|
|
Jevremovic Daniel
Dr. Scott Lankford
English 1A Honors
2 March 2007
Nuclear Disasters of the Past and Present: An Analysis of Nuclear Risks Presented in Earth Odyssey and Present-Day Azerbaijan
Nuclear pollution and nuclear accidents cause contamination that can last for thousands of years and both have been occurring ever since the 1940s—with the advent of nuclear technology. In his book, Earth Odyssey, Mark Hertsgaard shows alarming examples of nuclear pollution in the former U.S.S.R. Hertsgaard’s evidence from Chernobyl, Chelyabinsk, and Mayak all lie in modern Russia or Eastern Europe, but the regimes of the Soviet Union set the stage for future nuclear disasters in their provinces of the Caucasus and Central Asia. Just like the environmental disasters that Hertsgaard describes in the late 80s and 1990s, nuclear contamination still creates environmental disaster zones throughout the Caucasus and Central Asia today—particularly in Azerbaijan.
One of the key ideas of Hertsgaard’s work is that humanity has been toying with the earth’s environment without truly understanding the possible repercussions of their actions. As Hertsgaard quotes from Hubert Reeves, the director of France’s main science institute, “In effect, we are playing the sorcerer’s apprentice with the planet” (14). Such could not be more the case than with nuclear technology. In fact, even though nuclear technology is so deadly that it can raise “the question of whether there [will] be any human life” in the future at all, it has been consistently misunderstand and abused (Hertsgaard 134). Hertsgaard’s first example of the misuse of this deadly technology is the industrial complex of Mayak, located in central Russia. Hertsgaard quotes that “the Mayak complex had recently been called ‘the most polluted spot on earth’ by a team of visiting foreign scientists, a judgment Mayak official did not dispute” (125). Mayak had operated from 1946 to 1990, and was the site of several major nuclear disasters during that time; nuclear waste had been deliberately dumped into a nearby river, explosions at the nuclear waste storage facilities of the complex spread radiation across nearby Chelyabinsk, “severely contaminating air, water, and soil,” and even a whirlwind blew over the area spreading radioactive contaminants that would ultimately affect “nearly half a million people” (126). Instead of dealing with the issue, Soviet—and American—authorities tried to cover up the disaster, ignoring the real dangers posed by the unsafe facility.
In spite of the lessons that should have been learned, other mismanaged facilities of the Soviet Union were also ignored, and this lead up to the Chernobyl disaster. Although, as Hertsgaard writes, “some top officials apparently wanted to stonewall the outside world;” it was impossible, the disaster and severely heightened levels of radiation had captured the world’s attention (129). Even though nuclear technology had been around for several decades and disasters had already occurred, Soviet authorities failed to see the risks inherent with nuclear power. This ignorance and shortcutting was not only limited to the Soviet Union, however, as Hertsgaard’s example of Hanford demonstrates.
American officials were foolish enough to discharge millions of gallons of radioactive waste into the ground. The same attitudes that led up to the disasters of Mayak and Chernobyl were typical in America as well; “The U.S. government knowingly understated the health and ecological risks of nuclear weapons production throughout the Cold War” (138). While the risks were known, the ultimate consequences of nuclear contamination were not fully grasped, had officials understood the implications of polluting the world for millennia to come, it is hard to imagine they would have done so. Through his examples, Hertsgaard demonstrates a trend with regard to nuclear technology where governments act with little understanding, accountability, or honesty in order to test new atomic weapons or dispose of nuclear waste. Unfortunately such behavior and disregard for the future still occurs today—throughout the developing world and especially in the developing areas of the Former U.S.S.R. Generally speaking, peoples in this area are uneducated, unable to reform, and their governments pay little attention to the permanent ecological disasters that they are creating.
With almost the same neglect that led to the Mayak disaster, nuclear waste is being dumped without care in the Caucasus, as “Azerbaijani Deputy Prime Minister Ali Hasanov alleged that Armenia is burying nuclear waste on territory it has annexed from Azerbaijan” (Azerbaijan Profile). The territory is already polluted and the surrounding areas are highly populated meaning that any explosion of nuclear waste would have dire humanitarian consequences—especially because these nations have little if any medical infrastructure. Additionally, the region is an area of high seismic activity and any possible earthquake could easily lead to widespread nuclear contamination. In spite of this there is no intervention from the international community, much less any voluntary cessation from the Armenian side. Hertsgaard writes that “Future accidents, either in Russia or the United States, can by no means be ruled out,” but today it is possible that nuclear disasters will occur in areas and countries that were previously unknown to much of the outside world—just like the events at Chelyabinsk and Mayak (143).
In Baku, Azerbaijan, a city already known as “one of the most dangerously polluted places anywhere,” even more historical mistakes are being repeated (Ruinous Riches 96). The main nuclear storage facility Izotrop is only thirty miles from the capital, the most densely populated city in all of the country. According to the Nuclear Threat Initiative, “Izotop was constructed in the 1950s and holds 510 tons of radioactive waste in 10 storage tanks designed to hold only low-level radioactive waste. [However] in many cases, the level of radiation is above 1,000 roentgens” (Azerbaijan Profile). This level of radiation is even greater than at Mayak, which had been considered by some to be the most polluted place on the planet. If the facility at Izotrop were to explode in the same manner as Mayak, the entire Caucasus region from Turkey to Iran would become polluted. Even if a large-scale disaster does not occur, these large amounts of radioactive waste—along with other pollutants—will further contaminate the drinking water in Azerbaijan, where two-thirds of the fresh water in Azerbaijan is already unsafe.
Unfortunately, these high levels of radiation are not only limited to the Izotrop facility and onshore, radioactive pollutants are also found in the nearby Caspian Sea. The rivers that flow into the Caspian have historically been polluted by nuclear reactors upstream, and as journalist Morteza Aminmansour writes, “Because the Caspian Basin does not drain into other bodies of water, it operates as a natural precipitation tank for a significant mass of naturally occurring radioactive elements and these elements do not have any outlet.” The geographic situation of the Caspian means that radioactive particles will only pile up and may possibly take millions of years to dissipate. This is problematic when the current levels of pollution are already decimating local fish populations. In fact, it is predicted that the entire Caspian Sea may become lifeless within the next 20 years, destroying a resource crucial to the economies in the region.
At the time Hertsgaard published his book, he claimed that “Humanity has made extraordinary progress against the threat of nuclear destruction in recent years,” but events today in Azerbaijan would suggest the opposite (152). In Azerbaijan “approximately 350 organizations have a total of 950 radiation sources in their possession. These organizations include military facilities, research institutes, production plants and health services-related enterprises” (Azerbaijan Profile). The problem with this is that there are large amounts of radioactive materials loose in Azerbaijan. Although today the world does not face instant devastation as it did during the cold war, there is a greater chance than ever that terrorists will be able to obtain radioactive material and disperse it over a wide area. Part of the problem in Azerbaijan is that the government lacks the money to store all of the waste, and even if they did, their storage facilities are unsafe. Although Hertsgaard claimed that “The greatest immediate danger [with regard to nuclear power] arises from the hair-trigger status of the approximately ten thousand nuclear warheads that remain in each of the American and Russian arsenals,” today the threat has shifted rogue groups capable of making any city of their choosing a nuclear disaster zone (152). Hertsgaard does mention the “vulnerability of nuclear materials in Russia,” but the U.S. at least has paid some attention to this problem. The situation within CIS nations is far different and nuclear waste from the Soviet-era has yet to be disposed of properly and secured. Just as Hertsgaard predicted, we live in “a world increasingly fractured by violent ethnic and religious disputes and by state and individual terrorism, [where] the availability of large amounts of nuclear-weapons-making material is a recipe for catastrophe” (152).
In spite of the tragic lessons taught to humanity about nuclear technology, leaders still fail to respect the true dangers of nuclear pollution within Azerbaijan and around the globe. Hertsgaard questions furiously, “Did Chernobyl teach us nothing?” implying that it will take further nuclear disasters for commercial pressures to realize their folly (155). In Azerbaijan, part of the reluctance to address the nuclear issue is due to simple economic factors. The government is already corrupt and the country is spread thin, with little revenue to spend on environmental cleanup. In addition, the nuclear reactors in the region are favored because they provide energy independence, allowing a country some geopolitical freedom. Thirdly, much of the radioactive waste in Azerbaijan is a by-product of oil and gas production, which is by far the nation’s greatest source of revenue. Since the country has become crucial as to “how the U.S. and Europe will secure enough oil and gas to power cities, factories, airplanes and cars,” there are also international pressures to ignore the pollution problem for the sake of economic gain (Walt 23). The pervading ideology in Azerbaijan is similar to that of the Chinese that Hertsgaard comments upon in his chapter, “’Is Your Stomach Too Full?’” where the Chinese attitude was to sacrifice the environment for the sake of economic growth. The fatal problem with this mentality and nuclear contamination is that radioactive waste will not disappear within one, two, or even three generations. Today the area around Mayak and Lake Karachay is inhabitable because of the nuclear pollution present. Such is the same around areas of Izotrop in Azerbaijan.
Because of humanities’ stubborn and shortsighted attitude there are now areas on the planet that are—for all intensive purposes—permanently inhabitable. At the same time Hertsgaard mentions that 2.4 million cancer deaths are expected to result from atmospheric nuclear testing alone (153). When one includes incidents such as Chernobyl for which accurate death tolls are impossible to calculate, it is clear that there are very serious risks associated with nuclear pollution—especially because it takes so long to leave the environment. Perhaps the greatest problem is due to what Hertsgaard describes as “the arrogant belief that technological man was separate from and superior to nature, rather than a part of it—the conviction that man could play God (315).
Fortunately unlike at Mayak or Chernobyl, there has not been a massive nuclear disaster in Azerbaijan, but unless popular attitudes change there is little hope that much will improve. The tragic reality is that when one examines the examples presented by Hertsgaard that the picture looks almost identical in Azerbaijan and the Caucasus. Of course, this is not just a local issue since cancer-deaths resulting from nuclear radiation occur worldwide. The issue of nuclear disaster and fallout in Azerbaijan should not just be a local one, but a topic of global concern because it does carry a far-reaching impact. It is clear from the examples in Hertsgaard’s Earth Odyssey that nuclear accidents can be immensely devastating and it is frightening how many parallels exist between the nuclear facilities at Mayak and Chernobyl, and within Azerbaijan today. The reality is that little has changed from Hertsgaard’s time to offer a sign of hope for the future. Nuclear waste facilities within Azerbaijan are under funded, under maintained, and ultimately incredibly unsafe. The longer these facilities are ignored the more irreversible the environmental disaster within Azerbaijan will become, and the more similar things will begin to look to Mayak, Chelyabinsk, and Chernobyl. It is the unfortunate reality within Azerbaijan that obvious mistakes are being made again, and that people continue to misuse a technology that “changed everything except our way of thinking” (124).
Works Cited
Aminmansour, Morteza. "Radioactive Pollution in the Caspian Sea." Persian Journal (2004). 20 Mar. 2007 <http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/2/2980#top>.
Hertsgaard, Mark. Earth Odyssey. New York: Broadway Books, 1998.
Majidova, N. "Azerbaijan Profile." NTI. Mar.-Apr. 2007. CNN. 20 Mar. 2007 <http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/Azerbaijan/index.html>.
"Ruinous Riches?" The Economist 5 Feb. 1998: 96-98.
Walt, Vivienne. "Oil's Vital New Power." Time 12 Jan. 2007: 22-26.