I remember the day it was announced. We were sitting with my dad watching evening news.
The news was almost over and just in passing they quickly mentioned there was "a malfunction" at the Chernobyl power plant. They showed a quick picture of some smoke rising. And that's it. Nothing more. It was like they were announcing about how the local sports team won a medal or something.
My dad said, yeah this is not good.
We didn't live too close but we were a bit downwind. The only thing I remember then was that my mom's flowers on the balcony outside died. It was probably not related now that I think about it, but she believed it was. People didn't know what to believe. They obviously didn't trust the official channels.
There was a lot of fear mongering and people making up stories.
It got worse later when people from Chernobyl were sent to live in other cities. Unbelievably, they carried a stigma! People would shun them, as if those people were carrying a disease or were somehow responsible for it. I can't even imagine being uprooted from your home, irradiated with an unknown dose, sent to live in a new city starting with nothing, and then have your new neighbors and coworkers shun you as well.
But that's not all. At some point they called for volunteers. Basically people to help clear up the mess. They promised money and free apartments for those that went. Many went but, when they came back they didn't enjoy the apartments too much longer because they got cancer.
Anyway just a few personal anecdotes if anyone is interested.
I can see this being a scene in a film (from the article):
'I arrived the next morning to be greeted by two men, with cheap suits and attaché cases, looking like the East German Stasi. They were government officials. They asked, “So what do you want to do here?” I said openly, “I want to take photos here because I’m looking for victims from Chernobyl.” Their answer, “None of these kids here are in any way connected with Chernobyl. You know that malformations can happen anywhere, none of this is connected to Chernobyl.”
Even though it was still very early in the morning, I had a great thought — I had obviously already had enough coffee — and I responded, “Okay, if you give it to me in writing that not a single kid here is in any way connected to Chernobyl, I will pack up my bags and my cameras, and I’ll leave.” And then I said, “But of course, we will need to report in National Geographic that because none of the kids’ diseases are related to Chernobyl, you’re no longer interested in receiving funds from Chernobyl charities.”
P: Wow. Power move.
G: You should have seen how fast they changed their minds. “Oh, there may be this child, and may be this one, and, well, the parents of this kid lived in Chernobyl.” All of sudden the whole situation turned. So in that kind of encounter you learn that you cannot trust officials today any more than you could in the past. It’s gotten better in Ukraine, but Belarus was pretty bad.'
I was born in Romania in May of 1986 about 700km from the plant[1]. My mom tells me stories about how all the pregnant women in the area were encouraged to eat pre-packaged food (no fresh veggies, for example), and drink powdered milk.
Luckily, I was almost completely developed by the time of the disaster (born May 8, meltdown happened April 26), but I am very cognizant about some health problems that people affected by Chernobyl might have, notably thyroid cancer[2].
Birth defects seem to only increase with every generation to the point where the 3rd and 4th generation are hitting a genetic roadblock as all the small genetic defects have reached a "boiling point".
Some local doctors actually proposed to assign a genetic passport to the residents of the area to let them know what's the chance of them being able to reproduce without defects.
There have been quite a few documentaries about this VICE included it in a segment on their HBO show https://youtu.be/YMnpnd0T4gE?t=802.
WARNNING!: Some of the images especially in the medical center are very disturbing to the point of looking more like a set of a scifi movie ala the thing than real life.
So the true ramifications of Chernobyl might not be visible for another 1 or 2 generations, on the good side the population which was exposed to the Chernobyl incident is much less isolated than various native populations exposed to nuclear test in Siberia, Kazakhstan and in the pacific so they have a much bigger (unexposed) genetic pool to have children with which might result in a smaller likelihood of enough genetic defects to accumulate to the point where they cannot actually produce sufficient children to sustain a population.
I'm intrigued by the mention of farmers growing crops in contaminated areas. Presumably the soil has detectable levels of radioactive isotopes, but is there any evidence that this is taken up into the crops themselves? Same with the harvesting of fish or fungi in these zones... is there evidence that they contain harmful contaminants? If so, would they be medically significant?
The essay seems to imply that this stuff is irresponsible, but doesn't really delve into specifics.
Full disclosure: I've done a lot of construction work in the nuclear power industry, so I'm pretty familiar with radiation, contamination, and their effects. A lot of contamination events result in exposure that is statistically insignificant (e.g. eating a banana would result in more exposure), but there are certainly more harmful forms. My admittedly limited understanding is that a lot of the areas surrounding Chernobyl have detectable, but not really harmful levels of radiation.
I'm just a layman, so I'm hoping more informed folks can fill me in!
There was a documentary on either PBS or NPR in the last year or so specifically about harvesting plants and fungi in the disaster area. I can't find it now, but the overall idea was that it would be a really bad idea to eat meat, worse to eat the plants and grains, and just an overall terrible idea to eat the fungus.
This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_hunting#Radiation
Is the only thing I could find regarding mushrooms specifically. I wish I could find that documentary. Essentially, mushrooms are really good at accumulating radioactive particles through their mycelium.
Wow, the uptake of caesium-137 in mushrooms was something I was not aware of. That's really interesting, as I thought it was something that mostly just bio-accumulated in higher-order predators. I might just be mixing it up with mercury though.
Ever since it became easier to get into the Chernobyl area, there has been an increase in people trying to dramatize it. I suggest watching this short video with Tom Scott, about his recent visit, where they try to inject a bit of reality into the situation: a lot of looted/stripped buildings that have stood abandoned for decades. It's impressive, but doesn't have a lot to do with radiation or the reactor.
There are certainly a lot of areas where you shouldn't linger for extended periods of time. The reactor accident (and how the situation was handled afterwords[1]) was absolutely terrible.
That said, it is important to remember that - even accounting for the Chernobyl disaster (and the utterly insignificant radiological[3] disaster in Fukushima) - nuclear power is still the only viable option if we want to have energy in the future, as it is the cleanest. Everything else pollutes more and only a few technologies even come close to making enough power.
Unfortunately, the Hiroshima Syndrome[4] is epidemic, and the current wave of "Chernobyl disaster theatre" is only making these fears worse. We need to find better ways to educate people and counter the decades of misinformation and fear. The HN crowd like to "disrupt" things, so may I suggest finding ways to disrupt the common fears about radiation?
[1] My greatest respect and thanks to the people - the "liquidators" - who had to be the "bio-robots" that cleaned up the worst areas when the mechanical robots failed from the radiation. If you haven't seen it, I suggest watching this[2] footage of 3828 people that cleaned up one of the worst areas of the reactor's roof, <2 minutes at a time.
> The HN crowd like to "disrupt" things, so may I suggest finding ways to disrupt the common fears about radiation?
Don't get your hopes up - I can't imagine how a tech startup could participate in nuclear power generation. Startups can however compete in decentralized energy production technologies such as wind and solar.
Do you have a link to an article about the children with three hands? It's an unusual deformation in newborns, but I think it's not related to radiation.
Radiation is bad and is especially bad for small children and unborn children, but it can produce only certain types of deformations. The number of hands in a baby is fixed after the 4th week after fertilization. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development )
> Most cases of multiple limbs result from conjoined twins forming in development. One child does not survive and becomes essentially absorbed into the other, said Dr. Russell Jennings at the Children's Hospital in Boston.
A little bit more about me:
I was born in August 1986 in Grudziądz, Poland. I was 2 months to early.
I had to be revived 3 times after i was born. usually they tried only twice. I was told that by a Nurse who begged the Doctor to try it once more. I know all that because years later I thanked her with flowers. She and my mum told me some stories. They dont have a source or article about that. They are just stories.
there were more miscarriage then normal since April 1986.
She told me that some children were horrible deformed and that she was happy for every child they could save.
Funny, are the officials lying when they say that none of the malformations are connected to Chernobyl, or when, for fear of losing the stream of money coming from charities, they say the opposite?
One of the conclusions of the WHO report on the consequences of Chernobyl, published in 2005, is that:
"Most emergency workers and people living in contaminated areas received relatively low whole body radiation doses, comparable to natural background levels. As a consequence, no evidence or likelihood of decreased fertility among the affected population has been found, nor has there been any evidence of increases in congenital malformations that can be attributed to radiation exposure. "
Photos of Chernobyl always remind me of Stalker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalker_(1979_film)), yet the philosophical introspective guide is light years away from the garish tourist guide pictured here with radioactive lenses.
Well of course in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (the computer game) they had combined the two. The Zone there is obviously Chernobyl, it even includes the giant over the horizon (now defunct) radar installation and so on.
(Note: I never played, I was just told by others about).
Me too. On the other hand, apart from a few shots of ruins or the creek full of trash, Stalker is set mostly in the meadows. I was always amazed how Tarkovsky managed to fill 163 minutes when almost all he had was meadows.
Vastly more personal damage and hardship was caused by the forced removal of populations than the actual event itself. This happened both at Chernobyl and Fukushima.
The confirmed radiation related death's at Chernobyl was 13, the occurrence of cancers and other illnesses possibly related to radiation in the population is to close to the statistical noise floor to be significant.
The current popular narrative on nuclear energy is not doing us any good.
You see, you've stepped onto the ground rich with history and connotations. Growing up I saw in newspapers photos of children with flippers instead of legs. I've heard kids being called "Chernobyl kid" on streets by other kids. "Chernobyl kid" as in insult meant "damaged kid".
More generally term "Chernobyl kid" means (or used to mean) something very specific: person who was affected by radiation in a way which caused mutations. For mutations to be caused, radiation exposure needs to happen during prenatal development. Just being displaced with your family to other region does not make you a Chernobyl kid. That's why I mentioned wrong generation.
We are talking about boxers who have exceptional physical characteristics. When you talk about Chernobyl in this context, things like antagonist "Rocky IV" pop into mind. Juiced on chems. Or a mutant.
Calling a world champion a mutant is an insult. He has made it to the top thanks to hard work, talent, and smart management.
I see. What I was intending with that comment was to point out that despite being a child who was exposed to radiation in Chernobyl, that child (children, Vitali was there too) went on to be one of the most physically accomplished humans currently alive.
Where are they? In the scaremongering imagination of pop writers and lobbying scientists. Last time I checked there was a <3% leukaemia bump after 'the worst nuclear disaster in the world'.
The comparisons of Fukushima to Chernobyl really got my goat, personally. Despite the fact that fuel rods melted in both cases (thus both were "meltdowns"), there is an extraordinary difference between fuel rods overheating in a cooling pond and explosive breach of a critical reactor in a runaway condition. It's like classifying a campfire and the Hindenburg together because both are combustion - both can certainly burn you, but they're fundamentally dislike in intensity, scale, and kind.
Most of the really nasty stuff (high-level actinide waste) is highly radioactive because it decays so quickly. After the reactor is shut down and the fuel rods are removed, all that stuff is gone, whereas breach of a critical reactor results in the release of that stuff. The byproducts of a fuel fire is stuff like radioiodine and radiocaesium - it's not healthy by any means, if ingested it will elevate the risk of cancer over the long term, but it's not instadeath like actinide waste.
"What is expected to happen in Fukushima" is nothing like what happened to Chernobyl. A couple years later people are moving back, and it's perfectly safe to do so after some minimal decontamination efforts.
Not everyone is moving back though. I couldn't find out how long the Fukushima "difficult-to-return" inner exclusion zone is expected to be maintained, do you know? Apparently people who can't move back within 5 years will receive compensation based on the full pre-accident market value of their house.
I actually grew up (ages 4 - 17) near (<36miles) Chernobyl and my family still works on CHNPP. I now work at on of the top tech companies in Silicon Valley. I would even question a <3% leukaemia bump for people who were not involved in cleanup efforts directly.
Rates were 1.2 times higher after the accident compared to the pre-accident period among the population living in territories with a level of radioactive pollution exceeding 555 kBq per m2
Between 1986 and 1996 a total of 21 cases of leukaemia were observed in Zhitomir occurring among children born during 1986. A total of eight cases were observed in the largely uncontaminated Poltava region.
You should check cancer rate increased in Belarus, as Wikipedia states:
...Reports from Soviet and Western scientists indicate that Belarus received about 60% of the contamination that fell on the former Soviet Union...
It depends on the dosage. In medium to large doses that's certainly true, but it's not a settled question for low doses. The model that assumes that any radiation (no matter how little) causes damage is called the Linear No-Threshold model, and there's actually not a lot of scientific consensus on its validity.
It's a conservative model, and thus it tends to get used out of an abundance of caution, but it's hard to quantify low-dose effects accurately. Since we're all exposed to a fair bit of radiation naturally, low doses don't represent much change in total radiation exposure.
Average dosage to the public in the affected countries was about 9 millisieverts [1]. A CT scan is about 10 mSv. The average natural exposure is about 2.4 mSv per year in America, but in some places with high radon levels exposure can be up to 7 mSv/year. It's difficult to reach significance with small changes like that.
You read the account here? Hiding problems and pretending all is well is very much the strategy according to the article. Medical staff and government officials appear to be trying to hide the victims. It wasn't some sort of unverifiable anti-nuclear rant.
Edit: where is 3% coming from? My quick look is giving much higher rates. http://m.ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/1/125.long
The news was almost over and just in passing they quickly mentioned there was "a malfunction" at the Chernobyl power plant. They showed a quick picture of some smoke rising. And that's it. Nothing more. It was like they were announcing about how the local sports team won a medal or something.
My dad said, yeah this is not good.
We didn't live too close but we were a bit downwind. The only thing I remember then was that my mom's flowers on the balcony outside died. It was probably not related now that I think about it, but she believed it was. People didn't know what to believe. They obviously didn't trust the official channels.
There was a lot of fear mongering and people making up stories.
It got worse later when people from Chernobyl were sent to live in other cities. Unbelievably, they carried a stigma! People would shun them, as if those people were carrying a disease or were somehow responsible for it. I can't even imagine being uprooted from your home, irradiated with an unknown dose, sent to live in a new city starting with nothing, and then have your new neighbors and coworkers shun you as well.
But that's not all. At some point they called for volunteers. Basically people to help clear up the mess. They promised money and free apartments for those that went. Many went but, when they came back they didn't enjoy the apartments too much longer because they got cancer.
Anyway just a few personal anecdotes if anyone is interested.