Content:
1. Introduction
2. The ecological background of the environmental problem that you have
chosen to write about. E.g. what are its major environmental implications,
how does it interfere into the functioning of ecosystems, etc.
a. In researching the ecological background of your chosen
environmental problem, you should make sure that you are objective
and base your findings on primary, scientific literature; citing
Wikipedia (or other online sources) is not sufficient.
3. The societal discourse surrounding the environmental problem. E.g. who are
the major stakeholders involved in the issue, how their positions differ, what
are the major controversies around the causes or/and solutions to this problem,
etc.
a. For the exploration of the societal discourse, you are much freer in
your sources. Evaluating an environmental problem from various
perspectives will involve investigating different opinions and value
conflicts. Your sources can range from political press statements, to
media reports, and interviews. Make sure, however, that these sources
really represent credible positions towards the topic and not just
nonsensical contributions, such as weird YouTube videos.
4. You should finish your paper by providing your value statement, which
positions yourself in the societal discourse. This may include a description of
your personal values that may underline your personal position.
References:
At least 12 references (may include course readings)
? At least 5 out of 12 references should be scholarly ones (scholarly books
or/and journal articles)
Paper writing and style
For the final paper assignment the required format is the APA (American
Psychological Association) style. The complete style outline can be found in the
Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association.
You can also check the following URL:
Purdue Online Writing Lab: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/01/
Evaluation criteria:
1. Completeness of essay – Contains all necessary parts for this essay (i.e., intro,
ecological background, societal discourse & own position)
2. Logic flow & transitions – Logic order between parts and within parts;
Transitions between ideas, subjects, paragraphs & sentences
3. Subject development – Ecological Background and Societal Discourse section
of essay is clearly & convincingly developed; Evidence of insightful, mindful
& creative thinking
4. Use of literature – Literature has been used convincingly to back up essay;
Includes at least 12 relevant and credible references out of which at least 5 are
scholarly references
5. Development of own position – Convincing description of own
position/opinion; Providing arguments for own position
6. Consistent use of APA citation style (in-text citations, list of references)
7. Writing is clear, concise, and well organized with excellent
sentence/paragraph construction. Thoughts are expressed in a coherent and
logical manner without spelling, grammar or syntax errors.
Contact me if you have questions.
Chernobyl Accident, Initial and Lasting Impacts
Chernobyl Accident, Initial and Lasting Impacts
Introduction
Chernobyl accident, also known as Chernobyl disaster, is a ruinous nuclear disaster which occurred on the 26th April 1986 (Rissman, 2014). The accident mentioned above was the worst regarding casualties and cost ever in history. The accident was as a result of the serious errors made by operators of the plant due to lack of knowledge and theoretical training and a blemished Soviet reactor design. This essay explores the ecological background as well as the societal discourse surrounding the environmental problem.
Ecological Background
According to Leatherbarrow (2016), the Chernobyl disaster?s environmental effects are often measurable because it was well recorded. Its impact can be acknowledged both internally and at continental levels. The Chernobyl accident had severe effects on the aquatic ecosystem. The radioactive clouds caused acid rains in the major areas of the continent and affected most water bodies. Also, wash out from the catchment areas/basin caused water contamination. Radionuclides were quickly distributed to large water bodies and incline to collect in bottom sediments, fish, and aquatic plants. Human exposure to the radionuclides may be indirectly from eating contaminated fish, or utilizing contaminated water for irrigation, or directly by drinking contaminated water (Annex, 2012).
Water supply is not much contaminated as the soil since the nucleotide tends to settle with time (Zaitsev, Gongalsky, Nakamori, & Kaneko, 2014). Owing to less contamination, the aquatic habitat appears to be tolerant to radionuclide contamination. No vivid proof has been made for long term implications to the inhabitants in the nuclear reactor?s cooling pond water. According to Alexakhin (2013), at the time of the accident, besides iodine, Caesium-137 which is the most radioactive isotope escaped to the environment. Given the longer half-life (31 years) of Caesium-137, significant impacts on the ecosystem have been recorded to date. For example, around the accident site, fresh waters and fish for multiple periods in future will not be safe for consumptions by people. Likewise, the agricultural land within the exclusion site will remain unproductive as it is unsuitable for human use (Petryna, 2013).
The Societal Discourse Surrounding the Environmental Problem
The major stakeholders involved in the Chernobyl accident included the Soviet state, the regional and local level of governments, the community, world bodies such as UN, and professional like the doctors, physicians, and the PR professionals. The above stakeholders had different opinions towards the issue (Alexakhin, 2013). For instance, the aftermath of the disaster was marked by the implementation of a top-down approach by the Soviet authorities towards the rehabilitation of the affected regions. The indispensable approach that was confronted by the diversity and complexity of the challenges was not working and was quickly rejected by the community.
Consequently, lots of complaints were received from the local people regarding the inefficient consultation procedures that did not reflect the actual image on the ground (Renn, 2012). Later on, the PR professionals developed a stakeholder-involvement approach that focused on helping the local people characterize the situation (Kovan, 2006). The new approach towards solving the problem was received positively by the residents. One element that made the approach relevant and critical was the radiation monitoring capability, which ensured a more detailed and accurate information on the contaminated areas.
Conclusion
The Chernobyl accident that occurred many years back is likely to have more environmental impacts in the future. The disaster resulted from human fault and thus the need to be more careful in similar activities in the future. It is also worth noting always to develop and implement strategies that take into consideration the needs of the people who are affected by such environmental problems. Relying on the knowledge of the experts while not giving the residents the real voice may give a false image on the ground.
References
Annex, J. (2012). Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident. Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation: The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation UNSCEAR, 451-566.
Alexakhin, R. M. (2013). Topical Environmental Problems of Nuclear Power. Atomic Energy, 114(5), 301-307.
Kovan, D. (June 2006). Stakeholders and Radiological Protection: Lessons from Chernobyl. Nuclear News; Health Physics Special Section, 38-43.
Leatherbarrow, A. (2016). Chernobyl 01:23:40: The incredible true story of the world’s worst nuclear disaster.
Petryna, A. (2013). Life exposed: biological citizens after Chernobyl. Princeton University Press.
Rissman, R. (2014). The Chernobyl disaster.
Renn, O. (2012). Public responses to the Chernobyl accident. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 10(2), 151-167.
Saenko, V., Ivanov, V., Tsyb, A., Bogdanova, T., Tronko, M., Demidchik, Y., & Yamashita, S. (2011). The Chernobyl accident and its consequences. Clinical Oncology, 23(4), 234-243.
Steinhauser, G., Brandl, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2014). Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts. Science of the Total Environment, 470, 800-817.
Zaitsev, A. S., Gongalsky, K. B., Nakamori, T., & Kaneko, N. (2014). Ionizing radiation effects on soil biota: Application of lessons learned from Chernobyl accident for radioecological monitoring. Pedobiologia, 57(1), 5-14.
