HOME |
RSS | 
An explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the USSR (now Ukraine) during a safety test became the worst nuclear accident in history on April 26th, 1986. Twenty-five years later, the area is still uninhabitable. The Big Picture has posted 34 pictures from that disaster and its aftermath, continuing to the present. This picture shows a helicopter spraying decontaminant a month after the accident. Some photos may be disturbing. Link -via the Presurfer
(Image credit: Reuters/Itar-Tass)
When you think of nuclear reactors, do you think of the Chernobyl disaster or the Three Mile Island accident?
Nuclear power has gotten a lot of bad rap (deservedly, actually) but given the advances in safety and the ever-growing need for energy, should we reconsider nukes? Dan Hinge of Environmental Graffiti writes:
The WHO at the time estimated that the blast caused less than 50 direct deaths. About 600,000 people were deemed to have been seriously exposed to radiation, of whom it was estimated that 4,000 would die of cancer over the course of their lives as a result of the explosion at Chernobyl. The figures are horrific. However, to put them in perspective, based on UN estimates from 2001-2004, during this period one person would die of starvation every second. That’s nearly 4,000 an hour [2].
Worryingly, with an urgent need for carbon emissions to be cut and a sustainable and cost-effective source of energy desperately needing to be found, Chernobyl is still cited as a reason not to invest in nuclear power. It is true that Chernobyl is not the only accident that has occurred at nuclear power plants: accidents at Three Mile Island in the US and Windscale in the UK both caused small releases of radioactive material, but no deaths resulted. As one commenter pointed out, TMI was the worst nuclear disaster in US history; and yet it led to no injury or death and almost no environmental damage. That was 30 years ago [3].
Since 1967, scientific illustrator Cornelia Hesse-Honegger has visited 25 nuclear sites, including that of the 1986 Chernobyl disaster, documenting the mutated insects resulting from radioactive contamination. In an interview about her work, Hesse-Honegger said:
I never thought really about myself as being an artist. I just made what I thought was necessary. I thought that these laboratory flies are the prototypes of our understanding of nature, in the sense that we can do anything to nature—we the humans dictate in the end how nature should look like. It was for me the prototype of a future nature, man-made.
The professor who first gave me the mutated flies was convinced, however, that the radiation from Chernobyl had no impact on nature. This is what brought up the question of “low-level radiation.” Nobody was interested in doing research; this is why I thought I had to make these paintings to show the scientists that it would be important to start research in fallout areas.
Link via Fast Company | Interview with the Artist
From the Upcoming 
ueue, submitted by 
