The Chernoble Question

I am in Ukraine, home of the dreaded Chernoble disaster of 1986. When I found out I was going to Ukraine, I was glad to be doing some work at Internat but was not all that excited about the sightseeing since Ukraine isn’t really know for it’s tourist scene. (Actually, I was excited about not being a tourist.) However, there were a few places I wanted to visit, Chernoble included.

On April 26 1986, safety measures were ignored as the uranium fuel overheated and melted through its protective barriers. The Reactor 4 exploded, caught fire and released radioactive elements including plutonium, iodine, strontium and caesium. The graphite blocks in the core of the reactor also caught fire and contributed to the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere. According to the travel website I visited (link located on the left), “Some 150,000 square kilometres in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine are contaminated and stretch northward of the plant site as far as 500 kilometres. An area spanning 30 kilometres around the plant is considered the “exclusion zone” and is essentially uninhabited.”

Approximately 200 000 people were evacuated from the homes in the surrounding area, including the entire town or Pripyat. The initial explosion resulted in the death of two workers whereas an addition 28 firemen/cleanup crew dies in the following 3 months, most from Acute Radiation Sickness. As for addition health effects, there have been 1800 cases of thyroid cancer from children of the area who were younger than 14yrs at the time of the explosion. This is significantly higher than usual trends. So far, health studies have not shown direct correlation with  higher cancer rates in those people involved with cleanup. Other health effects include suicide, alcoholism and apathy.

The site I have posted goes on to describe the extent of the damage, how the accident was cleaned up and how it related to other nuclear catastrophes.

I wanted to visit Chernoble because it was a place that I have head of and feared. I know what happened there was devastating and never wanted it to happen again. To that end, I aimed to understand the event and its effects from a prevention +  treatment health and safety standpoint as well as its contribution to the environment. However, this exposure I get as a result of this tour would not be limited to the educational type, as parts of the environment are still radioactive and therefore could have the potential to increase risk of cancer.

Sometimes, being both curious and an experimental learner are not a good mix! (I'm sure I have my vivid imagination to thank for keeping me out of a lot of trouble . . .)

After visiting tourist websites to research the exposure risk, I learned that radiation from the Chernoble tour would expose me to 'minimal risk of dangerously increased radiation' and that participating in the tour 'has not been linked to significantly increased risk of certain cancers.' Also, it was children who were under the age of 14 at the time of the accident whose  risk of cancer have been mentioned and have increased. Here, thyroid cancer is the most common culprit but leukemia rates are also concerning.

If I went to Chernoble and did not visit the exclusion zone (the place with the most radiation), I was told that the radiation I would encounter is similar to an intercontinental flight. Nonetheless, precautions for visiting include covering as much skin as possible and not touching anything. This raised some alarms in my head: What if it's a windy day? How are clothes supposed to protect me from radiation or how am  I supposed to get them off without touching the radioactive dirt they might get on them? Should I trust the sources that say there is minimal risk, or should I place my faith in Murphy's Law, which dictates that anything bad that could happen, will?

After a lot of thought about why I wanted to go and even the psychological aspects that could result, I decided against the excursion. This is my reasoning:

1. I have a strong family history of cancer

2. I am 21 years old and carrying half of the makings for some wonderful children - I don't want to do anything that could put them at risk

3. Family and friends also suffer when someone gets cancer - it's not only a personal matter

4. I know that cancer patients go through a lot and so I personally think it would be disrespectful to potentially sign up for the situation they are/were so desperate to fight out of.

5. There are other ways to learn about the disaster and its effects.

6. I lecture my parents enough about the cancer risks of smoking and would feel like a hypocrite if I also willingly exposed myself to unnecessary risk.

7. There's no sense going there to say I've been there. I think a lot of tourists, including myself sometimes, can get caught going somewhere and experiencing something because it's a "must-do," they have the opportunity, or they want to tell their friends about it. Well, those folly reasons are nothing compared to the worst case scenario (however unlikely it may be).

8. Why revel in misery? I wonder if people who experienced the Reactor 4 explosion would ever personally go back or encourage others to? Besides those who returned to for lifestyle and sentimental reasons, I don't imagine they would.

So, if the risk is actually minimal, I am missing out on a life-changing learning opportunity. If not, this could be a decision that saves my life rather than shaping it. I don't think I'm succombing to fear, I think I'm making the best decision for me.