ethical issues during the and from the Chernobyl accident in 1986

This study provides an objective and clear consideration of the ethical questions that arose during and after the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. Power plants generate large amounts of energy that the general public relies on in their daily life. It is critical that the authorities manage these facilities in a way that prioritizes not only the safety of people working within the facility's bounds, but also the protection of individuals in potentially affected areas should tragedy strike. The potential risk at these sites is so high that special precautions must be taken to avoid disaster, because lives actually depend on it. This paper will take an in depth look at the ethical dilemmas that arose during the Chernobyl accident and specifically how they pertain to safety or the lack thereof. It will also look at how these dilemmas were responded to and whether those in power conducted themselves ethically.


Introduction


While nuclear energy presents huge benefits to the contemporary society, including providing sustainable green energy, lack of ethical consideration in designing and operating such programs may pose serious threats to the public and the environment. Notably, the fuel and waste released from the nuclear energy plants often have high radioactive materials that are detrimental to the well-being of humans and the environment. As a result, there is a dire need for the stakeholders in the energy sector, particularly those involved in the design and operation of the nuclear energy plants to adopt effective measures to protect any potential leakage of the radioactive materials. The Chernobyl disaster is an example of the world’s worst nuclear energy tragedy that occurred as result of the disregard of safety procedures. The April 1986 accident at Chernobyl, Ukraine, took place as a result of a flawed Soviet reactor designed together with errors caused by the plant operators. The power plant exploded, thereby releasing fire and steam which contained radioactive materials into the atmosphere. Two plant workers died on the sport while 28 more succumbed to the poisonous effects of the radioactive wastes. The health and environmental impacts of radioactive materials are far-reaching, and the global populace must take a more rigorous approach to nuclear initiatives to ensure utmost safety. Such safety initiatives may include improving risk management, enhancing communication with the public, improving nuclear safety, as well as developing green energy sources such as solar, the wind, and geothermal energy. This article discusses the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and the associated ethical issues, particularly relating to the cause of the accident.


Causes of Chernobyl Accident


The world witnessed its worst nuclear energy disaster on the 26th day of April 1986 following the explosion at the reactor 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear facility in Ukraine. The nuclear accident resulted in the death of a total of 30 people, most of whom succumbed to the exposure to heightened levels of radiation from the nuclear plant. The causes of the explosion at the power plant were attributable to the poor design of the plant as well as the mistakes made by the operators at the site. Following the request from Moscow authorities, the reactor crew at the Chernobyl nuclear power station resorted to testing the power supply at reactor 4. They sought to determine the length at which the turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps. Although the crew had performed such tests previously, the power from turbine subsided rapidly, thereby compelling the workforce to test a new regulator design. Before the routine test of the power plant, the reactor crew shut down the plant on 25th April 1986 to pave the way for the test scheduled the following day. However, the operational errors made by the crew during the test caused the worst nuclear disaster in the world.


First, the power plant ought to have a minimum temperature of 1000MW before the crew would shut it down for maintenance and subsequent test. However, the positive void coefficient caused by the operational error of the team result in a power down-surge to a mere 30MW. The temperatures became stable at 200MW at around 1:00 on the 26th day of April. However, the reactor reported instability as a result of an antagonistic increase in the coolant flow and a decrease in the pressure of stream. As a result, there was reduced cooling of the reactor, an issue that orchestrated the problems witnessed at the reactor. Notably, the temperatures increased enormously causing a rapture of the fuel and subsequent explosion of the power plant.


The reactor crew failed miserably to prevent the world’s worst nuclear accident, thereby subjecting the lives of the global populace to great danger. The team violated safety protocols which led to the explosion of the Chernobyl 4 reactor. For instance, the reactor engineers opted to use only 6 rods instead of a minimum of 30 rods to test the facility as required (Xiang & Zhu, 2011). Besides, it is also notable that there was no efficient and proper communication channel between the team in charge of testing the facility and the personnel involved in operating the nuclear reactor (Smith & Beresford, 2005). The poor communication procedure was also evident in the failure of the management site to provide up-to-date and accurate information to the public. Although the Chernobyl engineers assumed that they were right in designing and performing the nuclear test at the facility, their judgment was entirely wrong, an issue that caused the nuclear accident (Smith & Beresford, 2005). The site management neglected the safety of the public by failing to take into account the safety measures as stipulated in the international standards on nuclear plant operations. The safety precautions and procedures of the Chernobyl facility were deficient to protect the public against any potential leakage of radioactive material emitted by the plant (Xiang & Zhu, 2011). The fact that the facility experienced the leakage demonstrated the lack of training of the personnel at the nuclear facility. The above scenario points out the inability of the company managing the nuclear plant to safeguard the health and safety of the public as well as the environment.


Impacts of the Chernobyl Accident


The impact of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster was devastating (Onishi, Voitsekhovich & Zheleznyak, 2007). According to Onishi, Voitsekhovich, and Zheleznyak (2007), the explosion of witnessed at the reactor 4 of the Chernobyl nuclear facility not only left at least 30 people dead but also exposed thousands of people to the devastating effects of radioactive waste that leaked from the facility. Two people died instantly at the power plant following the April 26 explosion, while 28 others succumbed to their injuries a few weeks later. The explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear plant in Ukraine resulted in a widespread radioactive contamination of the neighboring Belarus and the Russian Federation. The Chernobyl disaster caused significant health effects to the residents near the facility as well as the affected nations, including Ukraine, Belarus, and some parts of Europe (Rahu, 2003). Of more importance was the level of ionizing radiation which studies attribute to the significant health effects exhibited by human beings exposed to the radioactive materials.


Health Effects of the Chernobyl Disaster


An increase in the incidences of thyroid cancer characterized the aftermath of the Chernobyl disaster, particularly among individuals who were in their adolescents and young age at the time of the disaster in Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation where the levels of contamination were elevated (Bennett, Repacholi & Carr, 2006). Bennett, Repacholi, and Carr, (2006) attribute such a situation to the post-explosion release of heightened levels of radionuclides from the Chernobyl plant. According to Rahu (2003), the radioactive materials followed different pathways, including consumption by cows after being deposited on pastures. Subsequently, the children drunk milk containing concentrated radioactive iodine from the cows after the disaster. More radioactive iodine accumulated in the thyroid following the general deficiency of iodine in the local diet. According to Onishi, Voitsekhovich, and Zheleznyak (2007), the radiation-induced thyroid cancer would not be present among the affected people if their parents had not fed them milk contaminated with radioactive iodine. The author stated above argues that radioactive iodine is short-lived and would be absent from local food products, including milk in a few months after the accident (Onishi, Voitsekhovich & Zheleznyak, 2007).


As at now, the medical fraternity has diagnosed over 5000 cases of thyroid cancer in Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and Belarus since the occurrence of the nuclear disaster in 1986 (Cardis et al., 2006). The incidences mentioned above occurred among children up to 18 years of age as at the time of the accident (Cardis et al., 2006). Although the majority of the cases of cancer resulted from the radioactive materials emitted following the 1986 disaster, medical monitoring initiatives have revealed the occurrence of thyroid cancer cases at the clinical level. These sub-clinical cancer cases have contributed to the general increase in the number of people with thyroid cancer after the nuclear disaster.


Several studies have associated ionizing radiation with particular types of cancer such as Leukemia and non-thyroid solid cancer. Recent surveys report a significant increase in the incidences of leukemia among liquidators exposed to the radioactive materials at the Chernobyl reactor. The doubling number of children and adults with leukemia in the three affected countries are not reported in any contaminated areas elsewhere in the world (Cardis et al., 2006). Lessons from the survivors of the Japanese bomb may suggest that a significant proportion of individuals with leukemia attributed to the Chernobyl disaster may be inexistent given the fact that more than two decades have passed since the 1986 nuclear disaster. However, there is a need for the researchers to pursue more studies to clarify the assertion.


Mortality rates of individuals exposed to the ionizing radiation following the occurrence of the Chernobyl disaster have up-surged since the accident. According to Asano Sato, and Onodera, (2001), 134 liquidators underwent diagnosis with acute radiation sickness (ARS) following the reception of high levels of ionizing radiation emanating from the nuclear disaster in Ukraine. The study further notes that 28 people succumbed to the ARS in the same year. While other liquidators have since died, it is not clear whether these cases would attribute to the radiation exposure after the accident. The cases of deaths from cancer are likely to increase, particularly after the Chernobyl disaster even though it would be difficult to precisely pinpoint which individuals died as a result of exposure to the ionizing ration from the accident.


Studies have also linked the exposure of individuals to ionizing radiation from the Chernobyl disaster. According to Bromet and Havenaar (2007), the sensitivity of the eye lens to ionizing radiation increases the vulnerability of individuals exposed to the radioactive materials to acquire eye cataracts. The author, however, notes that such cases occur only in high doses of about 2Sv. Cataracts studies on Chernobyl try to suggest that such cases may occur as a result of exposure to doses as low as 250mSv.


Cardiovascular diseases features among diseases and health complications that arose from the exposure of people to the heightened levels of ionizing radiation following the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine. According to Bromet and Havenaar (2007), there were increased cases of deaths among people, particularly workers exposed to the ionizing radiation at the facility. Although the study may require follow-up studies to affirm the findings, it is consistent with other similar outcomes across the globe.


Impacts of the Chernobyl Disaster on the Environment


In addition to the adverse health impacts, the Chernobyl disaster caused devastating environmental effects in Ukraine, the Russian Federation, as well as Belarus where its impacts were immense. Although there have been conflicting reports on the nature and extent of the effects of the Chernobyl disaster on the environment, this report presents a reliable and evidence-based findings on the issue mentioned above. Notably, it retrieves relevant information from research carried out by various UN bodies as well as the competent Russian authorities on the subject matter. According to Steinhauser, Brandl, and Johnson (2014), the Chernobyl accident resulted in the widespread radioactive environmental contamination, particularly due to the release of radionuclides into the atmosphere. The nuclides deposited in the three former Soviet countries later decayed and found their way into the terrestrial, atmosphere, and aquatic systems.


The radionuclides from the Chernobyl disaster contaminated water surfaces in Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine as well as other European countries. The radionuclides were deposited in lakes and rivers in the contaminated areas, an issue that raised concerns about the suitability of drinking water from the Kiev reservoir. However, the populations got a reprieve after the catchment areas played a central role in absorbing, diluting, and physical decay of the contaminants. According to Steinhauser, Brandl, and Johnson (2014), the bed sentiments provides a haven for the settlement of suspended particulates, thereby reducing the levels of the nuclide in the water.


The Chernobyl accident also impacted adversely on the forest environment in the affected country. According to Berger (2010), there was high uptake of radiocaesium among animals and plants in forests and mountains, especially due to the Chernobyl disaster in Ukraine. The researcher further notes that high levels of Cs have been witnessed in berries, mushrooms, and games, and have been persistent since the occurrence of the nuclear disaster. The consumption of agricultural products among the affected populations has contributed significantly to the decline in the magnitude of exposure to the radiocaesium. However, the forest products still exhibit heightened levels of the contaminants beyond intervention limits compared to other parts of the world (Berger, 2010). Because such a scenario would continue for decades, forests are contributory factors to the increased exposure of the people from affected countries to the radiocaesium.


The Chernobyl accident also reported considered adverse effects on the agricultural environment (Anspaugh, 2005). According to Anspaugh (2005), the animals and plants consumed much of the radionuclides deposited on the land surface following the explosion of the nuclear plant and subsequent release of several radioactive substances to the environment. The release and deposition of radioactive isotopes on the land surface in the affected areas concerned heightened concerns among the residents, especially the early phase of the aftermath of the Chernobyl accident. However, the short physical half-life of the important isotope provided a reprieve to the populace as the above-stated concern was confined to the first two months of the disaster. As noted earlier, studies show that the radioiodine quickly transferred to the milk consumed majorly by children in Belarus, Ukraine, and the Russian Federation, thereby exacerbating the prevalence of thyroid cancer. The contamination of crop vegetation manifested on various plants in varying degrees depending on the plant type and the level of deposition. Similarly, the direct deposition of radioactive isotopes created concerns among the residents although for a short period. Of more importance to note is the uptake of the radiocaesium by the plant roots after a given period following the Chernobyl disaster. The 137Cs and 134Cs radionuclides presented enormous threats to the public as well as the environment in the affected areas.


However, 137Cs radionuclide remained as the formidable threat following the decay of 134Cs radionuclide several months after the nuclear disaster. The threat posed by the radionuclide mentioned above traversed across Ukraine, Belarus, and the Russian Federation (Anspaugh, 2005). Although there were other radioactive elements after the accident, such radioisotopes like plutonium and Am were either inadequate or unavailable for roots uptake, hence presented no significant problems to the agricultural land.


The Present and Future of Chernobyl


Although the Chernobyl accident occurred more than two decades ago, its effects are still imminent. According to World Nuclear Association (2017), the affected areas still witness the impacts of the disaster on various platforms, including the soil, water, crops, livestock, and air among other aspects. The researcher affirms a 20% contamination of farmland in Belarus with components of decaying plutonium. Besides, there are high concentrations of radioactive sediments at the bottom of lakes and fish ponds, an issue that exposes the fishers to great danger. The Soviet authorities hastily built the Sarcophagus structure around the nuclear reactor plant after the accident. Unfortunately, in 2003, the Russian Ministry of Atomic Energy report that the structure was at risk of collapsing. Nonetheless, the authorities erected a 1.3 million Euro shelter around the facility. The project aims to protect the plant and prevent any leakage for the next 100 years (World Nuclear Association, 2017). The World Nuclear Association (2017). estimates that the Sarcophagus still harbors approximately 97% of the radioactive materials from the Chernobyl disaster at the moment. The study also found out that many people have gone back to stay in their old homes irrespective of their knowledge on the involved risks. Notably, over 5million people still live in the contaminated regions after the fateful nuclear power accident in Ukraine. Some studies have suggested that the residents risk contamination on a continuous basis following the existence of low radiation at and around the facility.


It is notable that the adverse and devastating effects of the nuclear disaster will remain, 30 years after the occurrence of the world’s worst nuclear accident in history. According to World Nuclear Association (2017), the health and environmental effects of the disaster will be vivid to generations and generations to come as the major fission products are likely to stay for several years after the explosion of the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine. Although the levels of radioactive materials at the facility and the environs have since subsided, there are chances that some locations are still dangerous and will continue to pose a risk to the residents and the environment (World Nuclear Association, 2017). One of the major contributing factors to the above conclusion is the existence of cesium 137. Studies show that the above-stated radionuclide has a half-life of thirty years, implying that even though half of its life has decayed, it still poses great danger many years after the disaster.


Decommissioning of the Chernobyl Nuclear Facility


Following the approval of decommissioning of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant by the state authority, the process has officially begun. According to (World Nuclear Association, 2017), the decommissioning process will encompass six phases and expected to last until 2028. The first phase of the decommissioning process, often known as the final shutdown and preservation stage is likely to take 10years to completion. While the initial stage of the process involves refurbishing water supply system, the second phase will dismantle the pressure tubes as well as protect and control channels 1 to 3. The next stage will involve caring and maintain the reactors from the first two units to allow time for natural decay of the remaining radioactivity (World Nuclear Association, 2017). The fourth step would entail refurbishing of the roofs of units 1 and two while dismantling the fuel handling machines in the process. Similarly, the fifth stage will ensure that the third unit of the plant undergoes maintenance and care, as the last final stage of the decommissioning process accomplishes the refurbishment of the reactor’s roof as well as dismantling of plant’s fuel handling machinery (World Nuclear Association, 2017). According to the operators at the Chernobyl site, the project intends to enhance the safety of the three units, achieve safe storage of radioactive materials, as well as the ionizing radiation within the facility.


Conclusion


Although nuclear energy plants present excellent benefits to the global populace, the failure to take into account the ethical factors may pose serious and devastating effects to the humankind and the environment. Chernobyl nuclear power plant is an outstanding example of how ethics play a critical role, not in the design but also the operation of the facilities across the globe. The world’s worst nuclear accident took the lives of at least 30 people a few days or weeks after the incident and exposed the global populations to heightened levels of ionizing radiations. The radioactive substances emitted after the explosion of the plant presented enormous impacts on the health of people and environment in Ukraine, the Russian Federation, and Belarus. Cases of radiation-induced diseases increased significantly several months after the explosion. While some of the radionuclides have decayed, certain isotopes such as radiocaesium may take several years to do so given their long half-life. As a result, people who have gone back to the contaminated are risk gradual exposure to the radioactive materials, an issue that may contribute to the increase in cases of radiation-induced diseases like cancer among other complications. It is evident from the discussion that there is a dire need for all the stakeholders in the nuclear power sector to take into account and with seriousness the importance of ethics in engineering. The world would not have witnessed its worst nuclear power disaster if the engineers and the site operators addressed the ethical factors in the design and operation of the facility. Besides, the failure to approach engineering ethically may result in a more devastating incident(s) in the future, including loss of lives and contamination of the environment in damaging proportions.


References:


Anspaugh, L. R. (2005). Environmental consequences of the Chernobyl accident and their remediation: Twenty years of experience. In International Conference: Chernobyl–Looking Back to Go Forward, Towards a United Nations Consensus on the Effects of the Accident and the Future (pp. 6-7).


Asano, T., Sato, K., & Onodera, J. I. (2001). United Nations Scientific Committee on the effects of atomic radiation 2000 report. Hoken Butsuri, 36(2), 149-158.


Bennett, B., Repacholi, M., & Carr, Z. (2006). Health effects of the Chernobyl accident and special health care programmes. World Health Organization, Geneva, 5.


Berger, E. M. (2010). The Chernobyl disaster, concern about the environment, and life satisfaction. Kyklos, 63(1), 1-8.


Bromet, E. J., & Havenaar, J. M. (2007). Psychological and perceived health effects of the Chernobyl disaster: a 20-year review. Health physics, 93(5), 516-521.


Cardis, E., Howe, G., Ron, E., Bebeshko, V., Bogdanova, T., Bouville, A., ... & Drozdovitch, V. (2006). Cancer consequences of the Chernobyl accident: 20 years on. Journal of radiological protection, 26(2), 127.


Onishi, Y., Voitsekhovich, O. V., & Zheleznyak, M. J. (2007). Chernobyl-What Have We Learned?. New York: Springer.


Rahu, M. (2003). Health effects of the Chernobyl accident: fears, rumours and the truth. European Journal of Cancer, 39(3), 295-299.


Smith, J. T., & Beresford, N. A. (2005). Chernobyl: catastrophe and consequences (pp. 81-137). Chichester: Springer.


Steinhauser, G., Brandl, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2014). Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: a review of the environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 470, 800-817.


World Nuclear Association. (2017). Chernobyl 1-3 enter decommissioning phase. London. Retrieved from http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/RS-Chernobyl-1-3-enter-decommissioning-phase-13041501.html


Xiang, H., & Zhu, Y. (2011). The Ethics Issues of Nuclear Energy: Hard Lessons Learned from Chernobyl and Fukushima. Online Journal of Health Ethics, 7(2), 6.

Deadline is approaching?

Wait no more. Let us write you an essay from scratch

Receive Paper In 3 Hours
Calculate the Price
275 words
First order 15%
Total Price:
$38.07 $38.07
Calculating ellipsis
Hire an expert
This discount is valid only for orders of new customer and with the total more than 25$
This sample could have been used by your fellow student... Get your own unique essay on any topic and submit it by the deadline.

Find Out the Cost of Your Paper

Get Price