Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Nuclear Accident Study Puts Risks Into Perspective
An anonymous reader writes: A Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) study has concluded that there would be no detectable increase in cancer risk for most of the population from radiation released in a hypothetical severe nuclear accident. The CNSC's study is the result of a collaborative effort of research and analysis undertaken to address concerns raised during public hearings on the environmental assessment for the refurbishment of Ontario Power Generation's (OPG's) Darlington nuclear power plant in 2012. The draft study was released for public consultation in June 2014. Feedback from the Commission itself and comments from over 500 submissions from the public, government and other organizations have been incorporated in the final version. The study involved identifying and modelling a large atmospheric release of radionuclides from a hypothetical severe nuclear accident at the four-unit Darlington plant
Nope. We NEED nuclear power to tide us over while 'alternative' sources of energy ramp up, to get us off fossil fuels as soon as possible. Even 'alternative' sources are just another level of 'band-aid' until practical fusion power is developed. In the meantime everyone needs to haul their internal-combustion vehicles to the scrapyard and go out and get an electric vehicle and have a charging station installed at home. Severe sanctions against countries that don't follow suit. If we jump on it right away we might be able to save the planet from being turned into a clone of Venus.
In Chernobyl, a large nuclear disaster, not only did people die from acute exposure, but hundreds if not thousands of children had thyroid surgery (the "Chernobyl necklace"), and many downwind developed cancer as a result. Remembering that this paper states exposure beyond SEVEN DAYS is not considered, we already know that large nuclear disasters have both acute and long-term health effects. Claiming that they don't flies in the face of history.
Basically, it should have compared it to coal, as coal releases more radioactivity than nuclear. Small bits of radioactive thorium are found in coal mines, and when you mine the coal, you release it from the entombed safety. Then when you burn the coal, you release even more into the atmosphere. The radioactivity risk in the immediate vicinity of a coal burning plant is significantly greater than that of all nuclear power plants. Coal miners and plant workers are more likely to die of cancer than uranium miners and nuclear power plant workers (note, this only applies to the US industry, other countries may have different rates due to different regulatory strengths.).
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This is fine - they're not pretending those impacts don't happen, they are just not what they're studying. They are asking "What does the fallout do to people some distance from the accident?"
The exposure people get early in the accident and very close to the reactors depends hugely on the nature of the accident. At Chernobyl, there were many firefighters within meters of an exposed critical core, resulting in a large toll from acute radiation sickness. At Fukushima, the cores ceased to be critical seconds after the quake and tens of minutes before the tsunami, and radiation was only released days later, so there was no acute radiation sickness.
By contrast, the effect of the fallout is much less dependent on the nature of the accident, just on how much radioactive material was released*. It can sensibly be studied without specifying details of how the accident happened.
* There is some dependence: the relative quantity of short lived isotopes such as Iodine-131 in the fallout depends somewhat on how long the radioactive material was contained prior to release.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.