# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1980s: Conservatism, Cold War and Computers | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1980s was an era defined by conservative politics, the rise of computer technology, the AIDS crisis and the end of the Cold War, as well as 1980s fashion and music.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
1980s: Fashion, Movies & Politics | HISTORY

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The 1980s were a decade of political conservatism, such as President Ronald Reagan’s Reaganomics, and of blockbuster movies, pop culture and fashion on MTV.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Historical Resources

On January 28, 1986, NASA and the American people were rocked as tragedy unfolded 73 seconds into the flight of Space Shuttle Challenger's STS-51L mission. Presented below are documents and resources about the accident and its aftermath.

Payload Specialist "Teacher in Space Project"

The Challenger shuttle crew, of seven astronauts-including the pilot, aerospace engineers, and scientists-died tragically in the explosion of their spacecraft during the...

Read the Story

STS-51L

STS-51-L was the 25th mission of the NASA Space Shuttle program and the final flight of Space Shuttle Challenger.

Learn More

Discover More Topics From NASA

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Historical Resources On January 28, 1986, NASA and the American people were rocked as tragedy unfolded 73 seconds into the flight of Space Shuttle Challenger's STS-51L mission. Presented below are documents and resources about the accident and its aftermath.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
APE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- The space shuttle Challenger exploded in a ball of fire shortly after it left the launching pad today, and all seven astronauts on board were lost.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Floating freely on the flight deck, Sally Ride communicates with ground controllers in Houston during her STS-7 mission in June 1983.

Credit: NASA

Sally Ride became the first American woman to go into space when she flew on the space shuttle Challenger on June 18, 1983. She made two shuttle flights, and later became a champion for science education and a role model for generations. Ride died of cancer in 2012.

Born in Encino, Calif., on May 26, 1951, Sally Kristen Ride was the older of two daughters of Dale B. Ride and Carol Joyce (Anderson) Ride. Her father was a professor of political science and her mother was a counselor. While neither had a background in the physical sciences, she credited them with fostering her deep interest in science by encouraging her to explore.

An athletic youngster, Ride attended Westlake High School for Girls, a prep school in Los Angeles, on a partial tennis scholarship. She graduated in 1968. After a brief foray into professional tennis, she returned to California to attend Stanford University. There she received a bachelor of science degree in physics and a bachelor of arts degree in English in 1973. Furthering her studies at Stanford, she obtained a master of science degree in 1975 and a doctorate in physics in 1978, according to a NASA biography of Ride.

After completing her studies at Stanford, Ride applied to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Besting thousands of applicants, Ride was selected as one of NASA's first six female astronauts and began spaceflight training in 1978.

Ride started her aeronautics career on the ground, serving as a capsule communicator (CAPCOM) as part of the ground-support crew for the second (November 1981) and third (March 1982) shuttle flights.

At 32, Ride experienced her first spaceflight as a mission specialist on STS-7, NASA's seventh shuttle mission, aboard the space shuttle Challenger. The mission launched on June 18, 1983, and returned to Earth on June 24. Tasks on the mission included launching communications satellites for Canada and Indonesia. The astronauts also conducted the first successful satellite deployment and retrieval in space using the shuttle's robotic arm. During the flight, Ride became the first woman to operate the shuttle's robotic arm.

Ride's history-making Challenger mission was not her only spaceflight. She also became the first American woman to travel to space a second time when she launched on another Challenger mission, STS-41-G, on Oct. 5, 1984. That mission lasted nine days. On that flight, she used the shuttle's robotic arm to remove ice from the shuttle's exterior and to readjust a radar antenna. Ride was assigned to a third shuttle mission, but her crew's training was cut short by the Challenger disaster in January 1986. [Images: Sally Ride: First American Woman in Space]

While Ride shaped the future of space aeronautics on her first historic Challenger flight, she continued to influence the space program after her days of space travel were over. Ride served on the accident investigation boards set up in response to the two space shuttle tragedies - Challenger in 1986 and Columbia in 2003. In 2009, she participated in the Augustine committee that helped define NASA's spaceflight goals.

From 1982 to 1987, Ride was married to fellow astronaut Steven Hawley. They had no children.

Former astronaut Sally Ride talks to young women at the Sally Ride Science Festival, held at the University of Central Florida, Orlando, Fla., in 2003.

Credit: NASA

After she left NASA in 1987, her passion for space and science continued. Ride joined Stanford University Center for International Security and Arms Control. She later became a professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego. She served as president of Space.com from 1999 to 2000.

Believing that it was important encourage students - especially girls - to embrace the study of science, she co-founded Sally Ride Science, a science outreach company, in 2001, with her partner, Tam O'Shaughnessy. One of the company's efforts included adding the MoonKam experiment onto unmanned NASA's Grail moon gravity probes, which allowed students to choose and take their own photos of the moon from lunar orbit.

Ride also wrote five science-related children's books: "To Space and Back"; "Voyager"; "The Third Planet"; "The Mystery of Mars"; and "Exploring Our Solar System."

Ride died on July 23, 2012, at the age of 61 following a 17-month battle with pancreatic cancer.

Ride received numerous accolades shortly after her death. The spot on the moon where NASA intentionally crashed Ebb and Flow, the two gravity-mapping probes in the Grail mission, was named after her. Ride had played a key role in the project's education and outreach efforts. The U.S. Navy named a research ship after the astronaut. President Barack Obama posthumously awarded her the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation's highest civilian honor, in November 2013.

"As the first American woman in space, Sally did not just break the stratospheric glass ceiling, she blasted through it," Obama said. "And when she came back to Earth, she devoted her life to helping girls excel in fields like math, science and engineering."

In 2014, journalist Lynn Sherr released a book about Sally Ride called " Sally Ride: America's First Woman In Space." Sherr had covered Ride's career extensively while working for ABC News, and over the years the two women became friends. Shortly after the book was published, Sherr did an interview with Space.com partner collectSPACE about Ride's career and the importance of the women's movement in her life.

O'Shaughnessy also wrote a children's biography of Ride, called " Sally Ride: A Photobiography of America's Pioneering Woman in Space." In an interview with Space.com, O'Shaughnessy said Sherr did an excellent job in her family-approved biography, but she wanted another to write another one to convey Ride's message to children.

"I started thinking about doing one myself for kids, and trying to do it as appropriately as I could with all the issues of death and being gay and being a gay couple, and Sally being such a hero to so many people," she said in a Space.com interview in 2015.

In late 2017, the U.S. Postal Service announced that Ride's image would appear on a stamp in 2018. The design portrays a painted portrait of Ride as she appeared around the time of her first spaceflight in 1983. Behind her is a space shuttle heading into space. "Sally Ride inspired the nation as a pioneering astronaut, brilliant physicist and dedicated educator," the USPS said in a press release at the time.

Additional reporting by Elizabeth Howell, Space.com contributor

Additional resources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sally Ride: First American Woman in Space

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Sally Ride became the first American woman to go into space when she flew on the space shuttle Challenger on June 18, 1983. She made two shuttle flights, and later became a champion for science education and a role model for generations. Ride died of cancer in 2012.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Memories of the attempted Reagan assassination | Miller Center

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Early in President Reagan’s 1st year in office, March 30, 1981, John Hinckley Jr. attempted to assassinate the president. Through the Miller Center’s Reagan Oral History Project, members of his administration remember the day.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union had fought on the same side, though they did not fancy each other a lot.

Americans had been worried about Russian Communism for a long time and Russians thought that the US should have joined them sooner so more Russians would not have died in the war.

The term 'cold war' first came up in an essay written by English author George Orwell. It was called 'You and the Atomic Bomb.'

Overview

In the 1950s, there was a war between the US and USSR. This war became a big part of everyday life in both countries.

The war was fueled by two things: the arms race and the fear of nuclear weapons. These things were happening at the same time as wars in Korea and Southeast Asia.

In Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union was trying to take over other countries. This made American's scared of a Russian plan for world control. That made the Russians mad because they thought American officials were always threatening them and trying to stop their plans for power.

The result was that both sides started fighting. It became a Cold War where nobody could win.

Within months, writer George Orwell's prediction came true. The US and the USSR were suspicious of one another and wanted to keep power in the wake of World War II by creating allies in capitalism and communism, respectively.

The "long telegram"

By the time World War II ended, American officials decided that the best defense the US could have against the Soviets was through containment.

A diplomat named George Kennan (1904-2005) explained this policy in his famous "Long Telegram." The Soviet Union was a political force committed to the idea that there could not be peace with the US. That is why the US's choice was to contain Russia and contain its expansionist tendencies.

Starting in 1947, the US military power became important to both countries after President Truman asked for money to help Turkey and Greece. He was trying to stop the influence of the Soviet Union in these two countries which were very near the USSR.

This was called the Truman Doctrine. The US usually became involved with other countries by giving them money and arms to fight the USSR in their own territories. It was like the US fought a war outside of its own territory and in the name of other countries.

After World War II, the line between East and West was frozen. Conflicts like the ones in Greece and Turkey happened in Asia, Africa, and Latin America too for the next five decades. Some of these conflicts got mixed up with the Cold War because the countries wanted to influence anti-colonial movements.

The Atomic Age

Some of the leaders of the Soviet Union were afraid that the US would attack Russia. The US had used an atomic bomb to end World War II in Japan. This showed the Soviets that America was a possible threat to their government.

The Russians also didn't want Germany to become independent after World War II because they had invaded Russia twice and killed many people before. Russia wanted to occupy Germany and prevent another attack. The US didn't want Germany occupied, but they agreed with the Soviets on this point.

The containment strategy also provided the reason for an increase in money for the military. Truman's recommendation was to use military force against communism anywhere that it was happening. To do that, he proposed a huge increase of money for the US defense.

The United States went on to develop atomic weapons. They started an arms race with the Soviet Union.

In 1949, the Soviets tested an atom bomb of their own. In response, President Truman announced that the United States would build an even more destructive atomic weapon: a hydrogen bomb (H-bomb) or "superbomb". Stalin followed suit.

Because of the Cold War, the stakes were high. The first H-bomb test made a 25-square-mile fireball. It made a hole in the ocean floor and could have destroyed half of Manhattan. There were radioactive wastes that came out of later American and Soviet tests.

The Cold War had a great effect on life in the US. People built bomb shelters in their backyards. They practiced attack drills at schools and other public places.

The 1950s and 1960s saw an epidemic of popular films that horrified moviegoers with depictions of nuclear destruction and mutant creatures. In these ways, the Cold War was always there for Americans' everyday lives.

The Space Race

Space exploration was also used as a front in the Cold War. American people were not happy when a Soviet missile put an object in space first. The United States wanted to keep up with the Soviet Union, so they started exploring space too.

In 1958 the US launched its own satellite, Explorer I, and the Space Race began. In that year President Dwight Eisenhower signed a public order to create NASA to explore space.

The Soviets were one step ahead of the US, though, because they launched a man into space in 1961 for the first time. In May, a US citizen became the first American man in space.

President JFK said that by the end of the decade the US would land a man on the Moon. His prediction came true on July 20 when Neil Armstrong stepped onto the Moon.

The astronauts were seen as heroes and Soviets were seen as villains because they couldn't do it themselves. After Apollo 11 landed on the moon, six more Apollo missions followed. One of these was Apollo 13. The crew had an explosion in their space ship and they survived.

The red scare

The government of the United States started to prevent communism from expanding after World War II. Many Americans had become fear that communism might spread and threaten democracy in the US.

The House Un-American Activities Committee was created to find communist activities in the US. The government was afraid the Soviet Union had spies in the country.

The Committee brought the Cold War home by doing a series of hearings. They wanted to show that communist subversion existed in the United States.

The federal government and state governments attacked what they thought were communist threats. Senator Joseph McCarthy chaired one such committee, and the hope was to end communism in the federal government.

In Hollywood, the Committee made people say something that wasn't true about their politics, which meant they lost their jobs. More than 500 people lost their jobs. People who were blacklisted couldn't work again for a long time.

Thousands of people were investigated, fired, or even prosecuted during the 1950s. After communism became a topic, liberal college professors lost their jobs, and people were asked to testify against colleagues. Loyalty oaths became commonplace during this time period.

The war abroad

The fight against subversion at home was like the fight against the Soviet threat abroad. In 1950, the Cold War had its first military move when the North Korean People's Army, which was backed by the USSR, invaded South Korea, which was backed by the US. Truman sent American troops into Korea, but the Korean War dragged to a stalemate and ended in 1953.

Some other international disputes happened. In the early 1960s, President Kennedy had a lot of trouble in his own hemisphere. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 and the Cuban missile crisis in 1962 seemed to prove that the real communist threat now lay in countries that were unstable and postcolonial, like Cuba.

In Vietnam, there was a struggle between the American-backed nationalist Ngo Dinh Diem in the south and the communist nationalist Ho Chi Minh in the north. The US wanted to stop communists from taking over so they supported Diem. But by 1964, it became clear that if they wanted to stop communists from taking over Vietnam, then they had to help Diem more.

The US sent a lot of troops to Vietnam to fight for a lost cause. Many young soldiers died in the Vietnam war. Finally, the US had to retire its troops and Vietnam unified into a communist country.

The end of the Cold War

Richard Nixon became the US president in the 1970s. He didn't view the world as just one country with more power. Instead, he believed that people should use diplomacy instead of fighting to have more power.

To this end, he did things like recognizing China after their government became communist. He also established diplomatic relations with China and the Soviet Union at a time when they were not friends.

Then Mikhail Gorbachev took office in the USSR. He did two things that changed how Russia was seen by other countries: "glasnost" which means the country was more open to new ideas, and "perestroika" which meant that there were to be very strong economic changes inside the USSR.

In 1989, Eastern Europe changed. Every other communist country replaced its government with a noncommunist one. On November 9, the Berlin Wall was finally demolished. By 1991, the Soviet Union had fallen apart and there was no more Cold War. The US had no other "big" enemy with whom to fight.

Though the Cold War ended in the 1980s, it still affects today's geopolitics.

The United States is called the superpower because it has a lot of allies in countries where it sent money and arms to fight. The US also has a lot of weapons and military outposts all over the globe.

Sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Cold War Facts for Kids - History for Kids

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union had fought on the same side, though they did not fancy each other a lot. Americans had been worried about Russian Communism for a long time and Russians thought that the US should have joined them sooner so more Russians would not have died ...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Whitney Houston | Biography, Songs, Albums, Death, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Whitney Houston, the iconic singer with a mesmerizing voice and undeniable talent, achieved record-breaking success in her career while leaving an enduring impact on the music industry.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Table of Contents

Who was Michael Jackson?

How did Michael Jackson die?

Where was Michael Jackson born?

How did Michael Jackson become famous?

What were Michael Jackson's accomplishments?

Read a brief summary of this topic

Michael Jackson, in full Michael Joseph Jackson or Michael Joe Jackson (see Researcher's Note), (born August 29, 1958, Gary, Indiana, U.S.-died June 25, 2009, Los Angeles, California), American singer, songwriter, and dancer who was the most popular entertainer in the world in the early and mid-1980s. Reared in Gary, Indiana, in one of the most acclaimed musical families of the rock era, Michael Jackson was the youngest and most talented of five brothers whom his father, Joseph, shaped into a dazzling group of child stars known as the Jackson 5. In addition to Michael, the members of the Jackson 5 were Jackie Jackson (byname of Sigmund Jackson; b. May 4, 1951, Gary), Tito Jackson (byname of Toriano Jackson; b. October 15, 1953, Gary), Jermaine Jackson (b. December 11, 1954, Gary), and Marlon Jackson (b. March 12, 1957, Gary).

The Jackson 5

Motown Records president Berry Gordy, Jr., was impressed with the group and signed them in 1969. Sporting the loudest fashions, the largest Afros, the snappiest choreography, and a youthful, soulful exuberance, the Jackson 5 became an immediate success. They scored four consecutive number one pop hits with "I Want You Back," "ABC," "The Love You Save," and "I'll Be There" in 1970. With Michael topping the pop charts as a solo performer with "Ben" and reaching number two with "Rockin' Robin," and with the Jackson 5 producing trendsetting dance tracks such as "Dancing Machine," the family's string of hits for Motown lasted through 1975. As Michael matured, his voice changed, family tensions arose, and a contract standoff ensued. The group finally broke with Motown, moving to Epic Records as the Jacksons. Jermaine remained at Motown as a solo performer and was replaced by his youngest brother, Randy Jackson (in full Steven Randall Jackson; b. October 29, 1961). As a recording act, the Jacksons enjoyed consistent success through 1984, and their sister Janet Jackson embarked on her own singing career in the early 1980s; however, Michael's solo albums took on an entirely different status.

The "King of Pop"

Jackson's first solo effort for Epic, Off the Wall (1979), exceeded all expectations and was the best-selling album of the year (it eventually sold more than 20 million copies). Produced by industry veteran Quincy Jones, Off the Wall yielded the massive international hit singles "Don't Stop 'til You Get Enough" and "Rock with You," both of which showcased Michael's energetic style and capitalized on the contemporary disco dance fad. Three years later he returned with another collaboration with Jones, Thriller, a tour de force that featured an array of guest stars and elevated him to worldwide superstardom. Thriller captured a slew of awards, including a record-setting eight Grammys; remained on the charts for more than two years; and sold more than 40 million copies, long holding the distinction of being the best-selling album in history. The first single on the album, "The Girl Is Mine," an easygoing duet with Paul McCartney, went to number one on the rhythm-and-blues charts and number two on the pop charts in the fall of 1982. The follow-up single, " Billie Jean," an electrifying dance track and the vehicle for Jackson's trademark "moonwalk" dance, topped the pop charts, as did " Beat It," which featured a raucous solo from famed guitarist Eddie Van Halen. Moreover, "Beat It" helped break down the artificial barriers between Black and white artists on the radio and in the emerging format of music videos on television.

By 1984 Jackson was renowned worldwide as the "King of Pop." His much anticipated Victory reunion tour with his brothers was one of the most popular concert events of 1984. In 1985 Jackson and Lionel Richie cowrote "We Are the World," the signature single for USA for Africa, an all-star project aimed at famine relief. Further solo albums- Bad (1987), which produced five chart-topping hits (among them the title song and "Man in the Mirror"), and Dangerous (1991), much of which was produced by New Jack Swing sensation Teddy Riley-solidified Jackson's dominance of pop music. In 2001 he was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame; the Jackson 5 were inducted in 1997.

Child molestation accusations, financial difficulties, and death

Jackson's eccentric, secluded lifestyle grew increasingly controversial in the early 1990s. His reputation was seriously damaged in 1993 when he was accused of child molestation by a 13-year-old boy he had befriended; a civil suit was settled out of court. In 1994 Jackson secretly married Lisa Marie Presley, daughter of Elvis Presley, but their marriage lasted less than two years. Shortly thereafter Jackson married again, this marriage producing children, though it too ended in divorce. While he remained an international celebrity, his image in the United States was slow to recover, and it suffered even more in November 2003 when he was arrested and charged with child molestation. After a 14-week trial that became something of a media circus, Jackson was acquitted in 2005.

In the wake of these events, Jackson suffered a financial collapse that resulted in the sale of many of his considerable assets, including, ultimately, his lavish Neverland ranch. He was preparing for a series of high-profile concerts he hoped would spark a comeback when he died suddenly of cardiac arrest on June 25, 2009-prompting a widespread outpouring of grief from his fans that culminated in a memorial celebration of his life and legacy on July 7 at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, featuring tributes by friends and luminaries such as Stevie Wonder, Berry Gordy, Jr., Brooke Shields, and Al Sharpton. In August 2009 the coroner ruled Jackson's death a homicide; the cause was a lethal combination of sedatives and propofol, an anesthetic. In November 2011 Jackson's personal physician was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Get a Britannica Premium subscription and gain access to exclusive content. Subscribe Now

The documentary film This Is It, which drew from more than 100 hours of footage compiled during rehearsals for Jackson's scheduled 50-concert comeback engagement in London, premiered in October 2009. Also in 2009 Jackson's 14-minute music video "Thriller" (1983), directed by John Landis, was inducted into the National Film Registry of the Library of Congress-the first music video to be so honoured. Later documentaries included Leaving Neverland (2019), which centres on two men who allege that Jackson sexually abused them when they were children.
Rickey Vincent The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Michael Jackson | Biography, Albums, Songs, Thriller, Beat It, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Michael Jackson, in full Michael Joseph Jackson or Michael Joe Jackson (see Researcher's Note), (born August 29, 1958, Gary, Indiana, U.S.-died June 25, 2009, Los Angeles, California), American singer, songwriter, and dancer who was the most popular entertainer in the world in the early and mid-1980s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Welcome | Timeline of Computer History | Computer History Museum

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The 1980s have been called "the decade of decadence," and one of the era's most notable movie characters, Wall Street's Gordon Gekko, famously declared that "greed is...good." But the decade was about more than just excess. It was a period marked by defining events that continue to resonate. The Soviet Union began to collapse, AIDS emerged as a deadly epidemic, and work began on a little thing called the Internet. The decade is also remembered for its contributions to pop culture, which included the debut of MTV. While influential, the 1980s had a particular impact on Gen Xers, many of whom came of age during the decade.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you remember what happened in the Eighties?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the 1980s, bigger meant better across the board in fashion. From women's shoulder pads to men's power suits to bold colors and patterns for men, women and children, there was nothing understated about fashion in the eighties.

A decade typified by its "power dressing," the 1980s actually opened with stylish sportswear and the soft "New Romantics" style. Carrying on from the late 1970s trend for sportswear and encouraged by a fitness craze, women increasingly wore stylish gym wear in their day-to-day life. This was captured in Jennifer Beals' attire in the 1983 movie Flashdance (Fig. 1). Dance-wear inspired fashion including off-the-shoulder sweatshirts and leggings, while Jane Fonda's exercise videos also encouraged these styles (Fig. 2).

Norma Kamali continued to produce fashionable sportswear using comfortable materials such as jersey. Meanwhile designers such as Donna Karan and Azzedine Alaïa moved to using stretchy fabrics such as Lycra for body-conforming clothing. Editor Kathryn Hennessy notes how this produced a significant shift how fashion was worn in Fashion: The Ultimate Book of Fashion and Style: "Women's bodies were now shaping the clothes, rather than clothes shaping the body" (388). The dresses by Donna Karan and Azzedine Alaia (Figs. 3-4) show how dresses conformed to the body while the ensemble by Versace (Fig. 5) is an example of how sportswear made its way into high fashion. The ensemble features a popular piece from the eighties: a bodysuit.

In the early 1980s, the romantic style typified by the prairie dresses of the 1970s continued. Princess Diana's fairy-tale wedding dress by David and Elizabeth Emanuel exemplified this trend [see "Fashion Icon" section below]. Puffed sleeves, oversized accessories such as belts and bows, and historical references made bold statements. Vivienne Westwood gave this look an edge with her Pirate Collection in 1981 (Fig. 6) and was adopted by bands and club-goers in London as the "New Romantic" look (Hennessy 390).

As the decade progressed, so-called "power dressing" began to dominate. This reflected a shift in women working in high-powered positions and using fashion to be taken seriously. Padded shoulders and bold accessories made up this look; a typical patterned look is seen in the suit by Emanuel Ungaro (Fig. 7). Hennessy writes,

"As more women entered traditionally male-oriented work environments, they found it advantageous to dress as though they were in command, and sure of their sexuality. This meant jackets with heavily padded shoulders, vibrant colours, big hair-dos, bold accessories, and shoes with pointed toes and spiked heels." (396)

As part of this move towards bold dressing it was important to be seen wearing designer clothes. These designers embraced the power suits and added their own twist. Thierry Mugler's wide-shouldered suit made a slight alteration to the popular peplum look (Fig. 8). However, designer personalities also became a focal point of fashion in the early 1980s as each designer promoted a signature style (Hennessy 392). Some of these personality-driven brands included Christian Lacroix, Gianni Versace, Jean Paul Gaultier and Karl Lagerfeld for Chanel.

The latter took over the storied fashion house of Chanel in 1983. Lagerfeld was hired to increase sales and within a year, Chanel was one of the most fashionable brands again. Of Lagerfeld's beginning at Chanel, Amy de la Haye and Andrew Tucker write in Costume and Fashion: A Concise History,

"Lagerfeld's brief was to increase sales by attracting a new, youthful market, while retaining the loyalty of Chanel's traditional customers. From the outset he exploited Chanel's signature designs, sometimes paying homage to her classic styles and at other times parodying them without mercy. Within a year the House of Chanel was once again in the forefront of fashion." (Laver 273-274)

In his first year, he made a leather jacket with the signature Chanel gold buttons and square breast pockets (Fig. 9). Later in the decade, he designed a typical black dress with cream trim in a thoroughly modern silhouette (Fig. 10). Christian Lacroix, who had opened his couture house in 1975, also expertly tapped into the fashion market and created extravagant, over-the-top clothing for a wealthy clientele (Laver 280). Inspired by historical dress and craftsmanship, his designs displayed the signatures of 1980s such as big skirts (Fig. 11) and balloon sleeves. He launched a ready-to-wear line in 1988.

Though the dominant trend of the 1980s was bigger is better, taffeta and bright colors, other designers emerged and created their own styles. For daywear, American designers such as Perry Ellis and Ralph Lauren turned to classic styles menswear styles such as blazers, button downs and hand-knit sweaters to create casually elegant womenswear (Figs. 12-13). These styles came to represent casual American style and were adopted as a "preppy" style in the US ("preppy" referencing the elite preparatory schools attended by wealthy teens).

The style was influenced by traditional Ivy League and Seven Sisters style, as well as the dress of early twentieth-century British aristocrats (Laver 276). In her book Seven Sisters Style, Rebecca C. Tuite writes, "Lauren's interpretation of the collegiate look was never a costume or a disguise; it was an understated appreciation of good, classic style" (104). The plaid Perry Ellis suit (Fig. 14) pays homage to late 1940s and early 1950s collegiate style. Tuite continues to note that the look was interpreted in many ways throughout the decade: "The preppy fashions of the 1980s ranged from understated and classic to gaudy and ironic" (107).

On the other side of the world, a shocking new type of fashion emerged from Japan. De la Haye and Tucker write, "The clothes of innovative Japanese designers, who continued to show in Paris, offered a stark and often startling alternative to Western styles" (Laver 277). Designers such as Comme des Garçons' Rei Kawakubo and Yohji Yamamoto employed deconstruction, exaggerated proportions and to transform how clothing interacted with the body (Hennessey 400, Fig. 13). This resulted in shocking styles that differed from the typical styles of the decade. Their predominant use of black would continue into the early 1990s as the power dressing of the eighties began to evolve towards the minimalism of the subsequent decade.

One of the most enduring icons of eighties style is Princess Diana, the young woman who famously married into the British royal family in July 1981 (Fig. 1). The world instantly embraced the new princess and her style reflected popular trends throughout the decade.

Before getting married, Diana was considered a "Sloane Ranger," the UK's answer to the preppy look and so-named for the affluent central London Sloane Square address many of them lived near. Pearls, pie-crust blouses, flowery Laura Ashley skirts and patent pumps were in her arsenal during this time. In her first portrait for British Vogue (Fig. 2), she wore a soft pink blouse with a frilly collar by David and Elizabeth Emanuel that typified the early eighties romantic look.

Her wedding dress by David and Elizabeth Emanuel is, of course, one of the most enduring fashion moments of the 1980s (Fig. 1). In Diana, Her Life in Fashion, Georgina Howell notes that this gown foreshadowed Diana's fashion influence:

"In a postscript that presaged Diana's future power over the fashion industry, bridal manufacturers applied themselves to duplicating the dress in record time. Within five hours of the wedding there were already two copies of the dress in Oxford Street stores." (40)

With its giant puffed sleeves and a 25-foot train and ample bows and lace, the gown became the epitome of eighties wedding style.

As 1980s style progressed, so did Diana's. Royal style requires a significant amount of thought and Diana managed to do this, while also following eighties fashion trends. Kensington Palace writes in Diana: Her Fashion Story, "Diana's style was overtly glamorous by the mid-1980s. She adopted glitzy embellishments and wide shoulder pads" (8). On a tour of Saudi Arabia in 1986, her Emanuel evening gown had huge puffed shoulders, a giant striped bow and black and white color-blocking, all signature eighties trends (Fig. 3). By this time, she had developed relationships with several designers including Bellville Sassoon, Bruce Oldfield and Catherine Walker. Walker especially created appropriate "power-suits" for the Princess for any occasion (Fig. 4).

All of these designers understood the importance of diplomatic dressing and helped Diana develop her own thoughtful way of dressing for an occasion. This required different approaches for different events. Kensington Palace explains,

"For overseas tours, Diana needed regal gowns that conveyed diplomatic messages. By contrast, when visiting hospitals or schools, she preferred outfits that reflected approachability and warmth, and would wear accessories that children could play with. She abandoned the royal protocol of wearing gloves, as she liked to make direct contact when shaking or holding hands. She also stopped wearing hats, as she said, 'you can't cuddle a child in a hat.'" (10)

Royal dressing requires extreme attention-to-detail and Diana took cues from the Queen's expertise while also finding her own way forward. She incorporated current fashions more readily and took more risks, mostly to praise from adoring fans. She was seen wearing red dots and wide-shoulders on a tour of Japan in 1986 (Fig. 5).

Some of the most iconic fashion moments of the 1980s are thanks to "Shy Di." From her off-duty knitted sweaters to dancing with John Travolta in an off-the-shoulder midnight blue Victor Edelstein gown at the White House (Fig. 6), to bold patterns and bright colors, Diana's fashion influence was felt throughout the decade, and indeed until her death in 1997.

Fashion for men in the 1980s largely followed the trends in womenswear. Like women, there was a craze for fitness wear, classic American workwear, preppy styles and "power dressing" (Laver 276). Many of the big names in women's fashion also began designing men's fashion in the 1980s:

"The 1980s also saw many designers expand their ranges to embrace menswear. These included Mugler (1980), Comme des Garçons (1983), Jean-Paul Gaultier (1984) and Karl Lagerfeld (1989)." (Laver 276)

Gaultier especially looked to play with gender and throughout the decade produced skirts for men, among other designs (Hennessey 395). The suit from Thierry Mugler's first collection show a move toward the wide shoulders of the eighties (Fig. 1) while the Butterick patterns showcase the bold patterns and colors of men's sports coats (Fig. 2).

In the early part of the decade, sportswear continued to be popular for men with tracksuits and sports jerseys popular looks. Like women, classic collegiate styles made up the "preppy" look. This included seersucker suits, polo shirts with popped collars and knit sweaters worn thrown over the shoulders. Both men and women wore chunky knitted sweaters (Fig. 3).

In the mid- to late-eighties, power dressing also made it into men's style with the "power suit." These were pin-striped, double breasted suits with wide lapels. They were worn with wide ties and complimented women's power dressing. Hugo Boss perfected this look with patterned shirts and large overcoats to complete the style (Fig. 4). Men wore bright colored ties and suits were essential for white-collar workers (Fig. 5).

There were several other styles that emerged in the eighties, many from "street style." The concept of street style is a style that emerges from the "bottom" - from a subculture or individual - rather than from spreading "top down" from a designer. This kind of spread of fashion had been happening for several decades, but many new subcultural styles made their mark on both men and women's fashion in the 1980s. These included styles that emerged from music and dance culture.

The early- to mid-1980s saw the rise of goth fashion which expanded on punk style from the late 1970s (Fig. 6). Hennessey writes, "Both men and women wore clothes inspired by Victorian mourning garb and Bram Stoker's Dracula and it was not long before this movement took to the streets" (405). A key style for both goth and punk looks were Dr Martens boots (Hennessey 404-405).

Later in the decade, hip-hop and rap gave rise to its own style in the US. Groups such as Run DMC and the Beastie Boys led the way with their New York-inspired look. Hennessey notes the key aspects of their styles:

"These elements included old-school, white trainers by Adidas and Puma, distressed, tapered jeans, preppy button-down and polo shirts, nylon coach jackets, hooded sweatshirts, gold chains, and baseball caps worn at an angle" (406).

Run DMC embraced sportswear (Fig. 7) while the Beastie Boys layered jackets over their tapered, light-washed jeans (Fig. 8). Adidas sneakers were worn by both and were especially popular (Fig. 9). Their influence lasted throughout the end of the decade, into the next and can still be felt today.

Both men's and women's fashion trickled down into children's wear in the 1980s. However, it also took on brighter colors and bolder patterns (Fig. 1). Emma Rensch writes, "Children's fashion mirrored that popularized by teens and young adults, as clothing became more zany and daring than in previous decades, largely because of a culture of increasing childhood independence." Bold stripes, bright colors, and patterns were all popular trends for children throughout the 1980s.

Many styles were worn by both girls and boys. Acid and stone-washed jeans were staples in children's wardrobes (Figs. 2-3). These styles had high waists and were straight-legged, distinguishing them from the flared jeans of the previous decade. These were often worn with baggy sweaters.

High-top Converse, brightly-colored tennis shoes and denim jackets were also popular looks worn by both genders. Rensch describes a trend for coordinating outfits, "Matching was prevalent, and popular outfits for kids featured matching shorts, Polo shirts and socks, all with the same patterns or colors." Like their adult counterparts, boys often wore shorts and tube socks.

In addition to jeans, girls began wearing leggings. Alyssa Ideboen writes, "Available in a rainbow of colors, leggings were made from knit materials and stopped below the knee at mid-calf or at the ankle." They paired these with bright, oversized sweaters and cardigans (Fig. 4), off-the-shoulder sweatshirts and bright tennis shoes or "jellies." The latter were sandals made of PVC which could also be found in a rainbow of colors or even glitter options.

Celebrities influenced children's fashion in the eighties, as well. MC Hammer's "parachute pants" were popular options for both boys and girls. Michael Jackson's cropped leather jacket from the "Thriller" music video was adopted by young boys. In 1984, Michael Jordan entered the basketball scene and young boys began wearing baggy basketball shorts. Plastic bracelets worn by Madonna sparked a trend among both boys and girls. The leggings trend was influenced by dance-wear in movies like Flashdance and girls also accessorized this look with leggings (Fig. 5).

References:

"1980s in Fashion." Wikipedia. Accessed March 29, 2020. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1980s_in_fashion.

Hennessey, Kathryn. Fashion: The Ultimate Book of Costume and Style. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2012. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/816318024.

Howell, Georgina. Diana, Her Life in Fashion. London: Pavilion, 1999. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/42308534.

Ideboen, Alyssa. "Kids' Fashion of the 1980s." Our Everyday Life, September 28, 2017. Accessed April 4, 2020. https://oureverydaylife.com/kids-fashion-of-the-1980s-12481073.html.

Laver, James, Amy De La Haye and Andrew Tucker. Costume and Fashion: A Concise History. 5th ed. New York: Thames & Hudson, 2012. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/966352776.

Kensington Palace. Diana: Her Fashion Story. London: Pitkin Publishing, 2017. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1047856375.

The People History. "Vintage 1980s Children's Fashion Clothes." Accessed April 4, 2020. http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/1980skidsfashion.html

Ralph Lauren. "The Timeline." Accessed March 29, 2020. https://www.ralphlauren.co.uk/en/the-timeline/70931.

Rensch, Emma. "What Did Kids Wear in the 80s?" Our Everyday Life, Setpember 28, 2017. Accessed April 4, 2020. https://oureverydaylife.com/what-did-kids-wear-in-the-80s-12582989.html.

Tuite, Rebecca C. Seven Sisters Style. New York: Rizzoli, 2014. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/954104210.

Victoria and Albert Museum. "Introduction to 20th-Century Fashion." Accessed August 31, 2019. http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/i/introduction-to-20th-century-fashion/.

Events:

1981 - Lady Diana Spencer marries Prince Charles. She wears an ivory silk wedding dress designed by David and Elizabeth Emanuel. It sets the fashion for wedding dresses for the next 10 years.

1981 - Music Television is born and brings pop-star styles to a global audience.

1981 - The first episode of the US TV series Dynasty airs and helps to popularize power dressing and shoulder pads.

1983 - John-Paul Gautier launches his Dadaist collection, which includes his signature corset.

1984 - Donna Karan International is established. Polo Ralph Lauren flagship store is built in New York City.

1985 - With her jangling jewelry, lace, black mesh vest, and hair bows, Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan becomes a style icon for many women throughout the world. Dolce and Gabbana's first women's collection is presented in Milan.

1988 - Anna Wintour becomes editor-in-chief at American Vogue.

1989 - Prada launches its women's ready-to-wear collection, bringing its designs to a wider audience.

Resources for Fashion History Research

To discover primary/period sources, explore the categories below.
Have a primary source to suggest? Or a newly digitized periodical/book to announce? Contact us!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the 1980s, bigger meant better across the board in fashion. From women's shoulder pads to men's power suits to bold colors and patterns for men, women and children, there was nothing understated about fashion in the eighties. A decade typified by its "power dressing," the 1980s actually opened with stylish sportswear and the soft "New Romantics" style.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel.

The resulting steam explosion and fires released at least 5% of the radioactive reactor core into the environment, with the deposition of radioactive materials in many parts of Europe.

Two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome.

The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that, apart from some 5000 thyroid cancers (resulting in 15 fatalities), "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."

Some 350,000 people were evacuated as a result of the accident, but resettlement of areas from which people were relocated is ongoing.

The April 1986 disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine was the product of a flawed Soviet reactor design coupled with serious mistakes made by the plant operators. It was a direct consequence of Cold War isolation and the resulting lack of any safety culture.

The accident destroyed the Chernobyl 4 reactor, killing 30 operators and firemen within three months and several further deaths later. One person was killed immediately and a second died in hospital soon after as a result of injuries received. Another person is reported to have died at the time from a coronary thrombosis. Acute radiation syndrome (ARS) was originally diagnosed in 237 people onsite and involved with the clean-up and it was later confirmed in 134 cases. Of these, 28 people died as a result of ARS within a few weeks of the accident. Nineteen more workers subsequently died between 1987 and 2004, but their deaths cannot necessarily be attributed to radiation exposure. Nobody offsite suffered from acute radiation effects although a significant, but uncertain, fraction of the thyroid cancers diagnosed since the accident in patients who were children at the time are likely to be due to intake of radioactive iodine fallout. Furthermore, large areas of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, and beyond were contaminated in varying degrees. See also sections below and Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2: Health Impacts.

The Chernobyl disaster was a unique event and the only accident in the history of commercial nuclear power where radiation-related fatalities occurred. The design of the reactor is unique and in that respect the accident is thus of little relevance to the rest of the nuclear industry outside the then Eastern Bloc. However, it led to major changes in safety culture and in industry cooperation, particularly between East and West before the end of the Soviet Union. Former President Gorbachev said that the Chernobyl accident was a more important factor in the fall of the Soviet Union than Perestroika - his program of liberal reform.

The Chernobyl site and plant

The Chernobyl Power Complex, lying about 130 km north of Kiev, Ukraine, and about 20 km south of the border with Belarus, consisted of four nuclear reactors of the RBMK-1000 design (see information page on RBMK Reactors). Units 1 and 2 were constructed between 1970 and 1977, while units 3 and 4 of the same design were completed in 1983. Two more RBMK reactors were under construction at the site at the time of the accident. To the southeast of the plant, an artificial lake of some 22 square kilometres, situated beside the river Pripyat, a tributary of the Dniepr, was constructed to provide cooling water for the reactors.

This area of Ukraine is described as Belarussian-type woodland with a low population density. About 3 km away from the reactor, in the new city, Pripyat, there were 49,000 inhabitants. The old town of Chornobyl, which had a population of 12,500, is about 15 km to the southeast of the complex. Within a 30 km radius of the power plant, the total population was between 115,000 and 135,000 at the time of the accident.

The RBMK-1000 is a Soviet-designed and built graphite moderated pressure tube type reactor, using slightly enriched (2% U-235) uranium dioxide fuel. It is a boiling light water reactor, with two loops feeding steam directly to the turbines, without an intervening heat exchanger. Water pumped to the bottom of the fuel channels boils as it progresses up the pressure tubes, producing steam which feeds two 500 MWe turbines. The water acts as a coolant and also provides the steam used to drive the turbines. The vertical pressure tubes contain the zirconium alloy clad uranium dioxide fuel around which the cooling water flows. The extensions of the fuel channels penetrate the lower plate and the cover plate of the core and are welded to each. A specially designed refuelling machine allows fuel bundles to be changed without shutting down the reactor.

The moderator, the function of which is to slow down neutrons to make them more efficient in producing fission in the fuel, is graphite, surrounding the pressure tubes. A mixture of nitrogen and helium is circulated between the graphite blocks to prevent oxidation of the graphite and to improve the transmission of the heat produced by neutron interactions in the graphite to the fuel channel. The core itself is about 7 m high and about 12 m in diameter. In each of the two loops, there are four main coolant circulating pumps, one of which is always on standby. The reactivity or power of the reactor is controlled by raising or lowering 211 control rods, which, when lowered into the moderator, absorb neutrons and reduce the fission rate. The power output of this reactor is 3200 MW thermal, or 1000 MWe. Various safety systems, such as an emergency core cooling system, were incorporated into the reactor design.

One of the most important characteristics of the RBMK reactor is that it can possess a 'positive void coefficient', where an increase in steam bubbles ('voids') is accompanied by an increase in core reactivity (see information page on RBMK Reactors). As steam production in the fuel channels increases, the neutrons that would have been absorbed by the denser water now produce increased fission in the fuel. There are other components that contribute to the overall power coefficient of reactivity, but the void coefficient is the dominant one in RBMK reactors. The void coefficient depends on the composition of the core - a new RBMK core will have a negative void coefficient. However, at the time of the accident at Chernobyl 4, the reactor's fuel burn-up, control rod configuration, and power level led to a positive void coefficient large enough to overwhelm all other influences on the power coefficient.

The 1986 Chernobyl accident

On 25 April, prior to a routine shutdown, the reactor crew at Chernobyl 4 began preparing for a test to determine how long turbines would spin and supply power to the main circulating pumps following a loss of main electrical power supply. This test had been carried out at Chernobyl the previous year, but the power from the turbine ran down too rapidly, so new voltage regulator designs were to be tested.

A series of operator actions, including the disabling of automatic shutdown mechanisms, preceded the attempted test early on 26 April. By the time that the operator moved to shut down the reactor, the reactor was in an extremely unstable condition. A peculiarity of the design of the control rods caused a dramatic power surge as they were inserted into the reactor (see Chernobyl Accident Appendix 1: Sequence of Events).

The interaction of very hot fuel with the cooling water led to fuel fragmentation along with rapid steam production and an increase in pressure. The design characteristics of the reactor were such that substantial damage to even three or four fuel assemblies would - and did - result in the destruction of the reactor. The overpressure caused the 1000 t cover plate of the reactor to become partially detached, rupturing the fuel channels and jamming all the control rods, which by that time were only halfway down. Intense steam generation then spread throughout the whole core (fed by water dumped into the core due to the rupture of the emergency cooling circuit) causing a steam explosion and releasing fission products to the atmosphere. About two to three seconds later, a second explosion threw out fragments from the fuel channels and hot graphite. There is some dispute among experts about the character of this second explosion, but it is likely to have been caused by the production of hydrogen from zirconium-steam reactions.

Two workers died as a result of these explosions. The graphite (about a quarter of the 1200 tonnes of it was estimated to have been ejected) and fuel became incandescent and started a number of fires, causing the main release of radioactivity into the environment. A total of about 14 EBq (14 x 10 ¹⁸ Bq) of radioactivity was released, over half of it being from biologically-inert noble gases.*

* The figure of 5.2 EBq is also quoted, this being "iodine-131 equivalent" - 1.8 EBq iodine and 85 PBq Cs-137 multiplied by 40 due its longevity, and ignoring the 6.5 EBq xenon-33 and some minor or short-lived nuclides.

About 200-300 tonnes of water per hour was injected into the intact half of the reactor using the auxiliary feedwater pumps but this was stopped after half a day owing to the danger of it flowing into and flooding units 1 and 2. From the second to tenth day after the accident, some 5000 tonnes of boron, dolomite, sand, clay, and lead were dropped on to the burning core by helicopter in an effort to extinguish the blaze and limit the release of radioactive particles.
The damaged Chernobyl unit 4 reactor building
The 1991 report by the State Committee on the Supervision of Safety in Industry and Nuclear Power on the root cause of the accident looked past the operator actions. It said that while it was certainly true the operators placed their reactor in a dangerously unstable condition (in fact in a condition which virtually guaranteed an accident) it was also true that in doing so they had not in fact violated a number of vital operating policies and principles, since no such policies and principles had been articulated. Additionally, the operating organization had not been made aware either of the specific vital safety significance of maintaining a minimum operating reactivity margin, or the general reactivity characteristics of the RBMK which made low power operation extremely hazardous.

The accident caused the largest uncontrolled radioactive release into the environment ever recorded for any civilian operation, and large quantities of radioactive substances were released into the air for about 10 days. This caused serious social and economic disruption for large populations in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Two radionuclides, the short-lived iodine-131 and the long-lived caesium-137, were particularly significant for the radiation dose they delivered to members of the public.

It is estimated that all of the xenon gas, about half of the iodine and caesium, and at least 5% of the remaining radioactive material in the Chernobyl 4 reactor core (which had 192 tonnes of fuel) was released in the accident. Most of the released material was deposited close by as dust and debris, but the lighter material was carried by wind over Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and to some extent over Scandinavia and Europe.

The casualties included firefighters who attended the initial fires on the roof of the turbine building. All these were put out in a few hours, but radiation doses on the first day caused 28 deaths - six of which were firemen - by the end of July 1986. The doses received by the firefighters and power plant workers were high enough to result in acute radiation syndrome (ARS), which occurs if a person is exposed to more than 700 milligrays (mGy) within a short time frame (usually minutes). Common ARS symptoms include gastrointestinal problems ( e.g. nausea, vomiting), headaches, burns and fever. Whole body doses between 4000 mGy and 5000 mGv within a short time frame would kill 50% of those exposed, with 8000-10,000 mGy universally fatal. The doses received by the firefighters who died were estimated to range up to 20,000 mGy.

The next task was cleaning up the radioactivity at the site so that the remaining three reactors could be restarted, and the damaged reactor shielded more permanently. About 200,000 people ('liquidators') from all over the Soviet Union were involved in the recovery and clean-up during 1986 and 1987. They received high doses of radiation, averaging around 100 millisieverts (mSv). Some 20,000 liquidators received about 250 mSv, with a few receiving approximately 500 mSv. Later, the number of liquidators swelled to over 600,000, but most of these received only low radiation doses. The highest doses were received by about 1000 emergency workers and onsite personnel during the first day of the accident.

According to the most up-to-date estimate provided by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), the average radiation dose due to the accident received by inhabitants of 'strict radiation control' areas (population 216,000) in the years 1986 to 2005 was 31 mSv (over the 20-year period), and in the 'contaminated' areas (population 6.4 million) it averaged 9 mSv, a minor increase over the dose due to background radiation over the same period (about 50 mSv).

Initial radiation exposure in contaminated areas was due to short-lived iodine-131; later caesium-137 was the main hazard. (Both are fission products dispersed from the reactor core, with half lives of 8 days and 30 years, respectively. 1.8 EBq of I-131 and 0.085 EBq of Cs-137 were released.) About five million people lived in areas of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine contaminated (above 37 kBq/m ² Cs-137 in soil) and about 400,000 lived in more contaminated areas of strict control by authorities (above 555 kBq/m ² Cs-137). A total of 29,400 km ² was contaminated above 180 kBq/m ².

The plant operators' town of Pripyat was evacuated on 27 April (45,000 residents). By 14 May, some 116,000 people that had been living within a 30-kilometre radius had been evacuated and later relocated. About 1000 of these returned unofficially to live within the contaminated zone. Most of those evacuated received radiation doses of less than 50 mSv, although a few received 100 mSv or more.

In the years following the accident, a further 220,000 people were resettled into less contaminated areas, and the initial 30 km radius exclusion zone (2800 km ²) was modified and extended to cover 4300 square kilometres. This resettlement was due to application of a criterion of 350 mSv projected lifetime radiation dose, though in fact radiation in most of the affected area (apart from half a square kilometre close to the reactor) fell rapidly so that average doses were less than 50% above normal background of 2.5 mSv/yr. See also following section on Resettlement of contaminated areas.

Long-term health effects of the Chernobyl accident

Video: Experts talk about the health effects of Chernobyl (Recorded 2011)

Several organizations have reported on the impacts of the Chernobyl accident, but all have had problems assessing the significance of their observations because of the lack of reliable public health information before 1986.

In 1989, the World Health Organization (WHO) first raised concerns that local medical scientists had incorrectly attributed various biological and health effects to radiation exposure. Following this, the Government of the USSR requested the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to coordinate an international experts' assessment of accident's radiological, environmental and health consequences in selected towns of the most heavily contaminated areas in Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine. Between March 1990 and June 1991, a total of 50 field missions were conducted by 200 experts from 25 countries (including the USSR), seven organizations, and 11 laboratories. In the absence of pre-1986 data, it compared a control population with those exposed to radiation. Significant health disorders were evident in both control and exposed groups, but, at that stage, none was radiation related.

In February 2003, the IAEA established the Chernobyl Forum, in cooperation with seven other UN organisations as well as the competent authorities of Belarus, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine. In April 2005, the reports prepared by two expert groups - "Environment", coordinated by the IAEA, and "Health", coordinated by WHO - were intensively discussed by the Forum and eventually approved by consensus. The conclusions of this 2005 Chernobyl Forum study (revised version published 2006) are in line with earlier expert studies, notably the UNSCEAR 2000 report which said that "apart from this [thyroid cancer] increase, there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 14 years after the accident. There is no scientific evidence of increases in overall cancer incidence or mortality or in non-malignant disorders that could be related to radiation exposure." There is little evidence of any increase in leukaemia, even among clean-up workers where it might be most expected. Radiation-induced leukemia has a latency period of 5-7 years, so any potential leukemia cases due to the accident would already have developed. A low number of the clean-up workers, who received the highest doses, may have a slightly increased risk of developing solid cancers in the long term. To date, however, there is no evidence of any such cancers having developed. Apart from these, the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said: "The great majority of the population is not likely to experience serious health consequences as a result of radiation from the Chernobyl accident. Many other health problems have been noted in the populations that are not related to radiation exposure."

The Chernobyl Forum report says that people in the area have suffered a paralysing fatalism due to myths and misperceptions about the threat of radiation, which has contributed to a culture of chronic dependency. Some "took on the role of invalids." Mental health coupled with smoking and alcohol abuse is a very much greater problem than radiation, but worst of all at the time was the underlying level of health and nutrition. Apart from the initial 116,000, relocations of people were very traumatic and did little to reduce radiation exposure, which was low anyway. Psycho-social effects among those affected by the accident are similar to those arising from other major disasters such as earthquakes, floods, and fires.

A particularly sad effect of the misconceptions surrounding the accident was that some physicians in Europe advised pregnant women to undergo abortions on account of radiation exposure, even though the levels concerned were vastly below those likely to have teratogenic effects. Robert Gale, a hematologist who treated radiation victims after the accident, estimated that more than 1 million abortions were undertaken in the Soviet Union and Europe as a result of incorrect advice from their doctors about radiation exposure and birth defects following the accident.

Some exaggerated figures have been published regarding the death toll attributable to the Chernobyl disaster, including a publication by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). However, the Chairman of UNSCEAR made it clear that "this report is full of unsubstantiated statements that have no support in scientific assessments", and the Chernobyl Forum report also repudiates these claims.

The number of deaths resulting from the accident are covered most fully in the account of health effects provided by an annex to the UNSCEAR 2008 report, released in 2011. The report concluded: "In summary, the effects of the Chernobyl accident are many and varied. Early deterministic effects can be attributed to radiation with a high degree of certainty, while for other medical conditions, radiation almost certainly was not the cause. In between, there was a wide spectrum of conditions. It is necessary to evaluate carefully each specific condition and the surrounding circumstances before attributing a cause."

According to an UNSCEAR report in 2018, about 20,000 cases of thyroid cancer were diagnosed 1991-2015 in patients who were 18 and under at the time of the accident. The report states that a quarter of the cases (5000 cases) were "probably" due to high doses of radiation, and that this fraction was likely to have been higher in earlier years, and lower in later years. However, it also states that the uncertainty around the attributed fraction is very significant - at least 0.07 to 0.5 - and that the influence of annual screenings and active follow-up make comparisons with the general population problematic. Thyroid cancer is usually not fatal if diagnosed and treated early; the report states that of the diagnoses made between 1991 and 2005, 15 proved to be fatal.

Progressive closure of the Chernobyl plant

In the early 1990s, some $400 million was spent on improvements to the remaining reactors at Chernobyl, considerably enhancing their safety. Energy shortages necessitated the continued operation of one of them (unit 3) until December 2000. (Unit 2 was shut down after a turbine hall fire in 1991, and unit 1 at the end of 1997.) Almost 6000 people worked at the plant every day, and their radiation dose has been within internationally accepted limits. A small team of scientists works within the wrecked reactor building itself, inside the shelter.

Workers and their families now live in a new town, Slavutich, 30 km from the plant. This was built following the evacuation of Pripyat, which was just 3 km away.

Ukraine depends upon, and is deeply in debt to, Russia for energy supplies, particularly oil and gas, but also nuclear fuel. Although this dependence is gradually being reduced, continued operation of nuclear power stations, which supply half of total electricity, is now even more important than in 1986.

When it was announced in 1995 that the two operating reactors at Chernobyl would be closed by 2000, a memorandum of understanding was signed by Ukraine and G7 nations to progress this, but its implementation was conspicuously delayed. Alternative generating capacity was needed, either gas-fired, which has ongoing fuel cost and supply implications, or nuclear, by completing Khmelnitski unit 2 and Rovno unit 4 ('K2R4') in Ukraine. Construction of these was halted in 1989 but then resumed, and both reactors came online late in 2004, financed by Ukraine rather than international grants as expected on the basis of Chernobyl's closure.

Chernobyl today

Russian military operation 2022

On 24 February 2022, Russian forces took control of all facilities of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. Control levels of gamma radiation dose rates in the Chernobyl exclusion zone were exceeded. The SNRIU said that the rise in radiation levels was likely due to "disturbance of the top layer of soil from movement of a large number of heavy military machinery through the exclusion zone and increase of air pollution." It added: "The condition of Chernobyl nuclear facilities and other facilities is unchanged." Radiation readings from the site were assessed by the IAEA to be low and in line with near background levels.

On 9 March at 11.22 the Chernobyl plant lost connection to the grid. The SNRIU said that backup diesel generators were running and had 48 hours of fuel. The IAEA stated that, based on the heat load of spent fuel in the ISF-1 storage pool, and the volume of cooling water it contained, there would be sufficient heat removal without electrical supply. It said that it saw no critical impact on safety as a result of the loss of power, but said that the loss of power would likely create additional stress for the about 210 staff who have not been able to rotate for the past two weeks.

Professor Geraldine Thomas, director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, said: "They [the used fuel bundles] will not be producing significant amounts of heat, making a release of radiation very unlikely. In the unlikely event of a release of any radiation, this would be only to the immediate local area, and therefore not pose any threat to western Europe - there would be no radioactive cloud."

On 13 March Energoatom reported that transmission system operator Ukrenergo had succeeded in repairing a power line needed to restore external electricity supplies to Chernobyl. The site was due to be reconnected to the grid a day later, but Ukrenergo reported in the morning of 14 March that the line had sustained further damage "by the occupying forces". Later on 14 March Ukrenergo said that external power had been restored at 13.10 local time, and at 16.45 the plant was reconnected to Ukraine's electricity grid.

On 31 March control of the site was returned to Ukrainian personnel.

For more detailed information, see page on Russia-Ukraine War and Nuclear Energy.

Unit 4 containment

Chernobyl unit 4 was enclosed in a large concrete shelter which was erected quickly (by October 1986) to allow continuing operation of the other reactors at the plant. However, the structure is neither strong nor durable. The international Shelter Implementation Plan in the 1990s involved raising money for remedial work including removal of the fuel-containing materials. Some major work on the shelter was carried out in 1998 and 1999. About 200 tonnes of highly radioactive material remains deep within it, and this poses an environmental hazard until it is better contained.

The New Safe Confinement (NSC) structure was completed in 2017, having been built adjacent and then moved into place on rails. It is an arch 110 metres high, 165 metres long and spanning 260 metres, covering both unit 4 and the hastily-built 1986 structure. The arch frame is a lattice construction of tubular steel members, equipped with internal cranes. The design and construction contract for this was signed in 2007 with the Novarka consortium and preparatory work onsite was completed in 2010. Construction started in April 2012. The first half, weighing 12,800 tonnes, was moved 112 metres to a holding area in front of unit 4 in April 2014. The second half was completed by the end of 2014 and was joined to the first in July 2015. Cladding, cranes, and remote handling equipment were fitted in 2015. The entire 36,000 tonne structure was pushed 327 metres into position over the reactor building in November 2016, over two weeks, and the end walls completed. The NSC is the largest moveable land-based structure ever built.

The hermetically sealed building will allow engineers to remotely dismantle the 1986 structure that has shielded the remains of the reactor from the weather since the weeks after the accident. It will enable the eventual removal of the fuel-containing materials (FCM) in the bottom of the reactor building and accommodate their characterization, compaction, and packing for disposal. This task represents the most important step in eliminating nuclear hazard at the site - and the real start of dismantling. The NSC will facilitate remote handling of these dangerous materials, using as few personnel as possible. During peak construction of the NSC some 1200 workers were onsite.

The Chernobyl Shelter Fund, set up in 1997, had received €864 million from international donors by early 2011 towards this project and previous work. It and the Nuclear Safety Account (NSA), set up in 1993, are managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD). The total cost of the new shelter was in 2011 estimated to be €1.5 billion. In November 2014 the EBRD said the overall €2.15 billion Shelter Implementation Plan including the NSC had received contributions from 43 governments but still had a funding shortfall of €615 million. The following month the EBRD made an additional contribution of €350 million in anticipation of a €165 million contribution by the G7/European Commission, which was confirmed in April 2015. This left a balance of €100 million to come from non-G7 donors, and €15 million of this was confirmed in April 2015.
Chernobyl New Safe Confinement under construction and before being moved into place (Image: EBRD)
Funding other Chernobyl work

The Nuclear Safety Account (NSA), had received €321 million by early 2011 for Chernobyl decommissioning and also for projects in other ex-Soviet countries. At Chernobyl it funds the construction of used fuel and waste storage (notably ISF-2, see below) and decommissioning units 1-3. In April 2016 the European Commission pledged €20 million to the NSA, the largest part of €45 million expected from the G7 and the European Commission. A further €40 million was expected from the EBRD in May 2016.

In total, the European Commission has committed around €730 million so far to Chernobyl projects in four ways. First, €550 million for assistance projects, out of which €470 million were channelled through international funds, and €80 million implemented directly by the European Commission. Secondly, power generation support of €65 million. Thirdly, €15 million for social projects. And finally, €100 million for research projects.

Chernobyl used fuel: ISF-1 & ISF-2

Used fuel from units 1-3 was stored in each unit's cooling pond, and in an interim spent fuel storage facility pond (ISF-1). A few damaged assemblies remained in units 1&2 in 2013, with the last of these removed in June 2016. ISF-1 now holds most of the spent fuel from units 1-3, allowing those reactors to be decommissioned under less restrictive licence conditions. Most of the fuel assemblies were straightforward to handle, but about 50 are damaged and required special handling.

In 1999, a contract was signed with Framatome (now Areva) for construction of the ISF-2 radioactive waste management facility to store 25,000 used fuel assemblies from units 1-3 and other operational waste long-term, as well as material from decommissioning units 1-3 (which are the first RBMK units decommissioned anywhere). However, after a significant part of the dry storage facility had been built, technical deficiencies in the concept emerged in 2003, and the contract was terminated amicably in 2007.

Holtec International became the contractor in September 2007 for the new interim spent nuclear fuel storage facility (ISF-2 or SNF SF-2) for the state-owned Chernobyl NPP. Design approval and funding from the NSA was confirmed in October 2010, and the final €87.5 million of €400 million cost was pledged in April 2016. Construction was completed in January 2020. Hot and cold tests took place during 2020, and the facility received an operating licence in April 2021.

ISF-2 is the world's largest dry used fuel storage facility, accommodating 21,217 RBMK fuel assemblies in dry storage for at least a 100-year service life.

The project includes a processing facility, able to cut the RBMK fuel assemblies* and to put the material in double-walled canisters, which are then filled with inert gas and welded shut. They will then be transported to concrete dry storage vaults in which the fuel containers will be enclosed for up to 100 years. This facility, treating 2500 fuel assemblies per year, is the first of its kind for RBMK fuel.

* According to Holtec: "Unique features of the Chernobyl dry storage facility include the world's largest 'hot cell' for dismembering the conjugated RBMK fuel assembly and a (Holtec patented) forced gas dehydrator designed to run on nitrogen."

Other Chernobyl radwaste

Industrial Complex for Radwaste Management (ICSRM): In April 2009, Nukem handed over this turnkey waste treatment centre for solid radioactive waste. In May 2010, the State Nuclear Regulatory Committee licensed the commissioning of this facility, where solid low- and intermediate-level wastes accumulated from the power plant operations and the decommissioning of reactor blocks 1-3 is conditioned. The wastes are processed in three steps. First, the solid radioactive wastes temporarily stored in bunkers is removed for treatment. In the next step, these wastes, as well as those from decommissioning reactor blocks 1-3, are processed into a form suitable for permanent safe disposal. Low- and intermediate-level wastes are separated into combustible, compactable, and non-compactable categories. These are then subject to incineration, high-force compaction, and cementation respectively. In addition, highly radioactive and long-lived solid waste is sorted out for temporary separate storage. In the third step, the conditioned solid waste materials are transferred to containers suitable for permanent safe storage.

As part of this project, at the end of 2007, Nukem handed over an Engineered Near Surface Disposal Facility for storage of short-lived radioactive waste after prior conditioning. It is 17 km away from the power plant, at the Vektor complex within the 30-km zone. The storage area is designed to hold 55,000 m ³ of treated waste which will be subject to radiological monitoring for 300 years, by when the radioactivity will have decayed to such an extent that monitoring is no longer required.

Another contract has been let for a Liquid Radioactive Waste Treatment Plant (LRTP), to handle some 35,000 cubic metres of low- and intermediate-level liquid wastes at the site. This will be solidified and eventually buried along with solid wastes on site. Construction of the plant has been completed and the start of operations was due late in 2015. LRTP is also funded through EBRD's Nuclear Safety Account (NSA).

Non-Chernobyl used fuel

The Central Spent Fuel Storage Facility (CSFSF) Project for Ukraine's VVER reactors is being built by Holtec International within the Chernobyl exclusion area, between the resettled villages Staraya Krasnitsa, Buryakovka, Chistogalovka, and Stechanka, southeast of Chernobyl and not far from ISF-2. This will not take any Chernobyl fuel, though it will become a part of the common spent nuclear fuel management complex of the state-owned company Chernobyl NPP.

Decommissioning units 1-3

After the last Chernobyl reactor shut down in December 2000, in mid-2001 a new enterprise, SSE ChNPP was set up to take over management of the site and decommissioning from Energoatom. (Its remit includes eventual decommissioning of all Ukraine nuclear plants.)

In January 2008, the Ukraine government announced a four-stage decommissioning plan which incorporated the above waste activities and progresses towards a cleared site.

In February 2014 a new stage of this was approved for units 1-3, involving dismantling some equipment and putting them into safstor condition by 2028. Then, to 2046, further equipment will be removed, and by 2064 they will be demolished.

See also official website.

Resettlement of contaminated areas

In the last two decades there has been some resettlement of the areas evacuated in 1986 and subsequently. Recently the main resettlement project has been in Belarus.

In July 2010, the Belarus government announced that it had decided to settle back thousands of people in the 'contaminated areas' covered by the Chernobyl fallout, from which 24 years ago they and their forbears were hastily relocated. Compared with the list of contaminated areas in 2005, some 211 villages and hamlets had been reclassified with fewer restrictions on resettlement. The decision by the Belarus Council of Ministers resulted in a new national program over 2011-15 and up to 2020 to alleviate the Chernobyl impact and return the areas to normal use with minimal restrictions. The focus of the project is on the development of economic and industrial potential of the Gomel and Mogilev regions from which 137,000 people were relocated.

The main priority is agriculture and forestry, together with attracting qualified people and housing them. Initial infrastructure requirements will mean the refurbishment of gas, potable water and power supplies, while the use of local wood will be banned. Schools and housing will be provided for specialist workers and their families ahead of wider socio-economic development. Overall, some 21,484 dwellings are slated for connection to gas networks in the period 2011-2015, while about 5600 contaminated or broken down buildings are demolished. Over 1300 kilometres of road will be laid, and ten new sewerage works and 15 pumping stations are planned. The cost of the work was put at BYR 6.6 trillion ($2.2 billion), split fairly evenly across the years 2011 to 2015 inclusive.

The feasibility of agriculture will be examined in areas where the presence of caesium-137 and strontium-90 is low, "to acquire new knowledge in the fields of radiobiology and radioecology in order to clarify the principles of safe life in the contaminated territories." Land found to have too high a concentration of radionuclides will be reforested and managed. A suite of protective measures was set up to allow a new forestry industry whose products would meet national and international safety standards. In April 2009, specialists in Belarus stressed that it is safe to eat all foods cultivated in the contaminated territories, though intake of some wild food was restricted.

Protective measures will be put in place for 498 settlements in the contaminated areas where average radiation dose may exceed 1 mSv per year. There were also 1904 villages with annual average effective doses from the pollution between 0.1 mSv and 1 mSv. The goal for these areas is to allow their re-use with minimal restrictions, although already radiation doses there from the caesium are lower than background levels anywhere in the world.

The Belarus government decision was an important political landmark in an ongoing process. Studies reviewed by UNSCEAR show that the Chernobyl disaster caused little risk for the general population. A UN Development Program report in 2002 said that much of the aid and effort applied to mitigate the effects of the Chernobyl accident did more harm than good, and it seems that this, along with the Chernobyl Forum report, finally persuaded the Belarus authorities. In 2004 President Lukashenko announced a priority to repopulate much of the Chernobyl-affected regions of Belarus, and then in 2009 he said that he "wants to repopulate Chernobyl's zone quickly".

In 2011 Chernobyl was officially declared a tourist attraction, with many visitors.

In 2015 the published results of a major scientific study showed that the mammal population of the exclusion zone (including the 2162 sq km Polessian State Radiation-Ecological Reserve - PSRER in Belarus) was thriving, despite land contamination. The "long-term empirical data showed no evidence of a negative influence of radiation on mammal abundance." The data "represent unique evidence of wildlife's resilience in the face of chronic radiation stress." ( Current Biology, Elsevier) . Other studies have concluded that the net environmental effect of the accident has been much greater biodiversity and abundance of species, with the exclusion zone having become a unique sanctuary for wildlife due to the absence of humans.

What has been learned from the Chernobyl disaster?

Leaving aside the verdict of history on its role in melting the Soviet 'Iron Curtain', some very tangible practical benefits have resulted from the Chernobyl accident. The main ones concern reactor safety, notably in eastern Europe. (The US Three Mile Island accident in 1979 had a significant effect on Western reactor design and operating procedures. While that reactor was destroyed, all radioactivity was contained - as designed - and there were no deaths or injuries.)

While no-one in the West was under any illusion about the safety of early Soviet reactor designs, some lessons learned have also been applicable to Western plants. Certainly the safety of all Soviet-designed reactors has improved vastly. This is due largely to the development of a culture of safety encouraged by increased collaboration between East and West, and substantial investment in improving the reactors.

Modifications have been made to overcome deficiencies in all the RBMK reactors still operating. In these, originally the nuclear chain reaction and power output could increase if cooling water were lost or turned to steam, in contrast to most Western designs. It was this effect which led to the uncontrolled power surge that led to the destruction of Chernobyl 4 (see Positive void coefficient section in the information page on RBMK Reactors). All of the RBMK reactors have now been modified by changes in the control rods, adding neutron absorbers and consequently increasing the fuel enrichment from 1.8 to 2.4% U-235, making them very much more stable at low power (see Post accident changes to the RBMK section in the information page on RBMK Reactors). Automatic shut-down mechanisms now operate faster, and other safety mechanisms have been improved. Automated inspection equipment has also been installed. A repetition of the 1986 Chernobyl accident is now virtually impossible, according to a German nuclear safety agency report.

Since 1989, over 1000 nuclear engineers from the former Soviet Union have visited Western nuclear power plants and there have been many reciprocal visits. Over 50 twinning arrangements between East and West nuclear plants have been put in place. Most of this has been under the auspices of the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO), a body formed in 1989 which links 130 operators of nuclear power plants in more than 30 countries (see also information page on Cooperation in the Nuclear Power Industry).

Many other international programmes were initiated following Chernobyl. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safety review projects for each particular type of Soviet reactor are noteworthy, bringing together operators and Western engineers to focus on safety improvements. These initiatives are backed by funding arrangements. The Nuclear Safety Assistance Coordination Centre database lists Western aid totalling almost US$1 billion for more than 700 safety-related projects in former Eastern Bloc countries. The Convention on Nuclear Safety adopted in Vienna in June 1994 is another outcome.

The Chernobyl Forum report said that some seven million people are now receiving or eligible for benefits as 'Chernobyl victims', which means that resources are not targeting those most in need. Remedying this presents daunting political problems however.

Notes and references

Notes

a. Chernobyl is the well-known Russian name for the site; Chornobyl is preferred by Ukraine. [ Back]

b. Much has been made of the role of the operators in the Chernobyl accident. The 1986 Summary Report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident (INSAG-1) of the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA's) International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group accepted the view of the Soviet experts that "the accident was caused by a remarkable range of human errors and violations of operating rules in combination with specific reactor features which compounded and amplified the effects of the errors and led to the reactivity excursion." In particular, according to the INSAG-1 report: "The operators deliberately and in violation of rules withdrew most control and safety rods from the core and switched off some important safety systems."

However, the IAEA's 1992 INSAG-7 report, The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1, was less critical of the operators, with the emphasis shifted towards "the contributions of particular design features, including the design of the control rods and safety systems, and arrangements for presenting important safety information to the operators. The accident is now seen to have been the result of the concurrence of the following major factors: specific physical characteristics of the reactor; specific design features of the reactor control elements; and the fact that the reactor was brought to a state not specified by procedures or investigated by an independent safety body. Most importantly, the physical characteristics of the reactor made possible its unstable behaviour." But the report goes on to say that the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group "remains of the opinion that critical actions of the operators were most ill judged. As pointed out in INSAG-1, the human factor has still to be considered as a major element in causing the accident."

It is certainly true that the operators placed the reactor in a dangerous condition, in particular by removing too many of the control rods, resulting in the lowering of the reactor's operating reactivity margin (ORM, see information page on RBMK Reactors). However, the operating procedures did not emphasize the vital safety significance of the ORM but rather treated the ORM as a way of controlling reactor power. It could therefore be argued that the actions of the operators were more a symptom of the prevailing safety culture of the Soviet era rather than the result of recklessness or a lack of competence on the part of the operators.

In what is referred to as his Testament - which was published soon after his suicide two years after the accident - Valery Legasov, who had led the Soviet delegation to the IAEA Post-Accident Review Meeting, wrote: "After I had visited Chernobyl NPP I came to the conclusion that the accident was the inevitable apotheosis of the economic system which had been developed in the USSR over many decades. Neglect by the scientific management and the designers was everywhere with no attention being paid to the condition of instruments or of equipment... When one considers the chain of events leading up to the Chernobyl accident, why one person behaved in such a way and why another person behaved in another etc, it is impossible to find a single culprit, a single initiator of events, because it was like a closed circle." [ Back]

c. The initial death toll was officially given as two initial deaths plus 28 from acute radiation syndrome. One further victim, due to coronary thrombosis, is widely reported, but does not appear on official lists of the initial deaths. The 2006 report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Health", Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes, states: "The Chernobyl accident caused the deaths of 30 power plant employees and firemen within a few days or weeks (including 28 deaths that were due to radiation exposure)." [ Back]

d. Apart from the initial 31 deaths (two from the explosions, one reportedly from coronary thrombosis - see Note c above - and 28 firemen and plant personnel from acute radiation syndrome), the number of deaths resulting from the accident is unclear and a subject of considerable controversy. According to the 2006 report of the UN Chernobyl Forum's 'Health' Expert Group: "The actual number of deaths caused by this accident is unlikely ever to be precisely known."

On the number of deaths due to acute radiation syndrome (ARS), the Expert Group report states: "Among the 134 emergency workers involved in the immediate mitigation of the Chernobyl accident, severely exposed workers and fireman during the first days, 28 persons died in 1986 due to ARS, and 19 more persons died in 1987-2004 from different causes. Among the general population affected by the Chernobyl radioactive fallout, the much lower exposures meant that ARS cases did not occur."

According to the report: "With the exception of thyroid cancer, direct radiation-epidemiological studies performed in Belarus, Russia and Ukraine since 1986 have not revealed any statistically significant increase in either cancer morbidity or mortality induced by radiation." The report does however attribute a large proportion of child thyroid cancer fatalities to radiation, with nine deaths being recorded during 1986-2002 as a result of progression of thyroid cancer. [ Back]

e. There have been fatalities in military and research reactor contexts, e.g. Tokai-mura. [ Back]

f. Although most reports on the Chernobyl accident refer to a number of graphite fires, it is highly unlikely that the graphite itself burned. Information on the General Atomics website (but now deleted) stated: "It is often incorrectly assumed that the combustion behavior of graphite is similar to that of charcoal and coal. Numerous tests and calculations have shown that it is virtually impossible to burn high-purity, nuclear-grade graphites." On Chernobyl, the same source stated: "Graphite played little or no role in the progression or consequences of the accident. The red glow observed during the Chernobyl accident was the expected color of luminescence for graphite at 700°C and not a large-scale graphite fire, as some have incorrectly assumed."

A 2006 Electric Power Research Institute Technical Report states that the International Atomic Energy Agency's INSAG-1 report is
...potentially misleading through the use of imprecise words in relation to graphite behaviour. The report discusses the fire-fighting activities and repeatedly refers to "burning graphite blocks" and "the graphite fire". Most of the actual fires involving graphite which were approached by fire-fighters involved ejected material on bitumen-covered roofs, and the fires also involved the bitumen. It is stated: "The fire teams experienced no unusual problems in using their fire-fighting techniques, except that it took a considerable time to extinguish the graphite fire." These descriptions are not consistent with the later considered opinions of senior Russian specialists... There is however no question that extremely hot graphite was ejected from the core and at a temperature sufficient to ignite adjacent combustible materials.

There are also several referrals to a graphite fire occurring during the October 1957 accident at Windscale Pile No. 1 in the UK. However, images obtained from inside the Pile several decades after the accident showed that the graphite was relatively undamaged. [ Back]

g. The International Chernobyl Project, 1990-91 - Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures, Summary Brochure, published by the International Atomic Energy Agency, reports that, in June 1989, the World Health Organization (WHO) sent a team of experts to help address the health impacts of radioactive contamination resulting from the accident. One of the conclusions from this mission was that "scientists who are not well versed in radiation effects have attributed various biological and health effects to radiation exposure. These changes cannot be attributed to radiation exposure, especially when the normal incidence is unknown, and are much more likely to be due to psychological factors and stress.Attributing these effects to radiation not only increases the psychological pressure in the population and provokes additional stress-related health problems, it also undermines confidence in the competence of the radiation specialists." [ Back]

h. Image taken from page 31 of The International Chernobyl Project Technical Report, Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures, Report by an International Advisory Committee, IAEA, 1991 (ISBN: 9201291914) [ Back]

i. A 55-page summary version the revised report, Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, The Chernobyl Forum: 2003-2005, Second revised version, as well as the Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Environment" and the Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Health" are available through the IAEA's webpage on the Chernobyl accident ( https://www.iaea.org/topics/chornobyl) [ Back]

j. The United Nations Scientific Commission on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) is the UN body with a mandate from the General Assembly to assess and report levels and health effects of exposure to ionizing radiation. Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident , Annex J to Volume II of the 2000 United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation Report to the General Assembly, is available at the UNSCEAR 2000 Report Vol. II webpage (www.unscear.org/unscear/en/publications/2000_2.html). It is also available (along with other reports) on the webpage for UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects of The Chernobyl accident (www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html). The conclusions from Annex J of the UNSCEAR 2000 report are in Chernobyl Accident Appendix: Health Impacts

k. The quoted comment comes from a 6 June 2000 letter from Lars-Erik Holm, Chairman of UNSCEAR and Director-General of the Swedish Radiation Protection Institute, to Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the United Nations. [

l. A reinforced concrete casing was built around the ruined reactor building over the seven months following the accident. This shelter - often referred to as the - was intended to contain the remaining fuel and act as a radiation shield. As it was designed for a lifetime of around 20 to 30 years, as well as being hastily constructed, a second shelter - known as the New Safe Confinement - with a 100-year design lifetime is planned to be placed over the existing structure. See also ASE keeps the lid on Chernobyl , World Nuclear News (19 August 2008). [

m. The UNSCEAR committee in 2018 estimated that the fraction of the incidence of thyroid cancer attributable to radiation exposure among non-evacuated residents of Belarus, Ukraine and the four most contaminated oblasts of the Russian Federation, who were under 18 at the time of the accident, is in the order of 0.25 . The committee states that the uncertainty range of the fraction is large, at least from 0.07 to 0.5. [ Back]

References

1. 7. The Accident and the Safety of RBMK-Reactors, Gesellschaft für Anlagen und Reaktorsicherheit (GRS) mbH, GRS-121 (February 1996) [9. Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes, Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum, Expert Group "Health", World Health Organization, 2006 (ISBN: 9789241594172)
2. Appendix D, Graphite Decommissioning: Options for Graphite Treatment, Recycling, or Disposal, including a discussion of Safety-Related Issues , EPRI, Palo Alto, CA, 1013091 (March 2006)
The International Chernobyl Project, 1990-91 - Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures, Summary Brochure , International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA/PI/A32E, 1991; The International Chernobyl Project, An Overview , Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures, Report by an International Advisory Committee , IAEA, 1991 (ISBN: 9201290918); The International Chernobyl Project Technical Report , Assessment of Radiological Consequences and Evaluation of Protective Measures, Report by an International Advisory Committee , IAEA, 1991 (ISBN: 9201291914) [
4. Mikhail Balonov, Malcolm Crick and Didier Louvat, Update of Impacts of the Chernobyl Accident: Assessments of the Chernobyl Forum (2003-2005) and UNSCEAR (2005-2008) , Proceedings of the Third European IRPA (International Radiation Protection Association) Congress held in Helsinki, Finland (14-18 June 2010) [
5. UNSCEAR, 2011, UNSCEAR 2008 Report, vol II, annex D (lead author: M. Balanov) [
6. Chernobyl - A Continuing Catastrophe, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), 2000 [

8. Deryabina, T.G. Long-term census data reveal abundant wildlife populations at Chernobyl Health Effects due to Radiation from the Chernobyl Accident, , Current Biology, Volume 25, Issue 19, pR824-R826, Elsevier (5 October 2015) [
Back] Evaluation of data on thyroid cancer in regions affected by the Chernobyl accident, UNSCEAR (2018) [ Back]

General sources

INSAG-7, The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1, A report by the International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group, International Atomic Energy Agency, Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-7, 1992, (ISBN: 9201046928)

Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts and Recommendations to the Governments of Belarus, the Russian Federation and Ukraine, The Chernobyl Forum: 2003-2005, Second revised version, International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA/PI/A.87 Rev.2/06-09181 (April 2006)

Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience, Report of the Chernobyl Forum Expert Group 'Environment', International Atomic Energy Agency, 2006 (ISBN 9201147058)

Health Effects of the Chernobyl Accident and Special Health Care Programmes, Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Health", World Health Organization, 2006 (ISBN: 9789241594172)

The Chernobyl accident, UNSCEAR's assessments of the radiation effects on the UNSCEAR (United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation) radiation website

Exposures and effects of the Chernobyl accident, Annex J of Sources and Effects of Ionizing Radiation, UNSCEAR 2000 Report to the General Assembly Vol. II

Ten Years after Chernobyl: what do we really know? (based on the proceedings of the IAEA/WHO/EC International Conference, Vienna, April 1996), International Atomic Energy Agency

Chernobyl: Assessment of Radiological and Health Impacts - 2002 Update of Chernobyl: Ten Years On, OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (2002).

Zbigniew Jaworowski, Lessons of Chernobyl with particular reference to thyroid cancer, Australasian Radiation Protection Society Newsletter No. 30 (April 2004). The same article appeared in Executive Intelligence Review (EIR), Volume 31, Number 18 (7 May 2004). An extended version of this paper was published as Radiation folly, Chapter 4 of Environment & Health: Myths & Realities, Edited by Kendra Okonski and Julian Morris, International Policy Press (a division of International Policy Network), June 2004 (ISBN 1905041004). See also Chernobyl Accident Appendix 2: Health Impacts

The chernobyl.info website www.chernobyl.info - out of date but some useful information

Chernobyl Forum information on IAEA website

Mikhail Balonov, The Chernobyl Forum: Major Findings and Recommendations, presented at the Public Information Materials Exchange meeting held in Vienna, Austria on 12-16 February 2006

GreenFacts webpage on Scientific Facts on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident (www.greenfacts.org/en/chernobyl)

European Centre of Technological Safety's Chernobyl website (www.tesec-int.org/Chernobyl) and its webpage on Sarcophagus and Decommissioning of the Chernobyl NPP

Chernobyl Legacy website (www.chernobyllegacy.com)

David Mosey, Looking Beyond the Operator, Nuclear Engineering International, 26 Nov 2014

Chernobyl 25th anniversary, Frequently Asked Questions, World Health Organization (23 April 2011)

Environmental Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident and their Remediation: Twenty Years of Experience, Report of the UN Chernobyl Forum Expert Group "Environment", STI/PUB/1239, International Atomic Energy Agency (2006)

Appendices

Chernobyl Accident - Appendix 1: Sequence of Events
Chernobyl Accident - Appendix 2: Health Impacts

RBMK Reactors
Early Soviet Reactors and EU Accession
Ukraine
Safety of Nuclear Power Reactors
Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities
Fukushima Daiichi Accident
Nuclear Energy and Sustainable Development
Ukraine: Russia-Ukraine War and Nuclear Energy

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Chernobyl accident in 1986 was the result of a flawed reactor design that was operated with inadequately trained personnel. Two Chernobyl plant workers died on the night of the accident, and a further 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation poisoning.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"OK, the Montana lamb with the rocket leaf and goat cheese salad, and the lime-grilled free-range chicken with the pumpkin pasta and dandelion grains. Enjoy. I'm Phillip if you need me." This line from the 1987 film Baby Boom announces the well-garnished cuisine delivered to the table of J.C. Wiatt (Diane Keaton) and her boss (Sam Wanamaker) in one of the opening scenes. Oh, to be a foodie in the '80s!

Today's post has been a long time coming. As a blogger who focuses on the recent retro, I've thrown my share of '80-style events, from a yacht rock-inspired 40th birthday party to a dinner party featuring items like mixed greens with goat cheese and sun-dried tomato on the menu. I LOVE learning about '80s food. There's nothing like the junk food kids had at their fingertips during the Decade of Decadence, but there's something extra special about the high-end dining experience created by chefs experimenting with beautiful presentation.

Then there was the delicious lack of knowledge, especially when it came to certain treats like alcohol and bread. Take Jessica Lange's character in the 1982 film Tootsie. When Tootsie (Dustin Hoffman) asks her why she drinks so much, she says, ""Because it's not fattening and it's not good for me. How many things can you say that about?" Anyone else miss the days when we didn't fully realize that wine had caloric consequences?! And what about carbs?...

In a September 1986 feature from Metropolitan Home, we're treated to "a day in the life" of two yuppies. On the menu: croissants and orange juice for breakfast, tomato and mozzarella for lunch, and a no-fuss dinner featuring pasta salad...with lots of bread. If only we could go back to time when bread and juice were considered essential components of a good meal!

Who's ready to take a closer look at the world of '80s restaurant food? While this post is not meant to serve as a comprehensive overview of 1980s food, it will definitely touch on some top trends and key memories of the '80s dining experience. Keep reading to discover tidbits ranging from menu design to high-end cuisine. We're talking about the '80s, folks, so you know this is going to be good...

1980s Food Trends
If you ate at a sit-down restaurant in the 1980s, the menu likely would have reflected a few of these food trends, among others:

French onion soup

lobster bisque

pasta primavera and pasta salad

angel hair pasta

blackened meat

chicken and veal marsala

sushi

quiche

goat cheese

pesto

sun-dried tomatoes

"specialty" salad dressings, such as raspberry vinaigrette

ample sauces and garnishes

pink peppercorns

foams

chocolate mousse

berry tarts

There are some wonderfully informative articles and posts that highlight food trends from the Decade of Decadence (scroll to the bottom of this post for a list), as well as amazing resources such as tumblr Palm & Laser, which has showcased menu design and restaurant logos from this era. Don't forget the wide range of '80s movies that reflect '80s food trends, such as the above-mentioned Baby Boom, as well as Wall Street, which sees Charlie Sheen's character enjoying an over-the-top apartment redesign, complete with a fully-stocked kitchen that includes yuppie staples like a sushi maker and a pasta maker (see images above and below).

To get some perspective on '80s cuisine, I reached out to one of my favorite human beings on the planet, my cousin Tom Provost. Not only is Tom an editor, director, writer and former actor, he pens the foodie-fabulous blog On Food and Film. He also racked up a wealth of experience in the 1980s LA restaurant scene as a server. I asked him about his take on '80s food trends, especially in higher-end establishments. One of the first observations he shared with me conjures images of artfully arranged meals. Here's a glimpse at plated '80s cuisine...

" Very small portions. A slice of meat, a carrot and two peas with some sauce drizzled around. Very different than today, when portions tend to be huge. The emphasis seemed to be more on presentation than how the food tasted."

For design lovers, this is great news, especially if you can get your hands on retro menus, cookbooks and other sources that feature images of these meticulously created meals. For those with a big appetite, not such great news! In addition to small portions, Provost reminds us that certain staples of today's culinary world took awhile to catch on. He shares, "It's funny to think of things that are so ubiquitous now that had to be thrust onto the country. I remember growing up in the '70s when Hidden Valley Ranch was doing tons of commercials on TV, all centered around trying to convince people just to try the dressing. Now of course it's the favorite. Brown mustard and dijon mustard were the same. Now more the norm (at least with foodies) than yellow mustard, but it took Gulden's and Grey Poupon a lot of work to get people to try these in the '70s."
Photo above: 1980s Hidden Valley Ranch party dip products, source: The Clorox Company
No wonder salad dressing was such a culinary highlight of many an '80s menu! Bring on the raspberry vinaigrette and poppy seed dressing! And then there's pesto. Provost recalls his parents phoning him in the late '80s, announcing that they'd just had the best sauce ever. "...something called pesto. They had never heard of it, I had never heard of it and all of a sudden pesto seemed to explode around the nation. I am sure there were places that served pesto back then... but we certainly had never encountered it. Nor had I in LA before this time."
*Image of Bubbles in Balboa, California [Photo by Milroy/McAleer, from Restaurant Design: Ninety-Five Spaces That Work, 1987]
In terms of other restaurant trends, raise your hand if you remember the smoking section! You know, those days when a crowd of people could smoke like chimneys, even if nothing more than a row of planters separated the hazy air from the clean air of the non-smoking section. Provost remembers how restaurant servers fought for the smoking section, as smokers tended to eat and drink more, which led to happier dispositions and bigger tips! He shares, "The manager had to make sure everyone rotated in and out of the smoking section because you made more money and the wait staff would get mad if people got that section more often than others."
A big thank-you to Tom Provost for reliving the magic of the 1980s restaurant scene so we could all live vicariously through his experiences! Don't forget to check out his blog, On Food and Film, for more culinary greatness.
The Design of It All

Before I share a list of resources on retro dining trends, I want to remind you that half the fun is reveling in the amazing design that permeated the 1980s restaurant scene! From beautifully set tables (image below featured at Palm & Laser) to grand interior features, dining out during the Decade of Decadence was a feast for the eyes. Accent walls, murals, wall sconces, pedestals and an abundance of plants were a few of the many design trends to enjoy. Want to learn more? Check out our post on '80s restaurant design.

If you're a fan of '80s graphic design, you can learn a lot about the era from the menus! Below we see a menu featured at tumblr Palm & Laser. Also note that the New York Public Library has an online archive of scanned menus from the 1980s, among many other decades. Learn about food trends and design at the same time! French onion soup, anyone?

Resources and Posts
Cooking in the 1980s Pesto, Jams, and New York City in the 1980s 11 Dining Trends From the '80s That Are Poised for a Comeback New York Public Library - What's on the Menu: 1980s '80s Food Photography Early '80s Food Styling Do These 3 Classic '80s Cocktails Hold Up? Tips for Styling Retro Cocktails What We Can Learn from '80s Restaurant Design Happy dining, and thanks for reading!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's nothing like the junk food kids had at their fingertips during the Decade of Decadence, but there's something extra special about the high-end dining experience created by chefs experimenting with beautiful presentation. Learn about '80s restaurant food trends, from popular edibles to the flawless presentation.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Challenger disaster, explosion of the U.S. space shuttle orbiter Challenger, shortly after its launch from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on January 28, 1986. The disaster claimed the lives of seven astronauts.

The primary goal of shuttle mission 51-L was to launch the second Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS-B). It also carried the Spartan Halley spacecraft, a small satellite that was to be released by Challenger and picked up two days later after observing Halley's Comet during its closest approach to the Sun.

Greatest visibility among the crew went to teacher-in-space Christa McAuliffe of Concord, New Hampshire, the winner of a national screening begun in 1984. McAuliffe was to conduct at least two lessons from orbit and then spend the following nine months lecturing students across the United States. The goal was to highlight the importance of teachers and to interest students in high-tech careers. Other members of the crew were commander Francis (Dick) Scobee, pilot Michael Smith, mission specialists Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, and Ronald McNair, and Hughes Aircraft engineer Gregory Jarvis.

The mission experienced trouble at the outset, as the launch was postponed for several days, partly because of delays in getting the previous shuttle mission, 61-C ( Columbia), back on the ground. On the night before the launch, central Florida was swept by a severe cold wave that deposited thick ice on the launch pad. On launch day, January 28, liftoff was delayed until 11:38 am. All appeared to be normal until after the vehicle emerged from "Max-Q," the period of greatest aerodynamic pressure. Mission Control told Scobee, " Challenger, go with throttle up," and seconds later the vehicle disappeared in an explosion just 73 seconds after liftoff, at an altitude of 14,000 metres (46,000 feet). Tapes salvaged from the wreckage showed that the instant before breakup Smith said "Uh-oh," but nothing else was heard. Debris rained into the Atlantic Ocean for more than an hour after the explosion; searches revealed no sign of the crew.

The incident immediately grounded the shuttle program. An intensive investigation by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and a commission appointed by U.S. Pres. Ronald Reagan and chaired by former secretary of state William Rogers followed. Other members of the commission included astronauts Neil Armstrong and Sally Ride, test pilot Chuck Yeager, and physicist Richard Feynman. What emerged was an appalling pattern of assumptions that the vehicle could survive minor mishaps and be pushed even further. The ill-fated launch brought to the fore the difficulties that NASA had been experiencing for many years in trying to accomplish too much with too little money.

The immediate cause of the accident was suspected within days and was fully established within a few weeks. The severe cold reduced the resiliency of two rubber O-rings that sealed the joint between the two lower segments of the right-hand solid rocket booster. (At a commission hearing, Feynman convincingly demonstrated the loss of O-ring resiliency by submerging an O-ring in a glass of ice water.) Under normal circumstances, when the shuttle's three main engines ignited, they pressed the whole vehicle forward, and the boosters were ignited when the vehicle swung back to centre. On the morning of the accident, an effect called "joint rotation" occurred, which prevented the rings from resealing and opened a path for hot exhaust gas to escape from inside the booster. Puffs of black smoke appeared on the far side of the booster in a spot not visible to most cameras.

As the vehicle ascended, the leak expanded, and after 59 seconds a 2.4-metre (8-foot) stream of flame emerged from the hole. This grew to 12 metres (40 feet) and gradually eroded one of three struts that secured the booster's base to the large external tank carrying liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen for the orbiter engines. At the same time, thrust in the booster lagged slightly, although within limits, and the nozzle steering systems tried to compensate. When the strut broke, the booster's base swiveled outward, forcing its nose through the top of the external fuel tank and causing the whole tank to collapse and explode. Through ground tracking cameras this was seen as a brief flame licking from a concealed spot on the right side of the vehicle a few seconds before everything disappeared in the fireball. Even if the plume had been seen at liftoff, there would have been no hope for crew escape, because the shuttle orbiter could not survive high-speed separation from the tank until the last seconds of the boosters' two-minute burn.

Challenger broke up in the explosion, but the forward section with the crew cabin was severed in one piece; it continued to coast upward with other debris, including wings and still-flaming engines, and then plummeted to the ocean. It was believed that the crew survived the initial breakup but that loss of cabin pressure rendered them unconscious within seconds, since they did not wear pressure suits. Death probably resulted from oxygen deficiency minutes before impact.

The boosters also survived the fireball and righted themselves to continue flying, something totally unexpected. Range safety officers finally detonated their charges 30 seconds later to prevent them from overflying land. After the accident, NASA immediately began work on a redesigned solid booster for future launches.

An intensive salvage operation was organized to retrieve as much of the wreckage as possible and the bodies of the crew. The task was complicated by the force of the explosion and the altitude at which it occurred, as well as the separate paths taken by the boosters.

The Rogers Commission report, delivered on June 6 to the president, faulted NASA as a whole, and its Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, and contractor Morton Thiokol, Inc., in Ogden, Utah, in particular, for poor engineering and management. Marshall was responsible for the shuttle boosters, engines, and tank, while Morton Thiokol manufactured the booster motors and assembled them at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, Florida.

The Rogers Commission heard disturbing testimony from a number of engineers who had been expressing concern about the reliability of the seals for at least two years and who had warned superiors about a possible failure the night before 51-L was launched. One of the Rogers Commission's strongest recommendations was to tighten the communication gap between shuttle managers and working engineers. In response to this implied criticism that its quality-control measures had become slack, NASA added several more checkpoints in the shuttle bureaucracy, including a new NASA safety office and a shuttle safety advisory panel, in order to prevent such a "flawed" decision to launch from being made again.

Aside from these internal fixes at NASA, however, the Rogers Commission addressed a more fundamental problem. In NASA's efforts to streamline shuttle operations in pursuit of its declared goal of flying 24 missions a year, the commission said, the agency had simply been pushing too hard. The shuttle program had neither the personnel nor the spare parts to maintain such an ambitious flight rate without straining its physical resources or overworking its technicians.

This judgment cut to the core of the way in which the national space program had been conducted in the shuttle era. Indeed, the Challenger accident merely focused attention on more deeply seated problems that had existed for as long as 15 years. From the time it was approved by Pres. Richard Nixon in 1972, the shuttle had been conceived as a "do-everything" vehicle for carrying every kind of space payload, from commercial and scientific satellites to military spacecraft to probes bound for the outer planets. NASA's fleet of conventional "expendable" rockets such as the Delta and Atlas had been phased out in the shuttle era as a result and were being used primarily to reach polar orbits that the shuttle could not reach from Cape Canaveral.

Although this reliance on the shuttle was the officially stated national space policy, the Department of Defense had begun to retreat from relying exclusively on the shuttle even before the Challenger accident. Concerned that shuttle launch delays would jeopardize the assured access to space of high-priority national security satellites, the Air Force in 1985 began a program of buying advanced Titan rockets as "complementary expendable launch vehicles" for its own use.

Other, less powerful groups came forward after the Challenger accident to express their long-standing unhappiness with exclusive reliance on the shuttle for their access to space. Among those calling for a "mixed fleet" of shuttles and expendable launchers were scientists whose missions now faced long delays because the shuttle had become the only existing means of carrying their spacecraft.

By July, when NASA announced that the shuttle would not be ready to fly again until 1988, there was still no decision from Congress or the White House as to whether another orbiter would be built to replace Challenger. Proponents argued that another vehicle-perhaps two more-would be needed to meet the launch needs of the 1990s, which would include construction of NASA's international space station, a permanent facility in Earth orbit.

In mid-August Pres. Ronald Reagan announced that construction of a replacement shuttle orbiter (later named Endeavour) would begin immediately. When the shuttle resumed service, however, it would no longer be in the business of launching satellites for paying customers but would be devoted almost exclusively to defense and scientific payloads. The Reagan administration had long had the goal of stimulating a private space launch industry, and now, with the removal of a heavily subsidized competitor from the market, three different companies stepped forward within a week's time to announce plans for operating commercial versions of the Delta, Titan, and Atlas/Centaur launchers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Challenger disaster | Summary, Date, Cause, & Facts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Challenger disaster, explosion of the U.S. space shuttle orbiter Challenger, shortly after its launch from Cape Canaveral, Florida, on January 28, 1986, which claimed the lives of seven astronauts, including Christa McAuliffe, who had won a national screening to become the first teacher in space.