Critical Reviews Consequences of the chernobyl accident on health and the environment KEYWORDS

Abstract:The former Chernobyl nuclear power plant is located in Northern Ukraine. The site is only 18 km south of the border with Belarus. The town of Chernobyl (12,500 inhabitants at the time of the accident) is 16 km to the northwest. The town of Pripyat (49,000 inhabitants at the time of the accident) was built less than five kilometres away, also to the northwest of the power plant, to house personnel working at the facility and their families. The accident that occurred at the power plant during the night of 25 to 26 April 1986 at around one o’clock in the morning is, in terms of its scale and the environmental, economic and health consequences, the most severe accident to date in the history of the civil nuclear industry. At the time of the accident, the plant had four RBMK reactors each capable of producing 1000 Megawatts of electric power. Two more reactors were under construction but were never to be commissioned. These reactors, built to a design developed in the 1960s, are cooled using a system of ordinary water flowing through vertical pressure tubes in which is inserted zirconium alloy cladding containing the fuel: low-enriched uranium dioxide containing 2% uranium-235. The nuclear fission reaction that takes place in the core generates a massive output of heat. During the reaction, fission products, actinides and activation products are generated. The reactor coolant is water and four pumps are used to circulate it through the system (one of which is kept always as backup). The neutron moderator was graphite in the form of 211 moveable control rods that can be inserted between the pressure tubes containing the fuel cladding and coolant. The more rods that are inserted, the more neutrons are absorbed, thus reducing the fission rate. Three main causes combined to produce the disaster: the Soviet authorities had failed to take adequate account of safety issues in the design of the reactor; when the reactor was at reduced power, the test of a new emergency core cooling system was ineffectively managed; and, third, the operators’ actions were inappropriate, thus aggravating the meltdown process. The plant operators were performing a safety procedure test during a scheduled shutdown of the Dominique Thierry IRSN, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire. BP17-92262 Fontenay-aux-Roses CEDEX. (FRANCE) E-mail: dominique.thierry@irsn.fr Received: 31 January, 2011 ; Accepted: 10 February, 2011 Environmental Science An Indian Journal Trade Science Inc. Volume 6 Issue 2

Medicine,Environmental Science