A Nuclear Explosion at Chernobyl and the Health Effects - Essay Example

 A Nuclear Explosion at Chernobyl and the Health Effects Introduction The purpose of this investigation is to find out what caused the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear power plant, in Ukraine in 1986. The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred. However, the design of the reactor was unique in the world but yet the accident cannot be written off as an incident having little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc. The data that will be researched for this study will be from the internet and also from various books and these will be stored on a data base for future reference. Accident and Investigation April proved to be the cruelest month for the people of Chernobyl, a suburb of Ukraine, in 1986. The nuclear power plant built in Chernobyl around 1978 let out a sudden and immense power output in April 1986, which resulted in the death of around 30 workers within one week of the accident and slow death am health problems of around 5 million people from radiation after effects (The Chernobyl Forum, 2003-2005). This incident became one of the world’s biggest nuclear disasters and more so because this plant was considered to be a model nuclear power plant for the whole of USSR. While probing the reasons for the disaster, many mistakes were revealed which were committed by plant operators to managers, coupled with a flawed design. Review of Literature Primarily, Chernobyl tragedy has been attributed to human error though it has been observed that this “error has a general tendency” (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.2). British Nuclear Energy Society (1987, pp.2) has also observed that this accident had emerged from the “eternal tension between efficient performance and safety.” British Nuclear Energy Society (1987, pp.2) had accused that the designers of the Chernobyl power plant were well “aware of the natural instabilities of this particular design.” The Chernobyl plant is a “graphite moderated channel tube reactor” (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.3). In Soviet Union, this design was chosen to provide major share of the nuclear power needed for the country primarily because “its smaller components were easier to manufacture and transport t site in Russia” (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.3). It has been noted that “at the IAEA conference held in Vienna, in August 1986, the Russians acknowledged hat severl fundamental shortcomings in the RBMK were recognized in the early 1970s” (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.4). There is a strong argument to believe that even after knowing this, the Russians went ahead with the reactor, because of the “advantages for manufacture and transport involved” (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.4). In the IAEA conference, the Russian representatives had also listed the basic flaws in the design as, “a) a positive void coefficient of reactivity in the coolant, b) an unstable core power distribution requiring a complex control system, c) a complex coolant circuit…[and]…d) a large amount of stored energy in the metal and graphite structure” (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.4). Also, in an earlier UK study mission to Chernobyl to explore the possibilities of replicating the model had found out that there was “no secondary shut down system provided as required in UK,…[there was]…no protection against rupture of large pipes,…[there was]…no protection against coolant stagnation during LOCA,…[there was a likelihood of]…fuel channel rupture likely to propagate through the graphite structure, …[and there was no containment building provided” (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.5). All these problems have been recognized as factors that had contributed to the accident (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.2). The RMBK reactor design has been criticized for yet another problem as well: RBMK reactors were intended to produce power and also to produce plutonium for military use. This required that it be possible to remove fuel rods for reprocessing by means of a crane on top of the reactor at short intervals in order to get Pu-239 without substantial admixture of Pu-240. These facilities made the reactor too tall for a containment structure used in Western and other Soviet reactors. (World Health Organisation, 2005). The immediate causes have also been explored and investigated. Park (1989, pp.34) has observed that “some of the fuel from the reactor core must have melted because”, the fallout over Sweden, Finland, and Denmark showed that “it contained substances like polonium which are not very volatile.” So the logical conclusion is that in at least on f the reactors, there must have been a fire and this must have been caused by the fuel overheating in the reactor (Park, 1989, pp.34). Another subsequent reason is the “failure of the cooling system in the reactor core which would trigger off an almost instantaneous series of reactions” (Park, 1989, pp.34). When these two things happen, the tubes of the coolant would rupture out of the heat and pressure, releasing water as “super heated steam”, “this would react with the graphite moderator to cause a volatile release of hydrogen and carbon monoxide,…[and eventually]… a violent chemical explosion which would rupture the shielding around the reactor core and tear open the reactor building” (Park, 1989, pp.34). This would let in oxygen which would cause the fire (Park, 1989, pp.34). So the inference has been that the explosion was that of a chemical kind and this explosion had released radio active material into the atmosphere (Park, 1989, pp.36). It has been seen that the “resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind” (world-nuclear.org, August 2010). So the explosion as such was not a nuclear explosion. Here the accusation against Russian nuclear policy has been that while all other countries relied on a containment model, the Russians put their trust in the ultra-reliability model (Park, 1989, pp.36). Another serious factor has been pointed out by investigators of the tragedy which says that the plant was totally controlled by engineers and they had no regular communication link with the physicists concerned (British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, pp.2). There was a possibility of the plant operators releasing an emergency water supply and thereby containing the explosion (Parks, 1989, pp.36). But this was not done. Also the option of shutting down the reactor automatically “by dropping the control rods” was also not implemented (Park, 1989, pp.36). These were the two procedures that had to be in place which did not take place. It emerged that in the week that preceded the accident, the plant was facing staff shortage (Park, 1989, pp.37). People had gone on holiday to celebrate may day (Park, 1989, pp.37). So there is a possibility that technical hands who knew how to handle the situation were possibly absent (Park, 1989, pp.37). The reactor was also found to be “operating at about 7% of its full capacity” which itself was dangerous as “RBMK reactors were well known to be very unstable (and difficult to control) at low power” (Park, 1989, pp.37). The role of “inadequately trained persons” in the accident has been stressed by World Nuclear Association as well (world-nuclear.org, August 2010). Medvedev (1991, pp.24) who was at the time of the accident, an official with the department of industry in ministry of Energy, dealing with the construction of nuclear power stations, has recorded that the management of the nuclear power station in Soviet Union was not very perfect. Medvedev (1991, pp.24) has also referred to the lack of competence in the nuclear sector in Soviet Union by observing that “many of the senior people in the nuclear industry have no right to be where they are.” Library.thikquest.org (n.d) has listed the causes of the accident as, “operator over confidence […] design flaw […] and safety system inadequacies. The health effects from the radiation This accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months of the accident and several further deaths later. The clinical name for radiation sickness is acute radiation syndrome (ARS), radiation poisoning, radiation sickness or a creeping dose. There are other diseases that can develop from radiation exposure, mainly cancer, tumors, heart disease, respiratory diseases, sterility and genetic damage referred to as stochastic effects of radiation (Strom, 2003). Lovgren (2004) has reported that “up to 2,000 children later developed thyroid cancer as a result of radiation”. The health effects of Chernobyl have been categorized into two goups, namely, “deterministic effects” and “stochastic effects” (Nuclear Energy Agency, n.d.). The deterministic effects can be life threatening with immediate effect and stochastic effects are dose dependent and long term (Nuclear Energy Agency, n.d.). Both these effects have been witnessed in this disaster. The people from Chernobyl are still in the process of Resettlement. Large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and beyond were contaminated in varying degrees. Aim of the Study The aim of this study is to find out the real reasons behind the Chernobyl accident by analysing the reasons listed by researchers who have studied the accident in detail. Objectives To find out whether mechanical design flaw had a role in the Chernobyl disaster To find out whether human error was instrumental in causing the accident To find out whether pre-warning systems existed regarding the possible accidents and whether any pre-warnings were given To find out measures to prevent nuclear tragedies similar to Charnobyl accident. Research Question The research question addressed by this study is what possibly could be the lessons that have to be learned from Chernobyl tragedy so that such disasters could be averted in the future. Methodology The methodology that will be followed for this study will be qualitative research method. A content analysis of 10 major books on the subject and 5 major websites will be carried out to find out the reasons for the tragedy and to figure out prevention strategies for the future. Along with this, three detailed interviews will be taken, one of a victim, second of a retired official or employee of the plant who can at least partially reveal what happened on the crucial day and the third one that of a researcher on this subject. These interviews will be analysed using qualitative method. Validity Validity of this research lies in that this will be a comprehensive attempt to compile all research findings on the accident by way of using scientific research methodology. The figuring out of solid preventive mechanisms being one of the objectives of this study, such an effort will have a proper base in the causes identified first. Thus a correlation of causes and future preventive measures will be formulated, adding credibility to this study. Ethical concerns The ethical concerns involved in this study primarily concerns with the personal information that will be collected from the victim of the accident, who will be interviewed. That person will have to be assured that the confidentiality of such information will be kept. Another aspect of ethics in this study is regarding keeping the anonymity (only if needed) of the retired official or employee who will be interviewed. These two aspects will be taken care of with at most care and discretion. Research outcomes This research envisages to make the use of nuclear energy accident-free and more safe. The findings of this study can be used as an archival data base while upgrading and newly designing nuclear facilities. These findings will also be helpful in establishing fool proof pre-warning systems for such possible accidents and better measures to contain the impact of such incidents. References British Nuclear Energy Society, 1987, ‘Chernobyl: a technical appraisal: proceedings of the seminar organized by the British Nuclear Energy Society held in London on 3 October 1986’, New York: Thomas Telford. Library.thinkquest.org, n.d., ‘The cause’, viewed 18 November 2010, Retrieved from http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/ Lovgren, Stefan, April 26, 2004, ‘Chernobyl disaster’s health impact remains cloudy’, News.nationalgeographic.com, viewed 17 November 2010, Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0426_040426_chernobyl.html Medvedev, G, 1991, ‘ The truth about Chernobyl Volume 1991, Part 2’, London: I.B.Tauris. Nuclear Energy Agency, n.d., ‘ Assessment of radiological and health impact of Chernobyl’, viewed November 17, 2010, Retrieved from http://www.nea.fr/rp/chernobyl/c05.html Park, C.C., 1989, ‘Chernobyl: the long shadow’, London: Taylor and Francis. Strom, D.J., 2003, ‘Health impacts from acute radiation exposure’, Pacific North West National Laboratory, viewed 17 November 2010, http://www.pnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-14424.pdf The Chernobyl Forum, 2003-2005, ‘Chernobyl’s legacy: Health, environmental and socio-economic impacts and recommendations to th government o Belarus, The Russian Federation and Ukraine’, viewed 17 November 2010, Retrieved from http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Chernobyl/chernobyl.pdf World Health Organisation, 2005, ‘Chernobyl: the true scale of the accident’, viewed November 17 2010, Retrieved from http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/chernobyl.html World-nuclear.org, August 2010, ‘Chernobyl accident’, viewed on 18 November 2010, Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/chernobyl/inf07.html Read More