Evaluating the Ethics of the Chernobyl Disaster
Chernobyl: The Avoidable Disaster
Katherine M. McCabe, Patrick T. McCabe, Adrian J. Resa, Ethan Edwards
The University of Texas at Austin
1. Abstract
We researched the utilitarian framework, working to applying utilitarian ethics to the infamous Chernobyl disaster of 1986. Utilitarian ethics places the well being of the many above the well being of the few. Since there were many factors that contributed to the destruction of Chernobyl, we approached different parts separately to help simplify the ethical analysis of the project.
Nuclear power plants were an emerging and quite promising technology, and the Ukrainian government hoped to build one for a new, modern city. In the mid 19th Century, Ukraine was a part of the USSR and as such, had strict budgets and deadlines to follow. In order to meet deadlines and stay within budget, they pressed on with a young reactor design and glazed over the planning and training of personnel. The combination of poor training and a flawed reactor design led to the complete meltdown of one of the reactors and the history-making explosion. Contamination spread all across western Europe, and the locals needed to be evacuated. In the aftermath, hundreds of thousands of square miles of land were affected by the radioactive fallout, many locals contracted cancers which could be directly linked to the event, and hundreds of people needed to be relocated. Some good also came with the disaster, such as the forming of international atomic committees and increased safety features on nuclear power plants.
The utilitarian framework is applied to the many decisions leading up to the disaster, keeping the reactions and aftermath in mind to determine whether or not it was an ethical endeavor or handled in an ethical manner.
2. Introduction
As the American nuclear warhead, otherwise known as “Little Boy”, detonated over Hiroshima and illuminated the Japanese horizon, a brand new technology was making a dramatic entrance on the world stage. Nuclear energy was here, in all its potent glory, and thus the world was thrust into the Atomic Age. In the following years, people would dream of wonder and weapons, flying cities and rocket cars - all powered by this modern marvel. Yet, not all was well. The Soviet Union and the United States were locked in a global conflict for technological supremacy. The tension that had been created by the Cold War drove each side of the globe to push the limits of innovation, bringing about achievements such as carrying man to the moon. Nuclear power plants began to replace traditional fossil fuel power, in the hopes of providing near limitless, clean energy to modern cities.
With all of the developments being made with nuclear energy, the Ukrainian government felt it was time to join this new forefront of energy production. Thus, in 1970 they proposed a five-year plan for the construction of what was to be their first nuclear power plant: Chernobyl. Construction began in 1972, three kilometers outside of Pripyat, and by 1977 the reactor was operational. With seemingly no reason to stop now, the government went on to build three more reactors in the years following, with the final one being completed in 1983. However, nuclear energy was still in its infancy and the Ukrainian government kept the construction on a strict schedule, resulting in the containment of the reactors and their radioactive cores being sub-par compared to the other nuclear nations and modern safety standards. This sub-par containment combined with the growing hunger for more power led to hastiness in operator training. This hastiness, in turn, led to a massive explosion that released so much radiation that, 30 years later, Pripyat is still uninhabitable. Chernobyl was meant to provide generous amounts of clean energy to modern cities, yet rushed planning and flawed design led to one of the most infamous man-made disasters in history.
The purpose of this essay is to use the utilitarian ethical analysis of the Chernobyl disaster as an example of the application of ethics to the decisions being made during an engineering project; a practice that we could use on our own engineering projects we undertake in the future. The analysis of radiation levels gives insight on the effects radiation had on the population surrounding the power plant, thus, providing an ethical approach on the decisions that led up to the initial explosion to show the effects this disaster has had on the way engineers currently go about running nuclear power plants.
Having analyzed the creation and subsequent destruction of Chernobyl along with its lasting effects, both global and local, with the utilitarian ethical framework, we have determined that the Chernobyl project was unethical; Due to the fact that the proposed benefits did not properly justify the carelessness of the development of the project and actions leading up to the explosion. This, in turn, has shown the engineers of today not only just how important proper radioactive containment is, but the significant relevance of proper training and protocol, when it comes to handling dangerous amounts of energy.
3. The Accident
The inevitable destruction of the Chernobyl reactors began with a routine shutdown of reactor 4. The operators wanted to use this as an opportunity to test the effectiveness of the emergency power systems. Unfortunately, there was no proper communication between those that were to conduct the test, and the personnel responsible for the constant safety of the plant and its operations. Without adequate preparation for this test, the plant operators were allowing ample room for a dangerous situation to arise.
After several hours of idling at 50% power, the reactor needed to be stabilized at anywhere from 700-1000 Thermal Megawatts(MWt), a measurement of heat energy, before moving forward with shutting the entire reactor down. As a result of the previously mentioned inadequate personnel training, the reactor plummeted to a sad 30 MWt. Xenon poisoning (excess production of Xenon isotopes that act as neutron sponges) and coolant void reduction (a disproportion of steam and liquid which reduces reactivity) rendered any subsequent attempt at raising power levels futile. A series of increasing operator mistakes soon led to the reactor exploding. The 1000 ton metal support plate was launched into the air, and two of the workers were killed instantly(World Nuclear Association 2009).
The series of events that led up to the explosion has been called so unlikely to happen that the engineers who designed the plant, could not have even thought to plan for it. However, due to the previously mentioned decisions made by the Soviet managers and leaders, the opportunity for disaster was allowed to increase, and the disaster came. Looking at this test from the utilitarian perspective is unique, as the decisions seem so small, but have such far-reaching consequences. None of the workers were actually violating any safety protocols since none were in place. But their actions seem irresponsible. The people operating the reactor and preparing for the test only had an idea of what to do, and they went about disabling safety protocols without much thought as to what the implications of those actions would mean. They let the reactor drop to such low power levels, kept the automatic safety features disabled, and then pressed on with the test even though it was well below the known acceptable limits of the test power levels.
The reactor explosion directly resulted in the deaths of two people; one from immediate exposure to radiation and the other shortly after being hospitalized (Chernobyl Accident 1986). In addition, one of the effects, according to The World Nuclear Association, was that was a high concentration of radiation in an area with a radius of at least 30 km was created within the first few hours after the explosion, which continued to quickly spread further into Western Europe. Within the first hour, radiation was pouring out at a rate of 300 Sv/hour (Sievert per hour) (Kortov, 2013). This had a force that immediately blew the 1000-ton support plate sitting on top of the plant into the air. After ten days, at a distance of 150m, the radiation rate slowed to 12 Gy/hour (Gray per hour). This is relatively fast compared to that in Sievert units (Kortov, 2013). After several weeks, a total of 28 of the rescue crew had died from exposure to radiation, trying to save the workers' lives.
A study conducted by the “Central European Journal of Public Health” concluded that one of the long-term effects that resulted directly from the explosion was the birth of thyroid cancer within this region. Passed down from exposed parents to their children, this terrible consequence is still seen 30 years later. There are four different types of thyroid cancers “some of which are much more common than others…papillary (61%), follicular (23%), anaplastic (5–10%), medullary (3–6%), and Hurthle cell (~2%)” (Tukiendorf, 2010, pg. 157). In general, however, thyroid cancer is typically the swelling of the thyroid gland which infects the neck and spreads across the body affecting the heart, brain, and other major organs via the bloodstream. Though there was an increase in thyroid cancer, there haven’t been any statistics on the number of deaths by cancer resulting specifically from the Chernobyl accident.
Moreover, the spread of radiation caused a mass exodus. The World Health Organization stated that 116,000 people were evacuated and another 230,000 people were relocated within subsequent years. This, from a societal perspective, caused trauma among different families. Imagine living in a place for several generations and then suddenly having to move to a different place because that is your only chance of survival. People were having to move because of an avoidable man-made error. Not only was the atmosphere full of radiation, but also full of enragement, hopelessness, and fear.
The aftermath caused worldwide panic and people began to question whether nuclear power was the way to go. Despite its promise for a future of efficient energy, it formidable power struck fear into the world and questions concerning safety and security arose. With that in mind, another concern after this catastrophe was how corporations were now going to deal with safety precautions. Fortunately, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) got right on top of that. The IAEA, funded in 1957, brought together operators and engineers to work together to create safety precautions for each individual nuclear energy plant (History). The explosion in Chernobyl was a global catastrophe that impacted the way society goes about building nuclear plants today.
4. Ethical Analysis
We decided to approach the Chernobyl disaster using the utilitarian ethical framework. The disaster had wide-reaching effects, like spreading radiation across the globe and massively altering the way society handled the production of nuclear energy. Utilitarian ethics, which is most commonly applied to large groups of people, focuses on the total good and bad that come from a decision (University, S. C.). Its application involves comparing the potential benefits or risks that are associated with a decision; breaking risk down into the severity of the disaster multiplied by the probability that it will happen. Using these two lenses, we will analyze decisions made from the perspective of the people making them and with the benefit of hindsight.
The planning and construction of Chernobyl was a complicated situation. The Soviets had forced upon themselves strict deadlines and budgets with their five-year plan. The initial design for the Chernobyl nuclear power plant contained a flawed reactor that the Soviets were unfortunately unaware of at the time. Under pressure from management and other executives to complete the plant on time, this pressure pushed those in charge to cut corners, both in checking the design of the plant and the training of the personnel who would eventually be running Chernobyl itself. We now know that a large contributing factor to the ultimate demise of the Chernobyl plant was this lack of educated personnel.
A nuclear power plant harnesses the same power that was used to obliterate the cities Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities with areas spanning over 350 miles. This amount of power cannot be handled carelessly, and as previously mentioned, when determining the ethical nature of a decision, risk must be compared to its potential reward. Risk, the product of the severity of the disaster and the chances of it happening, is quite high when handling nuclear power. The resulting disaster for any mistake can be apocalyptic, and as such it is necessary to reduce the chance that disaster may strike whenever possible.
The decision to move forward with a flawed plant design was, in hindsight, an unethical idea. The flawed design increased the probability that disaster could strike as well as the severity of the disaster. Yet, it is difficult to label moving forward with the construction and test as unethical since any technology in its infancy will have imperfect designs. This does not justify the decision to move forward without at least attempting to properly train the operators of Chernobyl. Nuclear power plants are complicated technological systems and need competent operators to run them. Without training, more and more opportunities for a system crash or meltdown are introduced. This skyrockets the likelihood of risk, severely outweighing the potential benefits of a nuclear reactor. These two major decisions, especially the decision to cut corners when training operators, are what made the operation of the Chernobyl power plant unethical from the beginning, regardless of what good came about during the brief life of the reactor.
5. Counter Argument
While Chernobyl did have a significant impact on the people surrounding the disaster, it could be argued that the knowledge gained from this disaster outweighs the harm of the immediate effects. Because the plant failed, engineers are now more aware of the power nuclear energy contains. 34 people died because of the carelessness of the engineers building the plant as well as the people training the workers, but this number could have been much higher had it happened in a more densely populated area; since the area affected by the radioactive fallout would have covered the city, evacuations of a densely populated area surely would have proved more difficult than the sparsely populated country. In fact, because the Chernobyl incident taught us so much about nuclear containment, a larger nuclear breach was avoidable during the destruction of the Fukushima power plant in 2011. Fukushima could have been much more impactful had there not been as many safety protocols implemented following Chernobyl. While Chernobyl was an avoidable disaster, Fukushima was not. The explosion of the Japanese reactor was caused by the destruction of the cooling cells for the nuclear reactor due to an earthquake. Though there were valuable lessons learned from Chernobyl, there was no way the engineers and workers could have known that the Chernobyl plant would influence future designs of nuclear plants as much as it did. On top of that, it is poor engineering practice to design with the goal of benefiting from the destruction of the plant. Because of this, it cannot be argued that the good that came out of the disaster counters the bad, especially knowing that lives were sacrificed.
Others may argue that the design of the Chernobyl plant allowed for faster construction and usage so the energy output could begin as quickly as possible. This means that the demand for energy outweighed the immediate benefits of a more cautious build. With the Cold War coming to an end and the necessity of having access to energy quickly increasing as affordable technological advances were being made with household objects, the engineers and workers couldn’t afford to slow down in the build. They weren’t even aware of the consequences of being so hasty because nuclear energy was a fairly new concept. Some may argue that because they lacked a better understanding of nuclear energy, they couldn’t be expected to know that Chernobyl would end as disastrously as it did. And while that is true, that doesn’t make their decision to put a quota over the safety of thousands any more ethical.
Those in charge of the Chernobyl plant skipped steps in their hunger for more energy, and their disregard for safety could never truly be seen as ethical from the utilitarian point of view. While a lot has been learned through the Chernobyl disaster, learning from an unethical decision does not make the decision ethical, especially when people’s lives are at stake.
6. Conclusion
Chernobyl is a bright red blemish in history; it was one of the largest man-made disasters in all of recorded history, and the only nuclear disaster to have radiation-related fatalities (Chernobyl Accident 1986). Though some good came out of it, the general undertaking of the Chernobyl nuclear plant was determined to be an unethical undertaking when analyzed using the utilitarian framework. The decisions made by those in power put a multitude of people in danger, taking far too many risks, and ultimately allowing the negative consequences to outweigh any benefits that would have come about.
7. Citations
Aitsi-Selmi, A., & Murray, V. (2016). The Chernobyl Disaster and Beyond: Implications of the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030. Plos Medicine, 13(4), 1-4. from http://journals.plos.org/plosm... Accident 1986. (2016, June). Retrieved September 22, 2016, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... Appendix 1: Sequence of events. (2009). Retrieved September 24, 2016, from World Nuclear Association, from http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-security/safety-of-plants/appendices/chernobyl-accident-appendix-1-sequence-of-events.aspx
Djurović, B., Radjen, S., Radenković, M., Dragović, T., Tatomirović, Ž., Ivanković, N., … Dugonjić, S. (2016). Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: What have we learned and what have we done? Nuklearni Akcidenti U Černobilju I Fukušimi: Šta Smo Naučili, a Šta Učinili?, 73(5), 484–490. From http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/Article.aspx?ID=0042-84501600061D
History. (2016). Retrieved October 20, 2016, from https://www.iaea.org/about/ove... style="text-align: justify;">Josephson, P. (1991). Chernobyl: What happened and why. Issues In Science & Technology, 7(4), 109-112. From http://connection.ebscohost.co... style="text-align: justify;">Kortov, V., & Ustyantsev, Y. (2013, August). Chernobyl accident: Causes, consequences and problems of radiation measurements. Radiation Measurements, 55(7th), international workshop on ionizing radiation monitoring, 12-16. Retrieved September 22, 2016, from University of Texas Libraries.
Serrill, M. S., & Traver, N. (1986). SOVIET UNION ANATOMY OF A CATASTROPHE Moscow blames gross’’ human error for the Chernobyl accident. Time, 128(9), 26. From https://searchstg.lib.byu.edu/... style="text-align: justify;">Tukiendorf, A., Miszczyk, L., & McEwan, P. (2010). RECENT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL RESULTS OF THYROID CANCER IN THE MOST RADIATED TERRITORY IN POLAND. Central European Journal Of Public Health, 18(3), 157-160. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... style="text-align: justify;">University, S. C. (2016). Ethical Decision Making. Retrieved November 6, 2016, from https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/
