The Health legacy of Chernobyl

Chernobyl’s reactor number 4 exploded in the early hours of 26^th April 1986, the ensuing blaze spewed 6.7 tonnes of radioactive material from the core high into the atmosphere, spreading radioactive isotopes over much of Europe (UN,2005). It is an event that had and continues to have a huge impact on the development of nuclear power especially in Europe; a go to word for anti-nuclear campaigners and an event that cannot be ignored when discussing the pros and cons of nuclear power.

Relating it to this blog the event serves as a useful case study with which to assess the true impacts and risks associated with nuclear power.  Here I will look mostly at the health impacts of the event, an overview of the economic and environmental consequences of nuclear power will be discussed later.

A runaway reaction due to mismanagement and poor design led to the overheating of reactor 4 Source:BBC,2006

Typical thoughts that come to mind when thinking of Chernobyl: empty buildings, deserted playgrounds, rises in cancer rates, survivors bearing congenital deformities, and of course the threatening concrete sarcophagus that entombs the reactor. All of which have contributed to a sense of fear, immorality and unease; a mistrust of all things nuclear amongst many who were affected or lived through the event. 

Yet it should be remembered that time is the best healer and green shoots are surfacing in the 30km exclusion zone-surrounding reactor 4. I was surprised to find that today over 3,500 workers now enter Chernobyl’s exclusion zone each day to monitor, clean and guard the site, with a 5300 ton confinement structure the centre piece to an impressive remediation effort (Peplow,2011).

The protective structure set to replace the temporary structure put into place shortly after the disaster at a cost of 1.54 billion euros Source:RT,2013

People are less concerned about remediation where Chernobyl is concerned; even 27 years on much discussion falls upon the health and environmental legacy of the event. Nuclear accidents like Chernobyl whilst often dramatic and explosive in nature are somewhat hidden killers with the majority of deaths coming from contamination in the years and decades afterwards.

As a result the overall damage is somewhat ambiguous, like many issues related to nuclear power, opinions are polarised and it is often difficult to see the wood for the trees, estimates for the current death toll vary from under 50 (guardian,2006), to close to a million in a study by Yablokov et al, 2010. 

Firstly there are the facts, 47 workers died from acute radiation sickness.There were in excess of 4000 cases of Thyroid cancer in highly contaminated areas, a more than ten-fold increase from normal levels, widely accepted to be the result of Chernobyl (UN,2005).

Source:BBC,2006

Yet the further we move away from the event both in time and space, the greater the disparities become. A popular question often asked relates to whether Chernobyl caused a significant rise in cancer risk across Europe and can be made responsible for many more deaths across the continent. The problem here is that one quarter of all deaths in Europe are the result of cancer so teasing out Chernobyl’s impact is challenging if not impossible (Peplow, 2011).   

A similar problem is encountered when trying to find a causal link to congenital mutations which have been so readily associated with the accident. There were many studies which suggested an increase in the rate of deformities. Yet on larger, longer term scale a link is harder to establish. It is argued that the lack of hereditary defects seen in children of Japan’s atomic bomb survivors would suggest that Chernobyl is merely a scapegoat in many cases (Peplow,2011). 

Milk products were taken out of circulation and iodine tablets given out following Fukushima, absorption of radio-iodine was believed to be the main cause of thyroid cancer following Chernobyl, Greenpeace argue that there could be 60000 cases of the disease unaccounted for in official figures Source: BBC,2006

Complicating matters even further, when trying to assess the magnitude of the impact on health,is the question of the inclusion of actions taken in fear following the event.  In response to Chernobyl there was deemed to be a rise in the number of abortions in countries as far a field, as Italy and Austria (Renn, 1990). Some studies have also linked the event to an increase in smoking, alcoholism and suicide in surrounding areas (Yablokov et al, 2010).

‘There’s tremendous uncertainty for these people…some think they are doomed because of radiation exposure’ Elisabeth Cardis epidemiologist (Peplow 2011)

This uncertainty remains because studies on Chernobyl and long-term radiation exposure have been isolated to small regions and ill funded in recent times (Peplow, 2011). What is needed is a coordinated European study, and I hope that in light of the more recent Fukushima disaster in Japan, more money will be channeled into research programmes assessing the impact of nuclear accidents. Chernobyl gives us an ideal opportunity to study the effects of low level long term radiation exposure, and in light of the cross roads that we have arrived at in terns of energy resources, any findings could prove influential to future energy policy. Also better knowledge and education could reduce the panic following nuclear accidents, which can exacerbate the situation.  

Whilst the precise health impacts are widely disputed, from research I did get some idea of the huge psychological, and socio-economic toll nuclear disasters can enact. Other energy sources come with there risks, dam failures, oil spills etc but the damage they cause is not so enduring or insidious in nature. That said I'm not ready to give up on nuclear energy yet, it should be also remembered that climate change also threatens environmental destruction,the displacement of millions and will undoubtedly prove costly, and it would be biased to judge the present safety of nuclear power solely on an antiquated reactor which was poorly managed.

Thanks for reading!

References

(BBC,2006)@http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/guides/456900/456957/html/nn4page1.

(UN, 2005)@http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/chernobyl/pdfs/pr.pdf

(Guardian,2006)@http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2005/sep/06/energy.ukraine

(Peplow,2011)@http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110328/full/471562a.html

(Renn,1990)@http://elib.uni-stuttgart.de/opus/volltexte/2010/5308/pdf/ren28.pdf

(RT,2013)@http://rt.com/in-motion/chernobyl-new-shell-structure-512/

(Yablokov et al, 2010)@http://www.scribd.com/doc/61517283/Yablokov-Chernobyl-Book