Chernobyl Less Deadly Than Initially Feared

Some good news from this morning's Washington Post:

The long-term health and environmental impacts of the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in Ukraine, while severe, were far less catastrophic than feared, according to a major new report by eight U.N. agencies.

The governments of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the three countries most affected by radioactive fallout from Chernobyl, should strive to end the "paralyzing fatalism" of tens of thousands of their citizens who wrongly believe they are still at risk of an early death, according to the study released Monday.

The Chernobyl plant was the site of the world's largest nuclear disaster. The accident has caused fewer than 50 deaths directly attributable to radiation.
The Chernobyl plant was the site of the world's largest nuclear disaster. The accident has caused fewer than 50 deaths directly attributable to radiation.

The 600-page report found that as of the middle of this year, the accident had caused fewer than 50 deaths directly attributable to radiation, most of them among emergency workers who died in the first months after the accident. In the wake of the world's largest nuclear disaster, there were numerous predictions of mass fatalities from radiation.

And here's some other useful information:

Officials said that the continued intense medical monitoring of tens of thousands of people in Ukraine, Russia and Belarus is no longer a smart use of limited resources and is, in fact, contributing to mental health problems among many residents nearly 20 years later. In Belarus and Ukraine, 5 percent to 7 percent of government spending is consumed by benefits and programs for Chernobyl victims. And in the three countries, as many as 7 million people are receiving Chernobyl-related social benefits.

"The monitoring of people with incredibly low doses uses huge amounts of resources and does more psychological harm than good," said Fred Mettler, a professor of radiology at the University of New Mexico who chaired one of three health groups in the study, titled "Chernobyl's Legacy: Health, Environmental and Socio-Economic Impacts." The study, involving more than 100 scientists, was compiled by U.N. agencies, including the International Atomic Energy Agency, and representatives of the governments of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus.

UPDATE: This news is getting lots of play around the world. Click here for the search results over at Google News. And here's another take on the report that just ran on Reuters:

"What might be considered one of the few positive aspects of 'Chernobyl's legacy' is today's global safety regime," International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement. "The first lesson that emerged from Chernobyl was the direct relevance of international cooperation to nuclear safety ... It also made clear that nuclear and radiological risks transcend national borders -- that 'an accident anywhere is an accident everywhere'," the statement said. The statement, delivered by IAEA deputy director general Tomihiro Taniguchi at a conference on Chernobyl, was backed by the Chernobyl Forum made up of U.N. agencies and the governments of the worst-hit countries -- Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

In particular, the organization that's responsible for much of this progress is the World Association of Nuclear Operators (WANO). By implementing a process that values transparency, peer review and information sharing, WANO, working from the foundation created by the Institute for Nuclear Power Operations, is helping improve safety and performance around the world. This October, NEI President and CEO Skip Bowman will be addressing WANO's Biennial Meeting in Budapest.

To learn more about how the industry improved safety standards in the wake of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, click here and here.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Dan Drezner has some thoughts.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Daniel Nexon built off of Drezner's post, writing:

The real story here, actually, is a bit different than how pleased we should be about the emerging information reflecting the true magnitude of the disaster; these numbers are more indication of the irrationality of the American public's fear of nuclear power. This is one area I agree with the Bush administration: if we want to tackle a whole host of issues, including air pollution, global warming, and oil dependency, then nuclear power must be an increasingly vibrant part of our energy portfolio. The true magnitude of the Chernoybl disaster reflects how nuclear power is less deadly and dangerous, if we consider its effects over time, than many fossil fuels.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog