nuclear-news

Chernobyl at 40: Belarus took the brunt

April 28, 2026, https://beyondnuclear.org/chernobyl-at-40-belarus-took-the-brunt/

A report from Olga Karatch, Belarussian founder in exile of Our House:

On April 26, it marked 40 years since the largest nuclear technological disaster in history — the explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. Although the plant is geographically located in Ukraine, Belarus suffered the greatest damage due to weather conditions.

The Chernobyl disaster resulted in radioactive contamination of nearly 150,000 km², while around 5,000 km² became an exclusion zone with the strictest restrictions.

The distance from Chernobyl to the Belarusian border is only 11 km. To Minsk — about 330 km. To Vilnius, where the action took place — less than 490 km.

In 1986, an RBMK reactor exploded at the plant. This type of reactor used graphite rods to control the reaction, as well as water. At a certain point, water could interfere with the insertion of the graphite rods.

These rods function as the reactor’s brakes. When the brakes fail, disaster becomes inevitable — and it did.

Similar reactors were operating at other plants, including the Ignalina nuclear power plant in Lithuania.

According to the IAEA report INSAG-7, as early as 1983 a so-called positive feedback effect (positive scram effect) was identified — later becoming one of the key factors in the Chernobyl disaster.

The RBMK reactor itself was considered high-risk: incidents occurred at the Leningrad plant (1975), at Chernobyl (1982, 1984), and at Ignalina.

Nuclear power plants are often presented as environmentally friendly, but this is an oversimplification.

In the Soviet Union, the nuclear sector was part of a closed system, overseen by a separate ministry.

Nuclear power plants did not exist in isolation: they were part of a broader industry, one of whose end products was weapons-grade plutonium and uranium.

Information about radiation accidents was often concealed. Victims were misdiagnosed and forced to sign non-disclosure agreements. People died, and even doctors sometimes did not know the real causes — because of secrecy.

Today, safety standards have improved, but the risks have not disappeared.

Moreover, the economic efficiency of nuclear energy is increasingly questioned. In some cases, the cost of decommissioning a plant exceeds the profits generated during its operation.

Belarus continues to pursue nuclear projects while serious concerns remain regarding safety and transparency.

During the construction of the Belarusian NPP:

— a reactor vessel was dropped (2016)
— equipment was damaged during transportation

After launch, shutdowns, disconnections, and periods of downtime have been repeatedly reported.

The Lithuanian regulator (VATESI) has repeatedly pointed to recurring failures and a lack of transparency.

Conclusion

Due to the clear mismatch between high risks and questionable benefits, “Our House” advocates phasing out nuclear energy.

We will continue to participate in public actions and speak about these issues openly.

View the action

May 7, 2026 - Posted by Christina Macpherson | Belarus, safety