Sakharov: Mankind Cannot Do Without Nuclear Power

After the Chernobyl nuclear-reactor catastrophe of April 26, 1986, the reports in the Soviet press led me to adopt far too sanguine an approach. One clue that should have alerted me to a possible cover-up was a mid-May report that several fire fighters had perished; if radiation levels in the vicinity of the Chernobyl plant did not exceed 10 to 15 milliroentgens an hour, what could have caused their deaths?

In fact, the radiation levels published in the Soviet press were 1% or less of the true figures. But there were other, subjective reasons for my complacency: my preconceptions, my mental inertia and sheer wishful thinking.

When Lusia returned from a visit to the West, her information on Chernobyl shook me. Czechoslovakia, Sweden, Poland and Hungary had demanded an explanation from Soviet authorities for the high levels of radiation throughout Europe. Poles were given iodine tablets to speed the elimination of radioactive iodine from their systems — which raised the question of what was being done in the U.S.S.R., where the level of radioactivity was much greater. In the Ukraine and Belorussia, pregnant women were advised to have abortions. My initial optimism was completely dispelled. It was important to decide in my own mind what should be done about nuclear power.

Plainly, mankind cannot renounce nuclear power, so we must find technical means to guarantee its absolute safety and exclude the possibility of another Chernobyl. The best way is international legislation requiring that all new nuclear reactors be sited deep enough underground so that even a worst-case accident would not discharge radioactive substances into the atmosphere. Existing aboveground reactors should be protected by reliable containment structures. The first priority should be to safeguard atomic plants that supply power and heat to large cities, reactors with graphite moderators like the one that malfunctioned at Chernobyl, and fast-neutron breeder reactors.

I also became interested in the possibility of reducing earthquake damage by burying thermonuclear charges deep underground in seismologically active areas and detonating them to relieve the buildup of tension when strains in the earth’s core approach the critical level. If this proves feasible, we could control at least the timing of earthquakes; people and property could be evacuated in orderly fashion. To preclude the escape of any radiation, the explosion would probably have to be two or more miles beneath the earth’s surface.

On Feb. 15, 1987, addressing the Moscow Forum for a Non-Nuclear World for the Survival of Mankind, I had this to say on the peaceful use of atomic energy:

“Nuclear weapons divide and threaten mankind. But there are peaceful uses of nuclear energy that should promote the unity of mankind. Chernobyl was an example of the tragic interaction of equipment failure and human error. Nevertheless, the aversion people rightly feel for military applications must not spill over to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Mankind cannot do without nuclear power. We must find a solution to the safety problem that will rule out another Chernobyl resulting from human error, failure to follow instructions, design defects or technical malfunction.”

I concluded, “People concerned about the potential harmful consequences of the peaceful use of nuclear energy should concentrate their efforts not on attempts to ban nuclear power, but instead on demands to assure its complete safety.”