Chernobyl--from my perspective

[allana]

I was nine when Chernobyl blew, living ten miles from a nuclear power station where my dad was a senior plant manager, and I clearly remember when we were first told of the news and the potential danger. As the dissipating radioactive cloud blew over Scotland we stopped eating meat and went vegetarian for a few months to protect ourselves. (In retrospect, if we were going the whole hog, we should have stopped drinking milk.) I didn't have any fear--my daddy worked with nuclear power and he was just fine....


I also remember dad coming home with a geiger counter and checking us all, the house, the gardens, and then walking up to the moors to see how slightly higher ground was faring. All was surprisingly well. I still had no fear, even with the click-clack of a geiger counter running over me.

Years later, I learned respect for radioactivity when I handled it on a daily basis in the lab. I never knowingly picked up a single particle. However, I have probably picked up more Sv on plane flights than I have ever been contaminated with. I still respect it, but I don't fear it.

I don't want to belittle what happened at Chernobyl, however, it was an accident. A ludicrous accident, no less, but still an accident. They played with fire by disabling the safety systems. I believe that most ire should be directed at those workers who caused the accident, then the Communist government who closed off information to the West, the workers who went into the area, and their people.

Nuclear power, when treated with the appropriate respect and good technology, is safe and clean. Waste (spent fuel) can be reprocessed or stored safely. (I don't speak from an ivory tower here, "my" nuclear power station had a less than stellar safety record for disposal but has cleaned up its act considerably and is now heavily involved in reprocessing.)

We need more nuclear power stations. This is one of the few things I agree with Tony Blair on. Sure, we could build more wind farms or hydro plants--I wish I could remember the name of the one near Loch Lomond. It was spectacular!--but there is massive resistance from local communities whenever these options are mentioned. I'm sure the same resistance also exists for nuclear power stations, however, most people agree that they do produce vast amounts of much needed energy. I've seen plenty of proposals for wind farms be rejected after farmers have complained about the noise, traumatising effects on their livestock, the falling value of their land, the lack of a legacy for their families. Wind power tends to drive people out of areas whereas nuclear power brings people in droves. (Actually, I would love to see someone attempt an offshore wind farm but the expense seems to prohibit it so far. Actually, I wonder why people don't just stick a wind farm on abandoned islands? Plenty of them in prime, windy areas....)

On a complete tangent--happy birthday to my wee brother, Alan! Gosh, 26 already? Getting old, chiel!

Comments

[dreammonkey.livejournal.com]

I don't remember it affecting much of what we were eating or anything at the time... but then I was probably still being fed bse burgers every meal (100 burgers for less than a quid kind of thing - the reason I'm not too partial to burgers nowadays).

I'm with you on the nuclear power though. It's very environmentally friendly when people aren't fucking up.

I do like wind power though...

[glam-ang.livejournal.com]

In all honesty, the cloud blew over central Scotland rather than the Highlands or the Shire. My mum may have over-reacted slightly in terms of food. (After our stint on kidney beans, we went straight back to BSE burgers :P And then, when the BSE thing hit--despite never having an infected cow in the county--she refused to eat red meat ever again. Talk about your over-reactions.)

I like wind power when it's offshore. I don't think it can be healthy to live in the near vicinity to so much noise and vibration. Certainly, sheep hate it. I was very surprised to see a turbine built right beside my old offices. It's now one of the highlights of the drive into London.

See the colourful turbine! See the fake trees! Oh, and take care to hold your nose as you drive past Slough....

[evaine.livejournal.com]

I think you're right, Ang. Man's stupidity about nuclear power lies in his eagerness to cost-cut, cut corners, ignore safety recommendations and make a buck more than the other guy. We can't shy away from dealing with things nuclear - the knowledge is out there and we, as a people, had better learn how to use it with proper respect and make it work for us, safely.

[glam-ang.livejournal.com]

I think humankind has wised up since Chernobyl. The nuclear industry is heavily regulated, inspected and audited these days. No one wants another Chernobyl.

We do have an obligation to look into renewable energy sources, but it is highly unlikely that we will ever use them to generate all of our energy. Nuclear power stations when cared for properly generate huge amounts of energy which we have all benefitted from for years. Energy prices take a hike upwards every time one is closed down :(

[bella-cheval.livejournal.com]

I remember Chernobyl all too well. When I was a kid, the nuclear reactor at 3 Mile Island (up in Pennsylvania, @ 2 1/2 hrs from me)started to go critical due to a daisy chain of fuckups. Had it not been for a group of very brave folk who didn't crack under pressure, they managed to get the reactor stable again and things under control. Scared the fuck out of the States and no new plants have been built since.

Yes, if run correctly and carefully, nuclear power plants are safe---the key word being "correctly." Plus, we're coming up with new ways to deal with the spent fuel, which is more than we could say several years ago.

The program I saw on public TV @ Chernobyl was very somber and eye opening. Seeing towns that once bustled with life standing empty and falling apart was...it was like something out of a horror movie; you kept expecting to see a monster come crawling out of the bushes or something like that.

I hope the governments of the world start funding alternative power sources and soon. Fossil fuels are getting harder to come by and aren't helping the planet any and we need to find something else before it's too late.

[silentinflames.livejournal.com]

I agree. Unfortunately, people will always make mistakes. Also most of the times money is more important than safety. Take it from someone who's job safety is: no one wants to spend money on it. Most people in important positions are shockingly willing to take chances (in particular if others have to take the consequences). I would certainly prefer living next to a wind turbine than next to a nuclear power station. The high cancer rate in children and many other defects in people who live close to them speaks for itself, IMO.

we need to find something else before it's too late

No need to look for it. It's there all around us.

[glam-ang.livejournal.com]

The high cancer rate in children and many other defects in people who live close to them speaks for itself, IMO.

Really? I'd be interested in seeing figures. How close is close? My high school had 1500 children--all of whom came from the side of the county with the nuclear power station--and while I wasn't privy to everyone's medical records kids generally know if other kids are sick, right? They gossip more than grown-ups. Anyway, I don't recall hearing or knowing of any children with cancer while I was in secondary school. The only child I knew of with any moderate-serious birth defect was a child whose mother drank and smoked to unbelievable levels whilst pregnant with him. Unsurprisingly he was retarded or whatever the correct term is this week.

I seem to recall everyone being sickeningly healthy with the occasional winter cold.

I agree that the planet still has lots of resources. I have no problem with using what we have naturally--I would point out that uranium and plutonium are natural elements, too--but it remains to be seen whether communities will tolerate them in close proximity. Interestingly enough, we do have an offshore wind farm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1059486.stm) and another two since that article was written (it had a pretty photo). The surprising thing--to me at any rate--is that it's set in 6m of water and is very close to the coast.

The UK is doing a huge amount of research and construction within the renewables field with the aim to provide 10% of energy from renewable sources by 2010. However, with rising energy demands, we still need nuclear power.

[kraftpistole.livejournal.com]

Unsurprisingly he was retarded or whatever the correct term is this week.

[snort]

"Mentally Disabled," I believe.

[shakes head at the oftentimes ludicrous business of politically correct language]

[silentinflames.livejournal.com]

Here is a study by renowned (German) physicists Alfred Körblein, Ph.D. (of Umweltinstitut München) and Wolfgang Hoffmann, MD, MPH showing a statistically significant increase of childhood cancers in the vicinities (5 km radius) to nuclear power plants. I haven't reread it now but I seem to recall a higher risk of cancer and leukemia in children of something around 60 or 70%. (This is an English translation of course.) (I read the study a couple of years ago.)

A much more important point however is that if something goes wrong, the consequences are so devastating that it is, in my eyes, insane to take the risk as long as there are other, entirely hazard-free possibilities. I know from every day experience: people who run a business don't spend more money on safety than they are absolutely required to by law, not by common sense. Legal requirements are always a compromise. The energy business has so much power--political power--: the entire economy depends on electric power. Politicians depend on the economy. The entire state depends on electric power. They have the strongest lobbying.

I seem to recall everyone being sickeningly healthy with the occasional winter cold.

I'm not assuming, you mean to say that everybody was so healthy because of the power plant.

However, with rising energy demands, we still need nuclear power.

See, that's another point that must be considered. We haven't by far exploited the possibilities of saving energy. There is so much more we can do to create more energy-efficient cars, houses, production processes, etc.

I can't see why we should chose the alternative that's dangerous and problematic as far as the used fuel rods is concerned, when there is a entirely safe alternative. Add to that the trafficking of uranium and its possible misuse and the new threat that terrorist attacks might present.

Here's another figure: 93,000 dead because of one fuck-up. How many damaged, no one even knows. Chernobyl has proven that the MCA is not the fictional horror scenario of a couple of hippies. It's reality. It can happen again, every day, everywhere.

I don't intend to attack you, Ang, by no means. I just think that lessening the risk for so many people (and I'm also talking about plants in parts of the world where the technical standard is not as elevated) should count more than anything else. Actually, no one has ever really come up with an argument against renewable energy. Why don't you want renewable energy to make a larger part of the overall energy use? I don't get it.