Slashdot Mirror
NRC Study Lowers Hazard Estimate For Nuke Plants
JSBiff writes "With the incident at Fukushima causing much renewed concern about the risks of nuclear power this year, the NY Times brings news that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has released the preliminary version of a safety report due out in April 2012, based upon new science about the behavior of Cesium-137. The report finds that the public health hazards of nuclear accidents at the types of reactor designs currently in common use are lower than previously thought, based upon a better understanding of the science behind earlier estimates."
TFA says that 1-2% of cesium 137 is likely to escape the core in the event of a containment breach, unlike 60% in previous estimates (Most of it dissolves in stagnant water or is deposited on the containment vessel surface). People living in a 10-mile radius would have enough time to evacuate, and cancer estimates within 10 miles went from 1 in 167 previously to 1 in 4348. A rainstorm happening during the meltdown can cause a higher dose to accumulate in small areas.
Only half the people that know about it, read it.
Only half the people that read it understand it.
Only half the people that understand it believe it.
Only half the people that believe it will agree with it.
Of those six people, maybe one will actually try and persuade others.
The rest are as jaded as me, if not more so. I admire the sentiment behind it, but alas I don't think the general populace will be won over by anything larger than a few tens of words. *sigh* If only we could curtail fear-mongering in the media without impinging on journalistic freedom.
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
There've been nearly 15,000 reactor-years of operation worldwide, not 50 years. So "one in ten thousand years" is a bit off, but not spectacularly.
137Cs is dangerous, however, the amount you're likely to be exposed to after a reactor meltdown is significantly lower than previously thought.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
No, the real outcasts of society are those, who are trying to hold economic and technological development of society back, from allowing that sort of development to help the society to become more wealthy and affluent by having more and cheaper and safer energy sources, and nuclear is that type of source.
You can't handle the truth.
And that politicians who apparently went to decent high schools and colleges and graduate schools subsequently forget any science they've learned when they realize that John Q Public not only cannot understand science, but hates people who do.
Ignorance is bliss.
Meh... The first was about cases being made for engineering limits being changed over the course of years. Nobody was surprised. Typically hyperbolic writeup.
/. summary. Zomg... it's a conspiracy... they're trying to kill us. Let's deal with facts for once, eh?
The second was about British government PR campaign to contain uneducated hysteria about nuclear power generation. Yes, particularly important when you're looking to build a plant. Typical overstatement by press and (worse)
The third simply pointed out, with another ridiculously hyperbolic headline, the detectors hadn't been properly maintained in years. They (obviously) went and calibrated them when Fukushima happened... per the article. That calibration meant the readings went down. Per the article. Wow... another "conspiracy" to kill us with nuke plants headline... color me surprised.
Really... I could find bullshit FUD about nuclear power all day too. What I care about are facts.
It's not a paywall. You can read the article for free for at least 7 days after it's published. Even if if requires an NYT account (it doesn't appear to), you can get a free NYT account. And since almost no one reads /. articles over 3 days old, the 7 day window is plenty for the 99+% of readers who will see this.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
You know you can just clear your nytimes.com cookies to have them forget about the 20 articles you already read, right?
-molo
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
I am amazed that they were able to gather such specifics so quickly from the Fukushima accident when apparently even the Japanese government still seems to be clueless to the extent of cesium contamination (though, they continue to give out low-ball estimates that do not align with observations in the field . . .). Oh, or maybe this does NOT include lessons learned from Fukushima? Then why the peculiar timing? Perhaps this is just more industry damage control through PR efforts?
In that case, I am not too interested. I would much rather listen to professors with the balls to yell at the Diet of Japan than looking a the industry/regulators give each other reach arounds . . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
The Fukushima plants were hit with a heavy earthquake. ....
This is about as bad of scenario as one could imagine, yet there were no public deaths.
No, no public deaths. Most deaths will be private. And slow enough that it will be impossible to prove that the cancer was caused by the Fukushima accident and not by carcinogenic food additives, pollution, or background radiation (e.g. previous nuclear tests) - All of them cancer sources previously labeled insignificant by the industry, their paid stooges, and some stools on /. who call anyone who questions their 19yo wisdom an unscientific troll.
The Fukushima experiment is still ongoing and will take at least 20 years before the first set of results come in. I think the conclusions from the report are a bit premature and the timing is quite suspicious.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!