Chernobyl:
A glitch in the (human) machine
By Giovanna Luisi
It’s
the 27th of April 1986. It is a sunny, bright day, just slightly
hazy. After the long, cold winter many children in the town
of Pripyat are outside in the streets running after a ball.
A father is filming his kids playing with an 8 mm camera.
There are strange dots and colour deformation on the film,
but maybe it’s due to a problem with the lenses. The
sun is particularly hot and his skin tingles more than usual
yet nothing is able to disrupt the cheerful atmosphere of
his children playing.
Today,
twenty years later, most of those children are dead, deformed
or struggling against thyroid cancer, their parents and relatives
with them. Covering Pripuyat, a shower of radiation devoured
the town. It was coming from the nuclear plant of Chernobyl.
The
alarm was not given until two days after the disaster.
At
exactly the same moment the children were happily running
outdoors, a nuclear power plant in Sweden was being evacuated:
the radiation levels measured were so high that everybody
was hurried to decontaminate and leave the area. |
 |
Only
a few hours later Swedish engineers discovered that the radiation
was not being produced by their plant: it was coming from somewhere
else. From the USSR, from Chernobyl. And only then, the horror was
made public.
On
the 26th of April, at 1:23 AM, during a routine test on Reactor
4, the reactor exploded with such force that it lifted and destroyed
the 500 ton roof of the building, releasing into the air with it
an amount of radioactive particles equal to 10 times the atomic
bomb on Hiroshima, becoming the biggest nuclear disaster to date
in history.
Thirty
people in charge of the power plant who arrived to extinguish the
flames bursting from Reactor 4 died immediately from the radiation
exposure, as their skin was melted off by the highly toxic radioactive
material. But their horrific death seems like an easier fate when
compared to the pain that this accident has caused: thousands of
others, many of which young children, were left to a slow and painful
end, caused by cancer.
The
consequences of the Chernobyl disaster are so numerous that it has
been hard to calculate them. Three hundred thousand people were
relocated, but not before having been infected by the radiation.
They were told they would be able to return to their houses after
a few days, but in reality the area of Chernobyl is still contaminated
and nobody but a handful of families have returned to the farms
of the area.
Pripyat
has been a ghost town for twenty years, the schools there abandoned.
Left as they were that day in April, the kettles still on the stoves
of the houses, the wallpaper flaking. Now the area is a military
zone, and nobody can enter without wearing plastic disposable shoes
and adequate protection for the body, so that no-one can carry radioactive
dust out of the area. The nearby forest, whose pine trees died immediately
after the accident, have slowly repopulated but the soil could not
support agriculture.
Of
those many families, and of many others scattered mostly in Byelorussia
and Ukraine, little has been said. According to one of the most
criticised reports ever made by the World Health Organisation, only
4000 people, out of which 900 children, died as a consequence of
the radiation released by the Chernobyl nuclear plant.
However,
most NGOs accept the number of half a million in Europe, out of
which about 25,000 are predicted to die in the next few years. These
people will not receive appropriate help because according to the
WHO their sickness is not related to the Chernobyl disaster. Cases
of infertility, deformity in newly born babies, and permanent handicaps
are not even accounted for in these reports.
In
1986, I was a child myself, about the same age of those children
playing in Pripyat and like them, I was playing in the streets.
One of the first areas the radioactive cloud passed over, before
casting its shadow over central Europe, was where I used to live.
I was in kindergarten then, with my youngest sister. And there are
three things we can clearly remember about those days in early May,
all linked to that foreign, scary name: Chernobyl.
It
was hot, and the spring in full bloom: the grass so tempting and
the leaves so green. One morning came the order: we were strictly
forbidden to play outdoors. The doors were locked and we could not
run in the park anymore. Arriving home, another surprise was waiting
for us: my mother made us take off our shoes outside the house.
My shiny black patent ballerinas looked at me sadly through the
window pane for weeks. And all the salad was thrown away: it was
said to be contaminated and dangerous. It only appeared on our plates
many months after.
Fifteen
years later, in 2001, I visited the Black And White exhibition at
the United Nations in New York, a collection of photographs documenting
the sickness of those who were once healthy children in 1986. And
the horror resurfaced. Those kids were slowly ceasing to live and
their painful death was documented in these photographs. Many of
the images remained printed in my memory: I doubt I have seen such
horrors before and I sincerely hope that what caused those deformities
and sufferings will never happen again.
Indeed,
as a consequence of the Chernobyl disaster, a number of countries
have taken a clear stance against nuclear energy. Countries in the
European Union such as Denmark, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Greece
and a few countries belonging to the former Eastern Union block
have discontinued the usage of their nuclear reactors. Some, like
Denmark, have decided to invest in renewable sources of energy.
Others, like Italy and Greece, prefer to buy energy from other countries
(a decision detrimental to their home economy) rather than deal
with the possibility of a nuclear accident.
But
despite these facts, since 1986 many new nuclear power plants have
been built around the world (using a different technology) and today
there are 440. Energy that comes from nuclear fission is cheap and
even the countries who once banned it from their soil are considering
the reintroduction, forgetful of what caused the ban in the first
place.
When
confronted with the possible occurrence of another disaster, every
country representative has repeated the same sentences about the
Chernobyl accident: “Unrepeatable human mistake” and
“no reason why we should stop using nuclear energy”.
But
the reality is that every nuclear power plant, even if built to
be automatic, relies on humans in some degree for safety. And the
episode of Chernobyl has not been an isolated case: the K-19, yet
another Russian submarine fuelled by nuclear power, in 1961 was
on the verge of a nuclear explosion in the Atlantic, an accident
that was prevented only by the human sacrifice of 20 members of
the crew that subsequently died for exposure to the radiation (the
submarine acquired then the names of “Hiroshima” and
“widowmaker”). More recently in 1997, highly enriched
uranium was irradiated inside the power plant of Sarov, Russian
Federation. And again in 1999, a small amount of radioactive material
was released to the surrounding environment, in Tokaimura, Japan.
And other accidents could be mentioned. Is another Chernobyl just
waiting to happen?
Also,
even if none of these accidents had ever occurred, other issues
are to be taken into consideration when thinking about nuclear power
as the answer to today’s energy crisis. Each nuclear plant
produces some highly dangerous nuclear waste that must be disposed
of. Radioactive material, which would be capable of causing mutations
in the human body and produce cancer, is buried in lead coffins
and placed deep into the ground, usually in salt mines (as the presence
of salt is an indicator of the lack of water infiltrations). But,
should water be contaminated in any way, due to a natural disaster
like an earthquake, and then used in agriculture, factory farming
or for human consumption, the consequences would not be too different
from what happened in Chernobyl 20 years ago.
“It’s
a very remote possibility” those scientists and country representatives
would reply to this hypothesis. With the information we have today
on current natural phenomena, contamination by nuclear waste is
highly unlikely. But that waste will remain dangerous for some time:
about 100 millions years, a period ten times longer than the existence
of mankind on the earth. This is the infinite legacy we have decided
to leave on our planet as the outcome of the last 50 years and our
growing thirst for energy: a potential threat to uncountable generations
to come. Not only will they will have to deal with our waste, they
will possibly have to face the disastrous consequences of our own
lack of respect and care for the environment.
And
all this, due to our growing demand for energy: our need to brighten
our living spaces a little more, to heat our offices a little bit
more, to cool our drinks better. Maybe we should all think about
it, next time we forget to turn off an electrical appliance and
ultimately when we watch our computer screen glowing as we read
this article.
As
it was said just after the Chernobyl disaster occurred, may the
alive ones beg for forgiveness from the dead and future ones.
www.pripyat.com
|
 |