This article was originally published in the 23 April 1987 issue of 快猫短视频, a year after the Chernobyl accident occurred.聽
Science and technology took a beating in the press in the first months of 1986. There had been the Challenger explosion and there was continuing uproar about nuclear waste, signalled by that infallible evidence of public debate in Britain, the daubing of slogans on motorway bridges. Sellafield and its mysterious sequence of mishaps was hardly ever out of the news or the mouths of MPs, both uncomfortable places for the nuclear industry. In the US, it was reported, some workers at a nuclear plant had heated up an overfull tank of liquid radioactive waste to reduce its volume, the way cooks do with a sauce. This, if noticed, was probably put down to the slaphappiness of Americans, and the nuclear industry in particular. The successful meeting of spacecraft and Halley鈥檚 Comet hardly made up for the unease about technology in general, and nuclear matters especially. Early in April, the new chairman of British Nuclear Fuels was saying that the nuclear industry had to learn to adjust to the outside world, to communicate with it in everyday language, while denying that the industry was defensive and secretive. The points were to be made sharper by events elsewhere.
Advertisement
On the last weekend in April, a cloud of radioactive material blew across Scandinavia. The culprit was a reactor at one of the Soviet Union鈥檚 largest nuclear power stations, at Chernobyl. The catastrophe did not burst into the headlines all at once, as catastrophes generally do in the Western world. Accidents in the Soviet Union, for one reason or another, slowly develop, so that the newspapers were watching, as it were, a nuclear disaster in slow motion or a jigsaw gradually being pieced together. So how did the daily papers in Britain handle the news of the Chernobyl catastrophe? A study of those first few days is certainly enlightening.
Tuesday, 29 April 1986
The papers were in no doubt from the reports coming in from their diplomatic corespondents, foreign staff and the agencies that, some days before, an accident of an appalling nature had happened. 快猫短视频s had detected radioactive fallout in Sweden and traced it to the area around Kiev in the Soviet Union.
鈥淪erious accident hits nuclear power plant in Soviet Union,鈥 said the Financial Times, reporting the official (and terse) announcement from the Soviet news agency, TASS, that one of the reactors at Chernobyl had been damaged. It printed a map of northern Europe that located the nuclear site and quoted remarks from Swedish authorities outraged at the lack of warning from the Soviets. It also carried some details of the capacity and design of the reactor concerned. The Times was a little more excited (鈥淗uge nuclear leak at Soviet plant鈥, 鈥淥verheating of nuclear fuel raises fear of possible meltdown鈥, 鈥淓uropean alarm鈥 and 鈥淢oscow acts鈥), and gave the news much more prominence. It, too, printed a map, with arrows to show the track of the radioactive cloud, reminiscent of those over the same territory a generation before, showing German attacks.
Science journalists were concerned early on. The Times鈥檚 science editor reported the opinion of the spokesman from the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) that Britain had no need to fear radiation released in the accident (鈥淏ritain safe, says watchdog body鈥), and a rather soothing statement from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The Guardian was lower in temperature (鈥淩adioactive Russian dust cloud escapes鈥), and filled its space with a rundown of facts about other nuclear accidents and an explanation by its science correspondent of the types of radioisotope released and their effects on the human body. The Daily Telegraph remained cool, with a straightforward account of events so far.
It looked as if the so-called 鈥渜uality鈥 newspapers were, on the whole, holding off until more was known; the big question in everyone鈥檚 mind was: What precisely had happened?
The popular press, or at least its subeditors, was in no doubt about the dimensions of the accident from the start. Its stories were based on no more than the other papers had, but the headlines were definite enough. 鈥淎tom cloud horror鈥, said The Star; the Daily Express, 鈥淣uclear disaster-radioactive cloud heads for Britain鈥; and 鈥淩ussia鈥檚 cloud of death鈥 in The Mirror. Today raised a mild eyebrow with 鈥淎tom leak鈥, but the Sun was less inhibited. 鈥淩ed nuke disaster鈥, it yelled. 鈥淪cores feared dead. Thousands flee leak.鈥 It was clear that Chernobyl was about to become as well, or better, known than Three Mile Island or Windscale. Perhaps a hint of Schadenfreude crept into the report of 鈥淎n American nuclear safety expert鈥 who had said that 鈥渢he leak made Three Mile Island look like a tea-party鈥.
Wednesday, 30 April 1986
The next day demonstrated that the press had got its second wind. Incidentally, so had the wide boys of the international markets. They had shrewdly seen that if the leak from Chernobyl contaminated the ground water of the lush, grain producing areas of the Ukraine, then spring and winter wheat would be affected. Reports claimed that wheat futures were climbing at a great rate. All the papers carried accounts of parliamentary debates in which 鈥渙utbursts from all sides鈥 had shown the anger at the scarcity of information coming from the Soviet Union. In the uproar, a cautionary article in the Financial Times struck an odd note. Headed 鈥淲hen total publicity served only to alarm and confuse鈥, it warned against the effects of conflicting statements. This, apparently, was one of the worst features of press reports of Three Mile Island and was liable to cause confusion, panic and cynicism. Elsewhere, the paper said that pictures from American satellites showed that the roof of the reactor had been blown off. The FT鈥檚 science editor, in a long article which detailed the construction of the Soviet reactor and explained its system, still had nothing definite to offer about the cause of the accident but emphasised its seriousness: 鈥淭hose I spoke to yesterday about the problem of fighting a major fire in such a reactor expressed nothing but horror at its magnitude. No one had any ideas.鈥
The Financial Times, as did many others, pointed out that the Chernobyl reactor was of a type that had no containment of the kind demanded by authorities in the West. (Several quoted an article in the official magazine Soviet Life that described the reactor as 鈥渢otally safe鈥.) The Times, nevertheless, had a diagram under the title 鈥淲hat happened at Chernobyl鈥 (nobody yet knew this showing a containment wall around it. 鈥淕igantic reactor 鈥榢ettle鈥 that became a killer鈥, said The Times. Elsewhere it had an article by Ian Smart, an energy consultant, headed 鈥淐hernobyl is not Sizewell鈥, and illustrated, not entirely relevantly, with a skull surrounding the formal sign for radioactivity. This stressed the likelihood of the disaster being a peculiarly Soviet problem because of differences in design and then said: 鈥溾 the large number of independent cooling circuits in an RBMK makes it hard to believe that this [loss of coolant] could happen in routine circumstances without extraordinary negligence on the part of its operators鈥. In the light of later revelations, the author鈥檚 name is appropriate.
The Telegraph had abandoned its cool by 30 April: 鈥25 000 flee nuclear plant disaster鈥, 鈥淗elp us plea by Moscow鈥 and 鈥淢eltdown could kill 10 000 in 10 years鈥, it printed, along with a cartoon depicting Death looking up appointments for the year 2006. The Guardian saw that better safety precautions for nuclear reactors could provide business opportunities, and had another diagram of the radioactive plume curving round Helsinki and heading back to Russia. Nearly every page of the paper had some reference to the disaster. From Washington, it reported American pressure on the Soviets to release all available information on the accident. It also mentioned a subject that other papers were starting to raise: the effect of the disaster on Eastern European countries and Soviet allies, not only from drifting radioactivity, but on exports of electric power from the Soviet Union to them.
By now, the papers were beginning to appreciate the far-reaching consequences of the accident and nearly all were expanding their coverage in what some journalists call 鈥渢hink pieces鈥. The Guardian characterised the Soviet Union as the last stronghold of the Victorian idea that science was progress, an idea that Chernobyl was bound to shake and possibly shake most in the historically independent areas of the聽republic and its satellites, such as the Ukraine, Latvia and Lithuania. It foresaw, too, greater opposition to British plans for nuclear power stations and disposal of waste. A leader, while agreeing that it would be premature to draw conclusions on safety matters, advocated more attention to 鈥済reen鈥 policies and said that the question of the limits of technological tolerance鈥 should be addressed. The Telegraph took a firm line with the Soviet Union, saying that planners cut corners, accepted defective equipment and threw safety precautions out of the window (presumably not even looking to see if anyone was underneath). It pointed out that nobody had ever been killed in a Western nuclear power station. A leader in The Times, under the title 鈥淣uclear paranoia鈥, made scornful remarks about a statement by the chairman of the CND that a disaster of the Chernobyl type could occur in Britain and called, like everyone else, for a 鈥渧ital鈥 explanation of the cause of the accident. In one of the columns of reporting on Chernobyl, it said that the Central Electricity Generating Board, conscious of the antinuclear climate, was working on a new type of coal-fired station, but left it unsatisfyingly at that.
The tabloids were on the second day of boil and one 鈥 Today -had discovered the reason for the reactor fire. A power station worker, it said, 鈥渄ozed off on the job鈥. This was reported under headlines such as 鈥淗elp us plea as Russians writhe in nuclear agony鈥 and 鈥淣uclear nightmare鈥. The Star, with more patriotism than objectivity in reporting the same Soviet request for assistance, ran the headlines 鈥淗ELP! Russia鈥檚 disaster plea to the West. Only our experts can save the day.鈥 The paper鈥檚 leaders are always printed under the legend, 鈥淭he Star says鈥. The Star said that the Soviet Union must come clean and then, mysteriously: 鈥淣o decision on Sizewell can possibly be taken until all the causes and consequences of the Chernobyl incident are analysed. And surely the Soviets will realise this鈥-a remark that was asking a lot of the Soviets at the time, faced as they were, according to the Daily Express, with a 鈥渘uclear nightmare鈥 demanding 鈥渟uicide squads on edge of hell鈥 to fight the fire. The paper said that 100 000 were doomed, while the Daily Mail was more sober, 鈥2000 dead in atom horror鈥. It was less certain of events than some of its contemporaries, saying only that initial reports 鈥渟uggested that a sleepy worker may have missed the first alarm鈥. It was not the only newspaper to quote John Donne鈥檚 鈥淣o man is an island鈥 etc while referring to the drifting radioactive cloud.
The Sun regained its nerve with 鈥淎 pretty British student trapped inside the Russian nuclear disaster area pleaded to be rescued last night鈥, a story based on a telephone call. The Mirror鈥檚 front page led with the same story, 鈥淧lease get me out, Mummy鈥. Inside was a much more sensible view. Generally supporting the development of nuclear power, the paper said that whatever other arguments might be deployed, not telling the truth about it 鈥渉as certainly made it dreaded鈥. The Morning Star, torn perhaps between its antinuclear and pro-Soviet line, stuck to official statements with the muted 鈥淭wo die in accident at Soviet nuclear station鈥. Scottish papers were altogether more restrained than Fleet Street, with The Scotsman reporting the Swedish indignation at Soviet reticence and the Glasgow Herald keeping to facts.
Thursday, 1 May聽1986
Most papers reported the news programme on Soviet television which showed the Chernobyl reactor with fire out and under control, but there was still no word from high Soviet authority. Nearly all the papers carried the claim from the US that a second reactor was in trouble, a claim based on satellite photographs that appeared to show 鈥渉otspots鈥 elsewhere on the site. 鈥淪o much for 鈥榞lasnost鈥, the Russian word which means 鈥榦penness鈥,鈥 said The Guardian, reiterating anxiety about the tatters of information released from Moscow. Its leader hacked away at the subject, with the opinion that Gorbachov鈥檚 successes in international public relations had been obliterated overnight. The Daily Telegraph said outright that a second reactor was on fire, appearing to draw the conclusion from a Soviet radio 鈥渉am鈥 鈥 though it described him as a short-wave radio operator 鈥 who talked about explosions and mass evacuations. A columnist in The Times said: 鈥淚n this country the combination of Chernobyl and the Libyan bombing is likely to strengthen the hand of those who want the Labour Party to stick to its policy of getting rid of American nuclear bases鈥 鈥 which possibly was an accurate reflection of the utter confusion that Soviet silence had sown in the outside world. With the aplomb of one keeping his eye on the ball among all this, the paper asked, in a leader, 鈥淪hould Britain now have an energy policy?鈥
The Daily Express weighed in with a dire description, furnished by Friends of the Earth, of the consequences of a similar accident at Hinkley Point. It called this 鈥減rophetic鈥. The Mirror had an attack of near hysteria. 鈥淣ow will the whole plant explode?鈥 it cried. 鈥淎 second nuclear reactor exploded in Russia yesterday. Panic is spreading. Panic in the countries which border on the Soviet Union. Panic in their streets. Panic over a whole continent.鈥 Its readers proved steadier, and on another page the paper, too, showed a calmer tone: 鈥淎fter the atom disaster, we reveal what CAN be done.鈥 This was conveyed in a series of questions and answers. 鈥淨. What is the first priority at Chernobyl? A. To put out the fire and stop radiation escaping. Q. How can this be done? A. 快猫短视频s aren鈥檛 sure.鈥 The Sun was hitting straight from the shoulder as usual with 鈥淭he masters of the Kremlin do not give a damn about people鈥, while the Morning Star was reporting Soviet resentment about its treatment over the accident. 鈥淯SSR denies wild rumours,鈥 it said and passed on the information that 197 people had been hospitalised and that factories, farms and institutions in the area were working normally. But this did not fool The Star: 鈥淭he world asks, 鈥榃hat in hell is going on?鈥欌
Friday, 2 May 1986
The normal parades were held in Moscow on May Day and the British papers noted the occasion with passion spent. Only the Express found the pressure of blood to print, 鈥淎s nuclear fury grows, parade goes on鈥. Most of the dailies, including the Scottish ones, were still hitting at the sealed lips of the Soviets, and John Donne and glasnost appeared once more. In The Times, one of those puzzling people who surface in crises to pronounce for the benefit of correspondents duly did so. He was an 鈥淎merican economic expert鈥 who happened to be in the Moscow crowd. He said that the Ukraine was the Soviet Union鈥檚 breadbasket and that the long-term effects of the accident would be bad.
The popular papers concentrated on British students returning home from Kiev. 鈥淥rdeal of the A-blast Brits鈥 and 鈥淒oomwatch check on atom students鈥. The students, arriving in clothing provided for them while their own was monitored for radiation, were alarmed, mystified, relieved and fed up at having their studies interrupted, depending on the paper you read. The Morning Star said that they did not want to leave Kiev and that radiation levels at Chernobyl were declining, while 18 people were in serious condition.
Saturday, 3 May聽1986
The weekend had been reached鈥攁 holiday weekend to boot. The arrival of the wisps of the radioactive plume over Britain brought little reaction. The newspapers were content to report the NRPB鈥檚 statement that there was absolutely no danger from the fallout. Even the strange proviso that it would be advisable to stop drinking rainwater 鈥渃ontinuously鈥, as the statement said, excited few.
There was to be a press conference in Moscow. On the one side would be the Soviets, complaining that the coverage by the Western media of the disaster was despicable 鈥渟landerous inventions around the Chernobyl nuclear accident鈥濃攁nd on the other, criticisms that the Soviets had done their best to hide what it was impossible to conceal.
There is little reward in following the progress of events from this point: the heroic efforts of the Soviets to seal off the bottom of the core, at last successful, and the gradual emergence of more information, culminating in the surprisingly frank admission, for Moscow, of almost unbelievable, arrogant mishandling of the reactor that made the catastrophe inevitable. The newspapers handled these developments in typical fashion.
Are there any valuable conclusions to be drawn from the reporting of the first few days of cataclysm? There are some, I think. First is that, whatever the treatment of the accident in the British press, there was not one word unsympathetic to the suffering Soviet people. There were, certainly, some hard things said about designers and technologists in the Soviet Union, but none that would not have been said, and most likely has been said, about their British equivalents. The heavier dailies did their quite impressive best with a story that frustrated them from the beginning for its absence of salient facts. The tabloids, despite occasional forays over the top, did the same for their readers. They knew, from the pricking of their thumbs, that the disaster was worse than the Soviets were admitting. The language they used was sometimes lurid and may have offended some, but I doubt whether it was anywhere near as forceful as that employed by Soviets on the spot. It is easy to pick out the jumps to conclusions or the unwarranted headlines, but it is true that the newspapers as a whole and the tabloids in particular were, because of the secrecy of the Soviets, negotiating territory with only the sketchiest of maps. Navigational errors were unavoidable.
I am aware that choosing what to mention from the mass of reports in many papers leaves me open to accusations of bias, conscious or unconscious. I have no defence. But I shall not be persuaded that the press did other than an excellent job on the news of the worst nuclear accident in history.
