INTRODUCTION

Throughout the history of the human race, human beings have been shaping and
reshaping nature to meet their needs. Growing anthropological evidence suggests that extinct
human species, like the Neanderthal men (Homo neanderthalensis), were the first to shape
nature in accordance with their needs. Recent discoveries from a lignite quarry in Halle,
Germany, show that the Neanderthals cleared a forest by fire, 125, 000 years ago. Places
where Neanderthals lived experienced a decrease in tree cover. (Puiu, 2021). Over
exploitation of nature may have led to decline of ancient civilizations. The Indus Valley
Civilization was a very advanced 7000- 8000year-old urban civilization that predated many
contemporary civilizations like the Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations. Ecological
factors led to the fall of this civilization. (Das.B., 2018) (Mukherjee, 2016) Destruction of
forests to make way for towns may have been one of the precipitating factors behind climate
change and desertification of the Indus valley . (Down to Earth , 1993). (Wuqui, 1998). But
ancient Aryans were mindful of the environment. Ecological thoughts are found in the Vedas.
(Dwivedi, 2008, pp. 3-16).

India is now celebrating the 75th Anniversary of her freedom from British rule. The
achievement of Independence on 15th August, 1947, was a watershed in the nation’s history.
Our national leaders had conceptualized the need for planned development of our nation
when Indians were still struggling for freedom from British rule. The five-year plans, which
started in independent India in 1951, were an attempt to develop our nation in a planned
manner. Since then, India has developed to a great extent. India has achieved self-sufficiency
in many fields, including food. There have been massive river valley projects, like Bhakra
Nangal, Farakka, Damodar Valley Project, etc. (TNAU AGRITECH PORTAL )There have
also emerged industrial townships. With the onset of globalization, privately sponsored
Special Economic Zones, like the Electronics City in Bengaluru, are on the rise (Idiculla,
2016). But forest cover has deteriorated. India’s forest cover is now barely 25% of the
country’s land area which is far below the international requirement of 33%. (Agarwal, 2020)
The onset of destructive natural forces like cyclones have increased. In 2021, six cyclonic
storms hit India causing widespread damage and destruction. (Kumar, 2021) In light of these
hard facts, it is necessary to rethink the concept of development.

1
The concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ was formulated in 1987 by the World
Commission on Environment and Development, popularly known as the Brundtland
Commission. It was established by the United Nations General Assembly in 1983. In the
eighties of the 20th century, world leaders became acutely aware that the environment was
fast deteriorating due to over exploitation of nature by human beings. The present decade [the
eighties] has been marked by a retreat from social concerns. Scientists bring to our attention
urgent and compelling problems of survival: a warming globe, threats to the Earth’s ozone
layer, deserts consuming agricultural land.

The report entitled Our Common Future (United Nations , 1987) makes a scathing
criticism of our social and political practices which had negatively impacted on planet Earth.
Some of these are as follows:

• Infant mortality is declining. Human life expectancy is increasing. But the number
of hungry people in the world is increasing. (Art 5&6).

• Increase in desertification, widespread destruction of forests, acid rain, burning of

fossil fuel causing global warming (Art.7).

• A major cause and effect of global environmental problems is poverty (Art.8). • The
arms race has led to a rise in global military expenditures (Art.20).

The Brundtland report concluded that there was growing realization among national
governments and multilateral institutions that ‘it is impossible to separate economic
developmental issues from environmental issues; many forms of development erode the
environmental resources upon which they must be based, and environmental degradation can
undermine economic development’ (Art.8). The Brundtland Commission had three
objectives: 1) to re-examine the environment and development issues and formulate a
‘realistic proposal’ to solve these issues ;

2) propose new forms and co-operation on these issues;

3) to ‘raise the level of understanding and commitment of a wide spectrum of people,
businesses, governments voluntary organizations, and institutes.

The concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ emerged from the deliberations of the Brundtland
Commission. The Commission defined ‘Sustainable Development’ as to ‘meet the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’
(Art 27).Among the recommendations made by the Commission are a) limit population
growth) ensure food security ; c) ensure safe energy; d) control export of hazardous industrial
chemicals; good city management ;(Art 40-74) e) there is the grave threat of nuclear war ; to
achieve peace and security , there is need to improve relations among major powers (Art.88).
2
Sustainable Development Goals Based on the recommendations of the Brundtland
Commission, The report entitled Our Common Future (United Nations , 1987) makes a
scathing criticism of our social and political practices which had negatively impacted on
planet Earth. Some of these are as follows:
• Infant mortality is declining. Human life expectancy is increasing. But the number of
hungry people in the world is increasing. (Art 5&6).
• Increase in desertification, widespread destruction of forests, acid rain, burning of fossil fuel
causing global warming (Art.7).
• A major cause and effect of global environmental problems is poverty (Art.8). • The arms
race has led to a rise in global military expenditures (Art.20).

The Brundtland report concluded that there was growing realization among national
governments and multilateral institutions that ‘it is impossible to separate economic
developmental issues from environmental issues; many forms of development erode the
environmental resources upon which they must be based, and environmental degradation can
undermine economic development’ (Art.8). The Brundtland Commission had three
objectives: 1) to re-examine the environment and development issues and formulate a
‘realistic proposal’ to solve these issues
2) propose new forms and co-operation on these issues
3) to ‘raise the level of understanding and commitment of a wide spectrum of people,
businesses, governments voluntary organizations, and institutes.
The concept of ‘Sustainable Development’ emerged from the deliberations of the Brundtland
Commission. The Commission defined ‘Sustainable Development’ as to ‘meet the needs of
the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’
(Art 27).Among the recommendations made by the Commission are a) limit population
growth) ensure food security ; c) ensure safe energy; d) control export of hazardous industrial
chemicals; good city management ;(Art 40-74) e) there is the grave threat of nuclear war ; to
achieve peace and security , there is need to improve relations among major powers (Art.88).
Sustainable Development Goals Based on the recommendations of the Brundtland
Commission, the United Nations adopted 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in
2015(Fig. 1). Among these goals, the first twelve and the last two (16 and 17) may be
regarded as human development goals. Goals no.13, 14 and 15 may be regarded as
environment protection goals. The United Nations observed that these goals are a call for
action by all countries ‘to promote prosperity while protecting the environment’. (United
Nations )

3
4
 MEANING

"Sustainable development is development that meets the needs

of the present, without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs."

The concept of sustainable development can be interpreted in many different ways, but at its
core is an approach to development that looks to balance different, and often competing,
needs against an awareness of the environmental, social and economic limitations we face as
a society.

All too often, development is driven by one particular need, without fully considering the
wider or future impacts. We are already seeing the damage this kind of approach can cause,
from large-scale financial crises caused by irresponsible banking, to changes in global
climate resulting from our dependence on fossil fuel-based energy sources. The longer we
pursue unsustainable development, the more frequent and severe its consequences are likely
to become, which is why we need to take action now.

So is it all just about the environment?

Living within our environmental limits is one of the central principles of sustainable development.
One implication of not doing so is climate change.

But the focus of sustainable development is far broader than just the environment. It's also about
ensuring a strong, healthy and just society. This means meeting the diverse needs of all people in
existing and future communities, promoting personal wellbeing, social cohesion and inclusion, and
creating equal opportunity.

5
If sustainable development focuses on the future, does that mean we
lose out now?

Not necessarily. Sustainable development is about finding better ways of doing things, both for the
future and the present. We might need to change the way we work and live now, but this doesn't
mean our quality of life will be reduced.

A sustainable development approach can bring many benefits in the short to medium term, for
example:

Savings - As a result of SDC scrutiny, government has saved over £60m by improving efficiency
across its estate.

Health & Transport - Instead of driving, switching to walking or cycling for short journeys will save
you money, improve your health and is often just as quick and convenient.

How does it affect me?

The way we approach development affects everyone. The impacts of our decisions as a society
have very real consequences for people's lives. Poor planning of communities, for example,
reduces the quality of life for the people who live in them. (Relying on imports rather than growing
food locally puts the UK at risk of food shortages.)

Sustainable development provides an approach to making better decisions on the issues that affect
all of our lives. By incorporating health plans into the planning of new communities, for instance,
we can ensure that residents have easy access to healthcare and leisure facilities. (By encouraging
more sustainable food supply chains, we can ensure the UK has enough food for the long-term
future.)

How do we make it happen?

We all have a part to play. Small actions, taken collectively, can add up to real change. However,
to achieve sustainability in the UK, we believe the Government needs to take the lead. The SDC's
job is to help make this happen, and we do it through a mixture of scrutiny, advice and building
organisational capacity for sustainable development.

6
7
 DEFINITION

Sustainable development is maintaining a delicate balance between the human need to

improve lifestyles and feeling of well-being on one hand, and preserving natural resources
and ecosystems, on which we and future generations depend.

According to the WCED, this is "development that meets the needs of the present
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Sustainable
development implies economic growth together with the protection of environmental quality,
each reinforcing the other. The essence of this form of development is a stable relationship
between human activities and the natural world, which does not diminish the prospects for
future generations to enjoy a quality of life at least as good as our own. Many observers
believe that participatory democracy, undominated by vested interests, is a prerequisite for
achieving sustainable development (Source: Mintzer, 1992).

he guiding rules are that people must share with each other and care for the Earth. Humanity
must take no more from nature than nature can replenish. This in turn means adopting
lifestyles and development paths that respect and work within nature's limits. It can be done
without rejecting the many benefits that modern technology has brought, provided that
technology also works within those limits (Source: Caring for the Earth, IUCN, p8.)

There are over 100 definitions of sustainability and sustainable development, but the best
known is the World Commission on Environment and Development's. This suggests that
development is sustainable where it "meets the needs of the present without compromising
the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."

The term refers to achieving economic and social development in ways that do not exhaust a
country's natural resources. See, also, Ashford (1995) and The World Commission on
Environment and Development (1987). In the Commission's words: "... sustainable
development is ... a process of change in which the exploitation of resources, the direction of

8
 investments, the orientation of technological development, and institutional change are made
consistent with the future as well as present needs".

Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable development respects the limited capacity
of an ecosystem to absorb the impact of human activities.

SD is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. Some people also believe that the concept of
sustainable development should include preserving the environment for other species as well
as for people.

Is development which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs. Some people also believe that the concept of
sustainable development should include preserving the environment for other species as well
as for people.

9
 CAUSES

Sustainable development implies the fulfillment of several conditions: preserving the overall
balance, respect for the environment, and preventing the exhaustion of natural resources.
Reduced production of waste and the rationalization of production and energy consumption
must also be implemented. Sustainable development is presented as a more or less clean
break from other modes of development, which have led and are still leading to worrying
social and ecological damage on both a worldwide and a local scale. To be sustainable,
development must combine three main elements: fairness, protection of the environment, and
economic efficiency. A sustainable development project must be based on a better-developed
mode of consultation between the community and the members it comprises. The success of
such a policy also depends on consumers accepting certain constraints and citizens observing
certain requirements about transparency and participation.

Causes of Sustainable Development:-

1) To promote the kind of development that minimizes environmental problems.

2) To meet the needs of the existing generation without compromising the quality of the
environment for future generations.

3) sustainable, development must combine three important elements: fairness, protection of

the environment, and economic efficiency. To promote the kind of development that
minimises environmental problems.

10
 Fig. 1 Causes

Sustainable development happens when people want it, when governments legislate for it,
when customers desire it, when architects are employed and given a brief to design a
sustainable building, and for many other reasons.

People want sustainable development because that way they are leaving a lighter footprint on
the earth. They are using fewer resources. They are causing less pollution. They are causing
less damage to the environment and to the planet.

Sustainable development is a concept that appeared for the first time in 1987 with the
publication of the Brundtland Report, warning of the negative environmental consequences of
economic growth and globalization, which tried to find possible solutions to the problems
caused by industrialization and population growth.

Many of the challenges facing humankind, such as climate change, water scarcity, inequality
and hunger, can only be resolved at a global level and by promoting sustainable development.

GOALS

Let us first examine the literature on Sustainable Development in India. Here we will
examine the major trends in research as well as government policies related to SDGs. A
Google search on the topic ‘Sustainable Development in India’ on 25-01-2022 at 9.03 am
found 30,20,000 results.

Part A. Human Development.

11
Poverty Alleviation

The first SDG is No poverty. The ‘2020 Global Multidimensional Poverty Index’ presents a
grim picture of poverty across the world. Among 107 developing countries, 1.3 billion or 22
percent live in multidimensional poverty. About 84.3% of the multidimensionally poor
people live in sub-Saharan Africa (558 million) and South Asia (530 million). Of them, 1.3
billion suffer simultaneous deprivation in at least 5 SDG indicators simultaneously. (United
Nations Development Programme, 2020). Niti Ayog published a baseline report on poverty.
(Niti Ayog , 2015)According to Niti Ayog’s Poverty Index, Bihar, Jharkhand and Uttar
Pradesh are the poorest states in India. By contrast, Kerala, Goa and Sikkim are least poor
and so they are placed at the bottom of the index. (Press Trust of India , 2021). The
Government of India’s Economic Survey (2017) admitted that rural poverty is high. (OECD ,
2017).
A ‘Google Scholar’ search on ‘Poverty alleviation and Sustainable Development in
India’ in the afternoon of 8th February, 2022, unearthed 1,89,000 results. A summary of the
researches reveal some significant trends .1) Poverty has been reduced thanks to pro poor
policies of the government . (Datt, 2016)2) Unsustainability and poverty are interlinked.
(Asadi, 2008)3) Projects such as Clean Development Mechanisms have not contributed to the
alleviation of rural poverty. (Sirohi, 2007) From these studies we may conclude that poverty
is still a grim social fact in India. Alleviation of poverty must go hand in hand with
sustainable development. But researchers focused on rural poverty. What about urban
poverty?

Food security

The second SDG is Zero Hunger. The 2021 Global Hunger Index ranks India at 101st among
116 countries (Global Hunger Index , 2021).This indicates that Food Security has still not
been achieved in India. A ‘Google Scholar’ search on the topic ‘Food Security and
Sustainable Development in India’ on 30.01.22 found about 13,50,000 results. Here are
certain significant trends in research .1) Agricultural production is declining and may lead to
social unrest if not checked. (Swaminathan, 2001) (Ritchie, 2018)2) There is the need to
recognize the role of gender equity in agriculture. (Agarwal B. , 2018)3) Proper water
management is needed . (Kumar.M.D., 2003). To conclude, to achieve food security we need
to properly manage natural resources and also overcome the social constraints, like gender
inequality which are hampering agriculture.

Good Health

The third Sustainable Development Goal is Good Health and Well Being. India ranked 66 out
of 195 countries in the Global Health Security Index (GHS I). (Global Health Security Index,
2021).Thus we find that India ranks in the middle as far as health is concerned. A ‘Google
Scholar’ search on the topic ‘Good health and well-being in India’ on 7-02-2022 found about
1,30,000 results Here are some significant findings. 1) There are gross inequalities in mental
health care among the women and elderly. (Alam) (Patel A. Banerjee, 2020)2) Physical
disability increases with age and with decreasing level of education, childless women being
very vulnerable (Hirve, 2010) 3) Early marriage not only leads to poor reproductive health of
mothers, their children also suffer from poor reproductive health. (Prakash, n.d.)4) While
India’s mental health policy was praised as being in line with sustainable development goals,
(Grover, 2019), India’s ambitious ‘Ayushman Bharat’ health scheme was criticized , for
excluding primary health care and lacking acceptance by states. (Mukherjee R. A., 2018)

12
 To conclude, the studies cited above highlighted certain serious issues in physical and mental
health which we must resolve if we are to accomplish SDG 3. There is also the need for
change of government policy. Primary physical and mental health care must be given top
priority if we are to build a healthy society in India.

Quality Education

The fourth SDG is Quality Education. India has ranked 32 on Education in the ‘World
Population Review Educational Rankings by Country 2022’ (World Population Review ,
2022).A ‘Google Scholar’ search on the topic ‘Education and Sustainable Development in
India’ in the morning of 8th February ,2022, found about 15,90,000 items. Here are some
significant findings .1) The Indian education system suffers from major inequalities in
education, employment and income. (Desai, 2008)2) a. The mean years of schooling in India
are lower than other emerging economies like China, Brazil and significantly lower than
other developing countries. Steep drop out rates in primary, middle school impede education.
The dropout rates of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are higher than the national
average c) Low enrolment in the Higher Secondary level impedes the development of higher
secondary education. (Mohanty, 2018) 3) Innovative teaching methods improve the learning
capabilities of students. (Alexandar, 2014).4) Emphasis should be laid on basic education and
adult literacy. (Nazar, 2018) 5) Finally, Covid 19 dealt a body blow to India’s efforts to attain
SDG 4. (Banerjee, 2021) .

Gender Equality

SDG 5 is concerned with Gender Equality. A ‘Google Scholar’ search on ‘Gender Equality
and Sustainable Development + India’ yielded 1,16,000 results in the evening of 09-02-2022.
Sudarshan Kumar Pathania rightly argued that women’s empowerment could be realized only
through sustainable development. Sustainable development depends on equitable distribution
of resources and it is here that gender equality is needed. The objective of his paper was to
examine the contribution of women to sustainable development ‘as partner and beneficiaries’.
(Pathania, 2017)Here are some significant findings and recommendations from various
studies.1) Gender equality was not possible without reproductive rights. (Bhatt, 2018)2) Lack
of data on adolescent girls could jeopardise the country’s agenda of achieving gender equality
and sustainable development. (Patel A. Banerjee, 2020).By including women in Panchayati
Raj Institutions(PRI), India had empowered women and contributed to gender equality. But
women in PRIs face problems which, we hope will be overcome. (Joshi, 2021) (Billava,
2016) (Hazra, 2017) (Kudva, 2003).
Why has India slipped 41 places in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap
Report 2021, becoming the third worst performer? The report indicated that India had been
able to able to close only 62.5 per cent of its gender gap. (Press Trust of India, 2021).The
report noted that India’s gender gap increased by 3 per cent and attributed the gap to among
other things, to economic participation and opportunity sub index. Only Afghanistan (156)
and Pakistan (153) ranked lower than India in south Asia. Table 1.1 of Global Gender Gap
Report 2021showed that India scored 0.625 and achieved a rank of 140, dropping 28 places.
(World Economic Forum , 2021)Thus The World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap
Report 2021indicated that gender equality was still a far cry in India. The Covid 19 pandemic
had a negative impact on gender equality. It severely impacted women’s employment.
(Madgavkar, 2020) (Alon, 2020)And this pandemic may have been one of the reasons behind
India’s slippage in gender equality. To achieve gender equality, we recommend that India
formulate and implement a rights-based policy of promoting gender equality.

13
Clean Water and Sanitation

SDG 6 is concerned with clean water and sanitation. From the 17,900 results on the topic,
‘Water, Sanitation and sustainable development in India’, on 13-02-2022, we find that
scientists are seriously concerned with water and sanitation. Niti Ayog developed a water
index (Niti Ayog, Government of India, n.d.) .The World Bank developed a cost estimate of
water and sanitation for 140 countries with special emphasis on developing countries.
(Hutton, 2016). Researches indicate: 1) Inequality between cities regarding availability,
accessibility of water and sanitation facilities. (Saroja, 2020)2) Increase in GDP improves
sanitation level indicators and reduces disease. (Roy A. P., 2019)3) Swatch Bharat and Jal
Jeevan missions led to overall development. (Sarkar, 2021).These studies indicate that India
has progressed in fulfilling SDG6.

Decent Work and Economic Growth

SDG 8 concerns decent work and economic growth. India is yet to provide full employment
to her population. Unemployment is a major problem. (Krishna, 1973) (Mahendra Dev &
Venkatanarayana, 2012) (Visaria, 1981).Marx predicted that capitalist mode of production
leads to a growing industrial reserve army (Furth, 1978) but was he aware of the role of
pandemics in the loss of livelihoods? 122 million Indians lost their livelihoods after Covid 19
lockdown was announced (Banerjee, 2020).

Part B Protecting the Environment

SDGs 13(Climate Action) 14(Life on Water )15(Life on Land) deal with environmental
protection. A Google Scholar search on ‘Environmental protection in India’ found 22,50,000
results. The following are some significant findings and recommendations from various
studies.1) India is constitutionally committed to protect the environment. Among the
measures taken by the Ministry of Environment and Forests to protect the ecosystem are the
following laws: 1) Wildlife Protection Act (1972) 2) Water Prevention and Control Act
(1974), 3) Environment Protection Act (1986), the National Green Tribunal Act (2010) etc.
(Vaish, 2017)But is legislation enough? What about implementation? Agarwal (Agarwal V. ,
2005)criticized the enforcement of environmental laws. He recommended setting up of an
adjudicatory body to oversee their proper implementation. 2) Education plays an important
role in environmental awareness But Iyengar and Bajaj, who studied the contribution of
Environmental Education and Sustainable Development in India with special reference to
Bhopal, found the syllabus to be unsatisfactory. They rightly criticized the syllabi for
Environmental Education for emphasizing only the natural science aspects, neglecting the
social science approaches with no contextual links to the Bhopal gas tragedy of 1984.
(Iyengar, 2011) 3) Women played an important role in environmental protection. (Jewitt,
2008) How far has India achieved SDGs 13? During the recent United Nations Climate
Change Conference (COP26), which was held at Glasgow, Scotland, (2021) Narendra Modi,
Prime Minister of India, announced that India would meet 50% of her energy needs from
renewable energy sources. He also pledged to reduce carbon emissions and projected that
India will achieve zero emissions by 2070. (Kwatra, 2021)But several factors hinder India’s
efforts to attain SDG 13. These are: 1) definite national indicators against SDG targets are
absent; 2) budgetary support is inadequate; 3) data deficiencies. (Priya, 2019) SDG 14 and 15
deal with life on water and land. How successful has India been in attaining these goals? Let
us first look at India’s efforts attain SDG 14. India is a signatory to the Ramsar convention on
protecting wetlands. Though India a rich variety of wetlands, human interference and

14
conversion of wetlands to agricultural lands was leading to permanent habitat loss for many
species (Ragavan, 2020). Ragavan et .al rightly called for proper scientific management and
preservation of wetlands. (Ragavan, 2020) Now let us examine India’s progress on SDG15.
The Government of India took several steps to protect wildlife. Among these are Project
Tiger, Project Elephant, Crocodile Conservation Project, UNDP Sea Turtle Project. Among
other initiatives, the government also set up Wildlife Crime Control Bureau to tackle the
illegal wildlife trade and banned the veterinary drug, diclofenac, to save the Gyp vulture.
(Ranthambore National Park , 2017)Studies of wildlife conservation and management point
out that protecting living space holds the key to protecting bio diversity. India achieved
afforestation and reduced deforestation (Shah, 2020). But threats like poaching remain. They
must be successfully encountered. Captive breeding of endangered wildlife also must play an
important role in rejuvenation of endangered species. (Hundal, 2004)Preventing man -
wildlife conflict is another essential element in preserving wildlife. Favourable attitude of
people to wildlife helps in their conservation. (Rais, 2015) (Udaya Sekhar, 2003).But, the
government’s policy of destruction of forests in the name of ‘development’, has been
severely criticized. For example, Goa’s Mollen National Park was set to lose 60,000 trees for
a national highway! (Nagendra, 2021)Another point of concern is frequent train accidents
involving wildlife. (Roy, 2017)It is high time that our government took steps to check wanton
destruction of our forest wealth. From these researches we find that India’s progress towards
achieving SDGs have varied according to the goals. All studies cited above are pan Indian
studies. Rarely did they focus on individual states or Union Territories. For example, I have
not come across any study on West Bengal. I have, therefore, decided to make a case study of
how West Bengal is contributing towards achieving the above SDGs in the national context.
Sustainable Development in India: The Case of West Bengal Now we will examine how
West Bengal fared on Sustainable Development. Part A. Human Development Poverty
Alleviation The first goal is No poverty. According to Niti Ayog, 21.43 % of the total
population of West Bengal suffers from multidimensional poverty. (Niti Ayog , 2015) This
makes West Bengal the twelfth poorest state in India. Researches indicates that West Bengal
achieved remarkable success in its efforts at poverty alleviation in the recent past (Bardhan,
2004) (Dasgupta, 1995).What about the present? ‘Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act 2005’(MNREGA) makes it the duty of the government to
provide one hundred days’ work to every able-bodied villager who is willing to do unskilled
manual work or unemployment allowance in case of failure to do so. The place of work will
be within 5 kms of the residence of the applicant. All facilities, like drinking water, creche
etc., have to be provided at the workplace. The Central Government provides 100% of the
cost of wages and 75% of the cost of materials, administrative and other expenditure. The
states provide 25% of the wages of unskilled manual workers and cost of the material and
administrative expenses. (Ministry of Rural Development :Government of India ) Now let us
examine how far this scheme succeeded in ameliorating poverty in West Bengal. The
Government of West Bengal intended to use MNREGA for : 1) asset creation,2) increasing
fertility of soil, 3) ensuring availability of ground water, 4) afforestation, and 5) generation of
livelihood. (Department of Panchayats and Rural Development , Government of West Bengal
, n.d.) A strategic communication plan was developed which included informational,
educational and communication components . (Government of West Bengal , Panchayat and
Rural Development Department, 2014). Dr.Bipul De and Dr.Sevak Jana examined the
implementation of MNREGA in Sonamukhi block of Bankura district, West Bengal. Unlike
Bhagirathi Panda’s study (Panda, 2015)which claims that the implementation of MNREGA
was successful in Bankura district, De and Jana’s study highlighted several issues.1) In
Hamirhati and Kochdi, all residents were employed without application, violating MNREGA
guidelines.2) Inadequate facilities, like water, were provided to the workers. 3) Only 26 % of

15
respondents agreed that MNREGA increases food security. 48% believed that it cannot
protect them against poverty. They concluded that the functioning of MNREGA in
Sonamukhi was not very satisfactory. (De, 2013) .More studies are needed to properly assess
the social impact of MNREGA. Food security SDG 2 aims to eliminate hunger. The passage
of National Food Security Act (2013) was interpreted by the government as a paradigm shift
from a welfare approach to rights-based approach, because the law given the right to 75% of
the rural population and 50% of the urban population to receive subsidized food grains under
the Targeted Public Distribution System. (Department of Food and Public Distribution,
Government of India , n.d.) Despite this India has fared poorly in the Global Hunger Index
(Global Hunger Index , 2021). The distribution of food in contemporary West Bengal is a big
issue. In 2020, villagers in various districts protested against the irregular distribution of food
amidst the lockdown (IANS , 2020). In 2021, ration dealers protested against the
government’s ‘Duare Ration’ policy, claiming that they do not have the requisite
infrastructure. (Chakrabarty, 2021) One study revealed the abnormally high number of ration
card holders per ration shop (2968) in West Bengal. But the question remains, how many of
the ration card holders genuinely need the rations? In West Bengal, ration cards are as also
used as Identity Cards. Soumya Bhowmick claims that the above figure indicates there is a
mismatch between the demand and supply in the food market. He claims that digitization will
reduce inequality in access to food (Bhowmick, 2019).We find that West Bengal has made
uneven progress in achieving SDG 2. Good Health The goal of SDG 3 is good health. The
Central government has come up with a health scheme known as ‘Ayushman Bharat’, which
is based on ‘cooperative federalism and flexibility to states’ (india.gov.in , n.d.).The West
Bengal Government came out with ‘Swasthya Sathi’ on 30th December, 2016.Like
Ayushman Bharat’, it provides secondary and tertiary health care up to Rs.5 lakh per annum
per family . (Pascimbanga Sarkar , n.d.) The health care system in West Bengal has been
critically reviewed in some studies. Satarupa Dey and Shuvra Chattopadhyay found district
wise variations in primary health care. Moreover, there is a huge gap between the availability
of health care and their use in public health centres. (Dey, 2018).Another study found that
though the rate of hospitalization is high, it is the well to do who mostly enjoy subsidized
facilities in hospitals. (Bose, 2015).From these studies we may conclude that West Bengal
needs equity in the availability and use of health care facilities to achieve SDG 3. Quality
Education SDG 4 aims to provide quality education to all. Let us now examine the case of
West Bengal. To enable students of poor and backward sections to avail the benefit of
education, the Government of West Bengal took a number of steps like. Among them are the
bicycle distribution initiative, ‘Sabooj Sathi’. (Sabooj Sathi, Government of West Bengal ,
2015-16), distribution of free text books, exercise books, school uniform, shoes, school bags
and mid-day meal scheme. (School Education Department , Government of West Bengal ,
n.d.) These initiatives were successful in bringing children to school. During the pre-Covid
19 era in undivided Burdwan district, a study concluded that education had a positive impact
on Sustainable Development among households. (Paul, 2016) Like the rest of India, the
education system of West Bengal suffered greatly due to the Covid 19 induced lockdown.
Covid 19 had a negative impact on students. Undergraduate students suffered greatly from
depression, anxiety, poor Internet connectivity and unfavourable environment at home.
(Kapasia, 2020).Annual Status of Education Report (ASER, West Bengal) showed that the
basic learning and numerical abilities of 11000 children across 17 districts of West Bengal
has been reduced. Nobel Laureate Abhijit Banerjee recommended that teaching should be
focused on existing learning abilities of children. (Express News Service , 2022).As
educational institutions in West Bengal reopen, we should realize that we have miles to go
before we achieve SDG4. Gender Equality How far has West Bengal been able to fulfil the
requirements of SDG 5(Gender Equality)? Empowerment is an important indicator of gender

16
equality. I have selected three indicators: economic empowerment, political empowerment
and educational empowerment. With regard to economic empowerment, we find that the data
are contradictory. Some researchers hold participation of women in self-help groups (SHG)
have resulted in their empowerment. (Garai, 2012)Others contest this assumption and claim
that patriarchy exercises power through SHGs. (Dulhunty, 2021).With regard to political
empowerment studies support the idea that rural women have become empowered through
Panchayati Raj Institutions(PRI) , though they face some problems . (Billava, 2016) (Joshi,
2021).In West Bengal , also, participation in PRIs have empowered women though they face
some problems. (Ghosh, 2014) (Hazra, 2017). With regard to educational empowerment, we
find that the Government of West Bengal’s much awarded Kanyashree scheme (Kanyashree
Online , n.d.) enhanced the ‘social power and social esteem of girls’. (Mir, 2018) (Saha,
2015) Kanyashree scheme is a scheme of cash transfer to girls pursuing education at school.
The objective of the scheme is to prevent poor girls from dropping out from school and to
prevent child marriages. ( Kanyashree Online,, n.d.).Thus, we find that West Bengal had
progressed a lot in fulfilling SDG5.But Covid 19 pandemic led to challenges regarding
educating girls (Kapasiaa, 2020) and increase in child marriages (PTI , 2020)negating West
Bengal’s achievements. Clean Water and Sanitation We will now examine West Bengal
achievements regarding SDG 6, namely, clean water and sanitation? In ‘Vision 2020’the
Public Health Engineering Department outlined a road map to achieve water security. Apart
from rejuvenating ponds and dams, rainwater harvesting, use of ground water, etc., the
department also points out the need for public support. (Public Health Engineering
Department, n.d.) But clean drinking water became an election issue in 2021 because 91 out
of 100 households in rural Bengal do not have tap water connections. (Sharma, 2021) The
success of West Bengal’s ‘Mission Nirmal Bangla (Pure Bengal)’ (2013) in achieving 95%
rural sanitation coverage earned the state laurels from UNESCO. (Datta S. , 2018).So, while
we applaud Bengal’s progress in sanitation , we have miles to go to achieve clean water
security. Decent Work and Economic Growth Unemployment and underemployment are
major socio-economic problems in West Bengal, which lacks industry and suffered
slowdown in construction following Modi’s decision on demonetization in November 2016.
Jobs became a major election issue in the 2021 Assembly elections. Mamata Banerjee’ s
assertion of job creation was questioned by her rivals. With 3.5 million job seekers were
registered with employment exchanges till March 2021 (Datta, 2021), how can West Bengal
achieve SDG 8? Part B. Protecting the Environment We will now examine West Bengal’s
progress towards achieving two SDGs- 14(Life on Water) and 15(Life on Land). The Greater
Kolkata Wetlands is a Ramsar site and an important production centre for fish, providing
employment to many people. Studies of Goaltola Fisheries Project and Nalban Fisheries
Project show that they are facing the problems of reduction of organic sewage -an important
component of fish production. (Chakraborty, 2019, pp. 13-15). Public awareness holds the
key to the conservation of any eco system. Dube found that people were conscious of the
existence of tigers and their value to the conservation of the environment of the Sunderbans.
(Dube, 2021)But problems like increasing train speed in the Dooars (Bhraman , 2019)hinder
West Bengal’s attempt to achieve SDG15.

IMPACT

17
 Both the US nuclear industry and the safety authority, NRC, took immediate steps to improve
their safety work. On the industry side what is now known as Institute of Nuclear Power
Operations (INPO) was founded to promote exchange on operating experience and to conduct
thorough peer reviews of operational practices at the nuclear power plants. As the accident
had caused the total loss of a brand new reactor, both investors and utilities became wary
about investments in new nuclear power plants, and building new reactors in the US was
postponed for the next decades. Moreover, improvements in operation and maintenance
practices stimulated and coordinated by INPO led to an increase in availability (unit
capability) of US nuclear power plants, from 63 % in 1980 to around 90 % in 2000. This
corresponds to an addition of around 25 plants of “1980 production performance” to the
power grid, so the need for new reactors was obviously reduced.

International cooperation on nuclear safety was strengthened following the TMI-2 accident,
mainly among the members of the OECD/NEA. Areas receiving increased attention included:

 analysis and feedback of operating experience;

 factors influencing limitations and capabilities of human performance (now known as the
interaction man–technology–organization);
 use of plant-specific probabilistic safety assessments (PSA);
 research into severe accident phenomena and development of severe accident management
techniques.

In Sweden and some other countries specific measures were decided and implemented at
existing reactors to improve their capability to cope with severe accidents, including core
melt (Swedish Government 1981, 1986). These measures included installing equipment for
filtered venting of the containments (Fig. 7) with the objective to prevent containment failure
due to over-pressure in case of a severe accident and at the same time limit releases of
radionuclides causing long-term ground contamination to less than about 200 TBq.

Moreover, the TMI-2 accident had an impact on energy policy in some countries. In Sweden
there was a referendum on nuclear power leading to a political decision to use the existing 12
reactors but not to build any new, with an aim to phase-out nuclear power by 2010.

18
Fig. 7 Severe accident management and release mitigation equipment (filtered venting) installed
at Swedish reactors after the TMI-2 accident.

Chernobyl 1986

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant is situated 120 km north of Kiev, the capital of the
Ukraine. Unit 4 was a graphite-moderated channel-type boiling water reactor of a standard
Soviet design known as RBMK and with a rated thermal power output of 3200 MW (Fig. 8).
The core consists of 1660 fuel channels of zirconium alloy tubes surrounded by graphite.
Each channel contains a fuel element which is cooled by water pumped upwards through the
channel. Unit 4 was taken into operation in 1984.

During a test program conducted on April 25–26, 1986, operators brought the reactor into an
unstable state, violating prescribed operating limits at low power and disabling safety
systems. When an operator pressed the “reactor shut-down” button in the early hours of April
26, a very strong power spike was initiated by runaway fission reactions, causing explosive
destruction of a considerable number of fuel channels. Escaping steam and gases
overpressurized the core cavity, lifting and overturning its 1000 ton lid, also lifting the

19
control rods out of the core. Another explosion occurred, probably the combined effect of
control rods disappearing and hydrogen. The reactor was completely destroyed and
evaporated fuel and fuel fragments were spewed high up in the air. A fire started in the
remaining graphite that burned for some 10 days (Fig. 9), causing further radioactive releases
(INSAG 1986, 1992).

Fig. 8 Cross-section of an RBMK reactor

By the end of November 1986, the damaged reactor had been

enclosed in a provisional shelter, providing weather protection and preventing further release
of radionuclides off-site. As the provisional shelter shows signs of degradation after more
than 25 years, a new safe containment is currently being constructed with an expected service
life of more than 100 years, allowing for a successive clean-up of the site.

20
 Fig. 9 The damaged and burning core region of the Chernobyl-4 reactor in the first days after the
accident. The arrow points to the overturned 1000 ton lid of the core cavity.

Releases from the Core and to the Environment  

As a consequence of the explosive accident process described above, large parts of the core
inventory of radionuclides, especially the gaseous and volatile nuclides, were dispersed into
the environment. Thus 100 % of the noble gases, such as Xe-133 were released. About 60 %
of core content of I-131 or 1 800 000 Tbq, and about 30 % of core content of Cs-137 or
85 000 TBq were released into the atmosphere (De Cort et al. 1998). A considerable fraction
of the release was lifted to high altitudes by the explosive character of the accident.

Root Causes 

Root causes to the accident and related deficiencies in safety work include (INSAG 1992):

 Serious deficiencies in design, including core stability properties, the performance of the
shutdown system and insufficient capacity of the core containment to cope with multiple fuel
channel rupture.
 Inadequate safety analysis and insufficient attention to independent safety review.

21
 Inadequate and ineffective exchange of important safety information both between RBMK
plants and between plants and the designers.
 Insufficient understanding and respect on the part of the operators with regard to the safety
aspects of operational and test procedures.
 A weak regulatory regime that was unable to counter pressures for production.

Taken together, these deficiencies showed that there was a general lack of safety culture in
the political and organizational system, at the national level as well as locally (IAEA 1996).

Radiological Impact of the Accident 

The large amounts of radioactivity released caused severe ground contamination in the
vicinity of the plant. Also, substantial amounts of radioactivity were lifted high up in the
atmosphere and transported all over Europe, producing significant local ground
contamination depending on wind and precipitation factors (Fig. 10). For example, around
4000 TBq of Cs-137 were deposited on Swedish soil (Moberg and Persson 1996).

Fig. 10 Cesium deposition on Europe after the Chernobyl accident ( 1998)

22
Two members of plant staff were killed directly by the explosion. 134 emergency workers
were exposed to doses high enough to result in acute radiation syndrome, causing the death of
28 of these workers in 1986. Nineteen more died in 1987–2004 of various causes that may or
may not be directly attributable to radiation exposure.

By 2005, close to 7000 thyroid cancers, among them some 15 with lethal outcome, had been
diagnosed in population groups exposed to intake of radioactive iodine in the first few
months after the accident. Most of the thyroid cancers are probably attributable to the
accident. The numbers are expected to increase further.

An international expert group has predicted that among the 600 000 persons receiving more
significant exposures, typically above 20 millisievert (the “liquidators” working with the
immediate stabilization of the situation at the site and building the shelter, evacuees, and
residents of the most contaminated areas), there might be a radiation-induced increase in
cancer mortality up to a few percent. This might represent up to about 4000 fatal cancers in
addition to the about 100 000 fatal cancers to be expected in this population group, due to all
other causes. There are also some indications of an increase in the incidence of leukemia and
cataracts among those who received higher doses in this group.

Among the 5 million persons living in areas with exposures in the 10–20 millisievert range,
projected increases in cancer mortality are more uncertain but are expected to be less than
1 %. Such increases would be very difficult to detect and attribute to radiation exposure,
given the normal variation in cancer mortality rates. Among the several hundred million
persons in Europe exposed to doses of a few millisievert or less an increase would be even
more difficult to detect. Nevertheless, estimates for Europe have been made using the linear
non-threshold (LNT) model for cancer risks related to radiation exposure, Such estimates
indicate that, up to 2065, some 25 000 additional cancer cases (other than thyroid) might be
attributable to Chernobyl, to be compared with the more than 100 million cases expected
from other causes (Cardis et al. 2006). The estimates are presented with large uncertainty
bands. In this context, it should be noted that the United Nations Scientific Committee on the
Effects of Ionizing Radiation (UNSCEAR) considers it inappropriate to use the LNT model
and the collective dose for risk projections, especially when cancer incidence estimates are
made for very small additional exposures to very large populations, because the biological
and statistical uncertainties are too great.

23
 To conclude, there has been no persuasive evidence up to 2008 of any other health effects
than those summarized above that can be attributed to radiation exposure from Chernobyl.
Dissenting views have been voiced, but the above summary is based on the joint opinion of a
large group of internationally recognized experts in the relevant scientific areas (Chernobyl
Forum 2003–2005; UNSCEAR 2008).

Socio-economic and Socio-political Impact 

Total costs over the first 25 years since the Chernobyl accident have been estimated to lie in
the range 250 000–500 000 million US$. Much of site clean-up, such as removal and safe
storage of the damaged core, and other recovery work still remains to be done.

More than 300 000 people in the then Soviet Union were evacuated and relocated from their
homes in the most contaminated areas. There was a significant increase in stress-related
syndromes in the affected population, where people typically expressed a strong sense of lack
of control over their own lives. In fact, many experts regard the mental health impact as the
largest public health problem unleashed by the accident (Chernobyl Forum 2003–2005). The
most contaminated areas will probably not be fit for normal habitation for up to a hundred
years.

Radioactivity in food had to be monitored and controlled over large areas in the then Soviet
Union. Around 800 000 ha of agricultural land was removed from service and timber
production halted in around 700 000 ha of forest due to high uptake of cesium in the wood.

The response of the natural environment showed a complex interaction between radiation
dose and radiosensitivities of different plants and animals (Chernobyl Forum 2003–2005).
Numerous adverse effects were observed mainly in high exposure areas within about 30 km
from the reactor. Such effects included:

 Increased mortality of coniferous plants, soil invertebrates, and mammals;

 Reproductive losses in plants and animals;
 Genetic effects in both somatic and germ cells in plants as well as animals.

24
 No acute radiation-induced effects have been reported outside the 30 km radius. The affected
biotas inside the 30 km radius seem to have recovered to a large extent within a few years
after the accident due to reduced exposure levels as radionuclides decayed and migrated.

Across the whole of Europe, radioactive deposits from Chernobyl had to be urgently mapped
(see Fig. 10) and appropriate measures taken to monitor and control radioactivity levels in
sensitive foods, such as reindeer meat. Media attention and public concern added to the
workload of the responsible authorities and government. Due to the large cross-boundary
trade of food products in Europe, rapid harmonization of tolerable activity levels in food and
associated testing methods became an issue at the highest political level.

Impact on the Nuclear Power Sector 

World-wide, the accident triggered expanded cooperation on radiation safety such as:

 New international conventions, notably the Convention on Nuclear Safety, under which the
contracting parties inter alia committed themselves to a strong and independent national
regulatory regime and to mutual peer reviews of their safety work every 3 years.
 Revised and upgraded IAEA safety standards and associated voluntary peer reviews.
 Creation of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO) to implement the INPO
concept of industry-internal peer reviews on a global scale.

Safety culture became a key concept in both IAEA and WANO peer review services.

Fukushima 2011

The Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station is located on the east coast of Japan, about
250 km to the north of Tokyo. There are six boiling water reactors on the site, all taken into
operation during the 1970s. Unit 1 had a rated thermal power output of 1380 MW, units 2–5
2380 MW each, and unit 6 3290 MW. The general design of units 1–5 is shown in Fig. 11.
Unit 6 is of a newer design.

25
 Fig. 11 Schematic of a boiling water reactor (BWR) similar to Fukushima Daiichi unit 1–5.

In a BWR, water pumped through the core is brought to boiling, generating steam that feeds
the turbine and its attached generator. The steam condensation pool is designed to condense
steam released from a postulated pipe break inside the containment to prevent damage from
over-pressure. 

At 14:46 on March 11, 2011, a magnitude 9.0 earthquake occurred with an epicenter in the
sea about 200 km to the northwest of the Fukushima Daiichi station. At the time of the
earthquake, units 1–3 were in normal operation, whereas units 4–6 were shut down,
undergoing periodic inspections and refueling. The power production in units 1–3 was
immediately stopped as designed as the first vibrations were detected. The subsequent peak
accelerations reached 0.56 g in the horizontal direction in some of the units, somewhat higher
than the 0.46 g the reactors were designed for. Emergency diesel generators started as
designed to provide power to essential cooling and instrumentation systems, as external
power was lost due to earthquake damage to transmission lines and switchyards. So far, it has
not been possible to establish with certainty whether the earthquake as such caused any
damage to reactor systems that may have contributed to some extent to the severity of the
accident (NAIIC 2012).

26
At 15:41 the tsunami generated by the earthquake hit the plant with wave heights that
temporarily inundated the station up to about 14 m above sea level (Fig. 12), whereas the
reactors were designed to withstand wave heights of 5.7 m. As a result the lower floors of the
reactor and turbine buildings were flooded with salt water (Fig. 13), causing failure of the
emergency diesels and much other power distribution and instrumentation and control
equipment as well as causing other damage. The end result was that cooling of the reactor
cores in units 1–3 was lost. In unit 4 the core had been unloaded to the spent fuel pool. In
units 5–6, situated on somewhat higher ground than units 1–4, one emergency diesel
survived, which was sufficient to maintain cooling of the two reactor cores.

Fig. 12 The tsunami hits the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station on March 11, 2011.

27
 Fig. 13 Cross-section showing the inundation level at Fukushima Daiichi units 1–4 (2012)

Working literally in the dark with regard to malfunctioning instrumentation and with
illumination in the control room and elsewhere reduced to handheld torches, the operators at
units 1–4 did heroic efforts to get the situation under control but without success. Over the
next few days, the cores in units 1–3 overheated, and probably melted. The melts may in
some units have penetrated the bottom of the reactor vessel and molten material ended up on
the bottom of the containment (Fig. 14). Large amounts of hydrogen and fission products
were released to the containments. The containments developed leaks due to overpressure
and other possible mechanisms. Leakage of hydrogen caused violent explosions destroying
the upper parts of the reactor buildings in units 1, 3, and 4 (Fig. 15). Substantial amounts of
fission products escaped to the environment.

28
Fig. 14 Simplified schematic of reactor status after core overheating and partial meltdown, based
on theoretical calculations (Weightman  2011)

29
Fig. 15 Damage to the reactor buildings of units 3 and 4 caused by hydrogen explosions on March
14–15 (NAIIC 2012). It is assumed that hydrogen from unit 3 leaked into unit 4 via common
ventilation ducts. Photo: Air Photo Services, Japan

Only by the end of 2011 had the situation been stabilized at all units with recirculation
cooling established of the damaged cores in units 1–3 (Fig. 16) and with temperatures in the
reactor pressure vessels and in the containments well below 100 °C. Also, stable cooling of
the spent fuel pools in all units had been achieved. Clean-up operations are under way. For
example, removal of spent fuel from the spent fuel pool in unit 4 has started. It is estimated
that it will take 30–50 years to complete clean-up of the site, not least due to the difficult
working conditions in the damaged reactors.

As in TMI, a large part of the fission products were released to the reactor pressure vessels
and the containments in units 1–3. Through leaks and other mechanisms, around 150 000
TBq of I-131 and around 12 000 TBq of Cs-137 escaped to the atmosphere. Around 4000
TBq of Cs-137 leaked into the sea in the first months after the accident according to Japanese
estimates, although substantially higher amounts have been estimated by French experts
(IAEA 2012).

30
Fig. 16 Simplified schematic illustrating how the damaged cores of units 1–3 are presently cooled

Releases from the Core and to the Environment

Root Causes 

The immediate cause of the accident was of course the damage to the plant and the power
grid caused by the combined effect of the earthquake and the subsequent tsunami. But
whereas Japanese reactors are designed to survive earthquakes as strong as that which
occurred on March 11, 2011, the protection against the subsequent tsunami was totally
inadequate. Still, historical records (Fig. 17) show that tsunami waves exceeding a height of
10–20 m have occurred several times in the past few hundred years. Therefore, such waves
have to be included in the design basis for the plant according to international safety
standards such as those published by the IAEA. Moreover, training, procedures and
equipment for management of severe accidents were far from what is considered as good
international practices after TMI and Chernobyl. Both the plant owner (TEPCO) and the
regulatory authority (NISA) were aware of this situation but neither took appropriate actions,
delaying decisions on safety upgrades for various reasons. The Fukushima Nuclear Accident

31
Independent Investigation Commission appointed by the National Diet of Japan (the Japanese
Parliament) strongly criticizes the multitude of errors and willful negligence that left the
Fukushima plant unprepared for the events of March 11, 2011, and concludes the following:
“What must be admitted – very painfully – is that this was a disaster “Made in Japan.” Its
fundamental causes are to be found in the ingrained conventions of Japanese culture: our
reflexive obedience; our reluctance to question authority; our devotion to ‘sticking with the
program’; our groupism; and our insularity.” (NAIIC 2012)

In combination with rainy weather, the airborne releases of radioactivity caused substantial
ground contamination, especially in a plume extending some 40 km to the northwest of the
plant (see map in Fig. 18). It is estimated that as much as 1800 km2 of land has contamination
levels resulting in a potentially cumulative radiation dose of 5 millisieverts or higher per year
(NAIIC 2012). Surveillance and control of radioactivity in various food products can be
expected to remain in place for many years to come.

32
 Fig. 18 Map of accumulated deposits of Cesium-137 as of July 2, 2011 (NAIIC 2012). The red-
2
colored areas correspond to deposits of cesium in excess of 3 MBq/m ; that is, levels that are
similar to the levels found around Chernobyl, which, however, cover larger areas

Contrary to Chernobyl, no cases of acute radiation syndrome have so far been reported, but
the risk of accidental occupational exposure during clean-up operations on-site will remain.
While dealing with the accident, 167 workers were exposed to more than 100 millisieverts.
Many more are expected to receive doses up to 100 millisieverts during the continuing clean-
up work.

An estimate of the cumulative external exposure over the first 4 months following the
accident for approximately 14 000 residents (excluding plant workers) from three towns and
villages where radiation doses were relatively high, shows that 0.7 % of the residents have

33
been exposed to 10 millisieverts or more, 42 % have been exposed to less than 10
millisieverts but more than 1 millisievert, and 57 % have been exposed to 1 millisievert or
less (NAIIC 2012). Although detailed initial exposure data are lacking, it seems reasonable to
assume that residents from less contaminated areas have at most been exposed to similar dose
bands (WHO 2012). Future epidemiological studies of the groups concerned over several
decades are needed to show if any increases in cancer incidence attributable to the accident
can be detected. Given the numbers exposed and the doses received, statistically significant
increases are hardly to be expected, except maybe for thyroid cancers in children from the
most exposed areas.

As around Chernobyl, the most severe health impact appears to be stress-induced

psychosomatic syndromes related to uncertainties about individual doses received, the
disruption of family lives and societal fabrics resulting from the evacuation and continuing
uncertainty about if and when it will be possible to return to the contaminated areas
(NAIIC 2012). Even if the root causes of the stress will remain for many years it appears that
the situation could be alleviated to some extent by what could be described as a self
empowerment approach. For example, residents returning to less contaminated areas could be
provided with knowledge and tools to enable them to evaluate and control their exposure
themselves. Such tools would include easily understood information on the health risk
associated with small to moderate additional doses, provision of simple radiation monitoring
instruments and methods and tools for reducing contamination and exposure. Such
approaches are now promoted in Japan (Nomura 2012).

Socio-economic and Socio-political Impact 

About 150 000 people have been evacuated from the contaminated zones, mainly within a
radius of 20 km from the plant. Evacuation became partly chaotic as evacuation zones were
expanded from a 3-km radius to a 20-km radius, all in 1 day. Evacuation of hospitals faced
difficulties and it has been estimated that some 60 patients died from complications related to
the evacuation (NAIIC 2012). Some limited return has started, but residents in the most
contaminated areas will face difficulties in returning for a long time (IAEA 2012).

Before the accident, 54 reactors supplied about 30 % of the electricity in Japan. A number of
reactors on the east coast were shut down automatically due to the earthquake. Others were

34
 successively shut down as they started their annual refueling and maintenance outage. None
were permitted to restart pending safety reviews and local political approval. By the
beginning of May 2012 all Japanese power reactors were shut down. By November 2012
only two reactors have been allowed to restart. Restart of more reactors can be expected to
take time, partly due to the need for technical safety improvements, partly due to loss of trust
in the nuclear industry and government authorities, delaying local political approval.

The loss of nuclear electricity production has been partially offset by stepping up production
from fossil-fueled plants but a number of electricity-saving measures have also been
necessary. Imports of fossil fuels have increased to the extent significantly affecting the
Japanese trade balance, and CO2 emissions have increased. A thorough review of Japan’s
long-term energy policy is under way. No political decisions have yet been taken by the new
government formed after the parliament elections in December 2012. A reduction in
dependence on nuclear power can be expected, compared with the plans envisaged before
March, 2011. A total phase-out of nuclear power is among the options considered.

The total costs of the accident in a 50-year perspective are difficult to predict but different
cost estimates lie presently in the range of 100 000–500 000 million US$, corresponding to
about 2–10 % of Japan’s annual gross domestic product. The Japanese government has been
forced to effectively nationalize the utility (TEPCO) that owns the Fukushima plant to enable
it to cover the costs of the accident and at the same time continue to provide the Tokyo region
with electricity.

International Impact 

Internationally, the Fukushima accident has triggered substantial efforts aimed at reassessing
and strengthening the safety of nuclear power plants. Thus, the EU as well as other countries
has conducted the so-called “stress tests” (European Commission 2012) that include:

 Reassessment of plant vulnerabilities with regard to extreme and very unlikely events also
affecting several reactors at the same site.
 Improved capabilities to cool the core and the spent fuel pools in case of such events.
 Strengthening severe accident management capabilities at the plants, including equipment,
procedures, and training.

35
For example, many more countries are now considering implementing similar types of severe
accident management and release mitigation systems that Sweden and some other countries
installed already in the 1980s (see Fig. 7). Had they been in place at the Fukushima reactors,
it is likely that both the on-site and off-site radiological consequences would have been
substantially reduced, even if core melts probably could not have been avoided.

Finally, the Fukushima accident has had a profound impact on energy policy in some
countries, such as Belgium, Germany, and Switzerland, which are planning to phase-out
nuclear power. On the other hand, construction of new reactors continues in many other
countries though with some delays due to safety reassessments of the type described above.
Thus, by the end of October 2012, 64 new reactors were under construction, the majority of
these in China, Russia, India, and the Republic of Korea .

36
 MEASURES

One way to measure radiation is to measure the dose of radiation received, i.e. the effect it
has on human tissue, which is measured in sieverts, abbreviated as Sv.

As 1 sievert represents a very large dose the following smaller units are commonly used;

 Millisieverts, one thousandth of a sievert and abbreviated as mSv (1000mSv = 1Sv)

Or

 Microsieverts, one millionth of a sievert and abbreviated as uSv (1,000,000uSv = 1Sv)

Dosimeters generally measure in microsieverts.

An older unit for dose is the rem (Roentgen Equivalent in Man), or the smaller millirem
(abbreviated “mrem”) still often used in the United States. One sievert is equal to 100rem.
Roentgen’s are another measure, 1 Roentgen (R) equals 0.877 rem or 0.00877 Sievert

Geiger counters
Geiger counters are used to detect ionizing radiation. The primary component of the Geiger
counter is a tube filled with a gas that conducts electricity when struck by radiation. This
allows the gas to complete an electrical circuit. This typically includes moving a needle and
making an audible sound.

37
Radiation exposure

It can be hard to predict the impact of radiation on humans but around half of all those exposed to 5
sieverts will die from it. Almost all who receive a dose of 10 sieverts will die within weeks.

A typical dose for those workers who died within one month of the disasters was 6 sieverts.

During the Chernobyl disaster four hundred times more radioactive material was released than at the
atomic bombing of Hiroshima.

The global average exposure of humans to ionizing radiation is about 2.4 – 3mSv (0.0024-0.003Sv) per
year, 80% of which comes from nature. The remaining 20% results from exposure to human-made
radiation sources, for example medical imaging (X-rays, CT scans etc).

In Europe, average natural background exposure by country ranges from under 2mSv annually in the
United Kingdom to more than 7mSv annually in Finland.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requires that its licensees limit human-made radiation
exposure for individual members of the public to 1mSv per year, and limit occupational radiation exposure
to adults working with radioactive material to 50mSv per year (3-25 uSv/hr).

Assessment of Radiological Consequences

and Evaluation of Protective Measures – Report by an International Advisory Committee 1991

38
Levels of radiation at Chernobyl

Immediately after the explosion

The radiation levels in the worst-hit areas of the reactor building, including the control room,
have been estimated at 300Sv/hr, (300,000mSv/hr) providing a fatal dose in just over a
minute.

The reactor staff struggled to establish the levels of radiation following the explosion as one
dosimeter capable of measuring up to 9Sv per second 1,000 R/s was buried in the wreckage,
and another one failed when it was turned on. All the remaining dosimeters had limits of
0.001 R/s (0.3 µA/kg) 30mSv/hr and read “off scale”. The reactor staff could therefore only
ascertain that the radiation levels were somewhere above 30mSv/h while in reality the true
levels were far higher.

The damage to Reactor 4 following the explosions

39
Because of the inaccurate low readings, the reactor crew chief Alexander Akimov assumed
that the reactor was intact. The evidence of pieces of graphite and reactor fuel lying around
the building where ignored, and the readings of another dosimeter brought in at 04:30am
were dismissed under the assumption that the new dosimeter must have been
defective. Akimov stayed with his crew in the reactor building until morning, sending
members of his crew to try to pump water into the reactor. None of them wore any protective
gear. Most, including Akimov, died from radiation exposure within three weeks.

22 years after the explosion radiation levels inside the reactor hall were approximately 34
Sv/hr – a lethal dose in 10-20 minutes.

Fire fighters
Shortly after the explosion firefighters arrived to tackle the fire. First on the scene was the
Chernobyl Power Station firefighter brigade under the command of Lieutenant Volodymyr
Pravik, who died on 9 May 1986 of acute radiation sickness. They were not told how
dangerously radioactive the smoke and the debris were, and may not even have known that
the accident was anything more than a regular fire:

“We didn’t know it was the reactor. No one had told us.”

Grigorii Khmel, the driver of one of the fire engines, later described what happened:

“We arrived there at 10 or 15 minutes to two in the morning…. We saw graphite scattered
about. Misha asked: “Is that graphite?” I kicked it away. But one of the fighters on the other
truck picked it up. “It’s hot,” he said. The pieces of graphite were of different sizes, some big,
some small, enough to pick them up…”

“We didn’t know much about radiation. Even those who worked there had no idea. There was
no water left in the trucks. Misha filled a cistern and we aimed the water at the top. Then
those boys who died went up to the roof – Vashchik, Kolya and others, and Volodya
Pravik…. They went up the ladder … and I never saw them again.”

However, Anatoli Zakharov, a fireman stationed in Chernobyl since 1980, offers a different
description:

40
 I remember joking to the others, “There must be an incredible amount of radiation here.
We’ll be lucky if we’re all still alive in the morning.”

Twenty years after the disaster, he said the firefighters from the Fire Station No. 2 were
aware of the risks.

Of course we knew! If we’d followed regulations, we would never have gone near the
reactor. But it was a moral obligation – our duty. We were like kamikaze

Approximate radiation levels in and around Unit 4 shortly after the explosion:

Location Sieverts per hour (SI Unit)

Vicinity of the reactor core 300

Fuel fragments 150-200

Debris heap at the place of circulation pumps 100

Debris near the electrolyzers 50-150

Water in the Level +25 feedwater room 50

Level 0 of the turbine hall 5-150

Area of the affected unit 10-15

Water in Room 712 10.00

Control room 0.03–0.05

Gidroelektromontazh depot 0.3

Nearby concrete mixing unit 0.10–0.15

Source B. Medvedev (June 1989).”JPRS Report: Soviet Union Economic Affairs

Chernobyl Notebook”.

41
 RISK

Generally the levels of radiation in Pripyat and the surrounding area, although far higher than
the norm, are safe for the time you will be exposed to them (just don’t go licking stuff).

Those who work within the zone typically work 3 weeks on, 3 weeks off. The “off”
period must be spent outside of the zone.

Radiation levels can change daily, dependent upon a number of factors including wind
speeds. Just because you measured a level yesterday doesn’t mean it’ll be the same today as
pockets of radiation move around. Large variations in levels can also occur within only a few
metres of each other.

Weather cleansed tarmac, or hard standing, is preferable to standing on vegetation. Pay

specific attention to moss, wherever it may grow, as it is great at absorbing radiation and
therefore likely to emit far higher levels than the surface it is growing on. This sounds simple
in theory but I found it easy to forget when confronted with the sights of Pripyat.

It depends on the nature of your visit but for longer, less chaperoned, trips it may be worth
borrowing or buying a Geiger counter. I didn’t have one but many of those I went with did.
All gave slightly different readings but functioned as a good guide. Clearly it’s pointless
having one if you don’t know what the readings actually mean, accurate or not, partly why I
didn’t take one on my first visit.

Dust is a potentially nasty. Ingesting radioactive particles is not something you want to make
a habit of. I choose not to wear a mask. The majority of people I saw also didn’t but
obviously make your own decision, it’s your health.

Rooms open to the elements, the majority now are, tend to have lower levels of radiation than
those still enclosed by doors and windows. The basement of the hospital contains the clothing
of those who first tackled the explosion. Located in an enclosed environment even after 25
years the clothing is highly radioactive (way in excess of 386 uSv/h) and a terrifying
reminder of what those  first on the scene faced. If you do venture down there I recommend
you don’t hang around and wear at least a correctly rated mask that covers both nose and
mouth.  A hazmat suit you can bin afterwards may also be wise. I didn’t have a mask and
therefore chose not to go down there, a decision I don’t regret.

42
High levels or radiation (336 uSv/h) can also be found towards the rear of the claw used in
the clean up. Although decontaminated they clearly missed a bit.

Most of Pripyat was decontaminated in the weeks following the explosion however the
graveyard is one exception (14-22 uSv/h), it being hard to remove topsoil and keep graves
intact, and therefore we spent only 15 minutes on site.

I ate and drank in Pripyat but generally only within the minibus and I was conscious not to
touch the food directly with my hands. There seemed to be an unwritten rule that all
accompanying officials must light a cigarette upon exiting a vehicle in the Zone.

The clothing I wore, including footwear, I either binned or double washed on my return
home. It’s easy to become blasé out there but if you’re unpacking footwear caked in zone
mud at home it soon focuses the mind. The clothing I took home I wrapped and sealed in
several bin bags.

43
111

Radiation safety posters on the wall of the Jupiter Factory. The factory complex was
used as a radiological test lab following the disaster.

44
 Health of plant workers and local people

In the aftermath of the accident, 237 people suffered from acute radiation sickness (ARS), of
whom according to World Health Organization’s 2006 report, 28 died within the first three
months. Most of the victims were the firemen and rescue workers first on the scene.

No further ARS-related deaths were identified in the general population affected by the
disaster. Of the 72,000 Russian Emergency Workers being studied, 216 non-cancer deaths are
attributed to the disaster, between 1991 and 1998. Of all the 66,000 Belarusian emergency
workers, by the mid-1990s only 150 (roughly 0.2%) were reported by their government as
having died. In contrast, 5,722 casualties were reported among Ukrainian clean-up workers
up to the year 1995, by the National Committee for Radiation Protection of the Ukrainian
Population.

The latency period for solid cancers caused by excess radiation exposure can be 10 or more
years; so at the time of the WHO report being undertaken, the rates of solid cancer deaths
were no greater than the general population.

Acute radiation syndrome

Acute radiation syndrome (ARS), also known as radiation poisoning, radiation sickness or
radiation toxicity, is a number of health effects which occur within 24 hours of exposure to
high amounts of ionising radiation.

The radiation causes cellular degradation due to destruction of cell walls and other key
molecular structures within the body and it is this destruction that causes the symptoms. The
symptoms can begin within one or two hours and may last for several months. The term
refers to acute medical problems rather than ones that develop after a prolonged period.

The onset and type of symptoms depends on the radiation exposure. Relatively smaller doses
result in gastrointestinal effects such as nausea and vomiting and symptoms related to falling
blood counts such as infection and bleeding. Relatively larger doses can result in neurological
effects and rapid death. Treatment of acute radiation syndrome is generally supportive with
blood transfusions and antibiotics, with some more exotic treatments such as bone marrow
transfusions being required in extreme cases.

45
 EXAMPLES

1940s

 May 1945: Albert Stevens was one of several subjects of a human radiation experiment,

and was injected with plutonium without his knowledge or informed consent. Although
Stevens was the person who received the highest dose of radiation during the plutonium
experiments, he was neither the first nor the last subject to be studied. Eighteen people
aged 4 to 69 were injected with plutonium. Subjects who were chosen for the experiment
had been diagnosed with a terminal disease. They lived from 6 days up to 44 years past
the time of their injection.  Eight of the 18 died within two years of the injection.
Although one cause of death was unknown, a report by William Moss and Roger
Eckhardt concluded that there was "no evidence that any of the patients died for reasons
that could be attributed to the plutonium injections.  Patients from Rochester, Chicago,
and Oak Ridge were also injected with plutonium in the Manhattan Project human
experiments.
 6–9 August 1945: On the orders of President Harry S. Truman, a uranium-gun
design bomb, Little Boy, was used against the city of Hiroshima, Japan. Fat Man, a
plutonium implosion-design bomb was used against the city of Nagasaki. The two
weapons killed approximately 120,000 to 140,000 civilians and military
personnel instantly and thousands more have died over the years from radiation
sickness and related cancers.
 August 1945: Criticality accident at US Los Alamos National Laboratory. Harry
Daghlian dies.
 May 1946: Criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory. Louis Slotin dies.
1950s

 13 February 1950: a Convair B-36B crashed in northern British Columbia after

jettisoning a Mark IV atomic bomb. This was the first such nuclear weapon loss in
history.
 12 December 1952: NRX AECL Chalk River Laboratories, Chalk River, Ontario,
Canada. Partial meltdown, about 10,000 Curies released.  Approximately 1202 people

46
 were involved in the two year cleanup.  Future president Jimmy Carter was one of the
many people that helped clean up the accident.
 15 March 1953: Mayak, former Soviet Union. Criticality accident. Contamination of
plant personnel occurred.
 1 March 1954: The 15 Mt Castle Bravo shot of 1954 which spread considerable nuclear
fallout on many Pacific islands, including several which were inhabited, and some that
had not been evacuated.
o 1 March 1954: Daigo Fukuryū Maru, Japanese fishing vessel contaminated by fallout
from Castle Bravo, 1 fatality.
o 2 March 1954: US Navy tanker USS Patapsco contaminated by fallout from Castle
Bravo while sailing from Enewetak Atoll to Pearl Harbor.
 September 1957: a plutonium fire occurred at the Rocky Flats Plant, which resulted in
the contamination of Building 71 and the release of plutonium into the atmosphere,
causing US$818,600 in damage.
 21 May 1957: Mayak, former Soviet Union. Criticality accident in the factory number 20
in the collection oxalate decantate after filtering sediment oxalate enriched uranium. Six
people received doses of 300 to 1,000 rem (four women and two men), one woman died.
 29 September 1957: Kyshtym disaster: Nuclear waste storage tank explosion at the
same Mayak plant, Russia. No immediate fatalities, though up to 200+ additional cancer
deaths might have ensued from the radioactive contamination of the surrounding area;
270,000 people were exposed to dangerous radiation levels. Over thirty small
communities were removed from Soviet maps between 1958 and 1991. (INES level 6)
 October 1957: Windscale fire, UK. Fire ignites a "plutonium pile" (an air cooled, graphite
moderated, uranium fuelled reactor that was used for plutonium and isotope production)
and contaminates surrounding dairy farms.  An estimated 33 cancer deaths.
 1957-1964: Rocketdyne located at the Santa Susanna Field Lab, 30 miles north of Los
Angeles, California operated ten experimental nuclear reactors. Numerous accidents
occurred including a core meltdown. Experimental reactors of that era were not required
to have the same type of containment structures that shield modern nuclear reactors.
During the Cold War time in which the accidents that occurred at Rocketdyne, these
events were not publicly reported by the Department of Energy.
 1958: Fuel rupture and fire at the National Research Universal reactor (NRU), Chalk
River, Canada.

47
 10 February 1958: Mayak, former Soviet Union. Criticality accident in SCR plant.
Conducted experiments to determine the critical mass of enriched uranium in a
cylindrical container with different concentrations of uranium in solution. Staff broke the
rules and instructions for working with YADM (nuclear fissile material). When SCR
personnel received doses from 7,600 to 13,000 rem. Three people died, one man got
radiation sickness and went blind.
 15 October 1958: Vinča, Yugoslavia. There was a criticality incident in a newly installed
reactor. Six young researchers received high doses of radiation, and were subsequently
treated at "Kiri" institute in Paris where one of them died.
 30 December 1958: Cecil Kelley criticality accident at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
 March 1959: Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Los Angeles, California. Fire in a fuel
processing facility.
 July 1959: Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Los Angeles, California. Partial meltdown.
1960s

 7 June 1960: the 1960 Fort Dix IM-99 accident destroyed a CIM-10 Bomarc nuclear

missile and shelter and contaminated the BOMARC Missile Accident Site in New Jersey.
 24 January 1961: the 1961 Goldsboro B-52 crash occurred near Goldsboro, North
Carolina. A B-52 Stratofortress carrying two Mark 39 nuclear bombs broke up in mid-air,
dropping its nuclear payload in the process.
 July 1961: soviet submarine K-19 accident. Eight fatalities and more than 30 people were
over-exposed to radiation.
 21 March–August 1962: radiation accident in Mexico City, four fatalities.
 23 July 1964: Wood River Junction criticality accident. Resulted in 1 fatality
 1964, 1969: Santa Susana Field Laboratory, Los Angeles, California. Partial meltdowns.
 1965 Philippine Sea A-4 crash, where a Skyhawk attack aircraft with a nuclear weapon
fell into the sea.  The pilot, the aircraft, and the B43 nuclear bomb were never recovered.
It was not until the 1980s that the Pentagon revealed the loss of the one-megaton bomb.
 October 1965: US CIA-led expedition abandons a nuclear-powered telemetry relay
listening device on Nanda Devi[74]
 17 January 1966: the 1966 Palomares B-52 crash occurred when a B-52G bomber of
the USAF collided with a KC-135 tanker during mid-air refuelling off the coast of Spain.
The KC-135 was completely destroyed when its fuel load ignited, killing all four crew

48
 members. The B-52G broke apart, killing three of the seven crew members aboard.  Of
the four Mk28 type hydrogen bombs the B-52G carried,  three were found on land
near Almería, Spain. The non-nuclear explosives in two of the weapons detonated upon
impact with the ground, resulting in the contamination of a 2-square-kilometer (490-acre)
(0.78 square mile) area by radioactive plutonium.  The fourth, which fell into
the Mediterranean Sea, was recovered intact after a 21⁄2-month-long search.
 21 January 1968: the 1968 Thule Air Base B-52 crash involved a United States Air
Force (USAF) B-52 bomber. The aircraft was carrying four hydrogen bombs when a
cabin fire forced the crew to abandon the aircraft. Six crew members ejected safely, but
one who did not have an ejection seat was killed while trying to bail out. The bomber
crashed onto sea ice in Greenland, causing the nuclear payload to rupture and disperse,
which resulted in widespread radioactive contamination.
 May 1968: Soviet submarine K-27 reactor near meltdown. 9 people died, 83 people were
injured.
 In August 1968: Soviet nuclear ballistic missile submarine development program Project
667A. Nuclear-powered Yankee class submarine K-140 was in the naval yard at
Severodvinsk for repairs. On August 27, an uncontrolled increase of the reactor's power
occurred following work to upgrade the vessel. One of the reactors started up
automatically when the control rods were raised to a higher position. Power increased to
18 times its normal amount, while pressure and temperature levels in the reactor
increased to four times the normal amount. The automatic start-up of the reactor was
caused by the incorrect installation of the control rod electrical cables and by operator
error. Radiation levels aboard the vessel deteriorated.
 10 December 1968: Mayak, former Soviet Union. Criticality accident. Plutonium solution
was poured into a cylindrical container with dangerous geometry. One person died,
another took a high dose of radiation and radiation sickness, after which he had two legs
and his right arm amputated.
 January 1969: Lucens reactor in Switzerland undergoes partial core meltdown leading to
massive radioactive contamination of a cavern.
1970s

 1974–1976: Columbus radiotherapy accident, 10 fatalities, 88 injuries from cobalt-60

source.

49
 July 1978: Anatoli Bugorski was working on U-70, the largest Soviet particle accelerator,
when he accidentally exposed his head directly to the proton beam. He survived, despite
suffering some long-term damage.
 July 1979: Church Rock Uranium Mill Spill in New Mexico, USA, when United Nuclear
Corporation's uranium mill tailings disposal pond breached its dam. Over 1,000 tons
of radioactive mill waste and millions of gallons of mine effluent flowed into the Puerco
River, and contaminants traveled downstream.
1980s

 1980 to 1989: The Kramatorsk radiological accident happened in Kramatorsk, Ukrainian

SSR. In 1989, a small capsule containing highly radioactive caesium-137 was found
inside the concrete wall of an apartment building. 6 residents of the building died
from leukemia and 18 more received varying radiation doses. The accident was detected
only after the residents called in a health physicist.
 1980: Houston radiotherapy accident, 7 fatalities.
 5 October 1982: Lost radiation source, Baku, Azerbaijan, USSR. 5 fatalities, 13 injuries.
 March 1984: Radiation accident in Morocco, eight fatalities from overexposure to
radiation from a lost iridium-192 source.
 1984:
o Fernald Feed Materials Production Center gained notoriety when it was learned that
the plant was releasing millions of pounds of uranium dust into the atmosphere,
causing major radioactive contamination of the surrounding areas. That same year,
employee Dave Bocks, a 39-year-old pipefitter, disappeared during the facility's
graveyard shift and was later reported missing. Eventually, his remains were
discovered inside a uranium processing furnace located in Plant 6.
o The Ciudad Juárez cobalt-60 contamination incident happened after a private medical
company that had illegally purchased a radiation therapy unit sold it to a junkyard to
be later smelted to produce rebar. These were distributed and used in multiple cities
across Mexico and the United States and exposed an estimated four thousand people
to radiation.
 1985 to 1987: The Therac-25 accidents. A radiation therapy machine was involved in six
accidents, in which patients were exposed to massive overdoses of radiation. 4 fatalities,
2 injuries.

50
 August 1985: Soviet submarine K-431 accident. Ten fatalities and 49 other people
suffered radiation injuries.
 4 January 1986: an overloaded tank at Sequoyah Fuels Corporation ruptured and released
14.5 tons of uranium hexafluoride gas (UF6), causing the death of a worker, the
hospitalization of 37 other workers, and approximately 100 downwinders.
 October 1986: Soviet submarine K-219 reactor almost had a meltdown. Sergei
Preminin died after he manually lowered the control rods, and stopped the explosion. The
submarine sank three days later.
 September 1987: Goiania accident. Four fatalities, and following radiological screening
of more than 100,000 people, it was ascertained that 249 people received serious
radiation contamination from exposure to caesium-137. In the cleanup
operation, topsoil had to be removed from several sites, and several houses were
demolished. All the objects from within those houses were removed and
examined. Time magazine has identified the accident as one of the world's "worst nuclear
disasters" and the International Atomic Energy Agency called it "one of the world's worst
radiological incidents".
 1989: San Salvador, El Salvador; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at cobalt-
60 irradiation facility.
1990s

 1990: Soreq, Israel; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at cobalt-60 irradiation
facility.
 December 16, 1990: radiotherapy accident in Zaragoza. Eleven fatalities and 27 other
patients were injured.
 1991: Neswizh, Belarus; one fatality due to violation of safety rules at cobalt-
60 irradiation facility.
 1992: Jilin, China; three fatalities at cobalt-60 irradiation facility.[89]
 1992: USA; one fatality.
 April 1993: accident at the Tomsk-7 Reprocessing Complex, when a tank exploded while
being cleaned with nitric acid. The explosion released a cloud of radioactive gas. (INES
level 4).
 1994: Tammiku, Estonia; one fatality from disposed caesium-137 source.

51
 August — December 1996: Radiotherapy accident in Costa Rica. Thirteen fatalities and
114 other patients received an overdose of radiation.
 1996: an accident at Pelindaba research facility in South Africa results in the exposure of
workers to radiation. Harold Daniels and several others die from cancers and radiation
burns related to the exposure.
 June 1997: Sarov, Russia; one fatality due to violation of safety rules.
 May 1998: The Acerinox accident was an incident of radioactive contamination in
Southern Spain. A caesium-137 source managed to pass through the monitoring
equipment in an Acerinox scrap metal reprocessing plant. When melted, the caesium-137
caused the release of a radioactive cloud.
 September 1999: two fatalities at criticality accident at Tokaimura nuclear
accident (Japan)
2000s

 January–February 2000: Samut Prakan radiation accident: three deaths and ten injuries
resulted in Samut Prakan when a cobalt-60 radiation-therapy unit was dismantled.
 May 2000: Meet Halfa, Egypt; two fatalities due to radiography accident.
 August 2000 – March 2001: Instituto Oncologico Nacional of Panama, 17 fatalities.
Patients receiving treatment for prostate cancer and cancer of the cervix receive lethal
doses of radiation.
 9 August 2004: Mihama Nuclear Power Plant accident, 4 fatalities. Hot water and steam
leaked from a broken pipe (not actually a radiation accident).
 9 May 2005: it was announced that the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant at Sellafield in
the UK suffered a large leak of a highly radioactive solution, which first started in July
2004.
2010s

 April 2010: Mayapuri radiological accident, India, one fatality after a cobalt-60 research

irradiator was sold to a scrap metal dealer and dismantled.
 March 2011: Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Japan and the radioactive discharge at the
Fukushima Daiichi Power Station.
 17 January 2014: At the Rössing Uranium Mine, Namibia, a catastrophic structural failure
of a leach tank resulted in a major spill.  The France-based laboratory, CRIIRAD, reported
elevated levels of radioactive materials in the area surrounding the mine.  Workers were
52
 not informed of the dangers of working with radioactive materials and the health effects
thereof.
 1 February 2014: Designed to last ten thousand years, the Waste Isolation Pilot
Plant (WIPP) site approximately 26 miles (42 km) east of Carlsbad, New Mexico, United
States, had its first leak of airborne radioactive materials. 140 employees working
underground at the time were sheltered indoors. Thirteen of these tested positive for
internal radioactive contamination increasing their risk for future cancers or health issues.
A second leak at the plant occurred shortly after the first, releasing plutonium and other
radiotoxins causing concern to nearby communities. The source of the drum rupture has
been traced to the use of organic kitty litter at the WCRRF packaging facility at Los
Alamos National Laboratory, where the drum was packaged and prepared for shipment.
 8 August 2019: Nyonoksa radiation accident at the State Central Navy Testing
Range at Nyonoksa, near Severodvinsk, Russia.

Radioactive materials were accidentally released from the 1970 Baneberry Nuclear

Test at the Nevada Test Site.

53
 NUCLEAR SAFETY

Nuclear safety covers the actions taken to prevent nuclear and radiation accidents or to limit
their consequences and damage to the environment. This covers nuclear power plants as well
as all other nuclear facilities, the transportation of nuclear materials, and the use and storage
of nuclear materials for medical, power, industry, and military uses.

The nuclear power industry has improved the safety and performance of reactors, and has
proposed new safer (but generally untested) reactor designs but there is no guarantee that the
reactors will be designed, built and operated correctly.  Mistakes do occur and the designers
of reactors at Fukushima in Japan did not anticipate that a tsunami generated by an
earthquake would disable the backup systems that were supposed to stabilize the reactor after
the earthquake. According to UBS AG, the Fukushima I nuclear accidents have cast doubt on
whether even an advanced economy like Japan can master nuclear safety.  Catastrophic
scenarios involving terrorist attacks are also conceivable. In his book Normal
Accidents, Charles Perrow says that unexpected failures are built into society's complex and
tightly coupled nuclear reactor systems. Nuclear power plants cannot be operated without
some major accidents. Such accidents are unavoidable and cannot be designed around.  An
interdisciplinary team from MIT have estimated that given the expected growth of nuclear
power from 2005 – 2055, at least four serious nuclear accidents would be expected in that
period. To date, there have been five serious accidents (core damage) in the world since 1970
(one at Three Mile Island in 1979; one at Chernobyl in 1986; and three at Fukushima-
Daiichi in 2011), corresponding to the beginning of the operation of generation II reactors.
This leads to on average one serious accident happening every eight years worldwide.

When nuclear reactors begin to age, they require more exhaustive monitoring and preventive
maintenance and tests to operate safely and prevent accidents. However, these measures can
be costly, and some reactor owners have not followed these recommendations. Most of the
existing nuclear infrastructure in use is old due to these reasons.

To combat accidents associated with aging nuclear power plants, it may be advantageous to
build new nuclear power reactors and retire the old nuclear plants.

54
 Hazards of nuclear material

There is currently a total of 47,000 tonnes of high-level nuclear waste stored in the USA.
Nuclear waste is approximately 94% Uranium, 1.3% Plutonium, 0.14% other actinides, and
5.2% fission products.  About 1.0% of this waste consists of long-lived
isotopes 79Se, 93Zr, 99Te, 107Pd, 126Sn, 129I and 135Cs. Shorter lived isotopes
including 89Sr, 90Sr, 106Ru, 125Sn, 134Cs, 137Cs, and 147Pm constitute 0.9% at one year, decreasing to
0.1% at 100 years. The remaining 3.3–4.1% consists of non-radioactive isotopes. [ There are
technical challenges, as it is preferable to lock away the long-lived fission products, but the
challenge should not be exaggerated. One tonne of waste, as described above, has measurable
radioactivity of approximately 600 TBq equal to the natural radioactivity in one km 3 of the
Earth's crust, which if buried, would add only 25 parts per trillion to the total radioactivity.

The difference between short-lived high-level nuclear waste and long-lived low-level waste
can be illustrated by the following example. As stated above, one mole of both 131I and 129I
release 3x1023 decays in a period equal to one half-life. 131I decays with the release of
970 keV whilst 129I decays with the release of 194 keV of energy. 131gm of 131I would
therefore release 45 gigajoules over eight days beginning at an initial rate of 600
EBq releasing 90 kilowatts with the last radioactive decay occurring inside two years. In
contrast, 129gm of 129I would therefore release 9 gigajoules over 15.7 million years beginning
at an initial rate of 850 MBq releasing 25 microwatts with the radioactivity decreasing by less
than 1% in 100,000 years.

One tonne of nuclear waste also reduces CO2 emission by 25 million tonnes.

Anti-nuclear protest near nuclear waste disposal centre at Gorleben in northern Germany

55
 Radionuclides such as 129I or 131I, may be highly radioactive, or very long-lived, but they
cannot be both. One mole of 129I (129 grams) undergoes the same number of decays (3x10 23)
in 15.7 million years, as does one mole of 131I (131 grams) in 8 days. 131I is therefore highly
radioactive, but disappears very quickly, whilst 129I releases a very low level of radiation for a
very long time. Two long-lived fission products, technetium-99 (half-life 220,000 years)
and iodine-129 (half-life 15.7 million years), are of somewhat greater concern because of a
greater chance of entering the biosphere. The transuranic elements in spent fuel
are neptunium-237 (half-life two million years) and plutonium-239 (half-life 24,000
years). will also remain in the environment for long periods. A more complete solution to
both the problem of both actinides and to the need for low-carbon energy may be the integral
fast reactor. One tonne of nuclear waste after a complete burn in an IFR reactor will have
prevented 500 million tonnes of CO2 from entering the atmosphere. Otherwise, waste storage
usually necessitates treatment, followed by a long-term management strategy involving
permanent storage, disposal or transformation of the waste into a non-toxic form.

Governments around the world are considering a range of waste management and disposal
options, usually involving deep-geologic placement, although there has been limited progress
toward implementing long-term waste management solutions. This is partly because the
timeframes in question when dealing with radioactive waste range from 10,000 to millions of
years, according to studies based on the effect of estimated radiation doses.

Since the fraction of a radioisotope's atoms decaying per unit of time is inversely proportional
to its half-life, the relative radioactivity of a quantity of buried human radioactive
waste would diminish over time compared to natural radioisotopes (such as the decay chain
of 120 trillion tons of thorium and 40 trillion tons of uranium which are at relatively trace
concentrations of parts per million each over the crust's 3 * 1019 ton mass). For instance, over
a timeframe of thousands of years, after the most active short half-life radioisotopes decayed,
burying U.S. nuclear waste would increase the radioactivity in the top 2000 feet of rock and
soil in the United States (10 million km2) by ≈ 1 part in 10 million over the cumulative
amount of natural radioisotopes in such a volume, although the vicinity of the site would have
a far higher concentration of artificial radioisotopes underground

56
 CONCLUSION

The accident at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant led to the dispersion of
radioactivity in the environment, which has become an unwanted component of residents'
daily life. This colorless, odorless and tasteless radioactivity is not something most people
normally think of. Inevitably, it raised concerns about its possible health effects. 
As a result, people were faced with a potential threat which is intangible and against which
they were not at all prepared to fight. For many, this very difficult situation has created
confusion and a lack of confidence. Their living place, which they once cherished and were
proud of, has transformed into something different, even threatening. Daily life has
deteriorated and ties between individuals and with the community have been altered or
severed. Under these conditions, for many, the only answer was to escape the radioactivity as
much as possible, without escaping the injunctions on what to do and where to go. 
In this context, the Dialogues played a key role in ensuring that the participants gradually
better understood the situation, regain decision-making capacity over their lives and
reconnect with the experts and the authorities. The Dialogues enabled participants to identify
leeway in their daily life, while respecting individual choices, particularly on the decision to
stay, leave or come back. On several occasions they have made it possible to establish links
between stakeholders, especially between producers and consumers, between neighboring
villages, between citizens and experts, and even between Belarusian, Norwegian and
Japanese citizens. 
In all, around 1,000 people have taken part directly in the various dialogues since the
Fukushima Daiichi accident: many were local residents, but several others came from
elsewhere, from Japan or the rest of the world. Many have gained access to the dialogues
through social media, local media reports and information available on the ICRP and Ethos
websites in Fukushima. 
The involvement of the ICRP was widely recognized by the participants as a great advantage
for both series of dialogues. The role of the ICRP has been crucial, as a neutral third party
providing sound advice, as a witness encouraging healthy discussion, in connecting with
experts in Japan and beyond, in giving substance to the results and to ensure that the voices
reach beyond the prefecture. 
Among the main lessons for post-nuclear accident management, the dialogues highlighted
that the implementation of radiation protection is essential but that it is not enough to resolve
57
the problems encountered on a daily basis. Radiation protection is a discipline serving the
well-being of individuals and the common good of communities. It is particularly important
to develop a surveillance strategy based on individual data and the distribution of exposures
within the community in order to help those concerned to know their own local radiological
situation and to act accordingly. The dialogues also stressed the importance of involving local
professionals in education, health and administration in the development of a practical
radiation protection culture. 
Finally, the dialogue meetings have shown, as in Belarus, the key role of cooperation
mechanisms between all the actors concerned (authorities, experts, professionals and the
population) at local, regional and national levels, and the dissemination of good practices
between communities, as well as the difficulty in setting up such mechanisms.

58
 REFERENCE

I. Environment Studies Nirali Publication 2022

-Dr. K.N Dhumal
-Dr. B.D Shine
II. https://en.wikipedia.org
III. https://www.lavinder.com
IV. https://www.ncbi.nlm.gov.
V. http://www.chernobylgallery.com/chernobyl-disaster/radiation-levels/

59