Chernobyl

Question:

> The reactor was shutdown the week before because of problem, but brought back > online with only 1% load for the purpose of the ceremony. It was not deemed > safe enough to run at full load [according to other news stories]. > There is international funding to build new reactors at a different site. > Jan

Thanks for the insight Jan. Just shows that reliance on even a trusted newspaper source can still leave you with less than clear information. — Forth based HIDECS Consultancy …..<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..

Response:

> 1. How many people have been working on the cleanup. Apparently it is > something in excess of 70,000.

I’ve heard 600,000, in some capacity, but 200,000 received some "significant" radiation dose. > 2. Since there are greater than 70,000 people involved in the cleanup.  What > percentage of them would have died in the course of 15 years, if Chernobyl > hadn’t happened.

Depends on their age and many other factors.  You’ve identified the main issue, though, the dead quoted above died for reasons unrelated to the accident. > 3. What constituted "disabled by radiation." In the US you could be > considered disabled by radiation by receiving your lifetime dose. That is, > you were exposed to your Age * 1 Rem or greater (if you were 35, you > received 35 Rem of Exposure).  You are now disabled from doing your job of > working on the cleanup. You can still do other work, but no longer can you > receive the high pay of a radiation worker (hazard pay that is).

That’s an interesting definition you pose! Isn’t it 5 rem per year, though, after age 18? > 4. How many people did the Chernobyl plant feed (energy). With the plant > gone, those people are now affected, because they have to get their power > from somewhere else.

I don’t know.  Large US power plants supply about 600,000 people per unit.  Chernobyl had four units at one point. > I am not saying the disaster wasn’t bad. I am just saying that the article > leaves out a bunch of information.

I’m with you. —  fungee… Unsolicited commercial email (spam) is not desired.  Senders of spam will help me beta test new virii, mailbombs, and/or DoS attacks.  Sending spam to this address constitutes agreement to these terms.

Response:

>> 3. What constituted "disabled by radiation." In the US you could be > considered disabled by radiation by receiving your lifetime dose. That is, > you were exposed to your Age * 1 Rem or greater (if you were 35, you > received 35 Rem of Exposure).  You are now disabled from doing your job of > working on the cleanup. You can still do other work, but no longer can you > receive the high pay of a radiation worker (hazard pay that is). > That’s an interesting definition you pose! > Isn’t it 5 rem per year, though, after age 18?

I am moderately paranoid when it comes to the media. When they leave information out that would make their statement stronger, I suspect that they are mislabeling their axes. My statement above reflects that paranoia. It used to be (age – 18) * 5 Rem / year. Several years ago, it was changed to Age * 1 Rem/year. It may have changed again. I don’t keep track of the CFR’s. TNT

Response:

From AP "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are considered affected by Chernobyl." This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire. My questions.   The only change I made in the paragraph was to add "the accident". I took this from the center of the article. 1. How many people have been working on the cleanup. Apparently it is something in excess of 70,000. 2. Since there are greater than 70,000 people involved in the cleanup.  What percentage of them would have died in the course of 15 years, if Chernobyl hadn’t happened. 3. What constituted "disabled by radiation." In the US you could be considered disabled by radiation by receiving your lifetime dose. That is, you were exposed to your Age * 1 Rem or greater (if you were 35, you received 35 Rem of Exposure).  You are now disabled from doing your job of working on the cleanup. You can still do other work, but no longer can you receive the high pay of a radiation worker (hazard pay that is). 4. How many people did the Chernobyl plant feed (energy). With the plant gone, those people are now affected, because they have to get their power from somewhere else. I am not saying the disaster wasn’t bad. I am just saying that the article leaves out a bunch of information. By leaving out descriptors, the reader will infer connections that may or may not be there. A journalist may have left those descriptors out in order to save space (always a concern) or they may have been left out because the effect would be diminished by explaining in detail. Have a nice day.

Response:

> From AP > "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 > have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of > Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are > considered affected by Chernobyl." > This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire.

I saw an item on the TV news about this a couple of days ago where they had chiors and VIP speeches to mark the event with video display of the technician pressing the close-down button. However, over a week earlier I had seen a report in a newspaper I trust more than the UK tabloids about the fact that an emergency shutdown of the last reactor had occurred due to a steam leak and that they saw no prospect of getting to it to restart before the official close-down ceremony. So it had already been closed a week before the big show. I also understand that there are plans to clear the site and build a new series of reactors (with better technology) to provide power to the Ukraine populace. Seems like they will have to make a very considered choice. Naturally we commisserate, and will continue to do so, with the people who were drastically affected by the original disaster and the whole aftermath. Our prayers are for them. — Forth based HIDECS Consultancy …..<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..

Response:

The reactor was shutdown the week before because of problem, but brought back online with only 1% load for the purpose of the ceremony. It was not deemed safe enough to run at full load [according to other news stories]. There is international funding to build new reactors at a different site. Jan – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> From AP > "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 > have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of > Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are > considered affected by Chernobyl." > This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire. > I saw an item on the TV news about this a couple of days ago where > they had chiors and VIP speeches to mark the event with video > display of the technician pressing the close-down button. However, > over a week earlier I had seen a report in a newspaper I trust more > than the UK tabloids about the fact that an emergency shutdown of > the last reactor had occurred due to a steam leak and that they saw > no prospect of getting to it to restart before the official > close-down ceremony. So it had already been closed a week before the > big show. > I also understand that there are plans to clear the site and build > a new series of reactors (with better technology) to provide power > to the Ukraine populace. Seems like they will have to make a very > considered choice. > Naturally we commisserate, and will continue to do so, with the > people who were drastically affected by the original disaster and > the whole aftermath. Our prayers are for them. > — > Forth based HIDECS Consultancy …..<http://www.amleth.demon.co.uk/> > Tel: +44 (0)1235-814586 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. > Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..

Response:

> From AP > "More than 4,000 cleanup workers have died since (the accident) and 70,000 > have been disabled by radiation in Ukraine alone. About 3.4 Million of > Ukraine’s 50 Million people, including some 1.26 million children, are > considered affected by Chernobyl." > This was in a local newspaper but was an AP Wire. > My questions. > The only change I made in the paragraph was to add "the accident". I took > this from the center of the article.

That’s very perceptive of you.  I don’t have answers to all of your questions, but the information below says 40 people have died as a result of the accident. From http://www.worldnuclear.org/backref/ba/00/00_ba032.htm Chernobyl: The Real Health Impact closure of the Chernobyl nuclear plant, world-wide reports continued to quote hugely varying estimates of the health impact of the 1986 accident. One news report today said "an estimated 15 000 to 30 000" people had already died as a result of the 1986 accident. Such reports are in line with frequent claims by Ukrainian officials and others that the accident has already caused the deaths of large numbers of people and may result in tens of thousands of further cancer-related deaths over the next few decades. However, they are in stark contrast to the findings of international health and radiation experts, who have carried out detailed studies of the health and environmental impact of the accident. A leading official at the World Health Organisation (WHO) told an international conference five years ago that claims by Ukrainian officials that more than 100 000 people had died as a result of the accident were "fiction". He said the proven death toll was about 40 ? some 30 due to direct exposure at the time, and a further 10 fatal cases of radiation-induced thyroid cancer (normally a treatable disease). More recently, a report published this year by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) concluded that there is still no evidence that the vast majority of people exposed to radiation from Chernobyl in Ukraine or elsewhere are likely to suffer any serious long-term health effects. UNSCEAR assessed the latest evidence on the long-term health impact of the Chernobyl accident in the form of a detailed annex to its annual report to the UN General Assembly on radiation sources and health effects world-wide (see News of 8th June 2000). UNSCEAR said: "According to the committee’s scientific assessments, there have been about 1800 cases of thyroid cancer in children who were exposed at the time of the accident and, if the current trend continues, there may be more cases during the next decades. "Apart from this increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure. "The risk of leukaemia, one of the main concerns owing to its short latency time, does not appear to be elevated, even among the recovery operation workers. Although those most highly-exposed individuals are at an increased risk of radiation-associated effects, the great majority of the population are not likely to experience serious health consequences from radiation from the Chernobyl accident." More generally, the UNSCEAR report concluded that the lifetime risk of dying from cancer after an acute dose of 1000 millisieverts is about 9% for men and 13% for women. By comparison, the world-wide annual per capita dose is 2.4 millisieverts from natural radiation. UNSCEAR stressed that natural background radiation represents by far the greatest contribution to the world’s population dose. The second largest contribution comes from medical radiation procedures. Other human ‘activities’ ? primarily atmospheric nuclear testing, together with the after-effects of the Chernobyl accident and the side-effects of routine nuclear power production ? account for only a small fraction of the total. From http://www.worldnuclear.org/reference/Chernobyl/Chornobyl%20and%20Sov… actors.htm The Chernobyl Accident The "Chernobyl accident" was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel and without proper regard for safety. The resulting steam explosion and fire released about five percent of the reactor core into the atmosphere and downwind. 31 people were killed, and there have since been up to ten deaths from thyroid cancer due to the accident. Other similar reactors continue to operate, at the Chernobyl site and also in Russia and Lithuania. The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in the Ukraine was the product of an extremely flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the operators of the plant in the context of a system where training was minimal. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture. The accident destroyed the Chernobyl unit 4 reactor and killed 31 people, including 28 from radiation exposure. A further 209 on site were treated for acute radiation poisoning and among these, 145 cases were confirmed (all of whom recovered). Nobody off-site suffered from acute radiation effects. Large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia and beyond were contaminated in varying degrees, though the pattern of this bore little relationship to the 30km radius "exclusion zone" around Chernobyl. The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred. The accident On 25th April 1986, prior to a routine shut-down, the reactor crew at Chernobyl-4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power following a loss of main electrical power supply. Similar tests had already been carried out at Chernobyl and other plants, despite that fact that these reactors were known to be very unstable at low power settings. A series of operator actions including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. As water flow diminished, power output increased. When the operator moved to shut down the reactor from its unstable condition arising from previous errors, a peculiarity of the design caused the power to surge dramatically. The fuel elements ruptured and the resultant explosive force of steam lifted off the reactor’s cover-plate, releasing fission products to the atmosphere. A second explosion threw out fragments of burning fuel and graphite from the core and allowed air to rush in, causing the graphite moderator to burst into flames. The graphite burned for nine days, causing the main release of radioactivity into the environment. A total of about 12 x 1018 Bq of radiation was released. <Chornobyl.gif> The Chernobyl accident control rods withdrawn/important safety systems switched off major power surge began fuel elements rupture causing steam explosion top of reactor blew off releasing radioactive products to the atmosphere graphite moderator burns Some 5000 tonnes of boron, dolomite, sand, clay and lead were dropped on to the burning core by helicopter in an effort to extinguish the blaze and limit the release of radioactive particles. Immediate impact It is estimated that all of the xenon gas, about half of the iodine and caesium, and about 3-5% of the remaining radioactive material in the Chernobyl-4 reactor core was released in the accident. Most of this was deposited as dust and debris close by, the lighter material was carried by wind over Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and to some extent over Scandinavia and Europe. The main casualties were among the firefighters, including those who attended the initial small fires on the roof of the turbine building, all of which were put out in a few hours. The next task was cleaning up the radioactivity at the site so that the remaining three reactors could be restarted, and the damaged reactor shielded more permanently. About 200 000 people ("liquidators") involved in the recovery and clean up over 1986-87 received high doses of radiation, around 100 millisieverts. Some 20,000 of them received about 250 mSv and a few received 500 mSv. Later, the number of liquidators swelled to over 600,000 but most of these received only low radiation doses. Many children in the surrounding areas were exposed to radiation doses sufficient to lead to thyroid cancers (which are usually not fatal if diagnosed and treated early). Early radiation exposure in contaminated areas was due to short-lived iodine-131, later caesium-137 was the main hazard (both are fission products dispersed from the reactor core). On May 2-3, some 45 000 residents were evacuated from a 10 km radius of the plant, notably the town of Pripyat. On 4 May, all those living within a 30 kilometre radius of the plant – a further 116,000 people, were evacuated and later relocated. About 1000 of these have since returned unofficially to live within the contaminated zone. Most of those evacuated received less than 50 mSv radiation dose, though a few received 100 mSv or more. In the years following the accident a further 210,000 people were resettled into less contaminated areas, and the initial 30 km radius exclusion zone was modified and extended to cover 4300 square kilometres. Environmental and health effects Several organisations have reported on the impacts of the Chernobyl accident, but all have found difficulties in assessing the significance of what they have observed because of the paucity of reliable information on public health matters prior to 1986. In 1989 the World Health Organisation (WHO) first raised concerns that … read more »

Response:

Related Posts