Chernobyl Disaster: A Deeper Dive into Ethical Failures

The Chernobyl disaster began on April 26, 1986, when a series of mistakes and violations by the plant
operators led to a catastrophic power surge in the No. 4 reactor of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant,
near the city of Pripyat in Ukraine. The power surge caused several explosions that blew off the reactor’s
lid and exposed the core to the air, releasing large amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere.
The disaster is considered the worst nuclear accident in history and had severe environmental, health, and
social consequences

1. Deep Dive into Problems:

Design Flaws:

● RBMK Reactor: Designed under the leadership of Nikolai Dollezhal (INSAG-7, 1992). Its
graphite moderator could ignite, as it did during the incident, releasing massive amounts of
radioactivity.
● Positive Void Coefficient: This inherent design flaw, identified by Anatoly Dyatlov and Valery
Legasov (Higginbotham, 2019), meant power output increased when coolant (water) boiled away,
creating a positive feedback loop that contributed to the uncontrollable power surge.
● Lack of Containment Structure: Unlike Western reactors, RBMK lacked a containment dome,
allowing radioactive material to escape directly into the environment.

Safety Violations:

● Ignorant Experiment: Plant operators, led by Anatoly Dyatlov (Higginbotham, 2019), ignored
safety protocols and conducted a risky experiment at low power to test the turbine's ability to
provide emergency power, as documented in official reports (OECD/NEA, 2016). This
experiment disabled key safety systems and triggered the chain reaction.
● Bypassed Safeguards: Operators deliberately bypassed crucial safety rods, essential for
controlling power, further exacerbating the situation (Medvedev, 1991).

Inadequate Training and Suppression of Concerns:

● Untrained Personnel: Many plant operators, including night shift supervisor Viktor Bryukhanov
(Gorbachev, 1991), lacked adequate training on the complex RBMK reactor and emergency
procedures (Medvedev, 1991).
● Ignored Warnings: Engineers like Nikolai Dollezhal and Valery Legasov raised concerns about
safety issues and the experiment's dangers, but their warnings were disregarded by Dyatlov and
management (Higginbotham, 2019).
2. Institutional and Personal Risks (with Names):

Personal -

● Immediate Deaths: Firefighters like Vladimir Pravik and Leonid Telyatnikov, unaware of the
radiation dangers, rushed to extinguish the initial fire, receiving fatal radiation doses (World
Health Organization, 2005). 31 deaths within three months, mostly plant workers and firefighters
directly exposed to the explosion and fire (International Atomic Energy Agency, 1986).
● Acute Radiation Sickness: Plant workers like Alexander Kudriavtsev and Anatoly Vasylyuk
suffered agonizing deaths from acute radiation sickness within days (Cardis et al., 2005).
● Long-Term Health Effects: More than five million people live in areas of Belarus, Russia and
Ukraine that are classified as 'contaminated' with radionuclides due to the Chernobyl accident
(Leshem & Pinkerton, 2015). Residents of areas affected by the Chernobyl disaster, like
Lyudmila Ivanova and Oleksiy Ananenko, still face elevated risks of cancer and other health
issues due to chronic radiation exposure decades later. The long-term health effects of the disaster
and the ongoing management of contaminated zones continue to pose ethical challenges,
requiring ongoing commitment to transparency, responsibility, and international cooperation
● Displacement and Trauma: Tens of thousands of residents, like Maria Kuzmenko, were
forcibly evacuated from contaminated areas, experiencing psychological trauma and social
disruption (IAEA, 2020).

Institutional -

● Loss of Public Trust: Opaque information sharing and delayed responses eroded public trust in
government competence and transparency, impacting legitimacy and social stability (Gorbachev,
1991).
● Economic Burden: Decontamination efforts, healthcare costs for affected populations, and social
support programs placed a significant economic strain on governments in the affected regions
(OECD/NEA, 2016).
● International Reputational Damage: The disaster negatively impacted the international image
of the Soviet Union and its nuclear safety practices, hindering diplomacy and collaboration
efforts (World Health Organization, 2005).

3. Engineers' Responsibilities (with Specific Responsibilities):

● Before:
○ Design Review and Improvement: Engineers like Nikolai Dollezhal and Anatoly
Dyatlov (while not solely focused on safety) should have rigorously analyzed the RBMK
reactor design for inherent flaws and pushed for safety improvements like containment
structures and better control rods
○ Raising Concerns and Refusing Unsafe Operations: Engineers like Valery Legasov
should have documented and escalated safety concerns regarding the experiment to
higher authorities and even refused to participate if deemed unsafe
○ Prioritizing Safety Over Production: All engineers involved, including Dyatlov, should
have prioritized safety protocols and refused to operate the reactor under unsafe
conditions or exceed approved power levels
● After:
○ Emergency Response and Containment: Engineers like Leonid Shavrov and Yuri
Semenov played crucial roles in mitigating the initial damage by stabilizing the reactor
and preventing further meltdown, highlighting the importance of emergency response
plans and training
○ Dose Assessment and Evacuation: Engineers should have contributed to radiation dose
assessments and collaborated with authorities to determine safe evacuation zones and
minimize exposure risks for communities
○ Long-Term Waste Management and Decommissioning: Engineers have ongoing
responsibilities in developing safe and sustainable solutions for radioactive waste
management and decommissioning of the damaged reactor site.
4. Code of Ethics:

1. Safety First: Nuclear engineers and safety professionals must prioritize safety above all else in
the design, operation, and maintenance of nuclear facilities. This involves strict adherence to
safety protocols and procedures, ensuring that rigorous risk assessment and mitigation measures
are consistently implemented to safeguard against potential hazards.
2. Transparency and Accountability: Maintaining open and transparent communication channels
is crucial for addressing potential risks, safety concerns, and operational challenges. Professionals
in this field must take personal responsibility for promptly and accurately reporting safety
hazards, errors, or violations, fostering a culture of accountability and trust.
3. Continuous Education and Improvement: Commitment to ongoing professional development
and training is essential for staying updated on the latest safety standards, technological
advancements, and best practices. Actively seeking opportunities to learn from past incidents and
near misses is vital, as it allows for the incorporation of lessons learned into future practices and
procedures, thereby enhancing overall safety.
4. Ethical Leadership: Leading by example is paramount, demonstrating an unwavering
commitment to safety, integrity, and ethical conduct in all professional activities. Advocating for
a culture of safety, accountability, and ethical responsibility within the organization and the
broader nuclear industry is crucial for fostering a positive work environment and ensuring the
well-being of all stakeholders.
5. Environmental Stewardship: Minimizing environmental impacts and ensuring responsible
management of radioactive materials, waste, and emissions are imperative. This involves
incorporating principles of sustainability and environmental protection into all aspects of nuclear
operations and decision-making processes, thereby mitigating potential harm to the environment.
6. Respect for Human Rights and Dignity: Upholding the fundamental rights and dignity of all
individuals affected by nuclear activities is essential. This includes ensuring fair treatment,
equitable access to information, and meaningful participation in decision-making processes for all
stakeholders, thereby promoting social justice and inclusivity.
7. International Cooperation and Collaboration: Foster collaboration and information-sharing
among international partners and stakeholders to enhance nuclear safety, security, and non-
proliferation efforts. This involves supporting initiatives aimed at strengthening regulatory
frameworks, emergency preparedness, and response capabilities at the global level, thereby
promoting peace and stability.
8. Community Engagement and Empowerment: Engage with local communities and
stakeholders in a transparent and inclusive manner, fostering trust, understanding, and
collaboration. Empower affected communities by providing access to accurate information,
resources, and support services to address their needs and concerns, thereby promoting social
cohesion and resilience.
9. Zero Tolerance for Safety Violations: Maintain zero tolerance for safety violations, negligence,
or willful disregard for safety protocols, standards, and regulations. Taking swift and appropriate
disciplinary action against individuals or organizations found to be in violation of safety
requirements is essential for upholding the integrity of the profession and ensuring the safety of
all involved.
10. Long-Term Commitment to Safety and Responsibility: Recognize that ensuring nuclear safety
is an ongoing and evolving process that requires sustained commitment, vigilance, and
dedication. Strive to leave a positive legacy by contributing to a safer, more secure, and
sustainable nuclear future for generations to come, thereby fulfilling our ethical obligation to
society and the environment.
5. Takeaways and Further Insights:

● Individual culpability like Dyatlov's highlights the crucial role of ethical leadership and personal
responsibility in engineering, where decisions can have immense consequences (OECD/NEA,
2016).
● Systemic issues like flawed reactor design and a culture of suppressing safety concerns
demonstrate the urgent need for robust ethical frameworks within institutions, promoting open
communication and prioritizing safety above all else (INSAG-7, 1992).
● The long-lasting ramifications of the Chernobyl disaster underscore the vital role of engineers in
upholding ethical principles, advocating for safety measures, and prioritizing the well-being of
the public and the environment (Gorbachev, 1991).

Additional Points:

● The disaster sparked significant reforms in global nuclear safety regulations, emphasizing
transparency, independent oversight, and a culture of safety (IAEA, 2020).
● Ethical dilemmas faced by engineers in the Chernobyl case, like balancing obedience to authority
with speaking up about safety concerns, remain relevant in various professions today (NSPE,
2023; FIDIC, 2022).
● The long-term health effects of the disaster and the ongoing management of contaminated zones
continue to pose ethical challenges, requiring ongoing commitment to transparency,
responsibility, and international cooperation (World Health Organization, 2005).
References
● Cardis, E., et al. (2005). The Chernobyl accident: 20 years of cancer data. Chernobyl: Assessment
of Chernobyl's Consequences and the Strategy for Recovery, 108-140.
● Gorbachev, M. (1991). One Man and his Country: My Life in the Soviet Era. Pantheon Books.
● Higginbotham, A. (2019). Midnight in Chernobyl: The Story of the World's Greatest Nuclear
Disaster. Simon & Schuster.
● International Atomic Energy Agency. (1986). Summary report on the post-accident review
meeting on the Chernobyl accident (Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-1) .
https://www.ilankelman.org/miscellany/chernobyl.pdf
● IAEA. (2020). Chernobyl: 35 years after. International Atomic Energy Agency.
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/35-years-since-chornobyl
● INSAG-7. (1992). The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1. International Atomic Energy
Agency. https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf
● Medvedev, G. (1991). The Truth About Chernobyl. HarperCollins.
● Leshem, N., & Pinkerton, A. (2015). Re‐inhabiting no‐Man’s land: Genealogies, political life and
critical agendas. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 41(1), 41–53.
https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12102
● OECD/NEA. (2016). Chernobyl: 30 Years After. Nuclear Energy Agency. https://www.oecd-
nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2019-12/ar2016.pdf
● World Health Organization. (2005). Chernobyl: The Legacy. World Health Organization.
https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/chernobyl-s-legacy-health-environmental-and-socio-
economic-impacts-and-recommendations-to-thegovernments-of-belarus-the-russian-federation-
and-ukraine
● Bergmann, S. (2012). The lessons of Chernobyl and Fukushima: An ethical evaluation.
Environment & Society Portal, Perspectives,
● Medvedev, Z. (1990). The legacy of Chernobyl. W.W. Norton & Company.
● Plokhy, S. (2018). Chernobyl: The history of a nuclear catastrophe. Basic Books.
● Shlapentokh, V. (1993). Chernobyl and glasnost: The effects of the accident on the political
institutions of the Soviet Union. The Journal of Communist Studies, 9(1), 1-20.
● Silk, M. S. W. (2019, July 25). The ethics of scientific advice: Lessons from “Chernobyl”. The
Prindle Post.