I visited about five years ago. Quite frankly it's pretty safe at this point. There were a few spots here and there that made the Geiger counter tick faster than usual, but for the most part the radiation level wasn't out of the ordinary. I definitely wouldn't think twice about going back. Actually, I'm pretty sure some wanderers live there these days.
There are other risks which won't show up on a geiger counter. For example the ingestion of radioactive material, which will cause a much higher effective dose than estimated by a geiger counter or dosimeter. This is called a committed dose: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committed_dose
It was a horrible disaster. But, 30 years after the accident, this article is trying to get readers using punchy headlines, like "Children are still being born with severe birth defects". I would have expected a BBC article to be a bit more objective on such controversial conclusions [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_the_Chernobyl_disas...
I was also surprised they were citing those numbers as fact, as my understanding was that disagreed with the UN investigations. A recent story on HN from the Guardian contradicts the claims in the BBC article, and cites the UN investigations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11479097
In particular:
The word Chernobyl became synonymous with death on a massive scale. But perception and reality do not always neatly align; in the wake of the disaster, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and others undertook a co-ordinated effort to follow up on health effects. In 2006, after two decades of monitoring they outlined the health effects; of the firefighters exposed to the huge core doses and incredibly toxic smoke, 28 died from acute radiation sickness. A further 15 perished from thyroid cancer. Despite aggressive monitoring for three decades, there has been no significant increase in solid tumours or delayed health effects, even in the hundreds of thousands of minimally protected cleanup workers who helped purge the site after the accident. In the words of the 2008 UNSCEAR report: “There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.
It added: “The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
Design flaws led to a power surge, causing massive explosions which blew the top off reactor four
Yes, admittedly the design was not great. But deliberate human actions lead to the power surge and subsequent explosion. They were running experiments on the reactor and continued dispite a series of events that were clearly not happening as planned.
I suspect the specific design flaw they're referring to is the graphite tips of the control rods, and the fact that, for the first few seconds of a SCRAM, the reaction rate is increased. And the control rods jammed in that position.
Yes, there was serious human failure in Chernobyl. But when the maximum emergency "oh shit" safety feature works by making things even more unsafe before shutting stuff down, that is the sort of design flaw that probably should be criminal.
The most interesting thing about the Chernobyl disaster is that it seems like human inhabitation is a more destructive force towards wildlife than the levels of radiation that are present - wildlife seems to flourish in this area.
Quite the contrary. I lived there in the 90-ies. The nature just recovers, and in 3 years humans are forgotten by wildlife. Moose and blackcock will stare at you from a 2 meter distance not recognising the threat anymore. Basically nature swiftly took back what was colonised by humans during centuries of industrial and agricultural activity there in just few years. So the event shows how insignificant humans are.
Two years ago I was lucky enough to visit Chernobyl with an organized tour out of Kyev. Strange to think of part of this planet as a forbidden zone, even stranger that it's a tourist attraction.
Basically 30 years after it become more and more clear that only the USSR was capable of containing such events properly. In 1986 Soviet Army soldiers with impregnated coats and shovels in just 2 weeks ensured containment of the accident to the controllable level. Something Japanese government in the 21st century cannot achieve in Fukushima with nanotech and robotics in 5 years.
Japanese "construction companies" were rounding up homeless people at subway stations and sending them to Fuku cleanup. They got paid around $80/day from which their room and board fees are deducted. I recall articles and photos that they didn't even have protected footwear, and had to wrap their shoes in plastic bags.
If anything, USSR had a more organized and humane (funnily enough) response to Chernobyl.
The severity of the events is not comparable and the one in Japan was, to a great extent, a consequence of a major natural disaster. There would have been no need for the Soviet Union to display its (rather dubious) expertise in containing such events if it hadn't created it in the first place.
Half of Europe got contaminated with the fallout for thousands of years, from the north down to the Alps many countries were and still are effected. The same idiotic disaster happened again in Japan (and could have been easily prevented by attaching generators, but fearing loosing the face, it was a cultural problem), and contaminated huge parts of the ocean, Hawaii and the west coast. Only a few countries stopped using or never used this very problematic technology. Hopefully, we don't have to see a third such disaster. Neither Soviet Union (USSR) nor Russia, Ukraine or Japan paid other countries money for the damage their action or non-action they did.
Apparently the downvoters are either lobbiest of the atom lobby, from those named countries or should read more about the history. The true history isn't always nice.
Coal power is probably responsible for more radiological deaths and injuries than nuclear power, certainly in normal operation (although given the acute impact of specific release events, you might have to include the entirety of the Industrial Revolution to balance out again, which isn't necessarily a fair comparison).
On the other hand, if you want to go for specific acute events, hydroelectric dams make nuclear power look safe. The only way to claim otherwise is to choose your dates to ignore the failure of the Banqiao Dam (171,000 deaths) and take the unreasonable high end of death toll estimates from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Presently, Mosul Dam is an excellent example of just how dangerous and real major dam failures can be.
It may make you feel better to assume that those downvoting your post are part of some pro-nuclear conspiracy, but the truth of the matter is that you appear to have an unscientifically hyperbolic understanding of what the effects of both disasters were, and you are as a result being downvoted by people who are better-educated about this subject.
Is news coverage of an old nuclear accident Britain's way of consoling Ukraine after failing to offer significant support in the fight against Putin's invasion?
>> Design flaws led to a power surge, causing massive explosions which blew the top off reactor four
Anybody else catch this wildly inaccurate representation of what caused the explosions? While there certainly were design flaws, it's well-known that this disaster was a direct result of the recklessness of the reactor's operators. I have to wonder if this mischaracterization is an attempt to further scare the public about nuclear power.
It's unconscionable for such a reactor design to have been made and put into service in the first place. The particular bungled test that caused the disaster was somewhat of an exceptional circumstance but the RBMK design was really just a ticking timebomb waiting to go off. If it wasn't that test it would have been something else, maybe it wouldn't have been as bad, but it would almost certainly have been at least Fukushima scale regardless.
[+] [-] mikeokner|10 years ago|reply
Photos from my trip: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127718378@N07/albums/721576485...
[+] [-] phreeza|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swagv|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sbdmmg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scott_s|10 years ago|reply
In particular:
The word Chernobyl became synonymous with death on a massive scale. But perception and reality do not always neatly align; in the wake of the disaster, the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) and others undertook a co-ordinated effort to follow up on health effects. In 2006, after two decades of monitoring they outlined the health effects; of the firefighters exposed to the huge core doses and incredibly toxic smoke, 28 died from acute radiation sickness. A further 15 perished from thyroid cancer. Despite aggressive monitoring for three decades, there has been no significant increase in solid tumours or delayed health effects, even in the hundreds of thousands of minimally protected cleanup workers who helped purge the site after the accident. In the words of the 2008 UNSCEAR report: “There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality rates or in rates of non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure.
It added: “The incidence of leukaemia in the general population, one of the main concerns owing to the shorter time expected between exposure and its occurrence compared with solid cancers, does not appear to be elevated. Although most highly exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure.”
[+] [-] marze|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] warmwaffles|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ams6110|10 years ago|reply
Yes, admittedly the design was not great. But deliberate human actions lead to the power surge and subsequent explosion. They were running experiments on the reactor and continued dispite a series of events that were clearly not happening as planned.
[+] [-] jcranmer|10 years ago|reply
Yes, there was serious human failure in Chernobyl. But when the maximum emergency "oh shit" safety feature works by making things even more unsafe before shutting stuff down, that is the sort of design flaw that probably should be criminal.
[+] [-] Kenji|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ommunist|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pieter1976|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theandrewbailey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] overcast|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ommunist|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] googletazer|10 years ago|reply
If anything, USSR had a more organized and humane (funnily enough) response to Chernobyl.
[+] [-] pvg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sickbeard|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bronson|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lanewinfield|10 years ago|reply
https://twitter.com/chernobylstatus/status/72495666416050995...
[+] [-] samcheng|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frik|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster#Effects
Apparently the downvoters are either lobbiest of the atom lobby, from those named countries or should read more about the history. The true history isn't always nice.
[+] [-] jcranmer|10 years ago|reply
On the other hand, if you want to go for specific acute events, hydroelectric dams make nuclear power look safe. The only way to claim otherwise is to choose your dates to ignore the failure of the Banqiao Dam (171,000 deaths) and take the unreasonable high end of death toll estimates from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Presently, Mosul Dam is an excellent example of just how dangerous and real major dam failures can be.
[+] [-] coddingtonbear|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] user10001|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Floegipoky|10 years ago|reply
Anybody else catch this wildly inaccurate representation of what caused the explosions? While there certainly were design flaws, it's well-known that this disaster was a direct result of the recklessness of the reactor's operators. I have to wonder if this mischaracterization is an attempt to further scare the public about nuclear power.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekun|10 years ago|reply