On April 26, 1986, reactor 4 of the
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant exploded . Radioactive fallout from Chernobyl spread throughout Europe and even reached Japan and the United States. Nearly 400,000 people were evacuated. According to a recent United Nations document, nine million people were affected by radiation in one way or another. The most affected were the so- called liquidators (numbering about 800,000) who did the clean-up work.
The fires of Chernobyl bode ill for the future of nuclear energy. They have burnt down the dreams and wishful thinking of those who see the number of reactors continuing to grow in every country. In the 80s, the nuclear industry already seemed to be in crisis. The disaster at Harrisburg (US) in March 1979 marked the beginning of the great economic catastrophes of the nuclear power industry in the US. In Nucleonics Week (4 July, 1985), Jack H. Ferguson, president of Virginia Power Company, admitted: "We consider nuclear power an option in the near term. And I think I'd have to say near term is probably the next ten or fifteen years. We don't think public perception will permit it much sooner than that...."
On the design:
"The design feature of having more than 1000 individual primary circuits increases the safety of the reactor system - a serious loss of coolant accident is practically impossible."
On nuclear safety in the USSR:
"The safety of nuclear power plants in the Soviet Union is assured by a very wide spectrum of measures, the most important of which are:
- Security high quality manufacture and installation of components;
- Checking of components at all stages;
- Development and realization of effective technical safety measures to prevent accidents, to compensate for possible malfunctions, and to decrease the consequence of possible accidents;
- Development and realization of ways of localizing radioactivity released in case of an accident;
- Realization of technical and organizational measures to ensure safety at all stages of construction and operation of nuclear power plants;
- Regulation of technical and organizational aspects in securing safety; and
- Introduction of a system of state safety control and regulation."
Source: IAEA Bulletin vol.25, No.2, June 1983 |
Before the disaster of Chernobyl, little was known about the Chernobyl RMBK-type reactor in the Western world. The nuclear industry was convinced they were safe. (Read the IAEA-quotations
here) The nuclear industry as well as politicians worldwide immediately reacted to the Chernobyl disaster by calling for an end to the Soviet-type reactors in Central and Eastern Europe. Ten years later, we can very well see that this has not come true. The discussion on nuclear power plants in Eastern Europe has shifted from the immediate closure of the plants to ways of upgrading them. The nuclear industry has also started programs for the extension of reactors' lifetimes. This can be seen as a way to try to survive with the slackening of new construction orders. Economic reasons take precedence before safety. This issue of WISE News Special Issue focuses on why there has been a complete policy shift from closure to upgrading. How is it possible that the Chernobyl catastrophe did not bring about an end to the Chernobyl-type reactors, at the very least, if not to nuclear energy in general? One of the main factors behind the policy shift is the fact that the public relations departments of the nuclear industry succeeded in promoting the idea that the East European nuclear reactors are extremely dangerous, but that, in contrast, the Western nuclear reactors are very safe. In one of the articles, the role of the Western nuclear industry and its policy are studied and described. In another article, the focus is on Russian politicians and the Russian nuclear industry. During the eighteen years of its existence, WISE has continuously followed the nuclear news. It is obvious that developments in the nuclear field all over the world prove over and over again that nuclear energy is never safe anywhere on this planet. The risk of a nuclear accident are simply too big, and the consequences too terrible to continue with this deadly way of producing electricity. That must be one of the bitter lessons of Chernobyl.
The closure of the nuclear reactors in the Ukraine is possible. Enough alternatives to replace the electricity currently produced by nuclear plants are available. Only the political will and the economic aid for it are needed.
We hope that with this News Communique, we manage to pass on to activists and groups important information which could be of use in their struggle against the power structures that enable the nuclear power industry to keep itself alive. This is the underlying motive for the continuous work of WISE.
The WISE Collective
|
The staff of the plant started a test, which should have been carried out before the power plant was put into operation. In actual fact, such a test had been carried out earlier - but failed. During preparations for the test, the operators experienced difficulty keeping the capacity of the nuclear plant stable and they made a lot of mistakes. When the real test began, the power plant's capacity suddenly increased unexpectedly. The control rods started to descend, but shocks could be felt. The fuel tubes became deformed because of the large increase in the steam pressure. Pressure in the reactor became so high that the fuel elements burst and small particles landed in the cooling water. The cooling water turned into steam and pressure in the tubes increased. They burst. The 1000-ton lid above the fuel elements was lifted - the first explosion. The release of radiation started. Air got into the reactor. There was enough oxygen to start a graphite fire. The metal of the fuel tubes reacted with the water. The chemical reaction produced hydrogen. This hydrogen exploded - the second explosion.
Source: WISE NC 349/350; April 5, 1991
|
