Op-ed piece: "Nuclear Accidents: Fact and Fiction"

["Jim Hardeman" <Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us>]

Colleagues *



An interesting op-ed piece on nuclear accidents. The URL = http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200406/kt2004062419130354110.htm



Jim Hardeman

Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us 



===========

Nuclear Accidents: Fact and Fiction

By Christopher Lingle



ATLANTA - Rising fuel prices and worries about global warming should have inspired another look at nuclear power as one of the most viable alternative energy sources. However, uninformed hysteria distorts estimations of the risks and advantages of nuclear power.



While there can never be too few nuclear accidents, there have been only about 60 incidents at nuclear sites around the world since 1945, according to France's nuclear safety institute. Of these, 33 accidents were in the United States and 19 in the former Soviet Union. Two times out of three, these incidents affected research centers, with their greatest impact being upon the immediate site and not on the general environment 



Among recent incidents were those that occurred at Japan's Tokai Mura uranium processing plant and a nuclear power plant in Wolsong, South Korea, both in 1999. In the Japanese incident, three workers were treated in hospital, with two in critical condition with about 40 others also affected. Most of those exposed to radiation worked in the plant. Within one day, radiation levels in the area were back to normal, although a perimeter around the plant remained off-limits. Some workers inside the site were exposed to radiation up to 4,000 times the level considered to be safe, but measurements taken outside were only five times natural background levels.



In Korea, about 12 gallons of slightly radioactive ``heavy water,'' used in the pumps as a coolant, leaked inside the plant during scheduled maintenance. No radiation escaped the plant. Workers with exposure to radiation from the leak received doses equal to about four X-rays.



To put these in perspective, consider America's worst nuclear power plant accident, Three Mile Island, that despite selective memory had no significant environmental impact. In March 1979, a pressure relief valve became stuck in an open position, releasing radiation into the surrounding area. Overheating of the core caused a significant portion of it to melt and flow into the lower part of the core and lower reactor vessel head. Most of the radioactive gases that were released remained in the containment vessel. Despite the severity of the physical damage, there were no injuries due to radiation. The radiation dosage to the general public from released gases was about 2mrem per person, less than the amount of exposure from drinking a cup of coffee. 



Of course, the Chernobyl power plant failure in April 1986 is the worst incident to have occurred in the nuclear power industry. Although it was considered to be the world's worst nuclear accident, there are considerable exaggerations surrounding the impact of the Chernobyl reactor failure.



Chernobyl was clearly a tragedy that involved real costs and loss of life. However, the effects of that accident were not catastrophic even though it was approximately 400 times more potent than the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima. At least that was the conclusion drawn from the report of an international conference held in Vienna in April 1996. In general, the findings concluded that the health effects of the Chernobyl meltdown were far less than was generally assumed. 



It turns out that the worst human toll came from the hysteria whipped up by misleading reports. A 1996 article by Atomic Energy Insights indicates that nearly 200,000 women aborted fetuses based on unfounded fears that their children might have birth defects



While lethal doses reached coniferous trees and some small mammals within 10 km of the reactor site at the outset, dose rates fell by a factor of 100 by autumn 1986. By 1989 the natural environment in these localities had begun to recover. No dramatically obvious long-term impact on populations or ecosystems has been observed. Indeed, many birds and animals, including beavers, moose, wolves and wild boar have returned to areas that remain an ``exclusion zone'' for humans.



Immediately after the accident, there was contamination of some normal dietary items like milk and green vegetables. But by the time of the conference, it was reported that radiation had dissipated to levels acceptable to the WHO.



Overall, the radiation dose affecting the human population in the first year was small. In subsequent years, the main pathways for contamination through affected foods had disappeared. For much of the area around the site, dose rates were within ranges arising from natural conditions found in areas of Europe uncontaminated by the accident.



Despite the fact that Chernobyl and more recent incidents were far from catastrophic, the most substantial fallout was the tarnishing of the image of nuclear power. The biggest problem was the psychological and social after-effects induced by a certain amount of hysteria.



Putting these events into perspective, it appears that there has been more damage to software ecology arising from computer viruses than the harm inflicted upon the natural environment from nuclear accidents. Hopefully cooler heads will begin to prevail in the assessment of the risks and advantages of nuclear power generation.



                       ***



Christopher Lingle is a member of the Korea Times' Economic Board of Editors and Professor of Economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala. 



CLingle@ufm.edu.gt 





06-24-2004 19:14

 



************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To

unsubscribe, send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the

text "unsubscribe radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

with no subject line. You can view the Radsafe archives at

http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/