What is the lasting impact of the Chernobyl disaster 25 years later?

[nukeman]

I am writing a article in my university newspaper, and I am just gathering as much info as I can about chernobyl, now and then.

***EDIT***

OK, got some good info, so I am changing my post here.

Im trying to come up with a really good intro, but I don't like what i came up and want something better. Here is what I have. Anyone help me out?

As the 25th year of the Chernobyl disaster coming up, we must be reminded of the events that took place there, and the effects it has caused.

 

[Evo]

I am writing a article in my university newspaper, and I am just gathering as much info as I can about chernobyl, now and then.

I know quite a bit as I have always been interested, but hope to get some concrete info here, and maybe something i didnt know.

Here are some points I am looking for.

From start to finish, what happened. Series of events...

The immediate actions taken (firefighters who died, and the army that had to clean it up knowing they were going to get radiation poison.

What the towns people faced?

What the people are still facing today from the radiation problems.

Anything interesting that would be good to be in a news article in a university newspaper.

Anything REALLY interesting that happened, anything really scary that happened.

What would happen if you walked into the reactor room today with no suit on.

THanks, really appreciate it!

Sounds like that covers everything.

Have you gathered any information yourself? Anything? Show us what you've put together so far.

 

[nukeman]

Well maybe I Should of just asked for rare or not so well known facts. Scary/awfull/shocking facts.

All my questions were mainly to get another perspective, or other facts I did not know.

So mainly anything not so well known. I am trying to add something special, not just the usual you know? I know what happened, why it blew, how it blew, and so on.

Really anything to shock or raise a few eye brows.

Thanks for looking and replying!
-Adam

 

[gonpost]

http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=578931

Not a bad start for you. I'm a big fan of the STALKER series, and that link is just a thread that gives background on the actual incident.

 

[Andre]

Well maybe I Should of just asked for rare or not so well known facts. Scary/awfull/shocking facts.

What's the idea, cherry picking scary scenarios or a balanced honest contemplation? What would be closer to science?

Try this:
K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, 2006, Growing Up with Chernobyl,
American Scientist, Volume 94 pp 524-529 [/url]

Working in a radioactive zone, two scientists learn tough lessons about politics, bias and the challenges of doing good science

So will we see that back as one of your references?

 

[wolram]

http://www.kiddofspeed.com/

Might be of interest.

 

[russ_watters]

I'd be wary of looking for not well known and "scary" info - there is a lot of crackpottery out there on this subject.

 

[nukeman]

Yea don't worry, I am being carefull.

I just finished it. If anyone is interested in reading it, and helping me change things up, let me know.

Thanks for the help.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Scary/awfull/shocking facts.

Really anything to shock or raise a few eye brows.

What would be the purpose of that? I can't see any constructive reason for it.

I can only suggest you do what all 'good' journalists do who want sensation. Make it up.

 

[rootX]

I am writing a article in my university newspaper, and I am just gathering as much info as I can about chernobyl, now and then.
...

As the 25th year of the Chernobyl disaster coming up, we must be reminded of the events that took place there, and the effects it has caused.

I think you should reconsider about writing on Chernobyl disaster; what you are trying to do is immoral.

 

[nukeman]

How is it immoral?

I am just trying to write a information article, not a opionionated article.

Forget my wording, I was trying to get some other info than what I already have.

I am only using pure facts. Why is this such a bad thing I am doing?

I'm sorry if I ofended anyone by wanting scary facts, it wad not my purpose. I am 100% writing about facts. How it blew, and what was done to clean up! That's it. Please tell me why this is a bad thing?

 

[JaredJames]

Well maybe I Should of just asked for rare or not so well known facts. Scary/awfull/shocking facts.

All my questions were mainly to get another perspective, or other facts I did not know.

So mainly anything not so well known. I am trying to add something special, not just the usual you know? I know what happened, why it blew, how it blew, and so on.

Really anything to shock or raise a few eye brows.

Thanks for looking and replying!
-Adam

That is why it's immoral. You are looking for an angle on this story which clearly won't be unbiased. The 'scary' or 'shocking' facts aren't going to paint a good picture (bare with me on this), they will only serve to inspire fear and hatred in people regarding nuclear power. You are trying to use shock and awe and in the process the facts of the disaster may well be lost.

Just because you know what/why it happened, doesn't mean anyone else does. If they read your article and it doesn't present a fair story and instead only 'shocking and scary facts', how do you think they will then feel about nuclear power?

Then again, this is media we are talking about here. They do this sort of thing all the time. Anything to sell a story.

There's presenting factual information and then there's presenting specific factual information.

You say you want to write about "How it blew, and what was done to clean up!" but above you said you already know this and want a different angle. Which is it?

 

[nukeman]

Oh ok, yes I can see that.

However, that is not the angle I'm going at. I don't paint a bad picture, just explain how it happened, and countless times stated the flaws in the reactor, and stated how safe modern reactors are.

Again sorry if everyone thinks I'm writing a crap story, I'm just trying to get the most accurate account of the events.

Again, numerous times I stated how safe modern nuclear power is, and simply chaulked it up as a bad design.

 

[Upisoft]

Again, numerous times I stated how safe modern nuclear power is

Bad, bad , bad. People will think that you tried to brainwash them. At least I know I will.

 

[sorter]

you need to see Nat Geo documentary on it>>search through net

 

[nukeman]

Man then how am I suppose to write about it then?

Seems whatever I say people are getting mad and telling me I'm awfull for writing this. I simply wanted to write a little article on the events that took place.

I'm not a journalist, I'm not anti nuclear power, I'm simply interested on the events that took place.

Heck, I ordered trinity and beyond when it first came out on VHS :)

 

[Evo]

nukeman, here is everything you need. https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=144712

Also, the number of the deaths from Chernobyl is 70, here is information on deaths and the few cases of radiation actually linked to the meltdown.

http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/chernobyl.html