Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canadian Nuclear Accident Study Puts Risks Into Perspective

Posted by samzenpus on from the avoid-the-glowing-water dept.

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

8 of 166 comments (clear)

  1. the riskiest thing i do everyday by turkeydance · · Score: 4, Insightful

    is grab the car key

  2. Might want to read the fine print... by Lexible · · Score: 5, Informative

    From the study: "The radiological exposure to people (beyond the first seven days) and its resulting short and long-term health impacts are not assessed in this study."
    In other words, the flow of radionuclides through the environment, and expected specific dispersal and concentration pathways resulting in human exposure and the resulting cancers risks were not studied.

    1. Re:Might want to read the fine print... by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    2. Re:Might want to read the fine print... by c · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even if they were studied, it's worth keeping in mind that the current Canadian government appears (according to many Canadian scientists) to have a habit of suppressing or even altering scientific research that doesn't support its political goals. And it's election season; take any Canadian government PR with an extra large dose of sodium chloride.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
  3. Four types of arguement by aberglas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are four the types of arguments, of increasing power:-

    1. Detailed technical arguments.

    2. Simplistic factual arguments.

    3. Emotional arguments.

    4. Authoratative arguments.

    Mugs like me tend to rely on detailed technical arguments. Simplistic factual arguments are much more powerful, but will always be trumped by an argument that appeals to people emotionally. And arguments from respected people in authority (like film stars) trump everything else.

    So Nuclear = Nuclear Bombs = Satan. No amount of geeky statistical analysis can change that.

  4. Study is right, but needs more.. by gurps_npc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
  5. Re:Effects of hypothetical severe nuclear accident by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Informative

    how they could come to such a conclusion defies logic. As accidents, by their very nature are unpredictable.

    Actually they aren't as unpredictable as you think. Predicting accidents and fallout scenarios underpins the entire process safety movement of modern process plants. The nuclear industry has some 50 years of experience and data on exactly how often every abnormal operating condition happens. They simple extrapolate as to what would happen if the abnormal operating condition is unable to be corrected (the hazard).

    Have they factored in the lid of the containment vessel blowing off

    Why would they? Primary containment explosion is an incredibly rare event. The only time an event has ever escalated to that level was with a 50 year old reactor design which had it's safety features disabled on purpose and was then run at an operating point that was known to be unstable on purpose. It was also done on a graphite moderated reactor with a huge positive power co-efficient which caused a runaway reaction. By comparison the reactor being talked about is a CANDU reactor which has a really low and only slightly positive power co-efficient making an explosion from within the containment vessel very unlikely. And that's before taking into account that the reactor commissioned in the 90s has very different and way better safety systems than one in the 70s.

  6. Re: Ban all NUKES NOW - accident waiting to happen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And for perspective, up to 2011only about 15 people had actually died of their thyroid cancer, out of a possible 10,000 affected. In fact, more people died in the initial explosion.

    For even more perspective, twice as many people killed by guns in the US every day than died to thyroid cancer caused by Chernobyl in the entire time since the disaster.