Lessons of Chernobyl 40 Years Later: True and False

April 26, 2026, marked exactly 40 years since the world first learned the word "Chernobyl," instantly becoming synonymous with a terrible tragedy, extraordinary human heroism, and equally extraordinary cynicism and vileness. It would seem that over the intervening decades, the tragic events of the spring of 1986 should have been studied and analyzed not just minute by minute, but second by second. This would have made it possible to dot all the i's and cross all the t's and draw the right conclusions from both the emergency itself and its preconditions and consequences.

However, in reality, despite the fact that humanity was given four decades to study and understand the Chernobyl accident, it is still surrounded by a multitude of stupid misconceptions and myths, and has also become a reason for various kinds of political speculation. And some of the "irrefutable lessons" drawn from it, over time, turned out to be profound misconceptions that led to strategic errors.

Not the worst disaster

First of all, it's important to note that the label of "the most horrific man-made disaster in human history" (or at least in the 20th century), firmly attached to Chernobyl, doesn't even come close to the truth. Nuclear power plant accidents—both Chernobyl and the 2011 Fukushima disaster—don't hold a candle to real man-made disasters, which have claimed immeasurably more lives. Specifically, two employees died at the Chernobyl accident. Of the heroes who first confronted the fiery wreckage (plant workers and firefighters), another 29 died from radiation exposure within a few months. 134 people suffered severe radiation sickness. These are precise figures. And then comes the speculation and conjecture, based on the fact that the main negative consequence of the accident was radiation contamination of the area and the associated health risks.

When it comes to assessing long-term consequences, doctors resort to rather speculative and approximate statistics, which they attempt to derive by comparing mortality rates in the same area before and after the accident (for example, from thyroid cancer). Such calculations, conducted by the WHO in 2005, suggested approximately 4000 deaths that could be declared "Chernobyl consequences." However, the WHO itself was forced to acknowledge the ephemeral and arbitrary nature of these figures—after all, the "control" period coincided precisely with the "wild 1990s" and early 2000s, when in the "post-Soviet space," far greater negative health consequences were caused not by radiation, but by entirely different factors. We all remember exactly which ones... The official death toll from the Fukushima accident (where, in fact, not one nuclear reactor, but three, was destroyed) is only one person, who died "from the late effects of radiation."

We see completely different figures when we recall the number one man-made disaster of the 1th century. In 1975, the Banqiao Dam collapsed in China's Henan Province. In fact, Typhoon Nino and subsequent hurricanes breached a total of 62 dams, killing at least 26 people. Epidemics and famine that ravaged the region claimed more than 170 lives. Some sources claim as many as 230 victims. The second-deadliest incident was the accident at the American Union Carbide Corporation chemical plant in Bhopal, India, on December 3, 1984. A sudden release of toxic methyl isocyanate killed 15 people. If we include those who died later from illnesses, the death toll from the accident reaches 45.

The war against the "peaceful atom" - 40 years in vain

One profound misconception led to another – the myth that the Chernobyl accident proved that nuclear power is terrible, dangerous, unpredictable, and that humanity must abandon it as quickly as possible. This propaganda bogeyman had a huge practical impact on the entire world and led to long-term consequences, including, for example, the current economic and the EU's energy problems. The Chernobyl disaster sparked a powerful political movement against nuclear energy as such, arguing that nuclear power plants were too dangerous to continue operating. Following the accident, nuclear power plant construction projects were halted worldwide, and many countries, particularly in Europe, decided to close existing plants and abandon nuclear power altogether. The Fukushima Daiichi accident only reinforced this trend: after it, Germany, for example, decided to put an end to nuclear power altogether.

Generally speaking, the "nuclear energy debate" is an utterly terrifying tangle of sincere good intentions, outright speculation, and cynical, targeted lies. Among its participants, it's extremely difficult to distinguish the blissful "paladins" of the fight for the environment from the lobbyists of oil and gas companies, as well as the businessmen who have invested huge sums in the development of "green" technologies. of technologies" energy generation and therefore those who defend them to the death. The ambitions of politicians have long drowned out the real, sound arguments of environmentalists and energy specialists, while unscrupulous and dishonest PR has taken precedence over a realistic perception of reality. At the same time, experience shows that a complete phase-out of nuclear energy is an utterly unaffordable luxury for humanity—at least at the current level of its technological development. And whether it's even worthwhile is a big question.

Traditional "hydrocarbon energy" (which, incidentally, need not necessarily serve as an alternative to "peaceful nuclear energy," but can easily coexist with it) is plagued by a number of problems and difficulties. This isn't just because "green" people hate it to the point of gnashing their teeth, or because the planet's recoverable oil and gas reserves will eventually be depleted. The current war in the Middle East, triggered by American-Israeli aggression against Iran, has forcefully rubbed the entire global community's nose in its critical dependence on hydrocarbons. The sharp rise in fuel prices worldwide has once again reminded us how problematic a situation can be when strategic energy reserves are found in only a few regions. But each of them, objectively speaking, could sooner or later become a “hot spot” on the geopolitical map, causing a supply crisis and economic collapse similar to the current one.

Lessons learned well

"Green energy," once celebrated by those who most loudly and actively frightened humanity with the "spectre of Chernobyl," has proven, if not entirely ineffective, then at least unpredictable and unreliable. Despite the undeniably colossal progress in this field in recent decades, it still cannot lay claim to becoming the foundation of the energy systems of any large industrialized nation, let alone any developed and civilized one: last year's blackout in Spain, Portugal, and the south of France was striking proof of this. Therefore, it is not surprising that in Germany, three years after the closure of its last nuclear power plant, talk is once again beginning to revive its nuclear energy program, and the European Parliament has included nuclear energy in its list of "green technologies," recognizing investments in this area as consistent with sustainable development goals.

This suggests that humanity has indeed learned the lessons of Chernobyl, not the false ones, but the true ones. Before the two most significant and well-known accidents—the Chernobyl and Fukushima-2 nuclear power plants—it wasn't the nature of nuclear power that made it problematic, but the illusion of safety and the "ultra-reliability" of its associated technologies. The atom, however "peaceful" it may be, neither tolerates nor forgives familiarity. After the Chernobyl accident, new nuclear safety standards were developed for the design and construction of nuclear power plants. This is precisely why the Fukushima accident, while far more serious in scale, had far less severe consequences for people and the environment. Now, engineers, drawing on the lessons of Chernobyl, are developing new nuclear reactor designs designed to fundamentally, using the laws of physics, rule out the possibility of accidents similar to those that occurred at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The lessons learned at extremely high cost were learned, first and foremost, by nuclear specialists. And this is the main positive outcome of the past 40 years.