h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Chernobyl - A2851751
Author: DaveBlackeye - U656560

In response to a request from Challenge H2G2. Comments welcome.

Nice entry... One point I disagree with slightly though...

"Not one of the remaining 22 countries with nuclear power is building any new reactors, including the US, Canada and all of Western Europe. The Western world has all but abandoned its nuclear power programme, arguably due in part to the Chernobyl accident and the ensuing perception that no matter how small the risk, it is just not worth it."

Not sure if that's really accurate -

Have a look at
http://www.inel.gov/initiatives/generation.shtml

and

http://nucleaire.edf.fr/index.php4?coe_i_id=35055 (The second one's in French I'm afraid)

Basically, South Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, South Korea, USA, France, Japan, the UK and Switzerland have all signed up to a project designing a '4th Generation' EPR-type reactor - which should enter service by 2035-40.

So it's a bit harsh to say that the world is abandoning nuclear power...

Plus it might be worth mentioning that to replace the Chernobyl plants the EU is helping pay for two new plants in the Ukraine (Rovno and Khmelnitski)

See

http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=3&catid=627

and

http://www.atominfo.org.ua/news/ebrd_talks_continue_feb_2004.htm

Nice entry Dave,

This is one of the most balanced entries I have read in H2G2. It is very well written, very informative and useful in distinguishing the facts from the hype. Excellent stuff! Well done.

Just some brief notes

Maybe you should separate the "skip this section as required. If a heavy atom" bit into two paragraphs.

A total of about 12 x 1018 Bq of radioactivity was released - Is that 10 to the power of 18? How would this figure have compared to Hiroshima?

Some note should be made that Soviet authorities first tried to do what they did best - to keep it secret. It was only when radiation sensors in Sweden started to sing, that the USSR was put under extreme international pressure to own up. Chernobyl was a factor in the acceleration of Gorbachev's modernisation programs that ultimately resulted in the breakdown of the Soviet Union.

Woodpigeon

Fantastic entry

I'm very impressed that you managed to keep it so balanced, I wonder if this will infuriate some people. Hang on to your hat for a flame war or two to break out

Woodpigeon had already made the point I'd like to see and that is a comparison - both in casualties and in radiation doses received - with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Or are they incomparable?

Is it possible to define dosage somewhere? The Bequerel and the Sievert are a bit impenetrable to your layman I would wager.

Minor, minor points, the best read I've had here for a good while. Nice one!

I am pleased to see an entry on Chernobyl (call it a weird fascination on my part) in PR.

I look forward to reading it - especially as it has already received high praise

Many thanks for the positive comments! I’ll revise the “abandoned nuclear power” bit; it was maybe a bit strong. Clearly R&D work continues (also into fusion of course) even though there are no immediate plans to build any new ones. I think I read 100 times as much radioactivity released as Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined, but will check and add that. Will also look into the other comments when I get a chance.

Yeah, I was expecting a few strong opinions to emerge and honestly tried to provide as little fuel as possible - it just sort of became necessary to describe why things happened the way they did. If any controversy ensues I might remove those bits as the entry was meant to be a description of the accident not a discussion of the pros and cons of nuclear energy. Thanks again

Well, you have a lot of facts to back you up, so you shouldn't remove anything that has good backup from reliable sources. Even better than this, your treatment of the casualty figures is excellent, where you look at multiple sources of information and the differences between what they are saying. In that way you let the reader decide who they would prefer to believe.

I agree, please don't remove any of that stuff. I may have done readers a disservice with that comment anyway.

One minor point I noticed was that you commented "is there a safe dose" with regard to ionising radiation.

How about background, the level we get *all the time*?

How do you know that is safe? Who knows how well our cells might do without it?

Researcher PSG

*chuckle*

It would be kind of hard to find out now wouldn't it?

Besides, maybe it provides the necessary slow genetic mutation to allow evolution to proceed. Maybe it's essential!

Anyway, this is pure digression, back to Peer Review!

Good entry Dave, I look forward to seeing it on the front page.

Excellent work Dave! I'm delighted to see it in Peer Review. It's both scientifically accurate*, balanced and readable.

*To the best of my knowledge of course

Fabulous - a delight to read

Only one note to add - the curious aspect that links most major disasters; for example; Zeebrugge, Exxon Valdez and indeed, Chernobyl, is the fact that they have all occurred on the night shift (the Zeebrugge disaster , I think occurred at a similar local time in the morning as Chernobyl, and the Exxon Valdez oil spill occurred at about half-3 in the morning local time do correct me if I'm wrong...).

A lecturer of mine has suggested that the combination of poorly trained staff and excessive tiredness could have had an indirect effect on how events span out: I recall a study involving Swedish nuclear power workers on the night shift, and how many mistakes they made whist on duty compared to those on the day shift; the incidence of mistakes was higher - or something along those lines (I'll have to chase this study up, can't remember the exact deatiling...).

But that's just an addenum of interest - this doesn't detract from this being a wonderfully balanced and insightful entry - well done

Stay ,
WD

Zeebrugge... if that's the same one I'm thinking of I remember hearing first reports of it on the early evening news - possibly Ch.4 news at 7pm.

Off to read the entry now

Excellent entry I can't think of anything to add that hasn't already been said.

Did spot a few typos and grammaticals though:

"to monitor the dosages they were receiving"
Probably worth adding 'radiation' in that sentence, before 'dosages'.

"the graphite fire continued for another nine days"
We were told this in the previous section - perhaps one of the two occurences could be modified, or the reference to nine days removed from one of them?

"heart sink"
heat?

contaminates - contaminants

Northwesterly
I don't think that needs to capitalised, nor does South

thermal burns
Is that different in some way from regular burns?


Scout

Ah - thermal burns as opposed to radiation burns

Fantastic Entry!

Really, this is *very* good indeed: I just wanted to comment on the comments, in fact.

Regarding comparisons with Hiroshima and Nagasaki: with respect to what was said above, in the case of the a-bomb attacks on these cities, I don't think it would be appropriate to draw analogies, since it wouldn't be to compare like with like. Casualty figures for both are still much disputed, but most reckonings put the number of dead at Hiroshima at 100,000 on the day itself, rising to 160,000 by the end of 1945, 200,000 by 1950 - that's half the city's 1945 population. Even to compare long term radiological effects - which have accounted for very many more deaths - would be problematic, since it would involve estimating how many of those who died immediately would have died as a result of the exposure to radiation otherwise. A pretty awful business.

Sorry, don't mean to divert the discussion and I certainly don't want to cause any offence, but I thought I'd throw this in. If comparisons in scale are needed - and I'm not really sure that they are - wouldn't the Bhopal disaster be more appropriate?

http://www.greenpeace.org/international_en/news/details?item_id=504643

The other thing was that this

http://www.ninja-assassin.com/mirror/Chernobyl/

stimulated a lot of interest recently: might a link to it be appropriate? (Some very evocative images in it)

Really, this is an excellent entry: the research is superb.

Gosho:

Yes - you're right, the Zeebrugge disaster occurred at about 8pm GMT; but one of the factors in the huge chain of negligence that led to the disaster was that management put immense pressure on the crew to sail on time out of the harbour. The staff were overworked and tired - which was a factor in the person responsible in closing the bow doors falling asleep and forgetting to close them; more can be read:

http://business2.unisa.edu.au/cobar/corpresp/case_studies/study3.htm

http://www.hci.com.au/hcisite2/articles/accident.htm

A great book to read is 'The 24-hour Society: The Risks and Challenges of a World That Never Stops' (ISBN 0749912553); although it does play the circadian card a little hard, it does illustrate how working out of sync with the biological clock/stretching the biological clock to its limits in a situation which requires intense monitoring, can be catastropic.

Anyhow - back to the entry in question

Stay ,
WD

OK, I think all points are now covered. Not going to compare death tolls with Hiroshima etc, as pointed out it wouldn't be very meaningful. Also a bit reluctant to start adding comparisons to other disasters - this entry’s not exactly short as it is! Could perhaps do separate entries for those.

I can’t get this link to work: http://www.ninja-assassin.com/mirror/Chernobyl/.

BTW a while back I saw a very poignant website by a girl from Kiev who toured through the area on a motorbike. If anyone knows the URL, I would be grateful.

http://kiddofspeed.com/chapter1.html

Is this it?