Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 2
Radiation from Facility Accidents, Man-made Disasters, and Natural Disasters
Recently, I posted a commentary arguing that there are good reasons to categorize Nuclear power as a “renewable” source of electrical energy, followed by another post: Nuclear Power Radiation — Part 1. That outlined radiation from normal nuclear power operations, waste, and misc. This Part 2 will briefly cover the rest of the well-known nuclear radiation possibilities…
1 - Nuclear Power Accidents
US nuclear power facilities are built to be extraordinarily safe. Even when there are accidents, there are backup systems — and often backups to the backups. The most familiar nuclear accident to us is the Three Mile Island problem in 1979. This summary states it well:
“A cooling malfunction caused part of the core to melt in a reactor, resulting in a limited off-site release of radioactivity over a multi-state area. Doses off-site were less than normal background radiation.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission determined the accident “led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community.”
Considering the consequences, the rhetoric about this event seems out of proportion.
2 - Nuclear Power Man-Made Disasters
The most famous case here was in Chernobyl (Ukraine: 1986). What is rarely covered by mainstream media (surprise!) is: a) there are no other nuclear reactors in the world that have the Chernobyl design, and b) the reactor failure was reportedly caused purposefully — i.e., it was not an accident.
The truth of what happened may be as evasive as the full story of the Kennedy assassination. My understanding (from reliable sources), was that there was a dispute within the facility between two groups (let’s say engineers and administrators). The issue reportedly was who was really in charge? Each group tried to “prove” to the other that they were in control — and in the process they purposefully shut off several safety mechanisms. The 100% predictable result was a catastrophic failure.
This is a reasonable account about this disaster (which soft-pedals the dispute part). Despite all the alarmism, the official total is only 45± deaths:
The United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation has concluded that: a) two Chernobyl plant workers died due to the explosion on the night of the accident, b) 28 people died within a few weeks as a result of acute radiation syndrome, and c) there have been 15 fatalities from thyroid cancer. Other than those 45± deaths, "there is no evidence of a major public health impact attributable to radiation exposure 20 years after the accident."
3 - Nuclear Power Natural Disasters
The classic case here is Fukushima (Japan: 2011). Again, my understanding (from reliable sources) is not what has generally been reported. The two indisputable facts are: a) Japan was hit by a tsunami, generated by a record undersea earthquake, and b) the tsunami was so large that it flooded the diesel backup power units (sitting on the ground), that were there to properly shut down the core in an emergency.
The part that I heard was that Japanese officials had been advised prior to this event, that to be extra safe, they should elevate the backup diesel generators off the ground. That had not been done. If it had been there very likely would have been no nuclear power failure. That said, considering that there never had been anything remotely like that tsunami, their delay is understandable.
Let’s keep things in perspective: a) there were about 20,000 deaths due to the tsunami, and b) less than ten fatalities due to the nuclear power plant failures. Here is a reasonably balanced discussion of the Fukushima nuclear disasters
Takeaway
Regretfully, what the mainstream media reports on any nuclear facility problem, is not an objective, factual explanation, but rather an alarmist exaggeration of reality. In other words, once again political science is trying to take over Real Science.
Considering that there are some 435 operating nuclear power facilities (worldwide), and almost all are operating basically 24/7/365, the safety of nuclear power is exceptionally good. Worldwide, over the last 60± years, less than 100 people have died from a nuclear power plant failure.
By comparison, there have been WAY more deaths related to industrial wind turbines! (See this table, where the good people tabulating the data stopped keeping track in 2012, due to the huge increase in workload.)
Another perspective is that 40,000± people die annually from US car accidents, that would roughly translate to 2 million deaths over the same 60± year period.
This is yet another example of why having critically thinking citizens is the best defense against dishonest and ignorant purveyors of information. Remember that fear is the primary tool used to control people…
Here are other materials by this scientist that you might find interesting:
Check out the Archives of this Critical Thinking substack.
WiseEnergy.org: discusses the Science (or lack thereof) behind our energy options.
C19Science.info: covers the lack of genuine Science behind our COVID-19 policies.
Election-Integrity.info: multiple major reports on the election integrity issue.
Media Balance Newsletter: a free, twice-a-month newsletter that covers what the mainstream media does not do, on issues from COVID to climate, elections to education, renewables to religion, etc. Here are the Newsletter’s 2023 Archives. Please send me an email to get your free copy. When emailing me, please make sure to include your full name and the state where you live. (Of course, you can cancel the Media Balance Newsletter at any time - but why would you?
Thanks for reading Critically Thinking About Select Societal Issues! Please pass a link to this article on to other associates who might benefit. They can subscribe for FREE to receive new posts (typically about once a week).
I can appreciate the drift of your arguments. Per usual, reader comments add even more context and depth.
Re: "Nuclear Regulatory Commission" reports (or oversight even). Sorry, absolutely no faith in our Federal Gov't Agencies these days so no faith in the 'stats' and reports coming from these agencies.
The diesel auxiliary power units at Fukushima were not "sitting on the ground." They were in the basement of the reactor building, which was flooded by the tsunami because it was not waterproof. The Japan Nuclear Reactor Safety Authority had eight years earlier told TEPCO to shut down the six reactors, but TEPCO begged to keep them open. The Authority allowed it, on condition that they get advice from the US NRC. NRC advised them either to move the generators (and fuel tanks) to high ground, or to waterproof the basement, and to waterproof the rooms containing the switchgear for the backup generators. They believed the ten-meter seawall was sufficient, so they didn't act on the advice, but the regulatory agency allowed them to keep the reactors in service.
Reactors of identical design and similar placement a few miles away were also inundated by the tsunami, but they had waterproof basements. Their intakes were damaged by the tsunami, but the reactors were quickly put back into service. The other three reactors at Fukushima Daiichi were shut down at the time. One was damaged by an explosion of hydrogen that had leaked into it from the adjoining damaged reactor. That damage could easily be repaired, and the other two started immediately, but TEPCO has decided to close the entire plant. Details in Chapter 9 of "Where Will We Get Our Energy?"
There were no deaths or illnesses caused by the reactors' destruction, but the incompetent and panic-stricken evacuation caused several, for example by removing critical patients from life support to avoid the billion-to-one chance that they might be injured by radiation. One plant worker got a burn on his foot when radioactive water overflowed into his boot. A jury decided that another plant worker's fatal lung cancer, that occurred several years later, was caused by the accident.