Chernobyl at 40 years: Looking back at Nuclear News

Before the accident: Chernobyl-4 entered operation in April 1984. It was preceded by three other units that entered operation in 1982, 1979, and 1978. There is only one notable reference to Chernobyl in the Nuclear News archives prior to the 1986 accident. In the November 1982 issue of NN, the reactors at Chernobyl were described as part of a new fleet of 1000-MWe light water–cooled, graphite-moderated reactors. These LGRs were described as having a “somewhat smoother introduction” in the Soviet Union than previous reactor types due to the “modular nature” of their design.

NN on the accident: On April 29, 1986, the back page of Kyiv’s main newspaper included a brief story headlined “Information of the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR,” which read: “An accident has occurred at the Chernobyl nuclear power station. One of the reactors was damaged. Remedial action is being taken to eliminate the consequences. Victims are being treated. A government commission of inquiry has been set up.”

This undramatic first media accounting of the accident stands in sharp contrast to the expansive and detailed reporting that would soon follow. NN’s first article on the subject, titled simply “The Chernobyl Accident,” came in the June 1986 issue.

There, Chernobyl is described as “the most serious” nuclear accident ever when measured by number of human casualties, the amount of radiation released, the physical damage to the plant, and “the resultant aggravations to already strained relations among nations.”

NN then gives a detailed description of how the accident developed. On April 26, during a scheduled maintenance shutdown of Unit 4, the reactor’s power suddenly increased. Unknown to reporters at the time, this power increase was caused by a reactor operator pressing a button meant to scram the reactor by inserting control rods. The reason for this mistake remains unknown today. Due to a known design flaw in the control rods, their insertion, rather than reducing reactivity, briefly caused an increase in reactivity and heat. In the case of Chernobyl-4, circumstances were such that this increase in heat caused fuel to rupture, which led to a steam explosion.

Seconds later, a second explosion of a debated cause rocked the reactor. Both explosions caused immediate, extensive damage to the reactor and set the surrounding building ablaze. Coolant leaks followed shortly thereafter, after which came the most serious development: a fire in the hot graphite moderator. The heat of this fire (which was estimated to have been as high as 5,000°C) was likely one of the main factors in pushing a plume of radioactivity high into the atmosphere and distributing it widely across northern Europe.

About 36 hours after the first explosions, people within a 10-kilometer radius of Chernobyl began evacuating. A wider evacuation, encompassing a 30-kilometer radius, began five days later. Measurements showed that the maximum radiation levels within the expanded zone were as high as 10–15 millirems per hour. Local officials reported that, in all, more than 90,000 people were involved in this evacuation.

By June, at NN’s first reporting, nuclear projects were already being reconsidered, canceled, or paused in Yugoslavia, the Netherlands, Austria, Sweden, Denmark, and beyond.

One decade later: In late 1995, Simon Rippon, then international editor of NN, visited Chernobyl to see for himself how the power plant was faring a decade after the destruction of Unit 4. By then, the Soviet Union had dissolved, the larger evacuation area had roughly taken shape into a permanent exclusion zone, and Chernobyl’s enduring legacy had significantly increased nuclear opposition in much of Europe.

Rippon reflected on how Chernobyl had already been established as probably the most written-about natural or man-made disaster ever, and how fear over radiation was now commonplace. Governments around the world “were not immune from the influence of these psychological fears,” and made varied reforms to nuclear regulations that were “largely determined by socioeconomic, political, and psychological factors rather than by radiological factors.”

At Chernobyl itself, “mountainous piles of scrap metal and equipment” were still present at the site, where two reactors still operated and a protective sarcophagus had been erected around Unit 4. (Unit 2 had been shut down in 1991 following an unrelated turbine fire.)

Despite Chernobyl’s grim legacy, the mood at the plant was positive overall. Rippon talked with Artur Korneyev, the site’s deputy manager, who had received a 120-rem dose during his three weeks supervising hectic cleanup operations on the roof of Unit 4’s turbine hall but was nonetheless “happy to return” to his post.

Korneyev compared the first days after the explosion—shoveling fragments of hot fuel and graphite onto the still-smoldering heap of the destroyed reactor—to how things looked today. A newly painted sarcophagus, extensive roof repairs, and even groundwork being done to lay new grass were all, for Korneyev, indications that the plant was on the right track. He, and most everyone Rippon talked to, was in favor of the plant staying open (and Unit 2 being restarted) until 2010–2015 to raise funds (through electricity sales, which accounted for $200 million a year) for the extensive decommissioning and cleanup work the site would require.

20 years on: Despite the hopes of the Chernobyl staff, Unit 2 was never restarted, and Units 1 and 3 were both shut down by the end of 2000. By 2006, when NN did its next deep dive on Chernobyl, attention had turned to decommissioning, decontamination, and what the future of the exclusion zone would look like. Construction of the New Safe Confinement (NSC)—a structure built to protect the old, decaying sarcophagus and allow the complete dismantlement of the wreckage beneath—was underway.

Discord had arisen between Ukraine and the international community at the country’s refusal to shut down Chernobyl’s remaining units. When it relented and agreed to transition fully to the hard work of cleanup, aid flowed in from around the world to help Ukraine tackle the task.

As this complicated work progressed on many fronts, eyes turned to the exclusion zone. There, a striking and now well-known story began to emerge. “A renewed but wild landscape, teeming with vegetation” and animal life was thriving in the 30 kilometers around the plant. What’s more, some people, dubbed “self-settlers,” had moved back into their old homes in the exclusion zone and began carrying on with their everyday lives.

Looking back today: In 2016, 30 years after the disaster, the NSC was finally put in place. For Chernobyl, the last 20 years have been a slow story of arduous cleanup work—work that has been significantly challenged in recent years by the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, most notably by a drone strike in 2025 that ripped a hole through the NSC.

Beyond Ukraine, many speculate on the overall impact that Chernobyl ultimately had on the peaceful development of nuclear power. Specific actions, both positive and negative, can be traced directly back to the disaster. The World Association of Nuclear Operators, or WANO, was formed in direct response to Chernobyl, and has done a massive amount of work to increase nuclear safety internationally. On the other hand, Germany’s abandonment of its nuclear sector—which once provided more than half of the country’s power—led to untold economic and environmental costs.

Chernobyl’s legacy is cemented as one of the public’s key touchstones with nuclear power. It remains a common talking point of nuclear opponents, and experts today continue to explain how the failures that led to the accident are now relics of an industry that bears little resemblance to the nuclear world of the 21st century.

Still, 40 years later, there are some indications that Chernobyl’s impact is fading—nuclear momentum is high around the world, and public support, particularly among younger generations, is trending upward. As new plans for the next generation of reactors develop, Chernobyl is sure to stand as an reminder of why the nuclear industry works so hard to uphold its rigorous safety culture.