After viewing the video, please blog on the following:
1. Express your opinion on how the Russian Government handled the accident at the Chernobyl plant.
2. Nuclear energy is a very efficient way of producing electricity at a low cost and is used in Canada. Accidents can happen, and when they do, can be catastrophic. Discuss your stand on nuclear energy.
1) I feel that if I was in the position the Russian Government was in, I would have handled things a little bit differently. For starters, the greatly down played the risks and consequences of the accident. Whether it was because of their ego as a Government or to keep the panic down, they still should have kept their citizens informed. Also, they took far to long to isolate and rectify the problem. They also put other countries at risk by denying the magnitude of the actually situation. So, while they did try to solve the problem, in the grand scheme of things, they did not do it very efficiently, or with regard to the people.
ReplyDelete2) After watching this video, I must say that I am rather skeptical of nuclear energy. While it offer a great amount of energy and is a great resource, it is extremely hard to dispose of, and it is dangerous. While using most any form of energy has some risks, and accidents can happen anywhere, nuclear energy has very catastrophic ramifications. Mankind has survived years without it and there are safer alternatives. Furthermore, this is something that can kill people, or cause severe medical issues, as proven by the fact that countries have converted this resource into a weapon of mass destruction. To summaries, I don't fully agree with it, because I think there are better alternatives.
I think the Russian Government could have handled this accident better than they did. When it comes to the actual cleaning up of the plant, I think they did the best they could have under the circumstances and technology/methods available. People should not have had to go in themselves and clean it up, but considering the machinery gave out from all the radiation exposure, they had no other choice. But when it comes to the way they told the residents of Pripyat and all the areas near the disaster, they could have reacted much better. They took way too long to tell everyone and get them evacuated, and when they finally did they downplayed the seriousness of the situation. If they had warned them sooner and told them the complete truth, many more lives could have been saved.
ReplyDeleteI think nuclear energy can be a good source of energy when properly handled or nothing goes wrong. But when accidents happen it is very hard to take care of, and the effects are dangerous. Many people are affected by it, whether they have to help clean up or not. There seems to be more cons to using it than there are pros, and other forms of energy seem like better options to me.
I think that the Russian government did not do a great job in handling the accident. It wasn't terrible but I could have been handled a lot differently then it was. I feel that they acted to slow in evacuation, and informing the people of the area and of the world. I think that the main cause of there delay was maybe they didn't full understand the effects and consequences at the time when things could have been done differently and could have saved more people. Maybe calling in people around the world and telling people what happened would probably caused lots of chaos but I feel I would have saved a lot of people's lives. The way that they did clean up could have been more efficient to and when calling on people from around the world could have been beneficial to them. They could have together with top scientists come up with a faster safer way of cleaning it. Over all the problem could have been solved better and more lives could have been saved.
ReplyDeleteI feel the use of nuclear energy has come a long way, do I feel it's safe no not really. Maybe if nuclear energy technology improves in the future and becomes more stable it would be a very effective way to produce energy. But for now I don't feel that it is the most effective way to produce energy due to the fact of the dangers and risks that can and are associated with it. All and all until it can be controlled better it is a very dangerous way to produce energy and that we should be trying to use different options such as wind or solar energy.
I feel the Russian government could have handled the situation in a different manner. They reacted slow to the problem, when they should have evacuated the area right away, and let nearby resident areas know about what has happened. It was also weeks after the accident that they spoke about it on the news, whereas the world should have been notified of the danger at that time. However, to defend the government, I would say that this has never happened to them before so they might have been at a loss as to how to react. But the whole situation could have been handled much better.
ReplyDeleteAs with all sources of energy, nuclear energy has pros and cons. Although nuclear energy is low cost, it is dangerous and I'm not sure if we are completely aware how to control it. We should be trying to explore different, less dangerous energy sources, such as solar energy. Is saving money really worth risking our lives of catastrophe?
I feel as if the U.S.S.R. government had provided a poor solution to the Chernobyl incident. To me it seems that they only tried to provide a temporary fix (planning to last only thirty years). Though the should have provided a more permanent solution to the issue, this was a one of a kind challenge that had never been faced before. They did manage to improvise a solution to the containment of the plant, but this could have been preformed in a safer, and more efficient method. If I had been in charge of the "Clean-up" process, despite their opinion of the western civilization at the time, I would have attempted to reach out to foreign governments who may have been able to provide adequate assistance.
ReplyDeleteI am somewhat indifferent to the use of nuclear energy, as it has it's pros and cons. The catastrophic event of Chernobyl may have scarred the Russian nation, but it has experienced many breakthroughs, as well as advances since the event.
-Taylor Kaye
In my opinion the Russian government did not handle this situation adequately at all, they tried to cover it up. That was their main priority for a while, when it should have been getting Russian citizens to safety. They kept the accident a secret for much longer than it should have been. Immediately after it happened they should have evacuated the citizens and informed them of the dangers which were occurring. While officials were walking around wearing masks, the people in Pripyat hadn't even heard of the accident. Even after evacuations they were trying to cover what they could up, the exact death toll and such. If they had acted right away not bothering to try and cover it up they could have saved many lives.
ReplyDeleteI think that nuclear energy is very unstable, it does have its pros and cons like everything else but I feel as though what could happen is not worth it. We are just grasping the idea of it and it is capable of doing very terrible things. I'm sure there are other ways we could get energy that wouldn't involve anything like Chernobyl again.
-Sierra Bednarz
I feel that the Russian government dealt with this accident, to an extent, in a poor way. They tried to do what they could and they used all the technology that was available to them at the time. Even though it was not ideal, I feel it was the best they could have done to clean up the plant. However they could have done a few things to improve the situation. They tried to keep it a secret from other countries. If they would have asked for help, so to speak, other countries could have had a different, better, take on the accident. The Russian Government also failed to inform its own people of the seriousness of the situation. Although they did evacuate the citizens, it was too late and created many health risks for them. I definitely feel like the Russian Government handled the accident, maybe not in the most appropriate manner, but they were limited, with the technology they had.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Nuclear energy is very efficient and it can definitely help in production and in cost. However, why use it when there are many alternative energy sources available? Nuclear energy is very dangerous and can cause permanent damage if it is not used properly. I understand that it has improved and become more safe since certain events (Chernobyl being one) but I don’t belief that it is at all safe to be messed with. Nuclear energy is very unpredictable and needs to be handled with care.
-Paige Harrington
1) I believe that the Russian government handled the situation of Chernobyl very poorly. They had lied to their citizens and put many lives at risk. I understand that they wanted to cover up the story a bit to not look bad, but at the same time, this is a tragic accident that needed to be dealt with in a much more extreme matter. They allowed humans to go on top of roofs to clear waste with tons of radiation coming off from it, many could have easily died from that. Yes, they timed it, so they can try to stay safe, but even so, humans should have never been put in that situation. They should have kept trying with the robots or some other form of way. Keeping it a secret was not right. Other countries could have helped out in some ways. As for the citizens, they were constantly lied to about how much radiation was absorbed into their bodies, and for the first few days, they were told that everything was perfectly fine. Yes, the government was smart enough to evacuate their citizens, but they waited about two days before putting anything into action. I understand why they kept things a secret from their citizens, so there wouldn't be so much panic, but it was still wrong. there's no reason for them to have to cover up such a big accident and put many lives at risk. They wouldn't even tell their citizens exactly how much radiation they had absorbed either.
ReplyDelete2)Nuclear energy is an interesting form of energy. Yes it has it's pros and cons, but I don't believe we should use it considering how unsafe it can be. I understand that it's a low cost form on energy, but it can be extremely harmful to the human body. There are many alternative sources that are safer to use than nuclear. for example, solar energy. Yes, it's more expensive, but in the long run, you can save tons of money. Nuclear energy would be a great source of energy to use, but we need to find a safer way to use it and find a way to prevent such accidents to happen, like in Chernobyl.
-Alysha Cho
1. the Russian government handled the situation very poorly and most of this wasn't found out until after the soviet union dissolved in 1991 5 years after the the accident, because of the indecent the soviet union almost went bankrupt trying to clean up the place.
ReplyDelete2. my opinion on nuclear power is that it should be taken very seriously and and used properly and not have people like homer Simpson working there.
1. I believe that the Russian Government did not handle this situation as urgently as they should of. For starters they did not evacuate the residents of Pripyat and all the areas near the disaster, quick enough, and because of this may lives were lost. I also believe that the cleanup of the disaster was not what they've wanted, but because of all the equipment failures the only other way was by humans. This needed to be done so they did what they had to do. But I do believe that they should been more accurate with the radiation levels that people received. The people involved received a must higher radiation level then what they've been told.
ReplyDelete2. Nuclear power should be taken very seriously. It does a lot of good, but it can also cause HUGE disasters. I believe that no one should be using nuclear energy. Even though it is cheap in the long run with the thousands of lives lost because of the disasters is it really worth it. Water may not be as cheap but the earth/ the people can not be a severally hurt but it as much as nuclear energy.
Kendra Smith
1) I don't think the USSR handled the situation as well as they could have. Even though alerting the rest of the world would have caused more panic it probably would have saved more lives in the long run because there would be more people better equipped to handle the situation rather than sending in a bunch of soldiers with masks.
ReplyDelete2) Nuclear energy is a very efficient and clean energy but is only useful if it is safe. Obviously nuclear technology has progressed since the 1980s and there are more safety features around so the only thing is if the country or company actually uses the safety features the way they are supposed to.
-Dylan King
The Soviet government obviously handled the situation very badly. From not telling citizens what actually is going on, and how they lead the clean up. Everything hidden and unknown for the most part. I asked my mum(who grew up in Soviet Russia) and she said there was only a small article in the news paper about the explosion,a month after it, but no one really knew what nuclear plants were, and how large scale was the catastrophe. But that's just how communism works.
ReplyDeleteEverything is good to a certain extent, and so is nuclear power. We need to be careful when messing around with the matter of our universe. We are slowly losing morality, just to acquire knowledge, therefore we don't think of the consequences and don't take safety precautions. We are forgetting the real value of human lives, dismissing the ones that may be lost on out path to more development, more knowledge, more advances. Humanity is so hungry. And that is hunger we could starve of.
-Miriam Mazor
I feel that the Russian Government could have handled the situation a lot better than what they did. They should have got all the people out of there a lot quicker and told other coutries about the problem. Then they could have possibly came up with a better way of handling the problem rather than making people go out there themselves.
ReplyDeleteNuclear power can be a good thing but it's just scary to think about if something goes wrong with it. Yes, it's cheaper, but a lot of lives could be lost, so I don't fully agree with it. If there are safer ways we can use, why not use those?
1) I believe that the Russian Government handled the situation very poorly. Although they did evacuate the town Pripyat, the government did not evacuate soon enough. As a result, everyone in the town was exposed to gradual life changing radiation. The deaths caused by the whole incident were never really released from the Soviets.
ReplyDelete2) Nuclear energy is surprisingly efficient, but especially dangerous. If we continue using nuclear for years and years and years, the utmost caution has to be used,and the plant respected, and isolated from civilization, so no towns and cities have to be evacuated again.
.I think that Russian Government have handled the situation not very clever way. I can see that they did handle the problem by using all the technology available however,i see that somehow they excavate the problem much slower than they should of which made the situation much bigger and slowly was almost a week after we knew about this and was in the news.Also, the part that they told the Pyripat that it was all messed up they could react much better.More lives have been saved if there act much faster.
ReplyDelete2.Nuclear energy can be good in some way however, i feel that it could be extremely dangerous. Looking at the part that how harmful and this bring to us when it comes to mistaken uses and although it is cheaper than others it could lose many other lives which i believe is also as important as well.People getting hurt from this and following consequences it is mandatory for them to take a careful look at this.
sally
1. I feel the Russian Government dealt with this crisis rather poorly due to a general lack of communication. It was very irresponsible for them not to alert other countries. It put nearby countries at a higher than necessary risk. I also think the citizens should have been evacuated sooner, or more thoroughly informed at the very least. It's as if the government was procrastinating.
ReplyDelete2. Although nuclear energy has progressed significantly since this incident, it should be taken seriously. It's important that the government stays informed of any potential issues and makes sure we are prepared for anything that might go wrong. What I'm saying is I believe it should be taken advantage of as long as we deal with it responsibly. We can learn from our mistakes and hopefully we won't repeat history.
Miles Duce
1. In my opinion, the Russian Government did not handle this event as well as the could/should have. Due to their lack of communication to the citizens to inform them about this event, many people had their lives at risk. Some of the citizens were not even aware of the crisis that was going on. The government did not act as quickly as they should had. They had also allowed people to be exposed to the waster that contained a large amount of radiation where death was highly possible. Many lives of people could have been saved if the government were to act to this in a different manner.
ReplyDelete2. I think nuclear energy is a very useful and excellent energy source but only when it is used properly. Nuclear energy definitely has its own advantages and disadvantages. For example, nuclear energy isn't very expensive compared to other energy sources but on the other hand, it can be very harmful when it is misused. This can negatively affect humans and can lead to the possibility of death. I think before anyone uses nuclear energy any further, we should have a clear understanding on how to deal with it if something were to go wrong.
Robelie Aaron
Firstly I think that the Russian and Ukrainian governments handled the incident absolutely terribly. They didn't properly inform the public, they didn't take the fastest or best steps to resolve the issue, and when they did get around to "fixing" the issue, they put even more lives at stake.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I think that there are positives and negatives to nuclear energy, the positives obviously are renewable and relatively clean energy, however the negatives most likely outweigh the positives. Let's be honest, nuclear winter, the possibilities to harness the nuclear power in warfare, and many more things. It's just an accident waiting to happen. And for all any organization says about being able to harness the power without negative backlash, or it being safe, I don't think that it's the safest way possible to get our energy. But if we decide to use nuclear energy, we should try to learn as much as we can about it, so another disaster, like the one at Chernobyl, doesn't happen again.
1. I think they handled the Chernobyl disaster very poorly. They did not properly inform the citizens of Pripyat, endangering their lives. The population should have been informed of the disaster and the dangers related to it, instead of down playing the severity. Exposing people to the radiation was a big risk with major consequences, causing health deterioration as well as deformities and deaths. Lives should have been the first priority.
ReplyDelete2. Like any topic, there are both advantages and disadvantages. When it comes to the use of nuclear energy though, I don't believe that low prices should come before the safety of people. If we are to continue using it, there needs to be a lot of precautionary measures taken when dealing with it, as well as proper clean up and evacuation plans should be made to prevent such a disaster from happening again.
First off I think the way that the government handled the whole situation was awful because instead of letting the public and others know about it as soon as possible they tried to cover it up only to put more people in danger. If they tried harder into letting people know they would of saved more people and possibly got some help with it, but instead they decided to try and deal with it more internally which made further problems.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I think nuclear energy is great but with some possibly greater costs. With all the time and energy put into making nuclear energy more efficient or less dangerous they could look for a more sustainable source, so I think nuclear energy is great in the short run but also think we need a different source for the long haul.
1.I think that the government handle the situation so badly because they lost billion of money because of that and they did not think about how many people is going to have disease and some died because of the chemical that the nuclear plant spread around the place that closer in the Chernobyl plant. and then the bad thing is that the chemical was still their and more people will suffer of the disease that they got from the chemical that the Chernobyl plant have.
ReplyDelete2.i know that Nuclear energy is so dangerous but if Canada know what to do if this kinda accident happen i think that its better for them to use nuclear plant but if they don't it would be bad.
Austine Brosas
i think that they did not handled things very well. there action is slow, they should have done things a little bit faster and better, like evacuating the area right away.because a lot of people are affected by the accident. they did no clearly understand the effect and consequences of it. because they reacted slowly to the accident. if there action is a little bit faster than they did. they could have save more people. i think they should have asked for help to other countries that can provide assistance to help them find a better solution.
ReplyDeletei believe that nuclear energy is a very good way to get energy in terms of time and money spent.
-lien navea
I think the government handled the situation very poorly by not telling the public what was happening. By not doing this they risked a lot of peoples lives and many were affected. If they acted a little faster they could have saved way more people. More people would have helped out if the government reached out to others.
ReplyDeleteI believe that nuclear energy can be dangerous, and possibly more expensive. More research needs to be done so that disasters such as chernobyl do not happen again.
-Alana Moffat
I belive that the russian government did a terrible job dealing with the crisis. Firstly because they were so slow to act, secondly because they too people from their homes without giving them an answer to why, and finally because they sacrifised hundreds of lives to fix a problem they created. i also think that though it is dangerous with more time and reseach it could someday be a valuable tool to power the world.
ReplyDeleteI think that the government should have informed the public as soon as they were a wear of the accident instead of covering it up like they did. I think that that only put more people at risk. I am not a fan of nuclear power because I think there are better ways of producing energy, such as wind power, that are less harmful.
ReplyDeleteBreanne Baydock
i think that they did not handled things very well. there action is slow, they should have done things a little bit differently maybe faster and better, like evacuating the area right away.because a lot of people are affected by the accident. they did no clearly understand the effect and consequences of it. if there action is a little bit faster than they did. they can save a lot more people. i think they should have asked for help to other countries that can provide assistance to help them find a better solution.
ReplyDeletei believe that nuclear energy is a very good way to get energy in terms of time and money spent.
lien navea