Authors : Jasper S. Caparic; Levy Donor; Eunice B. Dosmanos; Gecelene C. Estorico

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 3 - March

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/bdfpxf3n

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2p8x9n7k

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25mar748

Google Scholar

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 15 to 20 days to display the article.

Abstract : Nuclear disasters have had profound and lasting effects on human health, the environment, and energy policies worldwide. This systematic review examined five major nuclear accidents: Kyshtym (1957), Windscale (1957), Three Mile Island (1979), Chernobyl (1986), and Fukushima (2011)—to analyze their radiation exposure, environmental impact, and health consequences. Using peer-reviewed literature from 2010 to 2025, the study evaluates the severity of radioactive releases, the isotopes involved, affected populations, and decontamination measures implemented. The results indicated significant variations in the magnitude of radioactive emissions, with Chernobyl releasing the highest radiation (5,300 PBq), leading to widespread contamination and long-term health effects, including over 6,000 thyroid cancer cases. Fukushima, despite being classified as a Level 7 event, had a much lower radiation release (520 PBq) but caused severe psychological distress and displacement of thousands of residents. Windscale and Three Mile Island, though lower in severity, had critical implications for nuclear policies and public perception. The study also explores the long-term environmental consequences of these disasters, including soil and water contamination, bioaccumulation of radioactive isotopes, and ecosystem disruptions. Decontamination efforts varied, with strategies ranging from reactor containment and topsoil removal to advanced filtration techniques. The review highlights key lessons in nuclear safety, including the role of human error, inadequate reactor designs, and the effectiveness of emergency response protocols. Findings underscore the necessity of stricter safety regulations, improved reactor technologies, and sustainable energy alternatives to minimize the risks associated with nuclear power. Understanding past disasters is crucial in preventing future nuclear crises and ensuring a more resilient approach to energy production and disaster preparedness.

Keywords : Nuclear Power Plants; Radioisotopes; Iodine 131; Cesium 137; Chernobyl; Fukushima; Kyshtym; Windscale; Three Mile Island.

References :

1. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2011.01.502  
2. Radiation: Health consequences of the Fukushima nuclear accident. (March 2016). https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/health-consequences-of-fukushima-nuclear-accident 
3. Min, S., (June 2018). The Windscale Fire: A Disaster and its Consequences in Great Britain. http://171.67.100.116/courses/2018/ph241/min1/ 
4. Othman, Siti., (2019). Radiation Biophysics. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336048796_Radiation_Biophysics  
5. Steinhauser, G., Brandl, A., & Johnson, T. E. (2013). Comparison of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear accidents: A review of the environmental impacts. The Science of the Total Environment, 470–471, 800–817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.10.029
6. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clon.2011.01.502
7. Hasegawa, A., Tanigawa, K., Ohtsuru, A., Yabe, H., Maeda, M., Shigemura, J., Ohira, T., Tominaga, T., Akashi, M., Hirohashi, N., Ishikawa, T., Kamiya, K., Shibuya, K., Yamashita, S., & Chhem, R. K. (2015). Health effects of radiation and other health problems in the aftermath of nuclear accidents, with an emphasis on Fukushima. The Lancet, 386(9992), 479–488. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(15)61106-0
8. Chernobyl 30 years on: Environmental and health effects | Think Tank | European Parliament. (n.d.). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_BRI(2016)581972
9. The Windscale Fire: A Disaster and its Consequences in Great Britain. (n.d.). http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/min1/
10. McNally, R. J. Q., Wakeford, R., James, P. W., Basta, N. O., Alston, R. D., Pearce, M. S., & Elliott, A. T. (2016). A geographical study of thyroid cancer incidence in north-west England following the Windscale nuclear reactor fire of 1957. Journal of Radiological Protection, 36(4), 934–952. https://doi.org/10.1088/0952-4746/36/4/934
11. Ali, Ahmed and Farouk, Tarek, Analyzing the Impact and Response Strategies of Nuclear and Radiation Accidents (September 01, 2024). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4950916 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4950916
12. Hoeve, J. E. T., & Jacobson, M. Z. (2012). Worldwide health effects of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Energy & Environmental Science, 5(9), 8743. https://doi.org/10.1039/c2ee22019a
13. Rashad, S., & Hammad, F. (2000). Nuclear power and the environment. Applied Energy, 65(1–4), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0306-2619(99)00069-0
14. Imanaka, T., Hayashi, G., & Endo, S. (2015). Comparison of the accident process, radioactivity release and ground contamination between Chernobyl and Fukushima-1. Journal of Radiation Research, 56(suppl 1), i56–i61. https://doi.org/10.1093/jrr/rrv074
15. Radiological risk assessment and environmental analysis. (n.d.). Google Books. https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=33s7DwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PR11&dq=Analyzing+Radiation+Exposure,+Environmental+Impact,+and+Health+Consequences+in+Nuclear+Disasters&ots=-vNX3DrM-I&sig=t3uOGBBPkd5GKL-TWTR2uZEEVts&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Analyzing%20Radiation%20Exposure%2C%20Environmental%20Impact%2C%20and%20Health%20Consequences%20in%20Nuclear%20Disasters&f=false
16. Penney, W., Schonland, B. F. J., Kay, J. M., Diamond, J., & Peirson, D. E. H. (2017). Report on the accident at Windscale No. 1 Pile on 10 October 1957. Journal of Radiological Protection, 37(3), 780–796. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/aa7788
17. Högberg, L. (2013). Root causes and impacts of severe accidents at large nuclear power plants. AMBIO, 42(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-013-0382-x
18. Yoshida, N., & Kanda, J. (2012). Tracking the Fukushima Radionuclides. Science, 336(6085), 1115–1116. doi:10.1126/science.1219493
19. Ohnishi, T. (2011). The Disaster at Japan’s Fukushima-Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after the March 11, 2011 Earthquake and Tsunami, and the Resulting Spread of Radioisotope Contamination1. Radiation Research, 177(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1667/rr2830.1
20. Nuclear power and the environment. (n.d.). Google Books. https://books.google.com.ph/books?hl=en&lr=&id=mnIoDwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA57&dq=kyshtym+exten&ots=wUlyIMv8HZ&sig=At_KzT6nWRcv12cCU9Tdf1wImHs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=kyshtym%20exten&f=false
21. Bromet, E. J. (2013). Emotional consequences of nuclear power plant disasters. Health Physics, 106(2), 206–210. https://doi.org/10.1097/hp.0000000000000012
22. Prăvălie, R., & Bandoc, G. (2018). Nuclear energy: Between global electricity demand, worldwide decarbonisation imperativeness, and planetary environmental implications. Journal of Environmental Management, 209, 81–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2017.12.043
23. The Windscale Fire: A Disaster and its Consequences in Great Britain. (n.d.-b). http://171.67.100.116/courses/2018/ph241/min1/
24. Othman, Siti Amira., (2019) Radiation Biophysics https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336048796_Radiation_Biophysics
25. Vasilenko, E. K., Aladova, E. E., Gorelov, M. V., Knyazev, V. A., Kolupaev, D. V., & Romanov, S. A. (2020). The radiological environment at the Mayak PA site and radiation doses to individuals involved in emergency and remediation operations after the ‘Kyshtym Accident’ in 1957. Journal of Radiological Protection, 40(2), R23–R45. https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6498/ab8711
26. Sexton, R. J. (2007). Windscale Pile Reactors: Decommissioning progress on a fifty year legacy. 11th International Conference on Environmental Remediation and Radioactive Waste Management, Parts a and B, 19–25. https://doi.org/10.1115/icem2007-7157
27. Dougherty, D., & Adams, J. W. (1983). Evaluation of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor building decontamination process. https://doi.org/10.2172/5867880
28. Yurchenko, Y. F. (1988). Estimating the effectiveness of mechanical decontamination technologies used at Chernobyl’. Soviet Atomic Energy, 64(4), 306–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01123592
29. Parajuli, D., Tanaka, H., Hakuta, Y., Minami, K., Fukuda, S., Umeoka, K., Kamimura, R., Hayashi, Y., Ouchi, M., & Kawamoto, T. (2013). Dealing with the Aftermath of Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident: Decontamination of Radioactive Cesium Enriched Ash. Environmental Science & Technology, 47(8), 3800–3806. https://doi.org/10.1021/es303467n .