HIS 100 Project Mccree
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Southern New Hampshire University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
100
Subject
History
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
5
Uploaded by CaptainCrab3038
HIS 100 Project Part 1: Creating a Research Question
1.
Describe how your assumptions, beliefs, and values influenced your choice of topic.
I learned about Chernobyl when I started working at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station about 15 years ago. I know that the accident was absolutely preventable and that there was a multitude of issues, such as, a flawed reactor design, no containment structure, and inadequately trained personnel, that led to the eventual release of radioactive material and over
2 dozen deaths in the response. I believe, based on the texts I have read regarding the incident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station, that Isolation of the then Soviet Union due to the Cold War drove them to all of the terrible decisions that led to the accident and made its aftermath worse. If they had been involved in the international nuclear energy community, they wouldn’t have used the flawed reactor design, and they would have been able to adequately train their employees. They would have had the safety of the employees and the public as the top priority, which would have driven them to make more sound decisions both before and after the accident. This incident serves as a great example of what the worst thing that can happen in commercial nuclear power generation is and how important it is to continually strive to improve safety in the operation of these plants.
2.
Discuss the significance of your historical research question in relation to your current event.
My question, how did the Soviet response to Chernobyl shape future global nuclear energy policy, is very significant in relation to the current event I chose, the Fukushima Daiichi disaster. There was a stark difference in release and response from the governments even though both disasters are rated the same, 7, on the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. I believe that the lessons learned from the inadequate response by the U.S.S.R. to the Chernobyl disaster drove the quick response by the Japanese government in evacuation and halting of food
shipments from the affected area. They also ensured that residents had access to potassium iodide to prevent their thyroid glands from absorbing radiation.
3.
Explain how you used sources to finalize your research question.
I used several primary and secondary sources to research the Chernobyl disaster. The primary sources included journal excerpts from several officials involved in the operation of the plant and the response by the Soviet Government to the accident, a memorandum from Morton Abramowitz to the U.S. Secretary of State regarding the estimate of fatalities at Chernobyl, a transcript from the initial politburo meeting regarding the Chernobyl accident, a notice regarding the radiation levels at the site and the proposed response to them, several KGB documents regarding the Soviet Governments initial response and the actions a couple weeks after the accident which included journalist suppression, and the book “Voices from Chernobyl: Oral History of a Nuclear Disaster” Alexievich, S. (2006). Secondary sources included the U.S. NRC backgrounder on the Chernobyl Disaster, NEI page that compared Chernobyl and Fukushima events, a chapter from “Producing Power: The pore-Chernobyl history or the Soviet nuclear industry” which discussed the accident and it’s aftermath, a paper by Edward Geist titled
“Political Fallout: The Failure of Emergency Management at Chernobyl, and a webpage from the World Nuclear Association about the Fukushima Daiichi accident.
I originally asked, what lasting impacts did the accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant have on the local area and the global commercial nuclear industry? After getting into the 1
sources on the Chernobyl disaster, which showed how ill advised and inadequate the response by the Soviet Government was, I decided that my question could be narrowed further to, how did the Soviet response to Chernobyl shape future global nuclear energy policy? Part 2: Building Context to Address Questions
1.
Describe the context of your historical event that influenced your current event.
The delayed response by the Soviet government in alerting the public in and around the area of the station, as well as neighboring countries, of the severity of what was happening at the site led to a deep erosion of trust in the Soviet regime amid charges of complete disregard for public health. In general, the disaster put nuclear power generation front and center on the public policy stage around the world. (Corcoran, 2019) In 2011, following an earthquake, a 50-foot Tsunami struck Japan’s east coast and flooded the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant and disabled the power supply and the cooling ability of core shutdown equipment causing 3 of the reactors to meltdown within 3 days. In regard to reactor damage, the Fukushima disaster was much larger than that at Chernobyl. However, due to modern reactor containment vessel structure construction, there was not an explosive release of radioactive material like at Chernobyl, which had no containment structure for the reactor outside of the building it was housed in. The major concern regarding release at Fukushima was in regard to water that was used to cool and stabilize the melted reactors, leaking from the sites. No deaths or injuries from radiation were reported from the Fukushima disaster which can be greatly attributed to the lessons learned from the Chernobyl Disaster. (Corcoran, 2019), (2023)
2.
Describe a historical figure or group’s participation in your historical event.
The Soviet governments involvement in the operation of the plant and its response to the accident exponentially worsened the situation surrounding the disaster. From disregarding the mistakes made by operators and forcing the test that caused the explosion to go on despite concerns, to allowing arrogance to cloud sound judgment in the decisions that were made in the
attempt to contain the problem but ultimately made it worse. (Corcoran, 2019)
3.
Explain the historical figure or group’s motivation to participate in your historical event.
In their initial response to the accident, the Soviet government officials refused to take responsibility for declaring the reactor dead as well as making ill-advised decisions on containing
and extinguishing dangerous graphite fires with water that only made them burn more and expanded the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere. Their response was based on arrogance and put economic stability of the state over all else which cost dozens of lives in the immediate aftermath of the accident and has drastically affected countless lives since. (Corcoran, 2019)
Part 3: Examining How Bias Impacts Narrative
1.
Describe a narrative you identified while researching the history of your historical event.
It is widely understood that the response by the Soviet Government to the Chernobyl disaster was unnecessarily delayed due to overconfident and overzealous soviet communist party bureaucrats who ignored warnings and facts of the events as they unfolded at the number four reactor and continued to run the other three reactors. They provided wildly ridiculous accounts of the events that had occurred such as the statement that the explosion did not damage the reactor and that it was safely shutdown with only two victims related to the explosion. When these responses came under scrutiny from the soviet citizens and the west who wondered with bewilderment why the Soviet Government would react this way when their citizens lives were in
2
such grave danger. It is also widely understood that these responses deeply fractured the public trust in their government and were a large factor in the eventual downfall of the Soviet Union a few years later.
2.
Articulate how biased perspectives presented in primary and secondary sources influence what is known or unknown about history.
Very plainly put, bias in sources, whether primary or secondary, can lead to potentially relevant information being skewed, or completely excluded from the source to appease the writers bias towards what they are covering. This can be dangerous though and should be scrutinized when reviewing sources. If you look at the journal entries from the Soviet Officials that were dealing with the people at the site when the accident occurred, you can see that the individual who was in charge at the plant was ignoring concerns from his operators and putting out misleading or even blatantly false details about the accident to the government officials who were trying to establish the proper emergency response to the incident. 3.
Identify the perspectives that you think are missing from your historical events narrative.
I don’t feel like there are still missing perspectives on the Chernobyl disaster, however, If the story were told from the perspective of the residents in the area and even the dissenting plant employees and few government officials who realized how dire the situation truly was but were initially silenced by the people in charge of the facility, perhaps the world would have realized the same sooner and many more lives could have been saved and the disaster could have been more adequately contained and had a far less impact on the area.
Part 4: Connecting the Past with the Present
1.
Explain how researching its historical roots helped improve your understanding of your current event.
My current event didn’t really have historical roots. The event was the Fukushima Disaster in 2011. It was the direct result of an earthquake and subsequent tsunami that caused the events that led to the meltdown of three reactors. It did, however, re-emphasize the importance of the shield buildings that were constructed over the reactor buildings and how the lack of that feature was a large flaw in the Chernobyl design and led to vast amounts of radioactive material being released in that disaster.
2.
Articulate how questioning your assumptions, beliefs, and values may benefit you as an individual.
Questioning your assumptions, beliefs, and values can lead you to be more open or empathetic to other viewpoints. It is important, when forming opinions, to have as much input as possible so that your opinion is based as much in fact as possible and not swayed by bias that may exist.
3.
Discuss how being a more historically informed citizen may help you understand contemporary issues.
As I posted in the week 6 discussion, it is important that citizens stay informed about both historical events as well as current events. They should make a point to look at as many sources as possible when doing so, which will allow for the clearest most unbiased view of a particular event. It will also allow for the citizens to spot bias in reporting and hidden agendas that may be present. Being historically informed can also help in understanding how or why current events are happening and what could possibly be done based on historical responses to similar events. The citizenry should always hold a healthy uneasiness towards those who they elect to govern and not be afraid to scrutinize the actions of those people when their actions don’t align with what they were elected to do.
3
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Corcoran, D. (2019, December 20). Chernobyl revisited: A case study in ineptitude and deceit. Undark Magazine. https://undark.org/2018/06/22/book-review-plokhy-chernobyl/
World Nuclear Association. (2023, August). Fukushima Daiichi Accident. Fukushima Daiichi Accident - World Nuclear Association. https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/safety-and-
security/safety-of-plants/fukushima-daiichi-accident.aspx
Vorotnikov, V. (1986, April 26). Excerpt from Vitaly Vorotnikov Diary https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/19488-national-security-archive-doc-1-excerpt
Abramowitz, M. (1986, May 2). INR Information Memorandum from Morton Abramowitz to the Secretary of State: Estimate of Fatalities at Chernobyl Reactor Accident. Secret. | National Security Archive. Nsarchive.gwu.edu. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/19496-national-
security-archive-doc-9-inr-information
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2022, March 1). NRC: Backgrounder on Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Nrc.gov; United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/chernobyl-bg.html
Geist, E. (2015). Political Fallout: The Failure of Emergency Management at Chernobyl’. Slavic Review, 74(1), 104–126. https://doi.org/10.5612/slavicreview.74.1.104
Nuclear Energy Institute. (2019, October 20). Comparing Fukushima and Chernobyl. Nuclear Energy Institute. https://www.nei.org/resources/fact-sheets/comparing-fukushima-and-
chernobyl
Alexievich, S. (2006). Voices from Chernobyl: The oral history of a nuclear disaster (K. Gessen, Trans.). Picador. (Original work published 1997)
4
Schmid, S. D. (2015). Chernobyl: From accident to sarcophagus. In Producing power: The pre-
Chernobyl history of the Soviet nuclear Industry (pp. 127–160). The MIT Press.
5