There's A 50% Chance of Another Chernobyl Before 2050, Say Safety Specialists (technologyreview.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via MIT Technology Review: Spencer Wheatley and Didier Sornette at ETH Zurich in Switzerland and Benjamin Sovacool at Aarhus University in Denmark have compiled the most comprehensive list of nuclear accidents ever created and used it to calculate the chances of future accidents. They say there is a 50:50 chance that a major nuclear disaster will occur somewhere in the world before 2050. "There is a 50 percent chance that a Chernobyl event (or larger) occurs in the next 27 years," they conclude. Since the International Atomic Energy Agency doesn't publish a historical database of the nuclear accidents it rates using the International Nuclear Event Scale, others, like Wheatley and co, have to compile their own list of accidents. They define an accident as "an unintentional incident or event at a nuclear energy facility that led to either one death (or more) or at least $50,000 in property damage." Each accident must have occurred during the generation, transmission, or distribution of nuclear energy, which includes accidents at mines, during transportation, or at enrichment facility, and so on. Fukushima was by far the most expensive accident in history at a cost of $166 billion, which is 60 percent of the total cost of all other nuclear accidents added together. Wheatley and co say their data suggests that the nuclear industry remains vulnerable to dragon king events, which are large unexpected events that are difficult to analyze because they follow a different statistical distribution, have unforeseen causes, and are few in number. "There is a 50% chance that a Fukushima event (or larger) occurs in the next 50 years," they say.

Comments

50% is nothing without a confidence interval

[Anonymous Coward]

Without a reliable data source, the confidence in that number is highly suspect.

As someone who deals with environmental loads and return periods for building safety, I can say pretty confidently that they're pretty much WAGing that number if you really got down to how the data was evaluated. I would like to know what their predictions are, using the same type of methodology, for the stock market or, maybe more accurately, one segment of he stock market for the next 100-200 years, and let me know each point at which the value will double. Bonus points for doing it without any official industry data like the did with the incident data.

Re:50% is nothing without a confidence interval

[Mr D from 63]

on top of that, it appears they included incidents from sites that weren't even nuclear power plants, like cold war waste sites. But, alas, the anti-nukes care little about facts and credibility. Here once again is proof that they can't carry on a good argument without twisting the truth till it is unrecognizable.

Re:Old Article & Three-Mile, Fukushima, or Che

[khallow]

I also like how the headline says by 2050 and they quote in the body of the summary one of researchers saying in the next 50 years which would make it by 2065.

Re:Old Article & Three-Mile, Fukushima, or Che

[bidule]

Maybe mdsolar became an anonymous coward?

Re:Old Article & Three-Mile, Fukushima, or Che

[c]

The article's own summary says it's a 50:50 chance of a "Three-Mile Island" (where no one was harmed). Or are we just talking an expensive incident? Or an actual meltdown?

I'm curious as to how this 50% compares against the odds of a major (possibly global-scale) conflict over energy resources. I'd certainly take a Chernobyl or Fukushima over nuclear war...

Read the comments attached to the article

[Applehu Akbar]

The commentary, by actual MIT people, thoroughly melt down this fake analysis.

Re:Well....

[Maxo-Texas]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

It is now well-documented that children and adolescents exposed to radioiodines from Chernobyl fallout have a sizeable dose-related increase in thyroid cancer, with risk greatest in those youngest at exposure and with a suggestion that deficiency in stable iodine may increase the risk. Data on thyroid cancer risks to other age groups are somewhat less definitive. In addition, there have been reported increases in incidence and mortality from non-thyroid cancers and non-cancer endpoints. Although some studies are difficult to interpret because of methodological limitations, recent investigations of Chernobyl clean-up workers (âoeliquidatorsâ) have provided evidence of increased risks of leukaemia and other hematological malignancies and of cataracts, and suggestions of an increase in risk of cardiovascular diseases, following low doses and low dose rates of radiation. ...
---
conclusion
Twenty-five years have passed since the Chernobyl accident led to exposure of millions of people in Europe. Studies of populations exposed have provided significant new information on radiation risks, particularly in relation to thyroid tumours following exposure to iodine isotopes. Recent studies among Chernobyl liquidators have also provided evidence of increases in the risk of leukaemia and other haematological malignancies and of cataracts, and suggestions of increases in the risk of cardiovascular diseases, following low doses and low dose rates of radiation.

Further careful follow-up of these populations, and the establishment and long-term support of life- span study cohorts, may continue to provide important information for the quantification of radiation risks and the protection of persons exposed to low doses of radiation.