Slashdot Mirror
Nuclear Safety Push To Be Softened After US Objections
mdsolar writes with news that the U.S. objects to a proposal to amend the Convention on Nuclear Safety put forward by Switzerland. The United States looks set to succeed in watering down a proposal for tougher legal standards aimed at boosting global nuclear safety, according to senior diplomats. Diplomatic wrangling will come to a head at a 77-nation meeting in Vienna next month that threatens to expose divisions over required safety standards and the cost of meeting them, four years after the Fukushima disaster in Japan. Switzerland has put forward a proposal to amend the Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS), arguing stricter standards could help avoid a repeat of Fukushima, where an earthquake and tsunami sparked triple nuclear meltdowns, forced more than 160,000 people to flee nearby towns and contaminated water, food and air.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't fukushima's nuclear plant already breaking Japan's law? Why would then more regulation even help the problem? Enforcing current regulations on older plants should take priority over more red tape and bureaucracy.
I can't think of a reason ANYONE would want the nuclear power generation industry to be less safe than it possibly could be
I can think of a reason: Perfect safety costs infinity dollars.
Real life involves tradeoffs. There are no perfect solutions.
The Convention on Nuclear Safety (CNS) is a treaty-ish pile of broad and anti-specific foofy diplo-language. Its purpose is not to share or agree on a single iota of practical knowledge, though over time a tiny bit might creep into it. It exists to permit and encourage the ratification of itself by as many parties as possible, and in this, it is like those "bad luck if you do not forward me" chain letters.
The Swiss proposal said in effect, stop all the music and implement every feature ever conceived to make new plant designs safer, to every existing plant. Somehow. Even if it is redundant and absurd. The whole kitchen sink. They cannot be bothered with specifics, that is not the game being played. Signing on to every broad recommendation would be a direct insult to our own NRC, which does not dabble in such diplomatic newspeak, preferring to assess actual risk, look at each site, mandate practical and specific engineering guidelines, evaluate what has been done.
See INFCIRC/449 and Add.2 and Add.3 and Add.4 and Swiss Amendment.
This stuff was written by people from another planet. It was probably leaked from Planet X which is orbiting with the Earth directly behind the Sun. Planet X is just like ours only its United Nations truly runs everything. That is why they send UFOs to abduct an engineer every now and then, to keep their shit from falling apart. Then we send one of our own (out of Hangar 19) to bring 'em back. Maybe we got the wrong one back, one of their 'senior diplomats' instead.
In it you will find some vague things that sound like good ideas. You're supposed to imagine that this is a world where people do not apply common sense unless they are acting directly on the recommendations of a multi-national NGO.
The compromise statement now says basically, "New nuclear power plants should be designed and constructed with the objective of preventing accidents, and minimizing off-site contamination in case of accidents. Reasonably achievable safety improvements identified at existing plants during... safety assessments should be oriented to these objectives and be implemented in a timely manner."
Engineers should not be afraid to stand up and express their anger when they are insulted. This is an insult. We lose an essential part of our human self-respect and tenacity when insults like this go unanswered. Governance of the world should not be bestowed upon folks who cannot be bothered to delve into detail. Regardless, some people will be comforted by the mere presence of the CNS, they're the people who distrust corporations and their own government, to find solace in the flowery language of international diplomacy even though there is little substance in it.
Basically, this organization-thing was spawned in 1994 and went to sleep. Fukushima woke it up, and they've been running in little circles ever since to come up with a timely response. The response has finally arrived and is on the table in early 2015. This is the kind of time frame you can expect if you pursue world governance.
Meanwhile, the United States Nuclear Power industry and its associated regulatory body NRC hit the ground running in 2011, assessing the disaster and lessons learned from Fukushima. If you are expecting me to elaborate on them and think there is something to be learned from every earthly experience you wil
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
The reality is that continued reliance on fossil fuel results in spreading uranium (through coal fly ash) and and CO2 (all fossil fuels) and none of the (so called) clean power sources like wind and solar can provide a steady baseline of energy
Nuclear is the method to get us through the next 50 years without continuing with to increase the production of greenhouse gases, fear mongering over nuclear pollution (uranium from coal fly ash produces more annually than the accidents that you mentions) only drives us deeper into dependence on fossil fuels
Is it s tough choice? Yes, but getting emotional over the scary work 'nuclear' does not make a better decision
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Sounds like 'not a single human has suffered any health impact' to you?
He means no direct impact. No radiation poisoning or excess cancers observed. The biggest health effect are psychological, e.g. people displaced from their homes.
In the context of 20,000 dead from the tsunami, and zero from radiation poisoning (there were 29 at Chernobyl) , the media is making way too much fuss about the radiation, don't you think?
Two worker deaths from heart attack have been blamed on overheating while wearing radiation suits.
A big fear was thyroid cancer from iodine, but that has not materialised. Some models still predict a small increase in cases in future.