Chernobyl: The Worst Nuclear Accident in History
Wednesday April 23, 2008
This week marks the 22nd anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear accident—the worst nuclear accident in history—which affected millions of people, contaminated huge tracts of farmland, cost hundreds of billions of dollars to clean up and mitigate, and redefined the international debate over the safety of nuclear energy.
Following the Chernobyl accident, a number of nations shut down their existing nuclear facilities or suspended plans for new ones, but growing concerns about global warming and dwindling oil supplies have brought nuclear power back into the spotlight as a possible answer to mankind's need for abundant energy.
Yet, Chernobyl remains a grim reminder of what can happen when things go wrong with nuclear energy. Radioactive material from the Chernobyl reactors is expected to last for 100,000 years, and the long-term costs in human life and health are still unknown.
This profile of the Chernobyl nuclear accident offers both facts and historical perspective about the accident as well as future prospects for the region.
Comments
There are two official points of view on the causes of Chernobyl nuclear accident.
The first one: personnel of the nuclear plant violated the guidlines. This statement was appeared in the soviet official report in 1986.
The second one: the reactor RBMK-1000 had a constructive weekness. This statement was officially reported in 1991.
a) The Chernobyl incident was a result of purposely pushing the facility to its limit as a test and not due to some limitation in design.
b)The Chernobyl incident is essentially the ONLY nuclear accident where damage was done in the 60 yrs of nuclear energy production. How many coal miners have died from industrial accidents in those 60 yrs?
c)The Chernobyl site has essentially returned to an area “safe” for wild life in the 15 years since the accident- that’s just a heart beat on natural time scales.
If “guidoLaMoto” is counting deaths from coal mining, he needs to add to his equation those from uranium mining -often forgotten. Many uranium miners were/are Native Americans and many uranium mines are located in Native Country, with native peoples suffering the lion’s share of environmental health damage from the waste and pollution.
Why choose a low-CO2 energy source that has the potential to wipe out a city (in the unlikely - but possible - case of an accident or attack), when you can choose far less dangerous low-CO2 energy sources for roughly the same price? Nuclear is a dinosaur industry.
Coal miner’s health problems are abudant enought to warrant separate federal programs for compensation. Uranium miners, greatly fewer in number, have comparatively few health problems.
Our impending energy crisis cannot be met by nuclear energy; simply not enough time to bring enough facilities on line (not mention enough money.)
Can you provide us with an example of a low CO2 producing energy source that can replace fossil fuel? Can you provide us an example of an environmental health problem caused by nuclear fuel or waste?
The debate between coal and nuclear must go beyond lives lost while mining. The environmental effects from coal cannot be understated. With the research we have now, I cannot fathom how anyone can still support coal power. Global warming is a fact and its effect on the world is not going to stop. Although nuclear power has its negative characteristics, it does not contribute nearly has much to global warming. Thus, when debating between power sources, safety concerns must include the consequences of increased greenhouse gases.
Y dont we use anti-matter???
I no its very dangerous but it is less contaminating then neclour power if ether goes wrong!