Chernobyl

Taylor Emberton

Hart

TEC 101

2/12/16

Chernobyl

        Case Study 1 was very factual and informational. It begins with the telling of the Chernobyl explosions and the effects. Chernobyl was a nuclear power plant that exploded and killed a countless number of people; in fact we will never know exactly how many people were killed by it. The accident immediately killed thirty-one people and released nuclear radiation into the atmosphere causing cancer, respiratory diseases, and birth defects to skyrocket. The government has obviously kept doctors and media from releasing just how many peoples’ deaths could be contributed to the disaster.

        The reason the plant exploded was due to a very flawed experiment conducted by the plant operators. It almost seemed as if curiosity killed the cat in their situation. They wanted to find out if the backup generators would kick on if there was a power failure. They shut down many important parts of the plant’s operating system and removed control rods. They tried reinserting these control rods later, but where they were supposed to fit into was too deformed. The reactor core then melted and the plant exploded.

        The containment of the disaster was impossible. The flames from the explosions were put out through various techniques and a shell was placed over the remains of the plant. Later a second shell was proposed. RBMK-type reactors, which were used inside the Chernobyl plant, were also modified in design to make them safer to use. So many nuclear plants are still in operation today, making us wonder if this type of disaster could occur again.

Case Study Questions

1. To complete the flow chart, no I would not go ahead with the test. I would not go with option 1 because relying on theoretical study is useful, but only to a certain extent. It wouldn’t be trustworthy enough because it couldn’t be tested. I would go with option 2 because performing the test using computer simulation would be more safe and reliable due to the discoveries it would produce. The downside to this experiment would be that there would be no way to factor in the environmental changes going on around and inside of the plant.
2. No way! I’ve done research papers on nuclear energy before and the plants are set up beside a huge body of water. This is so they can pump the water from the water source through the plant to use it as a cooling agent. Unfortunately they dump all of this extremely hot water back into the bodies of water, killing massive amounts of wildlife. Also, how can it be clean when one accident can cause thousands, or even millions, of deaths?
3. Much larger. There’s much more room for human error, when the use of more people is needed with the growth of plants. A major accident at any level could definitely lead to the deaths of millions, or even all, people around the world. If it didn’t cause immediate deaths worldwide, it could very well give everyone diseases and cancers that couldn’t be cured. Also, the water would most definitely be unsafe to drink and we cannot live without water, nor can animals. They would be drinking the water and we would be eating some wildlife, causing the radiation to pass from them to us.
4. Wind energy and solar energy are great alternatives I do believe! I don’t love nonrenewable energy resources such as coal and oil, but they would even be better alternatives to nuclear energy in my opinion.
5. Short Term Effects- Maybe the radiation filled clouds, but really I wouldn’t say there were many effects which could be classified as purely short term.

Long Term Effects- The families who were impacted by the loss of loved ones, the amount of radiation in the atmosphere, the increased risk of cancer and other diseases, the number of birth defects, the destruction of environment around the plant, and the way we look at nuclear energy.