The Lanre Olusola Blog - AdelaminInfo

The Lanre Olusola Blog

Effects of the Chernobyl disaster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation
Jump to search

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . ( Learn how and when to remove these template messages )

Unbalanced scales
This article may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies. Please help improve it by rewriting it in a balanced fashion that contextualizes different points of view. (December 2013) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message )
This article contains weasel words : vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed . (September 2013)
This article needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (April 2010) ( Learn how and when to remove this template message )

( Learn how and when to remove this template message )

The 1986 Chernobyl disaster triggered the release of substantial amounts of radioactivity into the atmosphere in the form of both particulate and gaseous radioisotopes . It is one of the most significant unintentional releases of radioactivity into the environment to present day.

The work of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE), suggests that the Chernobyl incident cannot be directly compared to atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons through a single number, with one being simply x times larger than the other. This is partly due to the fact that the isotopes released at Chernobyl tended to be longer-lived than those released by the detonation of atomic bombs, thus producing radioactivity curves that vary in shape as well as size.[ citation needed ]


  • 1 Radiation effects to humans
    • 1.1 Dose to the general public within 30 km of the plant
    • 1.2 Childhood exposure
    • 1.3 Future study
  • 2 Short-term health effects and immediate results
    • 2.1 Workers and “liquidators”
    • 2.2 Evacuation
    • 2.3 Civilians
    • 2.4 Plant and animal health
    • 2.5 Human pregnancy
  • 3 Long-term health effects
    • 3.1 Science and politics: the problem of epidemiological studies
    • 3.2 Caesium radioisotopes
    • 3.3 Thyroid cancer
    • 3.4 30 years after the incident
    • 3.5 Effect on the natural world
    • 3.6 Studies on wildlife in the Exclusion Zone
    • 3.7 Chernobyl Forum report and criticisms
  • 4 Controversy over human health effects
    • 4.1 Chernobyl Forum report
    • 4.2 TORCH report
    • 4.3 Greenpeace
    • 4.4 April 2006 IPPNW report
    • 4.5 New York Academy of Sciences publication
    • 4.6 2008 UNSCEAR report
    • 4.7 Higher than statistically normal appearances of defects
    • 4.8 Other studies and claims
    • 4.9 French legal action
  • 5 International response
  • 6 Comparisons to other radioactivity releases
  • 7 See also
  • 8 References
  • 9 External links

Radiation effects to humans[ edit ]

According to a 2009 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the Chernobyl accident had by 2005 caused 61,200 man- Sv of radiation exposure to recovery workers and evacuees, 125,000 man-Sv to the populace of the Ukraine , Belarus , and Russia , and a dose to most of the more distant European countries amounting to 115,000 man-Sv. The same report estimated a further 25% more exposure would be received from residual radiosotopes after 2005. [1] The total global collective dose from Chernobyl was earlier estimated by UNSCEAR in 1988 to be “600,000 man Sv, equivalent on average to 21 additional days of world exposure to natural background radiation .” [2]

Dose to the general public within 30 km of the plant[ edit ]

The inhalation dose (internal dose) for the public during the time of the accident and their evacuation from the area in what is now the 30 km evacuation zone around the plant has been estimated (based on ground deposition of caesium-137 ) to be between 3 and 150 mSv .

Thyroid doses for adults around the Chernobyl area were estimated to be between 20 and 1000 mSv, while for one-year-old infants, these estimates were higher, at 20 to 6000 mSv. For those who left at an early stage after the accident, the internal dose due to inhalation was 8 to 13 times higher than the external dose due to gamma /beta emitters. For those who remained until later (day 10 or later), the inhalation dose was 50 to 70% higher than the dose due to external exposure. The majority of the dose was due to iodine-131 (about 40%) and tellurium and rubidium isotopes (about 20 to 30% for Rb and Te). [3]

The ingestion doses in this same group of people have also been estimated using the cesium activity per unit of area, isotope ratios, an average day of evacuation, intake rate of milk and green vegetables, and what is known about the transfer of radioactivity via plants and animals to humans. For adults, the dose has been estimated to be between 3 and 180 mSv, while for one-year-old infants, a dose of between 20 and 1300 mSv has been estimated. Again, the majority of the dose was thought to be mostly due to iodine-131, and the external dose was much smaller than the internal dose due to the radioactivity in the diet. [4]

Childhood exposure[ edit ]

Ukraine, Belarus and parts of Russia received substantial amounts of radiation exposure after the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, but prior to the disaster the number of children affected by thyroid cancer was relatively low globally. Every year about, “0.1–2.2 individuals per million of all aged under 15 years old world wide” were affected by thyroid cancer. [5] Research has shown after the Chernobyl disaster the level of thyroid cancer, particularly in children near the radiation exposure, has abnormally increased. [6] Although iodine-131 has a relatively short half-life compared to other radioactive isotopes, iodine-131 made its way through the food chain through a milk-to-consumer pathway. 95% of iodine-131 was ingested through milk shortly after the disaster. [7] Communities were unaware of the contamination deposited in soil and the transforming capabilities of radiation into other food sources. Through the consumption of milk, children received abnormal amounts of radiation exposure. [8]

The high absorption rate discovered in children has also shown to be inversely proportional to age. [9] There is a high rate of thyroid cancer among children less than 15 years old who were exposed to the radiation after the disaster and an increasing level of dosage as age decreases. This inverse proportion could be explained by the way in which children absorb iodine-131. Children have smaller thyroid glands compared to adults and have a different dosage response after the ingestion of iodine-131. [9] A cohort study conducted in 2013 discovered a similar trend between age and dosage response. The cohort was composed of 12,000 participants, all of which were exposed to the radiation in Belarus and reported to be under the age of 18 at the time of the exposure. [10]

Future study[ edit ]

Studying the populations that were exposed to radiation after the Chernobyl accident has provided important data linking exposure to radiation and the future development of cancer.

Cases of pediatric thyroid cancer, likely caused by absorption of Iodine-131 into the thyroid gland, increased in Ukraine and Belarus 3 to 4 years after the accident. Children were most at risk, and cases did not seem to increase in adults. The greatest increase was seen in children who were the youngest at the time of exposure, and most of the pediatric thyroid cases were reported in Gomel, Belarus, where the population was exposed to the highest levels of contamination. The majority of the cases that appeared in the exposed population were papillary thyroid cancer. [11]

Before the accident, the rate of thyroid cancer in children in Belarus was less than 1 per million. By 1995, nine years after the disaster, the number of cases of pediatric thyroid cancer in Gomel Oblast rose to 100 per million per year. Even as adults those who were exposed to the radiation as children may still be at risk of developing thyroid cancer decades after the exposure. It is important to study the at risk population throughout their lives, and observe if different patterns arise in tumors that develop with longer latency. [12]

A group of experts who are part of the Agenda for Research on Chernobyl Health (ARCH) have proposed a series of potential studies that would examine the continued effects from the Chernobyl accident, and provide more information on the full extent of related health consequences. Results from lifelong observation of the exposed population could provide more information on risks as well as future protections against radiation exposure. [11]

Short-term health effects and immediate results[ edit ]

The explosion at the power station and subsequent fires inside the remains of the reactor resulted in the development and dispersal of a radioactive cloud which drifted not only over Russia , Belarus , and Ukraine , but also over most of Europe [13] and as far as Canada . [14] [15] [16] In fact, the initial evidence in other countries that a major release of radioactive material had occurred came not from Soviet sources, but from Sweden, where on 28 April [17] workers at the Forsmark Nuclear Power Plant (approximately 1100 km from the Chernobyl site) were found to have radioactive particles on their clothing.

It was Sweden’s search for the source of radioactivity (after they had determined there was no leak at the Swedish plant) that led to the first hint of a serious nuclear problem in the Western Soviet Union. In France , the government then claimed that the radioactive cloud had stopped at the Italian border. Therefore, while some kinds of food ( mushrooms in particular) were prohibited in Italy because of radioactivity, the French authorities took no such measures, in an attempt to appease the population’s fears ( see below ).

Contamination from the Chernobyl disaster was not evenly spread across the surrounding countryside but scattered irregularly depending on weather conditions. Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union . A large area in Russia south of Bryansk was also contaminated, as were parts of northwestern Ukraine .

203 people were hospitalized immediately, of whom 31 died (28 of them died from acute radiation exposure). Most of these were fire and rescue workers trying to bring the disaster under control, who were not fully aware of how dangerous the radiation exposure (from the smoke) was (for a discussion of the more important isotopes in fallout see fission products ). 135,000 people were evacuated from the area, including 50,000 from the nearby town of Pripyat, Ukraine . Health officials have predicted that over the next 70 years there will be a 28% increase in cancer rates in much of the population which was exposed to the 5–12 E Bq (depending on source) of radioactive contamination released from the reactor.

Soviet scientists reported that the Chernobyl Unit 4 reactor contained about 180–190 metric tons of uranium dioxide fuel and fission products. Estimates of the amount of this material that escaped range from 5 to 30%. Because of the intense heat of the fire, and with no containment building to stop it, part of the ejected fuel was vaporized or particularized and lofted high into the atmosphere, where it spread.

Workers and “liquidators”[ edit ]

Soviet medal awarded to 600,000+ liquidators.

The workers involved in the recovery and clean up after the disaster, called ” liquidators “, received high doses of radiation. In most cases, these workers were not equipped with individual dosimeters to measure the amount of radiation received, so experts could only estimate their doses. Even where dosimeters were used, dosimetric procedures varied – some workers are thought to have been given more accurate estimated doses than others.[ citation needed ] According to Soviet estimates, between 300,000 and 600,000 people were involved in the cleanup of the 30 km evacuation zone around the reactor, but many of them entered the zone two years after the disaster. [18]

Estimates of the number of “liquidators” vary; the World Health Organization , for example, puts the figure at about 600,000; Russia lists as liquidators some people who did not work in contaminated areas.[ citation needed ] In the first year after the disaster, the number of cleanup workers in the zone was estimated to be 2,000. These workers received an estimated average dose of 165 millisieverts (16.5 REM ).

A sevenfold increase in DNA mutations has been identified in children of liquidators conceived after the accident, when compared to their siblings that were conceived before. However, this effect has diminished sharply over time. [19]

Evacuation[ edit ]

Map showing caesium-137 contamination in the Chernobyl area in 1996

Soviet authorities started evacuating people from the area around Chernobyl only on the second day after the disaster (after about 36 hours). By May 1986, about a month later, all those living within a 30 km (19 mi) radius of the plant (about 116,000 people) had been relocated. This area is often referred to as the zone of alienation . However, significant radiation affected the environment over a much wider scale than this 30 km radius encloses.

According to reports from Soviet scientists, 28,000 square kilometers (km 2, or 10,800 square miles, mi2) were contaminated by caesium-137 to levels greater than 185 kBq per square meter. Roughly 830,000 people lived in this area. About 10,500 km 2 (4,000 mi2) were contaminated by caesium-137 to levels greater than 555 kBq/m2. Of this total, roughly 7,000 km2 (2,700 mi2) lie in Belarus, 2,000 km2 (800 mi2) in the Russian Federation and 1,500 km2 (580 mi2) in Ukraine. About 250,000 people lived in this area. These reported data were corroborated by the International Chernobyl Project. [20]

Civilians[ edit ]

Some children in the contaminated areas were exposed to high radiation doses of up to 50 gray (Gy)[ citation needed ], mostly due to an intake of radioactive iodine-131 (a relatively short-lived isotope with a half-life of 8 days) from contaminated milk produced locally. Several studies[ which? ] [21] have found that the incidence of thyroid cancer among children in Belarus , Ukraine , and Russia has risen sharply since the Chernobyl disaster. The International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) notes “1800 documented cases of thyroid cancer in children who were between 0 and 14 years of age when the disaster occurred, which is far higher than normal”, [22] although this source fails to note the expected rate. The childhood thyroid cancers that have appeared are of a large and aggressive type but, if detected early, can be treated. Treatment entails surgery followed by iodine-131 therapy for any metastases . To date, such treatment appears to have been successful in the vast majority of cases.[ citation needed ]

Late in 1995, the World Health Organization (WHO) linked nearly 700 cases of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents to the Chernobyl disaster , and among these, some 10 deaths are attributed to radiation . However, the rapid increase in thyroid cancers detected suggests some of this increase may be an artifact of the screening process.[ citation needed ] Typical latency time of radiation-induced thyroid cancer is about 10 years, but the increase in childhood thyroid cancers in some regions was observed as early as 1987.

Plant and animal health[ edit ]

An exhibit of a piglet with dipygus at the Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum . It is possible that birth defects are higher in this area. [23]

A large swath of pine forest killed by acute radiation was named the Red Forest . The dead pines were bulldozed and buried. Livestock were removed during the human evacuations. [24] Elsewhere in Europe, levels of radioactivity were examined in various natural foodstocks. In both Sweden and Finland, fish in deep freshwater lakes were banned for resale and landowners were advised not to consume certain types. [25] Information regarding physical deformities in the plant and animal populations in the areas affected by radioactive fallout require sampling and capture, along with DNA testing, of individuals to determine if abnormalities are the result of natural mutation, radiation poisoning, or exposure to other contaminants in the environment (i.e. pesticides, industrial waste, or agricultural run-off).

Animals living in contaminated areas in and around Chernobyl have suffered from a variety of side effects caused by radiation. Oxidative stress and low levels of antioxidants have had severe consequences on the development of the nervous system, including reduced brain size and impaired cognitive abilities. It has been found that birds living in areas with high levels of radiation have statistically significantly smaller brains, which has shown to be a deficit to viability in the wild. [26] Barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) that live in or around Chernobyl have displayed an increased rate of physical abnormalities compared to swallows from uncontaminated areas. Abnormalities included partially albinistic plumage, deformed toes, tumors, deformed tail feathers, deformed beaks, and deformed air sacks. Birds with these abnormalities have a reduced viability in the wild and a decrease in fitness. Moeller et al. claimed in 2007 that these effects were likely due to radiation exposure and elevated teratogenic effects of radioactive isotopes in the environment [27] although these conclusions have been challenged. [28] Various birds in the area appear to have adapted to lower levels of radiation by producing more antioxidants, such as glutathione, to help mitigate the oxidative stress. [29]

Invertebrate populations (including bumblebees, butterflies, grasshoppers, dragonflies, and spiders) significantly decreased. As of 2009, most radioactivity around Chernobyl was located in the top layer of soil, where many invertebrates live or lay their eggs. The reduced abundance of invertebrates could have negative implications for the entire ecosystem surrounding Chernobyl. [30]

Radionuclides migrate through either soil diffusion or transportation within the soil solution. The effects of ionizing radiation on plants and trees in particular depends on numerous factors, including climatic conditions, the mechanism of radiation deposition, and the soil type. In turn, radiated vegetation affects organisms further up the food chain. In general, the upper-level trophic organisms received less contamination, due to their ability to be more mobile and feed from multiple areas. [31]

The amount of radioactive nuclides found to have been deposited into surrounding lakes has increased the normal baseline radioactive amounts by 100 percent. Most of the radionuclides in surrounding water areas were found in the sediments at the bottom of the lakes. There has been a high incidence of chromosomal changes in plant and animal aquatic organisms, and this generally has correlated with the contamination and resulting genetic instability. Most of the lakes and rivers surrounding the Chernobyl exclusion zone are still highly contaminated with radionuclides (and will be for many years to come) as the natural decontamination processes of nucleotides with longer half-lives can take many years. [32]

One of the main mechanisms by which radionuclides were passed to humans was through the ingestion of milk from contaminated cows. Most of the rough grazing that the cows took part in contained plant species such as coarse grasses, sedges, rushes, and plants such as heather (also known as calluna vulgaris). These plant species grow in soils that are high in organic matter, low in pH, and are often very well hydrated, thus making the storage and intake of these radionuclides much more feasible and efficient. [33] In the early stages following the Chernobyl accident, high levels of radionuclides were found in the milk and were a direct result of contaminated feeding. Within two months of banning most of the milk that was being produced in the affected areas, officials had phased out the majority of the contaminated feed that was available to the cows and much of the contamination was isolated. In humans, ingestion of milk containing abnormally high levels of iodine radionuclides was the precursor for thyroid disease, especially in children and in the immunocompromised. [33]

Some plants and animals were able to adapt to the increased radiation levels present in and around Chernobyl. Arabidopsis, a plant native to Chernobyl, was able to resist high concentrations of ionizing radiation and resist forming mutations. This species of plant has been able to develop mechanisms to tolerate chronic radiation that would otherwise be harmful or lethal to other species. [34]

Studies suggest the 19-mile (30 km) “exclusion zone” surrounding the Chernobyl disaster has become a wildlife sanctuary. [35] [36] Animals have reclaimed the land including species such as the Przewalski’s horse , Eurasian lynx , wild boar , grey wolf , elk, red deer , moose, brown bear , turtle, [37] voles, mice, shrews, [35] European badger , Eurasian beaver , raccoon dog , red fox, roe deer, European bison , black stork , golden eagle , white-tailed eagle [36] and eagle owl whose populations are all thriving. When the disaster first occurred, the health and reproductive ability of many animals and plants were negatively affected for the first six months. [38] However, 30 years later, animals and plants have reclaimed the abandoned zone to make it their habitat. Even the site of the explosion was flourishing with wildlife in 2012 as birds nested in the wrecked nuclear plant, and plants and mushrooms lived in and on the site. [39] A 2015 study found similar numbers of mammals in the zone compared to nearby similar nature reserves [38] and the wildlife population was probably higher than it had been before the accident. [40]

Due to the bioaccumulation of caesium-137 , some mushrooms as well as wild animals which eat them, e.g. wild boars hunted in Germany and deer in Austria, may have levels which are not considered safe for human consumption. [41] Mandatory radioactivity testing of sheep in parts of the UK that graze on lands with contaminated peat was lifted in 2012. [42]

In 2016, 187 local Ukrainians had returned and were living permanently in the zone. [37]

Human pregnancy[ edit ]

Despite spurious studies from Germany and Turkey , the only robust evidence of negative pregnancy outcomes that transpired after the accident was the increase in elective abortions , these “indirect effects”, in Greece, Denmark, Italy etc., have been attributed to “anxieties created” by the media. [43]

In very high doses, it was known at the time that radiation can cause a physiological increase in the rate of pregnancy anomalies, but unlike the dominant linear-no threshold model of radiation and cancer rate increases, it was known, by select researchers who were familiar with both the prior human exposure data and animal testing, that the “Malformation of organs appears to be a deterministic effect with a threshold dose ” below which, no rate increase is observed. [44] This teratology (birth defects) issue was discussed by Frank Castronovo of the Harvard Medical School in 1999, publishing a detailed review of dose reconstructions and the available pregnancy data following the Chernobyl accident, inclusive of data from Kiev ‘s two largest obstetrics hospitals. [44] Castronovo concludes that “the lay press with newspaper reporters playing up anecdotal stories of children with birth defects” is, together with dubious studies that show ” selection bias “, the two primary factors causing the persistent belief that Chernobyl increased the background rate of birth defects. When the vast amount of pregnancy data simply does not support this perception as no pregnant individuals took part in the most radioactive liquidator operations, no pregnant individuals were exposed to the threshold dose. [44]

  • Down syndrome (trisomy 21). In West Berlin , Germany , prevalence of Down syndrome (trisomy 21) peaked 9 months following the main fallout.[ 11, 12] Between 1980 and 1986, the birth prevalence of Down syndrome was quite stable (i.e., 1.35–1.59 per 1,000 live births [27–31 cases]). In 1987, 46 cases were diagnosed (prevalence = 2.11 per 1,000 live births). Most of the excess resulted from a cluster of 12 cases among children born in January 1987. The prevalence of Down Syndrome in 1988 was 1.77, and in 1989, it reached pre-Chernobyl values. The authors noted that the isolated geographical position of West Berlin prior to reunification, the free genetic counseling , and complete coverage of the population through one central cytogenetic laboratory support completeness of case ascertainment; in addition, constant culture preparation and analysis protocols ensure a high quality of data. [45]

Long-term health effects[ edit ]

Science and politics: the problem of epidemiological studies[ edit ]

An abandoned village near Pripyat , close to Chernobyl.

The issue of long-term effects of the Chernobyl disaster on civilians is very controversial. The number of people whose lives were affected by the disaster is enormous. Over 300,000 people were resettled because of the disaster; millions lived and continue to live in the contaminated area.[ citation needed ] On the other hand, most of those affected received relatively low doses of radiation; there is little evidence of increased mortality, cancers or birth defects among them; and when such evidence is present, existence of a causal link to radioactive contamination is uncertain. [46]

An increased incidence of thyroid cancer among children in areas of Belarus, Ukraine and Russia affected by the Chernobyl disaster has been firmly established as a result of screening programs [47] and, in the case of Belarus, an established cancer registry . The findings of most epidemiological studies must be considered interim, say experts, as analysis of the health effects of the disaster is an ongoing process. [48] Multilevel modelling indicates that long-term psychological distress among Belarusians affected by the Chernobyl disaster is better predicted by stress-moderating psychosocial factors present in one’s daily life than by level of residential radiation contamination. [49]

Epidemiological studies have been hampered in the Ukraine , Russian Federation and Belarus by a lack of funds, an infrastructure with little or no experience in chronic disease epidemiology , poor communication facilities and an immediate public health problem with many dimensions. Emphasis has been placed on screening rather than on well-designed epidemiological studies. International efforts to organize epidemiological studies have been slowed by some of the same factors, especially the lack of a suitable scientific infrastructure.

Furthermore, the political nature of nuclear energy may have affected scientific studies. In Belarus, Yury Bandazhevsky , a scientist who questioned the official estimates of Chernobyl’s consequences and the relevancy of the official maximum limit of 1,000 Bq/kg, was imprisoned from 2001 to 2005. Bandazhevsky and some human rights groups allege his imprisonment was a reprisal for his publication of reports critical of the official research being conducted into the Chernobyl incident.

The activities undertaken by Belarus and Ukraine in response to the disaster — remediation of the environment, evacuation and resettlement, development of uncontaminated food sources and food distribution channels, and public health measures — have overburdened the governments of those countries. International agencies and foreign governments have provided extensive logistic and humanitarian assistance. In addition, the work of the European Commission and World Health Organization in strengthening the epidemiological research infrastructure in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus is laying the basis for major advances in these countries’ ability to carry out epidemiological studies of all kinds.

Caesium radioisotopes[ edit ]

Further information: Fission products

Immediately after the disaster, the main health concern involved radioactive iodine, with a half-life of eight days. Today, there is concern about contamination of the soil with strontium-90 and caesium-137 , which have half-lives of about 30 years. The highest levels of caesium-137 are found in the surface layers of the soil where they are absorbed by plants, insects and mushrooms, entering the local food supply. Some scientists fear that radioactivity will affect the local population for the next several generations. Note that caesium is not mobile in most soils because it binds to the clay minerals. [50] [51] [52]

Tests (c. 1997) showed that caesium-137 levels in trees of the area were continuing to rise. It is unknown if this is still the case. There is some evidence that contamination is migrating into underground aquifers and closed bodies of water such as lakes and ponds (2001, Germenchuk). The main source of elimination is predicted to be natural decay of caesium-137 to stable barium -137, since runoff by rain and groundwater has been demonstrated to be negligible.

Thyroid cancer[ edit ]

An increased incidence of thyroid cancer was observed for about 4 years after the accident and slowed in 2005. [53] The large increase in incidence of thyroid cancer happened amongst individuals who were adolescents and young children living during the time of the accident, and residing in the most contaminated areas of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. High levels of radioactive iodine were released in the environment from the Chernobyl reactor after the accident, and accumulated in pastures which were eaten by cows. The milk was later consumed by children who already had an iodine deficient diet, therefore causing more of the radioactive iodine to be accumulated. Radioactive iodine has a short half-life, 8.02 days, if the contaminated milk would have been avoided or stopped, it is likely that most of the rise in radiation-induced thyroid cancer wouldn’t have happened.

Within the highly contaminated areas – Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, there were around 5000 cases of thyroid cancer that have been diagnosed since the accident. These cases were found in individuals who were aged 18 and younger during the time of the accident. [54]

The Chernobyl Tissue Bank (CTB) was created in 1998, 6 years after research was published showing a rise in childhood thyroid cancer. Supported by the Russian Federation and Ukraine, The European Commission, the National Cancer Institute of the US, and the Sasakawa Memorial Health Foundation, the project is the first international co-operation that collects biological samples from patients who were exposed to radioiodine during childhood. The project started collecting a variety of biological samples from patients on October 1, 1998 and since July 2001, has been a source for ethically available tissue samples – specifically extracted nucleic acids and tissue sections, for 21 research projects in Japan, Europe and the USA. The CTB serves as a model for tissue banking for cancer research in the molecular age. [55]

30 years after the incident[ edit ]

Twenty-five years after the incident, restriction orders had remained in place in the production, transportation and consumption of food contaminated by Chernobyl fallout. In the UK, only in 2012 the mandatory radioactivity testing of sheep in contaminated parts of the UK that graze on lands was lifted. They covered 369 farms on 750 km2 and 200,000 sheep. In parts of Sweden and Finland, restrictions are in place on stock animals, including reindeer, in natural and near-natural environments. “In certain regions of Germany, Austria, Italy, Sweden, Finland, Lithuania and Poland, wild game (including boar and deer), wild mushrooms , berries and carnivorous fish from lakes reach levels of several thousand Bq per kg of caesium-137”, while “in Germany, caesium-137 levels in wild boar muscle reached 40,000 Bq/kg. The average level is 6,800 Bq/kg, more than ten times the EU limit of 600 Bq/kg”, according to the TORCH 2006 report. The European Commission has stated that “The restrictions on certain foodstuffs from certain Member States must therefore continue to be maintained for many years to come”. [56]

As of 2009, sheep farmed in some areas of the UK are still subject to inspection which may lead to them being prohibited from entering the human food chain because of contamination arising from the accident:

Some of this radioactivity, predominantly radiocaesium-137 , was deposited on certain upland areas of the UK, where sheep-farming is the primary land-use. Due to the particular chemical and physical properties of the peaty soil types present in these upland areas, the radiocaesium is still able to pass easily from soil to grass and hence accumulate in sheep. A maximum limit of 1,000 becquerels per kilogramme (Bq/kg) of radiocaesium is applied to sheep meat affected by the accident to protect consumers. This limit was introduced in the UK in 1986, based on advice from the European Commission’s Article 31 group of experts. Under power provided under the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (FEPA), Emergency Orders have been used since 1986 to impose restrictions on the movement and sale of sheep exceeding the limit in certain parts of Cumbria , North Wales , Scotland and Northern Ireland … When the Emergency Orders were introduced in 1986, the Restricted Areas were large, covering almost 9,000 farms, and over 4 million sheep. Since 1986, the areas covered by restrictions have dramatically decreased and now cover 369 farms, or part farms, and around 200,000 sheep. This represents a reduction of over 95% since 1986, with only limited areas of Cumbria, South Western Scotland and North Wales, covered by restrictions. [57]

369 farms and 190,000 sheep are still affected, a reduction of 95% since 1986, when 9,700 farms and 4,225,000 sheep were under restriction across the United Kingdom. [58]
Restrictions were finally lifted in 2012. [59]

In Norway, the Sami people were affected by contaminated food (the reindeer had been contaminated by eating lichen , which accumulates some types of radioactivity emitters). [60]

Data from a long-term monitoring program from 1998 to 2015 (The Korma Report II) [61] shows a significant decrease in internal radiation exposure of the inhabitants of small villages in Belarus 80 km north of Gomel . Resettlement may even be possible in parts of the prohibited areas provided that people comply with appropriate dietary rules.

Effect on the natural world[ edit ]

Earth Observing-1 image of the reactor and surrounding area in April 2009.

According to reports from Soviet scientists at the First International Conference on the Biological and Radiological Aspects of the Chernobyl Accident (September 1990), fallout levels in the 10 km zone around the plant were as high as 4.81 G Bq /m2. The so-called ” Red Forest ” of pine trees, [62] [63] previously known as Wormwood Forest and located immediately behind the reactor complex, lay within the 10 km zone and was killed off by heavy radioactive fallout. The forest is so named because in the days following the disaster the trees appeared to have a deep red hue as they died because of extremely heavy radioactive fallout. In the post-disaster cleanup operations, a majority of the 4 km2 forest was bulldozed and buried. The site of the Red Forest remains one of the most contaminated areas in the world. [64]

In recent years there have been many reports suggesting the zone may be a fertile habitat for wildlife. [65] For example, in the 1996 BBC Horizon documentary ‘Inside Chernobyl’s Sarcophagus’, birds are seen flying in and out of large holes in the structure itself. Other casual observations suggest biodiversity around the massive radioactivity release has increased due to the removal of human influence (see the first hand account of the wildlife preserve ). Storks, wolves, beavers, and eagles have been reported in the area. [65]

Barn swallows sampled between 1991 and 2006 both in the Chernobyl exclusion zone had more physical abnormalities than control sparrows sampled elsewhere in Europe. Abnormal barn swallows mated with lower frequency, causing the percentage of abnormal swallows to decrease over time. This demonstrated the selective pressure against the abnormalities was faster than the effects of radiation that created the abnormalities. [66] “This was a big surprise to us,” Dr. Mousseau said. “We had no idea of the impact.” [65]

It is unknown whether fallout contamination will have any long-term adverse effect on the flora and fauna of the region, as plants and animals have significantly different and varying radiologic tolerance compared with humans. Some birds are reported with stunted tail feathers (which interferes with breeding). There are reports of mutations in plants in the area. [67] The Chernobyl area has not received very much biological study, although studies that have been done suggest that apparently healthy populations may be sink instead of source populations; in other words, that the apparently healthy populations are not contributing to the survival of species. [68]

Using robots, researchers have retrieved samples of highly melanized black fungus from the walls of the reactor core itself. It has been shown that certain species of fungus, such as Cryptococcus neoformans and Cladosporium , can actually thrive in a radioactive environment, growing better than non-melanized variants, implying that they use melanin to harness the energy of ionizing radiation from the reactor. [69] [70] [71]

Studies on wildlife in the Exclusion Zone[ edit ]

Main article: Chernobyl Exclusion Zone

The Exclusion Zone around the Chernobyl nuclear power station is reportedly a haven for wildlife . [72] [73] As humans were evacuated from the area 25 years ago, existing animal populations multiplied and rare species not seen for centuries have returned or have been reintroduced, for example Eurasian lynx , wild boar , Eurasian wolf , Eurasian brown bear , European bison , Przewalski’s horse , and Eurasian eagle owls . [72] [73] Birds even nest inside the cracked concrete sarcophagus shielding the shattered remains of Reactor 4. [74] In 2007 the Ukrainian government designated the Exclusion Zone as a wildlife sanctuary , [75] [76] and at 488.7 km2 it is one of the largest wildlife sanctuaries in Europe. [73]

According to a 2005 U.N. report, wildlife has returned despite radiation levels that are presently 10 to 100 times higher than normal background radiation . Although radiation levels were significantly higher soon after the accident, they have fallen because of radioactive decay . [74]

Møller and Tim Mousseau have published the results of the largest census of animal life in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone. [2] It said, contrary to the Chernobyl Forum’s 2005 report, [3] that the biodiversity of insects, birds and mammals is declining. Møller and Mousseau have been criticized strongly by Sergey Gaschak, a Ukrainian biologist who did field work for the pair beginning in 2003. He regards their conclusions to be the result of a biased and unscientific anti-nuclear political agenda, unsupported by the data he collected for them. “I know Chernobyl Zone,” he says. “I worked here many years. I can’t believe their results.” [4]

Some researchers have said that by halting the destruction of habitat , the Chernobyl disaster helped wildlife flourish. Biologist Robert J. Baker of Texas Tech University was one of the first to report that Chernobyl had become a wildlife haven and that many rodents he has studied at Chernobyl since the early 1990s have shown remarkable tolerance for elevated radiation levels. [74] [76]

Møller et al. (2005) suggested that the reproductive success and annual survival rates of barn swallows are much lower in the Exclusion Zone; 28% of barn swallows inhabiting Chernobyl return each year, while at a control area at Kanev , 250 km to the southeast, the return rate is around 40%. [77] [78] A later study by Møller et al. (2007) furthermore claimed an elevated frequency of eleven categories of subtle physical abnormalities in barn swallows, such as bent tail feathers , deformed air sacs , deformed beaks , and isolated albinistic feathers . [79]

Smith et al. (2007) have disputed Møller’s findings and instead proposed that a lack of human influence in the Exclusion Zone locally reduced the swallows’ insect prey and that radiation levels across the vast majority of the exclusion zone are now too low to have an observable negative effect. [80] But the criticisms raised were responded to in Møller et al. (2008). [81] It is possible that barn swallows are particularly vulnerable to elevated levels of ionizing radiation because they are migratory ; they arrive in the exclusion area exhausted and with depleted reserves of radio-protective antioxidants after their journey. [77]

Several research groups have suggested that plants in the area have adapted to cope with the high radiation levels, for example by increasing the activity of DNA cellular repair machinery and by hypermethylation . [34] [82] [83] [84] Given the uncertainties, further research is needed to assess the long-term health effects of elevated ionizing radiation from Chernobyl on flora and fauna. [74]

In 2015, long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance. [85]

Chernobyl Forum report and criticisms[ edit ]

In September 2005, a comprehensive report was published by the Chernobyl Forum , comprising a number of agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations bodies and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. This report titled: “Chernobyl’s legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts”, authored by about 100 recognized experts from many countries, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the disaster around 4,000 (of which 2,200 deaths are expected to be in the ranks of 200,000 liquidators). This predicted death toll includes the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster, nine children who died from thyroid cancer and an estimated 4000 people who could die from cancer as a result of exposure to radiation. This number was subsequently updated to 9000 excess cancer deaths. [86]

An IAEA press officer admitted that the 4000 figure was given prominence in the report “…to counter the much higher estimates which had previously been seen. … “It was a bold action to put out a new figure that was much less than conventional wisdom.” [87]

The report also stated that, apart from a 30 kilometre area around the site and a few restricted lakes and forests, radiation levels had returned to acceptable levels. [88] For full coverage see the IAEA Focus Page. [89]

The methodology of the Chernobyl Forum report, supported by Elisabeth Cardis of the International Agency for Research on Cancer , [90] has been disputed by some advocacy organizations opposed to nuclear energy, such as Greenpeace and the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), as well as some individuals such as Dr. Michel Fernex , retired medical doctor from the WHO and campaigner Dr. Christopher Busby (Green Audit, LLRC). The main criticism has been with regard to the restriction of the Forum’s study to Belarus, Ukraine and Russia. Furthermore, it only studied the case of 200,000 people involved in the cleanup, and the 400,000 most directly affected by the released radioactivity. German Green Party Member of the European Parliament Rebecca Harms , commissioned a report on Chernobyl in 2006 (TORCH, The Other Report on Chernobyl ). The 2006 TORCH report claimed that:

In terms of their surface areas, Belarus (22% of its land area) and Austria (13%) were most affected by higher levels of contamination. Other countries were seriously affected; for example, more than 5% of Ukraine, Finland and Sweden were contaminated to high levels (> 40,000 Bq/m2 caesium-137). More than 80% of Moldova, the European part of Turkey, Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria and the Slovak Republic were contaminated to lower levels (> 4,000 Bq/m2 caesium-137). And 44% of Germany and 34% of the UK were similarly affected. (See map of radioactive distribution of caesium-137 in Europe) [56]

While the IAEA/WHO and UNSCEAR considered areas with exposure greater than 40,000 Bq/m2, the TORCH report also included areas contaminated with more than 4,000 Bq/m2 of Cs-137.

The TORCH 2006 report “estimated that more than half the iodine-131 from Chernobyl [which increases the risk of thyroid cancer] was deposited outside the former Soviet Union. Possible increases in thyroid cancer have been reported in the Czech Republic and the UK, but more research is needed to evaluate thyroid cancer incidences in Western Europe”. It predicted about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths, 7 to 15 Times greater than the figure of 4,000 in the IAEA press release; warned that predictions of excess cancer deaths strongly depend on the risk factor used; and predicted excess cases of thyroid cancer range between 18,000 and 66,000 in Belarus alone depending on the risk projection model. [91] However, elevated incidence thyroid cancer is still seen among Ukrainians who were exposed to radioactivity due to Chernobyl accident during their childhood, but who were diagnosed the malignancy as adults. [92]

Another study claims possible heightened mortality in Sweden. [93]

Greenpeace quoted a 1998 WHO study, which counted 212 dead from only 72,000 liquidators. The environmental NGO estimated a total death toll of 93,000 but cite in their report that “The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and the Ukraine alone the disaster could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004.” In its report, Greenpeace suggested there will be 270,000 cases of cancer alone attributable to Chernobyl fallout, and that 93,000 of these will probably be fatal compare with the IAEA 2005 report which claimed that “99% of thyroid cancers wouldn’t be lethal”. [94]

According to the Union Chernobyl , the main organization of liquidators, 10% of the 600,000 liquidators are now dead, and 165,000 disabled. [95]

According to an April 2006 report by the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled “Health Effects of Chernobyl – 20 years after the reactor catastrophe”, [96] more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. In Europe, the IPPNW claims that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl’s radioactive discharge, with 5,000 deaths among newborn children. They also state that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the disaster are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead. [95]

Revisiting the issue for the 25th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, the Union of Concerned Scientists described the Forum’s estimate of four thousand as pertaining only to “a much smaller subgroup of people who experienced the greatest exposure to released radiation”. Their estimates for the broader population are 50,000 excess cancer cases resulting in 25,000 excess cancer deaths. [97]

Controversy over human health effects[ edit ]

The majority of premature deaths caused by Chernobyl are expected to be the result of cancers and other diseases induced by radiation in the decades after the event. This will be the result of a large population (some studies have considered the entire population of Europe) exposed to relatively low doses of radiation increasing the risk of cancer across that population. Interpretations of the current health state of exposed populations vary. Therefore, estimates of the ultimate human impact of the disaster have relied on numerical models of the effects of radiation on health. Furthermore, the effects of low-level radiation on human health are not well understood, and so the models used, notably the linear no threshold model , are open to question. [98]

Given these factors, studies of Chernobyl’s health effects have come up with different conclusions and are the subject of scientific and political controversy. The following section presents some of the major studies on this topic.

Chernobyl Forum report[ edit ]

In September 2005, a draft summary report by the Chernobyl Forum, comprising a number of UN agencies including the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the World Health Organization (WHO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), other UN bodies and the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, put the total predicted number of deaths due to the accident at 4000. [99] This death toll predicted by the WHO included the 47 workers who died of acute radiation syndrome as a direct result of radiation from the disaster and nine children who died from thyroid cancer, in the estimated 4000 excess cancer deaths expected among the 600,000 with the highest levels of exposure. [100]

The full version of the WHO health effects report adopted by the UN, published in April 2006, included the prediction of 5000 additional fatalities from significantly contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine and predicted that, in total, 9000 will die from cancer among the 6.9 million most-exposed Soviet citizens. [101] [ not in citation given ]This report is not free of controversy, and has been accused of trying to minimize the consequences of the accident. [102]

TORCH report[ edit ]

Main article: TORCH report

In 2006 German Green Party Member of the European Parliament Rebecca Harms commissioned two UK scientists for an alternate report (TORCH, The Other Report on CHernobyl) in response to the UN report. The report included areas not covered by the Chernobyl forum report, and also lower radiation doses. It predicted about 30,000 to 60,000 excess cancer deaths and warned that predictions of excess cancer deaths strongly depend on the risk factor used, and urged more research stating that large uncertainties made it difficult to properly assess the full scale of the disaster. [56]

Greenpeace[ edit ]

Demonstration on Chernobyl day near WHO in Geneva

Greenpeace claimed contradictions in the Chernobyl Forum reports, quoting a 1998 WHO study referenced in the 2005 report, which projected 212 dead from 72,000 liquidators . [103] In its report, Greenpeace suggested there will be 270,000 cases of cancer attributable to Chernobyl fallout, and that 93,000 of these will probably be fatal, but state in their report that “The most recently published figures indicate that in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine alone the accident could have resulted in an estimated 200,000 additional deaths in the period between 1990 and 2004.” Blake Lee-Harwood, campaigns director at Greenpeace, believes that cancer was likely to be the cause of less than half of the final fatalities and that “intestinal problems, heart and circulation problems, respiratory problems, endocrine problems, and particularly effects on the immune system ,” will also cause fatalities. However, concern has been expressed about the methods used in compiling the Greenpeace report. [102] [104] It is not peer reviewed nor does it rely on peer review science as the Chernobyl Forum report did.

April 2006 IPPNW report[ edit ]

According to an April 2006 report by the German affiliate of the International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear Warfare (IPPNW), entitled “Health Effects of Chernobyl”, more than 10,000 people are today affected by thyroid cancer and 50,000 cases are expected. The report projected tens of thousands dead among the liquidators. In Europe, it alleges that 10,000 deformities have been observed in newborns because of Chernobyl’s radioactive discharge, with 5000 deaths among newborn children. They also claimed that several hundreds of thousands of the people who worked on the site after the accident are now sick because of radiation, and tens of thousands are dead. [105]

New York Academy of Sciences publication[ edit ]

Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment is an English translation of the 2007 Russian publication Chernobyl. It was published online in 2009 by the New York Academy of Sciences in their Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. It presents an analysis of scientific literature and concludes that medical records between 1986, the year of the accident, and 2004 reflect 985,000 deaths as a result of the radioactivity released. The authors suggest that most of the deaths were in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine, but others were spread through the many other countries the radiation from Chernobyl struck. [106]

The literature analysis draws on over 1,000 published titles and over 5,000 internet and printed publications discussing the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster. The authors contend that those publications and papers were written by leading Eastern European authorities and have largely been downplayed or ignored by the IAEA and UNSCEAR. [107] Author Alexy V. Yablokov was also one of the general editors on the Greenpeace commissioned report also criticizing the Chernobyl Forum finds published one year prior to the Russian-language version of this report.

A critical review by Dr. Monty Charles in the journal Radiation Protection Dosimetry states that Consequences is a direct extension of the 2005 Greenpeace report, updated with data of unknown quality. [108] The New York Academy of Sciences also published a severely critical review by M. I. Balonov from the Institute of Radiation Hygiene (St. Petersburg, Russia) which stated that “The value of [Consequences] is not zero, but negative, as its bias is obvious only to specialists, while inexperienced readers may well be put into deep error.” [109]

2008 UNSCEAR report[ edit ]

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) produced a detailed report on the effects of Chernobyl for the General Assembly of the UN in 2011. [110] This report concluded that 134 staff and emergency workers suffered acute radiation syndrome and of those 28 died of radiation exposure within three months. Many of the survivors suffered skin conditions and radiation induced cataracts, and 19 had since died, but from conditions not necessarily associated with radiation exposure. Of the several hundred thousand liquidators, apart from some emerging indications of increased leukaemia, there was no other evidence of health effects.

In the general public in the affected areas, the only effect with ‘persuasive evidence’ was a substantial fraction of the 6,000 cases of thyroid cancer in adolescents of whom by 2005 15 cases had proved fatal. There was no evidence of increased rates of solid cancers or leukaemia among the general population. However, there was a widespread psychological worry about the effects of radiation.

The total deaths reliably attributable by UNSCEAR to the radiation produced by the accident therefore was 62.

The report concluded that ‘the vast majority of the population need not live in fear of serious health consequences from the Chernobyl accident’. [111]

Higher than statistically normal appearances of defects[ edit ]

The American Academy of Pediatrics published a study state that the overall rate of neural tube defects in the Rivne region of the Ukraine is one of the highest in Europe (22 per 10,000 live births). The rate in Polissia (Ukraine) is 27.0 per 10,000. The study suggested that rates of microcephaly and microphthalmia may also be higher than normal. [112] [113]

Other studies and claims[ edit ]

  • The claim is made, by Collette Thomas, writing on 24 April 2006, that someone in the Ukrainian Health Ministry claimed in 2006 that more than 2.4 million Ukrainians, including 428,000 children, suffer from health problems related to the catastrophe. [13] The claim appears to have been invented by her through a very creative interpretation of a webpage of the Kyiv Regional Administration. [114] Psychological after-effects, as the 2006 UN report pointed out, have also had adverse effects on internally displaced persons .
  • In a recently published study scientists from Forschungszentrum Jülich, Germany, published the “Korma-Report” with data of radiological long-term measurements that were performed between 1998 and 2007 in a region in Belarus that was affected by the Chernobyl accident . The internal radiation exposure of the inhabitants in a village in Korma County/Belarus caused by the existing radioactive contamination has experienced a significant decrease from a very high level. The external exposure, however, reveals a different picture. Although an overall decrease was observed, the organic constituents of the soil show an increase in contamination. This increase was not observed in soils from cultivated land or gardens. According to the Korma Report the internal dose will decrease to less than 0.2 mSv/a in 2011 and to below 0.1 mSv/a in 2020. Despite this, the cumulative dose will remain significantly higher than “normal” values due to external exposure. Resettlement may even be possible in former prohibited areas provided that people comply with appropriate dietary rules. [115]
  • Study of heightened mortality in Sweden. [93] [116] But it must be pointed out that this study, and in particular the conclusions drawn has been very criticized. [117]
  • One study reports increased levels of birth defects in Germany and Finland in the wake of the accident. [118]
  • A change in the human sex ratio at birth from 1987 onward in several European countries has been linked to Chernobyl fallout. [119] [120]
  • In the Czech Republic, thyroid cancer has increased significantly after Chernobyl. [121]
  • The Abstract of the April 2006 International Agency for Research on Cancer report Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident stated “It is unlikely that the cancer burden from the largest radiological accident to date could be detected by monitoring national cancer statistics. Indeed, results of analyses of time trends in cancer incidence and mortality in Europe do not, at present, indicate any increase in cancer rates – other than of thyroid cancer in the most contaminated regions – that can be clearly attributed to radiation from the Chernobyl accident.” [122] [123] They estimate, based on the linear no threshold model of cancer effects, that 16,000 excess cancer deaths could be expected from the effects of the Chernobyl accident up to 2065. Their estimates have very wide 95% confidence intervals from 6,700 deaths to 38,000. [124]
  • The application of the linear no threshold model to predict deaths from low levels of exposure to radiation was disputed in a BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) Horizon documentary, broadcast on 13 July 2006. [125] It offered statistical evidence to suggest that there is an exposure threshold of about 200 millisieverts , below which there is no increase in radiation-induced disease. Indeed, it went further, reporting research from Professor Ron Chesser of Texas Tech University , which suggests that low exposures to radiation can have a protective effect . The program interviewed scientists who believe that the increase in thyroid cancer in the immediate area of the explosion had been over-recorded, and predicted that the estimates for widespread deaths in the long term would be proved wrong. It noted the view of the World Health Organization scientist Dr Mike Rapacholi that, while most cancers can take decades to manifest, leukemia manifests within a decade or so: none of the previously expected peak of leukemia deaths has been found, and none is now expected. Identifying the need to balance the “fear response” in the public’s reaction to radiation, the program quoted Dr Peter Boyle , director of the IARC : “Tobacco smoking will cause several thousand times more cancers in the [European] population.” [126]
  • An article in Der Spiegel in April 2016 also cast doubt on the use of the linear no threshold model to predict cancer rates from Chernobyl. [98] The article claimed that the threshold for radiation damage was over 100 millisieverts and reported initial results of large-scale trials in Germany by the GSI Helmholtz Centre for Heavy Ion Research and three other German institutes in 2016 showing beneficial results of decreasing inflammation and strengthening bones from lower radiation doses.
  • Professor Wade Allison of Oxford University (a lecturer in medical physics and particle physics ) gave a talk on ionising radiation 24 November 2006 in which he gave an approximate figure of 81 cancer deaths from Chernobyl (excluding 28 cases from acute radiation exposure and the thyroid cancer deaths which he regards as “avoidable”). In a closely reasoned argument using statistics from therapeutic radiation , exposure to elevated natural radiation (the presence of radon gas in homes) and the diseases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki survivors he demonstrated that the linear no-threshold model should not be applied to low-level exposure in humans, as it ignores the well-known natural repair mechanisms of the body. [127] [128]
  • A photographic essay by photojournalist Paul Fusco documents problems in the children in the Chernobyl region. No evidence is offered to suggest these problems are in any way related to the nuclear incident [129] [130]
  • The work of photojournalist Michael Forster Rothbart documents the human impact of the disaster on residents who stayed in the affected area. [131]
  • Bandashevsky measured levels of radioisotopes in children who had died in the Minsk area that had received Chernobyl fallout, and the cardiac findings were the same as those seen in test animals that had been administered Cs-137. [132]

French legal action[ edit ]

Since March 2001, 400 lawsuits have been filed in France against “X” (the French equivalent of John Doe , an unknown person or company) by the French Association of Thyroid-affected People , including 200 in April 2006. These persons are affected by thyroid cancer or goitres , and have filed lawsuits alleging that the French government, at the time led by Prime Minister Jacques Chirac , had not adequately informed the population of the risks linked to the Chernobyl radioactive fallout. The complaint contrasts the health protection measures put in place in nearby countries (warning against consumption of green vegetables or milk by children and pregnant women) with the relatively high contamination suffered by the east of France and Corsica. Although the 2006 study by the French Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety said that no clear link could be found between Chernobyl and the increase of thyroid cancers in France, it also stated that papillary thyroid cancer had tripled in the following years. [133]

International response[ edit ]

After the Chernobyl Disaster, many countries were reluctant to expand their own nuclear programs. Some countries, such as Italy and Switzerland tried to ban nuclear power all together. Others, such as the Dutch and Finland postponed the addition of nuclear power plants. The disaster reaffirmed policy made by Austria and Sweden to terminate use of all nuclear energy. Germany set up regulatory organizations and new policy including the Federal Ministry of Environment and Reactor Safety and a new act for precaution protection against nuclear radiation. [134]

Policy levers were not only implemented on a national level, but on an international level as well. In June 1986, the European Community implemented new standards for cesium. They attempted to do the same for iodine, but could not reach an agreement. [134] Additionally several international programs were formed, including the World Association of Nuclear Operators. This association essentially linked 130 operators in 30 different countries. Nuclear engineers would visit nuclear plants worldwide to learn and work towards better safety precautions.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was also created. Funded by the Nuclear Safety Assistance Coordination Centre, the IAEA is an example of the international, multilateral cooperation resulting from the disaster (World Nuclear, 2016). They created the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident and Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency. Nations called for a more comprehensive set of obligatory regulations for nuclear power plants from safe management of installation to safe management of radioactive waste. They also created the Joint Convention of Safety of Spent Fuel Management in which obliged nations to create proper policy to control nuclear power plant management. [135]

Comparisons to other radioactivity releases[ edit ]

Main article: Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases

See also[ edit ]

  • Bellesrad
  • Chernobyl Children’s Project (UK)
  • Chernobyl disaster
  • Comparison of Chernobyl and other radioactivity releases
  • Chernobyl Heart
  • Chernobyl in the popular consciousness
  • Chernobyl necklace
  • Chernobyl Shelter Fund
  • Chernobyl Children’s Project International
  • Deaths due to the Chernobyl disaster
  • Environmental racism in Europe
  • Acute radiation syndrome
  • Ionizing radiation
  • Fission products , a more complete description of the radioactive byproducts of nuclear reactors
  • Liquidator (Chernobyl)
  • List of Chernobyl-related articles
  • Nuclear and radiation accidents
  • Nuclear power debate
  • Radiophobia
  • Red Forest
  • Three Mile Island accident
  • Three Mile Island accident health effects
  • Yury Bandazhevsky , a Belarusian scientist imprisoned from 2001 to 2005 after his publication of a report critical of the official investigation on the consequences of the Chernobyl disaster

References[ edit ]

  1. ^ “UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly, Annex D” (PDF). United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 2008.

  2. ^ “Assessing the Chernobyl Consequences” . International Atomic Energy Agency. Archived from the original on 30 August 2013.
  3. ^ Mück, Konrad; Pröhl, Gerhard; Likhtarev, Ilya; Kovgan, Lina; Golikov, Vladislav; Zeger, Johann (2002). “Reconstruction of the Inhalation Dose in the 30-Km Zone After the Chernobyl Accident”. Health Physics. 82 (2): 157–72. doi : 10.1097/00004032-200202000-00003 . PMID   11797891 .
  4. ^ Pröhl, Gerhard; Mück, Konrad; Likhtarev, Ilya; Kovgan, Lina; Golikov, Vladislav (2002). “Reconstruction of the Ingestion Doses Received by the Population Evacuated from the Settlements in the 30-Km Zone Around the Chernobyl Reactor”. Health Physics. 82 (2): 173–81. doi : 10.1097/00004032-200202000-00004 . PMID   11797892 .
  5. ^ Demidchik, Y. E., Saenko, V. A., & Yamashita, S. (2007). Childhood thyroid cancer in Belarus,

    Russia, and Ukraine after Chernobyl and at present. Arquivos Brasileiros de Endocrinologia & Metabologia, 51(5), 748-762

  6. ^ Bennett, B., Repacholi, M., & Carr, Z. (2006). Health effects of the Chernobyl accident and

    special health care programs. In Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health”. Geneva: World Health Organization.

  7. ^ Ostroumova, E., Rozhko, A., Hatch, M., Furukawa, K., Polyanskaya, O., McConnell, R. J., … &

    Drozdovitch, V. (2013). Measures of thyroid function among Belarusian children and adolescents exposed to iodine-131 from the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Environmental health

    perspectives, 121(7), 865.

  8. ^ Zablotska, L. B., Nadyrov, E. A., Polyanskaya, O. N., McConnell, R. J., O’Kane, P., Lubin, J., …

    & Yauseyenka, V. V. (2015). Risk of thyroid follicular adenoma among children and adolescents in Belarus exposed to iodine-131 after the Chornobyl accident. American journal of epidemiology, 182(9), 781-790.

  9. ^ a b National Research Council Staff, Institute of Medicine Staff, National Research Council (U.S.).

    Committee on Exposure of the American People to I-131 from the Nevada Atomic Bomb

    Tests, & Institute of Medicine (U.S.). Committee on Thyroid Screening Related to I-131

    Exposure. (1999). Exposure of the ammerican people to iodine-131 from nevada nuclear-

  10. ^ Drozdovitch, V., Minenko, V., Khrouch, V., Leshcheva, S., Gavrilin, Y., Khrutchinsky, A., . . .

    Bouville, (2013). Thyroid dose estimates for a cohort of belarusian children exposed to radiation from the chernobyl accident. Radiation Research, 179(5), 597-609.

  11. ^ a b Cardis, E. and Hatch, M., The Chernobyl accident – an epidemiological perspective, Clinical Oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)), 2011 May; 23(4): 251–260. doi: 10.1016/j.clon.2011.01.510.
  12. ^ Williams, D., Twenty years’ experience with post-Chernobyl thyroid cancer, Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2008 Dec; 22(6): 1061-1073. doi: 10.1016/j.beem.2008.09.020.
  13. ^ a b “Tchernobyl, 20 ans après” (in French). RFI . 24 April 2006. Retrieved 24 April 2006.
  14. ^ Chernobyl: country by country A – H . Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  15. ^ “TORCH report executive summary” (PDF). European Greens and UK scientists Ian Fairlie PhD and David Sumner. April 2006. Retrieved 21 April 2006. (page 3)
  16. ^ (in French)
    Map of radioactive cloud with flash animation, French IRSN (Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire — Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety) “Accident de Tchernobyl : déplacement du nuage radioactif au dessus de l’Europe entre le 26 avril et le 10 mai 1986” . IRSN. Retrieved 8 October 2015.
  17. ^ Jensen, Mikael; Lindhé, John-Christer (Autumn 1986). “International Reports – Sweden: Monitoring the Fallout” (PDF). IAEA Bulletin. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
  18. ^ Chapter IV: Dose estimates , Nuclear Energy Agency , 2002
  19. ^ Weinberg, H. S.; Korol, A. B.; Kirzhner, V. M.; Avivi, A.; Fahima, T.; Nevo, E.; Shapiro, S.; Rennert, G.; Piatak, O.; Stepanova, E. I.; Skvarskaja, E. (2001). “Very high mutation rate in offspring of Chernobyl accident liquidators” . Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 268 (1471): 1001–5. doi : 10.1098/rspb.2001.1650 . PMC   1088700 . PMID   11375082 .
  20. ^ International Chernobyl Project . Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  21. ^ “Study of Thyroid Cancer and Other Thyroid Diseases Following the Chernobyl Accident (Ukraine)” . Retrieved 9 May 2017.
  22. ^ Frequently Asked Chernobyl Questions Archived 23 February 2011 at the Wayback Machine .. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  23. ^ Dancause, Kelsey Needham; Yevtushok, Lyubov; Lapchenko, Serhiy; Shumlyansky, Ihor; Shevchenko, Genadiy; Wertelecki, Wladimir; Garruto, Ralph M. (2010). “Chronic radiation exposure in the Rivne-Polissia region of Ukraine: Implications for birth defects”. American Journal of Human Biology. 22 (5): 667–74. doi : 10.1002/ajhb.21063 . PMID   20737614 .
  24. ^ Mycio, Mary (2005). Wormwood forest: A natural history of Chernobyl. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. p. 259. ISBN   0-309-09430-5 .
  25. ^ “Chernobyl – its impact on Sweden” (PDF). SSI-rapport 86-12. Staten Stralskydddinstitut. 1 August 1986. ISSN   0282-4434 . Retrieved 3 June 2014.
  26. ^ Møller, Anders Pape; Bonisoli-Alquati, Andea; Rudolfsen, Geir; Mousseau, Timothy A. (2011). Brembs, Björn, ed. “Chernobyl Birds Have Smaller Brains” . PLoS ONE. 6 (2): e16862. doi : 10.1371/journal.pone.0016862 . PMC   3033907 . PMID   21390202 .
  27. ^ Moeller, A.P; Mousseau, F.; De Lope, T.A.; Saino, N. (2007). “Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swallows from Chernobyl” . Biology Letters. 3 (4): 414–7. doi : 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0136 . PMC   1994720 . PMID   17439847 .
  28. ^ Smith, J.T. (23 February 2008). “Is Chernobyl radiation really causing negative individual and population-level effects on barn swallows?” . Biology Letters. The Royal Society Publishing. 4 (1): 63–64. doi : 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0430 . PMC   2412919 . PMID   18042513 .
  29. ^ Galván, Ismael; Bonisoli-Alquati, Andrea; Jenkinson, Shanna; Ghanem, Ghanem; Wakamatsu, Kazumasa; Mousseau, Timothy A.; Møller, Anders P. (2014-12-01). “Chronic exposure to low-dose radiation at Chernobyl favours adaptation to oxidative stress in birds” . Functional Ecology. 28 (6): 1387–1403. doi : 10.1111/1365-2435.12283 . ISSN   1365-2435 .
  30. ^ Moeller, A. P.; Mousseau, T. A. (2009). “Reduced abundance of insects and spiders linked to radiation at Chernobyl 20 years after the accident” . Biology Letters. 5 (3): 356–9. doi : 10.1098/rsbl.2008.0778 . PMC   2679916 . PMID   19324644 .
  31. ^ Poiarkov, V.A.; Nazarov, A.N.; Kaletnik, N.N. (1995). “Post-Chernobyl radiomonitoring of Ukrainian forest ecosystems”. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 26 (3): 259–271. doi : 10.1016/0265-931X(94)00039-Y .
  32. ^ Gudkov, DI; Kuz’Menko, MI; Kireev, SI; Nazarov, AB; Shevtsova, NL; Dziubenko, EV; Kaglian, AE (2009). “Radioecological problems of aquatic ecosystems of the Chernobyl exclusion zone”. Radiatsionnaia biologiia, radioecologiia. 49 (2): 192–202. PMID   19507688 .
  33. ^ a b Voors, P.I.; Van Weers, A.W. (1991). “Transfer of Chernobyl radiocaesium (134Cs and 137Cs) from grass silage to milk in dairy cows”. Journal of Environmental Radioactivity. 13 (2): 125–40. doi : 10.1016/0265-931X(91)90055-K .
  34. ^ a b Kovalchuk, I.; Abramov, V; Pogribny, I; Kovalchuk, O (2004). “Molecular Aspects of Plant Adaptation to Life in the Chernobyl Zone” . Plant Physiology. 135 (1): 357–63. doi : 10.1104/pp.104.040477 . PMC   429389 . PMID   15133154 .
  35. ^ a b Barras, Colin (22 April 2016). “The Chrenobyl exclusion zone is arguably a nature reserve” . BBC Earth. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  36. ^ a b Wood, Mike; Beresford, Nick (2016). “The wildlife of Chernobyl: 30 years without man” . The Biologist. London,UK: Royal Society of Biology. 63 (2): 16–19. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  37. ^ a b Oliphant, Roland (24 April 2016). “30 years after Chernobyl disaster, wildlife is flourishing in radioactive wasteland” . The Telegraph. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  38. ^ a b Deryabina, T. G.; et al. (5 October 2015). “Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl” . Current Biology. 25 (19): R824–R826. doi : 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.017 . PMID   26439334 . Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  39. ^ Ravillious, Kate. “Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife is Thriving” . National Geographic. Retrieved 16 April 2012.
  40. ^ “What happened to wildlife when Chernobyl drove humans out? It thrived” . The Guardian. 5 October 2015. Retrieved 28 April 2016.
  41. ^ Juergen Baetz (1 April 2011). “Radioactive boars and mushrooms in Europe remain a grim reminder 25 years after Chernobyl” . The Associated Press . Retrieved 7 June 2012.[ permanent dead link ]
  42. ^ “Post-Chernobyl disaster sheep controls lifted on last UK farms” . BBC . 1 June 2012. Retrieved 7 June 2012.
  43. ^ Little, J. (1993). “The Chernobyl accident, congenital anomalies and other reproductive outcomes”. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology. 7 (2): 121–51. doi : 10.1111/j.1365-3016.1993.tb00388.x . PMID   8516187 .
  44. ^ a b c Teratogen Update: Radiation and Chernobyl, Frank P. Castronovo Jr.TERATOLOGY 60:100–106 (1999)
  45. ^ Sperling, Karl; Neitzel, Heidemarie; Scherb, Hagen (2012). “Evidence for an increase in trisomy 21 (Down syndrome) in Europe after the Chernobyl reactor accident”. Genetic Epidemiology. 36 (1): 48–55. doi : 10.1002/gepi.20662 . PMID   22162022 .
  46. ^ UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation). “Annex D: Health effects due to radiation from the Chernobyl accident” (PDF). UNSCEAR 2008 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. UNSCEAR. Retrieved 5 April 2011.
  47. ^ Brown, Valerie J. (2011). “Thyroid Cancer after Chornobyl: Increased Risk Persists Two Decades after Radioiodine Exposure” . Environmental Health Perspectives. 119 (7): a306. doi : 10.1289/ehp.119-a306a . PMC   3222980 . PMID   21719382 .
  48. ^ Bogdanova, Tetyana I.; Zurnadzhy, Ludmyla Y.; Greenebaum, Ellen; McConnell, Robert J.; Robbins, Jacob; Epstein, Ovsiy V.; Olijnyk, Valery A.; Hatch, Maureen; Zablotska, Lydia B.; Tronko, Mykola D. (2006). “A cohort study of thyroid cancer and other thyroid diseases after the Chornobyl accident” . Cancer. 107 (11): 2559–66. doi : 10.1002/cncr.22321 . PMC   2983485 . PMID   17083123 .
  49. ^ Bromet, Havenaar, Guey. “A 25 year retrospective review of the psychological consequences of the chernobyl accident” (PDF). Departments of Psychiatry and Preventive Medicine, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, New York, USA.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list ( link )
  50. ^ Microsoft Word – !!MASTERDOC cesium dr3 mar2 ac.doc . (PDF) . Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  51. ^,%202002.pdf
  52. ^ Information Bridge: DOE Scientific and Technical Information – Sponsored by OSTI . Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  53. ^ Grimm, E., & University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, degree granting institution. (2015). Thyroid nodules as related to absorbed dose from iodine-131 in a Ukrainian cohort following the Chernobyl accident.
  54. ^ “Chernobyl” .
  55. ^ Thomas, Bethel, Galpine, Mathieson, Krznaric, & Unger. (2011). Integrating Research on Thyroid Cancer after Chernobyl — The Chernobyl Tissue Bank. Clinical Oncology, 23(4), 276-281.
  56. ^ a b c “TORCH report executive summary” (PDF). European Greens and UK scientists Ian Fairlie PhD and David Sumner. April 2006. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 June 2006. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
  57. ^ “Post-Chernobyl Monitoring and Controls Survey Report” (PDF). UK Food Standards Agency . Retrieved 2006-04-19.
  58. ^ MacAlister, Terry (12 May 2009). “Britain’s farmers still restricted by Chernobyl nuclear fallout” . The Guardian. London. Retrieved 28 April 2010.
  59. ^ “Post-Chernobyl disaster sheep controls lifted on last UK farms” . BBC news Cumbria. 1 June 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
  60. ^ Strand, P; Selnaes, TD; Bøe, E; Harbitz, O; Andersson-Sørlie, A (1992). “Chernobyl fallout: Internal doses to the Norwegian population and the effect of dietary advice”. Health physics. 63 (4): 385–92. doi : 10.1097/00004032-199210000-00001 . PMID   1526778 .
  61. ^ Zoriy, Pedro; Dederichs, Herbert; Pillath, Jürgen; Heuel-Fabianek, Burkhard; Hill, Peter; Lennartz, Reinhard (2016). “Long-term monitoring of radiation exposure of the population in radioactively contaminated areas of Belarus – Korma Study – The Korma Report II (1998-2015)” . Schriften des Forschungszentrums Jülich: Reihe Energie & Umwelt / Energy & Environment. Forschungszentrum Jülich, Zentralbibliothek, Verlag. Retrieved 21 December 2016.
  62. ^ Energy Citations Database (ECD) – – Document #5012309 . Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  63. ^ [1] Archived 27 September 2006 at the Wayback Machine .
  64. ^ “Chernobyl – Part One” . BBC News . 4 April 2006. Retrieved 9 May 2017.
  65. ^ a b c “Did Chernobyl Leave an Eden for Wildlife?” , by Henry Fountain, The New York Times , 28 August 2007
  66. ^ “Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swallows from Chernobyl” [ permanent dead link ], in Biology Letters, Volume 3, Number 4 / 22 August 2007
  67. ^ “Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation” . BBC News. 20 April 2006.
  68. ^ Moller, A; Mousseau, T (2006). “Biological consequences of Chernobyl: 20 years on”. Trends in Ecology & Evolution. 21 (4): 200–7. doi : 10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.008 . PMID   16701086 .
  69. ^ Chernobyl Fungus Feeds On Radiation . (23 May 2007). Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  70. ^ Ionizing Radiation Changes the Electronic Properties of Melanin and Enhances the Growth of Melanized Fungi . PLoS ONE. Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  71. ^ Vember, VV; Zhdanova, NN (2001). “Peculiarities of linear growth of the melanin-containing fungi Cladosporium sphaerospermum Penz. And Alternaria alternata (Fr.) Keissler”. Mikrobiolohichnyi zhurnal (Kiev, Ukraine : 1993). 63 (3): 3–12. PMID   11785260 .
  72. ^ a b BBC , 20 April 2006, Wildlife defies Chernobyl radiation
  73. ^ a b c Mycio, Mary (9 September 2005). Wormwood Forest: A Natural History of Chernobyl . Joseph Henry Press. ISBN   0-309-09430-5 . Retrieved 25 September 2009.
  74. ^ a b c d The Washington Post , 7 June 2007, Chernobyl Area Becomes Wildlife Haven
  75. ^ Mother Nature Network, 7 May 2009, Scientists disagree over radiation effects
  76. ^ a b Baker, Robert J.; Chesser, Roland K. “The Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster And Subsequent Creation of a Wildlife Preserve” . Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol.19, No.5, pp.1231-1232, 2000. Archived from the original on 5 October 2003. Retrieved 14 August 2010.
  77. ^ a b Ravilious, Kate (29 June 2009). “Despite Mutations, Chernobyl Wildlife Is Thriving” . National Geographic Magazine. ISSN   0027-9358 . Retrieved 23 September 2009.
  78. ^ Moller, A. P.; Mousseau, T. A.; Milinevsky, G.; Peklo, A.; Pysanets, E.; Szep, T. (2005). “Condition, reproduction and survival of barn swallows from Chernobyl”. Journal of Animal Ecology. 74 (6): 1102–1111. doi : 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2005.01009.x .
  79. ^ Saino, N.; Mousseau, F.; De Lope, T.A.; Saino, A.P. (2007). “Elevated frequency of abnormalities in barn swallows from Chernobyl” . Biology Letters. 3 (4): 414–7. doi : 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0136 . PMC   1994720 . PMID   17439847 .
  80. ^ Smith, J.T. (23 February 2008). “Is Chernobyl radiation really causing negative individual and population-level effects on barn swallows?” . Biology Letters. 4 (1): 63–64. doi : 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0430 . PMC   2412919 . PMID   18042513 . Retrieved 23 September 2009.
  81. ^ Moller, A.P; Mousseau, T.A; De Lope, F; Saino, N (2008). “Anecdotes and empirical research in Chernobyl” . Biology Letters. 4: 65–66. doi : 10.1098/rsbl.2007.0528 . PMC   2412943 .
  82. ^ Danchenko, Maksym; Skultety, Ludovit; Rashydov, Namik M.; Berezhna, Valentyna V.; Mátel, L’Ubomír; Salaj, Terézia; Pret’Ová, Anna; Hajduch, Martin (2009). “Proteomic Analysis of Mature Soybean Seeds from the Chernobyl Area Suggests Plant Adaptation to the Contaminated Environment”. Journal of Proteome Research. 8 (6): 2915–22. doi : 10.1021/pr900034u . PMID   19320472 .
  83. ^ Kovalchuk, Olga; Burke, Paula; Arkhipov, Andrey; Kuchma, Nikolaj; James, S.Jill; Kovalchuk, Igor; Pogribny, Igor (2003). “Genome hypermethylation in Pinus silvestris of Chernobyl—a mechanism for radiation adaptation?”. Mutation Research/Fundamental and Molecular Mechanisms of Mutagenesis. 529: 13–20. doi : 10.1016/S0027-5107(03)00103-9 .
  84. ^ Boubriak, I. I.; Grodzinsky, D. M.; Polischuk, V. P.; Naumenko, V. D.; Gushcha, N. P.; Micheev, A. N.; McCready, S. J.; Osborne, D. J. (2007). “Adaptation and Impairment of DNA Repair Function in Pollen of Betula verrucosa and Seeds of Oenothera biennis from Differently Radionuclide-contaminated Sites of Chernobyl” . Annals of Botany. 101 (2): 267–76. doi : 10.1093/aob/mcm276 . PMC   2711018 . PMID   17981881 .
  85. ^ Deryabina, TG; Kuchmel, SV; Nagorskaya, LL; Hinton, TG; Beasley, JC; Lerebours, A; Smith, JT. “Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl” . Current Biology. 25: R824–R826. doi : 10.1016/j.cub.2015.08.017 . PMID   26439334 .
  86. ^ World Health Organisation “World Health Organization report explains the health impacts of the world’s worst-ever civil nuclear accident” , WHO, 26 April 2006. Retrieved 4 April 2011.
  87. ^ BBC News “‘Too little known on Chernobyl'” , BBC News, 19 April 2006. Retrieved 4 April 2011.
  88. ^ “IAEA Report” . In Focus: Chernobyl. Retrieved 29 March 2006.
  89. ^ and joint IAEA/WHO/UNDP press release Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident Archived 10 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine ., IAEA / WHO / UNDP , 5 September 2005 ( pdf file)
  90. ^ “Special Report: Counting the dead” . Nature . 19 April 2006. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
  91. ^ TORCH report executive summary, op.cit., p.4
  92. ^ Dinets, A.; Hulchiy, M.; Sofiadis, A.; Ghaderi, M.; Höög, A.; Larsson, C.; Zedenius, J. (2012). “Clinical, genetic, and immunohistochemical characterization of 70 Ukrainian adult cases with post-Chornobyl papillary thyroid carcinoma” . European Journal of Endocrinology. 166 (6): 1049–60. doi : 10.1530/EJE-12-0144 . PMC   3361791 . PMID   22457234 .
  93. ^ a b Chernobyl ’caused Sweden cancers’ , BBC News , 20 November 2004
  94. ^ “Greenpeace rejects Chernobyl toll” . BBC News. 18 April 2006.
  95. ^ a b “Selon un rapport indépendant, les chiffres de l’ONU sur les victimes de Tchernobyl ont été sous-estimés (According to an independent report, UN numbers on Chernobyl’s victims has been underestimated)” (in French). Le Monde . 7 April 2006. and see also On n’a pas fini d’entendre parler de Tchernobyl’, interview with Angelika Claussen, head of the German section of the IPPNW” . Arte . 13 April 2006.[ permanent dead link ]
  96. ^ [ permanent dead link ]
  97. ^ Chernobyl Cancer Death Toll Estimate More Than Six Times Higher Than the 4,000 Frequently Cited, According to a New UCS Analysis . Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  98. ^ a b Dworschak, Manfred (26 April 2016). “The Chernobyl Conundrum: Is Radiation As Bad As We Thought?” . Spiegel Online International. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  99. ^ “IAEA Report” . In Focus: Chernobyl. Archived from the original on 27 March 2006. Retrieved 29 March 2006.
  100. ^ For full coverage see the IAEA Focus Page (op.cit.) and joint IAEA/WHO/UNDP 5 September 2005 press release Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident Archived 10 September 2008 at the Wayback Machine .
  101. ^ Peplow, M (2006). “Special Report: Counting the dead”. Nature. 440 (7087): 982–3. doi : 10.1038/440982a . PMID   16625167 .
  102. ^ a b “Spiegel, The Chernobyl body count controversy” . In Focus: Chernobyl. Retrieved 25 August 2006.
  103. ^ Burton Bennett; Michael Repacholi; Zhanat Carr, eds. (2006). Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes: report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group “Health” (PDF). Geneva: WHO . ISBN   92-4-159417-9 . Retrieved 9 May 2017.
  104. ^ Bialik, Carl (27 April 2006). “Measuring Chernobyl’s Fallout” . The Numbers Guy, The Wall Street Journal . Retrieved 5 May 2014.[ permanent dead link ]
  105. ^ “20 years after Chernobyl – The ongoing health effects” . IPPNW . April 2006. Archived from the original on 29 June 2012. Retrieved 24 April 2006.
  106. ^ Alexey V. Yablokov; Vassily B. Nesterenko; Alexey V. Nesterenko (2009). Chernobyl: Consequences of the Catastrophe for People and the Environment (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences ) (paperback ed.). Wiley-Blackwell . ISBN   978-1-57331-757-3 .
  107. ^ “Details” . Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 15 March 2011.
  108. ^ Charles, Monty (2010). “Chernobyl: consequences of the catastrophe for people and the environment (2010)” (PDF). Radiation Protection Dosimetry. 141 (1): 101–104. doi : 10.1093/rpd/ncq185 . PMC   2974725 . “During the production of the reports from the Chernobyl Forum and Greenpeace, a vast body of previously unknown data began to emerge in the form of publications, reports, theses, etc. from Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, much of it in Slavic languages. Little of these data appears to have been incorporated into the international literature. The quality of these publications and whether they would sustain critical peer-review in the western scientific literature is unknown. The book by Yablokov et al. is part of an attempt to summarise these new findings and include them to extend the findings of the Greenpeace report.”
  109. ^ M. I. Balonov (28 April 2010). “Review of Volume 1181” . New York Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 15 September 2011.
  110. ^ “Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation; 2008 Report to the General Assembly;” (PDF). II (Scientific Annexes C, D and E). New York, USA: United Nations Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 2011: 1–219. ISBN   978-92-1-142280-1 . Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  111. ^ “The Chernobyl accident: UNSCEAR’s assessments of the radiation effects” . United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. 16 July 2012. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
  112. ^ Wladimir Wertelecki , “Malformations in a Chornobyl-Impacted Region,” “Pediatrics,” [publication of the American Academy of Pediatrics] April 2010, 125:4
  113. ^ news report on Wertelecki’s research: Amy Norton, “Higher birth-defect rate seen in Chernobyl area,” Reuters, March 24, 2010
  114. ^ “Chornobyl tragedy” . Archived from the original on 13 April 2014.
  115. ^ Dederichs, H.; Pillath, J.; Heuel-Fabianek, B.; Hill, P.; Lennartz, R. (2009): Langzeitbeobachtung der Dosisbelastung der Bevölkerung in radioaktiv kontaminierten Gebieten Weißrusslands – Korma-Studie Archived 5 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine .. Vol. 31, series “Energy & Environment“ by Forschungszentrum Jülich , ISBN   978-3-89336-562-3 [ page needed ]
  116. ^ Tondel, M. (2004). “Increase of regional total cancer incidence in north Sweden due to the Chernobyl accident?” . Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 58 (12): 1011–1016. doi : 10.1136/jech.2003.017988 . PMC   1732641 .
  117. ^ Inga hållpunkter för ökad cancerrisk i Sverige (article in Swedish from the Swedish doctors magazine)
  118. ^ Scherb, Hagen; Weigelt, Eveline. “Congenital Malformation and Stillbirth in Germany and Europe Before and After the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident” (PDF).
  119. ^ Scherb, H; Voigt, K (2007). “Trends in the human sex odds at birth in Europe and the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant accident”. Reproductive Toxicology. 23 (4): 593–9. doi : 10.1016/j.reprotox.2007.03.008 . PMID   17482426 .
  120. ^ Scherb, Hagen; Voigt, Kristina (2011). “The human sex odds at birth after the atmospheric atomic bomb tests, after Chernobyl, and in the vicinity of nuclear facilities”. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 18 (5): 697–707. doi : 10.1007/s11356-011-0462-z . PMID   21336635 .
  121. ^ Mürbeth, S; Rousarova, M; Scherb, H; Lengfelder, E (2004). “Thyroid cancer has increased in the adult populations of countries moderately affected by Chernobyl fallout”. Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research. 10 (7): CR300–6. PMID   15295858 .
  122. ^ Cardis, Elisabeth; Krewski, Daniel; Boniol, Mathieu; Drozdovitch, Vladimir; Darby, Sarah C.; Gilbert, Ethel S.; Akiba, Suminori; Benichou, Jacques; Ferlay, Jacques; Gandini, Sara; Hill, Catherine; Howe, Geoffrey; Kesminiene, Ausrele; Moser, Mirjana; Sanchez, Marie; Storm, Hans; Voisin, Laurent; Boyle, Peter (2006). “Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident”. International Journal of Cancer. 119 (6): 1224–1235. doi : 10.1002/ijc.22037 . PMID   16628547 .
  123. ^ IARC Press release on the report ‘Estimates of the cancer burden in Europe from radioactive fallout from the Chernobyl accident’ Archived 15 April 2007 at the Wayback Machine .
  124. ^ Briefing document: Cancer burden in Europe following Chernobyl Archived 18 January 2007 at the Wayback Machine .
  125. ^ Davidson, Nick (13 July 2006). “Chernobyl’s ‘nuclear nightmares” . Horizon . Retrieved 2 April 2008.
  126. ^ “Inside Chernobyl’s Sarcophagus” (13 July 1996), Horizon , BBC .
  127. ^ Allison, Wade (24 November 2006). “How dangerous is ionising radiation?” . Archived from the original on 17 May 2007.
  128. ^ Allison, Wade (2006). “The safety of nuclear radiation; a careful re-examination for a world facing climate change” (PDF). Physics Department of Oxford University . Archived from the original (PDF) on 9 March 2008. Retrieved 30 July 2007.
  129. ^ A video of Fusco discussing his photo essay project on Chernobyl . Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  130. ^ information Paul Fusco’s book on the Chernobyl legacy Archived 6 April 2008 at the Wayback Machine .. (26 April 1986). Retrieved 26 April 2012.
  131. ^ “Those who stayed in Chernobyl and Fukushima: An excerpt from the new TED Book brings you inside Control Room 4” . TED. October 31, 2013. Retrieved May 30, 2014.
  132. ^ Bandashevsky, Y. I, “Pathology of Incorporated Ionizing Radiation”, Belarus Technical University, Minsk. 136 pp., 1999.[ page needed ]
  133. ^ “Nouvelles plaintes de malades français après Tchernobyl” (in French). RFI . 26 April 2006. Retrieved 26 April 2006. (includes Audio files, with an interview with Chantal Loire, president of the French Association of Thyroid-Affected People Archived 1 December 2006 at the Wayback Machine ., as well as interviews with member of the CRIIRAD )
  134. ^ a b Renn, O. (1990). Public responses to the chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology,10(2), 151-167. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(05)80125-2
  135. ^ Rautenbach, J., Tonhauser, W., Wetherall, A., Schwartz, J., Moser, B., Von Busekist, O., . . . Desart, R. D. (2006). International Nuclear Law in the Post-Chernobyl Period(Rep.). International Atomic Energy Agency.

External links[ edit ]

  • Animated map of radioactive cloud, French IRSN (official Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire — Institute of Radioprotection and Nuclear Safety) “Les leçons de Tchernobyl” . IRSN. Retrieved 7 December 2009.
  • Chernobyl animals worse affected than thought: study
  • 25 years of satellite imagery over Chernobyl
  • v
  • t
  • e
Chernobyl disaster
  • Effects
  • Comparisons
  • Liquidators
  • Samosely
  • List of people involved
  • Deaths due to the disaster
Exclusion Zone
  • Pripyat
    • Amusement park
    • Polissya hotel
    • Azure Swimming Pool
    • Avanhard Stadium
    • Palace of Culture Energetik
    • Jupiter Factory
    • Yaniv Station
  • Chernobyl
  • Duga radar
  • Red Forest
  • List of populated settlements
Power Plant
  • Sarcophagus
  • New Safe Confinement
  • Slavutych
  • Dytiatky
  • Ukrainian National Chernobyl Museum
  • Polesie State Radioecological Reserve ( list of settlements )
  • Cultural impact of the Chernobyl disaster
  • Documentation and media
  • Chernobyl Children International
  • Chernobyl Forum
  • Chernobyl Recovery and Development Programme
  • Chernobyl Shelter Fund
  • Friends of Chernobyl’s Children
  • Bellesrad
  • List of Chernobyl-related charities
Related articles
  • Chernobylite
  • Chernihiv–Ovruch railway
  • The Elephant’s Foot
  • List-Class article List
  • Category Category

Retrieved from ” ”
Categories :

  • Radiation health effects
  • Chernobyl disaster
  • Environment of Ukraine
  • Health in the Soviet Union
  • Environment of the Soviet Union
  • Effects
Hidden categories:

  • CS1 French-language sources (fr)
  • Articles with French-language external links
  • Articles with inconsistent citation formats
  • Webarchive template wayback links
  • All articles with dead external links
  • Articles with dead external links from January 2018
  • Articles with permanently dead external links
  • CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list
  • Articles with dead external links from December 2017
  • Articles with dead external links from September 2017
  • Wikipedia articles needing page number citations from August 2013
  • Articles needing POV-check from December 2013
  • Articles with weasel words from September 2013
  • Articles needing additional references from April 2010
  • All articles needing additional references
  • Articles with multiple maintenance issues
  • Use dmy dates from November 2012
  • All articles with unsourced statements
  • Articles with unsourced statements from April 2010
  • Articles with unsourced statements from March 2011
  • Articles with unsourced statements from October 2012
  • Articles with unsourced statements from October 2018
  • All articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases
  • Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from April 2016
  • Articles with unsourced statements from December 2015
  • All articles with failed verification
  • Articles with failed verification from January 2013

Navigation menu

Personal tools

  • Not logged in
  • Talk
  • Contributions
  • Create account
  • Log in


  • Article
  • Talk



    • Read
    • Edit
    • View history



      • Main page
      • Contents
      • Featured content
      • Current events
      • Random article
      • Donate to Wikipedia
      • Wikipedia store


      • Help
      • About Wikipedia
      • Community portal
      • Recent changes
      • Contact page


      • What links here
      • Related changes
      • Upload file
      • Special pages
      • Permanent link
      • Page information
      • Wikidata item
      • Cite this page


      • Create a book
      • Download as PDF
      • Printable version


      • Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎
      • Español
      • Français
      • 日本語
      Edit links

      • This page was last edited on 10 October 2018, at 13:38 (UTC).
      • Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ;
        additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy . Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. , a non-profit organization.
      • Privacy policy
      • About Wikipedia
      • Disclaimers
      • Contact Wikipedia
      • Developers
      • Cookie statement
      • Mobile view
      • Wikimedia Foundation
      • Powered by MediaWiki

      Contact us
      About Magnum
      Pro Licensing
      In Motion
      Advertising & Corporate
      Showcase Albums
      Archival Calendar
      Customer Service
      Collector Prints
      Collector Prints


      Sorry, flash is not available.


      Paul Fusco

      Over twenty years have passed since the meltdown at Chernobyl. Paul Fusco faces the dark legacy of the modern technological nightmare that continues to plague those exposed to its destructive radiation.

      View the discussion thread.

      Sad for the Ukrainians having to deal with such a aftermath.

      Japan has already dealt with some similar issues due to their involvement as an axis power in World War 2. Now they many suffer a similar fate again due to the recent earthquakes effects on their reactors.

      Comment posted by RepeatedMeme (not verified) on March 16th, 2011
      Fantastic work – makes you wonder if Japan will have any of these terriable things. Those poor innocents

      They were already having them thanks to a certain country nuking them decades ago.

      Comment posted by Slim (not verified) on March 16th, 2011
      Fantastic work – makes you wonder if Japan will have any of these terriable things. Those poor innocents
      Comment posted by Cass (not verified) on March 15th, 2011
      horrible but truth ………
      Comment posted by VERÓNICA (not verified) on March 15th, 2011
      This is tragic yet beautiful. Thank you for sharing.
      Comment posted by Amber (not verified) on March 15th, 2011
      Unbelievable pictures! God bless the nurses who care for these children, it shows that they really care for them. Thank you for sharing!
      Comment posted by Maria (not verified) on March 15th, 2011
      Your pictures and commentary are unbelievable. Such sadness. Thank for allowing me to experience this.
      Comment posted by CJohnson (not verified) on March 15th, 2011
      Incredible work.I commend you on this series.Thank you for doing it.It matters.

      Glenn-Patrick Ferguson

      Comment posted by Glenn Ferguson (not verified) on March 14th, 2011
      The more I watch, the more sadness fills me, tears to my eyes. I think to myself “How many people are unaware?” The world forgets. This should be mandatory viewing.
      Comment posted by martha (not verified) on March 11th, 2011
      Beautifully captured. Very eye opening and yet tastefully done. Thank you.
      Comment posted by Heidi (not verified) on February 4th, 2011
      Une honte pour l’humanité entière des millions de vies détruite à tout jamais. J’espère sérieusement que cette catastrophe restera graver dans les mémoires
      Comment posted by dobux (not verified) on January 28th, 2011
      i like cheese
      Comment posted by Ivan (not verified) on January 25th, 2011
      I tried to post on this tragedy, but the spam filter is blocking it.
      Comment posted by Brandy (not verified) on December 15th, 2010
      ¡¡¡Y me preocupo por mi economia!! que ignorante soy ante lo que en realidad es importante. Gracias por compartir tu trabajo, espero que en vez de pasar en la television programas de cotilleo y reality show absurdos, nos muestren este tipo de informacion y orientación sobre como podríamos ayudar a solventar estos problemas. Me aprece increible la insensatez de aquellos que siguen trabajando en armas nucleares o cualquier instrumento bélico que solo concluye en la autodestrucción del propio genero humano y de la naturaleza.
      Comment posted by Mahu (not verified) on December 10th, 2010
      wow nice share for Chernobyl, btw i usually read your blog using my blackberry email account.

      Comment posted by blackberry email (not verified) on December 1st, 2010
      ive been to chernobyl this year . had no idea about the effects were on going hartbreaking bit of film
      Comment posted by industrial decay (not verified) on November 9th, 2010
      perfect picture, real affection between mother and baby.
      Comment posted by [email protected] proofreading (not verified) on November 9th, 2010
      It’s really sad what is happening there
      Comment posted by gaberirl (not verified) on November 6th, 2010
      I think this is a very horrible tragedy. This should be a big history
      Comment posted by ronald (not verified) on October 20th, 2010
      Thank you for share this great information. eel bad about it
      Comment posted by James (not verified) on October 2nd, 2010
      People here are so uninformed, that the name Chernobyl to them is unknown,
      People, they think this event was so long ago, it was not.
      Comment posted by Anonymous (not verified) on September 16th, 2010
      This motion is really touching my heart.I do feel sympathy for these children. We should come forward to help them.
      Comment posted by Mike (not verified) on August 25th, 2010
      I was feeling sorry for myself today. I am not anymore. Instead, today I will do something to help these children. Somehow.
      Comment posted by Carol Ann (not verified) on August 11th, 2010
      thanks for the info
      Comment posted by james (not verified) on July 27th, 2010
      I am a veteran of the French nuclear tests, I underwent surgery for cancer in November 2003. I’m horrified by these photographs. These children are scarred in their chairs. How again praising the civil and military nuclear. May the force be with them!
      Patrick BARRIER
      What courage Mr. Fusco

      Comment posted by BARRIER PATRICK (not verified) on July 7th, 2010
      it’s great story i like it thanks
      Comment posted by tetembak (not verified) on July 6th, 2010
      That’s a really interesting post, I know in the UK that employers are searching Facebook and MySpace when they get CVs in

      Comment posted by brian (not verified) on July 5th, 2010
      It is very good to see the story of magnum in motion.
      I liked it a lot.
      What is the role of Chernoyl Legacy in it.
      Comment posted by virtual pbx (not verified) on July 2nd, 2010
      I can but weep.
      Comment posted by robert ferguson (not verified) on July 1st, 2010
      i feel pain…. my heart is broken….i start cry… This is terrible…..Is not fair…. How poor little kits have to pay the error for others…. God bless them…. Me siento destrozada mi corazon esta triste esto me a tocado en lo mas profundo de mi lo siento…. pobre ninos que pagan errorer ajenos….que dios los bendiga pobres pequenos no tienen la culpa de nada…….
      Comment posted by brigitte (not verified) on June 3rd, 2010
      that is rlly scary
      Comment posted by indiana (not verified) on May 30th, 2010
      Everytime I watch this I burst into tears, for so many reasons that I can’t even count.
      I hope that this work has as mush publicing as possible, for people to understand what’s going on there.
      Comment posted by Julia (not verified) on May 20th, 2010
      this is a major disaster that must never be forgotten. Didn’t realize until I found this post just how bad it really was.
      Comment posted by graham (not verified) on May 17th, 2010
      Es un trabajo magnifico, gracias por enseñar un poco de esto al mundo. El que no conoce su pasado esta condenado a vivir los errores en el futuro…
      Comment posted by Oliver K. (not verified) on May 10th, 2010
      Thank you, this was very informative. We do not learn about these things in the United States school system.
      Comment posted by Bryan W (not verified) on March 28th, 2010
      another reminder for me about the horrifying event of Chernobyl as the anniversary draws near for me
      Comment posted by Michael C (not verified) on March 26th, 2010
      I was just a kid when it happend but years later after i read about and seen pics of the disaster it must of been horrible
      Comment posted by Brett Perez (not verified) on March 16th, 2010
      This viedo makes me relize that we dont have it ner as bad as thes children do.
      Comment posted by leland mcginn (not verified) on March 11th, 2010
      i thought it ment black grass or stalks?
      Comment posted by julian (not verified) on February 27th, 2010
      Chernobyl mean the herb “wormwood” in Russian
      Comment posted by tana (not verified) on February 17th, 2010
      I thought that everybody might like to know that “Chernobyl” is Russian for “We goofed big time”.
      Comment posted by KrashKowalski (not verified) on February 9th, 2010
      Wow, poor children and parents.
      I never have felt so bad in my life… 🙁
      Comment posted by Eliza (not verified) on December 4th, 2009
      Looking at this it reallly makes it easier for a person to ask is Nuclear devlopment and messing with radiation is more important then the lives of human beings. I really want to work once I’m a bit older to shut down Nuclear plants around the world that can harm humans. It is not acceptable for this!
      Comment posted by Emily Anne (not verified) on October 12th, 2009
      Easy to understand your claim that this was life changing for you.My hope ;dear Paul is that it is not at too steep a price for your emotional well being. Minimata on an unspeakably larger scale. Words fail me in trying to thank you for what you have done. I hope that Marty Forscher got to see this.
      Comment posted by Bill Gomberg (not verified) on October 12th, 2009
      This moved me. I had to stop and just watch. That feeling inside, fixed to what your looking at, uncomfortable, compelled, silenced.

      I knew about Chernoybl form a young age. Whislt still at school, my family would take in a child the same age as me from Belarus. They lived with us for 6 weeks each year, like a new brother we would do everything together, school, play, meals, trips out….
      I knew about Chernoybl, about the accident, about the tradedy, about the pain and suffering.
      I knew about Chernoybl, but I realise I never really understood it. The real pain and suffering it generates. Your right Paul, it is a war. Maybe someone did pull on God’s beard, and now he is laughing!

      Ive seen allot of chernoybl related images over the years, but never have I felt so moved and silenced as watching your essay. Thank you for sharing….

      Comment posted by RonJLamb (not verified) on October 12th, 2009
      Dear Paul,

      Thanks for this essay done with such a lot of integrity. Not to mention the
      outstanding images. But who wants to talk about images in face of
      such a tragedy that still hasn’t ended?
      Sadly the world needs messengers to reveal the truth and remind people of the luring

      With respect

      Best wishes – Vincent.

      Comment posted by Vincent van de Wijngaard (not verified) on September 24th, 2009
      Very informative essay on the lasting effects of this careless disaster. The photographs are chilling and sad…………very sad.
      Comment posted by toby (not verified) on September 19th, 2009
      Написано суховато, но всё равно занимательно.

      Comment posted by Арина (not verified) on September 15th, 2009
      Very Interesting…
      Comment posted by Mazyoyo (not verified) on September 14th, 2009
      This is what happens when things go wrong. It was disaster that no one will ever forget and can easily understand that atomic war today will destroy whole world.
      Comment posted by Kate Henlay (not verified) on September 13th, 2009
      Displaying page 1 of 51 2 3 4 5

      • Related Essays
      • Essays by this photographer
      DGI #29
      DGI #29
      Paul Fusco
      Watch the essay
      Access To Life: Russia
      Access To Life: Russia
      Alex Majoli
      Watch the essay
      Picnic With Sergey
      Picnic With Sergey
      Bruce Gilden
      Watch the essay
      DGI #29
      DGI #29
      Paul Fusco
      Watch the essay
      Bitter Fruit
      Bitter Fruit
      Paul Fusco
      Watch the essay
      All Essays


      Copy the code below and paste it into your website.
      Or link to this essay on Magnum In Motion.

      Add to

      Add this story to one of the following services:
      Digg Digg StumbleUpon StumbleUpon Reddit Reddit
      Facebook Facebook Twitter Twitter Google Google

      • Fair Use Policy
      • Help Centre
      • Loading…
      • Sign In

      LawTeacher logo

      The law essay professionals
      0115 966 7966

      Today’s Opening Times 10:00 – 20:00 (BST)


      Reference this

      This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.


      Saturday, 26th April 1986, 1:23:58am local time, Pripyat, present day Belarus: the worst nuclear disaster to date. The Chernobyl Nuclear power station reactor number 4 saw a meltdown releasing several tones of radioactive dust into the atmosphere over an unsuspecting population and the world.

      The Radiological nature and society’s inability to fully control and even understand the full consequences of a disaster has made – even 25 years on Chernobyl the turning point in our world’s history.

      This singular event was responsible for the slew of agreements that rapidly followed the nightmare come true.

      While the risks were theoretically discussed, Chernobyl was probably the first set of fatalities that occurred after Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

      The difference being that Chernobyl was a civilian power installation.

      Russia’s stone walling, denial and outright lies to the international community forced the international community to act with determination and with speed. Lacunae in laws were identified and in the horrific wake of this accident, pushed through a number of conventions governing notification, warning, assistance, liability, compensation, nuclear safety and the physical protection of the nuclear materials and installations.

      Even though Chernobyl forced the world to pay attention to the dangers of nuclear power, sadly today its lessons are being forgotten. Many countries have not accepted certain conventions and still do not govern their nuclear installations according to international standards


      Several aspects regarding the way the crisis and its consequences were handled made the international community realize the lacunae in the laws in force during that time. This lead to a change in the way people regarded the laws governing the use of nuclear power and led to several new conventions.

      There was a radical shift in the way the international community regarded nuclear disasters. Earlier they were thought to be matters of national concern; however the trans-boundary nature of the Chernobyl disaster made them re evaluate this position. The trans-boundary nature refers to the tendency of the radioactive emissions move through the atmosphere.

      The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had, even before Chernobyl, begun framing multilateral agreements on international cooperation or emergency assistance in case of a nuclear accident. This had begun after the Three Mile Island accident in the USA in 1979. However these agreements were eventually considered as being unattainable.

      Chernobyl provided a catalyst for these agreements and others to be framed and accepted. Within 4 months of the accident, the following conventions were successfully negotiated: The Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (the Early Notification Convention) and the Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (the Assistance Convention). These were some of the first conventions that resulted directly from the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl and were followed by many others.

      Chernobyl also caused the international community to assess their readiness and capability to deal with a disaster of this magnitude as the dependency on nuclear energy increased to keep pace with the demands of a developing world.

      Another realization that came from the trans-boundary nature of the accident was on the safety of nuclear power plants. Before the accident, there was a general malaise to set binding safety standards for nuclear facilities beyond recommendatory standards.

      It was also realized that even though each state that operated a nuclear plant bore full and unequivocal responsibility for safety, the maintenance of this safety was an international issue.

      Another very important matter that came to light in the case of a civil nuclear disaster was the question of liability. Who compensates the victims of the accident and for how much and for how long is the core question addressed by many conventions today. Before Chernobyl there were two main conventions that dealt with liability in case of a nuclear disaster; the Vienna and the Paris Conventions. However, as the Soviet Union was not party to either of these conventions, the victims of the disaster did not receive much in the way of compensation. These conventions have now undergone several amendments to make them more wide reaching and inclusive. There is also a Convention on Supplementary Compensation which aims to make more compensation available the victims.

      With terrorism on the rise, several states responded to the concern of the security of their nuclear installations by adopting the Convention of the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material in 1979. This convention aims to ensure that states protect their nuclear material during international transport, to make specific acts such a theft or hijacking of nuclear material to be punishable acts, to establish jurisdiction and gives these states the power to detain offenders for prosecution and extradition.

      Here we deal in brief with the major conventions that were in place, came about after or were amended after the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster.


      (Reference: “Learning the Hard Way: Did the Lessons taught by the Chernobyl Nuclear accident Contribute to improving Nuclear Law?” by Norbert Pelzer)

      26th September 1986- The Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (the early notification Convention) and the Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (the Assistance Convention)

      21st September 1988- Joint protocol relating the Application of the Vienna and Paris Convention.

      17th June 1994- adoption of the Convention on Nuclear Safety.

      5th September 1997- adoption of the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel management and on the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.

      12th September 1997- Protocol to amend the Vienna Convention on Civil liability for nuclear damage and Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage were adopted.

      12th February 2004-adoption of the Protocol to amend the Convention on Third Party liability in the Field of Nuclear Energy and the adoption of the protocol to amend the Convention of 31 January 1963 Supplementary to Paris Convention of 29 July 1960 on ton Third Party Liability in the field of Nuclear Energy, as amended by the Additional protocol of 28 January 1964 and by the Protocol of 16 November 1982.

      8 July 2005- Adoption of the “ Amendment to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear material”


      These two conventions were a knee- jerk response to the Chernobyl disaster and came into force within 4 months of the accident. These conventions were in existence before the disaster but in the form of bilateral agreements between European states and not as an international convention.

      The Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident

      This convention seems to have been given this current form as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster.

      When the Chernobyl reactor underwent meltdown, the Soviet Union did not notify their own country of the disaster much less any neighboring country. The first indication of trouble came from Sweden where radiological monitors indicated high levels of radioactivity in the air.

      The convention delineates the obligations of the affected states to notify and uniform those states affected or likely to be affected by a nuclear accident.

      The convention outlines conditions that are required for the conventions to come into force and various articles outline the definitions for nuclear accident and clarifies that whoever the owner or the operator of the plant is, it is the duty of the state to inform and notify the states.

      The article further specifies the various activities and plant such as nuclear reactors, storage, transport etc for agricultural, industrial, medical, scientific and research purposes and the use of radioisotopes for power generation in space objects.

      The convention also deals with all the activities and states unequivocally that it is the state to which the reactor, transporting company etc belong to whose duty it is to notify and inform.

      However the articles do not deal with the plants and activities dealing with nuclear weapons or their testing. Article 3 is vague as it mentions the duty to inform and notify in case of accidents other than those already mentioned in the convention. This omission could be due to the reluctance of nuclear states to subject their military to international regulations. This article refers only to the duty of notification.

      The convention deals with the type of information to be given should such as occurrence, location, assumed cause, characteristics of the radioactive release, metrological, hydrological conditions etc. that will help the neighboring states assess the threat to their own territory. The affected states have a right to ask for further information if required.

      The Convention on Assistance in the case of a Nuclear Accident or

      Radiological Emergency

      This convention is applicable to both nuclear and radiological emergencies. The definition of radiological emergencies however, is rather vague and leads to some uncertainties.

      According to Professor Moser the provisions of the convention can be divided into 3 categories:-

      The first group is of those provisions that are regarded as fundamental principles because they govern the pre-conditions for and the content and scope of the measures of assistance.

      Here the convention states that state parties should cooperate and minimize the consequences of a nuclear accident or radiological emergencies.

      The state requesting assistance should state the type of medical aid and temporary relocation of people who the territory of the state giving assistance.

      Assistance can also be asked of the IAEA for expert advice and for coordinating international assistance. Assistance can be requested even without an accident for future emergency situations, the requesting state has the responsibility to protect personnel equipment etc. that is brought into the state.

      The request for termination is also made by both the state.

      The second group relates to the cost of assistance. The assisting state provides assistance without claiming the cost. But partial or complete reimbursement is possible.

      Also the state requesting assistance has no claim for compensation against the state providing it, should there be any injury or damage sustained on the territory of both states, in terms of personal injury, property loss or damage to the environment. However, there can be an agreement for compensation, if deemed necessary by both states.

      The third group pertains to special provisions for assistance personnel and the state providing the assistance.

      This is to ensure that the assistance personnel reach the target location as soon as possible and carry out their duties. Therefore, they are given immunity and special status. They cannot be arrested or detained in connection with the assistance that they are providing. They are immune from legal process and have freedom of movement in and out of the requesting state. The state is free to decide if resident assistance personnel should have the same privileges.

      The assisting state is also exempt from taxes and other charges on equipment being brought for the assistance. Import and export of the equipment is the requesting states responsibility. The requesting state is also responsible for the cleanup of any contamination that may have occurred during the time the assistance was being given.


      After Chernobyl, the question of liability and compensation arose. However there were myriad problems associated with this.

      As noted by the author Julia A. Schwartz in her paper entitled "International Nuclear Third Party liability law: The response to Chernobyl" -" The magnitude of the accident effects were probably far beyond the financial capability of any authority or party that may have been held liable."

      The problems associated were as follows

      Firstly, the extent of damage was seen on several levels. The costs of damages were seen on individual and societal levels and resulted from the loss of life, injury, illness (including psychological stress and other mental problems), property damage, economic loss, damage to the environment and other socio-economic disruptions. Also, since the accident was radioactive in nature and its effects are still felt to this day, the costs would be very high.

      Secondly, the trans-boundary nature of the accident resulted in a large population of the Soviet Union being affected as well as neighboring countries and even some states further off.

      Thirdly, in 1986, there was no law or provision within the Soviet Union that would have entitled the victims to compensation.

      Lastly, the Soviet Union was not party to any international liability and compensation convention under which victims from other countries could claim compensation.

      Compensation for industrial risks usually comes under ordinary tort law. However, nuclear accidents were not regarded as conventional industrial risks due to the increased damages. Tort law exposes the nuclear owners and operators to unlimited liability amounts for unlimited time which would make it impossible for them to obtain insurance coverage. Tort law also forces the burden of proof on the victim who has to prove that the nuclear owner and operator’s negligence had resulted directly in damage that the victim is asking compensation for.

      The basic principles that form the basis for nuclear liability are:

      Strict Liability- "The operator of a nuclear installation is held strictly liable for damage to third parties resulting from a nuclear incident occurring at its installation or during the course of transport of nuclear substances to and from the installation."1 This principle ensures that the victim need not prove that the owner or operator’s negligence or fault had resulted in the damage. The victim simply needs to prove that there is a causal link between the damage and the accident in question.

      Exclusive Liability-states that the operator of a nuclear facility is exclusively liable for the damage to third parties that results from a nuclear incident or during transport of nuclear material. It is the operator who is held liable no matter whose acts or omissions led to the accident in the first place. This makes it easier for victims to claim compensation as they need not prove the identity of the person whose fault the accident was. Also suppliers of goods do not need to defend themselves in costly and complicated liability actions brought about by the victims. They also do not need to purchase expensive third party liability insurance.

      Liability is also limited in time, amount and is required to be financially secured- liability claims need to be filed within 10 years of the accident and is limited in amount (as will be seen ahead). Liability needs to be limited in amount otherwise most operators could be exposed to unlimited liability for long periods of time which could bankrupt them. This principle protects the operators and states that beyond a certain limit the operator is not obligated to provide compensation. The operator needs to be financially secured i.e. there should be adequate insurance cover to ensure that the in the event of an accident, a nuclear operator would be able to discharge most of the compensation claims (up to a certain limit)

      Liability and Compensation before Chernobyl

      Before Chernobyl, it was recognized that an international regime was required to establish liability for nuclear accidents because the consequences of a nuclear disaster would not stop at political or geographical boundaries. It was recognized that an international regime would be required to set rules addressing liability at installations or during transport, decide jurisdiction, eliminate discrimination, ensure uniformity among other things.

      There were three main conventions existing at the time of Chernobyl. Sadly, no compensation could be provided to the victims by the Soviet Union as it was not party to any of these conventions at the time.

      These conventions were the Paris Convention of 1963, the Vienna Convention of 1963 and the Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention.

      The Paris convention and the Vienna Convention were rather similar in nature. They both held the nuclear operator to be both strictly and exclusively liable for damage resulting at the installation or during transport of any material. The operator was liable for personal injury including death and for loss of or damage to any property other than property at the installation. These conventions apply only to those party states that have accepted the conventions. According to both conventions, the operators’ liability is limited in time and amount and claims must be filed within 10 years of the date of the accident. There is also a "discovery rule" rule common to both conventions whereby a victim must file the claim within 2 years of discovering the damage. The conventions also state that the jurisdiction over the compensation claims lies with the state where the accident occurred. The conventions also state that for all matters not covered in the conventions, the state courts are free to apply their national law free of any discrimination.

      The conventions differ mainly in the amounts that are fixed for compensation. The Paris Convention sets a maximum liability of 15 million SDRs (Special Drawing Rights- a special unit of money) and a minimum of 5 million SDRs. However the Vienna Convention sets only a minimum limit at 5 million USD.

      The Paris Convention states realized that the liability amount fixed under this convention would not be adequate to cover the claims. Therefore, a new instrument, the 1963 Brussels Convention Supplementary to the Paris Convention was established to provide additional compensation to the victims.

      Liability and compensation after Chernobyl

      The Joint Protocol

      The two conventions i.e. the Paris and Vienna conventions were in place long before Chernobyl. However, there was no overlap between the two conventions which would have led to party states under one convention being ineligible for compensation under the other convention.

      Chernobyl provided the motivation required to establish a formal relationship between the conventions. It was also believed that this would entice a number of other states within Europe to join the Vienna convention extending in the international liability laws through most of Europe.

      The Joint Protocol extends to states adhering to it the coverage that is provided under the convention (either Paris or Vienna) to which it is not already a contracting party. It ensures that only one of the two conventions will be exclusively applicable to a nuclear incident.

      However, even the Joint Protocol did not assure complete redressal of compensation and liability issues. The Joint Protocol could only ensure a broader scope of nuclear damage and could enable a larger number of victims to claim compensation but only to the extent that the conventions were prepared to go.

      Protocol to Amend the Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage

      This amendment was clearly designed to ensure that more money would be available to compensate more people for a wider range of damage by nuclear accident and ensure more compliance from both nuclear and non nuclear power generating states.

      The amendment ensures more money being available to compensate more victims. The minimum liability was increased from 5 million SDRs to a 300 million SDRs minimum. The minimum amount depending on the damage is 5 million SDRs (the amount fixed is decided by the contracting states) However if the minimum amount is exceeded for damage, then the installation state must ensure that public funds are available to make up the difference to 300 million SDRs. States are free to impose unlimited if they wish. However, financial security limits must be set.

      The second facet of the amendment is that it extends the geographic scope so that the convention will now apply to the damage caused by nuclear accidents wherever they are suffered. This does not include non contracting states which has a nuclear installation but does not provide the same benefits to other states. It also allows the claim period to be extended to 30 years instead of the original 10 year period. If the funds are insufficient to compensate all damages suffered, priority must be given to claims as long as they are brought within 10 years of the date of the incident.

      The protocol insures personal injury (including death), loss of or damage to property and other damage compensable under the law. With the amendment, 11 additional damages include damage to the environment, economic losses resulting from that damage and the cost of environmental reinstatement, other economic losses consequent upon personal injury or property damage, the cost of preventive measures taken to minimize damage recoverable under a party’s civil liability law.

      It also includes a new concept in the definition of nuclear incident i.e. as an "occurrence which creates a grave and imminent threat of causing nuclear damage." This addition permitted compensation for expenditure in taking preventive measures.

      The 1997 Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage

      The SCC holds the earlier principles but also ensures that more victims could be compensated for a wide

      r range of damage than ever before.

      The amount of compensation is divided into 3 tiers with both national and international funding (should it be required) and is valid for the people living in or around the installation state (where the facility is) and trans-boundary victims.

      The convention is a free standing one requiring no previous adherence to either the Paris or Vienna convention. The states must however have legislation that adheres to and reflects the principles of these conventions.

      The scope of application of the convention is decided by the two tiers of compensation where the installation state decides the damage to be covered by non contracting states and also the convention prevents the distribution of public money to the victims in non contracting states.

      However, this protocol is not very popular and has been ratified by very few countries that have a high generation power.

      The convention was also amended to include the even broader rules to attract states that perceive the Paris and Vienna Conventions to be restrictive.

      The unpopularity of this convention lies in the following reasons.

      One is the preferential treatment given to those victims who suffer damage but are outside the installation state which is seen at being discriminatory.

      The other reason is that the countries believe that the Paris and Vienna conventions that are supposed to have the same goals but with different rules, benefits etc have to work together.

      2004 Protocols to amend the Paris Convention and the Brussels Convention on Supplementary Compensation

      Once these protocols come into effect, they will result in higher compensation and will crystallize the structure of liability.

      The Paris Convention will now increase nuclear operator’s liability to 700 million Euro.

      The fixing of liability for low risk operators is 70 million euro and for transport is 80 million Euro. In fixing the liability amount as a minimum, states which impose either limited or unlimited liability upon their nuclear operators are allowed to join to the regime. Operators are allowed to provide financial security in the amount for which they are being held liable and those held for unlimited liability, the financial security obligations is limited to either the full minimum or one of the reduced minimum liability amounts.

      The Paris Convention Protocol relaxes the previous rules for the definition of the word nuclear accident. It will include several more incidents and territories such as the territory of the contracting party, maritime zones or on board ships and aircraft. The convention will apply to the nuclear damage that has occurred in non contracting states if the state is a party to the Vienna Convention and the Joint protocol. The claims period has also been extended to 30 years. Also there is no “priority” for compensation in case the compensation amount falls short. Here the courts will be given jurisdiction to decide the degree of priority for claims of loss of life and property.

      The Protocol will also contain a definition for nuclear damage where it does not refer to other economic losses, which was deemed to be rather vague.

      The Protocol for the Brussels Convention on Supplementary Compensation

      The amounts for compensation in this protocol are significantly in every tier.

      The total amount of compensation available to victims of a nuclear accident under the amended protocol has been raised from 300 million Euros to 1.5 billion Euros.

      The formula used to calculate the new contributions for the new contributions for the international tier takes somewhat into account the polluter pays principle

      The territory under the protocol eligible for compensation has been increased to include the country’s exclusive economic zone and continental shelf.

      The Position of Non Convention States

      Despite the incentives made available in most conventions regarding nuclear liability, most nuclear power generating countries are not part of any of the conventions. These countries include China, Canada, India, Japan, Korea, Switzerland and the United States of America which are considered as the most important in terms of nuclear power generation capacity.

      The objections to these conventions lie in the fact that these conventions are based on the principle of limited liability which is regarded as unfair by these countries. They believe that limited liability restricts the compensation limits of the victims by setting a cap for the compensation. Some parties believe the ‘exclusive liability’ should not be a principle anymore.

      Faults and Imperfections of the current Liability Conventions

      One of the major concerns is that there may not be enough insurance in the global market to insure nuclear operators against the revised liability amounts.

      The 30 year claim period also poses problems with respect to certain personal injury claims. Coverage is being denied because many cancers manifest several decades after the exposure to radiation and also many of these are indistinguishable from cancers suffered by a normal population. Proving that a specific type of cancer has resulted from a nuclear accident releasing radiation could be difficult if not impossible.

      Another concern is that there is no definitive definition for ‘impairment of the environment’. Also the question is that would the operator be responsible for damage that has resulted from a build- up of contamination.

      The preventive action claims poses difficulty because of its vague definition which would have led to false claims with high costs.

      Lastly, terrorism poses a grave difficulty as it exposes capital to higher risks. Currently, in many countries, terrorism is insured against but only because it is covered for relatively modest amounts, and there are several factors that are used to assess risks such as potential for terrorism etc.

      A little realized fact is also that currently, there is no claim for compensation under the international conventions for damage to the nuclear installation itself or any property associated to the site. This forces the operator to assume the risk for loss or damage. It is not clear wherever an operator can sue its suppliers for damages incurred.

      India’s Civil Nuclear Liability Bill

      India’s parliament recently passed a bill that has made suppliers and builders of atomic reactors potentially liable in the event of a nuclear accident. This law is required so that many of the U.S companies interested in entering the Indian Nuclear power market can obtain insurance in their home states in the event of a nuclear accident.

      Originally the bill had set a cap at 5 billion INR for compensation. The nuclear companies were allowed to seek reimbursement from the suppliers for defective equipment and materials.

      The bill in this state was vociferously opposed to because many parties within the country felt that the cap of 5 billion INR was insufficient especially with respect to the risks involved. Also the bill was seen to absolve certain foreign companies completely from any sort of legal or financial liability. This, especially after the weak sentencing in the Bhopal Gas tragedy, has made many people wonder if the law is to safeguard the country’s interests or those of the foreign companies. The claim period in the bill was 10 years which is considered a very short amount of time. The bill is also seen to open the market to private companies while giving them only limited liability which is believed to be unacceptable. The bill also has provisions to lower the liability amount of compensation from a private operator. This is seen to be in blatant disregard to the Polluter Pays principle as well as the Precautionary principle that is upheld by the Indian Supreme Court.

      After long discussions the cap has now been increased to thrice the original amount and is now set at 15 billion INR for compensation with the Government payable for claims beyond that amount. The law also now holds the nuclear operators liable for all damage irrespective of fault. The law has been passed by the Lok Sabha.


      The Convention on Nuclear Safety

      The CNS was opened for signing on 20th September 1994.

      The most important outcome of the convention was the formulation of the “Safety Fundamentals” document which serves as the technical manual for all safety considerations in the building, managing and operation of a nuclear plant for any purpose.

      The objectives of this document and the purpose of this convention are to ensure:

      (Obtained from “The Convention on Nuclear Safety” by Odette Jankowitsch- Prevor)

      A general nuclear safety objective: “ To protect individuals, society and the environment from harm by establishing and maintaining in nuclear installations effective defenses against radiological hazards”

      A radiation protection objective: “To ensure that in all operational states radiation exposure within the installation or due to any planned release of radioactive material from the installation is kept below prescribed limits and as low as reasonably achievable, and to ensure mitigation of the radiological consequences of any accidents” and as a main goal;

      The technical safety objectives: “To take all reasonable practicable measures to prevent accidents in nuclear installations and to mitigate their consequences should they occur; to ensure with a high le el of confidence that, for all possible accidents taken into account in the design of the installation, including those of very low probability, any radiological consequences would be minor and below prescribed limits; and to ensure that the likelihood of accidents with serious radiological consequences is extremely low”

      The aim of this convention is to establish a legislative and regulatory framework which defines the responsibilities of the government, the regulatory body and the operators, for training and education of the workforce, for the safety of the nuclear workforce , to require the continued surveillance of the facilities, to secure safe operation and maintenance of the facilities and to take the necessary measures for the safe management and disposal of radioactive waste should they be included in the convention.

      The convention also states that it is the operator’s or license holder’s responsibility to ensure the safety of the installation. In the safety fundamentals documents there is special emphasis on the safety of the installation itself.

      The convention also obliges parties to submit reports for peer review meetings.

      Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management and On the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management.

      This convention was adopted on 5th September 1997. And brings together two subjects i.e. the safety of spent fuel and the safety of radioactive waste management.

      The convention also deals with trans-boundary movement of spent fuel and radioactive waste.

      The convention defines three sets of objectives that are a part of the CNS.


      Chernobyl, with all its frightening consequences, served one very important purpose which was to make the international community realize the magnitude and the seriousness of a nuclear accident, should one occur. The sad part in this was that it took such a horrific disaster for people to realize the dangers of using nuclear power. Yet with all the lessons of Chernobyl, it is sad that nuclear power is still not governed with the same rigor as it ought to be.

      Cite This Essay

      To export a reference to this article please select a referencing style below:

      • OSCOLA
      • APA
      • MLA
      • MLA-7
      • Harvard
      • Vancouver
      • Wikipedia

      Reference Copied to Clipboard.

      Reference Copied to Clipboard.

      Reference Copied to Clipboard.

      Reference Copied to Clipboard.

      Reference Copied to Clipboard.

      Reference Copied to Clipboard.

      Reference Copied to Clipboard.

      Request Removal

      If you are the original writer of this essay and no longer wish to have the essay published on the Law Teacher website then please click on the link below to request removal:

      More from Law Teacher

      Law Essays
      More International Law Essays
      Examples of Our Work

      We Write Bespoke Law Essays!

      Find Out More

      Designed using Magazine Hoot. Powered by WordPress.