3 ms·

Agreed. The OECD estimates that the probability of an accident at a Gen. II or higher reactor that results in significant casualties is approximately one per o

by s_q_b 10y ago

Agreed. The OECD estimates that the probability of an accident at a Gen. II or higher reactor that results in significant casualties is approximately one per one million years. All of the accidents in the history of nuclear power have caused fewer deaths than the failure of a single hydroelectric dam. Combined these disasters resulted in an estimated 60,000 deaths. That number pales in comparison to the 288,000 people who die every year from particulate inhalation due to fossil fuels.

Zafira 10y ago
As much as I agree and support the use of nuclear power to meet our energy requirements, I think the most obvious downside when a nuclear plant fails also happens to help remind the public of what a nuclear failure can create. The only two Level 7 nuclear events in the world — Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi — have have rendered large swaths of land unusable for a significant amount of time. Whether or not the exclusion zones surrounding these two areas need to be as large as they are can be argued. However, when a hydroelectric dam fails more people die initially, but as the cleanup happens and the reporters fade away, the event fades into the background. With nuclear incidents people are persistently reminded whether through apocalyptic movies or people going into the exclusion zones to photograph the ruins that are left behind.
- Someone 10y ago
  "With nuclear incidents people are persistently reminded whether through apocalyptic movies or people going into the exclusion zones to photograph the ruins that are left behind." We could make movies about dams that collapse, too and we have. I'm not even sure there are more about nuclear accidents (nuclear war, yes, but accidents?). Even if there are, I think the movies are a symptom of the problem, not its cause. The invisible danger of radiation being held back by walls of concrete just looks more dangerous to us than the visible danger of a wall of water being held back by walls of concrete. And Chernobyl? A nature reserve. I can see someone writing a SF story about cultures that protect existing nature by the controlled disposal of radio-active material.
  - _ph_ 10y ago
    If the damage done by Chernobyl was limited to the restricted area around the town, that wouldn't be so bad. But in fact, as I wrote in my other comment, large parts of western Europe have been contaminated too. Not to the level where one cannot live there any more, but to the level, where it makes it dangerous to eat wild mushrooms and game (which has to be checked for radioactivity before being considered edible). And this will be an issue for many decades to come.
- zamalek 10y ago
  > I think the most obvious downside when a nuclear plant fails also happens to help remind the public of what a nuclear failure can create. 1. It's out-of-the-ordinary. Nobody would pay attention to the monthly news report that coal burning has, yet again, damaged the environment to the same degree as a meltdown. 2. Our monkey brains are incredibly bad at realizing that gases can be more dangerous than those scary barrels with scary warning symbols. Instead of being hidden away underground, gasses conveniently "disappear" into the air.
darawk 10y ago
While I do agree with the broader point that nuclear power is probably a good idea, an estimate like "1 per million years" is, by definition, absolute bullshit. There is no way to reliably estimate an event that rare. And to publish such an estimate at all is insanely irresponsible.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Actually, if you have the data, estimating failure rates of reactors is fairly straightforward. Just use a Poisson distribution, the same as calculating MTBFs for other rare events. It's the same way one calculates the probability of being struck by lightening, for example.
RangerScience 10y ago
Do you have a link for this? I really want to be able to link directly to the information.
- s_q_b 10y ago
  Oh, yes. My apologies, I didn't see this before. The risk analysis is here: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-risks.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-r... In it, the probabilistic risk of a major nuclear accidents are calculated. It's a bit difficult to parse without a stats background, but if you Google the title there are some good summaries. Most of the data is presented in graphs common in probabilistic risk analysis, but the authors do examine an example of the anyhow burg Nuclear Powerplant in Switzerland. This is a very low baseline. The plant consists of Gen. II boiling water reactors, built in 1967. The reactor core has multiple cracks in the core shroud. Even with this design, the authors describe how the risk analysis demonstrates that the probability of a major accident (deaths > 2000) is less than one per one million reactor years. The risk graphs demonstrate that for reactors newer than Gen. II, the risk is greatly reduced, to the point that modern reactors are 1,600 safer than Muhlenburg.

by s_q_b 10y ago

Zafira 10y ago

As much as I agree and support the use of nuclear power to meet our energy requirements, I think the most obvious downside when a nuclear plant fails also happens to help remind the public of what a nuclear failure can create. The only two Level 7 nuclear events in the world — Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi — have have rendered large swaths of land unusable for a significant amount of time. Whether or not the exclusion zones surrounding these two areas need to be as large as they are can be argued. However, when a hydroelectric dam fails more people die initially, but as the cleanup happens and the reporters fade away, the event fades into the background. With nuclear incidents people are persistently reminded whether through apocalyptic movies or people going into the exclusion zones to photograph the ruins that are left behind.

Someone 10y ago
"With nuclear incidents people are persistently reminded whether through apocalyptic movies or people going into the exclusion zones to photograph the ruins that are left behind." We could make movies about dams that collapse, too and we have. I'm not even sure there are more about nuclear accidents (nuclear war, yes, but accidents?). Even if there are, I think the movies are a symptom of the problem, not its cause. The invisible danger of radiation being held back by walls of concrete just looks more dangerous to us than the visible danger of a wall of water being held back by walls of concrete. And Chernobyl? A nature reserve. I can see someone writing a SF story about cultures that protect existing nature by the controlled disposal of radio-active material.
- _ph_ 10y ago
  If the damage done by Chernobyl was limited to the restricted area around the town, that wouldn't be so bad. But in fact, as I wrote in my other comment, large parts of western Europe have been contaminated too. Not to the level where one cannot live there any more, but to the level, where it makes it dangerous to eat wild mushrooms and game (which has to be checked for radioactivity before being considered edible). And this will be an issue for many decades to come.
zamalek 10y ago
> I think the most obvious downside when a nuclear plant fails also happens to help remind the public of what a nuclear failure can create. 1. It's out-of-the-ordinary. Nobody would pay attention to the monthly news report that coal burning has, yet again, damaged the environment to the same degree as a meltdown. 2. Our monkey brains are incredibly bad at realizing that gases can be more dangerous than those scary barrels with scary warning symbols. Instead of being hidden away underground, gasses conveniently "disappear" into the air.

darawk 10y ago

While I do agree with the broader point that nuclear power is probably a good idea, an estimate like "1 per million years" is, by definition, absolute bullshit. There is no way to reliably estimate an event that rare. And to publish such an estimate at all is insanely irresponsible.

s_q_b 10y ago
Actually, if you have the data, estimating failure rates of reactors is fairly straightforward. Just use a Poisson distribution, the same as calculating MTBFs for other rare events. It's the same way one calculates the probability of being struck by lightening, for example.

RangerScience 10y ago

Do you have a link for this? I really want to be able to link directly to the information.

s_q_b 10y ago
Oh, yes. My apologies, I didn't see this before. The risk analysis is here: http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-risks.pdf http://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/reports/2010/nea6862-comparing-r... In it, the probabilistic risk of a major nuclear accidents are calculated. It's a bit difficult to parse without a stats background, but if you Google the title there are some good summaries. Most of the data is presented in graphs common in probabilistic risk analysis, but the authors do examine an example of the anyhow burg Nuclear Powerplant in Switzerland. This is a very low baseline. The plant consists of Gen. II boiling water reactors, built in 1967. The reactor core has multiple cracks in the core shroud. Even with this design, the authors describe how the risk analysis demonstrates that the probability of a major accident (deaths > 2000) is less than one per one million reactor years. The risk graphs demonstrate that for reactors newer than Gen. II, the risk is greatly reduced, to the point that modern reactors are 1,600 safer than Muhlenburg.