Saturday, March 29, 2014

Nuclear Power: Is It Safe?

Cumulative Reactor Years

In the 1950s attention turned to harnessing the power of the atom in a controlled way, as demonstrated at Chicago in 1942 and subsequently for military research, and applying the steady heat yield to generate electricity. This naturally gave rise to concerns about accidents and their possible effects. However, with nuclear power safety depends on much the same factors as in any comparable industry: intelligent planning, proper design with conservative margins and back-up systems, high-quality components and a well-developed safety culture in operations.

A particular nuclear scenario was loss of cooling which resulted in melting of the nuclear reactor core, and this motivated studies on both the physical and chemical possibilities as well as the biological effects of any dispersed radioactivity.  Those responsible for nuclear power technology in the West devoted extraordinary effort to ensuring that a meltdown of the reactor core would not take place, since it was assumed that a meltdown of the core would create a major public hazard, and if uncontained, a tragic accident with likely multiple fatalities.

In avoiding such accidents the industry has been very successful. In over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial operation in 32 countries, there have been only three major accidents to nuclear power plants - Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima - the second being of little relevance to reactor design outside the old Soviet bloc.

It was not until the late 1970s that detailed analyses and large-scale testing, followed by the 1979 meltdown of the Three Mile Island reactor, began to make clear that even the worst possible accident in a conventional western nuclear power plant or its fuel would not be likely to cause dramatic public harm. The industry still works hard to minimize the probability of a meltdown accident, but it is now clear that no-one need fear a potential public health catastrophe simply because a fuel meltdown happens.  Fukushima has made that clear, with a triple meltdown causing no fatalities or serious radiation doses to anyone, while over two hundred people continued working on the site to mitigate the accident's effects.

The decades-long test and analysis program showed that less radioactivity escapes from molten fuel than initially assumed, and that most of this radioactive material is not readily mobilized beyond the immediate internal structure. Thus, even if the containment structure that surrounds all modern nuclear plants were ruptured, as it has been with at least one of the Fukushima reactors, it is still very effective in preventing escape of most radioactivity.

It is the laws of physics and the properties of materials that mitigate disaster, as much as the required actions by safety equipment or personnel. In fact, licensing approval for new plants now requires that the effects of any core-melt accident must be confined to the plant itself, without the need to evacuate nearby residents.

The three significant accidents in the 50-year history of civil nuclear power generation are:
  • Three Mile Island (USA 1979) where the reactor was severely damaged but radiation was contained and there were no adverse health or environmental consequences
  • Chernobyl (Ukraine 1986) where the destruction of the reactor by steam explosion and fire killed 31 people and had significant health and environmental consequences. The death toll has since increased to about 5
  • Fukushima (Japan 2011) where three old reactors (together with a fourth) were written off and the effects of loss of cooling due to a huge tsunami were inadequately contained.
These three significant accidents occurred during more than 14,500 reactor-years of civil operation. Of all the accidents and incidents, only the Chernobyl and Fukushima accidents resulted in radiation doses to the public greater than those resulting from the exposure to natural sources. The Fukushima accident resulted in some radiation exposure of workers at the plant, but not such as to threaten their health, unlike Chernobyl.  Other incidents (and one 'accident') have been completely confined to the plant.
Apart from Chernobyl, no nuclear workers or members of the public have ever died as a result of exposure to radiation due to a commercial nuclear reactor incident. Most of the serious radiological injuries and deaths that occur each year (2-4 deaths and many more exposures above regulatory limits) are the result of large uncontrolled radiation sources, such as abandoned medical or industrial equipment. (There have also been a number of accidents in experimental reactors and in one military plutonium-producing pile - at Windscale, UK, in 1957, but none of these resulted in loss of life outside the actual plant, or long-term environmental contamination.) 


It should be emphasised that a commercial-type power reactor simply cannot under any circumstances explode like a nuclear bomb - the fuel is not enriched beyond about 5%.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) was set up by the United Nations in 1957. One of its functions was to act as an auditor of world nuclear safety, and this role was increased greatly following the Chernobyl accident. It prescribes safety procedures and the reporting of even minor incidents. Its role has been strengthened since 1996 (see later section). Every country which operates nuclear power plants has a nuclear safety inspectorate and all of these work closely with the IAEA.
While nuclear power plants are designed to be safe in their operation and safe in the event of any malfunction or accident, no industrial activity can be represented as entirely risk-free. Incidents and accidents may happen, and as in other industries, will lead to progressive improvement in safety.

14 comments:

  1. The risk of dealing with anything nuclear must always be taken into account, even with the most minimal chances of disaster. The rationale of the author is that "incidents and accidents may happen, and as in other industries, will lead to progressive improvement in safety." However, a nuclear plant is not like other industries where accidents' impacts are limited. I do like nuclear power for now (I would still prefer other energy options), but even the most staunch libertarian would agree that the industry must be regulated with extreme scrutiny because any problems with it are a clear violation of private property and security of citizens.

    One thing I don't like about this article is that it ignores indirect deaths and health issues which result from major accidents and instead focuses on "serious radiological injuries and deaths." After Chernobyl, for example. many people across Eastern Europe developed cancer or were born with it years after the incident. A death in 2005, for example could still be the result of radioactive exposure to a mother two decades earlier. It is nearly impossible to measure these effects, however, and indirect deaths as a result of Chernobyl range from several thousand to a hundred thousand plus. The same could be said with Fukushima: although workers were not severely exposed, crops may have been contaminated and effects may linger. It is still too early to tell and I believe thyroid cancer statistics should be carefully analyzed in Japan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that the risk of dealing with anything that could be harmful to us is not worth it. Anything nuclear does not seem like something to take lightly. At the end of the day, the industry must be highly regulated and needs to be under supervision and researched. Unfortunately, and I hate to say it, this probably won't happen the way it should and that is what scares me. With everything, there are pros and cons but I feel like we are playing with really big cons with this one.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It comes as no surprise that the safety of nuclear power plants is often questioned and criticized despite the relatively scarce amount of major accidents that have occurred in the past 50 years. Even the term “nuclear power” can be intimidating and often brings up concerns of pollution, radiation exposure, and even explosions. What many people do not realize, is that nuclear power has a statistically impressive track record. As the article mentions, there have only been three major accidents - Three Mile Island, Fukushima, Chernobyl - in the past 50 years of nuclear power which adds up to 14,500 cumulative reactor years of plants in operation. I think the reason people fret over nuclear power is the vast potential damage an accident in a nuclear power plant can cause to the environment and to humans. Additionally, a nuclear explosion or accident can produce ongoing health risks from lingering chemicals and harmful debris in the air making it hard to truly calculate the overall risks. Nuclear power plants are definitely not the only threat to the environment when it comes to heavy machinery and chemicals, but it does not make them less off putting. However, the idea of transitioning to clean energy and a green economy would help eliminate nuclear power plants and terminate the risks for future nuclear accidents.

    Courtney Baxter

    ReplyDelete
  4. Nuclear energy is one of the cleanest and safest forms of energy available in the world. Yes, there are risks that are associated with the use of this form of energy, but what other options don't have risks? All energy sources come with their own hazards. As long as we do everything in our power to ensure that the plants are run in a safe and efficient manner, there is no need to refrain from use. As the article points out, nuclear malfunctions are very rare, and when they do occur, they don't do nearly as much damage as people would expect. With time, the technique of using nuclear energy will continue to better, and with that the hazard will fall. I think that peoples fear lie in the connotation of the word nuclear. Often, this word is coupled with extreme explosions. However, the use of these plants in no way can cause anything so drastic.

    -George De Feis

    ReplyDelete
  5. I do not think nuclear energy is safe. While nuclear power plants are built in the safest possible way to minimize risk, there is no such thing as a risk free facility. In my opinion, there are too many risks involved with nuclear power. Not only is radioactive exposure dangerous to human health, there is also a significant amount of hazardous waste as a product of producing nuclear power. I don't believe there is an environmentally friendly way to dispose of this waste. While we can place it in tightly sealed containers and bury it safely in the earth to minimize risk, we cannot call that environmentally friendly.

    The other issue I have with nuclear power is that I'm afraid that the Chernobyl incident will repeat itself. The Russian government was so worried of getting in trouble and losing business that they refused to take proper precautions. They incessantly stated that there was nothing to worry about and that the area was in no immediate danger. In reality, the earth around it became highly radioactive and was highly dangerous for the crops being grown in the area and the people living there. It would be easy to allow nuclear energy if everyone swore to be honest with the state of their powerplant. But the economically driven society we live in today doesn't exactly promote honesty.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jessica Y. SanchezApril 3, 2014 at 8:04 PM

    I think nuclear energy would be a good thing because it looks to bring the supply of energy back home, ethical, environmental, and economic dimensions will increase for several reasons. First, the ethical practice will increase, because we will no longer rely on another country to supply our energy. This is positive because America doesn’t have to involve themselves in corrupt or wrong doings of other countries just to supply a ample amount of energy. Most believe that the war in the Middle East is due to the supply of oil. If we rely on ourselves I think we could further bring peace in America because of a different source of energy being used. The environmental impact would decrease because America would be able to enforce their own rules ensuring energy is extracted and provided in the most environmental friendly way. It would also decrease in the pollution emitted from transporting oil from overseas. Economically I think it would increase the economic dimension because with the development of projects more people would be put back to work. More jobs would be supplied to certain areas and that would help the economy grow as more have money to spend. I think it would also help economically because then maybe America can export to those countries who are in good ethical standing with America’s environmental laws.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I do not think that nuclear power is safe, there is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation and the fact that nuclear pollution is invisible that does not mean that it is clean. I wouldn’t consider anything that is capable to killing people safe. Nuclear power systems have to be highly regulated and monitored in order to prevent accidents, workers are at a high risk. The article mentions three different accidents Chernobyl being the worst but that doesn’t mean that’s it for nuclear power accidents anything can happen no matter how many safety measure one uses to lower the risk of having an explosion. If a disastrous meltdown was to occur, the accident could kill and injure 10 thousands of people and leaving those regions uninhabitable, I think that the use to nuclear power should be cut back a lot and we should shift more to renewable energy sources which are safe and clean.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I do believe nuclear power is safe. Like the article mentioned there were only three occurrences of a nuclear catastrophe out of all the years Nuclear Power has been in use. The regulation of nuclear power has been strong and I believe has been the reason for so few Nuclear accidents as well as best practices. However Nuclear material is very deadly and out of the few nuclear accidents multiple people died. I do applaud the nuclear industry for not allowing more fatalities to occur. With the continued stringent regulation of nuclear power I believe nuclear power can continue to be used to meet our energy needs.

    ReplyDelete
  9. While I agree that nuclear power is much more stigmatized and controversial than it ought to be, I am not so sure I place it much higher than many of our current brown-economy model energy sources. This is only because of the disastrous effects it can have should an accident happen, the same way there are disastrous consequences from current energy sources after an accident (i.e. oil). While the article argues Fukushima hasn't had any significant, impactful effects, I doubt we will be able to see the true long term consequences for many, many years. Additionally, the article avoids mentioning the insane levels of radiation found in fish nearly two years after the spill in the area, and the resulting death spikes in many wildlife creatures who depend on these fish as a food source (i.e. seals, sea Lions, polar bears, bald eagles). These deaths could of course simply be correlated, yet not casual, however that is also something we won't know unless a intensive, long term study is done, funding for which of course will not be provided by the Japanese or American government due to both parties eagerness to brush off the potential, serious consequences of the Fukushima accident.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Using nuclear power as an energy source is such a controversial topic, and I'm not sure on which side I stand on this debate. For a long time I've grown up thinking that nuclear power is unsafe, and I've based my opinion largely on the three disastrous accidents listed in the article above. Lately, however, I've been coming upon articles that have stated that nuclear power is not as dangerous as people have made it seem, and as this article proves, it seems like nuclear power is a good alternative to fossil fuels. The only reason why I'm so hesitant about relying on nuclear power, however, is that while there haven't been many large accidents, the possibility of something like the Chernobyl accident happening again is scary. Yes, accidents may be rare, but it still could happen. And when there is a nuclear power accident, the result can be catastrophic, as evidenced by Chernobyl. That accident had a long-lasting impact on not only the people who lived in that area, but the environment as well. In addition, anyone who has ate any source of wildlife that has been contaminated by radiation from Chernobyl is vulnerable to radiation poisoning. So while this article may make a good argument for the use of nuclear power, I'm not sure if I totally support the idea of using it as a form of energy quite yet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As I started reading this article I was shocked on the position this article takes towards nuclear power. I always had an understanding that nuclear power plants created a harmful environment for those citizens leaving around them. Now reading this article I am torn between what I believe. The Chernobyl accident was severe and it why most people like myself believe nuclear power plants are unsafe. If the IAEA continues to reassure the public on the safety of nuclear power plants and the contingencies in place to insure melt downs wont accrue, citizens will start to feel more at ease.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It is surprising to read a article that defends the usage of nuclear power as a source of energy. Initially I always had the idea that nuclear energy plants can omit dangerous radiations which are hazardous to the public. Now, maybe the nuclear reactor itself isnt that dangerous as we perceive it be, but what about the wastes? These nuclear wastes are very famous for the way they are handled and disposed. Nuclear energy is gained from the use of Uranium, even though it is easy to break it down, it is not a renewable source. According to some articles that i have read they do indeed support the fact that nuclear plants are not more dangerous than the coal mining factories, but at the same time we must measure the amount of danger presented by the waste. I would like to know more about the process and what is in fact done with the waste I could have a much clearer idea of whether nuclear energy plants are safe or not. But if they are as safe as the article claims, then the public should be give facts and figures to comprehend how it is safer than we think it is.

    ReplyDelete
  13. After reading this post, I'm a little confused as to where I stand regarding nuclear energy. A lot of what I have heard about nuclear energy contradicts several points brought up in this article. For example, the article claims that there were no little to no casualties as a result of the accidents at Chernobyl and Fukishima. I was a little confused about this because in a few environmental classes I've taken, my professors have talked about how Chernobyl had quite a few negative impacts on both the environment as well as the health of people, that not only affected the surrounding area but also surrounding countries. Following the accident at Fukishima, I do remember reading articles, for instance in the Huffington Post, that claimed what this post did; that even though there was a significant accident at the plant that there were little to no consequences. However, more recently, I had seen articles that claimed that the radiation from the plant was contaminating fish supplies near California.

    If what this post claims is true, then it would really make me reconsider my opinion on nuclear energy. However, the three major accidents/incidents discussed don't make me think that a switch to nuclear energy would be prudent. Specifically in the case of Fukishima, it is too early to tell what the damage is and what the effects will be. Although we may not be able to see the consequences of the accident now, it would a safer option to wait until it can be said without reasonable doubt that there have been no effects.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Frances AmiliateguiApril 6, 2014 at 2:22 PM

    I do believe that nuclear power plants could be a sustainable source of energy opposite fossil fuels. The only problem is that the location of these plants need to be in isolation. It may be a low chance that an accident could happen but the chance is still there. The results from these accidents could be devastating and not just in the moment, but it could linger into the future just like Chernobyl. In Fukushima, the radiation leaked into the ocean and the fish in the surrounding area were exposed to radiation making them poisonous to humans. I have read articles that says that the explosion in Fukushima has leaked into the ocean and could potentially reach the west coast of the US. This is such a scary thought and this is off one accident. If we think these nuclear plants are extremely beneficial we must put them in places where humans and wildlife will not be affected if such accidents do occur. The damage done could last years and why take that risk? Why should we risk human and wildlife using nuclear energy when we know there are other options out there.

    ReplyDelete