Dealing With USS Mazeltov Nuclear Leak Case - Research Paper Example

DEALING WITH USS MAZELTOV NUCLEAR LEAK CASE Outline Introduction 2. Thesis ment 3. Discussion 4. Similarities of USS Mazeltov nuclear leak and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 5. Recommendations for dealing with USS Mazeltov nuclear leak 6. Works cited Introduction Throughout history, since the discovery and development of nuclear power, man has experienced several nuclear accidents, with some being fatal resulting to hundreds of deaths and untold delayed effects, which has inflicted serious damage to the environment and the population in general. The resultant negative impacts of these nuclear accidents have been known to range from a few hours to over several centuries. The USS Mazeltov case is not an exception. It’s therefore expected that similar effects experienced with other nuclear accidents cases will be experienced, but whose magnitude would be dependent on the amount of leakage which occurred, the number of people exposed at the time or will be exposed later due to extended effects, and the half-life of the radioactive material, which will give an indication on the length of time the environmental effects would last. Unfortunately for this case, the leakage involved a radioactive plutonium-239 material, which has a half-life of 24,100 years. This means that we expect its effects to last over this period of years, thus rendering this particular site un-inhabitable for almost eternity. Thesis statement What are the recommendations for dealing with USS Mazeltove nuclear leak and their expected repercussions? Discussion Let’s first consider the most famous nuclear accident case, what happened, and what did the authorities do to avert any serious problems that may have arisen. The Chernobyl nuclear disaster; is one of the most famous nuclear accidents in the human history, in the nuclear age. It occurred on 26th April, 1986 north of Kiev (now Ukraine) in Chernobyl Nuclear Plant. This accident was characterized by a large explosion and subsequent release of large amounts of radioactive dust to the atmosphere. This dust spread widely, aided by wind, covering most parts of Europe and western parts of USSR. The magnitude and scale of this accident made it be declared the worst accident in human history, and therefore classified by the Nuclear Event Scale at level 7. This accident occurred as a result of neglect of safety measures during a test run on one of the nuclear reactors, thus causing a sudden surge of power output that resulted in the massive explosion when an attempted shutdown was made. This resulted in an ignition of fire caused by the exposure of graphite moderator, which thus sent out large amounts of radioactive nuclear materials inform of dust to the clouds, which then spread over a large geographical area aided by wind. The results of this accident included extremely high radiation levels around the reactor building of about 5.6 roentgens per second and death of nuclear reactor crew who were responsible for cleaning-up the mess, within a week’s time frame. Other smaller population involved in the clean-up was also diagnosed with acute radiation sickness that also died within three months. This accident also resulted in contamination of large swathes of land by the radioactive materials, as indicated in the table below. Areas contaminated kBq/m2 Country 37-185 185-155 555-1480 +1480 Moldova 60 Italy 300 Slovenia 300 Greece 1200 Switzerland 1300 Bulgaria 4800 Norway 5200 Austria 8600 Finland 11500 Sweden 12000 Russia 49800 5700 2100 300 Ukraine 37200 3200 900 600 Belarus 29900 10200 4200 2200 (Ikäheimonen) This problem was tackled by massive evacuation of people around this site and other sites that were deemed to have been affected by the radioactive materials. This evacuation was done within hours after the explosion. Other responses the government took included; education of the affected population later after settlement, continued silent research on the health conditions of the affected population, watching against cancers cases and other conditions that might have been related to exposure to radioactivity. Even though people were educated later, but it came as a result of great international pressure and the fact that the case had already spun out of control and its effects were no longer deniable. The government had initially ordered a silent clean-up of the area, aided by the intelligence arm, the KGB, who surrounded the area immediately after the explosion and maintained absolute silence. The government made several denials, accompanied by release of false statements to the public. It actually took 4 days for the government to publicly acknowledge that the accident had occurred. Because of this delay, the evacuation process also began very late, 36 hours after the explosion, which was considered a measure taken already too late. Similarities of USS Mazeltov nuclear leak and the Chernobyl nuclear disaster For both cases, highly radioactive materials with extremely long half-life were released to the environment. Thus, as in Ukraine and other affected countries whose lands were rendered un-inhabitable because of high levels of radiation, this harbor site might also suffer a similar fate. Because of the presence of the sea water and therefore the sea waves that would propagate the faster spread of this radioactive material further away, a wide geographical area is thus expected to be affected just as like the large swathes of lands in Europe. The resultant of these two effects is expected to cause massive deaths of fish and other water animals and plants in these locations. The plants and sea animal including fishes that would survive might carry some amounts of the released radioactive material (plutonium-239) in their bodies. This might lead to mutation of the species resulting to badly malformed sea animals or fishes and therefore reduced lifespan of these affected creatures. In-addition, if such fishes are caught by the fishermen and consumed, it might lead to serious health problems including increased cases of cancers and birthing of seriously malformed children. The worst cases might lead to sudden death after a short while. The expected effects might be of no great difference to the Chernobyl case, which is blamed by the World Health Organization to have led to increased cases of the following medical conditions; 1. Thyroid cancer among the young and adolescent population at the time, and currently its figures are still very high. 2. Leukemia and non-thyroid solid cancer among the highly exposed liquidators of Chernobyl 3. High mortality rates among those who have been diagnosed with acute radiation sickness 4. Cataracts among the survivors who had been exposed to the radiations 5. Increased cardiovascular diseases among the population who were highly exposed to radiation. Recommendations for dealing with USS Mazeltov nuclear leak Immediate acknowledgment by the government that such an accident occurred, specifying its magnitude, and thus the expected short-term and long-term effects to be experienced should anyone ignore the warning. This warning should be made publicly and in the view of the media. This might seem a rather direct jump from the frying pan to the fire by the government, but judging from previous cases of nuclear disasters and the above stated Chernobyl nuclear disaster, it has been proven that silence only aggravate the situation. For example, should the Soviet government have reacted by immediately informing the population about the disaster and what laid ahead, they would have taken personal protective measures earlier, and thus reducing the number of people exposed. This act would have translated to a reduced government health bill in the long run, considering that special medical centers had to be built immediately later, to deal with the expected rise of the resultant medical complications. This option had proved expensive, plunging Russia into further debts to finance the research and development of high-tech medical facilities. Politically, silence also meant a collapse of the reigning political regime, when all truth about the disaster came out. To avoid repetition of a similar situation, making the USS Mazeltov nuclear leak information public might give the government a chance to atone for its sins, and promise to work hard in better service delivery, which would be understandable to the people. Immediate evacuation of the people is necessary. The military should be employed to handle this task because of their known speed and skills of handling such tasks. A special team with a special gear should be sent to handle the areas most exposed to radioactive materials. The use of military in this exercise might seem a use of excessive force, but considering the magnitude of this problem when we forecast it in terms of the future, it might be the most appropriate option left. The military personnel have been trained to handle panic situations better than the police force hence, reduced cases of causalities would be expected during this exercise. Educating the people on the dangers of radiation exposure; what are the signs and symptoms, the expected medical conditions and the difference of their complications from the normal diseases, the short-term and long-term environmental impacts, and among others. This approach might seem that too much information would be released to the public, but it’s the best approach to follow in case the government wants to reduce over-expenditure on its budget on developing advance treatment techniques to deal with the expected large amount of affected population. Education simply creates awareness of the existing situation, and therefore people will tend to avoid such places out of their own initiative. In the political arena, people will also learn to appreciate the existing government efforts to educate them on disaster awareness and preparedness. This thus increases the chances of survivability of the reigning regime, despite the problem at hand. Works cited Ikäheimonen (toim.), T.K. Ympäristön Radioaktiivisuus Suomessa — 20 Vuotta Tshernobylista. Symposium Helsingissä, 25. Dark Oy: Vantaa, 26th April, 2006. (pdf) Read More