SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) relied on faulty analysis to justify its refusal to adopt a critical measure for protecting Americans from the occurrence of a catastrophic nuclear-waste fire at any one of dozens of reactor sites around the country, according to an article in the May 26 issue of Science magazine. Catastrophic consequences, which could be triggered by a large earthquake or a terrorist attack, could be largely avoided by regulatory measures that the NRC refuses to implement. Using a biased regulatory analysis, the agency excluded the possibility of an act of terrorism as well as the potential for damage from a fire beyond 50 miles of a plant.
[...] "The NRC has been pressured by the nuclear industry, directly and through Congress, to low-ball the potential consequences of a fire because of concerns that increased costs could result in shutting down more nuclear power plants," said paper co-author Frank von Hippel, a senior research physicist at Princeton's Program on Science and Global Security (SGS), based at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. "Unfortunately, if there is no public outcry about this dangerous situation, the NRC will continue to bend to the industry's wishes."
[...] The NRC analysis found that a fire in a spent-fuel pool at an average nuclear reactor site would cause $125 billion in damages. After correcting for errors and omissions, the researchers found that millions of residents in surrounding communities would have to relocate for years, resulting in total damages of $2 trillion—nearly 20 times the NRC's result. Considering the nuclear industry is only legally liable for $13.6 billion, thanks to the Price Anderson Act of 1957, U.S. taxpayers would have to cover the remaining costs.
[...] "In far too many instances, the NRC has used flawed analysis to justify inaction, leaving millions of Americans at risk of a radiological release that could contaminate their homes and destroy their livelihoods," said Lyman. "It is time for the NRC to employ sound science and common-sense policy judgments in its decision-making process."
Source: Phys.org
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @05:14AM (4 children)
The USA had an INES level 5 incident:
--
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_5:_Accident_with_wider_consequences [wikipedia.org]
There was a level 4 event too. From the same page:
Another was level 3:
Some events that haven't been assigned an INES level, in which radioactive materials were released:
-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_civilian_nuclear_accidents [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 28 2017, @09:39AM (2 children)
And no one on the street remembers anything of them. Nor has any reason to.
Meanwhile in Ukraine - remember Chernobyl disaster? - tourist groups are going to Pripyat to admire the luxuriant wildlife.
Nuclear fear is oversold. Louder bouts of crying wolf won't improve your credibility when the reality disagrees.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday May 29 2017, @08:59AM (1 child)
Wearing respirators.
Clue - if you need to wear a respirator, it's probably not a pleasant environment.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 29 2017, @09:18AM
Clue - if you need to lie, your argument is bullshit.
Another clue - it is a real dumb mistake for a liar to forget that Google exists. ;)
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday May 28 2017, @04:41PM
Yes, well, you will find that your petrochemicals and coal spread their contamination much farther and wider [sgvtribune.com] and kill a lot more people on a yearly basis. And with nukes even the waste can be useful for a very long time. Either way the main problem is plain old corruption/incompetence, not the tech itself.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..