Search

The author, Adriana Petryna, works as a professor of anthropology for the University of Pennsylvania. She has done extensive research on the cultural and political aspects of nuclear science and medicine.

Emergency response is addressed both in terms of immediate response to a disaster as well as the long-term care needed to help those displaced or otherwise effected. The initial response to the reactor overload failed to prevent the disaster, and there is some debate as to if the efforts to control the exploding reactor actually increased the amount of radiation dispersed into the air. While attempting to mitigate the disaster workers were exposed to even more radiation than the initial explosion released. This event shows the importance of expertise in response to a disaster, this was the first nuclear disaster of this scale and no one knew how to respond. The majority of the paper focuses on the challenges of caring for hundreds of thousands of individuals when their need will extend for decades if not longer. The authors indicates that the system put in place provides the necessary assistance but only to those with the ability and knowledge to work within the system for their own advantage, and in the long-term it is slowly loosing support from the general society as the Chernobyl explosions falls further into history.

The article uses statistics of the health care system and diagnosis methods to show that, while the program was created with good intentions to help those suffering from radiation poisoning, it has become necessary for those seeking assistance to find influential individuals or groups to try and receive enough funding to support themselves and their families.

• “The legacy of Chernobyl has been used as a means of signaling Ukraine's domestic and international legitimacy and staking territorial claims; and as a venue of governance and state building, social welfare, and corruption.” (253)
• “In a place of tremendous economic desperation, people competed for work in the Zone of Exclusion, where salaries were relatively high and steadily paid. Prospective workers engaged in a troubling cost-benefit assessment that went some- thing like this: if I work in the Zone, I lose my health. But I can send my son to law school.” (253)
• “The issue at stake is the state's capacity to produce and use scientific knowledge and nonknowledge to maintain political order.” (258)

• Chernobyl was an unexpected disaster, however several more nuclear disasters have occurred since then. I looked into the safeguards that were changed after Chernobyl and if those had any part in mitigating other nuclear meltdowns. After the explosions several countries and international groups developed nuclear policies that attempted to prevent critical system failures as occurred during the test that caused the reactor to overheat, but many countries refused to adopt additional safeguards that may prevent future disasters.
• The article described the various zones put into place to keep people away from the most radioactive areas around Chernobyl, I looked into the zones used and the determining factors in determining the sizes of each zone. The initial response determined a zone of 30km around the site, however as scientific understanding of radiation improved the zone was extended to 2600km. This shows the importance of an informed response to prevent further damage after a disaster.

Finally, I researched the effects of low dose radiation poisoning to better understand the medical care needed by those affected. Even low exposure doses can cause lasting damage to organs, or cause cancer and blood related illnesses through the effect of radiation on bone marrow. Those exposed would need frequent medical exams and treatment for the entirety of their lives.

The argument is supported through a combination of historical description, statistical aspects of the health care system available to exposed citizens, and accounts from doctors and sufferers of radiation poisoning. The use of such diverse methods gives a more complete picture of the long term effects of Chernobyl and how it continues to dictate the work, education, and health care options of those in the surrounding area.

The bibliography, and passages in the article, indicate that the author spent a considerable amount of time interviewing workers at Chernobyl during the initial disaster, workers involved in the continuing maintenance efforts, as well as doctors and policymakers involved in the health care system for those with radiation exposure.

The article shows that the Chernobyl explosions continue to devastate the surrounding area, defining a society of those exposed to radiation with complex politics and health care systems to which individuals are entirely dependent.

This article has been referenced extensively by articles dealing with both medicine and related policies as well as the nuclear sciences and politics. Some such articles include, “Glioblastoma in a former Chernobyl resident” and “The pharmaceuticalisation of security: Molecular biomedicine, antiviral stockpiles, and global health security”.