Still, today, radioactivity threatens to collapse the Sarcophagus, a concrete built after the incident used as a ‘shelter’. The government are getting a replacement; an arched structure will be used to slide over the sarcophagus. The whole idea of the Sarcophagus used as a shelter was effective, yet, as the sarcophagus was built in ‘six months’, one may criticise how quickly it was built and the builders/designers didn’t acknowledge the design fully to make it effective. The sarcophagus, also known as the ‘shelter’, is ironic as the ‘shelter’ holds a threat to people. This is due to the variables of water and rain going through the cracks of the sarcophagus, and as water aids a chain reaction, this was a problem. Also the fact that the scientists, themselves, are exposed to high levels of radiation as the Sarcophagus holds 200 tons of nuclear fuels makes it worse. This, in evaluation, is not effective, but one can say, in positive criticism, that in June 26, 1990, a physicist from the technical centre poured in neutron quenching gadolium nitrate on the lava to subside the neutrons. Also, recently, most rainwater is pumped out though the shelter is still “risky”. However, the Sarcophagus was a huge flop, and in my interpretation, the flaw was due to the short period of time it was made in. If I wasn’t being biased, a counter argument could have been that it had to be made in a short period of time due to nuclear power contaminating the environment and more importantly, the fact that it was spreading.
What was effective, to me, was how quick k action was taken during the days after the explosions by liquidators to tame the inferno; coal miners did their upmost to cool the nuclear fool, helicopter pilots attempted to douse the flames and soldiers made timed dashes on the roof to shovel graphite blocks blown out of the reactor back into the cone. Such action like this shows how society co-operates well, as these people absorbed a lot of radiation in seconds.
Another criticism I am making that there were no psychologicsl treatments and mental treatments after the incident. In the article, it says that “doctors” “feared for their health”, and as the environment even near the evacuees such in Ukraine was contaminated, most people were fear-stricken but there were no solutions to that which made it more chaotic for citizens as most could almost die in fear.
Further more, the fact that the government had lost conscious that the cows ‘had grazed on contaminated grass’ and that ‘children were drinking milk’ with radioactive iodine 131. This made another problem. In my opinion, I can not fully criticise this as due to the chaos, such things are forgettable and bigger problems such as restoring Priyat was essential. As the thyroid glands were infected, the thyroid cancer rate increased drastically in 1990, and many children died; in 1995 there were 90 cases. One expert said that if there were “better surveillance after the accident”, then the cancer increases may be explained as we make an assumption the cow milk that affected the thyroid gland was the only variable that affected the thyroid cancer rate. The government was therefore ineffective in making surveillance after the accidents and should have been more organised, or tried to be, in the chaos.
In conclusion, I think that the management was both effective and not effective in some ways. I merely think that some management was ineffective due to the lack of time the government had to act upon the situation; my view can be shown by the example of the Sarcophagus, and how if there was more time, maybe the design would have been more effective. My view wouldn’t do the government at the time justice though, as there was chaos to be more “organised” and “satisfactory” in designing the sarcophagus, and maybe there wasn’t even a design! The management was effective in a way because workers were so intact and quickly acted upon the situation days after the explosion and how the government evacuated the citizens. This was, however, a major flaw as Ukrainian had environment that was contaminated. Also, the government failed to acknowledge psychological harm to citizens and the fright and failed to act upon it. Yet the whole thing was a success in a way due to the fact that workers could sacrifice there lives in being infected with radioactivity, to save the Pripyat society. My view is neutral due to the fact that an article is merely biased and therefore the points such as the “better surveillance could of explained cancer increases” can be leading and biased; such things like this we cannot use to make evaluative comments on as we weren’t there.
