Why do people think Chernobyl is an argument against nuclear power?

Question

What happened with Chernobyl Unit 4 and the design problems with that reactor do not affect any western designed reactors making any arguments about the effects of Chernobyl completely irrelevant to the issue of whether nuclear power should be used (since no one is going to be building reactors anywhere near as bad as the RBMKs). So why then do people think that a defective reactor failing and spewing radiation is an argument against nuclear power? It'd be like calling the Comet 1 an argument against jet aircraft, that's how little sense it makes.

Is it just simple ignorance of what happened there and why other reactor designs (and to some extent the upgraded RBMKs that haven't been replaced yet) won't do that? an attempt to deflect the blame away from the communist political system of the Soviet Union that allowed such a thing to happen? or something else entirely?

Answer 1

i dont think it is

Answer 2

nobody hit it on the head here.  Yes designs, maintenance and all were issues.  BUT, at Cherynoble and in Japan, they were conducted unapproved or tested experiments with the cores that started the run away reaction.  Humans over rode the safeties.

At three mile island, there was no problem, there was a run away and the safety systems shut it down.  The anti nuclear can only point and say, what if the safties didn't work.  AGAIN, they did work and the second and third check safties were still available to work. end of argument.

Answer 3

Simply put, Chernobyl was one of the worst reactor accidents ever.  Initially, the USSR covered it up.

When it comes to nuclear people relie on their emotions than reasoning, because stuff like nuclear weapons associated a negative image with nuclear technology.  This image and the reactor accidents have been played on by others, who know better or not, on an uneducated public.

This has happened to such an extent... people can't put 1 and 2 together when it comes to the nuclear sciences and engineering.  A good example Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) was originally and more precisely called Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging (nMRI).  They dropped the Nuclear part because it made patients uneasy.

So, they don't know the difference between a western and an USSR reactor.  Technically, the RMBK wasn't really like a horrible design, it was just a more difficult design to use.  It's like making a saw without safety guards and stuff... You just have to be more careful using it.  Now imgaine having you boss behind you rushing you to make a high quota.  You going to lose a limb.

B/c of the physics of the reactor, the automated safety features were a must and they under-minded them. Also, the reactor and the crane that could fuel it while it was online were so big, they didn't bother building a containment building.

USSR had a really bad habit of pushing things with toatl disregard to safety.  Look at the space race disasters they had... or the K-19, which they sent out to sea without installing backup systems.  In the real word people want something 98% done and on time than 100% done and late, for the USSR its more like 55%

Sorry for the long winded answer, I try to avoid them, but this is a soft spot for me.

Answer 4

Simply put - They are ignorant. The design of the Chernobyl reactor was outdated when the disaster happened.  The reactor was shut down for a test, and the automatic shutoff was disabled.  The graphite that was supposed to help cool core started on fire, and blew off the reactors cover plate.  Further, the Chernobyl reactor lacked a containment shield, which allowed great amounts of radioactive material to escape.  This accident was the result of old technology, a poor design, and failing to follow safety procedures.

France generates 80% of its power from nuclear reactors - only the United States produces more energy from nuclear power.  It is safe, clean, and efficient.  There is no reason not to move forward with nuclear power except for fear of the past.

Answer 5

because of the massive environmental implications chernobyl had.

alot of people dont understand that it was ridiculously shoddy russian build quality which caused it to fail.

I guess alot of people look at the worst situation potential with things like that.

I think nuclear power is a very efficient power source, as long at is planned, designed and maintained properly.

Answer 6

Not one person has ever died -- in the WEST-- from nuclear power generation. However hundreds of people have died in the coal Industry.

The nuclear reactor at Penn State has been operating daily (safely) for the last 50 years.  http://www.mne.psu.edu/

If you took all the waste from all the reactors operating in the USA since the 1950s it would fit on ONE football field-- if we re-processed waste-- (forbidden since Jimmy Carter was President) the small volume would be further reduced by about 50% ---

If you like electricity-- nuclear power could be the clean no CO2 backup power for solar or wind power. However -- Americans saw a movie in the 1970s and thought it was an actual reenactment of a nuclear meltdown-- then they started watching the Jerry Springer Show.

Read This:  http://wins.engr.wisc.edu/VillainOrVicti...

Each year 50-100 people die from bee stings (allergic reactions)-- so in about 50 years 3750 people have died from this simple cause....... each year 40,000 people die in automobile accidents in the USA. But we have NOT outlawed CARS!

Answer 7

First of all, Chernobyl was not the result of design probles--I don't know where you heard that, but it's wrong.  The failure was in failure to follow proper maintainence and safety protocols. Second, the fact that Western reactors use a different design approach (which is only marginally the case) is no guarantee they will work any better.

That being said, I have no problem with nuclear power--in fact I support it--in principle.  If we do two things. First, utilize the technology that has been developed in th least 20-30 ears that can make nuclear power safe.

Second. None of the right wing ideologues who think whining "but its communist and htat's why it didn't work"  is a substitute for recognizing and addressing technical problems should be permitted to have anything to do with either the process or policy formulation.

As long as that attitude prevails in Washington, I, for one, will continue to oppose restarting nuclear power plant construction. People in the Bush administration share your views. As such, they cannot be trusted to make sound policy and regulatory decisions.  

Answer 8

The people who built Chernobyl didn't build it with the intention of spewing radiation halfway across Western Europe.

The argument from Chernobyl is not that the exact specific accident will happen again (as you point out, it won't due to design differences)  but to warn against arrogance and hubris by saying "our design is fail-safe". Accidents from the unknown and/or freak coincidences have, can and probably will happen.

Engineers learnt from the Comet and known design flaws were engineered out. Still, jet aircraft have, and will continue to, crash. We just find them useful or convenient enough to accept a low number of fatalities per passenger mile.

We should use the same logic with nuclear power:

Do our utmost to prevent accidents in the design, build and operation phases just as we do with aricraft.

Transparently discuss that accidents will happen - most minor but some major. Discuss the need for power and the ramifications / alternatives if nuclear power stations are not built (including "reduce, reuse, recycle").

If the benefits outweight the risks and the decision is to go ahead and build then plan and prepare for the accidents.

My personal opinion is that any growth in energy use brings higher risk in one place or another so the best thing to do is to limit, as much as possible, the growth in need in the first place!

Edit to tom P:

I wouldn't be bringing up France as an example of safe nuclear power if you want to win people over to your side if I was you! The recent accidents and cover ups there do not show the best side of the nuclear industry...

Answer 9

Yes it would be like saying "look at Ted Kennedy, we shouldn't have cars."

Answer 10

Chernobyl was a bad design poorly constructed and absolutely not in any way typical of western plants. Even Russian engineers complained over this plant and were overruled by political leaders. What those who have been brainwashed by anti nuke oil company propaganda fail to recognize is that coal-fired plants produce more radioactive waste than any nuclear plant could. So cut down on radioactive waste in the environment, replace those coal plants with clean nuclear and clean up the environment and lower electricity costs.

But as the early responses to this question prove ignorance because of that negative oil company advertising program is still rampant amongst those who do not check out the information behind the story. This holds true for any pogrom funded with the purpose of panicking the public for the pure purpose of enhancing their profits.

Answer what group has a broad grin on their faces as they go daily to the banks to deposit their largesse!

Tumbler that is a false statement that is only supportable because Congress has never reversed the Carter ban on recycling the materials. Nuclear so called waste is totally recyclable and 100% safely so. If it was not for the Carter edict there would not be a nuclear waste issue, he created it deliberately to cripple the nuclear industry and enhance the oil companies profitability!

Answer 11

Nuclear may be a source of power but it isn't clean nuclear waste is a problem that few have been willing to tackle

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/text...

Burying and dropping in ocean trenches is a typical human short term fix as even the highest quality containers with deteriate long before the the nuclear materal does which would mean radiation leaking into either the water table or the ocean.

I don't consider myself a greenie at all, but on this I agree with them the risk far outweighs the benifit.

Answer 12

because its a nuclear power

Answer 13

Those that support nuclear power usually try to down play Chernobyl calling poor Russian build quality and while this is partly true. It falls in a heap as an argument all you have to say is "Three Mile Island" a near disaster which would have been far worse the Chernobyl, those who support nuclear power also dismiss this. Then there are the 2 major accidents in the Japanese nuclear industry, It is simple statistics a nuclear reactor is a very complex piece of equipment there is a very small chance that any one reactor will fail but the more reactors you have the higher the chance.