If you’ve watched any of our other videos
on the subject, then you know that April 26,
1986 was not a good day to be working at the
Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant in the north
of the Ukrainian SSR.
Actually, that is an understatement.
It was not a good day to be anywhere within
the vicinity of Chernobyl, nearby towns, or
even in a large part of western Europe for
that matter.
As many are aware, the worst nuclear disaster
in history occurred here on this day when
the number 4 nuclear reactor at the plant
exploded.
In the past, we made videos detailing the
cause of the Chernobyl disaster as well as
the effects from it, such as the diseases
that manifested and spread from the radiation,
resulting in many casualties.
So, now, we seek to conquer the big question:
are there any actions that could have been
taken to prevent this disaster from happening
in the first place?
You probably already know from our other episodes
on Chernobyl that the scale of the disaster
was enormous.
But just how big exactly?
For this, we look to the International Nuclear
Event Scale.
This scale used to measure the rate of nuclear
disaster is shaped like a triangle ranging
from 0 for “deviation” at the bottom,
1 for “anomaly,” with increasing scores
moving higher up the triangle as follows:
“incident,” “serious incident,” “accident
with local consequences,” “accident with
wider consequences,” “serious accident,”
and, finally, the seventh and deadliest score
located at the summit of the triangle, “major
accident.”
It is here, at the very top, where the Chernobyl
disaster ranks supreme in terms of severity.
The only other catastrophe to rank this high,
seventh on the scale was the 2011 Fukushima
Daiichi nuclear disaster in Japan.
In terms of the amount of radioactivity and
health impacts, however, Chernobyl was a much
bigger accident than the one that occurred
in Fukushima.
Chernobyl was also an entirely man-made event,
whereas Fukushima was largely caused by natural
disaster.
It is ironic that the Chernobyl disaster occurred
during what was supposed to be a routine safety
test.
This test was meant to figure out if the reactor
could still provide enough energy to keep
the cooling pumps running after the loss of
power and if they could be kept running until
the emergency generator kicked in.
Now, unless you’re a nuclear engineer, the
exact mechanisms of action that lead to the
explosion can be difficult to grasp.
They are explained in further detail in one
of our other episodes, “What Caused the
Catastrophic Nuclear Accident in Chernobyl?”
so we’ll keep this short.
Basically, catastrophe struck after a span
of 1 hour and 24 minutes of preparing and
conducting the test.
A powerful steam explosion and fire released
an abundance of hazardous material, spewing
deadly radiation into the environment, resulting
in a toxic cloud spreading across Europe and
even stretching almost as far as to touch
the United States and Japan.
When the disaster at Chernobyl first struck,
the Soviet Union made no immediate public
announcement of it.
Evacuations were urged in surrounding areas,
but mostly maintained under secrecy in fear
of international disgrace.
The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was, after
all, considered a triumph of Soviet science,
a symbol of industrial and technological prowess.
Thus, the nation’s reputation was at risk
following this massive failure.
Attempts to keep the event quiet, however,
were feeble.
It was soon figured out that something was
wrong when workers at the Forsmark Nuclear
Power Plant in Sweden found themselves setting
off radiation alarms when arriving to work
on the morning of April 28th.
At first, they thought that maybe their monitor
was on the fritz, the alarm being due to faulty
equipment.
But, after further tests, they found that
they were indeed covered in radiation from
outside.
A satellite also passed over Chernobyl and
U.S. intelligence saw the image of the explosion,
raising initial alarm that the Soviets had
launched a nuclear missile.
The source of the contamination was soon discovered
along with the explosion and the Soviet Union
was forced to confess, publicly admitting
to the nuclear accident.
So, who or what is to blame for the disaster?
Some claim that the workers at the plant are
at fault while others believe the accident
was the result of a flawed design.
At any rate, factors from a combination of
both could have been responsible leading up
to the event.
The real blame, however, may be attributed
to poor management.
According to livescience.com, the accident
resulted from “incompetence, and was made
even worse by misinformation and secrecy.”
The safety test was originally supposed to
be conducted during the daytime when more
senior engineers were on duty.
This, however, would have meant shutting down
reactors and causing an interruption in electricity
supply.
Thus, the safety test was postponed, scheduled
to occur during the night shift while electricity
demands on the plant would be at their lowest.
Sounds reasonable, right?
Well, the engineers working the night shift
consisted of a junior team on the scene.
Though qualified, these workers were very
young for such a complex environment.
Just to give you an example of their age,
the turbine operator was only 29 years old.
It is said that the workers may have also
been sleep deprived since working the night
shift can often be hard on your mind and your
body.
As cited in Psychology Today, it is “not
uncommon for [night] shift workers to develop
psychiatric conditions” due to accumulated
sleep deprivation.
As many of us know, fatigue can also often
lead to mistakes.
So, it is possible that human error could
have been at play with the combination of
young workers performing the test into the
late hours of the graveyard shift.
This is not to say, however, that the blame
should be placed squarely on their shoulders.
They were just doing their job and doing it
to the best of their ability while following
orders.
The way that the reactor core was designed
also made it prone to heating very quickly,
too quickly.
It got hot and it got hot at an alarming pace,
too fast to handle.
And, despite there being many complications
during test preparations, the workers were
ordered to go through with the test anyway.
At 56 seconds before the blast, the 29-year-old
turbine operator was ordered to proceed with
shutting down the turbines to conduct the
safety test.
Energy levels then soared dangerously high
and that’s when disaster ensued.
So, now, how could this nuclear disaster have
been avoided?
Well, let’s first imagine a scenario with
the safety test being conducted during the
day as originally planned.
There might have been a minor inconvenience
with a temporary lapse of electricity.
But, hey, at least this is better than the
alternative of having to uproot and evacuate
thousands of people from their homes, right?
So, the senior engineering staff would have
taken the lead on operations.
We’re assuming that they would have also
been fresh on the day shift and alert.
If anything went wrong, their many years of
professional experience would kick in as they
attempted to perform a balancing act with
the levels of steam and heat in the reactor.
But, let’s say for argument’s sake that
the reactor was just as unstable as it was
when the junior engineers took the lead in
the events of our timeline.
How would the senior staff have handled it
differently?
Maybe they would have been better at balancing
the levels in the reactor from getting too
hot and exploding… for now.
Even so, that still didn’t eliminate the
problem if there was indeed a flaw in the
design.
Though the senior engineers might have managed
to avoid disaster this time, an impending
accident may have been bound to happen at
some point in the future, waiting for someone
– anyone – to make a mistake.
Now let’s go back and imagine that management
is urging the senior staff to proceed with
the safety test despite complications.
The engineers know full well that doing this
would be dangerous because there have been
problems with the reactor.
So, maybe, compared to the junior staff, the
seniors more adamantly protest going through
with it.
They put their foot down and this is where
the scenario could have deviated in one of
two different ways.
Management could have either responded by
accepting the opinion of seasoned professional
engineers while devising a different course
of action, or they could be angered and continue
to insist that the safety test proceed.
In the former scenario, disaster may have
been averted for the time being but simply
delayed, destined to take place eventually
unless the issues with the reactor were addressed.
In the latter scenario, an explosion would
ensue just as it did with the junior engineers
in our timeline.
In essence, there are many ways the actions
of the team could have deviated, but it is
also possible that the disaster would have
still happened at some point.
The reactor was, after all, unstable.
So, unless this vital flaw was fixed in some
parallel universe, Chernobyl could have probably
been described as a bomb just waiting to go
off at some point or another.
Frighteningly, Russia has never moved on from
the incident and still maintains the same
technology.
As of 2019, there are 11 RBMK reactors still
operational in the country.
In order to prevent another Chernobyl-like
catastrophe, more workers may need to be trained
in nuclear science.
The problem is that it takes a lot of time
to train people.
It can take two to seven years of graduate
studies to become a fully trained radiation
professional.
Power plants also need a team of skilled and
competent nuclear engineers, health physicists,
reactor inspectors, risk managers, and communication
specialists.
Forming a team like this is not easy though
and it is highly expensive.
There has also been a downward trend in the
number of nuclear professionals or people
entering into the field.
The NCRP anticipates severe shortages in these
professions within the next 10 years and,
thus, there are not enough new, emerging workers
to replace the ones who will be retiring.
These statistics are pretty scary if you think
about it.
Thus, the question of what could have prevented
the Chernobyl disaster is an important one
that could still apply for future accidents.
In this case, learning from our past is essential.
For those of you who are intrigued by Chernobyl’s
history and its danger, you can visit as a
tourist but we’d advise not sticking around
for too long since scientists estimate that
the zone won’t be habitable for another
20,000 years.
Because of this, we don’t imagine it would
be too good for your health to stay for long
and who knows?
You might just turn into a mutant.
This is not plausible, of course but we still
wouldn’t suggest entering the grounds without
a guide, someone to detect radiation levels
and check if its safe to venture into certain
areas.
A 2012 horror movie called the Chernobyl Diaries
plays out a fictional account of young travelers
engaging in extreme tourism, visiting Chernobyl
sights.
At the time of writing this, the movie has
a low score on rotten tomatoes with 19% and
a 5 out of 10 on IMDb, so it’s probably
not the best choice in movies if you and your
friends are looking to watch something of
substance.
Whether a horror movie like this should even
be centered around a real life tragedy is
a subject up for debate.
But, since it is out there, we figured we’d
check it out.
Because, well, why not?
One of our ambitious and most eccentric writers
- who once thought of an idea for a movie
theatre that allows you to bring your pet
hedgehog - volunteered to be our guinea pig
and watch it so that you don’t have to.
For reasons we cannot even begin to fathom,
she thought she’d like to try and follow
in the footsteps of our least important writer
who does most of our challenges.
Even though she isn’t accustomed to watching
anything scary in her normal routine, she
insisted that she could handle it.
This may or may not be a spoiler alert but,
in the movie, the group of travelers encounter
mutated creatures in the remains of ghost
towns near Chernobyl and, like any horror
movie, characters get picked off one by one.
Upon completing this very small challenge,
our writer had this to say:
“The Chernobyl Diaries was very jumpy and
had me on the edge of my seat with adrenaline.
Thankfully though, it was pretty forgettable
by the next day.
It’s not like the time I was peer-pressured
into watching the first episode of The Walking
Dead by my devilish friends only to be scared
out of my wits for weeks on end.
To this day I still can’t turn a dark corner
without thinking I see zombies.
Yikes!
I think I’ll return to my fluffy rom coms
and childish cartoons just to recover for
a little while…
At least until the Infographics Show throws
something else my way.”
So, what do you think?
If you could go back in time and do something
to avoid the Chernobyl disaster, what would
you do?
Also, have you seen the Chernobyl Diaries
movie and did you think it was any good?
Let us know in the comments!
Also, be sure to check out our other video
called What Caused the Catastrophic Nuclear
Accident in Chernobyl!
Thanks for watching, and, as always, don’t
forget to like, share, and subscribe.
See you next time!
