INSIGHTS

Chernobyl Postmortem

Unresolved obstacles continue to plague the nuclear industry.

BY ALEXEY V. YABLOKOV

Year after year, the nuclear disaster at Chernobyl continues to capture the attention not only of industry specialists but of the public, the media, and the United Nations as well.1 Despite uncertainties over the true level of radioactive fallout, the number of people immediately affected, or the number of future cancer victims, Chernobyl is associated with the worst technical catastrophe in human history.

Thirteen years after the disaster, it is time to ask whether the nuclear industry has learned sufficient lessons to ensure that another Chernobyl doesn’t happen again. For many, the Chernobyl disaster confirmed their fears and suspicions about nuclear power. And it remains incumbent on the nuclear industry to address and debunk these fears if it ever hopes to restore trust. So far, it has failed to do so.

Small Doses, Little Harm?

Thirteen years ago, debate still raged over whether there is a threshold for the effects of radiation. Below that threshold, some believed, radiation was harmless. By now, the vast majority of scientists have concluded there is no such threshold. Indeed, any additional doses of radiation, no matter how small, can damage a living organism.

In the years since Chernobyl, the world has continued to sharpen radiation standards. Under the 1990 international standards, the maximum safe dose equivalent for persons working with radioactive substances was lowered to a 78th of what had been allowed under the first standard established in 1925.2

Another vital change has occurred in our perspective on the effects of small doses of radiation. An increasing number of researchers have confirmed the Petkau-effect—first hypothesized in the 1950s—which suggests that small radiation doses received by an organism over an extended period cause more serious damage than the same dose received over a shorter period.3 Research has demonstrated that organisms exposed to minimal doses of radiation display a marked increase in sensitivity.4

These theories were tragically confirmed in the territories affected by small doses of radioactive emissions from Chernobyl. Official forecasts of merely a few additional cases of cancer by the end of this century have been disproved by a hundredfold increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer.

Another unexpected consequence of human exposure to small radiation doses was a significant increase in the number of spontaneous miscarriages. Establishing the exact number is extremely difficult because of incomplete medical statistics, but individual observations seem to tell the story. Consider, for instance, that in Sweden the number of successful conceptions decreased by 600 in June and July of 1986.5 In Greece, the number of live births from January through March of 1987 was 2,500 lower than expected.6 The same decline was observed in Italy, Germany, Belorussia, and even in the United States.7

If one extrapolates from these data to the whole territory polluted by Chernobyl emissions, one can assume that the first consequence of Chernobyl was that tens of thousands of pregnancies were terminated, mainly in Europe.

Another of Chernobyl’s effects was the upswing of newborn children with anomalies and deformities. There was a three- to fourfold increase in the number of congenital defects of the nervous system in newborn children conceived during the second half of 1986 in several cities in Turkey affected by fallout from Chernobyl.8 In 1994 and 1995, in Belorussia alone, up to 600 abortions were carried out annually following chromosome analysis that indicated these unborn children suffered congenital disorders arising from exposure to low doses of radiation.

Another terrible consequence of Chernobyl’s low-dose pollution is the sharp increase in the number of retarded children. A comparison of 2,213 newborns in the polluted territories of Belorussia, Russia, and the Ukraine with 2,120 children born in nearby unpolluted territories has shown that more than half of the children born in the former regions display signs of retarded mental development.

These data confirm observations on fetal development made in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the years following detonation of atomic bombs. Clearly, small radiation doses do disturb the normal formation of the central nervous system of the fetus in certain sensitive stages of development.

During the decade following Chernobyl, the danger that small doses of radiation can harm humans has turned from an assumption to a scientific fact backed by dozens—or even hundreds—of scientific studies. These results also highlight the narrow focus of past research, which was mainly oriented toward increased incidence of leukemia. While leukemia is one untoward consequence of radiation exposure, other illnesses and abnormalities are equally as telling and should be emphasized in future studies. Among them are the following:

n Spontaneous miscarriages as a result of developmental disturbances in fetuses.

n Retarded mental development in children resulting from disturbances during fetal development of the central nervous system.

n Damage to the immune system leading to higher susceptibility to usual infectious and noninfectious diseases in adults and children. Loss of immunity in the contaminated areas has been dubbed "Chernobyl AIDS."

n Disturbances to human endocrine systems.

n Cancers that increase in incidence several years after the onset of exposure to radiation.

n Accelerated aging of individual organs as well as the entire human body.

n Increases in cataracts, viral infections such as hepatitis, thyroid cancers, diseases of the blood, and diseases of the respiratory system, including tuberculosis.

n Retarded sexual development and irregularities in the menstrual cycle.

As more and more harmful effects emerge from exposure to small doses of radiation, it becomes obvious that the problem is much more complex than we might have once imagined. One particularly troubling discovery involves the likelihood that sensitivity to small radiation doses varies from human to human and that some humans are more sensitive than others to the effects of radiation.

Previously classified experiments on mammals in the former Soviet Union, together with detailed observations of the workers who were on site following the disaster at Chernobyl, reveal that from 14 to 20 percent of all mammalian populations are resistant to the effects of radiation, while 10 to 20 percent display a heightened sensitivity. Among the latter group, some are hypersensitive to radiation effects.9

Radioactive Waste

Radioactive waste is generated during various stages of uranium mining, fuel production, reactor operation, fuel reprocessing, and power-plant decommissioning. However, thousands of times as much waste is generated during reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel to recover plutonium, as during the other stages of the nuclear fuel cycle.

The key problem associated with radioactive waste is that certain long-lived radionuclides remain radioactive for hundreds or even thousands of years. Equally as important, nuclear fission creates substances—primarily plutonium and transuraniums—that are alien to the biosphere, and living organisms cannot adapt to them. As a consequence, nuclear technologies remain the dirtiest of all existing technologies.

The only lasting solution to the nuclear waste problem is total destruction. To date, however, transmutation remains the only way to destroy these wastes. This technique involves transforming dangerous, long-lived radionuclides into short-lived ones that eventually lose their radioactivity. While transmutation is theoretically possible, its huge appetite for energy makes it infeasible.

Since total destruction is not currently a viable alternative, other disposal techniques focus on isolation and storage of radioactive wastes. The methods receiving the most attention include dumping radioactive wastes in outer space, burying them in the sediment rocks under the sea bottom, or sinking them miles deep in the Earth’s molten inner layers. None of these ambitious techniques has been adequately developed and likely won’t be for quite some time.

As far back as 40 years ago, environmentalists warned the nuclear industry that the radioactive waste problem would snowball over time, but the industry turned a deaf ear. Indeed, the total amount of radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel from the world’s nuclear power plants has at least doubled since the Chernobyl disaster and now exceeds 200,000 tons. Our inability to resolve this issue shifts the radioactive-waste problem to future generations.

It’s worth nothing that throughout the nuclear industry’s history, its supporters have insisted that the radioactive waste problem is merely a technical hurdle that eventually would be cleared. The fact remains, however, that there is no acceptable solution at hand and none lurking on the horizon. To date, all solutions to the radioactive waste problem involve cleaning a room by sweeping the dirt under the carpet. In the case of radioactive waste, carpets are not a particularly effective, permanent barrier.

Normal Operations

Even when they’re operating at their best, nuclear power plants cause harm to humans and the environment. Every day, the world’s collective 440 nuclear power stations emit a small but significant amount of gaseous, liquid, and solid radioactive wastes. In fact, over a decade, these emissions are comparable to the emissions from the Chernobyl disaster.

While proponents of the nuclear industry argue that these emissions, in isolation, are not harmful, research suggests otherwise. Indeed, studies on the effects of nuclear power plants in the United States, Germany, Korea, and Switzerland suggest that these emissions do pose risk.¹⁰

The contention of nuclear power proponents is that the evidence of harmful effects is not statistically significant. To establish the effect of a certain risk factor—like exposure to radiation—using current epidemiological methods, one must compare the data on the occurrence of diseases in tens of thousands of people. These methods also require exact data on the health status of the population before and after a nuclear power station begins operation. Such studies are not only exacting and at risk of being influenced by countless other factors, but they are also expensive. Indeed, an epidemiological study of a U.S. population living in proximity to a nuclear power plant might cost in excess of $10 million.

Nongovernmental organizations do not have access to such funds. Meanwhile, although the nuclear industry and national governments do possess the necessary funds, they are not inclined to conduct such research. When the nuclear industry declares that there are no data on harmful effects associated with normal operation of a nuclear plant, what it’s really saying is that so far there has not been convincing, statistically sufficient evidence of harm.

Indirect data, however, show that harmful effects associated with nuclear plants are, in fact, significant, and they are based on two compelling arguments. The first argument concerns the inevitable emissions of radioactive materials from nuclear power plants. As a result of the normal work of a nuclear power station, a number of radionuclides are emitted, distributed, and accumulated in the environment. Among them are the products of nuclear fission—including tritium, carbon-14, krypton-85, iodine-129, and technetium—and products resulting from the corrosion of the reactor unit—including chromium-51, iron-59, cobalt-60, iodine-131, and others. While some of these will decay over several years, others will remain for thousands of years. We call these radionuclides global and eternal.

The second argument hinges on a phenomenon known as bioconentration or bioaccumulation. Bioaccumulation refers to the increase in chemicals that occurs in a biological organism over time when chemicals are taken up and stored faster than they are broken down. It is well known that as chemical elements move through the food chain, they become more concentrated in living tissues. As a result, organisms at the end of the food chain are likely to suffer the most from the presence of toxic chemicals. Concentrations of DDT in the tissues of birds of prey, for example, may be thousands of times higher than in the water where they catch their prey. Because of the effects of bioaccumulation, even small concentrations of global and eternal radionuclides in the environment can result in substantial concentrations in living organisms.

When the phenomenon of bioaccumulation is regarded from the standpoint that susceptibility to radioactivity varies significantly from one individual to another, the risks grow in proportion. Consider, for instance, that 20 percent of humans are especially sensitive to radiation and thus more vulnerable than others to the harmful effects of even small doses of radiation. That reality suggests that our current methods for establishing safety regulations governing the nuclear industry—regulations that are based on the effects to a healthy, 20-year-old white male—are fundamentally flawed and could put as many as a billion people at risk.11 In short, the only reason we have not produced irrefutable evidence of the harmful impacts of nuclear power plants is that we have not conducted comprehensive studies of those impacts.

Some argue that a nuclear reactor is safe so long as it is not compromised by operator error, equipment failure, terrorism, or other unforeseen circumstances that might trigger the release of dangerous levels of radioactivity into the environment. Sadly, fool-proof reactors that are not vulnerable to operator error or terrorism do not yet exist and won’t likely exist for decades, if at all.

A solution to the problem might involve the shift from fission to fusion as a power source for reactors. Fusion would be environmentally much safer than fission because it does not involve plutonium or uranium and would produce considerably fewer radioactive wastes. But this type of thermonuclear reactor is currently a theoretical concept at best and may or may not prove practical in the future.

While some are intent on eyeing the horizon for new energy technologies, others—including nuclear energy specialists—insist that our existing nuclear plants require our complete attention and must be made safer. Such an emphasis on the need for increased safety—particularly among nuclear engineers—suggests that our existing reactors are unacceptably dangerous.

Energy and Armaments

While some proponents of nuclear power do their utmost to separate nuclear power production from creation of nuclear weapons, the two have been inexorably linked by history. Indeed, civil nuclear technologies were developed as by-products of the creation of nuclear arms. Had there been no nuclear arms—and no nuclear arms race—nuclear energy would likely not have emerged in the Soviet Union, the United States, Great Britain, or France. Nuclear power and nuclear weapons applications both rely on the same physical principles, the same research institutes, the same technology, and the same reprocessing factories.

Today, the situation has reversed to some extent. And those countries that would like to become members of the nuclear club are gaining entry through peaceful development of nuclear energy technology. For many, the next logical step is development of nuclear weapons. In fact, a number of scientific papers have all arrived at the same conclusion: the proliferation of nuclear energy technology makes our world increasingly explosive and facilitates the production of nuclear arms. India, North Korea, and the Republic of South Africa are among the countries that have successfully developed nuclear arms programs based on peaceful nuclear energy programs. Reflecting this fact, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1996—which was signed by over 150 nations, including the five nuclear powers—must be ratified by all 44 countries with nuclear power plants before it can be entered into force.

If humankind took just a fraction of the funds thrown toward the nuclear energy industry and diverted them to the development of other, less dangerous, technologies for electricity generation, the world would no longer need nuclear energy.

Lingering Issues 

None of the problems highlighted by the Chernobyl disaster has been resolved over the past 13 years. Today, as immediately after the Chernobyl disaster, the nuclear industry has done its utmost to obfuscate the issue of nuclear safety and convince the world that disasters like Chernobyl cannot happen again. Despite these assurances, the mere existence of the nuclear energy industry violates the civil rights of the world’s citizens. Indeed, not a single person on Earth can feel safe under a sword of Damocles, which in this case assumes the form of radioactive emissions from nuclear power stations.

We have been told that nuclear arms alone have saved the world from disaster. It is not possible to either prove or disprove that statement because history does not allow such experiments. But this much we do know: the Chernobyl disaster demonstrated clearly that the fate of our civilization is vulnerable to the proliferation of nuclear technology. Will we acknowledge that it’s time to stop, or do we need another Chernobyl to drive that message home?n

Alexey V. Yablokov is chairman of the Interagency Commission on Ecological Security at the Center for Russian Environmental Policy in Moscow, Russia.

1. Report of the Secretary-General, United Nations, "Strengthening of International Cooperation and Coordination of Efforts to Study, Mitigate, and Minimize the Consequences of the Chernobyl Disaster," Doc. A/50/150 (General Assembly of United Nations, 1995), p. 38.

2. A.V. Yablokov, The Nuclear Mythology: Ecological Notes on Nuclear Industry (Moscow: Russian Academy of Science, Publication, 1995), (in Russian).

3. R. Graeub, The Petkau Effect: Nuclear Radiation, Peoples, and Trees (New York: Four Walls Eight Windows Publishing, 1992).

4. E.B. Burlakova, ed., Consequences of the Chernobyl Catastrophe: Human Health (Moscow, 1996), pp. 251.

5. A. Ericson and B. Kallen, "Pregnancy Outcome in Sweden after the Chernobyl Accident," Environmental Research 67 (Nov. 1994), pp. 149-159.

6. D. Trichopulos et al., "The Victims of Chernobyl in Greece: Induced Abortions after the Accident," British Medical Journal 295 (1987), p. 1100.

7. P.H. de Wals and H. Dolk, "Effect of the Chernobyl Radiological Contamination on Human Reproduction in Western Europe," in Progress in Chemical and Biological Research 340c (New York: Wiley-Liss Press, 1990), pp. 339-346; Graeub, The Petkau Effect: C.H. Busby, Wings of Death: Nuclear Pollution and Human Health (Aberystwyth: Green Audit Book, 1995), p. 340.

8. H. Mocan et al., "Changing Incidence of Anencephaly in the Eastern Black Sea Region of Turkey and Chernobyl," Pediatric Epidemiology 4 (1990), pp. 264-268.

9. E.E. Kovalev and O.A. Smirnova, Estimation of Radiation Risk Based on the Concept of Individual Variability of Radiosensitivity, Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute Contact Report 96-1 (Bethesda, MD: Defense Nuclear Agency, June 1996).

10. Graeub, The Petkau Effect; C.H. Busby, Wings of Death; A.V. Yablokov, The Nuclear Mythology.

11. International Basic Safety Standards for Protection Against Ionizing Radiation and for the Safety of Radiation Sources (Vienna: IAEA Safety Series, #115, 1994).

FORUM Homepage

Table of Contents