New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Life after a Nuclear Catastrophe: An Inside Look [Slide Show]

Why do people choose to stay near places like Chernobyl and Fukushima?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

This series of photographs explores why people chose to remain after nuclear disasters struck their locales and their lives afterward. They are excerpted from Would You Stay?, by Michael Forster Rothbart. TED Conferences, October 28, 2013.

The 1986 nuclear meltdown and explosion at Chernobyl scattered radioactive fallout across 30 European countries. Yet in the regions of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, which suffered the worst contamination, the majority of the population stayed. Their lives remain littered with unanswered questions about safety and their futures, but they refuse to go. Chernobyl is home.

A generation later, after the 2011 earthquake and tsunami triggered meltdowns and multiple explosions in a power plant that's still leaking nuclear waste, the people of Fukushima, Japan, confront the same impossible questions. Attempts are being made to remove radioactive materials from the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant reactor Unit 4, but much uncertainty remains about the future.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Photojournalist Michael Forster Rothbart traveled to both Chernobyl and Fukushima to try to understand both why people refuse to leave, despite the risks, as well as what happens to those who do move away. Forster Rothbart hopes to help reveal with his photos the true value of home and to confront the ultimate question after a nuclear accident: Would you stay?

View a slide show of life after nuclear disasters.

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe