By: Alexis Howard

Department of History, The University of Texas at San Antonio

“In the early hours of April 26, 1986, the world witnessed the worst nuclear catastrophe in history,” stated Ukrainian historian Serhii Plokhy. [1] The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant Disaster of 1986 was the largest nuclear accident in history.[2] This event and its effects will be analyzed chronologically and thematically, beginning with the background on the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant and the city of Pripyat, as well as the initial reaction to the disaster, such as the cause and evacuation. Following this, the impact on the environment, people, and media is examined through peer-reviewed historical and scientific books and articles. Emphasis is placed on the initial role society had on influencing the environment and the shift to the influence of the environment on society following the disaster. This paper will focus on the role the disaster had historically and environmentally, therefore it will not dive into the more scientific studies and reports discovered due to the event.

Before beginning to describe the disaster and its effects, it is important to discuss how the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was constructed and the creation of the city of Pripyat. The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant, officially known as the Vladimir Lenin Nuclear Power Plant, is located in the north of Ukraine, or the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic at the time, and is located approximately 100km from the capital of Kiev.[3] The plant is located four kilometers from the city of Pripyat and sixteen kilometers from the city of Chernobyl.[4] Officially, the area where the plant is located is called the “Belarussian-Ukrainian woodlands.”[5] Although the focus is  held on the effects of the disaster on Pripyat and the surrounding area, it is important to delve into the history of the plant itself. The construction of the plant was separated into three waves, each containing two units. The first and second units, Unit No. 1 and Unit No. 2, were finished by 1977. The following units, Unit No. 3 and Unit No. 4, were completed in 1983. In addition, prior to the disaster, two other units, Unit No. 5 and Unit No. 6, were scheduled for construction but the plans were disbanded due to the explosion of Unit No. 4.[6] The Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant was the first plant established on Ukrainian soil.

The city of Pripyat was founded on February 4, 1970, accumulating a population of approximately 50,000 individuals prior to the disaster of 1986. This city “served as a residential center for the administration staff and workers at the Chernobyl power plant.”[7] Pripyat was a “purpose-built town” due to the creation of the plant, but it is important to differentiate this city from the city of Chernobyl itself.[8]  Chernobyl was an older city, located approximately sixteen kilometers from the plant with a population of nearly 12,000. Although these two cities are now a part of the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone, which will be expanded on later, the city of Pripyat housed more workers than Chernobyl despite its name. In addition to the city of Pripyat and Chernobyl, an abundance of cities and countries were affected by this accident. Whereas most of the heavily affected areas include Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus, some sources state that the radioactivity spread as far as Greece and Sweden.[9]

From the night of April 25, 1986, to the early morning hours of April 26, 1986, reactor Unit No.4 was scheduled for an “experiment” by the plant’s management and specialists in order to “test the ability of the turbine generator to power certain of the cooling pumps whilst the generator was free-wheeling to a standstill after its steam supply had been cut off.”[10] In more approachable and less scientific terms, the experiment was conducted in order to test how efficiently Unit No. 4 would work if its power had been temporality shut off. This test had not been approved or properly planned. Additionally, most of those working on the site and ordering the experiments were not specialists in nuclear reaction plants.[11] The lack of preparation and planning of this experiment was due to the lack of training of the staff in case of emergency and the possible dangers of the experiment were not discussed prior to the night of April 25. The combination of all these factors, mixed with the faults in the concept of the reactor and the lack of fire drills or alarms, and other broader problems within the plant, lead to the initial cause of the disaster and its effect on the workers inside of the plant.[12] The text Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe by R.F. Mould goes into depth on a chronological description of the plant’s activity leading up to the disaster.[13] The explosions began at 1:24 in the morning on April 26, 1986. There were two explosions back-to-back which created sparks and debris. This led to the creation of over thirty fires around the plant.[14] The fires continued to burn during the following ten days, leading to the release of radiation into the environment.[15]

The initial explosions and the fires lead to the destruction of multiple parts of the plant. Various ceilings and walls within the plant were destroyed, including the reactor’s core.[16] The first reaction was to control and extinguish all fires caused by the disaster. This difficult task was handled by firemen and helicopter pilots. From April 27 to May 10, “5000 tonnes of boron compounds, sand, clay, dolomite, and lead” were dumped onto the open flames.[17] In addition to the spread of the fire during this period, the spread of radioactive material was just starting to begin. Between April 26 to May 6 radioactive material, such as gases and aerosols, was released into the atmosphere.[18] According to Mousseau’s “The Biology of Chernobyl,” this “injected 80 petabecquerel of radioactivity into the atmosphere and contaminated >200,000 km of Europe and Eurasia.” Following this came the wind that shifted more radioactive particles into the cities.[19]

To aid the chronology of the retelling of events after the disaster comes the discussion of the evacuation of those in the surrounding area. This portion will only touch on the evacuation as, later, there will be a section thoroughly dedicated to analyzing the impact on the environment and the people. An offsite emergency plan was created during the Soviet Union era for the Chernobyl Power Plant for preparation in the case of an accident or disaster. Although there was a plan constructed, it may not have included an evacuation plan for nearby cities that could be affected by a potential emergency.[20] In addition, the community in nearby cities, such as Pripyat and Chernobyl, were not fully aware of the seriousness of the accident. It is stated that only 1% of the affected population was given an official government report stating the grave situation.[21] Most citizens were left to hear of the disaster through rumors around the towns, leading most to disregard the situation altogether.[22] Officials, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, were not told of the severity of the explosion, therefore they did not feel the need to notify other members of the Soviet leadership during the early morning hours.[23] Those who worked at the plant were prohibited from sharing information about the explosions with their families or friends.[24] The official evacuation of the city of Pripyat began at 00:00 in the morning on April 27 on the orders of Boris Shcherbina, a member of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union.[25] From here, the entire population of Pripyat and those living within a thirty- kilometer radius of the Chernobyl plant were evacuated.[26] Citizens of Pripyat were given a fifty-minute notice of the evacuation, told to only take important documents due to supposedly returning home after a few days. The nearly 50,000 residents of Pripyat, 17,000 of those being children, were transported via the use of 1,200 buses and 200 trucks.[27] These occupants were left to occupy nearby settlements in the province of Kiev and surrounding areas. Although the inhabitants of these areas were told they would be away from home for only a few days, this was false. The city of “Pripyat will not be habitable for decades, if not centuries, to come.”[28] In total, this disaster caused the displacement and permanent evacuation of over 116,000 people living near the Chernobyl plant.[29]

After the disaster, initial reactions, and evacuations comes the impact of the incident, especially on the environment surrounding the plant. This accident was “largely a result of human error” which, in turn, created a major terrestrial outcome.[30] The severity of ecological and environmental consequences caused by the disaster is still widely unknown.[31] These environmental impacts may include but are not limited to, the effect on soil, plants, and animals, specifically birds and dogs. The effects of the radiation impacted each group of organisms and plants differently, with a greater impact placed on the plants rather than animals.[32] To begin with, “grassy plains, fields, and bare ground” were most affected by contamination.[33] According to “Chernobyl Today” by France Bequette, approximately 144,000 hectares of agricultural land and 492,000 hectares of forest land are unusable and avoided as a direct result of the contamination caused by the disaster.[34] The contamination of agricultural land affects the ability to not only plant and grow crops, but also create an accessible area for farm animals to roam. In addition, bark, moss, mushrooms, and firewood along with other items, are often contaminated in the forest surrounding the plant.[35] Due to this contamination, Belarus released a fifty-five-page document titled “Radiation: How to Survive in the Radiation Contaminated Areas,” which served as almost a how-to guide for those living on the contaminated lands. This text provides the reader with a better understanding of what crops are least likely to contain radionuclides, the best ways to avoid contamination in soil, and tips to keep themselves safe from radiation.[36] The contamination of the land creates a domino effect that impacts the life of organisms in the area.

The effect of radiation on the animals in the contaminated area is still underexamined. These impacts are still currently being studied and tested, therefore the extent of the effect of radiation from the disaster on the animals is still widely unknown. The consequences of radiation on wild birds and dogs in the area will be a focus in the following section. To begin with, the examination of wild birds, specifically in reproduction aspects, is oddly contrasted. On one hand, reports have stated that wild birds in Chernobyl, specifically barn swallows, have up to ten times higher quantity of sperm than barn swallows living in a controlled environment.[37] In addition, another study reinforced this idea by stating that nine out of ten birds from Chernobyl had a higher sperm count than those in controlled environments throughout Europe.[38] In contrast, the wild birds in Chernobyl have almost a forty percent increase to be aspermic compared to those in controlled areas. This led to the decline of the population of wild birds, due to sterility, in the Chernobyl area directly caused by the contamination and effect of radiation.[39] This example and the effect on wild birds was only one of the ways this disaster impacted animals in the area.

Other groups of animals that were largely affected by the disaster of 1986 were dogs. Many inhabitants of Pripyat and similar cities were forced to leave their pets behind following the supposed three-day evacuation procedures, particularly dogs.[40] This led to an abundance of dogs in the area left to fend for themselves. Following the disaster, the dogs retreated into the woods to create makeshift packs.[41] Eventually, due to the lack of food and supplies within the forest, the dogs made their way back into the radiation-filled city to scavenge for food and water.[42] There are now hundreds of descendants of family dogs, now stray, that roam the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.[43] Later, employees working in the plant post-disaster began to feed and care for these abandoned pets or descendants of abandoned pets.[44] This led to a growing need for healthcare for these pets, such as rabies and vaccinations, to keep the members working at the plant safe from disease.[45] To control the population of strays in the area, the Chernobyl Plant hired an employee to kill the dogs, but this employee refused. A non-government organization from the United States, Clean Futures Fund, now does its best to provide resources and provisions for these dogs.[46] Checkpoint guards in the area also have a soft spot for these pets, creating shelters for them with available materials in the area.[47] The guards and dogs have a mutual relationship by providing security to one another within the Exclusion Zone.[48] In addition, these dogs serve as a visible representation of those affected and left behind because of the disaster. They gain empathy for those who visit due to their once domesticated nature shifting into a more feral temperament.[49] From the impact on the environment to the impact on organisms in the disaster zone comes the impact on humans and health.

Although community members from the surrounding thirty kilometers from the plant, along with many others, have been affected negatively in a plethora of ways, such as through resettlement, major shift in economics, and trauma, this section will attempt to summarize and place emphasis on health impacts caused by the radiation from the disaster. Many studies can be broken down into categories separating examinations of different groups in the community. Often studies are measured by those there at the time of the explosion and disaster, those later affected such as liquidators, and lasting effects or genetic effects. In addition, these categories can further be broken down to study the age, gender, and location of the people directly following the disaster.

To begin with, after the disaster, many did not feel any immediate health effects of the radiation.[50] With the “invisibility” of the effect of radiation at times, such as on people or the environment, it was difficult to examine the immediate effects of the disaster on the population.[51] Although these impacts were once underexamined, it is now more thoroughly researched and tested. It is noted that the effects of radiation may not be visible within the first few days or weeks following exposure and may continue to grow years after the event.[52]

The article, “The Chernobyl Accident: An Epidemiological Perspective,” by E. Cardis and M. Hatch breaks down the lasting impacts of the radiation on the population surrounding the Chernobyl Plant.[53] One of the major effects that can be tracked as a result of the disaster is cancer caused by radiation exposure. A trend in the rise of thyroid cancer and leukemia, as well as other cancers such as breast cancer, can be found in those who were present in the area during the disaster and explosions of 1986.[54] Through these scientific studies, it was determined that children under the age of fourteen were more likely to be affected by the threat of thyroid cancer.[55] As of the 1990s, 3,000 cases of children with thyroid cancers as a result of the disaster were reported.[56] Although this risk is heightened in children or adolescents present within a thirty-mile radius of the plant during the disaster, the presence of thyroid cancer may not be discovered or actively affecting the person until later in life.[57] In addition to the threat of cancers in this community, other health concerns were also found during routine tests. These various health concerns include cardiovascular disease and cataracts.[58]

Though those present in the city of Pripyat or similar areas surrounding the plant, were a majority of those directly affected by the disaster, other groups, such as liquidators or descendants of those living in the areas, may have also been affected.[59] Liquidators, those employed to work and clean up the plant following the disaster, are known to suffer from health concerns such as cancer, specifically thyroid cancer, and other non-cancer concerns.[60] These liquidators are also known to suffer from sterility due to prolonged exposure to radiation.[61] The descendants of these liquidators or others contaminated with radiation from the disaster are often still affected. Mostly from the fathers’ DNA, descendants are at an increased risk of developing cancer or genome instability, despite not being exposed to radiation themselves.[62] The impact of the disaster and radiation on the descendants of these liquidators is an ongoing examination that does not have solidified results yet due to the modernity of this scientific research.[63] These environmental and health effects represent the long-lasting results of the disaster.

The Chernobyl Accident of 1986 was later dubbed a “catastrophe” or a “tragedy” by many due to the term “accident” being seemingly too minimizing or understating just how impactful this disaster was on the community and the environment.[64] According to Serhii Plokhy in the article “The Chernobyl Cover-Up: How Officials Botched Evacuating an Irradiated City,” this disaster released “50 million curies of radiation… into the atmosphere – the equivalent of 500 Hiroshima bombs.”[65] Over 400,000 people were displaced and permanently evacuated, this led to these people having a lack of homes, money, or jobs in an area they are, most likely, not familiar with.[66] In addition to the ongoing health risks to those in the area and their descendants, the number of fatalities due to the disaster is unimaginable. Officially, the United Nation agencies suggest that the total number of initial deaths range from thirty-one to fifty-four people, with a predicted 2,000 to 9,000 cancer-related deaths in the future.[67] Although this is later disregarded when the organization and environmental charity Greenpeace suggested that over 200,000 had already passed as a result of radiation exposure because of the disaster and predicted 93,000 further deaths to be witnessed in the future due to cancer or other similar health concerns.[68]

In addition to the lasting impact of radiation on the people, comes the impact on the environment and ecosystem. Although this was previously discussed, it is important to reiterate just how devastating this disaster had on the land. As of 2021, thirty-five years after the initial disaster, high amounts of radionuclides in the land are in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.[69] This zone encompasses approximately “4300 km2 area in Belarus and Ukraine.”[70] This area is still uninhabited and radioactive due to the disaster of 1986. Due to this being an ongoing impact that is not predicted to end any time soon, the complete environmental impact is truly unknown and produces a hazard for present and future generations.[71] According to Zbigniew Jaworowski in the article “Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT,” this disaster is a “historic event that provided invaluable lessons for nuclear industry and risk philosophy.”[72] The lasting effects of the disaster on the environment and community is constantly growing and being researched by scientists and historians across the world. Therefore, complying and encompassing all continuing impacts is an impossible feat.

In addition to the impact of the disaster on scientific studies, historical evaluations, and personal documentaries are its role in modern media. “Chernobyl was a media event,” David R. Marples suggests.[73] The creation of mostly abandoned, or “ghost towns,” mainly focusing on the city of Pripyat, has created a desire for dark tourism and a genre of film and videogames based on the nuclear accident and the lasting effects of radiation.[74] To begin with, the idea of dark tourism is a development and expansion in tourism that surrounds the topic of death, suffering, or events of disaster.[75] People travel from all across the world to gain access to the restricted area, the Exclusion Zone, to tour the abandoned city and homes.[76] In some cases, those who visit the abandoned area document their experience via YouTube videos. For example, the channel “Exploring with Josh” hosted a three-part series about his experience in the city.[77] Although some disagree with this form of tourism, stating that Chernobyl is not yet a historic site but rather a site still plagued with tragedy.[78] Following this progression of gaining more insight into the abandoned area, is the influence on other forms of media such as television shows, films, and video games.

With the ever-growing genre of the post-apocalyptic film industry, comes the interest and influence of the city of Pripyat and other “ghost towns” in the area. Andrei Tarkovsky’s film Stalker predates the Chernobyl disaster, being released in 1979. The film Innocent Saturday directed by Alexandr Mindadze was released twenty-five years after the Chernobyl disaster.[79] This film depicts the struggles that everyday people may have faced following the disaster rather than a historical documentary, attempting to evoke emotion from its viewers.[80] Similarly, the television show Chernobyl was released in 2019 and was directed by Johan Renck. This show depicts the life of those living in Pripyat and the disaster of 1986.[81] Although it is depicted as a historical drama or tragedy, many aspects of the show can be separated by the boundary between fact and fiction.[82]

In addition to the disaster’s impact on the film and television show industry, is its impact on video games. To begin with, the video game S.T.A.L.K.E.R developed by GSC Game World is a four-part series including the games “Shadow of Chernobyl,” “Clear Sky,” “Call of Pripyat,” and “Heart of Chornobyl.”[83] These action-adventure games are set to take place in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.[84] The role the Chernobyl disaster played in the influence of these games is undeniable, but the developers were also influenced by the Stalker film. Additionally, Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare contains a mission that includes the depiction of the Moscow Eye, or the Ferris wheel, that is often photographed and related to the abandoned city of Pripyat.[85] Following the discussion of the Chernobyl Disaster of 1986’s influence on modern media, it is important to discuss the controversy surrounding this. Some believe this is not an appropriate use of the site due to the tragedy that remains in the area and the ongoing impact on those who lived there.[86]

The Chernobyl Disaster of 1986 was a major tragedy to the environment and community surrounding the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. It is important to understand the chronological order of events that derived from the accident on the early morning of April 26, 1986. The cause of the disaster and the evacuation that took place afterward plays a great role in understanding what the days following the event entailed. In addition, the main aspect to understand and discuss is the impact of the disaster on the environment and ecology of the area. Here it is seen how society impacted the environment through the role of human error in creating the disaster in the first place. This error has made the land surrounding the plant continuously inhabitable and unable to determine when the soil or environment will lack these radioactive entities. In addition, this disaster also shows how the environment impacts society. Due to the radioactivity of the soil, which was of course caused by the disaster, people were forced to evacuate the area. The continuing radioactivity of the soil makes it necessary for inhabitants in surrounding areas to examine where they grow their food and what they eat. Following the impact of the disaster on the environment is the impact on the people. Although the total fatality count is highly debated, the impact and effect this event had on the lives of those in the area are undeniable. People will continue to be affected by the radiation and suffer from health risks such as cancer, not to mention the lesser-known health risks that descendants of these liquidators must deal with. The advancement of media and tourism in the area provides more information on the disaster itself, but it is debated if this is making light of an ongoing tragic event. The Chernobyl Disaster of 1986 will continue to affect the environment and community, not only the surrounding areas but the world.

---

[1]Serhii Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up: How Officials Botched Evacuating an Irradiated City,” History Reads (2019), 1.

[2] Timothy A. Mousseau, “The Biology of Chernobyl,” Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 52, no. 1 (2021): 90.

[3] H. M, Ginzburg and E. Reis, “Consequences of the Nuclear Power Plant Accident at Chernobyl,” Public health reports (1974) 106, no. 1 (1991): 32.

[4] Igor Laćan, Joe R McBride, and Duane De Witt, “Urban Forest Condition and Succession in the Abandoned City of Pripyat, Near Chernobyl, Ukraine,” Urban forestry & urban greening 14, no. 4 (2015): 1068.

[5] R.F. Mould, Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe, (Baton Rouge: CRC Press, 2000), 16.

[6] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 17.

[7] Laćan et al., “Urban Forest Condition and Succession,” 1069.

[8] Paul Dobraszczyk, “Petrified Ruin: Chernobyl, Pripyat and the Death of the City,” City (London, England) 14, no. 4 (2010): 372.

[9] M Hatch et al., “The Chernobyl Disaster: Cancer Following the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant,” Epidemiologic reviews 27, no. 1 (2005): 56.; Dobraszczyk, “Petrified Ruin,” 372.

[10] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 29, 32.

[11] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 32.

[12] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 33.

[13] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 34-38.

[14] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 38.

[15] Laćan et al., “Urban Forest Condition and Succession,” 1068.

[16] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 40.

[17] Mould, Chernobyl Record, 45.

[18] Ginzburg et al., “Consequences of the Nuclear Power Plant,” 33.

[19] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 1.

[20] Takashi Ohba, Koichi Tanigawa, and Liudmila Liutsko, “Evacuation after a Nuclear Accident: Critical Reviews of Past Nuclear Accidents and Proposal for Future Planning,” Environment international vol. 148 (2021): 2.

[21] Ohba, et al., “Evacuation after a Nuclear Accident,” 3.

[22] Ohba, et al., “Evacuation after a Nuclear Accident,” 3.

[23] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 1.

[24] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 4.

[25] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 6.

[26] Ginzburg et al., “Consequences of the Nuclear Power Plant,” 35.

[27] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 5.

[28] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 10.

[29] Jonathon Turnbull, “Checkpoint Dogs: Photovoicing Canine Companionship in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone,” Anthropology today 36, no. 6 (2020): 21.

[30] Mousseau, “The Biology of Chernobyl,” 90.

[31] France Bequette, “Chernobyl Today,” Unesco courier (Paris, France) 49, no. 4 (1996): 2.

[32] Mousseau, “The Biology of Chernobyl,” 96.

[33] Bequette, “Chernobyl Today,” 1.

[34] Bequette, “Chernobyl Today,” 1-2.

[35] Bequette, “Chernobyl Today,” 2.

[36] Bequette, “Chernobyl Today,” 2.

[37] Mousseau, “The Biology of Chernobyl,” 96.

[38] Mousseau, “The Biology of Chernobyl,” 96.

[39] Mousseau, “The Biology of Chernobyl,” 96.

[40] Ryan Lenora Brown, “The Dogs of Chernobyl: Are Virtual Tours the Future of Tourism?” The Christian Science Monitor (1983). Boston, Mass: The Christian Science Publishing Society, 2020, 1.

[41] “U.S.-Based Group Sending Veterinarians to Treat Stray Dogs of Chernobyl Area. Radio Free Europe Documents and Publications,” Washington: Federal Information & News Dispatch, LLC, 2017, 1.

[42] “U.S.-Based Group Sending Veterinarians,” 1.

[43] Brown, “The Dogs of Chernobyl,” 2.

[44] “U.S.-Based Group Sending Veterinarians,” 1.

[45] “U.S.-Based Group Sending Veterinarians,” 1.

[46] Jonathon Turnbull, “Checkpoint Dogs: Photovoicing Canine Companionship in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone,” Anthropology today 36, no. 6 (2020): 22.

[47] Turnbull, “Checkpoint Dogs,” 23.

[48] Turnbull, “Checkpoint Dogs,” 24.

[49] Turnbull, “Checkpoint Dogs,” 22.

[50] Olga Kuchinskaya, The Politics of Invisibility: Public Knowledge About Radiation Health Effects after Chernobyl, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014), 1.

[51] Kuchinskaya, The Politics of Invisibility, 20.

[52] Ekatherina Zhukova, “Nuclear Disaster as Chronic Crisis: Accounts of Radiation Embodiment by Survivors of the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster from Belarus Born before, in and after 1986,” Health (London, England: 1997) 24, no. 5 (2020): 593.

[53] E. Cardis and M Hatch, “The Chernobyl Accident — An Epidemiological Perspective,” Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 23, no. 4 (2011): 254-255.

[54] Cardis et al., “The Chernobyl Accident,” 255.

[55] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 4.

[56] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 4.

[57] Zhukova, “Nuclear Disaster as Chronic Crisis,” 593.

[58] Cardis et al., “The Chernobyl Accident,” 256.

[59] Cardis et al., “The Chernobyl Accident,” 257.

[60] Cardis et al., “The Chernobyl Accident,” 257.

[61] Mousseau, “The Biology of Chernobyl,” 96.

[62] V. I. Kovaleva and N. V Bagatskaya, “Cytogenetic Effects in Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes in Descendants of Chernobyl Disaster Liquidators Under the Impact of Mitomycin c in Vitro and Folic Acid in Vivo,” Cytology and genetics 47, no. 1 (2013): 53.

[63] E. P. Guskov, et al., “The congenital developments in descendants of liquidators after 10 years Chernobyl accident,” (1997): 167.

[64] Kuchinskaya, The Politics of Invisibility, 4.

[65] Plokhy, “The Chernobyl Cover-Up,” 1.

[66] Bequette, “Chernobyl Today,” 2.

[67] Sonja Schmid, “Chernobyl: Ruin, Redux,” Nature (London) 566, no. 7745 (2019): 450.

[68] Schmid, “Chernobyl: Ruin, Redux,” 450.

[69] Dmytrii, et al., “Scots Pine Stands Biomass Assessment Using 3D Data from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone,” Journal of environmental management 295 (2021): 1.

[70] Michael E. Byrne, et al., “Evidence of Long-Distance Dispersal of a Gray Wolf from the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone,” European journal of wildlife research 64, no. 4 (2018): 1.

[71] Zbigniew Jaworowski, “Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT,” Dose-Response 8, no. 2 (2010): 156.

[72] Jaworowski, “Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT,” 148.

[73] David R. Marples, The social impact of the Chernobyl disaster, (Springer, 1988), x.

[74] U.S.-Based Group Sending Veterinarians, 1.

[75] Ganna Yankovska and Kevin Hannam, “Dark and Toxic Tourism in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone,” Current issues in tourism 17, no. 10 (2014): 929.

[76] Kevin Hannam, and Ganna Yankovska, “Tourism Mobilities, Spectralities, and the Hauntings of Chernobyl,” In The Palgrave Handbook of Dark Tourism Studies, 319–333. (London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2018), 330.

[77] Josh, “Chernobyl abandoned ghost town Ep1,” YouTube video, 16:42, March 10, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojSIrED1xEk.

[78] Dobraszczyk, “Petrified Ruin,” 372.

[79] Johanna Lindbladh “Coming to Terms with the Soviet Myth of Heroism Twenty-Five Years after the Chernobyl’ Nuclear Disaster: An Interpretation of Aleksandr Mindadze’s Existential Action Movie Innocent Saturday,” The Anthropology of East Europe review30, no. 1 (2012): 113.

[80] Lindbladh “Coming to Terms with the Soviet Myth of Heroism,” 123.

[81] Sonja D. Schmid, “Chernobyl the TV Series on Suspending the Truth or What’s the Benefit of Lies?” Technology and culture 61, no. 4 (2020): 1154.

[82] Tim Bradshaw, “Chernobyl and Why Some TV Shows Should Be Unbingeable,” FT.com (2019), 2.

[83] Maria Gravari-Barbas, Nelson H. H. Graburn, and Jean-François Staszak. Tourism Fictions, Simulacra and Virtualities. (Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2020), 200.

[84] Tim Hutchings and Katya Linden, “Tourists at Chernobyl: Existential Meaning and Digital Media,” In Heritage of Death, 209–221. 1st ed. (Routledge, 2018), 212.

[85] Gravari-Barbas, et al., Tourism Fiction,” 206.

[86] Dobraszczyk, “Petrified Ruin,” 372.

---

Bibliography

Bequette, France. “Chernobyl Today.” Unesco courier (Paris, France) 49, no. 4 (1996): 43. 

Bradshaw, Tim. “Chernobyl and Why Some TV Shows Should Be Unbingeable.” FT.com (2019).

Brown, Ryan Lenora. “The Dogs of Chernobyl: Are Virtual Tours the Future of Tourism?” The Christian Science Monitor (1983). Boston, Mass: The Christian Science Publishing Society, 2020, 1-3. 

Byrne, Michael E, Sarah C Webster, Stacey L Lance, Cara N Love, Thomas G Hinton, Dmitry Shamovich, and James C Beasley. “Evidence of Long-Distance Dispersal of a Gray Wolf from the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.” European journal of wildlife research 64, no. 4 (2018): 1–5.

Cardis, E, and M Hatch. “The Chernobyl Accident — An Epidemiological Perspective.” Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 23, no. 4 (2011): 251–260.

Dobraszczyk, Paul. “Petrified Ruin: Chernobyl, Pripyat and the Death of the City.” City (London, England) 14, no. 4 (2010): 370–389.

Ginzburg, H. M, and E. Reis. “Consequences of the Nuclear Power Plant Accident at Chernobyl.” Public health reports (1974) 106, no. 1 (1991): 32–40.

Gravari-Barbas, Maria, Nelson H. H. Graburn, and Jean-François Staszak. Tourism Fictions, Simulacra and Virtualities. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge, 2020.

Guskov, E. P., S. B. Berezhanskaya, S. S. Amelina, M. Yu Krynochkina, and I. Spivak. “The congenital developments in descendants of liquidators after 10 years Chernobyl accident.” 1997, 165-167. 

Hannam, Kevin, and Ganna Yankovska. “Tourism Mobilities, Spectralities, and the Hauntings of Chernobyl.” In The Palgrave Handbook of Dark Tourism Studies (2018): 319–333.

Hatch, M, E Ron, A Bouville, L Zablotska, and G Howe. “The Chernobyl Disaster: Cancer Following the Accident at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant.” Epidemiologic reviews 27, no. 1 (2005): 56–66.

Holiaka Dmytrii, Hiroaki Kato, Vasyl Yoschenko, Yuichi Onda, Yasunori Igarashi, Kenji Nanba, Petro Diachuk, et al. “Scots Pine Stands Biomass Assessment Using 3D Data from Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Imagery in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.” Journal of environmental management 295 (2021): 1-12. 

Hutchings, Tim, and Katya Linden. “Tourists at Chernobyl: Existential Meaning and Digital Media.” In Heritage of Death, 1st ed. (2018): 209–221.

Jaworowski, Zbigniew. “Observations on the Chernobyl Disaster and LNT.” Dose-Response 8, no. 2 (2010): 148-171.

Josh. “Chernobyl abandoned ghost town Ep1.” YouTube video, 16:42. March 10, 2016, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojSIrED1xEk. 

Kovaleva, V. I, and N. V Bagatskaya. “Cytogenetic Effects in Peripheral Blood Lymphocytes in Descendants of Chernobyl Disaster Liquidators Under the Impact of Mitomycin c in Vitro and Folic Acid in Vivo.” Cytology and genetics 47, no. 1 (2013): 53–57.

Kuchinskaya, Olga. The Politics of Invisibility: Public Knowledge About Radiation Health Effects after Chernobyl. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2014.

Laćan, Igor, Joe R McBride, and Duane De Witt. “Urban Forest Condition and Succession in the Abandoned City of Pripyat, Near Chernobyl, Ukraine.” Urban forestry & urban greening 14, no. 4 (2015): 1068–1078.

Lindbladh, Johanna. “Coming to Terms with the Soviet Myth of Heroism Twenty-Five Years after the Chernobyl’ Nuclear Disaster: An Interpretation of Aleksandr Mindadze’s Existential Action Movie Innocent Saturday.” The Anthropology of East Europe review30, no. 1 (2012).

Marples, David R. The social impact of the Chernobyl disaster. Springer, 1988.

Mould, R.F. Chernobyl Record: The Definitive History of the Chernobyl Catastrophe. Baton Rouge: CRC Press, 2000.

Mousseau, Timothy A. “The Biology of Chernobyl.” Annual review of ecology, evolution, and systematics 52, no. 1 (2021): 87–109.

Ohba, Takashi, Koichi Tanigawa, and Liudmila Liutsko. “Evacuation after a Nuclear Accident: Critical Reviews of Past Nuclear Accidents and Proposal for Future Planning.” Environment international vol. 148 (2021): 1-9. 

Plokhy, Serhii. “The Chernobyl Cover-Up: How Officials Botched Evacuating an Irradiated City.” History Reads (2019).

Schmid, Sonja. “Chernobyl: Ruin, Redux.” Nature (London) 566, no. 7745 (2019): 450–451.

Schmid, Sonja D. “Chernobyl the TV Series on Suspending the Truth or What’s the Benefit of Lies?” Technology and culture 61, no. 4 (2020): 1154–1161.

Turnbull, Jonathon. “Checkpoint Dogs: Photovoicing Canine Companionship in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.” Anthropology today 36, no. 6 (2020): 21–24.

“U.S.-Based Group Sending Veterinarians to Treat Stray Dogs of Chernobyl Area. Radio Free Europe Documents and Publications.” Washington: Federal Information & News Dispatch, LLC, 2017.

Yankovska, Ganna, and Kevin Hannam. “Dark and Toxic Tourism in the Chernobyl Exclusion Zone.” Current issues in tourism 17, no. 10 (2014): 929–939.

Zhukova, Ekatherina. “Nuclear Disaster as Chronic Crisis: Accounts of Radiation Embodiment by Survivors of the Chernobyl Nuclear Disaster from Belarus Born before, in and after 1986.” Health (London, England: 1997)