3 ms·

This is an interesting perspective. It's probably unknown if it's too much or too little without some serious scientific investigation. What do you base your op

by mempko 8y ago

This is an interesting perspective. It's probably unknown if it's too much or too little without some serious scientific investigation. What do you base your opinion on?

vidarh 8y ago
For starters there's extensive data on effects of staying in large areas of the outer exclusion zone, because a lot of people (a small proportion of the population, though) stayed or went back. The government eventually gave up on keeping people out. Secondly, there is the experience of continuing to operate the other reactors. It took 3 years before work on reactor 5 and 6 (which were unfinished) was halted. Operations at reactor 2 continued until a fire in 1991. Reactor 1 remained in operation until 1996, and reactor 3 was finally decommissioned in 2000. While workers were subject to stringent controls, and on/off schedules intended to reduce their exposure, people were nevertheless working in some of the most radioactive areas of the exclusion zone for many years, with very limited indication of lasting problems. Thirdly, there is the economic impact on the Soviet Union in general, and Belarus overall, both unavoidable costs of the cleanup, but also very much avoidable costs of large-scale reduction in economic activity in a large area. There is a lot of data on the subsequent effects of the economic upheaval that followed the breakdown of the Soviet Union that shows the effects of economic upheaval on e.g. life expectancy. Applying the same to the upheaval caused by evacuation of areas that were quickly known to be within safe radiation levels implies substantial harm. In general any evacuation causes substantial harm, because of e.g. increased mortality when moving hospital patients or other vulnerable groups; increased traffic accidents etc. Just doing more stuff quickly causes harm.

3 ms·

This is an interesting perspective. It's probably unknown if it's too much or too little without some serious scientific investigation. What do you base your op

by mempko 8y ago

This is an interesting perspective. It's probably unknown if it's too much or too little without some serious scientific investigation. What do you base your opinion on?

vidarh 8y ago
For starters there's extensive data on effects of staying in large areas of the outer exclusion zone, because a lot of people (a small proportion of the population, though) stayed or went back. The government eventually gave up on keeping people out. Secondly, there is the experience of continuing to operate the other reactors. It took 3 years before work on reactor 5 and 6 (which were unfinished) was halted. Operations at reactor 2 continued until a fire in 1991. Reactor 1 remained in operation until 1996, and reactor 3 was finally decommissioned in 2000. While workers were subject to stringent controls, and on/off schedules intended to reduce their exposure, people were nevertheless working in some of the most radioactive areas of the exclusion zone for many years, with very limited indication of lasting problems. Thirdly, there is the economic impact on the Soviet Union in general, and Belarus overall, both unavoidable costs of the cleanup, but also very much avoidable costs of large-scale reduction in economic activity in a large area. There is a lot of data on the subsequent effects of the economic upheaval that followed the breakdown of the Soviet Union that shows the effects of economic upheaval on e.g. life expectancy. Applying the same to the upheaval caused by evacuation of areas that were quickly known to be within safe radiation levels implies substantial harm. In general any evacuation causes substantial harm, because of e.g. increased mortality when moving hospital patients or other vulnerable groups; increased traffic accidents etc. Just doing more stuff quickly causes harm.