Chernobyl And Fukushima Case Study

Preface Contemporary society strives to create and surpass aspects of our former selves, seeking to move forward in the understanding and utilization of technology. Changing technology to better fit the needs of world has been a topic more recently inflamed by ideas regarding climate change. As such, notions surrounding zero emissions energy resources have become an integral part of decision making processes backing the use of nuclear energy facilities; but at what cost? Companies situating themselves on the use of nuclear energy claim that nuclear power plants are safe, conventional producers of energy. The truth behind the safety of nuclear energy is indeed questionable to many; however the implementation of overcompensation also heralds

Aside from the potential use and risk associated with nuclear energy, what actually occurs facing the imminent meltdown of a facility comes with a multifaceted culmination of social, environmental, and economic damages. Understanding how nuclear incidents incite social implications in evacuation, displacement, and the environment all provide important insight in how the future of energy needs, temporarily and in long terms, affects the livelihood of those surrounding nuclear disasters on a global, national, and individual scale.

Case Studies: Chernobyl and Fukushima Incidents at a facility can range from negligible to catastrophic, but all of the nuclear incidents to have ever occurred do not even come close in comparison to the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters that reshaped the face of nuclear energy. In understanding just how pertinent these events were and how they created a framework to study the social implications of displacement, knowing what caused the events to occur is just as important in mitigating

Although a number of safety features installed in the plant were thought to be sufficient, their failures coupled with the loss of power caused the meltdown of several reactors on site. In a similar fashion to Chernobyl, Japan issued an immediate evacuation of all those within close proximity of the plant, and soon expanded the zone to 30 kilometers by March 25th (Makinen 1). The spread of radioactive material in Fukushima was intrinsic of heavy rain and winds the day after the meltdown. Citizens of Japan were told to stay indoors and relocate themselves to safer areas, although some miscommunication caused several people to end up in areas with higher levels of radioactivity. In stark contrast to that of the USSR, the Japanese government allowed residents to displace themselves without as much intervention other than heavily guarding the exclusion zone. Even though these two major events occurred nearly 3 decades apart, there are still many lessons to be learned from the meltdowns from both Fukushima and Chernobyl. The implications involved with displacement and evacuation affect the lives of those involved no differently than they did in 1986. To comprehend just how powerful nuclear disasters are, identifying the pertinent factors that lead up to them and how to speed up the slow remedy process is most likely the most important notion