Chernobyl: Living with risk and uncertainty

Abstract

The nuclear accident in Chernobyl in 1986 is a dramatic example of the type of incidents that are characteristic of a 'risk society'. The consequences of the incident are indeterminate, the causes complex and future developments unpredictable. Nothing can compensate for its effects and it affects a broad population indiscriminately. This paper examines the lived experience of those who experienced biographical disruption as residents of the region on the basis of qualitative case studies carried out in 2003 in the Chernobyl regions of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. Our analysis indicates that informants tend to view their future as highly uncertain and unpredictable; they experience uncertainty about whether they are already contaminated, and they have to take hazardous decisions about where to go and what to eat. Fear, rumours and experts compete in supplying information to residents about the actual and potential consequences of the disaster, but there is little trust in, and only limited awareness of, the information that is provided. Most informants continue with their lives and 'do what they must' or even 'what they like', even where the risks are known. They often describe their behaviour as being due to economic circumstances; where there is extreme poverty, even hazardous food sources are better than none. Unlike previous studies, we identify a pronounced tendency among informants not to separate the problems associated with the disaster from the hardships that have resulted from the break-up of the USSR, with both events creating a deep-seated sense of resignation and fatalism. Although most informants hold their governments to blame for lack of information, support and preventive measures, there is little or no collective action to have these put in place. This contrasts with previous research which has suggested that populations affected by disasters attribute crucial significance to that incident and, as a consequence, become increasingly politicized with regard to related policy agendas.

Importance of risk communication during and after a nuclear accident

“…Decades after the Chernobyl accident, nontechnical issues in the mitigation of consequences were highlighted as one of the greatest challenges. Psychological, sociological, political, and other impacts on the public perception were long‐lasting due to poor risk communication (Sjöberg and Drottz 1987; Poumadere 1995; Dubreuil et al 1999; Schmid 2001; Jackson et al 2002; Havenaar et al 2003; Abbott et al 2006; Cantone et al 2007; Bertell 2008; Oughton 2008).…”

“…Opinion polls within Europe about this accident still demonstrate large uncertainty in the population in regards to its consequences and, due to opaque communication, distrust toward the authorities, along with fear of its consequences (Van Aeken et al 2007). The communication of the various aspects of the Chernobyl accident “became increasingly politicized with regard to related policy agendas” (Abbott et al 2006, p. 105). The Chernobyl accident is a dramatic example of an event requiring good and transparent risk communication with the affected public, either directly or indirectly, long after the acute phase of the crisis.…”

A Typology of Communication Dynamics in Families Living a Slow-Motion Technological Disaster

“…Furthermore, concern for children’s welfare is a major, if not the most significant, source of concern and anxiety for parents and grandparents experiencing technological disasters (Abbott et al, 2006; Hastrup et al, 2007; Unger et al, 1992). …”

The Defensive Strategies of Czech and Ukrainian Residents in the Ukraine against the Effects of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident

“…Soon after the disaster the Soviet authorities evacuated the town of Pripyat, where the power plant was situated, and removed people from a 30-kilometre zone around the power station (Kužel 1997). People at greater distances had to stay in their places of residence without sufficient information about how to protect themselves against the increased radiation or how to obtain suitable aid (Abbott -Wallace -Beck 2006).…”