Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
chernobyl disaster summary in 400 words
chernobyl disaster and its effects
chernobyl disaster summary in 400 words
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: chernobyl disaster summary in 400 words
The Chernobyl meltdown was one the biggest meltdowns of the decade, the implications of Chernobyl didn’t just resonate in Russia, but the uranium contamination was found all across Europe. Sheep farmers from North Cumbria were affected by the radiation contamination. After the contamination, scientists came to help the farmers who were affected. Our presentation on the article also discussed the broader implications for the public understanding of science and how the deficit model failed in the article. The deficit model was used to discuss the problems with science and the lay people. The public’s negative attitude towards science is because of their ignorance towards it and the remedy was to dumb down the information to the lay people. This article discusses how both science and the lay people were misunderstanding each other. This was through miscommunication and standard view of the public understanding of science which lead to people to initially trust everything the scientists would say.
Now that we understand the deficit model, we can now discuss how the deficit model was used on the sheep farmers and how the misunderstanding by both sides contributed to a larger distrust of the scientific community. Sheep farmers in Lake District suffered quite a huge loss due to sanctions of their sheep in the Lake District of northern England. The sanctions were placed in effect after the 1986 Chernobyl. Cesium 137 and 134 were found in sheep across and in the soil across Cumbria. A ban was quickly created after they had assured farmers that it would only last for a couple weeks. This advice was given by the scientific community who had tested the soil in the lowlands of England and believed that the cesium would be eliminated in a s...
... middle of paper ...
...t inaccurately assumed that the acidity of soil in low land Cumbria compared to highland Cumbria was different.
This article shows the major flaw in the deficit theory due the fact scientists assumed the farmers did not know anything. This assumption led to the scientists not accepting any help or information by the farmers. In doing so, lead to public anger in Cumbria and a distrust in the scientific community. Furthermore, the inability to discuss the information on both sides lead to information being misinterpreted or discredited by both sides. Especially in the area of hiding information on the dangers of the Windscale nuclear plant. The government’s involvement in choosing to withhold information because they believed that the lay people would then assumed everything was good, which in fact they didn’t, caused an even bigger uproar when people finally found.
The engineers in Visit Sunny Chernobyl created a new frontier past the safety zone because they want to test the limits of the reactor. What the scientists didn’t account for is that fact that the reactors already had the potential of a dangerous chain reaction. (Blackwell 6) Consequently, their boundary destroying led to catastrophic consequences and the total annihilation of a land area because of massive radiation. Blackwell thought Chernobyl was so horrific he expressed that no one should visit without a “working understanding of radiation and how it’s measured” (Blackwell 7). These are some horrific consequences that followed from surpassing the
Lewis, H. W. (1986). The Accident at the Chernobyl' Nuclear Power Plant and Its Consequences. Environment, 28(9), 25.
The world has seen numerous engineering disasters and from each one, has gained insight to better prepare for future calamities. However, it is very difficult to fully foresee how an accident might occur just by looking back to past disasters. In addition, it is even harder to prepare for something that hasn’t even happened before. The Chernobyl accident is a prime example of an event that couldn’t be fully prevented just by looking to past disasters or even predicting this exact accident. Psychological biases, as well as other contributing factors such as human factors, and design flaws made the Chernobyl accident a catastrophe that no one could have anticipated.
...r. Iodine 131, another radioactive element, can dilute very quickly in the air, but if it is deposited on grass eaten by cows, the cows then re-concentrate it in their milk. Absorbed into the body's thyroid gland in a concentrated dose, Iodine 131 can cause cancer. In the Chernobyl disaster, the biggest health effect has been cases of thyroid cancer especially in children living near the nuclear plant. Therefore, because of the Chernobyl disaster we know to test the grass, soil, and milk for radiation. Also, an evacuation of the Chernobyl area was not ordered until over 24 hours after the incident. Japanese authorities evacuated 200,000 people from the area of Fukushima within hours of the initial alert. From the mistakes and magnitude of the disaster at Chernobyl, the world learned how to better deal with the long and short term effect of a Nuclear Fallout.
A nobel prize winning, architect of the atomic bomb, and well-known theoretical physicist, Professor Richard P. Feynman, at the 1955 autumn meeting of the National Academy of science, addresses the importance of science and its impact on society. Feynman contends, although some people may think that scientists don't take social problems into their consideration, every now and then they think about them. However he concedes that, because social problems are more difficult than the scientific ones, scientist don’t spend too much time resolving them (1). Furthermore he states that scientist must be held responsible for the decisions they make today to protect the future generation; also they have to do their best, to learn as much as possible,
Americans had knowledge of the events taking place during the war, but Carson shed a light on the ripple effects that the environment was experiencing. Silent Spring brings the focus to different threats that had arisen because of the war. In a way, Carson places the blame for the deterioration of the environment on mankind as a whole. In the past, wars had been fought without any use of nuclear weaponry. Carson’s writing really emphasizes the fault of mankind’s decision to hurt the environment. “Along with the possibility of extinction of mankind by nuclear war, the central problem of our age has therefore become the contamination of man’s total environment with such substances of incredible potential for harm – substances that accumulate in the tissues of plants and animals and even penetrate the germ cells to shatter or alter the very material of heredity upon which the shape of the future depends.” (Carson, 181). The writing technique Carson uses in Silent Spring has a way of making the reader feel guilty, especially considering that at the time of publication there was so much environmental destruction occurring. Carson’s writing helped to educate the American population of the harm to the environment caused by the Cold War. Because the war’s dangerous strategies provided such a strong backbone for Carson’s argument, the American public was very receptive of the content and themes presented in Silent
Early in the morning of April 27, 1986, the world experienced its largest nuclear disaster ever (Gould 40). While violating safety protocol during a test, Reactor 4 at the Chernobyl power plant was placed in a severely unstable state, and in a matter of seconds the reactor output shot up to 120 times the rated output (Flavin 8). The resulting steam explosion tossed aside the reactor’s 1,000 ton concrete covering and released radioactive particles up to one and a half miles into the sky (Gould 38). The explosion and resulting fires caused 31 immediate deaths and over a thousand injuries, including radiation poisoning (Flavin 5). After the accident more than 135,000 people were evacuated from their Ukrainian homes, but the major fallout occurred outside of the Soviet Union’s borders. Smaller radioactive particles were carried in the atmosphere until they returned to earth via precipitation (Gould 43). The Soviets quickly seeded clouds to prevent rainfall over their own land, so most of the radioactivity burdened Western Europe, Scandinavia, and the Atlantic and Arctic Oceans (Flavin 12). This truly international disaster had far reaching effects; some of these were on health, the environment, social standards, and politics.
Chernobyl, one word that still strikes pain and fear in the hearts of many, even after 28 years is still causing serious damage. It was largest nuclear disaster ever, Chernobyl was “. . . about 400 times more potent than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima during World War II . . .” (Walmsley “26 years on: helping Chernobyl's children”). The disaster was not immediately seen as a large threat, and this is why so many lives were taken or destroyed.
Tompkins displays, in her essay’s conclusion, the necessity to “piece together the story… as best I can,” because diverging perspectives inhibit a person’s ability to find, with confidence, a purely unbiased fact about any situation (9). These kinds of quandaries exist in many modern social spheres. Although much more objective, an issue, such as climate change, relies on an individual researching and uncovering facts from various sources, just as Tompkins did. Similarly, the individual must then “[believe] this version up to a point, that version not at all, another almost entirely,” so they may move forward toward a conclusion. If they fail to move toward a conclusion, they will tarry too long at the epistemological gateway and fail to effectively address the issue, by voting in misinformed politicians or not recycling. While the environment relies on more objective and easily accessible information, it exists in clear relation to Tompkins’ dilemma. Academic uncertainty halting the important flow of social progress. However, while academic uncertainty appears to be at fault, without academic uncertainty, science and fact would not achieve the proper rigor for it to call itself fact. And, without social progress,
Ubel, Peter A. Robert M. Arnold and Arthur L. Caplan, "Rationing Failure: The Ethical Lessons
Weingart, P., Engels, A., & Pansegrau, P. (2000). Risks of communication: discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public understanding of science, 9(3), 261-283.
Flanary, W. (2008). Environment effects of the Chernobyl accident. Retrieved November 1st, 2013 from /http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/152617
The worst accident in the history of this nuclear power generation occurred on the morning of April 26, 1986. It was at the Chernobyl (Ukraine) nuclear power station in the Soviet Union. At 1:32AM Lieutenant Colonel Leonid Telyatnikov received a telephone call and was told that there was a fire at the nuclear power plant. There were many reasons their plant had backfired. These reasons included human error and poor plant design due to the cold war. Chernobyl was located in the former Soviet Union in what is now Ukraine. The area in and around Chernobyl is now a nuclear wasteland. People are not supposed to live in these areas, yet they still do, even with the danger of mutations and radiation sickness. For the people and countries affected by the radiation, this was a horrible, terrifying and angering experience. Villages were evacuated late and not many things were done in time to save lives and prevent more damages.
The natural sciences is a world the general public will either dive into head first to exploit research out of fear and ignorance or to coexist with and celebrate recent advancements and discoveries. Whether or not the public stands and cheers or sulks and cries is entirely dependent on the accessibility of information and data that is available for public discretion and evaluation. People remain ignorant about many scientific advances that have paved the path for potential scientific solutions in major areas including cancer research, prenatal health, pediatric medicine, and genetics. However, sometimes the disregard for the aforementioned scientific triumphs is not entirely the fault of the public. The media has an incredible influence on what the community sees and hears, as well as swaying public sentiment and opinion by including or excluding fragments of information or by how the media presents their acquired information.
One of the most significant environmentally damaging instances in history was the Chernobyl incident. In 1986, the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant in Ukraine exploded. It became one of the most significant disasters in the engineering community. There are different factors that contributed to the disaster. The personnel that were tasked with operating the plant were unqualified. The plant’s design was a complex one. The RBMK reactor was Soviet design, and the staff had not be acquainted with this particular design. As the operators performed tests on the reactor, they disabled the automatic shutdown mechanism. After the test, the attempt to shut down the reactor was unsuccessful as it was unstable. This is the immediate cause of the Chernobyl Accident. It later became the most significant nuclear disaster in the history of the