![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Never again, again
Feb. 15th, 2026 03:28 pmBook Review: Chernobyl Prayer, by Svetlana Alexievich
This is a collection of testimony, first published in 1997 and therefore, I guess, motivated by the tenth anniversary, from various people living in Belarus affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986.
It feels unedited and minimally curated, which is both a strength and a weakness. For certain, these voices should be heard; but on the other hand, My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge is writ large in some of this, and unfortunately it's just not true. Ten years on, some people had plenty of evidence in the form of lost loved ones and/or illnesses themselves. Those with some scientific training generally produce better reports. Some early sections are quite graphic and make for difficult reading. Of course, the disaster took place in a very different culture and many of the responses are a reflection of that. With the passage of time, this invites comparison with the way the Covid pandemic was handled, and it's not gratifying. Emergency procedures and equipment that were out of date and unusable? Check. An expectation that the authorities would keep people safe, when in fact they had no idea what to do? Check. We can't see it/taste it/feel it, so there's nothing there? Check. Death as a result of (sometimes heroic, sometimes foolhardy) exposure? Check. It's worth bearing in mind the priceless four stages of policy from Yes, Prime Minister, as applicable here as in the Foreign Office:
For me, there is certainly a case for some level of nuclear programme (we need a supply of radioisotopes for medical use, for example) but we have never seriously addressed the problem of nuclear waste, preferring forever to kick it down the road. The economic case has always turned out to be optimistic (one can say that for many, if not most, large-scale infrastructure projects).
Coincidentally, while going through the recordings on Dad's PVR, I found a documentary on the history of nuclear power. The programme itself stuck to facts and may not have shifted minds in either direction, but it did fairly cover the safety disconnect between the nuclear lobby and the real world - essentially, the argument that "it couldn't happen here" after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; more difficult to make that claim following Fukushima. It's not about the small probability of an accident; it's about the grave consequences of such an accident.
This is a collection of testimony, first published in 1997 and therefore, I guess, motivated by the tenth anniversary, from various people living in Belarus affected by the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident in 1986.
It feels unedited and minimally curated, which is both a strength and a weakness. For certain, these voices should be heard; but on the other hand, My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge is writ large in some of this, and unfortunately it's just not true. Ten years on, some people had plenty of evidence in the form of lost loved ones and/or illnesses themselves. Those with some scientific training generally produce better reports. Some early sections are quite graphic and make for difficult reading. Of course, the disaster took place in a very different culture and many of the responses are a reflection of that. With the passage of time, this invites comparison with the way the Covid pandemic was handled, and it's not gratifying. Emergency procedures and equipment that were out of date and unusable? Check. An expectation that the authorities would keep people safe, when in fact they had no idea what to do? Check. We can't see it/taste it/feel it, so there's nothing there? Check. Death as a result of (sometimes heroic, sometimes foolhardy) exposure? Check. It's worth bearing in mind the priceless four stages of policy from Yes, Prime Minister, as applicable here as in the Foreign Office:
- Stage one, we say nothing is going to happen.
- Stage two, we say something may be about to happen, but we should do nothing about it.
- Stage three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there's nothing we can do.
- Stage four, we say maybe there was something we could have done, but it's too late now.
For me, there is certainly a case for some level of nuclear programme (we need a supply of radioisotopes for medical use, for example) but we have never seriously addressed the problem of nuclear waste, preferring forever to kick it down the road. The economic case has always turned out to be optimistic (one can say that for many, if not most, large-scale infrastructure projects).
Coincidentally, while going through the recordings on Dad's PVR, I found a documentary on the history of nuclear power. The programme itself stuck to facts and may not have shifted minds in either direction, but it did fairly cover the safety disconnect between the nuclear lobby and the real world - essentially, the argument that "it couldn't happen here" after Three Mile Island and Chernobyl; more difficult to make that claim following Fukushima. It's not about the small probability of an accident; it's about the grave consequences of such an accident.