on a maximum of 4,000 individuals (UN Belarus).

In addition to the effects on human health the Chernobyl disaster also ravaged through wildlife and natural resources. A large portion of the nuclear radiation emitted on the night of April 25^th, 1986, landed in the Worm Wood Forest, known as the "Red Forest" today (Monosson). The change in the name was the result of a drastic change in the color of the forest's trees following the radioactive exposure; the dense, green trees of the forest now bear hues of red and orange, a direct and indisputable effect of the Chernobyl radiation that led to the removal of almost 4 square miles of forest land (UN Belarus).

The contamination of soil and water supplies has remained an issue for decades. The release of the radioactive cloud from Chernobyl's Nuclear Plant has resulted in the measurable contamination of 23% of Belarus' land area, 4.8% of Ukraine's land, and 0.5% of Russian grounds (UN Belarus). Over 1,000 square miles of land have become useless, with restrictions and laws banning the use of the soil in these areas. A large portion of Chernobyl's Red Forest was removed, but a further 6,500 square miles of forest land remains radioactive to this day, with studies showing that radiation levels are only increasing with time. Fires have been common in the depths of the radioactive regions of Chernobyl, with one fire in 1992 resulting in the burning of 1,240 acres of land and increased the levels of cesium in the immediate atmosphere (Dyatlov). Furthermore, the unfavorable location of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant next to the Pripyat River, which feeds over 90 water supplies, created a health risk and environmental risk of groundwater pollution; however, the latest report by the United Nations on the extent of the threat to groundwater has labeled it as "minimal" (UN Belarus).

The radioactive hands of the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant explosion did not stop at the borders of Ukraine, Belarus, or Russia. Instead, the toxic radiation cloud traveled through winds across the globe to as many as 28 other countries, including Sweden, Germany, the United Kingdom, Turkey, and the Netherlands. Following the nuclear fallout, the radioactive particles of iodine-131, strontium-90, and caesium-137 carried in the toxic cloud escaping from Chernobyl were of a short-term global concern. In late 1986, a metal sarcophagus was built to completely seal off the reactor and its various parts in order to prevent the spread of radioactive particles into the air and ground, seemingly putting the issues of Chernobyl to rest (Dyatlov).

With comparisons to related radiation scenarios and case studies of documented health effects and radiation-related regulations, it is critical to evaluate the methods used in the analysis. The comparison of Chernobyl to other occurrences is an effective way to highlight the differences and possible solutions, but at the same time fails to incorporate certain economic or political factors that may prevent the suggested solutions from being realistically built. Furthermore, the case study method of analysis allows for the detailed examination of the disaster on a personal level and the evaluation of potential impacts; however, it concentrates on affected individuals and does not always consider the overarching patterns in the rest of the population being examined.

To begin, the statistics and data provided earlier about the extent of the Chernobyl disaster do not account for all of the impacts and outcomes that the incident has had on the lives of the populations living in the area, with effects extending from health-related, to economic discussions, to social aspects. First, the fact that the Soviet government was determined to keep the disaster of Chernobyl a secret for as long as possible suggests that true immediate, local death tolls and damage assessments may never be known (Miner-Nordstrom); no records were kept by Soviet officials reporting to the disaster area, causing future researchers evaluating the death toll to concentrate their efforts on survivors and the little medical data available.

Moreover, the main reason for the lack of death-toll data stems from the fact that any Chernobyl-induced cancers developed within weeks, months, or years of the disaster within the ranks of clean-up workers would not carry any unique biological signatures, making them indiscernible from cancers caused by any other environmental factors or lifestyle choices (FNEA). Despite the United Nations' and its affiliates' stance on the published statistics mentioned previously, other agencies and organizations like the National Commission for Radiation Protection, located in Ukraine, have accused the overarching international health organizations of the world of ignoring the true effects of the disaster (Vidal); the National Commission's studies have shown that about 34,500 cleanup workers, not 47 as reported by the IAEA, died in the past 20 years as a direct result of Chernobyl-induced radiation (Vidal).

With groups like Greenpeace accusing the United Nations of downplaying the impact of Chernobyl and its modern dangers, the debate regarding the UN's and the IAEA's gains and losses regarding nuclear technology has opened; the United Nations has potentially ignored the effects due to the increasing popularity and demand for nuclear energy and the fact that without an active and present danger, no funding must be allotted for the improvement of the Chernobyl Power Plant (IPPNW). Also, the International Atomic Energy Agency ahs supported global adoption of nuclear energy, reaching as far out as Indonesia to fund nuclear plants. With this in mind, it is in the best interests of the two organizations to carefully review data on the impacts of the nuclear meltdown, since the publication of the true dangers of nuclear technology may fuel retaliation against the current "nuclear renaissance" (IPPNW)

One of the most notable examples of a potential downplaying of the impact by the United Nations can be found in the statistics regarding the thyroid caner deaths in children. Using the comparison method to evaluate the thyroid cancers of Belarus following the Chernobyl catastrophe with naturally-occurring thyroid cancers in foreign regions, clear indications of radiological effects arise (Pacini).

In a study surveying the incidence of thyroid cancer in 472 Belarusian children under the age of 21, 3 to 8 cases of thyroid cancer were observed in the time period immediately after the explosion in 1986 up until 1989. However, the figure increased drastically as 31 cases were reported in 1991, 66 in 1991, 72 in 1992, 93 in 1993, 96 in 1994, and 90 in 1995 (Pacini). The incidence of thyroid caner changed radically in Belarusian patients years after the Chernobyl incident, an expected pattern due to the fact that radiation would affect nearby populations differently than it would cleanup liquidators, who came in direct contact with the radioactive material. Regardless of increases in incidence, the profile, behavior, and biological nature of thyroid cancer should remain the same regardless of region (Pacini); however, when the 472 Belarusian thyroid cancers discussed earlier were compared in the study with 369 naturally-occurring thyroid cancer cases in France and Italy, the Belarusian thyroid cancer had a tendency to develop in younger children, appeared less affected by factors like gender, and was increasingly more aggressive then its French or Italian counterpart (Pacini).

Although thyroid cancers are treatable through life-long iodine-131 therapy and do not normally result in death, the United Nations figure which only evaluates mortality rates ignores the subliminal effects of the Chernobyl radiation and fails to consider the fact that the aftermath of Chernobyl would not necessarily reveal itself through purely statistical records of the number dead (Monosson). Mortality rates may not reveal the entire picture regarding the radiological effects, since genetic mutations have been observed in organisms connected to Chernobyl, ranging from plants growing in the Red Forest to the children of workers involved in cleanup efforts (Monosson). Thus, the current published reports of the United Nations cannot be taken as complete truths. The fact that no genuine data was gathered on the night of the incident regarding the immediate effects to areas of the Soviet Union poses as a brick wall that can crush any study or report about Chernobyl, leading to more questions than answers at the end.

However, despite the statistical ambiguity, the effects of Chernobyl on the nations and populations of Ukraine and Belarus can still be evaluated. For example, the destruction of trees and natural habitat of countless species of wildlife have caused a previously-natural landmasses to become barren areas labeled as "the most contaminated areas in the world" (FNEA). With thousands of square miles of forestry and plough land destroyed, economic and social effects are unquestionable (Bate). The United Nations' reports indicate that large percentages of land were lost to the radioactive fallout; for a country like Ukraine, where exports of "crop farming and timber harvesting" are "major contributors to the Gross Domestic Product," the loss of developed soils land and the destruction of exportable forest timber due to radiation can lead to an economic decline (CIA). This theory is supported by statistical data showing that during the 1990s Ukraine and Belarus spent between 10% and 20% of their Gross Domestic Product on issues dealing with the containment of the long-term effects of the radiation (Miner-Nordstrom); the figure has declined to 6% of the GDP today, but still represents a portion of government funds that could be invested in infrastructure, healthcare, or other aspects for the betterment of the countries' populations rather than dealing with radiation threats (Miner-Nordstrom); thus, the impact of the Chernobyl incident touches every citizen who contributes to the GDP through salaries and taxes.

A further effect on the average citizen has emerged in the psychological arena. With the global community looking down upon Chernobyl and the towns and cities surrounding the area as nuclear wastelands, hundreds of thousands of locals have reported feeling fear and desperation as a result of the disaster. Stress from simply living in the affected regions has led a spike in alcohol and tobacco use and extreme dietary changes (Monosson). The desperation associated with being unable to escape the "radioactive" label has led to a recorded 200,000 voluntary abortions done to prevent potential exposure to newborns (Bate). The unimaginably high number of abortions connected to the Chernobyl meltdown have no been considered as a part of the human death toll (Bate). Such reactions to the disaster illustrate the fact that populations are still trying to cope with the disaster in their lives today.

Although the United Nations claims that the global health effects from the Chernobyl incident proved to be short-termed, certain interesting restrictions arise in the international community even two decades after the reactor exploded. Following the nuclear incident, fish in the UK and Germany were observed to have temporary elevated radiation levels (UKFAS); however, although these were labeled as "short-term" issues, the United Kingdom and Germany maintain Chernobyl-related restriction on the food supply to this day, despite the fact that two decades have passed. As a case study, the UK maintains strict consumption guidelines for products arriving from 374 farms carrying 200,000 sheep and covering a land area of almost 290 square miles over which the radioactive cloud passed in 1986 (UKFSA). According to the UK Food Standards Agency, "radioactivity, predominantly radiocesium-137, was deposited on certain upland areas of the UK, where sheep-farming is the primary land-use. . .radiocesium is still able to pass easily from soil to grass and hence accumulate in sheep" (UKFSA). The fact that the United Kingdom still holds on to food restrictions suggests that United Nations reports and mortality rates overlook the hidden poisons of Chernobyl which still linger in the ground of European countries; with radiation deaths from Chernobyl carrying no distinct radioactive fingerprint that can be used to trace the cancer to the reactor, officials may be overlooking the toxicity that lingers in the food supply and the lands on which communities are living. Food and land represent primary resources for a nation, which would suggest that nowhere would extra lands or sources of food for people be spared or unused for no particular reason. British restrictions on certain foods coming from various regions of the country mean that a problem is at hand and that the effects are real.

In addition to the controversy surrounding the exact figures documenting the extent of the nuclear meltdown at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant, the measures undertaken in recent years in order to minimize the potential radioactive threat were inadequate. The discussed metal sarcophagus did not suffice, since the structure was not airtight or watertight, allowing in humidity and rainwater which further spread radioactive particles like ceium-137 and strontium-90. With extreme radiation levels lingering in the core of the reactor, the sarcophagus was poorly structured, assembled by nothing more than a team of robots and remote-controlled vehicles (FNEA).

The current plans to isolate the reactor from the environment must be applauded, since such an action represents the removal of the radiation source from the surroundings. However, this steel cover does not address the radioactive isotopes that are already in the soil and the water supply which continue to endanger the well-being of Ukrainian and Belarusian populations. Although the WHO claim that the risk of water contamination are low, a study by the University of South Carolina found that the local topography near the river has allowed for so-called "depression zones" to accumulate pools of significantly radioactive particles (ESRI). The WHO mandate states that health is a basic human right; therefore, the 2 million people potentially affected by the contaminated water supplies in this region have the right of access to safe drinking water.

The radioactive isotopes of cesium-137 and strontium-90, currently deposited in the Pripyat River next to the Chernobyl Power Plant, pose the greatest danger to those consuming water from this major water source (ESRI). The solution to the problem lies in the removal of cesium and strontium from the water, and the technology and chemical principles exist for such a purifying operation to succeed (Pickett). Following a comparison method, the current problem associated with the Pripyat River and the Chernobyl Power Plant in Ukraine must be evaluated against the publications available on the Savannah River Plant and the Savannah River of the United States.

The Savannah River Plant, located near the Savannah River between South Carolina and Georgia, stands as a processing center for nuclear products. The similarity between the Chernobyl Power Plant, also located near a river, does not revolve only on geography; the Savannah River has been evaluated for cesium and strontium contamination in the same manner that the Pripyat River has been screened (Pickett). However, publications about the water systems the Savannah River indicate that the installation of "highly selective ion-exchange resin technologies" have been extremely successful in the removal of toxic radioisotopes from the water (Pickett). The erection of the 3M SSC™ purifier and the Selion CsTreat® systems, each running with a removal rate of 97-99%, virtually eliminate the threat of any water-borne radioactive particles (Pickett). Surprisingly, no publication on the water systems of Chernobyl indicates that such systems have been installed (Dyatlov); such a grave error on the part of officials and scientists means that 2 million people continue to live under a health threat. Despite the fact that no nuclear disaster has occurred at the Savannah Plant, radioactive particles became a concern since the beginning (Pickett); the claim that no particles pose a threat in the Pripyat River, next to which a nuclear meltdown occurred, inadequately assesses the threat to the safety of Ukrainian populations in the affected areas.

In conclusion, the controversy over the published data regarding the Chernobyl nuclear meltdown stands as the greatest obstacle to solving the health and economic issues at hand. However, the fact that researchers are still debating over cancer rates and the still-radioactive reactor proves that an issue of significant concern is at hand. With comparison and case study methods employed to argue the existence of severe health effects on Ukrainian and Belarusian populations and to point out the lack of action aimed at solving the contamination problem, it is clear that further research must be done to properly evaluate the incident. In order to assess the true impact of Chernobyl, an unbiased delegation or organization must intervene, since the organizations publishing the current data may have private motives coming into play when evaluating the disaster. Also, the decontamination of the Pripyat River is key, since it serves as both a crucial water source and a potential health threat to millions of Ukrainians. The world has drawn lessons from the Chernobyl tragedy and applied them in new regulations and designs for modern nuclear plants; however, the true lessons to be learned stem from the reversal of negative health impacts and the true pursuit of safety and well-being for the population.

R. Bate, "Chernobyl's Real Victims." Tech Central Station.

Central Intelligence Agency, "World Factbook - Ukraine." Central Intelligence Agency.

A. Dyatlov, "Chernobyl: How Did it Happen?" Narod.

ESRI, "Studying Zones of Radionuclide Fast Migration in Areas Impacted by Chernobyl Fallout." Radionucleotide Migration

France National Energy Agency. "Chernobyl: Assessment of radiological and health impacts." Agence pour l'energie nucleaire.

International Atomic Energy Agency, "Chernobyl Plus 15." IAEA.

IPPNW, "20 years after Chernobyl: Two sides of the same coin." International Student

Movement of IPPNW.

D. Miner-Nordstrom, "A critical comparative look at the health effects of Chernobyl." Ukraine: Nuclear Information and Resource Service.

E. Monosson, "Health effects of the Chernobyl accident." BioMed Central.

F. Pacini, "Post-Chernobyl thyroid carcinoma in Belarus children and adolescents: comparison with naturally occurring thyroid carcinoma in Italy and France." National Center for Biotechnology Information.

J. Pickett, W. Austin, and H. Dukes, "Highly selective nuclide removal from the R-Reactor Disassembly Basin at the SRS." WM Symposia, Inc.

C. Sigwart, "Nuclear power notes." NIU College of Engineering and Engineering Technology

UK Food Standards Agency, "Post-Chernobyl monitoring and controls survey reports." United Kingdom Food Standards Agency.

UN Belarus, "Chernobyl: 20 Years Later." United Nations in Belarus.

J. Vidal, "UN Accused of Ignoring 500,000 Chernobyl Deaths." The Guardian.