The Health Effects of the Chernobyl Disaster - Research Paper Example

?Twenty-five years ago, the Chernobyl disaster made global headlines, but it is the people who were in its path who suffered and continue to suffer the effects. There are a host of chronic illnesses as a result of both direct radiation exposure as well as the radiation still present in the ground. The impact of the accident has been global, impacting not just those present the night of the accident, but citizens of countries living nearby as well. Emergency response was lacking and long-term efforts have left much to be desired. People are still suffering. In light of the recent nuclear incident in Japan, many are asking if we have learned anything. Yet the pursuit of nuclear energy continues. Chernobyl was the biggest nuclear accident in history. In fact, some refer to Chernobyl as “the calamity against which all nuclear mishaps are measured” (Stone, 2011, p. 1507). Prior to Chernobyl, there had been no real mass-scale nuclear incidents. Of the 284 reported major radiation accidents occurring between 1944 and 1986, only 1,358 people were impacted with only 620 people ‘significantly exposed’; Although the Soviets reported only 31 deaths officially linked to Chernobyl, 600,000 people were ‘significantly exposed’ (Medvedev, 2009). Although the number of deaths is much less than one might expect, there have been significant health consequences from this disaster. Cancer has been the most obvious outcome. “By far, the most prominent health consequence of the accident is the increase in thyroid cancer among those exposed as children” (Baverstock & Williams, 2006, p. 1313). But additionally, there are people suffering from radiation sickness as well as psychological and genetic consequences. Those citizens exposed as unborn children have also been the source of many studies to watch and document any health issues as a result of their untimely gestation. Psychologically, this accident has taken a massive toll on the people impacted. Some of the effects seem obvious, such as the mistrust of the government, but others are more pervasive and insidious. The prolonged and acute stress has manifested itself in widespread increased consumption of alcohol and cigarette use. Thus, the death toll from “suicide, cirrhosis, or lung cancer could be regarded as indirect consequences of the accident and the subsequent measures taken” (Baverstock & Williams, 2006, p.1313). Genetic defects have also manifested themselves in an increase in congenital abnormalities. While the actual death toll seems relatively small, we have to look beyond the numbers of fatalities. “Radiation is not a specific carcinogen. It causes a multiple form of biological damage” (Medvedev, 2009, p. 130). Rather than looking simply at deaths caused by exposure, we must examine the broader impact of the radiation exposure in the path of Chernobyl. “Scientists in Southern Finland, Sweden, and the northeastern corner of Poland registered the arrival of the radioactive cloud” on the day after the accident (Medvedev, 2009, p.193). The sheer scope of the people impacted by radiation exposure—directly and indirectly—is enormous. “Radiation sickness is the acute or delayed consequences of exposure of the whole body or a large part to high doses of ionising radiation capable of causing a set of non-specific clinical symptoms and haematological changes” (Turai, Veress, Gunalp, & Souchkevitch, 2004, p. 568). The problem with exposure to radiation is that as scary as the acute sickness many experience immediately, “many effects of whole-body radiation exposure may not be apparent for decades” (Baverstock & Williams, 2007, p. 1315). Thus, many are only now beginning to see the impact of their exposure to harmful levels of radiation. The initial global and local response to Chernobyl left much to be desired. The evacuation efforts were grossly shy of what they should have been. This was tied to the efforts by the Soviet government to project a far different picture of the incident than the grim reality. “The evacuation was lengthy and disorderly and took until June to complete” (Marples, 1993, p. 40). Even the efforts to clean-up and contain the accident were botched. Most people agree that “the emergency programme was not effective” (Medvedev, 2009, p.132). Some eyewitness reports say that for several hours, there was only a single doctor present to treat all of the workers exposed. And when he became too sick to carry on, instead of being transported away from the site, “he was given a glass of spirits and asked to drink it” (Medvedev, 2009, p.134). It is evident that those who responded suffered tremendously. Those working at the site at the time of the explosion were heavily exposed as well. The protocol was not to evacuate everyone from the site, only those showing acute symptoms right away. Also highly at risk are the citizens living near the nuclear reactor site. Those living in the nearby town of Pripyat were not given mass warning or evacuated. Only a few homes were warned verbally that anything had happened. In fact, the day following the accident, nothing was out of the ordinary except the presence of additional policemen “as if there was martial law” (Medvedev, 2009, p. 143). Children went to school and people went about their daily routines, all while being further exposed to dangerous levels of radiation. The initial public reaction by the Soviet government was one of denial: “national and local authorities did not immediately disclose the scale of the accident” (Bennet, Repacholi, & Carr, 2006, p.3). The government released reports that the accident was “contained.” In fact, the government was so devoted to maintaining the idea that the incident was not a cause for concern that they had the nuclear reactor up and running again in just months after the incident. The government was so invested in trying to downplay the incident, “President Gorbachev said little about Chernobyl, other than to refer to the "heaps of lies" that were appearing in the Western press” (Marples, 1993, p. 39). To try to create feelings of security, the government sealed the offending reactor and proclaimed the seal would last forever, yet within five years it was already crumbling and showing signs of wear. However, this past fall, efforts began on the construction of a concrete and steel cap that will be positioned on top of the damaged sarcophagus. But it will take years to complete, but once in place, engineers can then begin to process to dismantle the original sarcophagus via remote-controlled cranes so the still-hot debris can be disposed of (Stone, 2011). However, this opens the door for another potential minefield of victims of radiation poisoning. “Jobs are scarce in the Chernobyl area, and workers will have incentives to take risks with their own health” (Deegan, Angrist, & Ginsberg, 2006, p. 63). The fact is that even today many areas remain contaminated. Although some areas have finally been evacuated, others remained populated. The environmental toll of the accident is still being debated today. The agricultural impact has been enormous. The food supply was directly impacted. The toll was so large that food sold for consumption were cut off at certain radiation levels; however, “whatever was saved in the agricultural economy will be lost in future health bills” (Medvedev, 2009, p. 110). The animals that were spared from radiation exposure faced starvation as the hay used to feed them was heavily damaged from the radiation. However, the Soviets fed their people food with contamination levels much higher than permissible by the WHO. “These people have no choice but to consume heavily contaminated products” (Medvedev, 2009, p. 122). This is all compounded by the conclusion that much of what caused the Chernobyl accident could have been prevented. Design issues, and a lack of adequate safety testing have been pointed to as possible causes (Medvedev, 2009). In fact, it’s now come to light that even prior to the accident, the site was not as safe as it should have been. The on-site doctor, present to care for workers and ensure their safety, was not “qualified in clinical radiology” (p. 133). Many now believe that the structure, safeguards, and operation of the nuclear reactor were all well below what they should have been. Although the reactor was built decades prior, there are other reactors built during the same time period with much better construction and safeguards in place. One positive response was that shortly afterward a registry in Soviet Union was established to track individuals who were exposed to radiation. A few years later, other registries were created when the USSR collapsed. However, the collapse of the USSR created many problems. “It slowed progress in dealing with the effects of Chernobyl and created energy shortages that have strengthened the nuclear power lobby today” (Marples, 1993, p. 41). Later, an inter-agency initiative was formed to “address the health, environmental and socioeconomic consequences of the Chernobyl accident” (Bennet, Repacholi, & Carr, 2006, p. 3). Eventually community centers were established to help residents improve their psychological health and wellbeing. But the collapse of the Soviet Union has further complicated an already complex and messy clean-up effort. “The new governments are unable to meet the myriad costs of the accident and have only recently begun to coordinate their actions” (Marples, 1993, p. 39). The political ramifications of the Chernobyl accident changed the landscape forever. The mishandling of the clean-up, evacuation, and treatment of citizens played a large role in the dissolution of the USSR. Of course, the celebration of freedom was short-lived because now the individual countries had to immediately begin solving the problems created by the Chernobyl accident. Robots were built in an effort to safely investigate the damage and the carnage. But we cannot deny the role the accident played in changing the geopolitical landscape of the world. In lots of different ways, we have life pre- and post- Chernobyl. The biggest disappointment regarding Chernobyl is the sense that perhaps we have learned nothing. The recent nuclear disaster at Fukushima in Japan comes to mind. However, “the Fukushima operation is more likely to resemble the protracted cleanup at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Pennsylvania, where one reactor experienced a partial meltdown in 1979” (Stone, 2011, p. 1507). Part of the reason the incident is not as bad as what happened at Chernobyl is the original design of the site. “Fukushima's reactors are still encased in their containment vessels; Chernobyl's primitive design lacked that crucial safety feature” (Stone, 2011, p. 1507). However, the treatment for radiation exposure has taken no steps forward. The only available treatment at present is potassium iodine, which is not terribly effective. Beyond that, Chernobyl did impact nuclear energy safety. We cannot look at the recent tragedy in Japan as an indicator because that nuclear reactor was built decades ago—prior to Chernobyl. “Modern reactors have multiple layers of defense, use natural forces such as gravity and convection to move cooling water rather than rely on pumps, and employ automatic valves that kick in extra measures if necessary. Their manufacturers claim the reactors can be left for days and not overheat” (Clery, 2011, p. 1506). The difference between older nuclear reactors and those constructed in the more modern era are substantial in terms of safeguards and structure. After Chernobyl, no one wanted to be the person responsible for the next nuclear accident that rose to the levels of the devastation at Chernobyl. The fact is that we cannot abandon nuclear energy. The pressure for additional sources of energy is immense. The race for nuclear power will continue despite Chernobyl and Fukushima. We can take some comfort in the knowledge that the medical community is continuing to seek out better protocol and standards for responding to nuclear accidents. The world is moving toward more nuclear energy to try to offset the damage to the environment done through our use of fossil fuels. But the lessons learned from the disaster at Chernobyl are no more evident than in the lives of the people living with its legacy of radiation contamination. Chernobyl will remain a marker in our global history. It was the first nuclear accident of its scale. The question is: will be the last? References Baverstock, K. & Williams, D. (2006). “The Chernobyl accident 20 years on: An assessment of the health consequences and the international response.” Environmental Health Perspectives, 114(9), pp. 1312-1317. Bennet, B., Repacholi, M. & Carr, Z. (2006). “Health effects of the Chernobyl accident and special health care programmes,” Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Health," World Health Organization. Cleary, D. (2011). “Current designs address safety problems in Fukushima reactors.” Science,331(6024), p. 1506. Deegan, R.C., Angrist, M., & Ginsberg, G.S. (2006). “Genomics and medicine at a crossroads in Chernobyl.” Science, 314(5796), p. 62-63. Marples, D. (1993). “Chernobyl’s lengthening shadow.” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 49(7), p. 38-43. Medvedev, Z.A. (2009). The legacy of Chernobyl, New York, NY: Norton. Stone, R. (2011). “Devastation in Japan: Fukushima cleanup will be drawn out and costly.” Science, 331(6024), p. 1507. Turai, I., Veress, K., Gunalp, B., & Souchkevitch, G. (2004). “Medical response to radiation incidents and radionuclear threats.” BMJ, 328(7439), p. 568-72. Read More