Not great, not terrible: and how we communicate science today

Introduction

In April 1986, the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant suffered a catastrophic meltdown and explosion of RBMK Reactor 4. This was a preventable disaster, and though partly fictionalised, the 2019 miniseries “Chernobyl” brings to life the circumstances that allowed this to happen and disastrous management of the aftermath¹.

During a safety test, erratic behaviour was observed in Reactor number 4. Rather than shutting down the reactor immediately, Deputy chief engineer Anatoly Dyatlov pressures other workers to continue reactor operation. Subordinate engineers initially question this decision, but are ridiculed and bullied into cooperating.

Only during subsequent voltage spikes that could not be handled was an emergency shutdown attempted. Control rods were inserted, which normally would slow down the reaction. However, the delayed response meant that the reactor was now too hot and could no longer be shutdown. This was due to a design flaw in RBMK units where the absence of light water altered the balance of neutron production causing a positive feedback in fission.

A systemic failure

The TV show makes clear that the design flaw is just one of many failures that took place. The entire structure of accountability and management catalysed this process, creating the conditions for what happened.

Worse, in the aftermath of the explosion, leaders failed to take responsibility or accountability for the disaster and instead focussed on a cover up operation in complete ignorance of the science. Citizens were given no advice to find shelter indoors, to evacuate the neighbouring towns, or any other measure to prevent radiation poisoning. Many emergency workers attending the scene were unaware of the effects of exposure to radioactive material and received large doses of radiation.

Not great, not terrible

This attitude for cover up is best summarised in a scene where Dyatlov describes the dosimeter readings:

3.6 Röntgen - not great, not terrible.
— Portrayal of Anatoly Dyatlov in 2019 TV Miniseries Chernobyl

The TV series portrayal of Dyatlov claims that radiation levels of 3.6 Röntgen/hour are present in the unit 4 control room. This message is then communicated to Soviet leaders, and used to justify taking no emergency measures.

The quote is very interesting for several reasons:

1. 3.6 Röntgen/hour is certainly “not great” - a dose of radiation equivalent to modern annual limits is delivered in 1 hour. 1 week’s exposure to this level of radiation will more likely than not result in death.
2. “not terrible” is intended to downplay the situation and reassure unaware citizens that everything is ok. Instead alarm bells should be ringing and emergency measures taken, such as evacuating Pripyat and making public health announcements.
3. Above all, the important context of how the reading of 3.6 was taken is not communicated. 3.6 Röntgen/hour was the maximum possible reading on the device. The actual radiation present was orders of magnitude larger, estimated to be over 10,000 Röntgen/hour.

Preventing a Repeat

In the decades that followed, although problems remain, the atomic energy industry has taken many steps to prevent the design flaws and knowledge gaps that allowed the Chernobyl disaster to happen. The International Atomic Energy Agency has identified key measures to prevent future occurrences of similar events, including the need for effective international cooperation and transparent operation².

A Repeat

Systemic issues portrayed in 2019’s Chernobyl TV series are not unique to 1970s Soviet states. Echoes of this behaviour can be seen in responses to many modern day problems - including health, economic, and environmental crises. Wrapping this all up, I put forward today’s 3.6 Röntgen:

To stay under 1.5C, according to the IPCC, means that carbon emissions from everything that we do, buy, use or eat must peak by 2025, and tumble rapidly after that, reaching net-zero by the middle of this century.
— BBC reporting of the IPCC AR6 Physical Basis Report

The climate and ecological emergency, the greatest threat humanity faces, has been documented and explained in endless numbers of reports. Scientists have identified causes (greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem destruction) and scientists have proposed necessary measures to limit this disaster. In this context, the BBC quote (and similar reporting across mainstream media) has striking parallels to 3.6 Röntgen:

1. “not great” - this timeframe gives us less than 3 years to act and reduce emissions. But there is no framing of the implications this has, that the global economy is entirely unable to respond to this.
2. “not terrible” - we are constantly fed messages by the media and those in power that economic “green growth” is possible and appropriate. COP26 president Alok Sharma proudly boasts that he kept “1.5°C alive”. But alarm bells should be ringing, like with the messaging of youth activists, Fridays for Future “the world is on fire”, and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres “code red for humanity”.
3. Just as the dosimeter was limited to a maximum reading of 3.6 Röntgen, the widely reported 2025 misunderstands the science it is quoting³⁴. The Quoted report is based on a climate model, where time is split into 5 year chunks⁵. The period in which emissions must peak is 2020-2025.

In 2019’s TV series, Belarusian scientist Ulyana Khomyuk recognises that those in power are failing to act. In secret, she conducts dozens of interviews, analyses censored scientific papers, and reconstructs what has happened. She confronts authority and is soon arrested. But her actions contribute towards an eventual response from Soviet leaders. Ulyana Khomyuk is a fictionalised representation of the actions taken by many Soviet scientists. Today, the scientific and academic community must all be Ulyana. We must recognise the emergency we are in, and act now!

Our society, like Dyatlov, remains fixated on continuing with usual operation, despite the early warning signs such as this summer’s 40°C UK heatwave (welcome to one of Earth’s coldest summmers for the rest of your life!). Instead of taking emergency action, we are fed the mantra of neoliberalism. Whilst society’s richest fly around in private jets, governments will not implement many of the simplest of measures to reduce emissions, like insulating homes that would also directly benefit the most vulnerable people and tackle the cost of living crisis.

Questioning the legitimacy of those in power or the economic system is taboo⁶, don’t you know that there is no alternative?!