CONSULTING
20160713MSC-WNISR2016V2-LR
20160713MSC-WNISR2016V2-LR
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
a source of carbon dioxide to smother the fire. Lead was included as a radiation absorber, as well<br />
as sand and clay, which it was hoped would prevent the release of particulates.<br />
A system was installed by 5 May to feed cold nitrogen to the reactor space, to provide cooling and<br />
to blanket against oxygen thus avoiding further hydrogen explosions. By 6 May when most of the<br />
graphite had burned, the core temperatures fell and there was a sharp reduction in the rate of<br />
radionuclide releases. In addition, work began on a massive reinforced concrete slab with a builtin<br />
cooling system beneath the reactor. This involved digging a tunnel from underneath unit 3. About<br />
400 people worked on this tunnel, which was completed in 15 days, allowing the installation of the<br />
concrete slab. This slab would not only be of use to cool the core if necessary, it would also act as a<br />
barrier to prevent penetration of melted radioactive material into the groundwater.<br />
In addition to the two workers that had died from the explosions on the day of the accident, by the<br />
end of July, six firemen, a further 21 plant staff and a visitor had died of acute radiation poisoning<br />
as a result of the accident.<br />
Following the accident and the large contamination by the radioactive cloud, a 2,800 km 2<br />
exclusion zone designated for evacuation has been established and placed under military control.<br />
More than 130,000 people were moved out of their homes and villages in the immediate<br />
aftermath of the accident. But many more people were eventually displaced. The U.N. Office for<br />
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) stated in 2004: “Nearly 400,000 people were<br />
resettled but millions continued to live in an environment where continued residual exposure<br />
created a range of adverse effects.” 240<br />
While units 1, 2, 3, unaffected by the explosions, resumed operation a few weeks later, the<br />
Soviet army engaged (and poorly trained) more than 550.000 workers called the “liquidators”,<br />
who were engaged in the disaster management. Their tasks included evacuation of contaminated<br />
debris, cleaning emergency areas, repairing equipment and buildings etc.<br />
Dispersion of Radioactivity<br />
The graphite fire at unit 4 caused the ejection of radioactive gases, aerosols and particulates high<br />
into the atmosphere. These were distributed in plumes by prevailing winds and rainfall throughout<br />
Europe and eventually across the northern hemisphere. The consequent caesium-137 fallout<br />
patterns in Europe were later measured by the European Commission (see Figure 28).<br />
In total, 40 percent of Europe’s land area was contaminated significantly (>4,000 Bq per m 2 ) by<br />
Chernobyl’s fallout. 241 The most seriously affected countries (ranked by magnitude of Cs-137<br />
fallout) were the former USSR Republics adjacent to the stricken reactor—Belarus, Russia and<br />
Ukraine.<br />
Other seriously affected countries were, in area size order, former Yugoslavia, Finland, Sweden,<br />
Bulgaria, Norway, Romania, Germany and Austria. Although former Yugoslavia was not measured<br />
by the EC teams (because of the Balkan civil war), earlier measurements had been made by the U.S.<br />
Department of Energy.<br />
240 UN-OCHA, “Chernobyl: Needs great 18 years after nuclear accident”, 26 April 2004, see<br />
http://reliefweb.int/report/belarus/chernobyl-needs-great-18-years-after-nuclear-accident, accessed 1 July 2016.<br />
241 Ian Fairlie, “TORCH-2016—An independent scientific evaluation of the health-related effects of the<br />
Chernobyl nuclear disaster”, 31 March 2016, see<br />
https://www.global2000.at/sites/global/files/GLOBAL_TORCH%202016_rz_WEB_KORR.pdf, accessed 4 June 2016.<br />
Mycle Schneider, Antony Froggatt et al. 78 World Nuclear Industry Status Report 2016