case study on chernobyl nuclear disaster ppt

The Chernobyl Accident � an example of trans-boundary pollution�

No. 4 reactor after accident http://library.thinkquest.org/20331/images/chernsite.jpg

What the syllabus says..

Describe one major pollution event affecting more than one country and analyse the consequences of and responses to this event.

Where is Chernobyl?

http://students.vassar.edu/mezegen/Eastern%20Europe%20Map.gif

Northern Ukraine

http://studiohousebooks.co.uk/chernobyl/Chernobyl/chernobyl.html

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant

• Located 17Km’s north of the city of Chernobyl
• Plant consisted of 4 reactors
• Produced 10% of Ukraine’s electricity
• Construction began in the 1970’s
• Reactor No.4 was completed in 1983

http://www.rotten.com/library/history/nuclear-incidents/chernobyl

What happened?

http://www.ukrainianweb.com/images/chernobyl/chernobyl_reactor.jpg

Saturday, April 26, 1986:

-Reactor No.4 was undergoing a test of the backup power supply in case of a power loss.

-The power fell too low , allowing the concentration of xenon-135 to rise.

-The workers continued the test , and in order to control the rising levels of xenon-135 (produced in nuclear reactions), the control rods were pulled out.

What happened? cont’d

-The experiment involved shutting down the coolant pumps, which caused the coolant to rapidly heat up and boil.

-Pockets of steam formed in the coolant lines. When the coolant expanded in this particular design, the power level went up.

-All control rods were ordered to be inserted . As the rods were inserted, they became deformed and stuck . The reaction could not be stopped.

-The rods melted and the steam pressure caused an explosion , which blew a hole in the roof. A fire also resulted from the explosion.

-To save money, the reactor was constructed with only partial containment , which allowed the radiation to escape. 13%-30% of the material escaped.

SHORT-TERM IMPACTS AND RESPONSES

- 203 people were hospitalized immediately. 31 of them eventually died. Most of these people were workers in the plant or local firefighters.

- NW winds from the Black Sea carried the radiation for km’s in the following days. Scandinavian detectors picked up on the abundance of radiation, but the Soviet government denied any knowledge of the event.

http://www.cmc.ec.gc.ca/~arqidor/ctbto/ctbt3.html

http://www.ki4u.com/potassium-iodide.htm

http://www.metoffice.com/environment/serv4.html

West and Northwest Winds

carried radiation

MAP TO SHOW INITIAL EXTENT OF RADIOACTIVE CLOUD ( Day 1-4 )

-Following the accident hundreds of thousands of people had to be evacuated and between 1990 and 1995 an additional 210,000 people were resettled.

People evacuated:

- May 2-3 (1 week later)

10 km area (45,000 people)

30 km area (116,000 people)

http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/emergency/evacuation.html

-50,000 people from Pripyat, Ukraine were evacuated 2 days after the accident.

• Initial response
• These were firemen who helped put out the fires and helped clean up the radiation
• Most did not realize the dangers of radiation.
• Many later died from radiation, because they didn’t wear protection.
• An estimated 8,000-20,000 to date have died (20% from suicide)
• United States supplied
• Specifically designed to enter reactor core and help build the sarcophagus

http://er1.org/docs/photos/Disaster/Chernobyl%2002%20robotic%20inspector.jpg

The Clean Up

http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/emergency/cleanup.efforts.html

Approximately 300,000 to 600,000 people were involved in the cleanup of the 30 km evacuation zone around the plant in the years following the meltdown.

http://www.greenpeace.org.ar/energiapositiva/img/fotos/chernobyl.jpg

• Cement sarcophagus built in the months after disaster
• 8,000 tonnes of sand thrown on top of reactor core

Long-term effects and responses -

Containment

LONG-TERM EFFECTS AND RESPONSES

Belarus�after�Chernobyl

Abandoned city in southern Belarus

http://fme.sincerethought.org/gallery/album10/wtc_6

Effects of Radiation

• Belarusian doctors identify the following effects from the Chernobyl disaster on the health of their people:
• 100% increase in the incidence of cancer and leukemia
• 250% increase in congenital birth deformities
• “Chernobyl AIDS”--the term doctors are using to describe illnesses associated with the damage done to the immune system

http://www.progettohumus.it/chernobyl.php?name=dimenticafoto

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

Belarusian Landscape

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~dmcmill/1995/Large/Fishing.html

http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~dmcmill/1995/Large/Belarus.html

Pripyat River in Belarus

Abandoned road in Belarus

• 70% of total fallout fell
• 20% of Belarus land area was evacuated
• 130,000 Belarusians evacuated
• 2.5 million Belarusians

http://www.chernobyl-international.com/images/Chernobyl-Map.jpg

Impact on Belarus

The Land of Belarus

• 25% of the country's farmland and forest contaminated at a dangerous level
• 10% of the land is unusable
• 1% of the entire land in Belarus was uncontaminated
• Forests ruined
• Many animals are dying as well from the radiation

http://www.radjournal.com/chernobyl/Ride%20Through%20Chernobyl/checkpoint.htm

The Land cont’d

• Plutonium’s half life is 24,400 years.
• The 30-km radius has been expanded into a 70-km radius, covering a portion of southern Belarus.
• Forest/brush fires have spread the radiation through the air.

http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?url_file=/DOCREP/004/Y2795e/y2795e08.htm

Other problems…

• Food & Water
• Milk—Farmers have to watch the radiation level in milk.
• Fish—Cannot be eaten, as water absorbs radiation and fats concentrate it
• Radioactive Floods every spring

http://library.thinkquest.org/3426/data/local-effects/agriculture.effects.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/images/chernobyl-airview-bg.jpg

Chernobyl Today

www.calguard.ca.gov/ ia/Chernobyl-15%20years.htm

www.balticuniv.uu.se/ space/catch_news27.shtml

• The plant has been shut down by Ukraine.

(Dec. 2000)

• The cement sarcophagus is falling apart, due to the quick emergency construction of it.
• The UN estimates that up to 9 million people have been affected directly or indirectly by the fallout.
• The full consequences will not be seen for at least another 50 years.

Belarus today

• Hundreds of abandoned towns
• Land still very contaminated
• Most of budget goes towards

medical facilities

• Over the next 30 years,

Belarus will have spent a total

of $235 billion on dealing with

• Many areas will forever be

radioactive.

• Radiation is still a problem, especially in children

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?development/workshops/training_chernobyl0103.html

Living in the contaminated �zone in Belarus today…

• People must change their clothes twice a day, and may not walk in the woods for more than two hours a month.
• Radiation level charts are printed in the newspapers and dictate decisions such as whether children can be allowed out to play.
• People are told to wash food at least five times in clean water, but nobody is told where this clean water is to be found.
• Cattle are not supposed to graze in areas where the grass is less than 10cm high so their mouths will not touch the earth.
• Most people find it impossible to follow these nearly impossible instructions, so they simply give up trying.
• There are also housing shortages in Belarus and the rest of the ex-Soviet Union. This is a problem because people have a hard time moving out of the contaminated zone, since there are no other places to live.

SPATIAL PATTERN OF RADIOACTIVE FALLOUT

EFFECTS ON OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES

• DESCRIBE THE CAUSES AND SHORT-TERM CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACCIDENT.
• OUTLINE THE MEASURES TAKEN TO REDUCE THE EFFECTS OF THE ACCIDENT, BOTH SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM
• DESCRIBE AND EXPLAIN THE LONG-TERM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE ACCIDENT ON UKRAINE, BELARUS AND OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES.

Remember – notes must be sufficiently detailed to allow you to answer a 15 mark question!

Sources of information

• Links included on our website, especially the link to the www.chernobyl.info website
• Video included on our website.
• ‘Global Interactions’ p.122-125

AND IF YOU ARE REALLY INTERESTED….!

Got any suggestions?

We want to hear from you! Send us a message and help improve Slidesgo

Top searches

Trending searches

solar eclipse

25 templates

education technology

180 templates

32 templates

28 templates

thanksgiving

38 templates

Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster

Chernobyl nuclear disaster presentation, free google slides theme and powerpoint template.

The Chernobyl nuclear disaster of 1986 was one of the most tragic events in human history. This template for Google Slides and PowerPoint provides an overview of the disaster, including its causes, effects, and aftermath. Through engaging visuals, such as infographics, and charts you will be able to communicate the magnitude of the tragedy and the heroic actions that followed. Get your hands on this Chernobyl nuclear disaster template now to inform and educate your audience.

Features of this template

• 100% editable and easy to modify
• 36 different slides to impress your audience
• Contains easy-to-edit graphics such as graphs, maps, tables, timelines and mockups
• Includes 500+ icons and Flaticon’s extension for customizing your slides
• Designed to be used in Google Slides and Microsoft PowerPoint
• 16:9 widescreen format suitable for all types of screens
• Includes information about fonts, colors, and credits of the resources used

How can I use the template?

Am I free to use the templates?

How to attribute?

Attribution required If you are a free user, you must attribute Slidesgo by keeping the slide where the credits appear. How to attribute?

Related posts on our blog.

How to Add, Duplicate, Move, Delete or Hide Slides in Google Slides

How to Change Layouts in PowerPoint

How to Change the Slide Size in Google Slides

Related presentations.

Premium template

Unlock this template and gain unlimited access

Register for free and start editing online

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster ppt

Related Papers

Hungarian Journal of Legal Studies

Gianfranco Tamburelli

The article analyses various stages of the subsequent development of the international cooperation and of Ukrainian legislation aimed at facing the consequences of the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear power plant, on April 26, 1986. It is aimed to assess the impact of Chernobyl accident on law and policies in the field of environmental protection. The reaction to the Chernobyl accident gave in fact a boost to the evolution of international treaty law in various sectors (nuclear safety, emergency preparedness and response, environmental law) and, according to the Authors, contributed to the assertion in general international law of the right to environmental information.More than a thousand legal acts have been adopted in the Ukraine aimed at determining the safe management of the territories affected by Chernobyl accident. Notwithstanding the resulting nuclear contamination from Chernobyl accident still is a priority environmental problem. In this context, the Authors highlight the ex...

Health Physics

Vladimir Kutkov

Sanja Dugonjic

Zhanat Carr

Jack Caniglia

The main feature of this book is that it shows, perhaps for the first time, the true role of the workers at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the origin of the 1986 accident and in the reduction of its consequences. Significant consideration is given in this book to revealing the causes and the lessons of this tragedy. The authors of the book are nuclear power engineers having significant experience in nuclear power plant operation, management of nuclear power industry and regulation of its safety. The book is addressed to a wide range of readers, particularly those with a role in ensuring prevention and overcoming consequences of technological and natural disasters. It may be special useful to those having a connection with the nuclear power industry.

Rio A Pramanta

Ciência & Saúde Coletiva

Keith Baverstock

Background The Chernobyl accident in 1986 caused widespread radioactive contamination and enormous concern. Twenty years later, the World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Authority issued a generally reassuring statement about the consequences. Accurate assessment of the consequences is important to the current debate on nuclear power.Objectives Our objectives in this study were to evaluate the health impact of the Chernobyl accident, assess the international response to the accident, and consider how to improve responses to future accidents.Discussion So far, radiation to the thyroid from radioisotopes of iodine has caused several thousand cases of thyroid cancer but very few deaths; exposed children were most susceptible. The focus on thyroid cancer has diverted attention from possible nonthyroid effects, such as mini-satellite instability, which is potentially important. The international response to the accident was inadequate and uncoordinated, and has been unjustifiably reassuring. Accurate assessment of Chernobyl’s future health effects is not currently possible in the light of dose uncertainties, current debates over radiation actions, and the lessons from the late consequences of atomic bomb exposure.Conclusions Because of the uncertainties over the dose from and the consequences of the Chernobyl accident, it is essential that investigations of its effects should be broadened and supported for the long term. Because of the problems with the international response to Chernobyl, the United Nations should initiate an independent review of the actions and assignments of the agencies concerned, with recommendations for dealing with future international-scale accidents. These should involve independent scientists and ensure cooperation rather than rivalry.

Nuclear Terrorism

Igor Khripunov

Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health

May Abdel-Wahab

Peter Szyszlo

n the process of the Soviet Union's rapid attempt at nuclear weapons development beginning in the late 1940s, little consideration was given to the radioactive wastes these facilities produced, let alone the environmental and health impacts these wastes posed. To compound this dilemma, atomic power and subsequent radioactive waste management was concealed behind the "curtain of secrecy," since it fell primarily under the jurisdiction of the Soviet military industrial complex. The Cold War inevitably sped up the process of nuclear development to a feverish pace. Furthermore, over the last 30 years, the Soviet Union has experienced a rapid expansion in the number of nuclear power plants - a programme designed to modernise the Soviet economy and consequently supply the military with weapons-grade plutonium to fuel atomic weapons. However, this rapid expansion has translated into an environmental catastrophe. In many cases, the damage caused by radioactive waste mismanagement is irreversible; in others, the threats posed by radioactive contaminants are potential disasters waiting to happen.

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

RELATED PAPERS

eliana barrera

joão leodato nunes maciel

Dr.Amarjeet D.Patil

Iranian Journal of Information Processing & Management

Nader Naghshineh

International Oil Spill Conference Proceedings

Gary Shigenaka

Proceedings of the 45th International Philological Conference (IPC 2016)

Juliette Alilova

María Fernanda Brenes León

Journal of University of Shanghai for Science and Technology

Dr. Prachi Bhargava

Nurse Leader

Ellen Goucher

Infection and Immunity

Environmental Applications of Remote Sensing

Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy

Celeste Russell

antonio lucas oliveira

Mi-Yeon Eun

Mrinalini Gupta� � � � � �� � �

Polymer Bulletin

Adamu Muhammad

Quarterly of Educational Measurement

The Journal of Educational Measurement

Journal of Education and Human Development

Σουζάννα-Μαρία Νικολάου

vishuddha nand

De Levende Natuur

M. Schilthuizen

Anais do IX Simpósio Brasileiro de Sistemas de Informação (SBSI 2013)

Carlos Eduardo Pires

Esther Durin

Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research

Victoria Meremikwu

The journal of trauma and acute care surgery

Shadhiya Al Khan

See More Documents Like This

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Lessons of Chernobyl

Published June 7, 2019

National Review Online

By Mona Charen

O n the morning of April 28, 1986, an employee of the Forsmark nuclear power plant an hour north of Stockholm was returning from a restroom break when his shoes set off the radiation alarm. Soon klaxons were sounding everywhere. Technicians scoured the plant. No leak. After performing chemical and other analysis, they determined that the radiation wasn’t coming from Forsmark. It wasn’t even coming from Sweden. It was fallout from Chernobyl, 700 miles away.

The excellent HBO series  Chernobyl  offers an overdue glimpse into the leviathan of lies that was the Soviet system. Some have nitpicked that a composite character was created or that the trial scene at the end wasn’t historically accurate, but these exercises in poetic license don’t detract from the overall impact, and are, in any case, openly acknowledged, not concealed.

Lies were the Soviet regime’s native tongue. From the annual “record” grain harvests to the  Katyn Forest  massacre; from the Gulag to  Lysenkoism  to the shootdown of KAL007 to the  Holomodor ; the system was a black hole from which truth could not escape.

When Sweden demanded an explanation of the radiation, the Soviets denied that anything was amiss. Days later, when other European governments were detecting fallout and when U.S. satellites had photographed Chernobyl’s smoldering roof, the official news agency grudgingly acknowledged that an accident had killed “two people” but that “the situation had now been stabilized and [is] under control.” A later (post-Soviet) Ukrainian parliamentary report described such reassurances as “disinformation” of “almost Mephistophelean proportions.” The reactor was open and spewing radioactivity. Scores were already dead, more were dying an agonizing death from acute radiation poisoning, and thousands were inhaling and eating and drinking the radioactive isotopes that would cause miscarriages, stillbirths, and thyroid and other cancers. As  The   Economist summarized, “Chernobyl led to thousands of deaths, including the Soviet Union.”

While Communist Party officials were bundling their families out of Ukraine, the people were kept in the dark. Doses of potassium iodide, if administered within ten days, can protect against thyroid cancer. But there was no program to distribute the medicine. The Ukrainian surgeon general asked that people be warned to at least stay inside, wash their vegetables, avoid drinking milk, and take other precautions, but the Central Committee demanded that May Day parades proceed as usual, along with outdoor weddings and bike races. On May 1 in Kiev, as invisible fallout rained down, children in shirtsleeves marched past reviewing stands that usually held Soviet officials. They stood empty.

The Soviets kept their eye on the ball — deceit. Phone lines were cut to Chernobyl to prevent unauthorized truth from escaping, while the official machinery of propaganda revved up. As Robert McConnell reported  in  National Review , a Soviet television “news” report showed a photo of the damaged reactor and explained, “As you can see for yourself, there is no enormous destruction that some Western agencies are writing about, or no great fires, as there are no thousands of dead . . .” The air and water in Kiev were safe, the Soviet government said. For good measure, the TASS  news agency added that the U.S. had experienced “2,300 nuclear accidents and breakdowns in 1979 alone.”

While the world reeled from reports of a massive nuclear plume dropping poison whichever way the wind blew; while frantic but secret efforts were underway in Soviet Ukraine to stanch the flow; and while 220,000 people had to flee their homes (leaving livestock and pets behind as the HBO series dramatizes in sad detail), the official statements from the Kremlin were as noxious as the site itself. Denouncing a “Poisoned Cloud of Anti-Sovietism,”  Moscow News  pointed the finger at a “premeditated and well-orchestrated campaign” to “cover up criminal acts of militarism by the USA and NATO against peace and security.”

The catastrophe was a direct result of official lies. The Chernobyl reactor, like others of Soviet design, lacked several key safety features — but operators were kept in ignorance.

It is hard to know just how many people were killed outright or suffered later cancers and other pathologies because of the accident. The Soviet state directed that only the most severe cases of radiation sickness be noted in patients’ records. Estimates of deaths vary from several thousand to hundreds of thousands. As tragic as they were, those deaths were a tiny fraction of the millions starved, shot, and worked to death by the Soviet Union.

It was among the most soul-crushing of regimes in human history and lies were at the core of its corruption. The Soviet Union is gone, but deceit lives on. The Chernobyl  series is a timely reminder and a metaphor: Lying, when it becomes a way of life, is radioactive.

© 2019 Creators.com

Mona Charen is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

The Gospel of Discontent: How Feminism Shattered Our Understanding of Motherhood

The Church of England and Cost-Free Righteousness

Hur hearing shows GOP will need more than age issue against Biden

Democrats Lie About Late-Term Abortion To Make Themselves Feel Better

EPPC BRIEFLY

Sign up to receive EPPC's biweekly e-newsletter of selected publications, news, and events.

Your support impacts the debate on critical issues of public policy.

Related Publications

The summer reading list: a ukrainian primer.

George Weigel

Given the rubbish about Ukraine spewed out by Russian propaganda trolls and regurgitated by foolish or ideologically besotted Americans, this…

Syndicated Column / June 8, 2022

Dobbs Hysteria and Russian Disinformation

There are striking parallels between the Russian disinformation campaign that continues to foul the global communications space in the third month of the war on Ukraine and the hysterical screeds of pro-abortion American politicians after a draft Supreme Court decision in the  Dobbs  case leaked.

Syndicated Column / May 18, 2022

The Pope and the Patriarch of Moscow

A meeting between the current Bishop of Rome and the current Patriarch of Moscow would not have been a meeting of two religious leaders. It would have been a meeting between a religious leader and an instrument of Russian state power.

Syndicated Column / April 27, 2022

Holy Week 2022: A Wartime Meditation

A lengthy healing process notwithstanding, Ukraine has experienced more than the Passion this Lent.

Syndicated Column / April 13, 2022

Stay Connected!

Are you enjoying this article? Share with a Friend!

Always see the latest from Mona Charen and other EPPC Scholars. Sign up for EPPC Briefly!

• Engineering Ethics Tutorial
• Engineering Ethics - Home
• Engineering Ethics - Introduction
• Engineering Ethics - Moral Issues
• Moral Dilemmas
• Moral Autonomy
• Kohlberg’s Theory
• Heinz’s Dilemma
• Engineering Ethics - Gilligan’s Theory
• Professions and Professionalism
• Engineering Ethics - Ethical Theories
• Social Experimentation
• Balanced Outlook on Law
• Responsibility for Safety
• Chernobyl’s Case Study
• Bhopal’s Gas Tragedy
• Responsibilities of Engineers
• Engineering Ethics - Confidentiality
• Rights of Engineers
• Engineering Ethics - Global Issues
• Moral Leadership
• Engineering Ethics Useful Resources
• Engineering Ethics - Quick Guide
• Engineering Ethics - Resources
• Engineering Ethics - Discussion
• Selected Reading
• UPSC IAS Exams Notes
• Developer's Best Practices
• Questions and Answers
• Effective Resume Writing
• HR Interview Questions
• Computer Glossary

Engineering Ethics - Chernobyl’s Case Study

The Chernobyl disaster was nuclear accident that occurred at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant on April 26, 1986. A nuclear meltdown in one of the reactors caused a fire that sent a plume of radioactive fallout that eventually spread all over Europe.

Chernobyl nuclear reactor plant, built at the banks of Pripyat river of Ukraine , had four reactors, each capable of producing 1,000 MWs of electric power.

On the evening of April 25 th 1986 , a group of engineers, planned an electrical engineering experiment on the Number 4 Reactor. With their little knowledge on Nuclear physics, they thought of experimenting how long turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps following a loss of main electrical power supply.

Following is an image of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant.

What Led to the Disaster?

Let us now see what led to the disaster.

The reactor unit 4 was to be shut down for routine maintenance on 25 April 1986. But, it was decided to take advantage of this shutdown to determine whether, in the event of a loss of station power, the slowing turbine could provide enough electrical power to operate the main core cooling water circulating pumps, until the diesel emergency power supply became operative. The aim of this test was to determine whether cooling of the core could continue in the event of a loss of power .

Due to the misconception that this experiment belongs to the non-nuclear part of the power plant, it was carried out without a proper exchange of information between the testing department and the safety department. Hence the test started with inadequate safety precautions and the operating personnel were not alerted to the nuclear safety implications of the electrical test and its potential danger.

The Experiment

According to the test planned, the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) of the reactor, which provides water for cooling the reactor core, was shut down deliberately.

For the test to be conducted, the reactor has to be stabilized at about 700-1000 MW prior to shut down, but it fell down to 5000 MW due to some operational phenomenon. Later, the operator working in the night shift committed an error, by inserting the reactor control rods so far. This caused the reactor to go into a near-shutdown state, dropping the power output to around 30 MW.

Since this low power was not sufficient to make the test and will make the reactor unstable, it was decided to restore the power by extracting the control rods, which made the power stabilize at 200 MW. This was actually a violation to safety law, due to the positive void co-efficiency of the reactor. Positive void coefficient is the increasing number of reactivity in a reactor that changes into steam. The test was decided to be carried out at this power level.

Actually, the reactors were highly unstable at the low power level, primarily owing to the control rod design and the positive void coefficient factors that accelerated nuclear chain reaction and the power output if the reactors lost cooling water.

The following image shows the reactor 4 where the experiment was conducted. This picture was taken after everything was restored.

At 1:23, on April 26 th 1986, the engineers continued with their experiment and shut down the turbine engine to see if its inertial spinning would power the reactor’s water pumps. In fact, it did not adequately power the water pumps and without the cooling water the power level in the reactor got surged.

The water pumps started pumping water at a slower rate and they together with the entry to the core of slightly warmer feed water, may have caused boiling (void formation) at the bottom of the core. This, along with xenon burn out, might have increased the power level at the core. The power level was then increased to 530 MW and continued to rise. The fuel elements were ruptured and lead to steam generation, which increased the positive void coefficient resulting in high power output.

The high power output alarmed the engineers who tried to insert all the 200 control rods, which is a conventional procedure done in order to control the core temperature. But these rods got blocked half the way, because of their graphite tip design. So, before the control rods with their five-meter absorbent material, could penetrate the core, 200 graphite tips simultaneously entered the core which facilitated the reaction to increase, causing an explosion that blew off the 1,000-ton heavy steel and concrete lid of the reactor, consequently jamming the control rods, which were halfway down the reactor. As the channel pipes begin to rupture, mass steam generation occurred as a result of depressurization of the reactor cooling circuit.

As a result, two explosions were reported. The first one was the initial steam explosion. Eventually, after two to three seconds, a second explosion took place, which could be possibly from the build-up of hydrogen due to zirconium-steam reactions.

All the materials such as Fuel, Moderator and Structural materials were ejected, starting a number of fires and the destroyed core was exposed to the atmosphere. In the explosion and ensuing fire, more than 50 tons of radioactive material were released into the atmosphere, where it was carried by air currents. This was 400 times to the amount of radioactive materials released at the time of Hiroshima bombing.

Fatal Effects of the Disaster

The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant disaster in Ukraine, is the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power to cause fatalities from radiation.

There were many fatal effects due to the radiation released. A few of the effects are listed below −

Two workers had died. One immediately got burnt to ashes after the accident, while the other was declared dead at the hospital within few hours of admission.

28 emergency workers and staff died within 4 months of the accident due to the thermal burns and the radiation effect on their bodies.

This accident created 7,000 cases of thyroid cancer.

Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was diagnosed in 237 people, who were on-site and involved in cleaning up

The land, air and ground water were all contaminated to a great extent.

The direct and indirect exposure to radiation led to many severe health problems such as Downs Syndrome, Chromosomal Aberrations, Mutations, Leukemia, Thyroid Cancer and Congenital Malfunctions, etc.

A number of plants and animal faced destruction as after-effect.

• Preferences

Chernobyl Disaster PowerPoint PPT Presentations

• Film and TV

To make sure you never miss out on your favourite NEW stories , we're happy to send you some reminders

Click ' OK ' then ' Allow ' to enable notifications

Worms living near Chernobyl nuclear disaster zone have developed a ‘super power’

The worms have been examined as part of a ground-breaking new study.

Callum Jones

Worms living near the world’s most well-known nuclear disaster zone appear to have developed a 'super power'.

While it may have taken place many years ago, the 1986 Chernobyl disaster is still very relevant to this day.

In fact, scientists continue to visit and conduct experiments in the area, with a new study providing some intriguing findings.

Recently, experts visited Chernobyl to investigate nematodes, tiny worms with fairly simple genetic makeup.

The worms were gathered from soil samples, rotting fruit and other materials.

While conducting that, the scientists also tested local levels of radiation.

And as is often the case with radiation levels in that part of the world, they varied from low levels often recorded in large cities, to high levels found in outer space.

Scientists took the worms they gathered to New York University to freeze and study them.

Dr Sophia Tintor, lead author of the study, said: "Chernobyl was a tragedy of incomprehensible scale, but we still don’t have a great grasp on the effects of the disaster on local populations.

“Did the sudden environmental shift select for species, or even individuals within a species, that are naturally more resistant to ionizing radiation?”

Chernobyl survivors share the horror symptoms they still suffer from 37 years later

Mutant wolves from Chernobyl have started developing cancer-resilient abilities

The 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant subsequently transformed the nearby surrounding land into the most radioactive on Earth.

Of course, human inhabitants had to leave their homes and everything they loved, but plants and animals were able to stay in the area despite the high levels of radiation.

But nearly 40 years after the disaster, animals living in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone are typically genetically different from the same species found elsewhere.

This has therefore raised questions surrounding the impact of chronic radiation on DNA.

Matthew Rockman, a biology professor at New York University, said: "These worms live everywhere, and they live quickly, so they go through dozens of generations of evolution while a typical vertebrate is still putting on its shoes."

What is perhaps the most eye-opening part of this latest study is the fact that, despite the obvious high radiation levels, the genomes of the worms were not damaged... AT ALL.

But before you get your hopes up that Chernobyl could be safe for the first time in the best part of four decades, this doesn't really apply to us.

Dr Tintori revealed that the latest study concludes that worms are resilient animals which can withstand extreme conditions. You can say that again.

Topics:  Chernobyl , Animals , Science , News

@ CallumJ2709

• Haunting first image captured of Chernobyl taken just 14 hours after disaster shows effects of radiation
• The body of the first victim of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster was never found
• Man's attempt to take selfie with a walrus ended in complete disaster
• Chernobyl Hero Who 'Saved The World' From Nuclear Disaster Is Now Running For His Life

Choose your content:

Rebel Wilson shares unbelievable difference between what she was paid for Bridesmaids and Pitch Perfect 3

Rebel wilson has shared the shocking difference in what she was paid for bridesmaids and pitch perfect 3.

People are all saying the same thing after seeing clip from controversial new Amy Winehouse biopic

Malcolm in the Middle's Frankie Muniz makes heartbreaking confession about his time as a child actor

Woman charged after toddler found carrying 2 kilos of cocaine in backpack

The debate around nuclear power in Australia isn't just political. There's also a generational divide

Driving her trusty red Camry, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with "Australian Nuclear Free Alliance", Aunty Sue Haseldine is on a cross-country mission.

"We've travelled a long way and a lot of miles," she tells 7.30  somewhere between her home at Ceduna in South Australia and Port Kembla in New South Wales.

Her latest target is AUKUS, specifically the part of the security pact between Australia, the US and UK that will as one pillar see Australia acquire a fleet of nuclear-powered submarines that could one day rotate through "the beautiful waters" of Port Kembla.

For Aunty Sue, this is deeply personal.

"I was about two years old when the atomic tests started at Maralinga … I was on a mission called Koonibba," she recalls.

"I don't remember much of the tests, of course, but my oldies told me things about the Nullarbor dust storm.

"The kids all thought it was a dust storm coming in and the oldies are yelling at them to get in the house because they knew it was poison."

She later developed thyroid cancer and from then on, she decided to "fight anything nuclear".

In the 1950s and 60s, Britain conducted a dozen nuclear tests at Maralinga in South Australia and the Montebello Islands off Western Australia, scarring a landscape and a people, while helping to sow the seeds of a deep anti-nuclear movement.

Palm Sunday rallies drew hundreds of thousands of Australians protesting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and later, France's controversial nuclear testing program in the Pacific — a campaign fuelled further by the sinking of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior boat by French agents in Auckland.

The Cold War also cast a long shadow.

It would influence a generation of trade union and Labor leaders and ultimately, state and federal policies too.

To this day, Australia — a major uranium exporter — has just one nuclear research reactor at Lucas Heights in Sydney that produces life-saving medicines for cancer detection and treatment.

All other installations — including nuclear power — are banned.

Ban on nuclear 'stunted' the debate

Sydney-based lawyer Helen Cook has just finished drafting a national nuclear law for the Philippines government, one of several in the region considering nuclear to cut emissions and increase energy security.

She spent over a decade working overseas, including the United States — home to more than 90 nuclear reactors — and says colleagues would often hear her Aussie accent and immediately ask why Australia had banned nuclear energy.

"I found it a very difficult question to answer other than simply to use my own experience, which was to say that when I left Australia, I didn't know anything about nuclear energy," she says, emphasising: "Literally nothing."

Now recognised as an international expert, Ms Cook says she's found most Australians she talks to are curious about nuclear and she hasn't received the negative reaction she expected.

2024, it seems, is a different time to just two decades ago.

The year was 1998 and prime minister John Howard needed the support of the Greens and Democrats in the Senate to pass new laws upgrading the Lucas Heights reactor.

They would only agree if he added an amendment prohibiting "certain nuclear installations" including a nuclear power plant.

The same ban was later added to federal environmental laws and Queensland, Victoria and New South Wales doubled down, forbidding nuclear power in their states too.

When asked what impact these bans had on the nuclear debate in Australia, nuclear engineer and Australian Nuclear Association president Mark Ho has a simple answer. It's stunted the conversation.

"A lot of countries are using nuclear to decarbonise. The question is whether we should lift the ban," Dr Ho says. 

"I think we should. It's [been] a long time coming."

Thirty-two countries currently operate around 440 nuclear reactors, supplying 10 per cent of the world's electricity.

'Plan B'?

The Coalition, now led by Peter Dutton, wants Australia to be among them.

He's preparing to take an energy policy to the next election that includes a promise to lift the ban and explore the use of both large-scale and small modular reactors, or SMRs, possibly on the site of retiring coal-fired power stations.

Mr Dutton believes the world has changed since Australia last really considered the question of nuclear power under Mr Howard.

Australia has committed to achieving net zero emissions by 2050, coal is exiting the grid, power prices are rising and there's a growing backlash in parts of regional Australia to the massive expansion of wind, solar and transmission projects.

Nuclear power plants, conversely, have a small footprint and perform a similar "firming" or "baseload" role to coal and gas, without the emissions.

But few have been built since the 1990s and the ones that have, have typically been beset by delays and huge cost blowouts. And that's what the political debate has boiled down to: cost and time.

Labor — long opposed to nuclear — isn't considering any use of a technology it believes is eye-wateringly expensive and too poisonous to sell to the electorate. It's banking on a grid dominated by renewables to meet Australia's future energy needs and mandated climate targets.

Tony Wood is the Grattan Institute's energy director and agrees that right now, the economics for nuclear power "are terrible".

But in the midst of a challenging, once-in-a-century energy transition, Mr Wood is also technology agnostic and reckons Australia would be wise to consider a plan B, just in case.

"Personally, I think Australia should have a grown-up discussion around the role of nuclear and I don't think the ban helps that," he says.

"There are some significant unknowns about nuclear, but the promise of small modular reactors [SMRs] is quite attractive to Australia because if you could dramatically drive down the cost, then that could be interesting in the future and so we should watch that."

According to Dr Ho, SMRs are an attractive prospect because they're smaller, safer, cheaper to build and easier to deploy than large-scale reactors.

"Their targeted time frames are about 3 to 5 years for construction compared to say 5 to 8 years for large nuclear," he says.

Several designs are in development, with the most advanced aiming to be completed around 2030.

In its GenCost report, the CSIRO estimated the capital costs of an SMR would top $31,000 per kilowatt, compared with $3,040/kW for wind and $1,525/kW for large-scale solar.

However, those figures are contested.

A peer-reviewed 2020 study by the University of Queensland estimated the cost would be between $4,700/kW and $9,900/kW. The report says the capital costs would be recovered over the lifetime of the project.

On the question of timing, Ms Cook cites the International Atomic Energy Agency's own figures, which suggest a country can go from considering nuclear energy to having nuclear energy in its grid within 10 to 15 years.

"And that is starting from scratch," she adds.

"Australia is not starting from scratch. Australia has existing nuclear infrastructure that we would build up if we decided to go down a nuclear path."

Are attitudes changing? 

The biggest obstacle to change, as Tony Wood sees it, is that nuclear by definition "sounds scary".

But as Ms Cook points out, the three countries where the worst nuclear disasters have taken place — the United States, Japan, and Ukraine — are not just doubling down but "trebling down on their nuclear generation commitments".

"The United States, Japan and Ukraine are signatories to the pledge that was made at COP28 to triple our global nuclear energy capacity by 2050," she says.

"To me, that is significant."

There are signs too that attitudes might be shifting — albeit for different reasons.

While the labour movement is broadly anti-nuclear, the Australian Workers' Union has always been open to nuclear energy for the jobs and energy-intensive industries it could support.

The Victorian branch of the Mining and Energy Union also became pro-nuclear following the shock closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in 2017, leaving nearly 1,000 workers without jobs.

Essential polling suggests about half of Australians back the development of nuclear power and a recent Newspoll found 55 per cent of respondents supported the use of small modular reactors on the site of retiring coal-fired power stations.

Support was highest among younger Australians.

"Young people are very open to it," says associate professor Edward Obbard, the head of nuclear engineering at UNSW. 

"They don't have the same kind of social upbringing that the Boomer and Gen X's did of living through the Cold War and nuclear disarmament and that whole tumultuous period.

"Nowadays people think the greatest threat to their future is climate change and they're willing to consider all good solutions to that."

Dr Obbard is training the next generation of engineers who will be in greater demand thanks to AUKUS — a pact that will force Australia to build up a nuclear workforce and settle on a location to store the waste, regardless of whether it pursues nuclear power.

He was "amazed" by the "deafening silence" when the submarine plans were announced and believes it has, unquestionably, changed the scene for nuclear more broadly.

"For me, the case to use nuclear energy is actually a moral case because it is an environmentally low-impact way to decarbonise," Dr Obbard says.

For Aunty Sue Haseldine, nuclear power would leave quite a different legacy.

"We must think about the next generation and what are we going to leave them. Are we going to leave them nice clean fresh air? Or nuclear mines and waste dumps?" she asks.

In her opinion, there's no place for nuclear anywhere. Her mission is far from over.

Watch 7.30 , Mondays to Thursdays 7:30pm on ABC iview and ABC TV

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Chris bowen says the average build time of a nuclear plant in the us has been 19 years. is that correct.

Why corporate Australia won't touch nuclear power

Five regions shaping up as favoured candidates for nuclear reactors under Coalition plan, as it eyes retiring coal stations

• Alternative Energy
• Environment
• Government and Politics
• Nuclear Energy